The URL can be used to link to this page

05/08/1995 - 4903' CINOf Fwa� FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN INT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS 0 ' f/✓f l�`�#�,�-�' . ��% dQJ7� C;f ri/' / vG�.—.�r?'y ,�,�' ITEM NUMBER IS�(i�-��J.� � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF � am oF MAY 8, 1995 FRIDLEY The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board of Review Meeting of April 10, 1995 Continued Board of Review Meeting of April 24, 1995 City Council Meeting of April 24, 1995 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 1995 Page 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA- OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Estabiishing Chapter 219 Entitled "Harris Pond Storm Water Improvement District" to the Fridley City Code; and Approve Summary Notice for Pub{ication (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.05 NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Special Planning Commission Meeting of March 29, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.35 Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Apri1 19, 1995 ..................................... 3.01-3.35 � FRIDLEY C(TY COUNCtL MEETING OF MAY 8, 1995 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Establish a Pubiic Hearing for May 22, 1995, for a Preliminary Piat Request, P.S. #95-01, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. The Rottlund Company, inc. is Proposing this Plat Request in Conjunction with Street Vacation and Rezoning Requests in Order to Construct 48 Senior-Only, Owner-Occupied Condominiums, 48 Owner-Occupied Attached Townhouses, and 50 Owner-Occupied Detached Townhomes. The Site is Generalty Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane (Ward 1); AND Establish a Public Hearing for May 22, 1995, for a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-01, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. The Rottlund Company, Inc. is Proposing this Rezoning Request in Conjunction with Street Vacation and Preliminary Plat Requests in Order to Construct 48 Senior-Only, Owner-Occupied Condominiums, 48 Owner-Occupied Attached Townhouses, and 50 Owner-Occupied Detached Townhomes. The Site is Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Sateiiite Lane. Current Zoning of the Properties is: R-3, General Multiple Famiiy Dwelling and C-3, General Shopping Center. The Proposed Zoning District is S-2, Redevelopment District. The S-2 District Requires Plan Approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council (Ward 1); AND Establish a Public Hearing for May 22, 1995, for a Vacation Request, SAV #95-02, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. This Vacation Request Will Vacate a Portion of the University Avenue Service Road South of Mississippi Street and North of Satellite Lane, and a Portion of Third Street Immediately North of Satellite Lane. The Vacation Request will also Vacate a Number of Drainage and Utility Easements Wthin the Development Area. The Rottlund Company, Inc. is Proposing this Vacation Request in Conjunction with Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Requests in Order to Construct a Townhome Project Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and ........................... 4.01 - 4.08 Page 3 North of Satellite Lane (V1/ard 1) FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 1995 Page 4 APPROVAL OF PR4POSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (.CONTINUEDI: Establish a Pub(ic Hearing for May 22, 1995, for a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-02, by the City of Fridley, to Rezone Property from M-2, Heavy Industriai to C-2, Genera{ Business, #o Ailow the Construction of a New Municipal Liquor Store, Generally Located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.02 Establish a Public Hearing for May 22, 1995, for a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-03, by RMS Company, to Rezone from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business, Generally Located at 970 Osborne Road N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.02 First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 206, Entitled "Building Code," by Amending Sections 206.01.02, 206.01.03, 206.01.04, 206.03.01, 206.03.02, 206.05.01, 206.07.07, and 206.10.04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.01 - 7.30 First Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.07 of the City Charter to Vacate Streets and Alleys and to Amend Appendix C of the City Code (Vacation Request, SAV #95-01, by the City of Fridley, Generally Located at 5900 Third Street N. E. ) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.01 - 8.03 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 1995 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS �CONTINUED): Page 5 First Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the City Charter Declaring Certain Real Estate to be Surplus and Authorizing the Sale Thereof (Generally Located at 5900 Third Street N. E. ) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.01 - 9.03 Variance Request, VAR #95-08, by Russell and Bonnie Japs, to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback from 30 Feet to 27 Feet to Allow the Construction of an Addition, Generally Located at 1422 - 66th Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) ..... 10.01 -10.11 Approve Kenko, (nc., Estimate Adjustment for Project No. 248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 '! .01 - 11.05 Claims................................... 12.01 Licenses Estimates ................................. 13.0'1 -13.10 ................................ 14.01 � . . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCfL MEETING OF MAY 8, 1995 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS: Variance Request, VAR #95-07, by Brookstone Real Estate Services, to Reduce the Setback of a Free-Standing Sign to a Property Line from 10 Feet to 3 Feet, Generally Located at 7120-7190 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 15.01 - 15.14 Resolution Ordering Improvement and Approval of Plans and Ordering Advertisement for Bids: Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 - 16.05 Informal Status Reports ADJOURN: ......................... 17.01 � � C ��'`^-t.,�—�✓ F��L' EY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8,1995 � a�roF FRIDLEY The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activifies. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board of Review Meeting of April 10, 1995 ��/ � � � `��_ �G ' Continued Board of Review Meeting of Aprit 24, 1995 ��° ��/� -.� City Council Meeting of April 24, 1995 ��',�,,,-�--.,( � ��--�- u_��= �°'� APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Chapter 219 Entitled "Harris Pond Storm Water Improvement DistricY' to the Fridley City Code; and Approve Summary Notice for Publication (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � � 1.01 - 1.05 ��r� �.� �- � �� . ,� ��'��.v-� �y,---�-� � �-`�-�� NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Special Planning Commission Meeting of March 29, 1995� ". . . : . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.35 G'C�� . . Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Aprit 19, 1995 . . . . . . . . . .�,,,, i.�'. . . . 3.01 - 3.35 , «�� NEW BUSINESS �CONTINUED): Establish a Public Hearing for May 22, 1995, fo� a Preliminary Plat Request, P.S. #95-01, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. The Rottlund Company, Inc. is Proposing this Plat Request inConjundion with Street Vacation and Rezoning Requests inOrder to Constnict 48 Senior-Only, Ow�er-Occupied Condominiums, 48 Owner-Occupied Attached Townhouses, and 50 Owner-Occupied Detached Townhomes. The Site is Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellite Lane (Ward 1); ,� - A��•�--�- -�/ �- ,� Establish a Public Hearing for May 22, 1995, for a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-01, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. The Rottlund Company, Inc. is Proposing this Rezoning Request in Conjunction with Street Vacation and Preliminary Ptat Requests in Order to Construct 48 Senior-Only, Owner-Occupied Condominiums, 48 Owner-Occupied Attached Townhouses, and 50 Owner-Occupied Detached Townhomes. The Site is Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and North of Satellife Lane. Current Zoning of the Properties is: R-3, General Mu�iple Family Dwelling and C-3, General Shopping Center. The P�oposed Zoning District is S-2, Redevelopment District. The S-2 District Requires Plan Approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council (VNard 1); ��,-� � �-� -� AND ��2 2- Establish a Public Nearing for May 22, 1995, � for a Vacation Request, SAV #95-02, by � The Rottiund Company, Inc. This Vacation � Request Will Vacate a Portion of the � University Avenue Service Road South of Mississipp'i Street and North of Satellite Lane, and a Portion of Third Street Immediately No�th of Satellite Lane. The Vacation Request will also Vaqte a Number of Drainage and Utility Easements wthin the Development Area. The Rottlund Company, Inc. is Proposing this Vacafion Request in Conjunction with Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Requests in Order to Construct a Townhome Project Generally Located South of Mississippi Street, West of University Avenue, and No�th of Satellite Lane �� • �4-4•0�4�i Z I �•--7 / APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA• NEW BUSlNESS (CONTINUED� Establish a Public Hearing for May 22, 9 995, for a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-02, by the City of Fridley, to Rezone Property from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2, Generai Business, to Aliow the Construction of a New Municipal Liquor Store, Generally Located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.02 ��-��: �� ,�Z_ Z Establish a Public Hearing for May 22, 1995, for a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-03, by RMS Company, to Rezone from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business, Generally Located at 970 Osborne Road N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.02 �-/2"� ' r9 '�` �%z 2 First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 206, Entitled "Building Code," by Amending Sections 206.01.02, 206.01.03, 206.01.04, 206.03.01, 206.03.02, 206.05.01, 206.07.07, and 206.10.04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.01 - 7.30 , %�� -�-- -3--�s` c J_ ,��"" _ �'""� / ��---- �First Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.07 of the City Charter to Vacate Streets and Alleys and to Amend '' .�\ Appendix C of the City Code (Vacation Irn►.��'�'' equest, SAV #95-01, by the City of Fridley, Generally Located at 5900 Third Street N.E.) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . 8.01 - 8.03 v� , /��^--Z. � � � � - First Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the City Charter Declaring Certain Real Estate to be � Surplus a�d Authorizing the Sale Thereof (Generally Located at 5900 Third Street N.E.) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . 9.01 - 9.03 � � '� �',—�� , NEW BUSINESS �CONTiNUED� Variance Request, VAR #95-08, by Russell and Bonnie Japs, to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback from 30 Feet to 27 Feet to Allow the Construction of an Addition, Generally Located at 1422 - 66th Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) �� - `2�'`��_ � ;��'' � ' ��"��' � . .�°,�-� � � �s .� Approve Kenko, Inc., Estimate Adjustment ; for Project No. 248 . . . . . . . . . . . 11.01 - 11.05 ; 10.01 -10.11 �� Claims . . . .�'/ f��`-.'V�`"-��—_' 12.01 Licenses . . . �,r�" :'''.'�`.".`�. 13.01 -13.10 Estimates ..�:��'v:`-°.C�:.... 14.01 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: a-�'��i 1t2-- ��--Gr�.��G�-� OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda -15 Minutes) /�'`► . //',�,^� `� -�r�Lv _ ��' ��%�- z� C.t��= '� �-�`�`� � s NEW BUSINESS: 9�� Variance Request, VAR #95-07, by Brookstone Real Estate Services, to Reduce the Setback of a Free-Standing Sign to a Property Line from 10 Feet to 3 Feet, Generally Located at 7120-7190 University Avenue N.E. (Vl/ard 3) . . . . . . . 15.� .94 �,�� - 5�� '�'�`�" ��- � ��--� . , , • , . " NEW BUSiNESS (CONTINUED� Resolution Ordering improvement and Approval of Plans and Ordering Advertisement for Bids: Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 -16.05 ��.��wL �� . Informal Status Repo�ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.01 /� .�-��. — G�.�4:� ��.� �n��'�iGi�u,� , ��'r".� ��`i � -� Y •� ��-�� a.�/�--•- � �- ADJOURN: �� oL" �,c9%'�+"�"�'"� � . U "�O , �y� � ;. THE MINITTES �F THS FRIDLBY BOARD OF REVISW MELTING OF APRIL 10. 1995 The Fridley Board of Review Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nee at 7:33 p.m. 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 Billinqs, Councilman Schneider, and Council- woman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: None Mayor Nee stated that he broke his leg and spent several months in a rehabilitation center. He stated that during this time he main- tained his involvement in City business, and he is glad to be back. Mayor Nee stated that Cauncil is holding two official meetinqs this evening, the first is the Board of Review and the other is the regular Cauncil meeting. He stated that the purpose of the Board of Review is to consider evaluations established by the City Assessor for property in Fridley. Mr. Madsen, City Assessar, introduced Mr. Joe Hopman from the Arioka County Assessor's Office, who wauld be addressing values pertaining to apartment buildings or mobile homes. Mr. Madsen stated that the Board of Review is considering 1995 values for taxes payable in 1996. He stated that the Board would be asked to take one of three actions; to affirm the value of the property as applied by the Assessor�s Office; to reduce the property value on the evidence presented this eveninq; or to increase the value. He stated that the Board is restricted, by law to keep reductions to one percent of the total assessed values in the City. Mr. Madsen stated that approximately twelve individuals contacted his office. Each case was investigated and the results were mailed to the property owner. He stated that the tax statements were out late this year, so there may be others at this meeting who wish to have the values reviewed. He stated that the Board must finish their business within twenty days, and it may be necessary to continue this meeting to April 24. Mr. Madsen stated that in the last year, there were approximately 275 sales of residential property in the City. He stated that a � FRIDLEY BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1995 PAGS 2 study of the sales indicated a needed for an increase in some values and, in other cases, a decrease. He stated that the changes in values this year ranged from a minus two percent to plus ten percent. He stated that the average increase is about 4.5 percent. 1. JOHN MORR.ISSEY. 1601 N4RTH INNSBRUCK DRIVE, UNIT 250: Mr. Morrissey was not present at the meeting. Mr. Madsen stated that this property is a condominium in the Black Forast complex. He stated that the condo consists of living, garage, and storage units. He stated that Mr. Morrissey has one living unit and two garage units. He stated that after reviewing sales for the area it was felt that the value should be reduced fram $31,700 to $28,800. MOTI�N by Councilman Schneider to affirm the Assessor's valuation for the property at 1601 North Innsbruck Drive, Unit 250, at $28,800. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 2. RICHARD JACOBSON 1485 WINDEMERE DRIVE• Mr. Jacobson was not present at the meeting. Mr. Madsen stated that this property was, basically, the same from the previous inspection. He stated that Council has received information on sales in this Innsbruck South area and recommended that the $135,000 value be affirmed. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to affirm the Assessor's valuation for the property at 1485 Windemere Drive at $135,000. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 3. PETER ETSENZIMMER 6535 i?AKLEY DRIVE: Mr. Eisenzimmer reviewed the values of his property from 1991 to 1996. He stated that in 1991, the value was $74,000 and for 1996, the value is $81,200. He stated that the value in 1995 was $78,30�, so there is an increase of $2,900 from last year. He stated that he did not understand the increase, as he has made no improvements, and he felt it should be reviewed. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that there are only two homes that sold in his area, and he did not think they sold for this amount. Councilman Billings stated that the increases in Mr. Eisen2immer's property values have been less than 1.75 percent per year. He stated that this is less than the cost of living increases. He asked if it was possible to determine the sale prices for the homes to which Mr. Eisenzimmer has referred. � i FRIDLEY BOARD OF RSVISW MEETING OF APRIL 10. 1995 PAC{$_3 Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Eisenzimmer's property was campared to the sale of five other homes. He stated that each property was adjusted for size, age, and other features and from these sale prices, the value should be approximately $85,900. He stated that the value placed on this property is $81,200. Councilwoman Jargenson stated that the home at 6550 �akley so3.d for $69,900; however, the square footage is less than Mr. Eisenzimmer's home . She stated that the home at 6810 Dakley sold for $84 , 000 and is a little larger than Mr. Eisenzimmer's. MoTION by Cauncilman Billings to continue this item to the April 24, 1995 meeting and request the Assessor to review with the property owner how this value was obtained. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 4. MIKE MANCUSO, 7561 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E,:_ Mr. Mancuso was not present at the meeting. Mr. Madsen recommended a reduction in value on this property fram $83,000 to $81,400 primarily on the basis of a re-evaluation of the screen porch attached to the garage. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to affirm the Assessor's revised value of $81,400 for the property at 7561 Central Avenue N.E. Seconded by Counciiwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye� Mayor Nee declared the motian carried unanimously. 5. DONALD CRISPIN 6820 OAKLEY STREET N.E.: Mr. Crispin was not present at the meeting. Mr. Madsen recommended a slight reduction for this property from $90,900 to $90,200, as the property owner has stated that the air conditioner was not in working order. MOTION by Councilman Billings to affirm the Assessor's revised value of $98,200 for the property at 6820 Oakley Street. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all vating aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 6. �VERETT UTTER. 6084 WOODY LANE N.E.: Mr. Utter stated that he was concerned about the increases in the assessed valuations. He questianed if it was because of the City taking property off the tax rolls and then having to pay costs to maintain it. He stated that his value was at $103,100 and it increased by $5,800 to $108,900. k- FRIDLBY B�ARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF APRIL iQ. 1995 PAGS 4 Mr. Utter stated that after he received his tax statement, he called a real estate representative and was advised that he could probably get between $95,000 to $98,000 for his home. He stated that he only has a single garage, and the two firepiaces are nat efficient so they are not used. He stated that his home was built in 1959, the home next to him has sparrows living in the walls and the windows are all rotted. He stated that the home across the street was remodeled several years ago, but the yard is an absolute eyesore. He stated that another eyesore is a neighbor's wood pile. Mr. Madsen stated that the home at 1324 Hillcrest Drive sold for $105,900, and the ane at 1359 Hillcrest Drive sold for $99,700. iie stated that after studying four homes he felt were comparable, it would indicate that the property would be worth $13�,800. Mr. Utter stated he still felt that a$5, 800 increase was quite substantial. Mr. Madsen asked Mr. Utter if he obtained an appraisal from the real estate agent he contacted. Mr. Utter stated that he did not abtain an appraisal but only contacted the agent by phone. Mr. Madsen stated that if Mr. Utter brought in an appraisal, he would review it. Mayor Nee stated that the City alsa wanted to deal with the problems in the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to continue this item to the next meeting on April 24. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 7. LARRY CLANTON. ?210 EAST RIVER R�AD N.E.: Mr. Madsen stated that a revised value is recommended fram $88,400 to $86,300, and he felt Mr. Clanton was satisfied with this recQmmendation. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to affirm the Assessor�s revised value of $86,300 for property at 7210 East River Road. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimausly. 8. KEITI� AND DIANE HARSTAD {THREE VACANT PARCELS, INNSBRUCK NO : Mr. Madsen stated that the property owners were concerned about the value of these three vacant lots in the Innsbruck Narth area. iie stated that one of the lots is totaily wetland and is not reflected in the value. He stated that this matter should be reviewed � FRIDLEY BOARD OF RLVISW MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1995 PAGB__5 further and, if the owners are not satisfied, they could appeal to the County. He recommended that the Board affirm the values, with the understanding that staff will meet with the owners. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to affirm the Assessor's valuatians for the following parcels: Pin No. 24-30-24-42-00549, $17,200; Pin No. 24-30-24-42-0080, $8,600; and Pin Na. 24-30-24-42-0081, $8,600. Seconded by Cauncilwoman Jorgenson. Councilman Billings stated he understands that this item would not be coming back to the Board. Mr. Madsen stated that it would not come back to the Board unless the values are changed. Cauncilman Billings suggested that the item be continued if there is the possibility that there may be a change in the value of the Zots. Councilman Schneider withdrew his motion, with the permission of his seconder, Councilwoman Jorgenson. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to continue this item to the next meeting on April 24. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all. voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motian carried unanimously. 9. DALE AND JANICE HAMMERSTROM� b931 EAST RIVER ROAD: Mr. Madsen stated that Mrs. Hammerstrom called today regarding the vaiue of her property. He stated that his office is in the process of reviewing the properties on East River Road that were affected by the bike path. He stated that maps were just received from the County regarding property which they took from property owners on East River Road. Mr. Madsen recommended a decrease in value of this property from $91,100 to $87,900. He stated that there would be reductions for other property owners along East River Road, who have a similar situation, and these changes would be done administratively. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to affirra the Assessor's revised value of $87,900 for property at 6931 East River Road. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. MICHAEL KRALING, 6523 ANOKA STREET N.E.: Mr. Madsen stated that after reviewing comparable sales, the average value after adjustments is $107,109. He stated that a value of $93,200 has been placed on the property, and he would recommend this value be affirmed. FRIDLEY BOARD OF REVIEW MEBTINQ �F APRIL 10, 1995 PAGS 6 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to affirm the Assessor's value of $93,200 for property at 6523 Anoka Street N.E. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. RAYMOND WATTS 5361 HORIZON DRIVE N E.: Mr. Watts stated that he purchased his home in November, 1994 for $78,000. He stated that the proposed value is $82,100 and felt the value should be what he paid for the home. . Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Watts contacted him this afternoon. A list of comparable home sales has been submitted showing the average sa�les were $89, 200. He stated that this home was purchased through an estate sale, and it is not considered a typical market motivated sale. He recommended the value of $82,100 be affirmed for this property. Mr. Watts stated that the mortgage company appraisal was done by Norwest Mortgage, and the value was $78,000 when the home was purchased. Mr. Madsen stated that he would like to review a copy of the appraisal. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue this item to the next meeting on Apri1 24 to allow time for the praperty owner to submit a copy of the appraisal. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayar Nee declared the motion carried unanimousiy. 12. JOSEPH RUSCH 561 63RD AVENUE N.E.: Mr. Rusch stated that the value of his home increased by 4.1 per- cent and the previous year it increased 2.5 percent. He questioned the reason for the increase. He stated that the Star Tribune published an article which stated that property values did not increase from February, 1994 to February, 1995 because homes sales were slaw due to the increase in interest rates. Mr. Madsen stated that is the overall value of homes in the metropolitan area and not necessarily in Fridley. He stated that the City's values are based on the local real estate market. He stated that the City's ratio last year was about 95 percent and, without any change in values, the ratio was down to 90 percent which indicates a 5 percent increase in sales of property. He stated that an increase of 4.1 percent is within the average increase for this year. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to affirm the Assessar�s value of $89,300 for property at 561 63rd Avenue N.E. Seconded by Council- FRIDLEY BOARD OF REVIL�I ME$TING OF APRIL 10, 1995 PAQB 7 woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Z3. JAMES SANDSTROM 6941 EAST RIVER ROAD;_ Mr. Madsen stated that this case is similar to the one at 6931 East River Road, and his office will be making some adjustments. He stated that the Board would probably want to continue this to the next meeting. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue this item to the next meeting on April 24. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 14. CLIFFORD LARSEN. 5457 HORIZON DRI N.E.: Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Larsen's increase in value was only one percent, and he recommended that the value of $80,200 be affirmed. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to affirm the Assessor�s value of $8Q,200 for property at 5457 Horizon Drive N.E. Seconded by Cauncilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 15. RICHARD JERANSON 6911 EAST RIVER ROAD: Mr. Jeranson stated that he moved into his home in 1970. With the new canstruction and bike path, it has shortened his front yard. He stated that he was happy to hear there wauld be further evalua- tion of his property value. He stated that the value of his property in 1994 was $74,100; $78,200 in 1995; and $83,600 for taxes payable in 1996. He stated that this is a$9,500 increase in two years. He stated that he would like to know about compar- able home sales in the area that justified the increase. Mr. Madsen stated that the study to which Mr. Jeranson is referring is probably the one for properties in heavy traffic areas. He stated that the City had been reducing values for properties on heavily traveled roads such as University and East River Road, but a study of sales over the last two years shows the market is not recognizing differences in values on those properties, and the values were down in the 85 percent range. Iie stated that taking into consideration that the traffic did not reduce the value af properties located in these areas, the values are beinq increased this year, and it is a considerable increase on those properties. Mr. Jeranson stated that the traffic is unbearable during the peak hours, and the bike path creates further problems. He stated that he would like to know how the reevaluation affects the value of his property. - FRIDLBY HOARD OF_REVIEW MESTING OF APRIL 10� 1995 PAG$ 8 Mr. Madsen stated that his office will be reviewing those figures and, at this time, is not sure of the amount of the reduction. He stated that he would try ta have those figures by the next meeting an April 24. He stated that his office will be communicating with everyone along East River Road regarding the reevaluation of their properties. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue this item to the next meeting on April 24. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Bolkcom requested a list of comparable home sales in the area. 16. RtJBERT JOHNSON. &869 MADISON STREET: Mr. Johnson stated that he has lived at this address since 1963 and experienced a continued increase in taxes. He stated that from 1994 to 1996, there was a 7.1 percent increase in the value of his property. He stated that he does not necessarily agree that the comparables shown are really comparable, as he has not seen the inside of any of these homes. He felt that this magnitude of increase was not realistic as he has made no significant improve- ments, except for routine maintenance. He questioned the rationale for the increase. Mr. Madsen stated that his office reviewed the 275 sales of resi- dential property in Fridley in 1994, and those figures indicated that the City needed to increase values. He stated that the City must comply with state law so that values on property must be at market value. Mr. Johnson stated that he is appealing to the Board in the event he wishes to continue his appeal to the County. He stated that he does not agree with the increase�and would like an adjustment. Mayor Nee stated that the Board does not have information on Mr. Johnson�s property to evaluate his situation. He stated that it would seem appropriate to continue this item to the next meeting when further information is available. MOTION by Councilman Schneider ta continue this item to the next meeting on April 24. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 17. GERALD AND JUDITH MCDONALD. 129 HARTMAN CIRCLE• Mr. Madsen stated that this is another property affected by the East River Road improvement. He stated that he is recon►mending a reduction in the value based on the County Highway Department's FRIDL$Y BOARD OF REVIEW MEETINQ OF APRIL 10. 1995 PAGB 9 appraisal which indicated a$20, 200 damage to the property. He recommended that the value be reduced from $86,600 to $66,400. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to reduce the value of th�e property at 129 Hartman Circle to $66,400. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 18. HILARY MAYERS 969 MISSISSIPPI STREET: Mr. Mayers stated that he has done nothing to his property since 1980, and from 1994 to 1996 the value increased by $8,000. Mr. Madsen stated that he does not have the file on this property or any information available this evening. Councilman Billings recommended that the property owner meet with the Assessor, and that this item be continued until the next meeting. MOTION by Councilman Billings to continue this item to the next meeting on April 24. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Billings stated that those property owners on East River Road that have appealed to the Board should have the questions on their property values resolved by the next meeting. He stated that he understands that the others could be handled administratively. Mr. Madsen stated that all the property values would be reviewed at the same time, but he would make sure those persons who have appealed receive information on their values by the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT• . MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue the Board of Review Meeting to April 24, 1995. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the raeeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad William J. Nee Recording Secretary Mayor .- � THE MINIITES OF THE CONTINIIED BOARD OF REVIEW MBETING OF APRIL 24. 1995 Mayor Pro Tem Schneider called the Board of Review Meeting, which had been continued from April 10, 1995, to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Schneider, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, and Council- woman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Nee Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that Mayor Nee was unable to attend the meeting this evening, but he is making good progress and will soon be in a walking cast. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that in light of the recent tragedy in Oklahoma City, a moment of silence will be observed to reflect and come together against this senseless violence. 1. CONTINUATION OF BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to re-open the Board of Review Meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. PETER EISENZIMMER. 6535 OAKLEY DRIVE: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated that Mr. Eisenzimmer requested a review of his property and a comparison of sales in his neighbor- hood. He stated that in the process of reviewing the property, it was determined that the market value was not excessive and that it did not take into consideration a storage shed located on the property. He stated it is recommended that the value be reaffirmed at $81,200 or increased by $500 to account for the storage shed. MOTION by Councilman Billings to reaffirm the original value of $81,200 for the property at 6535 oakley Drive. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. EVERETT UTTER. 6084 WOODY LANE: Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Utter disagreed with the value placed on his property and said he would have an appraisal done. He stated that Mr. Utter called his office, advised him that he would not be able to have an appraisal, and would not continue his objection with the original value of $108,900 established for this property. N� CONTINIIED BOARD OF REVIEW M�ETING OF APRIL 24, 1995 PAaB 2 MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to reaffirm the value of $108,900 for the property at 6084 Woody Lane. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. KEITH AND DIANE HARSTAD: Mr. Madsen stated that this property identified as Pin No. 24-30- 24-42-0059 is a vacant lot located at approximately 5535 Matterhorn Drive. He stated that the lot has been vacant for over twenty years. The Harstad's have attempted to sell it and had an offer of $10,000. He stated that he requested that the Harstad's document that offer, but he has not received any information. He stated that he would recommend a reduction in value from $17,200 to $10,000. Mr. Madsen stated that the other two lots in question are located on East Danube Road and identified as Pin Nos. 24-30-24-42-0080 and 24-30-24-42-0081. He stated that parts of these lots have been designated as wetlands. He stated that there could be a buildable lot if the two were combined. He stated that the value recommended for Pin No. 0080 is $100 and $33,800 for Pin No. 0081. He stated that he also requested that the Harstad's provide costs for devel- oping the site, but they have not responded. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to concur with the City Assessor's recommendation and reduce the value on Pin No. 24-30-24-42-OQ59 from $17,200 to $10,000. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to concur with the City Assessor's recommendation and reduce the value on Pin No. 24-30-24-42-0080 from $8,600 to $100. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to concur with the City Assessor's recommendation and increase the value on Pin No. 24-30-24-42-0081 from $8,600 to $33,800. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Councilman Billings stated that a letter was sent to Mr. Dan Jambors at the Harstad Companies. He asked the City Attorney if this was satisfactory notice of the City's intent to increase the value. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, felt that this notification was satis- factory, as it was addressed to the Harstad offices. He asked if it has been determined that there would be one buildable site if Pin Nos. 0080 and 0081 were coYabined. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the northerly - � CONTINITED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1995 PAGE 3 lot could be built on so that the lots could be one site. She stated that the southerly lot was the main issue concerning the wetlands. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she researched the hearings concerning these lots. The northerly lot is a buildable site but may require a variance due to the alignment. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. RAYMOND WATTS, 5361 HORIZON D�tIVE: Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Watts sent him a copy of the appraisal for his property. He stated that after reviewing the appraisal he would recommended the value be reduced from $82,100 to $80,600. He stated that Mr. Watts indicated he was satisfied with this recommendation. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to concur with the City Assessor's recommendation to reduce the value of the property at 5361 Horizon Drive from $82,100 to $80,600. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. JAMES SANDSTROM, 6941 EAST RIVER ROAD: Mr. Madsen stated that this is one of the properties on East River Road that had a fair amount taken for the improvement of the road. He would recommend a reduction in value from $95,800 to $91,600. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to reduce the value of the property at 6941 East River Road from $95,800 to $91,600. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. RICHARD JERANSON, 6911 EAST RIVER ROAD: Mr. Madsen stated that this property also had a portion taken for the improvement of East River Road and would recommend the value be reduced from $83,700 to $80,300. He stated that a letter was sent to Mr. Jeranson, but no response was received. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to reduce the value of the property at 6911 East River Road from $83,700 to $80,300. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. RICHARD JOHNSON, 6869 MADISON STREET: Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Johnson disagreed with the value of $81,600 placed on his property. He stated that a sales study was e- . CONTINIIED BOARD OF REVI$W MEBTING OF APRIL 24. 1995 PAGE 4 compiled, and Mr. Johnson received a copy. He stated that he understood Mr. Johnson was going to try to review some of these properties, but he has not heard from him. MOTION by Councilman Billings to reaffirm the value placed on the property at 6869 Madison Street at $81,600. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motian carried unanimously. HILARY MAYERS, 969 MISSISSIPPI STREET: Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Mayers asked for a review of his property. He stated that after this review and comparing sales in the neighborhood, he wold recommend the value be affirmed at $88,500. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to reaffirm the value placed on the property at 969 Mississippi Street at $88,500. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF APRIL 10 1995• MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive the minutes of the Board of Review Meeting of April 10, 1995. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT• MoTION by Councilman Billings to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the Board of Review Meeting of April 24, 1995 adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Dennis L. Schneider Recording Secretary � Mayor Pro Tem THE MINIITES OF THg REGIILAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL OF APRIL 24, 1995 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Schneider at 7:50 p.m. after the meeting of the Board of Review. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Schneider, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, and Council- woman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Nee PROCLAMATION• 1995 DAYS OF HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE - APRIL 23-30. 1995: Mr. Burns, City Manager, read this proclamation which proclaimed the week of April 23 through 30, 1995 as remembrance of the days of the Holocaust. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that in memory of the Holocaust, we, as a City and individual citizens will strive to overcome preju- dice, hatred and indifference through learning, tolerance, and remembrance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 10, 1995: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTINUED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING: The continued Board of Review Meeting was held prior to this regular meeting of the Council. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Burns, City Manager, briefly reviewed the items on the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 219 . ENTITLED "HARRIS POND STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT" TO THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE: Mr. Burns stated that this ordinance establishes a special taxing district, in lieu of an annual assessment process, for � I CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 2 the treatment of Harris Pond. He stated that the taxing district includes 29 properties in Fridley and New Brighton that surround Harris Pond. He stated that the pond treatment would consist of the following: weeds, twice per year; algae, three times per year; and phosphorus reduction, once every four years. He stated that the costs would be shared with fifty percent paid by the City and the other fifty percent spread among the property owners. Mr. Burns stated that the residents would be notified of the annual treatment costs, and the treatment may be terminated by the residents if 51 percent or more of the property owners petition the City. He stated that if the City decides not to continue to share in the cost a public hearing could be held to repeal this ordinance. WAIVE THE READING AND APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 25-1995 ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR HIGHWAY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE: Mr. Burns stated that under MnDOT rules, the City pays for lighting of state highways that traverse its boundaries. He stated that this resolution provides for the City taking over the maintenance and energy costs for upgraded I-694 intersec- tions at Highway 65, University Avenue and East River Road. ADOPTED RESOLIITION NO. 25-1995. 4. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTHTOWN TRANSIT HUB IN THE CTTY OF FRIDLEY AND COUNTY OF ANOKA. MINNESOTA: � Mr. Burns stated that the Regional Transit Authority is constructing a Metropolitan Bus Transit Hub at Northtown Shopping Center. He stated that this project involves the widening of University Avenue to accommodate a right turn lane from University Avenue into the Northtown Shopping Mall. He stated that since a portion of the turning lane is in Fridley, Council is being asked to authorize the construction of this lane. He stated that there are no additional costs to the City for construction or lighting. T$IS ITEM WAS DELETED FROM T$E CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGIILAR AGENDA� AS REQUESTED BY COIINCILWOMAN JORGENSON. 5. APPROVE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND RIEKE CARROLL MULLER _ASSOCIATES, INC., TO STUDY THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE PROJECT• Mr. Burns stated that the 1995 Capital Improvement Budget allocated $15,000 for an architect to evaluate the Municipal CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 3 6. 7. � � garage. He stated that request for proposals were sent out to architects, and ten were received. He stated that the scope of services was to evaluate maintenance areas, vehicle parking, fuel storage, salt and sand storage, and to provide concept drawings and construction estimates. Mr. Burns stated it is recommended that the architectural firm of Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. be retained for this study at a cost,not to exceed $8,828 with the study to be completed in two months. He stated that this firm designed public works facilities for Mankato, Worthington, Albertville, and Anoka and Goodhue Counties. APPR09ED CONTRACT WITH RIERE CARROLL MIILLEit ASSOCIATEB, INC. AT A COST NOT TO E%CEED $8,828 FOR A STIIDY OF T$E Mi1NICIPAL GARAGE. APPOINTMENT: CITY EMPIAYEE: Mr. Burns stated that he is recommending that Dale Hurrle be appointed as Public Services Worker in the Water Section of the Public Works Department to replace Richard Alvarado. He stated that there were 69 applicants for this position and ten were intexviewed. Mr. Burns stated that Mr. Hurrle graduated from St. Cloud Technical College with a certificate in Water and Waste Water Treatment and Consumer Electronics. He stated that he was previously a truck driver for Granite City Ready Mix in St. Cloud and worked in maintenance at the St. Cloud Waste Water Treatment Facility. CONCIIRRED WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF DALE $IIRRLE AS PIIBLIC SERVICES �ORRER. CLAIMS: APPROVED - NOS. 61301 THROIIGH 61531. LICENSES: APPROVED AS ON FILE IN THE LICEN8E CLLRR�S OFFICE. ESTIMATES• Mr. Burns stated that the estimate for Kenko should be a partial estimate and not a final estimate as shown on the estimate sheet. APPROVED, AS FOLLOWB: CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24. 1995 PAGE 4 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of February, 1995 ..$ 14,808.75 Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard, N.W. Coon Rapids, MN 55435-5489 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of March, 1995 . . . . . . . . $ 3,466.53 Insituform Central, Inc. 17988 Edison Avenue Chesterfield, MO 63005 Sanitary & Storm Sewer Repair Project No. 27? FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150,465.00 Kenko, Inc. 1694 91st Avenue N.E. Blaine, MN 55449 TCAAP Interconnect Waterline Project No. 248 Partial Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,770.67 Lunda Construction Co. P.O. Box 228 Little Chute, WI 54140-0228 Locke Lake Dam Restoration ' Project No. 211 Estimate No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10, 026. 21 There were no comments from the audienae regarding the proposed consent agenda items. - MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the consent agenda items, with the deletion of Item 4 to be added to the regular agenda items. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Biilings to adopt the agenda with the addition of the following items: (1) Resolution Relating to Workers' Compen- CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRTL 24 1995 PAGE 5 sation Insurance; (2) Resolution Regarding Regional Senior Citizens Center Project; and (3) Item 4 from the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS• There was no response from the audience under this item of business. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. MAY 15. 1995: MOTION by Councilman Billinqs to establish a Special Counoil Meetinq for May �5, 1995. 8eaonded by Councilwoman Jorqenson. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that the Council had meeting scheduled for May 15, so it seems appropriat a Special Meeting in light af the many agenda items meetings. PUBLIC HEARINGS• a conference e to schedule for the May 10. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TRA1dSFER OF CONTROL OF CATV OPERATIONS IN FRIDLEY• Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the attorney representing the City in this proposed transfer has not been able to obtain infor- mation he requested from Time Warner and recommended that the public hearing be continued. MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:12 p.m. No persons were present for this public hearing on the proposed transfer of cable operations. MOTION by Councilman Billings to continue this public hearing to the Special Council Meeting on May 15, 1995. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO ST 1995 2 (WARDS 1 AND 2)� MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the pubiic hearing noticed and open the public hearing. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF FRZDLEY COUNCIL MINUTE5 OF APRIL 24, 1995 PAGE 6 Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:14 p.m. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that a public meeting was held with the residents involved in this street reconstruction project on 68th Avenue (between Monroe and Brookview) and Arthur Street (between 64th Avenue and Mississippi Street). He stated that only three persons who live on Arthur�Street attended the meeting, and they supported this project. He stated that Mr. Ken Vos circulated a petition in an attempt to obtain signatures for the improvement of 68th Avenue, and 32 percent of the property owners signed the petition. Mr. Flora stated that the improvement includes widening the streets to 32 feet, constructing concrete curb and gutter, and posting the street with parking on one side only. He stated that the property owners would be assessed only for the curb and gutter at a cost not to exceed $9.00 per front foot. MOTION by Councilman Billings to receive Petition No. 5-1995 from residents on 68th Avenue and Petition No. 6-1995 from residents on Arthur Street for this improvement project. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dan Couillard, 914 68th Avenue, stated that he has some problems with this improvement project. He stated that the street and curb are in very good shape, and he did not think the improve- ment needed to be done . He stated that another concern was the speed on 68th Avenue. He stated that he has five children under the age of seven. By widening the street and allowing parking only on one side, it will speed up traffic. He stated that he has a single garage and has two cars but did not feel he should have to park in front of his neighbor's home, if parking was allowed only on one side. He stated that eventually there should be widening and concrete curbs, but he did not feel it was necessary at this time. Mr. George Zuk, 721 68th Avenue, stated that widening the street one foot on each side would not be an improvement. He stated that the curbs are in good shape, but there may be some damage from the snowplow which can be patched. He stated that he does not want increased traffic, and he did not feel the improvement was needed. If necessary, Mr. Zuk said he would circulate a petition to stop it. Council.man Billings stated that he did not know if the improvement would increase traffic, but the City is systematically going through and instal l ing concrete curb and gutter to try to bring the streets up to Minnesota State Aid standards. He stated that the property owners would be assessed the minimal amount for curb and gutter only. He stated that if State Aid Funds are depleted CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1995 __PAGE 7 and the streets need repair, the improvement would have to be done and the property owners would have to be assessed for the entire amount. He stated that the City is using State Aid Funds to reduce the cost to the property owners. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that several years ago the City began a program to upgrade the streets . He stated that at this time, the City receives a fair amount of State Aid. The approach is to replace streets that are aging, to try to maximize the use of these funds, and to minimize the cost to the property owners. Mr. Zuk stated that he felt the City could do the minimum amount of maintenance on the streets. Mr. Darren Warner, 1489 64th Avenue, stated that he was in favor of this project. He stated that one side of his property is on Arthur Street and asked if he would be assessed. Mr. Flora stated that his property would not be assessed because his home fronts on 64th Avenue. Mr. Mike Papillon, 6421 Arthur Street, stated that he was in favor of this project. He stated that he lives on the east side. He already has curbing and questioned if he would be assessed. Mr. Flora stated that he would not be assessed. Mr. Papillon stated that the "no parking" signs would create a traffic hazard, and he did not feel it would be a safe situation. Mr, Flora said that State Aid standards allow parking on only one side of the street. He stated that this standard must be met if the City uses State Aid funds. Mr. Nathan Shaw, 925 68th Avenue, stated that he felt widening the street would increase the traffic on 68th Avenue. He stated that this was a concern because there are a lot of children who live on this street. He stated that the last time this improvement was discussed the street was to be sealcoated, but it has not been done. He stated that the City used to sealcoat the streets periodically. He stated that he would not be in favor to extending 68th Avenue to Highway 65. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that there are no plans to extend 68th Avenue to Highway 65. Mr. Ken Vos, 990 68th Avenue, stated that he circulated the peti- tion on 68th Avenue for this improvement. He stated that eight persons were in favor, and four were definitely opposed. He stated that three persons were undecided, and he could not contact five persons. He stated that two properties are owned by the same person who is in Arizona, and one person stated that the City should wait a year. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1995 PAGE 8 Mr. Vos stated that the residents on 68th Avenue do not want this street to go through to Highway 65. He stated that he does not remember any work being done on the street except for a sealcoat many years ago. He stated that there is some deterioration of the asphalt and curbs, but he cannot say it is the worse street in the neighborhood. He felt that the street needed upgrading and that it makes the homes and neighborhood morE attractive. He stated that Monroe Street and Brookview Drive have several cracks which are fairly large. If the property owners spend money to improve 68th Avenue, and they have the same problems, he would be uery concerned. Mr. Flora stated that the cracks appear in the winter due to the weather, but they will close during the summer months. Mr. Roland Lutz, 811 68th Avenue, stated that he understands that the State of Minnesota mandates the street be widened to 32 feet, and he cannot see any reason to widen it. He stated that he was not opposed to the resurfacing and the concrete curb and gutter. He questioned who would pay to restore sprinkler systems. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that if the City uses State Aid Funds, then the street must be 32 feet wide. Mr. Flora stated that the restoration af any sprinkler systems would be included in the project. Mr. Dan Couillard, 914 68th Avenue, asked why 68th Avenue was chosen for this improvement. Mr. Flora stated that 68th Avenue is a State Aid street, and the City is improving these streets first. Iie stated it was deternained that this street was a priority versus other State Aid streets in the City. Mr. Daryl Wolf, 6446 Arthur Street, stated that the description of his property included a 25 foot road easement. He asked if he would be assessed for this 25 feet. Mr. Flora stated that he would not be assessed for this easement. Mr. Wozny, 6740 Jackson Street, stated that his property borders 68th Avenue and asked if he would be assessed for the improvement. Mr. Flora stated that the assessment is only for front footage, so his property would not be assessed. Mr. Wolf stated that he also felt that widening the street would increase the speed, and he did not like the parking confined to one side, as he wauld not be able to park near his own residence if this was done. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 9 Mr. Flora stated that this year the City will be placing some con- struction joints in the asphalt, as is done with concrete, in an attempt to control cracking of the asphalt. MOTION by Councilman Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. 12. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION RE4UEST, SAV #95-OT, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, TO VACATE ALL THAT PART OF THE EGRESS ROAD FROM T.H. 47 (UNIVERSTTY AVENUE). IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5900 THIRD STREET N.E. iWARD 3�: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:46 p.m. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request by the City to vacate the slip-off road from University Avenue south to 3rd Street. He stated that the property is a series of two 40 foot lots that in 1971 the City constructed a slip-off ramp onto 3rd Street to facilitate traffic into the neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated that with the rezoning to S-1 in this area to promote redevelopment, the City purchased the Custom Mechanical building at 5973 3rd Street and completed demolition of the buil- ding to provide a single family building site. He stated that this vacation would allow a second residential site. Mr. Hickok stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this vaca- tion request and recommended approval with two stipulations: (1) that the access sha].1 be returned to MnDOT via a quit claim deed and (2) that 3rd Street and 60th Avenue shall be reconstructed to provide improved traffic flow and aesthetics. He stated that staff also reco�nends approval of this request. Mr. Bob Ecker, 5940 3rd Street, stated that he does not object to vacating the slip-off. He questioned who would pay for it to be removed. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that the City would pay the cost, and there would be no assessment ta any of the property owners. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:52 p.m. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1995 PAGE 10 13. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF AN INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO LONGHORN GRILL (WARD 3): MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:52 p.m. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this existing liquor license is for T.R. McCoys. There would be a change in owners and the name will be changed to Longhorn Grill. He stated that the Police Department has reviewed and approved the license application. Mr. Ali Mishkee stated that the Longhorn Grill will be a Tex-Mex restaurant with barbecue items their specialty and an emphasis on freshness. He stated that he has had experience operating similar restaurants, the San Antonio Grill and Lone Spur Grill. He stated that the restaurant will concentrate on a family atmosphere, and the price ranges for their menu would be from $4.50 to $9.50. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider asked if the restaurant would be remodeled. Mr. Mishkee stated that he would make changes gradually. They will have new kitchen equipment, and the decor will be changed. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Mishkee if he would be the manager of the restaurant, as he is listed as an officer on the license application. Mr. Mishkee stated that he will be the manager and have several assistant managers. He stated that there is one other officer, but he would not be an employee of the restaurant. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Mishkee if he had any other on-sale liquor licenses. Mr. Mishkee stated that he did nat. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked Mr. Mishkee if he was aware of the sixty percent food sales in relation to the forty percent liquor sales, as required by the City's ordinance. Mr. Mishkee stated that their operation is 65 percent food and 35 percent liquor sales. He stated that they wish to concentrate on food sales and be known as a good restaurant. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:02 p.m. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 11 NEW BUSINESS: 14. CONSIDERATION OF INTOXICATING LI4UOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR SHARX �IIGHTCLUB AND SPORTS BAR (WARD 3)s Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that last November, Sharx Nightclub and Sports Bar was issued a liquor license; however, they have not met the ordinance requirement for food sales in relation to liquor sales. He stated that this is the reason Council is being requested to consider renewal. Mr. Pribyl stated that the Police Department has not found any code violations that would cause the license not to be issued. Mr. William Rust, Rust Architects, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Mr. DeFoe, the owner of Sharx. He stated that he has had experience in restaurant design, and he has designed many of the Applebee Restaurants. He stated that he was asked by Mr. DeFoe in late December to assist with the design of the restaurant. He stated that last week he was informed of the urgency in regard to why the restaurant was not completed. He stated that as soon as he was informed he contacted the Chief Building Official and the Fire Chief. Mr. Rust stated that there have been a number of issues of concern such as parking requirements, egress in and out of the building, fire extinguishers, and cracks in the sidewalks. Many of those items have been addressed. He stated that as of last Friday, he resubmitted plans to the Chief Building Official, and he felt the plans were in compliance. He stated that he has talked with Mr.DeFoe on cleaning up the area around the building. Mr. Rust stated that as Council is aware, this is an industrial area, and restaurants they design are located in shopping malls where mall owners are very concerned about the aesthetics. He stated that he would like to have a good project at this site. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider asked what assurances the Council would have, if the license was granted, that something would be done. He stated that the food requirements of the ordinance are not being met because there is no kitchen. Mr. Rust stated that he believed the construction schedules are outlined, and they should be able to obtain building permits in order to accomplish the renovation of the restaurant. He felt that Mr. DeFoe would continue to have him as the managing architect and would give assurances that he would try to work with the Council. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that there is an urgency here. She stated that this would have to begin tomorrow if building permits were granted. She asked the chances of completing the restaurant and serving food in eleven weeks. She stated that six months ago CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1995 PAGE 12 Council was told it was going to happen, and, as she understands, no food has been served. She stated that she is surprised that nothing has happened to have the restaurant operating. Mr. Rust stated that, in December, he reviewed how to generate more food service and was only informed a week or two ago about the urgency. He stated that he contacted the Chief Building Official immediately and started to work with him. He stated that his repu- tation is on lin�, and he will try to stay on top of what is happening. He felt that eleven weeks for a project of this nature would be reasonable. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that Mr. Rust referred to this being an industrial area. Her concern is meeting the sixty percent food sales in relation to forty percent liquor sales required by the ordinance. Mr. Rust stated that when you look at other sports bars and at the demographics of the area, he understands that there are major companies looking for places for noon lunches. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked Mr. Rust if he thought the restaurant would generate business in the evening. Mr. Rust stated that he would have to look on how to service the people coming on or going off shifts of neighboring companies. He stated that it seems there could be strong noon lunch sales. Councilman Billings stated that the construction schedule for this project indicates one to eleven weeks. He asked if there has been discussion on when week one would begin. Mr. Rust stated that they would begin upon receiving the building permit. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that a lot of the planning issues have been resolved, and the Chief Building Official's issues are in the process of being resolved. She stated that she thought the building permit would be issued this week. Councilman Billings stated that it seems likely then that the con- struction schedule would begin May 1. Mr. Rust stated that was correct, and he would be happy to meet with staff to resolve any problems or concerns. Councilman Billings stated that the information from Mr. DeFoe indicates that he has paid sales tax of $27,000. He stated that this would indicate that in five months of operation there have been $300,000 in liquor sales, since there has been very little food sold. He stated that yearly sales would probably then be about $600,000 and, assuming people who are buying food would CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1995 PAGE 13 consume an additional twenty percent in liquor, it would mean over $1,000,000 dollars in food sales in order to obtain a sixty-forty percent ratio to meet the requirements of the ordinance. He asked Mr. DeFoe if he felt this was realistic. Mr. DeFoe stated that if the $27,000 in sales tax is correct at nine percent and, assuming it is almost all from the sale of liquor, it would mean $300,000 in sales and $600,000 is not unrealistic for one year. He stated that over a million dollars in food sales would be very healthy, but he cannot calculate the numbers. Councilman Billings stated that he is concerned that Mr. DeFoe may not be able to meet the sixty-forty percent requirement, and the Council would not be able to renew the liquor license. He stated that he did not want Mr. DeFoe to spend money on the improvements if he could not meet the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. DeFoe stated that he may have to reduce the liquor sales and change how he does business. He stated that he hoped to have a good lunch crowd. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that if Mr. DeFoe's nightclub gene- rated that much in liquor sales three nights a week, the sales would be larger if he opened five nights a week. Mr. DeFoe stated that his plans now for the nightclub are to remain open three nights a week. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider asked Mr. DeFoe if he has a contractor. Mr. DeFoe stated that he has a cost plus contract with a contractor and has mechanical and plumbing contractors lined up. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that Council originally issued the liquor license for six months. She asked if Council could place conditions on the liquor license to make sure that in about fifteen weeks the restaurant has opened. Councilwoman Bolkcom suggested that possibly a stipulation should be placed on the license that the restaurant has to be in operation and food served by August 1 and then have a review by the Council around October 1. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that the approach is reasonable, and the time limits can be established by the Council. He suggested that possibly the architect could submit progress reports. Councilman Billings stated that he would suggest that the City's Finance Director be provided with copies of Form ST-1 of the Minnesota State Sales Tax Rate for the months of July, August, September, and October. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24. 1995 PAGE 14 MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcvm to approve the renewal of the annual liquor license for Sharx Nightclub and Sports Bar to be reviewed by the Council at the first meeting in November, with the stipula- tion that the restaurant portion of the business be operational and serving food by August 1, 1995, and that the owner show copies of the Minnesota Sales Tax Rate Form ST-1 to the City's Finance Director for his review to calculate the percentages of liquor and food sales for the months of July, August, September, and October, 1995. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilman Billings stated to Mr. DeFoe that he wants him to under- stand that the Council is doing something for him that they have not done in the past. He stated that the reason for the require- ment of the sixty-forty percent ratio was ta have goad restaurants in the City that served liquor. He stated that he did not want to be in the position of putting people out of business, but the pro- visions of the ordinance need to be adhered to or there will be a hearing for revocation of the liquor license. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the next time she will not accept any excuses. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she agrees with her colleagues, as Mr. DeFoe has already been given two extra weeks in addition to the eleven-week schedule he requested. She advised Mr. DeFoe to inform the Council of his progress. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that the aob has to be done or there will not be a next time. He stated that he wanted to make sure Mr. DeFoe is aware of the Council's feelings. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Rust thanked the Council and pledged to do whatever he could to establish a quality restaurant. He stated that he believed Mr. DeFoe would also like to thank the Council for their leniency and would work with them to meet the requirements of the City. 15. RECEIVE AN ITEM FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1995• A. VARIANCE REOUEST1 VAR #95-06, BY HOLLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 5 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LOADING DOCKS, GENERALLY LOCATED AT ?585 HIGHWAY 65 N.E. (WARD 2): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet to allow the construction of a 52 by 100 foot shipping dock facility. He stated that staff and the Appeals Commission recommend approval with certain stipulations which he outlined. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 15 MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to grant Variance Request, VAR #95-06, with the following stipulation: (1) Screening material shall be installed at the rear of the on-site car lot to separate the uses and mitigate the impact of shipping doors facing a public right-of-way. Screening shall include: (a) a 10 foot wide planting bed edged with 6 inch concrete curbing; (b) irrigation; (c) seven- teen 6 foot Black Hills Spruce planted 10 feet on center; and (d) filter fabric and rock mulch. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. RESOLUTION NO. 27-1995 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING HOMESTEAD TAX TREATMENT OF PROPERTY IN HYDE PARK BEING PURCHASED BY ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC. jWARD 3): Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that three proper- ties are involved to change the tax status from non-homestead to homestead in order to operate leasehold cooperatives at 5908 2-1/2 Street, 5916 2-1/2 Street, and 6008 2nd.Street. She stated that this item was tabled by the Council on January 23, 1995. Since that time, a neighborhood committee has been established consisting of Dick Snyder, Pat Gabel, Don Fortune, Jerry McNurlin, and Rathy Roesler. Ms. Dacy stated that this committee met on January 26 and Febru- ary 16 and identified 26 issues which were of concern with ACCAP's proposal. She stated that these concerns were divided into five areas: (1) project funding and financing; (2j ACCAP Funding sources and purpose; (3) ongoing operation of the cooperative; (4j impact on the surrounding neighborhood; and (5j statute requirements for homestead tax status. Ms. Dacy stated that ACCAP received a Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) deferred thirty-year mortgage iri the amount of $260, 000 subject to a number of stipulations. She stated that rIIiFA will require certain rehabilitation standards, pre and post rehabi- litation inspections, submission of an annual budget, submission of an annual audit of the cash flow statement, and approval of the operating statements. Ms. Dacy stated that the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) also provided rehabilitation assistance up to $115,000 for the three buildings. She stated that this development contract with the HRA requires: (1) compliance with all of the NII�FA requirements and contains several other requirements requested by the neighbor-hood; (2) compliance with the City's rental code; (3) completion of tenant screening of all potential tenants; (4) submission of annual progress reports of the cooperative; (5) occupancy standards of no more than two adults in a one bedroom unit; no more than three adults in a two bedroom unit; no more than three persons in a one bedroom unit; and no more than five persons CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 16 in a two bedroom unit; (6) no more than fifteen cars will be permitted at the seven unit building; (7) ACCAP is to purchase the lot to the south for a garage and play area; (8) the month-to-month lease contains language to encourage one year or longer terms; (9) supplemental payments to the HRA are required when savings in cash flow occur; and (10) tenants can only receive one form of rental assistance. Ms. Dacy stated that the neighborhood was concerned about the impact on property values. She stated that information received from the City Assessor is that buyers see the physical attributes of the neighborhood first and, if there is rehabilitation, most potential buyers will tend to react positively. She stated that the total cost for rehabilitation of all eighteen units is estimated at $230,000. Ms. Dacy stated that the concern about the police calls at 5908 2-1/2 Street were related to one person, and that person was evicted by ACCAP. She stated that the police calls at 5916 2-1/2 Street were significant prior to ACCAP's ownership, ACCAP has been working with the tenants, and no significant incidents have occurred at this building. She stated that ACCAP must comply with the tenant behavior provisions of the new rental ordinance. Ms. Dacy said that State Statute requires the City to determine if the findings that are identified in the statute about leasehold cooperatives have been met and the City must make this determina- tion at the time of the request. She stated that Mr. Jim Casserly, the iIRA legal counsel, has reviewed the cash flow statement to verify whether the requirements of the statues are met. He has determined that these requirements are being met by ACCAP. She stated that the City will review the annual operating statements by ACCAP and, if the requirements in the statues are not being met, the Council has the right to establish a public hearing and to revert the tax status. Ms. Dacy stated that the City Attorney's office has advised staff that once the cash flow statements were reviewed, and if the propo- sal meets the requirements of the state statute, the City must adopt the resolution. Ms. Dacy stated that some of the neighborhood concerns were addressed in the rehabilitation loan agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. She stated that residents of the neigh- borhood are present this evening and may wish to comment. Councilwoman Bolkcom thanked all the committee members who met to address the concerns of the neighborhood. She stated that Council has to pass this resolution as long as the requirements of the state statute are met. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider asked what the City�s recourse would be if the resolution was adopted and, if there are problems with the tenants or the agreement is not being followed. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 17 Ms. Dacy stated that there would be the usual ordinance enforcement powers and a financial control through the loan the HRA is providing. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider asked if the loan provisions of the HRA provide for a recall. Ms. Dacy stated that it provides for adherence to all items in the development contract. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked when the improvements would take place on these properties. Ms. Dacy stated that if the resolution is adopted, bids will then be taken. She stated that ACCAP has already submitted two sets of plans which the Chief Building Official is evaluating. Mr. Ed Pries, 5905 Main Street, stated that there are 35 apartment buildings in Hyde Park. He stated that if ACCAP comes and takes over many more, it will be a hardship on everyone else to make up for the taxes that are lost. He stated that the City is now bringing in more low income housing, and the neighborhood residents are frustrated. He stated that the children in the apartments tear out the basketball hoops at the park, and the apartment building residents are doing all the destruction. Mr. Pries stated that he has lived at this residence for 35 years and has never seen such a situation. He stated that apartment buildings are being torn down in Sylvan Hills, but the Hyde Park area has 35. He stated that there is a nice park in Sylvan Hills, but their area looks like "Dogpatch." Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that Council will be looking at what can be done to improve the parks and the Hyde Park area. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that he cannot understand how the ACCAP project makes things worse. He asked if ACCAP was planning to purchase other buildings in that area. Mr. Steven Klein, Planning Director for ACCAP, stated that they have no immediate or short-term plans to purchase other property in the Hyde Park area. He stated that they would be in contact with City staff prior to acquiring other properties in the City. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated she understands that ACCAP purchased a single family residence in the City. Mr. Klein stated that they are purchasing a single family property south of I-694 on Altura Road which will become a group home. Mr. Dick Snyder, 5901 2nd Street, stated that at the last meeting the neighborhood outlined several issues that were a concern such as more restrictive standards on occupancy, parking, tenants CITY OF FRiDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24. 1995 PAGE 18 receiving only one form of rental assistance, and items related to cash flow and Section 8. Ms. Dacy stated that the occupancy standards are more restrictive than provided for in the ordinance, and the other issues to which Mr. Snyder has referred to have been addressed. MOTTON by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 27-1995. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 16A. RESOLUTION NO. 28-1995 RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE: Councilman Billings stated that the Fridley Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution relative to workers' compensation and the need for the legislature and the Governor to enact reforms in workers' compensation insurance. He requested that Council consider adop- tion of this resolution in support of major reforms in the workers' compensation insurance. MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 28-1995. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 16B. RESOLUTION NO. 29-1995 REGARDING REGIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER PROJECT: Councilman Billings stated that the Council recently met in a joint session with the school districts and the regional senior center project was discussed. He stated it was agreed at this meeting that there needed to be a resolution on the regional senior center before the City could proceed with any other plans. Councilman Billings stated that this resolution would withdraw the City's support of a regional senior center project, but it en- courages the exploration of future opportunities for the sharing of services and facilities with the other three cities. He stated that this resolution further directs the City staff to explore space requirements and other factors necessary to construct a facility either in conjunction with one or more of the school districts or without the aid of the school districts. MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 29-1995. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 24 1995 PAGE 19 4. RESOLUTION NO. 26-1995 APPROVING FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTHTOWN TRANSIT HUB IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND COUNTY OF �NOKA, MINNESOTA: (From the Consent Agenda) Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if this project would add additional runoff entering Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that this project involves moving the MTC bus depot from the south to the west end of the Northtown Shopping Center. He stated that there are really no maj or changes except to provide for a right-turn lane on University Avenue for the buses. He stated that the only new asphalt will be an area where the buses pull in and drop off passengers and some additional designated parking for those using the bus service. He stated that there is not much change in the surface water runoff from this project. Mr. Flora stated that disassociated with this project is the devel- opment occurring around the Northtown Shopping Mall. He stated that holding ponds are provided to control the runoff and this should reduce the flow, as well as improve the water quality, entering Springbrook Nature Center. He stated that some water will continue to run through the University Avenue ditch into the Wal- Mart detention pond, but there would be no major changes in that area. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider unanimously. 17. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: to adopt Resolution No. 26-1995. Upon a voice vote, all voting declared the motion carried Mr. Burns stated that he had several items to discuss informally after this meeting. He stated that the City Attorney, Mr. Herrick, will report on the meeting with the attorney for the tenants of the apartments involved in the Southwest Quadrant project and Jack Kirk will report on the preliminary needs and cost for a community center. He stated that if time permits, he would also like to discuss the Lake Pointe site. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Councilman Billings to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of April 24, 1995 adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Dennis L. Schneider Secretary to the City Council Mayor Pro Tem En9ineer�ng Sewer Waler Parks Streets Mainten�ncc TO: William W. Bums, City Manager�`,�� PW9S-109 FROM: John G. Flora,�rublic Works Director DATE: May 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Chapter 219 - Harzis Pond Storm Water Improvement District At the April 24, 1995 Council meeting, the first reading for the attached ordinance establishing Chapter 219 for the Harris Pond Storm Water Improvement District was read Recommend the City Council approve the ordinance establishing Chapter 219 and the second reading and order publication Recommend the City Council approve the attached summary notice for publication in the Fridley Focus. JGF:cz Attachments 1.01 I /� . ,•`�._ , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 219 ENTITLED "HARRIS POND STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT" TO THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE The City Council af the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: CHAPTER 219 HARRIS POND STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 219.01. PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a Storm Water Improvement District for abutting property on Harris Pond and their share of the cost for the annual weed treatment program. This Storm Water Improvement District identified in Appendix A allows for the mailing of the bills and, if necessary, levying and collection of taxes on the cost to the property within the District. 219.02. APPLICATION For the past three years the City has received petitions from the Harris Pond abutting property owners to cost share in the weed and algae treatment within the pond. In addition, the residents in New Brighton associated with the pond have requested that their portion of the pond also be included in the pond treatment. The City has established a surface water policy to share up to one- half of the improvement petitioned by residents. 219.03. � � DEFINITIONS Storm Water Improvement District: Abutting real property to Harris Pond per Appendix A. Contractor: Firm responsible for treating the algae, weed and phosphorus elements within Harris Pond. C. Designated Representative: Individual of Harris Pond Storm Water Improvement District designated by the group to represent them to the City of Fridley regarding the Harris Pond treatment application. Serves as a communication link between the City and the residents of the District. D. Harris Pond: City pond located in the northeast corner of the south half section 13 T30 R24. y .�2 ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 E. Petition: Petitions requesting annual treatment of Harris Pond received by the City Council on April 10, 1995 from the Fridley residents Petition No. 3- 1995 and New Brighton residents No. 4-1995. 219.04 TREATMENT Annually, one-half of the Harris Pond surface area will be treated two times per year for submerged weeds. Annually, the Harris Pond surface area will be treated three times per year for algae. Every four years, commencing in 1995, the Harris Pond surface area will be chemically treated for phosphorus reduction in the water column. Al1 treatments including those described above, shall be done pursuant to regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 219.05. COORDINATION The residents abutting Harris Pond will designate a representative to coordinate with the City on the treatment location, process, results and cost participation. A City representative will coordinate with the pond treatment Contractor on the annual cost, start of treatment, inspection and payment for the designated work. 2I9.06. PROPORTIONATE SHARE The City will annually obtain bids for the treatment of Harris Pond. The Harris Pond designated representative will be notified of the estimated cost. The City shall contribute one-half of the cost with the remaining half to be equally distributed to the properties identified in the Storm Water Improvement District. The City shall pay the Contractor upon completion of the scheduled treatment. The City will then submit a bill to each abutting property identified within the District for their proportionate share of the cost. 219.07. LIEN In the event the Harris Pond bill is unpaid at the end of the calendar quarter, or the billing period under which the billing is sent out, the bill shall be considered delinquent and the City Council may levy real estate taxes on those parcels within the District pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 444.20 by certifying to the County the amount of said delinquent bill in accordance with 1.03 � ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444. A service charge of $50.00 will be added to all amounts certified to the County for collection. 219.08. TERMINATION Annually, before the treatment contract is consummated, the Harris Pond designated representative will be contacted by the City and notified of the estimated cost for that year's work. If 51% or more of the residents within the District decide not to continue the pond treatment, they must submit a petition to stop the improvement within 30 days of the cost notice. Yf the City decides to terminate their cost participation to the Harris Pond treatment, they will notify the residents within the District and conduct a public hearing in accordance with the City Charter to repeal this ordinance. This ordinance shall be effective from, and after its adoption and publication as provided by City Charter. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1995 WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK First Reading: April 24, 1995 Second Reading: Publication: 1.04 ORDINANCE NO. I. Title An ordinance establishing Chapter 219 entitled "Harris Pond Storm Water Improvement District" to the Fridley City Code. II. Summarv The City Council, at their May 8, 1995 meeting, approved Ordinance No. establishing Chapter 219 - Harris Pond Storm Water Improvement District. This ordinance establishes a special taxing district in lieu of an annual assessment process. The District includes 29 properties in Fridley and New Brighton that suxxound Harris Pond. It provides for treatment of weeds twice per year, algae three times per year, and phosphorus reduction once every four years. The City funds 50% of the project with the remaining cost spread equally among the 29 property owners in the District. The Ordinance allows for termination of the improvement upon receipt of a petition by 51% or more of the residents. In addition, the Ordinance allows the City to discontinue this improvement by notifying the residents and conducting a public hearing repealing the Ordinance. III. Notice This Title and Summary have been published to clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the City of Fridle�s Storm Water Improvement District ordinance. A copy of the ordinance, in its entirety, is available for inspection by any person during regular business hours at the offices of the City Clerk of the City of Fridley, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THE DAY OF ATTEST: 1995. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: March 20, 1995 Apri125, 1995 May 8, 1995 May 9, 1995 May 16, 1995 1.05 CITY OF FRIDLEY SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION l�EETING� MARCH 29� 1995 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Newman called the March 29, 1995, special Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Connie Modig, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Diane Savage Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Todd Stutz, Rottlund Homes Tim Whitten, Rottlund Homes Paul Danielson, Rottlund Homes Don Jensen, Rottlund Homes Tom Harrington, Rottlund Homes Mark Harris, 195 Satellite Lane, Apt. 2 Shannon Rodriguez, 175 Satellite Ln, Apt. 2 Cynthia Gordineer, 175 Satellite Ln, Apt. 16 Michelle Cook, 175 Satellite Lane, Apt. 14 Mary Jane Bright, 155 Satellite Ln, Apt. 30 Bonnie Speed, 155 Satellite Lane, Apt. 33 Tara Johnson, 155 Satellite Lane, Apt. 29 Vern Bluhm, 155 Satellite Lane, Apt. 27 Robert/Olivia Ritchison, 155 Satellite Lane Apt. 24 Patricia Mims, 195 Satellite Lane, Apt. 2 Phil Kragness & Ja�es Kragness, 195 Satellite Lane, Apt. 13 Chaundra Carroll, 175 Satellite Lane, Apt. 5 Mona Blaut, 175 Satellite Lane, Apt. 9 Eddie Orbita, 195 Satellite Lane, #19 Randy Gust, 175 Satellite Lane, #8 Kirk Hill, Minnesota Tenants Union, 1513 E. Franklin, Minneapolis, MN Kelly Cran, 175 Sateliite Lane Bob & Lorraine Martin, 6111 Starlite Blvd. Bob & Delores Baumann, 6120 Trinity Drive Ray and Margit Hong, 155 Sylvan Lane A1 Haller, 6200 Jupiter Road Terry Breza, 6200 Trinity Drive Steve & Courtney Rathke, 6270 Jupiter Rd Barb Thorstad, 6211 Starlite Boulevard James Kragness, 195 Satellite Ln, Apt. 13 Katie Barry, 195 Satellite Lane, Apt. 18 2.0 y SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 29 1995 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF MARCH 29, 1995, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the March 29, 1995, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST, P.S. #95-01. BY THE ROTTLUND COMPANY INC : The Rottlund Company, Inc., is proposing this plat request in conjunction with street vacation and rezoning requests in order to construct 48 senior-only owner-occupied condominiums, 96 owner-occupied attached townhouses, and 26 owner-occupied detached townhomes. The site is generally located south of Mississippi Street, west of University Avenue, and north of Satellite Lane. AND 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CON5IDERATION OF A REZONING REOUEST ZOA �95-01, BY THE ROTTLUND COMPANY INC : The Rottlund Company, Inc., is proposing this rezoning request in conjunction with street vacation and preliminary plat requests in order to construct 48 senior-only owner-occupied condominiums, 96 owner-occupied attached townhouses, and 26 owner-occupied detached townhomes. The site is generally located south of Mississippi Street, west of University Avenue, and north of Satellite Lane. Current zoning of the properties are R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, and C-3, General Shopping Center. The proposed zoning district is S-2, Redevelopment District. The S-2 district requires plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The legal descriptions for these requests are as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6, according to the plat thereof of record in Anoka County, Minnesota; subject to street easement conveyed by Document No. 714188; together with Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 7, according to the plat thereof of record in Anoka County, Minnesota; subject to street easement conveyed by Document No. 930569; together with The east 75.1 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, according to the plat thereof of record in Anoka County, Minnesota, being that part of said Lot 3 lying easterly of Lot 1, 2.02 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 291 1995 PAGE 3 64 1/2 Avenue, vacated, which lies southerly and westerly of a line described in document recorded in Book 905, Page 427; subject to street easement conveyed by Document No. 969625; together with That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, according to the plat thereof of record in Anoka County, Minnesota, and of abutting 64 1/2 Avenue, vacated, which lies southerly and westerly of a line described in document recorded in Book 905, Page 427; together with That part of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota (being also part of Block 12, Lowell's Addition to Fridley Park, together with abutting vacated alleys) which is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 distant 1,043.58 feet East from the Northwest corner thereof; thence Southerly parallel with the Westerly line of University Avenue Northeast, also known as State Trunk Highway Number 47, as the same is laid out and constructed a distance of 158 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 a distance oi 155 feet, more of less, to the said Westerly line of University Avenue Northeast, also known as State Trunk Highway Number 47; thence North along the said Westerly line of University Avenue, also known as State Trunk Highway Number 47, a distance of 158 feet, more of less, to the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4; thence West along the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 a distance of 155 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Subject to the rights of the public over the North 73 feet thereof for road purposes. Expressly subject also to the rights of the public for a service drive over the East 30 feet thereof. Together with abutting streets vacated or to be vacated. Lot 4, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5. Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6. Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 8. 3. VACATION REQUEST SAV #95-02 BY THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.: This vacation request will vacate a portion of the University Avenue Service Road south of Mississippi Street and north of Satellite Lane, and a portion of 3rd Street immediate2y north of Satellite Lane. The vacation request will also vacate a number of drainage and utility easements within the development area. The Rottlund Company, Inc., is proposing this vacation request in conjunction with preliminary plat and rezoning requests in order to construct a townhome project generally located south of 2.03 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 4 Mississippi Street, west of University Avenue, and north of Satellite Lane. The legal descriptions for the proposed street vacations are as follows: That part of existing public streets in Sylvan Hills Plat 5, according to the plat thereof of record in Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, except the north 40.00 feet thereof; together with That part of 64 1/2 Avenue and of Lot 1, Block l, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, lying northerly and easterly of a line as described in document recorded in Book 905, Page 427, Anoka County; together with that portion of service drive as shown on Sylvan Hills Plat 5, which lies north of the easterly extension of the straight- line portion of the south line of Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5; Except that part of the foregoing which lies east of a line drawn 30 feet west from, and parallel to, the east line of said service drive, and north of a line drawn 135 feet south from, and parallel to, the easterly extension of the north line of said Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5. Al1 of 3rd Street as dedicated on the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 5, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the east line of Lot 4, Block 1, said Sylvan Hills Plat 5, and westeriy of the west line of Lot l, Block l, said Sylvan Aills Plat 5, and northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 4, Block 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 13' 20" West, a distance of 123.00 feet, along the east line of said Lot 4; thence distance of 31.43 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, said curve having a central angle of 89 degrees 56' 40"and a radius of 20.02 feet, to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 80 degrees 17' 40" East and a distance of 101.52 feet, being a point on the south line of Lot 1, Block 1, 5ylvan Hills Plat 5, and said line there terminating. The legal descriptions for the proposed easement vacations are as follows: A ten foot drainage and utility easement lying along the westerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6. 2.04 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING, MARCH 29. 1995 PAGE_5 A ten foot drainage and utility easement lying along the southerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6. A ten foot drainage and utility easement lying along the easterly, northerly, and westerly lot lines of Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6. A six foot drainage and utility easement lying along the westerly and northerly lot lines of Lot 1, Block l, Sylvan Hills Plat 8. A ten foot drainage and utility easement located in the southwest corner of Lat 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 7. A ten foot NSP easement per pocument #285903 lying over Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 8 and over Lot 2, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 6. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE nOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C$AIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:38 P.M. Mr. Stutz, executive vice president of Rottlund Company, introduced the development team members at the meeting including Don Jensen, project manager; Paul Danielson, project engineer; Tom Harrington, project and landscape architect; and Tim Whitten, project architect. Tom and Paul are a part of BRW, Inc. Mr. Stutz stated Rottlund began its journey with the City during the summer of 1994 with the initial site tour of the project area. A long period of time elapsed since the initial discussion. Their first formal contact with the City began in September 1994 when they received a request for proposal in which they were asked to submit a development proposal to meet the needs and goals that the City had identified for this site. This included housing needs and what types of land uses and what type of product could occur on the development site. Mr. Stutz stated, in October 1994, Rottlund submitted a development proposal to the City along with other developers and were subsequently selected as the developer to go forward on the basis of an exclusive negotiations agreement that was entered into between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and the Rottlund Company. That agreement was entered into in January 1995 which in effect gives Rottlund from that time through July to negotiate a final development agreement and obtain the necessary development approvals to go forth with the development. ' 2.05 I SPECIAL PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MARCH 29. 1995 PAGE 6 Mr. Stutz stated the site is unigue in terms of some the challenges it presents. The City has some fairly specific design guidelines and housing needs that they perceive that the proposal needs to meet. Another challenge is dealing with the surrounding land uses and changing the character of the site. Mr. Stutz introduced Mr. Whitten who has worked with Rottlund for a number of years to discuss the site plan proposal. Mr. Whitten stated a nuYnber of site plans had been proposed. The first site plan, alternative "A", is a version of what was presented with the original RFP. They have made some changes and reshaped the plan based on discussions with staff. The site is composed of 14 acres and the plan proposes 172 units. In relationship to the existing neighborhoods, there is single family homes and a church to the south of the site and industrial space to the west. In the overall concept, they are trying to achieve a neighborhood with a strong image but also compatible with the existing community. They also wanted flexibility with the marketplace by creating a variety of product. In looking at the architectural theme they have tried to have a common thread throughout each of the products and other elements of the site to create a sense of unity and have recommended the use of common materials and colors. Another goal of the Rottlund Company was to create a successful long term project and, finally, to respond to the design guidelines set forth by the City. Mr. Whitten stated, in alternative "A", there are four areas of clusters of housing. The first is a condominium cluster located closest to the intersection of University Avenue and Mississippi Street made up of two buildings with 24 units in each building. The buildings would be four stories with underground parking. These are targeted for the senior market. The next is two clusters of townhomes totalling 96 units or 48 units in each cluster. Each of the six buildings would have 16 units each. Next would be cottages along the existing single family homes. There would 28 detached townhomes, each single units with one level, targeted toward empty nesters. Mr. Whitten stated in the overall concept they wanted to create a sense of entrance. They looked at putting the main entrance off Mississippi Street and, to keep the sense of neighborhood, to be able to come into the entrance and be able to go ta each of the clusters without having to travel through one neighborhood in order to get to the other. This allows that to happen. Another important item is that each cluster have their own identity. Mr. Whitten stated they looked at the position of each of the different clusters. The tallest buildings with the most density are in the area of the most impact or the intersection, the townhomes next, and then the single family along the existing 2.t�s SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 29 1995 PAGE 7 single family creating an edge for the project to, in a sense, protect the rest of the development. The location of the condo�iniums along the intersection creates a public space plaza area which introduces the public to the development. The condominium buildings give a sense that the public is moving from one space to another, which then changes again in the townhome neighborhood. A more central area of the development has detention ponds and trails connecting to the north to Mississippi Street and to the south to Satellite. Mr. Whitten stated they are proposing extensive berms along the edge of the site to protect and buffer the residents of the neighborhood and to act as a soft, comfortable edge to the community. They are proposing earth berms with stone columns, ornamental fencing and heavy landscaping. They tried to take materials, colors and textures in the architecture and thread it throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Whitten reviewed the architecture. The condominium buildings are targeted toward seniors. The buildings are four stories with 24 units per building. Each unit is proposed to have 1200 square feet with two bedrooms and two baths. The price is estimated to be approximately $80,000-$100,000. The buildings are proposed to have underground parking for which they are allowing more than one stall per unit. There is a common area on the main floor with an elevator. They tried to develop something that is as unlike apartments as is possible. There are only six units per floor, short single loaded corridors, and 2/3 of the units will be corner units with windows on two sides. Each unit will have an optional fireplace and will include a laundry. With only 24 units using the parking garage, that should help with security. The units would be sprinklered. The building is proposed to have a concrete stone-like base on the exterior, brick on the main level, and vinyl siding on the upper floors. Mr. Whitten stated the townhomes are targeted for young professionals. There are six 16-unit buildings on the site which are three stories tall. The garage and utility space is on the main floor, the living space on the second ievel, and the bedrooms on the upper level. The entry is at the half level to get to the living space and the deck is at the level of the living space. They are proposing 24 units with two-car garages and 72 units with single-car garages. The "A" units are proposed to have 1480 square feet and the "B" units 1240 square feet. These would be priced at approximately $90,000-$105,000. These buildings are proposed to be sprinklered. The key element here is density. With these buildings, there can be 16-18 units per acre and still have a product with a private entrance and private garage. None of the units are stacked on top of each other. The proposed exterior is to have brick accents at the base and vinyl lap siding on the upper floors. The architectural style is that 2.�7 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 8 of a Boston row house and very similar to the design guidelines. There was an issue of light into these units. Rottlund has a sister product which is the villas. The villas are two-story but are also interior back-to-back living units. Because these units have the living space above the garage, there is an opportunity for more glass than in the villas. There is also the opportunity for a large transom window at the entry which is visible into the living space. There is more opportunity for glass and a higher potential than that required by code. He is confident in the success of this product because they have had success with the villas and this design has some distinct advantages. Mr. Whitten stated the cottages are one-level, single detached townhomes targeted toward empty nesters. They are proposing 28 of these units. They are also planning to introduce a 1 1/2 story plan to go along with these still with the master bedroom on the main floor but offering some expansion space. Al1 have two-car garages. There are four basic floor plans varying in size from 1320 square feet to 1480 square feet and with plans for two or three bedrooms. The price would range between $130,000- $160,000. With this particular site plan, they have the product situated at a 30-degree angle to the street which allows them to provide a more private entry and a more private patio space. It also allows them to do more with the streetscape in relation to the garages and offers more flexibility. While these are single family townhomes, there is a variety with four different floor plans, different orientation to the street, and three color pallets. These units are all handicap adaptable. These units would also have accents of brick with lap siding or a cedar shake-look siding. Mr. Whitten stated that overall the materials would have some stone and brick accents throughout, the same color roofing. The colors of the condominium buildings would be the same but different from the siding material of the townhomes while still complementing. The color pallet for the cottages would also complement the other buildings. They are trying to find a variety but also a common thread. He felt there was a lot of strength in the design and this helps to create pride in ownership of the home and a sense of neighborhood. Mr. Whitten reviewed another site plan, alternate "B", which proposes 28 cluster houses. The site plan is similar to "A", but rather than having the townhome buildings along Mississippi Street to the west of the site, they are proposing 28 cluster houses. They needed to take seriously the issue of density. These cluster houses are two story which allows a smaller footprint. The market for these homes would be young professionals. The homes would have a two-car garage and would be built on grade. There would be about 11 feet of space between structures. The units would have between 1300 and 1600 square 2.�$ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 9 feet. The price range would be $110,000-$140,000. They are proposing three plans and looking at a 1 1/2 story plan to also satisfy the transitional buyer. The master bedroom can be on the main floor. These homes take advantage of the space above the garages which allows them to increase the number of bedrooms or provide bonus space which could take the place of a family room. The colors and materials would be similar to that of the cottages. The benefit to this particular plan is that it negates the need for a secondary access onto Mississippi Street and is more flexible in the fact that there is another product mixed into the marketplace. The better the mix the better the formula for success. This also more flexible to the issue of the intersection. Because these are single family houses, it allows for adapting to the roadway. Mr. Whitten stated there would be discussion about the intersection on Mississippi Street. It is critical that the intersection of 3rd Street and Mississippi Street is located approximately where proposed. This roadway connects Mississippi Street with Satellite Lane and functions very well in the proposed location. Mr. Whitten stated another issue that is important to the success of this project is the interior park. The intent is to have a mix of vehicular traffie and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Stutz stated the intent of the Rottlund Company is to give an overview of the development. They are prepared to answer any questions. Ms. Dacy stated the proposed name of this development is Stonegate. The purpose of the public hearing is for the Planning Commission to consider a rezoning for the property from C-3, General Shopping Center, and R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling, to S- 2, Redevelopment District. The S-2 is acting as a PUD approach. The site plan approved by the City Council will act as a guide for the layout. The second purpose of the public hearing is to consider a plat request. The third purpose is to vacate the frontage road along University Avenue as well as the existing drainage and utility easements. The frontage road extends south of Mississippi Street to Satellite Lane. Ms. Dacy stated the purpose of tonight's review is to review the plans in general and to take comments from the pubZic. This is the first time that the public has had the opportunity to review the proposed plans. The Commission is asked to focus its attention on the following elements: a. Location of the 3rd Street and Mississippi Street intersection 2.09 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 10 b. c. d. e. Architecture Housing products; 16 unit buildings versus two-story townhomes Site design Buffers Ms. Dacy stated at the next meeting the Planning Commission could address with some of the other details. Ms. Dacy stated alternative "A" has 172 proposed units made up of three housing types. Alternative "B" has 152 units with four housing types - senior condominiums, 16-unit townhouse, two-story detached townhome, and one-story empty nester. Both plans propose the 3rd Street intersection just to the end of the existing median. The intersection is moved 120 feet to the east of the present location. In the first plan and in response to concerns from the fire department, Rottlund is proposing a right- in and right-out at the driveway location that lines up with 2nd Street on Mississippi Street. Ms. Dacy stated, in considering the 3rd Street intersection, staff has proposed the "C" options which would have the 3rd Street connection opposite 2nd Street at Mississippi Street. Staff has talked about future traffic control at this intersection. There has also been discussion about a combined access into the RAO manufacturing facility south of this parcel. Apparently, trucks must use Mississippi Street to back into this facility. There has also been discussion to provide better left turn movement into the development with more room on Mississippi Street for stacking vehicles turning into the development. Ms. Dacy stated the developer is concerned about this option because of sharing the major entrance with an industrial use, and iurther, it is not central to the site in providing access to the housing products. Finally, it interferes with the east/west open space system. Ms. Dacy stated Anoka County told staff they would prefer the intersection be left where it is today. They would entertain looking at plans to move the intersection to the west. However, we have not asked Anoka County to provide written comments at this point as the developer wants to work with the Holly Center to maintain the intersection at its current location or within 35-40 feet east of the existing location. Ms. Dacy provided copies of a drawing showing the intersection plan if the intersection were shifted 40.feet to the east. The access to the development would line up with the access to the Holly Shoppinq Center. This creates a better operational plan for the parking 2.10 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARC$ 29. 1995 __ PAGE 11 at the Holly Center. Also distributed was copies of correspondence from the owner of the property supporting a solution along these lines. Ms. Dacy stated the direction for the Planning Commission is that the connection from Mississippi Street to Satellite Lane has been a concern from the neighborhood to the south as well as from the neighborhood to the north. The Commission should hear from the public which set of alternatives they feel is more appropriate. Staff is not asking the Commission to pick a specific option, but to provide general direction for the option the Commission would like staff to pursue. Ms. Dacy stated the second issue is the architecture. In general, the architecture meets the goals of the design guidelines but there are a iew things staff wants to bring to the Commission's attention. Because of past history in using brick, we think using more brick in the design would be more appropriate. There are four specific areas which staff has outlined in the report. Also, the architects mentioned they are trying to bring in colors and materials already existing in the intersection to complement each other. Another feature is the stone being proposed. Staff did not have an opportunity to discuss this material in detail with the developer. Staff's understanding is that the stone is a stone-like product used in other developments with apparent success. As part of the discussion of the architecture, we will talk about the brick and the use of the stone-like material. Ms. Dacy stated the third issue is the housing units. There has been concern about the 16-unit buildings having adequate light, adequate open space, and the long term impact on the value of the units. The developer responded with the two-story detached townhome with a two-car garage proposed to be located on the northwest part of the site. The advantage is that this does provide a good site design and flexibility for the location of the intersection. Because of the decreased density and the hzgher value of the units, in terms of the overall economic impact, there is no net loss. The direction staff is requesting is the housing type preferred in the northwest part of the site. Staff likes this proposal because of the design flexibility and because of the intersection, and this additional type of housing product adds to the mix and the appeal for the developer. Ms. Dacy stated the fourth issue is the site design, The guidelines talked about the appropriate setbacks. The setback to the 16 -unit building along Satellite Lane should have at least 20 feet between the building and the lot line. Staff is also suggesting that there be additional landscaping along the north side of Satellite Lane. The developer has proposed a number of floor plans for the two-story detached townhomes. Using the 2.11 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 12 guidelines, additional trees are needed for both plans. The sidewalk proposed to 3rd Street plus the open spaces from the intersection east/west through the development provide provides good pedestrian/bikeway connections. Ms. Dacy stated the fifth issue is the buffers. How does the site interact with the adjacent roadways and the neighborhood? The first issue the developer is proposing along University Avenue is stone-like columns with a vinyl chain link fence accented with berms and landscaping. Staff would like to suggest eliminating the use of chain link in the fence. The City has contacted MnDOT to propose an alternative along University Avenue. Along Mississippi Street, the buffer is similar except there is an alternating scheme with arborvitae, columns and berms. The height of that buffer is 8 feet. Along the lot line with RAO, a six-foot screening fence is proposed. Staff would like comments regarding the buffers and whether the Commission concurs to eliminate the chain link fence and pursue other alternatives along University Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated, at the end of the public hearing, she would like to discuss the next meeting. Changes have occurred in the scheduling for the April 19 Planning Commission meeting. Staff will suggest a special meeting for the end of April and the dates for this can be discussed at the end of the meeting. Mr. Newman asked Ms. Dacy to explain the difference between alternatives C and C1. Ms. Dacy stated alternative C shows a roadway to the west of the site. The developer points out that this is not a good access into the development. Alternative C1 shows the 3rd Street access at Mississippi Street and ending at Satellite Lane. The developer's concern with this aption is that it interrupts the east/west flow of the open space system. Mr. Newman asked Ms. Dacy to explain the "D" options. Ms. Dacy stated option Dl shows the intersection in the same location, option D2 shows the intersection located 35 feet to the east, and option D3 shows the intersection located 40 feet to the east. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the public record the letter dated March 29, 1995, from Mr. William Munson, Heartland Realty Ynvestors, Inc., regarding the location of the intersection. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 2.12 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING, MARCH 29. 1995 _ PAGE 13 Mr. Kondrick stated buffers are proposed along Mississippi Street, University Avenue, and the RAO property. He asked the distance from the curb to the building and the type of buffer to be constructed to provide sight and sound barriers. Mr. Jensen stated RAO has a 10-foot landscaped buffer to their drive lane which is approximately 25 feet wide with another 25 ieet to the structure. Tt is approximately 55 feet to the structure. There are advantages and disadvantages depending on the plan. Plan A is a proposed three-story building with the living area above. Plan B is a lower profile building and less view of the industrial facility to the west. To the south, there is approximately ZO-25 feet to the common property line of the RAO facility and they have approximately 20-25 feet to their parking lot which is approximately 5 feet above the proposed grades. To Mississippi Street, we have a relationship where we have about 60 feet to the property line and the amount of public space to the curb areas will fluctuate from west to east along the driveway line. There is approximately 35 feet from the property line to the condominium building and the public walkway space in that location. Mr. Jensen stated the agenda packet should have included an elevation section prepared on the University Avenue location which highZighted a dimension of 50 feet from the property line to the MnDOT portion of University Avenue where the frontage road currently exists. That is taken up in open space and buffering. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was going to be a berm along both University Avenue and Mississippi Street. Mr. Jensen stated the berm may be 3-4 feet high with plant material to create a visual screen along University Avenue. The same will be true along Mississippi Street. Here the street is higher than the project site. A six-foot high fence or column with an arborvitae hedge plus two-foot drop when coming into the site will create what is in effect an eight-foot barrier. From the street, it will look to be five to six feet tall. Mr. Sielaff asked if option D3 is proposing that the entrance/exit to the shopping center will be aligned with the entrance/exit to 3rd Street. Ms. Dacy stated yes. The intersections would line up from the Holly Shopping Center to the development. Mr. Newman referred to the staff report, page 4, the last paragraph and asked if this was saying that, while the overall dollar value would be less, the taxes generated would be the same because of the higher value for the property. 2.13 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 14 Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. Mr. Newman stated the staff report raised concern about a brick- like material. Mr. Stutz stated this is a stone-like material which is cast in concrete with a form mold. It is consistent concrete but there is a formline put inside. We come back and stain that material so it looks no different than stone. The Mall of America has this application as do others. Rottlund has used the product now for over a year with good experience. For the most part, people cannot tell the difference. It feels and looks just like the real thing. In terms of longevity, it is a better material. The cast is pretty much the same. This is being proposed for the columns on the perimeter and also for the base structure for the condominium buildings where the parking garage would have a stone-look base. The brick used will be real brick. Mr. Newman asked if the cluster homes havs "0" lot lines. Mr. Stutz stated they have looked at "0" lot lines, but it is their feeling from the standpoint that you are going to have roof overhangs with soffits and fireplaces and to have access along that side for �uture maintenance, they feel it is appropriate to have that setback. There is no reason why it could not be slid to one side. It provides an easement to the association for all property. Mr. Newman stated the exteriors are common property and owners will want to add personal touches such as flowers. This would allow them to go up to the next home. Mr. Stutz stated they have looked at a the "0" lot line, they have looked at a 4-5 foot setback and have looked at platting as an actual townhome so each structure would be within the structure of the townhouse lot. Mr. Newman asked their response to staff's suggestion to incorporate a porch. Mr. Whitten stated in the design of the cottages it acts and works as a"0" lot line where one side is solid and the other side is open. That area is emphasized for open space with a patio area. There is an opportunity for a porch off the rear. There is also an opportunity for an "L" shaped area in the back to provide a porch. Mr. Newman asked if there was a porch in the front. Mr. Whitten stated they are looking to create a variety in the front. One design actually shows a porch on the front that 2.14 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 _ PAGE 15 extends 1/2 way down the garage and is part of the exterior of the building. He would not run it all the way to the front of the dwelling but he would incorporate. On the units with a side entrance, there is an opportunity to do some plantings. They can incorporate some front porches. Ms. Dacy stated the reason for additional accent on the front is that we had talked about the appearance of the garage from the street. This additional feature would offset the "garage heavy" appearance. Mr. Whitten stated they are still working out where the intersection will be located. There is an opportunity to create some variety with the side entrance to the garage as well as some dormers. Mr. Newman stated one of his concerns is the massiveness of the 16-unit buildings. Mr. Whitten stated they have a sister product called the villa townhomes. They also have a project in Plymouth with 16-unit buildings that are basically the same mass and comparable in scale. The elevations do not do them justice. They have dormers, garages that project forward, and recessed entries. There are a number of different things going on to break it up. They may be other things going on where there may be able to shift the building to break it up. The only way to offer a smaller building is to lose units. They can pursue an 8 unit building but they will lose units. The mix of products was to offer a high density and a lower density product. This proposal allows them to do that. Mr. Newman stated, going down 85th, he passes the villas with eight to a building. He looks at the size of that and envisions looking at twice as many units. That causes him concern. Despite efforts to break it up, these will still be big buildings. Mr. Whitten stated he knew these buildings would not be twice as big. These are narrow and taller. The buildings you describe contain units that are 32 foot and 26 foot wide. We are talking about 24 feet and 20 feet wide units. These will not be twice as long. Here we are looking at three buildings together. That location has five buildings together. Another reason to cluster these buildings in two groups of 48 is to break it up. Mr. Newman asked about the units with single car garages. Will the proEile of buyer that the developer is dealing with buy a single or double garage? 2.15 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 16 Mr. Stutz stated the target market is singles. 70� are single. While this is a different building, it is the same type of market. A single car garage is generally bought by a single person and the end units by couples. The product has two bedrooms which does limit the number of families with children. It is advantageous to have a specific market rather than a mix of all types of buyers. Mr. Newman stated his first experience was with a si�ilar type of approach with a single car garage. When he came in at night, almost every car is in the driveway. They needed additional parking. Mr. Stutz stated he had a single car garage townhome. He had to use the garage for storage and that is why he parked outside. These garages are built deeper so there is storage and have generous areas to the side for storage to allow people to park their car in the garage. In single family homes with a three-car garage, one stall is often for storage. This space answers that question and makes considerable difference. Ms. Dacy stated the 16-unit buildings are proposed for the southeast corner of the development. These buildings are on the edge of the development consistent with the buildings on that side in terms of size, mass and density. It seems to be a better complement to the Target and municipal buildings. This seemed to be a good transition from University Avenue into the neighborhood. Mr. Saba stated he had a concern on the large units and parking. This is still looking at a profile in the eastern part of the development with those three buildings. He sees potential gridlock trying to get in and out of that area. There is not much space to back out or move around. There will be aars parked in the driveway and offside parking area. There is not much space to turn around and maneuver. With the single family homes, new construction would not allow a single car garage but it is included here. He is concerned about what it will look like when it is full. Single people don't always have only one car. They sometimes have boats or a sport vehicle. Mr. Sielaff asked if Satellite Lane would still have an exit onto University Avenue. Mr. Kondrick asked the width of the streets throughout the development as compared to a neighborhood. Ms. Dacy stated the street would be 27 feet wide in the cottage area measuring curb to curb. In the area of the townhouses, the width is also 27 feet. The drive between the buildings is 22 feet. This is consistent with other neighborhoods for private 2.1s SPECIAL PLANNING COMMI$SION MEETING, MARCH 29. 1995 PAGE 17 drives. In some cases, this exceeds the standards. 3rd Street is a public street and will be 32 feet. Ms. Modig stated she has a relative living in the townhouse development at Edinburgh in Brooklyn Park. Are those street and driveway widths consistent with this? Mr. Stutz stated he thought they were narrower than what is being proposed here. Ms. Modig stated there is not much trouble with traffic movement in that development. Ms. Dacy stated there will be no parking on one side of the street because of the fire requirements. They are satisfied with the width as proposed. Mr. Oquist stated there is an issue with 3rd Street. Before we can move on with the plan, we must know what we are going to do with it. The other discussions are rather irrelevant until we decide where 3rd Street will be. Some of the alternative wipe out a whole row of buildings. He does not understand the issue with the access to RAO. Why was this deemed necessary? Ms. Dacy stated �taff raised the option to move 3rd Street west next to RAO. There was concern for it being the farthest away from University Avenue. The engineer wanted the intersection as far as away as possible to maximize the distance. RAO does on occasion have their trucks use Mississippi Street to back into their loading docks. RAO contacted the developer and stated they were thinking about reconfiguring their parking lot. It is good engineering practice to have one access that is shared rather than have two separate accesses. Mr. Oquist asked what kind of effect would this have on this area with the big trucks. That becomes something obvious. He can appreciate that they want to get away from University Avenue and it makes sense, but when you do that it makes the whole thing somewhat captive. It no longer has the feeling of openness. You have a block of 14 acres all contained to the east with only one side road. What effect does that have on the serviceability of the property? Ms. Dacy stated that is a consequence of moving the road to the west. Mr. Kondrick asked if RAO has offered an opinion as to how they feel their property could be best accessed. Ms. Dacy stated staff have not heard directly from their representative. They con�acte� Mr� Jensen and talked about the 2.17 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 18 possibility of rearranging the parking lot and the access drive. The concept of sharing an access has not been discussed with them. She brought the idea to the Commission first for a recommendation. Mr. Sielaff asked if the housing types were an idea fro� the consultants or from the Council or HRA. Ms. Dacy stated at the Council and HRA level it was clear that they wanted senior condominiums. During the review process, it became clear that there were two strong markets - the empty nester and the young single professional. The market has created a life cycle opportunity to the products and having four products adds to that choice. Mr. Sielaff asked if this was based on need. Ms. Dacy stated a market study was done four years ago and the developer is also on top of the market. They are confident that the market is there. Mr. Sielaff asked if, with this mix of housing type, can one expect to families with children to occupy these units. Mr. Stutz stated there is nothing to exclude children. There will be a market toward empty nesters and young couples. Given the size of the lot, it perhaps will not be as attractive to families with children. The product price wise will be at a range that is very comparable to single family homes. This is intended for those people looking for no maintenance or an alternative to single family homes. Mr. Sielaff stated that there would likely not be that many families with children. Mr. Stutz stated that would be their expectation. Mr. Oquist asked, from the only be expected to service service the others. Ms. Dacy stated yes. standpoint of service, would the City 3rd Street and the association Mr. Oquist raised the concern of snow removal. In looking at the property in the southeast corner where there are large buildings and considering there are years when a lot of snow removal is needed, what do you do with the snow? Mr. Stutz stated snow may have to be trucked out. basin could be used for some snow storage. If you snowfall, there may have to be some trucking snow 2.18 The detention get a heavy off site. SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 19 Mr. Oquist asked if there are trees planted in the northeast area of the development. Mr. Stutz stated yes. This is not final. They are looking for public input. This a public area that turns into a private area farther into the development. This area is intended to be a public area. Mr. Oquist asked if the ponds were holding ponds that during the summer may be dry. Mr. Whitten stated they are proposing a pond on the east side which would be permanently fenced although it does not need to be fenced. The pond to the west is strictly detention and it could be dry at times. Mr. Oquist stated there should be some kind of barrier around the pond on the east side. Mr. Newman stated this would depend on the slope. Mr. Saba asked what type of path is planned for the open area. Mr. Stutz stated the path would be asphalt. They are suggesting the path be 6 feet wide. Ms. Dacy stated the standards are 8 feet. Mr. Stutz stated they are trying to create density and keep the impervious surface to a minimum. They would rather have more narrow and fewer wide trails. Mr. Oquist stated there had been concern expressed about the exterior. Has this been addressed? Ms. Dacy stated there was concern on the brick and that there be more of it. In the report, they had some specific ideas of options on the unit types. They are not proposing 100� brick but recommend adding some. The commission talked about the design guidelines. The discussion was that the design of the unit should dictate the materials. Mr. Saba asked for a description of the lighting for the proposed plan. Mr. Stutz stated the plans contain symbols regarding the types of lighting proposed throughout the development. NSP has increased their variety of fixture and posts available to the public. The associations contract with NSP for the light fixtures. Proposed is down cast lighting at the intersections, ponds, condominium building turnarounds, and garages. On the pedestrian system, 2.19 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 20 they are recommending 10-12 similar lights on shorter poles. These are very economical for the homeowners association to replace if damaged. Mr. Kondrick asked if the electrical service would be above or below ground. Mr. Whitten stated the development would have below ground utilities. Mr. Kondrick asked, in terms of covenants and restrictions for the property owners, must these units be owner occupied. Mr. Whitten stated there is nothing in the covenants that can preclude or restrict an owner from renting. They have found that the vast majority of owners occupy the units they own. Mr. Newman asked for comments from the audience. Ms. Olivia Ritchison stated she represents a tenants group who is being forced to move out. It is her understanding that the City of Fridley is a part of a coalition with other cities and, for the past two years, the City has been chastising the other cities for not meeting requirements for low income families. Here the City is doing the same thing. 72 units are being demolished and the tenants consist of low income minorities. Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission did not make the decision. That decision was made by the City Council and HRA. The role of the Planning Commission is limited to look at the design of the plan and to provide comments on that plan. This Commission has no authority to make a recommendation to the City Council on that issue. Ms. Richardson stated the demolition is to make room for empty nesters and young professionals with no regard for the families that live on Satellite Lane. At their first meeting in February, the City promised this would be an easy transition. They understand they must move and that this will be done regardless. Their main issue is with the relocation benefits. There is no cooperation whatsoever. In all fairness, she must congratulate Ms. Dacy for making one offer to one tenant for $1,300 which is the largest settlement. She has a copy of the paperwork so that all can see that the amount is there. This is one out of 45 tenants that live in three complexes. Al1 others get $0. We are talking about low income, minority groups who do not have the money to move out, who were promised relocation assistance and who are getting nothing. That is why they are at the meeting. She understands the Commission has no authority but it is discrimination. They want to be treated with fairness and with prejudice. 2.2� � � SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 21 Mr. Gary Wellner stated he owns the property adjacent to the development and he has a concern with the drainage problems that may develop. Ms. Dacy is aware of his concerns. He has a concern about the buffer to the west. He hopes they would not get into fences. He owns a twinhome there and hopes they could do something that would be nicer. He is willing to work with the developer to do that. However, the drainage does create problems. In reference to the street, having 3rd Street to the east makes a great deal of sense. Moving the street to the west adjacent to RAO makes little or no sense and he would encourage them not to do that. Plan B is an excellent plan and superior to the first plan he saw. This will enhance the City of Fridley, and he would appreciate moving ahead readily. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Wellner what type of buffer, other than fencing, would he prefer to separate the properties. Mr. Wellner stated he was not sure separation was necessary. There are some beautiful oak trees there which he would like to see preserved. He would be willing to do some grading to make his property compatible with their elevations. RAO sits high and he did not know what the developer plans to do with that. He is willing to do what will make this look like a community rather than a fenced in, commercial looking area. While he cannot speak for the person who owns the single family home, he is sure there is a drainage concern for them as well. Mr. Wellner stated there is a height problem. These things must be addressed from the start. He has owned his property for 10 years with no problems. If someone comes in there and grades without consideration, he can then have water in the basement. He wants to avoid this. If his property is five feet above the grade proposed for the development, it is not good use of that and perhaps they can do something that will be better situation for both. He would like to see his yard flow into their yard. He wanted to bring this up during the preliminary stage. He thinks Plan B is an excellent plan. Ms. Dacy stated the proposed fence stops along the western most side above halfway to the street. The drainage plan has been submitted, and the comments on the plan are in the staff report. Staff are concerned about the amount of flow going to the south and the Engineering Department has requested a modification in the proposed plan. Staff will meet with the developer to firm up the details. We are trying to get basic direction about the road because this will drive the actual plan. They will address specific concerns to incorporate those into the development. Mr. Rathke stated he liked Plan A better. He first heard about the plan in January. The logistics for having townhouses on Mississippi Street is to provide a blockage for the noise and the 2.21 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 22 aesthetics are much better. He thought a good point was made about the street and that this needs to be ironed out. Also, the senior condominiums we�e formerly planned differently in the corner but he likes the change made. Mr. Whitten stated these buildings were oriented along University Avenue and Mississippi Street. By moving them, it allowed a larger open space and allowed them to buffer some of the traffic noise and impact to the condominium buildings by pulling them back and landscaping the buffer area. The ends or the shortest dimension is then closest to the street. As far as the fountain, they had thought of introducing water at the corner of the plaza to the park area to show what to expect. That area they are leaving open for discussion at this time. Another reason to re- orient these buildings was that turning them allowed people to come in from a different orientation and be separated from cars. Ms. Patricia Mims nesters and young wondering if this this development. stated this development is targeted for empty professionals and senior citizens. She was idea is not for children to be targeted for Mr. Stutz stated they are attempting to address the housing needs for the City and the market. There is a significant amount of housing stock to accommodate families. This would accommodate those who want something other than a single family home. Mr. Newman stated 3/4 of the homes in the Fridley school district do not have children. The concern of the City is to provide housing so the senior citizens who want to stay in the City can stay and free up single family homes that may be more suitable for families. Ms. Mims asked if the corner buildings were for seniors. Mr. Newman stated the corner buildings are for seniors who want to own condominiums. There will also be cottages. Ms. Mims stated the 16-unit buildings target young professionals. Mr. Newman stated these units would be more likely to have younger buyers. Ms. Mims stated the cottages are for either. So, basically, this area is not for children. Mr. Newman stated that is not the specific target. If you look at the cottages, they are two to three bedroom homes and there may be families that want to live there. He can envision a single parent who may want to live there who does not want to maintain the yard. If someone has children in high school or 2.22 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29� 1995 PAGE 23 college, they may want an alternative. The City Council needs to generate a property value on this site to make it work which requires high density. Ms. Ritchison stated the City is building homes for senior citizens, young professionals, and basically couples with no children. There is really no attraction for families. When planning this, did you take into consideration families that there now in the apartments and want to remain in the City? These families have no choice and must now move out because are no apartments to rent in the City. are there Mr. Newman stated he did not know that he could answer that question. This is a valid point. He would hope that every resident can find a residence within the City. They have a lot of other residences and homes in the City that are quite economical and, by freeing up some of those homes, we will be able to provide more housing opportunities. If you look at starter homes, it is $90,000. Yet, there are a lot of good homes in the City that sell for $60,000 to $70,000. If we can get residents who live in those homes to move into this area and thereby making their home available, we can provide affordable homes to those people. Ms. Ritchison stated there is also the discrimination against minorities and low income family. Many people cannot afford to buy a home. What about the needs of those people? They pay taxes in the City just like anyone else. Mr. Newman stated that everything being said is correct. If you look at the school, 1/2 of the students qualify as low income. Fridley has a high proportion of low income compared to other communities. We want to provide for low income families as well as other people. One issue we have been wrestling with is how do we renovate this area and, in doing so, maintain the quality and appearance for an extended period of time. There will be some people displaced and he hoped they would be able to find housing. He did not think this was discrimination. There is a lot of affordable housing in the City. Ms. Ritchison stated she had received two lists from Ms. Dacy. The first list did not accept Section 8 and on the other list there was only one unit which was not until next year. Now they have lists for housing in other cities because there are no apartments left. Mr. Newman stated, to try to clarify, the City does have a high percentage of low income housing in the City. It is higher than other cities. He thought the City was making an attempt to provide housing for all buyers. 2.23 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 29 1995 PAGE 24 Ms. Ritchison asked how they could make a statement like that when you cannot provide relocation. 70 people are being asked to move out. How can you make a statement for affordable housing and not make funds available to relocate? These families do not have the money to come up with $1,500 to $2,000 to get into another apartment. And there are no apartments available in the City. They are asked to move children out of the school district. Was this taken into consideration when the planning was taking place? The tenants did not know until January. Then we were notified we had to move and the City will not provide assistance in moving out. Mr. Newman stated he did not know what is being done in relocation. He does know there are Federal guidelines. He appreciates the comments and concerns and he can sympathize, but he cannot answer the questions because this body is not involved in that. Ms. Ritchison asked if there was consideration for the effects this would have on the families and on the neighborhood. Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission did not make the plans. We set some basic design criteria and were asked to respond to a plan as presented to us. Mr. Ray Hong asked how many condominium associations will be represented in this development and will their be a community room. What type of heating and air conditioning will be in the condominium buildings? He is concerned about the exchange of air and noise between the units. Mr. Stutz stated there would be three different associations who would be responsible for their common areas and roadways. The condominium buildings are not intended to have a large community room. The size does not justify a large space. There are other facilities in the immediate area for community type functions. Mr. Whitten stated they are in the process of designing the heating and air conditioning. It is their hope that the heating and air conditioning will be on a per-unit basis. There will not be central heating and air conditioning systems. They are looking at a central water heater. Al1 units will have their own exhaust fans for the kitchens. All units would be independent from each other. Ms. Mims stated, when talking to Ms. Ritchison about relocation, it was said that you do not have that information. As the City Planning Commission when planning this project, did they think about the people being moved out of approximately 80 units and that there would be comparable housing in the Fridley area? Who 2.24 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 _ PAGE 25 would have those answers for us? If there another commission that we could speak to for the answers you do not have? Mr. Newman stated this is generally a staff function to be handled at the staff level with the consultant that the City has hired. Ms. Dacy stated this was a joint decision between the HRA and City Council to move forward with a redevelopment project including the apartments. They did realize they would have to relocate residents in those four buildings and also understood they would have to comply with the requirements of the relocation law as discussed. The City Council and HRA are public meetings just as this. There is also a Councilmember representing this area. Neighborhood meetings were held in February and the Councilmember introduced the meeting and outlined what would go on at the meeting. That person is elected so you may also contact that person. The two bodies are the City Council and the HRA who decided to pursue the project. Had she known the group would be attending the meeting she would have provided that information. However, they were asked to contact staff to get information on when meetings would be held. Mr. Newman stated, regarding the apartments, the Planning Commission received a direction from the HRA and City Council. The Commission's only discussion was if we had a preference for a l0-acre site or a 14-acre site and to provide a sense to them. The information being provided by the public is what we are here for. Ms. Mims stated it seems unusual that the City decided to provide a list of apartments but there are no openings, willing to provide fliers about moving trucks but no information on financial assistance. Tenants received other information to help them get out but no information to attend this meeting. Tenants took it upon themselves to see exactly what their rights are. She would appreciate receiving information on meetings, etc. Mr. Wellner asked what the normal setback was for the rear yard. Ms. Dacy stated 25 feet is the rear yard setback. Mr. Wellner stated the site plan appears to have the structures 30 feet from the property line. Ms. Dacy stated the distance is 30 feet from the property line on the west side. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to continue the public hearing to April 26, 1995. 2.25 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 26 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Newman informed the public that the public hearing would be continued to further discuss this issue. The Commission will continue to discuss aspects of the site plan. The developer will then take these suggestions and incorporate them into the site plan and come back. The Commission will at that time take final action. Mr. Newman stated the Commission has been asked to address five issues which he would like to review at this time. He asked for comments rega�ding the location of the 3rd Street and Mississippi Street intersection. Mr. Kondrick stated he would prefer alternative D with the access across from the shopping center access. The owner of the shopping center is willing to work with us. If we use D as an approximate plan, it throws the drawings off. If the street is located to the west, the distance from the condominium building would be increased. There would be more open space but they will lose some houses. The density will be changed. Mr. Whitten stated there would be a loss of two or three units in doing this. Mr. Kondrick stated he would like to see the entrance to the development line up with the Holly Center. Mr. Whitten stated, if they continue all the way to the existing entrance, they will lose more units. If they can line up within 40 feet, that is the best. Mr. Oquist stated he did not see the significance of lining up. Ms. Dacy stated the for the short term it improves the operation of traffic coming out of Holly Center and it becomes a full movement intersection. The long term impact is, if traffic warrants, we have an aliqned intersection for a signal. If offset, it provides for a difficult traffic maneuver. Mr. Sielaff thought the alignment was important and they need to be aligned. He is in favor of splitting the difference and moving the Holly entrance/exit over. Ms. Modig and Mr. Saba concurred. Mr. Oquist stated he did not care if this lined up, but he thought having the entrance further to the east was better. Mr. Newman asked for coinments on the architecture. z.26 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING, MARCH 29� 1995 PAGE 27 Mr. Oquist stated he thought they had talked about a compramise with more brick and wood. This is something they can work out. He likes the design. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a difference in cost between doing the brick forms or doing actual brick. If the forms looks good on the columns, why not do the same thing on the houses? If it cost effective, looks the same and easier to maintain, why can it not apply to the houses? Mr. Stutz stated there are two elements. One is the columns which are cast in place as will be the base of the condominium buildings. The form lines will look like flagstone. From the concrete going up will be actual brick. This can be done to look like brick, but it is easier to do stone because there can be a duplication of prime lines. Brick is more difficult to do because of the lines and is probably not any more cost effective. Mr. Newman stated the general consensus is that we want to see more brick. One concern he has is in the cluster homes. He saw a slide of a two-car garage and could not see the house. He would describe it as a two-car garage with an attached house. He does not want the garages to take over the landscape. He liked the idea of more brick and the idea of porches. Looking at some of the concepts presented, his recollection is that one has two windows facing the street on the upper floor. He wants to make sure there is a certain amount of glass there. The middle unit only has one window and he concerned it will be dwarfed. Mr. Whitten stated there are opportunities to do that and he would be happy to incorporate that idea. Ms. Modig stated, in the townhouses with the living space above the garage, those have a tendency to be colder. Are the garages going to be under the unit occupied by the garage? Mr. Whitten stated yes. The owner of the garage will live above that garage. They have worked out the issue of the cold with insulation and sheet rock. This also reduces the noise of the garage door opening. They also design the units so there is no plumbing above the garage door. Mr. Kondrick stated he thought the units should have two-car garages. The City insists this be done with other new housing and he feels this should be in the same way. People have recreation vehicles, guests, and other reasons•to have a double garage. Mr. Whitten stated in Plan B, of the product that is not a condominium, 80 would have a two-car garage and 26 would have a single-car garage. There is quite a few more units with double 2.27 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION M$ETING. MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 28 garages. It is also an issue of density. They cannot achieve the density with two-car garages. They are conscious of the fact that people put other things in their garages and that is why they added additional space. Mr. Sielaff asked if the association would have rules about outside storage. Mr. Whitten stated the association would control what happens in the common areas. Mr. Kondrick asked if there would be fireplaces. Mr. Whitten stated they are proposing gas fireplaces in every unit. Mr. Saba stated, at the last meeting with the block captains and the police department, they talked about a new type of lighting that is photo sensitive. Each house has a light that comes on at night and stays on. It is much safer. This may be an option in lieu of some of the street lights that do not light up individual homes. Mr. Kondrick stated they had at one time discussed an entrance theme. Are the contractors aware of this discussion? Mr. Whitten stated the development will be called Stonegate and will have a series of columns repeated along Mississippi Street and University Avenue and at the corner would be a wrought iron railinq. This detail will be developed by the next meeting. Mr. Newman asked for comments about the housing products. The general consensus was in support of Plan B. Mr. Sielaff stated he liked the idea of having life cycle housing. He also liked the idea of having fewer townhouses and more of the other types of housing. Ms. Modig stated she liked B with the road moved over as discussed. This will change the density. When the project was first discussed, the density was proposed to be 75-100 units and this is now up to about 150. This is nearly double the original discussion. The economies for the development dictates where the profit margin lies but she is concerned about this will be too much. Mr. Newman stated the density is set by the City Council and HRA for the tax increment financing required. 2.28 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 29 Ms. Modig stated she would not mind living in one of the units but she is concerned about traffic, how it will impact the whole corner and the traffic pattern, and she is not sure how it will handle aZl that. Ms. Dacy stated, because of the traffic concerns, they asked the developer to do a tra�fic study. There will be a net decrease in the traffic. This is an important factor. It is getting more busy on Mississippi Street so we are attempting to be more careful about placement of the intersection. Mr. Kondrick stated he liked B because it was less dense. There are too many cottages. He preferred less. He would like to create more green space for all in the southwest part of the development. He would like to see six to eight cottages on the side facing Kasota. In the other area, there probably could also be fewer units. These are very close together. He realizes the economies of the development but he thought the overall beauty of the area would be enhanced by a less dense program in the cottage area and the two-story detached townhomes. Mr. Oquist stated he liked B. He liked the idea of space between each of the units as opposed to the row effect. He has a problem with the row house in that they look like barracks. Otherwise, he thought this was a nice looking plan. Ms. Saba stated he liked B, but if they were going to add green space, he would add it to the area along the northwest part of the development. If two or three units were to be sacrificed for the road, he would prefer to see three or four for the sake of space for those building. He would also like to see the path 8 feet wide. With the mix of people walking, biking, and roller blading, and having older people in the area, he would like to see a wider path. He would like to see the green space in the center extend further to the west. The view on Kasota is probably okay but he is concerned about the northwest portion. He would Zike to see more use of green space and make it more of a park then a drainage area with a few trees. Ms. Modig felt there would not be a lot of bikes in that area because it is kind of a private development. Mr. Newman felt Plan B was a tremendous improvement over A. He asked if the cottages are similar to those in Lakeville. Mr. Stutz stated these are the same with different architecture and these will have some different colors. Mr. Newman stated, in response to the concerns about space, he thought a lot can be handled with strong architecture. The open area in the northwest corner should be throughout. He has major 2.29 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARCH 29. 1995 PAG$ 30 concerns about the big townhouse buildings. They are huge. He is concerned about what they will look like 10 years from now. He is concerned about the size and mass in relation to how close they are to 3rd Street and Satellite. He did not think a two-car garage was necessary. Those three 16-unit buildings are of tremendous concern. Mr. Sielaff stated he would prefer to see them lacated near University Avenue. Mr. Newman stated, if they took the clusters and did a variation there, he would prefer that. If they took the 16-unit buildings and made them 8-unit buildings, he would prefer that. There would be more green space and more open. Mr. Sielaff asked if a townhouse represents life cycle housing or can other housing do that also. He also questions the big buildings and would prefer not to see them. Mr. Newman stated he is concerned about the size. He has no doubt they will fill up but they are huge buildings. While they have a strong architecture to break up the fronts and the entrances, they are still 175 foot buildings. The others don't concern him because he has seen them in other parts of the country. The lots are not very wide but there is still a sense of privacy. One could create green space such as there is at the northwest corner. Ms. Dacy stated the consensus is for alternative B with four housing praducts with concerns about the 16-unit buildings. Staff will continue with this plan and talk about the density issues. Staff are in a precarious position of reporting to three bodies. From the HRA standpoint, a significant reduction in density will change the budget for the HRA. This plan will have no net impact for them. If this is passed out of the Planning Commission, she wants to make sure of the thinqs discussed are things you will be comfortable with a�ter the development is built. Just like any other project, this commission makes a recommendation to the City Counail who may take another approach. 5ome of the issues of density will be evaluated by the HRA. Mr. Newman stated he realizes there are economic issues. Their role is to look at planning issues. If they decided not to follow the recommendation, that is their decision. However, he does feel these buildings are massive and he does have a concern. Ms. Modig asked if the buildings could be done in a quad home with a similar density. Mr. Newman stated he thought they would lose density. 2.30 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING, MARCH 29. 1995 PAGE 31 Mra Newman asked for comments regarding the site design. Mr. Sielaff stated much of this had already been addressed. It might be good to have the road to the west which could be extended down to Satellite Drive for better access. Mr. Newman thought that would bring more traffic into the area. Mr. Sielaff stated that 3rd is clearly the major thoroughfare. Mr. Oquist stated that street would not be city owned and, if extended, would become a thoroughfare. It may create problems. The consensus of the Commission concurred with staff recommendations. Mr. Newman asked for comments regarding buffers. Ms. Modig asked if there would be a fence all the way around the development. Ms. Dacy stated no, there was no fence along Satellite Lane. Mr. Oquist asked what they were trying to buffer. Ms. Dacy stated there is concern about noise into the area. From the outside, you did not want to see a line of garages. They wanted to see something at the corner that says you are in Fridley. With the fence, columns, berms and landscaping, it makes a nice transition. Mr. Kondrick stated his questions regarding the berms had been answered. Mr. Oquist stated he would prefer to see more buffering done with vegetation and landscaping rather than fences. Ms. Modig asked what the buffering would be. Mr. Stutz stated they are dealing with more confined spaces. They would have columns and arborvitae planted next to each other to create a solid fence. Mr. Kondrick stated the open space will be a public space for people to congregate. Along with people comes debris, graffiti, and maintenance. Who would be in charge of that area? Ms. Dacy stated this had been discussed on a preliminary basis. It would be maintained by the homeowners association but there are a number of issues yet to be discussed. 2.31 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMZSSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 32 Mr. Kondrick stated he could see this area as a problem for obvious reasons. Mr. Stutz stated it becomes less of a public space is the homeowners are in charge. There is not as much pedestrian traffic on that corner. It looks inviting so people come through and enjoy. Mr. Kondrick stated he agrees, but there are kids outside of the municipal building skateboarding, etc., and it is not designed for that use either. It still appeals to kids and that is why he is raising the question. Mr. Newman thanked the architects for co�ing to the meeting and invited them to the meeting on April 26. Ms. Dacy stated the Environmental Quality & Energy (EQEj Commission and the Planning Commission talked about a joint meeting for a water conservation plan. The agenda item for April 5 has been moved to April 19. In order to limit the meetings for April, the Planning Commission now has two meetings for April. The joint meeting can be held on May 3. EQE members will be notified of the change. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22 1995 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the February.22, 1995, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN�RESOURCES COMMIS5ION MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1995 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the March 2, 1995, Human Resources Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ITNANIMOIISLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 14, 1995 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the March 14, 1995, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 2.32 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 29, 1995 PAGE 33 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NE�PMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 29, 1995, SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, _� onn Cooper Recording Secretary 2.33 S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETZNG, Wednesday, March 29, 1995 2.34 S I G N- IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, March 29, 1995 Name Address/Business � % � 1 (�°jf"� . � � I^-� /�� /�� c�� 1 Y� itl; tt r S•�c ✓� S�'a � z; ,JE ,gT� ro a v u,°,7z. °�. ��-�� .i ,z�s-�.�= --�? /i �� r�� r a 2�--� �� I a�� T'� �� t rr_ �N ��°l J f�r��eS' k�f��v�s� /�� SA?e,�.�lr� �.y � � i� t-r 1 s ,�,� � 1 2.35 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MELTII+TG� APRIL 19� 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the April 19, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Me7nbers Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Connie Modig, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Diane Savage Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Mike Larson, Liquor Store Operation Manager Rick Pribyl, Finance Director Glen VanWormer, SEH Jim Plocienik, 7507 Tempo Terrace Steve Hardel, 1010 Osborne Road N.E. Keith Dawson, 7398 Tempo Terrace Donna McBrian, 7398 Tempo Terrace Paul & Joyce LaDuke, 216 57th Place N.E. Barbara Tangren, 7368 Symphony Street Karen & Robert Dove, 7505 Jackson Street N.E. Toni & Gil Flaig, 7580 Jackson Street N.E. Tim & Ruth Breider, 7550 Tempo Terrace Don Vant, 406 Rice Creek Boulevard Steve Billings, 6431 University Avenue N.E. James Sandquist, 7300 Symphony Street N.E. John Miller, 7350 Lyric Lane N.E. Geri & Harvy Benson, 7301 Tempo Terrace A1 Quam, 399 73rd Avenue N.E. Dave Meyer, RMS Co., Coon Rapids Janet Kenz, 5615 N. Danube Road Dona Woltering, 7341 Tempo Terrace Sheila Carlson, 7543 Tempo Terrace Leah Price, 7428 Melody Drive Dan & Gail Roufs, 7686 Van Buren Street Carrol Rahn, 7399 Tempo Terrace Merle Wacker, 7425 Melody Drive Joanne Stark, 7340 Melody Drive Dave Turbitt, 7341 Melody Drive Cynthia Schrence, 7372 Symphony Street Bill & Suzanne Holm, 7424 Melody Drive N.E. Richard Larson, 5861 Fifth Street N.E. Thomas & Pamela Zembal, 7340 Concerto Curve Diane Refshaw,,7405 Melody Drive Les Kuivanen, 7398 Lyric Lane N.E. Jim Holmen, 7310 Tempo Terrace 3.0 y PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 19. 1995 PAGE 2 Kurt Swanson, 6723 Overton Drive N.E. Lana & Quentin Freeburg, 301 Rice Creek Terr. Dee & Will Lynn, 7370 Memory Lane N.E. Sharleen & Chuck Gooder, 7363 Memory Lane Joy Maras, 7371 Jackson St. N.E. Jeanne Zimba, 7350 Jackson St. N.E. Maryrose Hegland, 7321 Jackson St. N.E. Florence Kari, 7330 Jackson St. N.E. KayAnn Danielson, 7472 Melody Drive N.E. Linda Pearson, 7331 Jacksan Street N.E. Kenneth Christiansen, 7525 Fourth Street N.E. Deanne McKusick, 7330 Van Buren Street N.E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to approve the agenda as presented. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. APPROVAL OF MARCH 29. 1995, PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig to table approval of the minutes until they have had adequate time to review them. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY$, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Newman took the opportunity to welcome the public to the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 1995. He informed them that the Fridley Planning Commission is an advisory body, appointed by the City Council. They are all volunteer members of the community who have a concern about how the City grows and develops. Their principle purpose is to receive information, as well as public testimony and pass it on to the City Council. They will make recommendations on the items, but they do not make the final decision. The final decision is made by the City Council. For those persons who attended the meeting in regard to the proposed liquor store, Mr. Newman stated it will be going before the City Council on May 8th (no public testimony will be taken at this meeting) and the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposal on May 22, 1995. 1. PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING RE4UEST ZOA #95-02, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To rezone property from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2, General Business, to allow the construction of a new municipal liquor store on Tract A, Registered Lane Survey No. 78, generally located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. 3.02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19. 1995 _ PAGE 3 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff to waive the reading and open the Public Hearing in consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA #95-02. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYB, CSAIRPBRSON NSWMAN D$CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this is a rezoning request by the City of Fridley to rezone a parcel of land located at the intersection of University Avenue and 73rd Avenue from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2, General Business. The surrounding zoning of the property includes M-2, Heavy Industrial to the east, C-2, General Business to the west, both north and south of 73rd Avenue, R-2, Two Family Dwelling to the north, and also R-1, Single Family to the north. Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the rezoning request, if approved, would be to construct a 11,200 square foot municipal liquor store. Ms. McPherson stated that the parcel has been vacant since the incorporation of the City. In 1989, the City considered a Special Use Permit Request by Phillips 66 Company to allow a gas station/convenience store and car wash on the site. The City denied that request on the basis that the square footage of the retail space exceeded that which was permitted in M-2 Industrial District. The City has also received various informal inquiries in regard to the parceZ, although no formal development applications have been received. Ms. McPherson stated that in considering a rezoning request, staff reviews three criteria to evaluate the request: 1) the compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district - the proposed district is C-2, General Business and liquor stores selling packaged goods are a permitted use within a C-2 District; 2) the compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses ann zoning - the parcel is a loop-back parcel (it is located between a service road and a major thoroughfare). There are 19 such parcels located in the City, 13 of which are zoned C-2 General Business, regardless of the surrounding zoning of adjacent parcels. There is additional C-2 zoning to the west and office uses located in those particular buildings. There is residential zoning to the north, both two family and single Eamily, however there is a fairly large road (73rd Avenuej separating the residential uses from the subject parcel. The use of the parcel as it is currently zoned would be limited to small industrial user who would not require additional expansion area due to the small size of the parcel. The parcel is approximately 2.4 3.03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19, 1995 PAQE 4 acres. Other possible uses under M-2 include repair garages or other automobile related uses. Rezoning the parcel to a commercial designation would afford a wider variety of uses to be permitted on the site. In 1980 when the City approved the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the State planning statutes, the parcel was designated as Commercial in the City's comprehensive land use plan. 3) the compliance of the proposed use with the zoning district - these include a variety of items beginning with setbacks. The site has been designed to meet all building and parking setbacks - there are no variances being requested as part of this proposal. Unlike the M-2 district, this district does not require a 100 foot building setback from the right of way line across from the residential district, therefore the setback from the right of way line along both 73rd and University Avenues will be 35 feet. There are 58 proposed parking stalls, three more than what is required. The Engineering Department has designed a grading and drainage plan which complies with the Sixth Cities Watershed Management Organization. A landscape plan has also been designed by staff and complies with the minimum requirements of the C-2 district. Staff has worked with the architect to design a building which is consistent with City requirements of other developers. The building at this point is proposed to be a combination of masonry block and brick with some architectural detailing done in a pre- finished manufactured metal finish. The color is proposed to be tan and burgundy. The tan will be similar to the existing home business center located to the east of the subject parcel. Staff has not made a determination regarding signage, however, the signs that are shawn on the elevation maps do comply with the City's sign code for a C-2 district. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with peak hours generally oacurring between 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. in the evening. With any rezoning request traffic can be an issue. Staff has looked at the traffic which could be generated by the liquor store and has also contracted with Short-Elliott- Hendrickson to further analyze the traffic impacts in rezoning to a commercial designation would generate. In lookinq at the types of trips that a liquor store would generate durinq the peak hours, SEH has determined that approximately 90 total trips per hour to and from the store couid occur and in their opinion the left turning movement onto 73rd Avenue from the service road could be backed up at certain hours as peak hour traffic is accessing 73rd Avenue to go northbound on University Avenue. Ms. McPherson noted that Mr. Glen VanWormer was present also from SEH to further answer any questions that the commissioners or public 3.04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19. 1995 PAGE 5 may have in regard to traffic concerns, as well as Mike Larson and Rick Pribyl, representing the Liquor Store operation to answer any questions in regard to the store operation. Ms. McPherson stated as the request meets the three criteria used in evaluating all rezoning requests, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Counci2. Mr. Sielaff asked if the proposed site is similar to the Central Avenue site in terms of traffic volumes. Ms. McPherson stated she did not have the information readily available, but would guess that the traffic volumes would be pretty similar. Mr. Sielaff asked if there is data from the Central Avenue liquor store on how much traffic to the store is generated during peak hours. Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Larson should be able to provide information in regard to the nwaber of customers per hour occur at that store. SEH estimates that approximately 90 total trips in and out per hour would occur during the peak. Mr. Kondrick stated in regard to where the building is being placed and the manner in which one would go into and out of the parking lot, he was curious what the distance is from the nearest entrance to the stop sign on 73rd Avenue. He wondered how many cars could be stacked in this area. Ms. McPherson stated the distance was estimated to be roughly 160 feet, so Mr. Rondrick felt approximately eight cars could stack. Ms. Modig asked if there have been any complaints from the neighborhood of where the liquor store is located now. Ms. McPherson stated she is not aware that their department has received any complaints reqarding the current operation or location. She did not inquire from the police department as to whether they have received complaints. Mr. Kondrick asked how far the current liquor store is from a residential area to the south. Mr. Rick Pribyl, City Finance Director, was present to discuss the proposed liquor store. He stated the proposed site is one the City is considering because of the necessary relocation of the current store due to the redevelopment on the southwest quadrant of the City's tax increment district. This site is one that the City has been looking at for some time and it appears 3.05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 6 that it would be a very viable location for the City's off-saie municipal liquor store. Mr. Mike Larson, Operations Manager of the City's Liquor Store, was also present. He stated the largest change in the liquor stores industry is an increase in the business and warehouse style operations. The Fridley Liquor Stores have modified their image, management style and advertising plans to conform with customer demand for a warehouse image with a large selection and low pricing. This is their plan for this site. The goals for this proposal are to continue to provide a profit for the citizens of Fridley, control the sales of intoxicating beverages and build a store that the community can be proud of. Mr. Kondrick asked how the size of the proposed building compares with the current site on Mississippi Street. Mr. Larson stated both buildings are basically the same size. Currently, the warehouse store is 11,800 square feet. The proposed building will be 11,200 square feet. The design will better suit the use, however than building at the current location. Mr. Kondrick asked how large a staff is employed. Mr. Larson stated there will fourteen (14) total employees; four full-time and the remaining will be part-time employees. Mr. Sielaff asked if they had some idea as to how much additional traffic will be generated at the new site. Mr. Larson stated the studies have found that they would experience four to six times more exposure at the new site than what they are getting at the current site. The traffic that they anticipate at the new site is a northbound traffic. They are attempting to appeal to drive-by traffic. This is the key difference between the current location on Mississippi Street and the new proposed site. Mr. Kondrick asked how much of their volume will be drive-by traffic. His calculations show this would be approximately a 30� increase. Mr. Larson stated the market analysis that they had done by Magnen Research predicts an increase using the worst-case scenario of about $615,000 by the higher exposure. The most likely case is about $900,000 in total sales. Mr. Larson stated if one looks at the proposed design, what they are attempting to do is have traffic make a right-hand turn on 73rd Avenue, coming down to the loop back, making a right-hand 3.06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 7 turn and coming in the store. The reason the parkinq lot is designed the way it has been is when a person exists the store they will actually come out and down to 69th Avenue to get back out on University Avenue. The existing store parking lot travels in this fashion right now. If a parking lot is created in the way that they have, customers do not find it the most convenient to try to exit out when others are trying to turn in. Therefore, the automatic flow of traffic is determined by the design of the lot. Mr. Kondrick stated if 25� to 30� of the customer base will be going north, they will likely choose to swing down 73rd Avenue to University Avenue. Mr. Larson stated he agrees with this. The other nice thing about the design is if they do exit out the southwestern driveway they would not cross oncoming traffic that the liquor store would be creating. Mr. Kondrick asked if the driveways will accommodate two cars at both openings. If so, would it be possible to direct the traffic to always enter and exit the way that it is proposed. If this were possible, there would be more stacking space. Ms. McPherson stated the City does have the option and flexibility to create this as a right-in type situation. Mr. Glen VanWormer was present to answer questions in regard to the traffic concerns. Mr. VanWornaer stated they had completed a traffic study of the proposed site and put together a short report. In the report they did three things. They looked at the traffic that would generated by the liquor store of the proposed size. They alsa did some comparisons on different types of uses that could be this site. The traffic volumes range from 35 cars for a car repair use to 225 for a large bank of a fast-food restaurant. These are all peak hour figures. be on Mr. Sielaff asked if they have a sense of how much stacking will occur making a left-hand turn onto 73rd Avenue. Mr. VanWormer stated looking a signal cycle action, two or three cars would likely be backed up during peak hours of store operation. One of the biggest conflicts wiZl be with the residential area which has a lat of outbound trafFic in the marning. Whatever goes into the site, it should be one that generates evening traffic. 3.07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 8 Mr. Sielaff asked how long they anticipate a car having to wait at that intersection before they could turn. Mr. VanWormer stated just guessing, he would say it would be rare that a car would be there longer than two signal cycles on University or more than 1 to 1.75 minutes. Mr. Oquist asked if there has been an opportunity to have conversations or discussions with the neighbors to the north and south in regard to the project prior to this time. Mr. Larson stated they did not anticipate any significant controversy as they assumed that this particular use on a commercial or retail basis would be less intrusive than some of the other possible uses. Mr. Kondrick asked if lighting has been discussed for the proposed store. Mr. Pribyl stated they have discussed this with the architect on several occasions. They have discussed putting a berm with the landscaping to make sure that there is no lighting from the headlights of the vehicles entering the area would shine over into the residential area. Ms. McPherson stated that she spoke with the project architect today who stated that at a minimum there would be one parkirig lot standard with a possibility of as many as two. These would be short standards, roughly 15 - 20 feet in height and would use the down-cast shoe box type design to control the iight. Mr. Pribyl stated as far as the store lighting is concerned, there is not anything on the exterior of the store that has a high illumination factor. There are not any bright lights that actually shine on the building or cast off the building. Mr. Kondrick asked if they were considering any motion lights or if they would all be fixed lights. Mr. Pribyl stated there would be one backlit baard shining toward the intersection of 73rd and University Avenues, and one backlit board on the University Avenue side. One of staff's considerations was to keep the 73rd Avenue sign from being highly illuminated. Mr. Newman asked if the zoning was kept as it currently is, how large of a facility could be constructed on tha site? Ms, McPherson stated the parcel is 2.4 acres. Assuming that you could cover 40� of the lot with the building, a building of 41,000 square feet could be constructed. However, parking would 3.08 PLANNING COMMISBION MEET�NG. APRIL 19. 1995 PAG$ 9 still need to be figured in, so that could bring the total square footage down considerably. Mr. Hickok stated to further answer the question about the building size in relationship to the number of parking stalls, different uses in a building determine the actual ratio used. Realistically with parking, it would probably be nearer to 30,000 square foot building with adequate parking. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pamela Zembal of 7340 Concerto Curve stated she has a petition containing 234 signatures opposing the location of the liquor store at 73rd and University Avenues. There are several reasons for this opposition. 1) How will this impact the public health of the community? This faces a busy road, is located in the middle of three elementary schools, four parks, Rice Creek trails and places where one can expect youth to gather. It is well known that 60� of 9th grade students say that it is very easy to purchase alcohol. She thinks the City is encouraging this by placing a store in this location. 2) In 1990, the City was looking for alternative sites for the store. There were three proposed sites - Moore Lake Commons, East River Road & Osborne Road, and University Avenue and 57th Avenue. It seems very suddenly, the store site has been changed to 73rd and University. She had no idea where any of this came from. Looking at the three proposed sites, the estimated cost of the building was going to be roughly $700,000. Now they are looking at a different site and $1.4 million. She has heard some figure of a 13 - 33$ return on the investment. To get a 13$ to 33$ return on this type of investment, liquor profits would have to be about $440,000/year. The City of Fridley has had municipal liquor stores for 27 years and generally they make about $180,000 per year profit. She does not see how the City could possibly feel they could get a profit margin of 13- 33�. When Fridley decides they are not making enough money with this liquor store, then what? Will it be let out to any private company in the retail liquor business? 3) She would like to know if the amount of police time and money that is being put into the DARE project is going to be born at all by the profits of the liquor store. We are giving very mixed messages to our children. We have this drug abuse reduction with the DARE project and we have Officer Friendly at the same time that we are having a very, very visible liquor store and encouraging children just by the placement of this liquor store to drink. We are going 3.09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 10 to be having a lot of excess traffic along the service road of University Avenue down towards and in front of the Columbia Arena. That will be a hazard to the children there and at the parks. She also feels that we are going to be doing some real damage to Rice Creek. There is going to be an amazing increase in trash there and as such she will be filing tomorrow with the Environmental Quality Board a request or petition to do a MPAW report on this project. She feels it will have a real impact on the environment of Rice Creek. 4) She would like to know if provisions have been made to increase police coverage for the parks around the area and the residential areas so that we don't have people stopping at the liquor store on the way home and going up to the park to drink the liquor rather than travel the very heavily patrolled University Avenue or Central Avenue, and taking residential streets which are not as heavily patrolled. She would like to know what kind of liability coverage this store is going to be carrying so that when, not if, an accident occurs, the lawsuits are not going to stop with the person who is probably not insured anyhow. What kind of extra police coverage will they have and what kind of liability coverage will the liquor store have so that when a product is purchased and conswned and an accident happens we are going to have some protection against lawsuits. 5) What kind of criminal history checks and training are going to be done for the employees. There are only going to be four permanent full time employees; the rest of them will be part time employees. She would like to know, if criminal history checks and training will be done to prevent underage consumption and parking lot consumption. Ms. Zembal stated that back in 1990 when the industry began to look for a new site, it seems to have been well thought and planned out - it now appears to have been pulled out of a Friday night poker game or something right now. All of the sudden, the City has changed the site, the size, the planning has not been done that looks like they are doing a serious business. That is why they are opposed to having the liquor store placed there. Ms. Zembal forwarded the petition to the Planning Commission, which contained 344 signatures. MOTION by Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to accept the petition as presented. UPON A VOICE VOT$, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, THE MOTION WAB CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. 3.10 PLANNING COMMI$SION MEETINa, APRIL 19,�1995 PAGB 11 Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission's first involvement with this particular application was tonight. The five questions that Ms. Zembal outlined were addressed by Mr. Rick Pribyl. Mr. Pribyl stated some of the questions they would not be able to answer as they related to public safety issues which involved the Police Department. Mr. Pribyl stated that in regard to the prior three locations, back in 1989 and 1990 the search was not as in-depth as this one was. This site was actually beinq viewed by the Liquor Store Manager, but because of the wetland issue at that point in time, a different Liquor Store Manager chose not to actually pursue any remediation possibilities for the site. That site was actually eliminated and they chose to pursue another site. Mr. Pribyl stated the City recognizes the implications with the moral issues and has the responsibility to make sure that what they propose to the City Council is financially feasible. This site is probably the best site the City has ever looked at in regard to retail off-sale operation. The current site that they have has been a temporary location and was not by any means first choice for location. Mr. Pribyl stated that in regard to whether the liquor store contributes to the DARE program, Mr. Pribyl stated this is a policy decision that the City Council actually reviews each and every year as they go through the budget process. This is an option and probably one of many that the Council will be dealing with if and when the site actually develops. Those profits will be re appropriated into whatever general fund activities the Council sees fit. Currently, it has not contributed to the DARE program only because the City knew that the Mississippi site was only a temporary site. Mr. Pribyl stated that in regard to the City's return on their investments, the $400,000 is actually the best scenario that came through the marketing analysis. The higher end return on investment was associated with approximately $400,000. This was the highest end projection the marketing analyst actually provided to the City. Mr. Larson stated the market analysis that came back on the store gave us a worst case/likely case/most likely/optimistic and best case. Everything was based on the most likely case, but it is their goal to have the best case. The most likely, as far as a net basis is somewhere in the area of $3p0,000 income. The questions in regard to police patrol of the parks, etc., was a public safety issue and could not be addressed by either Mr. Larson or Mr. Pribyl. 3.11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19, X995 PAGE 12 Mr. Pribyl stated that in regard to liability insurance, they are required to carry Dram Shop coverage which is in the area of $600,000. This is the maximum amount of insurance required by the State. Mr. Larson stated in regard to the criminal history checks for employees of the liquor store, they are performed on all employees by the Fridley Policy Department. Employees are trained and certified and they are visited by the Police Department at their regular staff ineetings. Mr. Pribyl informed the commissioners that candidates have been rejected in the past based on information obtained during their criminal history check. Mr. Larson stated in 1993 $23,000 was designated to the Alexander House, in 1994 $75,000 worth of liquor profits were designated to another human service organization. The profits for 1995 have not been designated. Mr. Sielaff asked how the wetland issue was resolved. Mr. Pribyl stated a consultant was actually hired to define and examine the particular property to determine if it existed as a wetland. In 1988 or 1989 the property was defined by the DNR as a wetland. Actually no examination was made of the property itself at that time. The City hired a consultant to go on the property and dig trenches and examine the soil conditions. Their report back to the City was that a wetland did not exist. Mr. Oquist asked if there was concerns as to the environmental impact of this development on Rice Creek. Mr. Pribyl stated he was not aware of any potential impact. Mr. Bill Holm of 7424 Melody Drive asked if the Planning Commission considers the profit of the liquor operation in evaluating the request. Mr. Newman stated no, their role is strictly limited to the land use plans standpoint. Mr. Holm stated this is a rather interesting request for rezoning in that one portion of the government is asking for that zoning change from another portion of the City government. He asked how the staff looks at this as compared to a private developer coming in and asking for a liquor store. Mr. Newman stated it is a unique situation, however it is not unusual. There are other requests such as these, such as requests for certain uses at the Columbia lce Arena which 3.12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 13 involves the county's approval. Mr. Holm also asked if any consideration was given as to relocating the liquor store at the Mississippi Street and University Avenue site ("The Gym") which for some time was vacant and zoned C-2. Mr. Pribyl stated yes, however it was very expensive and also the traffic patterns of the property as far as entering and existing the site did not flow well. Mr. Holm stated he is concerned about the traffic flow to and from his neighborhood. This situation is similar to the CUB situation which occurred several years ago and he feels the Planning Commission should consider being consistent in its evaluation of those requests. This situation is just as intrusive as the CUB situation. The neighbors say the zoning should be left as it is. This is what was expected when they moved into the neighborhood and they see no reason to change it. They view the 35 foot setback rather than 100 ft. setback as a significant issue. Finally, he and the other neighbors care about their neighborhood. He has been there for 27 years. They have neighborhood garage sales, softball games, and they care about the area. They do not approve of the liquor store as shown by the petition and they feel the Planning Commission should take that into consideration. Ms. Gail Roufs of 7686 Van Buren Street stated she has a fifth grader and an eighth grader, and as a family they use the bike paths quite frequently, often between the 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. time period. As a result of discussing the proposal with her fifth grader, she went to school and discussed the issue with her classmates. The students recently graduated from a 17-week DARE program. At the graduation, the Deputy Commissioner of the Police Department spoke very pointedly to the parents about what examples they are setting for their children and alcohol abuse specifics. He talked about how much decrease in Police coverage would occur if alcohol consumption was less. As a result of this discussion, the fifth graders of her daughter's class were very upset by the fact that this proposal was not consistent with the example and teachings they have had over the past seventeen weeks. The teacher shared that she had a very hard time controlling the fifth graders. The classroom drafted a letter to the City of Fridley in regard to this proposal. Ms. Roufs proceeded to read the letter: "Dear City Council: We are fifth grade completed the DARE alcohol, drugs and students in Fridley. program which taught violence prevention. 3.13 We have just us about We are PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 19. 1995 PAGS 14 concerned about the new location of the liquor store near a bike path. The customers of the liquor store may be dangerous to bikers and pedestrians who use the path. We think that a new location where children don't ride bikes or play would be safer. Sincerely, Grade 5 Woodcrest School"(signed by 22 fifth grade students) Ms. Roufs stated she would like to formally submit this letter to the Planning Commission. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba to receive the letter from the Woodcrest School students. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEW1YiAN D$CLARTsD THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Ann Hagen of 551 Rice Creek Boulevard stated she is a resident of Holiday Hills and whenever there is a hockey game or show at the Colwabia lce Arena, the traffic is backed up substantially at the 69th traffic light. Her children have taken piano lessons from a resident of Melody Manner and for five years she has had to cross the intersection and she feels the liquor store will only add to the traffic and congestion. Ms. Hagen stated she walks to the park and as a resident takes pride in the area. There are occasionally beer bottles laying around now; when there are sports events, there are more bottles and trash. She is sure that the access to liquor will be an issue. Ms. Hagen stated that her daughter went through the DARE program also and was upset about the proposal as well, with the visibility and access to the bike trails. Mr. Jim Plocienik of 7507 Tempo Terrace stated he signed the petition but did it without knowing a thing about it. After reviewing the inforniation, he would like to rescind his signature. It seems there is a lot of opposition just due to the fact that it is a liquor store. He would like to have his name scratched from the petition. Mr. Jerry of 6110 Star Lane stated he agrees that maybe the City should have a liquor store in that location. With the profits the City will generate, the residents will all benefit. With all the taxes going up, he would give anything to somehow lower his. It sounds to him like residents do not want anything on the site. 3.14 PLANNING COMMISSTON MEETING, APRIL 19, 1995 PAa$ 15 It is his feeling that the property should be used for something. Would they prefer a garage there? He cannot imagine opposition to a nice, clean run, well packaged operation. Mr. Quentin Freeburg of 301 Rice Creek Terrace stated he came to represent the membership at the Woodcrest Baptist Church which is located at 6875 University Avenue. He had a copy of a letter addressed to the Mayor's office from their pastor which he would like to read and submit to the record. Mr. Freeburg proceeded to read the letter. oTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modiq to accept the letter as presented. IIPON A VOICE VOT]3, ALI, MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NBWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Freeburg stated he had one question he would like addressed, that being the distance between the intersection of the service road at 73rd Avenue and University Avenue. Mr. Newman responded that it is approximately 285 feet. Mr. Freeburg stated since most of that traffic is northbound, it would be safe to presume that once they make that left turn from the service road onto 73rd, they will be moving into the right turn lane to continue north on University Avenue. This means that within 285 feet they will have to cross three lanes of eastbound and three lanes of westbound traffic. This could lead to considerable traffic back up and congestion at that intersection. He stated his final point is of the three criteria that Michelle mentioned, the second one has to do with compatibility with adjacent sites. He thinks a lot qreater consideration should be given to compatibility with neighboring sites. The neighboring sites being the community softball facilities across the street, Columbia Arena, Locke Park, the residents and the church and school that are located there. Mr. Freeburg stated on the formal notice that was published in the Fridley Focus issue on April iZth, it did not mention, as the agenda does, the purpose for the rezoninq. It mentioned the rezoning, it mentioned the plat, and it mentioned the address but nowhere did it mention the purpose of the rezoning was for a municipal liquor store. He thinks this may have been a gross error judgment in making that public notice. Mrs. Marge Tangren of 7368 Symphony Street stated she would like to know how many cars can stack in the 285 foot area from the service road at 73rd Avenue to University Avenue. 3.15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINQ, APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 16 Mr. Newman stated the area allows for approximately 14 car lengths. Ms. Tangren stated she lives on Symphony Street and she knows of ten small children who go across 73rd Avenue to the biking path. Ms. Tangren stated that she is also concerned about drinking problems that may increase as result of the new location. She stated there are lots of apartment buildings, and many of the residents do not have vehicles. By having a liquor store within walking distance, they will have greater access to liquor. Ms. Tangren stated there is an apartment building in the area that has been rehabilitated for women who are abstaining from liquor. What will a liquor store that is in close proximity of their homes do for them? Mr. Tom Rafferty of 148 Horizon Circle stated he was in attendance ta speak in favor of the rezoning of the property. The property as it is right now (heavy industrial) will never be used. Whether it is used as a liquor store, convenience store, a gas station or whatever, it will not be heavy industrial. The zoning needs to be changed. Mr. Chester Burkowitz of 7370 Concerto Curve stated he is in opposition to the City of Fridley being in the liquor business. He stated he is also in opposition to the rezoning because of the traffic and also for the purpose of erecting a building for the purpose of selling alcohol. Alcohol has caused a lot of unnecessary deaths, created a lot of domestic abuse, broken marriages, battered women, child abuse and in many instances deprived children of food. Why should the City of Fridley promote and encourage sales of a special kind of building in an area such as 73rd and University, with a hockey arena, churches, bike path, etc. On 59th and University Avenue there is a building specifically for people who have a drinking problem. Just a little bit further down University, the City of Fridley wants to put in an establishment to encourage people to buy liquor. He does not see a need for a building such as that. If the City needs to have a liquor building establishment, put it somewhere else less conspicuous. Mr. Burkowitz noted it has been stated by someone in the paper that it brings in approximately $100,000 in revenue per year. Think about the money that has been lost due to the damage it has done to families caused by accidents and the abuse, loss of work. Also, with the cost of the new building, it will take approximately ten to twelve years to show a profit assuminq the $100,000/year profit. 3.16 PLANNING COMMISSION MESTING, APRIL 19. 1995 PAGB 17 Mr. Burkowitz stated that he is opposed to the rezoning, due to the traffic, the close proximity of it to Columbia Arena and the bike paths. The location is inviting, encouraging people to use it alcohol. We should fight alcohol, not encourage it. Mr. A1 Quam of 399 73rd Avenue stated he thinks it is a bad idea. The location is a premier site from a marketing standpoint but it is totally disregarding the church, park and bike trails. Mr. Quam asked what percentage of this net is it in terms of City revenue. Is it 1/2$ or is it 5�? Mr. Pribyl stated it is probably in the area of 6� as compared to the general fund apprapriations. Mr. Quam stated this is not very significant. echo the comments of some residents. They do changed. The liquor store will increase the He asked who currently owns that property. Mr. Pribyl stated it is owned by C.P. Rail. He would like to not want the zoning amount of traffic. Mr. Quam noted that somebody said the property will never be used if they do not develop it for the liquor store. He stated this may not be such a bad idea. It could be used for a rest stop for the park and trail systems. He would urge the commission not to approve this. if the City must have a liquor store, do it elsewhere because th�re are alternatives. Be more sensitive and up front with the neighborhoods to begin with. Mr. Rich Larson of 5861 Fifth Street stated he moved into Fridley 30 years ago. About one year ago, the City decided to put in a pawn shop in the old Holiday gas station. He was opposed to this, hawever there have been no problems, they have cleaned the station up and it looks better. Mr. Larson stated that he is in favor of rezoning the property, and getting on with business. Suzanne Holm of 7424 Melody Drive stated she is concerned about the traPfic and feels there should be a separate exit. Unless the service road would be moved over, it will encouraqe traffic to shoot over to Symphony Street and cut through the neighborhood. Mr. John Miller of 7350 Lyric Lane stated he feels one of the problems is access. There is vacant property on the northwest corner which is zoned C-2. Why not use that property? Mr. Miller also noted the traffic problems and congestion that he feels will be generated by the liquar store. 3.17 PLANNING COMMISSiON MEETING. APRIL 19. 1995 PAGE 18 George Johnson of 210 Rice Creek Terrace stated he does not live in the particular area. He is near where the current liquor store is and he does not like to drive out on Mississippi Street on Friday nights or Saturdays or before a holiday because the drivers are very aggressive. This is because they have been drinking or will be drinking and that is one of the problems. He sympathizes with the people in the proposed area. He thinks that the increased profit that may come only amounts to 2�, figuring on a$10,000,000 total revenue, and that hardly warrants that kind of traffic problem and hazard to people living in the area. He feels that if the City would consider leaving the place open for possible car repair business or a fast food business or bank, he thinks the City could have a legitimate business in that area which is next to a residential area and also a recreational area. That is the kind of business that is really wanted there. Mr. Tim Breider of 7550 Tempo Terrace stated he thinks that the whole thing boils down to whether the City is willing to protect the integrity of the zoning laws or the people who are saying they don't want the liquor store there. He is opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Will Lynn of 7370 Memory Lane stated from what he gathered from the articles in the paper, the City intends to generate business irom people that are coming from the south up University Avenue and going to where they live in Anoka, St. Cloud, or wherever or they are on their way up North. His questions is, is the City going to listen to the people that live in Fridley or the people that go through Fridley and simply stop to buy liquor in the town. He is opposed to it, and opposed to the City of Fridley even thinking about having a liquor store. Mrs. Will Lynn of 7370 Memory Lane stated she has two granddaughters that use the bike trail and it is a favorite place. They turn around that corner and they go over to Columbia Arena. She can just see the traffic going in there. She thinks we need to think about the legacy we will leave to our children and grandchildren. She shutters to think about telling her granddaughter what the big sign near the store says. What are we promoting in our "friendly Fridley"? Lets be friendly to the people who live there and to the morals and standards that we are trying to teach our children and grandchildren. "Let's decide against this." • Ms. Ann Hagen stated so much has been mentioned about the bike trails. She would just like to invite the commissioners to schedule in a walk through the areas that you can access by bike or walking so they can see what the residents are anxious not to ruin. 3.18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 19 Ms. Leah Price of 7428 Melody Drive stated she grew up in the neighborhood and just purchased a house in the neighborhood. She is very much against building a liquor store there. She feels the City should be looking into human concerns. Are we about money and business in the City or are we about people? Ms. Price agrees that it should be made into more of a landscaping area. Why does anything need to be built there? She moved out of Spring Lake Park away from establishments - liquor stores, car repair, etc. Fridley is becoming that way. There are so many reasons presented by residents not to rezone the property, she thinks that money is a poor reason to do it. There were no more residents who wished to be heard at the public hearing. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff to close the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. QPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL MEMBSRS VOTINQ� AYL� CHAIRPERSON NFWMAN DECLARED THE PQBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Sielaff stated he empathizes with all of the residents and their feelings about this particular rezoning. He felt it necessary to go back to why as a Planning Commission they are here. They do not really address whether the City is in the liquor business or not. Basically they have to address the land use and if it is appropriate to rezone into a new land use. Presently it is zoned as heavy industrial and they are considering rezoning it to C-2. Data suggests that there is going to be some increase in traffic but depending upon what direction the main traffic flow wili go (towards the north), it should not be a problem. He is concerned about the general location of the parks to the liquor store. He does not know that having a liquor store will increase or decrease the problems, but he does know that there have not been any problems at the current location and its neighborhood. He does not necessary feel that this location will be any different. He would have to say that based on whether this is an appropriate rezoning or not, he feels it is justifiable to rezone the property. Ms. Modig stated the arguments against the rezoning are valid, but the fact is the land will not be used for heavy industrial. She is somewhat concerned about the traffic and feels there are some problems which will need to be addressed. The present liquor store is in a neighborhood that has churches, businesses and residential areas. She would be in favor of rezoning the property. Mr. Kondrick stated the only thing that is of a concern to him is the bike trail. He feels the residents have a valid point about 3.19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 20 that and getting kids and adults off the streets and having access to the east side of the street down to the Columbia Arena parking lot. He feels any facility that is put there will generate traffic. He does not feel it will remain heavy industrial. The people who own the property will do all that they can to try to encourage that something be built on the property. Some of the other possibilities for the site could generate more traffic that the liquor store. He feels if it is done right and in a sharp way, it could be an asset to the City of Fridley. Being Chairman of the Park & Recreation Commission, he is concerned about the parks that are adjacent, thus his concern about the bike trail. However he does not think that the liquor store will cause more bottles in Locke Park or Columbia Arena. He feels a class liquor store with good landscaping and proper lighting would be an asset to the community and he is in favor of rezoning the property to C-2. Mr. Oquist asked if this was a request to rezone the property to C-2 or was it a request to build a liquor store. What if the Planning Commission approved the rezoning without the approval of the liquor store on that site? Ms. McPherson stated this is possible that the City Council could approve the rezoning of the property to be consistent with the comprehensive plan as it was approved in 1990. They could also decide not to bring a liquor store in and relocate somewhere else. The request is consistent with other rezoning requests in which the City typically requires a proposal before it will consider a rezoning so they are treating themselves like they would treat any other developer. Mr. Oquist stated he is a little surprised that the City did not anticipate the opposition. He thinks the City would have been better served had they taken a little time and met with the people in the area and tried to explain what the situation was. He feels the City should have tried to work with the neighborhood and attempt a compromise if possible. Mr. Oquist stated he believes the property does need to be rezoned to C-2. He does not know if putting a liquor store on the property is the right thing for it, but he feels it either needs to be rezoned to C-2 or make a park out of it. It has been there for so long, and there have been many proposals made. It is time to do something. He does not know if it is the right place for a park to be. Mr. Oquist stated he is in favor of the rezoning. He feels the package that has been put together is a decent package. He does not see it causing a lot of problems fo� the parks and ball 3.20 PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING, APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 21 fields. People will get their alcohol regardless of where it is located. Mr. Saba stated he has mixed feelings about the rezoning. Morally, he agrees with a lot of the comments made however, if the City of Fridley got out of the liquor business, it could not prevent someone from coming in and selling alcohol. Mr. Saba stated he has traveled Mississippi Street often and has not noticed any problems on Friday or Saturday eveninqs from the operation of the liquor store there. Mr. Saba stated he also bikes the trails that were mentioned by area residents. He does feel that 90 trips to and from the store can be managed. He would like to think that the City would consult with the public safety people on the location of a liquor store there in terms of the proximity to the park, the billiards hall and the other areas that the City has indicated as "problem areas". He has hopes that these discussions will take place prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Saba stated he would have to concur with fellow aommissioners and approve the rezoning request. Mr. Newman stated he also agrees with the rest of the commissioners. He feels the residents should have a say about neighboring issues and there is the opportunity for the City to respond to the concerns raised by residents in regard to lighting, setback, traffic, and the bike path. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval to the City Council of Rezoning Request, ZOA �95-02, provided that the project complies with all requirements of the C-2, General Business District. UPON A VOICL VOT$� ALL MEMBERS VOTINQ AYS� CBAIRPERSON NSWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARItIED IINANIMOIISLY. This request will go before the City Council on May 22, 1995. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING RE4UEST, ZOA #95-03, BY RMS COMPANY: To rezone from M-1, Light Industrial to C-2, General Business, on that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing on the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12, at a point 34 rods east of the Northwest corner of said Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, thence East on the section line 10 rods; thence South and parallel with West'line of said Section 26 rods; thence West 3.21 PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 19. 1995 PAGE 22 parallel to the North line 10 rods; thence North to the point of commencement; excepting therefrom, However, the East 104 feet of the foregoing described parcel and subject to a public roadway over the North 33 feet thereof, AND Outlot 1, of Nagel's Woodlands, AND all the land, if any, lying East of Outlot l, herinabove noted as Parcel B., and West of the parcel of land herinabove noted as Parcel A and lying between the Westerly extension of the North and South lines of that land hereinabove noted as Parcel A, generally located at 970 Osborne Road N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICB VOTE� ALL VOTING AYB� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN D$CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THB PIIBLIC HEARINQ OPEN AT 9:42 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this request is by RMS Company to rezone 9T0 Osborne Road which is located west of Highway 65 on Osborne Road from M-1, Light Industrial to C-2 General Business. For this particular request, the City does not have a specific site plan. The rezoning request is a result of a variance request which the Appeals Commission and City Council reviewed earlier this year to reduce the minimum lot area required in the M-1 district because the parcel does not meet the M-1 district requirements. The City Council tabled the variance request at the request of the petitioner to allow the petitioner to process this rezoning request. Ms. McPherson stated the first rezoning criteria is the compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. At this time the City does not have a specific proposed use so any future use of the property would need to comply with the C-2 district regulations. Staff has had conversations with an automobile sales person who is interested in the site which would require a Special Use Pernait and if the rezoning is approved, the commissioners will see the request before them at a future date. Ms. McPherson stated the second criteria is compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses in zoning. The original rezoning reguest which changed the zoning from C-2 to M-1 occurred in 1988 and was a result of a specific site plan by RMS to expand the facility to the west which would allow some of the building to be on the subject parcel as well as required parking and green areas. It was part of a larger parcel at the time the rezoning request was approved. The use of this particular parcel by an industrial user would require a small user not requiring expansion space. This property as zoned M-1 could be used for repair garages or autoraobile service stations of which there are already a number of these types of uses located in the 3.2� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19. 1995 PAGS 23 neighborhood. Rezoning the parcel to a commercial designation would afford a wider variety of permitted uses on the site. Ms. McPherson stated the last zoning criteria is complying with the proposed uses of the proposed district requirements. Because there was not a specific proposal to evaluate, Ms. McPherson could not comment on compliance with the district requirements. However, unlike the M-1 district requirements, rezoning this to parcel to C-2 would allow it to meet the minimum lot area requirements of the C-2 district. Any future use would be required to comply with the requirements of the C-2 district. Ms. McPherson stated that the Assessing Department has requested that the petitioner sign a form to combine the three parcels into one tax parcel. Ms. McPherson stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with one stipulation: 1. The petitioner will combine the parcels into one tax parcel. Mr. Dave Meyer stated he currently owns the property and is trying to sell it. At the present time it is unsaleable. He has sold all of the other parcels in the area and he feels this parcel needs to be rezoned before it can be sold. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff to close the public hearing at 9:53 p.m. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING A7tB, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN D$CLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSLD. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba to recommend approval of Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-03. OPON A VOICl3 VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTINQ AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. This request will go before the City Council for consideration on May 22, 1995. 3. PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT RE4UEST, P.S. #95-02 BY HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. To replat Tract A, Registered Land Survey #130 into three separate parcels, generally located north of I-694 and east of East River Road. AND 3.23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 19, 1995 PAGE 24 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #95-05, BY HOME DEPOT USA INC: Per Section 205.14.1.C.(11) of the Fridley City code, to allow garden centers or nurseries which require outside display or storage of inerchandise, and per Section 205.15.1C.(7) of the Fridley City Code, to allow establishments of the "drive-in" type, selling, serving, or offering goods or services directly to customers either waiting in parked motor vehicles or to customers who return to their vehicles to consume or use the goods or services while on the premises, located on Tract A, Registered Land Survey #130, generally located north of I-694 and east of East River Road. �� 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REOUEST� ZOA #95-04, BY HOME DEPOT USA. INC• To rezone from C-2, General Business and M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping Center District, located on Tract A, Registered Land Survey #130, generally located north of I-694 and east of East River Road. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC HEARING OPENBD. Mr. Hickok stated this is a request by Home Depot, Inc. to rezone the property located west of Main Street south of a line straight across from 57th Avenue N.E. between the Burlington Northern property and Main Street, north of Highway 694. Mr. Hickok stated that the current zoning on the property is a combination of M-2, Heavy Industrial (9.8 acres), and C-2, General Business (4.2 acres). The requested use of the site would allow a site plan of nearly 144,000 square feet for retail sales. The primary user for the facility would be 111,716 square foot Home Depot facility. Home Depot is a iarge home improvement retailer founded in 1978 in Georgia. This would be one of the first Home Depot stores in the metropolitan area. The requested zoning to allow this facility to be constructed is C-3, General Shopping Center. Mr. Hickok stated the Comprehensive Plan issue is one that would require an amendment, removing 14.5 acres from the Industrial land inventory in Fridley and changing it to Commercial. This amendment would have to be apprnved by the City Council and 3.24 � PLANNING COMMI$SION MEBTINQ. APRIL 19, 1995 PAGB 25 formalized through the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Hickok stated the second of the issues involves the rezoning of the existing industrial and commercial zoning to an all commercial site of 14.5 acres. Mr. Hickok stated the third issue would be the loss of the City's largest remaining industrial parcel. Mr. Hickok stated the fourth issue involves extendinq the existing commercial node further to the west of University Avenue into what becomes a second tier of commercial activity west of Main Street. Mr. Hickok stated the fifth deals with traffic concerns as they relate to the site. First, the volume generated by 14.5 acres of commercial has been calculated by Barton-Aschman & Associates who represent the developer on the traffic issues. The consultant has provided numbers as staff has requested which would qive the City a comparative analysis between the development of this site as C-3 as requested and also what would happen to the traffic numbers in the event that site developed as it is currently zoned. The volume of all commercial traffic will nearly match the current zoning. The industrial portion of the site has a lower volume of traffic. In the event that the entire site was industrial and one took those numbers two or three times just for comparison sake using the entire site rather than just the 9.8 acres, traffic would be in the area of closer to 500 average daily trips as opposed to the anticipated 525 to 720 Home Depot trips. Mr. Hickok stated that access to the site would be via l-694, crossing University Avenue (Hwy. 47j turning to the left at 57th Avenue to approach the new facility. Southbound traffic on University Avenue would turn right onto 61st Avenue. Barton- Aschman & Associates has done some traffic counts at these intersections to provide more detail about the movements in the � current traffic seen at those corners. There are also some unknown impacts. There is visibility to I-694 but there is not direct access to 694. What is meant by unknown impacts is the traffic movements through secondary streets to find the site. Finally, there is no access to the west. 57th Avenue would serve the site from University Avenue and from the north and south, Main Street would serve the site. Mr. Hickok stated that staff's recommendation on the rezoninq related to some questions about traffic impacts. The rezoning of this land also has the requests for the preliminary plat and special use permit somewhat hinged. 3.25 PLANNING COMMISSION MSBTING. APRIL 19. 1995 PAG$ 26 Mr. Hickok provided information to the commissioners in regard to the consideration of the preliminary plat request. He stated the current lot configuration at this time is one large lot. The proposed lot configuration would provide for Lot 1 which would be 10.6 acres (Home Depot site), Lot 2 which would be 2.7 acres (an unknown retailer that would own their own site but be attached to the Home Depot store), and Lot 3 which would be 1.2 acres (potential fast food site) for a total of 14.5 acres. Mr. Hickok stated the Engineering Staff and Planning staff reviewed information and noted that Lot 2 frontage onto Main Street had been an issue earlier. They were just given a new site plan which reworks the frontaqe of Lot 2 and also some of the site access issues that were brought up by Anoka County. The remaining issues were access drive locations and circulation, necessity for cross parking easements (the site plan is designed in a manner that would allow cross parkingj, necessity for interior utility agreements (it would be the desire of the Engineering staff to loop the utilities so that water does not stagnate in the utility system and therefore the loop system would require interior utility agreementsj and necessity for street and utility easements (the county has indicated that they do not see a need for additional right of way width at Main Street however the Public Works Department has historically required a 15 foot bikeway/walkway easement along the west side of Main Street as those sites developj. Mr. Hickok stated the county has given the City a letter indicating two access points should be the maximum for this site and in response to this letter, the developer has provided a site plan that shows a re configured southern access point that is further away form 694 than originally proposed and to the north the access has been modified with some anticipation on the site plan_of getting permission to line up that access point with the intersection. The county did indicate that they would like to see that be lined up and a full access intersection which would require some additional land acquisition or at least aqreements with the property owners to the north. Mr. Hickok noted that Home Depot, Inc. would like to construct a 27,972 square foot outdoor garden center. The code requires that garden centers and nurseries that are outside have a Special Use Permit prior to construction. The center would be attached to the store. The summary of issues related to this request are 1) the architectural detail should be consistent with the primary structure; 2) no off-season storage in the garden center area of other garden materials; 3.26 � w PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19. 1995 PAGE 27 3) no outdoor sales or storage of fertilizer, pesticides or other potential pollutants; 4) adequate parking must be available to accommodate the garden center customers; 5) no plant sales outside of the fence detail are to take place. Mr. Hickok stated that in all of the three uses, staff has recommended that the commission open the public hearing, take public comments and table the action until May 3rd. The site plan was just received and the staff has not had.an opportunity to fully evaluate the modifications in the site plan as they relate to storm water run-off and some of the other issues. Mr. Kondrick stated it is his understanding that access to this property will come from three different places; 57th Avenue past Holiday, another would be 61st Avenue west to Main Street and down to the site and the third wouid be across the bridge and then to University Avenue. He was wondering how many cars they expect to generate. Mr. Sielaff asked about the issue of loading and unloading at the front part of the building. Mr. Hickok stated in discussions with the r�presentative of Home Depot, this is an important part of their retail operations. This portion of the building front to back is warehouse lumber and it gives an opportunity for the customers to drive up under the canopy and have their lumber loaded into the vehicle at that overhead door. Staff did express some concerns about a loading dock on the front of the building and the impacts of that. The developer has responded by saying that they are looking at alternatives to having the door viewed from Main Street. Mr. Hickok noted that there is a kneewall which is in front of that overhead door, but stated the developer could provide further information in regard to this issue. Mr. Hickok stated the code as it is written states that loading docks be located in the side yard or the rear yard of the facility. In the case of the Holiday Plus store, located near the proposed development site, he noted that it is located at the side yard and they do have some loading in the rear yard. The proposed Home Depot is designed to face Main Street. Mr. Hickok stated if the land were to be developed today with the M-2 and C-2 designations, (with a typical industrial use on the M-2 and a typical commercial use on C-2, possibly a theaterj the trade-off in car counts was a very insignificant difference. In terms of issue of where that traffic might be coming from, staff did ask the developer in past discussions, to look at 57th Avenue as cars come off from University Avenue through the intersection 3.27 PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TINQ, APRIL 19, 1995 PAQ$ 28 and also what kind of activity is anticipated through the intersection at 57th Avenue and Main Street. In later discussions as they analyzed this, they then thought about the cars coming southbound on University Avenue and using 61st Avenue to the north, coming across and down and also the possibility of the unknowns with traffic coming from the south on Main Street. These are the types of thinqs that staff would take a iook at and if necessary get some numbers on those car counts. Mr. Newman asked if the parcel to the north of the proposed site is undeveloped. Mr. Hickok stated no, this parcel is developed. It is an industrial site. Mr. Timothy Platt, Real Estate Manager for Aome Depot, was present to discuss the proposal with the commissioners. Mr. Platt stated Home Depot is the country's largest retailer of home improvement goods. They are based out of Georgia and operate 325 stores and last year's sales were $12.6 billion. A store of this type would employ between 175 and 200 people, 75g. of the jobs would be full-time and right now the average hourly wage in the midwest is $10.44/hour. Because they pride the�selves in providing good service, they find that they need to hire ex-trades people and those who are very familiar with the home improvement business. Mr. Platt stated in regard to the laading dock on the front of the building, they do not consider it themselves to be a loading dock, but rather a customer pick-up doar where the customer can pull up in front and pick up materials. They do not unload trucks at this location. Under the broad spectrum of the ordinance, because it is a roll-up door, it is then considered to be a loading dock. Mr. Hickok stated the code describes a loading dock as a door for loading and unloading of materiai by commercial vehicles. However the loading and unloading of materials is happening here, the impacts are the same whether it is a commercial vehicle or not. In the discussions with the developer, he did ask about contract sales and contractors picking up their materials there. This could be considered a commercial vehicle loading in that location and they responded by saying that for large contractors, Home Depot does have a delivery service to the site. Staff is concerned because it is an overhead door and the City could not preclude commercial vehicles from loading and unloading there when the site deveiops. Mr. Oquist asked if an actual greenhouse will be located on the site. 3.28 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19, 1995 PAG$ 29 Mr. Platt stated yes, it will be completely enclosed by qlass. They sell a lot of very large office-type plants. It is an actual greenhouse. Mr. Kondrick asked how the size of the facility compares to Menards. Mr. Platt stated that Home Depot is bigger by 40� than most Menards stores in the area. They merchandise their goods on pallets. It is very similar to a warehouse operation. One difference from Menards is Home Depot does not have an outdoor lumber yard. Mr. Oquist asked where other materials such as dirt, cement, block and patio blocks are sold. Mr. Platt stated these materials are sold out of the outdoor area but that is in an area that is behind the greenhouse area. Mr. Sielaff asked if the trip generation comparison which was completed by Barton-Aschman & Associates was for just retail customers. Mr. Platt responded yes. Mr. Sielaff asked about supply trucks or delivery trucks. Mr. Platt stated Home Depot receives most of its goods via common carrier including their lumber and so a lot of the truck traffic depends on the volwne of the store, etc. Their basic receiving hours are 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He would have to assume that it would be similar to any other retail operation that has common carrier service. This might be estimated at 15 trucks per day including UPS, RPS, etc. Mr. Sielaff asked if the delivery trucks have large trailers. Mr. Platt stated sometimes a delivery truck will come in with one pallet of goods - it may have a number of deliveries to different locations. Mr. Saba asked how soon they would be planning to begin construction of the facility. Mr. Platt stated they would like to begin as soon as possible. They would really like to be enclosed before the frost sets in this Fall. Mr. Oquist asked if there would be any concerns about the additional truck traffic on the streets. 3.29 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19. 1995 PAG$ 30 Mr. Hickok stated he did not foresee a problem as these roads were designed for industrial users. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any concerns with trucks being able to make the turns at the Main Street and 57th Avenue intersection. Mr. Greg Frank, representing Home Depot, stated some type of easement may be requested, however even without it, they feel they could still have a workable intersection. The trucks would most likely come in off 57th Avenue. Getting out of the lot may be a bit more difficult for them. Ms. McPherson stated that she had a conversation with Mr. Richard Murphy who owns a warehouse near the site and he indicated that their trucks are utilizing 57th Avenue as well as coming off of East River Road. He did foresee a problem. Ms. Paul LaDuke of Lino Lakes stated they own the lot on 57th Avenue and 57th Place. Holiday owns the empty lot next to theirs. They have had a chance to sell, but Holiday does not want to sell. Their lot would certainly be accessible to Home Depot for their trucks to turn around, but they may not be able to get Holiday to sell their lot. Mr. Paul LaDuke of Lino Lakes stated as a customer, if he were coming east on 694, he would probably chose to exit on University Avenue, go right for approximately one block and then go through the neighborhood to get to Main Street. Mr. Newman informed Mr. Platt that the staff has recommended that the Planning Commission table action until May 3rd, and asked if these are time tables the Home Depot can live with. Mr. Platt stated this was discussed at a meeting with the staff. If the Planning Commission feels they need more time, it is acceptable to them. Mr. Newman stated this would allow staff to review the new site plan. He noted that they would plan to continue the Public Hearing on May 3rd. He asked the commissioners to comment on the proposal. Mr. Saba stated he has been in a Home Depot store and he was very impressed with the overall cleanliness and quality of the operation. Mr. Oquist stated he feels the proposal looks like a nice package. He noted the property seems somewhat landlocked, but the developer does not have concerns about it, and feels they can work it out. He asked if staff could foresee any problems with 3.30 PLANNIN(: COMMISSION ME$TING, APRIL 19. 1995 PAaE 31 Metro Cc�uncil in regard to the rezoning of the property. Mr. Hicl;ok stated the Metropolitan Council will analyze from a sewer si:andpoint and from a transportation standpoint and they will loc�k at the City's Comprehensive Plan and whether there are any def:�ciencies in the updates. All of these wiZl be a part of the equ�ition as they evaluate minor amendments. He would anticip��te that this will be only a minor amendment and something they shc�uld be able to move forward, however he cannot guarantee this. :>taff will start workinq with Metro Council on this issue so that things can work simultaneously and will stress to Metra Council the urgency of Home Depot's schedule. Mr. Kon<irick stated he also has been in a Home Depot store. He feels t2iey have a good reputation and would be an asset to our communii:y . Ms. Mod:Lg stated she feels it looks like a good plan. Mr. Sie:Laff stated his only concern is about traffic. He stated when he comes off of 694 coming from the east and tries to get all the way over to the left lane on University Avenue he sometimEas has difficulty, especially during peak hours. Mr. Ne�nnan stated he does have a concern about the loss of a large i�idustrial site. They are a rare premium. The proposal itself lie has no problem with. He would like to make sure that with the: proposal a lot of traffic isn't being dumped onto 53rd Avenue :Lnto the residential community. MOTION l�y Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Oquist to continue the Public Hearing:a to May 3, 1995, and table action on PS #95-02, SP #95- 05, and ZOA #95-04. IIPON A��OICE VOTE� ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON �iBWMAN DECLAREI) THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOQSLY. 6. REc•EIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION CO1�iISSION MEI�TING OF MARCH 6, 1995. MOTION l�y Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of March 6, 1995. UPON A��OICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DSCLARTD THE MOT:[ON CARRIED IINANIMODSLY. 7. RE�:EIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMEI!1T AU'.�HORITY OF MARCH 9, 1995. MOTION l�y Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to receive the Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes of March 9, 1995. 3.31 PLANNINQ COMMISSION MEETINa. APRIL 19. 1995 PAa$ 32 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(i AYE, CHAIRPEIt30N NEWMAN DECI,�RED THE MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOOSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 21. 1995. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba to table this until the minutes have been approved by the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission. IIPON A VOICE VOTS� ALL VOTINQ� AYB� CHl�IRPERSON NEi�M2�N D$CLARLD THE MOTION CARRIED QNlI�TIMOIIBLY. 9. �2ECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 28. 1995. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig to receive the Appeals Commission minutes of March 28, 1995. UPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARBD THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICB VOTE� ALL VOTING AYB� CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DI3CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 19, 1995. PLANNING CO1�IIrII88ION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �� 1�� Tamara D. Saefke � Recording Secretary 3.32 S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, April 19, 1995 3.33 5 I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, April 19, 1995 Name � Addz'ess/Btisiness� �� - � � � . _ �e.�, h �r- i C=,� . _ . :� �(� � r'te : I r. i v - . ( . . , � - � , � ��: ��v a-�s . 7 �Gfl �' L'`� �-� ✓ c°.�1 �'j'� � , � � . . -�i � j j�c� �� -?� 7��C� ��t �.� �u �� c�i S T —r, d f� .�o c� �,.,� 73 9 T.�.�'n �� 7,�'-�'_�' �.�1 u� � I o' _ / i � !i` � L �% .� Lle � C.,` 0.'�t� • � 'J , .,� , . � t' - --�'1 „ �.. � _ � _ _ i �. ..... _ P . n � �' . { t � % ' �-7 i�� c] ' � ` , � -( ,. 1 � / �� _' < -� � � J U .5 � � L3 - � �(j � '� � . /� G Cm -��t, / �� `��' C G� �T L �° � j10 C"Y �—'r i �( - r " �-�J� `��U3 � � ` ,��.t' �vcnP� �731� L r-« ��n� /� � ��/u. -,l r� v��yL 7� i� T�>�a, -o T.��r�c ��i-f� � � „�c!-cx'�,�,c.-�c., � �' .�-� di/e� �o;� �r'• N L� % r,� t! �g t- A�'1 A�i�C',�Gs� 3t�/ /�J�L e G�e�i� TC �"Y�t e �uenl�n %fPP Nr � 301 1�i�e GlPPI� lPrrq�� j�r �°r� O� fm%�� &� �e e�, ✓ 3 /�1� �� r. a n F ,� Ch�r��, , G�i� // L, /V/�/ 7370 /��a��/ � �l�rrf /� � . 3.34 S I G N— I N S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, April 19, 1995 • 3.35 . _ � � Community Development Department NG DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: May 4, 1995 � TO: William Burns, City Manager ��` FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Establish Public Hearing for May 22, 1995 for Rezoning, Plat, and Vacation Requests for Rottlund Homes/Fridley HRA . The City Council must conduct public hearings for the rezoning, plat, and vacation requests related to the redevelopment of the southwest corner of the University Avenue and Mississippi Street intersection. May 22, 1995 is the recommended date to conduct the public hearings. It is anticipated that the City Council will need at least two meetings to review the proposed development plan, as was done by the Planning Commission. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council conduct the public hearing on May 22, 1995 and continue the public hearing to the June 12, 1995 meeting. The purpose of the public hearing on May 22, 1995 will be to review the computer simulation videotape of the development, review the proposed housing types, review the proposed traffic pattern, and review the proposed buffering/landscaping/open space issues. The developer will revise the plan based on City Council Comments, for review by the City Council on June 12, 1995. The Planning Commission at its April 26, 1995 meeting recommended approval of all three requests subject to a number of stipulations. The current proposed plan contains a total of 146 units; 48 senior condominium units, 48 attached tow�iYioidae units, and approximately 50 detached townhomes. ' BD/dw M-95-263 1 i-- - I � �� y� «� i w''� ��'i ^ 'n� ��= ... I ` �� V� i � � Y �I ~ M�i� I ~�♦ r �- �� »�» i I ^ �� i y '"'� I +� � I" � � M � � � � � � � d �� . � � �� v� �F v � CD � � M � w t12 vrY d Street _ i Service Drive 1 � University Avenue N.E. Rottlund �� w�� :� � � �� ..� ' � _ �.+� _.., e f ` f0 - � ±� �� e developer is requesting the following= . .� � . A change iri the zoning of the property from commercial and multiple family residential to redevelopmeut district . ' � A new subdivision of t6e property with new lob and lot linea. ,; , The release of t6e City'� iutereat in road� and ea:ementa and dedication of new streeh wd easement�. e developer is proposing a residential development comprisod of condominiums and townhomes, all owner-oocupied N--� A A 4."` LOCAT�ON MA! � � , � � H � z 0 � � H a � � a � � � � � a� � � � � � o 0 -� o � o � �o 0 0 O °� �D °�° � � o � � o b :� o p N �' � i o � U �., ° M � N N � >, � a o0 � �� °o �4 OFA .r � aG � '� � � o W WV MM .Ni� � ° � �" a K k � � � N � � Q� M � N N � � N N >, � �^ � � � � � o -� x o� o a. ,� o � A � � � o� � �� o 0 � �� o L� 0 O� � O O VJ V� R t,�,) � E-� A N N �� M N >, >, �.�. N r'" O � � O 'U O Q" � .� O o H � O O � � � � vi U � U `� 0o N �n rn c •--� N cN�1 �� N N >, >, d' N �--� � r�' A y � u u� � � .O � w � N ''' .� G.l .L'" y 4n � p +�3."i . �p a' � � � p H p, � � � v' ° o � � oa a� 0 E � � � -v -� a��`'i � � � z cn A H aa a� w A c�� 4.03 H C�7 z O � � � � w w d � a w 0 a � � � � � � '� w �. PQ W � � ,o �5 � a �o � �� N o 0 W � � '�t � O N N � �--� r�i . � � � N � '� � 4r � � y �z 3 � �'Q N � H °a �� N N o� z z z � �� a �� o '�oo �� 3a H �� •..-, no � � � a o �� OO �o ao � � o 0 t� a � c� v rn cv o o cv •-� v� � cN•� � � N � ~ � +-' � y � � � H � �a �� aWo N �� Gs' a � r� v rn N o o ri v� p� z z z � � � v� � � � � a a� � .� � � � �,r., k,, � cd � O � � � � � � � aQ o 0 0 0�o�n �� o � U F+ 'v� v� o � ..., H an 4. ,.. V a+ o. r�' � „� y �- '� �' t ' ; r � � v� � � � � �� v� � � � °' ° z zH �:° � N� Q a o a, 4.04 � f � _� ' / ' � � � y 431 H < 0 � � r � � E � � � J' ,�� a � � � ., I s � � a I � . �/ 1� I � ' � . , i � � �� l�.-.� � r ; :a�i .� ' � =��i�= � ��; f R e � p � � a`an.e s M F jYYA � � 3 *�j � � �aas � g � * � • * a �� t � :an: + A l4A�S 1�� ii ; _ � ,;E � a � � ;°� : ��j��l�� R � �... �� .... °.^...•• _... Nvv na axn3a 1 ^«-�°.r.... . �"�":.°::. iwanxoi�aa3u 'JN '�OSSV If3LLMw 7N 'ANVJO� Ow1140' 1NYMOY(q 153Nwf10S � 1MIIWN wA°M� _ _ .. �d��i`�O�.S lt• Y�x 11r1t1 )n�l�• ♦��f�t�l�a W � J � �� i$ a jY �� p4i €�`g�� j �� 1, ��l��i6l�i ,, ..ee..-a.11i 4.05 �I )� Z �� a � N v o � e N � N W�o (n y U Q�� _�� $� �Z � o a � �yZ n V r � � tyJ � Z Q � U =�O� a � g;j J S � 0 , i �` , � 'l` �I , , � � � � , _ � e � ' ' � _ ; �,. � �r'�`cv' .e �.: n �V ,,�`�`�: �, _ ..._. ""��'y�,*,j `t Y � � � , � , �'-"'� � �R �� ;!!'C )ty� ry .!1 ��'� .'... /M:�. I�"._..`1 li`i - �4'1RV w� :� �� i� � ' ��,.�- : � :�'.c�"!A� o�� ,��-r I , . [� "� �. !: p�� t ��t.�f��'�� r ��1- � •.� a;l.:. ,� f a_� . �1 1 «.a ;s� aa ! i j 1.- ir r� � � •. _,� I ja _ n ; I . `'7 � � _ o' �. I 1 ��:_n� a !! ,��d � .- . � i, �. 's a; �{ �{ •c; .p.. I �-I� _ i 1 �� a ' '� �,` , ' ' ._� I ;�j � j:'. i `- � �`�'��a '�,. �� _ � � � ,�0 .'ei �u' [! . i d l� �' ° - -`= - =- _ T`• 1 � �. J *'' � "�TOv�� (,' .:�IFS��r � � . �i' `;;�� # �c � � 4-�' `� ��"`,� ' �'_ �`.'�� ''� f� � � �� ;� °�'�c��'+�� -�. .�� Y'ti� � tr `�T,� f � �:�, �".. • ,, �? 1 'v4,".'+o°�.�. " �� f` _.:,�� ..:. g7 �� :�� n_��s 4 ��; ! � � � ,F,(� � 4 � F•�, r`; �� -� ., ;��y =• ��b�zi � � . i� , L 1 ��• ��"�� °�� 0 \ 4`� � �. _ � t�;� �7�l��,Q��i� �� .� � w .��_. ��x.��, . �f� 1.-•'�.v-��--_ 1 � 2 � . � � � � r�_:_ � - < -:;�_,: f�f / � ✓ I � � =: a � �� q � e �� - � ¢ � �::: � � $ �2 � �� . � : b x� �R, � � � °' � � p 4 � � � ;g' �-N� � � � � � 7Rl � �� y?.. s�� ... 0 Z � J _,�..,�.�....,.�,. x•.. nn�...�.`.'°...�. IY�LJr ']W �JOSSY N3111WA ytll 'ANYdI'10� 1Ni14��V t.. ... ��u s� �n.e,. .,�..e,�.n d �� i �� : � k �s i �� : �a�s gM� ia�€� ae� ��&� ��, ��s..: �a.+=o��ia 4.07 Nr1a 31K \t� 1N3n3e0134303tl 1MIMO�fq 153MMlf105 Y �\. 31NJ3NOlS _ � i � Z �� _ , �- N � � � w�o � H V Q W �o _ � o�i d r (9 5 Z a � y '�' O � � _ � W � 2 Q � U _ = rn � a i � &� �< �� (�`i � � � W W L,. � � — � � — � c�i� — � �I � _ � O UNIVERSfTYAVENUE F I�_'-1 ` � � W � � _ � � • � ►--� � � � ►%'i v � � � � � . Z 0 � � � � �<Z Z �a �z °<° �� a� s�- J � Z�z =� �� O �N� II � �Z F� ,., �� ^o� �� tiG°•< zooc V°'UV {9.. L � y L � � ` � 9vc;� � � c=^� [�-� s � Z w ` ,., �� -�-= CJ < L t_ Z Z s Z � O v Z .�_�-aL,- V�Z:J a < Q � `,Z�- sa „C' zQ ^ r`--�!?� I _ - i� T � � _ � � DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley May 4, 1995 William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Establish a Public Hearing on a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-02, by the City of Fridley; 7299. University Avenue N.E. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the rezoning request, to rezone 7299 University Avenue N.E. from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2, General Business at its April 19, 1995 meeting. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The zoning ordinance requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing for all rezoning requests. Staff recommends that the City Council establish May 22, 1995 as the date of the public hearing. MM/dw M-95-266 5.01 ZOA #95-02 City of Fridley 5.°z LOCATION MAP I _ � DATE: TO: Community Development Department NG DIVISION May 4, 1995 William Burns, City of Fridley City Manager ��I'" FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Establish a Public Hearing on a Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-03, by RMS Company; 970 Osborne�Road NE The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the rezoning request, to rezone 970 Osborne Road NE from M-1, Light Industrial to C-2, Genera2 Business at its April 19, 1995 meeting. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The zoning ordinance requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing for all rezoning requests. Staff recommends that the City Council establish May 22, 1995 as the date of the public hearing. MM/ dw M-95-246 6.� 1 ZOA ;r 95-03 RMS Company Osborne �oad 9 6.0� �.��i��'�'� -�� _ � . DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Community Development Department PI,ANNING DIVISION City of Fridley May 4, 1995 William Burns, City Manager �� , / Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 206 of the Fridley City Code The State of Minnesota has adopted the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Cities within the State of Minnesota must update, its ordinances to adopt the current building codes. Proposed for first reading is an ordinance updating Chapter 206 entitled "Building Code" to adopt the most recent Uniform Building Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, and other relevant chapters of the Minnesota Rules affecting building construction. When the building codes are updated, the State also recommends fee increases. In 1989, the City adopted the 1988 Uniform Building Code and related Minnesota Rules chapters. The fees have not been increased since that time. In order to encourage property owners to update and maintain their properties, and based on some of the comments received through a recent customer service survey, staff has prepared the attached ordinance such that the permit fees for the mechanical and plumbing permits are not increased as high as recommended by the Uniform Building Code. The proposed fees for a building permit, however, are recommended for adoption. Since the City's priority is on home improvement and rehabilitation, maintaining the fees at a lower amount would help to encourage permit compliance. Comparison charts with other communities on the City's proposed fees are attached. The City's fees compare favorably and are lower than a majority of the other communities. The City does not charge plan check fees for residential permits which produce significant savings for residents. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt first reading of the attached ordinance as presented. BD/dw M-95-264 7.01 EXISTING BUILDING PERMIT FEE SURVEY FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS NEW BRIGHTON Building Permit 65� Plan Check TOTAL COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Building Permit 50% Plan Check TOTAL BROOKLYN CENTER Building Permit 32.5% Plan Check TOTAL FRIDLEY Building Permit 0% Plan Check TOTAL �150,000 Home $1,001.25 $ 650.81 $1,652.06 $ 814.50 $ 407.25 $1,221.75 $ 814.50 $ 264.71 $1,079.21 $ 814.50 $ .00 $ 814.50 $5,000 Deck $ 88.50 $ 57.52 $ 146.02 $ 72.00 $ 36.00 $ 108.00 $ 72.00 $ 23.40 $ 95.40 $ 72.00 � .00 $ 72.00 16 Sq Roof Tear-off $ 59.35 S .00 $ 59.35 $ 35.00 $ .00 $ 35.00 $ 37.00 .00 $ 37.00 $ 27.00 S .00 $ 27.00 PROPOSED BUILDING PERI�IT FEE SURVEY FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Building Permit $1,145.00 $ 100.50 $ 52.25 50% Plan Check S 572.50 S 50.25 S .00 TOTAL $1,717.50 $ 150.75 $ 52.25 FRIDLEY Building Permit 0% Plan Check TOTAL $1,145.00 S .00 $1,145.00 $ 100.50 $ 41.25 $ ,00 $ .00 $ 100.50 $ 41.25 NOTE: Most cities are still in the process of updatin+g their codes and fees. 7.oz PLUMBING PERMIT FEE SURVEY Basic Piumbing Permit Charges for Water Heater Instaliation � CITY RESlDENTIA� (NEW WATER � COMMERCIAL MINIMUM UPDATWG � HEATER IN HOUSE) NEW �WATER HEATER FEE CODE I � _— NEW BRIGHTON Pop. 22324 $25.00 + SURCHARGE 2% OF VALUE NEW MOUNDS VIEW Don't Pop. 12638 $22.00 + SURCHARGE $22.00 + SURCHARGE Know BLAINE �n Pop. 40501 $29.00 + SURCHARGE $29.00 + SURCHARGE Process BROOKLYN CENTER �n Pop. 28558 $35.00 + SURCHARGE $35.00 + SURCHARGE Process BROOKLYN PARK �n Pop. 57688 $15.00 + SURCHARGE $15.00 + SURCHARGE Process COON RAPIDS Pop. 56493 $30.00 + SURCHARGE $30.00 + SURCHARGE NEW SPRING LAKE PARK In process of hiring new buildin official Pop. 6598 Will probably update fees ARDEN HILLS �n Po . 9513 �15.00 + SURCHARGE $15.00 + SURCHARGE i Process FRIDLEY (Proposed) �n Po . 28369 $20.00 + SURCHARGE 1% — 1 1/2% of Value $20.00 Process 1994 UPC the I $27.� $27.00 $�.� 7.03 0 �- w � � Z � �w �w z u� � � E � � � � � lj t� 1L !i � Q � U w w � � w J J � O � � O � � o 0 } � ; � o � � � ? � � r in � o� o ua , �.I.� w cv ��w � � �= Wz� _ _ � o �Z� � � �� o� � � � � W ,� z + + C� V f.� � a� °a o Z'= WO� `ri °' = E ac v � � m w °- U � �� ZW w w � � U Lt" � Q Q S 2 L W � U ZZ � � �� m Q� + + W� o 0 [� � c° N u� z � � �N��i M CD >- t- N W N �- = G1J � .-. U �'3 tn m a � d W Z Z �- ----- . iZ _-----1-� --- m W � Q � � 0 N w � _ Q � + 0 0 N r- w � 2 � � � + 0 0 Q� 3' itS � .� � �, f!3 � � � � o tA N � -f' w � _ � � + 0 0 � � w � S � � + 0 0 ui � � � � E � � � ti li l= m � � 0 w � _ ¢ � a 0 w ¢ S � � + 0 0 O 0 �i , r m 3 � � U � � � � � T w � _ � � � 0 0 w � 2 � � + 0 0 N � � O 0 N w � _ � � � + 0 0 O T w ¢ _ � � + 0 0 a� m � � � � � � U U ti {y °o °o °o �i �ci �ci N N .- � � � � � Cti � O � 0 N r O O � E�} w � _ � � � 0 0 w � _ � � + 0 0 N � � O � r w � _ � � + o° w � _ � � � + � � � 0 \ � r w � _ 2 � + 0 r N � w � 2 Q � � + 0 0 r m � v m � U C/7 � � r w � _ � � + 0 0 N � w � _ � � � + 0 a °o ui r �. e. . . . -r. Q '� Y � � o W � aYC ��'3 � p�, ao c� o°� � � � ¢ w c°ci cn n oUa`no �-�Srn` oco�� r'i-`�' i-"'Q�g�-��'a-`„oz�.o-u' �U a Y a Y a� a� a Z a� ao a" o� a o� O O � ac o � Z°- O W- � cn .-- Z � m �m Uai IQ t�i. ,� O �� r MEMO TO: MEMO FROM: MEMO DATE: REGARDING: BU(LDING [NSPECTION DIVISION MEMO Barbara Dacy, Community Development Adm John Palacio, Chief Building Official April 7, 1995 Ordinance Amending Chapter 206 Please find attached a proposed ordinance which will amend Chapter 206 and a rewrite of City Code Chapter 206 "Building Code" with the proposed amendments included. It will when approved adopt all the latest State Model Codes as well as an updated fee schedule. The deleted portions are struck out " " and the new or revised por[ions aze underlined " ". We recommend that the new code, when adopted and published, become effective as soon as possible. We recommend that the new fees become et%ctive on June 1, 1995. The new fees are comparable with the suirounding areas. I feel the plan check and review fees for single family homes should continue to be dropped which will decrease the proposed increase on them. JP/mh ATTACH: 2 7.05 TO I� RO�\�1 D��TE ,`�aF. F�� V :; �. `C�—G PU�L(C WORKS M E M O RA N � U M Rick Prib��i, Finance Director Paul La�vi-ei�ce, Superintendent of Public ��'orks Marcl� 1 �1. 199> SUB3�ECT: Water and Se�ver Fees -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As requested, the Public �jorks ]��Iaintenance Division has reviewed the cost to the City for providin� certain water and sewer services. Item H�V1ter a�id Se�ver• Fees (Ref 901) 1 ? 3 4. 5. 6 7 Hydrant Rental Agreement - service charge should be increased from �25 to $35. Water useage should be increased from $0.75/1,000 to �1.00/1,000 gallons used. *Both items one and two are recommended because both require involvement of City personnel. Minimum $10 plus refundable deposit on equipment (the refundable deposit should be set at tlie replacement cost of the equipment). Water tap fees should be increased from $160 to $300 plus the cost of materials. Street patch cost should be increased from $150 for the first 5 square yards to $300. All work over S square yards should be charged at $30 per squafe yard. There should also be a charge established for work done between November and May I, for a temporary patch in addition to the permanent patch fees. The terrtporary patch charges are necessary because permanent patch material is not available during these time periods and will have to be redone later. *Temporary patch fees (Nov. I through May l)$200 for the first 5 square yards and $20 per square yard over 5 square yards. Water meter repair on the weekend or holidays should be increased from $35 to $,75 to reflect the 2 hours minimum callout time for Public JVorks personnel. Inspection fee for water and sewer line repair should be increased from $15 to $25 to better reflect the City's cost for providing this service. Hydrant rental agreement service charge Water usage Ivlinimum $10 plus *refundable deposit (*equal to replacement cost of equipment) Water taps Street patch permanent first 5 square yards Next 10 square yards 7.�6 Current Pronosed 25.00 35.00 .75J ] 000 l .00/ 1000 160.00 I 50.00 15.00 300.00 300.00 Over 15 square yards "New rate" over S square yards "New" street patch temporary Nov 1 thru May *Temporary patcl� in addition to street patcl� First 5 sauare vards ' Over S square yards Inspection fee for waterlsewer 7.07 C:ttrr-cnt 7.50 I 5.00 i'ro��oscd 30_00/sq. yd. 200.00 20.00/sc�. yd. 25.00 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 206 ENTITLED "BUILDING CODE", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 206.01.02, 206.01.03, 206.01.04, 206.03.01, 206.03.02, 206.05.01, 206.07.07, AND 206.10.04 206.01. BUILDING CODE 1. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B.59 through 16B.73, one copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of Fridley, Minnesota, is hereby adopted by reference as the Building Code of the City of Fridley and incorporated in this Chapter as completely as if set out here in full. (Ref . 901) 2. The following chapters of the Minnesota State Buildinq Code including the followinq chapters of Minnesota Ru es are adopted by the City: A. Chapter 1300 - eee�e--�,ektt-i�nist�3cn Minnesota Building Code. B. Chapter 1301 - eer��ee��en---e�te�---Gert�i�tt� �e��tes��en-o€-�tr�-i�i�g-�yi-�i-a-1-s Buildinq Official Certification. C. Chapter 1302 - Bt��d�ne}--�� :�-L==�-iorr-�-S�ette �gene�--- ---Rx�e� State Buildinq Construction A,pprovals. D. Chapter 1305 - Adoption of the �988 1994 Uniform Building Code b�--�referenee includinq Appendix Chapters: -�&e-�9��-�'.TF��e-�€e�-��e�ate�c; ene�-�te�atee��?e�i�e�s--�-�-a3r-eK+Rei� ta-errep�er-54 e�-tl�e-H��-nnel-�se-�enger-f e�d-t�-SB2-iZn�e-43Z 9 .- �� 3, Division I,� Detention and Correctional Facilities t�� t2) 12 „Division II � Ree��ree��r�ir�riarr�--��Be �ppene��-el�ep�er-�5 Sound Transmission Control. (3� 29, Minimu Plumbing Fixtures E. Chapter ].307 - Elevators and Related Devices �,� Chapter 1315 - 1993 National Electrical Code F G. Chapter 1325 - Solar Energy Systems 6 �. Chapter 1330 - �Peehn�ee�--i2eqti3��s---€o�r Fallout Shelters H�. Chapter 1335 - Floodprflofing Regulations i' •� Page 2 - Ordinance No. � J. Chapter 1340 - Facilities for the Handicapped � K. Chapter 1346 - Minnesota 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code-�999-�d��en � L. Chapter 1350 - Manufactured Homes R��e� b-----ei�a}�te�--r3-5�-----gH�i�eg-- eeele-�4c�itti�r_ _�i�re rt��e-4�45 M. Chapter 1360 - Prefabricated St�t�etnres Buildinas N. Chapter 1365 -�ier�et�er�-e€ Snow Loads 0. Chapter 1370 - Storm Shelters P Chapter 4715 - Minnesota Plumbing Code A Q_ e�tep�er---4336------�o�ei----�rtei�gSf----f.'�cx�e---- heln►�r�s�re��*ae-�Zi�- 7{r7�- f Re€ .--�6�3.-} Minnesota �nergy Code ' 3. Administration Optional Appendices. The following chapters of the code are adopted without change by the City: A. Chapter 1305.8�58 0020 Subpart 2: jl) 15, Reroofing ,�2� 19. Exgosed Residential Concrete (3) 31 Division II, Membrane Structures �� 33 Excavation and Grading B. UBC Appendix Chapters ��,5, 12, Division l, 25, 38, 55, and 70 B C Chapter 1335 - Floodproofing Regulations, Parts 1335.0200 to 1335.3100, and FPR Sections 200.2 to 1405.3 (Ref. 961) 4. Organization and Enforcement. A. The organization of the Building Division and enforcement of the code shall be as established by Chapter � 1 of the Uniform Building Code �988 �994 Edi�ion. The Code shall be enforced within the incorporated limits of the City and extraterritorial limits permitted by Minnesota Statutes, �98�4 1994. 7.09 Page 3 - Ordinance No. B. The Building Inspection Division shall be the Building Code Department of the City of Fridley. The Administrative authority shall be a State Certified Building Official. (Minnesota Statute 16B.651 C. The City Manager and designate jurisdiction of 206.02. CONFLICTS shall be the Appointing Authority the Building Official for the Fridley. (Ref. 961) In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Code adopted by the provisions of this Chapter and applicable provisions of State law, rules or regulations, the latter shall prevail. 206 . 03 , PERI�IITS AND FLES 1. The issuance of permits, eend�e��er►-e€-�rr.r�see�3-er� and collection of fees shall be as authorized in Minnesota Statute 16B.62 subdivision 1 and as provided for in Chapter 3� of the �988 1994 Uniform Building Code and Minnesota rules parts 1305.0106 and 1305.0107. Section 39� ;-p�r�r�rpl�-(-�} 107 . 3, is amended to read "... except on occupancy groups R-3 and M-� U.1". (Ref. 901) 2. Violations and Penalties A violation of the code is a misdemeanor (Minnesota Statute 16B.69� � 3.The fee schedules shall be as follows: A. Plan Review Fees. (1) When a plan or other data are submitted for review, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and speeifications for review. ( 2) Where plans are incorporated or changed so as to require additional plan review an additional plan review fee shall be charged. (3) Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days foliowing the date of application shall expire by limitation and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned or destroyed. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant once for a period not exceeding 180 days upon request by the applicant. ( 4) The plan review fee shal l be 65 percent ( 65� ) of the building permit fee and shall be credited to the building permit plan check fee if a permit is 7.10 Page 4 - Ordinance No. obtained within 180 days following the completion date of plan review. (Ref. 901) B. Building Permit Fees. (Ref_ 901) TOTAL VALUATION FEE $ i.00 to $ soo.00 ...............5��.-ee aa.00 $ 501.00 to $2,000.00 ..............$�5.-88 22.00 for the first $500.00 plus $Z.-98 2.75 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $ 2,001.00 to $25,000.00 .................$45.-A8 63.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.-99 12.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 .................$�5�.-69352.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.-�9 9.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 ................$4�4.-58 580.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.-59 6.25 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 ...............$639.-5e $895.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.-�9 5.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 .............$�939.-g6 52,855.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.-66 4. 5 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up .....................$�;�39.-58 54,955.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $Z.-89 .75 for each additionai $1,000.00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: Inspections outside of normal business hours....$38.-99 2.00 per hour* (minimum charge - two hours) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of 8Be Seet�e�-365(g} Section 108.8 ................. $38.-ee 4 .00 per hour* Inspections for which no fee indicated ..................... $39.-99 {minimum charge - one-half hour) 7.11 is specifically 42 00 per hour* Page 5 - Ordinance No. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans ................ $39-99 42.00 per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. For use of outside consultants for �lan check'ng and inspections, or both . .Actual Costs** Residential Mobile Home Installation........$30.00 Surcharge On Residential Building Permits. A surcharge of $5.00 shall be added to the permit fee charged for each residential building permit that requires a State licensed residential contractor. **Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. C. Plumbing Permit Fees. (Ref. 901) FEE Minimum Fee .......................$ ��.-89 20.00 Each Fixture ......................$ 7.00 Old Opening, New Fixture..........$ 4.00 Beer Dispenser ....................$ 5.00 Blow Off Basin ....................$ 7.00 Catch Basin .......................$ 7.U0 Rain Water Leader .................$ 7.00 Sump or Receiving Tank............$ 7.00 Water Treating Appliance..........$ 10.00 Water Heater-Electric .............$ 7.00 Water Heater-Gas. . . . . . . . .$ 10.00 Backflow Preventer. . S 15 00 OTHER ..... ............. ........�� 1_1f2� of value of fixture or appliance Other Inspections and Fees: Inspections outside of normal business hours....$38.-68 42.00 per hour* (minimum charge - two hours) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of HBe Seet�e�►- 3�0�-Fg} Section 108.8 ................ $39.-96 42.0o per hour* Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated............ . $38.-89 42.00 per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour) 7.12 Paqe 6 - Ordinance No. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans....$38.-98 42.00 per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. For use of outside consultants for g�an checking and inspections or both .Actual Costs** **Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. D. Mechanical Permit Fees. (Ref. 901) FE8 (1) Residential Minimum Fee . .....................$ �5.-68 .00 Furnace ...........................$ �6.-98 3 .00 Gas Range .........................$ 10.00 Gas Dryer .........................$ 10.00 Gas Piping ... ....................$ 10.00 Air eonditioning ..................$ �9.-69 25.00 OTHER .............................1� of value of appliance (2) Commercial Minimum Fee .................... ..$ 45.-89 25.00 All Work .........................�� 1.25� of value of appliance Other Inspections and Fees: Inspections outside of normal business hours....$39.-99 42.00 per hour* (minimum charge - two hours) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of HB2 9eetge�-3$�(-e�} Section 108.8 .. $39.-99 42.00 per hour* Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated..........$39.-99 4 .00 per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour) Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans.....$38:6A 4.00 per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and 7.13 Page 7 - Ordinance No. inspections, or both . Actual Costs** **Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. E. Electrical Perait Fees. (1) Payment of Fees All electrical inspection fees are due and payable to the City of Fridley at or before commencement of the installation and shall be forwarded with the request for inspection. (2) Fee Schedule Fees shall be paid according schedule: to the following (a) Minimum Fees. ((11) �tesidential. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one (1) inspection only....$15.00. Minimum fee for installations requiring two inspections shall be....$30.00. (Ref. 901) ((2)) Nonresidential Minimum fee for each se�arate inspect�on of an installation,� renlacement, aiteration or repair limited to one (1) inspection only S20 00 Minimum fee for installations requiring two inspections shall be 540.00 (b) Services, changes of services, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately. 0 to and including 200 ampere capacity ....$�5.-9e 25.00. For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof ...................$ 5.00. (c) Circuits, installations, additions, alterations or repairs of each circuit or subfeeder shall be computed separately including circuits fed from subfeeders and including the equipment served, except as provided for in (a) through (i). 0 to and 5.00. For each fraction including 100 ampere capacity...$ additional 100 ampere capacity or thereof ......................$ 3.00. 7.�4 Page 8 - Ordinance No. ((1)) Maximum fee on a single family dwelling shall not exceed $69.-66 75.00 if not over 200 ampere capacity. This includes service, feeders, circuits, fixtures and equipment. This maximum fee includes not more than four (4) inspections. (Ref. 901) ((2)) Maximum fee on an apartment building shall not exceed $30.00 per dwelling unit for the first 20 units and $25.00 per dwelling unit for the balance of units. The fee for the service and feeders in an apartment building shall be in accordance with 2b and 2c of the schedule, and shall be added to the fee for circuits in individual apartments. The maximum fee for an apartment applies only to the circuits in the apartment. A two-family unit (duplex) maximum fee per unit as per single family dwelling. (Ref. 90i) ((3)) The maximum number of 0 to 100 ampere circuits to be paid on any one athletic field lighting standard is ten (10). (Ref. 901) ((4}) The fee for mobile homes shall be in accordance with 2b and 2c of the fee schedule. (Ref. 901) ((5)) In addition to the above fees: ((a)) A charge of $1.00 will be made for each lighting standard. ((b)) A charge of $2.00 will be made for each traffic signal standard. Circuits originating within the standard will not be used when computing the fee. ((6)) In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for light, heat and power shall be computed separately at $5.00 per unit plus $3.00 per 10-Kilovolt amperes or fraction thereof . The maximum fee for any transformer or generator in this category is $40.00. (Ref. 901) ((7)) In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and outline lighting shall be computed at $5.00 per unit .(Ref. 901) ((8)) In addition to the above fees (unless included in the msximum fee filed by the initial installer) remote control, signal circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts 7.15 Page 9 - Ordinance No. shall be computed at $5.00 per each ten (10) openings or devices of each system plus $2.00 for each additional ten (10) or fraction thereof. (d)For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installations, there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00, up to and including $30,000 of electrical estimate, plus 1/10 of l� of any amount in excess of $30,000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. (e)When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not subject to an appeal pending before the Board or any court, a reinspection fee of $15.00 for residential and �20.00 for nonresidential, may be assessed in writing by the inspector. {Ref. 901) (f)For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services, the fee shall be $25.00 per hour, including travel time, plus $.25 per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed. This Section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such other jobs as determined by the City. (Ref. 901) (g)For inspection of transient projects including but not limited to carnivals and circuses, the inspection fees shall be computed as follows: (Ref. 901) ((1) ) Power supply units, according to 2B of the schedule. A like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement during the season, except that a fee of $25.00 per hour will be charged for additional time spent by the inspector, if the power supply is not ready for inspection at the time and date specified on the request for inspection as required by law. (Ref. 901) ((2)) Rides, devices, or concessions, shall be inspected at their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $15.00 per unit. In addition to the fee for the power supply units, there shall be a general inspection for each engagement during the season at the hourly rate, with a two hour minimum. In addition to the above fees, inspections required on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after regular business hours will be at the hourly rate, including travel time. 7.16 Page 10 - Ordinance No. An owner of a migratory amusement enterprise shall notify the inspector and make application for inspection a minimum of 14 days before its engagement in Fridley. When the inspector is not notified at least 48 hours in advance, a charge of $100.00 will be made in addition to alI required fees. (h)For purposes of interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter, the most recently published edition of the National Electrical Code shall be prima facie evidence of the definitions, interpretations and scope of words and terms used in this Chapter. ( i) In addition to the above fees, the inspection fee for each separate inspection of a swimming pool shall be computed at $�5.-A9 5.00. Reinforcing steel for swimming pools requires a rough-in inspection. (3) Minor Repair Work Defined. Minor repair work as used in Minnesota Statutes, Section 326.244 shall mean the adjustment or repair and replacement of worn or defective parts of electrical fixtures, switches, receptacles and other equipment provided that such minor repairs are made in compliance with accepted standards of construction for safety to life and property as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 326.243 and do not require replacement of the wiring to them. The City's inspectors or agents may inspect any such minor repairs at the request of the owner or person making such repairs. (4) Condemnation of Hazardous Installations. When an electrical inspector finds that a new installation or part of a new installation that is not energized is not in compliance with accepted standards of construction as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 326.243 Safety Standards of the Minnesota Electrical Act, the inspector shall, if the installation or the noncomplying part thereof is such as to seriously and proximately endanger human life and property if it was to be energized, order with the approval of the Bui.Zding Inspector, immediate condemnation of the installation or noncomplying part. When the person responsible for making the ins�allation condemned hereunder is notified, they shall promptly proceed to make the corrections cited in the condemnation order. (Ref. 901) (5) Disconnection of Hazardous Installation: If while making an inspection, the electrical inspector finds that a new installation that is 7.17 Page 11 - Ordinance No. energized is not in compliance with accepted standards of construction as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 326.243 Safety Standards of the Minnesota Electrical Act, �he inspector shall, if the installation or the noncomplying part thereof is such as to seriously and proximately endanger human life and property, order immediate disconnection of the installation or noncomplying part. When the person responsible for making the installation ordered disconnected hereunder is notified, they shall promptly proceed to make the corrections cited in this disconnect order. (Ref. 901} (6) Corrections of Noncomplying Installations. When a noncomplying installation whether energized or not, is not proximately dangerous to human life and property, the inspector shall issue a correction order, ordering the owner or contractor to make• the installation comply with accepted standards of construction for safety to life and property, noting specifically what changes are required. The order of the inspector s2ia11 specify a date of not less than 10 nar more than 17 calendar days from the date of the order. F. Moving of Dwelling or Building Fee. The permit fee for the moving of a dwelling or building shall be in accordance with the following schedule: For Principle Building into Citv .................$ 89.-98 300.00 For Accessory Building �.nto CitX .................$ z�9.-99 4 . 0 For Movin any building out of City 580 00 For moving through,�r within-e�-e�t-af the City..$ i5:98 20.00 G. Wrecking Pen�it Fee. (i) For any permit for the wrecking of any building or portion thereof, the fee charged for each such buildinq included in such permit shall be based on the cubical. contents thereof and shall be at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents ($1.25) for each one thousand (1000) cubic feet or fraction thereof. (2) For structures which would be impractical to cube, the wrecking permit fee shall be based on the total cost of wrecking such structure at the rate of six dollars ($6.00) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or fraction thereof. %.� 8 Page 12 - Ordinance No. (3) In no case shall the fee charged for any wrecking permit be less than fifteen dollars ($15.00). H. Water and Sewer Fees. (Ref. 901) Hydrant Rental Agreement - Service Charge.....$ ��.-96 35.00 (for use of hydrant or for hose/equipment use) Water Usage .................. . .... ........$ 8.-�� 1.00 1,000 gallons used -Minimwn $10.00, plus Refundable Deposit on Equipment equal to �eplacement cost of e„gi��pment Water Taps............ ...............$�69:�� 300.00 lus c st of m te.'als Street Patch - First 5 sq. yds..........$�5Qr88 300.00 Ne��-�9-sq .--�rels .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .-$—�� .—ee fse� .—Yet .— --9�re�-�5-sq .--yels .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .--:.- .- .- .- .-$--� .-59 f 9q : yel .- Over 5 Sq. Yds. S30 OOJsq.yd Tem rary Street Patch (Nov 1 thru Hay 1� First 5 Sq. Yds. 5200 00 Over 5 Sq Yds 520 OO�Sq Yd Water Meter Repair-Weekend & Holidays.$-��A 75.00 Water Connections Permit..........$ 15.00 Sewer Connections Perm............$ 25.00 Sewer O-Dapter ....................$ 5.00 Inspection Fee for Water/Sewer Line Repair....$ �b.-99 5.00 I. Land Alterations, Excavating, or Gradinq Fees including Conservation Plan Iipleaentation Fees. (Ref. 901, 1012) 50 cubic yards or less .............$ 40.00 51 to 100 cubic yards .............$ 4T.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards...........$ 47.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards.......$167.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards..........$273.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $40.50 for each additional 20,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more...........$662.5Q for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $22.50 for each additional I00,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 7.1_9 Page 13 - Ordinance No. Land Alteration Plan-Checking Fees: 50 cubic yards or less .......................No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards ................. $ 15.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards .............. $ 22.50 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards........... $ 30.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards......... $ 30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards....... $165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $9.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards or more........ $255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards plus $4.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. J. Pollution Monitoring Registration Fee. (Ref. 929, 947) 1. Each pollution monitoring location shali require a site map, description and length of monitoring time requested. (For matter of definition pollution monitoring location shall mean each individual tax parcel.) There shall be an initial application and plan check fee of Twenty Five Dollars ($25). 2. The applicant for a Pollution Control Registration shall provide the City with a hold harmless statement for any damar�es or claims made to the City regarding location, construction, or contaminates. 3. An initial registration fee of Fifty Dollars ($50j is due and payable to the City of Fridley at or before commencement of the installation. 4. An annual renewal registration fee of Fifty Dollars ($50) and annual monitoring activity reports for all individual locations must be made on or before September first of each year. If renewal is not filed on or before October first of each year the applicant must pay double the fee. 5.. A final pollution monitoring activity report must be submitted to the City within {30) days of termination of monitoring activity. (Ref. 961) 206.04. DOU$LE FEES Should any person begin work of any kind such as hereinbefore set forth, or for which a permit from the Building Code Department is required by this Chapter 7.2� Page 14 - Ordinance No. without having secured the necessary permit therefore from the Building Code Department either previous to or during the day where such work is conumenced, or on the next succeeding business day when work is commenced on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, they shall, when subsequently securing such permit, be required to pay double the fees provided for such permit and shall be subject to all the penal provisions of said Code. (Ref. 901) 206.05. REINSPECTION FEE 1. A reinspection fee of tl��ty�e��rg-(-�-3i�.-{�{�} �orty two dollars j�42.00� per hour shall be assessed for each inspection or reinspection when such portion of work for which the inspection is called for is not complete or when corrections called for are not made. (Ref. 901) 2. This Section i: reinspection fees failure to comply w as controlling the before the job reinspection. , not to be interpreted as requiring the first time a job is rejected for ith the requirements of this Code, but practice of caZling for inspections is ready for such inspection or 3. Reinspection fees may be assessed when the permit card is not properly posted on the work site, or the approved plans are not readily available for the inspection, or for failure to provide access on the date and time for which inspection is requested, or for deviating from plans requiring the approval of the Building Official. 4. Where reinspection fees have bee additional inspection of the work will be the required fees have been paid. (Ref. 206.06. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY n assessed, no performed until 961) 1. Except for single iamily residential structures, a Certificate of Occupancy stating that all provisions of this Chapter have been fully complied with, shall be obtained from the City: A. Before any structure for which a building permit is required is used or occupied. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued when the building is approved for occupancy but the outside development is partially uncompleted. (Ref. 901) B. Or before any nonconforming use is improved or enlarged. 2. Application for a Certificate of Occupancy shall be made to the City when the structure or use is ready for occupancy and within ten (10) days thereafter the City 7.2 � Page 15 - Ordinance No. shall inspect such structure or use and if found to be in conformity with all provisions of this Chapter, shall sign and issue a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. A Certificate of Compliance shall be issued to all existing legal nonconforming and conforming uses which do not have a Certificate of Occupancy after all public health, safety, convenience and general welfare conditions of the City Code are in compliance. 4. No permit or license required by the City of Fridley or other governmental agency shall be issued by any department official or employee of the City of such governmental agency, unless the application for such permit or license is accompanied by proof of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance. 5. Change in Occupancy: A. The City will be notified of any change in ownership or occupancy at the time this change occurs for all industrial and commercial structures within the City. B. A new Certificate of Occupancy or Compliance will be issued after notification. A thirty-five dollar ($35.00) fee will be assessed for this certificate. 6. Existing Structure or Use: A. In the case of a structure or use established, altered, enlarged or moved, upon the issuance and receipt of a Special Use Permit, a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued only if all the conditions thereof shall have been satisfied. B. Whenever an inspection of an existing structure or use is required for issuance of a new Certificate of Occupancy, a thirty-five dollar ($35.00) fee will be charged. If it is found that such structure or use does not conform to the applicable requirements, the structure or use shall not be occupied until such time as the structure or use is again brought into compliance with such requirements. 206.07. CONTRAC�l.'OR'S LICENSES 1. It is deemed in the interest of the public and the residents of the City of Fridley that the work involved in building alteration and construction and the installation of various appliances and service facilities in and for said buildings be done only by individuals, firms and corporations that have demonstrated or submitted evidence of their competency to perform such work in accordance with the applicable codes of the City of Fridley. 7.22 Page 16 - Ordinance No. 2. The permits which the Building Inspector is authorized to issue under this Code shall be issued only to individuals, firms or corporations holding a license issued by the City for work to be performed under the permit, except as hereinafter noted. 3. Requirements. Application for license shall be made to the Building Code Department and such license shall be granted by a majority vote of the Council upon proof of the applicant's qualifications thereof, willingness to comply with the provisions of the City Code, filing of certificates evidencing the holding of public liability insurance in the limits of $50,000 per person, $100,000 per accident for bodily injury, and $25,000 for property damages and certificates of Worker's Compensation insurance as required by State law and if applicable, list a Minnesota State Tax Identification number. (Ref. 901) 4. Fee. The fee for each license required by the provision of this Section shall be thirty-five dollars ($35.00) per year. 5. Expiration. All licenses issued under the provisions of this Section shall expire on April 30th, following the date of issuance unless sooner revoked or forfeited. If a Iicense granted hereunder is not renewed previous to its expiration then all rights granted by such license shall cease and any work performed after the expiration of the license shall be in violation of this Code. 6. Renewal. Persons renewing their license issued under this Section after the expiration date shall be charged the full annual license fee. No prorated license fee shall be allowed. 7. Specific Trades Licensed. Licenses shall be obtained by every person engaging in the following businesses or work in accordance with the applicable Chapters of the City of Fridley. A. General contractors in the business of nonresidentia� building construction and resic�ential �ntractors with an exemnt card from the State. B. Masonry and brick work. C. Roofing. 7.23 Page 17 - Ordinance No. D. Plastering, stucco work, sheetrock taping. E. Heating, ventilation and refrigeration. F. Gas piping, gas services, gas equipment installation. G. Oil heating and piping work. H. Excavations, including excavation for footings, basements, sewer and water line installations. I. Wrecking of buildings. J. Sign erection, construction and repair, including billboards and electrical signs. K. Blacktopping and asphalt work. L. Chimney sweeps. 8. Employees and Subcontractors. A license granted to a general contractor under this Section shall include the right to perform all of the work included in the general contract. Such license shall include any or all of the persons performing the work which is classified and listed in this Code providing that each person performing such work is in the regular employ and qualified under State law and the provisions of this Building Code to perform such work. In these cases, the general contractor shail be responsible for all of the work so performed. Subcontractors on any work shall be required to comply with the Sections of this Code pertaining to license, insurance, permit, etc., for their particular type of work. (Ref. 901) 9. Suspension and Revocation Generally. The City Council shall have the power to suspend or revoke the license of any person licensed under the regulations of this Section, whose work is found to be improper or defective or so unsafe as to jeopardize life or property providing the person holding such license is given twenty (20) days notice and granted the opportunity to be heard before such action is taken. If and when such notice is sent to the legal address of the licensee and they fail or refuse to appear at the said hearing, their license wiil be automatically suspended or revoked five (5) days after date of hearing. l0. Time of Suspension. When a license issued under this Section is suspended, the period of suspension shall be not less than thirty { 30 ) 7.24 Page 18 - Ordinance No. days nor more than one (1) year, such period being determined by the City Council. 11. Revocation, Reinstatement. When any person holding a license as provided herein has been convicted for the second time by a court of law for violation of any of the provisions of this Code, the City Councii shall revoke the license of the person so convicted. Such person may not make application ior a new license for a period of one (1) year. 12. Permit to Homeowner. The owner of any single family property may perform work on property which the owner occupies so long as the work when performed is in accordance with the Codes of the City and for such purpose a permit may be granted to such owner without a license obtained. 13. State Licensed Contractor's Excepted. Those persons who possess valid State licenses issued by the State of Minnesota shall not be required to obtain a license from the City; they shall, however be required to file proof of the existence of a valid State license together with proof of satisfactory Worker's Compensation and Public Liability insurance coverage. (Ref. 901) 14. Public Service Corporations Excepted. Public service corporations shall not be required to obtain licenses for work upon or in connection with their own property except as may be provided by other Chapters. 15. Manufacturers Excepted. Manufacturers shall not be required to obtain licenses for work incorporated within equipment as part of manufacturing except as may be provided by other Sections of this Code . . 16. Assumption of Liability. This Section shall not be construed to affect the responsibility or liability of any party owning, operating, controlling or installing the above described work for damages to persons or property caused by any defect therein; nor shall the City of Fridley be held as assuming any such liability by reason of the licensing of persons, firms or carporations engaged in such work. 206.08. UTILITY EXCAVATIONS (SSWER � WriTER) l. Permit Required. 7.25 Page 19 - Ordinance No. Before any work is performed which includes cutting a curb or excavation on or under any street or curbing a permit shall be applied for from the City. The Public Works Department shall verify the location of the watermain and sanitary sewer connections before any excavation or grading shall be permitted on the premises. The permit shall specify the location, width, length and depth of the necessary excavation. It shall further state the specifications and condition of public facility restoration. Such specifications shall require the public facilities to be restored to at least as good a condition as they were prior to commencement of work. Concrete curb and gutter or any street patching shall be constructed and inspected by the City, unless specified otherwise. 2. Deposit - Required. A. Where plans and specifications indicate that proposed work includes connection to sanitary sewer, watermain, a curb cut or any other disruption that may cause damage to the facilities of the City, the application for permit shall be accompanied by a two hundred dollar ($200.00) cash deposit as a guarantee that all restoration work wiil be completed and City facilities left in an undamaged condition. B. The requirement of a cash deposit any public utility corporation business within the City. 3. Maximum Deposit. No person shall be dollars ($400.00) by reason of this shall be subjected of this Section as person prior to t 4. Inspections. shall not apply to franchised to do required to have more than four hundred on deposit with the City at any one time Section; provided that such deposit to compliance with all the requirements to all building permits issued to such he deposit being refunded. A. Before any backfilling is done in an excavation approved under this division the City shall be notified for a review of the conditions of construction. B. During and after restoration the City Engineer or a designated agent shall inspect the work to assure compliance. (Ref. 901) 5. Return of Deposit. The Public Works Director shall authori2e the deposit when restoration has been satisfactory compliance with this Section. 7.26 refundment of completed to Page 20 - Ordinance No. 6. Forfeiture of Deposit. Any person who fails to complete any of the requirements shall forfeit to the City such portion of the deposit as is necessary to pay for having such work done. 206.09. BUILDING SITE REQIIIRffi�NTS 1. General. In addition to the provisions of this Section, all building site requirements of the City's Zoning Code Chapter 205 and additions shall be followed before a building permit may be issued. 2. Utilities and Street Required. No building permit shall be issued for any new construction unless and until all utilities are installed in the public street adjacent to the parcel of land to be improved and the rough grading of the adjacent street has been completed to the extent that adequate street access to the parcel is available. 3. Trailer Prohibitions. Except in a trailer or mobile home park, the removal of wheels from any trailer or the remodeling of a trailer through the construction of a foundation or the enclosure of the space between the base of the trailer and the ground, or through the construction of additions to provide extra floor space will not be considered as conforming with the City's Building Code in any respect and will therefore be prohibited. 4. Equipment and Material Storage. No construction equipment and/or material pertaining to construction shall be stored on any property within the City without a valid building permit. When construction is completed and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, any construction equipment or materials must be removed within thirty (30) days from the issuance date on the Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Construction Work Hours. It shall be unlawful for any person or company acting as a contractor for payment, to engage in the construction of any building, structure or utility including but not limited to the making of any excavation, clearing of surface land and loading or unloading materials, equipment or supplies, anywhere in the City except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays 7.27 Page 21 - Ordinance No. and legal holidays. However, such activity shall be lawful if an alternate hours work permit therefore has been issued by the City upon application in accordance with requirements of the paragraph below. It shall be unlawful to engage in such work or activity on Sunday or any legal holiday unless an alternate hours work permit for such work has first been issued. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent any work necessary to prevent injury to persons or property at any time. 6. Alternate Hours Work Permit. Applications for an alternate hou made in writing to the Public Wc state the name of the applicant ai the location of the proposed wc seeking a permit to do such work, time of the proposed operations. issued excepting where the public by failure to perform the work at 7. Safeguards. °s work permit shall be rks Director and shall d the business address, rk and the reason f or �s well as the estimated No such permit shall be welfare will be harmed the times indicated. Warning barricades and lights shall be maintained whenever necessary for the protection of pedestrians and traffic; and temporary roofs over sidewalks shali be constructed whenever there is danger from falling articles or materials to pedestrians. 206.10. DRAINAGE AND GRADING 1. investigation. After a building permit has been applied for and prior to the issuance of said permit, the City shall thoroughly investigate the existing drainage features of the property to be used. 2. Obstruction of Natural Drainage Prohibited. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building on which construction or necessary grading thereto shall obstruct any natural drainage waterway. 3. Undrainable Lands. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of an� building upon ground which cannot be properly drained. 4. Protection of Existing Drainage Installations. A. Where application is made for a building permit and subsequent investigation shows that the property to be occupied by said building is adjacent to a portion o� a public road or street containing a drainage culvert, 7.28 Page 22 - Ordinance No. catch basin, sewer, special ditch or any other artificial drainage structures used for the purpose of draining said property and/or neighboring property, the applicant shall specifically agree in writing to protect these waterways in such a way that they shall not be affected by the proposed buildinq construction or grading work incidental thereto. B. No land shall be altered and no use shall be permitted that results in water run-off causing flooding, erosion or deposits of minerals on adjacent properties. Stormwater run-off from a developed site will leave at no greater rate or lesser quality than the stormwater run-off from the site in an undeveloped condition. Stormwater run-off shall not exceed the rate of run-off of the undeveloped land for a 24 hour storm with a 1 year return frequency. Detention facilities shall be designed for a 24 hour storm with a 100 year return frequency. All run-off shall be properly channeled into a storm drain water course, ponding area or other public facility designed for that purpose. A land alteration permit sha1Z be obtained prior to any change� in grade affecting water run-off onto an adjacent property.--�c2s�--19e-�a�t�-�-t�e e��p.- 5. Order to Regrade. The City may order the applicant to regrade property if existing grade does not conform to any provision of this Section, if the grade indicated in the preliminary plan has not been followed, or if the grade poses a drainage problem to neighboring properties. 206.11. WATERS, WATERWAYS 1. Definition. As used in this Section, the term waters and/or waterways shall include all public waterways as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.38 and shali also include all bodies of water, natural or artificial, including ponds, streams, lakes, swamps and ditches which are a part of or contribute to the collection, runoff or storage waters within the City or directly or indirectly affect the collection, transportation, storage or disposal of the storm and surface waters system in the City. 2. Permit Required. No person shall cause or be created, dammed, eliminated, or cause the be artificially altered permit any waters or waterways to altered, filled, dredged or water ievel elevation thereof to without first securing a permit %.Zg' Page 23 - Ordinance No. from the City, State or watershed management organization as appropriate. 3. Application for Permit. Applications for permits required by the provisions of this Section shall be made in writing upon printed forms furnished by the City Clerk. 4. Scope of Proposed Work. Applications far permits required by this Section shall be accompanied with a complete and detailed description of the proposed work together with complete plans and topographical survey map clearly illustrating the proposed work and its effect upon existing waters and water handling facilities. 5. Fees. A fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) shall be paid to the City and upon the filing of an application for a permit required by the provisions of this Section to defray the costs of investigating anc� considering such application. 206.12. PENALTIES Any violation of this Chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject ta all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of this Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1995. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM CHAMPA - CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 7.30 SAV �195–01 City of Fridley n . • �� f.�� . b `i � QARAGS '' 2 I .,, �0 �y I �s a n b am I " ss� � sa� s �, ' � ° z o� • x o • � ,� � weaa r. i i soo� a ++ °`z � '� i � ,,i2 S-F � °a 0. w I Y i � Z 4 W I `� � � � L 85�.8 es2.o U� � I z i Ili \ V/ �i ~ �//��` � t�Zi m� I y o) y , �(� 4� 0=�' � � U 4� i • Z� j,ti co pJM9 � '�' I�( �e a J M V'4 CHA 1 N L 7 NH FSNCE 0 Q '� M � � 85J q 'D 851.6 OQ. 849 1 °p \ 86 . _ �... .\ G • 9 — - — - — - C�8 - — - — - — - � L11BB - — - --GU — - �,l_ - — - —_ - POWER POLE 830.7 HSI.O 830.9 850.2 850.9 � TOP TOP � M. H. p!. H. � F 351.4 BLACKTOP t 60th Avenue 8' 9+' � �ea r;'s TOP . G�¢� ' �� e �`,1 f RB CURB C �b 4 A A�r " �• V Newb � .so. � � . A49. D`!. � �� ' � � � : CUC I �tiRa essa°af�a� ��.'s i_ 2I �� 1 j GJ�� .6 A R E A 8' ASN ��_ O� °0` ' fje5 G, � 850.9 ` J a _. � ` i Y T/ 1 2 9 . 0 5 ��a� �+ O }' S�9 • r . P.�� . s � ��asa.s � � �� C} $ _ ip►G , o` � r s,o. . 3 � U� �� i•\ � 8 51 . 6 � a q o1 ' � � s'' O � `V4$ y ` N � � Q% a a. , ! �'P� 850 � a � °' a � •-� ~ „ ' sH � P� 'I 4 � Y >, � m��0 c� ss. o �`� � � � � a � z ' �p'� N� � tD•. � i j c'��h ` � �; ':i4 �,��0 sai.o ea�.i Ia '� b �/i � °j • ?J -G ppr y � t i. i ��j5 0 � • a Qi I. N g � o 1 �¢e � : , � � � ' �--� �� : � � �,. � �to � R� .� � �_= 851.5 Y � � . a �+� _ -�� i�� .., _ . . . . . .. .. I.1 I . f) � , q .,:� _ ` � $ � ' . . . . ... . ..._... . . � 0 U 0� g4 � � 94 -9 8� 5981 - 3rd Stree !�� 6`' � � I G� . � 4 x � £eas.s ess.a ess.� ass.a ie � i x_ h � Gb9 1 2 9. 0 5 � �a � � � I i� t • ess z ass.� sas.s eas..�� I� 7 0 0. I � � - �+ ' � .� �no . o ( �i a a �, c � � �b as 4 —a a-a--a —sa;-.�--- . —e ' �, � e a . a •, . � ; • . ---- _ __ ___ _ _._ _. _ _ _ I . ° � ' S973 - 3rd Street ° � �� I_�� 834 1 859.9 � 863.J 8b9.Z ' ` !� � I<j� ' � , .o- �z- � � , � ' I ELM 1 �L S . O r'J TRPLE h �: e1� CH. b tq 865.6 a• ��o lc • 5 � 9 �E� � ' IBbS 3 r v' _ � _ _._"LS... Fi . _ _ � _ _ _._ _ . _ _ . -.:_- �. . .,_,::,.: ,. . .,-..:0:.._ .. -✓_-�.-__.._. .. _ . .. __. j g' T PLAN Si E � - � . Com�nunity Development Department PLAIVNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: May 4, 1995 TO: William Burns, City Manager� ?'i� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott iiickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Vacation Request, SAV #95-01, by the City of Fridley, Generally Located at 5999 - 3rd Street N.E. (Custom Mechanical Property} The City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the vacation of the egress road from University Avenue to 3rd Street, generally located at 5999 - 3rd Street N.E. at its April 24, 1995 meeting. Staff has prepared the attached ordinance vacating the egress road for first reading by the City Council. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of the attached ordinance vacating the egress road. An ordinance declaring the underlying property excess and authorizing the sale will appear later in the agenda. Mrt/aw M-95-261 ' 1 .• The City C follows: SECTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 9 AN �RDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.Q? OF THE ITY CHARTER TC? VACATE 8TREETS AND ALLEYS TO AMEND APPENDI% C OF THE CITY CODE 1 of the City of Fridley doe,� hereby ordain as vacate all that part f the egress raad fram k Highway 47 (Univ sity Avenue} lying over s 29 and 30, Block 2, Hyde Park. All in Anoka nt Minnesota. is property is generally locate at the inte section of 3rd Street and 60th Avenue. . All lying 'n th North Half of Section 23, T-30, R-24, City idley, Caunty of Anoka, Minnesota. Be and is he y vacated. SECTION 2. The said v catio has been made in conformance with Min sota St tutes and pursuant to Section 12.0? o the City harter and Appendix C of the City C e shall be o amended. PASSED AND ADOPTED THE CITY COUN L OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY f?F , 1 95. WILLIAM\J. NEE - MAYOR � ATTEST: WILLIAM . CHAMPA, CITY CLERK Publi Hearing: April 24, 1995 Firs Reading: Sec nd Reading: Pu lication: 8.�2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.06 OF THE CITY CHARTER DECLARING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE Td BE SIIRP7�U5 AND AIITHORIZING THE SALE THERE�F The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Fridley is the fee owner of the tract of land within the City of Fridley, Anoka County, State of Minnesota, described as follaws: Lots 27, 28, 29, and 30, Black 12, Hyde Park, City af Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. SECTION 2. It is hereby determined by the City Council that the City no langar has any reason to continue ta own said property, and the City is hereby autharized to sell or enter into a contract to sell said property. SECTION 3. The Mayor and City Clerk are heraby authorized to sign the necessary contracts and deeds to affect the sale of said property. PASSED AND ADOP'TED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1995. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: � _ � . Community Development Department PL�NG DrvISION City of Fridley DATE: May 4, 1995 ��/ TO: William Burns, City Manager � FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant First Reading of an Ordinance Declaring Certain Properties Excess; Custom Mechanical Property The City of Fridley is fee owner of Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park. Earlier in the agenda, the City Council approved first reading of an ordinance vacating the egress road from University Avenue to 3rd Street which crossed these lots. It was the City Council direction that this road be vacated and the lots sold for construction of a single family home. In order for the lots to be sold, the City Council must approve an ordinance declaring the lots excess and authorizing their sale. Attached please find the required ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of the attached ordinance declaring Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park excess and authorizing their sale. MM/dw M-95-262 9.01 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCB UNDER SECTION 12.06 OF THE CITY CHARTER DECLARING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLOS AND AIITHORIZING THE SALE THEREOF The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Fridley is the fee owner of the tract of land within the City of Fridley, Anoka County, State of Minnesota, described as follows: Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. SECTION 2. It is hereby determined by the City Council that the City no longer has any reason to continue to own said property, and the City is hereby authorized to sell or enter into a contract to sell said property. SECTION 3. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the necessary contracts and deeds to affect the sale of said property. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1995. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR 9.02 �xcess �roperty City of Frialey `.� ^ M ' ; �� . V `t UARAGS , 11 � I -. W � I 9 4 °° '° a � � 1 861 7 8�1 8 �„ a� � Z V m W<W e I h�. � , soo� a a � x � „ � � 1 t/s s-F � 3 a k � x � 24 p�, W �',- I -' , L sa,.e sss.o V� �� ? � � � '�^ � � ►• � � U � � I � VJ � w, o �ro . Z .� -- �(� J¢0 e=�' � o c,i m � ��' � �A9 QI,� � � � M V;vo CHA t N L 1 NK FENCE -� 0 i „� � �"J ia � t i � � 86 851.6 _ � I ' Q / — m 8 O 849 1 j F-- 9 ` G � u� Lugg rt�� - — - — - POWER POLE 850.7�`851.0 850.9 850.2 830.9 TOP TOP M.H. M.N. � ,5, . 4 BI.ACKTOP 60th Avenue 8 `9+' � ��Qi -oP. ��eo 1 �0 be,�� a . �Re CURB cv s G �( New 850.9 H49.9 849.9 � �� O� �, � curb �' ``° � �y 8. u � f CUR BBEEHI�S� �J� �b � �� 0 e V 8 �- O m. GJ�;.6 �( A R E A 8'ASH � � �� G0 ,'�y � 1� 8 S 0. 9 `vl a .� ;� � 1 2 9 . 0 5 ��go,9 O 8.s'� 8sz.z Q,�� .� � a� C�� J� tJ /_`Q►� O �.A50,.3 ^� U.ro \� � i� � 851.6 � o] O�� F �� 8 y� � �� o � G�¢ ry N I a l � ' S ° � O� --� ��j0' ,..I � C) !--� • ��Q' ' � a �°; � j SH e P Q i � � # � IN CYi 59.0 8 :Oj►�:" C`jI, � � �� ,h ��e l 1': �L� 857 .O 8b1. 1 � � � V � ao �.J ��C �� Z f"' ' t N 0 -�g�'S _ �� j o� > � � �� =.�� ,� _ � � .�. � �.43.� `� °`` 3 � � ��-_.. � �-° 851 .5 y � � m'� � � I � � . v = � • �� _ . .__ __... ...- ,o � h V�� ; a ��' � 59 � �51. e! 5981 - 3rd Street !� � s o , z - Y 4 � eaz.a ass.s . sss.� aas.a �a a� -ti I � 0 59� 1 2 9 . 0 5 ' I� . � I � , . ea, z sss.� eas.s ass..�� a ; o °. � ^ j •>. � . , � a -� - . o � I . wno . a . �, � e ` - � b aa � , ._—eaa-,-a _ -�s'�.-s- —e � .. �. sa . a ; . � _ - - _ _ — — -- ----- - - -- _ .— - _ . I ° � � ' 5973 - 3rd Street ° � � � � 1 � � _,, � . r� as+�s SS9.9 ' 86J.1 861.� ' � � � <.j � ' .o- � ��- �� ' N TRPLE n � - : gLM i 2 9 • � . s ' etii '° a°' ��o �, eas . e , s �...., ' ' �eas s . _ _ __. - . _ _ .. ..:_ ,.,a>r ....�„� G<-...- --- --z�. a ° � •�► . . i �9:03 ceT� o� e t�1 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to reduce the rear yazd setback from 30 feet to 27 feet to allow construction of a 14 x 16 foot addition. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The subject parcel is located on the curve of a residential stre�t thereby causing the property to be shallower than a typical residential lot. The petitioner, however, does have the following alternatives: 1. Reducing the size of the addition to 14 feet by 13 feet thereby eliminating the need for a variance, 2. Reconfiguring the addition to 13 x 17 feet which would include nearly the same number of square feet, thereby eliminating the need for a variance, or 3. Reducing the size of the addition to a dimension less than 16 feet, thereby reducing the amount of variance requested. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City has granted similar requests in the past. Staff has no recommendation for the City Council regarding this request. APPEALS CONIlVIISSION ACTION: The Appeals corrunission voted unanimously to approve the request. A neighbor objected to the request. 1422 - 6GTH AVENUE N.E. REAR YARD VARIANCE REQUEST Petition For. I.00aiIOII of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Ezisting Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Avaitability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Lssues: Site Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 30' to 27'. 1422 - 66th Avenue N.E. Lot 2, Block 2, Creekridge Addition 83.5' x 120' (approx.) 10,026.68 sq. ft. Flat Typical Suburban; Sod and Trees R 1, Single Family Connected 66th Avenue N.E. N/A N/A DEVELOPMENT SITE Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley Ciry Code requires a minimum rear yard setback equal to 25% of the lot depth with a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 40 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. Petitioner is proposing to constnzct a 14 x 16 foot addition to the rear of the existing dwelling unit. The dwetling was constructed in 1984. In i990 a pernut was issued to finish a basement bedroom and bath 10?02 The petitioner's lot is located on the curve of 66th Avenue. As a result, the shape of the lot is somewhat pie-shaped with the middle of the lot being shorter as a result of the curve. Only a portion of the proposed addition will require the granting of a variance (see attached site p[an). The petitioner dces have the options of 1. Reducing the size of the addition to 14 feet by 13 feet thereby eliminating the need for a variance, 2. Reconfiguring the addition to 13 x 17 feet which woutd include nearly the same number of square feet, thereb eliminating the need for a variance, or 3. Reducing the size of the addition to a dimension Iess than t6 feet, thereby reducing the amount of variance requested. The City has, in the past, granted similar variance requests; therefore, staff has no recommendation regarding the request. WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: ADJACENT SITES Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Land Use: Single Family Dwelling 3 10.03 i} � �' � 4 � Rice Creek �' 13� 1�1 L3Gi 13'i5 �u! iu� �3i� �3l� � j�) ��) (�� 66th Avenue N.�. VAR 4�95-08 Russell Japs 149A c +l � ( �14u95� 1� � 1 !iffi� �+, f � � i { � I � � � i I �n� � � --� � � , � ' 1 t�1 ; � � � ti�) � � � � .. gg � 136i �� ` ` (�) l�1 - ]Css�ssippi Street � _; .�: �:_. _ �.,_ .. .. The appiicant requests that the �equired �stance from a� addition to the rear property. lu►e be reduced from �30' to 27' . .. . _. . . .. -;`M - � -._ . .. . --_ __ - - ---_—._– �,---� �. ; ,. �� .,3 � �'+;�.., .;; • �.,«�,aer : -..;� ��+�aa�..:._ =- 10. �� <.� s:�:.�:.:;�... .��r�, : � _ =� � �, �. � � .aT�1C'�N MA i � VAR 1�9�-08 Russell Japs _ .' � . • . • • •__. i� `: ' / � � i r r i � (�+ € �.�.� . W � • • • • • • • • � � (�� • • • • • • • • • • • v }-y • ~ • • • • • • • • � w — � -'"' ' ,� � '.L7. '. � • • • • i43 • • • • L TYatf i, � -3 • _ • • • • • • • � Z � � . Y.a1l lY • • • • .. • ♦ • • • '�i� ° ,� � � ' � T� V/� 6 8 " N Av E . � °� � W '� `. � ` e ..ti- r �> . . . . . . . . . . Z - � c I • - `3 • . . . . . . . . . � n J • . T� £, �`�' � • a �H.AVEQ � :� :�• •��• •�� • v G — � �� + � ' � �� Q ,- O � � � �' vg�—� ,` �� s �e �� ' (`.'.� -'y v 3 `r�- ..� ` I �✓' � � R1C �1C`REEK �� o{ � � � � � -1� � .� . � � P-ARK� � v �O• 239 � � 4� _ � H,��y � J' � � �N'�q' 7�'.J• � �11, z� � zs � a � , � ` � � � � k ''� • •'. I 4 � � . , �� ! � , • � , -.� � • • , � q t � ' �� • � • • � • �+ �� ff� �� ` ' ��+_f . • • o � e-s � • � f.: �C ,,3_,. T �� r�� • • - -- — �` � i . . E �"- 4 !• ^ `� � tfe ` . ° 3 , , R 2 ' � lL iJ a 1 � 87 = J� ZA 4'O i f 6a � � V s .� � 2� ... .;i ' � , ` 6 �A�O! c• 0' �� --- `•r.. ' � � 3 J '2 ! Z s �� f � �e ��2 ! • !.� 28 _ �..�•�•• � B y� � 9 � 3 „� I 1 9 ♦ � / � � W c � Z � ° �::•;�. .'TH. AVE. N.E. � - �� s � � a i 3 - }•�.•�•� '� 2 Z� � 66 TH. A EN �,� J _ , A!�• J . . � lAN �' -- _ - � � ��. /4 / ff / �: .'.'. Q � ,s • �s r _ . Z . � / _._ •� • � � - . . 1 �j Z— /3 z- �h • � •6 •µ ` Z: , 1 - - -- (� �jFl . . �S �Y L' /I 3 /Z 3 i 6 9 ` 2 3 �:' . , � 7 � - - - ' - - i W ,.. Q _ �* A, • 4 �� Qi 9 t� ' a. � G� � � -. _ -- ]C — �� _� a - 5 �� s � � '� ;� -- --z - - - ``i Oi. ` � _ � �p^ ; Q __ J , �J y 6 _�._.6 � • n z , _ _ a , _ . B , - B � ,� P �6 _,i ` . - --�T i�€-E .T !�!lSSISSt�P!- -- i ---- 4 25 � 4 3 Z � t �. A . / i Z /f C �� /1 ~� i . . p �1 !i 9 ' ? ; S � � ' _ 1 i �4� f � 2d 4 ; n � 4 C � ��i+ � � �QjB$ � s� }-'-- W��33 � 8 � J _z� � s �� „ 9% HARRi� ^ •� ` ��f p N. Z �9 ,d z � ? , i a � n � ��, / PONO � •T '415 �� ... Q c l 18 i 8 �� h'�•� � 1�q Q9 • • 3 64TH. AVENUE •E• ,1 , � � � � �4� zJ y" 9 .:�: � S � �5��' �,...�_ ^t. ?- n � �a •�$4. i �� - _ � '� �`'� r ro ' i� z� 3� z� :�!�r i - - l� � '.'.4. � 1 i2 �fi �' O � 6 � . 'O . I 5:�. :a i rt 1 q �� `J -- '- --� a L N t 't,r�i_.•. e �� 1•t1 � � W ' � i ��_i �_i '� � I '15 z'/ �� • � �� ` � 4�; Z.�, . � � - � 3(. i�� p r8` ' �4 �-94�- 5 Q V. 2G5 �C p . I%�! Z�1 4 � 5 V � —. � 2 S � b �: w 3'► 8 17 /` s O 3 .._ � � � G3 R - � RICE CREE�t FOA -Irvin fon Add ' i � •� I ��2 4 i ��i � ` , s �r.f p r7 ; I ;, � :eic _.L /� . : J 1/� iB i � i�6 i OISTRICT LEGEND � n� AU(,/{J{�O� �� ONE FAMIIr OwG'S ❑ M-7 L16NT INDUSTq1�L ❑ ,fyy � - �r 11-2 TWO ipNlt! OwG'E ❑ M-3 NEAYY INDUST111A1 �� y 11-] 6EN. MULTIVLE OWO'S � •UO ILANNED UNIT DEV. � 2� R-� MOHILE NOYE P�MR ❑ E-/ NYDE ��MK MEIONYONNO00 ❑ i � + + + ___' - ' Q ' ++ 4 ++ P PUBIIC FAC�I�T�ES ❑ S'7 REOEVELOPYENT OISTRICT + 4} t / � L'� �OCAL BUS�ME53 � O'1 CREE« � p�VEN IIIESEp�AT10M � ++ 354 C't (3ENENAL lUS�MESS � O-I CNITIC11l ANE11 Q ** 2 = AT + f � � � C-] CENER11l SNOPIIMG � �.� f 4� t++ 3H� �4S � t-ql CENEN�I OFi�CE ❑ �ACATEO STREETS iJ t + + t t f .05 7�11�111►1� 11A A �' VAR �k95-08 Russell Japs LAND SURVEYOR. ` ` 1.�N0 SUMVC�'�NG 6:1��IVt�ION Dcs�aN TiisrHONC 771-4386 G8'S JESEIE 5T. ST. PAUL, MINN. 3'-S1O1 � � �/ �hereby certify that this survey was prepa�ed by me and that i am a duly e iste�ed Land Su�veyor under the laws of ihe 5tate of Minnesota. i g., ____, � � a �,� �.1 �=�✓, /%��. Reg. No. 9051 Date :�v �. � 9�¢ � � fr�o• Loca�'on �jo�-.'� 27/f � l. ' � ' �. I / Ns / , (. i t �� — — N � � � 0.3 � � r �;,3 � � 1 � �� i ,.� � e - � 2' � � �s,� � �� rf�� _ -� f, rlf% ' ► _. �o � . � � \ 9•9 � � 1 N s T � � N Indicates iron monument placed - � _ c�` i Qe � i ;�41 � �� rp �� 23 J � �• / � , l � ,�--1�� cale: 1" = 3�' ��' e5 ;� \ . � t 7 �it � �� , �z< ��/Y / L� \ , Lot 2, 'Block�2� CR��RIDGE, Anoka CountY.�•Miruzesota. , J i� ;% \ ��. �5"' � _: _ � Y � � �ariance � , .-, „ , �_ \ \ I 10.06 c�-rc o� n t�i APPEAL8 COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1995 PAGE 6 thing that has come out and the only reason she would consider approval is that the new sign would be smalZer and there w ld be one sign as opposed to two. She is always concerned t about visual pollution on University Avenue. The U.S. S' and Fitness has a large sign. She does have to agree with issioner Vos that the conditions have not been met. Ther are alternatives and there is the problem of the bike pat She would vote against the request as well. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconde y Ms. Smith, to deny Variance Request, VAR #95-07, by Bro tone Real Estate to reduce the setback of a free-standi sign to a property line from 10 feet to 3 feet on Lots 4, 5 nd 6, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park, generally located a 120 - 7190 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. OPON A VOI VOTB� ALI, VOTING AYB� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE D$CLARED THE MOT CARRIl3D IINANIMOQSLY. iiickok stated the City Council would consider this request on 8. 2..>.= •�PUBLIG�=.HEARING:��ONSIDERAT�ON�-OF °A`��'VARIANCE�=-'REQUES�:��VAR- #95-08 ; � BY �RUSSELI��}.+Sc�BON1�T�E�"JAPS� Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 27 feet ` to allow the construction of an addition on Lot 2, Block 2, Creekridge Addition, the same being 1422 - 66th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. MoTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A 40ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THS PIIBLIC $EARING OPEN AT 7:53 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is for a variance to the rear yard from 30 feet to 27 feet. The subject parcel is located on 66th Avenue N.E. and surrounded by property that is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. The lot is set on a curve in the street. Creek Park Lane to the south also has a curve. He will talk about the curve and its impact on the dimensions of the lots. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is asking for a variance to construct a 14 foot x 16 foot addition onto the rear of their home. The addition would be located in a manner that it would protrude into the rear yard area. The area of the variance to the east is increased toward the east. The full 3 foot dimension being requested is for the east side. At the west side, the addition comes very close tis. �e 30 �c�ot set�pack. The curve of 10.07 APPEALS_COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1995 PAGE 7 the street has caused the homes to be situated in a manner that makes a consistent setback along the street side but has caused the front setback to be pushed back towards each other on the opposing curves. Mr. Hickok stated the staff report points out that although there is a condition that allows homes to be pushed between the curves, there are alternatives, as follows: l. Reducing the size of the addition to 14 feet x 13 feet thereby eliminating the need for a variance, 2. Reconfiguring the addition to 13 feet x 17 feet which would include nearly the same number of square feet, thereby eliminating the need for a variance, or 3. Reducing the size of the addition to a dimension less than 16 feet, thereby reducing the amount of variance requested. Mr. Hickok stated there are alternatives. Staff has no recommendation regarding this request. The City has granted similar requests in the past. Dr. Vos asked, according to the site plan, is the satback of 38.8 feet from the property line to the garage or from the curb to the garage. , Mr. Hickok stated it is 38.8 feet from the garage�to the curve of the road. Dr. Vos stated the structure could have been built at the 35-foot setback so it is really 3.5 feet back. Mr. Kuechle stated the house may be setback 35 feet if ineasuring from the radius of the curve in the road. Dr. Vos stated it might be but he was not sure. This is also a shallow lot and the house is 2 or 3 feet off already. Ms. Japs responded to the alternatives proposed by staff. They cannot construct an addition 17 feet wide because of the existing roof line. As far as shortening the addition, she would like the room to be usable for her family which is why they came up with the dimensions as stated. Dr. Vos asked what the addition would be used for. Ms. Japs stated this would be a four season sun room. Dr. Vos asked if there were any windows on the south side. 10.08 APPEALS COMMIS3ION MEETING, APRIL 25. 1995 PAGE 8 Ms. Japs stated there is a patio door and another window to the side of the patio door. If the addition was the 17-foot dimension, they would have to cover a window. Also, the roof line would not work for that dimension. Ms. Savage asked about their neighbor to the rear. Ms. Japs stated the neighbor was at the meeting. Ms. Japs presented a rough drawing of the proposed addition. Ms. Savage stated the drawing as presented shows an addition measuring 15 feet x 16 feet but the staff report stated 14 feet x 16 feet. Ms. Japs stated they are talking about an addition of 14 feet x 16 feet. Their builder came up with the 15 foot x 16 Eoot dimension. Dr. Vos stated the variance gets more severe as you go to the east. As you go west, you get closer to meeting the variance. Ms. Tracyk is the neighbor residing directly behind this property. Her house has bay windows in the back. Because of the closeness right now and with the variance, she feels that with the addition they would be on top of each other. She realizes they cannot expand anywhere eZse. She was just wondering if they would be willing to do anything with a privacy fence. Her concern is that they will be too close. Dr. Vos stated according to the map it looks that the neighbor to the east and to the west have a fence. Is there a fence separating these two properties? Ms. Tracyk stated there are existing fences to the east and west but no fence separating these two properties. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had considered a privacy fence. Ms. Japs stated they had not considered it but they are not opposed to it. This seems reasonable. Ms. Tracyk stated that raost of the time they have their blinds down because of the closeness and she feels 3 feet will bring that much closer. Ms. Savage asked if Ms. Tracyk understands the petitioner can expand to the rear but not quite as far. 10.09 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25. 1995 PAGE 9 Ms. Tracyk stated she understands the conversation. Her husband went to talk to the petitioners but did not get a response so she came to the meeting to voice her opinion. Dr. Vos stated he would assume that, in looking at the site plan for the Tracyk property, they cannot go back very far or they would also run into a variance problem. Mr. Hickok stated their bay window is set at 30 feet. Dr. Vos stated that the Tracyk house is right at the minimum setback from the back property line. The petitioner is already living with someone at the minimum setback, and they are asking to go 3 feet over. It appears that the builder, in both case, could have put the houses more forward. Ms. Tracyk stated however they can expand is fine. She just feels that if they did not have so many windows and with the variance that it is close. Ms. Japs stated, when they originally designed their house, their plan was such that this was going to be an addition but they could not afford to do it at the time the home was built. This addition was in the original plan. Mr. Kuechle asked if the existing patio has a frost footing. Ms. Japs stated yes. The existing patio is very small so there will be new footings placed. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTEi ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:12 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend to the City Council approval. The public purpose is that the back yard and green areas not be reduced unduly. He thought that 3 foot x approximately 1 foot over 14 feet will be 7 or 8 square feet which will be very small. With the back dimension of the lot, there should be at least 60 feet between the buildings. The visual impact is minimal. As far as the privacy fence, he would be reluctant to recommend a stipulation. He thought that would be something to be considered by the neighbors. Ms. Smith stated the configuration of the lot is part of the hardship which is why they are discussing. She would vote for approval. 10.10 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 25 1995 PAGE 10 Ms. Savage agreed. This is a unique lot. The variance request is minimal. The public purpose is being met. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR �95-08, by Russell and Bonnie Japs to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 27 feet to allow the construction of an addition on Lot 2, Block 2, Creekridge Addition, the same being 1422 - 66th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAOAGB DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City.Council would consider this request on May 8. � 3. UPDATE ON PLANNING C�MMTS�TAN ANiI CniTNCTT. AC`TT(1NC i' Mr. Hickok provided an update on Planning Council actions. ADJOURNMENT and City MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded b�Ms. Beaulieu, to adjourn the meeting. �/ - IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V NG AYS� CHAIRPERSON SAPAGE DBCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND HE APRIL 25, 1995, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOORNED A�.' 8:15 P.M. Respectfully s��mitted, �'� i ►,�/j� i�'�r i � � � � � � � • � � 10.11 ♦ Eng�neenng Sewer Watcr Parks Streets Maintenance TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ��' `� FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director DATE: May 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Kenko, Inc. Estimate Adjustment for Project No. 248 PW95-120 At the Council meeting of Apri124, 1995 Council approved partial payment of $8,770.67 to Kenko, Inc. for the TCAAP Inter-City Waterline Project No. 248. The City was informed that New Briqhton was conducting an audit of this project to determine the final cost owed by the City of Fridley. The partial payment of $8,770.67 was held until completion of this audit. The audit has now been completed and the final cost to the City has been identified. . The payment that was listed on the Fstimates on the Council meeting of Apri124, 1995 to Kenko, Inc. has been superseded and replaced by the amount of $7,758.52 as final payment based on the audit by New Brighton JGF:cz �11.01 �� .�, .. �.�, � CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Apri124, 1995 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fridley c/o William W. Burns, City Manager 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN �5432 Council Members: CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER We hereby submit the Final Estimate for 1�vin City Army Ammunition Plant Inter-City Water Connection Project No. 248, for genko, Inc., 1694 91st Avenue NE, Blaine, MN 55449. We have viewed the work under contract for the construction of Twin City Army Ammunition Plant Inter-City Water Connection Project No248 and find that the same is substantially complete in accordance with the contract documents. I recommend that final payment be made upon acceptance of the work by your Honorable Body and that the one year contractual maintenance bond commence on Apri121, 1995. Respectfully submitted, i ohn G. Flora Director of Public Works JT:cz Prepared Checked 11,02 April 24, 1995 To: Public Works Director City of Fridley REPORT ON FINAL INSPECTION FOR CITY OF FftIDLEY TWIN CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT INTER-CITY WATER CONNECTION PROJECT NO. 248 We, the undersigned, have inspected the above-mentioned project and find that the work required by the contract is substantially complete in conformity with the plans and specifications of the project. All deficiencies have been corrected by the contractor. Also, the work for which the City feels the contractor should receive a reduced price has been agreed upon by the contractor. So, therefore, we recommend to you that the City approve the attached FINAL ESTIMATE for the contractor and the one-year maintenance bond, starting from the day of the final inspection that being �nril 21, 1995. Cg-n Jo ompson, Construction Inspector -, i% . . ' . ✓ �r+�2it/f-�-�- , Contractor Representative, ('I�tle) 11.�3 April 25, 1995 City of Fridley TWIN CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT INTER-CITY WATER CONNECTION PROJECT NO. 248 CEftTIFICATE OF CONTRACTOR This is to certify that items of the work shown in the statement of work certified herein have been actually furnished and done for the above-mentioned projects in accordance with the plans and specifications heretofore approved. The �nal contract cost is $1,493,916.40 and the �nal payment of $19,502.99 (City of Fridley's cost $7,758.52 and City of New Brighton cost $11,744.47) for the improvement project would cover in full, the contractor's claims against the City for all labor, materials and other work down by the contractor under this project. I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is just and correct. KENKO, INC. C�.� c-� �� Curt Enerson, Treasurer 11.04 April 24, 1995 City of Fridley TWIN CITY AR.MY AMMUNITION PLANT INTER-CITY WATER CONNECTION PROJECT NO. 248 PREVAILING WAGE VERIFICATION This is to certify that Kenko, Inc. has abided by the Prevailing Wage Provisions as speci�ed by the Minnesota Department of Labor aad Industry for Anoka County. I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is just and correct. KENKO, INC. i �� u;_ _ �,�� Curt Enerson, Treasurer 11.05 � � CfTY OF FRIDLEY e LIC�NSES Ma.y 8, 1996 Type of License; B�r�. Approved By: BILLIARDS American Legion CDL Co. David Sallman 7365 Central Ave. N.E. Public Safety Director Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley V.F.W. Post 363 Ron Saba " " " 1�4(l Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Sports Spree. Am.Amusement Arc, " 1001 E. Moore Lk.Dr. Fridley, MN 55432 University Billiards Am. Amusement Arc. " 7178 University Ave.N.E, Fridley, rdN 55432 CIGARETTE _.. Arrerican Legion Post 303 CDL Co, " 7365 Central Ave.N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Best Western Kelly Inn Kelly Fridley Ventures East River Rd. Texaco Don Kisch " 8100 E. River Rd. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley V.�.W.Post 3b3 Ron Saba " 1040 Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ground Round Theisen Vending " 5277 Central Ave.N.E. � Fridley, MN 55421 Loya] Order of Moose Lodge " " "" 8289 University Ave. N,E. Fridley, MN 55432 h1ercanti 1 e Mkt. Flokfitar A1 bakri " 6304 Hwy 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 13.01 �� ii n �� ,� �� „ �� m Fees: I $4�. �(l �� $4�.Q0 $6(l. (l� $7(1. (1(l $3O . �(1 $3Q.0(l $3(l. QO $3�,00 $30.OA �� $30. 00 $30.00 � � CIiY OF FRIDLEY LICENSES MAY 8, 1995 Page 2 Shorewood Inn Am. Amus. Arc. David Sallman 6161 Hwy 65 N.E. Public Safety Director Fridley, MN 55432 Tom Thumb Food P1kt. Same " 315 Osborne Rd. N.E, Fridley, MN 55432 Twin Cities Stores, Inc. Joseph Malone " 7298 Hwy. 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 University Billiards Am. Amus. Arcades " 7178 University Ave.N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 ENTERTAINMENT Fridley V.F.W. Post 363 Ron Saba " 1(l40 Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, M�V 55432 FOOD ESTABLISH�IENT . Brownberry 8akery Outlet Best Foods Baking Group 1051 E. Moore Lk.Dr. Fridley, MN 55432 East River Rd. Texaco Don Kisch 810(l E. River Rd. Frid�ey, MN 55432 Fridley V.F.W. Post 363 Ron Saba 104� Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Godfather Pizza Same 791Q University Ave.N.E. � Fridley, MN 55432 Jang-Won Restaurant Jang Seong Ho 644Q University Ave.N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Mercantile Mkt. 63�4 Hwy. 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Subway at 1�loore lk. KWZ Ent. , LLC 1091 E, Moore Lk.Dr. Fridley, MN 55432 13.02, ,� „ �� „ �� $3(l. tl� $3�.(l� $3�,0� $ 3.Q . �(l $85 . �fl : $45,�0 $45.00 %45.00 $45.0� $45.(l0 $45.�0 $45.Q� � � CffY OF FRlDLEY LIC�NSES MAY 8, 1995 Paqe 3 Tom Thumb Food Mkt. Same 315 Osborne Rd. N.E. Fri dl ey, N1N 55432 Twin Cities Stores Same 7298 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 University Station 7610 University Ave.NE. Same Fri dl ey, t�IN 55432 MOjEL Best Western Kelly Inn Kelly Fridley Ventures 5201 Central Ave.N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 OFF SALE BEER � Tom Thumb Food Store Same David Sallman 315 Osborne Rd. N.E. Public Safety Director Frid7ey, MN 55432 , ON SALE BEER Jang-Wong Restaurani Jang Seong Ho " 6440 University Ave.N.E. Fridiey, MN 55432 ON SALE LIQUOR & SUNDAY LIQUOR Longhorn Grill & Bar Ali Mishkee " 7850 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 PAWN SHOP Cash-N-Pawn Same " 58(l7 University Ave.N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 REFUSE HAULER Aagard Sanitation Anders J. Stone 3291 Terminal Dr. Eagan, A1N 55121 Becker's Sanitation Ronald Beckers 19447 Baugh.St. N�W. E1 k Ri ver, MN 55330 13.�3 �� . �� » ��. �� $45.OQ $45 . (l0 $45.�� $600.00 $6Q.00 $325.�Q $8,000.0(1 $ $75.00 � � � � oF FRIDLEY � LICENSES ° MAY 8. 1995 Page 4 RETAIL G�ISOLINE East River Road Texaco Don Kisch Richard Larson 81�(l E. River Rd. Fire Inspector Fridley, MN 55432 Twin Cities 7298 Hwy 65 N.E, " " " 7298 Hwy.65 N.E. Fri dl ey, P1N 55432 TAXICAB Suburban Taxi�Corp. 3315 2nd St. No. David Sallman 33I5 2nd St.'No. Public Safety Director Mp1s.MN 55412 TREE REMOVAL Allstate Tree Service Donald Ley � Paul Lawrence 751(1 Jackson St.N.E. P.W. Supt. Fridley, MN 55432 Swensons Services , Connie Swenson " " " 2649 17th Terr. N.W. New Brighton, P�1N 55112 USED MOTOR VEHICLE � . Certified Auto Recovery Salvage Center David Sallman 3737 E, River Rd. Public Safety Director Fridley, MN 55421 CHARITASLE PEDDCER`S Fridley V,F.W. Post 363 Gerald Netland " 1040 Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, MN 55431 �� $6�.�� $6(1.00 $220,�0 $40.�� $40.�� $15t1.�� Exempt I ` ; 13.04 � � � oF FRIDLEY ELECTRICAL Blaine Heating Air Cond & Elec 13562 Central Ave NE Anoka MN 55304-6920 Bomar Electric Co Inc 7026 13 � Ave S Richfield MN �55423 Collins Electrical Systems .Inc 4990 N Hwy lb9 New Hope MN 55428-4026 Industrial Electric Co 600S9St Minneapolis MN 554(� Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 United Defense 480U East R.iver Rd Minneapolis MN 55421-1498 C�AS SERVICES Biaine Hea.ting Air Cond & Elec 13562 Central Ave NE Anoka MN 55304-692U C O Carlson Air Conditioning Co 1203 Bryant Ave N Minneapolis MN 55a11-4087 D C Mechanical HVAC Service Inc 5041 Vincent Ave N Mpls MN 55430-3343 LICENSES MAY 8. 1995 Ken Chouinard Robert Buescher Gregg Labonne Gary Novak Mike Perusse Randy Weimer Ken Chouinard Thomas Lindskog Douglas Carlson 13.05 STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same Same JOHN PALACIO Chief Bldg Ofct Same Same Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 Mike Perusse Royalton Heating & Cooling 4120 85 Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Tom Stewart GENERAL CONTRACTOR-COMMERCIAL Commercial Building Services 13350 Kenyon St NE Ham Lake MN 55304 Tim Forslund Construction 70 Inc 3550 N Le�ngton Ave #100 5t Paul MN 55126 McGough Construction Co Inc 2737 North Fairview Ave St Paul M�i 55113-1372 Nath Development Inc 5775 Wayzata Blvd Minneapolis MN 55416 Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 Ryan Construction Co 900 2 Ave S #700 Minneapolis MN 55402-3387 Sela Roofing & Remodeling Inc 4100 Excelsior Blvd St Louis Park MN 55416 William Sievers Rhonda Smieja Dennis Trisler Mike Perusse Dave Hahn Amit Sela United Defense 4800 East River Rd Minneapolis MN SS421-1498 Robert Halverson GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL Fireside Corner Inc 2700 N Fairview Ave Roseville, MN 55113 Kirk Sorensen 13.06 Same Same JOHN PALACIO Chief Bldg Ofcl Same Same Same Same Same Same Same STATE OF MINN D& D Home Improvement Inc 7401 Central Ave NE Fridley MN 55432 DuAll Service (3178) 636 39 Ave Minneapolis MN 55421 Grussing Roofmg Inc (9212) 4305 Shady Oak Rd Hopkins MN 55343 Hastings Richard Co 6331 Riverview Ter NE Fridley MN 55432 Jansick Inc (8b 18) 6480 Squire Dr NE Fridley MN 55432-5243 Knutson Roofing & Siding (2501) 5744 Bryant Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Manufactured Housing Systems (9403) 8465 Center Dr NE Spring Lake Perk MN 55432 Marinaro Construction (20023544) 1007 Montclair Ave Mounds View MN 55112 Maverick Construction Co Inc (5572) 11227 River Rd NE Hanover MN 55341-0394 Minnesota Exteriors Inc (2877) 8600 Jefferson Hwy Osseo MN 55369-0266 Neisen Construction Inc (3161) 418 Hollyhock Ln Hopkins MN 55343 Donavan Olson Kenneth Johnson Don Grussing Richard Hastings Gary Jansick Jack Knutson Gregory Votel James Marinaro Lynn Schulz Steve Lent William Neisen 13.07 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Peachtree Construction Inc (1910) PO Box 49152 Blaine MN 55449 Quality Contracting (7035) 11600 Louisiana Ave N Champlin MN 55316 Skilcraft Industries Inc 1601 North Innsbruck Dr #126 Fridley, MN 55432 Sussel Corporation (1934) 1852 Como Ave St Paul MN 55108 TCSS Acquisition Inc (20020888) 10825 Greenbrier Rd Minnetonka MN 55305 Werni Timm & Associates (EXEMPT) 1204 Juliet Ave St Paul MN 55105 Woodland Stoves & Fireplaces (2558) 1203 Washington Ave S Minneapolis Mn 55415 HEATING Blaine Heating Air Cond & Elec 13562 Central Ave NE Anoka MN 55304-6920 Carlson C O Air Cond Co 1203 Bryant Ave N Minneapolis MN 55411-4087 Countryside Heating & Cooling Serv 10880 Co Rd 20 Delano MN 55328 D C Mechanical HVAC Service Inc 5041 Vincent Ave N Mpls MN 55430-3343 Doug Schenkel Kenneth Welton Donald Ballinger Alf Wiik Phil Greenberg Jeff Timm Peter Solac Ken Chouinard Thomas Lindskog Douglas Cazlson 13.08 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same JOHN PALACIO Chief Bldg Ofcl Same Same Same Maintenance Team The 7711 Flying Cloud Dr Eden Prairie MN 55344 Peterson Bros Sheettnetal 4110 Central Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 Petes Repair Inc 8835 Xylon Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445-1829 Quality Air Inc 7907 5 Street NE Spring Lake Park MN 55432-1803 Royalton Heating & Cooling 4120 85 Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Sunburst Heating & AC Inc 1556 Oakways Rd Wayzata MN 55391 United Defense 4800 East River Rd Minneapolis MN 55421-1498 MASONRY Jesco Inc 7175 Cahill Rd Edina MN 55439 PLUMBING Crosstown Plumbing Inc 16530 105 Ave N Maple Grove MN 55369 Fignar Plumbing Inc 2844 Johnson St NE Minneapolis MN 55418 Klamm Mechanical Contractors Inc 12409 Co Rd #11 , Burnsville MN 55337 Roman Taffe Randy Peterson Mike Perusse Robert Lilya Tom Stewart Maynard Johnson Chuck Heille Daniel Stanley Alvin Tonn Stephen Fignar Robert Klamm 13.09 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same JOHN PALACIO Cluef Bldg Ofcl STATE OF MINN Same . Same LeVahn Bros Plumbing 3200 Penn Ave N Minneapolis MN 55412 Nordwall & Associates Inc 6780 N Hudson Blvd Oakdale MN 55128 United Defense 4800 East River Rd Minneapolis MN 55421-1498 Walsh Chuck Plumbing 19909 Polk St NE Cedar MN 55011 PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL US Swim & Fitness Inc 4801 W 81 St Bloomington MN 55437 ROOFING AWR Inc 3023 Snelling Ave S Minneapolis MN 55406-1910 McPhillips Bros Roofing Co 2590 Centennial Dr St Paul MN 55109-3017 SIGN ERECTOR Crosstown Sign 10166 Central Ave Blaine MN 55434 TRAILER Onan Corporation 1400 73 Ave NE Fridley MN 55432 WRECKING Herbst & Sons Construction Co Inc 2299 Co Rd H New Brighton MN 55112-1596 Loren LeVahn Karl Nordwall Tenence Peterson Chuck Walsh Same Same Same Same At: 7200 University Avenue NE George Heriot John McPhillips Mitch DeMars At: 1400 73 Ave NE Dennis Herbst 13.10 JOHN PALACIO Chief Bldg Ofcl Same JOHN PALACIO Chief Bldg Ofcl JOHN PALACIO Chief Bldg Ofcl f � CffY OF FRIDLEY Kenko, Inc. 1694 - 91st Avenue N.E. Blaine, MN 55449 ESTIMATES MAY 8, 1995 Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) Inter-City Waterline Project No. 248 FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,758.52 Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaia 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard Coon Rapids, MN 55435-5489 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of April, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,790.54 F.F. Jedlicki Inc. 14203 West 62nd Street Eden Prairie, MN 55346 South Marian Hills Storm Sewer & Clover Pond Diversion Project No. 222 Estimate No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,920.00 14.01 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to reduce setback of a sign from a property line from 10 feet to 3 feet. If approved, the petitioner would install a new 8 foot by 10 foot pylon sign. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The request does not meet the four condirions outlined in Section 214.21.02 of the City Code. There are alternatives the petitioner can pursve to locate the sign to meet the code requirements. RECOPZMENDED ACITONS: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request. If the City Council chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulation. l. The variance shall remain in effect until:: a. The sign is altered in any way except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compTiarx'.e with the requirements of the chapter than it was before the alterations. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. d. The sign becomes dilapidat�, and the cost of bringing it into compliance if more than 50% of the value of said sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph a. above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. APPEALS COMIVIISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted to concur with staffs recommendation. 15.01 7110 UNIVERSTTY AVENUE SIGN SETSACK VARiANCE REQIIEST Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Properly: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Site Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS Variance Request to reduce the setback of a sign from the public right-of-way from 10 feet to 3 feet. 7110 University Avenue Lots 4-6, Block 1, Paco Addition Flat Typical suburban, sod and trees M-1, Light Industrial Connected Cammerce Circle East University Avenue Bikeway N!A DEVELOPMENT STTE Section 214.12.02.(E) of the Fridley City Code requires a 10 foot setback of a free-standing sign from the property line. Public purpose serval by this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility for traffic purposes. The multi-tenant building on the subject pazcel was construc�ed in 1986. In conjunction with the issuance of a building pernut, the City also granted two variances: 1. To reduce the parking setback from 20 f�t �a 1Q and 5 feet, and, 2. To increase the width of the driveway greater than 32 feet. 15�02 The reduction in the parking setback to 10 feet occurred along University Avenue. In 1987, the City granted a variance to reduce the sign setback from 10 feet to 6 feet to allow placement of a sign parallel to University Avenue. In 1988, the city issued a Special Use Permit to allow University Billiards to occupy the building. In 1990, the City Council approved a variance request to increase the maximum area of a free-standing sign from 80 to 104 square feet. The variance allowed two signs to eacist on the property. At that time, the existing pylon sign was installed. The tenants in the building have approached the property owner to install a new 80 square foot pylon sign. The tenants would like to relocate the pylon sign from its existing location at the southeast corner of the property to a point midway along the University Avenue frontage. In order to instail the sign at its proposed location, a variance would need to be granted to reduce the setback from the required 10 feet to 3 feet. Prior to the Commission recommending approval of a variance from the literal provisions of the sign code, the applicant is required to prove four conditions. Those conditions are as follows: a. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. The subject parcel is located along a well traveled higltway. The existing pylon, in its current location, is highly visible from the traveled right-of-way. Relocating the sign to its proposed location does not � increase the sign's visibility in relation to the traffic alon the hi wa . In fact, it ma ha.ve a g F� Y Y det�imental impact of one's view of each tenant's building signage. This property is nat e�cceptionat or extraordinary when compared to other commercial properties located along University Avenue. 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 the property in question. � The petitioner has two locations where the sign could be placed which would comply with the code requirements. They are at the northeast and the southeast corners of the parcel where there is ' adequate room to meet the setback requirements. Denial of the variance request would not deny the i property owner from locating a pylon sign on the property. c. That the strict application of the chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Strict application of the chapter would limit location of the sign, either at the northeast or at the southeast corners of the properly. As there are alternatives for the petitioner to pursue, no unnecessary hardship is created. d. That the granting of the variance would not be mate�ially detrimentat to the public health, safety, general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. The City recently constiucted University Avenue bikeway in front of the subject parcel. Granting the variance would place the sign closer to this pubGc bikeway than normally would be allowed. This increases potential for con8ict b�.ween pedestrians, bicyclists and the proposed sign, and increases the potential of damage to the sign from snow removal activities. 7 5.03 3 WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: �racErrr srrEs Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial Zoning: P-Public Zoning: M 2, Hea�y Industrial Zoning: C-2, General Business 4 15.04 Land Use: Manufacturing, Wazehouse Land Use: Community Park Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Athletic Club —� VAR i�95-07 Brookstone Real Est. ; • � :. . 73rd Avenue �N�: ommerce Circle South � � � � �, c �, � : � � > i > i . � . � . .� � �o t�� r�ao t==I � �u� w z a� � Q n� � � � � .� s.� a� .� � T N The petitioner requests that the setbadc of. a freestan�n9 sign �� from a property Nne be t�dut�e�-from 10' to 3' . ... .. .. ::�"� :��- _ . _ . . �..� - .,..�_�_-r-�Y� •� ^T �-1.•'..�� .. !�� . ,. . �.. . ._ �. . .,... . . __"_ w�y Y �� '; y 'y �� • _^._. . ... .�•.. . :. ..�� ... 3'�y" . . . -�: �., , .., ., ., - _: '.. . �..,: . . . . . _ _ . . . � t � •,;�.:.�±� �.x�, �::�4�'� � .. . .�..��:: �� nr.e-r�n� n� e a�� / / CUMRrERCE � %I ►itlil ��'��i��'r�i�� / l�,��j,�,�l+�� . ,��+��+��s� ��i��«`� . � �� I `/ �� ' � � �� , i `� �� 4'� \'" `�' , � . �,3 : �`� f �R�T`,+ ! �� - � � � � �_� � C OMMU Y �� .� � �: � � �4� l T � !. �• I . � �"'' 4�.Y`�i � «.- � � VAR ��95-07 C`�yV(//Y Sl�'I U•. � 4 31 C t R Y') �si � ! � a ,z � � ° ' ' UN1TY ' i �k 3�� !�-,,_ zo E HOSPITAL o' Av , a _ � e �� + .j- / r' ;�, ? I 4 A i � �� .� t, � - --` -- - � ' ��n � �� r+ � 1z .'1 � , i� 'b ! � - �� ,a i i� � - _ ' _ 9 � � i � . � � � � �\•' ,e L, -� - _ : �/ � � ,� ' ` ° ,�'� . fc � � . / ) '• I h �, , 'c , i r� x Ic� T TH AVE. N.E. � �' Z' �i � �3 • GR�1�..+... .•\ '� �q � �y � �.��R � '� 4;C) •�• 1y , . • •� �N�-��;�'� ,P w�, �' , - • • ,�1e� ,'� T �'�� /'\ " o -� ''4' �' - � � r2 \\�;. �� • • �o i T \ �;.j.�.`• � \ ,J '• • . IJ � ' /,f S q 1 /� �3 •�• •�• � Il �, ,6 " � � f �, ` 2 > �\ V .?t. � e ' 1 ' � •6 � ,z d .r � � ` 197 ' ' B � � _ ; f� f -o / � •��. • iA ,P p�{� /_ , '_ ` B ' ,, ` �� M , � ��°• _ e , � t „ , �: �3 ' O .'Y. 3 -r � 3 13 ---�-��, /2 1 • . 4'. . • _ i � , � .o �9 I �_J �._. _ _J ;%/ , TRA�/�//j `� ///� n/ � L RE��S-�ERE �///�/// �pND i%//_��, /�� ' /I//i w : �- � a � �- �'i�4 � B I �� '� ��"� � � � � � '!q � � .� ��5� / �� N�; �° �vc�wc �� o R .rl.�� q �1' i j i. . ,�y;�� ' �, :� , ` � `, - 4.,:� ") �' . �, t� "_ � MADSF� � � �� r^4RK 7 `i. . . a �'• � ' ^ rr+'l �`>' - 7 3 r<� 95 �; DISTRICT LEGEND S� R-1 ONE FAMIIY OWG'S ❑ M-7 1,IQNT INOUSTR�AL Q p-2 7W0 F�MiIY DWO'S � M-2 MEAYt INDU8TNIAl � p-] GEN. MULTIPLE OWfi'S Q PUO PIANNEO UNIT OEV. � p-� MOBILE MOME PANK � $-� HVOE PAqK NEICH80qHOOD ❑ P PUBIIC F7�C�L1T�E5 � S-2 PEDEVELOPMENT OISTRICT � C-� IOCAI BUSINESS � O-1 GPEEK i NIVER PNESENVATION a C-2 GENERAL BUS�NE55 � O-2 CRITIC�I AREA � C-S GEN£NAi SNOVViNC � C��1 CENER�L OFFICE ❑ VACATEO STNEETS 'sJ 15.os ZONING MAP� VAR ��95-07 � Brookstone Real Est. � . _ _ _ - - - • -----� � - - - _ . _� -- . . . ,_ ____ __ ____ _._ _ _ , . . � -- - _ � _ ... .. .-- . . . . +'`.,`: . . . ' � � . � � � • - . -- = sj? � • • ' . , � . � ' . • • . `- p••--i ' ' . .. "�''� ` .. . . . . ' ' " . . . . ,' • �r � � y� ' . . ' �.. . �7 � �� ' . � .. � Z. � ' , 4r • .� �„ . f � . . �/��, �1��. •� . . • `• i . I I � � �. � ' � � •l. . � � ` , � (' ---� �..... � � = . . - � j � � � .'.� . , . � .( • ' •. . . ' � �� .. : � �.' r , �. :�. :,: �� . . . • x ' .,� . � .. . . �• " ' . .. , i. , . ��' � — � ._ . . . . . '� �.;:� . . �. .. . � . � � � . -- . • ;�t � �:a� : � . . . , � . � �� .; �� . � : .. . . — ,• " � . . , � .� � 1. . � . , �,.—, , . . . _ „ I f �. . ,. �,. _� • °� . �_ �...,... � '�: . i• .. �, � ' -� '. � ,. _: ..,:`:• ,,. . . . • . . ' � . ' ^ ' �" • . . ._... .,� . , - : ' �•,`. . . , . — � . �� . .�. �:. --...... � . �. ^` ' ..'�� ' ��.�� --- y � �� * R � � � • . �, 'ti . • t� � V�� V � � •� '.� �C. � �� . - N�i . � i�. .- � � � � / � � }� _ � � 1 , � �i � .. � — — • . . . � �. .. �. ' � (� •", ■ ��r �. � �. � .�� --- y � ' . Wj J N ; ( ' � JJJ� O , � I . �� f . � � . ro�'� � : � . � .�.. � . ' N x�`_"�� . . . � , " . .� _� �� - . - . . .� �: y ` �� 1 M • � � ��' . � ,N�, ' . . _ " � ' . , . ,. . • � .. - . s� � ' � � . � , i � „ � .. . . , . ,. . �- � fi ' s� N ; • � . . . � � - . � ' �•-- � W : , • . • - �� . . '"a, • . �.. ' . .. . . '•-� ' • . � „ . � � .. � '� �� r:. , . `'�'r• . .. ' . » . � , . . � � 1 ��.... ��.....�.�..��.��.��_ . ___ �.. • . '� • . . ' . _ ' . . +•r+ . . , �. .. .r T . . ,. . , • . ..-. , .. :, � .. . . .� . . „r.> � . . .. ... ,. . . . , . . �. . . � .. . _ . . , , _ ._. -._._.._ _ . . . . -- _,..._ ` ' _--„_ - ---- ----.. _.. __.�_ ------ . _ _.. ..---" _--^- --.._ .__..__'_ _ _ . - . '_:'� � 15.07 : _:.� ,_� � CIT� al e;�11i� HF'F'-�_=t4-1'�±'�� 1 � � 44 �� i � , ,, ,.. `� \,..� : �= j/� .y � , f �-�,� �` --. ::� � � ;'f . J s`~� J�f� y� f� � �>> �-��:., �� 1 -----1 � /� .,� ��' '�. � �(�-i l� � �� ! "� � � r� r... . i i � ��` � _ � �_ J h1� _�� ^S'�1 F'.�_�1 VAR ��95-07 Brookstone Reai EsC. � _...� �. �� _� � C� �) � — � `.\ f � _. �`�� .� �- r�� r-y�� , �--..� � , u � I` �� ( �� U? �°'S �� 0 (� � ° Y r ° , � � �� [�� , � ��' � ��'C ��_. a o .� � _ � � � � � � . � � � �.__. � � � �� -- �- � a ��o��:�� c�.c�� n: o � t' �;i a' i! � ��•: v � ` ^ _ � � 15.08 ��'�G�� CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMIS3ION MEETING, APRIL 25, 19 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Savage called the April 25, 95, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Diane Sav e, Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos, Cathy S th, Carol Beaulieu Members Absent: N Others Present: cott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Sarah Gardner, Brookstone Real Estate Service Russell and Bonnie Japs, 1422 - 66th Ave. NE Patty Traczyk, 1455 Creek Park Lane N.E. nvpunvAT. nF>f%PRTT. "1 l_ � 995 _ APPF.AT.S COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION �� Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the April�l, 1995, Appeals Commission minutes as written. II,Ef�N A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPSRSON SAVAGE DECLARED '�HE MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIISLY. 1. Pursuant to Section 214.12.02.E of the Fridley City Code to reduce the setback of a free-standing sign to a property line from IO feet to 3 feet on Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block l, Paco Industrial Park, generally located at 7120 - 7190 University Avenue N,E., Fridley, Minnesota. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DBCI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TH8 PQBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is being made by Brookstone Real Estate Services for a sign variance to allow a sign to be installed a distance of 3 feet from the property adjacent to University Avenue. If approved, the petitioner would install an 8 foot x l0 foot pylon sign along University. The property is located along University Avenue south of 73rd Avenue and between University Avenue and Commerce Circle. Mr. Hickok stated the request would allow a pylon sign to be located approximately center,a�l. ��onc� the fr� Of this property i _ ; E ��15.09 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1995 PAGE 2 and in front of the building itself. Currentiy, there is a pylon toward the southeast corner of the property which is quite a bit south of the proposed location. There is also a monument sign that runs parallel to the building face centered along the front of the property. Staff understands modifications must be made with the monument sign to allow the proposed pylon sign. Mr. Hickok stated staff looks at four conditions when considering variances to the sign code, as follows: a. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply to other property in the same vicinity and district. Mr. Hickok stated the property is located along a well traveled highway, that being University Avenue. There is an existing pylon sign in an existing location that is highly visible from the traveled highway. Changing the sign location in accordance with this request does not increase the sign's visibility in staff's view. In fact, it may have a detrimental effect. Placing the sign in the center could cause some site line issues for some of the tenants within the building. With the sign set off to one side, persons have an opportunity to see a majority of the businesses in the building. 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 the property in question. Mr. Hickok stated the property currently has two signs. Sign locations are available at the northeast and southeast corners the parcel. There would be no conflicts with parking with the way the parking lot has been designed. There are some green areas that would provide an opportunity to allow signs to be setback at the proper distance. There is a power pole in the southeast corner of the site. The sign could be positioned properly to still give site lines and the advantage necessary advertise for the site. of to c. That the strict application of the chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Hickok stated staff does not beiieve this to be true. d. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. 15.10 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1995 PAGE 3 Mr. Hickok stated staff is concerned that granting this request would put the sign closer to the bikeway than is normally allowed with an increased potential for conflict with pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed sign also would be closer and could be potentially damaged by snow removal activities. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends the Appeals Coinmission recommend denial of the variance request. If the Appeals Commission chooses to approve the request, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. The variance shall remain in effect until: a. The sign is altered in any way except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with the requirements of the chapter than it was before the alterations. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. c. The iace of the sign is replaced or remodeled. d. The sign becomes dilapidated, and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than 50� of the value of said sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph a. above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. Ms. Savage asked if the current sign was 104 square feet and if a variance was recorded for this sign. Mr. Hickok stated the current pylon sign is 104 square feet. The variance request is for the ground sign. It is a lower sign of brick that runs parallel with the building. Ms. Savage stated the current pylon sign is larger than the code allows. Ms. Hickok stated yes. The current request would be to bring it back to 80 square feet. Dr. Vos asked where the bike path was located. Mr. Hickok stated the bike path is located in front of the property. 15.11 APPEAL3 COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25. 1995 PAGE 4 Ms. Gardner stated the building tenants asked them to put this request before the Commission. She disagreed with some of staff's opinions. She did not agree that the current sign is really visible. There is a large tree to the south of the sign. The sign is now visible, but when the tree is in full foliage it does block the sign when traveling north on University Avenue. They do not feel the new sign will in any way block the tenants' signs. This is not an issue. Also, they were told at the time the existing monument was constructed that there could be no lettering on that sign. The proposal is to remove the monument sign and to put a pylon sign where the monument currently exists. The current monument sign is no closer to the walkway than what is proposed so there is not any more hazard than currently exists. The existing pylon sign would also be taken down so there would then be just one sign of 80 square feet on the property. As far as putting the sign on the northeast corner of the property, the health club sign is also on that corner which makes it hard to distinguish which business that sign is associated with. The same problem exists if the sign is placed too far to the south. This was mentioned by the tenants. The current sign is close to the parking lot. It is her understanding that a variance was granted to allow for extra parking. If they were to comply with the code requirements, the sign would be in the parking lot itself. The current sign also would not meet the code. The tenants want to upgrade to have something more visible. The sign would be located where the monument currently exists. Two signs would be removed so there would be only the proposed sign on the property. Ms. Savage asked why she felt this sign would be more visible. It will be smaller than the existing sign. Ms. Gardner stated the sign would not have a big tree blocking the vision when travelling northbound. They have cut trees down to correct the vision of the current sign. Ms. Savage asked if staff had any response to the claim of a visibility problem with the tree. Mr. Hickok stated there is a tree that in full bloom could pose a problem for sign visibility to northbound traffic. He felt the tree would have more impact further south where the sign is not that legible. The site lines become more clear as you get closer. Ms. Gardner stated, when looking for a building with a sign, you are looking to find it at a distance. People who put up a pylon sign want it seen at a distance from the building. Ms. Savage stated the building does have quite visible wall signs. 15.12 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 25 1995 PAGE 5 Ms. Gardner stated the tenants' signs are only in the front. A pylon sign would be more visible when looking more straight ahead. Ms. Smith asked how close the existing monument sign is to the bike path. Ms. Gardner stated she did not have the measurements. Dr. Vos stated, in 1987, the City granted a variance to reduce the sign setback from 10 feet to 6 feet to allow placement of a sign parallel to University Avenue. That is the only sign parallel so it must be at 6 feet. Ms. Gardner stated that is where the new sign would go. If a bike rider would veer off onto the grass and hit the sign, they are willing to put something reflective on the pylon to make it more visible. Ms. Savage stated staff is saying there are other alternatives which would not require a variance on the northeast and south east corners. Ms. Gardner stated the tenants want the sign in the center of the building. That is the best location. MOT ON by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPSRSON SAVAGL Dl3CLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND TH8 PIIBLIC HSARING CLOSLD AT 7:48 P.M. Dr. Vos stated, in looking at the information on this property including previously granted variances, one of the reasons they are asking for this variance is that they have reduced the parking setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and 5 feet. Part of the problem has been self-imposed in the sense that they put a big building on spot that cvuld not quite take all the parking when they moved it from one use to another use. That is where the Commission had to come in 1988, he thought, for University Billiards because that was an occupation that was not approved for that location. He thought part of the reason why the variance request is coming is because of what the property is being used for now versus what it was when they got the variance requests. As a biker, he does not want to have anything closer to the bike path if it can be avoided. He would vote against the request. There are alternative choices and he did not see a hardship. Ms. Savage stated her position has been that siqns have to fit the ordinance requirements or �4eet the four conditions. The only 15.13 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1995 PAGE 6 thing that has come out and the only reason she would consider approval is that the new sign would be smaller and there would be one sign as opposed to two. She is always concerned that about visual pollution on University Avenue. The U.S. Swim and Fitness has a large sign. She does have to agree with Commissioner Vos that the conditions have not been met. There are alternatives and there is the problem of the bike path. She would vote against the request as well. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to deny Variance Request, VAR #95-07, by Brookstone Real Estate to reduce the setback of a free-standing sign to a property line from 10 feet to 3 feet on Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park, generally located at 7120 - 7190 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. QPON A VOICE VOT$, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPBRSON SAVAGE DBCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on May 8. 2. #95-08, BY RUSSELL & BONNIE JAPS: Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(3j.(a) of the Frid City Code to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 fee o 27 feet to allow the construction of an addition on Lo 2, Block 2, Creekridge Addition, the same being 1422 - h Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Be ieu, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice a to open the public hearing. . IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY , CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE D�CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQB C HEARING OPEN AT 7:53 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the re st is for a variance to the rear yard from 30 feet to 27 feet The subject parcel is located on 66th Avenue N.E. and surro ded by property that is zoned R-1, Singl� Family Dwelling. T lot is set on a curve in the street. Creek Park Lane to the uth also has a curve. He will talk about the curve and its i act on the dimensions of the lots. Mr. Hickok ated the petitioner is asking for a variance to construct 14 foot x 16 foot addition onto the rear of their home. e addition would be located in a manner that it would prot e into the rear yard area. The area of the variance to the ast is increased toward the east. The full 3 foot dimension b ng requested is for the east side. At the west side, the ddition comes very close t� �e 30 �c�t se�ipack. The curve of 15.14 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Eng�neennc, Sev:er Watcr Pa�ks Streels Ma�ntenance �� William W. Burns, City Manager �\� �'v John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director May 8, 1995 1995 - 2 Street Improvement Project PW95-108 At the Apri124 City Council meeting, a public hearing was held for two of the streets in the 1995 - 2 Street Improvement Project: 68th Avenue and Arthur Street. At the public hearing, two petitions were received. 68th Avenue had eight signatures in support of the project for 32%, and Arthur Street had three signatures for 100%. Testimony was also received with four residents speaking aga,inst the improvement on 68th Avenue and two residents speaking for the improvement. The 1995 - 2 Street Improvement Project calls for the upgrading of 68th Avenue between Monroe and Brookview to 32 feet, parking on the north side and assessment for concrete curb and gutter not-to-exceed $9 per front foot. Arthur Street from 64th Avenue to Mississippi Street calls for widening the street to 32 feet with the widening on the west, no parking on the east side of the street and assessment for concrete curb and gutter not- to-exceed $9 per front foot. A third project calls for the upgrade and replacement of the asphalt surface on 69th Avenue between Central Avenue and Stinson Boulevard No assessments are associated with this section Recommend the City Council consider these streets and adopt the attached resolution calling for the final plans and specifications for the 1995 - 2 Street Improvement Project. JGF:cz Attachment 16.01 ,,� •_i� •. •.. � RESOLUTI�i PU. - 1995 �• •; ••�a�• � � i••..�:� i�+ u •,•� � •• : �� ••.,�• � � � � �1•.I '1� lyi • • : ��. •151 1 1",� � 5� I;� ' ',� 5 t �, the City of Fridley within its Five Year Cca�rehensive Plan has found it to be in it's best interest to reaonstYUCt, rebuild and add concrete curb ancl guttex to those existing Municipal State Aid Strcets that are deteriorated, and Wi�REAS, for 1995 $500,000 has be�n b�zdgeted for the purpose of ieconstructing and im�rovi.ng streets incltxiing cancrete curb and gutter with n�w as�alt pa�rement, atxl �S. tt�e CitY C1pxk asaertained the r�mes ar�d address of the awner of each parcel of lar�d directly affec.�ted or within the area of land.s as may be pn�osed to be assessed for said inprave�rnnts, ar�d calculatsd estimates of assessn�a�►ts as may be proposec� as relative thereto against each of said lar�ds, and �S, the area pn��osed to be asse.ssed for said impraveinents ar�d each of them as not.ed in said notice are all the lar�d.s and areas as noted in said notice: Al1 of the same to be asse.ssed proportionately a000n3ing to the benefits re�eived, and �, the est�mates of asse.ssnents of the Clexk we,re available for �r�spection by the awner of any parc�l of lar�d as may be affect:ed thereby ariy public hearing held relative thereto, as well as any prior time r�easanable and corivenient, arid WI�REAS, the City Clerk gave natioe the,reof in the official newspaper of the City of Fridley and mailed notic�e to all the property awners whose property was liable to be assessed with the making of these impmvements aa�rding to law, such notic:e to be svbstantial.ly �n the form and substance of the notice attarhed hereto as �hibit "A, " and WHEREAS� this Council did meet on the 24th of April, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. at the Fridley Municipal Centex Coiuicil Q�nbers at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, NIN, for the purpose of holding a public hearirig on the im�ravement noted. N0�1, TF�ORE, BE IT RE90LVED T�T, the City C�il of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, as follaas: 1. 'Ihat the follawing i.�rovements pY,o�osed by the City Council are hereby on�erad to be effecbed atxl ��leted as soon as reasonably possible, to�ait: Street i.�ravements, including grading, stabilized base, hot mix bitw�unous mat, concrete curb arid gutter, sidewalks and larxlscaPincJ� and other facilities located as follows: STREEI.' IN�iaCI�VII�TP PRCa7E7CT PU. ST. 1995 - 2 ��Y'eets to be reconstruct'�ecl • 69th Avernze Central Ave to Stinson Boulevan� including storm sewex Arthur Street 64th Avenue to Mississippi Street 68th Avenue Monroe Street to Brookview Boulevai�i �at the work im�olved in said i�rovements as listed abave shall hereafter be designated as: 1 s.�� Resolution No. - 1995 Page 2 b'I'I2EE.T II�V�tl' p1�0►TnC,T I�U. ST. 1995 - 2 2. 'Il� plans and s�ecificati� prepared by the Public Works Deparbment for such improvement ar�d eac� of the�n pursuant to the c7aancil resolution heretofore adopted, a aopy of which plans ar�d snecifications are hereto attached artid made a part thereof, has heY�eby approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. 'Il�e Public W�orks Director shall a000�iingly pr�are ar�d cause to be insex't'�ed in the official i�rspaper advertisern�xYts for bid �on the making of such inprav+�ents �r such approved plans ar�d specifications. The advextise�mPazt shall be publi��t�ed far (3) three w�eks (at least 21 days) , ar�d stzall specify the wnrk to be dc�� ar�d will state the bids will be apened ar�d oonsidered in the Qaar�cil c�a�nb�xs of the FYidley N�,micipal �r atyd that no bids will be considered unless sealed ar�d filed with the Public Works Direct:or and a�anied by a cash deposit, bid bor�d, or oertified cheak payable to the City for five pe�oerYt (5�) of the � of such bid. That the advertise�nent for bids for STREE,T Il�� P�7'E(.T 1�U. ST. 1995 - 2 shall be substantially in the sta�dard fona. `17� � �� • ' �y1� ` I' M •� 11 W� • ' Yil' M • ' ' I� �.� � : �: � • • ' I' r � N � r• t• • M �• WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR 16.03 1 � n �� !� ► � �i � � �- � I� , t � '� ; �� , � � �i �Da � � 1995 OVERLAY PROGRAM � 1995 SEALCOAT PROGRAM � i995 SI'REFT RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM � 16.04 1 ., CITY OF FRIDLEY NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENTS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1995 - 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka county, Minnesota, has deemed it expedient to �eceive evidence pertaining to the improvements hereinafter described. NOW, THEREFORE, NOTICE 1S HEREBY GNEN THAT on the 24th Day of April, 1995, at 7:30 pm, the City Council will meet at the Fridley Municipal Center Council Chambers, 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN, and will at said time and place hear all parties interested in said improvements in whole or in part. CONSTRUCTION ITEM Street improvements, including grading, stabilized base, hot-mix bituminous mat, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, bikeway, storm sewer system, water and sanitary sewer, landscaping, and other facilities located as follows: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1995 - 2 Not Assessed 69th Avenue MSAS No. 305 Central Avenue to Stinson Boulevard Partiallv Assessed 68th Avenue, NE MSAS No. 325 Monroe Street to Brookview Drive Arthur Street MSAS No. 336 64th Avenue to Mississippi Street For construction item above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $440,353.13 All of the land abutting upon said streets named above and all lands within, adjacent and abutting thereto. All of said land to be assessed proportionately according to the benefits received by such improvement. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids, should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than 17 Aaril 1995. PUBLISHED: FRlDLEY FOCUS April 4, 1995 April 11, 1995 � April 18, 1995 16.05