06/12/1995 - 4874. . �
� `, . : . .. . . . .. . . . : . : � . : �. . �. . . . .
,. .
,;
.
���: ��. � : ' �. . .. : .. � . '. .
. 3`, � V • . • ' . ' ' " • � . . � " . t
. ..34 . . . . . . � . , .. , . .. .
{�.... - .. . . . . . . .
i
,h .; .
!' OFFICIAL CITY COIINCIL AGENDA
�` COIINCIL MEETING
�ti�` � JONE 12, 1995
, `� �` � � � � � ' �
� � �:
I �: � .
. -s�
4 �
I...�.7 �. . � . � . . � ..
, �..,.j . . : . . . _ . . ' . . . ' . . ' ' � , .
� � �.. . _ ' � . ' . , � , - � -y ,. .
.t 3
� � ' .... . .. .. •
��, • ' - . � .. , . . �: . : : . .
�,��.{i Kt � .' . _ . .. . ' . . . . . • � ... � .' . •. . . . •� . . . . . L . ..
iQ' �.
'�M..} . . • . . . . • ' . . • � • :• • - -• ' : • . , ' '
'i
, �� . . .
A� .
; �"A,. . . . . . , .
,,�., � . .
���
�
9
' ♦
T
��' �
. � t
�A
� Sy�, , ,
�
'� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
QiYOf
F�a� ATTENDENCE SHEET
Mvnday, June 12� 1995
7:30 P.M.
.
PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
ITEM
RINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS NUMBER
°� M � c P C��� C� � ~ -. `v �, 1,[ ,
�
o � � ' �� �� � � /��
�.____� �
� � ! � � r�r , �'c.. c. � i � � � �� 2 � c� � � jCs=T��Gt_ �=��' ., I�e � �� � � m-z �{ 3 z �
, C3R�G �'jA\ 01=5 ��� �2D A��. 5� SvrTE 350 , MpLS, MN
� �7� q I
� l:� �l��1�-. � JU�!-� Z����l�,''e ���;!- �%�L 4�1�,�•,-f-�,,l�'tb,; �5�-�-� l�';�fl
�: �� (� �1 � ( �;�� �=e, c"-� -S-S �1 � Z—
;I{. ,
i � ��� L� ��� � 9���� �� � � ,� � ��'� �
� �� � �` �9r� - /��f � .� ��. r�3a
�� ��: ;� � �.
��
�' �eCL- ���%�S Gr��i� G � �vc . � c,2�e,cz:��✓ �.v �"7.� `��-.�
�� y�� � �
� � -�G� � � � � � !�. � � �' l�� � �' r��v �:� � �(��l� �c- c°� LZi
� � � pa�
v �1C ti� 7 . S � /(! � � � .5 � y � %�,�GU�'�- � �� l�` ,� Z- �!
�-� �- i ,� cl 1, � . i � i S � C� ,.<<:-e.� �� � ►�,e, � ; � �'�„�
� �� �7/ I U� U w� �K 1�� ^ c►� , � i �
��� �� '� � � �� �'� � ,�12� ��
� ����c�_ � � �� � � -z ��%
�' ; _ �
�; i � ��
� � �� � � � �
% �� � �,�-.C� �4,/ �'�% ,L?� � .� : �,'
' ` ��� � � n � FK ).L� �Cy
` � Y� �1- 1. ��.. s/- E v,�° wF�
;
j �z,""-�" � �- '� %�-�(�1�� f PRIA �c ��v
�<
�' _ -�__ �,(�G / f� � �' /`l �
; � ..� ,
, � f < �- ,, � `�
%v� lS'd �if� �.� Gr �- Q.�✓�n�
� C��� � as� ��°� � � �i ��,C, C_) � �� _ 5 i� �1. C� -
�,��
r
`
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
JUNE 12, 1995
T'he 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.
(T"I'D/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION:
Suzanne Holm: For Naming the City's Clean-Up
Week "Fridley Pride City Wide"
Michele Peka: For Creating the Logo for Fridley
Pride City Wide
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of May 22, 1995
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1995
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
Page 2
Resolution Commending Monsieur Fernand
Pecheux on the Occasion of his Retirement
as Mayor of Fourmies, France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.04
First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend
the City Code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning
Districts (Rezoning Requesfi, ZOA #95-03
by RMS Company, Generally Located at
970 Osborne Road N. E. ) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.03
Approve Request for Proposal for City
Wide Curbside Collection of Refuse . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.02
Approve Amendment to Comprehensive
Sign P(an for East Moore Lake Commons
Shopping Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.06
Approve Amendment to Comprehensive
Sign Plan for West Moore Lake Commons
Shopping Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.07
A;y�
FRlDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12,1995
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSiNESS:
Page 3
Approve Change Order No. 3 to Locke
L``alce Dam Restoration Project No. 211 . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.04
Resolution Recommending that the
Commissioner of Transportation Award
the University Avenue Bikeway Project,
Fridley Project ST. 1995-6, State
Project 127-090-03 and SP. 127-010-12,
Minnesota Project No. STP EN 93(012)
to the Lowest Responsible Bidder . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resolution in Support of an Application
for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Premise Permit to Spring Lake Park
Lions Club (Sandees Restaurant, 6490
Central Avenue N. E. ) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Claims..................................
7.01 - 7.04
:� :�
9.01
FRIDLEY C1TY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1995 Page 4
APPR�JVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
�ieenses ................................. 10.01-10.06
Estimates ................................. 11.01
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
OPEN FORUM� VISITORS:
(Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) -
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Proposed Transfer of CATV Operations
in Fridley (Continued from May 15, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1995 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED):
Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-04, by Home
Depot USA, Inc., to Rezone from C-2,
General Business, and M-2, Heavy Industrial,
to C-3; �eneral Shopping Center District,
Genera(iy Located North of I-694 and East
of East River Road (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13.46
Final Plat Request, P.S. #95-02, by Home
Depot USA, Inc., to Replat Tract A,
Registered Lane Survey #130 into Three
Separate Parcels, Generally Located North
of I-694 and East of East River Road
(Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 - 14.08
OLD BUSINESS:
Variance Request, VAR #95-09, by
William and Nancy Wiles, to Reduce
the Side Yard Setback from 15 Feet
to 5 Feet; to Reduce the Parking
Setback from the Public Right-of-Way
from 20 Feet to 0 Feet; to Reduce
the Hardsurtace Setback from any
Property Line from 5 Feet to 0 Feet;
to Reduce the Hardsurface Setback
from the Main Building from 5 Feet to
0 Feet; and to Permit a Canopy to
Encroach into the Adjacent Property,
all in Order to Increase the Size of the
Building Generally Located a# 7429
East River Road N.E. (Ward 3)
�
(Tabled May 15, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.01 - 15.23
�
.
i
�
.
�
FRiDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1995
OLD BUSINESS �CONTINUED�:
Variance Request, VAR #95-10, by
Kenneth Murphy of Fridley Alano
Society, to Reduce the Parking
Setback from any Street Right-of-Way
From 20 Feet to 10 Feet, to Allow
the Expansion of a Parking Lot,
Generally Located at 5925 University
Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) (Tabled May 15, 1995)
Second 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 (Tabled May 22, 1995) . . . . . . . .
NEW BUSINESS:
Page 6
....... 16.01-16.21
......... 17.01 -17.28
Resolution Approving of the Transfer of
Control of KBLCOM lncorporated from
Houston Industries Incorporated to Time
Warnerinc. ...................................
Informal Status Reports
ADJOURN:
18.01 - 18.06
.......................... 19.01
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF .TUNE 12, 1995
' ���
O �
unoF
fRlDLEY
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:
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION:
Suzanne Holm: For Naming the City's Clean-Up
Week "Fridley Pride City Wide" �
_ _..=--.�.
{ r
E: ��'`,�✓L
Michele Peka: For Creating the Logo for Fridley
Pride City Wide ,.�
� ,�. s-.z.�,-� �t. r.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of May 22, 1995
�� "�'..z'-�s�"
�� ,Z ..Z ,�,.....��
���
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
Resolution Commending Monsieur Fernand
Pecheux on the Occasion of his Retirement
as Mayor of Fourmies, France ...... 1.01 -1.04
" �r�- � ,�
Q <C���fl�t r t'�
First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend
the City Code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning
Districts {Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-03
by RMS Company, Generally Located at
970 Osborne Road N.E.) (VNard 2) ... 2.01 - 2.03
/-!�-��-�'"� ,
�
Approve Request for Proposal for City
Wide Curbside Collection of Refuse .
�4 �
3.01 - 3.02
NEW BUSINESS:
Approve Amendment to Comprehensive
Sign Plan for East Moore Lake Commons
Shopping Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.06
�����—�'�
Approve Amendment to Comprehensive
Sign Plan for West Moore Lake Commons
Shopping Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.07
; �� i�-y---��.�
Approve Change Order No. 3 to
Locke Lake Dam Resforation Project
No.211 ................. .......6.01-6.04
c
Resolution Recommending that the
Commissioner of Transpo�tation Award
the University Avenue Bikeway Project,
Fridiey Project ST. 1995-6, State
Project 127-090-03 and SP. 127-010-12,
Minnesota Project No. STP EN 93(012) .
to the Lowest Responsible Bidder .... 7.01 - 7.04
`�,.� �,e-�C �'�...- �
Resolution in Support of an Application
for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling -
Premise Permit to Spring Lake Park
Lions Club (Sandees Restaurant, 6490
Central Avenue N.E.) (Ward 2) ..... 8.01 - 8.07
�-�-�� �;�'.�--- _ ,
�
.
Claims . . . . . . � .!� . . . . . . . . . . . . . .01
r,"',t _-...
Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.06
Estimates . . . . . � �2��'� . . . . . . . . 11.01
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
��-���
�.
�� ��,��.
w ���
�� ��� �
c_.,�-�� c ``—Y`''-'��--�
OPEN FORUM. VISITORS:
(C nsideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes)
.����"' -c�-�f�'-c-�' - � f-r,�.. .
G�
� ,���,,.,' � s>� �.e�.,..�,2�(
PUBLI HEARING$: �.,,,�„�
Proposed Transfer of CAN Operations
in Fridley (Continued from May 15, 1995) .... 12.01
/�� C�� �;��
� - �-r � ��
Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-04, by Home
Depot USA, fnc., to Rezone from C-2,
General Business, and M-2, Heavy Industrial,
to C-3, Generat Shopping Center District,
Generally Located North of I-694 and East
of East River Road (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13:01 -13.46
� -- ,�r, ' � � .
�- ��s �"'
Final Plat Request, P.S. #95-02, by Home
Depot USA, Inc., to Replat Tract A,
Registered Lane Survey #130 into Three
Separate Parcels, Generally Located North
of 1-694 and East of East River Road
(Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 -14.08
� ^ �' �s.�
y;� .
OLD BUSINESS:
Variance Request, VAR #95-09, by
Wlliam and Nancy Wiles, to Reduce
the Side Yard Setback from 15 Feet
to 5 Feet; #o Reduce the Parking
Setback from the Public Right-of-Way
from 20 Feet to 0 Feet; to Reduce
the Hardsurface Setback from any
Property Line from 5 Feet to 0 Feet;
to Reduce the Hardsurface Setback
from the Main Building from 5 Feet to
0 Feet; and to Permit a Canopy to
Encroach into the Adjacent Property,
all in Order to Increase the Size of the
Building Generally Located at 7429
East River Road N.E. (Ward 3)
(Tabled May 15, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�/��� �C���' ,
7 �; i�'
. 15.01 -15.23
OLD BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI:
Variance Request, VAR #95-10, by
Kenneth Murphy of Fridley Alano
Society, to Reduce the Parking
Setback from any Street Right-of-Way
From 20 Feet to 10 Feet, to Aliow
the Expansion of a Parking Lot,
Generally Located at 5925 University
Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) (Tabled
May 15, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . .
d� �,,{ . �,e:,e� �
� �-�
� ,
16.01 - 16.21
����
Second 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 (Tabled May 22, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . 17.01 -17.28
�,_,,.t.�,,�tec... _�. -�--�i,��. �
9�' ��-►�,�'-� y�'C.�`'��a.s�..i
� <��----��'�-.�..,� c..�.�-�-` ���-' `����'
NEW BUSINESS: � �r�� ��✓ ��� �'•'�`'
s� .
Resolution Approving of the Transfer of
Control of KBLCOM Incorporated f�om
Houston Industries Incorporated to Time
Warner Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.01 -18.06
�-�L���� �1.�� . _
Informal Status Reports . . . .-'�` . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.01
`�,
��
ADJOURN:
.��--�-- � - ��J�-�.�=
� /,� / Z � -��--
�
- THL MINQTES OF THE.FRIDLEY CITY COtTNCIL MEETING OF �
MAY 22, 1995
� .. , .• _ . .: . . . �.�.. � . ... ...
THE MINIITE$ OF THL REGIILAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL OF
MAY 22, 1995
The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order
by May�r Nee at 7;37 p.m.
PLEDGE OF:ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:. ` . ..:. _. - .. _
MEMBERS PI2ESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson; Councilman �
Billings, Councilman Schneider and Councilwoman
Bolkcom
MEMBERS ABSENT: � None
PROCLAMATION•
- STUDENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE�WEEK:'�MAY 22=28 `1995:�� � � �
Mr. Burns, City Manager, read a proclamation proclaiming the week
of May 22 through 28 as Student Foreig� Exchange Week.
�Mayor Nee �stated that this proclamation�is�being .issued in fionor �
of�Constanza�Sofia Figurroa of"Chile�and Edgar Alexis Maldonado af
Costa Rica who are made horiorary citizens of the"City during the
duration of their stay in our community. A plaque and an Ameri�an
flag was given to each of these�students. �
Mr..Maldonado of Costa Rica stated. that Constanza.Figurroa was
unable.to attend the meetinq this evening. He stated that he has
been in Fridley for the last six months and will be here until
January. He stated that his country of Costa Rica is a small
country in South America, and their economy is based on
agriculture. He stated that tourism is also a large attraction
because of the beaches and the rain forest. He presented a flag
of his country to the Mayor and City Council.
PLAT AND REZONING REOUESTS FOR THE SOUTHWEST UADRANT•
Mayor Nee stated that the plat and the rezoning requests for the
southwest quadrant of University Avenue and Mississippi Street
originally scheduled for this agenda will not be considered. He
stated that notices will be sent to everyone affected advising them
when these items come before the Council.
FRYDLEY CITY COtTNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 15,.1995:
.: ,
MoTION by Councilman.Schneider to:.approue the minutes as presented.. __
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, briefly reviewed the proposed consent
agenda items. . � -
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
OLD BUSINESS•
1. SECOND 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 01t
206.03.02, 206.05.01. 206.07.07, AND 206.10.04:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this ordinance adopts the
1994 version of the State Uniform Building Code and related
Minnesota statutes, and it replaces the 1988 version adopted
in 1989. He.stated that staff is recommending adoption of
this code with the exception of the fees for mechanical,
plumbing, and�electrical permits. -Nir. Burns outlined the
increase in fees based on the value of the construction. He
stated that as a result of discussions, staff has prepared a
list of options for a reduction of permit fees for those
participating in various housing rehabilitation programs.
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON T$E RRGIILAR
AGENDA AS ITEM 10.
2. RECEIVE PETITION NO. 7-1995 OPPOSING THE RELOCATION OF A
LIQUOR STORE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 73RD AVENUE AND
UNIVER5ITY AVENUE:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this is a petition
containing 353 signatures in opposition to relocating the
municipal liquor store to University and 73rd Avenues.
RECEIVED PETITION NO. 7-1995.
3. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR TENNIS AND BASKETBALL
COURT COLOR COATING AND OVERLAY SURFACING PROJECT NO. 284:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that four bids were received
for this proj ect for tennis and basketball court color caating
and overlay surfacing. He outlined the courts that were
included in this project. Mr. Burns stated it is recommended
that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Dermco
Construction in the amount of $64,577.
FRIDLEY CITY COITNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGE 3
RECEIVED THE FOUR BIDS AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO THE LOW
BIDDER, DERMCO CONSTRIICTION IN THE AMOIINT OF $64,577.
4. CLAIMS•
APPROVED - NOB. 61863 THROIIG$ 62029.
5. LICENSES•
APPROVED AS SIIBMITTED AND ON FILE IN THB LICENSE CLERR�B
OFFICE.
6. ESTIMATES•
APP120VED, AS FOLLOW3:
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 March, 1995. ...$14,426.25
Standard Sidewalk
29635 Neal Avenue
Lindstrom, MN 55045
1995 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb,
Gutter & Sidewalk Project No. 279
Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18, 985. 56
There were no comments from the audience regarding the consent
agenda items.
Councilman Schneider requested that Item 1 be removed from the
consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the consent agenda items,
with the exception of Item 1. Seconded by Councilwoman BoZkcom.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to add Item 1 from the consent agenda
to the regular agenda as Item 10. Seconded by Councilwoman
Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt the regular agenda as
submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
FRIDLEY CITY COtTNCIL MEBTING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGE �
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
DONALD MEYERS, 146 b3-1/2 WAY N.E.:
Mr. Meyers, 146 63-1/2 Way N.E., stated that he was pleased to
present Council with an` expression of support from'aver 1,c�0�
taxpayers requesting Council to recognize the efforts of John
Gargaro and change the name of Community Park to John Gargaro
Community Park. He stated that these 1,000 signatures represent
a significant response from the voting public. He stated that
never in Fridley�s history has there been such a strong outpourinc�
from the citizens to recognize one of,their own. Ae stated th�t
these signatures are from persons�in all_ walks of life conveying
their respect and admiration for who John Gargaro was and what he
exemplified in his daily life.
Mr. Meyers stated that John Gargaro is recognized for his dedica-
tion of service, for what the community respects, and for values
in its citizens. He stated that no one person has exemplified the
personal dedication to the community as John did for Fridley. H�
stated that he believed John earned a unique spot in our community
and that this should be formally recognized. He stated it is
important that the community make a strong statement on what they
value in their citizenry. By recoqnizing John, these values are
perpetuated.
Mr. Meyers stated that it has been one year since John Gargaro�s
untimely death. He stated that over two years ago he served as
Master of Ceremonies at a recognition dinner for John Gargaro ancl
people touched by John came to honor him.
Mr. Meyers stated that Council probably saw the brochure concerning
John Gargaro circulated in Focus News; however, he would like
Council to review it as they contemplate their decision. He stated
that John contributed much to the community, as others have also
contributed, and this is no slight to those who have and will
continue to make Fridley a great place to live and work. He stated
that he believed appropriate Fridley citizens have been honored in
the past, and it is important to continue to honor those that have
forged Fridley's history. He �elt that it is proper that a signi-
ficant memorial to John be established to serve as a recognition
to present and future citizens. He stated that Community Park is
used every day and serves the community well. It is the only place
that would serve as a fitting tribute to John Gargaro. He stated
that he felt privileged to have this opportunity to represent the
1,000 petitioners, many of whom themselves have given to the
community.
Ms . Carole Miller presented the flyers and ballots to the Mayor and
City Council.
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive the ballots. Seconded
by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGE 5
Mayor Nee stated that Council has instructed City staff to pursue
the question of how tribute might be paid to John Gargaro. He
stated that he would like staff to present this concept and obtain
some feedback.
Ms. McPherson, Planning Assistant, stated that she was very honored
to have been asked by the City Manager and the City Council to
design a citizen commemorative space, rather than a memorial, to
recognize past, present, and future citizens for their efforts.
She stated that the intent is to create a space to reflect on those
individuals who would be honored. Ms. McPherson presented a model
of this proposed commemorative space consisting of a circular
granite area with a water feature, ornamental trees, and an area
for a plaque to honor those citizens who have contributed to the
community. The names of those to be honored would be engraved in
the granite pavers.
Councilwoman Jorgenson commended Ms. McPherson on the design of
this space to be used to recognize persons who have contributed to
the community. She stated that part of her concern was that the
City only has so many parks that could be named to recognize an
individual's contributions to the community. To create something
unique to recognize persons who shaped the community may be a
better alternative.
Councilman Schneider felt that the commemorative area was very
impressive and serene. He stated that he agrees with Councilwoman
Jorgenson's comments that it is not intended that John Gargaro's
contributions should be diminished in any way. He stated that
there are others who did or do as much as John, and the commemor-
ative area would provide a way for the City to recognize these
contributions.
Mayor Nee stated that the commemorative area is quite unusual and
a unique way for the City to recognize outstanding citizenship.
Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she visited these same kinds of
monuments in Washington D.C., and they are very reflective of
contributions made by citizens.
Councilman Billings stated that this area would be a permanent
structure to honor everyone--past, present, and future. He stated
that there has also been discussion on recognition of John Gargaro
on an individual basis and possibly naming a softball field after
him. He stated that this matter has caused Council to look at all
of the citizens who have done or will do something significant for
Fridley. He felt that this commemorative space would be the
answer. He felt that it would be a wise decision not to name any
of the parks after an individual, as several generations from now,
someone may feel another citizen is just or more important, and the
name of a park may be subject to change.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGE 6
Ms. Carole Miller, 5784 7th Street, stated that to rename Community
Park after John Gargaro shows what he stood for and what every
� � .
community hbped there�cit�izens would be.�She felt�tha� if Fridley
renames the park in John's honor, it would make an impression that
this is wher.e_.Fridley.p.�aces it� values. �.
Mayor Nee stated that Council has not made any firm decision at
this point and will�explore different possibilities. He asked that -
they r.eview this.proposal. .He al.so said that Ms. McPherson would.
answer any questions. '
PUBLIC HEARINGS•
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING RE4UEST, 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)•
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Council-
woma�: Jorgens�n:. Upon a voice vote, . all •voting aye., Mayor . Nee
declared the motian carried unanimously and the public hearing
opened at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Hickok, Planni�ng Coordin�ator, stated that�. this is . a r2quest ..
from RMS Company �o �rezone� property l.ocated so.uth of -Osborne Koad �
between Baker Street and.Highway�65 from-M-1 to. C=2. He stated
that earlier this.year, RMS had requested a variance to allow an
industrial user to develop this�site, however, the�company relo- .
cat�ed eisewhere. �. He stated that the property was rezoned from G-2:: .
to. M-1 �in 1990 because RMS was going to•.expand. He stated .that two �• .
years�later,_RMS sold to Premier Industries, and this small`parcel
was not developed as intended, . • . �
Mr. Hickok stated th�at the Planning Comm�ission revieweci this
request and unanimously.recommended approval of this rezoning.
Councilman Schneider stated that this is, basically, a rezoning
back to the original zoning, as the rezoning to M-1 was for a
development that never took place.
Mr. Hickok stated that the rezoning request would rezone back to
the original zoning district of C-2. He stated that if the
rezoning is approved, it is recommended that the land be platted
as one single lot.
No persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed rezoning.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the
public hearing closed at 8:20 p.m.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGS 7
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REOUEST 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 LI4UOR STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7299 UNIVERSITY
AVENUE N.E. tWARD 1):
MOTIOPI 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. Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing
opened at 8:20 p.m.
Ms. McPherson, Planning Assistant, stated that this is a rezoning
request by the City for property located at University and 73rd
Avenues. She stated that the property is currently 2oned M-2,
heavy industrial. She stated that the property to the west is
zoned C-2; the property to the east is zoned M-2; and the property
to the north is zoned residential. Ms. McPherson stated that the
purpose of the rezoning is to allow the construction of a new
Municipal Liquor Warehouse. She stated that the parcel has been
vacant since the incorporation of the City.
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1989, Council considered a special
use permit by Phillips 66. She stated that this request was denied
on the basis that the square footage of the retail space exceeded
the 30 percent permitted in the M-2 zoning-district.
Ms. Mcpherson stated that a wetland was identified on this parcel
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1989, and was indicated
on the National Wetland Inventory Map. She stated that the City
hired a consultant, Peterson Environmenta? ConsuZting, to determine
the extent of the wetland. She stated that it was determined by
the consultant that a wetland was not located on this parcel, and
the hydro-logy did not exist to meet the criteria in the 1989
federal wetland delineation manual.
Ms. McPherson stated that the City is proposing to construct a
11,600 square foot Liquor Warehouse on this parcel. She stated
that the buiZding meets al.l the setback and parking requirements
of the C-2 zoning district. She stated that the entrances to the
site would be located on the southeast portion of the property.
She stated that the City has developed a drainage plan in compli-
ance with the City's regulations. She stated that a series of
detention ponds would be created on the site, and a landscape plan
has also been developed. She stated that the City proposes to use
larger trees so that the site appears more mature once the
building is constructed.
Ms. McPherson stated that the building is proposed to be construc-
ted of jumbo brick with windows located along the west facade. She
stated that signage would be on the west and northwest portion of
the building. She stated that on the north end of the building,
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGE 8
towards the residential district, staff is recommending little or
no signage. She stated that there would be two 15 foot light
standards on the east portion of the parking lot which would be
downcast into the parking lot. She stated that, in addition, there
would be some security lights along the east and the south exit
door which wou��d' be on timers' 'to shut off after the '`store is �
closed.
Ms . McPherson stated that a traf f ic consultant reviewed the traf f ic
impact and indicated that the intersection at 73rd Avenue and the
service road would not be adversely impacted by the construction
of the Liquor Warehouse. She stated that this proposed rezoning
request does meet the criteria that the proposed use is compatible
with the proposed zoning district; compatible with the surrounding
uses and zoning; and meets the requirements of the proposed
district. She stated that staff recommends approval of this
rezoning request.
Councilwoman Jorgenson asked what other types of businesses could
locate in a C-2 zoning district if the property is rezoned but the
Liquor Warehouse is not constructed.
Ms. McPherson responded that a bank, restaurant, offices, drive-
through restaurant, medical facilities, and other similar types of
uses could locate iri this zoning district.
Councilman Schneider asked if all the setback,
eode requir�ments would be met or if variances
if the Liquor Warehouse was constructed.
parking, and sign
would be necessary
Ms. McPherson replied that no variances would be required, and all
code requirements would be met.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this project was necessi-
tated because the current site of the City's Municipal Liquor Ware-
house is under redevelopment. He stated that the Liquor Warehouse
was moved to 214 Mississippi Street as a temporary location, and
it was not intended to be long-term. He stated that the City is
looking for a profitable site to move the Liquor Warehouse store
to provide additional revenue for City operations.
Mr. Pribyl stated that the City needs to provide a wide range of
products at a low price to satisfy the customers. He stated that
they have tried to introduce more upscale products and are expan-
ding the selection of wines to appeal to a broader base of
customers. He stated that the key is to provide customer assis-
tance and service. Mr. Pribyl stated that the City needs to have
sufficient space to purchase a high volume of products in order to
sell at a lower price.
Mr. Pribyl stated he feels that the City has a high level of
control over the sale to minors. He stated that employees receive
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY 22 1995 PAGB 9
continued training in this area. He stated that with the City
involved in the sale of liquor, it tends to reduce the number of
other off-sale liquor facilities in the City.
Mr: . Prib�l .stated that .there.. has been an. ana��sis . done �.regardi,ng.: . ., . . ,. �
tlie` -proposed � saYes in relation � to �th'e costs ���or construction of � the � �
building. He stated that the worse case scenario would be a
$216,000 profit�,.with the possibility of $.638,000, and most likely �
$.322,000, after expenditures.€or the.land, building, furniture, and --
fixtures of approxiinately $1.4 million. � � �
Mr. Pribyl stated that the City has developed experience in the
liquor industry. In the last five years it has taken over a larger
market and continues to grow. He stated that the City has a
professional and educated staff, and the custamers appreciate their
knowledge of the products. He stated that the benefits of being
in the liquor business are increased revenue for the City and the
potential reduction of property taxes.
�Mr.: Pribyl stated that tY�ere wer.e a number �of concerns raised at .
the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that one was regarding
traffic and bicycles on the frontage road. He felt that one solu-
tion. may be to use the proceeds from the liquor .operations to�
.construct a bike path between.69th and 73rd Avenues on the east�
s ide o f the � f rbntage road :� He � stated that � anothe� . con�cern � was �.the �.
number of police caTls:• He. stated that -�n tfie past� tWo. years, �� �:.
there have been ten police ca.11s to the presEnt Liquor Warehouse. .
Mr. P�ribyl s�ated� that the• question was raised about the proximity�
.of �.the�proposed Liquor .Warehouse to churches and schools. He
stated that nine out of twelve churches �and:two out of eight
schools are �€arther away �than �the � present site. He. �stated � that�: in
regard to�palice mon�.toring of bike paths and parks, Anoka County
provides Friday, Saturday, and 5unday bike patrois. He stated that
Anoka Courity is considering adding a mounted patrol, and the
Fridley Police, as well, have their own bike patrol.
Mr. Pribyl stated that in regard to the traffic, the marketing
study indicated a possible reduction in local customers of two
percent, and that would probably mean less traffic on the local
streets. He stated that in regard to the traffic stacking on 73rd
Avenue, the consultant found that the traffic flows would not
adversely affect that intersection. He stated that there would be
a slight increase in the wait time but not significant enough to
cause a problem at the intersection.
Mr. Burns, City Manger, stated that this public hearing concerns
the rezoning issue. He stated that no variances would be required
if the Liquor Warehouse is constructed. He stated that there would
be a great deal of screening to the residential area, and he
believed the building would tastefully blend with the Northco
property.
FRIDLEY CITY COLTNCIL ME$TING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGE 10
Mr. Darrell Ritzema, 7436 Concerto Curve, stated that he talked
with Councilman Billings several weeks ago, and it.was mentioned
that this is an emotional issue. He stated that he was advised to
come up wi�h a good reason why.the Liquor Warehouse should not be
, � on this site. He. ,-said that:.=the .r�ason .�s: that � the� people do not . �
.�. . . .-�� � �; .. �, . . . . �...,,. . . :
. . � �want ` it tfiere. :.. . . : ' �
Mr. Al Quam, 399 93rd Avenue, asked if any othe� sites have been
investigated. .
Mr. Pribyl
looking at
highest on
gated more
wetland.
stated that over the last five years the City has been
different sites. He stated that this one was the
the priority list, but the reason it was not investi-
fully until now was because it was identified as a
Mr. Quam asked why the Phillips 66 station, who wished to develop
this site, did not have enough space.
�� Ms. Dacy, Community Development�Director,�stated tliat Phillips 66
applied for a special use permit under the present zoning of M-2,
heavy industrial, due to the amount of.commercial space in their
proposed�building, which exceeded the.30 percent permitted iri an
�M-2 zoning �district. : SMe� stated that if this rezonirig �is.approved�;
�he principal t�se would �be a retail store, ��nd it is the �reason th��
rezoning is requested .to C-2, general busi�ess. . � � � � �. -
� � Mr. Qua� • stated �tha� �. plans were formulated before� � anyon� ��i��� the��
. neighborhood� was � aware of : it.. �.He felt, that �there are" alternate
� sites � available, .. ancl that the�e is an overwhelnting disapproval �from
the neighborhood, especially because 'it is �a liquor store.� He�
stated �that the�e are.parks., schools, ,and churches in�the neiglibor-
hood, and the Liquor Warehouse would be incompatible.
Mr. Quam stated that the residents expect the zoning to remain
compatible with the neighborhood. He asked that the rezoning to
commercial not be approved. He felt that if the City was going to
spend resources on these projects that they should involve the
neighborhood. He asked that Council listen to the residents.
Mr. Bob Schroer, 490 Rice Creek Boulevard, stated that he finds it
difficult to believe that this site is the only spot where the
Liquor Warehouse can be located. He stated that he knows that
Council studied other areas, but one area that comes to mind is at
Osborne Road. He felt that this would be a better location and
less offensive to the neighborhood. He stated that he has
submitted his comments to Council in a letter regarding his
feelinqs about this iocation.
Mr. Schroer felt that locating the Liquor Warehouse on Osborne Road
between University Avenue and East River Road would have a lot more
to offer. He felt that the proposed location would not attract any
i
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGE 11
customers from East River Road. He stated that a site on Osborne
Road gives a destination point, as there is other shopping in the
area. He stated that the traffic flow also would be better, as it
would not flow into residential property. He questioned if the
City would rezone this property for a private individual if the
City was not in the Ziquor business.
Ms. Char Bruhjell, 7535 Lyric Lane, questioned the traffic study.
She stated that she has three children, and they have trouble
crossing 73rd Avenue to use the park because of the traffic coming
from Columbia Arena. She stated that adding traffic from the
Liquor Warehouse would make the situation warse. She stated that
Fridley has a wonderful DARE program, and she could not believe the
City was considering a Liquor Warehouse so close to the parks and
the arena, as it is a constant reminder for children. She stated
that Council is fighting against the DARE program with this
rezoning for the Liquor Warehouse. She stated that she did not
want to see the sale of alcohol at this location. She also said
that the bike patrols are stopping underage �outh now for drinking.
Mr. John Miller, 7350 Lyric Lane, also questioned the traffic
study. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, it was
stated that ninety cars per hour were expected to access the Liquor
Warehouse. He stated that right now on Friday evenings, there is
a four minute wait to make a left�turn off 73rd Avenue to get on
the access road into Melody Manor. He s�ated that if there are
ninety cars per hour at the Liquor Warehouse, he can imagine what
that will do to the traffic prablems. -
Mr.. Miller stated that the Liquor Warehouse is
$134, 000 profit. To say that his will double just
He stated that if the City is not profit motivated
million in taxpayers� money. He asked that the
rezoned for the Liquor Warehouse.
now realizing a
will not happen.
why invest $1.4
property not be
Ms. Madelan Lawson, 1026 64th Avenue N.E., stated that she objected
to this rezoning for the Liquor Warehouse because of the proximity
af the parks and the arena. She stated that the City has another
liquor store, and she did not see why this one was needed.
Mr. Don Vant, 406 Rice Creek Boulevard, stated that liquor is not
being controlled in the parks now and never has been, as he is
constantly picking up liquor bottles in the park. He stated that
the park is sadly in need of law enforcement and once the liquor
is sold, the control is gone. He stated that he did not think
there should be a liquor store at this location.
Ms. Carol Schreiber, 7399 Lyric Lane, stated that she did not want
this site rezoned for reasons of safety for the children and the
additional traffic. She stated that there are many abandoned and
strip mall sites where a liquor store could be located.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGE 12
Ms. Diane Mahowald, 7451 Lyric Lane, stated that their neighborhood
is very well established. She stated that when they moved to
Melody Manor, there was not anything like a liquor store around,
and that was one of the reasons they located in this area for
safety and the sense of community. She stated that it is not fair
to locate a liquor store on this site because they were there
before the liquor industry.
Ms. Ann Hagen, 551 Rice Creek Boulevard, stated that if th�
potential of ninety cars per hour is added to the existing traffic,
it will create traffic problems. She asked that Council consider
another location not near the parks. She stated that she feels a
sense of pride for the beautiful parks, and this would cease once
liquor is sold, as there is no control.
Ms. Pat Henke, 7535 Tempo Terrace, stated that there is not a time
around 6:00 p.m. that you can safely cross ?3rd Avenue to get to
Locke Park. She stated that if any traffic is added to 73rd
Avenue, it would be a hazard to the children, and someone woul�
get hurt.
Ms. Vilet Isler, 1287 Norton Avenue, stated that liquor stores do
have adverse effects. She stated that she has a friend in Coon
Rapids, and three gangs there attacked her child. She stated that
it was necessary to invoke the no stalking law to protect the
child. --
Ms. Barbara Tangren, 7368 Symphony Street, stated that she is
concerned about young children who are biking and who would be
affected by the location of the Liquor Warehouse on this site. She
stated that she has friends who have a parcel of land they wish to
sell of which the City may want to consider for the location of a
liquor store.
Mr. Mike Larson, Liquor Operations Manager, stated that the site
in which Ms. Tangren is referring is on East River Road near pow
Brands.
Ms. Tangren asked if Council would consider a park on this site,
rather than a liquor store and consider helping the residents
construct a park, as she felt the site needed to be preserved.
Councilman Schneider stated that residents often wish to have a
park constructed on sites proposed for rezoning. He asked if they
would support such a proposal if the City were to assess the cost
to the residents for purchasing and maintaining this property as
a park.
Ms. Tangren stated that perhaps there was a way in which the City
could assist the residents in such a venture.
FRIDLEY CITY COtTNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGE 13
Ms. Char Bruhjell, 7535 Lyric Lane, stated that the City could
consider obtaining volunteers and suggested that the commemorative
space that was discussed earlier may be a possibility for this
site.
Mr. Wilbur Ertl, 7370 Lyric Lane, stated that Lyric Lane has always
been considered a hazard. He questioned why the City did not build
a downtown area and locate the Liquor Warehouse in that area.
Ms. Suzanne Holm, 7424 Melody Drive, stated that the residents are
told this is a rezoning issue, but there is still talk about the
Liquor Warehouse. She stated that it is impossible to get a handle
on what the Council is doing, as both the rezoning and Liquor
Warehouse are being discussed. She suggested putting the Liquor
Warehouse and the redevelopment area together in an urban
environment where they belong.
Mr. Ron Killian 7301 Concerto Curve, stated that he has personally
witnessed traffic going off on the shoulder of the street to get
through Melody Manor to Osborne Road during rush hour. He stated
that there is already a traffic problem at this intersection. He
stated that as far as police calls at the existing store, it is
located close to the police station, and this proposed Liquor
Warehouse will now be located in a secluded area, hidden by trees
with an easier escape, and places to hide. He stated that this is
a concern with the rising crime rate. --
Councilman Schneider asked what type of businesses could locate on
this site as it is currently zoned.
Ms. Dacy stated that permitted uses in an M-2 zoning district are
warehouses, manufacturing, assembly, or any types of businesses
related to an industrial use.
Councilman Billings asked how many loopback parcels are located in
the City.
Ms. McPherson stated that there are nineteen, with thirteen zoned
C-2 and six zoned R-2, C-3 or M-1.
Councilman Billings asked the zoning designation of this site in
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. McPherson stated that the land use designation indicates this
parcel as commercial.
Councilman Billings asked Mr. Larson, Liquor Operations Manager,
if there was a problem with trash in the parking lot of the Liquor
Warehouse or on neighboring sites, such as the church properties.
Mr. Larson stated that in his conversations with the church
personnel, they have not had any problems. He stated that they
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY 22.1995 PAGE 14
have two trash barrels in the Liquor Warehouse parking lot, and
they have had no problems.
Councilman Billings asked if any complaints were received from the
residents in the neighborhoods of the two liquor stores about
persons purchasing liquor at the stores and traveling or stopping
in the neighborhood and having drinking parties.
Mr. Larson stated that he has not_received.any such complaints.
Couneilman Billings asked Mr. Larson if he has noticed any addi-
tional activity of teenagers or high school age students trying to
purchase liquor at the Highway 65 Liquor Annex since Sports Spree
located in the building to the south.
Mr. Larson stated that he has not seen an increase in this
activity.
Mr. John Miller stated that he did not feel it was fair to ask the
Liquor Operations Manager these questions�because he would agree
that there are no problems. He felt that these questions should
be directed to the appropriate persons such as the Police
Department.
�' � Cbuncilman Billings stated that it is the City's•responsibil�ity�to
determine the facts. He stated that -�a:ther.than addressirig
Mr. Larson, these questions can be directed to the City Mariager �who
:...: .. : , �is .responsibl�e. for all_ City �dep�rt�mehts. . .. . . : :, .:.: _ . .. . . . .. . :.... .
..:Councilman B'illings asked Mr: Burns;,City Man�ger, if.he periodi-.
. cally has. discussions with the Public .Safety Director�r.egarding�
• police problems which may �or may not be related to the Iiquor
stores . � � . .. . . . � .
Mr. Burns stated that, typically, he has these discussions, and
they are the same facts that Mr. Larson was asked to provide.
Councilman Schneider asked Mr. Miller if he has some direct
knowledge of problems at the liquor stores.
Mr. Miller stated that he did not, but he felt questions were being
directed to someone who is biased.
Councilman 5chneider asked Mr. Miller to whom these questions
should be directed.
Mr. Miller stated that the neighbors should be asked.
Councilman Schneider stated that since he has served on the
Council, he has had only one call relative to problems at the
liquor stores. He stated that he believes the liquor stores are
well-managed.
i
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGB 15
Ms. Carol Schreiber, 7399 Lyric Lane, stated that before anyone was
informed of this proposal, a lot of money was spent on traffic
reports, and Council already decided they were going to move the
Liquor Warehouse. She stated that it seems this hearing is to
appease the residents. She stated that in a democracy, people who
��ga�against`the wishes of the Citizens wi11 not�be re-elected.
Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she has not made a decision on
this rezoning. She felt that everyone would agree that the resi-
dents should have been involv�d sooner, but she wanted everyone to
work together.
Councilman Schneider stated that Ms. Schreiber raised a good point
on the studies that were conducted. He stated that, normally,
there is a developer that is proposing the rezoning, and Council
receives information on the platting, traffic, and drainage issues,
in order to make a decision. He stated that in this case, the City
is the petitioner and wearing both hats. He stated that if the
City proceeded without that data, it would be unfair for the
residents to attend this meeting when there is, no information
available. He stated that, in reality, the studies needed to be
completed to present this data to the residents.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that.in the City�s spring newsletter, �
she asked the question if the Cit� should. •reniain in..the liqucsr �
� business or get out of it. She stated �,hat she �received about:.
twenty letters and twelve �or thirteen telephone calls, and� the :
respon�e� � was .div..ide�i. She. :stated.: that the City�. had not spec�.fi, ��.���•
cally:discussed any sites at that time, but an estimate was given
on_the amount of profit over the next ten years.� She stated that .
� because the Liquor Warehouse was� located in tYie southwest quadrant,
�which was a redevelopment area; . funds were set aside. to .-move to
another location�if the City chose tb remain in the liquor store
business.
Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if it would open the City to other
o�f-sale private establishments if the City wouid leave the liquor
business.
Mr. Pribyl stated that is a Council decision if they want a dry
City or wish to issue other off-sale private licenses.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that if this parcel is rezoned, it
does not necessarily mean a liquor store will be built on this
site. She stated that four aFfirmative votes are needed to rezone.
Because this is not a specifically budgeted item, four votes would
be necessary to construct a liquor store.
Councilwoman Jorgenson asked what the residents would like to see
on this property if the rezoning is approved and a liquor store is
not constructed on the site.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL ME$TING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGE 16
The reply from the audience was to leave it as it is now.
Mr. Tim Breider, 7550 Tempo Terrace, stated that it is difficult
to address this one parcel because to the east there is a large
piece of undevelvped property. He�.felt that all this�land had to.
be addressed�rather than just this site.
Councilwo�an Jorgenson�stated that eventually, developers will.want
to develop that larid, and what. can assist Council is:to find out
� �what the.residents.would..like on those parcels.- � :' � •�
Mr. Breider stated that there are retail businesses located in the
area now which generate traffic that comes and goes at various
times. He stated that he did not know who conducted the traffic
study, but a person cannot get across 73rd Avenue in the evening
hours. He felt that what the residents would like is the type of
business that has traffic during the day at different hours such
as small retail businesses.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that with thi's particular pa"rcel, she
would prefer that it be zoned commercial rather than industrial.
She stated that a gas station could locate on this parcel, and she
felt tha.t a� lic�uor- :store would be better. She stated that she
- lives -one . blocl� from � a gas .station-, �and th'is is ��riot a� good.�
• � � � situ�ati�on: ; .She sta�ed thats�.t3ie service roads into .Mel�ody .�Manor�
� protect the_ neigYil�orhood frQm the �usi�ness.�.a�ea. . ��. .
� . . :� . Ms�. �iazel Vick,.�.:7•433 Cor�eerto. Curve, � state� she� fe�.t �that� �a•� seMi�or� �
center should:.be loaated on this site: � ." ... �
� i
4 � � � � � � Councilwo�nax� Jargex�son' stated :that �she agrees: �a senior.. cen�er �is� � ` � �
. needed, but �these� -plans.�haVe� not .materialized� as ��quickl�'� as the
� � � . : � . . .. ..
� ` ... . Liquo� Warehouse issue. ' � � � . .. . � �, � - �
Ms. Tangren_stated that she did not know about the article in the
�spring newsletter, and she felt that this was unfair. �
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the City's newsletters are
mailed to every resident in the City. She stated that citizens
also have to read Focus News, as well as the newsletter, to keep
informed.
Ms. Tangren stated that Council should look at the property on East
River Road that she suggested, as there are more commercial esta-
blishments in the area.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the City would then receive
opposition from the residents on East River Road.
Ms. Dona Woltering, ?341 Tempo Terrace, stated that the Liquor
Annex on Highway 65 has been there for many years, and the
businesses and schools knew that it was in their area.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MSETING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGB 17
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the homes were already in
existence before the Liquor Annex was located on Highway 65.
Ms. Cynthia Schreiner, 7372 Symphony Street, stated that First Bank
of Coon Rapids had explored the possibility:of purehasing this.
parcel. She stated, at the time when they did the soil borings it
was not suitable without.a sale of the railroad property. She
stated that it was not profitable for a private business•to. con-
struct a building, and she did not feel it would be profitable for
the'City to construct a�building. '.' • � � ��
Ms. Dacy stated that, as she recalls, the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority did evaluate a request for assistance with soil
correction. She stated that it was not the decision of the HRA or
the Council that prevented development of that site, as they were
willing to offer assistance to make the soil.correction..
Mr. Jim Lawrence, 7340 Tempo Terrace, asked if public hearings were
held when the existing Liquor Warehouse was moved to its present
site. �
Mr. Pribyl stated that when the Liquor Warehouse moved from Holly.
Center no public hearings were,held.
� Mr._ . L'awrence 'stated . that � he. is . not� .opposed �to the aonsumption ..o€.
` aicohol when it is done on a-..�esponsible b�a.sis.. He� stated that he �
enjoys.I;ocke:.Park, but�he has�seen evidence of things:that should
. nflt. be :allo�ed. . � .iie.:f$lt that� �w�'ith �he� Li�quor� Wa�rehouse.-i�. �a�.�ose
� proximity. ta the : par,k, _ there will�, be: a problem with over
consumption of�".alcohol,:_ He stated that i� �.:cars�'tear .out � of:� th�.
parking .lot,� someone� will �b� �badly injured �csr ki:lled, ��and._ this may
- be because of .the eas� ac�ess to alcohol .� He stated� �that there are
�� ��other place"s wheze the �Liquor Warehouse. cai� be located. �� � ' �
Mr. Pribyl stated that in 1990, the City Attorney researched some
of the private off-sale establishments, and the City has the power
to limit or eliminate off-sale liquor licenses for the welfare of
the City.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she understood that if the City
was not in the off-sale liquor business, it was not the Council's
option to remain a dry City.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that Council has the authority
not to issue any license.
Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that several letters were received in
opposition to the Liquor Warehouse.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the letter dated May 17,
1995 from Roland and Jeri Peterson, 235 Craigbrook Way. Seconded
by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, al]. voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
�RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEBTING OF MAY 22,1995 PAGE 18
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive the letter dated May 15,
1995 from Dona Woltering, 7341 Tempo Terrace. Seconded by Council-
man Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee
declared the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgerison to close the publ-ic hearing.
Seconded by Councilman Bi�lings.� Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared. the motion carried unanimously and the
public hearing closed at.10:20 p.m. .
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to schedule the first reading of
the rezoning ordinance for the Counail meeting on June 26, 1995 and
mail notices to those attending the meeting this evening. Seconded
by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that if Council desired, there
would be discussion on the Five Year MIS Plan. It was the
consensus of the Council not to discuss the Plan at this time.
10.
� �Counci�man� �Schneider �stat�d�� that �he��-wish�d to . oppos� the� second ` � `�
. reac�ing �.of this ord�inance, and � he did : not t�nderstand the ur.gency �
. to adopt � the new fees . . � • . . � • � . � . � .
: Ms. Dacy, .. Community Development. Director, stated. .that stafF �is�.
� �preparing a. recommendation on the permit fees for the :June 12 �
Council meeting. She stated that staff will be evaluating seven
options,.which she outlined as follows: (1) waive permit fees for
identif'ied focus areas; (2) identify buildirig permit of the month
and fee would be waived; (3) identify some type of permit that
would have a reduction in the fee for the entire year; {4) waive
fees for any HRA grant or loan; (5) establish a valuation, for
example, up to $1,500 to be waived; (6) institute a home remodeling
competition and the winning entry could have free permits; and (7)
encourage homeowners to apply for permits during the off-season and
waive the fees.
Ms. Dacy stated that Council wanted to know if the permit fees are
included in some of the grant and loan programs. She stated that
the fees are a line item in the CDBG program. She stated that
typically, contractors include the permit fees in their bids.
Councilwoman Bolkcom questioned if homeowners would actually
receive a lower bid from the contractor if the City waives the
permit fees.
FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY Z2,1995 PAGE 29
Ms. Dacy stated that when fees are waived, the City has to make
sure that the savings are really assisting the homeowner rather
than benefiting the contractor.
Councilman Schneider stated that he is still concerned why thE
costs for permits for a single family home are over $3,000.
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table this item to the June 12,
1995 Council meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adjourn the meeting. Seconded
by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously anci the Regular Meeting
of the Fridley City Council of May 22, 1995 adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carole Haddad
Secretary to the City Council
William J. Nee
Mayor �
I
, • , , • .
. .
June 12, 1995
Honorable Mayor Nee and Members
of the City Council
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Indemnification for Homeowners
Dear Mayor Nee and Members of the City Council:
Due to the proposed East River Road construction of an 8' wide
bikepath, we the homeowners on the East side of East River Road
(between Locke Lake Road and Osborne) are requesting indemnifica-
tion.
Existing Fridley bikepaths are separated from automobile traffic
by a white paint line. The East River Road path is unique in that
THIS path is separatec� from the f].ow of automobile traffic by a.
concrete curb and 4' grass median. This median requires automobiles
to stop on the bikepath while waiting to egress our driveways and
brings the automobile in direct contact with the users of this path.
This type of separation creates the potential for serious injury
and forces the liability for those injuries on the property owners
and the automobile user, resulting in the possible increase in our
insurance rates and/or termination of our insurance.
Many of us homeowners have brought the safety and liability issues
before the City and the County in the past. We have received, to
date, no assurances that the liability would rest on anyone but us.
We feel that the City and/or the County should assume this liabil-
ity.
Thank you for a prompt response.
Si�'c :fel ,
� '
, ��� �r��-�
3�ni e Hammerstrom
See attached
a
Homeowner signatures regarding indemnification letter of
June 12, 1995:
Name Address
�,��� �°�� �� �. ��- ��, �
��,�, � ��'�"� � �i �� ( �� �?�,��--�- �?�,_.�
; ,-
.�`.6-� ��� �,�.,��G,�J ��' �, '� °
1 �� a � �. ���'� ���. ���
c.—, _ ,� �
��;=��,�. � � �� �,�,� ��? �
� �
, ;; ,. �
.,� � � � , t v -� ! ��.=�., � �
, �:,��
��� � � j � c�J
ft�,� .
-.:7� .�-�'�./1_�-�L L-�t,�' y��""' : �1�C-i/ � G '
� c���-c�' � 7 O �, 5�
�t`��. : � � -
� ��, � �� �'�
� t�� �;��
7 E7 � 1-C�-�CJ
> s �` , � j�d.
I'.� G�' s % �I�/ �' �2 ✓ /1'!U,
��, , t� 2�ere �io� ,c - ��,- �c'c% ,
i 1 i����.�%�� !0 9 y� e,���� �- .
.`
f J
�i��ti�� �� � (� �l Sl � �.-v� � �n ` � l �
� -
C�-��_) L�.� .� ro �`/ � i���r .��. 5�fr'-7f��'/
J
S�� - ��G�•
`1 � Li.-t'oc� 7?%u.�i ! 7/�i / L.��v�.r i)� 5-�.� -��c�n
-- _� ^ �J
' ;i i .,f �" Z: � , � �/ ` ;',� �� ��., ,� ,- �C`� r' �:?G1 - ,S-' 4/ /,F �
_... . ..:-,.. ��,� ,.- , "� _��. -
_ � ' ! � � . , �ti,--t ,� 15 � - �� v-'Y �'`-
1 5 � + ���3 �
_ .,�c _ _'� �_ 7�tS � ��L'�'�'�� � � t - �tY 3 �
�
f'� � -� 3 �(
u � ,�� ,� --) � � ..-� � w : � � � .r�.. �_ � 7
;
.
� �--�-�-- .
���. � ,
.�� ��� �
-'J1 w���- ,�; . �,,;1�:�.�(� -� z� �
�
�. �'���.
� ��: ,.� K�`
�7Y - �`'�4 �
s�y-iy�q
� .�v.-,,� � 7.� 3 5 �, /� ,'��:� � �
�`
cc: Dan Klint/Asst. Anoka County Attorney
� , �
Homeowner signatures regarding indemnification letter of
June 12, 1995:
Name Add
��.`�.-�•�.
������%�.�- � .
<_���: ��
ress
�, cl// C - l�l �/�� �� �l-�
�9���.�. �r�%,�. ,�'�%'-
`� � ��
`�7a 3 � �
� � � � " -/,
�.� �v
�.,�/���---
���% � ��� �
`�
���� �� �i� �z /'�
� ��- S�� �
i G� � �
� .
� � �`� 1 L>��'Gr r
�o"��/ � . ,�'; �.�( ��� j�.�
�
cc: Dan Klint/Asst. Anoka County Attorney
�
_
Cj� �F
FRIDLEY
Memo to:
From:
Subjec�
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Municipa( Center
6431 Unive�sity Avenue Northeasi
Fridiey, Minnesota 55432
(612) 572-3507
FAX: (612) 57� -1287
William W. Burns, City Manager
�
William C. Hunt, Assistant to the �ty Manager yJ�
s�
Recogn'rtion of Mayor Pecheux
June 8, 1995
William C. Hunt
Assistant to the City Manager
I received the following information about Fourmies Mayor Femand Pecheux from
Marceau Batteux last week. I have used it to prepare a resolution and the text for a
Fridley , shaped placque in Mayor Pecheux's honor. I request that you present the
resolution to the Fridley City Council for action at their meetmg of June 12, 1995.
Fernand PECHEUX
ELECTIVE MANDATES:
- Elected for the first time to the City Council in 1947. He performed the duties of
Assistant in charge of Education until 1953.
- In 1953 he was reelected City Councilmember without a particular assignment.
- He was not reelected to the six year term from 1959 to 1965.
- From 1965 to 1977 he was once again elected Deputy Mayor in charge of Education,
and he: was particularly involved in youth work.
- From 1977 to the present he has been Mayor.
HONORS:
In 1992 he was named a Knight in the national Order of the Legion of Honor.
In 1993 he was promoted to Officer in the same Order.
UNION ACTIVTI'Y:
- During his career as a school teacher he served as a delegate within the National
Union of Teachers. .
RESISTANCE:
He entered the Resistance Movement as early as December 1940 by joining the Civil
and Military Organization creaied by General Charles de Gaulle himself.
In 1944 he was a member of the Liberation Council.
-
. Fernand PECHEUX
MAN DATS E LECTt FS :
- Elv pour [a premiere fois au Gonseil Municipal en 1947, ;I a rempli les fonctions
d'Adjoint charge de 1'Enseignement jusqu'en 1953
-� En 1953, i1 a ete re�fu Gonseiller muni�ipal, sans attributian p3rticu�iere
- De �959 a 1965, i1 n'a pas ete reElu
- be 1965 a 1977, it a ete de nouveau etu Adjoint au Maire, avec ta ct�arge de
i'En:seignement et il s'est particulierement occupe des oeuvres de jeunesse
- De 1977 a maintenant, il est Maire.
��ca�AT�an�s
�
- En 19$2, i) a ete nomme Che�alier dans I'ardre Natio�al de la Legion d'Monneur
- En 1993, il a�te promu Officier dans le meme Ordre. �'`� ��
ACT(QN SYNDtGALE :
- Durant sa carriere d'instituteur, il a ete deiegue au sein du Syndicat Nationat d�s
Ir�stituteurs
�ES�sTArvc� :
- tl est entre dans !a Resi�tance des !e rrreis de decembre 194Q, er� adhecar�k' a!'QGtv{
{organisation C�vrle et Militaire creee par le Gen�ral de Gaui(e lui-n�eme�.
�!I a ete Mernbre du Comite de Liberation e� 1944.
�
1.02
RESOLIITION NO. - 1995
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING MONSIEOR FERNAND PECHEU% ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT AS MAYOR OF FOIIRMIEB, FRANCE
WHEREAS, at the end of his current term of office Monsieur Fernand
Pecheixx, Mayor of the City of Fourmies, France, will retire from
public service; and
WHEREAS, during the Second World War Mayor Pecheux distinguished
himself as a member of the French Resistance Movement by joining
the Civil Military Organization created by General Charles de
Gaulle and by serving on the Liberation Council in 1944; and
WHEREAS, beginning in 1947 Mayor Pecheux was repeatedly elected to
public office serving for twelve years as Councilmember, twelve
years as Deputy Mayor, and eighteen years as Mayor of Fourmies; and
WHEREAS, during Mayor Pecheux's career as a teacher he served as
a delegate to the National Union of Teachers, and throughout his
long tenure in public office he made both education of youth and
unionism a high priority; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Pecheux was instrumental in establishing the Sister
City relationship with the City of Fridley and, along with Fridley
Mayor William Nee, signed a historic Agreement of Friendship in
1982; and
WHEREAS, in 1982 Mayor Pecheux was named a Knight of the Legion of
Honor and in 1993 an Officer in the same Order;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Fridley that Mayor Fernand Pecheux be commended for his long and
distinguished career in service to the public and for his
dedication to the ideals of liberty, good government, labor
unionism, and the education of youth.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a placque expressing these sentiments
be transmitted to Mayor Pecheux along with the wishes of the City
Council and the People of Fridley that he enjoy a long and happy
retirement in which to enjoy the satisfaction stemming from such
a distinguished career of public service.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
Z2TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
1.03
�
Presented to
Monsieur Fernand Pecheux
Maire de Fourmies
in recognition of his
distinguished service to
the People of Fourmies
and the Citizens of France
including forty-two years
in elected public of�ice
by the City Council
and the People of Fridley
William J. Nee, Mayor � _
June 12, 1995
1.04
L__/
� �
�
Community Development Department
PLA1�TI�TING DNiSION
City of Fridley
DATE: June 8, 1995 �
TO: William Burns, City Manager�t�V
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SU&TECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning
Request, ZOA #95-03, by RMS Company; 970 Osborne
Road N.E.
The City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the
rezoning request at its May 22, 1995 meeting. The zoning code
requires approval of an ordinance in order to change the zoning
on a property. Attached please find an ordinance approving a
rezoning request from M-1, Light Industrial to C-2, General
Business, for property located at 970 Osborne Road N.E.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of
the attached ordinance.
MM/dw
M-95-322
2.� 1
NS�CORnE2 q
�--
;-
� ' -
� � i
4 � �
�
''�li
■ wvi
�7
ZOA �i95-03
RMS Company
SPRING LAKE PARK
�PERr's
D/T/ON I `I �r'
,� .- - OSBORNE RD. "��"
� . _ �s.�B Y S
����` I � ", r.,.or �' �R f. . ' • � I7�' LtA�ITS: ,.«
�` c=p� ��` � ~''� FRIDLEY
F� `�� , _. �...., 1'R°°�� _ . ..'� ANDE1RSON � .
� IO
,YA/
W
■ 1
O
Z;
a
�
_�
c�
_
,,,
23 24
_ --,--_ 2.02 _
L
���
N�rt Rr//1•%r,
l�
�
R �
.� ' I
�17�'
(� �
iP
(MJ �
I
T'
N
�CATION MAP
� ..,.
_..
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO AMEND T8E CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MARING A CHANGE IN ZONING
DISTRICTS
The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended as
hereinafter indicated.
Be and is hereby rezoned subject to the stipulation
adopted at the City Council meeting of , 1995.
SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the
City of Fridley and described as:
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 16 rods; thence West 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 l, o� Nagel's Woodlands, AND All the land, if
any, lying East of Outlot 1 hereinabove noted as Parcel
B, and West of the parcel of larid hereinabove 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. -
Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District C-2,
General Business.
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the
official zoning map to show said tract or area.�to be
rezoned from Zoned District M-1, Light Industrial to C-
2, General Business.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 1995.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: May 22, 1995
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publication:
2.03
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
i _
� �
i _ .
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: 7une 7, 1995
TO: wlliam W. Burns, City Manager ,��
�
FROM: Barbaxa Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott H'ickok, Planning Coordinator
Lisa CampbeGl��anrnng Associate
i�
SUBJECT: Council Action: Request for Proposal (RFP) City Wide Curbside Collection of
Refuse
Staff has been working with Lonni McCauley, Executive Director of Fridley Pride City Wide
Committee, the refuse haulers and the City Attorneys, to develop a Request For Proposal for City
wide curbside collection of refuse.
The Request for Proposal will be seeking the service of 42 garbage trucks. The Clean-Up
Committee, after consulting with Susan Young, Mumeapolis Solid Waste Program Director,
believes that this is the number of trucks that will be needed to service the City in the 12 hour
period from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, September 16, 1995. Under this structure, the
proposer will provide a proposal price for truck time, labor time and per ton disposal cost. The
City will pay truck time, labor time and per ton disposal cost. This approach will require separate
service agreements with each of the refuse haulers whose proposals are accepted by the City. In
addition to these features, other significant features include: ¢
1.
2.
3.
4.
A 6 a.m. start time
A performance bond from each of the service providers for 75% of the value of
their specific contract with the City
A penalty of 3% of the value of the given contract for failure to complete
collection by 6 p.m. on Saturday, September 16, 1995
An additional5% of the value of the contract penalty for failure to complete
collection by 6 p.m. on Sunday, September 17, 1995
3.01
Request for Proposal (RFP) City Wide Curbside Collection of Refuse
June 7, 1995
Page 2
Under this structure, the City will be responsible for routing the trucks. Staff intends to use the
recycling-service contract route maps to complete this task
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council authorize staff to initiate the request for proposal process for Citywide
Curbside Collection of Refuse. If Council concurs, the RFP packets will be mailed to potential
Proposers and the RFP will be advertised in the Fridley Focus. If Council authorizes the RFP, the
deadline for submittal will be June 27, 1995. Council will receive an informational memorandum on
June 29, 1995. Council action on these items is scheduled for July 10, 1995,
If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please feel free to contact Lisa Campbell at
e�ension 594.
LC:da
M-95-325
3.02
I _
�
Community Development Department
PLA�G D�SION
City of Fridley
DATE: June 8, 1995 �
TO: William Burns, City Manager �
`� �
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Amend Comprehensive Sign Plan for East Moore Lake
Commons Shopping Center
Staff has received a request to amend the comprehensive�sign plan
for East Moore Lake Commons shopping center from Brian Bruce of
National Hobby Company. Mr. Bruce proposes to Zease the westerly
tenant space of East Moore Lake Commons. Mr. Bruce is proposing
two signs; one for each of the north and west faces. The north
sign will be individual internally-illwninated letters as
permitted by the comprehensive sign plan. On the west face, Mr.
Bruce proposes to use an internally-illuminated cabinet sign with
the company's name and logo. The sign proposed for the west face
does not comply with the comprehensive sign plan for two reasons:
1) the sign is an internally-illuminated cabinet sign as opposed
to the individual internally-illuminated letters; and 2) the sign
extends into the peak of the roof line of the west facia (see
attached drawings). The City has in the past permitted signs to
encroach into the peak area for this development, specifically,
Joe D'Maggios in the East Moore Lake Commons shopping center, and
Sports Spree Fun Park in the West Moore Lake Commons shopping
center. Staff recommends that the City Council approve `-
encroachment of this sign into the peak area. _
The comprehensive sign.plan for East Moore Lake Commons does
permit the use of company logos as part of the tenant signage.
The plan does not, however, indicate how logos have to be
displayed. It is clear from the documentation submitted by the
proposed tenant that the sign proposed for the west face is the
corporate image for National Hobby Company. Staff recommends
that the City Council approve the amendment to allow the use of
internally-illuminated cabinet signs for corporate logos/images.
The property owner
with the changes in
recommends that the
comprehensive sign
MM/dw
M-95-329
has reviewed the proposed signage and
the comprehensive sign pian. Staff
City Council approve the amendment to
plan for East Moore Lake Commons.
4.01
agrees
the
q I I �� ' �'I�ilp I I r
i II ,
May 23, 1995
>_
Michele McPherson
c% Municipai Center
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridiey, MN 55432
Dear Michele:
We are leasing space at 1202 East Moore Lake Drive in Fridley from Quality
Growth of Fargo N.D. and would iike City approval for proposed signage.
The sign in question will be on the west fascia of the center �nd will extend
up into the peak area. it will be of box construction and intemally lit. DeMars
signs of Coon Rapids is our proposed contractor and I believe they are
familiar with work in the City of Fridley.
Joe Di Maggio's and Sports Spree both have signs that reach into the
peaked roof area. We feel ours would fall into line with theirs.
Please refer to the drawings as to size, shape and placement.
Sincerely,
�� �_______
' n Bruce
National Hobby Company
4708 Laura Lane
Shoreview, MN 55126-6033
484-3741(call before fax)
:: •�
(612�?lAZSS 1202 �sasc Mo�e Lalae vriv�e-P�dety, M�-�}32-s1?o
4.02
C�uality �°arav�h, Ltd.
804 Black Buiiding • PO Box 2561 • Fargo, Nd 58108 • Telephone:`701/232-7275 • Fax: 701/232-4642
� -
April"6, 1995
Brian Bruce
National Hobby Company, Inc.
4708 Laura Lane
ShoreLie�,;, MN 5512b--b033
Dear Brian:
We concur with your proposed North Face and West Face sign facia
logo, enclosed and initialed by us.
If a variance is needed from the City Of Fridley, we do comply with
such a request.
Si,:nc rely, �
; �
� �� /
J Torok
cretary
Quality Growth, Inc.
�
��
4.03
r
( --
,\
�
�
O
U
�
�
�
L O
m�
_
�
� �
,��
O
�
�
0
�
4.05
�w
..
� ~
� ��
4
i Q'
� ��
��
��
�
��
�
�`5�
��
�
�
�� 7
� �
�
�
�«
anuand le.z�ua�
v
�
.,._.,
s-�
�
a�
-"�
cu
..—�
N
F-.
O
�
.�t �"`�'-�'.1�-
4.06
�
25«
��
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
��
r-- _.....
�
� _
�
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: June 8, 1995 �
TO: William Burns, City Manager��
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Amend Comprehensive Sign Plan for West Moore Lake
Coiamons
George Applebaum, the owner of West Moore Lake Commons, requests
that an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan for West Moore
Lake Commons be approved. This amendment will allow the existing
Sports Spree Fun Park sign (see attached drawing) currently
located on the west wall of the shopping center to be relocated
to the front wall of the tenant space. The amendment is
necessary because the current sign plan only allows signs that
are 24 inches in height. Mr. Applebaum is increasing the height
to 30 inches in order to allow the existing sign to be utilized
on the front wall of the tenant space (see page 2 of the sign
plan). This height requirement would apply to all current and
future signs located on the sign band of West Moore Lake Commons.
However, because there are existing tenants in the building, they
should agree to the relocated sign prior to issuance of a sign
permit.
This request would not adversely impact the overall signag� for
the siiopping center. The sign band located along the fron� of
the facility is approximately 40 inches in height. This would
allow approximately five inches on the top and bottom of the
sign.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to
the comprehensive sign plan for West Moore Lake Commons with the
following stipulation:
1. The existing tenants shall. agree to the change in sign
location prior to issuance of a sign permit to relocate the
sign.
MM/dw
M-95-327
5.01
�,1? a � �� 12�0
A5:''1'r;;'1���+� �i1:F=t«=� 612-�;2-1'��E� HE;=;•r;Li 1•�1;;tJ��:�E��1EhJT F'r;GE N'�
�:
gx�zazT n
gzaa cA=TSS�r�►
� acc�o�a Y.�►xs �oxxo�ra
. . . (1�Oit�1CRLY .SEOREfIOQD. PL11ZA)
1�taad�d 6- tl 1- 9 g
These cr�,teria i�ve been establiehed for the pu�pose of asauring
an autstand�.ng shopping center, and �ar the mutual b�nefit af a�.1
Tenants . C�nfo�.-ma�ce wi11 }�e stric�ly enforced, anQ any in�tall�d
noncanform�.�g ax .unapproved �igns mu,gt be brought into canfarn�ance
at th� exp�uls4 of Tenant .
The City of Fridley strictly enforces i�s sign ordina�ce.
pzavisions of this Si.gn Criteria are sub�ect ta review and
approva2 by the a�rpropriate City autharities which have the
autharity to gr�nt ar�deriy sign permits natwithstanding the
of thfs Sign Cri.teria. �
�. tifn�r�l R«�t�r�m��tt�
All
�inal
tern�s
(1? Tenant ehal.l sub�nit, or cause to be submitted, t� the
LeB�or for a,pprava7. befare fabr3cation $t �east thr�e
ca�ies af detailed dr�.wings indica�ing ��atiipn, Bize,
layout, design, a,rid calor of the prppt>sed eigns, including
�11 lettering $nd/or gxaphics.
{�} �� y�ggor $�Z1 return one {1) set of the 8ign drawings,
as �oan as po�sible to tihe Tenant. The flrawing wi11 eit�her
�a marke+9 "A�proved" . "Appraved as Not�d"' , or
_�Disappr�ved", Sign drawings tYiat hav� been "Apprave� as
` Nated" , are ta ba returnecl to thp Lessor bea.ring Tenant' �
approv�l, or ax'e to be redesigngd and resu]�itteQ for
Legsor'� approval within �even (7� days� of receipt �y
Tenant. Sign c3rawings that hav�e been disappraved ar� to b�
reQesigned anfl resubttt.itted to Lesspr for approval, alao
withittt, s�vert (7 j d�ys p� receipt by Tenant .
t3) After the sign h�� been ap�roved by th� lessor, the
�P�r�� aign drawing wfth Lessor's eign,�ture, uYUSt b�
subm3t�ed for approval of the City a� Fridley prior �o
erectiAg the sign.
id) Na sign shall be permitted autside of the► d�signated eigYi
band �rea except ae provicieQ herein.
{5) All permits �or signs dnB their installation sha1Z be
obtainad by T�nant vr its repree�enta�ive.
{6} m�nant shall be respansible for the fu1fi11ment af a11
rec�uirementa and sgecif iC�tions .
5.02
51� 4�2 12?0 - -
F�511"i�1'�+��� �=i1: �=i�-� �,1�'—a1�-1'��'i=i
HE;:;-;D p:l•r;tJ�:;i�EP�tE1dT F~''' �-�_
b. Ddsiq�a Rwqui��maats
{�- I�iqris srisll be .permitted only within the. gign arese an the
buildin� ae designed..by the �+„rchitect, and.�B'amendefl by
req�iest� apprcivefl by the �wner $nfl the City pf Fridley.
(2) The vertical dimension 1 wall eigns, e,�ccluding tenant
Iogo�, shall �iot exGeed � in hexght, exCept tha.t eignage
attached to the we8t ar� the shopping center shall be
e�ccZuded fram this height limi�atian.
(�) `I'he total wa11 s�ign area �or each Teriant eha1� not exceed
. 15 tfineg� the gQuare raot of the �ine�l 3.ength of the wa11
tv whi�h th+� sigri is ta }�e attached; prrnrided,
neverth�lesg, tiYat the horizantal dimension of signa
�t�ached to the eign band on the fronC po�tion of the
ehopping center eha11 nat axceed the Tenaat's store wiQth
lesg 3 feet.
{4 ) N� signs of ar�y sort sha11 be permittefl above the roc7f .
line.
�. ��a�rel $p�citication•
(1) All w�ll signs sha11 be co�tpasefl of individually mounted
anc� lit le�.tering. No canieter type sign� ehall be
allawed.
{2 ) At Lessor' s discretian, a7.1 wa11 sign� ehal}. be a. uniform
col.ar. zn �uCh case, how�ver, �orporate logos may be in
, tha Tenant'e typ�.cal co�or ech�e.
{3) Paintefl lettering will nat be permitted, except as
epecified under Azticle D-2.
{4) Flashing, moving or audible �i.gns will no� be permit�ed.
t5) Landlord shall al],ocate gpace an the �iylon sign in its sale
c��sCretian. The CQB� associated w�,th the pylon sign shail
be prorateQ arrtong the Tenante nna,lcing u�e af the aame in
propartion �v the area their pa�rC of the pylon sign bear�
to the total pylot� sign ar� .
(6) AZl electrica]. eigns shall bear tihe uL label, and their
3nst�llat�on muet ca�1y with a11 local builQing and
eleGtrical cafleg.
(7) No expo��d canduit, tubing or rac�waye will be pezmitted,
except where there ie inadequate access behinQ the proposec�
s�gn locatian.
5.03
r�1�' 4�"� 12�'0
t�5;�'1;_;i'1'�'�5 4-�1:F=t'._; 61�—�;_�—l�,�i HE;;;`;Li F1r;Fdr:�:�Et1EFJT F:';GE t=�4
(8) No expoFaed neon lighting ehal�. be uaed on signs, �ymbol� a�
decarative elements,
(9) A11 cancYuctors, trans�ormers and other �uipznent sha�.l be
�o�G�1�a- . .
(1Q) Electrical �erv�ce to a�l �igns except the ground gign
and the pylan aign �hall be an Terl�it��g meter and not be a
part of Caem�non Are+a cor�etruCtipn or dp�r�tion costs .
{il} A11 sigris, bal.te, fa8teni.ngs and clips shail be of ho�
dipp�d galvanizpfl irC�n, stainle�g steel, aluminum, bras� or
bronze, and nv biack iron rttaterials� of �ny type will be
permittec�. .
(12) A11 e�cterior ].etterp or �igng exppged �a thg weather
sha11 be mounted at least 3/aN frocn the building wall to
permit prope� dirt and water drainage.
(1.3) Lc>cation of all apen,ings for conduit and eleevea in sigxx
panel� of build�.ng walls sha1� be �ndicated by �he �a,gn
contract�r on drawings eui�nitted to the Project Areh�tect.
Sign Gon�ractor shall install game in acCOrdarlCe with
approved drawings.
iZ4} No gig'nmaker's lab�l ar other identification w�.21 be
permiLtet� on the expoaed �ux'faCe af aig�s, except thoae
�e4�ired bY Iocal orflir�nce which ghall be in an
inconapi<;uaus locatian.
(15) All penetratiane of the building structure requi.red far
aign installatiarl sha].1 be neatly sealed in s watertigY��
condition.
(163 sign contracCOr shall repair any d�qe to any work
caua�d b�� his wark.
(l7 ) Tenant eh,3i1 be fuliy resppnsible for the oper2�.tians ot
Tenant's sign con�ractor�.
�. �iscwlX�n�oua 8��uir�meat•
tl) T�enant wi1,1 be perm�tted to place upan eaCh entranCe af it$
Pr�tises not mare than iaa squ�re inches of gold leaf or
decal ap�lication lettaring not to axceed two inches (2^)
in height, �ndicating hourg of business, �nergency
telephone� number, etc.
(2) �f Tenant has a nan-cuetaner door for rece�ving
merchandige, it may have un�formiy applied an that doar in
a�.acation a$ dl.rected by the Architect, in two-�nch high
block lettere, Tenant�� n�n� �nd a�e$s.
5. 4
61� �72 12�0
�_'.�,:�l;.i 1��95 G-�1: �=�s=� 51'�—u;'�-1'�; t=� HE:�>�L� t1���1�!�EP�1EF,1T Pr':��E E��
{3f �e$SOr sha�l in�tail an the front of the building, if
reQuireci by the (T, S, poet O�f ice, the numbera on�y for the
, s�reet adc4r�ss. Sfz�, type and calor of numbers shall be
� a� deteYmin�d bj, �he Lessor.
a. �emparery �s�,�ra•
(1} Ten�orary �igns sha11 be limited to tbe use af banners,
Pennsnte am�, hali6a,y eigr�s in Tenan�'s inter�or window area
for use nOt a�pr� L� gixtY {60 y dc�.ys wit2xizl arie caleu�r
Y�r.
{ 2) windaw $3gr�s srhai,ll nvt exceed � f if teen t 15 � j percent of
Tenant•s windort,v area or z5 square feet, whichever is
gre�ter. �
�• �►dmini�trs�iaa
In the et�ent of any canf].ict of interpr�G�tian b�tween �rty
T�rYant ar�d the Uwner as to t�he app�icatian o� these
criteri$, the Lancllard� s�ecision shall b� fixYal anfl
b�nding upon the Tenant.
�Sppmv�d as ta z,e�sor:
�
Appraved as to Les�ee:
$Y
5.05
�
�
��
�
�
O
W
L
�
�
�
f+
�
�
�
0
Q.
�
L
Q.
_
�
v/
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
l�
� '
�
O
�
�
�
u
� �
� �
�
�- � -i
Z
O
{'-
W
�
�
W
W
J
1--
J
J
�
�
>
�
Z
Q
3
0
y (7 Q
m � u 3$Q<'i
a <
i w< LL m �' � C
�¢ i �� O�� Z N
;���o��s�o
<��<Z�� �>
4°T00 ��
3aa�a��-o°�R
� �'v �:6io�m m°
w,�
��0
�v
��
a� �o"
��
J �
� �
Z �„`
�
� �
�
� v
� �
� �
5.06� `� �
`.
�
����i
_:
,�w
w
syT ✓
�
� �.-.
� �
� � ^
�
r � ��
i.=i
�'
�'
��
��
��
�N
�
�
,
�
�
aw
anczany j�.��uaa
A
A
a.�
�
a
a�
0
�
�� �'".�-��-
5.07
�
��
�
t�N
ti
N
v
�«
�
�
��
En9ineering
N Sewer
� Y Wa�er
Q�
a O Parks
O 3 S��eets
VU Maintenance
W �
� �
Oa
�
� -
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager ,�� PW95-143
� �
FROM: John G. Flora, Pubhc Works Director
DATE: June 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project No. 211
Change Order No. 3 addresses six 6-foot Blue Spruce trees planted on Fred Halvorson's
property. The trees were planted May 10, 1995 with Fred Halvorson's approval
Recommend Council approve Change Order No. 3 to Locke Lake Dam Restoration Project
No. 211 for Lunda Construction Company in the amount of $2,265.57.
JT/JGF:cz
Attachments
6.� �
�
ir
�ir •.
�.�. �
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
� June 6, 1995
Lunda Construction Company
P O Box 228
Little Chute, WI 54140-0228
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 3, Locke Lake Dam Restoration, Project No. 211
Gentlemen:
You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the Locke Lake Dam
Restoration Project No. 211 by adding the following wack: Six 6-ft Colorado Spruce Trees with wood chip
bedding as directed by the engineer. �
Additions:
Item
1. Colorado Spnace
0
Quanti
1
Price
Lump Sum
Amount
$2,265.57
TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �2.265.57
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS:
Original Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $537,375.75
Contract Change Order
No. 1 (Deletion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,306.50
No. 2 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,823.39
No. 3 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.265.57
- REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $505,158.21
6.�2
Lunda Construction Company
Change Order No. 3
June 6, 1995
Page 2
Submitted,and approved by John G. Flora, Pubiic Wo�lcs Director, on the 6th day of June, 1995.
��1 �
Prepared
� �1�� ,S� � ?lr
Checked
L--�1-
G. Flora, P. E.
tor of Pubiic Works
o1W �
Approved and accepted this day of �� , 1995 by
LUNDA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
,! ^
Dennis Behnke, Project Coordinator
� �
Approved and accepted this �day of , 1995 by
CITY OF FRIDLEY
William J. Nee, Mayor
William W. Bums, City Manager
6.03
, Enginrrring
y S�w�r
� Y Wdtcr
�
� O Parks
O 3 Slrcets
VV Mai�len�ncc
W --�
� m
oa
I
3=
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager PW9S-100
�
FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director
DATE: April 17, 1995
SUBJECT: Locke Lake Dam Project
On Monday, April 17, 1995, Jon Thompson and I met with Fred Halvorson and his wi#e
regarding the landscaping on his property at the Locke Lake dam
As a result of the meeting, we placed six stakes for blue spruce trees S-6 feet tall to be
_.:� placed on his property. In addition,:we.discussed doing some minor landscaping along�the�. ...
culvert outlet, blending in the site sodding to his property, extending his sprinkler system
and installing of his property fence.
We are requesting Lunda to purchase the six blue spruce trees and plant them as soon as
possible so that we can complete the remaining landscaping and construction items on
the dam site. If there are insufficient funds within the project for these six blue spruces,
we will be submitting a change order to the Council for approval.
I undersfand Mr. Halvorson has submitted a claim in excess of $15,000 for t�e loss of his
trees as a result of the creek erosion and dam construction. I have notified the League of
Minnesota Cities claim's adjustor, Darlene Boese, of the action the City is taking and would
assume that this should cancel the claim made against the City.
JGF:cz
6.04 �
�
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Engineenng
Sewer
Waler
Parks
ISlreets
Maintenance
` {'�
William W. Bums, City Manager j�
6� `
John G. Flor�ublic Works Director
�Jon K. Wilczek, Assistant Public Works Director
June 1, 1995
University Avenue Bikeway Project No. ST 1994-6
PW95-146
On Wednesday, May 24, 1995, at 11:00 am seven bids were opened for the University
Avenue Bikeway Project No. ST. 1994-6 (Anoka Project No. SP 127-090-03).
The low bid was $160,728.85 from H&M Asphalt Company of Elk River. The State is
presently analyzing those bids and preliminary indications are that they are going to
accept the low bidder. Financing for this project would be as follows: SO% or $80,364.42
would come from Federal funding, 31.25% or $50,227.77 would come from State funding,
and 18.75% would come from local funding or from the City of Fridley. The amount
necessary for the City to provide to the State to let this project would be $30,136.66. We
have $60,000 identified in our Five Year CIP for this improvement.
We concur with the State on their analysis of the bid and recommend that the bid be
accepted�so that the project can be let and completed this summer. MnDOT-aequires a
check from the City of Fridley to the Commissioner of Transportation in the amount of
$30,136.66 and a resolution recommending award of the project. Due to time constraints,
it is important that these items be delivered to MnDOT as soon as possible. We also
recommend that the City Council authorize staff to prepare and send the $30,136.66 check
to the Commissioner of Transportation.
Recommend the Council approve the attached resolution acknowledging the bid opening
and awarding the project to the low bidder.
Jw/JGF:cz
7.01
'� ,
•i, •.
.,�. �
RF�S07�IiPIO�T I�U. - 1995
RESOLUTIaQd itEO�IDIlJG Tf�iT Z� aQNII�IISSI�it OF TI2�I�SPU�TI�T
AWA12D 'i'F� LUJIVERSITY AVEN[JE BIREi�17C PROJF3C'P� FRZDLEY PgA7F7G'P ST.
1995-6, SII�TE P1iUTEGT 127-090-03 ADID 3P. 127-010-12, �90�
PRO►TF3CT I�U. STP EN 93 (012) 'PO � IOWEST RESI�1'SIBI� BID�ER
��5, the City of Fridley applied for aryd reoeived IS'I�A (Intermodal 5urface
Transportation Efficiency Act) fur�ding for design and construction of a
bik,e/pedestrian path along University Avenue, atyd
Wt�REA3, plans and specifications were prepared for the University Avenue
bike/pedestrian path along TH 47 frceci 73n3 Avenue northeast to 85th Avenue
northeast in Fridley, and
Wf�REAS, on April 10, 1995 the City Co�ncil of the City of FYidley pas..sed a
resolution (No. 23-1994) appraving MnDOT limited use permit for the University
Avenue Bike path frarn 73n�i Avenue NE to 85th Avenue NE, arid
�,.5, bids for this project were opened on May 24, 1995, and
Wi�S, the lawest responsible bidder was found by N1nDC7I' to be H&M Asp�alt
�Y� �
W�,.S, the City of Fridley w�derstands that their share of the fw�di.ng is
$30,136.66.
1JdW, Ti�REF'ORE, HE IT RE90LVED �T, the City �i.l of the City of Fridley,
Anoka C�nty, Minne.sota, as follaws:
R�rnnend that the Coamnissioner of Transportation award the
Uni.vexsity biks/pedestrian path projeet frc�a 73rd Avenue northeast
to 85th Avenue northeast, Fridley Projec:t No. ST. 1994-6, State
Project SP 127-090-03 and SP 127-010-12 arxi Mi.nnesota Project No.
STP F�I93 ( 012 ) to the lawest re_.rponsible bidder.
P�3� At�ID ADOFi� BY Zi� CITY O�i�CIL OF 'II� CITY OF FRIDLESi THIS � DAY OF
, 1995.
- M Y �.`si
l��ilil : u r.: ul' � yYY M�1; .
WILISAM J. NEE - MAYDR
7.�2
City ot Fridlay
State of Minnesota
HeQinning Balance
Revenues
S YEAR CAPITAL lMPROVEMENT PLAN
BUDGET 1993
Si�eets Capital Improvements
1993
Interest tncome
Minnesota State Aid - Consiruction
Total Revenues
Funds Available :
Proiects
Sealcoat Program
Overiay Program
New Projects �
1993 Street Reconstruction Project
University Ave Bikewa�
Opticom 81sU83rd
Total P�ojects
Endin{� Balance
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Funds Available
Froiects
Ending Balance
1994
Interest Income
Minnesota State Aid - Construction
Total Revenues
Sealcoat Program
Overlay Program
East River Road Upgrade - Phase 11
New Project
1994 Street Reconstruction Project
Total Projects
204
7.03
54.632.318
370,585
659,000
1,029,585
5.661,903
124.000
263,000
209.000
125,000 �
30,000
, 751,000
54,910,903
54,910,903
392,872
209,000
60t.872
�.s�2.ns
135,000
100,000
110.000
500,000
845,000
54.667.775
�,�e�s°rq
�
r
�
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Transportation Suildi�g, St. Paul, MN 55155
JOHN G FLORA
FRI�LEY PUBLIC WORKS DIR
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE �
FRIDLEY MN 55432
Re : S . P . �� �% �-O �l1 U'3
(612)296-9974
,�` 3 �- 15 �
This is notice that the local dollar participation on the
above referenced project amounts to S 3a` J�G G� -
��
Because there are federal monies involved�i said project�,
the award of the contract is deferred until such time as
the aforementioned amount of $ 3� �� �� is received
b y the Department of Transportation3J(see Minnesota Rules
Chapter 8820.1500 Subpart 3) . Q`;_ �,Q„ %� f �„������
/"`r
Your cooperation in transmitting the local dollar share of
the contract to the Commissioner of Transportation for
deposit in the agency account will ensure award of the
contract within the specified time frame.
Please make check payable to the CONIl�iISSIONER OF
TRANSPORTATION and mail directly to :
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FINANCE - ANNEX
461 RICE ST.
ST. PAUL, MN 55103
ATTN.: CASH ACCOUNTING
Also�p+lease note on your remittance, STATE PROJECT NUMBER �
AND THE WORDS "LOCAL FUND DEPOSIT".
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Pat Murphy
, Dire tor, Div's' of State Aid
Ray ibbe, ayment Technician
c: File - 420
Cash Accounting (2)
An Equol �poo ity E►nployer
!
CITY OF FRIDLEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: ` WILLIAM W. BURNS CITY MANAGER �
� �
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
WILLI�iM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR SPRING LAKE PARK LIONS CLUB
DATE: JUNE 7, 1995
Attached is a resolution approving the application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Premise Permit for Spring Lake Park Lions Club at Sandees Restaurant, 6490
Central Avenue Northeast.
Minnesota State Statutes requires the adoption of a resolution approving or denying
this type of gambling permit.
8.01
RESOLUTION N0. - 1995
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA
LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO SPRING LAKE PARK LIONS
CLUB
�
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been served with a copy of a Premise Permit
Applica�ion for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Permit for Spring Lake Park Lions
Club; and
WHEREAS, the location of the Premise Permit is for Sandees Restaurant, 6490
Central Avenue Northeast; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has not found any reason to restrict the location
for the charitable gambling operation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley
approves the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to Sandees Restaurant.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY
�F , 1995.
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
8.�2
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
Lc2o2
�os;zc,iva�
Minnesota Lawt'ul Garnbling
LEASE AGREEMENT
Property Owner/Lessor Informalion
Namc oF I,cgal Owncr of Property
Strcct Address
Name of Lcssot� = Street Address
(Ihis may or may not be the same as ihe Legal Owna of Ihe P�vperty)
Name oPl,eased Premises
Stroet Address
City
City
Zip Daytimc Phonc
5s�f3��6i � s�i a �ya
Zip Daytime Pfane
sS/�z ��1z� 57/ a��o
Zip I�ytime Fhone
5� 3a c6�� �7i al�o
Name of Lcssec (Name of Organi7stion Leasing the premises) GCB License �f of Orga�ation Daytime Plwne
Typc of gambiing activity that will bc eonducted at this gambling prcmiscs (Chxk all that apply to this gambling pemises)
Q Bingo Q Raflles ,, � PaddlewheeLs (�.PuU-tabs .;,, Q'Iipboards
Rent Information (See Rule 7861.0060, Subp 2D) Indicats thc rmts paid by yau organiistion to the kssoc:
C/ass A and C premisa pa»+its rent per, bingo occasion; Class B and D prarises pe�nuCs rent po nronth:
Rcnt for bingo and al! other gambiing activitics conducted Rent for fonns of lawful gambling adiviiy other than bingo
during that bingo occasion may not excoed: � . .. may nd cxcad a maxim�n of 51000 per month-
S200 for up to 6,000 square fee� :` ._. ::: t.,.: -..: ,,
, . _ ..
5300 for up to 12,000 squarc fccK and .. :,. , .
. , �.:
, ,
5400 for more than 12,000 sqast�e fcet. -
. . . _;. � .; . . �... ',..
Rrnt tv bc paid per bingo occasi� S': ,;<. , Rait to bc patd pu month S$ .
: _ . • � ,.. , , _ _ _ •: =�
Rent may not be based on a pencentage ot rsceipts frnm la�vful gambling or attendanoe =t a bingar occasiou .
An organization may no! pay rent w itseU or to any of iCs afflliates for spaa used (or t6e rnndud of lawful gambGag, -
Effective Date for Amended Lease Agreements - `. ` <: _ , • , _ � }1:; :: `,;;
Pteasc lisi thc effective date on which the amcndments to the original lcase will take plaee_
_ ... . .
List dimensions of all areas leased by your organi78tion for gambGng activity on dns premise�
; Thc Icascd arcas are ., � -.'foet by 7 O%, , fed for a�totsl of �' �.` `� %�,',square fxt
, �, fett by,, � fed fot a total of ' squsre fext
-. �>_. . `. :�. ..:. _ :. _ . ..; „ ..:_. . . , .,.a.., , . . ., _,.± :_� ti
+ ...
, . ., s: feet by foet for a total �of � square f«t
; , ; , � ` - • :- fect by . : ,. . � fod for a tatal of , . ., _ ,.. . ,; ; • �uaoe fcct
_ _ .,. ,. . , _, ..
, . _.. ,. _ ..:.�::.,., ` Combinod total . squane footage
� � .. ,. ., :t:. .Yt� . t,X�. . , . . . � � _ . . . , ..._.. .... .............�. ... ..... .. .
Submit a sketch (drawinp� of; the gsmbling prcmises. This must show thc locafron of your otganizations leasod areas ftx the
conduct oC Iaw�ful gambling including ; arcas Icascd for storage of your gambling product on this g�mbling prcmises. Bc surc to
write thc dimcnsions of the Icased arcas on thc sketch. t[� nnatEtiscorts oN �e s�rcH t►tusr eE �- su�tE �►s waove :
T'uaes and Days ot Bingo Occasioat (tor �C1ass A�or C ptemius pennils}. If �nu checkod bingo acUvity abovq you must fdl in
thc bingo days and timcs bclow �Gircle a.m. :or p.m. aftu eaeh beginning and cnding fime. A bingo oocasion must contin� for at
_; :.. kast 1-1/2 hours\ (90 m�nutes) but:cannot exoecd four (4) consocutive hours and at kast 15 bingo gamas must be hdd. at ueh ;
occasion An organizatwn (as`a whole) mav not conduct morc}tha� seven (� bmgo oocas�ons each week "
:i�- e :: L. a t J'y%i,�'{ t� f;' �2 ey� rd_= w��. 5.5 �:a d ;i- P�. S' .r� ..t.�.'t, {+F �.... a�'.p +
�._. j � � � ��Y �� �� � P �� � � d a} F;B'+ �/�'»,� p ��; Y � ".�ji �Y .A'y�E 'r 1 .��Y k s ,ks�:�M t s-��. .
'• Be s At �� s_m./ m. Ends At �s.m./ m On Da of Wcek
r.� y z"s,�i'1'?"!t+'i. a+r ;g7'`nk�M x�v,izy, �1r t�.qr��.ilr�7!-.t'a'���. $4�M.x.2�t�' 4•tr Hr.�'v.�. Tr&�i,%;`erfi � 1�::ri J'r, a{s�F�'�-� 617�+t��,.tvr. r� + i t y :: .� .
'�� t , 6ms At«��"� aw, r.,... (a.mJP �),�Ends AC "�« "• f�(a.m./p m,) On Aay of �N�ek n:3r�� ,.��. '� x�, � J
!� s.t•�'q'�.� �� ��q+4�a1 Ss �S��i�� +�+Lvt'f �r^u"��"'sSi�,��ila4rl�iP'i`�?„ore PoM . +' � �' n F Y +1 t,fqet ��.•ac�4 x+ � xa.aAY�Q6�u�., � �j: '�r rf .:�:r � '
� > , � . ns AL=�� �: �' (a.mJp m )� nds (a:m.%p m'�' Oa Day of Wee1e � �"` < „e�,
E :Ar `
t � >,, '�` �'w . .�aa
� vr ._ �:3 �t i,: '
hl�+Sc`�%�'A�lfl$ �t��.F�y.ti�F 1y�L 4 �,lil ��Ijd3,���� �+���}���/Il�/,��� �Il�til��0��%C�C� 1� ' H•�•y.� � X,: T,.
�� r ' s�:YU 'r.�"'4� ` ,,y a �.. � +r'�1�s�,�y� �,fi�iMY;'�sv�J'7WN'�M�a'wv
°,a�T r �' . �, � -a, ; a.tR RI: �Ettdi �i^`�� 1't '111 � y�KOf ��C"'/P'p� '0�'�4'�A1.yl.�r�t�4d��� V�-�siSyq.3Ya�d6.r �
�r5 a�j�a�^ � < uh��? �•� ri�s+.�f,k ^trr�7 a
y� Beguis �1' "�d:m�p m� �AC�� a�.m ',Da �, ',.:,ile► 4�('�e��� �st r:��v k k�, ,�
�t� - �c j� r c ,. , �y� ,y�,,���
,
G' ���..�rr �''�IflSi1�.°t�.�8��,�.:^l�� �m?�E11+S�--��1'�`t���' _ . �_ _ ;_- �. ...., _ ik:`'q!"_`�°r�'.t��'�'w w�aaib'C}►�f�.it .:�'lrttt i
. . ...�_ .. .. .y
�
Y•.'a..
i
gy ngreeing to the terms oj this lcase, it is mutualty agreed lhat:
LG202
(OS/'_6471
•�4'hcn Icasing from a Gccnscd b�nRO hall, thc Icswr must bc lcgal owncr of tfic propcm'.
•I'hc owncr of thc propercy or dx Icssor may not manage gambling at thc prcmiscs_
•Thc lessor of the prcmiscs, his on c�r immcdiatc fami}y. u►d any agrnts or cmployccs of thc Icsscc may not partiapdte
as Players in thc conduct of la.+�ful gambling on thc lcbsed prcmiscs-
•The Iessor and thc less« do noc havc a dinct or indircet financiat inter+cst in lfic dut�bution or manufactuec of gunbiing
cquipmcnt ` .
•Thc lasor of the Qrcmim w�71 atlow thc Board or agents of the Boar�d. !he Comrnissioner of Public Safety a agents of
thc commissionet, or tt�c Commission�r of Reyenuc or agcnts of the commissioncr. and �aw cnfoc�ment pcnonnd tn �;
inapxt thc prcmixs at any rcasonablc timc, and pcnnit ffie o�ganaatio� to conduct lawful gambting at the paaniscs '` ...
Iacconding to the tcrms of this kau. ihe Iessor may not impose any oonditions on the organization oegerding dis�but�as`�
of g.ambting cquipmcnt, scrvicu, or thc usc of pro5ts_ .;
•The organization must obtain an organ'vation I'icensc, gambling managa license and a prcmiscs pertnit fivm the
Gamblin Controt Bonrd Thc organa.ation will bc responsible for comPtyinB with the taws and rutcs of tawful gnmbling.
S
,•Thc tcrm of thc Ica�c shall bc concumcnt with thc prcmiscs parnuk, ... '�: -.
•Thc organization must havc, at dic gambTing pc+crtuscs. a cutrcnt inyentory of gambling equipment, a skctch with �,; .
'I � '_
_
dimensions of the prcmiscs ava�abk for rcview, and a cicar phys�ca! aepatahon ar d�v�dw betwo«� the kssees gambUng , ..
cquipmcnt and thc kssofs bus'uicss cqutpmcc►t : .r�
� �
I •?he cxganasbon v�nll bc t+csponsi�le fo� ea`suang_thai the kssors �baw�ess adivities are not conductcd on the_leased
�.. . ' . �rcmiscs. ,�,' ,. � ,� _ � y
,,:. s. _ ,
•Tho'lesse shaU�be�tcrminatod immed�atcly for any �71cga1 gambluig�violations oecumng on the premises• µ' :
� - :. � s d�t;� t ., _ �: <r
I �•The lessor of the premises shall provede ffie lassec �secess to the pumdt�d premises during any time rcasonabk and • �
. , , _ : in this kax. - - _ _ :
' ��cssary to conduct.lawful gambling on the prcmiscs and as, aSi'� �P«!.
.. :, _; .; �� � :
✓ �. . , k
' •The {essor shaU not'modify, tenninate or�ncfuse to rcnew this ka9e u� whok or in pert because the �an�ahon r�
I�� ° � w enforoema�t authon _'�' thc Board the occumuioe tc of �liegal gambGng activity in which -
. .... n _ .. . _._ _ to a state �or locel :la t3!�
�. . , . .. $ ' L - }
�.
�1 f%!C SI <:
j y, �
1. n�p n�e}ar��yt�... . ._ . .� ' . :.. � :.�: � ':: ': � . Y
m� ����y, a�ag��c r.. y ��..._- ✓�.Y } 3: i _',' � z.rij°� , ,}}
S 1 F, l. �.�?� _-o��a.4:.�'W'k,`'��.1 �".�c'4'iW :•'. .,, ` r��.ai", kMk � . � . - 't 's t� A'froa���`+��*' :
� .__. •�nte in any othea con�tions or �rstr�chons 8iat w�ll bo u►cludcd a's part of the lease Attach add�honal shods �f �
�5, '4. . . . . . tt >,i, ;} . nY"i-�iy;. a�., . . .. . . ._. .. _ . . 4 _r�n £
ncccssary) ; . _ - - - --
_....:. .<-_.:_ .._......... .,... ' ...-- •-- : _ ._. _ _...._
� :.
,
; . c `fi'h ts � � p .
� �a ..� u .. a 30 �4 � Lu Y ; -f-r�,v .tle�ce .: . ,,:
i�.�- c v _ . J
_. � Th+C. elnd a-c �ne �v^ r ,'.�..�.a .,U.� ��-:f]aufu�uTS LUI�� CPeSP _
� y i#, . 1 _ . .
1 = : � � : L�n� �_.
e� it .1' , - s 1�;•�'• / rr ?�:.�`
. . s�:� .. . . ., . .i .. ,
: . . �, 5... . . . a ., / . . .
�
fi. .
E i. .
.
.. d .
.
. . r
.
_ .. .
.... _ . .. . �
� .
I' _
. �T�.-4 �� . . , i• .
.
.. x
. -�
� ;. . .
.� . . n conductin lnwful emblin ac�mh�. ` • � ' ^'
.�. .� This'kase is the total.and... agrxment bctw«n,thc {essor and the'oiga�uznho 8 8 8 -
I "_,,' Thcre u�no,^other agnocmcnt and no od�cr cons+derahon toquirod bet�en the ps�ties �s w the lawfu! gambling and othu
, � _ . i'
.� matteri related:to.this leasc_.M� changss in.ttus�lcasc must�be su�nrt�d to the GamMing Contrd Boatd within t0 days ,
; � : ' ` of the changc
_ �..
' � � Signatun of I.essor . . . ... � - . _ _ . .. . .
Date S" a uf Orgaa'aation Q!'ticia
... _ . _, . : ... ..... . :._ ......_�._ .. . . -. ...
) �� . � �
'aa.�. �,_ . , �,4. . . <.��. -� - .- � ;
. . . . �.I. y � y '.�,.
„ � . .. .r.. %� � ZQ . -
���:; �_� � -
-� �p�„ S. : t l - [ ;� ' �
�,-~ ..pr... . N .. ' � . . l
•;K
' Ti f S' atory --- - s'
' " Titk `of r S�guaton �
� ,;: � < -�. '` _, , . � .
_
�� .... ....� .:�rF e� _3 ,... .a..;fr 7... _ .,y..=� . ' :. �- �.
.K..`s 4' :'�.F-�, . •
. � � C t.._ �. � � 33N` .� i�� , � �;
, � .. �:: n is . � � { d� �. rt 7 � y �rf ..��`.+ � � ak r,.} - • � • • . � � � ' � �wS .
�� }� � � f i �. � � � � f � '. 4 ��� �yy � .. s .. . � � -.
k �, ty"'�4� . � ...'Sl�= �q!: 'F� �'l't' �� '�..i,. \. �:f.t ` � � ,,� sit° ft n '{F�. � J. 4 � ... .,.,..* p( ��
t i ' t • _ . },
, a..� "rr
y� �, yni�'w eopy of ttiti �eax �od a�skeicb;`.:1t6 dimeosioas must be submitted �rith,the p�emises pern�it applkatioa. P� ,.
� r��: �I � . .. . . ... . ,. . . � �. � :f � Pe.wt".r . . _ _ 1 r . ��,y� j��. jl . "y,e}�'r y�}y�i r.
i
� �;�'�petmit� pplkatioo reue.►J� whea aay ehaages In t6e kaae�a�eenKa�occac. ��,': - t.s. r,r.� +y� , c. �,� ;� L . -�` � t`:-
�•1 � ( , w.�.,-�- r�-x, P F2` �«.�4` '^+�� C'�'� e�a'.a.e+'k Mtiswrd�i�dil � sr:i�
7. =;le�•`�.+J. ��- �e� Y��t01A�/C'W�q*CrI��CAwdOMI'OY�IMtyOR�11�h�M
'r �o [�..r.a�oM:.�se.c'�3.v�.. =rauiriMaebf!�fo�dm.cf�'ow�so.eqre±�ee . wawbiipbw � �';
. ' - - - - - ' r`..:.."fi�::ti...w'idttdwWdtsnodrisidosrieww�L_f1o�+Ki[yoii. - -
.r4:�•: � a. c.�:�.•
iaC'`:..`1;� . . ...
� - . .. -��:'
w� a•a, b�a�'pei �o�n.�v�K+.�.
�.—:
LG214
��e u
Minnesota I,�zwJul Gambling
Premises Permit Application - Part 1 of 2�
- � +. _... , .. _ `�_.�,• .
FOR BOARD USE ONLY
BASE ft
PP fi
FEE
I CNECK " ,
j INITIALS - t s
�DATE
' , .
x���
� i t Ciass of premises permit ,
: �?.a � , �. ; ..R etbWal ' . ;� . '� . . ; , � � :" t.� (check onej . r � ' ` �=� , r � :; ;, -
.. , Organizatan base iicense number . ._ Q A(5400) Pufl-tabs, tiPboards. padd�ewl►eels, ratfles, bin9o"
' "� . ; . . .. . .. . . Premises pe�mit number ' - ;', - . �� 8 ($250) Puli-tabs, tipboards, paddewf�s; raffles� � �-
n New '• � � , a . . � � � C ($200) � Bingo orily : :' , ti..�':
i�-� � • . . ', , � . . • s ' - ' � + , - % a , _ + _ �,,. +i , v' .
. ❑ D (S150j Rafftes o�ly
<�.1 �
_ , , . . ..- �" _ .,.. � a.' .. ..
� . 3f'.�.?''.'H.'H!^'••`.'fi�.',^:•:�ii':t?R:=:
.. � � �K:�-R7F�i�
. � �_.,YFF•':':{.:.:{:}
- '. (�8fi7@ Ot �81
,
-'� + . .
�Busi ss A
�': g�l l3
C'
F•
_ Na of chiet+
:-:, .;Srav�_":
. .
, .
IIZ3hOfl � :• S --.:.= m.ia, �.�'I:w .... t .. •� +.cK x
i . . -y � ._.� . . a r.�:- .:�... r� Lr �.r ���`�'t' �i
�.J.,A(CG` PGiYI��.:f�-ieKS��i'Ie.,/o' • ; ... . _. : ..., _ n.
...
�ss of Organizatan - Sir+eet or P O 8ox (Do not use the address of yax gambGng manager) _.
•.:, ,.. , :� , -.- _. . . , . _ ,�
F
, - ,. _ -
� � � , ,<:�� �..3�- `
Staie ' �Zap Code CoUnry;-_ ._, �aYw!'+e P�!
� �; ��° �.�:.: � s; 3 0 ,
(dt �.. � .
e«rt;,re office� (carmot be yow gart�bGt�g manager) ; rnle _ �::; : ;:� Day6me; aar�e
�a wa�su� � ,,��� ���:�.,��: �:�� z7;e: � a. � � �8�
l$�OI1S �&t,s`��."a.a S� +.�.a�•e�_�'k �` vT:33�°if��.� ,� t5 '',�`n - ` 1_`£.� yJ
. . � �. _. ...�. - " - __ -,:�x_ .., .__,._.' __ •r.... ..-s�
���'~ x�'' No`more thaii-severi bingo Joccasions �`be conducted by your or��nlzation per �v'eek:'"�`�.�`�
Day _, Begicuifng/Endtng Hours _ . . _:.Day _ . :._ Bcgtnnfng/Ending Hours �._ _ . ' DaY Beginning lE4dizig Houis �' �;�fi`
�: ',� " .�: �
_,:� . ,,,� . �� ,, �
� _ � A � ... ,., t , - � � .�
,.
. . .. ._ _ _.,.,..� _.,..:._. - J �
.. '� t° + " ' / � to ,�� �` }�, �
J l� '� Y �*. � :;' ' � > ,,b, :
,: = to 7f bingo vv�1 not be" coadncted. checi hcre �� `•
����- .: � ,aS.,, c.., .-r s..`..'�,..:::�� '' _ r i� '..:.''e' a . � .., x. ....-.��� r��s�.:. r L +: i : -� .. �...� �;. .. J}j -
..iy.. .. . . . . . . , . . . . _. . .......,.. _ . ... ...,. - � ._. ,. .tiw., . >�. . .i..�!v.. . .-
. �.
'i
E 'i'3
I �VYr �A!�� - -.
and Couny wher+e 9art!bl'u�9 Pr'erti�ses is locate
�1 / ' , ;
'1etL.°tU , •,' ,
ie and a_ s of fegal owner ot premises ;;�
�a1MZd0oft OWn 1he bUildlig wh@r0 ih1
tf no flttadl tl18 foilOWUtg '�z.;,
°""�''�'�+-'"�'+ a copy of the lea.
,� , �{ Y s • , .;...
���`a cop�i of a'sketi
'�`{�'�r��%:�,�,�'; ;A lease and skeldi
�
��: aveet naaress Lao noc use a post ottioe oox ��noerJ, ;�.F�� :.�
�SF9(�'L�rYy,7.rit�be.UF s ��'
If �q is tiowr�sh�p =s� "p organized .'p `unorganized ,: Q�uninoaparaled=
fap and Cowitr � 9��9 Prem;ses is bca�ed if a,tside � city imtts
�r.� ;; z s
f14YA . ' ;
�'i�*,� �1-'+: � * Y: : .Sia4@ ,:. ` �JQ CiOdB .; "'`; *�ti
���.}..�-. �. �a... �..{s /�t��� r ..:-i.,. - � .J 5 �1 �:�2�
°�=i iv � .
be aonduded? YES g� NO . ; ,'�r• �{
1 � ..�J� .;r .-.;":? � : . i c�� �.: �• '�d � �i'i
� M�h termc for ai lessf one y'ear """*" �"'�' ;-�" -;s'� �i
� L' ��
�ar+i�'drue�sions. show�n9 what porUon is bea�g leaaed. ��
Id �Of � � 8�Ofl5` >'r s +
t;
eNS..�4ra-.: . . F . . - .''.: ��=�.'�S,F. . .'.�., �,.�+�. . .:./1�'t- . --?.dt-.'�
Minnesota Laiafui Gambting
Premise Permit Application - Part 2 of 2
< : _ < _.
>
Gamblin Bank Account I ' orn�a�con . > . > ::; . . :. > ' : . .
Bank Name Bank Accou�t Number
,► t.,._ ,. ,� ��- �,. ti� an ;,� u p��� ti� J ��,�, �� y i�
t3
P��.
0
, �
�� �r.
��KyMg �
............. - -
Gambling Site Authorization •I am the chief executive off'wer of the organization;
I hereby consent that local law enforcement officers, the •I assume full �esponsibility for the fair and lawful ope�a-
board or ageMs of the board, o� the commissioner of tion of all activities to be conduded; �
reve�ue o� public safery, or ageMs of the oomm'�ssa�ers, .� W��� farriiliarize'myself�with the laws of Minnesoia '�' �
may enter the premises to enforce the law. governing lawiul gamb{ing and rules o� the board and t� `
Bank Records Informatioa ;.. agree. 'rf licensed. to abide byi those laws and iules; ' '�; �
The board is,authorized to insped the bank records of the including amendme�ts to them; � ;.
�gambting aocourrt whenevar necessary'to f�itiiN •''�' �_ •any changes iri'application informafion will be submitted .,�,:
requirements of cuRent gambling tules and law. to the board and local unit of �vemment wiihin'�10 days` .
Oath ;: �� • ' , '�: of the change; and . ., : � , . :1, _ 1 : ;
;,,. . :: • � _- • ,
, ._ _ . .
I dedare that: : _. . __. .I understand that failure to p�ovide required information ::
•1 have read ihis application and all information submrtted_ >;, or providing false or misleading informatio� may result in ;;
_ .
to the board is true. aocurate and oomplete; ., the denial or revor,atan of the 1'�cense. -`-
-all ather required information has been fully disdosed; .
Signature f ief ex iv off'�cer Date �- -
�� �, �� __
l i �� `7�� 2.u--� ���Yi�` . _ _
4. A co�v of the loca� unrt of govemment's resolution ao-
L The city 'must sign this application if the gambling prem-„ ��vina this ofll'�cation must be attached to tfiis a��1'�cat�on -
ises is bcated within aty limits. , z�,�.; , ' S. If this appl'ication is danied by the bcal unR`of govemmen�
2. The county "AND township" must sgn this apphcatio� rf � should not be submitted to the Gambl�ng ConVol Board.- :
the gamblirg premises:�s localed wittiin.,a 1ovJnshiP rT_'.. � `: � .°.�'ti . .�'_: .. : _ , _ � �..`..� a j.4 �:,� �. � c� . ' + • z � , :.,s :. � _.
3. :.The bcal unit government (ciry or oounty) must a ' ` '
� �`Towtiship By sgnature bebw. the township adcnowledges
resolution specifically approving or denying this app6cation .
.;,; ,, . -� that the organizafio� is applying for a premises permit witfiin ., ;.
� township I�miis. .,
��
,;.
Cit ' or ; Coun " . ,,. ; ..-,` Townshi t. . , :.�:�. _ . . ,,�,
.. �..�.�t i 7it1� {__ 61 S� .i.. �a� :3_ 1fi.��t,� f�
. ..� . . �
City or Counry N'ame . ` , •; Township Natn� - .
.�,
, �,,�.�
. -
Signawre of Qerson reoeiving appGca6on ,�,. ,� , . , , .. - �. , . r , ;, . ` � ,Signawre of person reoeivui9 aPP�icati� _ .
. . . � . . . � .. . . .s ye ` , S �'' ... �: ,«,,,r�+, . . . . . . .
: , . . . . . ,. ,
� ., . , . :': .
� T�Se `� '� < � r�, ' y , Date �yAQ�ved �, ��; . �Tisfe ; � �'"�',y� �, �, ���� '' �, w s0ate Aece�ved x{� � } k��
. aq•-•:'�ii'�.r.��rts��'j� ��,-,�`� {'{t��,��+�i'.`"i�"At"�'� -��',f�. ;'!���'R^+.��� ';j.. _ 'v, , 3�`7W�',e4*+„R+O� �.� ;-: e.++:{y+�r`�-e .�d'�A^r ��:.t 4�, .
�� ", '�' -��� �A a , ax�l , t . � , �F � .:.t�",.�a A.?
I — .. . _ . . . <?3a. vT «.�.�iai �� .-,. . .. _ -.. . �n..,_ _ . ,.
� � :-�� ���� ��
Re(er io the instrudio�s for requ�red `
I ya,.....-K r.A�a� ••ve�ww'?!>-��°*�r,c e .«We�. �.'wy=�v�.
� e(11�f� t0 • raY111��t1Q C.Of1tf0� BOifd a�'���f,, "� `E �.
.�f F, Rosewood Plaza South; �d Fbor
> ., � ' ,»> w. co�c� ao.a e ��,� � '" �
ROSevi11Q� 1�1N 5511$'0.�' �'��bti�'��, a. � `
. 35* ' .�+t3�.t,;,,y,.
I �,
y
�
�
��
g;.>:'�.�►�a�r, ':i �
SRrv7�2YN1
1 j � ��ti�
�, �,� � <',
r
4
� .
� � � � �� �
I r
+1 ', j f
1:"
`'� ,���� Y� fr '.
r� `'� �' ti P'�`'�j s� �
,� �, � s iY` 9 �,t� c ' )
9 � ; r
�
� _ ;. ,., ;, .. ., , , _ .. . ... .. ....... : . ... . . .. ....> . . ..,... . ,.,. .,. .... ... , :, ... . . .:. . . . ..... ., .
_ J ah �e.eS �e s7-LtuYatVlT __
i
_ _ - --___ _ _ �v � �Q _� eKfiraL F��nc�(%E_ _
_ - -- - -------
! FY�dI��./1�1N _-ssy32 _
� = - — - -- __ ------- . -- - _ -- __---------
� /� f %�/
� ____ Gcw-�a, � l: avk_b Ii V� -t' la�Y ��.t^ ._ SKeTG
_ _------_____ ._ __ _--____ _ h
i �-
- - - _____ _-- ------
- -- ------ ----- _ -----__ - - - ------- ,
_____ _ _ _ ----- - —__ _-- - - __ _ _
� �
! `
; -----------__------ --- --- --- ------- �
- -- - s -- -- ----- ---- -
d
s �
� __.____----------------- ---------- - __- ----------_ ___ ___----------
_
__- --- - _,�_S____---------�.,
�' , S
� - ------------------- -----. - ____.--------�-Lli-------- --- ------_------------
- -- tr_--v---_ -------
� a d
------ ------------- -------- --- - - ------- _ ---- -- ------ -_- - - - ------ ---- - ---- _ _- --- -- -
,_ . _ __ _--------- ----------- - ------- ��---- _ _____ __--- ------
� � 6
.
_ - ----- ----- --- ------- _..---- . _ �
� s �-
, __ _---- --- -- ---- �-�.v -- -� �----------- - - ----- --- - --- ----- _ _- ----- ----- -----
-- ----- -�- ------- --- ----- --.
�
- � - ------ - ------- ------
---------- ---- - -- --- - - --_. __ _ -
- ---
�.67'----- __ _ _----
/
� LICENSES
CfiY OF
FRIDLEY
June 12, 1995
Type of License: By: Approved By: Fees:
AUCTIONEER
Michael Servetus Kate Kemper David Sallman Exempt
Unitarian Society Public Safety Director
6565 Oakley Dr.
Fridley, MN 55432
CIGARETTE
Burlington No.(Hump Tower) Mn Viking Food Serv. " " �� $3�•��
80 44th Ave.N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
I
Burlington No. (Diesel) " " ° " " " $3�.�� �
8(1 44th Ave.N.E.
�ridley, MN 55432
Burlington No.(Main Off.) " " " " " " $3�.��
80 44th Ave.N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT -
Brownberry Outiet Store Doris Hanson $45.00
1051 E. Moore Lk.Dr.
Fridley, MN 55432
GAMBLING . <
!Sandee's Gary Braam David Sallman $30(1.00
649� Central Ave.N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Longhorn Grill & Bar M.A. Mishkee �� �� �� �3��•��
785(l University Ave.N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Golden Lions Geo. Morris " " " Exempt
b�58 7th St.N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
SOLICITOR
No.Central Hudson Club James R. Bielichi " '� �� �6�•��
2534 llth Ave. So.
Mpls. MN
10.01
�
�
Cf1Y OF
FRIDLEY
�
EXCAVATING
United Water & Sewer Co
11666 Wayzata Blvd
Minnetonka MN 55305-2009
LICENSES
James Spetz
GAS SERVICES
Associated Mechanical Contractors Inc
PO Box 237 •
Shakopee MN 55379-0237 Joseph Sand
Marsh Headng & AC Co Inc
6248 Lakeland Ave N
Brooklyn Park MN 55428
Rob Ferrian
C�EI�[ERAL CONTRACTOR-COMMERCIAL
Rayco Construction Inc .
3801 5 St NE
Columbia Heights MN 55421 Monika Ellis
Reiling Construction Co Inc
1337 St Clair Ave
St Paul MN 55105-2844
Westin� Construction Co
250 Prairie Center Dr
Eden Praiire MN 55344-7911
Thomas O'Mailey
Mark Westin
GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL
Archadeck of River Valley (20016435)
5608 O'Brien Ave N
Stillwater MN 55U82 Dennis Mencke
Berry Dave Construction Inc (9204)
14470 96 Ave N
Maple Grove MN 55369
David Berry
JOHN PALACIO
Chief Bidg Ofcl
JOHN PALACIO
Chief Bldg Ofcl
Same
JOHN PALACIO
Chief Bldg Ofcl
Same
Same
STATE OF MINN
Same
Decks Inc(7180)
11655 Ridgemount Ave W
Minnetonka MN 55305
Legvold Construction (3650)
374 E Belmont Ln
Maplewood MN 55117
Panelcraft of Minnesota (2179)
3118 Snelling Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55406
Sawhorse Inc (2382)
4740 42 Ave N
Robbinsdale MN SS432
Rocky DiGiacomo
Gary Legvold
Kevin Smith
Dave Dahl
Twintown Exteriors (5724)
9301 Bryant Ave S
Bloomington MN 55420 Jerry Hagard
Wellington Window & Door Co (EXEMPT)
3938 Meadowbrook Rd
St Louis Park MN 55426 John Simonsen
Greg Wills Exteriors (EXEMPT)
4246 Royce St NE
Columbia Heights MN 55421
HEATING
Associated Mechanical Contractors Inc
PO Box 237
Shakopee MN 55379-0237
LSV Metals Inc
6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Minneapolis MN 55430
Marsh Heating & AC Co Inc
6248 Lakeland Ave N
Brooklyn Park MN 55428
NewMech Companies Inc
1633 Eustis St
St Paul MN 55108-1288
Greg Wills
Joseph Sand
Ronald Vollrath
Rob Ferrian
R A Perason
y 0.04
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
JOHN PALACIO
Chief Bldg Ofcl
JOHN PALACIO
Chief Bldg Ofcl
JOHN PALACIO
Chief Bldg �Ofc�
Same
Same
Same
Preferred Mechanical
7643 Logan Ave S
Richfield MN 55423
Wenzel Heating & Air
1955 Shawnee Rd
Fagan Mi�i 55122
PLUMBING
A.R.E. Plumbing
b139 122 Ln
Ramsey MN 55303
Cokley Plumbing
1014WCoRdI
Shoreview MN 55126
Culligan Soft Water Service Co
6030 Culligan Way
Minnetonka Mn 55345
Gertman Mechanical LTD
9177 Davenport St NE
Blaine MN 55434
Kal's Plumbing
7101 W Palmer Lake Dr
Brooklyn Center MN 55429
Sutherlund Plbg & Htg Inc
8290 Main St
Fridley MN 55432-1872
Voson Plumbing Inc
1515 A 5 St S
Hopkins MN 55343
Walsh Plumbing Inc
9711 6 St NE
Blaine MN 55434
Wayne Johnson
Gregory Preusse
Michael Muske
James Cokley
John Packard
Robert Meier
Rick Kaliszewski
Howard Sutherlund
Steve Voss
Dave Walsh
10.05
Same
Same
STATE OF MINN
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same -
Same
Same
PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL
Innsbruck North Townhouse Association
c/o Bailey Enterprises Inc
484 Wabasha
St Paul MN 55102
WRECK'iNG
Kevitt Excavating Inc
3335 Pennsylvania Ave N
Crystal MN 55427
At: 5506 Meister Rd NE
Rick Habisch
10.06
JOHN PALACIO
Chief Bldg Ofcl
r
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
a =
Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
400 Northtown Financial Plaza
200 Coon Rapids Boulevard
Coon Rapids, MN 55435-5489
ESTIMATES
JUNE 12, 1995
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of May, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,806.89
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 April, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,464.66
Innovative lrrigation
10006 University Avenue N.W.
Coon Rapids, MN 55448
Corridor Maintenance Project No. 275
Estimate No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,400.49
11.01
Engineering
Sewer
Water
Parks
Streets
Maintena�ce
.�I I�;.�I���I'' .�� \ I��� �.�I
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager ��
l� �
FROM: ohn G. F1ora,tPublic Works Director
C� Clyde V. Moravet�, CATV Administrator
DATE: June 12, 1995
PW95-158
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing on the Proposed Transfer of CATV Operations
in Fridley
The public heaxing on the proposed transfer was opened on Apri124 and continued to May
15. The heaxing of May 15 was further continued to June 12. The second continuance was
to allow the CATV Rdvisory Commission time to consider the final report submitted by
Moss & Barnett and make recommendations.
Recommend the City Council close the public hearing and act on the transfer approval
resolution under separate cover. -
:cz
12.01
�r
,
• u •.
L.,. �
DE$CRIPTION OF REQIIE$T:
Representatives of Home Depot USA, Inc. have requested a change in
zoning from a combination of M-2, Heavy Industrial and C-2, General
Business, to C-3, General Shopping Center. An amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, Industrial designation, would be required to allow
this rezoning to occur.
svrn�RY oF issuES:
Home Depot, Inc. plans to construct a complex containing a total of
142,316 s.f. of retail space. The Home Depot Store will utilize 103,550
s.f. of that space. The proposed site plan for the facility also shows
an attached 27,972 s.f. Home Depot Garden Center. Attached to the north
wall of the Home Depot Store is a 26,600 s.f. separately owned retail
facility (owner unknown at this time). Home Depot has also Ynade
provisions for a 5,000 s.f. free-standing peripheral retail facility
along Main Street. The future of this peripheral retail use is also yet
to be determined.
To respond to this request, the City must weigh its interest in:
1. Amending the Comprehensive Plan to remove 14.5 acres from the
industrial inventory;
2. Rezoning this combination of 4.7 acres of C-2, General Business
and 9.8 acres of M-2, Heavy Industrial;
3. Extending the existing co�nercial node further west of University
�Avenue into what becomes a second tier of commercial activity
RECONII�4ENDED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends denial of ZOA #95-04. Rezoning to C-3, eliminates the
largest industrial site available in Fridley. It would create an island
of commercial activity in an established pattern of industrial uses.
The existing zoning pattern should be changed to industrial in its
entirety.
PLANNING CO1�iISSION RECO1�IIrIENDATION: The Planning Commission recomm�ended
approval of a rezoning with 15 stipulations (listed in analysis portion
of report).
13.01
�
H O M E D B P O T R E Z O N I N G R E Q II E 8 T
P R O J E C T D E T A I L 8
Comprehensive
Planninq Issues:
a:
Bite Planninq
Issues:
Parcel
History:
This rezoning from M-2, Industrial and C-2,
General Business will require a land use
amendment from Industrial to CoYarnerciai in the
Comprehensive Plan.
DEVEIAP'MENT SITE
In 1974 the Burlington Northern rail lines formed a
Land Development Corporation to aid in the
development of the rail lines property that lined
their Rail system. Burlington Northern had owned
the property since 1965. A Burlington
representative indicated {in 1974j that the property
had not been developed because Burlington had plans
for what they called the Northtown Yards. Their
exact plans for the Northtown Yards were not certain
and until specific plans were available, the Rail
Company did want to dispose of the property.
Burlington's development division did believe that a
Motel to handle their Northtown rail crews would be
an appropriate use of the land closest to I-694.
In 1976 the City reviewed a request by Burlington
Northern and Carl T. George, Georgetown Motel, to
rezone a 4.6 acre parcel adjacent to I-694. The
rezoning would remove the parcel from the City's
industrial land inventory and allow a C-2, C�_-eneral
business designation to acco�odate a motel and
restaurant.
In 1977 the rezoning request to allow the Georgetown
Motel/restaurant development was approved. Neither
tlie restaurant or the Georgetown Motel complex was
ever built. The land from that point was marketed
as a co�araercial/ industrial opportunity. The City
has received several inquiries for the 14.5 acres
for industrial development; to date, no formal
requests have been made.
EVALIIATION OF THE RBZONING CRITERIA
2
13.02
Compatibility of the Proposed IIse with the Proposed District
The proposed use of the site is a series of 3 retail entities
totalling 142,316 s.f. The speculative retail uses are consistent
with the language of the C-3 district.
Compatibility of the Proposed District with Adjacent IIses and Zoninq
The land use plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan has the subject
parcel designated as Industrial. Staff has prepared a Comprehensive
Plan amendment application that shall be completed by the developer
to initiate the minor plan amendment for review and approval to the
Metropolitan Council.
** STIPIILP,TION** A Comprehensive Plan AmenBment will be required
if this 14.5 acre parcel is to be rezoned. Al1
fees related to processinq the amen8ment will
be born by the petitioner.
The City must determine that rezoning the combination of 4.7 acres
of C-2, General Business and 9.8 acres of M-2, Heavy Industrial is
appropriate.
The use of the subject parcel, as it is currently zoned, would
allow a 4.7 acre conunercial use and a 9.8 acre industrial use.
Combined, this acreage does represent the largest remaining land
opportunity for an industrial developer. A rezoning would be
required on the 4.7 acre parcel, however rezoning the 4.7 acres to
Industrial is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff requested that a formal traffic study be prepared by the
petitioner to provide a better understanding of the traffic impacts
of this development. Part of staff's request asked for traffic
numbers that would result from the proposed development. For
comparative purposes, staff also asked for traffic numbers that
could be expected if the land developed as it is currently zoned.
That traffic study has been completed.
Based`on the impact analysis, there wzll be an iricrease in �raffic
utilizing 61st Avenue N.E. to Main Street. There will also be an
increase in traffic at certain periods of the day from University
Avenue on to 57th Avenue N.E. According to the traffic
consultants, this increase will not be sufficient enough to degrade
the level of service at that intersection. The analysis did reveal
existing problems at the intersection that are related to the
physical location of the University Avenue/57th Avenue N.E.
intersection in relationship to the exit from Highway 694 to
northbound University Avenue.
With current traffic conditions it is difficult for a individual to
exit Highway 694, northbound on University Avenue, and cross over
the necessary lanes of traffic to turn left onto 57th Avenue N.E.
3
13.03
A modest increase in the number of vehicle northbound trips on Main
Street from the development area south of Highway 694 is also
anticipated.
The Traffic Analysis also revealed a degradation of service level
at the intersection of Main Street and 57th Avenue N.E. The pre-
development level drops from an "A" (from east approach) to a"D/B"
(east;west approach)
** STIPIILATION ** The Petitioner shall be responsible for the
cost of the traffic improvements necessary to
accomodate tbe traffic qenerated by the
development includinq siqnalization or other
improvements as determined by Anoka County or
MnDot now or in the future.
The City must determine whether the extension of the University/57th
Avenue commercial node west of Main Street is appropriate. As an
entire Industrial parcel (assuming the rezoning of the 4.7 acre
parcel to Industrial), the potential traffic count would likely be
lower. This assumption is based on staff's use of the Barton
Aschman average daily trip generation nuaibers for a
manufacturing/office complex. Though the Barton Aschman figures
account for less than 10 acres of Industrial, staff multiplied the
potential building size by 3(109 x 3= 327,300) and detenained
that even at 3 times the average daily trips, a manufacturing/office
complex would produce 105 less daily trips.
ADJACENT SITES
WEST: Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial
SOUTH: Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial
EAST: Zoning: C-3, Gen. Shopping Ctr.
NORTH: Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial
Zoning: C-3, Gen. Shopping Ctr.
Zoning: S-2, Hyde Park
Use: Rail
lines and
Use: Vacant
Use: Developed
Use: Developed
Use: Developed
Use: Mixed
Comnliance of the Proposed IIse with the Proposed District
Requirements
Setbacks
This site plan has
Planning Commission
requirements.
Landscapinq
been modified since the April 19, 1995
meeting and now meets all setback
4
13.04
The landscape plan complies with the requirements of the C-2
District. The required number of trees appears to be
indicated on the plan; however, staff would prefer alternative
species other than Honey Locust.
** STIPIILATION ** The materials of the landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by staff prior to
installation.
Buildinq Materials
The architect had
alternatives :
Scenario A:
Scenario B:
originally provided three building material
The building would be finished in
FabCon� Standard Rake concrete panel.
The building would be finished in
FabCon° Uniform Groove concrete panel.
a
a
Scenario C: The building would be finished in a
FabCon� concrete panel poured with a form
liner that emulates a brick building
face. Scenario C is the preferred
alternative of City staff.
An updated series of elevation plans have been submitted.
These plans show that the developer has selected a variation
of Scenario C. This material selection is consistent with
staff's request to have the developer integrate brick into the
building face. Real, matching brick will be utilized in the
columns under the canopy on the storefront and in the colwans
on the garden center.
Staff understands that the panel that is selected will be
utilized on all exterior building surfaces that will be seen
from the public right-of-way.
The colors of the building are the corporate colors "for- Home
�epot and are a combination of tan and brown with an �orange
accent stripe, canopies and sign lettering. The metal
portions of the building will be factory finished. A colored
rendering has been attached for your review.
** STIPIILP,TION +�* The banding and color scheme shall be
consistent on all buildinq faces.
** STIPULATION ** Custonter information/directional siqnaqe and
stripinq will be required in accordance with
the 8ome Depot Site Plan dated April 27, 1995.
Siqnaqe
5
13.05
There are two sign related issues with this land use request.
Issue l: There are two billboard structures on this
�
** STIPIILATION **
property. The property owner recorded an
easement to allow the billboards to exist on
the proposed Home Depot site. An official
easement document was prepared and fi.led with
Anoka County. Unfortunately, the lease ternas
between the present land owner and the
billboard companies do not coincide with the
construction plans for Home Depot. The City
Council has historically asked that existing
billboards be removed at the time development
occurs on a site such as this.
All billboard siqns shall be removed within a
time frame to be determined by the City.
Issue 2: The second sign issue is related to Home
Depot's desire to have:
-- A sign with a dimension of 247 s.f.
intended to replace the (3) 80 s.f. free-
standing signs that code allows for the
three proposed (separately described)
retail entities.
-- A free-standing sign 69' high, as opposed
to the 25' high sign allowed by Code.
-- A larger building sign than Code allows
(445 s.f. versus 321 s.f.)
** STIPIILATION ** A request for three variances would be required
to be processed, and a decision of the Fridley
City Council rendered prior to fabrication and
installation of a siqn larger than 80 s.f.
Enqineerinq
Issues s. Drainaqe
The Engineering Department has reviewed the grading
and drainage plan to assure that the plan meets
the requirements of the City, Six Cities Watershed
District and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. The storm water will be ponded on
site and released into the MnDot storm water
system adjacent to I-694. Two detention ponds
will retain the water on site.
Additional information including calculations and
acceptable CFS measurements by MnDot have been
submitted.
G�
13.06
** STIPULATION ** The petitioner shall provide verification of
approval of the storm water manaqement plan
from The Minnesota Department of
Transportation and the Six Cities Watershed
District.
The engineers have also indicated that further
-- information will be required related to run-off
(onto the property to the west) and potential
spill-over from the northwest pond in a 100 year
storm event
** STIPOLATION ** Calculations must be provided and drainaqe
modifications must be completed on the plan
prior to the May 3, 1995, Planninq Commission
Meeting.
These calculations have been submitted and are
being reviewed by the Fridley Engineering Staff.
** ALTERNATIVE
STIPULATION ** A drainaqe easement must be acquired by the
petitioner to allow excess run-off to drain
on the property to the west.
The drainage plan that had been prepared for the
April 19, 1995 had indicated that much of the
site will drain south to a retention pond that
will be graded on the pond interior at a 2:1
slope. The remaining portion of the site will
drain to a pond in the northwest corner of the
site. The engineering staff has expressed concern
regarding the 2:1 interior pond slope, indicated
on this plan.
Staff indicated a concern about the severity of
the slope at 2:1. The petitioner then redesigned
the ponds so that slopes do not exceed 3:1. The
petitioner has submitted calculations to assure
that the resulting holding capacity and CFS
measurements are appropriate. These calculations
are now being reviewed by our engineering staff to
assure agreement.
** STIPIILATION ** Al1 pond slopes shall be desiqned with a
minimum 3:1 interior slope in accordance with
the gradinq and drainaqe plans dated April
27, 1995.
** STIPIILATION ** Pond capacity calculations shall be provided
prior to the May 3, 1995, Planninq Commission
Meetinq. (These have been submitted as
requssted)
7
13.07
�
Jane K. Pemble, Anoka County Traffic Engineer,
submitted comments related to her review of the
Home Depot Site Plan. Ms. Pemble indicated that
she does not believe that additional right-of-way
will be required to allow future improvement to
Main 5treet. Ms. Pemble did indicate that the
County would prefer to see two access points, not
three as proposed. The northernmost access drive
should line up with the intersection of 57th
Street. The second drive should be placed 420-560
feet south of the 57th Street access drive.
The developer has indicated a concern about the
southernmost access drive as recommended by the
County. The concern relates to the circulation
for semi-tractor/trailers as they deliver materials
to the site. An access further north will create
a mix of customer and semi traffic that Home
Depot hoped to avoid by placing the southern drive
as far south as possible.
Subsequent to the April 19, 1995 Planning
Conmtission Meeting a new site plan was submitted
reconfiguring and moving the southern access drav�
north. The third access point has been eliminated
to comply with County requirements. A note has
been made on the plan indicating that a third
access drive would require County approval prior
to installation.
The northernmost access point has been designed
with an alternative that would align the 57th
Avenue N.E. access with 57th Ave. N.E. This
alignment has been indicated to be contingent on
negotiations with the property owner to the north
of the Home Site.
** STIPULATION ** The petitioner shall comply with all _
requirements of the Anoka County Enqineerinq
Department.
** STIPIILATION ** A semi-traffic circulation plan shall be
indicated on the site plan with the modified
acaess loaation as required by the Anoka
County Traffic Engineerinq Department.
** STIPIILATION ** The large co�ercial vehicle circulation route
shall be clearly marked throuqh the use of
informational signs once the site develops.
stipulations and Recommendation
8
13.08
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission first answer the
policy questions related to expanding the University/57th Avenue
commercial node further west. If deemed incompatible staff
recommends denial of the request to rezone the parcel.
If deemed compatible (by the Planning Commission), staff
recommended that a recommendation of approval, of rezoning request
ZOA #95-04, include the following stipulations:
1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required if this 14.5
acre parcel is to be rezoned. All fees related to processing
the amendment will be born by the petitioner.
2. The materials of the landscape plan shall be reviewed and
approved by staff prior to installation.
3. The banding and color scheme shali be consistent on a11
building faces.
4. Customer information/directional signage and striping will be
required in accordance with the Home Depot Site Plan dated
April 27, 1995.
5. All billboard signs shall be removed within a time frame to
be determined by the City.
6. A request for three variances would be required to be
processed, and a decision of the Fridley City Council
rendered prior to fabrication and installation of a sign
larger than 8o s.f.
7. The petitioner shall provide verification of approval of the
storm water management pZan from The Minnesota Department of
Transportation and the Six Cities Watershed District.
8. Calculations must be provided and drainage modifications must
be completed on the plan prior to the May 3, 1995, Planning
Commission Meeting. _
9. A drainage easement must be acquired by the petitioner to
allow excess run-off to drain on the property to the west.
10. All pond slopes shall be designed with a minimum 3:1
interior slope in accordance with the grading and drainage
plans dated April 27, 1995.
11. Pond capacity calculations shall be provided prior to the
May 3, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting. (These have been
submitted as requested)
12. The petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the
Anoka County Engineering Department.
G7
13.09
13. A semi-traffic circulation plan shall be indicated on the
site plan with the modified access iocation as required by
the Anoka County Traffic Engineering Department.
14. The large coaanercial vehicle circulation route shall be
clearly marked through the use of informational signs once
the site develops.
15. 'The Petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of� the
traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic
generated by the development including signalization of other
improvements as determined by Anoka County or MnDot now or
in the future.
PLANNING CONIISISSION RECObII�lENDATION:
The Planning Coa�nission reconarnended approval of rezoning request
ZOA 95-04 with the recorarnended 15 stipulations.
STAFF RECOI�II�NDB AN �!►MEND�MENT TO STIPQLATION �6:
6. A petition for all required sign variances shall be
processed and a decision of the City Council rendered prior
to installation of any signs for the develapment.
10
13.10
�
� �....,.,. . _. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ �
D A T A 8 H E E T
Petition For: Rezoning from a combination of M-2, Heavy
IndustriaZ and C-2, General Business, to C-3,
General Shopping Center.
Locatian
of Property: West of the intersection of Main Street and 57th
Avenue.
Leqal Description
of Property: Tract A, Registered Land Survey #130, generally
located north of I-694 and East of East River
Road (West of Main Street, fronting on Main).
size:
Topoqraphy:
Existinq
veqetation:
Existing
Zoning/
Platting:
Availability
of Municipal
IItilities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Public
Hearinq
Comments:
14.5 acres
Gradually sloped upward toward I-694. The parcel
sits slightly lower than the surrounding roadways.
Small trees, field grasses.
M-2, Heavy Industrial, Registered Land Survey #130.
Available
3 access points have been planned from Main
Street.
A 15' bikeway/walkway easement exists along
Minutes attached
11
13.11
:�,'L�
;��+.i
�] ►1 I ► [h ►�i I!\ :
�-�
_�.�•
•
•►��-���
► :: ,�.:��-
t��: ��:
�:. � � ::
`; ..:
,+i;;%p.;
t.
� I'll
,� ��
I
i
�
.
9
7
7
�W
/
<� i �
� �.
' = i
s. : a
i '� � -
�/•� �'. �_ Y °,
� ����
� .. f �
� � ..
b, ,
i �
= f
� o \i
4`a� � ::
s � �=
��� � �u
�
� r�
I� ?
i!
p� i�
.
a j � -�f
�;; �
Yr �
*_�p
9 � �
'':
�
� y
�p�
v
N
a
�
• p�
3 iC � i15 5 g �SS '95 :iL S
� �� a��g �'zc ��6- j"- �'�' o C C y"' �- o�
�Saa��° �Ei' �� � i a� �� �+ S� ��
� ���
S {�w3:� 4�F3 e� - - e �
� ��p ��
Q Ra� � s s s�� . _ e e ; C
��� °e ' !
� �;6 iQ9 �i ; s s' a : n Y�
�9 +9 r
t �Rt "p - -
I�� ! S S S�� 3 � °� �� a� �
C_
- - - - � � � � � x
� : � i
e fi e t
�
=
13.15
ZOA 4�95-04
Home Depot
.�
,� .6
��,`! T i
� i I ;
, r � _ � � �
� �� , ��� - ��u �, �s
� . �� � . ����,�
� � ; ,���
i ��i�l tii � ��3
I
x
Y s�, �'e�
� �� '� 1� ''' a
a �
� 7W �
� yy �
5,�,� �',
/'
\
�
�
�
�
d�
�t �
!
s
��� �
�
r�
��{ �
P �� �
y��
�
�a +�
*tlS pp�
P � y
�.s
� � �
�
�!
�
ZOA ��95-04
Home Depot
�
�_ �� d
o �
&ma
E�^� •
���
� : A�
a�,8
� g�
i�
�=
:
� �
�g
H
8
�
1
13.16
�
�d �
�� s�
• Y
��� �
�
r�
��� �
�•�'I
���I
�
t5 +�
r�j �
p � B
B � <
y � '
�
_
:�
.. �_
: '_ y
, ��
��
.. �.,
� ;
r
:: 7��:
�
v�� "
g mq e=
.
c�11� �
°6�
s —1
__ • A �
��y� ^ �! C� i
��o� � �� ��8 �
��� § �� �
e �
k
� ;.r
�-' � ig �9
�� � � ia
� � �
9s � �: �
� �- -
ZOA ��95-04
Home Depot
�
��� ' I
:` j �
i I �
, � �� 13.17 I
i,
;
�
��
i
i
�Rl°� ,.
, ...
�.
,� :
, � .
���
� °
�� � ::
�- �
�i; �
�
�=
a°� �
.•�
�'�
i �
i
rj �
P
�tl= �
. �
1'
���
�
s Rl
� �f
� �
`3 _
..��
�S �,��� �j 1
I
� ��o�� �?= -" a
� L��t!
� y! i:
E e ?���� ° :
�� i i
� �� �
` �� �s�6� i
` ��� � �
f
i �� ,
�
�
13.18
ZOA ��95-04
Home Depot
�� 1� �� � �� (N� �:o�� �cg
� �� � l' : "� � ti ��� �� o�l� t����;�-
�asy� � � a
a�
,r
� �,��
�.
. � �'�� � g ��°�� � i ���;i
2� ��E � i"�� t���A�i����;li
,� � �
--.__ j�
;8
-,—.
r_ RO'
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
To: Scott Hickok, Planning Assistant
From� Leon Madsen, City Assessor
5ubject: Home Depot project tax and value estimates
Date: April 28, 1995
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Attached are my estimates of value and taaces, for the proposed project and alternative.
I have allocated land areas as 1 felt appropriate. Let me know if you, or anyone, needs
additional detail or whatever.
13.19
H�ME DEPOT PR�JJECT
COMPARISQN OF ALTERNATIVES
z:
HOME DEP�T PROPOSAL
Retait 4similar to Sam's C{ub}
@ 11f3,716 SF on 484,OOOSF site
Reaail ( similar to Slumbertand}
@ 26,�d SF on 106,OOOSF site
Fast Food �sim. to McDonalds}
� 5,0006F on 40,OWSF site
Tota{s
INDUSTPo�4L COMPARISC3N
{Sim. to Sheet Metal Conn.}
on 630,0005F site
Est. EMV Est. Tax
$4,648,80a $270,142
$1,328,100 $75, 747
�.,:. -��
��. �. ��
142 20Q
13.20
$26,357
72 246
.,. . . , :
BARTOn[-ASCHi"1�<4F.' _ ... -.__ , ,. „_.: �; ,,�a:;rr:
� T;�� �. ,. v_r �r ., „ .. : .. - _ ..��-� _ . Fa� (6t2) 332-ot60
�__,. ,. _ _-,_ • �., ___ _ - ����
,„.
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
3 =
DATE:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Todd Mosher, Greenberg Farrow
Greg Gaides �' J`��
Apri128, 1995
Technical Memorandum for Phase 2 Home Depot �affic Study:
�affic Impact Study
Home Depot USA, Inc. proposes to develop a site located in Fridley, Minnesota. The site is
approximately 14.5 acres and is surrounded by 57th Avenue NE to the north, Main Street to
the east, I-694 to the south, and Burlington Northern Railroad to the west. The proposed
site development would include a 103,550 square foot Home Depot store alongside an
unspecified retail development consisting of 26,600 square feet. A 5,000 square foot outlot is
also being proposed and could consist of a restaurant use. Access to the site would be
provided via two driveways along Main Street. One driveway would be located opposite 57th
Avenue NE and the other between 420 and 560 feet to the south.
Barton-Aschman was retained by Greenberg Farrow to complete a traffic impact study for
this proposal. The study takes a traditional approach toward the determination of the traf�'ic
unpact of the proposed development. Specifically, the study addresses:
• Analysis of existing traffic conditions.
• �-ip generation of the proposed development.
• Post-development forecasts of trafiic volumes on the surrounding street system.
• Intersection capacity analysis at key driveways and intersections surrounding the
=site. �
• Identification of traf�ic impacts and recommendations regarding improvements to the
local infrastructure surrounding the development.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There exists a number of roadways within the vicinity of the site. Figure 1 shows the
surrounding street system and the correspondi.ng average annual daily traffic volumes. The
site is about one-quarter of a mile west of the Interstate 694/University Avenue (State
Highway 57) interchange. University Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with left- and
right-turn lanes. Z�affic volumes on University Avenue range from 22,500 vehicles per day
(vpd) south of the interchange to 37,500 vpd immediately north of the interchange. The
other primary north-south street in the area is Main Street (County Road 102). It is a two-
lane roadway with parking lanes on both sides. Daily trafiic volumes range from 2,900 vpd
��
PARSONS 13.21 An Equal Opportunity Employe�
0
Q
0
�
J
Q
�
z '
m .
�:
�
�
v
�
<
r — — — — —
�
� SITE
I
I
�-------
I-694
118,000
�
�
NO SCALE
ZOA ��95-04
Home Depot
HOME DEPOT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
� Barton-Aschman Associates. inc.
■ 111 Third Ave. S.. Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN 55401
Parsons T�ansportation Group
13.22
SOURCE: MN/DOT
1992 AVERAGE ANNUAL
DAILY TRAFFIC
Figure 1
to 4,000 vpd. Fifty-Seventh Avenue NE is a four-lane roadway between Main Street and
University Avenue. The average annual daily traffic volume along this segment is 5,300 vpd.
1�u�ning movement volumes were collected in April 1994 at the following three intersections
near the site for the weekday P.M. peak hour of traffic, at the direction of the City of Fridley.
� = University Avenue and 57th Avenue NE
Main Street and 57th Avenue NE
Main Street and filst Avenue NE
The peak hour was determined to he from 4:30 to 5:30 P.M. �gure 2 shows the turning
movement volumes during the weekday P.M. peak hour.
A capacity analysis was performed for the P.M. peak hour at each of the three intersections
using standard Highway Capacity Manual methodology. The results of the analysis are
summarized in terms of a level of service, which is a measure of the average delay
experienced by motorists as they attempt to travel through an intersection. Level of service
is expressed in terms of a letter grade ranging from A through F. Level of Service A is
representative of very little delay while Level of Service F represents excessive delay. For
signalized intersections in urban areas, Level of Service D is generally considered to be
acceptable for peak hour operations. Level of Service E is usually acceptable for stop-
controlled intersections.
Table 1 summarizes the level of service analysis for each of the three intersections.
TABLE 1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY--EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR.
CONDITIONS
Intersection
University Avenue/57th Avenue NE
Main Street/57th Avenue NE
Main Streetl6lst Avenue NE
East approach
Level of Service
D
A1 -
A
Field observations of the three intersections were generally consistent with the above
analysis. However, the observed traffic patterns at University Avenue/57th Street NE did
pose some concerns. Specifically, traffic norihbound on University Avenue is frequently
backed-up to the Interstate 694 off ramp. Consequently, traffic merging onto University
Avenue from the off ramp that is destined �o make a left-turn onto 57th Avenue NE has a
difficult time making the necessary lane changes.
3
1�3.23
r------�
I I
� SITE i
� I
�------_._1
I-f �4
�
�
NO SCAIE
HOME DEPOT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
� Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
■ 111 Third Ave. S., Suite 350 Minneapolis. MN 55401
Partons T�a��portatlo� Group
13.24
ZOA 1�95-04
Home Depot
0
mo�
.-.-M
1j�.
210 -� �.- 40
90 —� f-- 8Q
395 � r" 105
�tr
�o�
�o�
��^
�
57TH AVENUE NE
53RD AVENUE NE
EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIgUC@ 2
, .. . . .... .,.
TR.IP GENERATION
The traffic generated by a development is a function of the development size, land use, and
time of day. It was determined by the City of �idley that the P.M. peak hour of traf�ic
should govern the analysis. 1�ip generation was determined using the most recent edition of
the ITE Trip Generation Manual. This manual is the standard source for trip generation
rates foP various development types. Table 2 summarizes the estunated trip generation of
the development.
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT1.2
Development
Home Depot
Retail
Restaurant
Subtotal
Shared �-ips
Pass-By �ips
NET TUTAL
ITE Code
812
815
Area (sfl I Trips
103,550 325
26,600 115
833 5,000 200
__ -- 640
__ -- (65)
__ -- (50)
__ -- 525
1Based on ITE Trip Generation Manual
'VJeekday P.M. peak hour of adjacent street tra�c
Tn
153
57
106
3 6
(
(25)
52 8
Out
172
58
94
—
�_
(32)
(25)
267
Certain reductions (e.g. shared trips and pass-by trips) were made to the "raw" trip
generation sub-total listed in Table 2. Shared trips account for shoppers who make a trip to
more than one development within the property. Shared trip rates are influenced by the
compatibility of the different developments on the site. A shared trip rate of 10 percent was
applied to the trip generation sub-totals shown in Table 2.
A furtl�r modification to the "raw" trip generation sub-total in Table 2 was made to reflect
pass-by trip behavior. This does not reduce the trip generation for the development. Rather,
it assumes that a proportion of the development traff`ic is already on the street system and is
diverted to the development. Pass-by trip percentages will typically vary by development
type. A pass-by trip rate of 25 percent was applied to the restaurant property. ITE studies
have indicaied that pass-by trip rates range from 25 to 56 percent for fast-food restaurants.
The pass-by trip rate used is appropriate given the relatively low traffic volumes on Main
Avenue.
As Table 2 indicates, 525 trips will be generated by the site during the weekday P.M. peak
hour. The distribution of those trips is expected to be roughly 50 percent in and 50 percent
oui.
�
13.25
TR,IP DISTR.IBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The new trips generated by the development were distributed to the surrounding street
network according to the trip distribution on Figure 3. The trip distribution was determined
using a market study provided by Home Depot for the proposed site. The market study was
useful in identifying the trade area for the proposed site. Socioeconomic data (number of
households) for every traffic analysis zone within the trade area was obtained from
Metrdpolitan Council and was subsequently aggregated into regions according to desirable
travel paths. Thus, each regian represented a grouping of traffic analysis zones havi.ng trips
(which were in direct proportion to the number of households) accessing the site from a
particular roadway (ultimately either Main Street or 57th Avenue NE. As Figure 3
indicates, it was determined that most of the trafiic would access the site from 57th Avenue
NE.
Figure 4 shows the total post-development traf�ic during the weekday P.M. peak hour. It
represents the sum of the existing traffic and new site traffic less pass-by trips.
SIGNAL WAftRAN� ANALYSIS
A signal warrant analysis based on Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MMUTCD) methodology was conducted for the intersection of Main Street and 57th Avenue
NE. The analysis was performed using existing traffic volumes and post-development
volumes for the average weekday P.M. peak hour.
The results of the analysis are shown on Figure 5. In order for this location to satisfy the
peak hour volume warrant criteria, the particular combination of traffic volumes entering
the intersection would have to fall above the lowest of the three curves shown (1 Lane and 1
Lane). As Figure 5 indicates, neither scenario warranted a traffic signal based upon peak
houx volumes. However, other MMUTCD warrant criteria may be satisfied. It is
recommended that the intersection be monitored periodically to determine if this is the case.
POST-DEVELOPMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
A level� of service analysis similar to that performed for the existing traiiic volume� was
again conducted for the post-development volumes. Table 3 summarizes the analysis and
also provides a comparison against the results for the existing volumes.
6
13.26
� �
0
Q
o- =
�
�
Q
�
z
m
�
�
�------
�
� SITE
I
I
I_ ._ _ — -
I-694
�
�
NO SCALE
ZOA �� 9 5-04
Home Depot
HOME DEPOT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
� Barton-Aschman Associates, lnc.
■ 111 Third Ave. S., Suite 350 Min�eopolis, MN 55401
Pa�sons T�ansportation Group
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
P.M. PE,,AK HOUR
Figure 3
�_
F--
N
Z
d
�
�--------�
I �
� SITE �
�
� I
�--------1
I-694
0
¢
0
�
J
Q -
� /
z f
m
�
NO SCALE
��
�l�
,S � � ;o
,o � �r- �,
���
001�
�N�
N�o
1��
9 .� � 6�
83 � �-- 113
42 � �' 105
�tr
WNN
a� a
�N
N�
i(i�
se �
�l
50 �
11
bn
�N
w
¢
�
�
w
>
z
�
ZOA 1�95-04
Home Depot
61ST AVENUE NE
0
W
N�M
1jt
258 � � 4
488 � ~ 105
"� Ir
�tr
�o�
��—
.,, .., ,..�,.JE NE
53RD AVENUE NE
HOlrIE DEPOT TRAFFlC IMPACT STUDY
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
P.M. PEAK HOUR
� Barton-Aschman Associates. inc.
■ t 11 Third Ave. S., Suite 350 Minneopolis, MN 55401 �j Ur
Pa�sons Transportation Group 9 e�
13w�V
60 �
�-�
� 50
_
��
w
'�`� o°c 40
��
�`
o u' 30
Z
�o
= 20
�
�
�
ZOA 4�95-04
Home DepoC
PEAK HOUR VOLl1ME WARFiANT
■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■
` • . • � • , . • ���■
� • ' • ' ����
■�,\ ���
��� `� ° ����
O►.. ►.�
����
�
`, ' ` ■■■■
��►_��.�
����
'''��`'���t���
����1�._�.` _
-�..�`-.�����
e�������...!�!..-�=��.
' �����
■����
����
.� :.. :,. .., ,. .,. .,� :,,
, . . . : . . . �
• NOTE� t50 VP4{ APPL�ES A3 TF� LOWER THRESFtOlO YOLUME FOR A MWOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MOFiE IANES ANO 100 YPH APPUES AS THE IOWEH
TNRESNOLD VOLUME FOR A A�YNOR STREET APPROACHWG WITH ONE LANE.
�E��o
� EX4ST4N� VOlUME3
� POST-DEVELOPMENT VOLt�AES
HOME DEPOT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FRIDIEY, MINNESOTA
�Barton-Aschman Associates. inc.
. 111 Third Ave. S.. Suile 350 Min�eapolis. MN 55401
Parsons Transportation Gro�
13.29
MMUTCD PEAK HOUR VOLUME
WARRANT CRITERIA
MAiN ST / 57TH AVE NE
Figure 5
TABLE 3
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Level of Service
Intersection
Existing Post-Development
Univ�r�ity Avenue/57th Avenue NE D D
Main StreetJ57th Avenue NE A1 D%B2
Main Street/61st Avenue NE A A
Main StreetlSouth Site Access Drivewa N/A B3
' East approach
' East approach/west approach
' Minor approach
N/A = Not applicable
As Table 3 indicates, the development does not change the levels of service at the
intersections analyzed, except at Main Streeb57th Avenue NE. The reason for the change in
level of service at �hat location is in part due to the change from a T-intersection to a four-
legged intersection. Level of Service D is generally acceptable for this type of intersection,
however. The analysis assumed that this intersection would have two-way stop control (e.g.
traffic on Main Street would not be required to stop). It should also be noted that the post-
development level of service analysis at the signalized intersection (University Avenue/57th
Avenue NE) was performed using signal timing parameters similar to those used for the
e�risiing conditions analysis. This minimizes disruption to traffic progression along
University Avenue.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are made concerning the traffic impacts of the development:
1. Despite the additional traffic that will be generated by the development, the
intersections that were studied will maintain their current levels of service: The only
intersection to experience a drop in level of service is at Main Street and 57th,Avenue
NE. However, this intersection will operate at Level of Service D which is generally
acceptable for this type of intersection. Also, the warrant analysis indicated that this
intersection does not warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour volumes.
2. No imgrovements are required at the intersection of University Avenue and 57th
Avenue NE as a result of the adtlitional traiiic generated by the site. However, certain
existing deficiencies (not related to proposed development) were identified. These
included: (1) traffic queues extending south along University Avenue from 53rd Avenue
NE to a point near the intersection with the Interstate 694 north ramps, and (2) an
undesirable weaving pattern for northbound motorists merging onto University Avenue
from the Interstate 694 ofi=ramp and destined to turn left onto 53rd Avenue NE.
3. As a result, the Home Depot development will not significantly impact negatively the
tra�c conditions at the locations studied.
10
� 3.30
PLANNING COMMIS$ION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 23
neighborhood. Rezoning the parcel to a commercial designation
would afford a wider variety of pernaitted uses on the site. �
Ms. MCPherson stated the last zoning criteria is complyin ith
the proposed uses of the proposed district requirements
Because there was not a specific proposal to evaluate, s.
McPherson could not comraent on compliance with the d' trict
requirements. However, unlike the M-1 district re irements,
rezoning this to parcel to C-2 would allow it to eet the minimum
lot area requirements of the C-2 district. Any future use would
be required to comply with the requirements o the C-2 district.
Ms. McPherson stated that the Assessing
that the petitioner sign a form to comb
one tax parcel. /
artment has requested
the three parcels into
Ms. McPherson stated that staff is ecommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of e request to the City Council
with one stipulation:
1. The petitioner will combine the parcels into one tax
parcel.
Mr. Dave Meyer stated he urrently owns the property and is
trying to sell it. At e present time it is unsaleable. He has
sold all of the other�parcels in the area and he feels this
parcei needs to be r,fezoned before it can be sold.
MOTION by Mr. Oqu'��t, seconded by Mr. Sielaff to close the public
hearing at 9:53 �m.
i
IIPON A VOICE��OTE, ALL VOTING AYR, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE POBLIC $�ARING CLOSED. __
MOTIONib- �Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba to recommend �
approval� of Rezoning Request, ZOA #95-03.
VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPERSON NEWMAN
D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
�his request will go before the City Co�ncil for consideration on
May 22, 1995.
3. PUBLYC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A PRELiMINARY PLAT
REQUEST P S #95-02 BY HOME DFPOT. USA, INC.
To replat Tract A, Registered Land Survey #130 into three
separate parcels, generally located narth of I-694 and east of
East River Road.
AND
13.31
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 24
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE ERMIT SP
�95-fl5, BY HOME DEPOT USA, INC:
3�
Per Section 205.14.1.C.(11j 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.
AND
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 Raad.
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, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC HEARZNG OPENED.
Mr. Hickok stated this is a request by Home Depot, Inc. to"r�zone
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 propertlr 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 large 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 faciiity to be constructed is C-3, General
Shopping Center.
Mr. Hickok stated the Comprehensive Plan issue is one that would
require an amendment, removing i4.5 acres from the Industrial
land inventory in Fridley and changinq it to Commercial. This
amendment would have to be a�rayed by the City Council and
13,32
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRZL 19, 1995 PAGE 25
formalized through the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. H�c�kok 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 extending 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 give 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 volwne 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. 47) turning to the left at-�7th
Avenu�`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 rezoning
related to some questions abaut traffic impacts. The rezoning of
this land also has the requests for the preliminary plat and
special use permit somewhat hinged.
13.33
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 26
Mr. Hickok provided information to the commissioners in regard to
the consideration of the preliminary plat request. He stated the
curreri� 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 totai 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 frontage 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 parking), necessity for
interior utility agreements (it would be the desire of the
Engineering staff to loop the utilities so that water does nat
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 develop).
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 agreements
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
1j the architectural detail should be consistent with the
primary structure;
2j no off-season storage in the garden center area of other
garden materials;
13.34
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 accommodat� 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. Rondrick 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 would be across the bridqe and
then to University Avenue. He was wondering how many cars they
expect to generate.
Mr. Sielaff asked about the issue of loading and unloadinq at the
front part of the building.
Mr. Hickok stated in discussions with the representative 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.
Hicko�<noted that there is a kneewall which is in front of that
overhead door, but stated the developer could provide furth�r
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. Tn 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 theater) 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
13.35
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 28
and also what kind of activity is anticipated through the
intersection at 57th Avenue and Main Street. In later
discus�ions as they analyzed this, they then thought about-the
cars coming southbound on University Avenue and usinq 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 things that staff would take a look 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 Home 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 Georqia and
operate 325 stores and last year's sales were $12.6 bil2ion. A
store of this type would employ between 175 and 200 people, 75�_
of the jobs would be full-time and right now the average hourly
wage in the midwest is $10.44/hour. Because they pride
themselves 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 loading dock on the front of
the building, they do not consider it themselves to be a loading
dock, but rather a customer pick-up door where the custamer can
pull up in front and pick up materials. They do not unload
trucks_�t 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 material by commercial vehicl�s.
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 sayinq that far 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 develops.
Mr. Oquist asked if an actual greenhouse will be located on the
site.
13.36
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 29
Mr. Platt stated yes, it will be completely enclosed by glass.
They sell a lot of very large office-type plants. It is an
actua�agreenhouse. _
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 volume 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 pe� day
inclu�iing UPS, RPS, etc. rv
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 pZanning 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.
13.37
PLANNING COMMZSSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 30
Mr. Hickok stated he did not foresee a problem as these roads
were designed for industrial users_
a :
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
cominq east on 694, he would probably chose to exit on Univers�ty
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 asl�ed if
these are time tables the Home Depot can live with.
3>
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 Iiome 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
13.38
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19 1995 PAGE 31
Metro Council in regard to the rezoning of the property.
Mr. Hickok stated the Metropolitan Council will analyze from a
sewerss�tandpoint and from a transportation standpoint and-they
will look at the City's Comprehensive Plan and whether there are
any deficiencies in the updates. All of these will be a part of
the equation as they evaluate minor amendments. He would
anticipate that this will be only a minor amendment and something
they should be able to move forward, however he cannot guarantee
this. Staff will start working with Metro Council on this issue
so that things can work simultaneously and will stress to Metro
Council the urgency of Home Depot's schedule.
Mr. Kondrick stated he also has been in a Home Depot store. He
feels they have a good reputation and would be an asset to our
community.
Ms. Modig stated she feels it looks like a good plan.
Mr. Sielaff 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
sometimes has difficulty, especially during peak hours.
Mr. Newman stated he does have a concern about the loss of a
large industrial site. They are a rare premium. The proposal
itself he 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 into the residential community.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Oquist to continue the Public
Hearings to May 3, 1995, and table action on PS #95-02, SP #95-
05, and ZOA #95-04. - _
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPERSON NBWMAN
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ,
C'�
MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1995.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. S a, to receive the
Parks & Recreation Commission minutes a , 1995.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, HAIRPERSON NEWMAN DSCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED DNANIMOUSI,Y.
7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES O HE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF MARCH 1995.
MOTION by Mr. Oqui , seconded by Mr. Kondrick to receive the
Housing and Rede opment Authority minutes of March 9, 1995.
13.39
JOINT PLANIJYNG COMMI83ION AND ENVIRONMENTAL QIIALITY
UPON A VOICE VOTE� AI,L VOTING AYE, VIGE-CHAIRPER80 RONDRICR
DECLA�tED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JOINT PLANNIN COMMISSION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL QIIALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETIN ADJOQRNED AT
8:26 P.M.
A
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the May 3,/1995,� Planning
Commission meeting to order at 8:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Dave Kondrick, i,ei2oy Oquist, Diane Savage,
Brad Sielaff, Dean aba
Dave Newman, Conni� Modig
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Pla ning Coordinator
Tim Platt, Iiome pot
Bill Hawkins, Ho e Depot
Todd Mosher, Gr nberg Farron
Greg Frank, McC mbs, Frank, Roos
Greg Gaides, Ba on-Aschman Associates, Inc.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 19 1995 PLANNI G COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded b Ms. Savage, to approve the
April 19, 1995, Planning Commissi n meeting minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL 90TiNG A
DECLAREfD THE MOTION CARRIED IINA
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by
April 26, 1995, Planning Commis
IIPON A VOICE VOTS, ALL VOTING
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED II
VICE-CBAIRPERSON RONDRICR-
II3LY. -�
. Sielaff, to approve the
n meeting minutes as written.
, VICE-CHAiRPERSON RONDRICR
MOQSLY.
2. TABLED 4/19/95: PUBLIC HEARING• CONSTDERATION OF A
REZONING RE UEST 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
Iocated north of I-694 and east of East River Road.
13.40
�
C
�,,
�.,..,;...,:, ,........ .::. :.:.:....... .- . . .
I
�JOINT PLANNING COMMI83ION AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALZTY
• --_---- -....,...t�... v�►v z _ 1995
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to remove from the
_----� _
table �fid to re-open the public hearing. -
QpON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THg PUBLIC HEARZNG OPEN AT 8:35
P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated ahTezoninstrequestefor114.5Tacresrlocated west
three requests is g
of Main Street just east of the Burling�he commissionahadlaneinn
north of I-694. At the April meeting,
depth discussion about the proposal, and staff had a number of
items they wanted to take at �e rezoning request�withla evening,
staff is prepared to presen
recommendation.
Mr. Hickok stated the request relates tHea °Olndustrial�fand 4.7
properties including 9.8 acres of M-2. asal is for a large
acres of C-2, General Business. The prop
retail complex containing 142,316 square uSe� usingt103,550Ce.
Of that, Home Depot would be the primary arden center using
l square feet and there would be an attached g
27,972 square feet; an attached retail space with 26,600 square
feet; and a detached peripheral retail facility with 5,00o square
feet.
Mr. Hickok stated there are issues related to this request.
First, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan t� ired e On the
acres from the industrial inventory would be requ
City Comprehensive Plan, the land use plan shows the industrial
designated land. West of Main Street, there is a large
indus�trial development area. The City does hav��tooneof1theeCity.
industrial development areas in the northern P ert that is
Across from this site, there is a commercial prop y
zoned C-3, General Shopping Center. North of 57th Avenue is
commercial praperty zoned C-2, General Business. The primary
roads in this area are I-694 and University Avenue to 57th which
would serve this site.
Mr. Hickok stated an amendment to the CoiPcationito beginithe
moving along. Staff has prepared an app
amendment to the plan. Staff will run that simultaneously so
that would be forwarded to the City Council and the Metropolitan
Council would be notified of the modifications. Much of the
modification is staff paperwork.
Mr. Hickok stated the property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy
��'���� Industrial, and C-2, General Business. There is C-3, General
Shopping Center, to the east and C-2, General Business, north of
13.41
JOINT PI.ANNZNG COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL QIIALITY (
& ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3 1995 PAGE 10
57th Avenue and east of the site. There is M-2, Heavy
Industr�ial, to the north, to the westi, and to the south.
Mr. Hickok stated one issue is that this rezoning would mean the
loss of the City's largest remaining industrial parcel. Looking
at this site, the 14.5 acres is not all industrial.at this time
but a combination of C-2 and M-2. The Comprehensive Plan is
designated entirely for industrial at this time. In terms o� -�;t��
Plan, if this were rezoned to an industrial use, an amendmen�t
would not be necessary. � � �
Mr. Hickok stated there were traffic concerns discussed at the
last meeting and these have been discussed with the Home Depot
traffic analysts. He is very pleased with their very complete
traffic analysis related to this project. The zoning as it
exists today with the combination of heavy industrial and
commercial would generate nearly an identical number amount of
traffic to this rezoned use at C-3. in the staff report, there
is information on what an industrial user might expect in average
daily trips and that is considerably lower. There are some
existing conditions. The northbound University lanes back up
occasionally at the 57th Avenue intersection under current
conditions. Cars exiting I-694 going northbound on University �
are forced to travel across a number of lanes to turn left on
57th. 57th Avenue has a service level of "D". The number of
cars that would be generated by the Home Depot would not take ,�t -
beyond the "D" service level. An impact that you might expect is
at the intersection of Main Street and 57th Avenue. This
intersection is currently in an "A" condition. With development
of this site, staff could expect degradation in movement at this
intersection to a "D" condition.
Mr. Hi�lCok stated they had asked for more information on where
the traffic would be coming from. They anticipate that 60% of
the traffic would be on 57th Avenue, 30g south of 57th along Main
Street; and 10°s using the area north of 57th on Main Street.
This would be the distribution during peak hours which is the
worse case scenario.
Mr. Kondrick asked if these numbers reflect what is happening now
or what is expected to happen after development.
Mr. Hickok stated this is based on the Home Depot impact to the
roadways after development.
Mr. Hickok stated one concern is exactly what are the numbers
that might use 61st Avenue to get to the site. There is some
impact. The study looked at pre and post development traffic �
counts. There is a difference of 170 tri s p �.
197 post-development making its way up Main Streeteto 61st.and
13.42
�
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
& ENERGY COMMIS3ION MEETING MAY 3 1995 PAGE 11
Travelling 61st to Main, this goes from 45 trips pre to 71 trips
post c#uring peak hours. The total and south different is-just
over one car per minute. There are increases at the
intersections but staff is looking at whether the roadways are
equipped to handle it. At the last meeting, someone had asked if
the Main.Street and 57th Avenue intersection was equipped to
handle the traffic that might be expected from this development.
According to Barton-Aschman, the level of service at University
and 57th would be "D" pre and post development; Main Street and
57th would be "A" pre and "D/B" post development; Main Street and
61st Avenue would remain "A" pre and post development. The
analysis gives a better feel for what this development will do in
terms of impact to the neighborhood. The degradation of Main
Street and 57th from an "A" to a"B" or "D" is of concern and is
tied to a stipulation on the development stating the petitioner
would be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements as
a result of this development.
Mr. Kondrick
intersection
County would
property.
asked if anything else was done to resolve the
question. At the meeting, it was stated that Anoka
like 57th Avenue aligned with the entrance to the
Mr. Hickok stated that intersection has been indicated on the
most recent site plan with an offset alignment with the potential
for a"T" intersection. These are tied to negotiations with the
property owner to the north. Staff wants the County's preference
carried through and wouid like the intersection aligned if
approved.
Mr. Hickok stated access to the site has been taken care of along
with the traffic issues and any unknown impacts. _
Mr. Hickok stated the City has its most discretion in the case of
a rezoning. With that, staff analyzed the land use pattern;
looked at the City's interest in industrial development; and
looked at the 1993 amendment to the code which allowed an M-3,
outdoor intensive heavy industrial district. The purpose of that
was to preserve the remaining industrial land available in the
community. Because of the island of commercial that would be
created, it would bump commercial use beyond Main Street to the
west, and it breaks an established pattern of M-2 with a possible
controlled intersection created, staff recommends denial of the
rezoning request. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to
recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the following
stipulations:
� l. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment
��� acre parcel is to be rezoned.
processing the amendment will
will be required if this 14.5
All fees related to
be born by the petitioner.
13.43
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL UALITX (
& ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3 1995 P�G� 12 �
2. The materials of the landscape plan shall be re�r�c����;c'>_ �::r�c,
�pproved by staff prior to installation. -
3. The banding and color scheme shall be consistent on all
building faces.
4. Customer infonmation/directional signage and stri�a.�e„ ��rr�1.
be required in accordance with the Home Depot Sit� ���.�,��
dated April 27, 1995.
5. All billboard signs shall be removed within a time fram� tio
be determined by the City.
6. A request for three variances would be required to be
processed, and a decision of the Fridley City Counci�.
rendered prior to fabrication and installation of a sign
larger than 80 square feet.
7. The petitioner shall provide verification of approval of the
storm water management plan from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and the Six Cities Watershed District�
8. Calculations must be provided and drainage modificatic�a��
must be completed on the plan prior to the May 3, 19950
Planning Commission meeting.
9. A drainage easement must be acquired by the petitioner �te
allow excess run-off to drain on the property to the west.
10. Al1 pond slopes shall be designed with a minimum 3:1
interior slope in accordance with the grading and dra����F��.
plans dated April 27, 1995.
�:
11. Pond capacity calculations shail be provided prior to -i:.D�c�
May 3, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. (These hav�� ��,E;;��
submitted as requested.j
12. The petitioner shall comply with all requirements of th�
Anoka County Engineering Department. �
13. A semi-traffic circulation plan shall be indicated on ��gc±
site plan with the modified access iocation as required by
the Anoka County Traffic Engineering Department.
14. The large commercial vehicle circulation route shall be
elearly marked through the use of informational signs once
the site develops.
13.44
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DALITY
------- -.�..,.,,T.T.� rtnv 3 _ 1995 —
15. The petitioner shall be respons�b�le�CCO��ate�the traffic
t�r�ffic improvements necessary
generated by the development including signalization of
other improvements as determined by Anoka CountY °r M��T
now or in the future.
Ms. Savage asked if the itea was tabled at the last meeting in
order to do the traffic stu y
Mr. Hickok stated yes. StafStaffdneededealsitemplanntobaddress
traffic and the site plan
the County's concerns regt�aedfrontcl adingsarea for lumbernandou
the traffic movement to
asked for modifications taffehasTreviewed theasiteaplantrevisions
a front loading door. S
There is
and are pleased �ha �eyrWauld likehto seeeresolved,ebut for the
an access point er issue is
most part, they have made the improvements. The bigg
related to the layout.
Mr. Saba asked if the rezoning request was tied to the
( development.
Mr. Hickok stated that the rezoning goes with the land.
Mr. Sielaff stated the 57th�edr d velopmentnofrthetLakelPointe -
mess. H e w a s w o n d e r i n g l f enerate was i n c l u d e d a s p a r t
property and the traffic that would g
of the traff ic study.
Mr. Hickok stated that development will have some impact. It was
not �c�nsidered however as part of this report. �
Mr. SielaFf asked what the hours of operation would be.
Mr. Platt stated the hours are 6:30 a.m- ta 1�=a� p'2°'
� Mr. Sielaff wondered what the impact would be with Lake Pointe
. developed and with this area being developed. There may have to
be traffic improvements made.
Mr. Hickok stated there wi11 this�intersections s�consideredmant
occurs, and staff knows that
"D" level.
Mr. Sielaff thought that could be a big problem particularly
n3�;>
early in the morning.
Mr. Platt stated he would like to take this opportunity to tha
�`> �,
the staff. Mr. Hickok has done a qood job af presenting a broad
13.45
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENViRONMENTAL QUALITY
& ENERGY COMMI33ION MEETING MAY 3 1995 PAGE 14
overview of the project and thanked staff for their input on the
site p��ns. _
Mr. Platt stated this is the second meeting regarding the
appropriateness of rezoning this property. As staff inentioned,
there have made many revisions to the site plan-to.comply with�
the requests. So far, they have no problems with anything they
have been asked to do. They do ask the Planning Commission to
consider rezoning this property. They.are of the opinion that
rezoning will not adversely affect the existing ne'ighborhood nor
put much of an additional strain on the existing infrastructure.
He understands staff's concern regarding industrial property.
Mr. Platt stated Home Depot would employ approxi.mately 200
employees with 75g of those jobs being full-time. Regarding the
traffic situation and the corner of Main and 57th, they stand
ready to stand by the requirement to add signage or pay for any
improvements for that intersection. The staff report mentioned,
with the development of Home Depot, they basically would see
about 105 extra trips per day to the site as opposed to
developing it entirely as industrial or about 7 trips per hour.
Their peak hours are not at the same time as for industrial or
office users. The majority of their business is done of Friday
evenings or Saturdays. They don't have the same kind of traffic
in the area from the existing industrial. uses that they would
have at that time. He thought, based on the sti.pulations that
the staff has recommended, they stand ready to agree with all t�=f
those with the exception to stipulation #5 regarding the
billboards. That is out of there hands. The property owner has
recorded legal easements for the billboards. He thought that
issue was best left to be dealt with between staff and the
property owner in another setting. That is an issue they do�.not
have a3�� control over. _=
Mr. Platt stated, if the Commission recommends approval, they
look forward to breaking ground this year and would like to be
open during the summer of 1996_
MOTioN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public
hearing_
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLiC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:05
P.M.
Ms. Savage stated she was opposed to the request. There is a lot
of appeal to have a business ike this with more jobs and more
revenue generated. She agreed with staff that we have to
consider the long term goals of the City as opposed to the short
term. This is an area that shou be preserved for industrial
13.46
�
�
��?�
DESCRIPTION OF REQOEST:
Representatives of Home Depot USA, Inc. have requested a preliminary plat
review. The prvposal consists of a 14.5 acre site which would be
divided through this platting process into three lots. The lot 1, would
be owned by the anchor store (Home Depot) would consist of 10.6 acres.
Lot 2 would be sold to a future retailer and would consist of 2.7
acres. Lot 3 would also be sold to a future tenant and would contain
1.2 acres.
SUMMARY OF ISSIIES:
To respond to this request, the City must first amend the Comprehensive
Plan and rezone the 14.5 acre parcel. The current zoning on the parcel
is a mix of M-2, Heavy Industrial and C-2, General Comaaercial. A
rezoning request has been made by the petitioner. The requested zoning
is C-3, General Shopping Center. All lot sizes proposed in this plat
request exceed the mini.mum Code requirement of 35,000 s.f in the C-3
district.
There were originally five issues related to this plat request that
required further evaluation and attention to detail. These issues were:
1. Deficient lot frontaqe alonq Main Street (LOT 2)
The petitioner responded by increasing the lot dimension to
provide acceptable frontage {54'-0") for lot 2 along Mai.n Street.
2. Access drive locations and circulation (see Countp site access
�ccmments) -
The 57th Avenue alignment as identified by the County has been
noted on the revised site plan, but listed as an option pending
negotiations. All other County issues have been observed and the
necessary modifications made.
3. A need for cross-parkinq easements
4. A need for interior utility aqreements
5. A need for street and utility easements
The petitioner has responded that these easements will be
provided.
Anoka County has indicated that additional street right-of-way will not
be required as a result of this development.
RECOI�II�IENDED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends approval of plat request P.S. #95-02 with the following
5 stipulations:
1
14.01
STIPIILATIONS
1. Approval of PS #95-02 shall require prior approval of ZOA #95-04.
2. The petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Anoka County
Engineering Department.
3. The petitioner shall provide proof of cross-parking agreements between the
3 independent parcels at the time of transfer. These agreements shall
be recorded with the Anoka County Recorder's Office at the time the
final plat is filed.
4. The petitioner shall provide a utility agreement between the 3 parcels
identifying responsibility for repair, maintenance and replacement. These
agreements shall be recorded with the Anoka County Recorder's Office at
the time that the final plat is filed.
5. The petitioner shall provide a 15' bikeway/walkway easement adjacent to
Main Street prior to recording the final plat.
PLANNING CObII�IISSION RECOI�II�ENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the
5 recommended stipulations.
2
14.02
��........
; " '
I
+�~• co`�
.
�
.. .,
. .�,�r
� ��hMES��•
� j
COUNTY OF ANOKA
Departme»t of Hi�h,t•a}:e
1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVO NW, ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 612-754-3520
April 7, 199�
Greg Frank
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 - 23rd Avenue N
Plymouth, MN 55447
iZE: rreiiminary �ite rian
The Home Depot
Dear Mr. Frank:
We have reviewed the preliminary site plan for the Home Depot, to be located west of
CR No. 102 (Main Street) and south of CR No. 102 (57th Avenue NE) within the City
of Fridley, and I offer the following comments:
It is anticipated ihat existing right-of-way adjacent to CR No. 102 will be
acceptable for future reconstruction purposes, as the existing right-of-way and
future roadway section will likely be similar to the portion of CR No. 102 south of
I-694 which has been recently reconstructed. It is recommended that this site
have 2 access points to CR No. 102. The south most access point proposed on
the site plan is not acceptable, as noncorrectable intersection sight distance
deficiencies will exist at this location due to the geometrics of the CR No. 102
bridge over I-694. In order for the Main Street/57th Avenue intersection to
operate acceptably in conjunction with this proposed development, the `north most
access point proposed on the site plan must be relocated so that it li.nes up
directty ounosite of 57th A���n�e, ir�tea� of t�e s�:ew�d c�n.fi�:.*�ii�� sub��t±�d.
In addition, the middle access point proposed on the site plan will need to be
relocated further south of 57th Avenue in order to achieve adequate intersection
spacing for acceptable traffic flow. Given the sight distance deficiencies that exist
on Main Street near the I-694 bridge, the second access point for this site should
be located between 420-560 feet south of 57th Avenue.
Calculations must be submitted alona with a grading and erosion control plan
delineates the drainage areas. The post developed rate of discharge shall not
exceed the predeveloped rate of discharge for the 10 year frequency storm
utilizing the "Rationale Method" of design to determine the rate of discharge.
should be noted that the maximum radii for commercial driveways is 1� feet.
14.03
Aftirmative Action / Equai Opportunity Employer
that
It
Greg Frank
The Home Depot
Page 2
� E _
A permit for work within the county right-of-way is required and mast be
obtained prior to the commencement of any construction. Contact Roger �utler,
Tr�c Engineering ,Coordinator for this department, for further information
regarding the pemut process.
Permanent installation of any tr�c control devices (signs) within county ra�h�-cs�-
way will be completed by Anoka County. The city or the contractor shc��lci
contact me when work at this site has progressed so as to allow any such
permanent sign installations to be coordinated by this department.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment Feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
n
��
1
Jane K. Pemble
Traffic Engineer
xc: Roger Butler, Traffic Engineer Coordina.tor
JBarb Dacy, City of Fridley
�
tmk/homdepotjp
14.04
�..,, _.
1995
12. The petitioner shall comply with all
Anoka County Engineering Department.
�;
ts of the
13. A semi-traffic circulation plan shall e indicated on the
site plan with the modified access 1 ation as required by
the Anoka_County Traffic Engineerin Department.
14. The large commercial vehicle circ ation route shall be
clearly marked through the use of informational signs once
the site develops.
15. The petitioner shall be respons ble for the cost of the
traffic improvements necessary o accommodate the traffic _
generated by the development i cluding signali2ation of
other improvements as determin d by Anoka County or MnDOT
now or in the future.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MSRS. ROND CR, OQIIIST, SABA AND SIELAFF
VOTING AYE AND M8. SAVAGE VOTING N Y, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY MA,7 RITY VOTE.
3. TABLED 4J19�95: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PLAT
REQUEST, 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.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to remove from the
table and to re-open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAZRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT"9:23
P.M. � �
Mr. Hickok stated the request is to divide the property into
three parcels. Home Depot wouid own a majority of the site. A
future owner of the retail portion of the building would own the
northerly portion of the parcel. The freestanding retail would
have its own site as well. Al1 of the parcels meet the minimum
standards and with the buildings as proposed would be realistic
projects for the size they are proposing. Staff recommends
approval of the request with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
Approval of P.S. �95-02 shall require prior approval of ZOA
#95-04.
The petitioner shall comply with all the requirements of the
Anoka County Engineering Department.
14.05
l
�
,,::.
�
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL 4IIALITY
& ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3 1995 PAGE 19
3. The petitioner shall provide proof of cross-parking
agreements between the three independent parcels at the time
of transfer. These agreements shall be recorded with the
Anoka County Recorder's Office at the time the final plat is
filed.
4. The petitioner shall provide a utility agreement between the
three parcels identifying responsibility for repair,
maintenance and replacement. These agreements shall be
recorded with the Anoka County Recorder's Office at the time
that the final plat is filed.
5. The petitioner shall provide a 15 foot bikeway/walkway
easement adjacent to Main Street prior to recording the
final plat.
Ms. Savage asked how staff's recommendation to approve is
consistent with the recommendation to deny the rezoning.
Mr. Hickok stated, in order to move this request on, staff had to
take this request independently. Also, the first stipulation
t states the rezoning must be approved or it cannot go any further.
Staff now has to move beyond the rezoning and can now consider
the plat.
Mr. Saba asked if the traffic study took into account the other
businesses at the site.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. The petitioner did the study based on the
worse case scenario.
Ms. S�vage asked if there was a bikeway/walkway along Main
Street. `
Mr. Hickok stated currently no. There is a pattern of asking for
the easement as development occurs along Main Street. The City
has almost a complete easement in place for the development of a
path.
Mr. Platt stated the petitioner has no problems with the
stipulations.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICIC
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 9528
P.M.
14.06
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
& ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3, 1995 PAGE 20
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval
of a��at Request, P.S. �95-02, by Home Depot USA, Inc., tq
F
replat Tract A, Registered Land Survey #130 into three separate
parcels, generally located north of I-694 and east of East River
Road, with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
Approval of P.S. �95-02 shall require prior approval of ZOA
#95-04.
The petitioner shall comply with all the requirements of the
Anoka County Engineering Department.
_ 3. The petitioner shall provide proof of cross-parking
agreements between the three independent parcels at the time
of transfer. These agreements shall be recorded with the
Anoka County Recorder's Office at the time the final plat is
filed.
4. The petitioner shall provide a utility agreement between the
three parcels identifying responsibility for repair,
maintenance and replacement. These agreements shall be
recorded with the Anoka County Recorder's Office at the time
that the final plat is filed.
5. The petitioner shail provide a 15 foot bikeway/walkway
easement adjacent to Main Street prior to recording the
final plat. �!
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AITH MSRS. RONDRICR, OQIIIST, SABA AND SIELAFF
VOTING AYE AND MS. SAVAGE VOTING NAY, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICiC
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE.
j
4.
0
Per Section 205.15.1.C.(1) of the
allow garden centers or nurseries �
display or storage of inerchandise,
205.15.1.C.(7) of the Fridley City
establishments of the "drive-in"
offering goods or services direct �
waiting in parked motor vehicles o.
to their vehicles to consume or s�
whiie on the premises, located o'
Survey #130, generally located n r
East River Road.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. �
table and to re-open the public heari
14.07
.�
"1' U A 1NC. '
ri ley City•Code, to
ch require outside
nd per Section
Code, to allow
pe, selling, serving, or
to customers either
to customers who return
the goods or services
ract A, Registered Land
h of I-694 and east of
f, to remove frora the
�
c
�'"�
,.
3 ��i- -
� I� '�
1 �I'I�i
i�'• '
��-' �
�,�
=r
.�,.,..�..�.,M..
�I: , N a•ovo^ [
� �"-•'•"•'-'
� . '-""'-'_._ a�.0
• "_-"r' --"".' •'-'
� '-'4�'---�
I - "
1 I
' I �
II �
i�l �°c�
R
�� �l�j �� °b�9
� i
I �
� -�`d ��
� '
'a N� n;
P . S . �� 95-02
Home Depot
�tQ
P,�
1 T
� �� �l J` � �
I , � �' �' � � "
;$
� � �
�r
�� � _ � ,
��S � �' � 3i
. �- il �i, lr� �
� � I ='1
:`
� �
�
�
�
� �� � �
,
i- �
7 � s
� '"'_'__"""'_____"""""""""""'
'""" _"""'_""""""'"""""'_""_'
-e , � """'_""_"""'"""""" '
i •
Y69.12
5�� j _ x Om0]'i�" C
i d
s �
�s' �'
mt i
p!�
s�
�
�
�
oy '
, �( d
$�p .
��� .
� �
�� • A�
� � � 14.08
��
��a�
���Q
iiq
;��
:r
��
i�
��
��
�
�
DESCRIPTION OF REQIIEST:
The City Council at its May 15, 1995 Meeting reviewed the following
variances requested by the petitioner:
1. Reduce the side yard building setback from 15 feet to 5 feet.
2. Reduce the parking setback from the public right-of-way from 20
feet to 0 feet.
3. Reduce the parking setback from any property line from five
to 0 feet. (variance eliminated by redesign of building)
4. Reduce the parking setback from the building from 5 feet
feet. (variance issue resolved by redesign of building)
5. Reduce the required canapy setback in the side yard from 3
to 0 feet.
If approved, the variances would have allowed reconstruction of
building from 29 x 46 to 39 x 46.
SUNII�IARY OF ISSIIE3:
feet
to 0
feet
the
As the petitioner is reconstructing the building, it is an appropriate
time to correct the existing non-conformities. A number of the
varianc�s- requested can easily be corrected to comply with `the code
requirements. The canopy variance request should be denied as the City
has not previously received variances of that nature.
REQIIEST IIPDATE:
As a result of City Council direction the petitioner revised the site
plan to indicate a new building of 29 x 66. In doing so the petitioner
has reduced the number of variances requested to:
1. Reduce the
2. Reduce the
feet to 8
3. Reduce the
to 0 feet.
side yard building setback from
parking setback from the public
feet.
required canopy setback in the
15.01
15 feet to 5 feet.
right-of-way from 20
side yard from 3 feet
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Staff has no recommendation re.garding variances 1 and 2; the City has granted
similar requests in the past. Staff recommends that the City Council
recominend denial of variance 3 as the City has not received similar requests
in the past.
If all or part of the request is approved, staff recommends the following
stipulatioris : -
1. The petitioner shall install B618 concrete curb and gutter along the
east and south property lines.
2. The existing hardsurface located between the building and the north
property line shall be removed and the area converted to green
space.
3. The parking lot shall be clearly striped to indicate all parking
areas measuring lo x 20.
4. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond of $5,000 to ensure
completion of the landscape areas and concrete curbing.
The following stipulation should be added:
5. A special use permit shall be requested and approved in compliance
with Section 205.14.O1.C.(7j.
APPEALS C70MMISSION ACTION:
The Appeals Co�nission took the following action on the variances requested:
1. Building Setback - Voted 3-1 to recoannend approval of the variance
to reduce the building setback from 15' to 5'.
2. Parking Setback, Public Right-Of-Way - Voted unani.mously - to
recommend approval of the variance ta reduce the parking setback
from 20' to 8'.
3. Parking Setback, any Property Line - the motion to recoYmnend
approval of the variance to reduce the parking setback. from 5' to
:0=' resulted in a tie vote.
4. Parking Setback, Building - The motion to recommend denial of the
variance to reduce the parking setback from 5' to 0' resulted in
a tie vote.
5. Canopy Setback - Voted unanimously to reconumend denial of the
variance to reduce the setback of a canopy from 3' to 0'.
The Commission voted unanimously to recou�nend approval of the stipulations
reco�nnended by staff.
15.0�2
�
7429 EAST RIVER Ri01AD
P R O J E C T D F T A I L 8
Petition For:
Location
of Property:
Leqal Description
of Property:
S3.Z@S
Topoqraphy:
Existinq
veqetation:
Existinq
Zoninq/Plattinq:
Availability
Of 1'�11II1C1P81
Utiiities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Enqineerinq
issues:
Site �ianninq
Issues:
Multiple variances to allow reconstruction of
an existing restaurant
7429 East River Road
Lot, Block 2, Hutchinson Addition
.83 acres
Flat
Sod, �ew, if any trees
C-1, Local Business, Lot 3, Block 2, Hutchinson
Addition
COrilleCt�
East River Road
N/A
N/A
DEVEIAPMENT SITE
Property Historv
The various building permits and variance requests occurring on the
subject parcel:
1953 - original building permit was issued for a dwelling
1958 - building periait was issued for an addition
1960 - building permit was issued for a garage
1966, 1968 - permits were issued for signs, including a
variance request for an off preYnise sign
1971 - canopy was installed
1974, 1980 - permits were issued for new signs
1975 - floors were repaired
1979 - roof was repaired
15.03
Variance Reauests
The petitioner is requesting five variances to allow reconstruction
of the existing building.
Side vard Building Setback
Sectior� 204.14.03.C.(2) requires a side yard setback of 15�feet.
The public purpose served by this requirement is to provide for
adequate open areas (green divider areas) around commercial
structures, maintain clear access for fire fighting and reduce the
possibility of fire.
The petitioner requests that the side yard setback be reduced from
15 feet to 5 feet. The petitioner intends to remove the existing
building to the foundation level. The buildinq would then be
reconstructed in its existing location to dimensions of 39 x 46,
roughly 10 feet wider than the existing structure. The existing
basement, however, would not be enlarged. As the petitioner is,
in essence, building a new building, it is an opportune time for
the property to be brought into conformance with the current code.
The petitioner can meet the setback requirement without adverse
impact to parking or circulation. The City has granted similar
variances in the past; therefore, staff has no reconnnendation
regarding this variance.
Parking Setback - Public Right-of-Way
Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(a) requires parking and hardsurface areas
to be 20 feet from the public right-of-way.
The public purpose served by this requirement is to limit visual
encroachment into neighboring sight lines, and to allow
aesthetically pleasing open area adjacent to public right-of-ways.
The petitioner is requesting that the hardsurface setback-tifzom the
public� right-of-way be reduced from 20 feet to 0 feet. Located
adjacent to the public right-of-way are two landscape islands
separating the subject parcel Erom East River Road. The subject
parcel shares a coxmnon driveway with the parcel to the south where
a floral shop is located. Staff has analyzed these parking islands,
and has determined that the northerly parking island can be widened
to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback requirement without adverse
i.mpact to driving or parking areas. A 30 foot driving isle would
be maintained between the northerly landscape island and the drive-
in canopy. This would increase the amount of green space located
on the property and would provide planti.ng areas for trees and
shrubs. If this parking area is required to be expanded, the
variance request then would be for the southerly landscaped island
which is 8 feet from the right-of-way at its closest point. The
variance to reduce the hardsurface setback from the public right-of-
4
15.04
way would then be reduced from 20 feet to 8 feet. The City has
granted similar variances in the past; therefore, staff has no
recommendation regarding this request.
Parkina Setback - Any Propertv Line
Section 204.14.05.D.(5).(b) requires parking and hardsurface areas
to b� =5 feet from the side and rear lot lines. -
The public purpose served by this requirement is to reduce visual
pollution in areas adjacent to lot lines and to separate parking
with landscaped areas.
The petitioner requests that the hardsurface setback be reduced from
5 feet to 0 feet from the side and rear lot lines. Along the
north property line, the hardsurface is shared with the Super
America gas station; however, the existing hardsurface between the
building and the north property line could be removed, and the area
converted to green space without adverse impact to parking or
circulation areas. The petitioner could also accommodate this
request along the east property li.ne with no adverse impact to
parking or driving areas. If denied, the petitioner should install
concrete curb and gutter along the hardsurface area to comply with
the code requirements. The City has granted similar variances in
the past; therefore, staff has no reconnnendation regarding this
variance.
Located along the south property li.ne is a storm water pond and
drainage area. The subject parcel, also shares a driveway with the
parcel to the south. The hardsurface setback requireanent is met
along the south property line; however, concrete curb and gutter
should be installed along the south edge of the hardsurface as well
to bring the property into compliance with the code requirements.
Parkinc,L Setback - BuildinQ
Sectipm 205.14.05.D.(5).(d) of the City Code requires a�5 foot
hardsurface setback from a main building. �
The public purpose served by this requirement is to protect the
building from unnecessary maintenance due to vehicles hitting the
building.
The petitioner requests that the hardsurface setback from the main
building be reduced from 5 feet to 0 feet. The petitioner,
however, can meet the setback requirement without adverse impact to
the parking or driving areas with the exception that the easterly
drive to the rear of the building would be reduced to one-way
driving. It would be less than the minimum 25 feet required for
a two-way driving aisle. The City has, in the past, granted
sixnilar variances; therefore, staff has no reconnnendation regarding
F�
15.05
the variance. Typically, when approved, the City requires concrete
or metal bollards to be installed adjacent to the building to
prevent vehicles from hitting the structure.
Canopy Setback
Section 205.04.06.A.(3) of City Code allows canopies, decks,
entra�c;es to buildings, etc. to encroach 10 feet into the_required
front or rear yard setback.
The public purpose served by this requirement is to liunit
encroachment of non-structural items into the required setback
areas.
The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to reduce the
setback of the drive-in canopy from 3 feet to 0 feet. The
petitioner has a license agreement with Super America allowing
encroachment of the canopy, as well as ingress and egress across
the property. The petitioner does not i.ntend to reconstruct or
relocate the canopy. Approval of the variance would penait a
structure of one property owner to encroach onto or over the
property of another. The Appeals Co�nission has the option of
denying this variance request and leaving the canopy in a non-
conforming state, thereby requiring any person reconstructing the
canopy in the future to relocate the canopy to a new location, or
apply for a variance to allow encroachment onto an adjacent
property. As the City has not received previous requests of this
nature, staff recobarnends that the Commission reconnnend denial of
this request to the City Council.
Recommendation
For the side yard setback and parking setback variance requests,
staff has no recommendation as the City has previously granted
similar variances. Staff, however, recommends that the Appeals
Commission reconmaend denial of the canopy variance request_to the
City Cpuncil. If the Co�ission chooses to recommend apprdval of
all ar part of the variances requested, staff reconm�ends the
following stipulations as condition of approval:
1. The petitioner shall install B618 concrete curb
gutter along the east and south property lines.
2. The existing hardsurface located between the building
the north property line shall be removed and the
converted to green space.
3. The parking lot shall be clearly
parking areas xaeasuring l0 x 20.
4. Metal or concrete bollards shall
east side of the building if the
is granted.
6
15.06
and
and
area
striped to indicate all
be installed along the
parking setback variance
5. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond of $5,000
to ensure completion of the landscape areas and concrete
curbing.
ADJACENT SITES
WEST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family
�'amily
SOUTH: Zoning: C-1, Local Business
Retail, Flower Shop
EAST: Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial
Tenant Industrial
NORTH: Zoning: C-2, General Business
Retail, Gas Station
Comprehensive
Planninq issues: N/A
Public Heariaq To be gathered
Comments:
��
7
15.07
Lar�d Use: Si.rx�le
Land Use:
Land Use: Multi
Land Use:
(7 ��l
� ( � ��,a
u 4�
�S �
i) � �� i°s�a) �
P�
ap
�o � � �
�n) (:�) t=�l
a
�
�
(�) ��� ��� {H) Q'v�
Talmad�e Lane _
(u? lu�
�8 t�l
� �u)
� � ]Z
?�4 � u
�u
� ��
� , � ���
���
a�
l 67 )
/ � '
�
�7�� a�
�
�
�
�
�
r�
�
7.i65 "
i:;� )
r�
t��)
VAR �k95-09
William Wi1es
t�)
l�)
�so
ts=i
t��l � I
�
N
�� _
� r
1�) t�) �u� �?�0�
7� �
Glen Creek Road `' '
;
r � . _
cu�
; �s n4 . _, � __y� .
i. ,'�a) �µl i�) .,t;N) _ , _._._
. � �
�. , � � ,
F � _ �. ._ M._ :s.
. - ,
, . �_ _
. ,
•. � ..:, . .
`� : .
_...... .. . .... _ _ .. ....__ _ . .
r�:�.
.�, , =, • _._ __. _ , _ . = _ _ .
� _ , •- ,
5
� w ;47 ' � �7�5�
_
` ) - T9pp -
+� k' ��.��.: ----
�ix:ne �,. � . .. � � , , . � � .
� .. . . -'-- _' _ ' . . ..
�� . . ' .,. , . ..«+�r.+.r �. ..... ..-.. ...,_. ..r. ..._.. . .:_... ..._. ....
..� .
._. � _ 73rd Avenue � .
- �a� t�=I i411 .
.,
The. aPPC�cant requests nwnerous (5) variances to the zor�ng +
' � ' reqt�rements to a�'t�:�tstiv�t�or���� . . _ _ _ � _
, , _
_...
_,
.�- _�-� - x � � 1�v��.�,� �,� � _ ,.,�
- . � :�`� - �� ��os� : .. _ M�OCATI�N MAP�, -
.
.,�
_ . _.. . �,.
_ � _ ��:,
`
�
� �
j�J W
' �/ ti
�r�
Z
� wl
J
Q
- _r_ U
N
�
W
�""l
�
�
�
W
• •
�
�
r"'1
�
W
�
�
�
�
�
W
�
A
�
�
O
�
U
2
Q
CJ
O
O
t-
O �
ap W
O
O N
�D '
S
U
L
O _ -
V _
W
O -�
N v
N
O
f
�
�
U
�
W
�
7
N
Q
Z
4
z
O
W
a
Q
�
(�
Z
�
Q
W
m
Z
O
H
Q
>
w
W
F-
O
�
x
O
�
�
W
V
L
Q
�
0
Q
W
a
�
N
Q
W
�
5
-� 0 N
W
U
Z
Q
�
�
�
W
h
H
Q
J
[1_
�
a
J
a
= 6�
� N
O1
Q
t- � �
� �
Q O >
� _ .
p u� (�
r N L
Q --
�� -
Z z N
d � n
p o �n
rU m
Y '�
� o
Q -
� �
1- j
U
Z �
W J
m w
�
•a
za
Or
F- f--
_Q}
r�sa
C> h- 3
Q =
f- (7
Z a -
O W S
N U
Z X �
- lsJ F-
S Z
U •�
1-QO�
� f-- V cV
:L O '
N Q �
W Y �
�•�LO
Z •LZ�
OU-Q J
F-. . � Z a
aN �-
Y- S r
� Y F- t- Q
UUZ- i
u�0�3 '
W J O LL
o�nUOO
w
J r7 Q F-- �""'
Q Y 1- _
l� t- O Q (�
W O Z J -
JJQd�
�
W
J
�
Z
O
t-
Q Z
g3
� O
O =
L._ N
Z
O
r
Z �
W li1
� _
w U
N �
Qa
LyJ W
N
ow
Z �
w
H
O
Z
VAR �k95-09 a
Will}�m Wile�i
Q 7_ W (
joo�- 9 s
r�nara- }��
W -JU1
> >
� � � W -
� W W 2 i
tn �_ N F-
� Z •
(n U) WlL
tJ O '
=rv�
h-U-�n
w�3
F- cr Q
Q - Y J ` /
1-��W � \
>-O=
} � �- <
LL Q
-� �
H W � W
��Q�Q�
W Z Z h
U�-�O
N
>-o�--�w �
m W Q O Z
W�=YZ
KQF-W-
W d > �
2 W O �
�Z��
-aQ�nO
RA� �R�AD
N�RT N�RN
� V,
Y 1 NG 73cM� T� '�1; �
�i� g�R� 2Z� �0"E CHU•' Z3��.63 tPR��} '= `-' �
�o
.sio' � — . °;
� � E �Hp . BRN� . _ � . 2 � 9 • ���,�e4o� c — � - -`°°" ' r �
. �g • 16' c-^'- �,,,,.«a � \
I§� o � � �o �.�.� - �,
=w O Y N.q.P. �EN PpIV�L/ fElLC Tw .�. r+t. ai`WrL � �
'4� � � =�. �� r -�`� Y� �
�i' ao y��"
� � V� ' --�� � r� .. �
..�r o, �_--�`� 4 �
''DP � ��ecFiWT ___'+'o��� ^ tiq°'� I l�
��`"`� —/i fi� � � = ��, ° � z Q �� a r W� � �
J,l �v�,y« ��o.rr� O�R ��-. Z Z `�7� �� " (
� I ^ i ; �.. . .�: . Qo
9'i. --.»-rr sitErN.K °� � � k � Q Q Q ^ �i � }�
�\ -. ; - .5.6 �
51�r
1 \�t�� h� ry �ocR a�i�arF
, �\� S. a 23.5
1 { %�u.\\\4.Df> 19-5a � y
� � j� ra,• e.
� `� l Q, \ 4 � °s��t
.-� � � a'r��\�; f '�°•`�,L
cL o �\^���i. -
j �
\
\
�-� c� Q��� i
o� �� \� ��'
�
r y �� a.
,� •�� ro
O � ,� o� �„
..`, � � o �
�\'�\
, \ ` �a .
�� ��2
) ,
\ � �
� '� a rr W r�n` , �<
�/ � �;,,a � Q. R � a
\Y� � � � g f �1„ �
1.=` - g
\ti
C a.,,� �"°E" Y
�, t�
� `�.�
\ rf ° �•�`
/�� �
� /' En .
.I pp
a '/ �E�� ' ....r° 1'`ra
/
.� /
.�
� \ o \ r. i r
abM1 •
� i� � � � Tl� � / ' ? al
o�
,�� -
' -��.fi �>% Yl �
l�~ „
a�,o,' _: � �_.���. � ;
�O �\��/ -� ' -" •
�� s --�'O'-- ol /-
R:�\: �. z�
O N
Y- O
W - t0
> Nf�
� O V
�n ��m
NN W1l1a0
O • 1�
C]N .Z ...
Z U ZX
Q[r2 -�Q
JW-h- •LL
CLl •lAN
•�� H
2� 2 Z 2 O�
�-Z-OC��O
�: �- tn - f�
�LL1Ul�W6�
Y N > W S
Z�LL �
•w��am
J(JtnW-i�
tn 7tt1 •'
>--S �W
�J/-N�Z
Z ��OJO
Q Z � O O =
��YVUo-
✓ r '%r
� °s\� ra �r
` � o
q' � _ ���\'.0 � � p p�,ll f
a° , v %� ,'�'K OP . .
, T
'; � ,,�'eLP� `fo � ! „�E� p �" .
�-, , R 1 �E �, ���..�..
•Y, �t `� '^r° � P f E N '�� � " � R H � �p�NT �R�B
��r • . �� � NAY PLA1
C�: i . �.
�" ",�` " � � i , � a�' e; •.
o • E .' �5 .
^:^'G Q E�c�," i' � � s I � O
��
" .,.-% , � ,�45•
o ..;: '' �g' ° 34 +1� �Np .
l:"�''�� �6 , 5 R 38 3� ,�
cNO BR� .N�6 S• A• t, NO .
r�
C C •
/
R `v ER
� PS�
•�►►
� 5.09
,., .�
—.—�r, ,.,
r
r
N
T0: City of Fridley
Community Development Program
RE: Fridley A&W Variance Application Form
We would like to apply for a hardship variance for the following
reasoa�: �
1. We are a drive-in restaurant and we feel it is fincially
necessary that we keep all the drive-in spaces that we now have.
In the summertime 85% of our business comes from the outside
drive-in spaces.
2. $ecause of the unusual layout of our lot it would be im-
possible for us to keep�.the current drive-in spaces and still
comply with all the current requirements of the city codes if
we have to move the building.
3. We made an attempt to buy the 10 foot license area on the
north side of our lot fram Super America, but they declined
to sell stating it is their policy never to sell a portion of
a property. (It is all or nothing.)
4. Because of the large ponding and drainage easement the City
of Fridley has on our southeastern corner of the lot it leaves
little room for parking, legal driveways and drive-in space
if we have to move the building to conform to all codes.
Our requ.est is this: We would like to increase the size of
our building from the current 1170 square feet to 1778 square
feet. We would accomplish this by tearing down the existing
building. We would use the existing basement as it is (not
expand it). The west and south walls would be squared off
and 10 feet added to the east or back wall. By doing this
we would accomplish the following:
lz� Have a completely modern appearing facility.
2. Increase inside seating from 36 to 48.
3. Bring the rest room size up to current code.
4. Permit us to expand our kitchen area so a walk-in
freezer and refrigerator can be located on the main
floor.
In addition to the benefits we would realize I believe the City
of Fridley and especially our neighborhood would also benefit
aesthetically with a new building. I am enclosing a pictu�e�-
of a new A&W drive-in in Tomah, Wisconsin completed in 1994.
Ours would not be exactly like that, but it will be close.
` 15.10
� _..
We are starting our
period of time we ha
many friends in the
serving them from a
year around), but it
drive-in space at a
that and the unusual
necess�ary to ask for
i =
12th season at this location. Over that
ve developed a loyal following and made
community. We would like to continue
new modern building (which would be open
is absolutely essential that we keep our
minimum of at least 20 cars. Because of
configuration of our lot, we feel it is
the variances to achieve that goal. '
15.11
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1995
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Savage called the May 9, 1995, Ap als Commission
meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, La Kuechle, Ken Vos,
Cathy Smith
Members Absent: Carol Beau
Others Present: Scott H' kok, Planning Coordinator
Miche McPherson, Planning Assistant
A1 W len, 4571 North Road, Circle Pines
Ti Lindgren, 1915 - 34th Lane
an Bliss, 5212 Fillmore Street N.E.
en Murphy, 5925 University Avenue N.E.
Bill Bahl, Super America
Bob St. Jacque, Super America
Al & Kathy Roesler, 5955 - 3rd Street N.E.
Theodore Raines, 5221 Fillmore Street N.E.
MOTIO y Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the
Apri 25, 1995, Appeals Commission minutes as written.
' A VOICE VOT$, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SADAGB DECLARED
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE RE UEST,.VAR
:#95-09. BY WILLIAM H. AND NANCY L. WILES
Pursuant to the following sections of the Fridley City Code:
Section 205.14.03.C.(2) to reduce the side yard setback from
15 feet to 5 feet.
Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(a) to reduce the parking setback
from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 0 feet.
Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(b) to reduce the hardsurface
setback from any property line from 5 feet to 0 feet.
Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(d) to reduce the hardsurface
setback from the main building from 5 feet to 0 feet.
Section 205.14.06.A.(3) to perYait a canopy to encroach into
the adjacent property.
15.12
APPEALS COMMISSION MEBTING MAY 9 1995 PAGE 2
The above property, Lot 3, Block 2, C. D. Hutchinson
Addition, is generally located at 7429 East River Road,
Fridley, Minnesota.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOT13, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGB DECLARL'rD
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:02 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at 7429 East River
Road which is one parcel south of Osborne Road on East River Road
on the east side of the road. The property is zoned C-1, General
Business. There is C-2, General Business, zoning to the north;
C-1, Lacal Business, zoning to the south; M-2, Heavy Industrial,
to the east and R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to the west across
East River Road.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is actually requesting five
variances within this request, as follows:
1. Reduce the side yard building setback from 15 feet to 5
feet.
2. Reduce the parking setback from the public riqht-of-way from
20 feet to 0 feet.
3. Reduce the parking setback from any property line from 5
feet to 0 feet.
4. Reduce the parking setback from the building from 5 feet to
0 feet.
5. Reduce the require canopy setback in the side yard from 3
' feet to 0 feet. �`
Ms. McPherson stated the intent of the request is to allow the
petitioner to remove the existing building down to the existing
foundation and rebuild it with a 10-foot addition alonq the rear
of the structure and fill in the existing open area at the front
of the building creating a building that is 39 feet x 46 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated staff determined in analyzing the request
that, for the first four variance requests, the City had granted
similar requests in the past. Staff has made comments and
alternatives regarding the variances and how they could be
mitigated.
Ms. McPherson referred to the request to reduce the side yard
building setback from 15 feet to 5 feet. Since the petitioner is
removing the building to the foundation, it would be an opportune
15.13
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 3
time for the petitioner to relocate the building to meet the 15
foot setback required. Staff has determined that there is not an
adverse impact to circulation or parking as it is proposed if the
petitioner were to move the building. However, the City has
granted similar variances in the past. '
Ms. McPherson referred to the request to reduce the parking
setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 0 feet. _
This request can be mitigated by the petitioner for the northerly
landscape island. The subject parcel does share a common
driveway with the parcel to the south. Expanding that landscape
island to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback requirement would
adversely impact circulation between the two properties.
However, the landscape island to the north could be e�anded to
meet the 20 foot setback without adverse impact to parking or
circulation. If this were required, the variance request would
then read as 20 feet down to 8 feet.
Ms. McPherson referred to the request to reduce the parking
setback from any property line from 5 feet to 0 feet. There is
an opportunity for the petitioner to meet the setback requirement
along the east side of the property to the rear of the structure.
Along the south side, there is a drainage area which separates
the parking area from the south property line so, in essence, the
hardsurface setback is met along the south property line. Along
the north property line, the subject parcel shares hardsurface
with the adjacent property to the north, Super America. However,
the area between the building and the northerly lot line could be
converted to green space without adverse impact to the proposed
plans. The City has granted similar variances in the past for
this particular variance.
Ms. McPherson referred to the request to reduce the parking
setback from the building from 5 feet to 0 feet. The petitioner
could`meet the requirement without adverse impact to parking or
circulation with the exception that the drive aisle to the rear
of the building would need to be marked as one-way circulation
either into or out of the property as it would be reduced to less
than 25 feet. It would, however, meet the 18-foot one-way drive
aisle width that is required by code.
Ms. McPherson referred to the request to reduce the required
canopy setback in the side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet. The
canopy currently encroaches onto the Super American property to
the narth. The variance request is to reduce the setback to the
lot line. The petitioner has a license agreement with Super
America to the north to allow the canopy encroachment and to
allow ingress and egress across the Super America site to the
subject parcel. The City has not received a similar request of
this nature in the past. Therefore, staff is recommending that
the Appeals Commission recommend denial of this request to the
15.14
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9 1995 PAGE 4
City Council. This would require that, if the canopy is ever
reconstructed or repaired, the future property owner would be
required to come back before the City for another variance or to
relocate the canopy. ,
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends the Appeals Commission
recommend denial of the fifth variance request. Staff has no
recommendation regarding requests one through four. If the
Commission does recommend approval of all or part of the
variances, staff recommends the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall install B618 concrete curb and gutter
along the east and south property lines.
2. The existing hard surface located between the building and
the north property line shall be removed and the area
converted to green space.
3. The parking lot shall be clearly striped to indicate all
parking areas measuring 10 feet x 20 feet.
4. Metal or concrete bollards shall be installed along the east
side of the building if the parking setback is granted.
5. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond of $5,000 to
ensure completion of the landscape areas and concrete
curbing.
Mr. Kuechle asked how the lot came to be the way it currently is. �
Ms. McPherson stated the lot is a platted lot of record. Through
the platting process and due to the reconstruction and widening
of East River Road, there were a variety of actions taken by
other agencies which resulted in the lot being shaped as;it
currerttly is. She researched the building address file and,
unfortunately, there is not a clear indication as to the activity
on this parcel. There are permits issued for the canopy and the
building itself; however, there is not a clear record in the file
as to how things ended up as they have.
Ms. Smith asked if the canopy setback would be to take into
account the existing canopy.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. This is to address the
existing canopy.
Ms. Savage asked if the fifth stipulation talks about insuring
the completion of the landscaped areas.
Ms. McPherson stated they were not requiring additional
landscaping. They are recommending that a landscape island be
15.15
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 5
created.
Dr. Vos asked if the second stipulation was also a landscape
issue.
Ms. McPherson stated yes.
Dr. Vos asked if it was customary to have a performance bond.
Ms. McPherson stated they do reguire performance bonds typically
in an amount that is equal to 3� of the construction costs not to
exceed $60,000.
Ms. Smith asked, if they recommend approval with the stipulation,
are they changing the second request from 20 feet to 8 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated the Commission would need to indicate that
in the motion. The Commission can approve the request as it is
written or recommend it as staff has indicated to 8 feet.
Ms. Savage asked if staff had heard anything from Super America.
Ms. McPherson stated she had not received a call from Super
America. She did receive a call from a property owner two lots
to the south who was inquiring. They had no objections. She
also received an inquiry call from a resident to the west but
that person voiced no objection.
Mr. Hickok stated he talked to the petitioner shortly after they -
had talked to Super America. The petitioner indicated that Super
America was okay with them leaving things as they are but they
would not be interested in selling the property to correct the
problem. They are okay with the suggestion of green space on the
north side of the building but they did not want to entertain the
idea=df selling an additional piece of property to eliminate the
variance problems.
Ms. Savage asked the petitioner if he had additional comments.
Mr. Lindgren stated his parents own the property. They were out
of town and would be back the following day.
Ms. Savage stated it is her understanding that they are going to
rebuild the building and leave the canopy. Is the canopy being
used as part of the business? Will there be any improvement to
the canopy?
Mr. Lindgren stated they plan to rebuild the building and leave
the canopy. The canopy is used as part of the business. There
will be no improvements made to the canopy of which he is aware.
They are looking at keeping the building in the same location
15.16
APPEALS COMMISSION M$ETING, MAY 9. 1995 PAG$ 6
because of the basement that currently exists. They have looked
at moving the canopy but with the way the lot is laid out they
did not have the space for traffic flow and to keep the current
parking spaces. Because they are a drive in business and much of
their'business is outside, they want to keep the canopy.
Ms. Savage stated, as she looks at it, if you are building a new
building with an old canopy, it will not look that good.
Mr. Lindgren stated they could do some facelift with it but, if
they do that, they will lose perhaps four parking space. They
only have 20 spaces now. The problem is that most of their
business is outside.
Dr. Vos asked for Mr. Lindgren's reaction to the suggestion of
the green area or island on the west side.
Mr. Lindgren stated he did not foresee a problem as long as the
traffic into Super America is not affected. That is their main
driveway.
Dr. Vos asked how far that green space would go.
Ms. McPherson stated it would be the same length as what is
currently there, but it would go into the property approximately
20 feet.
Dr. Vos asked how far the proposed green space along the north
property line would extend.
Ms. McPherson stated this would just be next to the building
itself.
Mr. Kuechle stated he was sympathetic to the need for park�ng
spaces. He asked the petitioner if he knew how many they have on
the property.
Mr. Lindgren stated there are 20 spaces under the canopy. Along
the south side of the building, there are 5 spaces. Along the
drainage ditch is another 8 spaces. The canopy is used when they
are busy inside.
Mr. Kuechle asked how the parking would be affected by moving the
building 10 feet.
Mr. Lindgren stated he was not sure of the measurements needed
for the traffic flow. He thought there was enough space for
traffic flow. Because of the cost, they were trying to utilize
the current basement to make this feasible.
y5.17
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 7
Mr. Kuechle asked if the foundation is structurally in good
condition.
Mr. Lindgren stated they had not had a structural engineer look
at th� foundation but they have had some people look at it. The
general contractor does not see a problem with it. He apologized
for not being able to answer all the questions, but his parents
were out of town and unable to come.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYF� CHAIAPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the Commission had the option to table this
item. Without the principals here, it is difficult to make a
recommendation.
Dr. Vos stated, in this particular situation, the request would
go to the City Council anyway.
Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend denial of the request. His
logic is that he cannot see a hardship simply because they are
tearing down a building down and not move a building 10 feet and
the other 5 feet to get it in the right position. If the
petitioner can demonstrate that the parking spaces just don't
exist to make this a viable venture, then he could be pressed
otherwise. He does not see that right now. He can appreciate
the need to have the required number of parking spaces to make
the business go. That is important. He would like to see where
those parking spaces are going to be and, if there is a shortage,
then they should deal with that. He did not see a shortage and
did not see that trying to salvage a 40 year old basement :
warrar�ts these variances.
Ms. Smith stated she agreed on some of the requests. She would
be inclined to vote for approval of the canopy because that is an
existing condition. The alternative is to tear down and rebuild.
As long as Super America is not objecting, she would approve the
canopy setback. She can see the hardship to tear that down and
find a place for it.
Mr. Kuechle stated he understood that, if they recommend denial
the canopy setback, it can still stay.
Ms. Smith stated she thought approval would being this into
conformance.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is asking the Commission to leave the
canopy in non-conformance.
15.18
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1995 PAG$ 8
Ms. Savage asked for a motion for the variance request to reduce
the side yard building setback from 15 feet to 5 feet.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend approval
of Va�iance Request, VAR #95-09, by William H. and Nancy"L.
Wiles, to reduce the side yard building setback from 15 feet to 5
feet.
IIPON A VOICE VOTB, WITH M8. SAVAGE, DR. VOS, AND MS. SMITH VOTING
AYE AND MR. RUECHL$ VOTING NAY� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
Ms. Savage asked for a motion for the variance request to reduce
the parking setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to
0 feet.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend approval
of Variance Request, VAR #95-09, by William H. and Nancy L.
Wiles, to reduce the parking setback from the public right-of-way
from 20 feet to 8 feet.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGB DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. Savage asked for a motion for the variance request to reduce
the parking setback from any property line from 5 feet to 0 feet.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend approval
of Variance Request, VAR #95-09, by William H. and Nancy L.
Wiles, to reduce the parking setback from any property line from
5 feet to 0 feet.
QPON A VOICE VOTS, WITB DR. VOS AND M8. SAVAGE VOTING AYE AND MR.
RIIECHLE AND MS. SMITH VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI,ARED THE
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A MA.TORITY.
Ms. Savage asked for a motion for the variance request to reduce
the parking setback from the building from 5 feet to 0 feet.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend denial
of Variance Request, VAR #95-09, by William H. and Nancy L.
Wiles, to reduce the parking setback from the building from 5
feet to 0 feet.
UPON A VOICE oOTE, WITH MR. RIIECHLE AND M8. BMITH VOTING AYE AND
DR. VOS AND M8. SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGS DECLARED
THE MOTiON FAILED FOR LACR OF A MAJORiTY.
Ms. Savage asked for a motion for the variance request to reduce
the required canopy setback in the side yard from 3 feet to 0
feet.
15.19
APPEALB COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 9
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend denial
of Variance Request, VAR #95-09, by William H. and Nancy L.
Wiles, to reduce the required canopy setback in the side yard
from 3 feet to 0 feet.
� e �
IIPON A VOICE VOTS, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPER80N SA9AG8 DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. Savage asked for a motion regarding the stipulations as
recommended by staff.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend, if all or
part of Variance Request, VAR #95-09, is approved, that the
following stipulations apply:
1. The petitioner shall install B618 concrete curb and gutter
along the east and south property lines.
2. The existing hard surface located between the building and
the north property line shall be removed and the area
converted to green space.
3.
4.
The parking lot shall be clearly striped to indicate alI
parking areas measuring 10 feet x 20 feet.
Metal or concrete bollards shall be installed along the east
side of the building if the parking setback is granted.
5. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond of $S,OOU to -
ensure completion of the landscape areas and concrete
curbing.
IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
TIiE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOQSLY. •> -
_�
�_
Ms. McPherson stated this request would be considered by the City
Council on May 15.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE UEST VAR
#95-10, BY KENNETH E. MURPHY:
Pursuant to Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(aj the Fridley City
Code to reduce the parking setback fr any street right-of-
way from 20 feet to 10 feet to all the expansion of a
parking lot on Lots 18 through , Block 13, Hyde Park,
generally located at 5925 Uni rsity Avenue N.E., Fridley,
Minnesota.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, second by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public
hearing.
� 5.20
E�7
Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she did not feel that the it
fees would deter people from remodeling their homes. She f t that
there are other issues, and the City could make it easier for them
to remodel by providing inspections in the evening hou .
Ms. Dacy stated that the City is now working on
hours inspections on Monday through Thursday untj
Eoviding after
8:00 p.m.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that not only s there an increase
in the City's permit fee, but there is als a state surcharge.
Councilman Schneider stated that it see if the City is promoting
rehabilitation, every extra cost can e a discouragement to the
property owner.
Ms. Dacy stated that possibly t ere could be a program where the
City could waive or reduce fee , or another feature of the rehabi-
litation or housing assistan program may be to subsidize building
permit fees. She felt that ny policy Council may wish to consider
would be separate from t s ordinance. �
Councilman Schneide�asked when staff could evaluate such a
program.
Ms. Dacy stated t�%at possibly information could be given to Council
for the first m�ting in June.
Councilwoman olkcom stated that as she understands, it may be in
certain are s where Council wanted to encourage rehabilitation that
the fees w�uld be waived or reduced.
,;:
MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading and approve the
ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom.
Upon� a voice vote, Councilman Billings, Councilwoman Bolkcom,
Co cilwoman Jorgenson, and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion.
C, ncilman Schneider voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared
e motion carried by a 4 to 1 vote.
NEW BUSINESS:
11. VARIANCE REOUEST VAR '#95-09 BY WILLIAM H AND NANCY L
WILES , TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 5 FEET;
TO REDUCE THE PARKING SETBACK FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
FROM 20 FEET TO 0 FEET• TO REDUCE THE HARDSURFACE SETBACK FROM
ANY PROPERTY LINE FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET• TO REDUCE THE HARD-
SURFACE SETBACK FROM THE MAIN BUILDING FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET•
AND TO PERMIT A CANOPY TO ENCROACH INTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY
ALL IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 7429 EAST RIVER ROAD N E (WARD 3)�
Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for
multiple variances for the A& W property on East River Road, south
15.21
�
SPECIAL FRIDLEY CITY COQNCIL MEETING OF MAY 15 1995 PAGE 8
of Osborne Road. He stated that the variances are as follows: (1)
to reduce the side yard building setback from 15 feet to 5 feet;
(2j to reduce the parking setback from the public right-of-way from
20 feet to 0 feet; (3) to reduce the parking setback from any
property line from 5 feet to 0 feet; (4j to reduce the parking set-
back from the building from 5 feet to 0 feet; and (5) to reduce the
required canopy setback in the side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet.
He stated that the variances are-needed in order to allow•the re-
construction of the building from 29 feet by 46 feet to 39 by 46
feet.
Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission reviewed this request
and recommended approval of the side yard variance to reduce the
setback from 15 feet to 5 feet, and the variance to reduce the
parking setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 8
feet. He stated that the Appeals Commission's recommendation to
approve the variance to reduce the parking setback from any
property line from 5 feet to 0 feet resulted in a tie vote, and the
recommendation to deny the variance to reduce the parking setback
from the building from 5 feet to 0 feet resulted in a tie vote.
He stated that the Appeals Commission unanimously voted to deny the
variance for the canopy:
Mr. Hickok stated that if Council approves these variances, staff
is recommending six stipulations, which he outlined.
Councilwoman Bolkcom asked what variances would be necessary if the
present -foundation of the building was moved.
Mr. Hickok stated that, conceivably, three of the variances could
be eliminated if the existing foundation was removed. He stated
that if the canopy was moved it may be possible to eliminate the
side yard setback variance. He stated that, as he understands, it
would be quite costly to relocate the canopy. He stated that
moving the canopy would involve the call stations which are indi-
vidualiy wired extensive and electrical work would be necessary.
Mayor Nee stated that if a person wishes to go from the Super-
America station to A& W, they usually go around the back of the
buildings. He asked if this access would be closed.
Mr. Hickok stated that there is an existing 12 foot wide access,
and it is requested that this be a standard driving width.
Councilman Billings asked if it was in compliance with the code
when the canopy was constructed. He questioned how it ended up on
the adjacent property without any variance.
Mr. Hickok stated that�he honestly cannot answer that question, but
he is aware of an agreement between the two property owners that
has been in effect for some time. He stated that the code does not
allow for that encroachment of the canopy.
15.22
SPECIAL FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF MAY 15, 1995 PAGE 9
Mr. Wiles, the petitioner, stated that the SuperAmerica property
and A& W were under one ownership at one time. He stated that if
they move the canopy, it would be very expensive to get the wiring
changed.
Mr. Wiles stated that it would also be expensive to replace the
basement. He stated that they wanted the addition to the building
in order to move the refrigeration equipment from the basement.to
the first floor. �
Councilman Billings stated that this request includes two five foot
variances on the east side of the building where the ten foot addi-
tion would be constructed. He stated that if the east wall of the
building is left as is, both of the variances would not be needed.
He asked Mr. Wiles if it would be feasible to add the ten foot
addition to the south.
Mr. Wiles stated that this is a possibility, but he has not dis-
cussed it with his contractor. He stated that he would be willing
to review that alternative. �
MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table Variance Request, VAR
#95-09, to the June 12, 1995 meeting and direct staff to work with
the petitioner on another alternative for the addition. Seconded
by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.
12. VARIANCE REQUESTI VAR #95-10, BY KENNETH MURPHY OF FRIDLEY
ALANO SOCIETY TO REDUCE THE PARKING SETBACK FROM ANY STREET
N . E . ( WARD 1) :
Mr. Hickok, Planing Coordinator, stated that is is a request by
the Alano Society for a variance to const t additional parking
north of their existing parking lot alo University Avenue. He
stated that the variance would reduce e setback from the front
property line from the required 20 et to 8.2 feet.
Mr. Hickok stated that the Appe s Commission recommended approval
of the variance with six sti ations, which he outlined.
Councilman Biilings aske hat stipulations are requirements of the
code and would they in effect whether or not a variance is
needed?
Mr. Hickok stat that Stipulation 1 is a requirement of the code;
Stipulation 2 s essential because the surface area is changing;
Stipulation should have been done previousiy on the east end and
preventing rosion is specific to this site plan; Stipulation 4 was
specific o the site pZan; Stipu2ation 5 is a requirement of the
code new construction and with expansion of the parking lot,
15.23
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The petitioner, Kenneth Murphy, representing the Alano society, requests that the parking setback be
reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet (8.2 feet). If approved, the variance would allow constn.iction of a 22
space parking lot expansion. The City granted a similar variance to the property in 1989; however, the
petitioner did not ovvn the affected propecty at that time.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
The petitioner is not required by code to provide additional parking spaces. 'The existing Parking lot does
not correct the setback permitted by approval of a 1989 variance (8.2 vs. 9 feet). Stormwater runoff is .
a concern, and the screening fence will need to be extended.
CTTY COUNCIL DIl2ECTION:
At the May 15, 1995 City Council meeting, staff was directed to notify the property owners adjacent to
the subject parcel and the intersection of 60th Avenue regarding the possibility of a driveway exiting onto
60th Avenue. Fourteen owners were notified. Two called and stated they were opposed to a driveway
exiting onto 60th Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The City has previously granted similar requests; therefore, staff has no recommendation regarding the
request. If the City Council chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the
following stipulations:
1. The board on board screening fence shall be extended to the end of the parking lot expansion
by October 1, 1995.
2. The petitioner shall submit a revised drainage plan complying with all of the comments listed
in Jon Wilczek's memo dated May 3, 1995 by May 22, 1995. The drainage plan shall be
s.� �
3. The area between the east edge of the parldng lot and the easterly property line sha11 be backfilled and
seeded to provide an aestheacally pleasing edge, and prevent erosion and frost damage to the curb and
parking surface.
4
5
�
The parking lot driving aisles shall be extended to 25 feet.
The petitioner shall install a 3 foot hedge of Savin Juniper 3 feet on center within 3 years, by October
1, 1998.
The petitioner shall submit a perFormance bond in the amount of $3,000 to ensure proper installation
of drainage improvements, concrete curbing, landscaping and the screening fence.
APPEALS CONIlVIISSION ACT'ION:
The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request with the stipulations recommended
by staff.
Petition For:
Location
of Property:
Legal Description
of Property:
Size:
Topography:
Ezisting
Vegetation:
Ezisting
Zoning/Piatting;
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
5925 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
PROJECT DETAILS
Variance to reduce the parking setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 10
feet.
5925 University Avenue
Lots 18-30, Block 13, Hyde Park
Flat
Trees, LVeedy Grass
C-2, General Business, Platted as Six Lots
Connected
�
16.02
�
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Engineering
Issues:
Site Planning
Issues:
East University Avenue Service Road
Sidewalk Along Propeity
Drainage Issues
DEVELOPMENT SITE
Section 205.14.OS.D. (5).(a) of the City Code requires all parking and hardsurface areas to set back 20 feet from any
street right-of-way.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to limit visual encroachment into neighboring sitelines and to allow for
aesthetically pleasing open areas adjacent to the public right-of-ways.
The petitioner requests that the hardsurface setback from the public right-of-wa.y be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet
to allow a 22 car parking lot e�cpansion.
Parcel H'istorv
A building permit to construct the Alano Building was issued in July, 1989. In September, 1989, the City approved
a variance to reduce the parking setback from 20 feet to 9 feet to allow construction of additional parlang spaces:
The necessiry for additional parking spaces was not due to code requirements. The project, as constiucted, met the
parldng requiremerrts for the City. The petitior�er requested additional parking spaces based on the facility's anticipated
use and past e�erience at another location.
Request - = .
The petitioner requests a similar variance as a result of a need for additional parking for the facility. The petitioner
was required to submit a site suivey in conjunc�ion with the variance application. It was observed that the site survey
indicated the existing parking setback is at 8.2 feet, as opposed to the original 9 foot variance granted. If the
Commission approves the variance request, it should be to 8.2 feet, as opposed to the 10 feet requested. The
Commission ma.y also want to consider granting the variance for the portion of parking lot already in place.
The petitioner could mcet the setback requirement as the need for additional pazldng area is not due to code
requirements, but on the petitionet's need for additional parking hased on the facility's use. There are drainage
concerns that should be addressed by the petitioner if the parking is expanded. In 1989, drainage from the existing
parldng lot adversely affected neighboring properties to the east. The existing board on board scre�ing fence on the
east side of the parking lot should be expanded to provide screening for the adjacent residential properties. In
16.03
addition, the area east of the proposed expansion, as well as behind the existing parking lot on the east side shouid
be bacld'illed to provide a more aestethically pleasing edge.
As the parking lot is over 4 spaces, screening along the public right-of-way is required. A 3 foot hedge of Savin
Junipers shall be installed within 3 years.
The City has ganted similar requests in the past; therefore, staff has no recommendation regarding this request.
However, if the� Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff recamz�ends the foltowing
stipulations:
1
2.
The board on board screening fence shall be extended to the end of the parking lot expansion.
The petitioner shall comply with all of the comments listed in Jon Wilczek's memo dated Ma.y 3, 1995.
3. The area between the east edge of the pazking lot and the easterly property line shall be backfill� and
seeded to provide an aesthetically pleasing edge, and prevent erosion and frost damage to the curb and
parking surface.
4.
5
C'�
The parking lot driving aisles shall be extended to 25 feet.
The petitioner shall install a 3 foot hedge of Savin 7uniper 3 feet on center within 3 years, by October 1, 199
The petitioner shall submit a performance bond in the amount of $3,000 to ensure proper installation of
drainage improvements, concrete curbing, landscaping and the screening fence.
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION:
At the May 15, 1995 City Council meeting, staff was directed to notify the property owners adjacent to the subject
parcel and the ttrtetsection of 60th Avenue regarding the poss�bility of a driveway exiting onto 60th Avenue. Fourteen
owners were notified. Two called and stated they were opposed to a driveway exiting onto 60th Avenue.
V�EST:
SOUTH:
ADJACENT SITES
Zoning: S-1, Hyde Park
Zoning: C-2, General Business
Land Use: Residential
Land Use: Retail/Service
EAST: Zoning: R 2, Two Family Dwelling Land Use: Residential
NORTH: C-2, General Business
Comprehensive
Planning Issues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
N/A
To be gathered
4
16.04
Land Use: Retail
_
VAR ��95-10
` Ken 2'Iurphy
k
1
T��,
N - _ „:,
t�`,
6041
l��)
�
ja4)
t�0�
���
��,
�
c �oi ,
�
� ,os �
�u�)
i�l
(�l
w
�
�
�
a�
�
�
�
venue
som smo
cri� c��
� ��
��� ��°�
t�, � ;�,
�
� �4 ? 6030
I �� )
6aii
(ao)
8Q80
6�I � � �
t41)
6010
�4s�
i�)
(�) ���
rzi
z
�
a�
�
�
-^�
�
c�� c6i;°�
��� ,�,
��� ��,
��� �
� u,
603I
( » ? 6030
i�l
60?�
(�1 �
(�1
1 �) �
� 1 u � 8000
( n 1 6000
60th Avenue N.� �
E 5seo �
z � �s> > �s�o� �,s�i � t�) c�;;°! �
� � i
> � 58�8 t5u9'1�7� ( u� � � �
� (u�) t�l (�) ��� :
� ( m�) ��) ��� SA66 �64 '
�� ��� ��� �p� c� ;
.� � , �
� ` 5�60 ��I ��� � y95g' s°'..
��� � � (li) l�� �
; � ( u ) t j l .�,�d
t+�)
5�Z5 5949 59l8 ��� ��� �
( u� ) y9l6 ( n) ( � 1
t �+ l 5041 5940
;. 5941 5�l0 t+� ) i�- l
�- � _ ... `�p _ ,. _ � » ) . . _. t t 1 . .
; . j { . , .,
��,� : � _ � _ _ ��� �.__ (�) .
� � � � � ( � ' -
: .�,
. - `- ' , ,
,., - t
,
� 'it � . ' _.
,r� : ��� µ�
9A�'i �
- 9�1 : ;. �-'___ ( p j
_ _. --- t � �
< ._, .� ,:..
� ; - - 9�6—_ _ � - - _�.� � � � . : _ _ ( 1 ) _. . _ _ -
, The appiicant rec�ests that the cNstance from the edge of the parkimg to the property
- �ne be reduced from 29' -to 10'- , ,_ , _ ,_ _. _ . _.._
�.� �
,�`u
x�
f3<
I. . `
__ � , �,_�... : _�-� -#-A:�� �;�: .
� - �1 s:o5 . LO�ATI4N 11AAP-; .
�
������i►�i����i+
��������� �. � {
����l���� ��):
��^���r� 1`� �
����+�v�a�►..��, .
����������i.': ,
►ii�� ; �.
.�♦�� �.� \ .�
��►_� �
► �•�
►
.
►���
►��`
♦� I
}�� �
�at�a rr.•.� no� r.:.>�� �,�:�.� r7.lY � Ia �
RIR 6*.i� �iP i: /! � 7 i r QJG �. �.�
7.]I1S1 �:�!' �i�f/! %b�1 ':'�V .ZA s!. /1� �
�QS Gi�'Jf IlO� frF�l! 1� 7�' P�q
1')✓A Iff� K� i'� •- • Vli� �� �
';1 Y} YT� �.�fl E�1 �,'f�i 57�7�1
:-�� .� ; n�a rcr-,� i � r � v.� �� �
;►/�� ff.71 irtl< <1�/ ��� r��1
. r. r� c� � w � f e v s i:., r. ��•, Y� A I
�'':SI �i7�TJf Q'� �{i+� rc 11 {�rltil
i�f �1� iial/ �e'�A7 �'ct YtiAI �Q s,
I � ��'i�C7�l� IL��) �?)1 �j L�
�'�•� � ���a �
�aa�
rj� I j
��� '��
� �.� f
�� �%
��L ��1
�,.-���
'�I.T��
1,?.i.G
,�:r
���:�4?���',M�'������i{����
�
�
,
VAR ��95-]0
Ken Murphy
_ . .. ____.---
----------- - -- - ---
.. ___ --�-+��� v a� �- �-1 K.. 1� 1�"� �—� .. _.' ..r� .. reglsce�ed land Surveyor undrr the
�,, �� of che Stetr of Miunesota.
gc�zxo, cx�sT►rlw y�oT c��:cv��'�o�t _ :_.'. _ _..:_.._ � –
��.tz.�,] = Q Ro4b5e= ��� l'.l.L �J�lTIO� Outed — O- 5
O : qv�,-c�orca� �YA�s ���! ,
c
R�ndr L. Kur h, land Sur�cyoc
� Minnesaca Re�i�ccacion No. 20270 .
�� •a Z. . `.
�'�12. o _
. . CHG�N L��vK 1=Cs�Vt��: —`� - ---
�� �:c.owt. gVZ, a� �.�� �~ �,� �p. 3.ts 3.0 ' I
�3 � •� � "' � �v• ���r�.�►
� D �C N C,(= -- — _ - . , � F� N E
I! SV��''�v �+T4(�,� GJe.3 �
a �
�
ati 8.:� '
�a`�`�CL=��� �MA�N���w� 3�T. SWALC- � � ��agTC,)
:ND �-J�pJ � i �-��"�t�6yZSzI Gt-1APl�` i
�_, ____../ � t � I { INv• -$40.57� CA'�T1 hl Ca �
� � � � . � .t . �
. �
J � �` �
_ . _. -- - - � � �
t .,
N - --�- -; " 1
� }—
� --1--vr/
20 ` � Z � 22 Zo � �� � � ,
J ,,
� �
1 _.:.� � 1
N � . i� � � R�_
0 7 � �,�� 0
x � •
�
0a � 4� i ! - y� --
9 � (`� V � i i
Z 0�. _ _ . .
£ _ �"• �� T� -�
i
• a �a i� 1 � �_
r � a � �� � —
� _�.. � — � —,� �
a ;, � _
� il_ 1 � — s�c �r ► -►
� — �
i � �' , �� tJ - :
' L.� � � " � `
I �� �
. . i __� � I
I �'J
,
; �
; �--- -
j� / ,L,�"'`' i
� � , Safo• !
�y , .
-(•C: l.�a�� ��T . N�,-H-I�. c�K.6 9 , , ` �
�. � y ` �•� Ql /�8.2..
1.� �- — l � 't�i° F l
,``A'.�`�'(T`.1��'�f�� �.(`—e`>"C'���1 �f.�`�'� / . `�� � `'.
ei�� _ :
��ac..��o P, "
_ . ; . �.' . ��- . _ .
�r w� �i - '
�..�za ; _aaa�'' ` ...,` �`. �_, .. . .
i
�
�
��
� 1-
1s.o7 SITE PLAN
VAR ��95- 10
Ken Murphy
— 61st Avenue N�.
;
��� t +�� t�� t�� t�t
' soso
� � � ;;� c � aoa
' � (,N ) � `0 � c�1
6050
� �u ) ��� ( �a � t�� �
l
� u� � u l
6051
6061 l +s l ��� 6041
s�
i �nt) � t ) �
e
604t t )
, l r ( �oi ) � �� �
���� t�) 6030
' ' t 1�l �.i
(�) ���
� �p 6�1
� 1H � ( u� ) � �� _ t � � � Z u � �6��
(
� � 60it (�) � t�) b90Q
( tot ) � � �t ) � � 6000
��� 6000 � � � (�) � u � 6000
(��l � N �
�
60th Avenue NE.
�seo �
' z t t�t � t�s�o ) t�l � s' �
( ��is�) -
� � ��� t'�l � � .
� 5843 � � � ( +: )
� ( ts� )
5972
� � t�1 l�! � � � j� )
�.. ( ts� � �58��� t�
a� ;�g
� � _ .� �`�? ���. � „ �
� �Q ��3� �64y
(11t j
595f1 (�� (�)
( t:o ) t�� ���
� �4�0'� � l�l l�)
( u� ) � � �59�141� ��ii�)
� (t°) til
( a 1 �3 5982
(�al ����
; 5805 � (�) (�)
, t u!' � i4 � � �
� 5�5 5924 ( �+ ) � �� �
� 5946 5�Z4 (� 1 t�)
1
�
Residents who called to oppose a
� driveway onto 60th Avenue.
; _.. _
} ---
_ _ 16.08 �
I�
i
Engineer�ng
Sewer
Water
Parks
Slreets .
h1aintenancc
TO: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant PW95-118
FROM: Jon Wilczek, Assistant Public Works Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:
May 3, 1995
Alano's Plan to Create Additional Parking on Their Property
I have reviewed the site plan for the Alano area and have also visited. the site to review the
planned changes in the property and I have three comments:
1. Some type of system will have to be put together to allow for storage of
runoff on the property because of the increased runoff created by the
parking lot.
2. It is advisable to exchange the two castings shown on the catch basins, the
one being farthest to the north getting a beehive casting rather than a flat
casting and the casting to the south getting flat casting rather than the
existing beehive casting.
3. There should be some type of low area created around the catch`basin to
� fhe north. This could possibly suffice to create a detention area for the
storm water runoff..
As an additional comment, I would also like to note that the existing parking lot is not per
the original variance granted. The original variance allowed for the parking lot to come
within 10 feet of the property line. The existing parking now comes within 8.2 feet o# the
existing property line.
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.
JW:cz
16.09
;�
•n •.
• �. . �
APPEALB COMMI88ION MEETING, 88PTEMER 5, 1989 PAGE 7
where there are no other lternatives. He stated he is not opposed
to the side yard varian , but he is opposed to the front yard
variance.
MOTION-by Mr. Kuechle, seco�
Council approval of varian
Sachs, pursuant to Section 2
Code to reduce the required
feet, to allow the construc
Block 1, Parkview Oaks First
Lane N.E.
�d by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City
, VAR #89-19, by Orville and Jeanine
5.07.03.D.(2).(a) of the Fridley City
►ide yard setback from 10 feet to 9.1
►�on of a double car garage on Lot 8,
idition, the same being 1281 Hathaway
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING �YE, CHAIRPERSON HARNA DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED LJNANIMOQSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded b Ms. Savage, to recommend to City
council denial of variance, VAR #89-19, by Orville and Jeanine
Sachs:
1. Pursuant to Section 205. 7.03.D.(1) of the Fridley City
Code to reduce the requi ed front yard setback from 35
feet to 9.2 feet;
2. Pursuant to Section 205.0 .03.D.(2).(b) of the Fridley
City Code to reduce the re ired side yard setback for
an attached accessory use f om 5 feet to 1 foot;
To allow the construction of a double ar garage on Lot 8, Block
1, Parkview oaks First Addition, the sa e being 1281 Hathaway Lane
N.E., with the recommendation that t e petitioner pursue the
possibility of acquiring all or part of utlot C from the City.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE,
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY.
BARNA DECLARED THE
2. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REOUEST, VAR #89-20, BY FRIDLEY
ALANO SOCIETY•
Per Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(a) of the Fridley City Code to
reduce the setback for all parking and hard surface areas from
20 feet from any street right-of-way to 9 feet, on Lots 18
through 24, Block 13, Bennett Palmer Addition, generally
located directly north of the former Zantigo Restaurant.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CSAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE
PUHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:�5 P.M.
Ms. Dacy stated this property is located just south of 60th Avenue,
east of University Avenue. The University Avenue Service Road runs
16.10
r
APPEALS COMMISSION KEETING, SEPTEMER 5, 1989 PAGE 8
along the front of the property. This site, as well as the
adjacent properties, are zoned C-1, General Business District, and
abut R-1, Single Family, and R-2, Multiple Dwelling, districts on
the other side of the property on 4th Street.
Ms . Dacy stated that when the State made improvements to widen T. H.
47, they acquired the lots in Hyde Park along the west side, and
apparently the Service Road in front of the subject property was
part of the original University Avenue right-of-way. All of the
establishments on this block down to 57th Avenue have either: (1)
'� been using another location for the right-of-way line as the front
property line, because all the other establishments have a 10 foot
setback rather than the 20 foot setback; or (2) the 20 foot setback
', was somehow overlooked or waived. Staff found no records of
variances being granted to the other establishments on this block.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner is requesting a 10 foot variance
from 20 feet in order to park 10 feet from the front lot line.
This is consistent with the other establishments on this block.
Ms. Dacy stated this item was reviewed with the City Attorney.
The attorney's concern was he did not want to be recommending the
City grant variances if there was legitimate warrant for changing
the ordinance. The noncomformities in this area appear to be an
isolated case and is not a situation to consider changing the
ordinance.
Ms. Dacy stated staff has to recommend denial of the variance
request on the basis that the petitioner does meet the parking
requirement set forth in the Code at the 20 foot setback.
Ms. Dacy stated the Fridley Alano Society has an option on the lots
to the north for additional parking. They meet the parking
requirements, but based on their survey of the existing facility
at Moon Plaza, they feel more comfortable with additional parking
spaces for the new facility. They want to maximize the site as
much as possible.
Mr. Barna stated he did remember discussions about a 10 ft.
variance for McDonalds when the drive-through was put in and for
the Holiday Station quite a few years ago. Zantigo was built at
the 10 ft. setback. Whether there were actual variances or just
discussions, he was not�sure.
Mr. Kenneth Murphy stated they have received tremendous cooperation
from the City and will abide by the City's decision.
Mr. Murphy stated the Fridley Alano Society is an A.A. Club with
a normal membership of 502 dues-paying members. They also have a
drug program. They have 1,600-2,000 people a week go to meetings.
The new building is 7,000 sq. ft. at a cost of $357,000. The
16.11
f �
APPEALS COMMISSION liEETING. SEPTEMER 5, 1989 PAG$ 9
building will be completely funded by recovering alcoholics. The
only hardship he can say is that if they are short one garking
space, that means one new member may not be able to come to the
club. McDonalds and Zantigo are at 10 feet. He did not think
Holiday has any setback. He thought they come right ou� to the
sidewalk. St. Williams Church also comes right out to the
sidewalk.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� l�LL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BARNA DECLARED THE
PIIBLIC HEARING CLOBED AT 9:05 P.M.
The Commissioners looked at the aerial map showing the setbacks and
boulevard of adjacentrproperties.
Mr. Kuechle stated he is in favor of this variance since the 10
foot setback is existing for other businesses along this block.
He stated this is the first time someone has come in to ask for
more parking than the Code requires. If there was not enough
parking, he would not want to see people parking on the Service
Road.
Ms. Savage agreed with Mr. Kuechle. She stated the 10 foot setback
would conform with the other businesses in the area. She would
like staff to make sure there is a good landscape plan.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City
Council approval of variance request, VAR #89-20, by Fridley Alano
Society, pursuant to Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(a) of the Fridley
City Code to reduce the setback for all parking and hard surface
areas from 20 feet from any street right-of-way to 9 feet, on Lots
18 through 24, Block 13, Bennett Palmer Addition, generally located
directly north of the former Zantigo Restaurant, with the
stipulation that a landscape plan with screening for the rear lot
lines by submitted for approval by staff. At minimum, a six foot
screening fence shall be constructed.
IIPON A VOICE VOTS, ALL VOTING AY$, CHAIRPERBON BARNA DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. �
3.
Consideration of a variance
Dahl:
1. Pursuant to Section 205.04.�
Code to reduce the side yard
building and a side property
16.12
0
st, VAR �89-18, by Wayne
S.B.(2) of the Fridley City
�tback between an accessory
ne from 5 feet to 1 foot;
�
�
Mrs. Sachs stated if there is a chance the proper would go out
for bids, she would like to see this item table
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table is item and instruct
staff to notify affected persons that th public hearinq has been
tabled. Seconded by Councilman Billin . Upon a voice Vote, all
voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the m ion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider o instruct staff that when the
Sachs contact the City regard' g their garage construction, staff
should request a plan and wo with the petitioner and then prepare
the necessary documentati so that the minimal portion of Outlot
C that would necessary o accommodate the garage construction be
scheduled for a publ' hearing as excess property. Seconded by
Councilwoman Jorgen n. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the tion carried unanimously.
Councilman Sc eider stated a petition has been submitted in
opposition t the City selling Outlot C and asked that this be
received in o the minutes.
MOTION b Councilman Schneider to receive Petition No. 15-1989 in
opposi ion to the sale of Outlot C, Innsbruck North. Seconded by
Counc'lman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor
Nee eclared the motion carried unanimously.
C. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE RE4UEST, VAR #89-20. TO
�2EDUCE THE SETBACK FOR ALL PARKING AND HARD SURFACE
AREAS FROM 20 FEET FROM ANY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TO
10 FEET, ON LOTS 18 THROUGH 24, BLOCK 13, BENNETT
PALMER ADDITION, GENERALLY LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH
OF FORMER ZANTIGO RESTAURANT, BX FRIDLEY ALANO
�SOCZETY•
Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated the Fridley Alano Society
is constructing a 7,000 square foot building for their assembly or
meeting place for AA activities. She stated they have requested
a variance to reduce the hard surface setback from the required 20
feet to 10 feet along the service road.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner has submitted a survey that meets
all the City's code requirements as to the parkinq requirements,
but they wish to encroach 10 feet into the 20 foot required setback
in order to increase their parkinq capacity. She stated staff
recommended to the Appeals Commission that this variance be denied,
however, the Commission recommended approval because all the other
properties in the area are built to the ten foot setback or, in
some cases, to the front lot line. She stated the Appeals
Commission's recom�nendation was subject to the petitioner
submitting a landscape plan for staff approval and a six foot
screening fence to be constructed along the rear property line.
16.13
� �
�'RIDLEY CITY COQNCIL lLEETZNG OF 8$PTEHBER 18, 1989 PaGE 8
Mr. Ken Murphy, representing the Alano Society, stated they have
been located in Iioon Plaza for 22 years. He stated the Fridley
Alano Society serves between 1,600 to 2,000 persons per week. He
stated they have a new drug program and have also added a program
for children of alcoholics. He stated they have 502 members wha
pay dues and all of their financing comes from recovering
alcoholics. -
Mr. Murphy stated they have always had a problem with parking and
wanted to be sure there was nmple parking for anyone who wished to
attend their meetings. He stated he had met with persons
representing the handicapped and some parking will be lost as they
did not take into consideration the ramps on the vans to lower
wheelchairs. He stated, therefore, the handicapped parking will
have to be wider than originally anticipated.
Mr. Murphy stated the property to the north of their new building
is owned by AA people, but not the Fridley Alano Society. He
stated there may be the possibility of purchasing this property at
a future date, if funds are available.
Mayor Nee stated he is impressed with their success and can s�:�-=
where the parking is needed.
Mr. Murphy stated if the variance is granted, it would give them
about eight more parking stalls.
Councilman HilZings asked if there was any way for the othe�
properties to conform to the 20 foot setback. He stated he did not
wish to perpetuate a problem if there is a solution in getting
other businesses to meet this setback in a reasonable time period.
Ms. Dacy stated if any of the businesses applied for building
permits, it would be possible to obtain compliance with the code
at that time. She stated, however, she did not anticipate these
businesses expanding. -
Mr. Murphy stated they plan to approach the owners of Zantigo' s
and try and obtain a lease for parkinq on their site.
Ms. Dacy stated she discussed this matter with the City Attorney
and if the variance is granted, there �,►ould not be an adverse
impact. She stated, however, with any future development to the
north, the Council could probably expect a simi2ar variance
request.
Councilwoman Jorgenson questioned the drainage and if it would
impact the residential properties to the east.
Ms. Dacy stated the property would drain to the north and felt this
issue was addressed in the issuance of the building permit.
16.14
� �
�RIDLEY CZTY COIINCIL liEETING OF 88PTB2iBER 18, 1989 P�GE 9
MOTION by Councilman Billings to grant variance request, VAR �89-
20, With the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner shall
submit a landscape plan for staff approval; and (2) a six foot
screening fence shall be constructed along the rear property line.
Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Kayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. '
11. CONSIDERATION OF A REOUEST BY DONALD DICKISON OF CUSTOMER
�ECHANICAL TO EXTEND THE INSTALLATION DATES OF OUTSIDE
IMPROVEMENTS AS STIPULATED BY SP #88-12 AND VAR �88-22: ,
Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated a request has been rece' ed
by Mr. Dickison to extend the completion dates for o side
improvements for the property at 5973 3rd Street. She st ed Mr.
Dickison is requesting a one year extension to Septemb 1, 1990
to complete the curbinq, parking lot improvements, and andscaping
as stipulated in his special use permit and variance She stated
due to financial constraints, Mr. Dickison has no been able to
complete these improvements.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending extensi of the completion
date subject to the letter of credit also eing extended until
September 1, 1990.
MOTION by Councilman Billings to
improvements under SP #88-12 and
September l, 1990, subject to the
to September 1, 1990. Seconded
a voice vote, all voting aye, Iriay
unanimously.
12.
exte the completion dates for
VAR 88-22 for one year or until
1 ter of credit being extended
b Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon
r Nee declared the motion carried
�
a
MOTION by Councilman S neider to receive the minutes of the Cable
Television Commissio meetinq of August 17, 1989. Seconded by
Councilwoman Jorqen n. Upon a voice vote. all voting aye, Mayor
Nee declared the tion carried unanimously.
13.
This item
14.
�
deleted from the agenda.
Kr. lora, Public Works Director, stated this change order consists
of hree proposal requests and three work orders for the Municipal
C ter totalinq S3,637. He stated it also amends Proposal Request
No. 51 for the employees restrooms to include additional hardware
16.15
APPEAL8 COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9 1995 PAGS 9
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend denial
of Variance Request, VAR #95-09, by William H. and Nancy L.
Wiles, to reduce the required canopy setback in the side ya
from 3. feet to 0 feet.
IIPON A VOICE oOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGL CLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. Savage asked for a motion regarding the stip ations as
recommended by staff.
MOTIO by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, t recommend, if all or
part of Variance Request, VAR #95-09, is proved, that the
following stipulations apply:
1. The petitioner shall install B6 concrete curb and gutter
along the east and south prop ty lines.
2. The existing hard surface ocated between the building and
the north property line all be removed and the area
converted to green spa .
3. The parking lot sha be clearly striped to indicate all
parking areas mea ring 10 feet x 20 feet.
4. Metal or concr e bollards shall be installed along the east
side of the ilding if the parking setback is granted.
5. The petit' ner shall submit a performance bond of $5,000 to _
ensure mpletion of the landscape areas and concrete
curbin .
UPON A V ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
T$E MO ON CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. .3-
Ms McPherson stated this request would be considered by t�ie City
uncil on May 15.
2. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR
#95-10, BY KENNETH E. MURPHY:
Pursuant to Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(a) of the Fridley City
Code to reduce the parking setback from any street right-of-
way from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow the expansion of a
parking lot on Lots 18 through 30, Block 13, Hyde Park,
generally located at 5925 University Avenue N.E., F'ridley,
Minnesota.
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public
hearing.
16.16
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1995 PAG$ 10
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
T�E MOTION CARRIED AND THE POBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:28 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is being made by Mr.
Murphy representing the Alano Society located at 5925 Un�versity
Avenue N.E., which is located east of University Avenue and south
of 60th. The property is currently zoned C-2, General Business,
as are the properties to the north and south. Hyde Park is
located to the west across University Avenue. There is R-2, Two
Family Dwelling, located to the east.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting to reduce the
hard surface setback adjacent to the public right-of-way from 20
feet to 8.2 feet. The petitioner representing Alano Society is
proposing to expand the existing parking lot an additional 65
feet to allaw an additional 22 spaces to be constructed.
Ms. McPherson stated the Alano building was constructed in 1989.
Also in 1989, the City approved a variance request to reduce the
parking setback from 20 feet to 9 feet to allow construction of
additional parking spaces. At that time, the request was not due
to a code requirement. The proposal met the parking requirements
of the code; however, the petitioner requested additional parking
spaces based on the facility's anticipated use as well as past
experience in Moon Plaza where they were previously located.
This variance request is not the result of not meeting the code
requirements but on the use of the facility. The petitioner was
required to submit a site survey as part of this request. At
that time, staff observed that the existing parking lot was at
8.2 feet. The Commission may want to consider granting a
variance to bring the remaining parking lot into conformance.
Ms. McPherson stated, in 1989, as a result of the construction of
the building, a number of drainage issues were raised. Again,
these=drainage issues adversely affected the properties to.-:the
east. There are stipulations which relate directly to the
drainage issues. There have been similar variances granted in
the past. Staff has no recommendation. If the Commission
chooses to recommend approval of the variance request, staff
recommends the following stipulations:
1. The board-on-board screening fence shall be extended to the
end of the parking lot expansion by October 1, 1995.
2. The petitioner shall submit a revised drainage plan
complying with all of the comments listed in Jon Wilczek's
memo dated May 3, I995, by May 22, 1995. The drainage plan
shall be signed by a registered civil engineer.
' 16.17
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 11
3. The area between the east edge of the parking lot and the
easterly property line shall be backfilled and seeded to
provide an aesthetically pleasing edge, and prevent erosion
and frost damage to the curb and parking surface.
4. The parking lot driving aisles shall be extended to 25 feet.
5. The petitioner shall install a 3-foot hedge of Savin Juniper
3 feet on center within 3 years, by October 1, 1998.
6. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond in the amount
of $3,000 to ensure proper installation of draina�e
improvements, concrete curbing, landscaping and the
screening fence.
Dr. Vos asked if he understood correctly that, when the parking
lot was originally built, it was constructed to 8.2 feet rather
than 9 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct.
Dr. Vos asked if there was any stipulation for landscaping on the
other variance request.
Ms. McPherson stated no. This was prior to adoption of the
City's landscape ordinance. The ordinance is now in place and
effects parking lot expansions in excess of four parking spaces.
Mr. Murphy, representing the Alano Society, stated there were in
1989 between 1.,500 and 2,000 people coming through the Fridley
Alano Society in a week. That number has increased to
approximately 2,300 - 3,000. As an example, on Saturday night
they have what is called Pin Night. There used to be 30-32
people in attendance. They now have 125-130 people on a=Saturday
eveni�g. The parking lot has 83 parking spaces and the print
shop next door has graciously allowed them to park on their
property after 4:00 p.m. They purchased that property about
three years ago knowing they were going to expand and that is
exactly what has happened.
Mr. Murphy stated they need more parking stalls. They do not
feel they should infringe on their neighbors. When they get
enough funds, they do different things with different projects.
They now have almost enough funds to build this and are
requesting additional parking to accommodate the people in the
program.
Dr. Vos asked for Mr. Murphy's response to the stipulations.
Mr. Murphy stated the landscaping was in effect and they have
been landscaping the other areas every year because everything
16.18
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 12
they put in there dies. They have a sprinkling system in. They
have no problem with beautifying the area. He did not think the
$3,000 bond would pose a problem because that would be refunded
when the work is completed.
Mr. Murphy asked if staff in stipulation #3 were talking about
the adjacent lots to backfill.
Ms. McPherson stated this is talking about the existing parking
lot in the area of the fence. From the top of the curb, there is
a 12 to 18 inch drop.
Mr. Murphy stated they did not have a problem with that. They
have no problem with the fence. They had planned to extend the
fence 65 feet. The drainage situation on the lots to the east is
adequate. He thought the current drainage is adequate. This
will not change. The 65 feet of blacktop will not come to the
sewer grates that exist on the other lots. The parking lot will
be approximately 65 feet x 118 feet.
Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the concern is that with the extra
blacktop the water will not soak in but rather run off more
quickly so this must be designed so the catch basins can handle
the water.
Mr. Murphy stated they plow there and he thought the catch basin
was the area where the snow had been built up. He is concerned
with the expense involved with drainage. The blacktop will cost
approximately $13,000. That is capacity for them as far as
finances are concerned. He does not see a problem with the
drainage because of the additional blacktop.
Dr. Vos asked who would be most directly affected by the drainage
direction.
Ms. McPherson stated the water drains basically northeasterly.
One of the things that occurs as a result of the construction of
the existing parking lot is that a berm was constructed along the
backs of the properties to the east because water was flowing
into the yards adjacent to the property. Staff wants the
petitioner to contract with a civil engineer for one or two hours
to review the plan as proposed, to look at the elevations on the
plan and say the parking lot should be tilted one way or the
other to make sure that the water flows correctly and does not
end up in the adjacent properties. The lay of the land is canted
to the east and somewhat to the north. There is concern with the
additional impervious surface. While the pipes located along the
easterly property line are probably capable of handling the
amount of flow generated by the impervious surface, that is not
an issue. The issue is getting the water where it needs to go.
Staff wants to make sure that the contractor, when they do the
16.19
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 13
grading and paving, does it properly so there is no adverse
impact to the adjacent properties to the east. Staff recommends
the petitioner hire an outside third party contractor.
Mr. Murphy stated they would comply. He did not think this would
be a problem unless it was extremely expensive. They are growing
quickly and are at capacity for occupancy of the building.
Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any calls regarding this
request.
Ms. McPherson stated she had received a call from a neighbor to
the east who had been adversely impacted by the previous request.
She discussed at length the stipulations as recommended as
conditions of approval. That person did not state an opinion for
or against the request at that time.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE POBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend approval of the variance
request with the stipulations. They are trying to be good
neighbors in adding parking spaces which they need. They are
trying _to do good job. He thought the stipulations were
reasonable.
Ms. Smith agreed. She thought the public purpose is being
served. She did not think the parking would encroach on any line
of site or right-of-way. She would be inclined to vote for
approval.
Dr. Vos asked if their motion should add the existing 8.2 _feet so
the variance would include the entire west property line would be
set back from 20 feet to 8.2 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated yes. The motion should include the existing
condition.
Ms. Savage asked, when Alano came in for the variance request in
1989, was that based on what they felt was going to be their
growth.
Ms. McPherson stated, at that time, the intent of the variance
was to handle the use of the building as they had currently
experienced it. Even in 1989, they had talked about acquiring
the additional property to the north as it became available so
their intent was to have additional property to expand the
parking lot as the need arose.
16.20
APPEAL3 COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 14
MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend
approval of Variance Request, VAR #95-10, by Kenneth E. Murphy,
to reduce the parking setback from any street right-of-way from
20 feet to 8.2 feet to allow the expansion of a parking lot and
to bring into conformance an existing condition on the west side
of the existing parking lot on Lots 18 through 30, Block 13, Hyde
Park, generally located at 5925 University Avenue N.E., Fridley,
Minnesota, with the following stipulations:
1. The board-on-board screening fence shall be extended to the e
end of the parking lot expansion by October 1, 1995.
2. The petitioner shall submit a revised drainage plan
complying with all of the comments listed in Jon Wilczek's
memo dated May 3, 1995, by May 22, 1995. The drainage plan
shall be signed by a registered civil engineer.
3. The area between the east edge of the parking lot and the
easterly property line shall be backfilled and seeded to
provide an aesthetically pleasing edge, and prevent erosion
and frost damage to the curb and parking surface.
4. The parking lot driving aisles shall be extended to 25 feet.
5. The petitioner shall install a 3-foot hedge of Savin Juniper
3 feet on center within 3 years, by October 1, 1998.
6. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond in the amount
of $3,000 to ensure proper installation of drainage
improvements, concrete curbing, landscaping and the
screening fence.
UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOII3LY.
Ms. McPherson stated this request would be considered by the City
Council on May 15.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CON IDERATION OF A VARIANCE RE UEST V
�95-11, BY A. E. WALLEN HOMES, INC.:
Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fri y City Code
to reduce the front yard setback from 35 f to 30.5 feet
to allow construction of a garage and eat room on Lot 9,
Block 1, Marian Hills Addition, qe ally located at 5221
Fillmore Street N.E., Fridley, nnesota.
MOTION by Dr. vos, seconded Mr. Kuechle, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOT LL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION C ED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8548 P.M.
16.21
.
,
. � �. . ' f . .q
�• .
j� � i �'� � �_ ' �-LkY i'.: -�J iz �,' C1 G' C " , /I
�= "�-� �- I � ) � ��"'�i- � .
;% / � / •� C�l%�, � � � �
�� � � ��-� ..�u:('.�4�<
� ���� , , �,
, �f --L ;--E' C'-�- 11''-�s:��z�r� G�i'i � �
IJ
�� � '° �--��-'-�-�-cti.,-w.c� ' t.�- � Cf � — � C � � � �
l �`� �� � -c.2 " LE=� _ -�c�"z.�z-�/� '
�� (,'v���e�� 0. � t/
�c�'-e�l,�X�s�, C�Q.�:��. --�-,1-�-(� ���-� �.�.%'t�--�.LQ���.
��2��Q �� -�-� C=�.Q��� _�:�_��_�-��_ �.�-e, p_Q ���.� ' �
, � �`
������ �
��,� �%�-� c� �� ��=-�-� ���..-�
�
1 � '�� -
�� ��- i.�c� ��- c�,�. �i � �c�l--�, �-,�� ��-�
��� �
� ��� � �� � �
a
'�� ��� .�� -,�.�--� r�1.C�-�,,.� , G,_,d.��-ti�o �- �'�-�►�-< �k
� �� �,�.��- °� .-,�� -�� � 1
�
-��� � �� _�
��K
:
.
�� - e-T�� � � ��..�
_ _�
��� �- l?f� _ fG;���i���c/.
/�r� /' 1�.:^�� i�!L�'M
�
T��
. �,�
I
l -S �Cc�
�
� 9� �' _� d`?` - --__ :s �� - ��/�'
, _ _ __ _ __ _
__
�����.�� --.�--���_ _.__'�����_ S 7! �z7�--_------_---.---__ __ __
. __.. ..__ .____. '__.'.
�
'�'�'1------�.-`��� _ _�'7��._ .I�-� �, -�7 / � 7 � 3 __ _
___ __ _. .
_ __
___--�.�-�� .� 9��_ _ �'�� . �; � ___ � ? r-s ���
__
� � C� c, c � � --� /% �<. � - � c�— J�� j C
_ �'"
2�� � /'j�� � � . , � `�� � � .
,-� % �-- __ ____ _ __� 73�- -!�=---y ---- -�� _ _ __ _ 5--7 �� - ?�l T .7 _ . __ _
� , __ _
:
. .
�� � �?- �-� `��-�E � � _ `
. �
� __.._ � __ _. - � _.
- --�t -� � � �i�.�-�=�
_ , ; _ __ _- - _ _
,
: ^
� -
��c� ��C� :� � �-
� `�_�.:�_�-_ ��i -___ - . ,
___ i� _
_ ____ __.,� _ _ ___ ___ � __ _ ___ � __� �_3 ___� �_(� .1 __ __ .
������� �x�,c.�__;�-� - �--�t'�—s L_���' �.�_., ------r=� � — �
, , , � a� - _ �--__
.
r
_,�^ ��. -,.�'� � __,����> -�`G s:i r � �/ : �/ /�
*
��� �-� , -
, _.
, ,,� � � _ p s_ _ ___ _
� ` _ . �-e .,-G'�� -=�`�� � __ �'-�'�; , � � .�'7
___ _ '
__ ---
___.
--- --.._
- -- - - ---_ _
__ ___ ._ __ __ _
_ ____
a �.� � l �.,_ ,: . ,�� , . -- — — . ,_ � _
.
- , .
. �
_
��r���
_
,�`5;__ -1v1- �IL,u�-- --- 1�..=-rn� � � �' c y�% `��, �(�,� i.= �is 1�P-__ ._ __— ��? y�c�s y ��
, �
-- - - -- - -------
__ __.
, _.
� _ ' � _ _ _ � � -_ ___ :_= -- --- _ _ -------
� �c ; � � ,�� � � : ->
� �l � -
�._ " _' � �' ` � ' �� ''
__ , _
�. - ,
� ,-
_� __ . _. _ : ,
- ---� �- -, . .�� .,_.. � � �� �
Y
�
--� � � �_ �i - 1 � � O
; j
�� ._ ,,�,. ,�-; � ; C� �` : � J� C �
z _ __l _ � _ _
1 n � k �-G� _ ' _. _ �_.. / ... /
✓_ _ _ 1/t�
Q _ _ _ _ _--_ _----- _
_ _ _._ _ _ _ . _ _
, -___ _ _
�, __ /1 � � � �/ l%` �
_-
��_ �r c,._�� � �S� ___ ____�1��,"���� _ 5' �/ ;��f5rs-
. ,
,� % _ _. ___ _
__ --- --- --_..
. �% ��G � ,� 55� � `�`� ;� -�� `ci _ 1 "5"���5
�� � ��� s� __
�. . � � __.
/'` " /
, • ':
. -,�.
��' '�.�:_i� y;,i.?J�,c�,�'J<�,� _ _ _ ��3C.� �� -ljf ; < <
` �,f� �,� � __ _
, . ,,;� , , 6 , -� �� ,.� � � , �
. . ,, �
� j/r'�` z�i�j � F ��C�
`� �/�?L �( f��� _ `� �%^ � l .� � , � ,�,
.; _, , r �. ,
: _,
/� l�
I� ✓ • ., . _ . ' ."'!
� � J _ �- , / �
.. __.._. .. \........ �-'��
� �- -_ __ �� °� a � � `� �� � _ �/,. -� ( '
-� _
� ____ _. �.
.f
� �,! _ _ �S-"��SZ� L/f� Syc _ _ �,�,�� ,
,
--- � �-� �� � � y
' ', `' , _ e
�.--- t�..Y�� _ �_.- 5 � `� �, ��` � ��.�:���
, , _ _ _ ��
�%L� �/ "
- - ���. ���51�' .�. S `�� / G� ��� ' �-- -��-
� � � ._. ... _ ... ..._....__' ..�_ L �G
L
_
, .... _ .
� -
�,
� l � , -
���, �� ; �- �� �
. � : �---
.__ _ __ .
__
____ ____
: --� _ _ _
-
�-�%, � -'�`% � ' ��''_ �� / _ i �.
_, � � .. �G ��-f� /L .S� ;C/��
� � .
� �
,
, � ,
_ _. l�G� � -�,,�`- ` /
� � „� ��1,� � �� _ l�� l t-
, •
�'�, �_ �,
_ .,
_� J�l�a ��,�Se''`� _ _ � ��1�1 </�� - �_ � r , �%:�: ,
�/ .�
,�
�;
�
��
�
�
�;� _ _ .s-��, — ��� .��1 � �'
`�Gx '-��� ��-J �/`� 5�-- ,�-
, _ _____-/�'v_ _
� �- � �
J l�t'����f
: -�j _. �'v-�.3.�
� 7� �z � � /
s" � i-:S � � i,�
5`�i-5�7�Z
! ' `.' ^ C /�
J �.� `� �c�
� l�- �r��
, � `�� _. % ' ;;��.
�
/
,-7t 3�3�s
� _�/ .1,���
`��i— �����----
_ S�`7y-i q�
�����'��� �o��- �� �; �/� ���� s- . �� �
� �� �,
�
: :�:K
, _
�
Community Development Department
P G D�SION
City of Fridley
DATE: June 9, 1995 /,�
� �i
TO: William Burns, City Manager�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Second and Final Reading of Amendment to Chapter
206 of the Fridley City Code, Regarding Adoption
of 1994 Uniform Building Code and Fee Schedule
The City Council at its May 15, 1995 meeting approved for first
reading the proposed amendments to Chapter 206, to adopt the most
recent 1994 Uniform Building Code, and to adopt revised fee
schedules. At the May 22, 1995 meeting, the City Council tabled
action on the second and final reading so that staff could
prepare a recommendation regarding fee waivers to encourage home
improvements, and also to provide a summary on major code changes
in the Uniform Building Code.
Recommendation on Fee Waivers
Seven alternatives were evaluated regarding reduction or waiving
of fees in order to encourage homeowners to obtain permits and to
remodel and make investments into their homes. The recoYnmended
approach is as follows:
1. Building permit fees would be waived between the months of
December through April for residential alteration permits.
A residential alteration permit includes any type of permit,
interior or exterior, to the residence. It does not include
garages, sheds, or pool permits.
2. The permit fee waiver would not be site-specific, so that
all residences would be eligible. This would eliminate the
appearance of favoritism of one area over another.
3. Completing the permit application during the off-peak months
wili provide additional time for the building inspectors and
the rehabilitation counselor to answer questions and spend
more time with permit applicants. It will also encourage
adequate planning for Spring-time construction (a building
permit is valid for 180 days as long as "significant
progress" is being made).
17.01
Second Reading of Chapter 206
June 9, 1995
Page 2
4. In order to insure that the homeowner is receiving the
benefit of the waived fee,,a check from the City of Fridley
directly to the homeowner will need to be made. Typically,
contractors will not specify the permit fee in an estimate
for rehabilitation work. We will be working on an
application form for homeowners to submit along with the
building permit application. The application form will
provide us the documentation to verify ownership. As of
this date, I have not conferred with the Finance Department
about this procedure, but we will be able to do that in the
near future.
5. According to the exterior condition study that was conducted
by staff last Fall, the types of conditions that were noted
as needing the most attention were roof repairs, siding,
gutters, windows, and doors. The residential alteration
permit will address these concerns.
6. The estimated financial impact of waiving the permit fee was
estimated as follows: The average amount of residential
alteration permits for a busy month is 65 permits. The
average value is approximately $4,800. The estimated
building permit fee (excluding any State or fire surcharges)
is approximately $94 -$100. Multiplying the $100 times
five months of permits equals 325 permits equals an impact
of approximately $32,500. In 1993, the City collected
approximately $196,000 in permit fees. The expenses for the
Building Division budget was approximately $180,000. In
1994, the estimated permit fees collected was $272,000. The
actual costs incurred in the 1994 budget was $169,000. It
is anticipated that the estimated impact of $32,500 would be
a maximum amount given that it is during off-peak season.
7. If there are any changes to the proposed approach, we will
alert the City Council. A marketing plan will also need to
be developed.
Building Code Chanaes
John Palacio prepared a summary memo regarding some of the
changes in the Uniform Building Code. I have reviewed these
changes in more detail with John and find that a number of these
changes were made as a result of problems in other parts of the
country, or will not result in significant increases in costs to
homeowners.
For example, the revised Minnesota Energy Code will require an R
factor of R-44 versus a R-38 in ceiling areas. This would apply
only to new construction and new additions, but not on a
17.02
Second Reading of Chapter 206
June 9, 1995
Page 3
remodeling project. The Minnesota PluYabing Code will require
anti-scald devices on new shower instaliations. According to
Palacio, most plumbers are aware of this requirement already and
manufacturers have been selling these devices. Reinforcements in
footings and foundation walls will now be required. This is in
response to a"monolithic" footing and wall system. Both are
poured at the same time versus a concrete block foundation.
Palacio states that contractors in Minnesota have been doing this
already. In fact, at the new house installation on 63 1/2 Way,
the contractor complied with the new code. Smoke detectors will
be required in each sleeping areajbedroom and in the central
hallway. The State's interpretation of this requirement will be
that as long as no work is being done in a bedroom, a smoke
detector will not be required; however, if a new bedroom is to be
created, compliance with the code will be required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached
ordinance for second and final reading, and authorize staff to
proceed with the proposed permit fee waiver as outlined.
Additional reports will be made as we more fully develop the
program.
BD/ dw
M-95-333
17.03
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 Building
Code including the following chapters of Minnesota
Rules are adopted by the City:
A. Chapter 1300 - Minnesota Building Code.
B. Chapter 1301 - Building Official Certification.
C. Chapter i302 - State Building Construction
Approvais.
D. Chapter 1305 - Adoption of the 1994 Uniform
Building Code including Appendix Chapters:
(1) 3, Division I, Detention and Correctional
Facilities
(2) 12, Division II, Sound Transmission Control.
(3) 29, Minimum Plumbing Fixtures
E. Chapter 1307 - Elevators and Related Devices
F. Chapter 1315 - 1993 National Electrical Code
G. Chapter 1325 - Solar Energy Systems
H. Chapter 1330 - Fallout Shelters
I. Chapter 1335 - Floodproofing Regulations
J. Chapter 1340 - Facilities for the Handicapped
K. Chapter 1346 - Minnesota 1991 Uniform Mechanical
Code
L. Chapter 1350 - Manufactured Homes
17.04
Fage 2 - Ordinance No.
M. Chapter 1360 - Prefabricated Buildings
N. Chapter 1365 - Snow Loads
0. Chapter 1370 - Storm Shelters
P. Chapter 4715 - Minnesota Plumbing Code
Q. Minnesota Energy Code
3. Administration Optional Appendices.
The following chapters of the code are adopted without
chanqe by the City:
A. Chapter 1305.0020 Subpart 2:
(1) 15, Reroofing
(2) 19, Exposed Residential Concrete
(3j 31, Division II, Membrane Structures
(4) 33, Excavation and Grading
B. UBC Appendix Chapters 15, 12, Division l, 25, 38,
55, and 70
C. Chapter 1335 - Floodproofing Regulations, Parts
1335.0200 to 1335.3100, and FPR Sections 20U.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 Uniforrn Building Code 1994
Edition. The Code shall be enforced within the
incorporated limits of the City and
extraterritorial limits permitted by Minnesota
Statutes, 1994.
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.65)
C. The City Manager shall be the Appointing Authority
and designate the Building Official for the
jurisdiation of Fridley. (Ref. 96i)
206.02. CONFLICTS
17.05
Page 3 - Ordinance No.
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of
this Code adopted by the provisions of this Chapter and
applicable provisions of State iaw, rules or regulations,
the latter shall prevail.
206.03. PERMITS AND FEES
1. The issuance of permits, and collection of fees shall
be as au�horized in Minnesota Statute 16B.62 subdivision
1 and as provided for in Chapter 1 of the 1994 Uniform
Building Code and Minnesota rules parts 1305.0106 and
1305.0107. Section 107.3, is amended to read "...except
on occupancy groups R-3 and 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 submittinq plans and specifications 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 following the date of application
shall expire by limitation and plans and other data
submitted for review may thereafter be returned or
destroyed. The buildinq 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 shall be 65 percent ( 65% )
of the building permit fee and shall be credited to
the building permit plan check fee if a permit is
obtained within 180 days following the completion
date of plan review. (Ref. 901)
B. Building Permit Fees. (Ref. 901)
TOTAL VALUATION FEE
$ Z.00 to $ 500.00 .........................$2a.00
$ 5oi.00 to $a,000.00 ..... ..................$aa.00
for the first $500.00 plus �$2.75 for each additional
$100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$ 2,001.00 to $25,000.00 ..................... ..$63.00
for the first $2,000.00 plus $12.50 for each additional
17.06
Page 4 - Ordinance No.
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including
$25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 ...................... $352.00
for the first $25, 000.00 plus $9.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000.00
$5o,00i.00 to $ZOO,000.00 ......................$5so.00
for the first $50,000.00 plus $6.25 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 ....................$895.00
for the first $100,000.00 plus $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 ..................$2,855.00
for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.25 for each
additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 and up ..........................$4,955.00
for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.75 for each
additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees:
Inspections outside of normal business hours....$42.00
per hour* (minimum charge - two hours)
Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section
108.8 ......................................... $42.00
per hour*
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated......................................$42.00 _
per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour)
Additional plan review required by changes, additions
or revisions to approved plans ................ $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 plan checking and
inspections, or both . . . . . . . . .Actual Costs**
Residential Mobile Home Installation..........$30.00
17.07
Page 5 - Ordinance No.
Surcharge On Residential Building Permits. A surcharge
of $5.00 shall be added to the permit fee charged for
each residential building permit that requires a State
licensed residential contractor.
**Actual costs include administrative and overhead
costs.
C. Plumbing Permit Fees. (Ref. 901)
FEE
Minimum Fee .......................$ 20.00
Each Fixture ......................$ 7.00
Old Opening, New Fixture..........$ 4.00
Beer Dispenser ....................$ 5.00
B1ow Off Basin ....................$ 7.00
Catch Basin .......................$ 7.00
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 ................$ 15.00
OTHER .............................1-1/2% of value
of fixture or appliance
Other Inspections and Fees:
Inspections outside of normal business hours....$42.00
per hour* (minimum charge - two hours)
Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section
zos.s ..........................................$42.00
per hour*
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated ... . ...... .........................$42.00
per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour)
Additional plan review required by chanqes, additions
or revisions to approved plans .................$42.00
per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour)
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,
whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and
fringe benefits of the empZoyees involved.
For use of outside consultants for plan checking and
inspections, or both . . . . . . . .Actual Costs**
**Actual costs include administrative and overhead
costs.
17.08
Page 6 - Ordinance No.
D. Mechanical Permit Fees. (Ref. 901)
FEE
(1) Residential
Minimum Fee . .....................$ 25.00
Furnace....--•• ...................$ 30.00
Gas Range .........................$ 10.00
Gas Dryer .........................$ 10.00
Gas Piping ........................$ 10.00
Air Conditioning ..................$ 25.00
OTHER .............................1% of value
of appliance
(2) Commercial
Minimum Fee .................... ..$ 25.00
All Work .........................1.25% of
value of appliance
Other Inspections and Fees:
Inspections outside of normal business hours....$42.00
per hour* (minimum charge - two hours)
Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section
1os.s ................................ ...... $42.00
per hour*
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated...... ...............................$42.00
per hour* (minimum charge - one-half hour)
Additional plan review required by changes, additions
or revisions to approved plans ..................$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 plan checking and
inspections, or both . . . . . . . . .Actual Costs**
**Actual costs include administrative and overhead
costs.
E. Electrical Permit 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.
17.09
Page 7 - Ordinance No.
(2) Fee Schedule
Fees shall be paid according to the following
schedule:
(a) Minimum Fees.
((1))Residential. 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
separate inspection of an installation,
replacement, alteration or repair limited to
one (1) inspection only.. ..........$20.00.
Minimum fee for installations requiring two
inspections shall be .............. $40.00
(b) Services, changes of services, temporary
services, additions, alterations or repairs on
either primary or secondary services shall be
computed separately.
0 to and including 200 ampere capacity
............. .....................S25.00.
For each additional 100 ampere capacity or
fraction thereof ...................$ 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 including 100 ampere
capacity.... .........................$ 5.00.
For each additional 100 ampere capacity or
fraction thereof ......................$ 3.00.
((1)) Maximum fee on a single family
dwelling shall not exceed $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
17.10
Page 8 - Ordinance No.
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. 901)
((3)) The maximum number of 0 to 100 ampere
circuits to be paid on any one athletic f ield
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 maximum fee filed by the
initial installer) remote control, signal
circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts
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 1� of any
amount in excess of $30,000 to be paid by
persons or firms requesting the review.
17.11
I_
Page 9 - Ordinance No.
(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. (Rei. 901)
((2)) Rides, devices, or concessions, shall
be inspected at their f irst 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 engaqement 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.
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 all required fees.
(h)For purposes of interpretation of the
provisions of this Chapter, the most recently
published edition of the Nationai Electrical
Code shall be prima facie evidence of the
17.12
Page 10 - Ordinance No.
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 $25.00. 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 Building Inspector,
immediate condemnation of the installation or
noncomplying part. When the person responsible for
making the installation 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
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 noncomplyinq part thereof
is such as to seriously and proximately endanger
human life and property, order immediate
disconnection of the installatian or noncomplying
part. When the person responsible for making the
installation ordered disconnected hereunder is
notified, they shall promptly proceed to make the
17.13
Page 11 - Ordinance No.
corrections cited in this disconnect order. (Ref.
9oi)
(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 shall specify
a date of not less than 10 nor 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
For Accessory Building into
For Moving any building out
For moving through or within
G. Wrecking Permit Fee.
City.........$ 300.00
City.........$ 42.00
of City......$ 80.00
the City....$ 20.00
(1) For any permit for the wrecking of any
building or portion thereof, the fee charged for
each such building included in such permit shall be
based on the cubicaZ 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 ($500.00) or fraction thereof.
(3) In no case shall the fee charged for any
wrecking permit be less than fifteen dollars
($Z5.00).
H. Water and Sewer Fees. (Ref. 901)
Hydrant Rental Aqreement - Service Charge..$35.00
(for use of hydrant or for hose/equipment use)
WaterUsage ........... ....................$ 1.00/
1,000 gallons used -Minimum $10.00, plus Refundable
Deposit on Equipment equal to replacement cost of
equipment.
17.14
Page 12 - Ordinance No.
WaterTaps .................................$300.00
plus cost of materials.
5treet Patch - First 5 sq. yds ..............$300.00
Over 5 sq. yds ......................... $ 30.00
per sq.yd.
Temporary Street Patch (Nov. 1 thru May 1)
First 5 sq. yds ......................... $200.00
Over 5 sq- Yds ...................... $ 20.00
per sq. yd.
Water Meter Repair-Weekend & Holidays.......$ 75.00
Water Connections Permit ....................$ 15.00
Sewer Connections Perm ......................$ 25.00
Sewer O-Dapter ..............................$ 5.00
Inspection Fee for Water/Sewer Line
Repair .................................$ 25.00
I. Land Alterations, Excavating, or Grading Fees
including Conservation Plan Implementation Fees.
(Ref. 901, 1012)
50 cubic yards or less ......................$ 40.00
51 to 100 cubic yards ......................$ 47.50
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 10,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof .
100,001 cubic yards or more .................$662.50
for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $22.50
for each additional 100,000 cubic yards or
fraction thereof.
Land Alteration Plan-Checkinq Fees:
50 cubic yards or less .......................No Fee
51 to 100 cubic yards ...................... $ 15.00
101 to 1,00,0 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 .
17.15
Page 13 - Ordinance No.
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 shall 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 damages or claims made
to the City regarding location, construction, or
contaminates.
3. An initial registration fee of Fifty Dollars
($50) 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)
206.0�4. DOUBLE 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
without having secured the necessary permit therefore from
the Building Code Department either previous to or during
the day where such work is commenced, 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
�7.�s
Fage 14 - Ordinance No.
subject to all the penal provisions of said Code.
901)
206.05. REINSPECTION FEE
(Ref .
1. A reinspection fee of forty two dollars ($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
�he first time a job is rejected for
ith the requirements of this Code, but
practice of calling 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
requirinq 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 family 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
enlarqed.
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
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
17.17
Page 15 - Ordinance No.
health, safety, convenience and general welfare conditions
of the City Code are in compliance.
4. No permit or license required by
other governmental agency shall
department official or employee
governmental agency, unless the
permit or license is accompanied by
of a Certificate of Occupancy
Compliance.
5.
G�!
Change in Occupancy:
the City of Fridley or
be issued by any
�f the City of such
application for such
proof of the issuance
or Certifiqate of
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.
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 SpeciaZ 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'I.'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 aiteration and construction and the installation
of various appliances and service facilities in and for
said buiZdings 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.
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.
17.18
Page 16 - Ordinance No.
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 -iimits 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 license 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 "
fallowing businesses or work in accordance with the
applicable Chapters of the City of Fridley.
A. General contractors in the business of
nonresidential building construction and residential
contractors with an exempt card from the State.
B. Masonry and brick work.
C. Roofing.
D. Plastering, stucco work, sheetrock taping.
E. Heating, ventilation and refrigeration.
F. Gas piping, gas services,
installation.
17.�9
gas equipment
Page 17 - Ordinance No.
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. Empioyees and Subcontractors.
A license granted to a general contractor under this
Section shall include the right to perform all ot 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 shall 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 qiven 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 will
be automatically suspended or revoked five (5) days after
date of hearing.
10. Time of Suspension.
When a license issued under this Section is suspended, the
period of suspension shall be not less than thirty (30)
days nor more than one (1) year, such period being
determined by the City Council.
11. Revocation, Reinstatement.
When any person holding a Ticense as provided herein has
been convicted for the second time by a court of law for
17.20
Page 18 - Ordinance No.
violation of any of the provisions of this Code, the City
Council shall revoke the license of the person so
convicted. Such person may not make application for 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 p�operty 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 qranted 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
fiie 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 corporations engaged in such work.
206.08. UTILITY EXCAVATIONS (SEWER & WATER)
1. Permit Required.
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
17.21
Page 19 - Ordinance No.
shall specify the location, width, lenqth 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 ���
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 quarantee
that all restoration work will be completed and Cit�
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 requirement�
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
designated agent shall inspect
compliance. (Ref. 901)
5. Return of Deposit.
the City Engineer or a
the work to assure
The Public Works Director shall authorize refundment of
the deposit when restoration has been completed to
satisfactory compliance with this Section.
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.
17.22
Page 20 - Ordinance No.
206.09. BUILDING SITE REQUIREMENTS
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 loadinq 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
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 ot 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
17.23
Page 21 - Ordinance No.
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 hours work permit shall be
made in writing to the Public Works Director and shall
state the name of the applicant and the business address,
the location of the proposed work and the reason for
seeking a permit to do such work, as well as the estimated
time of the proposed operations. No such permit shall be
issued excepting where the public welfare will be harmed
by failure to per�orm the work at the times indicated.
7 . Saf eguards .
Warning barricades and lights shall be maintained whenever
necessary for the protection of pedestrians and traffic;
and temporary roofs over sidewalks shall 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 shaZl be issued for the construction of
any 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 of
a public road or street containing a drainage culvert,
catch basin, sewer, special ditch or any other
artificial drainage structures used for the purpose of
draining said property and/or neiqhboring property, the
applicant shall specifically agree in writing to
protect these waterways in such a way that they shall
17.24
Page 22 - Ordinance No.
not be affected by the proposed building construction
or qrading 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-aff 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 shall be obtained
priar to any changes in grade affecting water run-off
onto an adjacent property.
5. Order to Reqrade.
The City may order the applicant to regrade property if
existing qrade 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. Def inition.
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 shall 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 permit any waters or waterways to
be created, dammed, altered, filled, dredged or
eliminated, or cause the water level elevation thereof to
be artificially altered without first securing a permit
from the City, State or watershed management organization
as appropriate.
3. Application for Permit.
17.25
Page 23 - Ordinance No.
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 for 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 and considering such appZication.
206.12. PENALTIES
Any violation of this Chapter is a misdemeanor and is
subject to aZl 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
ATTEST:
WILLIAM CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
First Reading: May 8, 1995
Second Reading:
Publication:
, 1995 .
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
� 7.26
MEMO TO:
MEMO FROM:
MEMO DATE:
REGARDING:
BUILDING 1NSPECTION DIVISION MEMO
Honorable Mayor Nee/City Council
3ohn Palacio, Chief Building Ofiicial
May 30, 1995
Follow-up on Comments from City Council Meeting of May 22, 1995 -
The Adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code
The adoption of the 1994 UBC and the Minnesota State amendments to the UBC were approved
for adoption by the State of Minnesota on March 20, 1995. These proposed rules were to have
a 90 day window for adoption by each municipality.
Some of the new rules that will have an impact upon adoption of the 1994 UBC will be;
*The last previous Code adoption was the 1988 UBC.
*The process of adoption of the 1991 UBC was not adopted.
*The adoption of the 1994 UBC was on March 20, 1995 to hring the present Code enforcement
up to daxe with today's standards.
Some Code application changes between the 1988 UBC and the 1994 UBC are;
*Building Permit Fees - updated to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The permit fees have
not been changed since the edition of the 1985 UBC, hence the AU percent increase in building
permit fees which are based on the valuation of materials and construction of the structure.
*Plans, engineering calculations, diagrams and other data sha11 be submitted; with each
application for a pemut. The building may require that the plans are prepared in accordance
with the rules of the Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying and Landscape
Architecture.
*Minnesota Energy Code now requires for single family dwellings an R-44 versus an R 38 in
ceiling areas - a commercial building is R-22. The R-44 would make the house more energy
efficient.
*Uniform Mechanical Code now requires make-up air combustion for all appliances which would
include fresh air for water heaters.
*Minnesota Plumbing Code now requires an anti-scald device on showers.
*Unless designed by an architecdengineer, reinforcement in footings and foundation walls is now
required.
17.27
�`Drainage around buildings to a�int of discharge away from the structure.
*Location of smoke detectors shall be installed in each sleeping room and centrally located in
a corridor/haliway.
*Openings in guardrails, 30 inches or more above grade, shall have intermediate rails not to
exceed 4 inches.
*Escape and rescue windows shall have a clear horizontal dimension with the minimum
accessible net clear opening of 9 square feet.
*Assessibility for buiidings, as per adopdon of Chapter 11 and Divisions I and II of Appendix
Chapter 11, to meet the requirements for the handicapped.
As for the rules established for other Code review the list continues. In summation, Code
change is not easy be it for the horneowner, the business, or commercial persons. These changes
have proven to be a change for life safety and make a better place where people can produce and
achieve a safe environment. In review of permit fees, the Consumer Price Index {CPI) indicates
a 40% increase which the City ma,y wish to apply in a 3 year cycle and reduce the plan review
fee to SS % for commerciat. Single family dwelling/residential permit fees would continue to
have the plan review fee waived. In addition to other reductions, a set figure of $1500.00 could
be waived from the total valuation of the job; the remainiung valuation would be the basis that
the permit fee is charged on, except that the minimum fee of $22.50 would be charged.
JP/rnh
17.28
Engineering
Sewer
Waler
Parks
Sf�eets
Mai�tenance
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager .� PW9S-1S7
�
FROM: ohn G. Flora,�ublic Works DiYector
/,li/ Clyde V. Moravetz, CATV Administrator
Ciy
DATE: June 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Transfer of Control of KBLCOM Incorpozated
from Houston Industries Incorporated to Time Wamer, Inc.
The Cable Television Advisory Commission unanimously recommended approval of
attached resolution at their May 31 special scheduled meeting.
The cable commission upheld the staff recommendations to include certain conditions
which include, but are not limited to, reimbuzsing the City of Fridley for all reasonable
costs, expenses and professional fees incurred as a result of the City's approval of the
transfer.
Recommend the City Council approve the resolution at the June 12 meeting. The City
retained attomey Mr. Brian Grogan, representative(s) from Paragon and myself will be in
attendance to answer any questions the Council may have. `
:cz
18.01
��
.i► •.
•,,� �
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MZNNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING OF THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL
OF KBLCOM INCORPORATED FROM HOUSTOP
INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED TO TIME WARNER
INC.
WHEREAS, on or about May 2, 1988, the City of Fridley,
Minnesota ("City") granted a Cable Television Franchise to
Nortel Cable Associates, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
("NOrtel"), by adoption of Ordinance No. 904 (the "Fridley
Franchise"); and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 1988, Nortel accepted �he Fridley
Franchise; and
WHEREAS, Nortel, doing business as "Paragon Cable," is the
current and lawful Grantee of the Fridley Franchise; and
WHEREAS, Countryside Investments, Inc., a Delaware-
corporation ("Countryside"), and Nortel Cable Corporation, a
Minnesota corporation ("NCC"), own 17.1% and 89.9% limited
partnership interests respectively in Nortel; and �
WHEREAS, Countryside and NCC are each wholly owned by
KBLCOM Incorporated, a Delaware corporation {"KBLCOM"); and
WHEREAS, KBLCOM is wholly owned by Houston Industries
Incorporated, a Tezas corporation �"HI"); and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 1995, HI entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Time Warner Inc. {•'Time Warner"),
KBLCOM and TW KBLCOM Acquisition Corp.; and
18.02
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger HI
will transfer control of KBLCOM to Time Warner; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the terms of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, the name of Nortel shall remain unchanged; and
WHEREAS, under the Fridley Franchise and Minnesota
Statutes Section 238.083, the transfer of control of KBLCOM
from HI to Time Warner constitutes a transfer by means of a
fundamental corporate change with respect to KBLCOM and Nortel;
and
WHEREAS, under the Fridley Francriise ana minnesoca
Statutes Section 238.083, any such transfer requires the
approval of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City, with the assistance of Moss & Barnett,
A Professional Association, has reviewed the proposed transfer
of control of KBLCOM and the legal, technical, and financial
qualifications of Time Warner; and
WHEREAS, based on information obtained at a public hearing
conducted by the City on April 24, 1995 and May 15, 1995 and on
the reports and information received by the City, the City has
found no reason to disapprove of the transfer of control of
KBLCOM from HI to Time Warner.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota resolves as follows:
1. The Fridley Franchise is in full force and
effect and Nortel is the lawfu2 Grantee of the Fridley
Franchise.
-2-
18.03
2. The City hereby consents and approves of the
transfer of control of KBLCOM from HI to Time Warner
subject to:
a. Closing of the transaction contemplated
within the Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to
the terms and conditions described in information
provided by Nortel, KBLCOM, HI and Time Warner to the
City, including the Agreement and Plan of Merger.
b. HI reimbursing the City for all reasonable
costs, expenses, and professional fees incurred as a
result of the City's approval of the transfer of
control of KBLCOM as specified in Section 6.05(b) of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger.
c. Time Warner promptly notifying the City in
writing of the completion of the transfer of contral
of KBLCOM.
d. KBLCOM, within thirtg (30) days of the
closing of the transaction contemplated within the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, abiding by the
requirements as listed below:
i. Time Warner providing the City with an
opinion of legal counsel substantially in the
form of Exhibit D to the Aqreement and Plan of
Merger to the effect that the merger will
constitute a"reorganization" for Federal Income
Tax purposes.
-3-
18.04
ii. Time Warner providing the City with an
opinion of legal counsel in a form and substance
acceptable to the City to the effect that the
transfer of control of KBLCOM from Hi to Time
Warner does not violate 47 U.S.C. � 533.
3. The City hereby waives any right of first
refusal which the City may have pursuant to Section 405.12
of the Fridley Franchise, as amended, or, otherwise, to
purchase the Fridley Franchise, or the cable television
system serving the City, but only as such right of first
refusal applies to the request for approval of the
transfer of control of KBLCOM now before the City.
4. In the event the transfer of control of KBLCOM
contemplated by the foregoing resolutions is not
completed, for any reasons, the City's consent to the
transfer of control shall not be effective.
5. This Resolution shall take effect and continue
and remain in effect from and after the date- of its
passage, approval and adoption.
-4-
18.05
A motion to approve the foregoing Resolution No.
was made by Council Member
seconded by Council Member
0
and duly
The following Council Members voted in the affirmative:
The following Council Members voted in the negative:
Passed and adopted by the City Council for the City of
Fridley this day of , 1995.
ATTEST:
By:
1135Z140
18.�6
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
BY=
Its: