The URL can be used to link to this page

08/28/1989 - 5326� �.inof FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING �a� ATTENDENCE SHEET MONDAY August 2s , 1989 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ITEM PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS NUMBER .. y �l—� 4'�V }/ V f r� � J ��e f!�✓ � � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL �� 11IIGIIST 28, 1989 - 7l30 P.M. FRlDLEY PLBDGS OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF MINiJTESt Council Meeting, August 14, 1989 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORIIM, DISITORB: (Consideration of items not on agenda - 15 minutes) � � � � OLD BIISINE88: Consideration of Second Reading of an � Ordinance Approving a Vacation, SAV #89-03, � ��l%� to vacate a six foot and the east one foot �, of a drainage and utility easement in certain tracts of RLS No. 94 and in the Gena-Rae Addition, by the City of Fridley .... 1-1B ��i�-�--� ��-��,�� `� - � � _ _ � ,� � � � i/ FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 28, 1989 PAGE 2 NEW BIISINE88: Receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 1989 ...... 2-2III A. Items from the Appeals Commission meeting of August 1, 1989: Consideration of a s�ecial use �ermit, SP #89-08, to allow an � automotive repair garage, at 7570 Highway 65 N.E., by Keith's Auto Body .............2A-2D 2CC-2UU �� B. Consideration of Comprehensive � Plan Revision .................2U-2W 2W-2BBB C. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to change the required ,✓ rear yard setback on corner lots ��'� from 25 feet minimum to 10 feet minimum in R-1 districts......2Y-2AAA , 2CCC-2III ,_ ,��'� � ,�� :� � . � ��- � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 28, 1989 NEW BIISINE88 (CONTINIIED): Consideration of a variance, VAR #89-13, to increase the maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign from 205 square feet to 600 square feet, to allow for additional signage for a movie theater, on Lots 1, 2, 28 and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E., by Jerome Farrell of SBF Development Corporation . . . . . . . . . �� %��ti ,!� � Consideration of Approval of 1990 Joint Cooperation Agreement with Anoka County for the Community Development Block Grant program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9� �A � ��/ �! 1 / Consideration of Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval for Osborne Crossings, 250 Osborne Road N.E. . . , I'� 1� / r� . . . . 3-30 � . . . . . 4-45 . � �� N / � C Consideration of a Request from North Suburban Center for the Arts to Reallocate $2,255.00 from Locke House Project, and to reallocate $6,500.00 from Commercial Rehabilitation. . . . 1. , , , , , , , , , , U � � � , �� /.' . 5-5A . . . 6-6E PAGE 3 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 28, 1989 NEW BUSINE88 (CONTINiT$D): Consideration of First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifyinq the Fridley City Code, Chapter 104, Entitled "Tree Disease" by Renaming Chapter to "Diseased Trees" and by Amending Sections 104.02, 104.04, 104.06, 104.08, 104.09, and 104.10 .... 1� }'��,� l � �`� y �� n '� �� r> � Consideration of Awarding the Contract for 3 MG Concrete Reservoir Repair Proj ect No . 19 2 . . . . . . . . . . . � �, c��- f�`�. �� .. � �� ' r� �� . . . 7-7B PAGE 4 �_ � � . . . . 8-8B 1 � �� i t � � �� i �,� c Consideration of Awarding the Contract for 1.5 MG Concrete Reservoir Repair Project No. 193 (53rd Avenue and Johnson Street) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� 9-9A � � � � / .� � � � i � _ �� C/� � � 1 Consideration of a Contractual Agreement g' � with the State of Minnesota for Ij� spection �� Services . . . . . . . . . . . . .I! . . . . . . . . 10-loC ��l�,l� ,% I�� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 28, 1989 PAGE 5 THE MINIITEB OF THE REGUI.�R MBETIIdG OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COQNCIL OF ADGIIST 14, 1989 This was the first meetinq of the City Council in the newly renovated Municipal Center's Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL• MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Fitzpatrick and Councilman Billings MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING. JULY 24, 1989: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: SWEARING IN OF NEW POLICE OFFICERS: Mr. Jim Hill, Public Safety Director, introduced two new Fridley Police Officers, Richard Cesare and Robert Rewitzer. He stated both of these officers have received degrees from North Hennepin Community College. He stated Mr. Cesare was previously employed with the City of Golden Valley, and Mr. Rewitzer was employed by the City of Anoka. Mr. Hill stated both officers held positions as Community Service Officers in these cities. Mr. Hill administered the oath of office to the new Police Officers and they were welcomed to the City by the Mayor and members of the City Council. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEgTING OF AIIGIIST 14. 1989 PAGE 2 REPRESENTATIVE ALICE JOHNSON: Representative Alice Johnson addressed the City Council regarding Governor Perpich's tax bill. She stated there may or may not be an upcoming special legislative session to consider this bill. Representative Johnson stated some of the proposals in the bill have been upsetting, especially to local governments as there are changes proposed which would affect aids to local governments. Representative Johnson stated she would like to hear the Council's thoughts and comments regarding this proposed bill. She stated there will be many committee meetings and this proposed bill would be discussed at the DFL caucus this Wednesday. She stated she would like the Council to be quite specific about any questions they may have regarding the bill and she would address these at the caucus meeting. Representative Johnson stated she reviewed Mayor Nee's testimony given at the opening meeting Governor Perpich held in Brooklyn Park. Representative Johnson stated the members of the House and Senate passed what they felt was a good bill and it was vetoed by Governor Perpich. She stated the Governor has stated a system is needed that is simple, fair, and holds units of government accountable. She stated they are trying to find areas where they agree in order to pass a bill that meets all these requirements of simplicity, fairness, and accountability. Mayor Nee stated the Council has not discussed the bill and does not know what it contains and the implications. He stated judging from what he has read, he felt it is extraordinarily hostile to the interests of cities, as it changes their whole financial picture. Mayor Nee stated he felt the proposed bill would eliminate State aids and not replace them. He stated he understands the cities would be given funds from sales taxes and franchise fees and the disparities would be incredible. Representative Johnson stated this discussion was typical in the committee meetings and the speaker was upset by the idea of a sales tax. She stated those cities with large shopping centers would have a wonderful advantage of collecting taxes from persons who were not residents. Mayor Nee stated disparities continue to work against Fridley. He stated the franchise fee is not a realistic option for cities and felt the proposed bill would eliminate about 30 percent of revenue to the City. He stated to replace this revenue, the City would have to double their levy and this is prohibited by the Charter. He felt the bill was a misguided piece of legislation. Representative Johnson stated she would leave a copy of the bill and summary with the Council for their review. She stated in this proposal, there is also a review of all the mandates. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AUGIIST 14, 1989 PAGE 3 Councilwoman Jorgenson stated she has spoken to Representative Johnson regarding the City's problem with the levy limits as this is regulated by the Charter. Councilman Schneider stated he would like to review the mandates further. He also stated if the School Districts and County do not reduce their taxes and the City loses the State aid, there would have to be a drastic cut in City services or a raise in taxes. Representative Johnson stated the State aids would not be reduced in the first year and the reforms in the bill would take effect over a ten year period. She stated this would also mean that, even if the Governor runs for re-election, there would be a new Governor and Legislature by the time all the reforms finally took effect. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt Mayor Nee had addressed the City's viewpoint very well. He stated he felt Representative Johnson is aware of the City's concerns and if there was a special session, she should come back to the Council for any further comments or questions. Councilman Billings stated the Council prepared their budget based on the information available to them and if there was a special session and changes made in the tax bill, there would not be time for the Council to make changes in the City's budget. He stated in light of the fact that it took the Legislature five months to put forth their tax bill, and then ta have the Governor suggest that everything should be done again in a matter of weeks, without the benefit of public input, he did not feel this would create the best type of legislation. Representative Johnson stated she would bring the Council's concerns and comments before the caucus. She stated the City of Fridley has kept her well informed which is very helpful to her. COMPLAINT - COMMONS PARK: Mr. Owata, 548 63rd Avenue, stated there have been problems with persons having parties and congregating in Commons Park in the late evening hours. He stated there is a sign posted which states no cars are to be parked in the lot after 10 p.m. Mr. Owata stated the Police Department has been very cooperative and responded by asking these persons to leave the premises. He felt, however, it may help the problem if some tickets were issued. Mr. Hill, Public Safety Director, stated the police officers have been advised to double back to the park after requesting these people to leave since they have been returning. He stated there is nothing in the City's ordinance regarding the hours a park is open. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AUGIIST 1� 1989 PAGE 4 Councilman Schneider asked if these persons would be issued a ticket. Mr. Hill stated they would be ticketed if they were disorderly. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if alcoholic beverages were allowed in the park. Mr. Hill stated beer is allowed He stated in this case, unless beverages would not be allowed. in neighborhood parks by permit. there was a permit, alcoholic Councilman Schneider felt the Park and Recreation Commission should be made aware of Mr. Owata's concerns. RECEIVYNG THE PRELIMINARY 1990 DRAFT BUDGET: Mr. Burns, City Manger, stated this draft 1990 Budget is presented for the Council's review. He stated a budget message will be submitted at a later date, with a full explanation of the contents, and a public hearing would be held. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the City is waiting for the County to establish their public hearing date, as State law now requires the County to set their public hearing date first. He stated staff would verify the County's public hearing date so the Council could establish their date for the hearing on this budget. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the preliminary draft of the 1990 Budget. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON A FINAL PLAT P S #89-02 SBF ADDITION, TO REPLAT LOTS 1 2 28 AND 29 BLACK 2 COMMERCE PARK INTO TWO IATS THE SAME BEING 250 OSBORNE ROAD N.E. BY JEROME FARRELL: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:30 p.m. Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated this site was recently rezoned to enable the construction of a movie theater, shopping center, and free-standing commercial building. She stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this plat with several stipulations which she outlined as follows: (1) cross parking easements shall be recorded between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGUST 14. 1989 PAGE 5 of SBF Addition; and (2) a park fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. Dacy stated in regard to the third stipulation reqarding the need for a variance, staff has consulted with the City Attorney and he has recommended the petitioner move the west property line to the west so it would fall on the common drive. She stated staff has verified the petitioner's survey to make sure the plat locates the lot line within the common driveway and not the parking stall, therefore, the stipulation regarding the variance is not needed. Mr. Farrell stated there are problems with the project which are fairly typical. He stated Cub Foods is still on the lease for the building and he is working with them to negate their lease. He stated it has also taken longer than anticipated to obtain the financing so they are several months behind schedule. No other persons in the audience spoke regarding this plat. MoTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:35 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SALE OF EXCESS PROPERTY. BETWEEN LOTS 22 THROUGH 30 BLOCK 5 HYDE PARK, BY WAYNE JOHNSON: MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:35 p.m. Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated this public hearing is to determine whether or not the east six feet of the 12 foot alley abutting Lots 22-30, Block 5, Hyde Park, is excess property. She stated in 1988, the City vacated the alley at the rear of these properties. Ms. Dacy stated under Minnesota law, half the alley access went to the property owners to the west and the other half to the State. She stated the City approached the State for a deed to convey this back to the City in order to convey it to the property owners. Ms. Dacy stated in order to record the deed from the State to the City, the County advised the City that the State's Certificate of Title has to be memorialized. She stated this requires a court proceeding which takes three to six months. Ms. Dacy stated this public hearing is to obtain input from abutting property owners affected by this vacation and if they are willing to proceed with the City in this memorializing process. Mr. iierrick, City Attorney, stated the State has deeded the property to the City, but it cannot be recorded. He stated in the FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETINQ OF AIIGOST 14, 1989 PAGE 6 Torrens system, when any changes are made, they are done by attaching memorials to the certificate. He stated in this particular case, what needs to be memorialized is the City's action to vacate the alley. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked if the property owners adjacent to this alley already have the west six feet. Ms. Dacy stated the ordinance for the vacation of the alley was published, but it has not been recorded because of the complications regarding the State's Certificate of Title. Mr. Herrick stated if there are some property owners who want to express they have an interest in the east six feet, the Council should take this into consideration at this time. Mr. John Early stated he owns property to the south of Mr. Wayne Johnson. He stated they are in favor of Mr. Johnson's proposal, however, he wondered if the intent was to give the property owners the six feet or if they would be charged for this property. Mr. Herrick stated this is not a legal question, but one of policy. He felt the Council may not want to charge for this six feet if it really does not have much value. He stated, however, the Council may wish to address the court costs and if the property owners should contribute to these costs. Mayor Nee questioned the proposal to handle the court casts. Mr. Herrick stated he felt there was an understanding that the City would pay half the cost and the property owners the other half. Ms. Dacy stated because the process has taken some turns neither the City nor the petitioner were aware of, it was proposed, essentially, to split the cost of the court proceedings. She stated if more than one property owner wants the extra six feet added to their property, Mr. Johnson did not feel it was his responsibility to bear this cost alone. Ms. Dacy stated depending on how many property owners want to participate, a cost sharing could possibly be worked out. Mayor Nee stated he had reservations about the City paying these costs when it would be a benefit to the property owner and/or owners. Mr. Johnson felt this is a unique situation where the City would be obtaining an improvement which would benefit the community. Mayor Nee asked if anyone wished to speak either for or against the City finding this excess property and vacating the City's interest in the six feet deeded to the City by the State. �RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL ME$TING OF AIIGUST 14. 1989 PAGg 7 No persons in the audience spoke in reply to Mayor Nee's question. MOTION by Councilman Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Nee asked about the cost for this court proceeding. Ms. Dacy stated she thought it would be anywhere from $500 to $1,000. Councilman Billings stated he was surprised staff proposed to this cost sharing and was concerned about policy being set by staff, rather than the Council. He stated he would like to review this further. Mr. Hendrickson, 6031�3rd Street, stated he could use the extra six feet, but did not know the cost involved. Mr. Herrick stated assuming the cost is $1,000 and if five property owners wish to proceed, it would be $200 each. He stated if other agreements were reached, the cost would be adjusted accordingly. He stated the property would have to be conveyed if a property owner wished to sell or build on it. He stated considering the cost, he felt it was worthwhile for the property owners to proceed. Mr. Johnson stated he has been working on this for the last three years, and Ms. Dacy has been doing the best job in working with him to solve the problems. OLD BUSINESS• 3. ORDINANCE N0. 928 APPROVING A REZONING. ZOA #89-03. TO REZONE LOT 2 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89 FROM M-1. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND R-3 GENERAL MULTIPLE DWELLING TO C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7191 HIGHWAY 65 N.E., BY TED HAINES: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and adopt Ordinance No. 928 on second reading and order publication, with the stipulation approved at the first reading on July 24, Z989. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE NO 929 RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 206 ENTITLED "BUILDING CODE" BY ADDING SECTION 206.03.02 J, FOR ESTABLISHING A MONITORING WELL FEE: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading and adopt Ordinance No. 929 on second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COONCIL l�EETING OF AIIGDST 14, 1989 PAG$ 8 5. ITEM FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18. 1989: A. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REOUEST, VAR #89-05. TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 13.8 FEET IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN ENCLOSED 16 FOOT BY 16 FOOT PORCH ON LAT 11. BLOCK 2, CREEKRIDGE, THE SAME BEING 1495 CREEK PARK LANE N.E. , BY WILLIAM CARLSON AND CARROLL BRENNAN: Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, this is a request to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 13.8 feet in order to construct an enclosed 16 by 16 foot porch at 1495 Creek Park Lane. She stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance, however, staff is recommending denial as there are other alternatives to meet the requirements of the code. Councilman Schneider asked about the status of the recommendation to change the Zoning Code concerning corner lots. Ms. Dacy stated this recommendation would be presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting this Wednesday and will be brought to the Council at the meeting on August 28. Councilman Schneider stated if the Zoning Code is changed concerning corner lots, this variance would not be required. Ms. Dacy stated she did feel the existing code is too restrictive as far as setbacks for corner lots, however, staff is submitting their recommendation based on the code as it now exists. Dr. Carlson stated he wanted the variance in order to construct a screened in porch. He stated if the house had been constructed in a different direction (fronting on Arthur Street), he probably would not be facing this problem now. Dr. Carlson stated the home next to him has no windows which would face this porch and the property owner has no objection to the variance. He stated because of the bugs and mosquitoes in Minnesota, he wished to have the enclosed porch. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated she did not feel a 9 by 24 foot porch would be as beneficial as a 16 by 16 foot addition. She stated she personally did not have a problem and this is the reason for reviewing the ordinance regarding the setbacks for corner lots. Councilman Schneider stated the neighbors concur with this request and it makes good sense, but the hardship may be more difficult to ascertain. He stated if there is a change in the ordinance, this becomes a non-issue. He felt it would be cansistent to grant the variance. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance, VAR #89-05, to reduce FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MBETING OF AIIGIIST 14, 1989 PAGB 9 the rear yard setback from 25 to 13.8 feet for the construction of an enclosed 16 by 16 foot enclosed porch. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. B. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE RE4UEST. VAR #89-12, TO INCREASE THE RE4UIRED MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FROM 40$ TO 47$ TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING AND OFFICE SPACE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 2, EAST RANCH ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7855 RANCHER'S ROAD N.E., BY CORTRON CORPORATION• � Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated this request is for a variance to increase the lot coverage from 40 to 47 percent to allow the construction of additional warehouse and office space at 7855 Rancher's Road. She stated the petitioner plans to expand the building by adding another 7,700 square feet. Ms. Dacy stated staff has identified two alternatives to the variance. She stated the current 21,000 square foot building occupies 35 percent of the Iot coverage. She stated one alternative was to only add half of the space or construct a two story addition with warehouse facilities on the first floor and offices on the upper level. She stated because of these alternatives, staff is recommending denial of the variance. Ms. Dacy stated the Appeals Commission felt the proposed addition would be consistent with the intAnt of the ordinance and recommended approval with five stipulations which she outlined. Mr. Guy Reithmeyer stated the company needs the warehouse space and a smaller addition or a two story building would not meet their needs. He stated the parking on the site is well in excess of what is needed. He stated additional landscaping will be provided and a retention area to relieve pressure on the existing storm drainage system. Councilman Billings asked if Cortron was the owner of this property. Mr. Jerry Pitts, one of the owners, stated Cortron Corporation does own the property. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he felt this was a significant variance and if it was granted, it would set a precedent and make it difficult for the Council to deny similar requests in the future. He stated Elo Engineering had an almost identical request which was denied. Mr. Herrick stated if the Council feels they want to change the ordinance to allow more than 40 percent lot coverage, the staff could review it. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 14, 1989 PAGE 10 Ms. Dacy stated she believed that Elo Engineering was granted a variance to allow 45 percent coverage of the lot and submitted a second variance which was denied. Councilman Billings stated the City Attorney has expressed some of the same concerns he has in regard to this request. He stated the ordinance is fairly clear in this particular area. He stated if he had to vote this evening, it would be for denial, but wondered if it would be more prudent to look at the ordinance to see if it is still relevant. He stated this is potentially the second business the City could lose because of the fact they are not able to expand. He felt he did not want overcrowding and building � against building, but perhaps the ordinance should be reviewed. Mr. Herrick stated one approach may be that the ordinance state that not more than a certain percentage of the lot could be covered by the building and parking lot. He felt it may not be a bad idea to survey other cities to determine their requirements. Mr. Burns, City Manager, questioned staff if they recalled the range of lot coverage allowed in previous variances. Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director, stated as he recalls, the City has not granted a variance for 47 percent of lot coverage. MOTION by Councilman Billings to t�ble this item to the next meeting and direct staff to provide further information as to how this variance might be approved. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. C. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT FOR FINAL PLAT, TARGET NORTHERN DISTRIBUTION CENTER ADDITION: Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated in reviewing this final plat with Target, it was determined the City would need a 25 foot easement, rather than 15 feet, for street, bikeway/walking and snow storage. She stated Target has no problem with dedicating this additional 10 feet. Ms. Dacy stated this amendment would change the easement from 15 to 25 feet for a roadway and bikeway/walkway. MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve an amendment to the final plat for a 25 foot easement on the south right-of-way line of 73rd Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 6. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A VACATION, SAV #89-03, TO VACATE A SIX FOOT AND THE EAST ONE FOOT OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN CERTAIN TRACTS OF REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 94 AND IN THE GENA-RAE ADDITION, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGOST 1�. 1989 PAGE 11 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and approve the ordinance upon first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorqenson. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Jorqenson, Councilman Fitzpatrick and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried by a 4 to 1 vote. 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR RIVERVIEW HEZGHTS ACOUISITION: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve a consultant agreement with Federal-State Relocation Consulting Service, Inc. in regard to the Riverview Heights acquisition. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Nee suggested that possibly one of these homes should be kept for the City's use. Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated will be reviewed. 8. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE 3 MG CONCRETE RESERVOIR REPAIR PROJECT N0. 192: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the City's consultant, AEC, has advised that three bids were received for Phase 1 of this project and recommends the low bid of JMG Contracting, Inc. be accepted for Phase 1. Mr. Flora stated AEC has advised that two bids were received for Phase 2 of this project and recommends the low bid of TMI Coatings, Inc. be accepted for Phase 2. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the following bids for the 3 MG Concrete Reservoir Repair Project No. 192: JMG Contracting, Inc. 5141 Abbott Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN 55410 TMI Coatings, Inc. 2805 Dodd Road St.Paul, MN 55121 Abhe & Svoboda 17066 Revere Way Prior Lake, MN 55372 Phase 1 - $118,900.00 Phase 2 - No Bid Phase 1 - $146,700.00 Phase 2 - $219,803.00 Phase 1 - $210,000.00 Phase 2 - $347,745.50 Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. i � FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 14. 1989 PAG$ 12 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to award the bid for Phase 1 to the low bidder, JMG Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $118,900 and award the bid for Phase 2 to the low bidder, TMI Coatings, Inc., in the amount of $219,803. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. After further discussion (see Item 9), the following action was taken: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to reconsider the above motion awarding the bids for Project No. 192. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table awarding the contracts for Phases 1 and 2, Project No. 192 for repair of the 3 MG Concrete Reservoir. Seconded Yyy Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 9. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR 1.5 MG CONCRETE RESERVOIR REPAIR PROJECT NO. 193 (53RD AVENUE & JOHNSON): Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the City's consultant, AEC, has advised that four bids were received for this project and recommends the low bid from TMI be accepted. He stated there were two alternates involving completion dates, one for this fall and the other for next spring. He stated it is recommended alternate 1 be accepted for $91,850 for completion this fall. MOTION by Councilman Billings to receive the following bids for the 1.5 MG Concrete Reservoir Repair Project No. 193: TMI Coatings, Inc. 2805 Dodd Road St. Paul, MN 55121 JMG Contracting, Inc. 5141 Abbott Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55410 Universal Applicators P. O. Box 310 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 17066 Revere Way Prior Lake, MN 55372 Alternate 1 - $91,850.00 Alternate 2 - $99,200.00 Alternate 1 - $198,000.00 Alternate 2 - $199,000.00 Alternate 1 - $143,227.00 Alternate 2 - $145,127.00 Alternate 1 - $146,200.00 Alternate 2 - $132,200.00 Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AUGIIST 14. 1989 PAG$ 13 Councilman Billings stated he was concerned about the discrepancies in the bids as one bid was double from the lowest bidder. Mr. Flora stated this may be due to the availability of the contractor and the time the City wants the work completed. He stated AEC has indicated TMI, the low bidder, is a very competent contractor. Councilman Schneider asked if it would be possible for staff to check into the references and background of TMI. Mr. Flora stated if the Council so desired, this could be done. MOTION by Councilman Billings to award the contract for the 1.5 MG Concrete Reservoir Repair Project No. 193 to the low bidder, TMI Coatings, Inc. for Alternate 1 in the amount of $91,850.00, subject to staff review. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Mr. Imre, General Manager of TMI Coatings, Inc., stated their firm is very experienced in this field of work and that they have done work for the City of Duluth, DuPont, Northern States Power, and Potomac Electric Power, to name a few. He stated they do a lot of work for AEC. Mr. Imre stated when you undertake the repair of these tanks, you do not know exactly what will be encountered as far as the structural integrity. He stated, in some cases, there may be problems which were not anticipated. Mr. Imre stated for the City of Duluth their bid was $300,000 to repair the tanks, however, additional costs were $307,000 because of the type of structural damage to the tank. Mr. Imre stated the underground tank that Fridley has may involve considerable repairs. Mr. Flora stated AEC did photograph the tank and various deficiencies were noted and identified as repairable items. He stated most of the items are unit type costs. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he would be interested in what work is included in the base bid and what work would involve extra costs and change orders. Mr. Imre stated the tank that is above ground, from his years of experience, he felt would have a minimal impact as far as repairs. He stated the tank that is underground will have more impact. He stated the reason is the extreme cold and ground conditions that are roughly 50 degrees allowing for a constant freeze/thaw cycle. He stated in view of the amount of broken concrete from the photographs, there may be extensive repairs. Mr. Herrick stated if the tank does need extensive repair, if this work was extra. Mr. Imre answered in the affirmative. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AOGOST 14, 1989 PAGB 14 Mr. Herrick asked how they determine what is extra work and what is part of the basic bid. Mr. Imre stated it is sometimes difficult in defining the items. He stated, for example, the specifications called for the tank to be dry, however, the reality is that you probably will never dry out an underground tank. He stated this would probably be change order No. 1. He stated what should be applied is a material that will go under water in a damp environment on wet concrete and this is more expensive than the material called for in the specifications. Councilman Schneider stated it seems the specifications may be poorly written. Mr. Imre stated the individual involved at AEC was on vacation at the time the project was assembled. Mr. Flora stated in view of Mr. Imre's comments, he would recommend the contracts to award these bids be tabled for further review. Mr. Imre stated he can understand the Council does not want to spend a lot of extras on the project. He stated he would suggest the bids be rejected and re-bid to define the units more clearly. He stated his bid is per the specifications. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated both items 8 and 9 should be tabled in order for staff to review this problem with AEC and come back with a recommendation. Councilman Billings withdrew his motion to award the contract to TMI Coatings, Inc. for Project No. 193, with permission of his seconder, Councilman Schneider. MOTION by Councilman Billings to table awarding the contact for Project No. 193 for the repair of the 1.5 MG Concrete Reservoir. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 11 AMENDING PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS TO FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 189• MOTION by Councilman 5chneider to approve Change Order No. il for the Fridley Municipal Center Improvement Project No. 189 for a total deduction of $670.00. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 14. 1989 PAGB 15 11. RESOLUTION NO 63-1989 APPOINTING THE COMMISSIONER OF �12ANSPORTATION AS THE CITY OF FRIDLEY' S AGENT. PRESCRIBING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS. AND EXECUTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 63-1989. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. RESOLUTION NO 64-1989 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVAL OF PLANS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS• STORM SEWER PIPE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 194• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 64-1989. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 13. RESOLUTION NO 65-1989 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 1989 SERVICE CONNECTIONS: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 65-1989. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 14. RESOLUTION NO 66-1989 DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 1989 SERVICE CONNECTIONS: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 66-1989. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 15. RESOLUTION NO 67-1989 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WATER SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #183 (UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST SERVICE DRIVE 83RD TO NORTH 500 FEET)• MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 67-1989. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. RESOLUTION NO 68-1989 DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WATER SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 183: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 68-1989. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL I�IEETING OF �OGIIST 14, 1989 PAG$ 16 17. BESOLUTION NO. 69-1989 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WATER SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER IIriPROVEMFNT PROJECT NO 188 (NORTHCO BUSINESS PARK ON 73RD AVENUE & NORTHCO ORIVE)• MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 69-1989. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 18. RESOLUTION NO. 70-1989 DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WATER SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. 188• MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution Nc Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. . 70-1989. all voting 19. RE30LUTION NO. 7�1-1989 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST. 1988 - 1& 2 1 PARTS A, B& C� : MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution Nc Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. �. 71-1989. all voting 20. RESOLUTION NO. 72-1989 DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO ST. 1988 - 1& 2(PARTS A B& C)• MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 72-1989. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 21. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR MUNICIPAL CENTER MECHANICALLY ASSISTED CENTRAL FILE SYSTEM: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the following bids for the Municipal Center's mechanical assisted central file system: Creative Storage Systems Wahl & Wahl, Inc. Haldeman-Homme, Inc. (Spacesaver) Wright Line, Inc. Mid-America Business Systems Central File Sections 1 & 2 $19,988.35 $17,041.00 S/3 - $19,436.61 S/2 - $18,072.96 $24,535.00 $20,308.74 Central File Supplies $11,665.52 $ 6,716.00 S 8,196.22 $16,556.50 $13,617.17 FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGIIST 14. 1989 PAGS 17 Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the bid was split into two separate areas, the mechanically assisted file system and the central file supplies. He stated five bids were received and in reviewing the detailed specifications, it appears the low bidder, Wahl & Wahl, did not comply with some of the specifications. He stated this involved the gauge of the material, all components were to be manufactured by one individual manufacturer, and specifications were not met as far as the ramp loading. Mr. Pribyl stated it is requested that the Council not consider awarding the contract for the central file supplies at this time, but consider awarding the contract for the mechanically assisted file system to the second lowest bidder, Haldeman-Homme, Inc. (Spacesaver) in the amount of $18,072.96, as the lowest bidder did not meet the specifications. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to award the contract for the mechanically assisted file system to Haldeman-Homme, Inc. (Spacesavers) in the amount of $18,072.96 as it has been found the low bidder did not meet the specifications. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 22. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER NO 1 FOR WEST SATELLITE FIRE STATION: Mr. Aldrich, Fire Chief, stated this change order is due to the excessive amount of tree roots in the area of the building requiring extra courses of blocks and also some changes in the electrical work. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve Chanqe Order No. 1 for the West Satellite Fire Station Project with Dailey Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,397.34. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 23. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER NO 3 FOR TECHNICAL SYSTEMS CONTRACT• Mr. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager, stated this change order is necessary to cover costs for rewiring video equipment as some of the video cables connecting the control room to equipment in the Council Chambers were too short. He stated there were some structural problems in the way the technical system was handled totally separate and it goes back to the beginning of the project. Mr. Hunt stated since this portion was never under the construction IDLEY CITY COUNCIL ETING OF �UGUST 14. 1989 p�GB 18 supervisor, it becomes almost impossible to determine who was originally responsible for the error. Mr. Hunt stated the racks for the video control room were fabricated and then it was found that the east-west dimensions of the control room were about ten inches narrower than the room the racks were designed to fit, which resulted in the need for longer video cables. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve Change Order No. 3 to the Technical System for the Municipal Center with Electrosonic Systems, Inc. in the amount of $1,300.00. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Schneider stated he was concerned about what the City can do when consultants are hired, make certain recommendations, and the specifications are not correct. Mr. Hunt stated in the case of Electronic Interiors, they agreed to perform certain services for a specified amount and, in this case, they probably under bid, but were locked into this figure. Mr. Robertson, Community Development Director, stated this was also the case in the landscape design on the Lake Pointe Contract. Councilman Schneider stated he questions why this is happening and if the contractor has been misled. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated perhaps this could be discussed at some future meeting. He stated his observation is that there have been too many people involved. He stated he had misgivings about using a construction manager and felt a good general contractor should have been in charge of the entire project. Councilman Schneider stated there have been all sorts of problems also in other projects and wondered if somethinq could not be done. Mr. Herrick stated what is included in the basic bid and what is extra is an important thing to review on any of the contracts. 24. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1984: MOTION by Councilman Billings to receive the minutes of the Cable Television Advisory Commission Meeting of June 15, 1989. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COQNCIL MEETZNG OF AOGIIST 14. 1989 PAGB 19 25. �ONSIDERATION OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR THE FRIDLEY LI4UOR STORE STUDY WITH C.J. OLSON MARKET RESEARCH, INC.: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated this proposed contract with C. J. Olson Market Research, Inc. is to determine the potential liquor market in this area in order to ascertain the future of the City's liquor business. He stated the study will focus on 400 randomly selected Fridley adult residents. He stated the consultant will edit, code, and cross-tabulate the data by computer and submit a full report with graphs. Mr. Burns stated the study will take approximately 28 days to complete at a cost of about $10,532. He stated this firm has a long client list and he has checked the individual references which include the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Minneapolis. Mayor Nee stated this�firm's reputation in the business is good. Mr. Burns stated he and Steve Barg visited the firm and advised them what was needed in this survey. He felt the objective is to determine whether or not the City should remain in the liquor business. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, asked if a decision was made that the potential market is only in the area of the City. Mr. Burns stated he did not think that was necessarily true, but is a good point and it will be explored as the survey is designed. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize entering into this agreement with C. J. Olson Market Research, Inc. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Billings stated a decision would have to be made if the City wishes to remain in the liquor business. He suggested the possibility of finding a management company, such as MGM Liquor, to come in with their expertise and manage. He stated in checking with the Liquor Control Commission, they find no problem with it. 26. APPOINTMENTS: CITY EMPIAYEES: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the following appointments by the City Manager: NAME Clyde Wiley POSITION Mechanical/ Building Inspector (Non-exempt) STARTING STARTING SALARY DATE $15.00 Aug. 15, per hr. 1989 ($2,599.51 per month) REPLACES W. Sandin FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF AIIGUST 14. 1989 PAGE 20 Richard E. Cesare Police Officer (Partial exempt) $10.71 Aug. 21, Jeff Long per hour 1989 (S�,sSS.00 per month) Robert J. Rewitzer Police $10.71 Aug. 22, R. Bredsten Officer per hour 1989 (Partial ($1,858.00 exempt) per month) Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 27. CLAIMS• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize payment of Claims No. 27590 through 27996. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 28. LICENSES• MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve the licenses as submitted and as on file in the License Clerk's Office. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 29. ESTIMATES• MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the estimates as submitted: Herrick & Newman 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 For services rendered for the month of July, 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,736.00 Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmon & Haskvitz 1000 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 For services rendered for the month of June, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8, 460. 00 FRIDLEY CITY COQNCIL MEETING OF ADGII$T 14. 1989 PAGB 21 Daily Construction Company, Inc. 11000 Highway 65 N.E., Suite lOb Blainep 1�T 55434 Partial estimate for construction of Satellite Fire Statiax�. . . . . . . . . . . $29,421.69 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. P. O. Box 1240 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Street Improvement Project No. � ST. 1988 - 1 & 2 FZNAL ESTZMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23, 746. 76 Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. 8909 Bass Creek Court Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Water, Sanitary Sewer & Storm Sewer Project No. 288 FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 4, 077 . 70 Gammon Bros., Inc. 13845 Northdale Blvd. Rogers, NIIJ 55374 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1989 - 1 & 2 Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26, 332 . 08 HNTB 6700 France Ave. S., Suite 260 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Water Distribution System Study Project No. 191 Estimate No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 980.94 J. T. Noonan 3601 48th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Corridor Maintenance Project No. 190 Estimate No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,980.72 FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL ME_E_TZNG OF AIIGIIST 14. 1989 PAGE 22 S.E.H. 222 East Little Canada Road St. Paul, MN 55117 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1989- 1& 2 Partial Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 86.93 Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman ,7orgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of August 14, 1989 adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad William J. Nee Secretary to the City Council Mayor Approved: � � cinroF F�a� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COMMUN[TY DEVELOPMENT' DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 22, 1989 William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Second and Final Reading for Vacation Request, SAV #89-03, City of Fridley Attached is the staff report for the request, SAV �89-03. Staff recommends that the City Council complete the second and final reading of the ordinance vacating the drainage and utility easements in R.L.S. �94 and in the Gena Rae Addition. IrIIri/dn M-89-509 e M1 oxDirn�c$ xo. AN ORDINANCS UNDER BBCTION I2.07 OF TSB CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS l�ND ALLEYB AND TO AMEND APPENDIY C OF TH8 CITY CODB The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows; Section 1: For the vacation of drainage and utility easements described as follows: A. That part of the north 6 feet of Outlot 1, Gena-Rae addition lying within Tracts G and H of Registered Land Survey No. 94 (except west 5 feet of said Tract H). B. That part of the east one (1) foot of the west six (6) feet of said Outlot 1 lying within Tracts H and I of Registered Land Survey No. 94 (except north 6 feet of said Tract H). All lying in the north half of Section 13, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Be and is hereby vacated. Section 2: The intent of the above vacations is to eliminate the drainage and utility easements as noted on the Gena-Rae Addition plat as described above. Any and all easements filed since the recording of the Registered Land Survey No. 94 are to remain easements of record. Section 3: The said vacations have been made in conformance with Minnesota Statutes and pursuant to Section 12.07 of the City Chapter and Appendix C of the City Code shall be so amended. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1989. ATTEST: SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA, CITY CLERK Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: July 24, 1989 August 14, 1989 WILLIAM J. NEE, MAYOR 1A � SEC. /3, T. 30, R. 24 CiTr OF FRiDL EY 13� � N / CQ�M�7► /J f y • � y� '�11T��!' 1rPJS� '.:.i •� � �L-- :; � — .r -- v.sti.-c � ,Ji�� w A� � ,., � �> � � �. c� i '.C�1 � , � y�ro r � � ' , ' � • -- --�- 3 �6 I� 18 19 0 � -- �� „�', P�� , ; � : "I o � _ �� fd � � � '`� � "'" ' � ,�o..� � �-• ':, � , , __ � .I �...., 6 w' � :�zo) �G ! �' �M b � � E I Aa , �,' GJ E ° F � . �' , � �",� ,..�,.6.. � � �a�jO � ,. ^ ' �• <r---��4E rm • �- -- - � � :. �,O ...: I i� P�� , �'c i `.-� ' GE � � .�; B � �+ i �g�� E ' I � ' � . �► , , , r, u � r� �► � 'i Q,�., 4, R ; '" � � ,.. ,,.� � -„»� ° , � E JOII �M11 J�R.� � 1 � ROAD ..�... s/+� r �o + c �. � :�.:° :..r.+i� E 3 "" � :"'.. �„i..� '.; w � �}_ 2 i � M_ k eQy �. � �_� EE�,, .,..�., � ; :ll� Y) �`/,'•' O ~ � � fr � �� N�.� MM./Ii rr I�r13 ,?d� 4�, 4"� a'`, �R ry I,•' ;,; � �: . AR u., ., �,,, P � � � 4`K ' � �i , �.., ; `, y' f � ' ,CJ... � � ' �ui � '.ns' � �T Q i sr• 2� a�.� �$g i PpR , :rf �o� ;; � r +�' ' _ _�_ R� �' -- - --� E' 4 J 4 1. � � ., ,, � f, . .+d ,�,� �•' ' � �A; .., I � .�' �� (/� r�N .�. i.ii�� tt /�rr�' / -� �i ; ,�• _1 �M • il' i ,� � � � ' . , 4 0 � 4 E�, .�. = , 3'- a �, = �., ::.:�c , . , • � � .t.. . ..� . ,.; ��i �"' � � �, 3 2 7 � �� `,,.> --f ° �% �// � yt ; . . / *:. � I �.ti �''� . :. yi s r ,..r: . r. �� _ f^� '^ ,'�1- '• � �.,� r s iN z � s ♦ %oi , � y oI � ° F K�+� � `�`` � s �s � z � • v ' •� ��'+ .,�,' f , s l� zi vi . 2B �� o� � �� ' i+ b, �,o ' D Tl'� � :J'•,� .♦ ,•�ir� ' z. i . �Ir) �" f � ir(�i •fM r J . ,. On 4 p` �.�� ,•t. • G � t' ro l /O �i1 :o A7 � � - ' �, �.) �» ' �. i. f � �O �' �' . 20 ; .. t1� 4Q l+wl �ri• e..• �, �. � r°�� 'z=' /z�in j'y� y, �� y �; � .« �,r i �•'466 T AV E. N. E. .., , .�. .� ; 3,� , � - _ � + �, �- �i • . O i�w. �' ^ , o .. :i • i0 � � An Yi /f iI . -rn � 'b� 6 i 01 � r +i � , _'. +r � is i� s � " ' µ 4 G� � �,...... ' � � � ." �� i _` �. '4�.•'C � t 66 T W AVE. • �y y� o Mi r' ' .. � -. �..... : O .� Y :`s . � \ : , i'bs i 1V _ / W i . %� � 4!�„ �� M V t� PJ al. i1° ��t'? ;Z i$ �i�r. L�NE. 2 -zsey z, i Yrs � t } T : in�'� 2 F i 4 i�' - s. .. . `t '� e.. • t�,f '�S4 � W- � rC � �� N � ~I � � • � . . CNE[K 'r'/ � e'A° •'i F ' , ♦ : • i z�,� 3 r `� o '�,+� qK� OF � °/ " �. �' ' ' ..:,� a/ � � zs , :_ °� � s� . s • �� i 3� ,�=i • � � . z: .e s , w:. .c > s�� I .= r t J t 7 < 2� W 7 . �: s l�' � ^p. a ,Z � K • PAAIC LN. � � � t irr ` � ` � ,r� - e p z . ' � O i. _ inl .. '� . �'.. M� ,�., T /� a" V�% C {p M t �� 2 r` �� Q : /OM� S�- 3 ? � / 9'�' i+r�,r a Q�0 ,�i Q � �• (�e 2� .ro � t z� .i�A � ..y � 9•� : �' ' " , � ii �, w ,� i =° � ; , � � c� .�,_ „ , zo „ ., � r � u` � '�' ��= i Fa1 J � J 3► : 9, i1 M! ii /� 2 i •- L�2 W . iJ i is iI '?� i �t� . � f „ •�p/� l RL.t 17� !: ,ti' ..w /W � � ;�� . a��..• � i� .`s . i� v N iw/i - r.Fi. i ��M C� •a r �v '�°` �i � r• � .. ' ..� g{REEi�..� a .1 i _ �� — A :"� .. •��"- � ; ' t� � 14 � � 5 �3 `il SAV 4689-03 City of Fridley � LOCATION MAP 2 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the Auqust 16, 2989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: Donald Betzold Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator M�ichele McPherson, Planning Assistant Nancy Jorgenson, Councilmember at Large James & Beverly Wolfe, 1265 Hathaway Lane Neal Thompson, 1264 Hathaway Lane Karen Allard, 615-54th Avenue NE Laurie Wolfe, 960 Hathaway Lane Orville & Jeannine Sachs, 1281 Hathaway Lane Shelley Garber, 5800 Tennison Drive John & Juli Evers, 5801 Tennison Drive Helen Steinke, 1071 Hathaway Lane Cherle Pederson, 1030 Hathaway Lane Mary Eqgert, 1090 Hathaway Lane David Matlock, 1080 Hathaway Lane Douglas & Nancy Strong, 5721 Regis Drive Carol Eppel, 5721 Regis Drive Jim & Juel Bagaason, 1191 Hathaway Lane Norman & Alice Abel, 1050 Hathaway Lane Janice Driggins, 1280 Hathaway Lane John & Michelle Ward, 5691 Regis Drive James B. Legatt, 5701 Regis Drive Keith Poppenhagen, 7510 Hwy. 65 Bohaban Mehrychenk, 2704 W. River Pkwy., Mpls. Father John Magramm, 1201 Hathaway Lane Sister Vera Saba, 1201 Hathaway Lane Mother Victoria, 1201 Hathaway Lane Bernice Playle, 4509 Brookdale Drive, Brooklyn Park, I�i APPROVAL OF JULY 12, 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the July 12, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 2 1. �ABLED• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #89-08, BY KEITH' S AUTO BODY • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per Section 205.17. O1. C. 9(0 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a repair garage on that part of the East 46 acres of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said East 46 acre tract distant 623.5 feet South of the Northwest corner of said East 46 acre tract 161.63 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract 538.98 feet, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 65; thence Northerly along said Westerly right-of-way line 161.63 feet, more or less, to the intersection of a line drawn from the point of beqinning and parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract; thence West parallel with the said North line 538.73 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, the same being 7570 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open discussion on special use permit #89-08. - UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND DISCUSSION OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Ms. Dacy reported this request was last considered on May 17, 1989. The site is located West of and adjacent to Highway 65, south of Osborne Road. The property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. To the north and west is M-1 zoning. Lampert Lumber is located immediately to the north, to the south is R-4 (mobile home park), and to the east across Highway 65 is a mixture of C-3, Commercial, and M-1 zoning. On the property are two buildings constructed in the early 1960's. The petitioner, Keith's Auto Body, is currently occupying the western most building on the lot. As was discussed at the meeting of May 17, the site and buildings need improvements to comply with M-1, Light Industrial standards. The site would have to be paved between the two buildings, installation of required curb around paved areas, and creation of a landscaped area in front of the property to meet the 20 foot setback. The owner, Mr. Michael Thompson, talked about the property and title problems with the site. The Commission discussed establishing a timetable for completion of improvements. Staff recommended nine stipulations and a timetable. The commission adjusted some of the completion dates. The nine stipulations remain the same but some of the dates were chanqed in #1, 2, 3 and 4 to August 1, 1991. The most important stipulation the Planning Commission wanted completed was the installation of sewer. The site is now served by a septic system. The item was tabled so the building and fire inspectors could inspect the buildings and determine whether or not they met code and/or whether or not they would be considered condemnable property. The a � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 3 inspection confirmed that the buildings are in good structural condition. There are some thinqs the owners need to comply with, but not enough to justify condemnation. Staff has talked with Mr. Thompson, and he would be aqreeable to go along with the timetable as recommended. Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with stipulations, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Saba felt it was difficult to take action without the owner present. However, the owner agreed to the stipulations and has indicated his willingness to comply with the recommendations. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the issues regarding ownership had been resolved. Ms. Dacy stated these issues were not resolved, but the owner is willing to continue with the process and to do what the Planning Commission has recommended and agrees with the dates. Ms. Sherek felt that in stipulation #3 the dates should be 60 to 90 days rather than August 1, 1991, to haul away the junk. She felt that 1991 was too long and felt the abandoned property on the site should be hauled away. She recommended a date of October 15 or November 1, 1989. The last sentence should read "This work shall be completed no later than November 1, 1989." Mr. Kondrick indicated the owner is not present to address this change of date. Ms. Sherek indicated that the owner could address this when it is before the City Council. Ms. Sherek stated that the date should be changed in stipulation #8 to November 15, 1989, at which time, staff can make sure the work has been done. Mr. Poppenhagen stated that some of the materials the commission considered "junk" he considered valuable to his business. Mr. Barna stated these materials should be stored inside or behind a fence. Ms. Sherek stated that materials cannot be visible over the fence. Ms. Dacy stated this was covered in stipulation #3. Mr. Barna questioned #7 regarding the letter of credit. Should this be provided at this time because the holdinq tank must be installed by January 1, 1990. Ms . Dacy stated the intent is not to require until ownership is established. Prior to extension of the City sewer system, staff �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 4 would require it at that time but not later than January 1, 1991. MO ION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Dahlberg to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. Mr. Saba had no problem with the special use permit as long as there is compliance with the stipulations. Mr. Barna agreed, as long as there is no hazard to others. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #89-08, with the following stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and line with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1991. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20-foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by August 1, 1991. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of the buildings and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot .opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storaqe shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed no later than November 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by January 1, 1991. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of 2D PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 5 construction. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on November 15, 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. 9. There shall�be no sales of automobiles on the property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kondrick indicated this item would be brought before the City Council at their meeting of August 28. 2. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECZAL USE PERMIT, SP �89-11 BY ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTIdN OF CHRIST, INC. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per Section 205.07.O1.C.2 of the Fridley City Code, to allow churches in a residential district, on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks First Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. McPherson reported the property is located on Lot 3, Block 1, at the intersection of Hathaway Lane and Regis Drive in an R-1, Single Family district. A church is allowed in an R-1 district with a special use permit. The proposed site plan shows the existing house with alterations for an addition to the rear and a change in design at the front entrance. The code states that there are some building lot standards that need to be met by a church in an R-1 district. The lot area must be 15,000 sq. ft. This lot has approximately 9,900 sq. feet. The petitioner has applied for a variance for the lot area requirement. In addition, they must have a 15 foot setback on the side; again a variance has been requested to reduce the setback to 10 feet. The petitioner is proposing some changes to the existing house, including an 18 ft. X 18 ft. addition to the house over an open deck to allow room for a worship area. Also, an addition over the front walk as shown on the site elevation is beinq proposed by the petitioner at this time. Regarding the lot coverage requirements, staff has looked at the 2E PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 6 other churches that currently exist in the city. Most of the churches in the city far exceed the minimum lot area requirement. Many of the churches reside in an R-1 district; however, most are located at the edge of an R-1 district and near a major intersection. Ms. Dacy reported that the City Attorney is researching the ability of municipalities to regulate churches. Given this application is different from previous applications in that it is in a single family home and the church is small in size, the City Attorney wishes to review the minutes and make a written recommendation after his research and submit his recommendation at the first meeting of the Planning Commission in September. He would prefer that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing so he is aware of what the other concerns are from other owners. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were legal complications that he is looking to unravel before making a recommendation. Ms. Dacy stated this is correct. Father Magramm stated the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ is a traditional Christian church with a continuous history reaching back to the Apostles. It is considered here in the United States to be the fourth major religion after the Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. There are 13 such Orthodox churches in the Twin City area. There was an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch in the religious section last Saturday about some of the Orthodox churches and his church was mentioned also. Father Magranun stated that they want to use the house in Fridley is as a monastic house, the aim of which is a quiet life. He stated that they have been for the past 8 years at the other end of Hathaway Lane. They have enjoyed the quiet of the neighborhood and that particular street. He stated he anticipates some church members would come to the house, altogether about 12 people, 8 or 9 besides themselves. These people would join as they have been doing. They have had the property at 1201 Hathaway Lane since January; about 8 months. There would be no more traffic and no more parked cars in the future than have been noticed up to now. The church also uses the worship space at 601 15th Avenue in Dinkytown. Any large gatherings besides the regular Sunday services would take place in that facility. The church has asked for this permit so that it would not violate any legal code in converting a room in the house into a chapel and so that anything that they did would be done with the neighborhood's knowledge. They passed around, hand delivered, to the neighborhood, or at least to those who were on the list that were receiving notification of the permit, a pamphlet about the church and a sheet to acquaint neighborhood with who they are and what are projects are going to be and mainly to stress that they are not asking to use the facility to build a big church, a new church, but to use it as a monastic house chapel. The sisters that have been living there are looking for a quiet life and they would PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 7 be the first to protest any type of activity that would be disruptive either to the neighborhood or to them. He did have the sheet that was hand delivered to the neighborhood. There are others at the meeting to whom they did not deliver this because they kept this to the list that they had. He is open to discussion and willing to answer any questions that anyone might have. He wants to stress that the purpose of the monastic house chapel is a quiet life, the ability to have prayer meetings for the monastic community rather than a church that would have social activities. Ms. Laurie Wolfe asked how many members are in the church right now. Father Magramm stated about 20 members in the church in Dinkytown. The house will be used as a monastic house chapel for those at one end of the Hathaway Lane. Ms. Wolfe stated it appears the Code says a church and Father is saying this is a monastic house. Which is it? Father Magramm stated he thought the City had only one word which is a church. The church described it as a monastic house chapel. Ms. Janice Driggins asked, if it were a monastic house and not a church, is a special use permit necessary. Mr. Kondrick replied that this apparently is a question for which the Planning Commission needs to wait for an opinion from the City Attorney. Ms. Driggins stated that, to her understanding, the property has a garage built over a water main. As a realtor, she had problems several years ago on a closing and could not qet a title because of the water main issue. In view of that, would that be taken into consideration for granting permits for building onto that house. Mr. Kondrick stated he thought it would, but this is new information to the commission. This information will be considered and will surely have an impact on the final discussion. Mr. Kondrick thanked her for that information, and directed staff to check on it. Mr. Douglas Strong presented a petition signed by 45 people in the neighborhood. The petition stated that this property is a relatively small home in a quiet residential neighborhood. The property is a single lot, with no room for expansion. There is no off-street parking. The location of the property at the end of a T intersection and at the base of a steep hill causes tremendous on-street parking problems. Mr. Strong stated that the following property owners hereby wished to register their extreme opposition to the grantinq of the special use permit by the City of Fridley for this property. The petition is to safeguard the neighborhood 2F 2G PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 8 because a variance or a special use permit is qranted to the legal description and not to the individuals living in the house. The people living in the house may be totally above board, but once they move out, the special use permit carries over to the new owners. One of the neighbors' cor►cerns is that once it is done, it is very dif f icult to undo . As the Commission can see by the site plan, the lot is very small. Another chart that Mr. Strong was very interested in seeing was the churches in Fridley that have been looked at so far. The square footage of the lots is larger than this lot. Mr. Strong asked the Planning Commission if they had driven by the site. If so, members are aware of the steep hill. He has checked with the Engineering Department, and this ' hill has over a 9$ grade which makes it an undesirable hill for parking, especially in the winter. Mr. Strong has lived in his current residence for 15 years and sees that the Public Works Department has to hit that hill first thing when the first snowfall hits, so that the people that do live up there can get up the street. It is not conducive to parking. The neighbors are hearing that there will not be parking problems here. An addition to the building is being done to accommodate a volume of people. While the church is saying 12 people maximum, there is no place in the special use permit that the Commission can set a maximum number of people that can be there. The fire code may enter into this and require additional exits, and sprinkling of the building may enter into it. Also, to leave this structure looking like a single family residence will not happen with the proposed changes to the structure, particularly to the front cf the house. That will make it look like a church. There is a realtor here tonight, and that person would know better than Mr. Strong what happens to the values of the homes next to a church. It is a church. Whether you want to call is a fancy name or not, if it's a special use permit for a church, it's a church. Mr. Strong asked if he was wrong. Mr. Barna stated that in that instance, yes. If a special use permit is issued forever for that property, but a special use penait can be limited to the occupant. A variance is forever, that qoes with the description of the property. But a special use permit is reviewable or renewable. If this church w�re to move out of the residence as owners, the special use permit can be limited to their residence or their use of the property. Mr. Kondrick stated that, as with many special use permits, there are oftentimes certain stipulations that the petitioner must comply with. Time limits are�given, and even no time limits. If those stipulations are violated, the permit can be revoked. So those things are in the background here too. He suggested a motion to accept the petition and the names as part of the minutes so the City Council and City Attorney can review. ' MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to accept the petition as part of the minutes. 2H PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 9 UPON A VOZCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Strong stated with regard to the water main and construction to the building, his experience with Fridley's water system in the neighborhood is that there have been a number of water main breaks . Assuming that they are cast iron mains, these mains are conducive to water main breaks. This particular main is a 6-inch water main that runs all the way through in a-loop system. With construction af the addition near the main, vibration and what not in that area could lead to a leak. With a garage over the water main, there is potential for severe problems there. Mr. Strong knew the individuals who sold this house, and knew they had great difficulties once they discovered the water main was there. They did go through the City. They did get a permit. It was issued. Nobody caught this until almost 20 years later when they went to sell it and it was surveyed. There was an error along the way, but Mr. Strong didn't think they need to add to the problem allowing additional construction on there that could affect that. Another concern is that even if there will not be additional parking, he knows there will be at times additional parking. With the T intersection today, if anyone in the neighborhood has guests cars parked on either side of the street, it become difficult to maneuver when the streets are at all slippery. Unfortunately, people also have a tendency to come down Regis Drive which is also at a grade, not at 9�, something less than that, but they have a tendency to come quickly down there. The alternate is to make a sharp turn or go right up the driveway because it is an extension of the street. It becomes a hazardous situation. Mr. Strong has barely missed cars because the view is blocked. There are some hazards there and the neighbors don't need to add to this by adding the potential for additional parking. He knows the intention is good and there is nothing the neighborhood has against the residence being used as it is today, as a single family residence. He believes they are good neighbors. It is the use of the property that the neighbors had a problem with. It is not designed for a church. A neighborhood is quiet and we would like to keep it that way. Mr. Strong stated his daughter commented that she could hear church music on Sunday morninq, which may be desireable some of the time, but not when you wish to sleep. Mr. Kondrick asked, suppose the number of cars were limited and that church services would not be held except with Father and a few others, how would Mr. Strong feel about that? Mr. Strong stated he would still have a question of the use of the property as a church and there is still the factor of values of houses when that takes place. A neighbor is in the process of putting his house up for sale due to a move out of state. It does have an affect on the property values. Another thing that the neighbors are missing is whether the property is now on the tax roles. 21 PLANNZNG COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 10 Ms. Dacy stated the church has applied for a tax exempt status. Taxes for 1989 are paid, but next year would be tax exempt. Mr. Strong stated that the neighborhood would be losinq the tax base of that property. Maybe if the church special use permit is not granted, it might not be that desireable. The taxes are based on mill rate with the school. These residents will not be having children in the schools and this structure will not add tax dollars to support that. Each of these that does apply and does get it means that the rest of us pick up that share. Another concern is that a neighbor who is close to this property is also considering selling their house if the permit is granted. It is a quiet residential neighborhood and it is not designed for a church. A home for the Father and Sisters is no problem. They are good neighbors from a residential standpoint. But as a church, the lot is not conducive, the traffic pattern is not conducive for that situation. It is be very easy to say there won't be any problems now, but no one has any experience with that right now and what is going to happen. The church has a substantial increase proposed in size which to Mr. Strong would generate additional people, or at least the ability to accommodate additional people. It may not be there now, but with the addition the possibility is there. Once it is done, it's done. You can review special use permits, but Mr. Strong would be very surprised that once it is granted, unless it was abused greatly, it would not be lifted. Abuse would be very difficult to show. The people on that petition are looking to the Planning Commission to review and to not grant the special use permit at this time. Mr. Kondrick asked, if there were no more than 3 or 4 cars there, and he realizes that could mean 20 people, and with off street parking, how would Mr. Strong feels about it. Mr. Strong stated he would be opposed to any use as a church even if the cars are limited and modification to make the house look like a church was denied. Mr. Barna presented a hypothetical situation of a salesperson for a home-based company who held regular meetings at their home which could include as many as 20 to 25 people each week, would Mr. Strong still object? Such use does not require a special use permit. Mr. Strong stated he would, if traffic becomes a problem, the City would hear about it from the residents. Regardless of whether you hear from the citizens or not, the neighbors are looking at a safety factor. Mr. Barna stated the Planning Commission can put restrictions on with a special use permit, but a home-based business cannot be restricted. There are restrictions on employing others in your 2J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 11 home. The special use permit gives the City a handle on it so staff can restrict the parking on the site, and can even put on architectura2 restrictions which cannot be done on a normal home. That is the idea of a special use permit being required for a church. A question is that the City Attorney is not sure if staff can legally put on those restrictions. The idea is to get as much as you can and stay within the law. Mr. Barna agreed that he would not want to see a big "church" structure put on that lot, but whether or not the Commission can restrict a monastic chapel or chapel uses is the question. The Jehovah's Witness hold Bible meetings and/or prayer meetings in their homes and there are no restriction on that. Several persons stated that in that situation the persons are still paying taxes on their property and maintain a main church building. Mr. Strong stated that the tax exempt status is still a question. A public hearing is to get public opinion which is what the neighbors are here to do. The Planning Commission also needs to look at the best use of the property. The decision must be made whether this is a legitimate use of the property. Mr. Kondrick stated that residents' input is valued. This exchange brings out ideas and viewpoints that are very important. Father Magramzn stated he had two comments. He is quite a distance from Mr. Strong's house. There is another church in the area that cauld make noise. Also, the tax exemption has nothing to do with the permit. Ms. Shelley Garber thought it would be lovely to have these people as neighbors. The parking would not affect her because she doesn't live on the street. The tax exemption is a problem. She wanted to know what a monastic house is. Has the house where the Brothers live been changed into a church? Who lives at the house? Father Magramm stated they pay taxes at the other house. The Brothers have a house chapel there which is small. Mr. Kondrick asked Father Magramm to provide a definition of a monastic house. Father Magramm states a monastic house is a place where monks or nuns live, similar to a rectory or convent. Ms. Garber asked if any were employed. Father Magramm stated yes. The sisters do volunteer work at nursing homes and hospitals. Ms. Garber stated that other churches in the community are also tax exempt and have services for the community which benefit the 2K PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 12 community. She wanted to know from the sisters, if they were there and did have a monastic house, how would they contribute to the neighborhood? Mother Victoria stated that she had not yet moved permanently to the house on Hathaway Lane, but hoped to do so soon. For 10 years she has been living in a similar monastic house in California. The main purpose is the monastic life. The first purpose is a prayer life. They contribute to the community in non-specific ways. They are not dedicated to one type of work. They have a house full of people that live monastic life and do what comes. In California, it turned out to be a lot of work with old people, helping with transportation, filling out Social Security forms, living with them for a few weeks while recuperating, this is work that developed with the needs as seen. It is not as if the Sisters have a charter. Ms. Garber asked if Mother Victoria had had a chance to evaluate the needs here. Mother Victoria stated she had personally been here a very short time and had met very few neighbors. So that is something she had not yet had time to do, but hopes to do so in the future. Mr. David Matlock stated he had recently moved into the neighborhood and has a 4-year-old son. One of the things that attracted him to neighborhood was that it was very quiet and secluded. He had heard the comments about the off street parking, and agreed that the driveway could not hold more than 4-6 cars. That T intersection is very nasty which he found out Iast winter when he almost broadsided a car coming down the hill on glare ice. Mr. Matlock was afraid that if there was a lot of off street parking with cars on both sides of the street, it would make the lanes very narrow. Because there are so many kids, any increase in traffic could be hazardous to the kids. In addition, it was stated that there is a chapel in the house at 991 Hathaway Lane and asked if that needed a variance. Was that house modified? If not, why modify the house at 1201 Hathaway Lane? Father Magramm stated they use a room in the basement, and they did not modify the house. They want to modify the house for their church furniture and icons. The front would be a type of extension. Mr. Matlock stated it does change the look of the house dramatically from a single family dwelling to an obvious church. If the Brothers and Sisters are going to lead a monastic life, why is this necessary? � Father Magramm stated they want to have a certain look. Mr. Matlock asked if they had plans to modify the home at 991 2L PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 13 Hathaway Lane. Father Magramm stated they did not have plans to modify the other home. Mr. Matlock stated he did not have a problem with these people as neighbors. He had noticed an increase in traffic since last summer. He had had people stop and ask directions to the church. He wanted to voice his opposition to this and felt the change will stand out dramatically. This is a single family home and, if the church wants a place for nuns to live, Mr. Matlock did not see why it needed to be modified for use as a church. Ms. Wolfe asked if they would be notified of the issues that the City Attorney is considering, such as whether it is a church or monastic home. r Mr. Kondrick stated this will come back to the Planning Commission again before goinq to the City Council. The Planning Commission will have another meeting and make a recommendation prior to this item going to the City Council. Mr. James Wolfe stated there seems to be a contradiction between monastic residence and applying for a tax exempt church status. Which is it going to be? Mr. Kondrick stated that is crux of the problem, and that is the area that the City Attorney is researching. Mr. Wolfe stated he was not sure the parking will be the way it now is. The hill is very dangerous at that intersection in the winter. There is no stop sign. Drivers have to get a little run to get up hill and slow down for that corner because it is blind, and take off again. There are a lot of cars in the winter that go past that hill probably faster than they should trying to get home. Ae is not convinced that the traffic will stay the way it is. He does not care for the change architecturally in the front of the house. Ms. Juli Evers stated the church's backyard meets her backyard. When she first heard about the request, she was quite concerned. She has four young children and was concerned about what the church might be telling the children. Ms. Evers was relieved to know it was a Christian organization. She moved into an established neighborhood so she would know her neighbors. She was opposed to a church. They were invited to an open house and were the only ones who went. They were there 1 1/2 hours and had their questions answered. If she could pick neighbors, they would b.e at the tap of the list. They are quiet, she has not noticed that they have been there for 8 months. As far as the tax purposes, she thought that if the neighbors are concerned about taxes, they should look also at larger churches that are not being taxed. This is minute in comparison. She belongs to a church and appreciates the status �� 1'1 I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 14 they have, and was sure these people would also. Parking, if it could be restricted to only so many in the driveway and no street parking, it would be okay. However, she has garage sales on her street on Fridays that line the street which also makes traffic patterns which can be just as often as church services. Ms. Evers has no objection to them being there. She was not sure that she would agree to the structural change in front. She had done a complete turn around since she was notified. Ms. Driggins stated she would like to comment on the traffic. She asked if the members would be physically looking at that area to see what the neighbors are looking at. The Commission members stated they had driven past the intersection. Ms. Driggins stated she has been a victim of being blind sided and near missed many other times in that area. She asked to have square footage of the lot clarified. Ms. McPherson stated the lot is 9,600 square feet. Ms. Driggins stated that the minimum for a church is 15,000 square feet so without any further additions on that property it is already overbuilt, so to speak, for the land. Mr. Dahlberg stated not as a residential property, but as a church yes. Ms. Driggins asked then if the addition has any impact. Mr. Dahlberg stated not with respect to building setbacks and lot coverage. Mr. Kondrick stated the setbacks from the side may need to be changed to allow a special use, but the Commission is not considering that at this time. Ms. Carol Eppel stated she had no problem with the house as it presently is. She thought the size of the property and taxes were an area the neighbors should deal with. She thought the neighbors are fortunate that this has comes up. Any neighbor could paint their house any color they want and she couldn't complain. She stated that, since this is a small residential area, she would not like front of house changed to look like a church. She did not move to the area to live next to a church. She did not oppose the activities that are there now. She wanted to know, .if a special use permit was granted and activities became a problem, could restrictions be put on? If the permit was granted and if something came up, do the neighbors no longer have any rights to say this is something that is an disruption to the neighborhood? 2N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 15 Mr. Kondrick stated a special use permit can have as many stipulations as necessary to protect the welfare and look of the community including restricting the number of cars, etc. There are certain setbacks that would need to be changed with a variance. If they did not comply, the City has the right to ask them to stop. If they didn't do that, the City can deny the special use permit so they can no longer function in that way. Ms. Garber asked if a monastic house is tax exempt. Father Magramm stated the house has been paying taxes all along. Mr. Matlock asked, if on street parkinq was restricted, can the church then pave the front yard for off street parking. Mr. Kondrick stated no. Mr. Barna stated that the only way the church could possibly gain additional parking on this lot would be to move the garage to the rear of the lot, to within code, but if there is a pipe there, there could be problems at that point. The church is pretty well limited to what they have unless they were going to move the garage. This would be very expensive to increase the parking. Mr. Saba stated that one thing that could be done is to put up no parking signs on either side of the street. Ms . Sherek stated this would af fect everyone' s parking in the area . Mr. Saba stated, if that is a hazard, it may be something that should be looked at anyway. Mr. James Legatt asked, if the City restricts the parking and parking was a problem there, the church would move the parking and then it would be a concern of his. It would also be a problem that people do come down Regis Drive fast. If there was a restriction on parking, then it would probably affect all of the neighbors on Regis Drive. Mr. Kondrick stated this is just discussion of ideas and has not happened yet. These expressions will be forwarded on to those tho make the final decisions later on. Ms. Alice Ebel stated she understood that the larger gatherings are held in Dinkytown, except on Sundays. Would the meetings then be held in the house? How many would be attending? Father Magramm stated that if he stated "except", he�did not mean to. The members meet in Dinkytown on Sundays at 601 13th Avenue which is a large complex owned by the University Lutheran Church of Hope. The church has used this facility for the main church gatherings. He stressed that the major qatherings would not be at 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 the residence. Ms. Ebel asked who would using the monastic chapel? PAGE 16 Father Magramm stated there are 20 in the congregation. Unfortunately, not everyone comes to church every Sunday. Take that number minus four, and the number that attend regu�ar services in Dinkytown, that means there would be about 8 people that might come. Ms. Cherle Pedersen asked if the Brothers already had a home on the end of Hathaway with a chapel, ar►d now you need another home with another chapel. Why did the church need two homes for one chapel for eight people? Father Magramm stated the chapel at the other end of Hathaway is in the basement, is very small and is used for storage. The church wants a chapel at 1201 Hathaway so it can be on the upper level. Ms. Pedersen asked, if you are going to have a chapel at 1201 Hathaway, then would you go back to paying taxes for the other home. Father Magramm stated they have always paid taxes on the first home and will continue to do so. Ms. Pedersen asked if they then will move congregation to this facility. Father Magramm stated they are not moving the congregation to this home. They are moving pictures, icons, and the Sisters into 1201 Hathaway. The difference is to move a chapel to a living room space. The house at 1201 Hathaway is larger home than the other one. The other chapel is a small room in the basement. Ms. Pedersen asked why physically change that house for only eight people. Father Magramm stated that was the purpose of the open house. They wanted the neighbors to come so they could answer questions. Anyone is welcome to come at any time to see what they are doing. The chapel is very small there. It is as living room space and they want to expand it to have enough room to put the painted panels that they have on the walls. Ms. Pedersen stated that churches are set up to increase congreqations. When this is done to a home for increasing congregations, it is not conducive to the neighborhood quietness. Father Magramm stated he understood that concern. He aqain stressed that any large gatherings that are held for dinners, 2P PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 17 Christmas, etc., would all be held in Dinkytown. If the neighbors had not seen problems up until now, they wouldn't in the future. Father knows that churches want to grow, but this church is not planning to grow at Hathaway Lane. Any growth will be at Dinkytown. Hathaway Lane is where they want to have a prayer life and a chapel in the home. The Sisters will live in one home and the Brothers in the other. Ms. Pedersen stated she nearly had an accident at that intersection and with additional traffic and cars parked at that part there would no way to stop accidents on that corner. Residents know to , watch that corner, but others are not going to know and that will create a problem. Ms. Jule Bagaason stated she lived next door to the parcel. They have lived there 1 1/2 years and chose the home for privacy. They had lived in apartments and duplexes and bought the house for privacy. They do not have privacy with additional people and an addition that will look directly into the backyard. There is a huge cross nailed on front of the house which has caused some problems with traffic on that corner from those who drive by, stop and back up to take another look. Changing the look of the home will on2y complicate the problems at that intersection. Ms. Bagaason feels as if she is losing what they have worked for and would want to be compensated. Ms. Eppel stated they were not given notice of this request. When something like this comes up, she would like the City to notify the neighbors of the change. She would like to recommend that all those who have signed the petition be notified on further happenings. Mr. Matlock asked if the addition they were planning over the existing deck, to enclose deck for chapel, why not put a chapel on back of other house. Father Magramm stated that the structure at 1201 Hathaway is the structure that they want for a bit more room and because they have chosen not to do so on that property. Expansion at that property would not be feasible. Councilmember Jorgenson asked if the property that you are planning to modify would be used for weddings, funerals, baptisms? Father Magramm stated the addition is to expand 18 feet. In the past four years, they have had one wedding and one funeral. The funeral was held in the funeral home and the wedding was held in Dinkytown. Councilmember Jorgenson asked if they planned to have baptisms, weddings, etc., at this location. 2Q PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 18 Father Magramm stated they may have a baptism. He did not think they would have a wedding or a funeral. Ms. Jorgenson asked if it was correct that the a special use permit was to bring in icons for chapel. Father Magramm stated they want to expand for icons. Mr. Strong asked to clarify that the Dinkytown chapel will be used for special events. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Dinkytown facility will be used every Sunday for worship. Ms. Strong stated they had conflict with their open house. Taxes are not a problem. The property was not going to affect her property that much. She had no problem with the beliefs and way of their life. Ms. Strong did not buy property to live near a church. She did not want not live across the street from any church. Nor did she want to live across from a residence that looks like a church. Mr. Ned Thompson asked if the special use permit would allow the City to put on more restrictions on the property than the present building code would allow. Mr. Kondrick stated yes. Mr. Barna stated there are things you could do a house that they would not be allowed to do. You can put an entrance on the front of your house or a deck on the back as long as you don't exceed the lot coverage or eliminate 25$ of your backyard or 25 feet from the back lot line. The restrictions here are with the special use permit, but on the residence we don't have those. You would have more flexibility through the building code than through the special use permit. Mr. Thompson stated that, if a special use permit could restrict the front of the house, this could then be better for the neighborhood. Ms. Karen AZlard asked how many wilZ be living in the house. Father Magramm stated no more than 5 persons. Ms. Bagaason stated that, if she wanted to live next to a church, she would have bought a home next to a church. She feels it is no longer her choice. She stated that they did not want�to live next door to a church. Ms. Sherek asked Father Magramm, in looking at the plans, was there going to be a structure to the entry for the chapel which is 2S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 20 the option to do the changes. Mr. Dahlberg stated that he thought, if the City Attorney renders a decision that a special use permit is not required, then potentially that is the case. OT ON by Paul Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:15 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated the information presented would be reviewed and an opinion rendered by the City Attorney. At that time, all of the neighbors would be re-advised the next meeting. Before the Planning Commission would be re-discussing this, he would presume that the church would be discussing ideas presented during the meeting. Father Magramm stated he was glad to have met their neighbors tonight and appreciate the neighbors' recommendations. They will do whatever they could to make everyone happy and comfortable. They did not plan to give out any more information. Anyone who wished to see the chapel and house was welcome to do so at any time. They will answer the neighbors' questions. Father Magramm stated the neighbors should feel free to be their friends. Mr. Dahlberg asked for informal discussion. It would be useful if the Planning Commission could bring up other issues that the City Attorney could use as he rendered an opinion. In summary, there are several issues that need to be addressed relative to parking and traffic; use of this facility as a church, home, monastic residence, or combination; and the tax exempt status. He felt that the tax exempt status was not an issue here. Any home owned by a church facility for its pastor is tax exempt or can be, so he did not feel this was an issue. Mr. Dahlberg thought that there was several things that should be addressed relative to not only use of the facility but also relative to its appropriateness in the neighborhood. Mr. Dahlberg heard and agreed that this home should not have a character architecturally that is different from the rest of the neighborhood. He would be hard pressed to vote for any kind of a project where that type of entrance was used. The architectural design must be very sensitive to the neighborhood. He thought it would be in the best interests of all concerned to remember that this still needs to be resolved. Mr. Dahlberg hoped that the Planning Commission and the neighborhood could all look at this objectively, and he thought that the use of this facility as a residence can remain that irrespective of potentially not allowing the addition. Mr. Dahlberg thought a church was a good neighbor and could remain so if this should not be allowed as a worship facility. 2T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 26, 1989 PAGE 21 Mr. Saba thought the Planning Commission should also take a look at what could be there. In his neighborhood, a house was sold and turned into rental property. The people that live there party every weekend and there are 15-20 cars on both sides of the street. A church can improve a neiqhborhood and there are benefits. Mr. Saba agreed regarding the front of the building. The architecture should be compatible with the neighborhood, and he would oppose a structure that would make it different from the other homes in the neighborhood. There may be a more compatible feature that would be okay. Mr. Barna stated that basically anyone can build a front porch on the front of the house not to exceed 10 feet into the front yard without designated design. Anyone could expand their house as long as they did not exceed the side yard, rear yard, lot coverage without a special use permit, with a building permit. That is all that is needed for the front porch and for the covering of the deck. With a special use permit, the design can be restricted. If the Planning Commission did not issue a special use permit, the architectural design cannot be restricted. A cross on the front of the house cannot be restricted. There are controls under a special use permit, but these expansions would likely be allowed for an R-1 house. Ms. Sherek stated there are concerns being expressed regarding parking and traffic. If indeed the number of people attending services averaged 8 to 12, she did not believe the traffic was going to be significant. Parking in the neighborhood is a problem. When looking at the house last week, she found that all along that street it was hazardous to have cars parked. She did not think that the impact of having 3 or 4 more cars on Sunday would be a significant change. One concern is that anything placed in the front yard that attracts attention or stops traffic. She would see that as a hazard. If the house is really like a convent with a chapel, then she didn't see that as a serious problem. However, if it became a primary church, then it becomes a problem. Mr. Kondrick asked when this item would be coming again before the commission. Ms. Dacy stated the tentative date for the Planning Commission meetinq on September 13th. All those who have signed the sheet at the meeting and those who siqned the petition will be notified. Mr. Kondrick thanked all for coming to the meeting. All are welcome to come back to the September meeting to re-discuss the issue. Mr. Barna stated that the related variance for this property is scheduled for the Appeals Commission on August 22. This item would be tabled at that meeting. 2U PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 22 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to re-open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:30 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit, �89-11, until review by the City Attorney and for further discussion on September 13, 1989. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba to close the public hearing. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC IiEARING CLOSED AT 9:33 P.M. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Ms. Dacy stated staff prepared a potential outline for the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Analyzing what is in the Comprehensive Plan now, essentially outside of the goals and objectives, there are three to four pages left. The recommendations are summarized on page 3A of the agenda. There are issues that are larger in scope and issues for 90's, which will be expanded and could be discussed in the overview section. When staff is done with the plan, staff will re-write the Overview section. The intent was to get comments on the outline for the Land Use chapter if there is anything the Commission wants to see done in this chapter. Mr. Barna asked if staff intended to make up a large map which gave a listing of major parks, major businesses, and more or less gave the utilization for the entire city and a zoning map designating zoning areas. Ms. Dacy stated staff would be doing the land use plan through the land use process once staff gets a confirmation as to what land uses should be where. Staff will identify any inconsistencies between the land uses on the land use map and zoning map. Then, as staff proceeded, rezoning would occur to make both maps consistent. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the outline on 3b and 3c were the same as the present land use plan. Ms. Dacy stated this was completely different. The existing 2V PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 23 Comprehensive Plan stated what the existing land use inventory was, it had a map identifying major commercial centers, had an existing land use map, and a few pages on goals and objectives. Under II, the Existing Land Use Inventory was being significantly expanded. The City would be talking about apartment densities, townhouse densities which would help in making future decisions. Mr. Dahlberg requested a change in wording under II. D. to read "Public/Semi-Public". Mr. Barna asked, regarding II. H. Inventory Bliqhted Areas, how , would staff determine what is a"blighted" area? Ms. Dacy stated staff will use the State's definition of substandard. Mr. Dahlberg suggested having definitions incorporated into the introductory statements. Mr. Dahlberg requested additional information about VI. Visual and Aesthetic Policies. Ms. McPherson stated the City Attorney has recommended the City adopt the Urban Design Standards. Mr. Saba thought Fridley already had these. Ms. Dacy stated the standards were being re-done. Mr. Dahlberg asked if what was done was not adopted. Ms. McPherson stated the only standards were those that had been generated by the City Manager's office. There are some problems with the language and procedural questions so they were being reviewed. Mr. Dahlberg thought the standards seemed excessive. Design standards can be defined and incorporated without being excessive. The City can run into difficulty if the standards are too specific. Ms. Dacy stated these design standards would be for commercial and industrial zones, and the City is looking at an ordinance in order to enforce these standards. OT ON by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to accept the Land Use Chapter as outlined with the changes in wording as noted. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the plan was on schedule. 2W PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 24 Ms. Dacy stated staff and the Planninq Commission were pretty much on schedule. Through the end of the year staff will be presenting outlines identifying what needs to be changed. The first draft is expected to be printed at the first of the year. 4. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHURCHES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Ms. Dacy state both commercial and industrial districts are being looked at in consideration of this ordinance. In looking at the existing churches, staff found that St. Williams is located in a commercial zone. Staff came up with the recommendation for a commercial district that a free standinq church could be allowed. If it was part of a multi-tenant building, staff would consider a special use permit with several standards attached and included in the ordinance. Mr. Barna stated the Code presently allowed in an M-1 district a certain area for recreational facilities for support of the M-1 use of that particular property. By that definition, how can staff say that a church would not be included. What is a church? Ms. Dacy stated that staff had to go by the definition in the ordinance. What staff told Steiner Development was that if the word assembly was included in the M-1 language staff may have had an interpretation issue. Mr. Barna stated that a church could be considered a service. Ms. Dacy stated that a church did not fit into the code definition of service. There was no room for any interpretation for a church. Mr. Saba indicated that the definition of a service has changed over the years. Mr. Barna stated that any business that did not produce a product was a service. Ms. Dacy indicated that in some cases the interpretation may be taken that these are office uses. If the office uses are in an M-1 area; they are related to the facility, and typically these uses are not in commercial zones also. Mr. Barna stated that, if the Planning Commission opens up the ordinance, all sorts of things could come up. Ms. Dacy stated that, if the Planning Commission looked at the list of standards and most have standards, one could be trying to make something work that should not be. Mr. Barna felt churches could be allowed in commercial districts. but he was not in favor of altering the M-1 and M-2 to allow uses rt.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 25 over and above what is out there. Mr. Dahlberg felt that, if this was allowed, there would be so many restrictions and stipulations, that it may not make any sense. In terms of location, hours of operation, not being able to do certain things on the premises at certain times, if there was a way you could cover every situation or occurrence, then it may be acceptable, but does it make sense to have those stipulations. Mr. Kondrick agreed. Ms. Dacy stated there are some of the opinion that there are not enough negatives to not allow an ordinance amendment. Mr. Dahlberg stated that John Uban is a consultant who works for communities. Does his recommendation reflect only his clients' wishes. Ms. Sherek stated there didn't seem to be a lot of strong arguments against this particular church. But in other circumstances, it could be much different. What the Planning Commission could see is what the Planning Commission saw tonight. There are enough other places for churches to go. If the purpose of an industrial zone is to locate together so roads, etc. are together, the City shouldn't take another use and put it there because there is room. Mr. Saba agreed. Once the City starts allowing other uses in industrial zones, the City takes it away from industry. Mr. Dahlberg stated, that by the same token, you take it away from other districts. Mr. Saba stated people are really upset with the amount of industry there is in the City and the City is lucky to have it zoned and located as it is. There are different levels for industry. Commercial is less objectionable. Mr. Dahlberg stated that commercial is higher traffic at different hours and is not as predictable as industry. He felt it didn't make sense to have churches in commercial areas. It didn't make sense to put churches in residential districts. He thought it made more sense to put them in industrial rather than commercial. Ms. Sherek felt the character was more similar to commercial. Ms. Dacy stated the only similarity staff came up with was the assembly. What was the difference between that and a church? A church could have a daily service. Are we hurting available land, the tax base, and industrial growth. The City could say there are. hazards in industrial areas. Mr. Dahlberg suggested creating a new district. �i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 Ms. Dacy suggested an institutional district. PAGE 26 Mr. Barna stated an industrial district could then be restricted to only manufacturinq. Ms. Sherek stated that is what our industrial area was originally meant to be. Our society is moving away from industrial. Mr. Saba stated that heavy manufacturing is moving out of this country. Services and light industrial is what is now being done in this country. Ms. Dacy asked where would institutional districts be located, at the edge of neighborhoods. The City may also just come full circle. Ms. Sherek stated that the kind of churches we are seeing are not the "main line" community churches. These new churches want a existing facility for small congregations. Ms. Dacy requested a motion, if the Planning Commission agrees or disagrees. Staff would then take the amendment back to the City Council, discuss it and see if they want a public hearing. Mr. Barna requested this be tabled until the comprehensive plan is more complete so it can be included in the plan. Mr. Dahlberg agreed since this is not an issue right now. Ms. Dacy stated there was no pressinq need at this time. Staff will try to follow up and get direction. Mr. Saba stated he did not want to drop as much as postpone as part of the comprehensive plan. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to delay action on this until it can be included in the Comprehensive Plan. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. Saba left the meeting at 10:25 p.m.) 5. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REDUCING THE RE4UIRE� REAR YARD SETBACK ON CORNER LOTS FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET Ms. McPherson stated this is in response to several rear yard variances within three months. The reason staff is proposing this is that often times when 2ooking at a survey on existing houses, there will be three or four interpretations on which is the side, front and rear yard. It makes determination of the rear yard 2Z PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 27 difficult if not impossible. Staff looked at other cities (chart on 5B) and the only language would be an addition to the rear yard definition in R-1 which states on 3A there is to be an addition that the rear yard on corner lot would be 10 feet. Ms. Dacy stated that language would be added that, on a corner lot, a rear yard will be 10 feet. A definition of a corner lot is in the definitions. Mr. Barna stated the zoning definition is confusing. Ms. Dacy stated that what would happen in the case where a house is situated with the front on the long side of the lot, the long side becomes the front and the opposite the rear. There is still a definition needed to define the front. It comes down to two front and two sides. Ms. McPherson stated the setbacks between living structures would be 20 feet. There could be a living space 10 feet from the property line and an attached accessory structure 5 feet from the lot line. There is the issue of detached accessory buildinqs which is 3 feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Dahlberg asked if 2 detached buildings could be within 6 feet of each other? Ms. McPherson stated yes. Ms. Dacy stated the other option is why change it. Staff could keep the language as is and continue to handle it through variances. Mr. Dahlberg asked if a person could state the front yard or does this cause difficulty. Ms. McPherson stated it did. There was one variance where both corner sides had a 35 foot setback. There was also a variance request for a garage and there were 3-5 interpretations that staff could determine through the address file. That can be a problem. If a house is frontinq the long side, the code states the short side is the front. Mr. Dahlberg stated that sometimes the maximum is reached and nothing more can be done. Why did the City have to bend? Why couldn't the City just say we don't think you need it? Mr. Barna stated the code cannot cover everythinq. Codes are general. � Ms. Dacy felt the issue is whether the ordinance was frivolous or was there a need. Staff was of the opinion that it was worth while to pursue. The City could continue to process variances and look 2AA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 28 at it on a case by case basis. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there was a way to change the lanquage so that there still are front and side yards on a corner lot and make it easy to determine even though the house orientation may be inappropriate. Ms . Dacy stated the rear yard setback is which is the side yard dimension. Both streets are front yards and both interiors are side yards. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to concur with the Appeals Commission action for front and rear setback requirements on corner lots. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION C�IRRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 10 1989 This item was tabled for the next meeting. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1989 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the July 18, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 1. 1989 MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the August 1, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: Senior Housing Memorandum Central Avenue Corridor Memorandum Ms. Dacy stated these were information items and referred to the respective memorandums included with the agenda. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn the : : PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1989 PAGE 29 meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE AUGUST lb, 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � UTYOF fRlDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: C011ILMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART'MENT MEMORANDUM August 17, 1989 ��. William Burns, City Manager,� Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #89- 08, for an Automotive Repair Garage at 7570 Highway 65 N.E., by Keith's Auto Body Attached is the staff report for a special use permit request for a repair garage at 7570 Highway 65 N.E. The Planning Conunission recommended approval of the special use permit, subject to nine stipulations. Staff recommends the City Council approve the special use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. BD/dn M-89-489 2C _ 2DD � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE ��OF PLAPN�NG COMIIMSSION DATE : May 17, 1989 FIZIDLEY CtTY COI�IqL DATE August 16, 1989 A�� gD/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA S1ZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES 8� ZONING ��$ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL lMPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WRH ADJACENT USES 8� ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATiON APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SP ��89-08 Keith's Auto Body and 7570 Incorporated To allow a repair garage 7570 Highway 65 N.E. 1.2 acres N/A M-1, I.ight Industrial North, M-1, (Lampert Lumber; South, R-4 (mobile home park) East, C-2, commercial; West, vacant industrial. The site is not serviced by sanitary sewer. N/A None. Yes Yes The site is serviced by a septic system. Approval with stipulations. 2EE Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 2 REQUEST The M-1 district requires a special use permit for a repair garage. The petitioner is currently operating a repair qaraqe in the building at the rear of the site. The current tenant, Keith Poppenhagen, was unaware of the special use permit requirement when moving into the building since previous repair establishments have operated from the building. Staff has permitted the continuation of the petitioner's operation until the conclusion of the special use permit process. BACKGROUND The two existing buildings on the subject parcel were built in the late 1960's. The property has been zoned industrial since 1963. The City's building permit file indicates that a repair garage was located in the second building at the rear of the site in 1983. Since that time, three other auto body and repair operations have occupied the building. The City has attempted on several occasions to require a special use permit for repair activities as required by the M-1 district as well as to work with the property owner to make the necessary improvements to the property as required by the City Code. The property has changed ownership several times within the last six year period and has complicated the City's enforcement effart. The ownership issue also appears to pose an issue in this application. The current owner, 7570 Incorporated, stated they purchased the property in December 1986; however, because of several mortgage interests on the property, the title has not been cleared as to who is the fee owner of the property. One of the mortgages was authorized by Midwest Federal, and because of their default, the property owner has to work with the bank's trustee. The petitioner has indicated that it may take several months to resolve the issue. The property owner is claiming that he is unable to make the commitment to improve the property as required at this time, but would consent to a timetable of compliance. The property owner has also indicated that they would prefer to prioritize the building improvements prior to making the necessary site improvements. ANALYSIS The petitioner has indicated that he employs approximately three persons. Destroyed or junk vehicles are received at the site, and then stored at the south end of the building. These vehicles are stripped for parts and used on other cars for repairs, or are refurbished. Also at the south end of the building are piles of junk and debris 2FF Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 3 not reloated to the petitioner's activity, but to the other establishments on the site. The storage of materials in this location as well as at the south end of the other building on the site, constitutes a code violation. The City has been unsuccessful in securing compliance with the various property owners and tenants. The area between the two buildings is not paved nor is the site lined with concrete curb. The bituminous surface in front of the first building extends to the service road pavement. Further complicating the site is that the sewage from the two buildings is being handled by a septic system. In 1984, Anoka County determined that the septic system was failing. At that time, it appears that the tank was pumped and the area cleaned as much as possible. Connection to City sewer was investigated with City staff but because of the cost of the improvement coupled with the change of owners, connection to the sewer was not consummated. There are three alternatives to connect into the sanitary sewer system: 1. Sewer exists to the south within the mobile home park; however, these sewer lines are private and permission must be granted by the mobile home park. Further, the proposed length of extension from the mobile home park to the two existing building may be too long for a simple service connection. A larger line and manholes may be necessary. 2. A connection across the Lampert Lumber property to the north is the second alternative. An eight inch line and manhole is located between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco property. An easement would need to be obtained from Lampert Lumber and their pavement would have to be reconstructed and replaced. 3. The third alternative is to extend the eight inch line from the manhole between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco station to the Highway 65 service road, then south along the service road to the front of the subject property. The estimated cost for this alternative is $27,000. Approximately $10,000 of this work would be to replace the bituminous mat of the service road. In the interim, the septic tank should be removed and replaced by a holding tank which should be pumped on a regular basis. There is no effluent surfacing in the small drainfield area located in front of the building. Apparently in 1984 the systeni failed such that the drainfield area was not treating the effluent properly. Although there are a small number of employees in the two buildings and these two areas are not used regularly by the traveling public, the septic system must be replaced. A holding tank can be 2GG Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 4 installed and pumped on a regular basis until the sewer connection can be made. A copy of the pumping contract should be submitted to the City to ensure that it is being pumped on a regular basis. L�1�JVIV��1�� It is imperative that the property be brought into compliance with the City Code. Staff has prepared a modified site plan to illustrate the needed site improvements. The City Attorney has also advised that the property owner put into writing the details regarding the title of the property so that it can be researched by the City and verified for City Council review. RECOMMENDATION The subject property, with or without the special use permit for the repair garage, needs to be improved to meet code requirements. Typically, staff would not recommend approval for a special use permit with the number of outstanding code compliance issues. The current tenant, the petitioner Keith Poppenhagen, appeared to be unaware of the problems with the property. He was also unaware of the special use permit requirement because of previous occupancies by other auto repair businesses. Staff has developed a list of stipulations with a timetable for compliance. Staff also recommends that the special use permit be reviewed on an annual basis in order to gauge progress on the stipulations. If progress is not being made, the City can revoke the special use permit and initiate court proceedings to gain compliance. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit, SP #89-08, to allow a repair garage at 7570 Highway 65 N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1990. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by August 1, 1990. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of buildinqs and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn 2HH Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 5 area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed by September 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by June 1, 1990. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of construction. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on an annual basis. 9. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit for a repair garage, subject to nine stipulations. The Planning Commission amended staff's recommended stipulations by changing the compliance dates. The amended stipulations are as follows: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1991. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by August 1, 1991. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of buildings and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 6 of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed by November l. 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by January 1, 1991. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on November 15, 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve special use permit, SP #89-08, for a repair garage at 7570 Highway 65 N.E., subject to the Planning Commission's recommended stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1991. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by Aucxust 1, 1991. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of buildings and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be comQleted bv November 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by January 1, 1991. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January l, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of construction. 211 2JJ Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 7 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on November 15. 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. 9. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. 2KK �LANNING COlrIIrIISBION li�BETING, 1LAY 17. 1989 - PAGE S storage of a boat, and they would like to have the hardsurface requirement postponed until next year. The Commissioners had no problem with Ms. Henqel' request and agreed to extend the hardsurface stipulation from ept. 1, 1989, to June 1, 1990. Mr. Betzold suggested that if the petitioner oes not know where the lot line is in relation to the new driv ay that he have the property surveyed. Ms. Dacy stated that because the be located 3 ft. from the lot permission from the adjacent nei lot line. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded hearing. Code pr ides that driveways must line the petitioner must have �hbo to put the driveway at zero Ms. Sherek, to close the public IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTII� AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLliRED THE MOTZON CARRZED IINANIMOIISL)t: OM TION by Mr. Kondric , seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP �89-07, by Paul J. Hengel, per Sectio 205.07.O1.C(i) of the Fridley City Code to allow a second cessory building on Lot 7, Block 4, Bonny Addition, the sa being 5932 - 6th Street N.E. , with the following two stipulation : l. Th access to the accessory building shall be rdsurfaced and shall be placed at the zero lot line. he access shall be hardsurfaced by June 1, 1990. 2. The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing house. A VOICE VOTE, �LL VOTING �l�YE, CSAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE IN CARRIBD IINANIMOOSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-08, BY KEITH'S AUTO BODY: Per Section 205.17.O1.C.(9) of the Fridley City Code, to allow � a repair garage on that part of the East 46 acres of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said East 46 acre tract distant 623.5 feet South of the Northwest corner of said�East 46 acre tract; thence South alonq the West line of said East 46 acre tract 161.63 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract 538.98 feet, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Hiqhway No. 65; thence 2LL pLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, 1�SAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 6 Northerly along said Westerly right-of-way line 161.63 feet, more or less, to the intersection of a line drawn from the point of beginning and parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract; thence West parallel with the said North line 538.73 feet, more or less, to the point of beqinning, the same being �570 Highway 65 N.E. MoTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE � CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. Ms. Dacy stated this property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. To the north and west is M-1 zoning (Lampert Lumber), to the south is R-4 (mobile home park), to the east across Highway 65 is a mixture of C-3, Commercial, and M-1 zoning. Ms. Dacy stated this property has an extensive building permit file. There are a number of code compliance issues that staff has been trying to work on with the property owner. Also, the ownership issue plays a role in this case in that the property has changed ownership on a number of occasions in the last six years. In fact, there have been repair operations in the second building toward the rear of site since 1983, and the file contains correspondence from City staff to property owners at that time to make them apply for a special use permit for a repair qarage as required by the M-1 district. Ms. Dacy stated Keith Poppenhagen, the petitioner, of Keith's Auto Body, was unaware of the special use permit application process. Upon coming to the office for a routine visit, staff discussed with him the necessity of having a special use permit. Staff also contacted the owner of the property who is represented at the meeting. Ms. Dacy stated the main issue with this property is the number of code compliance issues that need to be conducted on the site: 1. There are no paved or hard surface areas between the two buildings on site. �� 2. There are a number of piles of junk and debris, not necessarily related to the repair operation. 3. There are setback issues. 4. There is pavement in front of the buildinq all the way up to the lot line on the sides and to the front. 2MM PLANNING CO24sIBBION liEETING. 1�l�Y 17 , 1989 - Pl�GE 7 Ms. Dacy stated that also of major concern to the City is that the property is serviced by a septic tank, and the drainfield for that septic tank is located in front of the first building. Zn 1984, Anoka County determined that the septic system was failing. At that time, the property owner worked with the City to look at connecting the property to City sewer. There are three alternatives to doing that: 1. Sewer exists to the south within the mobile home park; however, these sewer lines are private and permission must be granted by the mobile home park. Further, the proposed length of extension from the mobile home park to the two existing building may be too long for a simple service connection. A larger line and manholes may be necessary. r 2. A connection across the Lampert Lumber property to the north is the second alternative. An eight inch line and manhole is located between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco property. An easement would need to be obtained from Lampert Lumber and their pavement would have to be reconstructed and zeplaced. 3. The third alternative is to extend the eight inch line from the manhole between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco station to the Highway 65 service road, then south along the service road to the front of the subject property. The estimated cost for this alternative is S27,000. Approximately $10,000 of this work would be to replace the bituminous mat of the service road. Ms. Dacy stated staff has tried to put together a list of stipulations that would bring the property into compliance with the ordinance and to work with the property owners to achieve a timetable for compliance. The current property owner states he is willing to agree to a timetable but wants to prioritize the necessary building improvements before doing any site improvements. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP �89-08 with the following stipulations: . 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by Auqust 1, 1990. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by August 1, 1990. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 1dAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 8 2NN 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of buildings and either stored within the buildinq, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn area maintained in a neat fashion. Al1 semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed by September 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by June 1, 1990. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of construction. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on an annual basis. 9. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. Ms . Dacy stated that because they do not know the status of the septic system, staff is proposing a holding tank be �nstalled and . pumped on a regular basis so they would not have to be concerned about the effluent coming out of the drainfield. Then, looking at a long term approach, of eventually connecting to the sanitary sewer. Ms. Dacy stated the owner, 7570 Incorporated, is at the meeting to e�tplain the complications with the fee ownership because that has an impact on when they can achieve the site improvements. Mr. Poppenhagen stated his business has beer► in this buildinq since November. When he was in the process of buying the site, he called the City to see if he needed a permit, nnd he was told he did not. It was not until he came into the City offices that he found out he did need a special use permit. 200 PLANNING COMMIBSION ![EETIldG, l�I�Y 17 , 1989 - PAG$ 9 Mr. Mike Thompson, 7570 Incorporated, stated the person who leased the building before Mr. Poppenhagen applied for a permit but did not follow through. There are vehicles outside the building from the previous tenant that Mr. Poppenhagen is trying to qet rid of. There are no certificates of ownership on these vehicles so it has been difficult. Mr. Thompson stated the whole building is a mess, and it is qoing to take a year to get everything straightened out. He stated he is one of the owners, but there are some real problems on who really owns the buildinq. He stated they bought the building from a company that went defunct. The company that had the building has a C.D. on it. The first mortgage is handled by Midwest Federal, and the C.D. is owned by a company that went bankrupt. Since Midwest Federal has the first mortgage on the property, it is being handled by United Mortgage; F.D.I.C. is handling the first mortgage, and anyone who wants to buy the building has to go through F.D.I.C. to say they own it. That is what they are up against now. He stated that at this point they do not know who owns the building, and after being told what needs to be done to the building, he is not sure they want the property with all these stipulations. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Thompson if there were some stipulations he did not agree with. Mr. Thompson stated the first thing they would like to do is make the offices and warehouse space livable--putting on a new roof, new garage doors, painting the building. The new sewer is absolutely mandatory, and new electrical service into the front building. So, they are looking at $100,000-130,000 for just the building improvements. Mr. Thompson stated he was at the meeting with Mr. Poppenhagen to get the special use permit, and they will have to let the courts decide who owns the building. Mr. Betzold stated if 7570 Incorporated did get clear title to the building, are there any stipulations that are problems? Mr. Thompson stated before he can look at any of the stipulations, they need to know who owns the buildinq. If the building comes back to them, then they are going to do the improvements to the building he mentioned earlier. As far as the debris, Mr. Poppenhagen will help take care of some of that. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Poppenhaqen if he was willinq to clean up the area around the buildinq and put up a new fence. 2PP �LANNING COMMISSION 1�IEETING� l�IAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 10 Mr. Poppenhagen stated he would get that corner cleaned up, although the fence miqht be a little more of a problem. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending until September 1, 1989, to have the area cleaned up of debris, inoperable car parts, pallets, semi-truck trailers removed, and a six foot fence installed (stipulation �3). So, the petitioner has almost the entire summer to get it done. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLZC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:22 P.M. Ms. Sherek stated she thought there were two different issues here. This whole area is a disaster, and Keith's Auto Body has little control over the whole building. She thought all the stipulations should be struck except stipulation #3. The rest of the code enforcement issues should be pursued with whoever the owners are. Mr. Saba stated he thought the stipulations should all be there, but that the timetable be pushed out farther than August 1, 1990, so it gives some time to get the ownership issue settled. Ms. Dacy stated she understood what Ms. Sherek is saying that Keith's Auto Body by itself is not causing the code compliance issues, but the necessary parking and landscaping improvements are all typical requirements for the operation of any establishment for any special use permit. Keeping the stipulations with the special use permit will help the City keep track of the code compliance issues. One year from now if the property owners cannot make the deadlines, they can always request an extension from the City Council. Staff is strongly recommending the nine stipulations remain with the special use permit request. Ms. Sherek stated the only stipulation of immediate concern is the septic tank issue and the timetable of January 1, 1990, for the installation of a holdinq tank. It might not be a big issue if this is another dry year, but it could be a big issue if they have a wet year. Mr. Thompson stated they have been pumping the septic tank on a reqular basis, and it seems to have cured the immediate problem. He aqreed that last year was an exceptionally dry year; .and if this is a wet year, they will have to pump it weekly. Zf the City wants the septic system removed and a holding tank installed, that is a lot of capital. Mr. Saba stated he did not want any stipulations removed, but maybe they should put some priorities on the stipulations. He saw ! !� PLANNINa CO1rII+IIBBION 1dEBTIN6. !�t!►Y 17, 1989 - P�QE il stipulations #3 and �5 as high priorities. He sympathized with Mr. Thompson's situation, and he did not think they should force all these improvements by the dates set forth by the stipulations. Mr. Thompson stated he wants Mr. Poppenhagen to get his special use permit. He wants the buildinq occupied, and he wants the ownership issue settled. The roof repair has to be done right away, because they are losing a tenant because of the leaking roof. He cannot see putting $50,000-60,000 into site improvements and letting the building go empty. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in order to allow Mr. Poppenhagen to operate his repair business and to allow Mr. Thompson time to attempt to find out who does own the buiZding and resolve the issue, it might be prudent for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the special use permit. He did not think they should eliminate any of the stipulations, but they should establish some dates that can be responded to once something has been resolved with the ownership of the building. However, some monies will need to be expended before the ownership situation is settled. He thought the septic system should be dealt with prior to 1991 in some manner, either by pumping the tank on a regular basis or the removal of the old tank and installation of a new tank that will be pumped on a regular basis. Or, the septic system should be investigated to see if there is a potential health hazard. He would like to see the date for stipulation #3 sooner than September 1, 1989. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Dahlberg. following timetable for the stipulations: Stipulation #1: Stipulation #2: Stipulation �3: Stipulation #4: Stipulation #5: Auqust 1, 1991 Auqust 1, 1991 As soon as possible January 1, 1991 Same as recommended He recommended the or August 1, 1991 by staff Mr. Saba stated he agreed stipulation �5 with the sanitary has high priority. Ms. Sherek stated she thought an evaluation of the present septic tank system should be done right away. Ms. Sherek stated regarding stipulation �8, she would recommend the special use permit be reviewed by City staff on Oct. 1, 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. Mr. Betzold stated he had some real misqivings about this special use permit request, even though he is sure Mr. Poppenhagen and Mr. Thompson are doing the best they can to make a bad situation work. He stated he did not think the owner situation is going to be 2RR pLANNING CO1�iI88ION I�IEETZNG, I�iAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 12 cleared up quickly, and the potential owners such as Mr. Thompson are not qoing to want to pour money down a hole in the interim. He stated he is prepared to vote aqainst the special use permit, because he believes that in this case the City's best interest might be served by trying to force the issue--shutting the building down and, if needed, condemning the property. He did not feel any optimism at this time of qetting any of these code violations cleaned up. Ms. Sherek asked if the City Building Inspector had inspected the site, particularly for things like the leaking roof, the substandard wiring, bad furnace, to the point where the building might have to be tagged with an eye towards condemnation. She thought that should be done right away, and this special use permit request tabled until such an inspection is done. Mr. Barna agreed. He stated he is very uncomfortable with this substandard property. It could easily be a health hazard and a fire hazard, and it is located very close to the mobile home park. He is uncomfortable with any businesses being in the building without knowing the condition of the building. He stated the ownership is unknown, and no one is going to put money into improvements at this point. A possible condemnation action might straighten the mess out. OTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to table Special Use Permit, SP #89-08, by Keith's Auto Body, and to direct staff to complete an on-site inspection of the property at 7570 Highway 65 N.E. for a full determination of the code violations and safety hazards on the property. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, HETZOLD, SHERER, BARNA, SAHA, DAHLHERG VOTING AYE, RONDRICR VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE l�SOTION CARRIED BY !� VOTE OF 5-1. Ms. Dacy stated this item will probably be back before the Planning Commission in one month. New notices will be mailed to the neighborhood. 4. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #89-09. BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY: Per Section 205.18.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley Ci ode to allow �.� commercial retail, with a motor fuel s ion/car wash, on Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. , the same being 7295 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, sec d by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the readinq of the public h ing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICB VOT L VOTZNG 7►YE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED TSE 1[OTION Cl�RRZ IMODBLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEl�RZNG OPEN !1T 8:50 P.M. � � .� ;� � ,��,i �� A P Rr J..,_�..o, r � �; , �..,..`.... (wN) L� i1� I b 3 2� I t'��? g� �� / �. ' ��.� � ' �<! lA0 IT�ON I i� o,, .,,� : • ,_ � � � �... � ,. �.... ., i ;, �F. c � �zoo. � . _ �j /4f � � I _...�===�,:...... I ;: ;t�o; r �rr t 6 � I ;� ,�� , -- . �,� , , �, i ' ; /��o „ (3 5 0) �. �. y ��' L�✓f � J, �t ^. .. .�.�twr 8..,. I ; r�ca• ,•i ' '�n ` 1 I D ,r "ev I'I I ? �s. I� I i ��_ � '! �', iJ5 ' Oi o; � /3 ' i Z! � v � 'w- »oa; .I ; ' - {' '__ Q, _-T _ • -�-_ >. (qcJ�l � _� _ , �� ,� F 1, ' ' '=�I �� tn t o" aa) � Y�, i o: �: Z i �� js i�,l �� , W '� . �E �I - �� x ' ►- Q F��a; �, m a � ta,, >�i t- I ,QC�� QI � ±r ` � li .�� ` � � +.11i T � � ¢ , � , / • I � nJJ� � I ?�' �, .�„ .�= I s,r 2� � �, .. � �, , �r�� i� �JO) ` I �'� �s � ' . I p� (P (n 'M 'S01 I \ � 1 3 +il iLOJ1 ` � I �° ; : .: � ; i . y, ., • - Sc, , 230.� ♦ I � • � ' ��n = ` 6 '. ' � pW `(",)oo) I 'Sa I ri� � Z t2.._ , 27 ' d� N � 4• �___ • e _ �—. ----t— � .� —.°� 23 SP ��89-08 Keith's Auto N //2 SEC. /2, C/T Y Of FR/C, ,-, 2 �_, Z I ; M/� �QO�p . wi T�'�v� - 6 • •= gR a ` s - - - CR1( i��. =i ; - � li � j �/L � ,/e0�� '• 3 Z k`'+$'_n. , 5+ . w �ncc7 � M� � J � , r _.... I ✓,,. a (r' t , � -Z�� !,S) .,.,.,,. I , s�%• I � � '- DEVELOPMENT Y R �,,> r 1s i �'pF �_ , � iA;, . . _ � _ � , -z • � � I ,,. �, :M ! ... � ✓ it iry G : .G y. �. w !. i t>s t . ,.,, ,�.", .. •� ' c 1 ....i+�. � � „ � � � � ,LO� -�` • � d /6'} i �. �.� � /.i� .' W � ! ��S -- — — �: . _.�_ , iwrs:..�N��/-JC•.i �'. 'zyf � �,.- b ..o� '•� �? '� � �'� FI � :pIRE51 I ..`;� 4 "" '� �:.�. . :�.... .v. <i' i., I � J � I ` -i ' WAL� CEIVTR.4L ; t,..�_.iMANOR ,. t W : " Y/EW � � , Y , �,� 2� �� ADD/T/AN , � ` 1 .... i I t � ; �` � �_ I � � � I (�) Vl1 � � � � �j s ' � I�P (A'i �1) l )�` � ' ' � `� s�. f a ( ��olli�ii '�N��•�I-•�� '.: ° �. . P I � � �s i \ ' 73 1/2 AVE. N.E. � �; � ''�7.� � �� l�' r" r K H�� MAM ii N� y t�'�'R A+°' ;� .o.. 11 � 9� 3 ♦ S f 7 B �� -� '. J N.•S ' -��,-,•- � �T I -.✓- ' ' ._ , —craf[w�-L'� 24 13 LOCATtON MAP T .a' a � JI.MUJL �� ' S � . • i ' ' + �' 1 s � 76TM. AVE. i :;� a z I is � � . � � � . 1'. /� rs'. , .1 i � �'. . � .. 4 .•�. L aN j ' 4 iJ � •f• 0 ; � �4 .a : a� ��: ,d B � " i � I 1 7S TH AVE. N E. , �r^ �: / :'�•: � I � � E � _' 2/ 3 ' � 1' 4 -� S 2. � S I•;�: .� � : S � • .;�. �`^ ? 1� :� .� '7C1 ' ' j Il � �.'.'r i �_ - • IZ � � �P. � � Z_ � e �� • —i � _ � 4J .� � .'�' 1L � _ • ,'1 '�': ai . iI � ? ,,��m -- �� F ✓ O��L- ' ,a �►�. 1, �` p�` � f �. j//////i�//��/i�/// �V///. /i '� � .s C�--� �--�.--�Sr � �, ! � �Y �r � P�� '�• L /� .^� � t a �' � ',O �,�„_� �, � � �, � �, E� a , � � �� `�`'' �. t ' :� � �, �t �' �. � � �4,..� � ,-., �o,� `'--' •�� - � -� 4� � tD � Z � a 3 _ c� _ � SP 4�89-08 .. ACllll o auw .�T �� j / j ZONtNG MAP � _ m � i I �Q J i � � � � i � I � � I ; � �, ,, � �� m .� � � g �� 1 T� � � � � � 7 I SP �689-08 Keith's Auto �`�v s i � � ., � � `a 3 � �� W � W � d � � a � 0. z J �Q � ) .0 d z� � z � � � � Q � "'I —i m � � J� � z�- a �'�� Y� Z $ "�W; � �� s � > � � � r � J O 0 I n � � > � �� {1 � � � � � � �� PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS �, � � unroF F� �� C011I�MUN[TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMOR.ANDUM DATE: August 17, 1989 1.'� TO: William Burns, City Manager� �� 2VV FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planninq Assistant E SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Revision The Planning Commission discussed the Comprehensive Plan revision at the July 12, 1989 and the August 16, 1989 meetings. The Planning Commission discussed the following issues: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Review Process Length of the Planning Horizon The Plan Approach Land Use Map vs. Zoning Map Metropolitan Land Planning Act Issues for the 1990's Preliminary Outline of the Land Use Chapter To follow is a brief discussion of each of these issues and the Planning Commission's decision. 1. Review Process The Planning Commission chose to implement the following schedule: A. Identify items to revise in each chapter - July 1989 to January l, 1990 B. Prepare drafts of each chapter - January l, 1990 to July 1, 1990 C. Conduct informal meetinqs with neighborhood qroups (block captains), Chamber of Commerce and other qroups. �►lso include ward councilmember - August 1990 to September 1990 D. Conduct public hearings - October 1990 to November 1990 2WW Comprehensive Plan Update August 17, 1989 Page 2 E. Revise draft per Planning Commission direction - November 1990 F. Establish City Council public hearinq - December 1990 G. City Council conducts public hearing - January 1991 H. Revise plan per City Council direction, determine need for another hearing, and/or adopt revised plan - February 1991 I. Submit to Metropolitan Council for review and approval 2. Length of the Planning Horizon The Planning Commission recommended that the Plan have a ten year planning horizan. 3. The Plan Approach The Planning Commission recommended that the Plan contain a corridor analysis approach similar to the approach that was done for the Central Avenue Corridor study. The Commission stressed the fieed to have a pro-active plan which can identify strategies which can be implemented in a realistic timeframe. 4. Land Use Map vs. Zoning Map The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to create a Year 2000 Land Use Plan. Through the Comprehensive Plan update process, the various land uses in the City will be updated and any changes should be made during the Comprehensive Plan process. After the Plan adoption, the City could then pursue rezoning of properties that are inconsistent with the Year 2000 Land Use Plan. 5. Metropolitan Land Planning Act The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires municipalities to update their Comprehensive Plans when the Metropolitan Council has amended the Metropolitan System Plans. The Metropolitan Council has made significant changes to both the transportation system plan and waste water policy plans. The Metropolitan Council has also adopted a new Metropolitan Development Investment Framework (MDIF). The MDIF acts as the Metropolitan Council's Comprehensive Plan. The City has to identify by January 1, 1990 chanqes that need to be made within the Comprehensive Plan and notify the Metropolitan Council that the City is in the process of amending its comprehensive plan tc be consistent with the overall quidelines contained in the MDIF. 6. Issues for the 1990's The Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary list of major issues which will occupy a large amount of the discussion in the 2XX Comprehensive Plan Update Auqust 17, 1989 Paqe 3 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission recognized that during the revision process, more issues will likely be identified; however, they agreed that the following issues were goinq to be major issues in the 1990's. Those issues are: A. Light Rail Transit B. Solid Waste Policies C. Changing Demographics of Fridley's Population D. Aging Housing Stock E. Blighted Residential, Commercial and Industrial Areas Which Should be Redeveloped F. Proper Balance of Land Uses G. Target Best Uses for Vacant Properties 7. Preliminary Outline of the Land Use Chapter The Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary outline for the Land Use chapter. Between now and the end of the year, staff will be providing proposed outlines of each chapter for the Commission review. This will act as a quide for staff's research and policy discussion for each of the chapters. At the beginning of 1990, draft chapters will then be developed for the Planning Commission and City Council review. The proposed outline for the Land Use chapter is attached. The Planning Commission also agreed that the chapters should either include within it a socio-economic discussion or a separate chapter should be created to provide basic demographic statistics about the City of Fridley. BD/dn M-89-498 . __ j 2YY � PLANNING DIVIS ON � MEMORANDUM cinroF FRlDLEY DATE: August 11, 1989 TO: Planning Conunission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planninq Assistant SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update At the July 12, 198� meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to review the Overview chapter and the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and to recommend changes that should be incorporated into the revised draft. In reviewing the Overview chapter, we determined that the intent of the Overview chapter was to summarize the goals� policies and strategies in each of the Plan chapters. Therefore, at this time, we will identify issues that will be addressed in the Plan chapters and return to the Overview section at the completion of the Commission's initial review of all of the chapters. Pending Issues for the 90's Staff identified major issues which will need to be addressed during the Plan review. Undoubtedly, there will be other issues that will come up during our tesearch. 1. Light rail transit. 2. Solid waste policies. 3. Chanqing demographics of Fridley's population. 4. Aging housing stock. � 5. Blighted residential, commercial and industrial areas that should be redeveloped. 6. Proper balance of land uses. 7. Target best uses for vacant properties. Land Use Chapter Until we have completed an updated inventory of the existing land 2ZZ Comprehensive Plan Update Auqust 11, 1989 Page 2 uses and performed other analyses, we will not address the goals and objectives that are currently in the Plan. Our research may determine other goals or may dictate that the existinq qoals be revised. We have identified the following items that should be updated in the Land Use chapter: 1. Subtracting the pages dedicated for goals and objectives, there are only seven pages analyzing the City's existing and future land uses. This is a significant chapter. We recommend updating the land use map shown on page 1-9, the comparison table on page 1-10, and inclusion of a year 2000 land use map. 2. Each type of land use identified on the existing land use map should be defined and discussed. The residential uses should be divided into single family, low density, medium density and high density. There should be guides in the Plan for densities for each of these areas. Along with each definition of the land use categories, an analysis of the acreage and their relationship to the overall land use balance should be analyzed. Business and commercial uses should be further analyzed as to redevelopment centers, transportation impacts and location adjacent to residential uses. 3. Land use strategies for each area of the City similar to the work that was done with Old Central Avenue should be included in the Chapter. In this way, when future land use proposals are reviewed by the City, the plan truly acts as a guide as to whether or not the proposal is consistent or contrary to the Plan's goals. The Land Use chapter should also contain policies for implementing some of the land use recommendations such as rezoning of properties or redevelopment policies. 4. The Plan should contain a map showing existing vacant parcels and recommendations for potential land uses for each area. 5. A socio-economic discussion should be added either within the Land Use chapter or separately to introduce the concepts of population, employment and its relationship to land demand and consumption. The Plan should act as a guide to basic socio- economic data. Typically, this information has been included in the Housing chapter; however, it deserves to be highlighted early in the Plan text or in a chapter of its own so that it can be easily referred to when needed. We have prepared the attached outline for the Land Use chapter. Please review the attached and make any comments. BD/dn M-89-470 2AAA LAND USE CHAPTER OUTLINE I. Zntroduction II. Existing Land Use Inventory A. Residential 1. Single Family 2. Low Density 3. Medium Density 4. High Density B. Commercial 1. Office 2. Neighborhood Commercial 3. General Commercial 4. Shopping Center 5. Multi-tenant buildings C. Industrial 1. Light 2. Heavy D. Public/Quasi-Public E. Parks/Open Space F. Inventory Vacant Parcels 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industrial G. Nonconforming Uses H. Inventory Blighted Areas I. Redevelopment Areas III. Define Land Use Goals and Objectives IV. Analyze Neighborhood Areas A. Reevaluate Perceived Neighborhood Map B. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area = � = Land Use Chapter Outline August 11, 1989 Page 2 V. Analyze Commercial and Industrial Corridors A. Identify Corridor B. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area VI. Visual and Aesthetic Policies VII. Zmplementation Strategies A. Update City Codes � B. Redevelopment Projects C. Systematic Code Enforcement � � UTY OF fRIDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: C0�1/lMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M EMO RAN D UM August 17, 1989 William Burns, City �� Manager �' zccc Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Ordinance Amendment Reducing the Required Rear Yard Setback on Corner Lots from 25 Feet to 20 Feet Attached is the memorandum reviewed by the Appeals Commission and the Planning Coiamission regarding amending the zoning ordinance to reduce the required rear yard setback on corner lots from 25 feet to 10 feet. Both Commissions unanimously recommended that the City pursue an ordinance amendment. Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Commissions' recommendation and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to be considered by the Planning Commission, the Appeals Commission and the City Council, which would amend Section 205.07.03.D.3, to add the following: (c) The rear yard of a corner lot shall be ten (10) feet. BD/dn M-89-491 1 �� , ;1 • . • �' cl) F�ront Yara: A front yard With a depth o� not l�s thar► thirty-five (35) feet is required, e�ocept as noted in Section 205.04.4G. (2) Side Yard: (a) A side yard of ten (10) feet is required between any living area and side property lir�es. (b) A side yard of five (5) feet is required between an attached accessory building or use and a side property lire e�ocept as stateZ in Section 205.04.5.8 (2) and (3) . (Rei. 888) (c) Corner Lots: ((1) ) The side yard width on a street sioe of a correr lot shall not be less than seventeen and one�-half (17.5) feet. ((2) ) When the lot to the rear of a corner lot has frontage along a side street, no accessory building on the acrner lot within twenty-five (25) feet of the cumbn p�operty line shall be closer to said side street than thirty (30) feet; prwic3ed hvwever, that this regulation shall not be inter�eted as to reduce the buildahle width af a aorner lot to less than twenty-five (25) feet. ((3)) Any attached or unattached accessory building which opens on the side street, shall be at least twesty-five (25) feet from the property line of a side street. (3) Rear Yard: �� , �'��fV.�,�!/1 �� / �� U �L � C%� � ' (a) A rear yard with a depth of not less than twenty-five peraent (25$) of the lot c3epth is required with not less than twenty-five (25) feet permitted or more than forty (40) feet required for the main buil ding. (b) Detached acoessory buildings may be built not less than three (3) feet frua any lot line in the rear yard not adjaoent to a street. (�) Douhle Frontage: (a) Zl�e building lines will pre�vail in lieu of rear yar6 requireaerit�. . (b) The setbndc for c�rages and accessoty builclings in the rear yard will be the same as fa a front yard. :_�1� � i;_ ; ��_�1�: :,�: ;r�:� A. eei�t. No building shall hereafter be erected, constructed, reconstr�cted, altered, enlarged, or mwed so as to exceed the building hei�t limit af thirty (30) feet frcm finisbed grade 12/87 � � � � � � :� � � �� • �� i• � �� ti 205.R1-4 / � G1Y OF FRlDLEY DATE: G� FROM: PLANNING DNISION MEMOR,ANDUM June 23, 1989 Appeals Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Change the Required Rear Yard Setback on Corner Lots from 25 Feet Minimum to 10 Feet Minimum in R-1, Single Family Dwelling, Districts As per your request, staff has researched the issue of front yards and required rear yard setbacks on corner lots in R-1 districts. ANALYSIS Staff spoke with planners in communities neighboring Fridley to compare front yard definitions and required rear yard setbacks for corner lots in R-1, Single Family Dwelling, districts. The comparisons are illustrated in the chart (attached). As illustrated by the chart, the communities neighboring Fridley have similar definitions and setback requirements, with the exception of Blaine, who recently changed its zoning ordinance. 2EEE Staff proposes that the Appeals Commission consider an ordinance amendment to reduce the required rear yard setback on corner lots to ten feet for living space and five feet for attached accessory uses. These requirements would allow the defined rear yard to function either as a rear yard or as a side yard, contingent upon which frontage the structure faces. In the instances of the most recent variances to reduce the required rear yard setback on corner lots, VAR �89-05, VAR �89-10 and VAR �89-09, all requests would have been unnecessary with the proposed rear yard setbacks. In addition, the proposed rear yard setbacks would also assist staff to interpret when the defined rear yard is actually functioning as a side yard. This occurs in instances where the structure faces the longer frontage. Staff requests comments and direction from the Appeals Commission on this proposal. IrIIri/dn M-89-354 2FFF __ � � �► � � '�� W � � w G E� �n � c� in �c1 � �w a N � 3 - d � � • +� � � +i � i� O A �aa w w w w w w 3 � p E. �- o 0 0 � o o � �+ Hw � � � � � � N �� d � v a -� G aG � d d d � .G 3 a� � w w w w w c � a� Z o � � e��i ov y,�,� � Gl a+ ,C C X � '� � 0.a1 i� i� � J� i� i� J-� -^� -��I E uWj w w w w w w w C+ � � �l a � N n N N ri N '"� O �� fa . 01 3 w U O �p .� � D4 Gl d Gl a1 Ol d �1 � 0 w z� w w w w w w w 3 NA O E� tn 1c1 1c1 �c1 �n 1l1 �11 �A 0� ka, � en eh e� � en N c� c� � O a 3�+ U � Z H � � � } � � � i� � +� � +� � 3.i U o Cro Cr��+ Nwd Nwd tnwd mwa► �lw�l d drtf c�H�a -�+>, o ro a�o� a�ou+ a,oa+ a�oa� a,o�+ �o ,v� >+ E-� �+-+ N•• �. 3 �s 3 b 3 u3 3 b 3 b H a n� � w �n o.c � o r�+ o�+� o.c +� o.c �� a� -•�+ ar E+ 2 W 'C � 'Gf d !•� �� ir �� i�+ � C i.i i� � f�+ �� R� U a N Z►-+ z O O�+ 'O 1.� 'O O L� 'O O 1�+ 'C O L+ 'C O 3.� '� O -•� Rf A o w �x o s� � ro -� � -•� N A -� � A -•� �+ � •.� �+ A -•i � � w +� fx C U z w >+ tn Z 3�++ Z 3 w+ Z 3 w+ Z 3�+ Z 3`N w ro � w O�L+ d� � O� N C e� -CC04! z i � � c c .•, .c .. o� a,+� N a aa � �' � � c c► m x a�i i �r b �'°" �AHv a� .� .� o+� o x a� c-.+ -•� o H �c �o o c o�+ �-� o a w�e H ,-� .-� w a, �+ �a o a� o a a� � U GC1 00 R� U R1 W U� V 04 V) � �c 2GGG RO�LD F. MEYER L�ND SIIitQE?OR �..w s..«s.n+� sv.o�v..�o.. oe.�sN . Ts�sr..or+t 771.s�� f Jtl�t ST. ' �T. �aiA.. Ml�IK is101 I he�eby certify that this survey wos p�epored by me ond thot i om a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stcte of Minnesota. • j-- Ila�sab� r 4� 198�+ Reg. No. 9051 Dcte : /i/i . L� c. il7a� /a /9� .. . ; �� $Cil�t 1� s j0• �7 � -ti 97•3 .. � � .� �� s �~ �r � � s 1 � �s. � 1� � e ° ,, � N � 1 ` �� 1 ,� i^ � �e 1 �� D . .� 30 . :. � 1y7 �� i2s 9B �, � I �•� � i 1 �I I sy� ;s; � ''� + I •.: , .� o � � '^� Z y� p �� j d�� , b � ,N � I � ? � o o �2.3 � � �; � w� o f',E !/f./i��/ �iE1�► � i - - —';;—�,��o� _ 62.32 y t3 ,,�. � �,.iy�"'" � �4� � � '� K � ARK L ANE ~��- � C% � It�dicat�s �iro�n �o�a�nt plac�d Lot 11. Hlock 2. �RIDGS� �aoka Iii��oL. � � 1 ` � 30 � � 4C Q' � N E. S ITE PLA N •.-_"'� �l�I r tI �►�II/II Nss M:�.+� w..�s K �. �M� fr+�+f"q � • ( r:ww�q�l.� � s«� r..�:.� (' �I�!'/11I'P%IJ/�� • 1��'. �;... s�•» c:.i� t..��....:..� t�er.u• 1�..��• �»j►•� �»«jN Ea�in��r• 1� Bur�eyors �^' �'�' •'� Mort�a�• Losn survey tor iRiAIIACE NEISON ; � . D c: � � �'� N`ERCURY DRt� C 1� � ��- .� ; � 4•?, �� w i � � ,, U e ; ' � W V � ` K M w , 0, � K0� ;• ' ♦.-. . ♦ O I r w � = � � ' 1� o � FDUNDATtON _ � 3 �? � � � ONIY ~ I W � , . . ... > 1� o '�1C � � � .' � � . ,.�s � •�• 1• tn z . �c J = W � � ; , � ' � = � .� , �. � ��,� ��+, � ut;uy� � � f�� fo�rmN/ ��,��T�y��• � U M Z9.95 � "�aie: �":30r�� .Y �1UGU5T,1974 LoT 1, 6�ocK 2 � SYLVAN . N 1 ll5 PLAT 4 �r,o�c�► oa,�r,r 1A:s i� •�.w w� s.NS� wMw��:r �• w�.�f M�M M�wM.w� � w Iw/ �w� iNS.iM1 �/ d dw i�sN:w �1 �1t ir:itiMy :� w!� �w.e�w. r./ �tf �IsiN� Ms�clr�� M�� I.N. �. � wi/ M�. tl.is s.•w� w �N �wl� i� eMw��i�w �iN � rr��M IM� r� �� INs� �w w�.N�►�� r li�ili�� i� ��w�� •u� � N» 1»1M N ws� Mr�� • w� MI� :w�n�1 �a��iw� ►� �A� n�s�w d��A w�rh�. It i• wi•►w�� A� w, ��ww�.�s w.� M�• �Ik�1 N. �M �rMw M�Ylis►iw� b1 liw�� w M�� s�rs�s. MM/ N:� '�� I�L �. 1�� t1�tll�t�Y SYR�Ytt��Yd •Y� SITE PLAN ��ro tv�v�••i+• : ; ' • � f�Q/'!'� � JOIIIISUII ��rrve or s Certificar�e � t SSOCZa eS •�Lt:[Y :�0�,- !i.s�� . � ;• ' r ` � �� rC• •�t. •�v�w �. � � . ��w�t��t�• t�. �tw�la�Ot• � TYtt�O ••L1�• MARRr f. JOMNfON �0t1lI�T / M[RCCrfN 1 s' N _� A `O / * �� L. w: ��.►�- /'i r i .__'� � I �+�L/ I /� r � � ?----- -� �� i -�. � % !�_ it.�:, � �. ,� , .i. .� � i% � � � � . =� f �.. a �. � . . �� : -- .:,`R • . � . . . . ;,. . - , � � u,. � � �--. ; .. - ( , � 0 0 _- -. , .�. - ' - - -�.-- _ �•_ �'.,�, �- — -- � . „.: ��ty.. . . � � � i' {::ti• s� . r`. - — i . :». , r :. , • ,.}ti.'.,:.. � �' i� • . i� _=t- i �. - :•• _ • �.:' i -• . •�-�. _ ".-O � sF .� . �{. ._ ., . ' f `O .- - -• �. t� -..:% .i i�_�c� ��•� � - • ' `- 'f� . '��''� . .�a� _ � .= . . .t � •.�:r Y �,�.�� _ . . , r �. �• � � ti• ..r y� ♦.', .,.t... . � _�'�: : _•�i�i'� _�rT� . �s , s:� . � �� •f•� .- '.��. �_ ' —^•� rL.��,��• "♦ �.' �- � � u' �//1� ��_ . �•.� � 's 1 • ' -.riti.• • i - • �..�; .. �+. i ti.. .�� 7 ,? � t � i i'. ��' " 's! . � -, �'�t� ,� . i`,•�' '�: - • -:- '. ' �. -•.'� i• �� V� �y t%O�t t%1�irt_i� a l�t+tt .ortd .CaktGt . e� s, .�+!'!�( o� �� , ��#�l�RDOKU9:F�'�;FR�RC�F �-?��.:�,�D �•��O:M,"Awo�Co�l,`; �_� a,� .. �_ _ . .• � ,,a_. :;_-j�� -�.,,,, �. •:.z r: r. � _ •> > .o/� .0�� Vr. �O�Q�4L Ot � �Mi4�tI'1�4��_� a � ; s/�w+!y�. � � � x . '. . � Ot At�� ii� �,-� ilf0. �Or�� ifl� . �OL'ai.{at*,O� . = .~�pifd� . L•: •' �� • _ - , ' �a :: ' 4 ., � � � t �='�� .1,. � -- �; : _ , ..i� • � • ' � � � -.�� ' �' ': : � ys��,� (i r..��! „'��'�` � frt � r :. ��Yi�/�� +�i�� .�� li��'� �I� Ir �lr ��w �� -'�� a�'•"i ��T��.j��"i`Fi.'*�`'�-- `.: : • , '��:,�. �`:,d.� i* ' • � i .,-.-, • • � '+:•y�.�- ' •-_ ' ��- .� • ` y� .i � J!i —' . 1'� � f� �•��. ' ��3�� _�' ��tt =. •— 9 __ �_.'w_► .., ..... . ' ' - ' SITE PLAN � � cinroF F�� DATE: TO: FROM: C0�1/1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M EMO RAN D lIM August 17, 1989 , William Burns, City ManagerG�i�� Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Sign Variance Request to Zncrease the Wall S�,gnage from 205 Square Feet to 600 Square Feet for a Movie Theater Osborne Crossing, Jerry Farrell Attached is the staff report for the sign variance request, VAR #89-13, to increase the maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign from 205 square feet to 600 square feet, to allow for signage for the movie theater at 250 Osborne Road N.E. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of the sign variance request as recoaunended by staff. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the variance as recommended by the Appeals Commission. BD/dn M-89-496 � 3A � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE August 1, 1989 CI�TY OF PLAN�K' CON��SSION DATE FRl DLEY CRY OOl�1qL DATE �� ►�, G REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONNG ADJACENT LAND USES � ZONNG UTlJTES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS F'�IANCIAL NNPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREi-ENSNE PLAN COMPATBILITY WtTH ADJACENT USES d� DONNG fl�tVN30NMEiJTAL CONSDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMEf�AT10N APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNNG COMMISSION REC�ONNAENDATiON VAR # 89-13 Jerome Farrell Zb increase the maximum allowable square footage of a wall sign fran 200 sq. ft. to 1,185 sq. ft. 250 Osborne Rpad 0 C-2, General Business C-2; C-3, General Shopping; Nf-1, Light Inc3ustrial On si te N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A Approval with stipulations C`l'� Staff Report VAR #89-13, 250 Osborne Road N.E. Page 2 A. PUBLIC PURPOSE: Section 214.11.05 requires that the total sign area shall not exceed fifteen (15) times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed. Public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual pollution and excessive use of signs in commercial areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Movie theaters today are using an art-deco look that requires considerably more signage than even a few years ago. This Iook is merely a response to current consumer demands. While this is hardly a hardship, it does represent a genuine need of a tenant to respond appropriately to the market. General Cinema, United Artist and Cineplex Odeon have all turned to the art-deco recently." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Request The petitioner needs a variance to install signage for the proposed movie theater at the southwest corner of Osborne Road and University Avenue. The sign ordinance does not specifically provide for movie theater signage. The most applicable regulation would be the wall signage requirement in commercial districts. The petitioner is requesting a variance to construct 1,095 square feet of signage including the foliowing: 1. 8- 4 foot x 4 foot poster containers 2. 1- 9 foot x 82.5 foot marquee for advertising current films 3. 1- 9.33 foot x 33 foot vertical sign to advertise "Movies 8" 4. 1- 4 foot x 4 foot readerboard for Perkin's Restaurant Analysis To follow is an analysis of each of the four types of signage: 1. 8- 4 foot x 4 foot poster containers Movie theaters vary as to whether poster containers are placed on the exterior wall of the theater or placed inside the lobby. The total square footage proposed for the poster containers equals 128 square feet. The building elevation drawing of the theater does not indicate the types of framing or materials to be used to Staff 3C Report VAR #89-13, 250 Osborne Road N.E. Page 3 contain the posters; however, the picture submitted by the petitioner indicates a framing material which simulate the design of the theater. If the poster container matches the overall design of the theater, it will help to reduce a cluttered appearance. 2. 1- 9 foot x 82.5 foot marquee for advertising current films While the marquee length is approximately 82.5 feet, the actual advertising of the movies will only occur on the two readerboards on either side of the center of the marquee. The petitioner indicated that there would no advertising or letters placed on the far ends of the marquee. These areas would be illuminated but would not act as signage. Therefore, the actual square footage of the signage will total 324 square feet (each readerboard measures 18 feet wide x 9 feet height). 3. 1- 9.33 foot x 33 foot vertical sign to advertise "Movies 8" The petitioner indicated a signage width of 9.33 feet. When measured on the building elevation plan, the actual width indicated on the plan is seven feet. However, three of the seven feet includes the neon band tubing on the each side of the tower. The band area where the "Movies 8" letters will be placed only measures four feet in width. Because the four foot wide area is used to support the letters stating "Movies 8", this should be used as the dimension to calculate the sign square footage. Therefore, the sign area for this portion should be calculated as 4 feet x 33 feet, which equals 132 square feet. 4. 1- 4 foot x 4 foot readerboard for Perkin's Restaurant The variance and rezoning approvals required the petitioner to obtain cross parking easements with adjacent properties. As a condition of the agreement with the Perkin's property, the restaurant is requesting a readerboard located on the wall to advertise their services. It is the petitioner's intent to locate the sign to the south of the marquee in the same alignment as the movie posters. Given the revisions in the sign area calculation, the total square footage for the project is as follows: 1. 128 square feet 2. 324 square feet 3. 132 square feet 4. 16 square feet 600 square feet 3D Staff Report VAR #89-13, 250 Osborne Road N.E. Page 4 Because the ordinance does not specifically address movie theater signage, the ordinance places a hardship on the petitioner. Ta force the petitioner to comply with the wall signage requirements would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The wall sign requirements were created for a typical retail or office use which has a need only to depict the name of the service being provided. Further, the property is permitted a maximum of 80 square feet of freestanding signage. While the City has not received a permit application for the pylon sign, 80 square feet provides area only to advertise the shopping center and the movie theater, and not to list all of the movie names. Staff also reviewed ordinances from adjacent communities (see attached). The City of Coon Rapids and Brooklyn Center specifically address movie theater signage. The Coon Rapids ordinance requirements were created in the early 1970's as a result of the Village Four movie theater proposal. The maximum square footage permitted for a movie theater by their ordinance is 600 square feet. Brooklyn Center permits a 250 square foot pylon sign and wall signage up to 30� of the wall area. The petitioner's request represents about il� of the wall area. Section 214.21 of the sign code lists the criteria to evaluate for a sign variance: a . That there ar applicable t do not apply vicinity and e exceptional or extraordinary circumstances o the property or to the intended use that generally to other property in the same district. The sign ordinance does not provide specific regulations for movie theaters. If an ordinance amendment was completed, it would be an amendment for one proj ect given the market area for movie theaters . Restricting the petitioner to comply with the wall signage requirements is not appropriate given that the wall signage requirements were created based on a different intent. b. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district; but which is denied to the property in question. Denying the petitioner the right to have adequate signage for the movie theater would deny the petitioner a substantial property right which is permitted for other commercial establishments in the area. c. That the strict application of the chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Staff Report VAR #89-13, 250 Osborne Road N.E. Page 5 As stated earlier, restrictinq the petitioner to comply with wall signage requirements would constitute an unnecessary hardship. d. • The granting of the variance would not be material or detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. Granting a variance will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Recommendation Planning staff recommends the Appeals Commission recommend approval of variance request, VAR #89-13, to permit the installation of the following signs: 1. 8- 4 foot x 4 foot poster containers; the poster container material shall be consistent with the architectural styling of the theater; 2. 3. 1- 9 foot x 82.5 foot marquee; however movie names, times, and other messages shall only be displayed on the 9 foot x 18 foot readerboards on either side of the "Movies 8" tower; 1- 4 foot x 33 foot vertical sign to state "Movies 8"; 4. 1- 4 foot x 4 foot readerboard for Perkin's Restaurant, to be located on the wall facia of the movie theater, and subject to receiving a sign permit. Further, the signs shall be consistent with the plans which are part of the staff report dated 8/1/89. Finally, there shall be no flashing or motion signs. Note: The petitioner has submitted a comprehensive sign plan which will be reviewed by the City Council in conjunction with this request, pending,Appeals Commission action on the variance. APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION The Appeals Commission unanimously recommended approval of the variance as recommended by staff. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the variance request as recommended by the Appeals Commission. � , 3E �� M r p7AVCA ,.S[C u� r�' ' 1 n�ol � �1 {_i .1 J �� i . .� o '' �– . z i„oi 8 � t ----_� —, -- ,.;a, ! 4 .' . � �is:c, i r ' • ♦ � / � � I �_ta r-�i O I r_ °;"� I v � iw� "CO�rtw' " i[C N � . L. f�/ ;• WI . I �`� �. �. . _�r : � : � • '!!D/ � WI =>t•• � ' `� ' --{ _ ' ••.a � " ..fOC/ • I • � �-- J , � � .,.k. � . ,;�f ' , � :, :— ' r�a� � ! � . . Ii�iii __ I �► noso, � • � f � �' �� ' ' � .i�oc� ' � • �iO00.� � DfN + � ,: i '�; � � . --z ��' i '� '� .: ' ,� ,�,�o, i � ,.,�, � '.,: � � � ,. '..�;•� 1 � � . t . ` � �• 1 ~ - 23� VAR 4�89-]3 Jerome Farrell N l/2 SEC. C/ T Y Of 2� _� _�' • _ � .*., �1�� INQJ � -- �J • �` y � 1 , � N � ♦ �' i r�i; Z ;,24 � LOCATION MAP ■ � � . w p�f 19 ' in'' � � n K '. - � _� B� � 1 � . /.` .� �. � �I , � � � / � � � � � � � ,�/ � ,� / � 1/ 1 � � :, .� / ♦ i � ' ! � _/_ , `='T` �� . , :. ~ � . � � � _,�,�i a ��,; � il: � _, ; VAR �i89- 13 Jerome Farrell � ^ V �� f� _ � . . ; z� • •� I S._ �_� �� ' �. � t1 . i� -� . � t _. . -'A. �ir . . � • . � - •— � � j a ;�. `� r' - �: ��.• � e� ¢�/ � � ' • _ : e� _ --- � � sZ _ _ � ` �. ;;� "`1 �._ n --�- � i _ v � c A�T Ta, ` ` z /// _ � , v ', RE�IS�� V � � Q i�//r; �� : 3 LANp. �,: A L' // // • \ �- W / � � s ;-,�� ''/ ! " 1, R y / � S V � � -�%�� % # i�%' /� __ l ; " N '�+�.FoCE C�9dE SJU�w 2 , ��' �� ✓ � �� , �'� /�,+-S � � �' ,,. ; ��:� � !�:� ��/, . ,� �;%. E`� �,,,, • �� _ � ' c � `� � r, �„ ^, .. � t,cl,; ' � f , E,i � `�,,� ., j r i �: '? N � F� ' ' . r .�,_ �� - `� '4,7�R�CT✓ � , �� _ ; ; � � � � ; ` ' J �-, _ � .� U� �� J .i✓ ' . •� s � � !�. f^ ��L � j.�� - �ti .%Qh.'J ��J(`� � '� .�4�Oe ri •i�fLt� • �� `,'�,G`' C 0 M M U 7 Y'�c � iY ,� � r--. � QF � � �; � ►,_; ��.�, � � �� (. � � •�: , 1-..� . :a r'�' �� ,_, L � i . �A�y �' ., i / � `r +�. - '.,� � • v� . �. , • ,� ZONING MAP I -- I f` i� �1 C F i e t #S �i j� � < � � � VAR #�89-13 Jerome Farrell 3H �F � � < � fi � ELEVATION :. VAR 4t89-l3 Jerome Farrell �� r " " � �' �' � - �� ; � � 1 � i ; i � ` . ..._. ..---.. � �� •' ; � '= -::�---------- -- -------- �� - ----- � - - " " .- ii� , . � � � ( _ � e � �' �i3 � ' �' « � e � �� EL�EVATION 31 O-- �� ' �- 1' 't! � ! t t o--fi f � ( i��ii�� - � �: = _- _ _��= VAR 4189-13 Jerome Farrell 3J � � � . i 1 i �� < � W �� 11 � EL�EVATION 3K �PPEALS CO�I88ION ME$TINQ. �UGUBT 1, 1989 pAa$ � 2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTS VAR #89-13. BY JEROME FARRELL (SBF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION): Pursuant to Section 214.11.05 of the Fridley City Code to increase the maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign from 205 sq. ft. to 1,185 sq. ft. to allow for additional signage for a movie theater on Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E. OM TION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa 11YE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated this request is for four sign variances to the City's Sign Code related to the proposed movie theater at 250 Osborne Road (old Cub Foods site) as follows: 1. 8- 4 ft. x 4 ft. poster containers 2. 1- 9 ft. x 82.5 ft. marquee for advertising current films 3. 1- 9.33 ft. x 33 ft. vertical sign to advertise "Movies 8n 4. 1- 4 ft. x 4 ft. readerboard for Perkins Restaurant An analysis of each of the four types of signage was included in the staff report. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding #2, the petitioner indicated a signage width of 9.33 feet. When measured on the building elevation plan, the actual width indicated seven feet. However, three of the seven feet includes the neon band tubing on each side of the tower. The band area where the "Movies 8" letters will be placed only measures four feet in width. Because the four foot wide area is used to support the letters stating "Movies 8", this should be used as the dimension to calculate the sign square footage. The sign area for this portion should be calculated as 4 feet by 33 feet which equals 132 sq. ft. Ms. Dacy stated the City's ordinance does not address movie theaters. The most applicable requlation was the wall signage requirement in commercial districts. The wall signage requirement is 15 times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed. The intent of that requirement was to allow a typical business to advertise its name, and she believed the writers of the sign ordinance were not thinking of a m�vie theater. Ms. Dacy stated staff contacted other communities and a survey of sign ordinances for movie theaters was included in the agenda. Of 3L APPEALS COMMISSION M8$TING, �OGIIST 1. 1989 PAGE 5 the communities, Coon Rapids and Brooklyn Center were the only ones that specifically provided for movie theaters. Brooklyn Center's sign ordinance is quite liberal as far as signage. Not only does Brooklyn Center allow a free-standing sign pylon sign up to 250 sq. ft., but also allow 30� of the wall area. Using that standard against this proposal for 30�, it would equal about 1,500 sq. ft. If they used Brooklyn Center's requirements for this proposal, the petitioner's request represents about 11� of the wall area. Coon Rapids' sign ordinance allows a combination of wall and free- standing reader board with an overall maximum of 600 sq. ft. Ms. Dacy stated that in reviewinq the criteria in the Sign Ordinance, staff determined that in this case, the ordinance would impose a hardship on the petitioner. To force the petitioner to comply with the wall signage requirements would be inappropriate. Looking at the scale of the signage, staff determined it was not overburdening the site. The petitioner will not be using the free- standing sign to advertise the movie signage. Ms. Dacy stated staff analyzed each of the criteria listed in the Sign Ordinance, and staff's recommendation is that the Appeals Commission recommend to City Council approval of the variance request for installation of the following signs with special conditions: 1. 8- 4 foot x 5 foot poster containers; the poster container material shall be consistent with the architectural styling of the theater; 2. 1- 9 foot x 82.5 foot marquee; however, movie names, times, and other messages shall only be displayed on the 9 foot x 18 foot readerboards on either side of the "Movies 8" tower; 3. 1- 4 foot x 33 foot vertical sign to state "Movies 8" 4. 1- 4 foot x 4 foot readerboard for Perkin's Restaurant, to be located on the all facia of the movie theater, and subject to receiving a sign permit. Further, the signs shall be consistent with the plans which are part of the staff report dated August 1, 1989. Finally, there shall be no flashing or motion signs. Mr. Barna asked if they should siqnage for the theater, but the development. be talking, not only about the sign square footage for the whole Ms. Dacy stated they are just talking about the square footage for the movie theater. According to the Sign Ordinance, the 3M APPEALS COMMI88ION l�gTING, �IIGIIBT 1, 1989 PAG$ 6 Comprehensive Sign Plan is reviewed only by the City Council. Each individual tenant will have to meet the wall signaqe requirements as well as the Comprehensive Sign Plan. Mr. Barna stated all the wall signage for the Skywood Mall and Skywood Inn was all taken together, and since the Skywood Inn took up most of the square footage, the tenants ended up with no wall signs. This is a similar situation with one central tenant with a nwmber of smaller tenants. The signage for the movie theater is already exceeding the amount of square footage allowed for the development. Ms. Dacy stated they are only using the wall length of the theater. The wall leagths for the tenant spaces are exclusive of that, so that doesn't apply i� this case. If the lengths of the tenant spaces were included, the allowable square footage would be a lot greater. It was staff's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance to keep the tenant spaces and the part of the shopping center separate from the movie theater, because they are only talking about the movie theater signage. She did not think it was correct to include that square footage as part of the shopping center, because the ordinance does not address a movie theater. Mr. Barna stated he believed the previous interpretations of the Sign Ordinance for a strip center like this included the whole development. He suggested the City Attorney check the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance before the City Council meeting. Ms. Dacy stated that interpretation is unfair to the tenant spaces, especially in this case. With a hotel, the ordinance is providing for that type of wall signage. But, in this case, there is no mention of a movie theater in the ordinance. Mr. Barna agreed this is a different, but not totally unique situation. He had no objection to the 600 square footage as long as they are not penalizing the tenants' signage. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON Pi VOIC$ VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRPERBON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.l�t. Ms. Savage stated she personally liked the design of the signage. She thought the theater and signage will be an asset to the community. She agreed with the recommendations made by staff, and would be in favor of approving the variance request with those recommendations. 3N �PPEALS COMMISSION MBETING, ��QIIBT 1. 1989 PAGB 7 Mr. Sherek stated this looks like a good plan considering the size of the building and the type of business. Mr. Barna stated staff has changed the square footaqe of the variance from 1,185 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. If the Commission recommends approval of the variance to 600 sq. ft., he wanted to make sure this square footage was for the movie theater only and did not include the signage for the remainder of the strip center. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR �89-13, by Jerome Farrell (SBF Development Corporation), pursuant to Section 214.11.05 of the Fridley City Code to increase the maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign from 205 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. to allow for additional signage for a movie theater on Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. 8- 4 foot x 5 foot poster containers; the poster container material shall be consistent with the architectural styling of the theater; 2. 1- 9 foot x 82.5 foot marquee; however, movie names, times, and other messages shall only be displayed on the 9 foot x 18 foot readerboards on either side of the "Movies 8" tower; 3. 1- 4 foot x 33 foot vertical sign to state "Movies 8" 4. 1- 4 foot x 4 foot readerboard for Perkin's Restaurant, to be located on the all facia of the movie theater, and subject to receiving a sign permit. 5. 6. The signs shall be consistent with the plans which are part of the staff report dated August 1, 1989. There shall be no flashing or motion signs. 7. The allowable square footage is for the movie theater only and does not include the wall siqnage for the other tenants. QPON l�i VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BARNA DECLARED THE I[OTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Dacy stated this item will go to City Council oh August 28, 1989. APPEALS COMMI88ION ME$TING, �IIGIIST 1. 1989 PAGB S ADJOURNMENT• OTION by Ms. Savage, meeting. Upon a voic declared the August 1, at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynne Saba Recording Secretary seconded by Mr. Sherek, to adjourn the e vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Barna 1989, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned 30 � � G1YOF fRlDLEY DATE: TO: C011Ml1lINITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 17, 1989 �'�. William Burns, City Manager �• FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Lisa Campbell, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of 1990 Joint Cooperation Aqreement with Anoka County for the Community Development Block Grant Program Attached is the joint agreement between Anoka County and the City of Fridley to administer the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for 1989-1990. Municipalities enter into these joint agreements every two years. In 1987, the City approved the Joint Cooperation Agreement for the 1987-1988 CDBG program years. The agreement meets the current NUD quidelines and enables both the City and Anoka County to administer the CDBG program. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached aqreement as presented. BD/dn M-89-492 aa ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT between ANOKA COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF FRIDLEY This agreement, entered into this 1 st day of July, 1989, between Anoka County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the "County"}, and the City of Fridley, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency°}: RECiTALS A. The County is an urban county applicant for bfock grant iunds under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act), Pub. L. 93-383 as amended, and will receive block grant funds for the purpose of carrying out eligible community development and housing activities under the Act and under regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Develapment (HUD) at 24 CFR p. 570; B. An Urban County Consortium has been established by a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the County and municipal corporations within the County, the terms of which specify al(ocation of block grant funds to those participating jurisdictions for use in accordance with the County Housing Assistance and Community Development Plans accepted by participating jurisdictions and reviewed by HUD; C. The County desires to have certa+n services performed by the Agency as described within this agreement, and as authorized by Anoka County resolutions tor the purpose of implementing eligible activities under the Act and HUD regulations; D. It is appropriate and mutually desirable thai the Agency be designated by ihe County to undertake the aforementioned eligible activities, so long as the requirements oi the Act, HUD Regulations, state !aw and local taw are adhered to, as provided for herein; E. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation between the County and the Agency, as the parties in this agreement. in implementing such eligible act�vities in the manner described above; F. The pa�ties are authorized and empowared to enter into this Agreement by the LaK�s ot the State of Minnesota. G. The following attachments as listed below are hereby incorporated in this agreement and made a part hereof: -1- PART I. GENERAL CONDITIONS PART II. FEDERAL AND LOCAL PROGRAM REOUIREMENTS PART III. EVALUATION AND RECORD KEEPING Exhibit A- Specific Objectives for 1988 Anoka County CDBG Program Exhibit B- County Board Resolution 85-42 Exhibit C- Co�nty Board Resolution 85-23 Exhibit D- County Board Resolution 86-70 Exhibit E - Project Descriptions H. In consideration of payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the parties hereto, the parties mutually covenant and agree as provided for in this agreement. COUNTY AGENCY Tim Yantos Deputy County Administrator Date: Approved as to form: Assistant Anoka County Attorney -2- (Signature) Name (Typed) Title Date: 4B PART I. GENERAL CONDITIONS SCOPE OF AGREEMENT The Agre2ment between the parties shail consist of the signature page, the general conditions; the federal, state and local program requirements; the evaluation and record keeping requirements, each and every project exhibit incorporated into the Agreement; all matters and laws incorporated by reference herein; and any written amendments made according to the general conditions. This Agreement supersedes any and all former agreements applicable to projects attached as exhibits to this Agreement. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Agency shall periorm and carry out in a satisiactory and proper manner the services set forth in the Project Request Form. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in accordance with the general conditions, for the purpose of adding new projects, amending the scope of work, or for any other lawful purpose. 3. COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF PROJECTS Upon release of project-related funds by HUD pursuant to federa� regulations, the County shall furnish the Agency with written notice to proceed. No work on the rp oiect shall occur prior to the notice to proceed without written approval from the Countv Te�mination dates for individual projects shail be specified in the appropriate exhibits and be in compliance with County Board Resolution #85-23, attached as Exhibit C. Costs incurred after the termination date will not be reimbursed. The termination date may be changed through amendment of this Agreement. 4. ADMINISTRATION A. The Aqencv shatl appoint a liaison person who shall be responsible for overall administration oi block qrant funded proiect(s3 and coordination with the Countv Housinq and Communitv Development Propram. The Agencv shall also desiqnate one or more representatives who shall be authorized to sian the monthlv Voucher and Reponinq Form. The names of the liaison persons and representatives shall be specrfied in the Exhibits. 5. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The County sha11 reimburse the Agency for the services specified in the Exhibiis in an amount not to exceed the amount specified on Exhibit A. Reimbursement shall be based on a Community Development Voucher and Reporting Form submitted with supporting documents and signed by the Agency's authorized representative. -3- 4C 4D B. The Agency shall submit a properly executed Voucher and Reporting Form no later than fifteen (15) working days after the close of each billing period. The County wifi make payment to the Agency not more ihan working days after said invoice is received and approved by Anoka County. The County will issue a statement of correction voucher in the event that the voucher request is erroneous. Payment does not constitute absolute approval. 6. OPERATING BUDGET The Agency shall apply the funds received from the County under this Agreement in accordance w'rth the requirements oi the Exhibit(s) attached hereto. 7. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES AND FUTURE SUPPORT A. The Agency shall report a!! project income generated under this Agreement tor the purposes specified herein or generated through the project(s) funded under this Agreement. All program income shall be forvvarded to Anoka County except as provided in Exhibit D. The County will maintain a record of program income received by ind+vidual proJects for future use by the subgrantee ior eligible CDBG activities. B. The County makes no commitment to future support and assumes no obligation for future support of the activities contracted for herein, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. C. Should anticipated sources of revenue not become available to the County for use in the Community Development Block Program, the County sha!! immediately notify the Agency in writing and the County will be released from all contracted liability for that portion of the Agreement covered by funds not received by the County. 8. AMENDMENTS Either party may request modifications in the scope of services, terms, or conditions of this Agreement. Proposed modifications which are mutually agreed upon shal! be incorporated by written amendment to this Agreement. A written amendment may affect a project or projects authorized by this Agreement or may be of general application. 9. ASStGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING A. The Agency shalt not assign any portion of this Agreement without the written consent of the County, and it is further agreed that said consent must be sought by the Agency not less than f+fteen (151 davs prior to ihe date of any proposed assignment. B. Any work or services assigned or subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement and proper bidding procedures contained therein. The Agency agrees that it is as fully responsible to the County for the -4- 4E acts and omissions of its subcontractors and of their employees and agents, as it is for the acts and omissions of its own employees and agents. 10. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION A. The Agency further agrees that it is financiatly responsible (liable) ior any audit exception which occurs due to its negligence oi failure to comply with the terms of the Agreement. B. The Agency agrees to protect and save the County, its elected and appointed ofiicials, agents, and employees while acting within the scope of their duties as such, harmless from and against all claims, demands, and causes of action ot any kind or character, including the cost of defense thereof, arising in favor of the Agency's employees or third parties on account of personal injuries, death or damage to property arising out of services performed or omissions oi services or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the Agency andior its agents, employ�es, subcontractors or representatives under this Agreement. 11. INSURANCE For all agencies which are not municipal corporations organized under the laws oi the State of Minnesota, the following insurance requirements shall apply: A. Public Liability Insurance The Agency shalf obtain and maintain continuously public liability insurance necessary to protect the public on the subject premises naming the County as insured to the e�ent of Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars General Liability Insurance including bodily injury and property damage with umbrella excess liability of Two Million and no/100 ($2,000,000.00) Dol�ars and provide proof of Worker's Compensation Insurance pursuant to the Statutes of the State of Minnesota. B. Buildin�Risk Insurance The Agency shall cause to be maintained. during the period that contract work is in progress, All Risk Builder's Insurance. (including fire, vandalism, malicious mischief and extended coveragesj in an amount not less than the value o� destructible contract work in place. C. Proo1 of Insurance The Agency shatl provide certificates of insurance required under this section. or, upon request of the County, duplicates of the policies as evidence of the insurance protection afforded. Such insurance policies shall not be reduced or cancelled without sixty (60) days prior written .notice to the County. -5- 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 4F A. Inte�est of Officers, Emptovees, or Agents - No employee, agent, consultant. ofticer, or elected or appointed official oi the Agency who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to Block Grant Program activities assisted under this Program or who are in a position to participate in a decision making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either tor themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during their tenure or for one year thereatter. B. Interest of Subcontractor and Their Emplovees - The Agency agrees that it will incorporate into every subcontract required to be in writing and made pursuant to this Agreement the fol�owing provisions: The Contractor covenants that no person who presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Block Grant Program, has any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. The Contractor further covenants that he presently has no interest and shatl not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conil�ct in any manner or degree with the performance ot his services hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Contract no person having any conflicting interest shall be employed. Any interest on the part of the Contractor or his employees must be disclosed to the Agency and the County. 13. DATA PRIVACY All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated, or used for any purposes in the course of the Provider's performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes 1984. Section 13.01 et seq, or any other applicable State statutes and any State rules adopted to implement the Act, as well as State statutes and Federal regulations on data privacy. The Provider agrees to abide by these statutes, rules, and regulations and as they may be amended. 14. TERMINATION A. This Agreement is subject to termination upon thirty (30) days written notice by the County should-: (t ) The Agency mismanage or make improper or unlawful use of Agreement funds; � (2) The Agency fail to comply with the terms and conditions expressed herein or the applicable statutes, regulations and directives ot the Federal Government, State. or County; (3) The Agency fail to provide work or services expressed by this Agreement; or (4) The Agency fail to submit reports or submit incomplete or inaccurate reports in any material respect. B. This Agreement may be terminated by the County immediately upon the receipt by the County of notice of the loss of federal funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program or any project of the Agency. C. This Agreement is subject to termination upon thirty (30) days written notice by the Agency should: (1) The County fail in its commitment under this Agreement to provide funding for services rendered, as herein provided; or (2) Block Grant funds become no longer available from the Federal Government or through the County. D. Otherwise this Agreement shall terminate on the latest termination date specified on the Project Request Form attached hereto and shall be subject to extension only by mutual agreement and amendment in accordance with the General Conditions of this Agreement except that the County may terminate the agreement if funds are not expended as required by Exhibit C. E. Upon termination of this Agreement any unexpended balance of Agreement funds shall remain in the County Block Grant fund. F. In the event that termination occurs under paragraph A(1) of this section, the Agency shall return to the County aIl funds which were expended in violation of the terms oi this Agreement. 15. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon the expiration or termination of this agreement, the Agency shall transfer to the County any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. In addition, at the expiration or termination of this agreement, any real property under the Agency's control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds in excess of S25,000.00 shall be disposed of in a manner which results in the agency being reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property less any portion thereof attributable to the expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the real property. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR § 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. -7- 4G 16. DISPOStTION OF PROGRAM INCOME Upon the expiration or termination of this agreement, program income shall be returned by the Agency to the County. � 4H 41 PART Ii. FEDERAL AND LOCAL PROGRAM REOUIREMENTS 1. GENERAL REOUIREMENTS The Agency sf�all comply with the Housing and Community Development Act oi 1974, Public Law 93-383 as amended, and implementing Regulations at 24 CFR p. 570. 2. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS In awarding contracts pursuant to this Agreement, the Agency shall compty with all applicable requirements of local and state law for awarding contracts, including but not limited to procedures for competitive bidding, contractor's bonds, and retained percentages. In addition, the Agency shall comply with the requirements ot the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102 or A-110 as appropriate, relating to bonding, insurance and procurement standards; and with Executive Order 11246 regarding nondiscrimination bid conditions for projects over Ten Thousand and no/100 (S10,000.00) Dollars. Where federal standards differ from local or state standards, the stricter standards shall apply. The federal standard of Ten Thousand and no/100 (S10,000.00) Dollars for competitive bidding shall apply only if the applicable state or local standard for competitive bidding is less strict than Ten Thousand and no/100 (510,000.00) Dollars. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A. National Environmental Policy Act - The County retains environmental review �esponsibility for purposes of tulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act as implemented by HUD Environmental Review Procedures (29 CFR pt. 58). The County may require the Agency to furnish data, information and assistance for the County's review and assessment in determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. B. State Environmental Policv Act - Agencies which are branches of government under Minnesota Law retain responsibility for fulfilling the requirements of the State Law regarding environmental policy and conservation, and regulations and ordinances adopted thereunder. If the agency is not a branch of government under Minnesota Law, the County may require the agency to furnish data. information and assistance as necessary to enable the County to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act. C. Satisfaction of Environmental Requirements - Project execution under this Agreement by either the County or the Agency shall not proceed until satisfaction of all applicable requirements of the National and State Environmental Policy Acts. A written notice to proceed will not be issued by the County until all such requirements are complied with. � 4 NONDISCRIMINATION A. General The Agency shall comply with a!I federal, state and local laws prohibit�ng discrimination on the basis ot age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap or any other basis now or hereafter prohibited by Law. These requirements are specified in Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act oi 1974; Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI; Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title VIII; Executive Order 11063; Executive Order 11246; and Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. Specifrcalty, the Agency is prohibited from taking any discriminatory actions defined in the HUD Regulations at 24 CFR 570.602(b) (1-3) and shall take such affirmative and corrective actions as are required by the Regulations at CFR 570.602(b)(4). These requirements are summarized in the following paragraphs: B. Pro,gram Benefit The Agency shall not discriminate against any resident of the project service area by denying benefit from or participation in any block grant funded activity on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI; Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title VII; Section 109, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974). C. Fair Housing The Agency shall take necessary and appropriate actions to prevent discrimination in iederally assisted housing and lending practices related to loans insured or guaranteed by the federal government. (Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title Vli; Executive Order 11063} D. Em�lovment 1. In all solicitations under this Agreement, the Agency shall state that all qualified applicants will be considered for employment. The words "equal opport�nity employer" in advertisements shall constitute compliance with this section. 2. The Agency shall not discriminate against an employee or applican; tor employment in connection with this Agreement because of age. marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence oi any sensory. mental or physical hand�cap, except when there is a bona fide occupational limitation. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the foHowing: Employment. upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other torms of compensation, and selection for training. (Executive Order 11246 as amended) -10- 4J 4K 3. To the greatest extent feasible, the Agency shall provide training and employment opportunities tor lower income residents within the area served by block grant assisted projects (Section 3, Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, as amended). E. Contractors and Suppliers No contractor, subcontractor, union or vendor engaged in any activity under this Agreement shall discriminate in the sale of materials, equipment or labor on the basis of age, sex. marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. Such practices include upgrading, demotion, recruiting, transfer, layoff, termination, pay rate, and advertisement for employment. (Executive Order t 1246 as amended) 2. All firms and organizations described above shall be required to submit to the A�gency certificates of compliance demonstrating that they have, in fact, complied with the foregoing provisions; provided, that certificates of compliance shall not be required from firms and organizations on contracts and/or yearly sales of less than S10,000. 3. To the greatest extent feasible, the Agency shall purchase supplies and services for activities under this agreement from vendors and contractors whose businesses are located in the area served by block grant funded activities or owned in substantial part by project area residents. (Section 3, Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, as amended.) F. Notice The Aqencv shall include the provisions of the appropriate subsections A B, C, D, and E of this section in every contract or purchase order for goods and services under this Aqreement and shall send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding a notice advising the said fabor union or worker's representative of the commitments made in these subsections. 2. In advertising for employees, goods or services for activities under this Agreement, the agency shall utitize minority publications in addition to publications of general circulation. 5. LABOR STANDARDS The Agency shall require that project construction contractors and subcontractors pay their laborers and mechanics at wage rates in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 USC sections 327-333); provided that this section shall not apply to - i1 - rehabilitation of residential property designed for residentiat use by tewer than eight families. A copy of the current Davis-Bacon wage rate must be included in all construction bid specs and contracts over Two Thousand and no/100 (52,000.00) Dollars. 6. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT A. The Agency agrees that any nonexpendable personal property. purchased wholly or in part with agreement funds at a cost of Three Hundred and no/100 (S300.00) Dollars or more per item, is upon its purchase o� receipt the property of the County and/or federal government. Final ownership and disposition of such property shall be determined under the provisions of Appendix N to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-102 or A-110 as appropriate. B. The Agency shall be responsible for all such property, including its care and maintenance. C. The Agency shall admit the County's property management officer to the Agency's premises for the purpose of marking such property, as appropriate, with county property tags. D. The Agency shall meet the following procedural requirements for all such property: 1. Property records shall be maintained accurately and provide for: a description of the property; manufacturer's serial number or other identification number; acquisition date and cost; source of the property; percentage of block grant funds used in the purchase of property; and location, use, and condition of the property. 2. A physical inventory of property shall be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two (2) years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the property. 3. A controt system shall be in effect to insure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft to the property. Any loss, damage, or theft of the property shall be investigated and fully documented. 4. Adequate maintenance procedures shall be implemented to keep the property ir� good condition. 7. AC�UISITION AND RELOCATION A. Any acquisition of real property for any activity assisted under this Agreement which occurs on or after the date of the County's submission of its Block Grant application to HUD shall comply with Title III of the Federal Unifarm Relocation -12- 4L Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended by the Uniform Relocation Act Amendments of 1987 Title IV oi the Surface Transportation and Unitorm Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L 100-17, 101 Stat. 246-256) (hereinafter reterred to as the Uniform Act) (40 USC section 4601) and the Regulations at 49 CFR pt. 24. 8. Any displacement of persons, business, nonprofrt organi2ations or farms occurring on or after the date of the County's submission of its Block Grant application as the result of acquisition ot real property assisted under this Agreement shall comply with Title II of the Uniform Act as amended by the Uniform Relocation Act Amendments of 1987 Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Unitorm Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L 100-17, 101 Stat. 246-256) and the Regulations at 49 CFR pt. 24. The Agency shall comply with the Regulations pertaining to costs of relocation and written policies, as specified by 24 CFR section 570.606 (a) &(b). 8. HISTORIC PRESERVATION The Agency shall meet the historic preservation requirements of Public Law 89-665 and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-291) and Executive Order 11593, including the procedures prescribed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the Regulations at 36 CFR pt. 800. Activities affecting property listed in or found to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be subject to requirements set forth in HUD Environmental Review Procedures at 24 CFR pt. 58. 9. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS Any facility constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall comply with design requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 USC section 4151). 10. NONPARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES The Agency shall comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 USC Chapter 15). 11. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE The Agency may not receive Community Development Block Grant funding for acquisition or construction for use in any area that has been identified as having special flood hazards and is not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, as provided by Section 3(a) of the Flood Disaster Protectior� Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93- 234) and the Regulations thereunder (24 CFR Ch. X, subchap. B). The Agency shal! comply with the Regulations at 24 CFR section 570.605. 12. AIR AND WATER POLLUTION -13- 4M 4N The Agency shall comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC section 1857 e�c se . and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 USC sections 1251 et se . and the regulations issued thereunder (40 CFR pt. 15). 13. LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING The Agency shalt comply with the HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulations (24 CFR pt. 35) issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 USC sections 4831 et se . requiring prohibition of the use of lead-based paint (whenever funds under this Agreement are used directly or indirectly for construction, rehabilitation, or modernization of residential structures); elimination of immediate lead-based paint hazards in residential structures; and notification of the hazards of lead-based paint poisoning to purchasers and tenants of residential structures constructed prior to 1950. 14. NONSUBSTITUTION FOR LOCAL FUNDING The Block Grant Funding made available under this Agreement shall not be utilized by the Agen�y to reduce substantially the amount of local financial support for community development activities below the level of such support prior to the availability of funds under this Agreement. 15. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP For Agencies which are not municipal corporations organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, it may become necessary to grant the County a property interest where the subject project calls for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or installation of publicly-owned facilities and improvements. The Agency shall comply with current County poiicy regarding transfer of a property interest sufficient to meet the public ownership requirement. 16. PUBLIC INFORMATION A. In all news releases and other public notices related to projects funded under this Agreement, the Agency shall include information identifying the source of funds as the Anoka County Community Development Block Grant Program. 6. For all construction projects the Agency shall erect a sign to County specifications at the construction site, identifying the source of funds, except tha! this requirement may be waived tor construction projects of Ten Thousand and no!100 (510,000.00) Dollars or less. 17. APPLICABLE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A. An Agency which is the governmental entity (including public agencies) shall comply with the requirements and standards of OMB Circular No. A-87, "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State, Local and Federally recognized Indian Tribat Governments", OMB Circular A-128, "Audits ot State and local Governments" (implemented at 24 CFR Part 44) and -14- with the following sections of 24 CFR Part 85 "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments": ��) �2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ��) (8) �9) (10) (��) (� 2) (13) (14) (i 5) (16) (i 7) �� 8) (19) (20) Section 85.3, "Definitions"; Section 85.6, "Exceptions"; Section 85.12, "Special grant or subgrant conditions for 'high-risk' grantees"; Section 65.20, "Standards ior financial management systems," except paragraph (a); Section 85.21, "Payment," except as modified by § 570.513; Section 85.22, "Allowable costs"; Section 85.26, "Non-federal audits"; Section 85.32, "Equipment," except in all cases in which the equipment is sold, the proceeds shall be program income; Section 85.33, "Supplies"; Section 85.34, "Copyrights"; Section 85.35, "Subawards to debarred and suspended parties"; Section 85.36, "Procurement," except paragraph (a); Section 85.37, "Subgrants"; Section 85.40, "Monitoring and reporting program performance," except paragraphs (b) through (d) and paragraph (�; Section 85.41, "Financia( reporting," except paragraphs (a), (b), and (e}; Section 85.42, "Retention and access requirements for records"; Section 85.43, "Enforcement"; Section 85.44, 'Termination tor convenience"; Section 85.51, "Later disallowances and adjustments" and Section 85.52, "Collection of amounts due." B. An Agency if it is not a governmental entity, shall comply with the requirements and standards of OMB Circular No. A-122, "Cost Principles for Non Profit Organizaiions" or OMB Circular No. A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions," as applicable, and with the following Attachments to OMB Circular No. A-110; (t ) Attachment A, "Cash Depositories", except for paragraph 4 concerning deposit insurance; (2) Attachment B, "Bonding and Insurance"; (3) (4) (5) Attachment C, "Retention and Custodial Requirements for REcords", except that in lieu of the provisions in paragraph 4, the retention period tor records pertaining to individual CDBG activities starts trom the date of submission of the ann�al pertormance and evaluation report, as prescribed in § 570.507, in which the specific activity is reported on for the final time; Attachment F, "Standards tor Financial Management Systems"; Attachment H, "Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance", Paragraph 2; -15- � �J 4P (6) Attachment N, "Property Management Standards", except for paragraph 3 concerning the standards tor reai property, and except that paragraphs 6 and 7 are modified so that - (i) In all cases in which personal property is sold, the proceeds shall be program income, and (ii) Personal property not needed by the subrecipient for CDBG activities shall be transferred to the recipient for the CDBG program o� shall be retained atter compensating the recipient; and (7) Attachment O, "Procurement Standards." -16- 4Q PART III. EVALUATION AND RECORD KEEPING 1. EVALUATION The Agency agrees to participate with the County in any evaluation project or performance report, as designed by the County or the appropriate Federal agency, and to make availabie all information required by any such evaluation process. 2. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS The Agency shall obtain an independent audit on an annual basis if the budget is at least �25,000.00. Such audit shall be made by qualified individuals who are sufficiently independent of those who authorize the expenditure of Federal funds. The audit report shall state that the audit was pe�(ormed in accordance with the generally accepted governmental audit standards for financial and compliance audits of the U. S. General Accounting Office Standa�ds for Audit ot Governmental OrQanizations. Proqrams, Activities, and Functions, and the provisions of OMB A-110. � The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this contract shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by the County, County, Federal or State officials so authorized by law during the performance of this contract and during the period ot retention specified in this Part 111. 3. RECORDS As required by HUD Regulations, 24 CFR pt. 570, the Agency shall compile and maintain the following records: A. Financial Management - Such records shall identiiy adequately the source and application of funds for activities within this Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of Appendix G to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102 or A-110 as appropriate. These records shall contain information pertaining to grant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income. B. Citizen Participation - Narrative and other documentation describing the process used to inform citizens concerning the amount of funds available, the ranges oi project activities undertaken, and opportunities to participate in funded block grant projects. C. Relocation - Indication of the overafl status of the refocation workfoad and a separate relocation record for each person, business, organization, and farm operation displaced or in the relocation workload. D. Property Acquisition - Agency files must contain (a) invitation to owner to accompany appraiser during inspection, (b) at least one properry appraisal, (c) statement of basis for determination of just compensation, (d) written offer of just -17- 4R compensation, (e) all documents invoiving conveyance, (� settlement cost reporting statement, and (g) notice to surrender possession of premises. E. Equal Opportunity - The Agency shall maintain racial, ethnic, and gender data showing the extent to which these categories of persons have participated in, or benefitted from, the activities carried out under this Agreement. The Agency shalf also maintain data which records its affirmative action in equal opportunity employment, and its good-faith efforts to identify, train, and/or hire lower- income residents of the project area and to utilize business concerns which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project. F. Labor Standards - Records shall be maintained regarding compliance of all , contractors performing construction work under th�s Agreement with the labor standards made applicable by 24 CFR 570.603. G. Determinations of Condi±ion of Slum and Bliqht The agency will submit: 1. an attorney's opinion that an area designated as slum or blighted for the purpose of qualifying a CDBG activ�;y meets the State or local definition of same; 2. the boundary of the area so designated; 3. a list of the conditions the CDBG-funded activity is intended to address. In the event that a single property is designated as blighted, the community must submit a certified building inspector's report on the conditions leading to that determination. H. Economic Development The agency will maintain copies of financial statements that indicate the historical and projected income of a company approved for CDBG assistance. Those records will include three years of profit and loss statements, balance statements and projected income statements. The agency will also keep records indicating the amount and terms of assistance provided together with an explanation of how the assistance provided meets the "necessary and appropriate" requirements communicated in the June 2, 1987 Stokvis memorandum. Such other records as may be required by the Gounty and!or HUD. 4. RETENTION OF RECORDS Required records shall be retained for a period of three (3) years after termination of this Agreement, except as follows: (1) Records that are the subject of audit findings shall be retained for three (3) years after such findings have been resolved. (2) Records -18- for nonexpendabie property shatl be retained for three (3) years after its final disposition. Nonexpendable property is defined in Appendix N to U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-102 or A-110 as appropriate. 5. REPORTS The Agency shall submit such reports as required by the County on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis and also prior to project execution. Those reports will include but not be limited to client information, revolving fund accounting, inventory management, general accounting, property acquisition/disposition, displacement'relocation, and low-income housing replacement. -19- 4S � � UTYOF fRlDLEY Dl1TE : TO: FROM: SOBJECT: C0�IILMUNITY DEVELQPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 17, 1989 ,� h. i° William Burns, City Manager,;'�• Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Comprehensive Sign Plan for Osborne Crossings Attached is the proposed comprehensive sign plan for Osborne Crossings at Osborne Road and University Avenue. The plan limits tenant signage to a sign band along the front wall of the shopping center. The individual letters are required to internally illuminated, Helvetica medium neon. The sign text must be limited to the name and logo of the business. The project will have only one 80 sq. ft. pylon sign. Staff recommends the City Council comprehensive sign plan as presented. BD:ls M-89-499 approve the attached 5A OSBORNE CROSSINGS SIGN CRITERIA 1. Tenant signage can occupy no more than iifteen (15) times the square Eoot of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed and cannot exceed 70 feet in length. Tenants must center their signs on the signage band. Signs must rest within two feet of the demised premises on each side of the sign. 2. Signs will consist of individual letters mounted on a raceway. Letters will be internally-illuminated, Helvetica medium neon. 3. Maximum letter height will be 36 inches, with the sign centered in the area above the vinyl canopy and below the block coping. Tenant has the option to stack the words of his business name in two lines if he does not exceed 48 inches in total overall height. 4. 1fie text will be limited to the name and logo of the business. 5. Signage will be allowed on the primary shopfront wall and on any finished facade that has been designed for public entry. 6. Neon signs will be allowed in entry windows with the maximum size limited to 3G inches in any dimension. This sign cannot exceed 25% of the window area. 7. Painted or vinyl die cut letters may be applied to each tenant exterior entry window or door and may be in addition to any other signage tenant is allowed. Entry window letters will have a maximum height of 4 inches and be restricted to a white color for teart and unlimited colors for logos. 8. The project will have one 25 foot high pylon sign with 80 square feet of signage. 9. The movie theatre will have signage consisting of 8, wall-mounted poster containers, a reader-board marquis, a metal tower identifying the theatre, and bands of neon. 10. Scaled drawings of proposed signage must be submitted to SBF Development Corp. and approved prior to installat�on. The Fridley Building Inspector will be instructed to issue sign permits only when the application �s accompanied by a signed, approved drawing from SBF Development Corp. � � UlY OF fRIDLEY C411I1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART'MENT M EMO RAN D UM DATE: Auqust 17, 1989 � TO: William Burns, City Manager�`� FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Lisa Campbell, Planninq Coordinator SUBJECT: Request from North Suburban Center for the Arts to Reallocate $2,255.00 from Locke House Project, and to Reallocate $6,500.00 from Commercial Rehabilitation The North Suburban Center for the Arts has submitted two requests for the City to reallocate its CDBG monies. The two requests are as follows: 1. The City authorized the Banfill Tavern/Locke House restoration project in 1987. There is $2,255.00 remaining in this account. The North Suburban Center for the Arts is requesting use of this money to conduct senior art classes at the Banfill Tavern. The monies have to be expended prior to the end of 1989. 2. The City, as part of its 1989 CDBG proqram, allocated $6,595.00 for a commercial rehabilitation program. The North Suburban Center for the Arts is requesting that this money be reallocated for completion of interior improvements to the second floor of the Banfill Tavern/Locke House. As ta request �1, as is pointed out in the attached letter, the North Suburban Center for the Arts did not apply for the public service funding administered by the Human Resources Commission and the City Council this past year. Because of the change in location from Apache Plaza to the Banfill Tavern in Fridley, NSCA did not receive the application materials until after the application deadline. In 1988, the North Suburban Center for the Arts had requested fundinq of $2,500.00 from CDBG. The Human Resources Commission and the City Council authorized $1,200.00. Given that this organization did not have the opportunity to apply for funding in 1989, reallocating this amount of money to this project would be consistent with previous City Council action. l'� CDBG Reallocation Auqust 17, 1989 Page 2 As to request �2, there are two concerns that should be discussed by the City Council. The commercial rehabilitation proqram was created to encourage businesses to rehabilitate store fronts or do other improvements. The City initiated this project t�rith the 1988 CDBG funds; however, in 1988, the funds were reallocated to the Riverview Heights Acquisition project because of lack of use. Frankly, the City has not actively marketed the availability of these funds, and because of its small amount, it will not siqnificantly defray the cost of a large rehabilitation project. During the public hearing process for the 1989 allocations, there were other competing applications for the CDBG monies, such as RISE Inc. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that �equest #1 be authorized by the City Council. As to request #2, the City has the following options: 1. Actively market the availability of commercial rehabilitation monies until January 1, 1990 and reevaluate the proqram by February 1, 1990. 2. Readvertise the availability of $6,595.00 for reallocation and solicit applications. 3. Reallocate money to NSCA now. Staff recommends option �1. This would enable the City to detenaine if the program is feasible. If not, the City Council could reallocate the money in January or February of 1990. BD f dn M-89-493 . � NORTH SUBURBAN CENTER FOR THE ARTS REQUEST FOR INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE BANFILL TAVERN/LACKE HOUSE Track Lighting $2,300 Mini Blinds $ 800 Painting Walls $ 700 and Floors 30 Folding Chairs @ $30 each Built-In Book Shelves Sign $ 900 $1,000 S 300 TOTAL REQUEST $6,000 . : North Su rk�n ter for rts 6666 Eaat Riva Road, Fridley. Mianesota 612 574-1850 Aug.11, 1989 Barbara Dacy Planning CJa-ordinator City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. NE Fridley, NAT 55432 Dear Barbara: sc Since 1986 the North Suburban Center for the arts, in co-operation with the Fridley Senior Center and funded by a CDBG grant fran the City of Fridley, has successfully conducted classes in water color, aczylic, and oil painting as well as drawing. We knaa the Senior Center Director, Connie Tha�son has been well pleased with the results, as has NSCA. In the past, when we were still at Apache Plaza, The teachers w�uld cane to the Center to conduct the classes. Nvw we are happy and proud to be in the Banfill- LACke House at 6666 East River Rpad in Fridley. This historic house is an ideal place to conduct the classes for Seniors. Ms.Tha�son has assured us that transportation for Seniors could be easily arranged for such a short distance. This wr�uld allvw the Seniors to view the art exhibits at the Center for the Arts as well as participate in the classes. Through an unfortunate misplacement of mail, our invitation frcm the H�mtian Resources Gannission to apply for the grant this year �ras not disoovered until the dead-line for application had passed,. This has been a source of deep regret / s haaever, we have received the exciting news that the (bunty of Arioka C� _�, has 1800 in unassigned CDBG furr3s. Jo anne Wright, Director for the County says � �-°,�� 57, CZ' that o program meets all the requireinents for the CDBG furx�s and has urged us �-, ��,L to apply for thesn through the City of Fridley. �ti� �1'�i(.� It is our hope that you will agree that this is a wise and useful expenditure /� for these funds and that you wr�uld fi.nd it a real opportunity for the City and l:(j�i�+� • the Seniors to have them allotted to us . � Thank you so much for your consideration of our request and w�e look for�rard t�o a continuing relationship with the City and the opportunity to serve our Seniors again. Please do contact me at 572-2392 if you would like furtlzer information or clarification. Sincerely, �—�_ � � _ � John Cassayd-9nith President, NSCA . �.�� r. ...,�, � �►�,- ti� -,.= ,• � ��NE COUNTY OF ANOKA Urban Anoka Counry Communiry Development B/ock Grant Ms. Lisa Campbeli City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Lisa: COURTHOUSE ANOKA, MINIVESOTA 55303 612-421-4760 July 20, 1989 All work has been completed on the Locke House Project #731 with a budget balance of $2,255.00. Please advise us of the City of Fridley's preference for disposition of these funds: 1. transfer to another open City project 2. transfer to County-wide rehab 3. return to Anoka County for disposition by the County Board If I haven't heard from the City of Fridley by August 18, I will refer the balance to the Community Development Committee of the County Board tor their action. Please ca�l if you have any questions. Sincereiy, oAnn O. Wright Community Development Manaoer JOW:sw cc: �V1/illiam W. Burns, Manager Affirmative Action / Equsl Oppo�tunity Employer �K ' � �1 • J North Su rk�n t¢r for rts 6666 Eaat Rivv Road, Fridley. M'inauota 612 574-1850 Barbara Dacy Planning Oo-ordinator City of �idley 6431 University Ave.NE FYidley, 1�1 55432 Dear BarUara: Aug.11, 1989 6E The North Suburban Center for the Arts, together with Atblca Qounty, and with generous and positive support fran the City of Fridley, has been involved in the restoration of the Banfill Tavern-Locke I�iouse at 6666 East River Road. We are happy to report that the restAration of the first floor is cor�}�lete enough so that we were able to mave our Center from Apache Plaza to the Banfill-Locke. Our formal opening Mras a gala in Dece�nber, 1988 with a Christmas Boutique and Art S'how. Our first night was atteryded not only by many citizens of the area but also by City officials, County officials and supportive business people arrl organizations. Tt►e Fridley High School Carolers, in appropriate period cvst�nes, added a great deal to the spirit and festive feeliryg of this historic a.�casion in this historic house. Since DecesnQer we have been having art exhibitions by both iocal art�5ts and those from a wider circle of our state. They have been w�ell attended and successful as have our classes far adults and for children. We also maintain a gift sYiop with handcrafted it� of wa�clrobe and je�aelry• Our earnest goal naa is to finish the upstairs of the Banfill-Locke so that we can expand our classes as w�ell as office and exhibition space. We have done fund raising amaig the local ar�d surraurriicyg business oamunities and organizations. We are Ywwever, still in need of money to actually finish the DI+O�� 1L1 a manncar s.,;tahle for this beautiful, hi.storic Fridley hane. � �� It has cane to our attentio� that the City isasb�� unallocated fur�cis far �rcial Rehabilitation for which there have requests• We ooncede that ' s amount of money might not serve the needs of a oannercial business, but far the non-profit Qenter for Arts it would be er�onrously useful. If you vould see your way clear to allatting this $6PJH0 tA us w�e can assure you it would be put to good arxi inrnediate use for tlye vonQletion of the seoay3 floc�r of the Banfill-Locke and we wauld have a finished, safe and beautiful restored �enter for the Arts - a sa�rce of tnie cann�nity pride for the City of Fridley. Tisank y�ou so much far ca�sideri.ng our request. I wauld be .avai].able to meet with the Qouncil at anytime that is convenient for ti�en, if this would be helpful. Sincerely, - � �i � � John Cssayd- ' - President, NSCA Phoi'�e: 572-2392 E„��„��<��,y s�•w�� w., <<• � v,��k� si<<��s Ma��ten,�nce MEMORANDUM ��,. TO: William W. Burns, City Manager,�' PW89-321 FROM: John G. F1ora,fPublic Works Director DATE: August 18, 1989 SIIBJECT: Diseased Tree Ordinance We have prepared some recommended changes to our Diseased Tree Ordinance Chapter 104. The changes include: 1) Identification of the Superintendent of Public Works as the City Forester. 2) Identification of the City Manager as the Director and Controller of the program. 3) We have extended the response date for tree removal from ten (10) to thirty (30) days. 4) We have allowed the property owner to have a private diseased tree removed and assessed to the property for a period of five (5) years. 5) We have defined a boulevard tree within the street right- of-way. 6) We have identified the City's responsibility for removal of boulevard trees and the replacement of bare root trees on the owner's property. Recommend the Council consider these changes and approve the amendment to Chapter 104 of our City Code. JGF/ts Attachments 7 � ��_� 7A � ;.� �.►• ,:« .. •` • •�� r• �,. •�:,�� • � ►.�. ..�� w •� � ••►• � ��' 1 � J Y :r� �•I:r' �1 `1:�• `1' •�� • 11 •'I• • ��• • n ti:r• ti;r� �•�;��. � �� is i�i� �a • . � � � �� • �• �. �• r: � i� �• �• �e City Crnu�cil of tY�e City of �idley does hExeby ordain as follcxa�s: 104.02. P�Znt PC�ITICN � Zhe perwexs and duties of the City Forester as set forth in this Chaptex are hex�by oonferred upon the //Naturalist/'Resauroe Oooxr3inator// S�perinterident of Public Works arid all designated representatives. It is the duty of the Forester to 000rdinate under the direc.-tion arid oontrol of the //Ocxuzcil// City Manaaer all activities of the City relating to the control and prevention of tree diseases. The Forester shall reocarnnetxi to the //Cauncil// City Manager the details of the program for the control of tree diseases and perform the duties incident to such a program adopted by the Ci Council. 104.04. NULSANCF5I�7Q1� 4. Ariy dead Oak tree, or part thereof, includirig logs, branches, stLm�ps, firetisood, or other oak material which has not been debarked or free of hazard as determi.ned by the Forester //or agent the,reof// . 104.06. IldVFNICEtY, Il�5P�7LTICN AI�ID Il�V�Z'IGi�'PICN 1. The Forestex or age.nt thereof inspec.-t all pre�ni.ses ar�d plaoes within the City -�-�� T^,�e�� ^a 1 to texmi.ne whether ariy oondition described in either Section 104.04 or 104.05 of this Chapter exists thereon. //'The Forester shall inspecst all Elm ar�d Oak trees at least twice during the grawing season. Zhe Forester shall prepare arid maintain a City wide irYVentory of shade trees by species aoco�lirig to 3 MCAR 1.0111.// Zhe Forester shall irivestigate all reported incidents of diseased trees. 104.08. PlmC�]RF.S FCfft i�'DVAL OF Il�Il�DC� 7�5 C�2 WOOI� 1. If the infect.ed tree is located on private pro�perty, the Forestex shall se�d a written notificati� arid pr�iption to the vwnex of said property. It shall be the abligation of the praperty a�r�er to carry aut the prescxibed abateme.nt pr°°edure�s� within //te�'► il�) daYS// thirtY (30) days f�cen the date of r+eceipt of the notification unless a written variance is granted by the Forester //because of unforeseen physical limitations resultir�g frcan exoessive rnmib�ers of diseased tree.s oocurriryg within the City//. If the awner regiests the Citv or fai.ls to follaa the prescription within the de.signated time period, the Fbrester shall natify th�e praperty awne,r by mail that the //Forester or Inspector// Ci will oontract for the abate�nent of the public rnusance, nam�ely the disea_sed or dead tree ar�/or �aood in question. Zhe Fbrester shall then pr�ooeed to oontract for the prescriUed abatement proc�edures as sooai as possible ar�d shall report to the City Clerk all charges resultirig fram the abatement prooedures carried aut oa1 such private pr�aperty. 'IIie City Clerk shall list all such charges alo�ng with a City Achninistrative oost against each s�arate lo�t or Pa�el bY S�t�r 15 of each year as special assessments to be oollec.�t�ed Page 2 - Ordinai�oe No. oc�anencing with the follvwirrg year � s taxes. Ac�ainistrative oosts of $25. 00 for each lot of paroel shall be added to each asses.sment. 2. In the ca.se of boulevard tree.s, defined as a tree qrowirg within a street riaht-of-way, notioes will be mailed to the vwner of the abuttiryg property as previausly described in Sec�tion 104.08.01. //The vwrier of said prc�perty may dioose to abate the miis�noe himself/herself.// iic�vex', //shauld the awner desire City abate�nent of arYy/diseased baulevard tree, only 50� of the actually ir�curred oosts of tre.atment arr3,/or removal shall be asses.sed the prc�erty awner, arr3 the other 50� shall be borne by the City// the City shall abate any diseased baulevan3 tree at no oost to the praperty awner. If the prapeity awner desires. the Citv will reblaoe the tree with a bare root selection on the aaners property in the vicinity of the remaved tree. 104.09. P1�C�2AM � The Forester shall keep aa,vrate Yecords of the Shade Tree Disease Control Program ar�d suk�nit //the neoessaYy!/ anY required rel�orts to the Miru�esota Coatanissioner of Agriculture //all as d�scri.bed in Regulation 3 MCAR 1.0111//. PASSID AND AD�PI'ED BY � CITY OpL1NC'IL OF Zi� CITY OF FRIDLEY Z�IIS OAY OF . 1989 WILI�IAM J. NEE - I�1YOR � u- ►. . . . N4� i+ �� .� Fll'St Readil7g: secorxl Reacli.nq: Publication: [L-. f . � . �,� ti. w� c .� . ti.., �.�. 4' � .� n��.c r MEMORANDUM 'ln: FtiC1M: �TE: SQB�7EC.T: willia� w. au-rLS, City Manager Jc�hn G. Flora, �Public Works DirectAr August 25, 1989 Water Re.seYVOir Repais PW89-329 We met with representatives fran �+II, tiie lvw bidder for tiye z�ep�air of the 1.5 MG ar�d 3 1� water tanks ar�d vur �ltar�ts fran ADC r��,�rj; *!Q the �II representative's stateinertt �that he requ.ireSa ci�arx�e order to oatplete the re}�air of the 3 I� tank. Zlzere �ras little a� ��ioci *�►�*j� *; his ability ar sF�ecificatio� to vo�lete the 1.5 1�G tank in that he irxiicatsd that he was satisfied with the specifications ar�d ability tfl �letQ the work as a�utlined. On the 3 MG tank, ti�e oontractor raised a naober of issues abwt ti�e tank ar�d the material focnLSing on the fact that he did r�ot think he oould dYy the walls in on�er to apply the specified primer. Hased upon the disc.vs.si�, ADC F�rgir►eerir�g offered a substitute primer paint whicii oould be applied �► a wet surfaoe at substantially the same oost. As a result of this, the Qontractor was to c3�ec�Jc � the systan ar�d indicate if he wauld be willirg t+o �lete the wnrk as modified. Zhe vos�sensu.s of eveiyot�e iriwlved is that �II has iur]erbid the proj ect ooa�siclerably and is lookinq for evety means t2yey can of withdrawirg fram the P�7ect withazt forfeitir�q their boc�d. It also appeazs that thex�e is some oc�oern abaut �r or riat the tank walls will be dry far the applicatiori for the s�ecified pritoer. We are a�rrerrtly waitirg for the aontractor's z�eply arrd the ADC Ergir�eerirq reoamnerrlatioc�. I wwld gues,s that wr oortisultant wvuld pro��ose that w�e reject the bids for the seoond pha.se of the 3 I� repair work w�ich is sd�eduled for next fall. By doir�q this, we could evaluate Zi�II's work an the 1.5 I� tank azrl also inv�sstigats s�e alternatives t�ich oould be inooz'poiated into the specifications. Zhis �y invite additianal bidders for the wor)c t�ich aould be � d later this year. �is would no�t affect the wo�k to be oanQleted ne�ct fall. As eoa� as the ADC F��qineerirg r+eoc��datian is reoeived, I will p�wide it to you in the packet or at the Cb�u�cil meetiriq Mortiay. Z ha�v�e a�ked 1�EC S�gir�eering to be available at the Oo�mcil meetirig to ar�er any questiac�s ti�ey may have. JGF/ts , , � � •� /�/I% �� ', . ., � � �� Y1 � �'�� . . : n ��`yL � I��. �^'�'� ��,�`' 0 �,1�• , BZD PROPOSl1L8 !OR 3 1[G CO�TCR8T8 itBBBRVOIR itBPAIR PROJ$CT ]�i0. 192 AIIGIIST 8, 1989 2:00 P.I�I. PI�ANHOLDER JMG Contracting, Inc. 5141 Abbott Ave., S. Minneapolis, 1�1 55410 TMI Coatings, Inc. 2805 Dodd Road St. Paul, IrBd 55121 Abhe & Svoboda 17066 Revere Way Prior Lake, 1�1 55372 BOND BID COMMENTS 5$ PH. 1 $118,900.00 PH. 2 NO BID 5$ PH. 1 $146,700.00 PH. 2 $219,803.00 5$ PH. 1 $210,000.00 PH. 2 $347,745.50 8A I'�� i�� ' � �1.,� •� �. = " , � II �� (/ �� d � _.._ -� �� —�� i � � _ _ - �- � �,� ,Ij '� i T �y. 4 r�� / � ,� � _ � <� ��r��ii � ��. r��,� � - . �. �_�.� ,�T. �.. _ .�_� .��i� �"'f�i:'1 i��AE! � , � '� -�=_= � �l1� � . � !. ` F1G.6-'1 �M � BZD PROPOSALB FOR 1.5 MG CONCRET$ RBBBRVOIR REPAIR PROJECT NO. 193 (53RD AVE. ic JOHNSON ST.) AIIGIIST 8, 1989 1:00 P.M. PLANHOLDER TMI Coatings, Inc. 2805 Dodd Road St. Paul, MN 55121 JMG Contracting, Inc. 5141 Abbott Ave., S. Minneapolis, MN 55410 Universal Applicators P.O. Box 310 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 17066 Revere Way Prior Lake, MN 55372 BOND BID COMMENTS 5� $ 91,850.00 Alt 1 91,850.00 Alt 2 99,200.00 5$ $199,000.00 Alt 1 199,000.00 Alt 2 199,000.00 5� $143,227.00 Alt 1 143,227.00 Alt 2 145,127.00 5$ $146,200.00 Alt 1 146,200.00 Alt 2 132,200.00 r�� 'J �` I �I i ,� �,��'T �/��, y , i t�ri � � i�/��' ��',!! ,!� ; ___ ,� �� __ __ �. .,=� �'�J � �_� ,�, , , ' , �9` '~�`�� 1��_ �� ,��-r��l .��r. �� 1 , . .� . �:.r- �� rT. �, � �..r� .�.1ii� ��'� � ��1�,�� :I ., � � � �'��I'i'� . - ' ' . �, �� FIG.6-'1 �,*M 10 FIRE DEP�RTl�IiT �•� •• �� 89-8-5 ��. �i+i0 TO: f�IILLIaIrI W. BURNS, CITY l�Id�Gffit �. FROK: ROBERT D. ALDRICH, FIRE CHIEF ��{� D�TE: �UGUST 16, 1989 giJgJgCT ; CpNTR?,CTU�I, �GgEglII;N'p i�IITH THE STriTE OF IrQNNESOT2► FOR INSPECTION SERVIC$S For a number of years now the City of Fridley has entered into an agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide at no cost to the State, the inspections of hotels and motels in our jurisdiction. This agreement does not represent any additional costs to Fridley as we inspect these facilities on an annual basis. We receive reimbursement from the City of Hilltop for inspection of the two units located therein. In return for providing this service to the State, training on administering of the Uniform Fire Code has been provided free of charge to personnel of the Fridley Fire Department. It is my recommendation that we again enter into this agreement and have the Council approve it so that I can forward it to the State Fire Marshal's Office. Thank you for your consideration. RDA/ss .�"�n, �—<.�s t - �� .` ! Tm. No F V AtcOunt I.D. 0 535039 Purch�se Terms I Asaet No. STATE OF MINNESOTA CONTRACTUAL (non-state employee) SERVICES Dpt./Div. � Spuence No. � Suffix � Objsct 07400 C.GD. Type of Tra�ction � A 40 � A 44 D A 45 a A41 � A t6 (�S3Y C.CD. 2 C.CD. 3 O�te O�t• Number NumWr 1 � � V�ndor Type m t Cosc Coda � Cosc Cods 5 EnttrW By Entsrod By NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR� You are required by Minnesota Statutes, 1981 Supplement, Section 270.66 to provide your social security number or Minnesota tax identification number if you do business with the State oi Minnesota. This information may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This contract will not be app�oved unless these numbers are provided. These numbers wilf be availablF to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. THIS CONTRACT, which shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, between the State of Minnesota, act�ng thrOUgh �ts DeAar�:ment of Public Safetv (hereinafter STATE) and Citv of �tinlev address Soc. Sec. or MN Tax I.D. No. Federal Employer I.D. No. (if applicable) (hereinafter CONTRACTOR►, witnesseth that: WHEREAS, tne STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1978. Section 299F 46, subdivision 2 isempoweredto enter into an �greement with any county, 2 or more contiguous counties or city or other municip�lit�y , and WHEREAS, under which agreement the county(ies), city or municipality may agree to oerform ali or part of the insc�ection duties set forth in M.S. 299F.46, subdivision 1(1978) ,and WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth herein, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed: l. CONTRACTOR'S DUTIES (Attach additional page if necessary�. CONTRACTOR, who is not a state employee, shall: 1. Triannually inspect every hotel within its jurisdiction and enforce the provisions of the �iinnesota Uniform Fire Code as it applies to those facilities at no cost to the State. 2. Furnish to the State Fire t�larshal, for processing and service, a copy of the inspection report, orders issued and exit interview. 3. Recsuire all inspectors employed for the purposes of this contract to successfully cort�lete the State Fire i+rarsnal's 120 hour, arx�%or reYresner course, on the enforcc��:ent ins�ection traininy program to oe proviaeo Lo tne municipality at no cost. 4. Adopt ordinances establishing fire safety standarcis at least equivalent to the minim�an standards established by �1.5. 299F.011 and the rules pranulgated thereunder, as such statutes and rules are amended from time to time. The consultant may enact ordinances with more stringent requirements. 5. Attach to the contract a certified copy of the municipality's fire ordinance and Council resolution to enter into an agreen�ent. 11. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. A. Consideration for all services performed and goods or materials supplied by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this contract sha�l be - paid by the STATE as follows: 1. Compensation _�/a 2. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily �ncurred by CONTRACTOR performance of this contract in an amount not to exceed �/a do!lars (S �fa ); provided, that CONTRACTOR shall be reimbursed for travel and subs�stence expe�ses in ihe same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promuigatrd by ih.• Commissioner of Employee Relations. CONTRACTOR shall not be reimbursed for travei and subs�sience ex�^s�s �nwrrrr! ou;s�de the State of Minnesota unless it has received prior written approvat `or such out of scate travet tru�r inC STATF The totai obt�gation of the STATE for all compensation and re�mbursements to CONTRACTOR sha�; not exceed �/a doltars t5 nfa 1• B Te; ms of Payment III. IV V. VI. VII. V 111 �IX. X. X1. X!I XIII XI�' XV. CONDITIONS OF PAYA1�NT Ali serv�ces prov.ded by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this co^t�ac� she'.� be pe�formed ro��P �-�' �sfact�on o` the STATE, as determ�ned �n the sole d�scretio� of its author�zed agent, and �n acco�d w Th ;�� pp!�cahie fedr�o� and Iocal laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. CONTRACTOR shall not receive paymen; for wo�k found by tne $TA unsat�sfactory, or performed �n v�olat�o� of fede�a�, state or loca! law, ordinance, ruie or regulat�on. T OF CONTRACT This cont�act shall be efiect:ve on �i� : , 19—�. o• upo�� suc'� d a i _ executed as to e�C�mb'n�ce by the Comm�ss�or�e• ot F�nance, wh�chever occu�s late�, a�d sha" �e^�a n n e}i�cr .:..� , 19�0� unt�l atl obligat�oru srt forth in this contract have been sat�s'octo��'u `,:��:, wh�c ever occurs f�rst. CANCELLATION. This contract may be canceiled bY the STATE or CONTRACTOR at any time, with or without cause, upon th�rty (30) days' wr�tte^ norce to the other pa•ty In the event of such a canceltation CONTRACTOR shall be e^t tied :o payment, determ�ned on a pro rata bas s, fo� wor{� or serv�ces satisfactorily performed. / STATE'S AUTHORIZED AGENT The STATE'S authorized agent for the purposes of administratior of th�c contra�T Is Al1�n topp Such agent shall have f�na! auth�r ;; fo� acceptznce ot CONTRACTOR'S se�vices and if such services are acce�;�•,� as sa;:s`ac�orti. shall so eertify on each invo�ce subm�tted pursuant to Ctause II, paragraph B. ASSIGNMENT. COnTRACTO° sha'' ne the� assign no� transfer any rights o� obliga�.ons under th�s contrac; �vi!hout the pr�r• written consent o! the STATE. AMENDMEhTS. Anti amendmen;s to th�s contract shal! be ir. writing, and shail be executed by the sam= pa�t�es t•:ho execu!rc� the orig�na! cont�ect, or the�r successors in off�Ce LIABILITY. CQNTRACTOR ag�ees to indemn,fy and save and hold the STATE, fts agents and employees harmless from an` and all ;,laims oi causes o` act�o� a�;s�ng from the pertormance of this contract bv CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR'S agt �•�t� c�• empio,�.,:,, Th � c'a.:s- sha�! no; be co�st�ued te ba� any legal remed�es CONTRACTOR may have fo� the S?aTE'S !.� ��<< �. fu'.j.11 „c 'v�.;'�.�y3'^_^S P�„•S�dnr to th.c �p�.,a�. . STAT; 4;.'C:TS Th:- boo��, �eco�c_, dc�_�^�N�;s, a��d account,ng procedure< and pr;ct�ces o' tn• CC�'�T��C-�'� , . (' .. C� . �:. S�".. :�t Si:L, �. ,., t'�c^• '.d: v J� .�-:� contrect�ng dePa�;fT�.t'r,: o'�C� th� IaG.513t�tE dU(� �.. O`. ':�RSNI� G� DOCiJ'��NTS An� tPOO�;_. studies, PhotograPhS, nega'.!.es, o• o*h�� doc.:m� .:�•e{.i��c� :�. CO':'R:.C?vF ._r- '�-,c �i��! . � ..._ —'�� y<� .. �,.^��.1r. t•.,S CO^••dC� shall �E� ihE exC�::S��:� (�'OOP.'1�' Of ihe ST:TE �"(� d�: SJ�h r•�.?•4.. a•. Sh; I'� f��' 't•�r .. .. .� .�.. .STr,TE iJti �.�� i Ri�CTOR li�". COR1p�eT10f1, t2fT ,n,diiprl Of CBnCP��di J�. O� Ih S C�.,... ,._.. i.V .' F=.: �'.'F' _.. 'ic' uSc, �'.��'.�rlg:� d��'.:�•. 0' CduS_� lG �'o�r SuCh mai"r' 2�5 US2d fOt 2n� pu�Pose other thdn pe�'o�n'�d'�C� :�' C��TF:.�,T,��p ��.i, gat�c�nt ,��dP� t� s con'�a�' r. �hu.,' ;he p��o� w� tte�- consent o1 the STATE. AFFIR"MTI`��E ACTIC'. (Y;��er appi�cat,'=; CONTRACTOR certifies that it has received a Cert�f�CZ'e of Com��' ,� .c t:or•: t' • Comr� ss,onrr o` H,im�n Ri^y'�f5 p�•suant ?o Minnes�ta Statutes, 1981 Supplement, Section 363.073. V':ORKERS' CO�"PENSATIO'�. I� accorda^ce K!th the provisions ot M�nnesota Statutes, 1981 Supplement, Sect,or� 1761$7, thz STATE aff�rms that CONTRACTOR has prov�ded acceptab�e ev�dence of compliance with the workers' comper.sac�un �ns.�ra�,c� cove�age requ �ement ot M��nesota Statutes, 1981 Supplement, Sect�on 176.181, Subdivis�on 2. ANTITRUST CONTRACTOR hereby ass�g�s to the State of M�nnesota any and all cla�ms for overchargPC as i� gon�� ar,d �� se��,ces pro��ded �n connect�on w�th this contract resulLng f�om ant�trust v�olations which arise under the ant�; .,st la�•.. �_�! th� Un�ted States and the ant�trust laws oi the State of M�nnezota. OTHER PROVISIONS. (Attach additional page it necessaryl: f�t att�N�d IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby APPROVED: NOTE: R�mov� prbons before obtsining �i�nstures. 1Q CONTRACTOR: (tf a o�rporation, two corporate officers must execute.) By Titl� D�ta Bv Tir�• As to form and execution by the Q3 ATTORNEY GENERAL: ev O�c� 4Q COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION: By (autho�it�0 sip�atur�) Dm 10C 1. The State will discontinue inspection and enforcement action= in those facilities covered by the Agreement. The State will pro�ioe, without cost to the Contractor, training and consultation on problems. The State uill provide, without cost to the Contractor consultation and advice on rules promulgated by the State which are enforceo by the Contractor. 2. The State will tri-annually review the Contractor's program to determine its continued compliance with the Agreement. Tri- annual revie� criteria includes code in�erpretation, enfo:cement procedures, inspection results and frequency, recoros completeness and sta•_`f trair,ing. �. Tne Agreement shall continue to be effective until terminated by eitner part}� in accordance with Section V. If the Contracto:'s pro.gram i� found by the State to be deficient, but under concit:ons that do not endanger the fire safe�y of the community, the State may continue the Agreement on a provisional status for a specific time perioa. S. The Agreement may be amended with the mutual consent of both parties. 5. No Agreement shall be effective �o transfer any tort liabili;.y a�tribu�abie to any inspection or lack of inspection from the S�ate to tne local unit contracting to perform the inspection. t�, o� E` POLICE DEPARTM ENT �. � ';� ' City of Fridley ��" `��= M innssote �� . DATE A GUST 24 1989 FROM PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, J.P.HI SUBJECT POLICE FACILITY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM MEMORANDUM TO BILL BURNS 1 ACTION INFO Xx � Apparently, through oversight, the surveillance equipment recommended by our consultant, Electronic Interiors, did not get included in the original specifications and bids for the municipal center remodeling. Fortunately, the architectural design was included so all conduits are in place. The police have scheduled September 7, 1989 as the move date to the new facility. It is therefore important that the surveillance equipment be installed as soon as possible. The equipment includes cameras in the sally port, back entrance, booking area and holding cells along with monitors for the front office. We have requested quotes from two companies which have been promised by Friday, August 25, 1989. Information on these quot�s will be available for council consideration on Mondav, Auqust 28, 1989. We estimate the total cost, including installation, to be under $7,000. Request is made for City Council to authorize expenditure of funds from the capital improvement fund to purchase the police facility surveillance system. JPH/sa 13 U FOR CONCURRENCE BY TIiE CITY COUNCIL LICENSEB �� Au4ust 28, 1989 Type Of License: By_ /lpproved By; Fees: TEMPORARY ON SALE LIQUOR Totino-Grace High School Mary Jo. Zawislak James P. Hill $120.00 1350 Gardena Ave. N.E. Public Safety Director Fridley, Mn. 55432 TEMPORARY ON SALE BEER � Fridley Jaycees Robt.Schmidt James P. Hill Asking Fees P.O.Box 32004 Public Safety to be waived Fridley, Mn. 55432 Director TREE REMOVAL Al1 American Tree Service Thomas E.Knudson Raplh Volkman $40.00 4643 Emerson Ave. No. Supt. Of P.W. Mpls. Mn. 55412 Outside Services Inc. Carol Dalske " " $40.00 P.O.Box 875 Anoka, Mn. 55303 TRANSIENT MERCHANT Specialized Sales & Serv. Larry Brown James P. Hill $60.00 4716 Hwy. 41 No. Public Safety Director Palmetto, Fla. 34221 `I FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AUGDST 28, 1989 State Mechanical, Inc. 5050 West 220th Street Farmington, NIId 55024 CHIMNEY SWEEP Jack Pixley Sweeps, Inc. 4179 - 149th Avenue N.W. Andover, MN 55304 GENERAL CONTRACTOR Cirks Construction Inc. 5230 Buchanan Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 Greco Construction Inc. 3307 North Highway #100 Minneapolis, NIN 55422 By: Marv Heintz By: Jack Pixley By: Gary Cirks By: Joseph Grecula Performance Investments Inc. 6401 University Ave N.E., #209 Fridley, MN 55432 By: San Zupke Pleasant View Construction 8310 Pleasant View Drive Moundsview, MN 55112 Steiner Development 3610 Highway #101 Wayzata, MN 55391 By: Merl Lensing By: Galen Tongen HEATING TEK Mechanical Service, Inc. P.O.Box 190, Hwy 15 North Hutchinson, MN 55350 By: Timothy Krasen ROOFING Westphal Roofing 8232 Greenwood Drive Moundsview, MN 55112 PLIIMBING State Mechanical Inc. 5050 West 220th Street Farmington, MN 55024 williams Mechanical Contractors 11504 K-Tel Drive Minnetonlaa, NIIV 55343 By: Roger Westphal By: Marv Heintz By: Larry Williams , 1 LICENSES DARREL CLARK Chief Bldg Ofcl DARREL CLARK �ief Bldg Ofcl DARREL CLARK Chief Bldg Ofcl Same Same Same Same CLYDE WILEY Mech/Bldg Insp DARREL CLARK Chief Bldg Ofcl STATE OF MINN �' __ Same � OWNER FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCZL August 28, 1989 Riverv�nod Apar'tment Mgtt[t . c% Don Anderson 3319 Helden Llr. Mpls, N�i 55�21 Donald Findell 6850 Sivert Ln. NE Fridley, 1�A1 55432 Russell Beck 7527 Van Buren St. NE Fridley, NIId 55432 Premitun Ir�ve.stments 339 13th Ave. NE Mpls , I�IIJ 55413 (same as above) Filister IIZterprises 575C� E. River Rd. Fridley, I�I 55432 (same as abave) ( same as aUwe ) (same as above) (same as above) ( same as at�ove ) ( same as at�ave ) ( sa�me as above ) (same as above) ( saane as above ) (same as above) Rersi & Krishna Jain 625 Owasso Blvd. Rose�ville, 1�IId 55113 LOCATION OF BUILDING 5960-80 Anrsa St. 6634 Central Ave. 13B' LZC8NSE8 � UNITS FEE P.1 33 si.00 10 49.00 7150,2,4,6 Central Ave. 4 36.00 6551 Chatv'tel Rd. 6571 C�annel Rd. 5640 E. River Rd. 5660 E. Rivex �Zd. 5680 E. River Fad. 5720 E. River Rd. 5740 E. River Rd. 5760 E. River Rd. 5780 E. R.iver F�d. 5800 E. River Rd. 5820 E. River Rd. 5840 E. River Rd. 5860 E. River Rd. 5950 E. River Rd. 11 49.00 11 49.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 12 49.00 APPROVED BY R.H. L�iRSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1989 OWNER Moore Lake Apts . 11300 Miru�etonlca Mills Rd. Mpls, MN 55414 Milton & Ellen Fiuc�es 4410 Doiiglas Ave. S. Mpls, 1�AT 55416 (same as abave) (same as above) Moore Lalce Apts . 11300 MinnetAnka Mills Rd. Mpls, NW 55343 R.ichard & Suzanne Feist 5117 6th St. NE Coltnnbia Hts, NIld 55421 RoL�ert & Kathleen Ar�dres 3368 118th Ave. NW �oon Rapids, Mt3 55433 Farr Marketir�g Inc . 5821 Ced�ar I�ce Rd. St. IAUis Pk, l�i 55416 Darrel Farr Dev. Oorp. 5821 Cedar Lake Rd. St. L�ouis Park, l�T 55416 Darrel Farr Reritals 5821 Qedaz' Iake Rd. St. L�is Park, I�Ai 55416 Adele & �r GormR�n 5315 71st Circle N. 8roo�clyn Cent�x, NIld 55432 IQilaid Sami 1906-26th Ave. NW New Brighton, I�1 55112 John Ward 1018 PianePr Bldg. St. Faul, I�1 55101 LOCATION OF BUILDING 13C LIC8NSE8 UNITS FEE p.2 5701 Hwy. 65 32 89.00 6670 Lucia Ln. 16 57.00 6680 Lucia ln. 16 57.00 6690 Iucia Ln. 16 57.00 995 Lytxle Dr. 32 89.00 6021 Main St. 4 36.00 117 Mississippi Pl. 4 36.00 1601 N. Inn.sbruck Dr. 9 49.00 #115,214,225,227,255, 268,276,347,369 1601 N. It�r�sb�ruc3c Dr. 8 49.00 #121,125,157,161,165, 167,176,371 1601 N. Inrtsb�lc Dr. 16 49.00 �`102,109,116,118,151,154,173,174, 190,251,261,284,325,333,337,345 1601 N. Irn�sbruc3c Dt. 3 36.00 #237, 282, 355 1284-96 Nort.on Ave. 7 36.00 5650 P�lk St. 16 57.00 APPROVED BY R.H. LI�RSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR 3D��-; FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSES August 28, 1989 OWNER LOCATION OF BUILDING UNITS FEE P.3 John Ward 5660 Pblk St. 16 57.00 1018 Pior�eex Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 Donald Keefe 201 Satellite Lt�. 11 49.00 2425 Bz�oorlffidge Ave. Mpls, I�IId 55422 Gazy Sodahl 6111 Star In. 18 61.00 1772 19th 'Perr. NW New ffiic�tan, l�Ild 55112 David fIex�yla 5761 2nd St. 3 36.00 1100 P�lk P1. NE Col�.mibia Hts. , NAT 55421 David or Shirley Bur�g 5866 2nd St. 4 36.00 2291 Ir�is Dr. New Bric�ton, HIld 55112 ZYlo�nas Wolff 5770 2nd St. 8 49.00 5269 Matterhorn Dr. NE Fridley, l�Ai 55421 Do�lglas Properties 5980 2nd St. 4 36.00 c% Daiglas Jones 2505 Silver Lane NE N�ls, I�IN 55421 , Progres,sive Properties 6541 2.nd St. 5 36.00 c% Duane Narog 1465 N. Datlube Rd. NE Fridley, I�I 55421 Jo�ht� Cbr�da 5800 2-1/2 St. 4 36.00 5237 Interlaciyen Blvd. Mpls, 1�Ai 55436 Robert F. Johnson 5810 2-1/2 St. 4 36.00 7 Dart�mouth Circle Ir�[x�mo�t, QO 80501 Richard & Nar�ci Anders� 6061--63_65 3rd St. 3 36.00 2008 Jerrold Ave. A�z Hills, I�1 55112 Jim Wetherly 5401 4th St. 4 36.00 8537 Blaisd�ell Bloomington, MN APPROVED BY R.H. I.tiRSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAUfHOUSING INSPECTOR � � C1TY OF FW DLEY OWNER FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1989 Iatme�tta Welter 4465 � In. #201 Mpls, 1�T 55442 RoEOOe & Harriet 9mith Partnexship 370 N. Arm Lt1. M�uTyd, MN 55364 Harold Mor�w Rt. 5 Box P196 River Falls, NA1 54022 John Blahoski 895 Orange Ave. E. St. Paul, MN 55106 Fit Bar II�terprises 5217 Wayzata Blvd. #212 Mpls, NAJ 55416 C�rtis Bostro�n 5652 �agis Trail Fridley, I�IId 55432 Marliss W�ster�field P.O. Box 32353 Fridley, I�I 55432 Wa].ter Kt]cke.s 1340 9th Ave. S St. Clotxi, MN 56301 University Ave. A�soc. 111 83rd Av�e. NE �idley, I�J 55432 ( same as abo�v�e ) (same as abave) ( sata�e as abave ) (same as above) (same as abave) LOCATION OF BUILDING 5370 5th St. 5451 5th St. 5430 7th St. 105 58th Ave. 151 59-1/2 Way 190 59-1/2 Way 110 61st Ave . 231 79th Way 101 83rd Ave. 121 83rc1 Ave. 131 83rd Ave. 141 831^d Ave. 151 83x�d Ave. 161 831�d Ave. �3E LZCgN8E8 UNITS FEE p,4 3 36.00 32 89.00 34 93.00 7 36.00 12 49.00 12 49.00 8 49.00 7 36.00 41 107.00 42 109.00 36 97.OQ 36 97.00 42 109.00 42 109.00 APPROVED BY R.H. I.?�RSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR APPROVED BY R.H. L��RSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CZTY COUNCIL August 28, 1989 OWNER �Y� � 7339 Able St. NE Fridley, 1�IId 55432 John & Kathleen Batmd�ofer 4310 E. Tallqle��t�od Iad. Ptx�etiix, AZ 85044 Dd-Ray Builders c/o Ed Chies RR #2 Starichf ield, I�AI 55080 � (same as abave) (same as abave) (same as abave) ( sam� as ai�ave ) (same as abave) (same as abave) ( sam�e as above � �same as same as a ove� Phillip Willson 401 IrontAn St. NE Fridley, I�AJ 55432 Gary Wellnex 8457 Riverview Ln. Brooklyn C:ent�er, 1�1 55444 G�'egg Hinz 7736 Lakeview Ln. S�ing Ik. Pk. , 1rIlJ 55432 Donald Findell 6850 Siverts I�rie NE Fridley, Y�T 55432 Prithipal or Bash Singh 19 S. Deep Lk. Rd. St. Paul, I�i 55127 LOCATION OF BUILDING 13G LICBNSEB UNITS FEE p,g 7339-41 Able St. 1 12.00 7463-65 Able St. 7479-81 Able St. 7495-97 Able St. 7501-03 Able St. 7513-15 Able St. 7527-29 Able St. 7539-41 Able St. 7553-55 Able St. 7565-67 Able St. 7579-$1 Able St. 7595-97 Able St. 6444 B3ker St. 2 24.00 2 24.00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 12.00 8081 Sro�d Ave. NE 1 12.00 6600-04 Oe�tral Ave. 2 24.00 6640 Cesrtral Ave . 1 12 . 00 7325-27 �tral Ave. 2 24.00 APPROVED BY R.H. L��RSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR � OWNER FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1989 LOCATION OF BUILDING 13H' LICEN8E8 UNITS FEE p.7 Jo�]n & Rebe.ka Chismar 6428-30 Dell��od Dr. NE 1 12.00 6428 De11G�od Dr. NE Fridley, 1�1 55432 Flayd ffiadley 620 Dvver St. NE 9648 Quiricy St. Blaine, MN 55434-2533 Karen & D�o�ugals Hornsten 6190-92 E. Rivex I�d. 10916 Mississippi Dr. Ct�amplin, MN 55316 Dai[gn Thornt�on 7325-27 EVert Ct. 8117 Pleasant View Ct. St. Paul, MN 55112 Wayne G. Nelson 7330-32 EVert Ct. 2179 17th St. NW New Bric�ton, NIId 55112 Rodger & La Vearle Carey 7857-61 Fir��od Way 102?0 Miss. Blvd. NW Oooa� Rapids, 1�I 55433 Viola F�roneyberger 7883-85 Fir��od Way 7885 Fir��od Way NE Fridley, I�IN 55432 Jahn Zielinski 7889-91 Fir��od Way 7889 Fiz��od Way NE Fridley, 1�IId 55432 Phil Andrzejek 1425 Mfeadaamoor Dr. 3860 C�y5ta1 La]c�e Blvd. FidabinSdale, I�Sd 55422 Michael & Julie Achterku.�h 1601 N. Irn�.k Dr. P.O. Hox 293 �108 Lee's S�armit, rD 64063 B18Ck Fbrest G1od'�do. ASStz. 1601 N. 7s�sb�nx",k Dr. 1601 N. Innsi�v�ck Dr. #�127 Fridley, I�i 55432 Roger & Janioe C�'lallman 1601 N. Iim�vc',k Dr. 48 Garden Drive �133 ��nsville, i�fld 55337 1 12.00 2 24.00 2 24.00 2 24.00 2 24.00 1 12.00 2 24.00 1 12.00 1 12.00 1 12.00 1 12.00 APPROVED BY R.H. LARSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR r- , OWNER FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CZTY COUNCZL August 28, 1989 LOCATION OF BUILDING At�eline Sewall 1601 N. Iru��cJc Dr. 1 15340 Aftor► Dr. #141 C].ift�n, MN 55001 Michael Pasek 1601 N. �.k Dr. 1 1096 98th In. NE #144 Blaine, MN 55434 Je�anne Pulse 1601 N. Inr�ucJc Dr. 1 3009 166th In. NE #222 Ham Iake, NAT 55304 '13�oatias Sinner 1601 N. Tr�ar�lcJc Dr. 1 1227 Brighton Square #228 Ne�w ffiic�ton, I�A1 55112 Major Curt Bexo 1601 N. Irul.�bnick Dr. 1 USi�N�OAC Bes'lin Box 4720 #244 ApO, NY 09742 David Childs 1601 N. Innsi�k Dr. 1 2314 Roosevelt St. NE #248 Mpls , I�IId 55418 Isesa Betzold 1601 N. Innsb�uck Dr. 1 1601 N. Iru��ru�k Dr. #201 #259 �idley, NA1 55432 Eli2abeth Farr 1601 N. �ac Dr. 1 5422 Meister Rd. #265 Mpls, 1�IId 55432 Deb�a & James C�rnc 1601 N. ItuL.st��,k Dr. 1 128? I1x�erson Rd. #273 Arden Hills, I�1 55112 Sc��wieters & As.soc. 1601 N. Itu�'�ycJc Dr. 1 % Joel SdYwieters #275 8383 :�t Rd. NE S�ir�g L,ake Park, l�i 55432 Kristin Cham�ss-Maehle 1601 N. Irn�v�c�.k Dr. 1 2906 Hwy. 10 NE #�302 Mour�ds View, 1�I 55112 Ddward, Hel� & Paul Kaspszak1601 N. Tnr�c Dr. 1 1317 Hillcres't DZ'. NE �306 FYidley, 1rIIJ 55432 131 LICgN8E8 UNITS FEE P.8 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 APPROVED BY R.H. L?�RSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR OWNER FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1989 LOCATION OF BUILDING K�r�th & Ann Stagg 1601 N. Iru�Jc Dr. 1 7390 Park View Z�xr. #!311 Mamds View, I�AT 55112 George & Sar�dt'a S�uxlem 1601 N. Iru�sb�lc Dr. 1 7641 Alden Way #314 Fridley, I�i 55432 JacJc Halverson 1601 N. Inns�.Jc Dr. 1 697 Osc�eola #315 St. Paul, MN 55105 CSman PL�operties 1601 N. ITU]sb�'uc'.Jc DY'. 1 c% Daniel & Camille Neujahr #362 560 Heinel Dr. Roseville, 1�T 55113 Gary Linc�erg 1601 N. IruL�k Dr. 1 1814 Glern��uod Ave. N. #370 Mpls, I�A1 55405 Z�ed & Marion � 1601 N. Irn�r.k Dr. 1 24380 165th St. #375 Big Lake, I�IId 55309 Delores Ponessa 1260-62 Norton Av�e. 2 1327 Hi11Gr�est Dr. NE Fridley, I�IId 55432 John C�ist Willlelm-Bonn Str 91261-63 Nortron Ave. NE 2 6242 Kronberg West Germar►y Zlioanas Shier 1295-97 Norton Ave 2 1715 Hexit.age Ln. NE New Bric�ton, 1�1 55112 Faye ChristiarLSO� 6389 Pieroe St. NE 1 6389 Pieroe St. NE Fridley, I�At 55432 Ronald Sc�nnidt 1375 9cya�od Ln. 2 1405 Pieroe 'Perr . NE Gblwnbia Hts, 1�1 55421 G& G Building Inc. 6421-23 Starlite Cir. 2 8457 Riverview Ixz. N. ffi�ooklyn Park, I�i 55444 13J LIC$NBEB UNITS FEE P.9 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 12.00 24.00 24.00 APPROVED BY R.H. IaRSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR , � FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL �� August 28, 1989 OWNER Dd & Doris c�ies 7651 Central Ave. NE �idley, I�IId 55432 (same as abave) P�1 Bates 724 51st Ave. NE Mpls, I�AT 55421 Violet RoceJc 597 10th Ave. SW New Sric�ton, I�IId 55112 F3dG►a.rd Otx'eqnba 5567 E. Danube Rd. NE Fridley, I�A1 55432 Ct�arles Haussler 5684 Jackson St. NE Fridley, NAJ 55432 crai9 wac�er 5840 4th St. Fridley, I�A1 55432 ICerir�eth Ohnstad 5908 4th St. NE FYidley, I�IN 55432 Michael & Bonnie Carroll 5323 Tyler Riverside, CA 92503 Gerald Foss 874 94th Ave. NE B13ine, 1�Ild 55434 Da�glas Firx�i 7151 Knollwtx�d Dr . McxmcLs View, I�T 55112 �aa Olin 136 Rivexs E�cige Way NE Fridle°y, IYSd 55432 13K LICENSES LOCATION OF BUILDING UNITS FEE 7337-39 University Ave. 2 24.00 7373-75 University Ave. 2 24.00 5783-5 2-1/2 St. 2 24.00 5791 2-1/2 St. 5057 3rd St. 5839-41 3rd St. 5840-42 4th St. 5908-10 4th St. 5932-34 4th St. 5940 4th St. 6262-64 5th St. 541 53-1/2 Ave. 2 24.00 2 24.00 2 24.00 1 12.00 1 12.00 2 24.00 2 24.00 2 24.00 2 24.00 APPROVED BY R.H. I,t,RSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR P.10 _ FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL LIC8NSE8 � 3L �� August 28, 1989 FRlDL.EY OWNER LOCATION OF BUILDING UNITS FEE P.11 Do[�ald Fir�dell 110 58th Ave. 1 12.00 6850 Siverts Ln . Fridley, 1�IIJ 55432 Gary Kr�utson 114-16 62ryd Way 2 24.00 6321 Riverview Z�err. Friclley, I�d 55432 Wallaoe Rpe3cer 50-60 63-1/2 Way 2 24.00 7419 I�Kinley St. NE �idley, I�IIJ 55432 W.E. Doelz � 70-80 63 1/2 Way 2 24.00 4928 Washburri Ave. S. N�ls, I�Ild 55410 (sam� as above) 90-100 63 1/2 Way 2 24.00 Draryl Krer,h 1313-23 73rri Ave. 1 12.00 1313 73rd Ave. NE Fridley, I�t 55432 Gozrlon & Alta Johnson 1333-35 73rd Ave. 2 24.00 6944 Camino Degrazia San Diego, CA 92111 Dermis Kugler 1560-64 73-1/2 Ave. 2 24.00 8331 Terr'aoe Rd. Sprirlg Lk. Pk. , MN 55432 W. Zlwanas & Gloria Shier 1580-84 73 1/2 Ave. 2 24.00 1715 Heritage I�. New Bric�ton, I�A1 55112 F7d Chies 360-62 74th Ave. 2 24.00 7651 Central Ave. NE Fridley, l�i 55432 APPROVED BY R.H. L�,RSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR APPROVED BY R.H. LARSON, FIRE PROTECTION BUREAU/HOUSING INSPECTOR 4 � FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CZTY COUNCZL EBTII�P►TES 2$, 1989 Civic Center Remodeling Pay Application #l0 Through 7-31-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88, 058. 00 Allied Blacktop 10503 - 89th Ave., N. � Maple Grove, MN 55369 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1989 - 10 (Sealcoat) Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 90, 941. 56 Gammon Brothers 13845 Northdale Blvd. Rogers, MN 55374 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1989 - 1& 2 Estimate No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 47, 005. 91 Gunderson Brothers 2325 Snelling Avenue MinneapoZis, MN 55404 1989 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Project Estimate No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3, 554 . 71 � � � W F- < C F T N CO � � � .� .-� F • f7 U � t C (� C O F- .1 G 2 ++ O� O m � U U O ti 4 Z aF r. a � < t0 41 W G � U O �0 �+ = fL O � C M � W f- Z m U U r > M U 2 < C G , ,�p�p�p �p�pp�p�p �p,,,n 1 B 1 �1 O v V V� V V�� V� B V 1 � 1 � � � p 1 m 1 � m (V � � (7 � [� � m � � B 1 1 � 1 (7 N � t� � mm=m�.rNVfmmmNl7f7 ��i � n � to r .J � �. �� O C+ •� CD aD �0 �O f'1 o c0 ��0 � m� Y) � If1 x F�- � Q� � N.-�f7N�'I'l�a.r.r 10�� i� i Q� i.r r O� '+ � N/0 M.+ M Y �+ Y�+ Y O i�� B� N u F- � �' � Y P Y M � M� m� Pl n i i i � i � a� 1 1 1 I I ' I e 1 e 1 1 1 � 1 Q1 < � < a u� � in � � N = �O � T �a� ��e � � � � w � �- F U m N 4] Y'1 � � H < � «. x v U N �O N N B B 2 � O � C F- N .+ < fi F- N N � N N � r n N U 41 f� .. r c� > Z �+ W N U C1 N C O F U < � E O V i O N W N � V � � � �.ti � � � � i 0 u i i Pl i u � � a � �� N 1 1 1 11 1 1 I N e � � 1 1 B 1 � M B B � 1 � 1 � 1 N 11 1 1 I 11 � � � 1 N 1� 1 e 11 c��f � .�i� � n � � � •ni� � � � ; i u ..: � oC m � r �� ., � � c� � � � m �� a � w � �p �. �� m�o� � � � �� mm��=��m=�� V'1m Nm�O�Of'nBmm�Om lm�BY.+�ovfma�ac�� m� m � e� ��o a v� � �0 •r PI N ('1 1A .� -� -+a�s-+ oa u a N N � B m� � m O� B � 01 m iAmmN �DCOlP � �Om ��+ mn.�n� a am m _ .a :°.aa� aa a a �s a OC W ...7 Y i M Z C 7 � ui N N F- 41 < = C1 t- ..1 Z C O 1- .y 2 U <CNO t�►+ �FO < N41 f d M(-�..i � tM C Z 1-�41C OCUJSiI-N i N<47►=rU U�iN4�-�►�i O ae m f aD s[d 1- s� <� C i U 47�5 <PO...iNOC <F <F- Ot-f-t..) U41iG1� N4< ..7 =U� = O NJZ=fd < i410l�Oit-t�l�41<00� ►=i Nr~-� fNC<N<SODU~ C7 �S.ii►+►�SZUF►aYY� M sUM-Jai�<�O:I"'a.Z O Y<mt>Gi=a1C7YliZ��(A �T��O�IA�N�NVI��Q� a� �� o � � � �0 � N � f7 I C� � Y'f � �Q � N � � � O� � i i m � Qi i + � � n � r. a � c� � cr � . � w � N � � a � � m a � � N m ! a � � � n � N �ti �Q m�� W � f'f YY �D PI � N N � N N i � I � 1 � n � N • 1 � 1 h ,o � ., N i n � ��m ti i � . � 10 N � M � B �+ N � E z o s M '� F < < d ►V+ N d O < � d � S N i � F � U i ...1 m 14A