The URL can be used to link to this page

06/09/1997 - 4787'_ CIIY OF FRIDLE.Y FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Manday, June 9, 1997 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS ` �(`� "7 , In,� �� x/ I � \ � � z-> �� d� ►- � r , -�� , �. .�,,.� �i � �.N--�i-.. "' �� 't'�k �Sko44 `�Z�ic U�r,,��,F �.e. rv� s,,,� lcp f.,�,(� ITEM TTTTMRT.'U � FBIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF f � oF JUNE 9,1997 FRro��r 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 activiries because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital stalus, 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/572-3�34) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PRESENTATION: Certificates of Appreciation for Flood Relief Help Introduction of John Connelly, Executive Director, North Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of May 19, 1997 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9_ �q4� o..__ ., ■ uaJ. � L APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS• Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code, Chapter 205, Entitied "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05. D. (6), 205.19:05. D. (6), Adding Section 205.20 (M-4 Manufacturing Only), and Renumbering Consecutive Sections and, Authorize Publication of Official Title and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.21 NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Pianning Commission Meeting of May 21, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.25 Special Use Permit Request, SP #97-03, by Thomas and Lynn Lasser, to Allow a Second Accessory Structure (Workshop) Over 240 Square Feet, Generally Located at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0'! - 3.10 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 Page 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Central Avenue Bituminous Sidewalk Project No. ST. 1994 - 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.03 Approve Change Order No. 4 to 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 1 & 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.03 Resolution Authorizing Agreement with State of Minnesota for Furnishing � Chemical Assessment Team Services (from July 1, 1997, to June 30, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.02 Resolution Authorizing Lease Agreement with the Fire Training Association, a Joint Powers Created Organization, far the Construction and Operation of the Fire Training Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.01 - 7.05 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9_ 1997 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)• Resolution Cailing for a Public Hearing on a Proposal for a Housing Finance Program and the Issuance of Revenue Bonds to Finance an Elderly Housing Development (Noah's Ark of Fridley Project) Pursuant to Minnesota Law, and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing .............. D�.�.o A . ��.. . :� :� Establish a Public Hearing for June 23, 1997, for an Intoxicating Liquor License for Successful Concept Development, Inc. (Main Event) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.01 Resolution Authorizing Submission of Ice Facility Renovation Grant Application (Columbia Arena) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.05 Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '11.01. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 Page 5 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA- NEW BUSINESS (�ONTINUED)• Licenses ....................................12.01-12.05 Estimates: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13.02 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARINGS: Revocation/Suspension of intoxicating Liquor License for Sharx Club (3720 East River Road) (Ward 3) (Continued from May 19, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 i FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF Jl1NF 4 �oa� �� PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUEDI- � rage b Amendment to Section 7.02 of the Fridley City Charter Regarding Power of Taxation ...... �-�....... 15.01 Intoxicating Liquor License for Valtey Creek, Inc., (formerly Maple Lanes) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 - 16.02 Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-01, by the City of Fridley, to Rezone Eight Properties from M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-4, Manufacturing .............:. OLD BUSINESS• Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Finding and Declaring Unpaved, Gravel, or Dirt Driveways to be a Public Nuisance, Describing the Penalties Therefore, and Amending Sections 110.02 and Creating New Sections 110.06 and 110.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 17.01-17.17 . 18.01 - 18.12 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 NEW BUSINESS: Page 7 Resolution Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids for Residential Driveway Paving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.01 - 19.02 First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezone Eight Properties from M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-4, Manufacturing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.01 - 20.04 First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 11.01 of the City Charter (Regarding Public Utilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.01 - 21.02 Informal Status Reports ADJOURN: � 1 ..............................22.01 ' FR/DLFY CITY Cl1U/YCIL MF€i/NG aF Jl/NF 9, 1997 = ��,��-�- �� The City of Frid(ey wil( not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or trearinent, 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 atlow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Frid(ey'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-;500 at least one �veek in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PRESENTATION: Certificates of Appreciation fqr Flood Relief Help (�,v`�; � `�,,� f%��4,.� ;/v�..� � �r�2�.�____ �� n U C t,l.v,.x,.�� ,�,,,� l. ;�„� . �a../�v-� Gv�. _ Introduction of J�hn Connelly, Executive Director, North Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau �, _, .__ � -c-� z ` ✓ APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �,c . �.�� . 2� City Council Meeting of May 19, 1997 -�� C�� ``v` �`, � c, � � _ x�ts•-.�� APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D_(6), 205.19.05_D.(6), Adding Section 205.20 (M-4 Manufacturing Only), and Renumbering «' Consecutive Sections Z � �� , and, NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED�, Special Use Permit Request, SP #97-03, by Thomas and Lynn Lasser, to Allow a Second Accessory Structure (Workshop) Over 240 Square Feet, Generaily Located at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.10 ,�/%�'� �-� � , � �;� . Approve Change Order No. 1 to Central Avenue Bituminous Sidevralk Project No. ST. 1994 - 9 . . . . . _ . 4.01 - 4_03 ��.,�-.�J--Y�_ Approve Change Orde� No. 4 to 1996 Street lmprovement Project No_ ST. '1996 -1 8 2 . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.03 i �� Resolution Authorizing Agreement �y�� ,� with State of Minnesota for Furnishing ` Chemical Assessment Team . Services (from July 1, 1997, to Authorize Publication of Official Title and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.21 ,K �,.�.�f-�` � �� ,t�.� _ � Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 21, 1997 . . . . . ��_.�� . . . . . 2.01 - 2.25 z� , June 30, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.02 �; 9 L,''�L-(�z-�' �%-��_ , Resolution Authorizing Lease Agreement with the Fire Training Association, a Joint Powers Created Organization, for the Construction and Operation of the Fire Training Center 01 -7.05 � t ��.,�-�: ��- - . . � . . APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEO)- Resolution Calling fo� a Public Hearing on a Proposai for a Housing Finance Program and the Issuance of Revenue Bonds to Finance an Elderly Housing Development (Noah's Ark of Fridley Project) Pursuant to Minnesota Law, and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the H eanng .......-�-----�-�-.. 8.01-8.03 � -� �z�„-�"C � , �� -�` � �/� Establish a Public Hearing for June 23, 1997, for an intoxicating Liquor License for Successful Concept Development, Inc. (Main Event) (Ward 3) . 9.01 ��-- ;��-- �� /�� Resolution Authorizing Submission of Ice Facility Renovation Grant Application (Columbia Arena) (Ward 1) . . . . . . 90.01 -10_05 Claims Licenses Estimates: �_�j„�-� �%1 _ �, ��.��---_-�- . . . 11.09 �, ,L�,u -'�~��2.05 ��- G�`��-'�. . ��-01 - 13.02 ADOPTION OF AGENDA• " �� -�� ``� -�-�. /�� OPEN FORUM VISI70RS: {Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 95 Minutes) �1�-a� �t7�`'�'z.- —� i �� . �� .�� _ 9 PUBUC NEARINGS: RevocatioNSuspe�sion of intoxicati�g Liquor License for Sharx Club (3720 East River Road) (Ward 3) (Continued fcom May 19, 1997) . . . . . . . 14.01 �� - �; S � C ' � , °", L-�L�-"%�� + Amendment to Section 7.02 of the Fridley City Charter Regarding Power of Taxation 15.01 C�' .�� ; `v C � �� _.. , � �� °/y 7 intoxicating Liquor License for Valley Creek, Inc., (formerly Maple Lanes) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 - 16.02 �' � �� - �,�� Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-01, by the City of Fridley, to Rezone Eight Properties ftom M-1, Light l�dustrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, ta M-4, Manufacturi�g , . . . . , �^�� C' . �`' z � OLD BUSINESS: 17.01 -17.17 Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Finding and Declaring Unpaved, Gravel, or Dirt Oriveways to be a Public Nuisance, Describing tiie Penalties Therefore, and Amending Sections 110.02 and Creati�g New Sections 110.06 and 110.07 . . . . . . . . . . . 18.01 - 18.12 �� P ' � ,�, �._�� `,�:.-C"'�� _` �`.. - �- �� '�� G��%�-�. . NEW BUSINESS_ Resolution Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids for Residential Driveway Paving 19.01 - 19.02 �-�� "� 0�� C � NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI- First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezone Eight Properties from M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-4, Manufacturing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.01 - 20.04 � � - . �--a -v' �.� .�� ✓ .�C � � �� s.., -_ _J- First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 11.01 of the City Charter (Regarding Public Utilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.01 - 21.02 /OC� '"G � J � I Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . 22.01,. / jf� . . . �,.... ��,,c�� ,� ��/ �`��'� �' -- ' � pl/ �,�„�`,v,_ � � �� j �,,. � �. e� /�-""�'`"_' � . �i / , �, . ' - � � � �G"t/� .._ �✓�-C i �j,��!z..,-= � �. { �'1��r�t /� ��-� � � /✓ ,�/ ' `;'�— c_� �� ADJOURN:�.,��'��.-� _ �z-�-�-�,-� �,rP- � i�'-� � Z %' � �� THE MINUTES OF TI� REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 19, 1997 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at 7:40 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jorgenson led the City Council and audience in �he Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: I�IEMBERS PRESENT : MEMBERS ABSENT: PRESENTATION: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, Councilwoman Bolkcom None Councilman Barnette, Councilman Schneider and PLAQUES IN APPRECIATION FOR FLOOD RELIEF HELP: Ms. Rosie Griep, Fridley Police Department, presented a plaque to Mr. Voig.t of the Fridley Bus Company in appreciation for transporting volunteers to the Riverview I-�eights neighborhood to assist with the flood relief. The City wished to recognize their strong commitment to Fridley and its citizens. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she cannot thank people enough for all their hard efforts. A lot of people from all over the state came to help, and City staff was well prepared. She thanked everyone on behalf of the residents in the Riverview Heights area. � C • �e�'ui_�IM�i7�i� STUDENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE WEEK, MAY 19-25, 1997: Mayor Jorgenson read and issued a proclamation proclaiming the week of May 19-25, 1997 as Student Foreign Exchange Week. The students were made honorary citizens during their stay in Fridley. Ms. Alma Mujica stated that she is from Paraquay, has three sisters and two brothers. She attends Totino-Grace. Ms. Zinaida Arbekova stated that she is from Moscow, Russia and is a student at Totino-Grace. Ms. Alyona Vladimirova, from Russia, was unable to attend, as she was being inducted into the National Honor Society at Fridley High School. Mayor Jorgenson presented these proclamations to the students. They, in turn, presented flags of their countries to the City Council. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 5,1997: MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: 1. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY MORATORIUM TO DECEMBER 31, 1997: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the original moratorium was approved by the City Council on December 16, 1996 for 180 days. The extension is requested to allow time for completion of the Charter amendment process; to allow time for completion of an ordinance and conducting neighborhood meetings to pre- approve specific sites; and to allow the City to determine whether or not it wishes to pursue ownership and operation of telecommunications facilities. The request for the ext.ension has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. NEW BUSINESS: 2. RESOLUTION NO. 39-1997 ORDERING PRELIMINARY PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS THEREOF: STREET I.MPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST. 1997-3: Mr. Burns, City Manager stated that this project is for reconstruction of the westbo�nd. ramp from I-694 to University Avenue. This is a MnDOT funded project. The City has retained Barton-Aschman to prepare plans and specifications through a$45,000 contribution from the Home Depot. The City will administer the project through a cooperative agreement with MnDOT. Mr. Burns stated that in order to expedite construction, staff is requesting that Council adopt three resolutions, These are to order preliminary plans and specifications; receive the preliminary report on the matter of constructing the proposed improvements; and ordering the improvement and the advertisement for bids for this project. These resolutions are items 2, 3 and 4 on the agenda. The City is expecting to FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 3 advertise for the project on May 22 and open bids on June 12, with the bid award on June 23, or at the latest, July 14. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 39-1997. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 40-1997 RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-3: ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 40-1997. 4. RESOLUTION N0. 41-1997 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND FINAL PLANS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-3: ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 41-1997. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 42-1997 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAI� ASSISTANCE UNDER THE INF'RASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FOR SUBGRANTEES: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this resolution authorizes the Public Safety Director to execute a sub-grant agreement with the State Division of Emergency Management. Under the authority of this resolution, the Public Safety Director would collect and submit all costs associated with the City's April flood control efforts. The Public Safety Director will also be the City's contact with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F'EMA) for reimbursement of our costs. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 42-1997. 6. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR CENTRA.L AVENUE BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK PROJECT N0. 1994-9: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that bids were opened for the installation of abutments and installation of a bridge over Rice Creek to permit the Central Avenue bikeway crossing. One bid was received for the installation from Jay Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $33,650. Two bids were received from bridge fabricators, with the low bid from Continental Bridge in the amount of $37,697. Mr. Burns stated that these two bids bring the total cost of the Central Avenue bikeway to $312,405.50. Construction is expected to begin on May 27. Staff recommends the contracts be awarded to the two low bidders. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 4 RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING BIDS FOR THE CENTRP;I� AVENUE BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK PROJECT NO. ST. 1994-9: JAY BROTHERS, INC., $33,650 (ABUTMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE); AND CONTINENTAL BRIDGE, $37,697 AND WHEEI,ER CONSOLIDATED, INC., $38,085 (FOR 110 FT. BY 8 FT. STEEL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE). AWARDED THE CONTRACTS TO JAY BROTHERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,650 FOR THE ABUTMENTS FOR THE PEDE5TRIAN BRIDGE AND TO CONTINENTAL BRIDGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,697 FOR AN 110 FT. BY 8 FT. STEEL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. . 7. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR 1997 STREET IMPROVEMENT (SEALCOAT) PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-10: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that three bids were received, and the lowest bidder was Allied Blacktop in the amount af $110,177.01. This year's sealcoating program is scheduled to occur on the west side of University Avenue between the Columbia Heights border, Mississippi Street on the north, and the railroad tracks on the west. The City will also be sealcoating streets in the Fridley Business Center located south of I-694 and west of the railroad tracks. Mr. Burns stated that the low bid is adequately covered by the $160,000 budgeted in the 1997 street capital improvement program. RECEIVED THE FOLLOWiNG BIDS FOR THE 1997 STREET IMPROVEMENT (SEALCQAT) PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-1Or ALLIED BLACKTOP, $110,177.01; ASTECH CORPORATION, $119,447.15; PND BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, $131,418.23. AWARDED TI� CONTRP,CT TO THE LOW BIDDER, ALLIED BLACKTOP IN THE AMOUNT OF $110,177.01. 8. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO WELL N0. 12 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 293: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this change order is for $14,349 to provide for the installation of automated monitoring systems that will allow remote back washing of filters at the new plant. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 9. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1996 - 1& 2: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that a number of unexpected changes to the 77th Way portion of the project were recently identified. These changes include the relocation of additional hand holds for the siqnals at 77th Way and East River Road; irrigation system repairs needed to accommodate extensive grade changes along 77th Way; top soil and sod repair associated with these first two items; additional FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 5 milling of bituminous roadway in the area disturbed by pipe jacking on the east side of the railroad tracks. The cost for these changes is $15,276. There will be another change order for the additional asphalt used on the east side of the tracks. Al1 of these changes are reimbursable from MSA funding. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 10. APPROVE LETTER OF SATISFACTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRiDLEY AND PARAGON CABLE RELATED TO THE CABLE TELEVISION TRANSFER OF OWNER5HIP: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this agreement establishes a payment of $4,414.17 as Paragon's reimbursement for costs incurred by the Ci�y at the time of the transfer of ownership from Houston Industries to Time Warner, Inc. This amount covers all the City's outside legal fees but not staff time and advertising expenses. At the time of transfer, June, 1995, Paragon contended that their five percent franchise fee satisfied their obligation for these costs. Staff recommends Council's concurrence with this settlement. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 11. RESOLUTION N0. 43-1997 DESIGNATING TIME AND NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 1997: Mr. Burns, City Manger, stated that the starting time for conference meetings was changed from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. This resolution official amends the time of these meetings. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 43-1997. 12. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 9, 1997, FOR VALLEY CREE INC. (FORMERLY MAPLE LANES) FOR AN INTOXICATING LIQU LICENSE: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the proposed hearing is for June 9, 1997. After performing background checks the Police Department has found no reason to object to the license. SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 9, 1997 FOR AN INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR VALLEY CREEK, ZNC. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 6 13. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 9, 1997, ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7.02 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER REGARDING POWER OF TAXATION: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the proposed hearing is for June 9, 1997. This amendment replaces the existing 16 mill limitation on property taxes with new language that ties these limits to the Consumer Price Index. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGUI�P.R AGENDA. 14. CLAIMS: AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 74313 THROUGH 74586. 15. LICENSES: APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LTCENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. 16. ESTIMATES: APPROVED THE ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS: Richmar Construction Inc. 7776 Alden Way, N.E. _ Fridley, MN 55432 Water Treatment Plant No. 3 Project No. 293 Estimate No. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $114, 087.12 Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 13925 Northdale Blvd. Rogers, MN 55374 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 1& 2 Estimate No. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 23, 038. 64 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. Councilwoman Bolkcom requested that Items 1, 8, 9 and 10 be removed from the consent agenda. Councilman Schneider requested that Item 13 be removed from the consent agenda. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 7 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the consent agenda items with the exception of Items 1, 8, 9, 10 and 13. 5econded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adopt the agenda with the addition of Items .l, 8, 9, 10 and 13 from the consent agenda. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimousiy. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: RECEIVE PETITION NO. 2-1997 RE: ALDEN WAY PROPERTY: Councilwoman Bolkcom requested that Council receive a petition from homeowners concerning rental property at 6421 Alden Way. She requested that the City Manager and Public Safety Director investigate the concerns of these homeowners and advise them what actions the City can or cannot take to correct this situation. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive Petition No. 2-1997 regarding rental property at 6241 Alden Way. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all 'voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS• 17. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND SECTION 11.01 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER REGARDING PUBLIC UTILITIES: MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this public hearing is to amend Section 11.01 of the Charter which pertains to public ownership and operation of utilities. The proposed amendment is to define a public utility and include reference to a wireless or other cammunication service. The amendment is suggested as a result of the total analysis of telecommunication issues in the City. Ms. Dacy stated that the amendment would add the following wording to Section 11.01 of the Charter: "For purposes of this section, public utilities shall include water works, district heating systems, gas, liqht, power, heat, wireless or other communication services, or any other product or service the public provision of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 8 which the City Council, by ordinance, shall determine to be in the interest of its citizens." This amendment would provide Council with the flexibility to pursue ownership and operation of this type of service, and it acknowledges the fact that this type of technology is growing very quickly. It also provides the legal foundation to lease existing and future facilities. The proposed amendment simply clarifies a public utility and does not dictate to Council which utility it should undertake. A referendum must be passed by two-thirds of the voters before Council can pass an ordinance to operate a utility. Ms. Dacy stated that the Charter Commission reviewed this proposed amendment and recommended approva.l, subject to the affirmative opinion of the attorney for the Charter Commission. Staff has received a response from the Charter Commission attorney which was affirmative. Ms. Dacy stated that the public hearing is to receive comments with a first reading of the ordinance scheduled for June 9, the second reading for June 23, and an effective date of October 7, 1997. Five affirmative votes are required to amend the Charter. Mr. Peter Coyle, of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, and the attorney representing American Portable Telecom (APT), stated that he, is interested in understanding, from staff's perspective, the interplay between this proposed Charter amendment and the adoption of an ord.inance relating to the implementation of wireless services in the City. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the City is looking at possible placement of telecommunication devices, an ordinance cY�ange, and possibly a referendum if the City chooses to get into the utility business. The moratorium extension allows time for further review of this issue. Mr. Coyle stated that his client has an interest in working with the City in the adoption of an ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated that the City hired a consultant and reviewed the approaches which led to the conclusion that the City would like to pursue a site specific approach and locate these facilities on municipal land. The City is proceeding with a regulatory ordinance to implement that approach. The moratorium extension gives Council time to pre-approve the sites and to hold informational neighborhood meetings. There is a chance the moratorium can be terminated before the end of the year. Mr. Coyle asked if it was the City's intent to own communication towers. FRTDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 9 Mayor Jorgenson stated that this has not been determined. ..There is concern with the locations.. The process is stil.l developing and will be submitted to all the advisory commissions, in the City. Mr. Coyle asked if the City currently allows the placement of telecommunication facilities on public utilities. Mayor Jorgenson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Coyle asked if the City intended to communicate with .those in the market place. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that staff is working with . representatives of the industry. The City is in a process now and has not made decisions. He would, respectfully, suggest.that this. is not the appropriate place to pin the City down because this may be changed. Mr. Coyle stated that American Portable Telecom has not been informed, and they are one of the players . They would like to be contacted. Also, others in the industry are not aware of the City's intention with respect to this Charter amendment. It would seem that they should be involved in the process. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that is the reason for the moratorium. Before those in the industry are contacted the City needs to know exactly how they wish to proceed. It is not the intention to keep any information from those in the industry. MOTION by Councilman Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:13 p.m. ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA:' l. ORDINANCE NO. I096 EXTENDING THE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY MORATORIUM TO DECEMBER 31, 1997: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive the letter from Mr. Peter Coyle dated May 19, 1997 regarding the proposed extension of the moratorium on telecommunications towers and antennas. Seeonded.by . Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Schneider stated that this is a rapidly moving industry. The time line may be important if the City is looking at this as providing a service and potentially as some revenue generation from leasing of space. Ms. Dacy stated it is her understanding that ten to twenty percent of the population has cellular phones. This expansion will FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 10 continue to about fifty percent by the year 2005. Ultimately, there may be wireless phones in all homes. As traffic increases, so do the number of antennas. It is a situation where the industry is growing at a rapid pace, and the number of players is increasing. The antennas are here to stay and will increase, with the possibility of shorter antennas and demand to install them in a residential settinq. The City should be in a position to control these antennas as demand increases in the future. Mr. Burns asked if this issue has been raised with the consultant that by establishing the moratorium the City may be missing opportunities to capitalize on PCS antennas. Ms. Dacy stated that the consultant felt the City was not losing out on anything. Ms. Dacy stated�that this issue will be reviewed with the Planning Commission on Wednesday evening and then neighborhood meetings will be held for those residents in the area of potential antenna sites. Mr. Coyle stated.that they wished to serve the City's residents; however, the City may be making a mistake. in terms of timing. Communities have long since adopted ordinances to deal with this issue. It would be beneficial if they were to meet with staff to share ideas. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that there is no reason why they cannot submit information to staff for review. Mr. Coyle stated that he would like to meet with Council in a work session to explain who they are and how they operate. He felt this would be more productive than mailing information to staff. �1 master plan sounds terrific on paper, but the City needs to realize the.costs if they construc't any telecommunication infrastructures. Ms . Dacy stated that the issue is not wanting to c.ommunicate with each other. The City's consultant has talked to the providers on an individual basis, met with them initially, and requested their maps. There was concern about sharing that infoxmation. Staff has taken the initial steps to find out the providers needs and is at the point of trying to work out things as a whole. The issue directly is the timing to decide the approach and to meet with the public and the providers. She felt the providers would be pleased with some of the sites that have been evaluated. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to waive the reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1096 on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL N�ETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 11 8. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO WELL NO. 12 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 293: Councilman Schneider asked if this change order was for the new filter plant. Mr. Flora, Public Works� Director, stated that it was for the new plant to change to an automated back washing system. Councilwoman Bolkcom questioned why there was a change order last week and now another. The consultant knew the City's system, and this should have been included in the original contract. Mr. Flora stated that the back washing system was specified. He was not aware that the plant was laid out for a non-automated process. Mr. DeSmet, representing MSA, stated that MSA.did the design work. Basically, with this change order, the system would provide monitoring capabilities similar to the system provided at Commons Park. There are times the City is limited to one operator for the treatment plants. When the treatment plant was designed they tried to stay within a certain cost. However, based on staff that is available, it is probably necessary to include these items for an automated monitoring system. Mayor Jorgenson asked if these items were included in the Locke Park facility. Mr. Flora stated that they were added. � Mayor Jorgenson felt that the City should have learned from this experience with the Locke Park facility. Mr. DeSmet stated that when they design�d this treatment plant a conscious effort was made to stay within certain cost limitations. Perhaps they did not make it clear to staff what the operation of the facilities would entail. If the City had personnel that could monitor the valve operation on a routine basis, then these items would not be required. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the City has not changed its operation. If it was so important, she cannot understand why it was not included. These items are included in the other treatment plants and should have been included in the original contract bid. Mr. Flora stated that the plant was designed so that a person must be there for this backwash process. Questions were raised about the process, and they became aware that a person had to physically be there. If these controls are installed this would not be necessary. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 12 Mr. Burns. stated that there was not enough communication at the time of the design process, and this thought was not communicated accurately. Councilwoman Bolkcom felt that the consultant had to know the City's operations and personnel capacity. She felt that MSA should be advised that this is an issue. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she is disappointed we did not learn a lesson the first time and made the same mistake again. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to authorize change order No. 2 to Well No. 12 design and construction Project No. 293 in the amount of $14,349 with Richmar Construction, Inc. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 9. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER N0. 3 TO 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1996 - 1& 2: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that this change order is for $15, 276 to the street project on Alden Way and 77th Way:' The changes include relocation of additional hand holds for the signals at the intersection of 77th Way and East River Road, irriqation system repairs due to the extensive grade changes along 77th Way, topsoil and sod to repair the landscaping in the two previously mentioned items, and additional milling of bituminous roadway to establish a competent base� in the area disturbed during pipe jacking operations on the east side of the railroad tracks. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that there were a lot of problems and a huge mess for many months. She wanted to make sure nothing in this change order had to do with the contractor. Mr. Flora stated that the contractor responsible for the pipe jacking is not included in this change order. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to authorize change order No. 3 to the 1996 street improvement project No. ST. 1996-1 & 2 in the amount of $15,276 with Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, al�l voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. APPROVE LETTER OF SATISFACTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND PAR�IGON CABLE RELATED TO THE CABLE TELEVISION TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP: Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the original statement submitted to Paragon was for $7,279.10. However, they are willing to pay $4,414.17 and not the $2,865 for staff time. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 13 Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that he. has had lengthy discussions over a long period of time with Paragon regarding this statement. It was made clear that the City was� not interested in anything less than the $7,000. Paragon Cable was concerned about an unhealthy precedent if they paid more than $2,500. After a long dialogue and suggestion that it would be difficult to take any proposal seriously that did not cover any of the City's out of pocket costs, an offer was made to settle and Paragon Cable agreed to pay for the legal fees. Mr. Knaak stated that he is comfortable in recommending that the City settle for this amount since he felt it was a reasonable resolution. The problem Paragon had with full payment.is that they had never paid in full for legal services, and Fridley would be the only City that would be paid for all legal costs. Mayor Jorgenson said that the franchise states that Paragon should pay for all costs incurred for the transfer. Councilman Schneider asked if Paragon, technically, was in default of their franchise if the City chose not to accept this settlement. Mr. Knaak stated that is an interesting question and one that the City or Paragon, if they chose, could litigate. He felt, however, it was reasonable from a legal point of view to accept this settlement. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she believed the City will soon beqin negotiating for another franchise agreement. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that if the City conceded there is nothing from preventing this happening again. Mr. Knaak stated that by accepting this proposal the City Council is not setting a legal precedent that would affect the City's position for future resolutions. Mr. Knaak stated that if Council desires, the settlement letter could be rewritten to reflect Council's opinion that this is not precedent setting. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this item and return it to the Council at staff's discretion. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Barnette and Mayor Jorgenson uoted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings voted against the.mot.ion. Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 14 13. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 9, 1997, ON A PROPOSED AMENDMF:NT TC� �F.�TT(�N 7(17 (lF' TuF �uTnT_�v r-Tmv !`VTDTL'D ING Mv_��_v�[�� Councilman Schneider stated that he would like an analysis of what this amendment means at the time of the public hearing. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing on this proposed amendment to Section 7.02 of the Charter for June 9, 1997. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimousiy. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 18. PUBLIC HEARING FOR�THE REVOCAT�lON/SUSPENSION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SHARX CLUB, 3720 EAST RIVER ROAD (WARD 3): MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:55 p.m. - Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that there have been some items submitted to Council by the license holder and the Department of Public Safety. He requested that those items be entered into the record. Mr. Knaak stated that, based on discussions held with staff, Council, and the license holder and to have a full and complete public hearing, he requested that the public hearing be continued until the next City Council meeting on June 9, 1997. Further, that the license be continued until June 10, 1997 so as not to adversely affect the license holder at this time. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if testimony should be received at this time. Mr. Knaak stated that oral testimony which would require full cross examination would not be given this evening, but the opportunity would be present at the continued hearing. The documents wouid be accepted now, and the testimony portion of the hearing would be on June 9. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there was anyone present this evening who could not attend on June 9 to submit written testimony. Councilman Schneider asked if .the notices published for the public hearing were, in faet, in error and people should not have been prepared to come this evening. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 15 Mr. Knaak stated that this is, in fact, a public hearing, but this can be continued as long as it was legally posted. The no,tice given with respect to this hearing was not, in any way, in error. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked why anyone here this evening could not give oral testimony versus being cross examined on June 9. Mr. Knaak stated that in fairness to both the City and the license holder it is usually a good idea to provide for a hearing when people have sufficient time to be prepared and to fully present testimony. In this particular instance he knows that the license holder and others have been making an effort to find a resolution other than a hearing. He does not want to put the City in a position where the City was not afforded every opportunity for a full and fair public hearing. This is the reason for requesting continuation of the public hearing. The City and this City Council has every intention of allowing a full and complete public hearing. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to bound notebook� submitted by the by Councilman Schneider. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that Sharx and his attorney to respond them more time to prepare. accept the material (in the blue Public Safety Director. 5econded in order for the actual owner of to the information, we are giving Mr. Knaak stated that he believed the information is public. It is a synopsis from the Department of Public Safety on matters and. instances related to that particular address. Councilman Schneider stated that the materials contain police reports and various reported activities at this given address. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to receive letters from Michael Maranda of Quality Insurance, Christine Larson, Stephanie Cessop, � Lisa Reinken, Amy Pauly, Cynthia Bobick, Christine Nunez, Mishawn Mielke, Diane Wright, David Tetzlaff., Yvonne Davidson, and Danielle Ruether. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the majority of these letters are from employees of Sharx. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue the public hearing on the revocation/suspension of intoxicating liquor license for Sharx Club to June 9, 1997. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 16 Councilman Billings asked if there would be a problem with hearing anyone who wished to speak tonight that was not a direct employee or agent of the City or petitioner to allow the people here from the public to speak so they would not have to return on June 9. Mr. Knaak stated that he would not recommend it, but that all public testimony be deferred to the continued public hearing on June 9 so that everyone has a full and equal opportunity to present their case. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Barnette, and Mayor Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings and Councilman Schneider voted against the motion. Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to continue the liquor license for Sharx Club to June 10, 1997. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Billings, and Mayor Jorgenson voted in favor of. the motion. Councilman Schneider voted against the motion. Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried. Mr. Brad Martinson, attorney representing Sharx Ciub, expressed objections to receiving materials into the public record. This hearing is to be continued to June 9. State statute requires it be continued under the Admini.strative Procedure Act. This.extension is subject to all legal objections as in court, and it requires adequate notices of the charges with adequate opportunity to respond. Mr. Martinson stated that what Council accepted as evidence is heresay and not subject to cross examination. He requested that the hearing on June 9 be continued under the auspices of the administrative hearing officer. It is Sharx's position that the' public record that Council has before them is so tainted that they will not be able to have a public hearing without prejudice. Mr. Martinson stated that he has written to the City Attorney expressing objection to the notice of the hearing and the process. Mr.. Knaak stated that the hearing is going to be re-opened, and the appropriate time will be given for raising these objections. Receiving these materials is not in-appropriate, and the record will be open at the time of the hearing on June 9. He can appreciate Mr. Martinson's position and the fact that Council has been appropriately educated as to his client's procedural concerns. He requested that they be submitted in writing in time for the continued hearing on June 9, 1997. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1997 PAGE 17 NEW BUSINESS• 19. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the parks services area study is an item for discussion during the conference session. Mayor Jorgenson stated that another item is the elevation of Locke Lake. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 19, 1997 adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Secretary to the.City Council Nancy J. Jorgenson Mayor MEMORANI�UM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 3, 1997 TO: William Bums, City Manager r� '?;°� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning" , by Amending Sections 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), Adding Section 205.20 (M-4 Manufacturing Only), and Renumbering Consecutive Sections, and Authorizing Publication of a Title and Summary The City Council conducted first reading of the attached ordinance at their April 28, 1997 meeting. The ordinance amendment creates stricter standards for industrial lots located on comer lots across from residential districts or uses, and would also create a new district entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only. � Due to the length of the ordinance amendment, publication costs would be high. Staff • has prepared a Title and Summary to be published. The City Council must authorize publication of the Title and Summary as opposed to the entire ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct second reading of the attached ordinance amending the industrial zoning districts, and authorize publication of the attached Title and Summary. Authorizing publication of the Title and Summary will require a motion separate from approving.the second reading of the full ordinance. MM/dw M-97-260 1.01 ORDINANCE NO. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUNlMARY I. Title An ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning", by Amending Sections 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), Adding Section 205.20 (M-4 Manufacturing Only), and Renumbering Consecutive Sections II. Summarx The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: The ordinance creates a new industrial district en�itled "M-4, Manufacturing Only". The purpose of this district is to encourage manufacturing uses on remaining parcels of vacant industrial land. This district also encourages job creation, increased tax base, and "clean uses". The ordinance also creates stricter performance standards for corner lots in industrial districts. These performance standards would prohibit loading docks from facing the public right-of-way when across from a residential district. This serves to reduce the impact of industrial developments on adjacent residential districts. III. �Totice This Title and Summary have been published to clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance. A copy of the ordinance, in its entirety, is available for inspection by any person during regular business hours at the offices of the City Clerk of the City of Fridley, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THE DAY OF , 1997. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: April 14, 1997 First Reading: April 21, 1997 Second Reading: Publication: 1.�2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RSCODIFYING TAS FRIDLSY CITY CODB, CHAPTLR 205, ENTITLSD °ZODTING", BY AMENDING SSCTIONS 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MANIIFACTIIRING ONLY), AND RSNIII�ERING CONS$CQTIVS SSCTIONS The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: 205.17 M-1, Light Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Reguirements D. Design Requirements (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right of way. (c) On corner lots across from a residential district, no loading docks shall face the public right of way 205.18 M-2, Heavy Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right of way. (c) On corner lots across from a residential district, no loading docks shall face the public right of way. 205.19 M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements 1.03 (6) Loading Docks: {a) outside loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right of way. (c) On corner lots across from a residential district, no loading docks shall face the public right of way. 205.20 M-4, MANIIFACTIIRING ONLY DISTRICT REGIILATIONS 1. IISSS PSRMITTSD A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in M-4 Districts: Manufacturing uses which will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, and will not impair the use or value of any property, but not including any uses excluded hereinafter. B. Accessory Uses. The following are accessory uses in M-1 Districts: (1) Off-street parking facilities. (2) Off-street loading facilities. (3) Business signs for uses permitted. (4) Retail sales or servicing of products manufactured. (5) Offices associated with the principal use. (6) Warehousing or distribution activities associated with a principal use.: (7) Solar energy devices as an integral part of the principal structure. C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. The following are uses permitted with a Special Use Permit in M-4 Districts: (1) Radio transmitters and microwave towers. 1.04 (2) Storage of materials, equipment, or motor vehicles, incidental to the principal operation of the use, except under the following conditions: (a) Motor vehicle storage is conducted as provided in Section 205.20.07.D.(5).; (b) Materials, motor vehicles, and equipment are kept in a building or are fully screened so as not to be visible from: (1) a residential use or district adjacent to the use, or (ii) a residential use or district across a public right- of-way from the use, or (iii)a public park adjacent to the use, or (iv) a public right-of-way adjacent to the use. (c) Materials, motor vehicles, and equipment stored outside do not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height; (d) Screening materials are provided as in Section 205.17.06.G.(1).(a). (3) Sexually oriented businesses as defined and regulated in Chapter 127 of the Fridley City Code. Sexually oriented businesses in multi-tenant buildings shall meet the standards required for commercial uses as stated in Section . 205.17.O1.C.(3). (Ref. Ord. 966) D. Additional Restrictions. For uses other than principal uses, requirements as, setbacks, building, parking, landscaping, screening, etc., shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other districts, but also subject to additional provisions as provided by the City. 2. IIS$S $XCLIIDSD A. Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in M-4 Districts. B. Uses which may be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity thereof, or to the general welfare and may impair the use, enjoyment, or value of any property. C. Trucking Terminals D. Uses whose principal operation requires the outdoor storage of materials, motor vehicles, or equipment, including the outdoor manipulation of said materials, motor vehicles, or equipment. 1.05 3. LOT RI3QIIIRBMSNTS AND SBTBACKS A. Lot Area. A lot area of not less than one and one half (1-1/2) acres is required for one {1) main building. B. Lot Width. A lot width of 100 feet is required at the required front setback. C. Lot Coverage. (1) The maximum percent of the area of a lot allowed to be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings is as follows: (a) One (1) Story - forty percent (40�) maximum; fifty percent (50�) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (b) Two (2) Story - thirty-five percent (35�) maximum; forty- five percent (45�) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (c) Three (3) Story - thirty percent (30�) maximum; forty percent {40�) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (d).Four (4) Story - twenty-five percent (25�) ma�imum; thirty-five percent (35�) with a special use permit in (4) below. (e) Five (5) Story - twenty percent (20�) maximum; thirty percent (30�) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (f) Six (6) Story - fifteen percent (15�) maximum; twenty-five percent (25�) with a special use permit in (4) below. (2) The above lot coverage will be subject to other considerations including parking and open space requirements, use of facilities, and proximity to other districts, which may decrease the maximum lot coverage. (3) The lot coverage may be reduced by the City if and when there is provision for underground parking within the main structure provided that the lot coverage shall not be more than forty percent (40�). , (4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above may be increased up to a maximum of ten percent (10$) of the lot area upon obtaining a special use permit. In addition to the requirements of this Section and the factors identified in Section 205.05.04 to evaluate special use permit requests, the City shall consider 1.06 the following factors in determining the effect of the increase in lot coverage: (a) The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met, including but not limited to, parking, storm water management, and landscaping. D. Setbacks. (1) Front Yard: A front yard depth of not less than thirty-five (35) feet is required for all permitted buildings and uses. (2) Side Yard: Two (2) side yards are required, each with a width of not less than fifteen (15) feet except: (a) Where a driveway is to be provided in the side yard, the minimum required side yard increases to thirty (30) feet. (b) Where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot, the side yard requirement increases to a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet. (c) No side yard is required where a common wall is provided between two (2) buildings which meet the requirements of the Building Code. (3) Rear Yard: A rear yard depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet is required, with an additional one (1) foot of rear yard depth for each four (4)feet of building height over thirty-five (35) feet. (4) Additional Setback Restrictions: Whenever any industrial district is adjacent to or adjoins any other district, permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be: (a) Closer to a street right-of-way line, abutting a residential district, than 100 feet. (b) Closer to the alley right-of-way line than forty (40) feet. (c) Closer to the boundary line of any other district than thirty-five (35) feet. (d) Closer to the boundary line of a residential use or district than fifty (50) feet. 1.�7 4. BIIILDING RSQIIIRBr�NTS A. Height. Building height shall be a maximum of six (6) stories not exceeding sixty-five (65) feet provided that no building shall be erected to a height exceeding forty-five (45) feet within fifty (50) feet of any R-1 or R-2 residential use or district unless one (1) additional foot of setback can be provided for each one (1) foot of building height or portion thereof exceeding forty-five (45) feet. B. Exterior Materials. The type of building materials used on exterior walls shall be face brick, natural stone, specifically designed precast concrete, factory fabricated and finished metal frame paneling, glass or other materials approved by the City. 5• PARKING R$QIIIR�S A. Reduction Of Parking. Reduction of parking stalls may be allowed when the provision of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the total number of required parking stalls. B. Additional Parking. When the provisions for parking space required for specific district uses is inadequate, the City may require that additional off-street parking be provided. C. Parking Ratio. (1) For office use, at least one (1) off-street parking s�ace shall be provided for each 250 square feet of office space use. (2) For retail use, at least one {1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 150 square feet of retail space use. (3) For manufacturing use, at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 400 square feet of manufacturing space use. (4) For warehouse and storage use, at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 2,000 square feet of such space use. (5) For speculative building use, at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 500 square feet of floor area on lots of more than one and one-half (1-1/2) acres. 1 :� (6) For speculative building use, at least one il) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 700 square feet of floor area on lots of less than one one-half i1-1/2) acres. (7) The speculative parking ratio will be used for all mixed uses unless the owner agrees to enter into a written agreement, in recordable form, with the City, in which the owner represents to the City what the ratio of all uses in the building will be. Upon this happening, the parking ratio for the building will be determined on a pro-rata basis by the parking ratio per the number of square feet for each type of use which the owner represents will be located in the building. After execution of this agreement, any changes to the specified uses will require a special use permit from the City. (8) At least one (1) handicap off-street parking space shall be provided for each fifty (50) spaces or fraction thereof. D. Design Requirements: (1) Drainage: All driveways and parking areas, except those for less than four (4) vehicles shall be graded according to a drainage plan which has been approved by the City. (2) Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be shaded or diffused to reflect the Tight away from the adjoining property and traffic. (3) Curbing: The entire perimeter of all parking areas in excess of four (4) stalls, access driveways, truck loading spaces or other hard surface areas that handle motor vehicle traffic shall be curbed with a poured six (6) inch high concrete curb and gutter. (a) Curbing shall be required around safety islands. (b) Curb cuts and ramps for the handicapped shall be installed as required by State law. (c) Construction shall be in accordance with curbing specifications on file at the City. (d) The City may exempt curbing: ((1)) Where the parking lot directly abuts a sidewalk which is sufficiently higher than the grade of the parking lot and satisfies the curbing requirements. ((2)) Where the City has approved future expansion. 1.09 (4) Driveway Requirements: (a) A maximum driveway width of thirty-two (32) fest at the curb opening, excluding the entrance radii, can be constructed. (b) The parking aisle shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in width for two-way traffic and eighteen (18) feet in width for one-way traffic. (c) The edge of the curb opening shall not be closer to the nearest portion of a street right-of-way intersection than seventy-five (75) feet or two-thirds (2/3) of the lot width whichever is smaller. (d) Where a"T" intersection exists, a drive may be located opposite the end of the intercepted street. (e) The minimum driveway angle to the street shall be sixty (60) degrees. (5) All parking and hard surface areas shall be: (a) No closer than twenty (20) feet from any street right-of-way. (b) No closer than five (5) feet from any side lot line, except for a common drive approved by the adjoining property owners and the City. (c) No closer than five (5) feet from any rear lot line unless adjacent to an alley, then the setback shall be increased to fifteen (15) feet. (d) No closer than five (5) feet from the main building. {e) Curbed with minimum driveway access radii of ten (10) feet to match the existing street curb. (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right-of-way. (c) On corner lots across from a residential use or district, no loading docks shall face the public right of way. (7) Off-street parking shall be provided for all vehicles concerned with any use on the lot. 1.10 (8) Parking lots with more than four (4) parking stalls shall be striped. (9) Sufficient concrete area may be required for motorcycle parking in addition to the required vehicle parking stalls. (10)Bike racks may be required by the City in an area that is convenient to each major building entrance and will not disrupt pedestrian or vehicular traffic or fire lanes. (11)Safety signs, markings and traffic control devices may be required to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. (12)Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for manufacturing uses, warehouse and storage uses, speculative industrial buildings, and parking lots for long term employee parking. (Ref. Ord. 952, 960) 6. LANDSCAPS REQIIIREMSNTS A. Scope. All open areas of any site, except for areas used for parking, driveways, or storage shail be landscaped and incorporated in a landscape plan. (1) All new developments requiring a building permit shall comply with the requirements of this section. (2) Existing developments shall comply with the requirements of this section if one or more of the following appliess (a) At the time of a building expansion or alteration which dictates the necessity for additional parking or hardsurface areas in excess of four (4) stalls. (b) Building alterations which dictate a change in use such that the parking area must be expanded in excess of four (4) stalls. (c) Construction of additional loading docks. (d) Construction of new parking areas in excess of four (4) stalls. (3) If full compliance cannot be achieved due to site constraints, partial compliance as determined by the City shall be enforced. (4) The requirements of this section shall not be required for building alterations which do not affect the exterior portions of the site. 1.11 B• Bonding Requirement The City shall retain a performance bond, cash or letter of credit, as required in Section 205.05.06_A.(3) of the zoning code for one growing season after the installation of landscape materials is completed. C• Plan Submission and Approval. (1) A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to approval of outside improvements not related to building improvements. A plan shall not be required for routine replacement of existing materials or the installation of new materials when not associated with a building project. (Z) The following items shall appear on the landscape plan: (a) General ((1)) Name and address of owner/developer ((2)) Name and address of architect/designer ((3)) Date of plan preparation ((4)) Dates and description of all revisions ((5)) Name of project or development ((6)) Scale of plan (engineering scale only) at no smaller than 1 inch equals 50 feet ((7)) North point indication (b) Landscape Data ((1)) Planting schedule (table) containing: ((a)) Symbols ((b)) Quantities ((c)) Common names ((d)) Botanical names ((e)) Sizes of plant material at time of planting ((f)) Root specification (B.R., B& B, potted, etc.) ((g)) Special planting instructions 1.12 ((2)) Existing tree and shrubbery, locations, common names and approximate size ((3)) Planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crown diameter, or spread for local hardiness zone) ((4)) Typical sections in detail of fences, tie walls, planter boxes, tot lots, picnic areas, berms, and other similar features. ((5)) Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. ((6)) Details of planting beds and foundation plantings. ((7)) Note indicating how disturbed soil areas will be restored through the use of sodding, seeding, or other techniques. ((8)) Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with total areas provided in square feet, and slope information. ((9)) Coverage plan for underground irrigation system, if any. ((l0)) Statement or symbols, to describe exterior lighting plan concept. (c) Special Conditions: Where landscape or man-made materials are used to provide required screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross-section shall be provided through the site and adjacent properties to show property elevation, existing buildings and screening in scale. D. Landscaping Materials; Definitions. All plant materials shall be living plants. Artificial plants are prohibited. (1) Grass and ground cover. (a) Ground cover shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within twelve (12) months after planting, with proper erosion control during plant establishment period. Exception to this is undisturbed areas containing natural vegetation which can be maintained free of foreign and noxious materials. 1.13 (b) Accepted ground covers are sod, seed, or other organic material. The use of rock and bark mulch shall be limited to areas around other vegetation (i.e. shrubs) and shall be contained by edging. (2) Trees. (a) Over-story Deciduous. ((1)) A woody plant, which at maturity is thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a single trunk un-branched for several feet above the ground, having a defined crown which looses leaves annually. ((2)) Such trees shall have a 2 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. (b) Ornamental. ((1)) A woody plant, which at maturity is less than thirty (30) feet in height, with a single trunk un- branched for several feet above the ground, having a defined crown which looses leaves annually. ((2)) Such trees shall have a 1 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. (c) Coniferous. ((1)) A woody plant, which a maturity is at least thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a single trunk fully branched to the ground, having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round. ((2)) Such trees shall be six (6) feet in height at planting. (3) Shrubs. (a) Deciduous or evergreen plant material, which at maturity is fifteen (15) feet in height or less. Such materials may be used for the formation of hedges. Such materials shall ' meet the following minimum standards at time of planting: ((1)) Dwarf deciduous shrubs shall be eighteen (18) inches tall. (f2i) Deciduous shrubs shall be twenty-four (24) inches tall, except as in Section D below: ((3)) Evergreen shrubs shall be of the eighteen (18) inch classification. 1.14 (4) Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. (5) Slopes and Berms. (a) Final slope grades steeper than 3:1 will not be permitted without special approval or treatment such as terracing or retaining walls. (b) Earth berm screening parking lots and other open areas shall not have slopes exceeding 3:1. A minimum three (3) foot berm is required. E. Perimeter Landscaping; Standards. (1) In order to achieve landscaping which is appropriate in scale with the size of a building and site, the minimum standards apply: (a) One (1) tree for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of total building floor area or one (1) tree for every fifty (50) feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the trees required will be coniferous. (b) Two (2) ornamental trees can be substituted for every one (1) over-story deciduous shade tree. In no case shall ornamental trees exceed fifty (50) percent of the required number of trees. . (c) Parking and driving areas between the building and frontage street shall be screened in the following manner: ((1)) A continuous mass of plant materials; minimum of three (3) feet in height at time of planting; or ((2)) A continuous earth berm with slopes no greater than 3:1 and a minimum of three (3) feet in height; or ((3)) A combination of earth berms and plant materials such that a minimum of three (3) feet of continuous screening is achieved. F. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Standards (1) All parking areas containing over one hundred (100) stalls shall include unpaved, landscaped islands that are reasonably distributed throughout the parking area to break up the expanses of paved areas. Landscaped islands shall be provided every two hundred fifty (250) feet or more of uninterrupted parking stalls. 1.15 (2) All landscaped islands shall contain a minimum of one hundred eighty (180) square feet with a minimum width of five (5) feet and shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, or ornamental, or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch,' and/or shrubbery, in addition to the minimum landscape requirements of this ordinance. Parking area landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a six (6) inch raised concrete curb. (3) Trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each fifteen (15) surface parking spaces provided or a fraction thereof. G. Screening and Buffering Standards (1) Where the parcel abuts park or residentially zoned property, there shall be provided a landscaped buffer which shall be constructed in the following manner: (a) A screening fence or wall shall be constructed within a five (5) foot strip along the property line(s) abutting the park or residentially zoned property. Said fence or wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished materials, compatible with those used in the principal structure, and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high and a maximum of eight (8) feet high. Chain link fences shall have non-wooden slats when used for screening purposes; or (b) A planting screen shall be constructed in a fifteen (15) foot strip and shall consist of healthy, fully hardy plant materials and shall be designed to provide a minimum year-round opaqueness of eighty {gp) percent at the time of maturity. The plant material shall be of sufficient height to achieve the required screening. Planting screens shall be maintained in a neat and healthful condition. Dead vegetation shall be promptly replaced. , (c) If the existing topography, natural growth of vegetation, permanent buildings or other barriers meet the standards for screening as approved by the City, they may be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or planting screen. (2) Al1 loading docks must be located in the rear or side yards and be screened with a six (6) foot high minimum solid screening fence if visible from a public right-of-way or if within thirty (30) feet of a residential use or districts. (3) All external loading and service areas ac'cessory to buildings shall be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. 1.16 H. Credit for Large Trees The total number of required over-story trees may be reduced by one-half (1/2) tree for each new deciduous tree measuring three (3) inches or more in diameter, or each new coniferous tree measuring eight (8) feet or more in height. In no event, however, shall the reduction be greater than twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of trees required. I. Credit for Existing Trees The total number of required new over-story trees may be reduced by the retention of existing over-story trees provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Such trees are four (4) inches or greater in caliper measured six (6) inches from soil level. (2) For each existing tree meeting the requirement, two trees as required in section D above may be deleted. (3) Proper precautions to protect trees during development shall be indicated on grading plans submitted for plan review. Such precautions are outlined in section J. These precautions shall be included in the landscape surety. J. Irrigation. Underground irrigation shall be required to maintain all landscaped, boulevard, front and side yard areas. K. Installation. (1) The following standards shall be met when installing the required landscaping: (a) Plant materials shall be located to provide reasonable access to all utilities. (b) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by.the use, building, facility or structures to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way. (c) Sodded areas on slopes shall be staked. (d) Seeded areas shall be mulched with straw to prevent erosion. Hydro mulching is acceptable. (e) Oak trees shall be surrounded by snow fence or other means at their drip line to prevent compaetion of their root systems. 1.17 (f) Plantings shall not be placed so as to obstruct lines of sight at street corners and driveways. (g) No plant materials reaching a mature height of twenty (20) feet or more shall be planted within a twenty-five (25) foot lineal path of the centerline of an overhead power line. (2) The applicant shall install all landscape materials within one year; but shall have three (3) years within which to install the required landscaping if the following minimum standards are met: (a) First year ((1)) All grading is completed, including installation of berms. (t2)) The required irrigation system is installed. ((3)) Areas to be seeded and/or sodded are installed. ((4)) Screening for adjacent residential areas is installed, if required. ((5)) Twenty-five (25) percent of the required over- story trees are installed. ((6)) Twenty-five (25) percent of the perimeter landscaping is installed. (b) Second year ((1)) The remainder of the perimeter landscaping is installed. ((2)) Interior landscaping is installed. ((3)) Fifty (5U) percent of the remaining required over- story trees are installed. (c) Third year Any remaining landscaping shall be installed. L. MaintenanCe. (1) The property owner shall be responsible for replacement of any dead trees, shrubs, ground covers, and sodding. If any plant materials are not maintained or replaced, the property owner shall have, upon written notification from the City, one growing season to replace said materials before the City shall maintain or replace said plant materials and assess the property for the costs thereof. Plant materials need not be replaced specie for specie; however, in no case shall the 1.18 number of plant materials be reduced from the minimum that is required by this section when replacing dead plant materials. (2) Screen fences and walls which are in disrepair shall be repaired. (3) All vacant lots, tracts, or parcels shall be properly maintained in an orderly manner free of litter and junk. (Ref. Ord. 960) 7. PBRFORMANCS STANDARDS A. Parking Facilities. All driveways, parking areas and loading docks shall be surfaced with blacktop, concrete or other hard surface material approved by the City. B. Exterior Storage. The exterior storage of materials, motor vehicles, and equipment shall comply with Section 205.17.O1.C.(il). (Ref. Ord. 995) C. Refuse. All waste materials, refuse or garbage shall be contained in closed containers as required under the chapter entitled "Waste Disposal" of the Fridley City Code. D. Screening. (1) Screening of off-street parking shall be required for: (a) Any off-street parking area visible from a public right-of-way. (b) Any driveway to a parking area adjoining a public right-of-way. (2) Where any industrial district is adjacent to a public right-of-way or across from any residential use or district, the following requirements must be met: (a) There shall be a five (5) foot sidewalk easement provided along the property line. • Council may allow the applicant to delay the installation of the sidewalk, if the applicant signs an agreement that it will be constructed when the City requires the installation. (b) There shall be a fifteen (15) foot planting strip located behind the required sidewalk, that is substantial enough to create a physical separation between the public right-of-way and the industrial property. 1.19 (3). All trash or garbage storage receptacles must be located in the rear or side yards, and be totally screened from view from any public right-of-way. Provisions must be taken to protect screening from vehicle damage. (4) All raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment, not including motor vehicles, shall be stored within an enclosed building or be screened on all sides from view from a public right-of-way or an adjoining property of a different district by a fence or other approved screen which extends two (2) feet above the highest item to be stored with the height of the fence not to exceed eight (8) feet except where materials and equipment are being used for construction on the premises. (5) Motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use, may be stored without screening only in the permitted rear yard area if they are not readily visible from a public right of way, adjacent residential use or district, a residential use or district across a public right of way, or a public park. (Ref. Ord. 995) (6) Al1 roof equipment, except alternate energy devices, must be screened from public view unless the equipment is designed as an integral part of the building and is compatible with the lines of the building, as determined by the City. (Ref. Ord. 960) E. Drainage And Grade Requirements. A finished ground grade shall be established such that natural drainage away from all buildings is provided. The followin� minimum criteria shall apply. (1) The minimum elevation of finished.grade shall not be less than one-fourth (1/4) inch rise per horizontal foot of setback measured from curb grade. (2) The City may specify a minimum finished ground grade for any structures in order to allow proper drainage and connection to City utilities. F. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that: (1) Every exterior wall, foundation and roof of any building or structure shall be reasonably watertight, weathertight and rodent-proof and shall be kept in a good state of maintenance and repair. Exterior walls sha11 be maintained free from extensive dilapidation due to cracks, tears or breaks of deteriorated plaster, stucco, brick, wood or other material that gives evidence of long neglect. 1.2� (2) The protective surface on exterior walls of a building shall be maintained in good repair and provide a sufficient covering and protection of the structural surface against its deterioration. Without limiting the generality of this Section, a protective surface of a building shall be deemed to be out of repair if : (a) More than twenty-five percent (25�) of the area of any plane or wall on which the protective surface is paint is blistered, cracked, flaked, scaled or chalked away, or (b) More than twenty-five percent (25�) of the pointing of any brick or stone wall is loose or has fallen out. (3) Every yard and all structures, walls, fences, walks, steps, driveways,. landscaping and other exterior development shall be maintained in an attractive, well kept condition. t4) The boulevard area of a premises shall be properly maintained, groomed and cared for by the abutting property owner. G. Essential Services. (1) Connection is required on each lot served by City sanitary sewer. (2) Connection is required on each lot served by a City water line. (Ref. Ord. 960) PASSSD AND ADOPTED BY TF� CITY COIINCIL OF Ti� CITY OF FRIDLBY TBIS DAY OF , 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 1.21 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR CITY OF E'RIDT•� PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, 1�Y 21, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the May 21, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Associate Dan McGlynn, McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Jim Steilen, Popham, Haik and Lawton Lynn Lasser, 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. Richard Eskola, 7260 University Avenue N.E. Dennis Zylla, Northco APPROVAL OF APRIL 2, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the April 2, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON SAVpjGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-03, BY THOMAS AND LYNN I,ASSER: To allow a second accessory structure (workshop) over�240 square feet on Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition, generally located at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the pub�ic hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE pUgLIC FIEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the request is to allow a second accessory structure which is over 240 square feet. The proposed structure is 16 feet x 18 feet or 288 square feet. The subject parcel is located at 5840 Tennison Drive which is located east of Moore Lake and south of Gardena on Tennison. The property as well as the surrounding parcels is zoned R-1, Single Family. 2.� 1 .� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MAY 21 1997 pp�� 2 Ms. McPherson stated the proposed structure will be in the rear yard of the subject property. Located on the subject property is a single family rambler with a walkout to the rear yard. In addition to the proposed accessory structure, the petitioner is proposing to reconstruct and install a concrete patio and a new cement driveway. The structure is proposed to be used by the petitioner for a workshop and for additional storage of lawn equipment and other items to give more room in the existing garage. Ms. McPherson stated the structure is proposed to have siding which is similar to that on the dwelling. The City Code, however, would prohibit use of this structure for a home occupation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of this request with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. 2. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be utilized for a home occupation. Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any calls regarding this requests. Ms. McPherson stated no. The petitioner did submit a series of signatures from adjacent property owners. He spoke with all of them to determine if they had any concerns. The property itself is surrounded by a variety of landscape materials so it should be well screened from the adjacent properties. Ms. Lasser stated they have run out of room in the existing dwelling and need room for some of the iawn equipment and also room for her husband to work other than in the garage. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the stipulations. Ms. Lasser stated no. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHATRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:38 P.M. Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with the request. Mr. Kondrick agreed. He had driven by the site which has 2.�2 PLANNING CODIl�IISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 3 landscaping and trees. The proposed structure is a modest sized building. As long as it is architecturally compatible, he has no problem with the request. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-03, by Thomas and Zynn Lasser, to allow a second accessory structure (workshop) over 240 square feet on Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition, generally located at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E.,� with the following stipulations: E� 2. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be utilized for a home occupation. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI. VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request on June 9. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-02, BY HOME DEPOT USA, INC.: To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor sales and storage on Lot 1, Block 1, Home Depot Eridley Addition, generally located at 5650 Main Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC BEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated staff received a letter faxed today from the petitioner, Greenberg Farrow Architecture, on behalf of Home Depot requesting a two-week continuance of the public hearing to allow for additional new information to be gathered and to be made aeailable to the Planning Commission for presentation. Staff recommends.the Planning Commission table the public hearing until June 4. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #97-02, to the meeting of June 4, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2.03 PIIANNING COl�lISSION MEETING MAY 21 1997 PAGE 4 3- PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #97-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To rezone the following described properties from M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-4, Manufacturing Only: Lot 3, Block l, Northco Business Park 2nd Addition Lot 2, Block l, Anderson Development Replat Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78 Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, except the South 200 feet of the East 376 feet of said lot, except that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. The Southerly 370 feet of the Northerly 1,120 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, except the West 5 acres of the North 310 feet, except that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. The unplatted City of Fridley described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying Easterly of the Westerly 600 feet and lying Southerly of the Northerly 1,120 feet of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24. Lot 2, Block 4, Commerce Park. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, lying Easterly of Ashton Avenue Northeast, lying Northerly of Arnal Addition, and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue Northeast 415 feet Southerly with its intersection with the Southerly right of way line of Ironton Street, then Easterly parallel with said southerly right of way line to the intersection with said railroad right of way and said line there terminate, except for that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of 2.04 PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 5 Section 22, Township 30, Range 24, lying Easterly of the Northern Pacific Railway Company right of way lying South of a line which is parallel with the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and 290.4 feet South of said north line as measured along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and lying North of a line which is parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quar'ter and 739.2 feet North of said South line as measured along said East line being Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78. That part of Lot 3, Block 4, Commerce Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of the South 54.70 feet of said Lot 3 and east of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 3, distant 205 feet east of the northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence southerly to a point on the south.line of said Lot 3, distant 125 feet east of the southwest corner of said Lot 3 and there terminating. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:42 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated in recent months the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended for approval, which was ultimately approved by the City Council, language in the M-4, Manufacturing Only, zoning district and also a modification to the industrial districts M-1, M-2, and M-3. The intent of the M-4, Manufacturing Only, district is to reduce the impaet of distribution and warehouse facilities on residential neighborhoods by controlling their location. It is also to encourage clean uses, less outdoor storage, more job opportunities, and more tax base. The following properties are being considered for the M-4 zoning: 1. A parcel owned by Everest Properties (a.k.a. Commercial Properties, Inc.) is located at 61st Avenue and Main Street. It is }�ocated across from residential. The site would be able to support a development with more than l0 docks. 2. Northco Property is located on Northco Drive which is east of University Avenue and south of 73rd Avenue. 3. Anderson Trucking is located at Osborne and Central and is 2.05 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING MAY 21 1997 PAGE 6 located across from residentially owned property. 4. McGlynn's is a vacant site located on Commerce Lane north of the existing McGlynn Bakeries. The site is located near other distribution facilities. The idea is to encourage manufacturing in an area that already has a number of distribution facilities. 5. R.R.I. Inc. Property is located between Ashton Avenue and the railroad north of 79th Avenue. This property is located � across from a public park and a residential area in near proximity. 6. Friendly Chevrolet is located at Osborne and Central Avenue and is located across from a residential area. 7. Kurt Manufacturing is located at Osborne and Central and is located across from residential. The existing Kurt Manufacturing site would also be zoned M-4. There is an existing and a future development site for Kurt Manufacturing and both would be rezoned to M-4. 8. Coachrnan Companies is located at Osborne Road near Commerce Lane and is located near other distribution facilities. This site became vacant in 1996 after storm damage. Mr. Hickok stated it is the task of the Planning Commission to recommend those properties they would like to see rezoned M-4. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission has received correspondence from McGlynn Bakeries, Commercial Properties Inc., and Coachman Propexties. Tn that correspondence there is use of the terms "taking" and "spot zoning". Ms. Hickok stated taking is defined as: to take, to expropriate, to acquire or to seize property without compensation. Spot zoning is the rezoning of a lot or parcel of land to benefit an owner for a use incompatible with the surrounding land uses and which does not further the comprehensive zoning plan. Mr. Hickok stated in terms of a taking the M-4 zoning does provide for a wide range of industrial uses but it does not provide for distribution warehouse. It does provide a spectrum of other uses that would have been allowed in the M-2 district. In terms of the spot zoning, this has been carefully analyzed and it has been determined that the comprehensive plan is being furthered by this consideration for rezoning to M-4 and the compatibility with the surrounding land use is the essence of what the City is looking at here and why staff determined they need to recommend that these 2.os PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 7 parcels be more compatible with what exists. Therefore, staff feels it is appropriate. Staff recommends approval of the selected sites for rezoning to M-4. Mr. Hickok stated eight sites are being considered. Of those, staff's recommendation is to approve seven sites. The site staff recommends deleting from the list is the Northco site on Northco Drive. After much analysis, staff determined that this site has a street that wraps around a majority of the site. The combination of building positioning, parking and truck circulation would cause that to be an impossible site to accommodate a large distribution facility with over 10 doors. Therefore, it is recommended to remove that site from consideration. Ms. Savage asked, of the seven remaining sites, which are not adjacent to residential areas. Mr. Hickok reviewed the properties as follows: l. Everest Properties is located on Main Street and is across from Hyde Park residential. 2. Northco Property was initially considered because it is in the heart of an industrial district. It is not directly across the street from residential but in relatively near proximity to residential and there are large warehouse distribution facilities, including Target, in close proximity. It is not directly across from residential and staff is.recommending this property be excluded. 3. Anderson Trucking has residential to its east. There is a small strip of commercial between the Anderson Trucking site and the neighborhood. The primary zoning in that area on the east side is residential; therefore, this site was recommended. 4. McGlynn's is across the railroad from residential. It is not directly across the street as some of the others. Its consideration had to do with its proximity to other large developed distribution and warehouse facilities in that area ancl the impact of more trucks which could be felt by that residential area. Osborne Road and East River Road are obvious routes for truck traffic. East River Road is characterized by primary residential development. 5. R.R.I. Inc. Property zoning. The street industrial traffic; opportunity between is across from a park and residential design is one that is capable of handling however, there is very little buffer the industrial district and the 2.�7 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING MAY 21 1997 PAGE 8 neighborhood to the west. 6. Friendly Chevrolet is across from residential on Central. 7. Kurt Manufacturing is across from residential on Central. 8. Coachman Properties is on Osborne Road in the midst of other industrial development. Much like the McGlynn property, it is in relatively close proximity to residential (across the railroad tracks). Additional truck traffic on East River Road and Osborne Road may be an impact felt by those residents. Ms. Savage stated, as she understands, Mr. Hickok mentioned two goals. One was the impact on residential areas and the other was to maximize the other remaining vacant land for manufacturing uses. She asked staff to further explain that. Mr. Hickok stated staff has a good history of what has happened in terms of the types of development that have occurred. Within the last 18 to 24 months, the City has experienced a great deal of distribution warehouse development. The impact to residential has been felt. Staff has seen an increase in complaints about trucks travelling through neighborhoods. One area of the City has had truck traffic prohibited because of the large trucks moving through residential streets where they had not been before. The second objective is based on the fact that the remaining. industrially zoned land is relatively small. Industrial parcels are scattered about. The City has approximately 90 acres of industrial land left. Staff Tooked at what the best potential for that land would be and the impacts. The greatest potential for jobs and building value is manufacturing entities on these sites. The City has 17 distribution warehouse facilities with 63.91 acres under roof. Some of those have expansion opportunities. The City has 1,148 acres of industrially zoned land with 89.79 acres vacant. It was at this point that the City determined that it must decide what it wants to accomplish here and, if the City wants something other than what it has been seeing as a trend in development, it was time to analyze that and recommend the M-4 zoning as the outcome. Ms. Savage stated the properties that have objected to the rezoning are McGlynn's, Coachman and Everest Properties. She asked Mr. Hickok to give a response as to the reason for recommending the McGlynn and Coachman properties. Mr. Hickok stated the McGlynn site is adjacent to their existing facility. It has great potential for them for expansion development. It has a feature that makes it difficult to 2.08 PLANNING CO1rIl�IISSION MEETING, I�Y 21, 1997 PAiGE 9 automatically assume there would be a building that is joined with the existing McGlynn industrial building. The feature is a large utility pipe that runs down the property line between these two properties. This storm pipe causes the properties to be disjointed. There has been discussion about how this could be developed and how a new facility could be joined with their facility. It has been stated by McGlynn's that it is in McGlynn's interest to keep them separate in order to keep their options broad. If markets should change, they then would be able to offer that as a separate industrial piece of property. That piece of property then has all the attractiveness of other sites for warehousing and could become a warehouse facility separate from McGlynn's. Mr. Hickok stated the Coachman site on Osborne Road is located just north of the McGlynn site. It is similar in size and has the potential for an industrial building in excess of 10 doors. There is that feature of other industrial warehouses developed in clase proximity. As this prope�ty develops if it were to go to office warehouse, it could compound the issue of trucks from the industrial development to the north. With the building gone, this site is viewed as a new development site. Ms. Savage stated it would appear that for the Anderson Trucking, R.R.I. Inc., Friendly Chevrolet and Kurt Manufacturing sites there is no objective to the rezoning to M-4, Manufacturing Only. Mr. Hickok stated he has had a discussion with Friendly Chevrolet who had a representative speak to this issue but there has'been no follow-up on their part. Staff did meet with all of the property owners early in the process to explain where the City was at and where it wished to go. In those discussions, more folks were involved. Anderson Trucking has been very quiet. Staff has not heard a lot of discussion. The same is true of R.R.I. Inc. Staff met last week with Kurt Manufacturing with a gentleman who is working out building details for a manufacturing facility on that site which would meet the M-4 zoning. That may be why there has not been any opposition. Mr. Saba stated he knows how this could impact planning for existing industrial manufacturing sites and the property owners that plan to do a development for a site. Has staff considered including this type of facility in the M-4 with a limit of 10 doors or not to exceed 10 doors so you do not have any large warehouse facilities? That way, McGlynn could have some warehousing just so it is not large. This could also restrict trucks. Mr. Hickok stated the number of doors is only a small part of it. 2.09 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING MAY 21 1997 PAGE 10 It is possible that a warehouse facility whose number of doors are limited to 10 or less could still have all of the impacts of trucks waiting on the street. Impacts may be compounded by the fact that the City Code limited them to 10 or less doors. That was considered and staff felt, if 10 doors was the only issue, there might be a workable solution. The other issues make this analysis far more complex. Mr. Saba asked if there could be a mixture. He is trying to find a way around this. It could have a significant impact to these people, and he has a hard time accepting this himself with the planning that goes on in corporations and how this could impact that planning. It could impact faci�ities here versus having them move out of the City. Mr. Hickok asked, other than the number of doors, had Mr. Saba also mentioned a restriction in size. Mr. Saba stated he had talked about limiting the square footage and/or the number of doors. He is trying to find a happy medium. He would like to do something that is compatible with the M-4 without having a mega-facility. Mr. Hickok stated he thought that in all of the correspondence they had it was the limitation of the option for distribution warehouse that causes a problem with owners. Limiting the size does not get at the issue. Through the analysis, it was determined that the impacts of distribution warehouse are great enough that.it is being recommended that they be removed from the mix of uses on these sites. It is at the discretion of the commission if you have a recommendation other than that of staff. Staff does not have a solution that would strike a compromise of less than 1D doors or of a specified size. Mr. Saba asked how other communities are dealing with this. Mr. Hickok stated Fridley has probably a greater proportion of land dedicated to industry. The City has a mature industrial growth pattern that has evolved. The City has reached a maturity where it has very few sites left, and staff has to make these critical decisions. There are not many communities with the mix of circumstances in Fridley, because of this evolution. Therefore, a review of other communities was not utilized. Mr. Saba stated the City also has an infrastructure that makes it difficult to expand to residential and manufacturing. The City has the railroad traffic that makes it ideal for warehouse facilities. He can understand concern and he does not want a warehouse city but, on the other hand, the City has the railroad Z.y� PLANNING CONIl�RISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 11 tracks here with Target along the tracks and also in the Main Street area. If the City wants to restrict something, that is a natural feature and a natural planning mode for industry. Mr. Hickok stated, while he agreed with the street patterns related to residential and the fact that the City does have major rail lines that run through the community, he would disagree that manufacturing would have problems with the rail here. They find that the manufacturing uses benefit from having rail as well, and some benefit from having their own slip from the rail line into their own facility. Mr. Saba stated he has been involved in relocating manufacturing but not all want to be next to the railroad. Mr. Kuechle asked what opposition McGlynn had to expand on that site. If they want to expand, are there possibilities to combine those lots? How tightly is the City locking them out from using that lot to the best of their ability for their own manufacturirig versus their selling the lot and having that constraint? Mr. Hickok stated it has been an issue of wanting to preserve the maximum number of options. Staff has discussed the possibility of � combining tax parcels and moving the pipe that exists. The City has also expressed an interest in exploring financial options for making that. happen. One thing they have expressed is a concern � about tying themselves into a development that now is different from being abl.e to sell a piece of land if the market warrants. If McGlynn's decides at some point they want to sell the land, they would prefer not to move the pipe. They would prefer to retain the current zoning, expand if they can do that, or keep their options open for selling it if necessary. Staff has even talked about a walkway between the facilities, and there has not been a group planning effort between the City and McGlynn's to come up with those kinds of solutions. At this point there is a resistance to do anything different with the land other than what exists there now. The option to move the pipe exists. Staff would explore that with them and with the engineering staff. Mr. Kuechle asked what would happen with the M-4 zoning. Mr. Hickok stated the M-4 zoning would fit with the existing manufacturing. The site would best fit an M-4 zoning. If what they build is ancillary warehouse distribution for the existing manufacturing, that is quite different from another freestanding warehouse distribution development coming in on the site. Staff's understanding is that McGlynn's plan is to evolve into the space. Mr. Kuechle stated, as far as the use of this parcel for 2.11 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING I�Y 21 1997 PAGE 12 McGlynn's, if they used it for part of ttieir current manufacturing, the M-4 would have minimal impact. Mr. Hickok stated yes, staff believes so. Ms. Modig stated your idea of what is going on and how she feels about it is quite opposite. She would like to hear from them to find out why. Mr. Zylla stated he was representing the Fridley Business Center Partnership. This is the first meeting where he can say he supports staff's recommendation:to remove the Northco site from the M-4 zoning. The issue of their property has gotten more complicated because they are now under purchase agreement so they do not need the complication of a rezoning. He supports the staff recommendation, and he hoped the Commission could also support the recommendation to remove the Northco site from the M-4 zoning. � Mr. Eskola stated he represented Coachman Companies. His clients have been in Fridley for some time. They have always had a very good relationship working with the City. They have the utm o s t respect for City personnel. They have worked with staff in the past regarding development and want to maintain that relationship. �His client feels this proposal is ill conceived as it applies to them because they are located in or adjacent to the industrial park area that has been promoted for many years as an industrial area. They are surrounded by the same type of deveiopment. There is a building across the street. The Target facility is in close proximity. They feel it would not be proper to restrict their little parcel when there are parcels all around them. Furthermore, he believes as staff has indicated his client's property is not adjacent to a residential area. It is in proximity, but so is everything else in the area. At this time, to change the zoning would do little to alleviate the City's concern. There is already truck traffic. As he understands, the concern is with traffic on East River Road, Osborne Road and University Avenue. He would point out that this industrial area was promoted for many years and that the traffic is a natural consequence of that area. That area has been promoted as an industrial area to attract business. The truck traffic has been there for some time. To rezone this piece of property would not have an effect of the overall traffic. Mr. Eskola stated his client is also concerned that this change will limit the marketability of the lot. Staff has indicated that there has been an increase recently in distribution warehouse facilities. This. is true. The reason is that this is a trend that is happening in the economy. In fact, that type of facility is becoming more and more in demand and therefore increases the 2.12 PLANNING COA�RiSSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 13 marketability of the property. To restrict and limit that would result in a decrease in value at this time given the nature of the surrounding area in comparison to this property to not give them that option. He would agree that this particular area is conducive to this type of facility. Th� infrastructure is in place. It is a natural facility for that area given what is there already. He indicated in his letter the concerns. He is against the proposal and asks the Planning Commission reject the proposal of staff as it pertains to this property. Mr. McGlynn stated he would like to present his views regarding their praperty. First, he believes in the separation of residential areas from business areas. They have been good citizens in Eden Prairie and Chanhansen, and now Fridley, and they believe that is important to any area in which they do business. They pride themselves on being good citizens and in keeping their property in good shape. He provided photos to show that their properties are well kept. They see themselves as the type of citizen that does not cause static in the area. They have a lot of investment in the City of Fridley and had choices to go other places. They chose Fridley because of the cooperation of the City. They now have three locations in Fridley, and they pride themselves in being here to stay and growing in this area. Mr. McGlynn stated the property they purchased to the north of their facility is there.so they have the opportunity to expand in whatever way they would like to as they proceed down the road. They are a different business and have different needs. They don't know exactly how they will use the land and want to options open to use it for manufacturing or warehouse. It is important for them to have their warehouse close to their manufacturing. They do not manufacture products, warehouse them and then sell them. They manufacture products and get those products to their customers as quickly as possible. Their warehouse is an incoming raw materials site. There are fewer trucks involved in that type of warehousing. Their products go out on their truck. The existing warehouse across'University from them probably gets 15 to 20 trucks a day. Their main.factory on the other hand has l8 trucks on location and are in and out 36 times a day. By changing this to manufacturing only, they would have the potential of running more trucks there than they would for a warehouse facility. That goes against what the City is after. As far as a residential area being close to their facility, they back.up to the railroad tracks on one side and have.industrial on the other side. Across the railroad is more industrial land. You must go further south of their current facility to actually see the residential area. If the City is rezoning their property based on truck traffic, it is really the opposite for them in manufacturing versus warehouse. They would like to look at possibly connecting 2.13 PLANNING CONIl�SISSION MEETING MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 14 the two facilities. They would like to look at them perhaps being separate. They would like to look at a warehouse facility and moving it toward manufacturing. They may stay with manufacturing. If things change dramatically, they would like to have the option to sell the land if that is the best decision for the company. Their experience in the past is rapid growth. They came to Fridley with 380 jobs and now have over 480 jobs, and they plan to expand that. They don't want to sell the land. They want to keep it in nice shape for their expansion in the future. Mr. McGlynn stated the other point he would like to make is that he really thinks their truck traffic is generally pretty light in nature compared to a warehouse facility. Even if they used it for their own warehouse, it is nat like other warehouses where there are many, many trucks on location going back and forth. Their trucks deliver the raw materials they use and leaves. They are located on Commerce Lane, they believe strongly in commerce, and they want to expand on that lot. Mr. Kuechle stated he was curious to know how Mr. McGlynn felt about the earlier discussion. As he understands the situation, the only restriction is McGlynn's ability to sell the land separate from the current operation. There is a possibility of impacting that. If you want to expand the manufacturing and expand warehousing as a part of that manufacturing, the M-4 does not particularly effect that. Mr. McGlynn stated this was not his understanding. His understanding was that they could not warehouse in that location. They need warehousing very close to their manufacturing because that is very efficient for them. If connected, that is the best scenario. They will have to aim for that in the future but they are not in the position for that right now. If they can warehouse there, that is terrific. He still does not see the reason to rezone this property. Mr. Kuechle stated, as he understood, it is because it is part of your own manufacturing and is not a stand alone warehouse. He would not want to deny that possibility. Mr. McGlynn asked if that would only be in the situation where they would be connected. Mr. Hickok stated the way staff would see this clearly is as an ancillary use to the manufacturing facility with the pipe removed and joined with the manufacturing faciiity. If they warehouse in that as part of their McGlynn's bakery, that is appropriate Staff sees that as a good solution on this site. The pipe question would have to be answered. The pipe would probably have to be 2.14 PLANNING COI�Il�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 15 moved. It is a fear that the City will have a freestanding warehouse that could start as a McGlynn's entity and become a freestanding warehouse for another company. Mr. McGlynn stated that makes the assumption that they remove the existing line and attach to the building. If it is a cheaper alternative to build a warehouse there for their own use, it would be dependent on that. Mr. Hickok stated that is the fear. It could be a warehouse for them or for someone else. A compelling piece of this is that, if warehouse is going to be built ancillary to and connected to McGlynn's, some of the earlier discussion mentioned warehouse now and then manufacturing later, then M-4 would be appropriate for the site. A freestanding warehouse built today for McGlynn's and then sold to someone tomorrow could be a problem. Therefore, M-4 would be appropriate for this and the existing site could remain M-2. Mr. McGlynn stated they see that as limiting to their future plans. As they grow, they must make decisions about where to expand and how they are going to expand. Uncertainty about how they are going to expand in the future makes it difficult for them to operate today. Their purchase of that land was done in the interest for them to move into that as a warehouse and if they went on to use it for manufacturing would depend on their business ' needs. If there are going to be limits placed on further development of that land, they would have asked that. Someone else could own it and there could already be a warehouse. Their feeling is that they would like to be open to whatever they need for their expansion in Fridley. This is their home. This is where they have built their business. They want their future to be certain. That is why he was there. His recommendation is to remove McGlynn from the list and to have their options open to be able to expand and provide more jobs. There is a certain amount of warehousing that happens in their facility now that they have to do because they are not connected. Should they be connected, that leaves more room for manufacturing in �heir existing facility which provides more jobs. They see it as a combined thing. They are not certain how it is going to go yet, but they are optimistic about the future. Mr. Steilen stated listening to the discussion tonight reminds him of an old saying, "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water." He thought it was fair to say that McGlynn's Bakeries have been an ideal user of property in the City of Fridley. They have created many jobs and a good tax�base. These are all the things that Mr. Hickok has indicated he wants to promote those things. McGlynn's has done all of that and in the probable future will 2.15 PLANNING CONII�lISSION MEETING, I�Y 21 1997 PAGE 16 continue to do so. Why punish them? Why restrict their options? Why base your policy on the l0o possibility that they will fail and the property will be sold to someone for a distribution warehouse rather than base your policy on the fact that this is an ideal corporate citizen. They have been successful. They have been expanding. Why not enhance and promote their efforts and make it easier for them to be successful in the City rather than harder? He thought that sometimes without thinking about it policy can get turned on its head. Applying this particular ordinance to this property does just that. Mr. Steilen stated McGlynn has to invest a tremendous amount of money in their business. The bakery business is tremendously competitive, and the margins are razor thin. Everything is at risk. Everything is close margin. They need flexibility. He would suggest that it is better not to base policy decision on what ifs which are the small possibility rather than trying to enhance what they have which is the greater probability. As he looks at the reasons for this ordinance as it is prepared and explained by staff, he does not see that they apply to the McGlynn's property in any substantive sense. It does not affect residential property. In the photos shown, you cannot see residential from this property. He thought this was stretching it. To get to this property on the basis of complaints of residents about truck traffic, this is in the middle of an 'industrial zone and t.raffic goes out an industrial street. It does not meet the criteria in all fairness. As far as the creation of job opportunities and tax base, giving them the flexibility to grow their entire business enhances the tax base and creates job opportunity. Restricting them does the o That is why he says a well meaning statute or ordinance whichte. might accomplish those goals in other situations, in this situation it gets turned on its head and accomplishes the opposite of what it is intended to do. Mr. Steilen stated Mr. McGlynn noted that their manufacturing use generates twice the truck traffic their warehouse does. Promotion of clean uses is not aehieved by this rezoning. He understands they could sell to someone else and it could be different. The probability is that they will stay there and grow there. That is why he says to not base the decision on the what ifs but rather on what will likely occur. As far as significant amounts of outdoor storage, in looking at the photographs one can see how nice they keep their property. They are proud of their property. They keep it up and keep it attractive. One of the things that ticks them off is that others in the area do not keep up their property. He did not think from a strict factual standpoint that the goals and criteria that were used to develop this ordinance are achieved by putting this property on the M-4 zoning. From a policy 2.�6 PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 pAGE 17 standpoint, he would hope the Commission would think about what they could do to help a good corporate citizen to expand and create more jobs and create a better tax base by giving them some flexibility in what they are doing and thinking about what is the probable result. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSID AT 8:34 P.M. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was such a thing as conditional zoning. The attorney said something that the City should not be concerned with the what ifs. He did not agree. McGlynn Bakeries are good people and the City is lucky to have them here. He hopes they do expand. The problem is that, if they do not and the property is sold, there could be a facility built with many doors which would not be good. He hoped that McGlynn's did expand, but he thought they could see the problem they were trying to avoid of many trucks in there and creating a problem. He agreed that they are not near residential areas. To return to the original question, is there such a thing as conditional zoning whereby they say that McGlynn's property can remain as it is if they will go along with the cuxrent zoning program for expansion but; if they do not do that, then it will become M-4? Is that possible? Mr. Hickok concur with the City in individual discussion. stated no. The zoning is either M-2 or M-4. He would wanting McGlynn's to stay and grow, but that leaves a precarious position. It could be rezoned as its own entity and therefore has been included in the � Ms. Savage suggested moving on those items without problems. That would include deleting the Northco Property from the list. Anderson Trucking, R.R.I. Inc., Friendly Chevrolet, and Kurt Manufacturing appear to have no strong opposition. She asked about the Everest Properties site on Main Street. Mr. Kondrick stated he would not have a problem including that property in the M-4 zoning. Ms. Savage stated there is a controversy about McGlynn's and the Coachman properties. Mr. Saba stated he has a problem with that. He likes the zdea of limiting warehousing but he would like to allow in the M-4 district warehouses limiting the size so you do not have mega- warehouses. He has a problem limiting companies like McGlynn's 2.17 PLANNING CO1�IlrlISSION MEETING MAY 21 1997 PAGE 18 who have purchased property with the idea that they could build a warehouse. The City is throwing a monkey wrench into their planning and he has a problem in doing that. Ms. Savage asked if his concerns were with McGlynn's and Coachman only. Mr. Saba stated for those properties where the owners say it is okay then that is different. Then the City may have four or five properties that are M-4. He did not know if that is considered spot zoning. He could support that. If the City went before those people and said this is what it is going to do and they have no objections, that is fine. But for those organizations that have objections, that are not really by residential areas, that are by the railroad tracks, he has a problem in imposing the M-4 as presented. He cannot support that. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought McGlynn's is an exception in that the property is owned and the owner is interested in developing for their own. The others purchased the sites with the intent of developing it into some i.ncome-producing venture. They are in a little different position. McGlynn bought the property with the idea of expanding. The only restriction is if they want to build a warehouse and then sell the warehouse at a later date. That is the only place the City is placing some restriction on that. If they want a warehouse to hold product there, that is fine. The City is reducing their potential sale value a bit. That is not their intent so he did not see that as a big factor. Mr. Kondrick asked if the salability was a big factor. Is the City suggesting that a change in zoning makes the properties worth less? Mr. Hickok stated that goes back �o the definition of a taking. He would go back to the reliance of staff's rationale that leaves them with reasonable use and therefore it is not a factor for us to say that imposing M-4 zoning takes away some of the marketability of their site. There is a manufacturing market out there. Any time there is a zoning amendment, it could be argued it has that kind of an impact. The question has to be asked if there is reasonable use of the property after the rezoning. Staff's answer is yes. Mr. Kuechle stated he believed every answer is based on financial except perhaps McGlynn's. Ms. Modig asked what other argument would there be. Mr. Kuechle stated it does say something about the value of the 2.18 PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 19 site. It is economical. It is not the fact they cannot manufacture there and/or sell the property if they want. Mr. Saba stated it is financial. You are not in the business to lose money. On the other hand, does one do short term planning or` long term planning. This throws a monkey wrench into the long term planning. They have mentioned the loss of plans. He can understand that. Being in business and trying to do long term planning and not knowing what the use of your land is can be a big issue. If they are planning an expansion or selling, that is part of their business. Mr. Kondrick asked their opinion about the Coachman property. Mr. Saba stated he felt the same way about all of the properties. Mr. Kuechle stated he had reservations only about the McGlynn property. Mr. Kondrick stated he felt the same way about the McGlynn property. He cannot see restricting their use of that land to the best of their ability. This would give us a chance to encourage them to stay and expand in our community. He thought that is the only site that was of concern to him. He does not have the same concern about the Coachman site. Ms. Modig stated she had concerns about McGlynn's. In her opinion, the site does not fit the criteria. They are at the meeting. They are good members of the community. She could not support it. She also has a problem with the Coachman property and its location because it is not around a residential area and there are trucks in and out of there for other businesses now. Trucks will be there whether that property is developed or not. She has a problem with including properties that are valid members of the communi�y and are not just in the market to sell. She thought they were misleading people when the City says it has an M-2 district and then changes it and now don't have it. She did not have any problem with the other properties other than those two. Ms. Savage stated, on one hand, she applauds staff for what they are doing because they are concerned about the big picture for the future. We all want a more livable place. It has not always been and still is not the most livable suburb. She understands the problems that have been voiced. She suggested they act on the sites individually. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend the M- 4 zoning for Everest Properties, Anderson Trucking, R.R.I. Inc., Friendly Chevrolet, and Kurt Manufacturing; and to delete the 2.�9 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING MAY 21 1997 PAGE 20 Northco property, McGlynn's and Coachman sites. Mr. Saba asked why they were including the Everest Property. Ms. Modig stated, when they appeared last time, they seemed to be unwilling from past history to cooperate in other things the City has tried to do. As she recalled, they had a disagreement with the City regarding their development. They are close to residential with houses across the street. She thought they should be included. Mr. Kuechle stated there is not a very good truck access to that property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS, MpDIG p�I�iD Ngt, KONDRICiC VOTING AYE, A1�D MS• SAVAGE, MR. SABA, AND MR, ICL7ECHLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR I,p,CK OF A MA�TORITY . MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, �to recommend the M-4 zoning for the following sites: Anderson Trucking, R.R.I. Inc., Friendly Chevrolet, and Kurt Manufacturing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend the M-4 zoning for the Everest Properties site. Mr. Kuechle stated he would include this site because it is the most critically proximate to a residential area and has the least capable features for trucks. 61st Avenue and Main Street have access for trucks. The truck traffic would have the most impact. It is also has the capability of the largest warehouse. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITg MS, MODIG, MS. SAVAGE, 1�Il2, KONDRICK AND 1`�. KUECHLE VOTING AYE, AND 1�9.t, Sp,gp� VOTING NAY, CBAIRpERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED WITA A MAJORITY VOTE. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to delete the McGlynn property from consideration for M-4. Mr. Kuechle stated, as far as McGlynn's expanding in the City, M-4 has a minimal impact. If they want to sell the pxoperty, it is different. He thought their expansion in the City has minimal impact. If they want to expand, they can do it without a problem. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG, N�t. KONDRICR, AND MR, gp,g,p� VOTING AYE, AND MS, 3p,VAGE p,ND Mg, gi�Cg� VOTING NAy, CHAIRpERSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED gy A MAJORITY VOTE. 2.2� PLANNING CONIl�IISSION 1�ETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 21 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to delete the Coachman property from consideration for M-4. Ms. Modig stated lier reason for doing so is the same as for McGlynn. The other site on Osborne near Central is M-2 and industrial now so she saw no reason to change that. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG, MR. KONDRICK, AND MR. SABA VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND IrIl2. KUECHLE VOTING NAY, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A 1�1JORITY VOTE. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to delete the Northco property from consideration for M-4. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T8E MOTION CP,RRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McFherson stated this item would go before the City Council on June 9. 4. REVIEW.PROPOSED CITIZEN SURVEY QUESTIONS Mr. Hickok stated this is being offered as an opportunity for the Planning Commission to participate in the managers assembly of the new citizens survey for 1997. More than focusing on questions, are there category areas that you feel strongly about that were missed or that you wish to enhance? The category areas look like paragraphs in the survey and then triere are questions related to those. As you look at the survey, there is a DKR response. That is a"Don't Know Response". This response tells staff that there are areas where the City needs to educate folks because they do not know how staff is handling those items. There is an information piece on education. Ms. Savage stated there is an area not covered which she calls a livability area which has to do with art and music. It has to do with coffee shops and places that are not here and something for which residents would have to go to Minneapolis or St. Paul. Places where people can gather in the summer to have a drink or coffee to get a neighborhood feeling. That is one of the things missing in Fridley., Otherwise, she felt the survey was very thorough. Ms. Modig stated she thought they had areas where people say they don't know you talk to people about what Fridley know what you are talking about. 2.21 to pay attention to those because it is amazing, when does have, that they don't PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 pAGE 22 Mr. Saba asked if the department heads review the survey and have input for what they want to include. Mr. Hickok stated yes, the department heads have input. The ultimate design of the survey comes from the manager's office. The manager is soliciting their help at this time. Ms. Modig stated in reading the don't know response they ask questions about the City offerinq significant programs for seniors. 44o said they did not know. If you read the community calendar, it has three or four pages of things for seniors. That means they are not reading it or it's not getting their attention. Mr. Saba stated he thought there are also people who just don't care. It might be interesfiing to have a response that they in fact do not care. Ms. Modig thought that was true regardless of the area they are talking. There are people who live here and do not wish to participate in anything. She suggested a category "Not Interested". You will get some indication about people that do not care by those that do not respond. Mr. �ondrick stated being able to eat and drink outdoors or on the sidewalk is all over Europe and popular on the east and west coasts. It is catching on in Minneapolis and St. Paul. He thought it should be considered. Ms. Modig stated Sandee's Restaurant and the Shorewood have outside eating areas. There is also a coffee shop by the health club and an Internet Cafe has recently opened. A bookstore in Fridley would be nice. Mr. Hickok stated it sounds like a retail category and/or a cultural category. He will forward these suggestions. 5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE UPDATE Ms. McPherson stated the information in the agenda is a follow up on the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. Most of the questions that the Commission had appeared to be answered during the discussion. There were a few questions that needed further clarification. This item does not require the Planning Commission to take any action. This is for your information. Ms. McPherson stated this was a good time to talk about what is planned for the June 4 meeting. Staff would like the Planning Commission to be the vehicle for a neighborhood meeting on telecommunications. They have selected 9 municipal sites for 2.22 PLANNING CO1�Il�3ISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 23 placement of telecommunications facilities. Staff is intending to use this forum to provide information to the residents around those particular sites. Staff is working on a video which will provide some actual site footage of existing installations with graphics to explain the technology, how it works, what its affects are, and the analysis that the City is currently going through. Staff would like to do this after the two items scheduled for the June 4 meeting. This will provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear neighborhood input and incorporate that into the City code section that staff will be writing as well as the zoning code changes that will also need to occur as a part of this ordinance change. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Comtnission meeting of March 3, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF MARCH 13, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redeuelopment Authority meeting of March 13, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of March 18, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING.OF APRIL 9, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of April 9, 1997. 2.23 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING MAY 21 1997 � PAGE ,2 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON S�jVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 7, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of April 7, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CSAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLP,R,ED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIIKOUSLY. 11. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1997 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of April 10, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNp�I�TIMOUSLY . 12. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL.QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1997 . MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Qualit� & Energy Commission meeting of April 15, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRpERSpN Sp�VAGE DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED UNp�idIMOUSLY . ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSpN SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CAitRIED AND THE MAY 21, 1997 , PLANNING CO1�Il+IISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �� %Z�� ' ' �.% ,, ��G�-- Lavonn Cooper ' Recording Secretary 2.24 S I G N— IN S H E E T PLI�NNING COMMISSTON.MEETING, _`Wednesday, May 21, 1997 2.25 � 7 S/ // V (� /L, I �� . � �� .,: ; ��<<� CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST- Tom and Lynn Lasser request that a special use permit be approved to allow construction of a 16' x 18' second accessory structure. The proposed accessory stnacture will be located in the rear yard and be used as a workshop and for the storage of lawn equipment and tools. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Section 205.07.01.C.(1) requires a special use permit for all accessory buildings "other than the first accessory building over 240 square feeY'. The Lasser's proposed second accessory structure will be 288 square feet in area. They propose that the structure be located in the rear yard in conjunction with a new concrete patio and driveway. There will not, however, be a driveway to the new accessory structure. The homeowners interest in creating a second accessory building is to provide a workshop/storage area which will free up space in the home and garage. Siding similar to that on the fron# of the dwelling has been proposed for this accessory structure. The proposed structure will be screened from adjacent uses by existing vegetation located on the property, and will not adversely impact the allowable lot coverage. City code prohibits the use of accessory structures for a home occupation. RECOMMENDATI N TO THE PLANNING COMMI. SION Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to construct a second accessory structure with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. 2. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be utilized for a home occupation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission voted unanimousfy to recommend approval of the request with the stipulations recommended by staff. ! CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Commission action. 3.01 Project Summary SP #97-03, by Tom/Lynn Lasser Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS A special use permit to ailow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet. 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition Sloping from front to rear. Typical suburban; many trees, sod, shrubs R-1, Single Family Dwelling; Parkview Heights Addition Connected Tennison Drive N/A N/A The� zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this I location. To be taken 3.02 Project Summary SP #97-03, by Tom/Lynn Lasser Page 3 WEST: Zoning: SOUTH: Zoning: EAST: Zoning: NORTH: Zoning: Site Planning Issues: REQUEST ADJACENT SITES: R-1, Singie Family Dweiling R-1, Single Family Dwelling R-1, Single Family Dwelling R-1, Single Family Dwelling Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Tom and Lynn Lasser request that a special use permit be approved to allow construction of a 16' x 18' (288 square feet) second accessory structure. The proposed accessory structure will be located in the rear yard and be used as a workshop and for the storage of lawn equipment and tools. � � : ' •� j •- The subject property is located on Tennison Drive south of Gardena Avenue and east of Central Avenue. Located on the property is a single family dwelling constructed in 1962. The dwelling measures 25.5' x 40' and has an attached garage of 20' x 24'. The site is sloped such that the lower level of the dwelling is a walk-out along the rear of the structure. The Lasser's proposed structure is 288 square feet in area; 48 square feet greater than what is allowed with a building permit. The building is proposed to be constructed in the rear yard in conjunction with tfie addition of a new concrete patio and driveway. They propose to use the structure as a workshop and does not intend to store cars within the structure. No driveway will lead to the proposed accessory structure. They are proposing to use similar siding as what is on the face of the dwelling. The proposed structure does not adversety impact lot coverage, and will be screened from adjacent properties by existing vegetation on the property. City code prohibits the use of accessory structures for home occupation. 3.03 Project Summary SP #97-03, by Tom/Lynn Lasser Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to construct a second accessory structure with the following stipulation: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the exis#ing stru ctu re. 2. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be utilized for a home occupation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request with the stipulations recommended by staff. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Commission action. 3.04 a _- .:„� ,; n - `� a �� . �, e.. ''� P. � P� ^c �� , �� , i ao � � � ,u �[Q' ; P"�c. �v ' 30 ; , ` �_ ___ _—=' / � ��s � s ) '•` � d y \ y� � �r � �, R�' Z �` �PP� �w �� Y ,� � __ 1 �c;c�ho„C, SP �i97-03 �'` ��f� Tom/Lynn Lasser Qui/�cs \Q i ` � , �' 4t J ��G \ <� ✓ •' �, � f- wec�o.,,3 ' ' �,.1, //o „y /�C ; �ti __� 34 ! � J7 � fu .� - . ��^C � � v � `I �q h� � ` � � . ._..... �- � / �`,� si i � � � � � ..�.� � � f '��' �� w _" " , i�' ✓ � �` x �, � ��a�. ; �,n `��' " , PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION 4- c ,� � c a- ,�- .. -'� l � �` 3 J = / s � �. ' . � 1 J _ `� +�, i y'� � c� �° � �, s d � � 1 �� .� � - -� � � i � ` �. _ _ .�: _ �, _�.._...a._ - � - � � s.. , _ .. ._. � ,` c AI� � ,,� � { �.f �' � �, . p� � i }: � s , E i� I + :;- � � � � � � .� � :�_.. 0 �'- s�3 _____-�,y r �, -` _ y�� >,/X��s✓� � _ ; � y � ,�, �cr+� a n � ' � ; , . �,� /�t.�'i�a 3 � G'�� fa �. ` O �e�;� � � '� ; I i� � � " � �_ r .... . _,..., �"� �i � ; �on7' o-F �iou s t� /�wr+6 /e,.� - �,�c,� c�.�-/k ouT 6as�.�enT, (,�riu�c,k�1o�✓ �'.s as�oi►alT Wou /d ! i 4f� To �e.�,ov�c.. a��cQ / 7 C.- i�sT /( C r.� .�nT. '�/'� {i� � I iI$h �t_: (� , h 3� l� � • 4— �t 1 `--'---� � � � � � � '^-}'� 1it 1 ' Q A � �C T p3 Q- 1 �I j i G I �'-1 t i ' �__ _._ _ . _ ��ri � � � _ , i � �f ( �I 1 ,3 � --� -�� SP ��97-03 Tom/Lynn Lasser -'� .� �\ . ..,. � i i 3.07 � � ,�y�,� ,�a�� Thomas H. Lasser Lynn M. Lasser 5840 Tennison Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Evaluation of buildin� and descrintion of materials Frost footings, blocks to raise garage offof slab so it will not rust. 2. 2x4 construction, masonite siding, fiberglass shingles, plywood, trusses, garage door 9x7, service door, window. Nanative and use of nroposed buildin� The main purpose of the building will be for a work area, to update our home. 1. Staining and refinishing of molding or trim. 2. Wood working project. 3• A place to tinker with things outside of the home. The other purpose of the building will be to store lawn and garden tools and equipment. We would also like room in our garage to park our cars. By allowing us to build this garage and patio it would increase our property values. It will also improve the appearance of the property, and improve the appearance of our neighborhood. �C 1 : .----� /� q �ji�:n 1") L.-c:_.ss�..^ /�p`r�� li �L_SSC:- �� O / �!7/7 iSa i7 �!' � �I��/�'�� 5�3�- .� 7a ai5� , �-�� -:�, , � _ _ � .�� , � . ,s� � � __ � _, � � � �� -�. . _ � ,^ J ,- f�� '/,.�: Cn� C! i� S�f �� "f� =,�'-y�E�-y� L��-�,�' ,' � .r.. -� � /%�j� ��`r�� 1.i �` � , � , �; � .s � - . :��. f'�2 �,� J �� :�. ��--v2 �j � � � J�.,l , ,-� � �j;:t.� ,:� �r ; � , �� : a �-, /��, � --�- .� __--= � ��' _ `: - _, --,� �� 7Z_G/—'S , �� i �;,.��.Z,�r�.� !` 'i�. ,�� / � 'f° j�/'/j,/ i / /y� 1 .f�/ � '�v/�I` C�-t� L � rf:" � �L: ' ✓ � V yi � ��'�-.�� ,�}/'✓ > � � /� '��',�!'� �� ✓d `"�iZ 5�c� � /�lt-�u 1-L h �+- . Y �.� . .. � �I' ��,,r�� !i .{� � y. L -tJ �' +G � ��! r � _ 7 j � / l ._ � `l L t � t �, \ � `?\..' ,c ��`� �- � �"--... `� -�� '�'' ��-�.� �� t� � �iK..�.,u.�-�n-�-�./� � �� G� �".� �c � ,�� ,s�� s- ' ,�.11._,�, __._ � � �-�� .� �F%��',✓�i'I.��' ��f _ %�'�, ; —, -� ' `� ✓1 -�� % c� a/�! iS�°�-� %�{� �%G ,� L,,��,R,,,�� -� �� ..._.. �%�.. r. � . �: �.�, ,�.,�� ; - _ r L: ' -�� 9 U I i� ��L� �� . J( , u: . � d� � .� �f � • '�..�,_,__.___ c,c—�.�-�. �Q .� Gt 0�� /b 1�'- �/�t c�'h��urK C�` r/1�� 1 �t ►�e2c�'v�� (G�� -�, � k,l,�,,,., �. .� {�'Q ti � i� �, -�.l �� `-� �. �,,�G-,� D� - I � f ' � `�"' �2 � C.-i �i�c r(�`'a" ` �! /��tc' lGs� a y s- � / f G -� ; .� -�/, z �� ' C!'� � �� / ;�-�� '1 �u y fi ,�aor �icx'� L.�.��/��' C1� %-/�e ,�c�-� �'� �!'c�'USC�c�[ �i�c%%�°.�� - ._._._-- ` . 3��9 �� l% /JcziJ � S /r�c�Jc_ � �c5 � S�_ei %t�c� s,� � � �Q/ .► � j� cf% F X�'�ir.:.� e-c-� � �-c. � G��i«7` 77�� y� �.:vc.� z/� /, ".�,.� - ; ,: - _� _ ' ' 1 `� ��L (� r. ��'f 1't_ I .> - .. ./ ' � / '� i 5849 Tennison Drive N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 April 21, 1997 Scott Hickok Planning Coordinator 6431 University Ave N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Hickok, I am in receipt of the information regarding the Lassers at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. relative to their interest in buiding a workshop in their rear yard. As I will be unable to attend the hearing meeting, I am writing to inform you that I have no problem with their doing this. I trust this will not show from the front, and be completely housed in the rear. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, I may be reached during normal business hours at 521 3581. Yours ruly, Laura Wallach 3.10 C�ig�nc.:r��iS .� Srwr� � Y N'TIe� 4 Z ^� � f'nek.5 Q � >Ir!`ct$ U:J t/�ninla�nnn:�� S � :. � MEMORANDUM � TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ,�`�� FROM: Jon H. Hau�Ca�as, Assistant Director Public Works John G. Flora, Director Public Works DATE: June 4, 1997 PW97-153 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 to Central Ave. Bituminous Sidewalk Project No. ST. 1994-9 There are two sections of the Mississippi River Regional Trail along East River Road which are currently on the roadway. The sections are from Rice Creek Way to Locke Lake Road and from Glen Creek Road to Osborne Road. Plans to construct trails in the east boulevard of East River Road have been prepared by the county and reviewed by the city. These sections were to be added to one of Anoka County's east River Road reconstruction projects. The State rejected the contractor's prices and therefore the trails were never built. Hardrives, Inc. has been awarded the contract to constnict the Central Ave. Bituminous Sidewalk Project No. ST. 19949. They have been informed of the East River Road trail sections and have agreed to construct them as part of the Central Avenue project at bidded prices through supplemental agreement. The net cost of Change Order #1 is approximately $31,673.80. This is entirely reimbursable through State Aid. Recommend the City Council approve Change Order #1 to Central Ave. Bituminous Sidewalk Project No. ST. 1994-9. 4.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UIVIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FR,IDLEY, MN 55432 June 9, 1997 Hardrives Inc 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers MN 55374-9461 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1, Central Avenue Bituminous Sidewalk Project No. ST. 1994 - 9 Gentlemen_ You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the Central Avenue Bituminous Sidewalk Project No. ST. 1994 - 9 by adding the following work: Addition: Item 1. Common Excavation 2. Aggregate Base Class 5 3. Type 41 Wear Course 4. 4 in. Solid White Poly-preform 5. R,emove Curb and Gutter 6. Concrete Curb and Gutter (B-6-18) 7. Soclding Lawn Type 8. Remove �Yee 9. Wire Fence Design 4&9321 10. Metal Brace Assembly 11: �Yansplant �}ee 12. Maple Red Northern 2 in. Cal. B&B 13. Saw-Cut Bituminous 14. R,emove Bituminous Pavement 15. Swing �1rm Mailbox Posts 16. Adjust Manhole 17. Relocate Landscaping TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . �1�� i ' ! ■ uantit 750 CY 259 Tons 140 Tons 608, LF 302 LF 459 LF 990 SY 3 Each 110 I,F 2 Each 2 Each 3 Each 300 LF 58 SY 4 Each 1 Each 1 LS Price 6.00 8.00 26.50 3.0 4.00 24.00 1.48 130.00 13.00 66.00 200.00 250.00 2.50 2.00 140.00 175.00 750.00 Amount $ 4,500.00 2,072.00 3,710.00 2,249.60 1,208.00 11,016.00 '1,46520 390.00 1,430.00 132.00 400.00 750.00 750.00 116.00 560.00 175_00 750 00 $31,673.80 Original Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $241,058.50 Contract Additions - Change Order No. 1 ........................ .._..... ......._..........._... 31,673.80 �3.EVISED CONTR.ACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $�'Z2,_7_32.3Q 4.02 Hardrives, Inc. Change Order No. 1 June 9, 1997 Page 2 Submitted and approved y,ohn G. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 9th day of June, 1997_ / � _'--' '�1 Pr� e by ��. . Checked by � — �- � , , .�� „_; �it r.,+is �t f��T Director of Public Works Approved and accepted this day of , 1997 by HARDRIVES, INC. ; �� t �� i � � mes Larson, Jr., Projec ordinator Approved and accepted this day of , 1997 by CITY OF FRIDLEY Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager Approved and accepted this day of , 1997 by Metro Division Assistant State Aid Engineer 4.03 Ei�9:nr,er�n9 y S t• �Y 'h'.flerr ' Q � O P�r.=, O'S nce:s > �' (� hie.nlenan<c U y � 5 d O ? MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �� PW97-150 �� FROM: Jon H. Hau"kaas, Assistant Director Public Works John G. Flor irector Public Works � DATE: May 28, 1997 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 4 to 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996-1&2 The 1996 Street Improvement Project No: ST. 1996-1&2 is 100% complete. Final quantities have been submitted requiring an adjustment by Change Order. This last Change Order covers additional bituminous mix and an additional RR Crossing message. In a change to the original design for Alden Way, we opted to be mill the surface in order to eliminate reflective cracking and to maintain driveway apron elevations. When this was done, we found very little asphalt and therefore the base was required to be rebuilt. The milled asphalt was used for this resulting in a savings on the overall quantity of Class V required in the amount of $18,613.50. The extra tonnage of bituminous required to provide a full binder course resulted in an additional cosf of $27,404.40. For a net increase cost of $8790.90. We received a better quality road. The additional RR Crossing sign was required on the east side of the tracks on 77'� Way due to work related to watermain work previously added to the project. The net cost of Change Order #4 is an additional $10,991.50. The overall project is still under the budget amount. Recommend the City Council approve Change Order #4 to 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996-1 &2. 5.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY � ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 June 9, 1997 Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 13925 Northdale Blvd Rogers MN 55374-0303 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 4, 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 1&2 Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 1&2 by adding the following work: Addition• �te� 1 2 Pavement RR Message (X-ing Poly Preform) Tyhpe 31 Binder Course Mixture �-�- �_:. •�1 • Original Contract Amount Contract Additions - Change Orders: No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 5.02 u ntit 1 Each 340 T � Pr ,icg 1,522.50 27.85 TOTAL ADDITIONS $527,183.64 $7,510.00 20,576.00 15,276.00 1�,.9��50 $581,537.14 Amount 1,522.50 9,469.00 $10,991.50 Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. Change Order No. 4 June 9, 1997 Page 2 Submitted and appro d by John G. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 9th day of June, 1997. �� Pr red by Checked by ' , � � L Jo . lora, P.E. ector of Public Works � � �� Approved and accepted this day of 1�'�', 1997 by THOMAS & , S CO RUCTION, INC. Dan omas, roject Coordinator Approved and accepted this day of , 1997 by � CITY OF FRIDLEY Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager Approved and accepted this day of , 1997 by Metro Division Assistant State Aid Engineer 5.03 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM � TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER: �� FROM: CHUCK MCKUSICK, FIRE CHIEF � DATE: MAY 21, 1997 SUBJECT: CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT TEAM CONTRACT Attached is a City Council resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, to provide hazardous materials Chemical Assessment Team service for the two year period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1999. The agreement is essentially the same as the current agreement which was executed August 12, 1996, and expires June 30, 1997. I enclose the six contract copies for signature and return to me. I will forward the agreements to the State for signature by State officials, together with the Council's resolution. Dir: CA'I1FY98&99Coutract 6.01 RESOLUTION # - 1997 RESOLUT[ON AUTHOR[Z1NG AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR FURNISHING CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT TEAM SERVICES FOR STATE FY 98 & 99 WHEREAS, the City of Fridley's Fire Department has provided Chemical Assessment Team service to the State of Minnesota under contract which will expire June 30, 1997, and WHEREAS, the State has solicited the City to continue said service for a two year period from July l, 1997 to June 30, 1999 under substantially the same terms as the current agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into a service agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, for the providing of Chemical Assessment Team service as authorized by the Minnesota Hazardous Materials Incident Response Act, and pursuant to the terms and consideration recited in the "North Metro Chemical Assessment Team" agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9`'' DAY OF JtJNE, 1997. AT'TEST: Wiliiam A. Champa, City Clerk Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor 6.�2 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM if' TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �l� �� FROM: CHUCK MCKUSICK, FIRE CHIEF� DATE: MAY 27, 1997 SUBJECT: FIRE TRAINING CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT Attached is a City Council Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a lease agreement between the City and the Fire Training Association for the Association's use of the fire training center in Fridley. The Association consists of the Fridley, Brooklyn Center, and Spring Lake Park, Blaine, Mounds View (SBl� fire depaRments. The lease was drafted by our city attorney, and sets forth the conditions for use of ihe training center. %.� � 0 RESOLUTION # - 1997 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRE TRAINING ASSOCIATION,-A JOINT POWERS CREATED ORGANIZATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE FIRE TRAINING CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Fridiey entered a Joint Powers Agreement on December 12, 1990 with the cornmunities of Brooklyn Center, Spring Lake Park, Blaine, Mounds View and Columbia Heights for the co�struction and operation of a fire training center to be located on property owned by the City of Fridley, and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement established a"Fire Training Association" as the administrative body for construction and operation of the training facility, and specified that a 25 year lease was to be entered between the Association and the City in consideration of twenty five dollars ($25.00) for the lease term, and WI�REAS, construction of the last major structure at the training facility is now being completed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter a twenty five year (25) lease agreement with the Fire Training Association in consideration of twenty five dollars ($25.00) for the Association's use of the Fire Training Facility property. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9"' DAY OF JLJNE, 1997. ATTEST: William A. Champa, City Clerk Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor �%.�2 FIRE TRAINING CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Agreement is intended to be a lease of the below described premises, including any structure or other fixtures thereon, between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipality governed by the laws of that State as well as its own municipal charter, as owner of the aforesaid premises, and the �re Training Association, a Joint Powers Authority created pursuant to the Minnesota Joint Powers Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 et seq.) between the Cities of Fridley, Brooklyn Center, Spring Lake Park, Blaine and Mounds View, all located in and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. In consideration of the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the City of Fridley (hereinafter, "the City") agrees to lease to the Fire Training Association (hereinafter, "the Association"), certain property located within the City, having a street address of 300 71" Avenue, and a legal description as shown on the attached "Sketch and Description" dated 5-27-97 prepared by Kurth Surveying Inc., together with and including any and all fixtures, including structures, thereon, for a period of twenty-five years, be�inning on the 9'� day of June, 1997. In addition to, and as part of the terms and agreements herein, the City and the Association agree to the following: l. The Association agrees to insure against, and hold the City harmless from, any and all claims of any type, condition, or classification, including those for casualty or other personal injury, that arise on the premises, or from any activities that are conducted on the premises, during the r.ourse of this lease. 2. This agreement is not assignable in whole or part to any other party or entity without the express consent of the City of Fridley. 3. Any and all structures and fixtures placed on the property shall, on expiration or termination of this lease, belong to the City of Fridley. 4. This Agreement can be terminated or modified at any time by mutual agreement between the City and the Association. A breach of any of tl�e terms of this lease shall also be grounds for its termination by the non-breachin� party. Eailure of either party to terminate this Agreement for any violation of its terms shall not operate as a waiver of that party to invoke tt�at violation, or a substantialiy similar term, as a grounds for termination at some future time. 7.03 F1RE TRAiNiNG FAC(LITY LEASE AGREEMENT (Page two of two pages) CITY OF FRIDLEY Nancy J. Jorger�son, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager FIRE TRAINING ASSOCIATION Chief Ron Boman, Brooklyn Center Fire Department Captain Don Krueger, Spring Lake Park, Blaine, Mounds View Fire Department, Inc. Chief Ctluck McKusick, Fridley Eire Department ATTEST: William Champa, City Clerk 7.04 Date: � � r.�n i.,..., .-.r �. a.� .� -t�s�i 1tL'.T GK �j O'LSL•R� PT 10� _ c_� �.a -� �1 �y i♦ qv ` P'1w n wE.+O�iT � t M(FH7 GEwT�fY~ 7 TNIS SV �o z,,,,, � sc�LE �� .i�_ I17NAr 1 iu1�11 OUL7 IIC�SEO t��Dciwveruw vv�+ Vy�ppj J((�CRfON •Si. N•E.� ' `••••• �� ••"�iii � nr�iwc M Me tZe�EA/�+��. to��u K�uat. un. Ss.:� BEARINGS�'AqE•'ON AN i� •• '�j ...... ..�..w .v.ii :i::wi w�:v.tiv viniv�i ! ( t�- t+�RTvt 1�NC. �.i; 1ir! b�n+`�`�!. `✓lt�..�\s T.`�O� �.Z`� � i i�----- =--- ---- I I'i I I I 1 i 1 I I ' 1 I I i j I ;' I I i I� I � I I Y I� I � 1 I ": I II 1 !'-I 11 I I�^ � I 1 I !� �� ..c - 2��- \ s_ � t'i � ----- ------- I I"!` I' � I I 1 I � I I '� � ( I I� ! I �I 1 1 I-� � ! � I 1�i 1 1 I� I I �I l I'I t� Iv I :" I �' ��'tJ i' 1= I �`'�� I s; I I''Iv 1 e� 1 rI J I�I__ I! �`' i � �I '� I�I� i� .av i�. sl II I� I� !7 ��' � 19 _, I I i=i� i� ��" _K�~ i� �i �i � i I � ! , �°`� � � i �v I !��` � `v � - I � ' !' � li ! I '�: 1 ; ! l� t j � ! I I i t..�1 1 �� + ! !. ! � a ! [.+. i � i �.- Z,� _ , �� . - , i �� i � � i � = �� i i �1` � �, _ , ' � . .__ - T _ " _ _ 1.' =....�'i 'v...ii�:�sK-7\t11' ._'_ I r ` "�`--- I � ` ' _ � 1 Z� I i i, - � ,.__ , �^ , y �--i— •'.: _•_'i��_L.ii��.io�K-.i,i N — — - - i -�. - � � (al��_ �� v__t�o�4 ; p:.. �.`.;,a �. 2.7.:,�, ioa oi d�e east evu.uu iieet rnFttio Southesst �, :.. Qaarter ofthe Southvve� Quarter of Sxtian I 1, . : . Z:1 �an- ^' !'., xt...- - '--- WUth (x► h,,,r H,.,....s '-._� _.�.; w ..�.,g �:.o:Iy �»wo rwria ioZ.w ieet and nwti�eny ofthe � _-- - - - -- 7.05 MEMORANDUM � � FINANCE DEPARTMENT ' �C� CITY OF FRIDLEY �r Frm � 7� TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER ,^4i'�'� � FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR . YK1K Y L �cr�aR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ONA PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE AN ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (NOAH'S ARK OF FRIDLEY PROJECI� PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA LAW, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING DATE: JUNE 5,1997 Attached is a resolution calling for a public hearing on the issuance of revenue bonds to support the senior housing project proposed by Noah's Ark. All legal review and preparation has been provided by Mary Ippel from the firm of Briggs and Morgan. Ms. Ippel has requested that the City Council permit a public hearing to be held on July 14,1997, for the purpose of reviewing the Housing Finance Program associated with this project. Ms. Ippel is also requesting that on.the same evening a resolution be provided approving the Housing Finance Program. Staff is recommending that the City Council call for a public hearing on this issue on July 14,1997. RDP/ me Attachment 8.01 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE AN ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (NOAH'S ARK OF FRIDLEY PROJECT) PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA LAW, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING (a) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), confers upon cities, the power to issue revenue bonds to finance multifamily housing developments within the boundaries of the city; and (b) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), has received from Noah's Ark Senior Housing, Inc. (the "Developer"), a proposal that the City undertake a program to assist in financing a Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of revenue bonds or obligations (in one or more series) (the "Bonds") pursuant to the Act; and (c) WHEREAS, before proceeding with consideration of the request of the Developer it is necessary for the City to hold a public hearing on the housing finance program and proposal pursuant to the Act: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, as follows: l. A public hearing on the housing finance program and proposal of the Developer will be Yield at the time and place set. forth in the Notice of Public Hearing hereto attached. 2. The housing finance program and general nature of the proposal and an estimate of the principal amount of Bonds to be issued to finance the proposal are described in the attached form of Notice of Public Hearing. 3. A draft copy of the housing finance program witYi proposed forms of all attachments and exhibits is on file in the office of the Manager. 4. The Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing to be given one publication in the official newspaper of the City and also in a newspaper of general circulation available in the City, not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, substantially in the form of the attached Notice of Public Hearing. 352320.1 3 8.OL Adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, this 9th day of June, 1997. ATTEST: Manager Mayor 352320.1 4 8.03 CITY OF FRIDLEY M E M O R A N D O M ;, � ("v' TO: WII,LIAM W. BIIRNS, CITY MANAGER �L�� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERR SUBJECT: ESTABLISH A POBLIC HEARING FOR SIICCESSFIIL CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT, INC. (MAIN EVENT) FOR AN INTORICATING LIQUOR LICENSE DATE: JUNE 5, 1997 Successful Concept Development, Inc. (SCDI) has purchased Main Event, 7820 University Avenue, and has applied for an Intoxicating Liquor License. SCDI will retain the Main Event name. Pursuant to Chapter 603 Section .07 of the Fridley City Code, we are required to hold a public hearing before issuing this license. As a result, we would like to establish a public hearing for Main Event (SCDI) on June 23, 1997. The Police Department has performed the required background investigation on Main Event and does not see any reason to deny this license. 9.01 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDI,IM Memo to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council � From: William W. Burns, City Manager �� '� Date: June 5, 1997 Subject: Mighty Ducks Application William W. Burns City Manager Mr. Paul Erickson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission, has requested that Fridley apply for a"Mighty Ducks" grant for renovation of the roof and locker rooms associated with Arena No. 2 at Columbia Arena. The amount being requested is $50,000. This amount will be matched by another $50,000 from the National Sports Center Foundation. Although the Amateur Sports Commission now owns Columbia Arena, they are ineligible to apply for Mighty Ducks funding. Anoka County could apply; however, they have a separate application of their own. Since Columbia Arena does provide a valued service to Fridley residents and since there is no cost in this for the City, I am recommending that the City Council approve the attached resolution. WWB/jb 10.01 RESOLUTION NO. - 1997 RESOLUTION AUTFIORTZING SUBMISSION OF ICE FACILITY RENOVATION GRANT APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission (MASC), via the State Capitol Bonding Fund, provides for the capital funds to assist political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota to renovate existing sport facilities, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley desires to facilitate the renovation of Columbia Arena. NOW, TI�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the Ciry of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, that: l. The National Sport Center Foundation (NSCF) and the MASC estimates that the total cost of renovating said facility sha11 be $100,000. The City of Fridley is requesting $50,000 from the Mighty Ducks Capital Bonding Fund, and the NSCF will assume responsibility for a match requirement of $50,000. 2. The MASC agrees to own, assume 100 percent operating costs for the said sport facility, and will operate said facility for its intended purpose for the functionallife of the facility which is estimated to be twenty years. 3. The City Council of the City of Fridley agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with the Nfinnesota Amateur Sports Commission for the specific purpose of administering funds for the renovation project. 4. An application be made to the State of 1Vfinnesota, M'innesota Amateur Sports Commission, to be included in the Nfinnesota Amateur Sport Commission's (Governor's) Capital Budget request for an amount estimated to be $50,000. S. The City Manager and the City of Fridley are authorized and directed to execute said application and serve as the official liaison with the Mmnesota Amateur Sports Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TF� CITY COUNCIL OF T'HE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF JUNE, 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 10.02 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Fridley City Council at the duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 9�' day of June, 1997, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. William W. Burns, City Manager 10.03 1VIINNESOTA AMATEUR SPORTS COMMISSION FACILITY BONDING APPLICATION A. Loca1 unit of Government responsible for project: City of Fridley in conjunction with NSCF Bruce Cusick. B. Primary Contact Person for the Project: William W. Burns City Manager 6431 University Avenue, N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Anoka County Work: (612) 572-3500 Home: (612) 572-1658 C. Name of Project: Columbia Arena. D. Type of Application: (check one) New Arena Grant X Existing Arena GranY E. Project Documentation - to be completed by NSCF. � F. Federal Employee Identification Number: 41-600-7700 G. Execution. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the applicant has caused this application to be executed on . 19 . CITY OF FRIDLEY NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 10.04 ENDORSEMENT Signature of person authorized to sign on behalf of the local �u�it. I hereby certify that the unit of government identified is willing and able to undertake the project described in this application. DATE: 10.05 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR � � � oF FRIDLEY LICENSES EXCAVATING Beyers Excavating 2742 Co Rd J Mounds View MN 55112 LeRoux Excavating Inc 2104 64 St White Bear Lake MN 55110 GENERAL CONTRACTOR - COMMERCIAL Advance Companies Inc 6400 Central Ave NE Fridley MN 55432 Amcon Corp 200 W Hwy 13 Burnsville MN 55337 Arbuckle Construction Inc 7808 W 99 St Bloomington MN 55438 McClellan Builders 21640 Tulip St NW Anoka MN 55303 Superior Construction Co 2717 E 32 St Minneapolis MN 55406 Welsh Construction Corp 8200 Normandale Blvd Minneapolis MN 55437 Virgil Beyer Thomas LeRoux Larry Trapp Timothy Menning Jim Arbuckle Ewen McClellan Jack Barnes Greg Anderson � 2,02 RON JULKOWSKI Building O#ficial Same RON JULKOSICI Building Official Same Same Same Same Same GENERAL CONTRACTOR - RESIDENTIAL AI-Ko Home Improvements (1927) 8090 4 Ave Lino Lakes MN 55014-2008 AI Kopecky Best Built Construction (20069845) 2308 Main St NW Coon Rapids MN 55448 Century Roofing (20093168) 6336 Lyndale Ave S Richfield MN 55423 Coty Construction Inc (9356) 1001 6 St S Hopkins MN 55343 DeMars, Mike Construction f 6614) 8401 166 Cir NW Ramsey MN 55303 Dimension Builders Inc 12621) 6461 Riverview Ter NE Fridley MN 55432 First Choice Exteriors (4266) 2405 Annapolis Ln N #240 Plymouth MN 55441 Fuller & Son Constractors (20071253) 541 W 98 St Bloomington MN 55420 Ideal Construction Inc (4240) 12621 Tyler Cir NE Blaine MN 55434 Norberg Robert F Construction (4121) 325 Evans Ave NW Elk River MN 55330 Fred Olson John Whelan Pat Coty Michael DeMars Richard Morkrid Pat Froemmeing Paul Fuller Blair George Robert Norberg Nutzmann Bros Construction (20043453) 736 1 st Ave NW New Brighton MN 55112 Tom Nutzmann 12.03 STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Thurs Roofing (9346) 5717 113 Ave N Champlin MN 55316 HEATING Anderson Heating & Air 4347 Central Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421-2925 MASONRY Bendiske Concrete & Masonry Inc 808 Johnson St Anoka MN 55303 MOBILE HOME INSTALLER Dietman Richard 10059 Co Rd 47 St Cloud MN 56301 Mobile Maintenance Inc 505 Fairmont St NE Fridley MN 55432 Northgate Homes 1 Auburn Dr Osseo MN 55369 Northside Mobile Home Service Inc 17739 Swallow St NW Andover MN 55304 PLUMBING Bardwell Mechanical Inc 4059 Chicago Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 Mr Rooter/KCJ Enterprises Inc 2800 Campus Dr Plymouth MN 55441 Plumb Right 121682AveN Brooklyn Park MN 55444 Kevin Thurs Ray Anderson Art Bendiske Ricahrd Dietman Steve Witzel Jerry Petterson Mike Lubrant Braxten Bardwell Cordell Johnston Dale Carter 12.04 Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official RONJULKOWSKI Building Official STATE OF MINN Same Same Same STATE OF MINN Same Same Plumbing Piace inc 5355 Hyfand PI Bloomington MN 55437 Widmer Inc PO Box 219 St Bonifacius MN 55375 SIGN ERECTOR A LaPointe Sign lnc 6600 Oxford St St Louis Park MN 55426 TRAILER Park Construction Co 7900 Beech St NE Fridley MN 55432 Roman Demarais Tony Vanderlinde Mark Wilson Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official At: 7900 Beech Street NE 12.05 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY Thomas & Sons Construction, inc. 13925 Northdale Blvd. Rogers, MN 55374 ESTIMATES JUNE 9,1997 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 � 1& 2 EstimateNo.9 ................•.---............. $78,684.27 Richmar Construction Inc. 7776 Alden Way Fridley, MN 55432 Water Treatment Pfant No. 3 Project No. 293 Estimate No. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 47,797.87 S.N. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 650 Quaker Avenue Jordan, MN 55352 Removal & Replacement of Miscellaneous Concrete Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk Project No. 305 Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,638.70 Insituform Central, Inc. 17988 Edison Avenue Chesterfield, MO 63005 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Repair Project No. 304 Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ '69,110.60 TO: FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY M E M O R A N D O M , 4j�� WILLIAM W. BURN3, CITY MANAGER �t1�� ,; RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERR SUBJECT: CONTINIIATION OF PIIBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION/SUSPENSION OF INTO%ICATING LIQIIOR LICENSE FOR SHARR CLIIB DATE: JUNE 5, 1997 The June 9 City Council Meeting was selected to continue the public hearing to consider revocation/suspension of the intoxicating liquor license for Sharx Club located at 3720 East River Road. 14.01 TO: WILLIAM W. BIIRNS, CITY MANAGER F� � FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: WILLIAM A. CHAMpA, CITY CHARTER STAFF LIAISON RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7.02 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER JUNE 5, 1997 At the May 1997 meeting of the Fridley Home Rule Charter Commission, an amendment to Section 7.02 of the Fridley City �harter was approved. This amendment removes the 16 mi.11 language and replaces it with a Consumer Price Index specific to the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan a�ea. The Charter Commission felt that this would eliminate obsolete language while retaining some limits in the area of taxation. The Charter Commission agreed to expedite the amendment process but wanted the proposed changes reviewed and approved by the Charter Commission Attorney. Elizabeth K. Moore, representing Terpstra, Black, Brandell & Hoffman, has reviewed the amendment and recommended that approval be withheld until the 1997 Omnibus Tax Bill, recently signed by Governor Carlson, can be considered. Therefore, we recommend that the June 9, 1997 public hearing on the amendment to this section be continued at July 14, 1997 Council meeting to allow Ms. Moore time to review the entire Tax Bill. c: Mr. Don Mittelstadt, Charter Commission Chairman 15.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY M E M O R A N D II M /.'� TO: AILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER�<'fw �� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERR SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR VALLEY CREER, INC. FOR AN INTO%ICATING LIQIIOR LICENSE DATE: JUNE 5, 1997 on the June 9 City Council agenda is a public hearing to consider the approval of an intoxicating liquor license for Valley Creek, Inc. (Map1e Lanes), located at 6310 Highway 65. A Public Hearing Notice is attached for your review. Pursuant to Chapter 603 Section .07 of the Fridley City Code, we are required to hold a public hearing before issuing this license. The Police Department has performed the required background investigation on Maple Lanes and Public Safety Director SaTlman has: not found any reason to deny this request. 16.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will hold a public hearing at the City Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue Northeast on June 9, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. on the question of issuing an Intoxicating Liquor License to Valley Creek, Inc. (Maple Lanes) for the property located at 6310 Highway 65. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact.Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than June 5, 1997. Anyone having an interest in this matter should make their interest known at this public hearing. William A. Champa City Clerk Publish: May 29, 1997 16.02 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 6, 1997 TO: William Burns, City Manager,��7�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant RE: Public Hearing Rezoning Eight (8) Properties from M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial to M-4, Manufacturing Only INTRODUCTION The purpose of the public hearing is to consider rezoning eight properties to the proposed M-4, Manufacturing Only district. The Planning Commission has recommended that five of the eight sites be rezoned to M-4. BACKGROUND The rezoning request was initiated by the City as part of its effort to better control the location and effects of warehouse and distribution facilities. The rezoning process was initiated after deliberation of ordinance modifications to the industrial districts. The Council has passed first reading of an ordinance which: Amends the M-1, M-2, and M-3 tndustrial d'rstricts to eliminate loading docks on corner lots which face the public right of way across from residential districts, and 2. Creates an M-4, Manu#acturing Only district. Second and final reading of this ordinance is also proposed for action in the consent agenda. 17.01 M-4 Properties June 6, 1997 Page 2 GOALS OF CODE CHANGES The intent of the recentiy considered code changes were to: Reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties by: • Controlling theic location in the City (rezone sites); and •. Through implementation of site design controls (amend existing zoning language). 2. Encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities and which require more complex building systems (buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher construction values and less loading docks than warehouse . construction). 3. Promote "clean" uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which may cause noise. 4. Eliminate uses which require significanf amounts of outdoor storage, display, or are already permitted in other zoning districts (i.e. repair garages are permitted in commercial districts) The M-4 district accomplished goals #3 and #4. The question now is which sites should be rezoned to M-4. ANALYSIS All vacant industrial parcels were evaluated using the following 4 criteria: • Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a residential use? • Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M-4 zoning district? • Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility in excess of 10 loading docks? 17.02 M-4 Properties June 6, 1997 Page 3 '• ts there a distribution warehouse facility already in the area? For this . analysis the City was broken into 3 distinct industrial sectors. � If the answer to any of these questions was "yes", the land was proposed for M-4 consideration. Seven properties were discussed by the Planning Commission during the ordinance creation process. An eighth property has been included with the properties considered for M-4, "Manufacturing Only", zoning. The eighth property is owned by Coachman Companies and is located at 100 Osborne Road, NE. � SPECIFIC PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED FOR REZONING TO M-4 1. Everest Properties - Main Street 2. Northco Property - Northco Drive 3. Anderson Trucking - Osborne Road 4. McGlynn's - Commerce Lane 5. R.R.I. Inc. P�operty - Ashton Avenue 6. Friendly Chevrolet - Central Avenue 7. Kurt Manufacturing - Central Avenue 8. Coachman Companies - Osborne Road The intent of goals #1 and #2 is to accomplish two different purposes, protecting residential areas from excessive truck activity, and maximizing the remaining vacant land area for manufacturing uses. The City Council needs to decide if all or some of the sites should be rezoned based on meeting one or both of these.goals. The Northco site (#2) is recommended to be deleted from rezoning consideration. It is . not large enough for a 10 dock distribution warehouse facility, and is not immediately adjacent to a residential area such as the R.R.I., Inc. site, for example (Site #5). Rezoning the remaining seven sites accomplishes both goals #1 and #2. Five of the seven sites are located in or across the street from residential areas (Sites 1, 3, 5, 6, 7). The remaining two sites are not near residential areas, but are located near existing distribution warehouse facilities (Sites 4 and 8). The attached matrix shows how each site relates to goals #1 & #2. The McGlynn and Kurt Manufacturing sites present an additional issue. Because each of these sites a�e separately described but proposed for expansion to existing facilities, the existing sites would also have to be rezoned to M-4 in orderto avoid two separate zoning districts applying to the same ownership. 17.03 M-4 Properties June 6, 1997 Page 4 The owners of the McGlynn's and Coachman sites have submitted letters objecting to the rezoning (letters attached). RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning all sites except #2 (Northco) to M-4, Manufacturing Only. The existing McGlynn's and Kurt Manufacturing sites are also proposed to be rezoned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended that the following sites be rezoned to M-4, Manufacturing Only: 1. Everest Properties (#1) 2. Anderson Trucking (#3) 3. Ashton Avenue (#5) 4. Friendly Chevrolet (#6) 5. Kurt Manufacturing (#7) The Commission recommended that the following sites not be rezoned to M-4, Manufacturing Only: 1. Northco (#2) 2. McGlynn's (#4) 3. Coachman Companies (#8) CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, in making its recommendation to the City Council, weighed the analysis presented by staff in Goals #1 &#2 with the testimony of the affected property owners. The Commission concurred with the staff recommendation to delete • #he Northco site from consideration based on tfie size of the parcel. The McGlynn's and Coachman sites were deleted based on the possible impact of a change in zoning on the existing owners and businesses. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. SHI y 7.04 #' I Area: #1 Everest_Properties #3 Anderson Trucking #5 Ashton Avenue #7 Kurt Manufacturing #6 Friendly Chevrolet �nrn� �ranr� #2. . . . _ ,. All sites in Goal #1 plus: #8 Coachman Companies #4 McGlynn's PROPOSED SITES TO BE REZONED TO M-4 17.05 a C�O�'�1M(:RCI��L I'€�OPf-KTI' II�\%ES1,ti9LNTS, iNC May 19, 1997 �.;��„�:��;,�, �� ,��:�,� ��,�:�,; �� City of Fridley Planning Commission Diane Savage, Chairperson David Kondrick, Vice Chairperson Connie Modig Dean Saba LeRoy Oquist Brad Sielaff Larry Kuechle William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Planning Commission Members and City Staff: We are writing to e�ress our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of our 10.67 acres of land at the southwest corner of Main Street and 61 st Avenue to M-4, Manufacturing Only. We request that our property retain its current M-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning classification. We object to the proposed rezoning to M-4 for the following reasons: • The warehouse construction moratorium which preceded the M-4 rezoning proposal was put in place with no notice or warning to us to prevent our development and construction of a high quality 185,000 SF distribution warehouse for a quality tenant which would have been constructed in 1997 but for the moratorium and proposed zoning change. City staff was well aware of our plans to develop the noted warehouse on our site after numerous meetings to review project plans, and yet staff gave no indication whatsoever that the moratorium and future rezoning were being considered. .• Our site is ideally suited for development of a warehouse facility due to its size, configuration, proximity to I-694, location in an established industrial area, and availability of rail service. 17.n� _'(�2; � Lunh I,�k�� I��;,iu N( ) hu� l i�'�l , • h�i�t'villc'. A'IN "; ;I1 ; � +f;;':h;(�-�r�ilti Page Two May 19, 1997 • We purchased our site after fully exploring the applicable M-2 zoning classification and requirements, and in anticipation of developing the site consistent with the M-2 zoning, for warehouse purposes. • The City's action in establishing the warehouse construction moratorium and the proposed M-4 rezoning will deprive us of a substantial business opportunity to develop the property for a high demand industriaUwarehouse facility in a strong industrial market for tenants and institutional buyers, costing us lost profits in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars. • This parcel and the adjoining parcels extending on the west side of Main Street south to I-694 and beyond have been long zoned M-2 and these industrial uses, including warehousing, have successfully co-existed with the adjoining residential areas for many years. • 61 st Avenue and Main Street are constructed to handle and do currently handle truck traffic generated by industrial uses, including warehouses. • Our site represents only 0.9% of the City's 1,148 acres of industrially zaned land and, accordingly, its development will not have a significant impact on the overall community, whether for warehouse, or manufacturing use. We request that our property remain zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. Sincerely, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC. ,1^ imothy J. Nelson TJN:Ic 17.07 W�IIIAM G. MOORE STEPHEN M. HALSEY RIGHARD S. ESKOLA April 30, 1997 MOORE, HALSEY & ESKOLA, L.L.C. ATTOR1YEyg AT LAW PACO OFFICE CENTER - SUITE 160 7260 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NORTHEAST FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 5 543 2-313 2 TELEPHONE (612) 571-2410 Ms. Barbara Dacy Community Development Director 6341 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Proposed Rezoning - Coachman Companies Dear Ms. Dacy: FAX (612) 57�-2549 As I indicated to you during our telephone conversations, the undersigned has been retained to represent Coachman Companies with respect to the proposed rezoning of their property located on Osborne Road from M-1 to M-4. The purpose of this letter is. to voice my clients' strong objection to this rezOning. I would like to begin by voicing my clients position that they have always felt that they had a good working relationship with the City of Fridley throughout the years. My clients have been land owners in Fridley for many years and have had the pleasure of working with the city staff throughout that time in developing and utilizing their property in the city of Fridley. During that time they have always had the utmost respect for the City staff and have had a good working relationship with the City staff. While my clients wish to continue that strong working relationship with the City of Fridley, they feel compelled to vQice their objection to the proposed rezoning of their property from M-1 to M-4. In essence, my clients do not understand the utility and rationale behind the City�s proposal, especially as it pertains to their specific lot on Osborne Road. It appears as though the City, through its own lack of foresight, is now "picking on" the remaining land owners even though all around the proposed changed zoning sites there is precisely the type of activity that the City is trying to prohibit. For example, specifically with respect to my clients property on Osborne Road, there are large warehouse and distribution sites all around this property. In essence, the change of zoning with respect to my clients property will have little or no effect on the City's attempt to control truck traffic in residential areas, due to the fact that � %.�8 Ms. Barbara Dacy April 30, 1997 Page Two said traffic already exists and will continue to exist whether or not my clients land is ever developed for distribution or warehouse facilities. Furthermore, this appears to be an attempt for spot zoning by picking out the remaining undeveloped land and preventing those owners from using the land consistent with current zoning, while the surrounding properties enjoy said use because they are already developed. An even greater concern is the fact that the zoning change would resu�t in a"taking" of progerty by the City of Fridlev in that it would reduce the potential development value of my clients property. My clients will be limited in what they can use the property for.if the zoning is changed. The parcel of land owned by my clients will drop in value thereby resulting in a"taking" In short, my clients believe that the proposal by the City of Fridley in general and especially as it pertains to its property is ill-conceived and ill-timed. My clients land is not adjacent to a residential area and to rezone my clients land would accomplish nothing for the City of Fridley except create ill will. My clients hope that the parties can work out a solution that is. acceptable to all. Please feel free to contact me regarding this matter. Very uly yours, - � � Richard S. Eskola RSE/j 1 cc: Coachman Companies 17.09 Vacant Commercial and Industrial Property Inventory Property lnforrnation �. Owner: Commercial Property Investment 2685 Long Lake Road Roseville, MN 55113 PlN: 22-30-24=11-0008,0007,0006 r �ea: See Map Above Market Value: $146,200; 164,604; 150,000 {1995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy lndustria17.10 N Vacant Commercial and Industrial Property lnventory Property information �;��., �,��- Owner: Nor�hco Rea1 Estate Services 4900 Viking Drive Edina, MN 55435 Dennis Zylia: 820-1650 P 1 N : 11=30-24-31-0010 '' �ea: 95,832 Sq. Ft.12.2 Ac. Market Value: $143,700 (1995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy industrial�7.y 1 .,: : .� N 2, Vacant Commerciai and Industrial Pro ert lnve p y ntory Property Information Uwner: Anderson Trucking Co. 203 Cooper Ave P.O. Box '1377 St. Cloud, MN 56301 P I N: 12-30-24-21-002 8 �` rea: 166,089 Sq. Ft./3.81 Ac. Iv�arket Value: $21 � ,gpp. (� 995) Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial 17.12. N Vacant Commercial and Industrial Property Inventory Property information 'Wed ?,r`�z� Owner: McGlynn Bakeries, lnc. 7350 Commerce Lane � Fridley, MN 55432 John Prichard: 574-2222 P I N: 10-30-24-14-0058 & 11-30-24-23-0025 " rea: 177,790 Sq. Ft.16.3 Ac. IVlarket Value: $262,400 (1995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy Indus#ria117.13 , v.� . �� . � , N ,� `/acant Comrraercial and industriai Property inventory Property Information , �t/-,�; ., +y' Owner: RRI Inc. 820 38th Lane . Anoka, MN 55303 421-6046 P I N : 3-30-24-13-0016 ^ rea: 71,000 Sq. F#./1.63 Ac. ivlarket Value: $71,000 (1995) Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial 17.14 Property has r � access. � ., i „ Vacant Commercial and lndustrial Property Inventory - Property lnformation w�� I,��2- Owner: Fridiey Cheverolet Geo 1578 University Avenu� St. Paul, MN 55104 P 1 N : 12-30-24-21-0005 /' �ea: 139,400 Sq. Ft./3.2 Ac. Market Value: $124,400 (1995� Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial _ 17.15 . � 24 O� P11 � �� M� Zo Vacant Commercial and Industrial Property Inventory Property information --, :�,�.�: r � , �/acant Gommerceal and Industrial Property tnventory Property Information �ed �1 tz. Coachman Properties 17.17 i � • N 19 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 5, 1997 TO: William Bums, City Manager �i� err� - FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Second and Final Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 110 of the Fridley City Code, Finding and Declaring Unpaved, Gravel, or Dirt Driveways to be a Public Nuisance BACKGROUND The City Council adopted the first reading of the ordinance declaring gravel or dirt driveways as a nuisance on July 8, 1996. The City Council also authorized staff to hire the Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) to work with the households who are directly affected by the ordinance. Councilman Schneider also requested a report on the financial burden of the ordinance requirements prior to second and final reading. C�'� �, -•• Section 110 of the City Code regarding public nuisances is proposed to be amended to declare a gravel or dirt driveway as a nuisance. As you recall, the City Attomey suggested this approach rather than amending the zoning ordinance. The City had lost a court case based on the legal nonconforming status of the driveway. During the ordinance process, several advantages were identified for paving gravet or dirt driveways. In summary, paving the driveways would not only improve the visual appeal and appearance of properties, but would also serve an environmental purpose by preventing soil and gravel from eroding into the street and ultimately into the City's storm sewers and detention ponds. After several meetings in 1996, the ordinance was drafted to permit owners whose property is subdividable or connected to.an unimproved street or alley to pave the 18.01 2"a Reading Gravel Driveway Ordinance June 5, 1997 Page 2 driveway when the property is subdivided or the unimproved street or alley is paved. Owners who.are not required to pave their entire driveway at this time must pave a 20 foot section of the driveway if it connects to a paved street. If an abutting street or alley is not paved, paving the 20 feet of the driveway is not necessary. The proposed ordinance also provides for "abatement assistance" at the "unresenred discretion" of the City. After Council action in July, CEE was hired to personally assist property owners with evaluating and possibly selecting a paving option which would best fit within an owner's financial means. CEE PROCESS In September 1996, City staff and CEE mailed a cover letter, a summary of the ordinance, and a summary of the financial options available to 234 households. In addition, there were finro attempts to contact all 234 households personally by phone. It was determined that 31 households already had a paved driveway, and 111 households either did not respond to phone messages or had unpublished phone numbers. 92 households, however, were reached and 47 of those households pcoceeded to request audits. Of the 47 who expressed an interest in an audit, 33 have � expressed interest in participating in the City's volume based paving program. The remaining 45 households of the 92 contacted either were not interested or offered miscellaneous comments which range from refusal to comply with the ordinance to not being prepared to make a decision. Some of the interested homeowners have already called for estimates on asphalt or concrete paving. The estimates received are apparently at or above $1.25 per square foot for asphalt. If the Ci#y receives a bid which is less than $1.25 per square foot or even below $1.00 per square foot, participation may increase. CEE staff.worked personally with homeowners to develop specific paving plans, either concrete and asphalt, for each of the 33 interested households. The Engineering Department has scheduled another item on this agenda which requests authorization to receive bids for a volume based program. In the meantime, City staff and CEE wall be proce+eding to send another letter to the 111 households that did not respond to CEE's phone inquiries, advising them of the process underway this year and suggesting that they contact CEE for an audit as soon as possible. Of the 33 interested households, finro households will probably need "the deferral option" that the City offers for assessments. CEE also advised that if a reasonable 18.02 � 2"d Reading Gravel Driveway Ordinance June 5, 1997 Page 3 price were obtained through the bid process at least participation of the 33 households could significantly increase. According to CEE, about 80% of the 33 households have incomes which can assimilate the cost of the improvement. The remaining 20% have lower incomes which may need a deferral, a federal grant program, or the HRA's "last resort" program. Since the initiation of the 5% housing improvement loan program, 19 properties have used the program to pave a driveway (one of the 19 was an apartment building in Hyde Park). Using the household income from the remaining 18 households, the average household income was approximately $41,550. The median household income of � these 18 properties is $39,957. The average income figure corresponds very closely to the average income that CEE experienced for the entire home improvement loan program ($43,000), and the median income of the 18 is about $1,000 over the median income for the City according to the 1990 census. NEXT STEP CEE was successful in contacting about 50% of the households. About 1/3 of the households contacted were determined to have paved driveways. Another 1/3 have expressed a clear interest in the program; audits are still continuing. With another letter to the remaining 50%, additional participation in the paving program is possible. There will be those owners who have severe financial hardships and those cases as we move through the list over the next five years will arise. It is important to remember that the "abatement assistance" section in the ordinance provides the City Council with full flexibility to defer an assessment, if necessary, or determine some other financial approach to assist people in complying with the ordinance. The ordinance, when originally considered, was one of three code enforcement ordinances (junk vehicle and nuisance abatement process were the other two) which was requested by the City Council to improve the appearance and desirability of neighborhoods. Amending the section of the City Code regarding nuisances is a unique and defensible approach to implement the paving requirement. The City is also fortunate to have three housing programs available for owners (5% loan, CDBG, and last resort) plus CEE available to provide personal assistance to the homeowners when necessary ($5,000 has been spent on the contract to-date). If the bid process for the paving program is successful, the City should continue the program on an annual basis. If the bids are not competitive, the housing programs remain available for homeowners. In addition, owners can request paving as part of the City's street program when available. 18.03 2"d Reading Gravel Driveway Ordinance June 5, 1997 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance for second and final reading. ��. . , M-97-265 18.04 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, FINDING AND DECLARING UNPAVED, GRAVEL, OR DIRT DRIVEWAYS TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCL, DESCRIBING THE PENALTIES THEREFORB, �1ND AMENDING STCTIONS 110.02 AND CREATING NLW SECTIONS 110.06 AND 110.07 WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has undertaken a study of the single family residences within its boundaries and determined that a small p.ercentage of them do not have paved driveways; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has Tong deterrr�ined it to be the policy in the City, as stated in its Zoning Code, that all residential driveways in the City be paved with concrete, asphalt, brick, or similar hard surfaces; and WHEREAS, the basis for the City's policy lies in the finding that an absence of such paved surface results in environmental harm in the form of obstruction of storm sewer and other water drainage patterns, as well as the deposition of hydrocarbons and other hazardous automotive-related directly into the ground in the � City, and the spreading of dust and gravel on surrounding properties, all to the detriment of the health, welfare, and safety of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, while the existing Zoning Code provisions are adequate for the protection of the residents of the City in cases of new construction or homes being sold in the City, enough instances exist in the City of unpaved driveways so as to create a detrimental impact on the health, welfare, and safety of the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, by its City Council, expressly finds that the existence of unpaved driveways within the City continue to create an ongoing environmental hazard and condition detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley finds and declares unpaved driveways to be a public nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Fridley by action of its City Council authorized by its City Charter and the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereby ordains that Chapter 110 of the Fridley City Code be amended by inserting therein, following the provisions of Section 110.02, new language as follows: 18.05 Page 2 - Ordinance No. 110.02.1 DRIVEWAY NUISANCE Any driveway located within the City and not paved as provided under Chapter 205.07(6)A(2) is a public nuisance. Any nuisance under this provision must be abated by construction of an approved surface on the driveway in a manner prescribed by the City. The City expressly reserves and declares its statutory authority to abate any such nuisances under the assessment and levying powers granted by Minnesota Statutes Chapters 429 and 463. All assessments levied for the repayment of a hardsurface driveway installation shall be reimbursed in accordance with the terms and conditions established in each instance by the City Council. "Driveway", for purposes of this Chapter, shall not include any public owned or dedicated unpaved road or alleyway used for purpose of acces.s to any property; nor any roadway, path or other access to a parcel of unsubdivided property that can, without variance, be subdivided in the City. A roadway or path to subdividable property in the City shall be a"driveway° subject to this Chapter at such time as the property on whieh it is located is subdivided and the roadway or--path continues to be used for the purpose of access to the property. Any roadway or path to subdividable property must be paved to a distance of at least twenty feet from the edge of any connecting curb or roadway surface in order to qualify for this exception. Section 110 shall be further amended by renumbering the current Section 110.06, which provides for penalties thereunder, to Section 110.07, and creating a new Section ]:10.06 to read as follows: 110.06 ABATEMENT ASSISTANCE For the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and insuring prompt compliance with the provisions of this section, the City may, in its complete and unreserved discretion, offer such financial and other assistance as it may find appropriate and necessary to mitigate financial or other hardship that may be caused by the enforcement of this Chapter in any particular case, including, but not iimited to, the extension of time ordinarily required for the abatement of any nuisance or hazard, as well as the provision of programs providing for financial assistance for the purpose of abating any particular type of nuisance or hazard in the City. The refusal or failure of the City to provide any such assistance in any particular case shall not be a defense for a violation of this Chapter. � 8.�6 Page 3 - Ordinance No. 110.07 PENALTIES Any violation of this Chapter is a misdemeanor and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of this Code. PASS$D AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH$ CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK First Reading: July 8, 1996 Second Reading: Publication: 18.07 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 0 0 �- FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 1996 PAGE 9 NEW BUSINESS: 10. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CLASSIFY GRAVEL AND/OR DIRT DRIVEWAYS AS A NUISANCE AND PROHIBIT THEIR USE: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, presented background information on this ordinance which was first introduced along with the junk vehicle and nuisance abatement property improvement ordinances in November of 1995. She stated that Council discussed a variety of issues concerning gravel or unpaved driveways. In preparing this ordinance, the legal staff suggested that this issue be addressed under the nuisance ordinance. There was some offense from the residents, but the issue is being approached from a legal standpoint because of a court case that the City previously lost. Ms. Dacy stated that written and telephone surveys were conducted in June. The initial mailing list of unpaved driveway properties has been fully updated and verified through assessment files and by inspections by Fridley rire Department personnel. There are approximately 189 properties that have gravel driveways. Ms. Dacy stated that, as the ordinance is written, it requires all residential unpaved. driveways to be paved in the next five years C with tne exception of subdividable pr.operty and'properties with an access point connected to an unimproved right-of-way or alley. Driveways_ will have to eventually be paved if the property is subdivided or. if paper right-of-ways are improved. � �n �the meantime, cwners of subdividable properties are required to pave a 12 foot apron at the street, and unimproved right-of-way properties are not required to,pave un�il the right-of-way is improved. Mr: Dacy stated that the Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) is responding to an RFP for assistance services for those who need to comply with the ordinance. CEE.will.explain the p.rograms available, determine if households are eligible for the deferred assessment program, review household finaricial information, and provide personal attention to help owners comply. Ms. Dacy stated that staff recommends the first reading of this ordinance and requests authorization to initiate the assistance campaign with CEE. Ms. May Wells, 6553 Oakley Drive, stated that it would cost her $ 6, 000 to pave her driveway, and that is out of proportion to the value. Ms. Dacy stated that Ms. Wells' property is one that has a large driveway, but it does not qualify for an exception under this ordinance. . . . 1. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 8, 1996 PAGE 10 �,. Ms. Wells stated that she did not think it was fair to have to pave the entire driveway. Ms. Dacy stated that Ms. Wells may be eligible for a deferment of the assessment. � Ms. Ida Castle, 1400 Rice Creek Road, stated tizat she has a driveway easement but does not own the driveway_ She would like to be contacted about any assistance. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading_ Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to authorize staff to proceed with the contract with the Center for Energy and the Environment. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Schneider stated that before the second reading of this ordinance, he would like a detailed report on the financial burden. 11. VARIANCE, VAR #96-12, BY MILLER F'U�IERAL HOME, TO REDliCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FORM 80 FEET Tn 37 �:FT Tn �,T.7.�w ON; TO � C��i � . --- --- - - � ..n.� �. � _ Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated at this is a request for two variances to reduce the setbacks in rder to allow enclosure of �3 6 foot by 32 foot area- along the south side of the principal - building and to construct a 30 f by 80 f�ot addition on the garage located at .the rear of the property. Staff had some .. difficulty with the parking o this��site. E�neral homes are riot . �Listed in the ITE standards r evaluating parking; therefore, some �idditional research was co eted. This site does meet the parking i-equirements of the code but at times there are parking demands t:hat exceed the space available. The addition would further eliminate seven park' g spaces. However, the funeral home has a reciprocal agreemen with St. Philip's Church to use their parking, i.f necessary, and staff felt this was sufficient. NIr. Hickok st ed that staff recommends approval of the front yard variance bu denial of the variance to the rear yard setback for the addit' n. This recommendation for denial is based on concerns and una wered questions about the impacts on the neighborhood. There as concern expressed by the neighborhood, and a petition was sub 'tted. There were concerns about the impact on removal of s,��;#, tr es and the imposition of the addition to this site. �<• \�`,:. 18.09 RATIONALE FOR HARDSURFACE DRIVEWAYS 1. Promotes visual appeal and neat appearance of singie family properties. 2. Restricts vehicles to one area of the lot instead of allowing them to be scattered across the yard. 3. Eliminates the nuisance of gravel being sprayed on neighboring yards and avoids unsightly ruts and ditches. 4. Eliminates problems created by blowing dust. S. Protects soil from contamination due to oii and other vehicles fluids. 6. Serves to maintain property values by promoting a more attractive appearance. 7. Reduces maintenance costs incurred when ruts are "evened out" or gravel is replaced. 8. Promotes parking requirements consistent with that of other zoning districts. 9. Prevents soil and gravel from eroding onto the street and being deposited into the City's storm sewers and detention ponds. 18.10 CENTER FOf2 ENERG' ANO ENVIRONMENT City of Fridley Driveway Paving Options The City of Fridley and the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have developed a variety of programs to assist you in complying with the driveway ordinance. Tfie City of Fridley has contracted with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) to personally assist you with evaluating and selecting a paving option which best fits within your financial means. The following is a listing of services and financing options available through the City of Fridley to assist you in complying with the driveway ordinance. -- _,- .. On-Site Visit• " An on-site visit is available to help determine costs associated with paying your driveway and explain financing options. To schedule an�appointment, please ca11348-2582, (ca11.335-5856 after 10/1/96). HRA - 5% Home Imnrovement Loan• -. �- - . . . The HRA is currently offering 5°Io Home Improvemei�t Loans of up to $25,000. Loans ar� available: to owner-occupied, single-family homes_,with an annual.household income of less than $58,650. Under the Home Improvement Pro�am; you will be ab!e to pav��your drivewa} and finance most �tlier peiinanent home improvemznts you may be consid `ering at the same time: � Citv'Assessment Oation : • . - =. You�may select to have the:cosf of:paving your driveway added to your property assessment: The � assessment:option.is available:with an interest ratz up to �8% over a 5 year term: The minimum allowable ; assessment amount is $1,250. 1n addition, there is also a 5% administration fee added to the initial � assessment amount. You would need to petition the City for this assessment option.. CEE staff will be available to assis.t you through the process. ..` .��. - . - � ; - . - - -. ' . Depending on.the level of interest from the residents for�this ophon;'the City is considering putting oat a Requestfor Proposal (RFP) for a contracfor(s)'to prQVide.-paving services. In all likelihood, the RFP will be posted. in early spring to ensure paving._will;be able�to begin at the start of the 1997 construction- season. If.you are interested in potentially_using the contractor the City hires, p(ease schedule an appointment this fall so that yourdriveway can be included in the RFP. Deferred Assessment Ontion• . For owners over age 65, the City offers a deferred assessment option_ As with the above option, the interest rate will be up to 8%. However, the deferred assessment allows payment of the assessment plus accrued interest to be deferred until time of sale or transfer of the property. The minimum allowable assessment amount is $1,250. In addition, there is.the 5% administration fee added to the initial assessment amount. You will need to petition the City for this assessment option. CEE staff will be available to assist you through the process. If'you ha�•e further qucstions, or would like to schedulc an on-sitc visil, CALL 348-2582 (Ca11335-5�8■ 1 �r 10/1/9C) r�E �UTlEf2 SOU�I7�(: fillll.:>I^.t� . In0 N<''i2i�� 6TH ST . ';LIITE -117 A . MINNEAPOI.IG. MINNF��t4 �.�/.(�7 �Sl� . . .. .t. �.. . • . .1. . � .. ., .. Asphalt Driveway Cost: (Standard Insta(lation) Early in the driveway ordinance process, city staff conducted preliininary research regarding the cost of installing an asphalt driveway. For an individual driveway installation, several contractors gave a range of pricing between $1.00 and $2.00 a square foot. Using $1.25 per square foot as an example, the ta.ble below indicates the potential cost of a standard driveway installation. Dimensions 45' x 20' 100' x 12' 100' x 15' Square Feet 900 1200 1500 Asphalt Driveway Cost: (Bulk Contract) Aprox. Cost $1,125 $1,500 $1,875 Depending on the level of interest from tlie residents for t�'us option, the City is considering put#ing out a Request for Proposal(RFP) for a contractor(s) to provide paving services. This option could provide a 10% to 15% discount. (The pricing infonnation listed above is based on a telephone surve}� of drive�rar installation contractors in thc spring of 1996. Prices listed are not guaranteed and st�ould noi be uscd as an e�act quote of drivcway instaliation costs.) 18.12 �,. A City of Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �� PW97-143 � FROM: John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Unpaved Driveways The attached resolution is submitted for Council action to initiate the advertising process to obtain bids to pave residential driveways. Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the advertisement for bids for residential driveway paving for timely construction this summer. JGF:cz Attachment 19.01 R�SOLUTION NO. -1997 RESOLUTION AIITHORIZING THE ADVERTIS$MENT FOR BIDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DRIVSWAY PAVING WHEREAS, the City has determined that residential driveways should be paved, and WHEREAS, a program has been established to assist the residents in paving their driveways, and WHEREAS, a number of residents have requested the City to negotiate a contract for the paving of driveways, both asphalt and concrete. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, that the Public Works Director is directed to prepare plans and specifications and advertise for bids to install concrete and asphalt driveways for residential properties that have petitioned the City for construction. PASSSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9H DAY June, 1997. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTESTED: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 19.02 MEMOR�NDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 3, 1997 TO: William Burns, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-01, by the City of Fridley The City Council conducted a public hearing at its June 9, 1997 meeting regarding eight properties to be rezoned to M-4, Manufacturing Only. The Planning Commission conducted a similar public hearing at its May 21, 1997 meeting. Staff has prepared the attached ordinance rezoning eight properties to M-4, Manufacturing Only. Should the City Council agree with the Planning Commission recommendation, sites #2, #4, and #,A'8 should be deleted. The motion to approve the rezoning should specify the sites to be rezoned. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct first reading of the attached ordinance. MM/dw M-97-261 2�.� 1 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows' SECTION l. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. Be and is hereby rezoned. SECTION 2. The tracts or areas within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: Lot 3, Block 1, Northco Business Park 2nd Addition #2 Lot 2, Block l, Anderson Development Replat.#3 Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78 Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, except the ♦ South 200 feet of the East 376 feet.of said lot, � 1 except that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. The Southerly 370 feet of the Northerly 1,120 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter �� of Section 12, except.the West 5 acres of the North 310 feet, except that taken for road purposes, subject �o easements of record. The unplatted City of Fridley described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of �� the Northwest Quarter lying Easterly of the Westerly 600 feet and lying Southerly of the Northerly 1,120 feet of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24. Lot 2, Block 4, Commerce Park. #8 20.�2 Page 2 - Ordinance No. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, lying Easterly of Ashton Avenue northeast, lying Northerly of Arnal Addition, and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue Northeast 415 feet Southerly with its intersection with the Southerly right of way line of Ironton Street, then Easterly parallel with said southerly right of way line to the intersection with said railroad right of way and said line there terminate, except for that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. � Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No.78, all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 30, Range 24, lying Easterly of the Northern Pacific Railway Company right of way lying South of a line which is parallel with the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and 290.4 feet � � South of said north line as measured along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and lying North of a line which is parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and 739.2 North of said South line as measured along said East line being Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78. That part of Lot 3, Block 4, Commerce Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of the South 54.70 feet of said Lot 3 and East of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north #4 line of said Lot 3, distant 205 feet east of the northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence southerly to a point on the south line of said Lot 3, distant 125 feet east of the southwest corner of said Lot 3 and there terminating. 20.03 Page 3 - Ordinance No. Is hereby designated to be in thE Zoned District M-4, Manufacturing Only. SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tracts or areas to be rezoned from Zoned Districts M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial to M-4, Manufacturing Only. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1997. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA�- CITY CLERK Public Hearing: June 9, 1997 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 20.04 MEMORANl)UM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: . June 5, 1997 � ,� TO: William Bums, Cit Mana er ,�� Y 9 �,,� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: First Reading of an Amendment to Section 11.01 of the City Charter At the May 19, 1997 meeting, the City Council conducted a public hearing for an amendment to Section 11.01 of the City Charter to amend the definition of "public utilities" to include wireless communication antennae. Minnesota Statute requires that an ordinance amending the City Charter must be adopted by the City Council by "an affirmative vote of all its members". The purpose of the amendment is to provide the legal foundation io enable the City to lease public land and facilities to wireless communication providers. In addition, the amendment will provide the City Council with the flexibility to determine whether it should pursue ownership and operation of wireless communication facilities. The proposed amendment simply clarifies what a public utility is and does not dictate to the City Council which utility it should undertake. According to the City Attomey, a referendum must be passed by 2/3 of the voters before the City Council can pass an ordinance to operate a utility. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance for first reading. Second and final reading of the ordinance will be scheduled for June 23, 1997. BD/dw M-97-262 21.01 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AM}'sNDING SECTION 11.01 OF THE CITY CHARTER The Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: Section 11.01 of the City Charter is hereby amended by adding the following sentence: "For purposes of this section, nublic utilities shall include water works, district heating systems, ctas, light, power, heat. wireless or other communication services, or any other product or service the �ublic provision of which the City Council, bv ordinance, shall determine to be in the interest of its citizens." PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1997. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: May 19, 1997 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 21.02