The URL can be used to link to this page

06/08/1998 - 4821OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8,1998 FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Mo�day, June 8, 199k . 7:30 P.M. IIEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ITEM RINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS NUMBER_ � � � _ � - /s /z .�° °.S' - S'c��/'1c-�� L c� ;..J'' - S?� ��- �z ��I o� � L- r � � -- �r l/ � � � l/ �l �, `� C � G��J" i -� r ►� ----� c rtv4►�u ��t��: r� ��12�1 l% , rv t��..��f /�.- `� y�1 �1 �`_� ` � � a l ' � �- j�F�vf � F'l�'i CKSUI�.� �-�- 1( l--I��f —;c�ivt`�� C.. %vz:(,^ 1`/�1G � lC?I �i z � /' � 1� `7� �'i � � �►..� �:, ;' `3 I��) , �% .'; o i , o "t `� r: ' i� l_.-�1 -= L'' '-' r--' � � � � ��,�1� � � � , � � , , y ,� rse , ^ � . fo�� L/q/L/'.�J y'��{/�>J 1�c � . %-,�` � � / 1...1�7 // ") Gt /r� (^Gi''. �i C..�"Y �� f� C.L'- '� �� / ��c/ v � (i'�".Yl ► .�t;��r� � �✓ �// .t ! r`C.. �jtJ' r � ._ � �� c� � � � � , , _�� ~ /� - , �.,�' 5,�, � C� �'' �' J � I ° `'"�� — ��''�l � , '�i - �- - '�%1 �S � C1� U — , �}�� ._�'�z' � � r,( � �� ;7 � v � �l ��" � �! �`'� �h ' �2� �� i . c, / r '� -� ` � �� r �- r ;, ,, - �, �� Z C� 1 �; ,7,t �;_ �i('7 � / iy�L'.f..LV?[f � _ --T , �, -; ✓ �:- � /-�� - /'� - r�rr �''�� " f�� ,�` _- ,." � „ �'�a ��-� r �.l �. �f. ///�^ / --�j .� oi,/c , ��" � 1 ;� f�� L, ; Y, i"� ,�,�� l' �� )�,, � � 1�� _ � ,. _ . /Cl' '. � :r�� ,�--- �2�1 `� �� . Z C �' '� � t�- I`� � - �7�/ 2S �! c'if'c�-�= ,z--'.-= X �'� �� i �? �Tl� � �,�. / " 1 '�i�j`).�� 1� , � ��L � � � ;, �` % '� �� r �� C�� ,r� � c.� �� :c, .� � � .t� � t�� lr�� [_�Z_�ill -� _,�( v �',�! � l � ��-�� G• ' � � � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF � oF J U N E 8,1998 FRIDLEY T'he City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, a�e, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of May 98, 1998 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $9,300,000 Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. Project), Series 1998 .......................................:...:..................... 1.01 - 1.08 Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the $150,000 Subordinate Housing Revenue Note, Series 1998B (Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. Project) and the $300,000 Subordinate Housing Revenue Notes Series 1998C (Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. Project) and Authorizing the Execution of Documents Relating Thereto ................................................. 2.01 - 2.07 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI: Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropriations for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds and Capital Improvement Fund for the Fourth Quarterof 1997 ......................................................................... 3.01 - �.06 Resolution Authorizing Operating Transfers for the Year Ended 1997 ........................................... 4.01 - 4.03 Establish a Public Hearing for June 22, 1998, for an Intoxicating Liquor License for Spikers Beach Club, Generally Located at 7651 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ............................................ 5.01 Appointment: City Employee .................................................... 6.01 Claims.................................................................................... 7.01 Licenses.................................................................................... 8.01 - 8.08 Estimates: .................................................................................. 9.01 - 9.02 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 PAGE 3 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of Items Not on Agenda (15 minutes). PUBLIC HEARINGS: Approval of Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., (d/b/a AMF Maple Lanes, 6310 Highway 65 N.E.) (Ward 2) ..................................................................................... 10.01 - 10.02 Approval of On-Sale Beer License for Columbia Arena (7011 University Avenue N.E.) (Ward 1) ...................................................................................... 11.01 - 11.02 57�' Avenue Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1997 - 4 ................................................................................... 12.01 OLD BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, SP #98-04, by W. W. Klus Realty, Inc., to Allow the Use of 30 Parking Stalls as Places for the Sale of Vehicles, Generally Located at 7920 and 7976 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) (Tabled May 18, 1998) ......................................................................... 13.01 - 13.11 A � � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 PAGE 4 NEW BUSINESS: Receive Bids and Award Contract for the 57�' Avenue Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1997 - 4 ................................................................................... 14.01 - 14.02 u 0 Variance Request, VAR #98-13, by Northco Corporation, to Reduce the Side Yard Setback from 2Q Feet to 5.4 Feet to Allow the Enclosure of an Existing Loading Dock at the Property Generally Located at 494 Northco Drive N.E. (Ward 1) ......................................................... 15.01 - 15.38 , Variance Request, VAR #98-15, by Menard's, ' Inc., to Allow an Increase in the Maximum Size of Wall Signage at the Property Generally Located at 5351 Central Avenue N.E. (Vllard 1) ................................... 16.01 - 16.19 Informal Status Reports ....................................................................... 17.01 � /,� ��t�?Grn,o G��'��2-�,� - % Ef �.S��Q.� �G}t`K�e �-�-1 g � t,�C�-�e c�--- - ' �k 1 �� i�� Q-�� - `� - ��-�,�., � � �� ADJOURN. 0 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 r � QTY OF FRIDLEY The Ciry of Fridley will not discriminate against or hazass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disabilixy, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation wilt be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Heazing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Counci! Meeting ojMay 18, 1998 � APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $9,300,000 Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. Project), Series 199,8--::�..::::��:: :..._.,....... 1.01 - 1.08 �� 1�c5 �i 35 1 � f � �, = �. _ __--. ._ -- Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of the $150,000 Subordinate Housing Revenue Note, Series 1998B (Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. Project) and the $300,000 Subordinate Housing Revenue Notes Series 1998C (Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. Project) and Authorizing the Execution of Documents Relating Thereta-:.,........ 2.01 - 2.07 �r��36 ' ��. �� _ Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropriations for the General Fund, Speciai Revenue Funds and ,�apital Improvement Fund for the Fourth Quarter of 1997 . ::...........:....... ^., 3.01 - 3.06 � ....... <. .. ,- �� 3 7 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Resolution Authorizing Operating Transfers for the Year En�it-��. ............. 4.01 - 4.03 � /�r 5 �3f� \` Establish a Public Hearing for June 22, 1998, for an Intoxicating Liquor License for Spikers Beach Club, Generally. Located at 7651 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) .............. 5.01 Appointment: City Employee ..................... 6.01 Claims .................................... 7.01 �Licenses i Estimates ....................................... 8.0� - 8.a8 `, � .......................................9.01 - 9.02 � �.� f-1.D�� . � ..� � ��'-�� a!� �. � �9 9�; n� G�� , . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 ADOPTION OF AGEI�IDA: ��Q : �G� ��; Pwq� -�i 9 �!�'i� �-/� � ��tj 9d -/d3 _ � � • � ,�rx� . � �/,q-� Q� � ' �u ��, OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: Consideration of Items Not on Agenda (1 S minutes). PUBLIC HEARINGS: Approval of Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., (d/b/a AMF Maple Lanes, 6310 Highway 65 N.E.) (Ward 2) ..................................... 10.01 - 10.02 �-��— — �-'�q �� - � - ov Approval of On-Sale Beer License for Columbia Arena (7011 University Avenue N.E.) (Ward 1) ...................................... 11.01 - 11.02 �� /�'P'r�� ' �� 57�' Avenue Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1997 - 4 ..................................... 12.01 ��w �' �� I ♦I OLD BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, SP #98-04, by W. W. Klus Realty, Inc., to Allow the Use of 30 Parking Stalls as Places for the Sale of Vehicles, Generally Located at 7920 and 7976 University Avenue N.E. (Wazd 3) (Tabled May 18, 1998) ............................... �� CZ�� .�� s� � 13.01 - 13.11 PAGE 2 IYEW BUSINESS: Receive Bids and Award Contract for the 57'" Avenue Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1997 - 4�.�..........� ..............14.01 - 14.02 �� • G�o�'' � � Variance Request, VAR #98-13, by Northco Corporation, to Reduce the Side Yazd Setback from 20 Feet to 5.4 Feet to Allow the Enclosure of an Existing Loading Dock at the Property Generally Located at 494 Northco Drive N.E. (Ward 1) ............... 15.01 - 15.38 �'`�A/J , � S�� I�i Variance Itequest, VAR #98-15, by Menazd's, Inc., to Allow an Increase in the Maximum Size of V��all Signage at the Property -Generally Located at 5351 Central Avenue N.E. (Wardl) .......................................16.01-16.19 �� __. .-.... Informal S�tatus Reports ................��.... 17.01 >� ��3v ��-ic.L°� � �Q��s# y � lvo7�lco �. ��,r+� ��I/ � . `� �� * y2 �y,-�,�-� ,P � �'�. � ��, v ADJOUFtI�i. � . , _ _ _,--- . ; __ ,/�_ � 3 �5 Y A� THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18,1998 � THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 18, 1998 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jorgenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Billings, and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Schneider APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COLJNCIL MEETING - MaY 4, 1998: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes of the May 4, 1998 City Council Meeting as presented in writing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. RECEIVE TAE MINUTES OF TF[E PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1998: � RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1998. 2. PLAT REQUEST, P S#98-03, BY JAIV�ES UTTER, TO REPLAT PROPERTY TO CREATE TWO CONFORMING LOTS ON WHICH TO BUILD, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6084 WOODY LANE N.E. (WARD 2): Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that this request is to subdivide Lot 6, Block 2, of the Moore Lake Hills Addition into two lots. The new parcels will become Lots 1 and 2 of the Everett Addition. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the request, with seven stipulations at the May 6 meeting. Staff recommends that Council concur with the Planning Commission. CITY COUNCiL NIEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 2 APPROVED PLAT REQUEST, P.S. #98-03, BY JAMES UTTER TO REPLAT PROPERTY TO CREATE TWO CONFORNIING LOTS ON WHICH TO BUILD, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6084 WOODY LANE N.E. WITH THE FOLLOWING SEVEN STIPULATIONS: 1) A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, OF THE EVERETT ADDITION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OR THE GARAGE MUST BE REMOVED; 2) AN EASEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET OF RIGHT- OF-WAY ADJACENT TO CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. (CSAH 35) FOR FUTURE RECONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BE RECORDED WITFI THE COUNTY; 3) BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS GRANTED FOR LOT 2, THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT; 4) IF LOT 2 IS TO CONNECT TO THE CITY UTILITY SERVICES LOCATED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. (CSAH 35), THE CONNECTION SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO ANOKA COUNTY RECONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 35; 5) PARK FEES OF $750 SHALL BE PAID BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS GRANTED; 6) A$1,000 STORM WATER FEE SHALL BE PAID BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS GRANTED; AND 7) A DRIVEWAY CUT SHALL REMAIN IN THE EXISTING LOCATION. 3. RESOLUTION No. 30-1998 APPROVING A PLAT. P.S. #98-03, EVERETT. ADDITlON (BY JAMES UTTER, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6084 WOODY LANE N.E.)(WARD 2): Mr. Burns explained that this is the final plat for the James Utter replat of property located at 6084 Woody Lane. The mylars have been prepared for this plat to be known as the Everett Addition. Staff recommends Council's approval of the resolution and attached stipulations. ADOPTED RESOLUTION #30-1998 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1) A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, OF THE EVERETT ADDITION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OR THE GARAGE MUST BE REMOVED; 2) AN EASEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY RECONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BE RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY; 3) BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS GRANTED FOR LOT APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT; 4) IF LOT 2 IS TO CONNECT TO THE CITY UTILITY SERVICES LOCATED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. (CSAH 35), THE CONNECTION SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO ANOKA COUNTY RECONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 35; 5) PARK FEES OF $750 SHALL BE PAID BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS GRANTED; 6) A$1,000 STORM WATER FEE SHALL BE PAID BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS GRANTED; AND 7) A DRIVEWAY CUT SHALL REMAIN IN TI3E EXISTING LOCATION. CITY COUNCTL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 3 4. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAE CITY OF FRiDLEY AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE INSTALLATiON, REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF BUS STOP SIGNAGE: 5. 6. Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that under the terms of this agreement, Fridley would install and maintain approximately 215 Metro Transit bus signs. The City will be reimbursed fully for the costs. Staff recommends Council's approval of this agreement. APPROVED THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE INSTALLATION, REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF BUS STOP SIGNAGE. RECEIVE BTDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE EXHAUST/MAKE-UP RETROFIT PROJECT: Mr. Burns, City Manager, noted that the 1998 Capital Improvements Budget provides the amount of $25,000 for the installation of an air exchange/make-up air system to reduce high carbon monoxide emissions in the City's maintenance bays. The bidding process for this work returned a low bid of $37,150. Since the additional amount can be absorbed through savings for other items, staff recommends that Council award the bid to the low bidder, NewMech Companies in the amount of $37,150. RECEIVED BIDS AS FOLLOWS: NewMech Companies, Inc. 1633 Eustis Street St. Paul, MN 55108-1288 $34,500 (Bid) $2,650 (Alt.) Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors 7340 Washington Avenue South Eden Prairie, MN 55344 535,140 (Bid) Alta Mechanical Minneapolis, MN $2,550 (Alt.) $42,000 (Bid) $2,550 (Alt.) AWARDED CONTRACT FOR THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE EXHAUST/MAKE- UP RETROFIT PROJECT TO NEWMECH COMPANIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,150. RESOLUTION NO 31-1998, REQUESTING NO PARKING SIGNS ON EAST RIVER ROAD SOUTH OF I-694 (WARD 3): Mr. Burns explained that this parking removal is being requested by the Police Department as one measure needed to curtail drag racing on this stretch of East River Road. The area in which parking is to be removed is abutted by River Front Park, the Minneapolis CITY COUNCiL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 4 Waterworks and United Defense properties. There is no residential property that will be impacted by this action. The extent of the parking removal is from the interstate to the City limits on both sides of East River Road. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 31-1998, REQUESTING NO PARKING SIGNS ON EAST RIVER ROAD SOUTH OF I-694. 7. RESOLUTTON NO. 32-1998, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF ICE FACTLIT'Y RENOVATION GRANT APPLICATiON: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Mr. Paul Erickson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission, requested that Fridley apply for a second Mighty Ducks grant. As was the case with the first grant, the City would be applying for a $50,000 grant that would be matched by another $50,000 from the National Sports Center Foundation. The money would be used for a variety of repairs to Columbia Arena including replacement of cooling towers, outside lighting, parking lot improvements, a VII' seating area, and a sound system. Since Columbia Arena provides valued services to Fridley residents, and since there is no cost for the City, staff recommends that Council authorize staff to prepare a second Mighty Ducks grant application. ADOPTED RESOLUTION #32-1998, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF ICE FACILITY RENOVATION GRANT APPLICATION. 8. ESTABI,iSH A PUBLIC AEARING FOR JUNE 8, 1998, FOR AN INTOX�CATING LIOUOR LICENSE FOR AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC �6310 HIGHWAY 65)(WARD 2): Mr. Burns explained that the proposed public hearing date for this license is June 8, 1998. The Police Department did the required background check and found no reason to deny the request. Staff recommends that Council concur in establishing the public hearing. ESTABLISHED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 8, 1998, FOR AN INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC. (6310 HIGHWAY 65). 9. CLAIMS: APPROVED THE PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 80565 - 80815. 10. LTCENSES: Council requested that staff remove Page 10.03 from the licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. CITY COUNCiL MEETTNG OF MAY 18. 1998 PAGE 5 11. ESTTMATES: APPROVED THE ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS: Park Construction 7900 Beech Street N.E. Minneapolis, NIN 55432-1795 Rice Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 309 Estimate No. 1 $11,382.23 Ron Kassa Construction 7438 Upton Richfield, NIN 55423 1998 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Project No. 315 Estimate No. 1 $ 4,317.75 Forest Lake Contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 Street Improvement Project No. ST 1998-1 Estimate No. 3 $71,136.13 11(A). APPOINTMENT: Mr. Burns stated that staff is recommending the appointment of Alan D. Folie as Accountant. Mr. Folie is a graduate of the St. Cloud State University and has most recently been employed by Washington County in an accounting position. Mr. Folie is also a resident of Fridley. APPROVED APPOINTMENT OF MR. ALAN D. FOLIE AS ACCOUNTANT. No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to add Item 11(A) to the consent agenda and approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 6 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mr. John Flora, Director of Public Works, asked that Item 15 be removed from the agenda and replaced with Resolution #33-1998 and Resolution #34-1998. Councilmember Bolkcom asked that consideration of the acquisition of 7479 East River Road be added to the agenda to be considered immediately following Item 14. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: Mayor Jorgenson explained that this is the time reserved for residents to address Council on items that are not on the agenda. Mr. James Utter, 131 Sylvan Lane, stated that he is concerned about the condition of his parents' property after the Friday, May 15, 1998 afternoon storm. The retaining wall to the north of his parents' home washed out during the storm. There were three streets that feed into the one drainage system. After the rainfall on Friday, storm water washed up over the curb and washed out the retaining wall. It did not appear that there was sufficient drainage. Mayor Jorgenson asked if the retaining wall had always been there or if it was put in after the other homes were built. Mr. Utter stated that the wall was put in after the construction of the homes. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she believed the natural flow of water went through the area before the wall was constructed. Now the wall creates probiems. She assured Mr. Utter that City staffwould look into the problem. Mayor Jorgenson complimented City staff for their immediate response and ciean-up after the storm. Staff was also working on scheduling a curbside tree pick-up, and residents will be informed as to those dates. PUBLTC HEARiNGS: 12. CENTRAL AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1998-4 (WARD 2)• MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to open the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was officially opened at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Doug Fischer, Assistant County Engineer with the Anoka County Highway Department, provided a brief overview of the improvement project on Central Avenue. This project is basically made up of three elements. The first includes a newly constructed roadway between Osborne Road and 81 st Avenue (Spring Lake Park), to a four-lane, urban road standard. The CiTY COUNCiL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 7 second element includes the continuation of the storm sewer from Osborne Road, down along the west side of the roadway and outlet into Rice Creek concrete curbing would only be placed on the west side where the storm sewer system will be replaced. In addition to the storm sewer main line, the City has requested that they construct a bituminous path on the west side of the roadway from Osborne Road and connect it into the bike bridge over Rice Creek. The estimated project cost at this time is $2 million. It is estimated that the City's cost for one-half of the curb and gutter on the west side, the bike path and minor utility adjustments will be roughly $53,000. In addition, they are waiting for the City's portion of the storm sewer costs. The project is set to be advertised beginning on May 29th. Bids will likely be opened the week of June 23 and award of the project bid will take place at the July 14 County Board meeting. The Board will be seeking the City's approval of the plan and the execution of a joint powers agreement. Construction is expected to begin around August 1, with final completion in October 1998. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if letters have been sent to all affected property owners. Mr. Flora responded in the affirmative. He noted that the City will be assessing the property owners for the curb and gutter on the west side of Central Avenue from Osborne Road to the creek. The estimated assessment is expected to be $11.00 per front foot. There were no further questions from the public. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. 13. APPROVAL OF OFF-SALE BEER LTCENSE FOR SAM'S CLUB (8150 UNIVERSiTY AVENUE N.E.) (WARD 3): MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to open the public hearing at $:02 p.m. and to waive the reading. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was officially opened at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Burns explained that Sam's Club has requested a beer license so that they can add 3:2 beer to their product line at their location at 8150 University Avenue N.E. Pursuant to Chapter 602.05, of the Fridley City Code, a public hearing must be held prior to issuing this license. He noted that a representative from Sam's Club was in the audience to answer any questions that Council may have with regard to this application. Mr. Randy Pittman, General Manager of Sam's Club, explained that Sam's Club is a very responsible retailer and plans to take all necessary steps to train their employees on the sale of alcohol in their store. Sam's Club has a formal training program (Techniques for Alcohol Management) for the employees and each employee is required to go through testing procedures. Councilmember Billings wished to clarify that none of the sales are wholesale sales and that Sam's Club is not selling any product that is intended for re-sale. Mr. Pittman stated this is conect. He CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 8 noted that if any customer appears to be purchasing a very large amount of beer, they would log that information and advise that person that it is illegal to purchase beer for re-sale. There were no questions or comments from the public. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all members voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: 14. RESOLUTTON DENYING TAE APPLICATION OF GEORGE KLUS OF W. W. KLUS REALTY, INC., FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OUTDOOR SALE OF AUTOMOBiLES AT 7920 AND 7976 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 205.14.01 C(2) OF TAE FRIDLEY CITY CODE: Mr. Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, explained that George Klus of W. W. Klus, Inc. has requested a special use permit to allow for the outdoor sale and display of thirty automobiles. Code Section 205.14.01 C(2) requires a special use permit for agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles. Mr. Hickok provided information in regard to the zoning of the subject property as well as adjacent properties, presenting maps of the site location. Approval of this special use permit wou(d allow the use of thirty parking stalls as a sales area for vehicles on the site. The vehicles would be for sale by the company. The request for this special use permit for auto sales was for 7976 University Avenue: The property at 7920 University Avenue would be an auto repair business run in conjunction with the auto sales operation. With the property being a mixed use nature, 256 parking spaces are required. This request would reduce the number of spaces by thirty. The former developer of the site, Mr. Joe Ashton, has submitted a letter stating that he is not in favor of this permit because of the type of use and the parking agreement between this property and the Main Event property to the south. The Police Department has expressed concern that security of vehicles for sale may be difficult. With the mixed uses of the property, it would be difficult to determine which vehicles are for sale and which are customers. There would be no segregation of cars or safeguards for overnight vehicle storage protection on the site. The GIS report indicates that there were 290 vehicle incidents in 1997 and that the area north of 73rd Avenue along University Avenue appeared to be extremely wlnerable. As part of the Express Auto building permit for interior operations of their site in 1995, it was stipulated that no outdoor display of automobiles or other vehicles will be permitted. They are currently parking vehicles at the site that are for sale. Mr. Hickok noted that the Planning Commission recommended that Council deny this special use permit because it would create a deficiency in the number of required parking stalls and because it CITY COUNCTL MEETTNG OF MAY t8, 1998 PAGE 9 poses a potential security risk. Staff also believed it was an inappropriate use for a multi-tenant location and that there is potential circulation problems for other property users. The architect for the petitioner has drafted a plan showing where other potential parking spaces could be on the site without a variance, accommodating eleven additional spaces. Mr. Hickok noted, however, that some of these created spaces may not be appropriate and could narrow the drive lane. Mr. Hickok noted that the current inappropriate use of the space at 7920 University Avenue demonstrates a disregard for state and local laws as that location is currently being used as an auto repair facility which would also require a special use permit. Therefore, technically, two special use permits would be required by this petitioner, which they have not obtained. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, for clarification on the special use permit approval/denial process. Mr. Knaak explained that a special use permit authorizes a particular use that requires Council approved to be allowed in an area. If the requirements of an ordinance are met, the City would have very little discretion in denying the permit request. The City must have a reasonable basis for denial of the request (such as public safety concerns)but may ad specific stipulations if it approves the request. Councilmember Billings noted that if the property at 7976 University Avenue is approximately 2,058 square feet, they would be allocated ten parking spaces. Even if this applicant found a way to create additional spaces on the site, virtually 3 1/2 times the amount of allocated space would be required. Mr. Hickok noted that this is correct and a(so that the total spaces would not account for employees or customers coming and going. Councilmember Billings noted that the properties at 7920 and 7976 University Avenue have two separate PIN numbers and therefore each property would need to go through the special use permit process. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Councilmember Billings noted that Council received a letter dated May 15, 1998 addressed to the Fridley City Councilmembers from Walter W. Klus. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to enter this letter into the records. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Billings noted that Councilmembers were handed another letter prior to the meeting, marked "Corrected" at the top, and also dated May 15, 1998, addressed to the Fridley City Councilmembers from W. W. Klus Realty, Walter W. Klus. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to enter this letter into the records. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. CiTY COUNCiL MEETTNG OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE t0 Councilmember Billings asked if Mr. Hickok and Attorney Knaak had been in contact with the applicant's attorney, Mr. Gregory Soule of Best & Flanagan on Friday. Mr. Hickok and Mr. Knaak indicated that they had both spoken with the applicant and that messages had been left on the answering machine for Mr. Soule. Councilmember Billings asked what the City generally requires in regard to security of a automobile sales lot. Mr. Hickok noted that there are various ways to achieve security such as boundaries set up by berms or landscaped areas. Typically, there should be a method of closing off the way vehicles get in and out such as a barricade or a row of cars. This site would be difficult, if not possible, to provide a segregation of parking stalls. In reference to Page 2 of the letter from Mr. Walter Klus, it is noted that there is a 28-car cross parking agreement with the University Business Center immediately to the north of the subject property. Councilmember Bolkcom noted that a previous issue where an applicant requested a parking variance also included a negotiated cross parking agreement; however, the City had some concerns as to liability issues related to a cross parking arrangement. Mr. Walter Klus stated that they have been working diligently on this special use permit request. He thinks this use could work on the site. He proceeded to provide Council with a brief history of the site. The business began in 1995 as Express Auto Pawn. Shortly thereafter, the State of Minnesota informed him that auto pawn brokerages were no longer permitted, and they were forced to obtain a dealer's license. He informed Council that they are still working to resolve issues associated with the special use permit request, and he asked them to consider a continuance of the meeting discussion to allow them an opportunity to meet with staff and attorneys to work out some additional details. Mr. Vernon Riediger, Express Auto, stated that their operation has been in existence in the same location for just over two years, and they have never had a problem. Their operation is first and foremost a financial institution. They market to people who have difficulty affording an automobile. Their business is not a typical automobile sales lot trying to attract people on a drive- by basis. They operate on a repeat customer basis and by word of mouth. The costs associated with a physical move would be substantial. They feel stability is important to them and to their customers. Mr. Bill Richards, Express Auto, stated he felt that curbs and berms do not necessarily deter thieves. He presented a number of photographs of other similar operations and the types of "security" options they have exercised. He did not feel segregating cars in front of his lot would be difficult for him. Furthermore, he would be willing to install anti-theft devices on all his cars if Council so desired. Councilmember Barnette asked where the car stock comes from. Mr. Richards stated that he buys fresh trade-ins from dealerships. Mr. Richards stated that he is willing to do whatever the City deems appropriate in order to allow them to be a small business in the community. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Council CITY COUNCiL MEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 11 cannot deny the request without reason. She was concerned that the parking issue had not been resolved. She said that she was aware the applicant had requested a continuation of the meeting; however, she was not sure how the parking problem would be addressed. Parking requirements must be adhered to. Vacancies which cunently exist within the building may not always be there; and therefore, the demand for parking for those businesses may change. Obviously, the owners of the property would continue to work to see that the building is leased at one hundred percent. Councilmember Bolkcom noted that Page 2 of the "Corrected" letter from Mr. Klus does not contain the same language as the first letter that was sent to the Councilmembers. She asked why some of the language was deleted. Mr. Klus responded that Page 2 of the original letter was correct. He apologized that in his effort to get the "corrected" letter completed, some of the language may have been eliminated. He will see that Council is provided with a correct letter. Mr. Greg Soule, Attorney with Best & Flanagan, stated that they are actively trying to solve the problems that have been addressed by City staff. They have a number of ideas that they would like to present to Council and to staff. He presented a memorandum to Council and to Mr. Knaak addressing some of the issues. A sixty-day e�ctension of the special use permit request must be acted on by June 13, 1998. He noted, however, that with the applicant's approval, an additional extension could be granted. He explained that the property in question has much more parking than what is needed. Despite the technical C-2 zoning and the rigorous parking requirements, on a day-to-day basis, the site has much more parking than is ever really utilized. He wished to note that all along, the site including the two buildings has been analyzed as a single project in terms of the parking available. This is how they have considered the property in terms of parking. Mayor Jorgenson asked who applied for the building permit in November of 1995, and if they were made aware of the stipulation that there could be no outdoor storage of vehicles on the property. Mr. Hickok stated that it was applied for by Mr. Bill Richards and that he was aware of this. Mr. Soule noted that the state law changed, and they were no longer licensed to operate as a automobile pawn. Mr. Hickok noted that Mr. Richards was informed on numerous occasions of what was/was not permitted uses. He was aware that a special use permit would need to be obtained if there were to be any outdoor storage of vehicles on the property. Councilmember Billings noted that a larger sign variance was granted for the property due to the fact that there were two separate and distinct parcels. Now the property is asked to be looked at as one parcel. Codes cannot be interpreted in different ways at different times to the benefit of the applicant. Any parking changes that are proposed should contain adequate parking and storage of dumpsters on each aspect of the site. To obtain accurate property line information, it was suggested that the applicant hire a land surveyor rather than to rely on drawings from the City. Mr. Jim Cox, Associated Architects, provided information on the additional parking spaces with a diagram depicting the newly-created spaces. Mr. Soule noted that under the City Code there is a provision in which the City can reyuire less parking than what is rec�uired. The speculative ratio is required where there is a mixed use unless the owner represents to the City what the ratio of all uses 'rn the building will be. They would be CITY COUNCiL MEETiNG OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 12 willing to enter into such an agreement with the City and stipulate what the particular type uses are. A discussion followed in regard to the continuation request. Councilmember Bolkcom wondered if the outstanding issues could be resolved without extending the sixty-day period. Mr. Hickok stated it is staffs opinion that there are constraints on the site which are insurmountable, and he does not feel there is a working solution. There is no more land area to look at in terms of parking. A cross parking agreement, in providing an additiona128 spaces could also take away 28 parking spaces. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she would be willing to table discussion on this request to the June 8 City Council meeting which would allow staff and attorneys to get together to try to work out a solution that is acceptable to all. Councilmember Billings stated he would be wiiling to table this as well, provided that the petitioner seeks a thirty-day e�ctension so that the time deadline does not prevent them from finding solutions. Mr. Soule stated that they would consent to a thirty-day extension of the written sixty-day contract. He would be happy to draft a letter to document this. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table consideration of this resolution until the June 8, 1998 City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor 7orgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 14. (A) CONSIDERATION OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 7479 EAST RIVEIt ROAD. Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that staff has recently negotiated the terms of a purchase agreement with Amy and Chris Moe for property at 7479 East River Road. It was recommended that the City purchase the property for the sum of $79,000, with a closing date of July 31, 1998. The purpose of the acquisition of the property is to provide a site for a future redevelopment project. Money for the purchase of the property is available from the City's fund balance. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to authorize the acquisition of the property at 7479 East River Road. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 33-1998 ORDERING PRELIMINARY PLANS, SPECIFICA- TIONS AND ESTIMATES OF TAE COSTS THEREOF: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-4: Mr. Flora, Director of Public Works, explained that the public hearing on the 57th Avenue Street Improvement Project will be held on June 8, 1998. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 33-1998, A resolution ordering preliminary plans, specifications and estimates of the costs thereof: Street Improvement Project CITY COUNCiL MEETiNG OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 13 No. ST 1997-4. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 34-1998 RECEIVING THE PRELiMINARY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC AEARING ON TRE MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS: 57TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-4: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 34-1998 receiving the preliminary report and calling for a public hearing on the matter of construction of certain improvements: 57th Avenue Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1997-4. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Flora provided information regarding the clean-up of the storm damage which occurred on Friday, May 15th. The City will be picking up branches from damaged trees commencing on Wednesday, May 20. Residents are requested to contact the Public Works Municipal Garage at 572-3566 to inform them of tree damage prior to May 20. Leaves and brush can be put into bags and left at the curb for rubbish collectors or can be brought to the Fridley compost site. City staff is asking residents to assist in keeping the cat�h basins free and the gutters clean. Mr. Burns asked if the Council Review Session originally scheduled for 7:00 p.m. could be changed to 6:30 p.m. Councilmember Barnette stated that he would be the only Councilmember in attendance and that 6:30 p.m. would be fine. Mr. Flora noted that the City will be slurry sealing the bike paths as noted in his memorandum. Councilmember Bolkcom asked that the City look at options for maintaining the bike path on University Avenue. She is aware that this bike path is in the State's right-of-way but that its condition is reflective of the City of Fridley. Councilmember Barnette noted that a Community Vision meeting will be held May 28 at 7:00 p.m. in the Fridley Community Activity Center gymnasium. Child Care will be available. Residents who are in need of this service are requested to cal( to make arrangements. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Sunset Memorial Gardens will be having a Memorial Service Monday, May 25 at 10:00 a.m. A follow-up picnic will be held at one of the county parks. She encouraged the public's attendance. CITY COUNCII. MEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 PAGE 14 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimousiy and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 18; 1998 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tamara D. Saeflce Nancy 7. Jorgenson Recording Secretary Mayor L� r •#�� TO: WILLIAM W. B URNS, CITY MANAGER r� � i� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONAUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $9,300,000 SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (NOAH'S AR% OF MINNESOTA, INC. PROJECT), SERIES 1998A DATE: June 4,1998 Attached you will find the resolution authorizing the issuance of $9,300,000 in Senior Housing Revenue Bonds. The public hearing for this project was held on July 14, 1997. As you might recall, the proceeds from this bond issue will be used to construct an elderly housing development to be known as"Waters Crest". Mary Ippel from the firm of Briggs and Morgan is serving as Bond Counsel on this issue. The project will be using $9,300,000 of Housing Revenue Bonds to finance the construction. The debt is a conduit financing that ties the owner of the development to the payment of the bonds and not the City. The City will have no financial liability at all with this issue and the terms of the agreement provide for compensation to the City, if in the future, some sort of reporting requirements arise for this type of bond issue. In summary the project will consist of: 112 Units One - bedroom units will rent between $605 -$825 Two - bedroom units will rent between $875 -$1100 The project will be operated as an elderly rental housing development within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C. The project has also received final approval from the Housing Redevelopment Authority on the use of Ta�c Increment Financing for the project. They will be receiving an amount not to exceed $683,000 to be used for land acquisition and site improvements. This financing is being provided to reduce the rates to make the units more affordable. The project has an anticipated completion date of next spring. RDP/me Attachment(s) 1.01 RESOLUTION NO - , 1998 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $9,300,000 SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (NOAH'S ARK OF MINNESOTA, INC. PROJECT), SERIES 1998 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City") is authorized to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of financing or refinancing multifamily housing development facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has received from Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Company"), a proposal that the City finance a multifamily housing development hereinafter described through the issuance of revenue bonds or obligations (the revenue bonds are referred to as the "Bonds") pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the multifamily housing development to be financed by the Bonds is the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 110-unit multifamily housing facility for occupancy by elderly persons to be located at 83rd Avenue and University Service Drive in the City (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City proposes to finance the Project by the issuance of its $9,300,000 Senior Housing•Revenue Bonds (Noah's Ark of Minnesota, Inc. Project) Series 1998 under the Act pursuant to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City has previously prepared a housing program for the Project under the Act and the use of revenue bonds therefor; and WHEREAS, the City has previously submitted the housing program for the Project to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment as required by the Act; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a public hearing on the proposal of the Company that the City finance the Project by the issuance of the Bonds, at 7:30 p.m. on July 14, 1997, for which hearing the City published advance notice and at which hearing all persons who appeared or submitted comments were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the Project and the Bonds; and 94 6338 .1 �•O� WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture"), dated as of June l, 1998 between the City and U.S. Bank Trust National Association (the "Trustee") and the Bonds will be secured by the Indenture payable from a pledge and assignment of certain Project (as defined in the Indenture) revenues set forth under the Indenture, all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture; and the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, nor shall the Bonds constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against the credit or taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than the City's interest in the Project; and WHEREAS, proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Company pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of June 1, 1998 by and between the City and the Company (the "Loan Agreement") and the loan repayments thereunder and the Bonds will be secured by a Mortgage Agreement (the "Mortgage") dated as of June 1, 1998 from the Company to the City and assigned to the Trustee and by an Assignment of Mortgage Agreement dated as of June 1, 1998 assigned from the City to the Trustee (the "Assignment"); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Proposal. For the purpose of financing the Project, the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds is hereby authorized. The proceeds of the Bonds together with other funds provided by the Company, shall be applied to costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project. The Bonds shall be in such series, principal amounts, shall bear interest at rates, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, and shall be in such form and have such other details and provisions as may be prescribed in the Indenture, substantially in the form now on file with the City. The Bonds shall be special obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues provided by the Loan Agreement and other funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds of the City other than the revenues pledged to their payment, nor is the City subject to any liability thereon; no holders of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay any of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on 946338.1 1.03 the Bonds; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, and each Bond shall recite that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof and that no Bond shall constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. �he Bonds shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and regularity of the issuance thereof. 2. Terms of Bonds. The Bonds will bear interest at the rates set forth in the Indenture, not to exceed 7.00s per annum, and will be in the principal amounts and will mature and be subject to redemption, all as set forth in the Indenture. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the City will loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company to finance the Project. The payments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed that the City assign certain rights under the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage and the Assignment to the Trustee as security for payment of the Bonds under the Indenture. A Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") will be entered into by and among the City, the Company and Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Incorporated (the "Purchaser") with respect to purchase of its Bonds. 3. Forms of Documents Submitted. Forms of the following documents have been submitted to the Council for approval: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Indenture; (c) the Mortgage; (d) the Assignment; and (e) the Bond Purchase Agreement. 4. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the financing of the Project furthers the policies of the Act; 1.04 946338.1 (b) the Project promotes the public welfare by providing necessary housing facilities, so that adequate housing facilities are available to residents of the State of Minnesota at a reasonable cost; (c) the.Act authorizes the acquisition, construction and installation of the facilities and equipment to be financed by the Bonds, the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement, Indenture, the Mortgage, the Assignment and Bond Purchase Agreement (collectively the "Bond Documents"), the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Bond Documents, and the performance of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the State of � Minnesota to make the Bond Documents and Bonds valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms; (d) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (e) the payments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement and Indenture also provide that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the facilities to be financed by the Bonds, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance �thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and any taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the premises of said facilities and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement and Indenture; (f) as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any Bond shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage and the Assignment, which have been assigned to the Bond Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage and the Assignment which have 946338.1 I.OJ been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds do not constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability or moral obligation of the City, the State of Minnesota or any of its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof; and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 5. Approval of Document Forms; Execution. Subject to the approval of the City Attorney, and the provisions of paragraph 9 hereof, the forms of the Bond Documents and exhibits thereto and all other documents listed in paragraph 3 hereof are approved substantially in the form submitted. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 hereof, the Bond Documents, in substantialiy the forms submitted, are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and Clerk or Manager. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 hereof, the Bonds are to be executed in the name of and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and Clerk or Manager, and are to be delivered to the Trustee for authentication and delivery to the Purchaser. Any other City documents and certificates necessary to the transaction described above may be executed by the appropriate City officers. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement and Indenture. 6. Official Statement. The City hereby consents to the preparation and distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement dated and a final Official Statement (collectively, the "Official Statement") to the Purchaser. The City has relied upon the Company and the Purchaser and legal counsel retained by them to assure the accuracy and completeness of the information set forth in the Official Statement and therefore the City has not participated, and will not participate significantly, in the preparation of the Official Statement. The City has not made, and will not make, any independent investigation of the information contained therein, except under the headings "THE CITY" or "THE ISSUER", and it assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information. The Preliminary Official Statement will be designated as a"near final" Official Statement for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Commission. 996338.1 �.OV 7. Issuance. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue the Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture and this Resolution. The Bonds shall be issued in principal amounts, shall be payable or prepayable at such time or times, shall bear interest at such rates and shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as set forth in the Indenture. The City officers are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture. 8. Records and Certificates. The Mayor, Clerk, Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 9. Changes in Forms Approved; Absent and Disabled Officers. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifica- tions thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by counsel to the City, the appropriate City staff person or by the officers authorized herein to execute or accept, as the case may be, said documents prior to their execution; and said officers or staff inembers are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents authorized by this Resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or authorization of the City Council by any member of the City Council or any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf. 10. Indemnification by Company. It is understood and agreed that the Company shall indemnify the City against all liabilities, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including attorney's fees and expenses incurred by the City) arising with 996338.1 1.07 respect to the Project or the Bonds, as provided for and agreed to by and between the Company and the City in the Loan Agreement. 11. Headings; Terms. Paragraph headings in this Resolution are for convenience of reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision hereof. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Indenture or Loan Agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1998. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 1.08 946338.1 �� • �. a , . , .� ..., � . ,.. . . TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER��I� ��M: RICHAItD D. PRIB�'' �N�CE DIRECTOR SUBJECT� �SOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE �D �TE OF THE $150,000 SUBUR�INATE oF MINNESOTA, NC. PROJECT), 5ERIES 1998B (N0� S ARK NOTES A1�iD THE $300,000 SUBURDINATE HUU SOTA�N P��C.� SERIES 1998C (N��'S �K �F MI�E AND AUTHORIZING THE EI'�ECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THEKETO ' DATE: June 4,1998 of the Noah's Ark Project, two series of notes will also In connection with the financing Revenue Bonds. 'i'he for his providing certain be issued on a subordinated b�l to C a g C� AO ry�Heu�g es will be Series 1998B Note will be issued a ent of ' connection with development of the Project. � e esota,s In 98foNPt � equrty ln ��d to Noah s Ark of issued to Avery Comp Y in connection with the Project. The t�'o se�n� �o,e b Ne��erating development fees a able solely fr are being issued under a separate resolution, p Y Income only after payment of debt service on the senior Bonds. has no liability whether contingent As in the original Housing Revenue Bond, the CitY �e Cit}, would be required to or otherwise and would be reimbursed if, in the ��'e, provide some sort of annual report�g• gDP/me Attachment(s) 2.01- RESOLUTION NO - _,1998 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE S��RDIlVATE HOUSING REV� `�� S�-E OF THE $150,000 A.RK OF MINNESOTA, INC. PROJE T� T� $3� p 1998B (Np��s HOUSING REVENUE 1vOTES SERIES 1998C ' 0 S�p�INATE MINNESOTA, INC. PROJECT) AIVD AUTHORIZING T��C� K OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THE�T� ION OF Ci BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Mi�es �� h'„), as follows: ota (�e SECTION 1. LEG i A T��'HOR�7 e mTn,.T .,.,� �_ _ ` 1` � D 1.1 i i . The City hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: �a) The City is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C as amended (the "Act" and is multifamily housing project herein referred to, and to issue and sell each of th �sist the hereinafter defined, for the purpose, in the manner and upon the terms and e Notes, as forth in the Act and in this Resolution. conditions set ib) As required by the Act and Section 147 1986, as arnended (the "Code" �fl °f �e Internal Revenue Code of ), the City has previously held a public hearing on the issuance of one or more revenue bonds and/or notes to finance the pro'ect J • ��) The City has on this date by separate resolution approved the issu its $9,300,000 Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Noah'S Ark of Minnesot �Ce of Series 1998 (the "Bonds") to finance the acquisition, construction and e' seniors multi-family rental housing development for �' ��' Project) (the "ProjecY'); rental primarily to e de pp�g of a y persons (d) The issuance of the $150,000 Subordinate Housing Revenue Note 1998B (Noah'S Ark of Minnesota Inc. Pro ect � Series $300,000 Subordinate Housing Revenue Notes, S nes11998C S� 8B Note" Inc• Pro ect �e « ) and the J)( Series 1998C Notes") (collectively, the Series 199gg NoMlnnesota, Series 1998C Notes are referred to as the "Notes") to be issued on a subord' �d �e the Bonds by the City, pursuant to the Act, is in the best interest of the Ci �ate basis to hereby determines to issue the Notes, as provided herein. �'� �d �e City (e) Pursuant to a Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") to be enter between the City arid Noah'S A�.k of Minnesot ed into (the "Borrower" � ��•, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation amounts and at)spe ified times suffi �eed to repay the Notes in specified priorities _ ient_ to pay in full when due the principai of,� 940746.3 1� L.OL premium, if any, and interest on the Notes. The Notes are issued on a subordinate basis to the Bonds and payment under the Loan Agreement will be subordinate to payment under the loan agreement relating to the Bonds. In addition, payment of, and security for, the Series 1998B Note will be senior to payment of and security for the Series 1998C Notes. A draft of the Loan Agreement is on file with the City. ( fl Pursuant to a Pledge Agreement to be entered into between the City and each of the Purchasers of the Notes (as herein defined), the City has pledged and granted a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in the Loan Agreement to the Purchasers (except for certain rights of indemnification and to reimbursement for certain costs and expenses). A draft of the Pledge Agreement is on file with the City. • (g) Pursuant to a Subordinate Mortgage, (the "Subordinate Mortgage") to be executed by the Borrower in favor of the City, the Bonower has secured payment of amounts due under the Loan Agreement and Notes by granting to the City a mortgage and security interest in the property described therein which mortgage and security interest shall be subordinate to the lien of the first mortgage securing the Bonds. Pursuant to an Assignment of Subordinate Mortgage executed by the City (the "Assignment"), the City has assigned the Subordinate Mortgage to the Trustee for the Bonds to administer for the Purchasers. Drafts of the Subordinate Mortgage and Assignment are on file with the City. (h) The Notes will be a special limited obligations of the City. The Notes shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder of the Notes shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Notes or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Notes shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. (i) It is desirable, feasible and consistent with the objects and purposes of the Act to issue the Notes. SECTION 2. THE NOTES. 2.1 Authorized Amount and Form of Notes. The Notes issued pursuant to this Resolution shall be in substantially the form attached as Exhibits A and B hereto, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are pernutted or required by this Resolution, and in accordance with the further provisions hereof. The Series 1998B Note in the amount of $150,000 shall be issued to Craig C. Avery, an individual. The Series 1998C Notes in the aggregate amount of $300,000 shall be issued in the amount of $200,000 to Craig C. Avery Company, a Minnesota corporation, and in the amount of $100,000 to Ark Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. The foregoing are each referred to as a Purchaser and collectively referred to as the Purchasers. Each Note shall be registered to such individuals or entiries as designated by the respective Purchaser thereof. The Series 1998B Note will be issued in exchange for the cash purchase price thereof. The Series 1998C Notes will be issued in 940746.3 2■03 exchange for development services provided by the Purchasers to the Borrower with respect to the Project. Each Note shall bear interest at the rates set forth in the respective Notes, which rates shall not exceed 9.00% for the Series 1998B Note and 9.00% for the Series 1998C Notes. 2.2 The Notes. Each Note shall be dated as of the date of delivery to the Purchaser thereof, shall be payable at the times and in the manner, shall beaz interest at the rate, and shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as are set forth therein. 2.3 Execution. The Notes shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and City Manager or Clerk and shall be sealed with the seal of the City; provided that the seal may be intentionally omitted as provided by law. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. In the event of the absence or disability of the Mayor, the City Manager or Clerk, such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attomey, may act in their behalf, shall without further act or authorization of the City Council execute and deliver the Notes. 2.4 Delivery of Initial Note. Before delivery of the Notes there sha11 be filed with the Purchasers the following items: (1) an executed copy of each of the following documents: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Pledge Agreement; (c) the Subordinate Mortgage; (d) the Assignment; (2) an opinion of Counsel for the Borrower as prescribed by the Purchasers and Bond Counsel; (3) the opinion of Bond Counsel as to the validity and tax exempt status of the Notes; (4) a 501(c)(3) determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service evidencing that the Borrower is exempt from income taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code; (5) such other documents and opinions as Bond Counsel may reasonably require for purposes of rendering its opinion required in subsection (3) above or that the Purchaser may reasonably require for the closing. 940746.3 �•04 2.5 Disposition of Note Proceeds. Upon delivery of the Series 1998B Note to the Purchaser thereof, the Purchaser shall transfer $150,000 in immediately available funds to the Trustee for the Bonds for deposit into the Construction Fund. Upon delivery of the Series 1998C Notes to the Purchasers thereof, the Purchasers shall accept receipt of the Notes in exchange for development services provided to the Borrower relating to the development of the Project. 2.6 Registration of Transfer. The City will cause to be kept at the office of the City Manager a Note Register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, the City shall provide for the registration of transfers of ownership of the Notes. The Notes shall be initially registered in the name of the respective Purchasers thereof and shall be transferable upon the Note Register by each Purchaser in person or by its agent duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of the applicable Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the City Manager, duly executed by the Purchaser or its duly authorized agent. The following form of assignment shall be sufficient for said purpose. For value received hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Note of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer said Note on the books of said City with full power of substitution in the premises. The undersigned certifies that the transfer is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9 of the Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Note. Dated: Registered Owner Upon such transfer the City Manager shall note the date of registration and the name and address of the new Purchaser in the Note Register and in the registration blank appearing on the Note. 2,'7 Mnti�aterl T.nst or Destroved Note. In case any Note issued hereunder shall become mutilated or be destroyed or lost, the City shall, if not then prohibited by law, cause to be executed and delivered a new Note of like outstanding principal amount, number and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note, or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note destroyed or lost, upon the Purchaser's paying the reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection therewith, and in the case of a Note destroyed or lost, the filing with the City of evidence satisfactory to the City with indemnity satisfactory to it. If the mutilated, destroyed or lost Note has akeady matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 2.8 Ownershi� of Note. The City may deem and treat ihe person in whose name a Note is last registered in the Note Register and by notation on the Note whether or not such Note shall be overdue, as the absolute owner of such Note for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the Principal Balance, redemption price or interest and for all other purposes whatsoever, and the City shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. 940746.3 2�0� 2.9 Limitation on Note Transfers. The Notes have been issued without registration under state or other securities laws, pursuant to an exemption for such issuance; and accordingly the Notes may not be assigned or transferred in whole or part, nor may a participation interest in any Note be given pursuant to any participation agreement, except upon receipt of a written opinion of Bond Counsel that an exemption exists for such transfer. 2.10 Issuance of New Notes. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.9, the City shall, at the request and expense of a Purchaser, issue new notes, in aggregate outstanding principal amount equal to that of the Note surrendered, and of like tenor except as to number, principal amount, and the amount of the monthly installments payable thereunder, and registered in the name of the Purchaser or such transferee as may be designated by the Purchaser. SECTION 3. MISCELLANEOUS. 3.1 Severabilitv. If any provision of this Resolution shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be inoperative or unenforceable as applied in any particulaz case in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions or in all jurisdictions or in all cases because it conflicts with any provisions of any constitution or statute or rule or public policy, or for any other reason, such circumstances shall not have the effect of rendering the provision in question inoperative or unenforceable in any other case or circumstance, or of rendering any other provision or provisions herein contained invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable to any extent whatever. The invalidity of any one or more phrases, sentences, clauses or paragraphs in this Resolution contained shall not affect the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. 3.2 Authentication of Transcrint. The officers of the City aze directed to furnish to Bond Counsel certified copies of this Resolution and all documents referred to herein, and affidavits or certificates as to all other matters which are reasonably necessary to evidence the validity of the Notes. All such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute recitals of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. 3.3 Authorization to Execute A�reements. The forms of the proposed Loan Agreement, the Assignment, the Subordinate Mortgage and the Pledge Agreement, are hereby approved in substantially the form on file with the City, together with such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by Bond Counsel and the City Attorney prior to the execution of the documents, and the Mayor and City Manager or Clerk of the City are authorized to execute the Loan Agreement, the Assignment and the Pledge Agreement in the name of and on behalf of the City and such other documents as Bond Counsel consider appropriate in connection with the issuance of the Notes. In the event of the absence or disability of the Mayor, the City Manager or the City Clerks, such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf shall without further act or authorization of the City Council do all things and execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by such absent or disabled officers. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate 940746.3 2■O6 officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1998. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 940746.3 2.�7 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR % �- '�I i �� TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �`� � FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUSAN LEMIEUX, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1997 BUDGET DATE: June 2, 1998 Attached you wili find a resolution amending revenue and appropriations to the 1997 budget in accordance with the City Charter. The adjustments listed have arisen as a result of donations, unforeseen expenditures, revenues and operating transfers to close out funds, and reclassification of account codings. We request that the City Council approve the amendment of the attached budgets. RDP/sl Attachment . 3.01 RBSOLiJTION NO. - 1998 A R$SOLOTION AUTHORIZING CHANGF3S IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THL G$NSRAL FUND, SPgCIAL REVENUF3 FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEM$NT FUND FOR TH$ FOtJRTH QUART53R OF 1997. WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has involved itself in initiatives that provide for future charges and modifications that will allow for a better delivery of services, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley had not incorporated these and other necessary changes into the adopted budget for 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds and Capital Improvement Fund budgets for the following divisions be amended as follows: GSNSRAL FIIND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS ASSESSING SALE OF MDT UNZTS REIMBURSEMENT - POLICE DONATION - POLICE DONATIONS - POLICE DONATION - FIRE DONATION - FIRE DONATION - FIRE DONATION - FIRE DONATION - RECREATION DONATION - RECREATION DONATION - NATURE CENTER DONATION - NATURE CENTER DONATION - NATURE CENTER DONATION - PARKS LICENSES-ALL OTiiER STATE AID-FIRE INS PREM TAX CHARGES FOR SERVICES-PUBLIC SAFETY TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS GENERAL FUND CONTINUED APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS MAYOR/COUNCIL PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES 322 9,000 1,222 400 1,600 200 30 400 75 125 4,565 100 1,200 1,000 1,000 969 21,512 29,000 $72,720 613 (613) CITY MANAGER PERSONAL SERVICES (3,019) SUPPLIES/CHARGES 3,019 SUPPLIES/CHARGES 21,209 3.02 MAAO-POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT CITY OF BLAINE & RAMSEY STATE OF MN-BULLET PROOF VEST MINCO-CRIME PREVENTION DARE PROGF2AM DONATIONS LIONS CLUB DONATION MINNEGASCO DONATION MINCO-FIRE PREVENTION MATERIALS DONATION-HAZMAT TRAILER LIONS CLUB-SENIOR HOLIDAY DINNER LIONS CLUB-SENIOR TRANSPORTATION BARNA GUZY-HALLOWEEN CELEBRATION DONATIONS FOR HALLOWEEN CELEBRATION FMC/UNITED DEFENSE DONATION DONALD SAVELKOUL-REPAIR "DUNES" ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE STATE OF MN-FIRE AID CURFEW VIOLATION DROP OFF ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ATTORNEY EXP-TELECOMMUNICATIONS ATTORNEY EXP-TELECOMMUNICATIONS ATTORNEY EXP-TELECO[�RiJNICATIONS PERSONNEL LEGAL ELECTIONS ACCOUNTING ASSESSING MIS CITY CLERK POLICE FIRE RENTAL INSPECTIONS CIVIL DEFENSE MfJN . CENTER ENGINEERING PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVZCES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPLIES/CHARGES 1,477 (1,477) 17,735 38 (15,828) (23,135) 23,135 322 663 (663) (29,113) 29,113 15,828 931 21,166 200 1.222 1,600 400 39,891 23,849 9,281 (9,281) 400 30 21,512 648 (648) 2,560 (2,560) 2,221 525 (1,862) 1,862 10,257 138 (138) 3.03 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE COST FOR ACCT POSITION CFiG'D TO CLERK'S DEPT. CONTRACT SERVICES FOR PERSONNEL SHORTAGE CONTRACT SERVICES FOR PERSONNEL SHORTAGE MAAO-POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE CONTRACT SERVICES FOR PERSONNEL SHORTAGE CONTRACT SERVICES FOR PERSONNEL SAORTAGE COST FOR ACCT POSITION CHG'D TO CLERK'S DEPT. ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE OVERTIME REIMBURSEMENT LIONS CLUB DONATION DONATION-BULLET PROOF VEST DARE PROGRAM DONATIONS DONATION-MINCO, CRIME PREVENTION BACKPAY FOR CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMZNATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMZNATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE MINCO-FIRE PREVENTION METERIALS MENNEAGSCO DONATION OFFSET IN INCR IN STATE OF NIN FIRE AID-PD TO RELIEF ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE SIREN REPAIR TELEPHONE SYSTEM TERMINAL ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE REPIPING REPAIRS/HTG/AIR REPAIRS ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE P.WORKS/PARKS RECREATION NATURE CTR PLANNING INSPECTZON EMERGENCY RESERVE Balance $100,000-9,043-13,408=$77,549 TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS � ='l!�!�1�1` � �L�l� CABLE TV FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS GRANT MANAGEMENT FUND SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVZCES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES 1,000 DONALD SAVELKOUL-REPAIR "DUNES" (536) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE 536 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE 9,517 INSTALL NEW LIGHT POLE/SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 125 LIONS CLUB-SENIOR HOLIDAY DINNER 1,394 LIONS CLUB-SENIOR TRANSPORTATION (15,022) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE 15,022 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE 1,200 DONATIONS FOR HALLOWEEN CELEBRATION 100 DONATIONS FOR HALLOWEEN CELEBRATION 1,113 FMC/UNITED DEFENSE DONATION 37 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE (150) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE 560 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXPENSES 1,255 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE (1,255) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE PERSONAL SERVICES 6,264 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE SUPPLIES/CHARGES (6,264) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE LICENSES INTEREST EARNINGS PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY (560) GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXPENSES (525) TELEPHONE SYSTEM TERMINAL (21,209) CITY MGR-ATT'Y EXP- T E L E C O[�I IJN I CAT I ON S (46,906) POLICE - BACKPAY FOR CONTRACT SETTLEMENT (2,221) SIREN REPAIR (6,128) REPIPING REPAIRS/AIR REPAIRS(BAL $4,129) $100,855 10,305 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCES (911) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCES $9,394 2,258 FULL TIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (1,227) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCES 50,612 TELECOMMCiNICATIONS ENGINEERING 5,004 CAMERA SYSTEM $56,647 3.04 REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT FiJND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADNSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS HRA REIMBURSEMENT FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATZON ADJUSTMENTS DRUG/GAMBLING FORFEITURE FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS HOUSING REVITALIZATION APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS CHEMICAL ASSESS. TEAM REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS C.E.C. DONATIONS(F.C.C.) REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY PERSONAL SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIESfCHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY CHARGES FOR SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY INTERGOVERNMENTAL SUPPLIES/CHARGES FINES AND FORFEITS SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES DONATIONS 147,211 5,000 152,211 35,703 122,022 (122.022) 8,701 111,112 $155,516 $59,917 19,908 38,944 $1,065 $59,917 $16,521 $16,798 $1,090 155 UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY REALLOCATE BUDGET REALLOCATE BUDGET UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY RECYCLING CENTER RECYCLING CENTER RECYCLING CENTER RECYCLING CENTER-SCALE UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY $5,801 UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY $37,630 UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY 9,338 $41,121 UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY $50,459 $192,192 3.05 liJ�l3i��Z�f �1i�� I�i! 1��4 � APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS - • : �i " '��2� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,977 43,356 $52,333 UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES/CHARGES 75 DONATION-HAZMAT TRAILER CAPITAL OUTLAY 58,182 TRAINING TOWER STREETS OTHER FINANCING USES 7,573 TRANSFER TO FUND 501 CURB CONSTR OTHER FINANCING USES 12,680 TRANSFER TO FUND 503 DRIVEWAY CONSTR OTHER FINANCING USES 119,225 TRANSFER TO FUND 555 1996 STREET CONSTR OTHER FINANCING USES 32,128 TRANSFER TO FUND 556 1997 STREET CONSTR OTHER FINANCING USES 3,740 TRANSFER TO FUND 353 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OTHER FINANCING USES 745 TRANSFER TO FUND 383 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OTHER FINANCING USES 923 TRANSFER TO FUND 603 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TOTAL STREETS 235,271 pp�� OTHER FINANCING USES $2,200 TRANSFER TO FUND 354 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY 510 TRAC-LOADER 2,710 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS _TH DAY OF , 1998. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 3.06 L� • ,. u � TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �' �� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUSAN LEMIEUX, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING 1997 OPERATING TRANSFERS DATE: June Z, 1998 Attached you will find a resolution approving the 1997 operating transfers. The transfers are necessary in order to move funds previously budgeted and to close out certain capital project funds. We request that the City Council approve the attached resolution. RDP/sl Attachment 4.01 R$SOLUTION NO. - 1998 A RBSOLUTION AUTHORIZING OP$RATING TRANF$RS FOR TH$ YEAR $ND$D 1997. WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has found it necessary to tranfer operating funds for the year ended 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following operating transfers be approved: OPERATING TRANSFERS From To Amount Purpose Closed Bond Fund General Fund 353-000-475-4720 101-0000-392-0100 $145,821.00 Liquor Fund General Fund 609-9102-415-4720 101-0000-392-0100 $50,000.00 Liquor Fund General Fund 609-9202-415-4720 101-0000-392-0100 $25,000.00 Capital Improvement Fund Curb Construction 408-0006-415-4720 501-0000-392-0100 $7,572.74 Capital Improvement Fund Driveway Construction 408-0006-415-4720 503-0000-392-0100 $12,680.07 1994 Street Projects Capital Improvement Fund 553-0000-415-4720 408-0006-392-0100 1995 Street Projects Capital Improvement Fund 554-0000-415-4720 408-0006-392-0100 Capital Improvement Fund 1996 Street Projects 408-0006-415-4720 555-0000-392-0100 Capital Improvement Fund 1997 Street Projects 408-0006-415-4720 556-0000-392-0100 Capital Improvement Fund Closed Debt Service Fund 408-0006-415-4720 353-0000-392-0100 $246,861.90 $24,855.37 $865,224.70 $192,127.77 $3,739.79 4.02 Fund Operations Fund Operations Fund Operations Fund 1996 & 1997 Curb Projects Fund 1996 & 1997 Driveway Construction Projects Reimburse C/I Fund Reimburse C/I Fund Fund 1996 Street Projects Fund 1997 Street Projects Payoff Special Assessments City Property Capital Improvement Fund Improvement Bonds-1996 408-0006-415-4720 383-0000-392-0100 $745.00 Capital Improvement Fund Bonds of the Future 408-0007-415-4720 384-0000-392-0100 Capital Improvement Fund Storm Water Fund 408-0006-415-4720 603-0000-392-0100 Closed Bond Fund Capital Improvement Fund 353-0000-475-4720 408-0000-392-0100 $2,200.00 $922.99 $1,563,515.14 Payoff Special Assessments City Property Payoff Special Assessments City Property Payoff Special Assessments City Property Fund Fridley Community Center Project Locke Lake Dam Project Storm Water Fund Close out Locke Lake Dam Project 603-0000-475-4720 505-0000-392-0100 $75,367.47 $3,216,633.94 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS TH DAY OF , 1998. — ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK � 4.03 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR CITY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM � TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER�� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WII.LIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING, INTOXICATING LIQUOR DATE: JUNE 4,1998 We have received an application from Spikers Beach Club for an intoxicating liquor license. Spikers is proposing to open a new restaurandentertainment facility at 7651 Highway 65 Northeas� Pursuant to Chapter 603 Section .07 of the Fridley City Code, we aze required to hold a public hearing before issuing this license. We request that the public hearing for Spikers be held on June 22, 1998. The Police Department has performed the required background investigation on Spikers and Public Safety Director Sallman has not found any reason to deny this request 5.01 � � CITY OF FRIDtEY Name Ronald Larson Position Firefighter Non-exempt APPOINTMENT June 8, 1998 Starting Salary $13.74 per hour 6.01 Starting Date July 1, 1998 Replaces Howard Simonson � � CRY OF FBIDLEY CLAIMS JUNE8, 1998 CLAIMS 80816 - 81097 7.01 � � CiTY OF FRIDLEY Tvne of License B_y CARNIVAL: � Gold Star Amusements, Inc. Connie Featherstone Fire Dept. Office Box 48057 Police Dept. Coon Rapids , MN 55448 Building Inspection CIGARETTE Bona Brothers Amoco Brian J. Bona 5311 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 LICENSES JUNE 8,19�98 Apuroved Bv• FODD SALES (TEMPORARI�: Fridley `49ers Food Concession Richard Toulelle c/o 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 OFF-SALE BEER: Sam's Club #6310 Terri Bertschy 8150 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 ON-SALE BEER (TEMPORARI�: Fridley Wrestling Boosters Todd Christenson 1337 Gazdena Avenue Fridley, MN 55432 OUTDOOR FOOD (TEMPORARI�: Holiday Foods Stephen Wiesner 246 - 57r'' Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 8.01 Fire Dept., Police Dept. Community Dev. Building Inspection Fire Dept. Police Dept. Building Inspection Police Dept. Police Dept. Fire Depf. Police Dept. Building Inspection Fees• $200.00-Post $125.00 Exempt $240.00 $60.00 $90.00 � � GTIf OF FRIDLEY Tvne of License PEDDLER - CHARITABLE: Fund for Public Interest Research 201 Main Street S.E. Minneapolis, NIN 55414 RETAIL GASOLINE: Bona Brothers Amoco 5311 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 LICENSES JUNE 8,1998 � Larry Hiscock Brian J. Bona Approved Bv• Police Dept. Community Dev. Fire Dept. Police Dept. Community Dev. Building Inspection Fees• No Fee E,.111 Fridley Amoco Certicare Lloyd R. Ring Fire Dept. $60.00 and Mr. Tire Police Dept. 7680 Highway 65 Building Inspection Fridley, MN 55432 TOBACCO SALES: Fridley Amoco Certicare Lloyd R. Ring Fire Dept. $125.00 and Mr. Tire Police Dept. 7680 Highway 65 Building Inspection Fridley, MN 55432 TREE REMOVAL & TREATMENT Ray's Lawn Service Raymond P. Denzer Public Works Dept. $ 40.00 and Landscaping 4014 Glenhaven Lane Mounds View, MN 55112 8.02. � � rn,r oF FRIDLEY ELECTRICAL � AEM Electric Services Corp� 1630 Hwy 10 NE #103 Spring Lake Park MN 55432 E K Electric Inc � 15710 Dakota St NW Andover MN 55304 Freeway Electric of Afton Inc PO Box 275 Afton MN 55001-0275 RTS Electric 8720 257 Ave NW Zimmerman MN 55398 Ridgedale Electric Inc 500 Brimhall Ave PO 410 Long Lake MN 55356 GAS SERVICES . A-1 Heating & AC Inc 6090 Pagenkopf Rd Maple Plain MN 55359-9495 Dependable Indoor Air 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd NW Coon Rapids MN 55433 Diamond Power Mechanical 701 W Main St Anoka MN 55303 Knott Mechanical Services Co 5941 142 Ave NW Ramsey MN 55303-5645 Marsh Heating & Air Cond 6248 Lakeland Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55428-2438 � LICENSES JUNE 8, 1998 Edward Kovar Terry Wiegele Thomas Rzeszutek Gerald Wagoner Gerald Sturm James Holt Kipp Knuteson Debra Knott Kellv__Marsh 8.03 STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same . Same ' Same Same Master Mobile Home Service 1486 Cloud Dr Blaine Mn 55449 P & D Mechanical 4629 41 Ave N Minneapolis MN 55422 Barry Fassett Joe Daugherty GENERAL CONTRACTOR-COMMERCIAL Aldrich Construction 2011 243 Ave St Francis MN 55070 David Aldrich GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL All American Roofmg & Remodeling (5160) 4112 97 Ln NE Blaine MN 55432 James Piersiak Anderson S J Construction (20062802) 299 17 Ave NW New Brighton MN 55112 B & B Roofmg 6760 Madison St Fridley MN 55432 Scott Anderson Jerry Bethel Cities Home Improvement Co (20Q76414) 6148 Olson Memorial Hwy Golden Valley MN 55422 Marshall Lifson Citywide Home Improvement Inc (3013) 1005 West Broadway Minneapolis MN 55411 Paul Ocken Coleman D R Construction (20039473) 15 East Rd Circle Pines Mn 55014 Craftsmen Exteriors (20093753) 13570 Grove Dr #116 Maple Grove MN 55311 D & B Home Improvements (7773) 4901 105 Ln NE Circle pines MN 55014 Donald Coleman Dan Bydlon William Friedrichs : 1 � Same Same RON NLKOWSKI Building Official STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same Same Same Same D L Builders (20096711) 1166 14 Ave SE Minneapolis MN 55414 Diamond Exteriors Inc (20126834) 222 Church St Wood Stock IL 60098 Franzen Construction (2744) 4250 5 Street NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 Heiderscheid Bros Construction (20060354) 716 198 Ave NE East Bethel MN 55011 Horizon Co Roofmg (20012795) 1333 Larc Industrial Blvd Burnsville MN 55337 Kastle Co Corp (20029530) 809 E 48 St Minneapolis MN 55417 Knutson Roofing & Siding (2501) 9307 Hillside Dr Champlin MN 55316 New View Construction (3894) 2355 Benjamin St NE Minneapolis MN 55418 Nutzmann Bros Construction (20043453) 736 1 Ave NW New Brighton MN 55112 Patio Enclosures Inc 2123 Old Hwy 9 New Brighton MN 55112 Peak Roofing (20045301) 11506 Oakvale S Minnetonka MN 55305 Quality Contracting (7053) 11412 W River Rd Champlin MN 55316 Dan Lemmenes Jon Broadfield Robert Franzen Mike Heiderscheid Tracey Brettin Robert Schuller Jack Knutson John Ludwig Tom Nutzmann James Wilkerson Dave Lybeck Kenneth Welton 8.05 . Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Roelofs Remodeling & Renovation (1095) 11900 Wayzata Blvd #212 Minnetonka MN 55305 Jerry Roelofs Sawdust Memories Inc (2604) 106 S France Ave Minneapolis MN 55416 Sela Roofing (1050) 4100 Excelsior Blvd St Louis Park MN 55416-4727 Thermal Window & Siding (20107290) 2005 Bush Ave St Paul MN 55119 Volk & Sons Construction Inc (2062) 489 Buffalo Ave SE Buffalo MN 55313 Wills Greg Exteriors (20037840) 4246 Royce St NE Minneapolis MN 55421 HEATING A-1 Heating & AC Inc 6090 Pagenkopf Rd Maple Plain MN 55359-9495 Boiler Services Inc 7570 Hwy 65 NE Fridley MN 55432 Dependable Indoor Air 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd NW Coon Rapids MN 55433 Diamond Power Mechanical 701 W Main St Anoka MN 55303 Knott Mechanical Services Co 5941 142 Ave NW Ramsey MN 55303-5645 Marsh Heating & Air Cond 6248 Lakeland Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55428-2438 Scott Hagg Jerry Spizak Larry Nifong Gene Volk Greg Wills Gerald Sturm Gary Emery James Holt Kipp Knuteson Debra Knott Kelly Marsh 8.06 Same Same Same Same Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Same Same Same Same Master Mobile Home Service 1486 Cloud Dr Blaine MN 55449 PLUMBING Den-Mark Plumbing 7801 Georgia Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55445 Kidd Plumbing Inc 1518 89 Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55444 LBP Mechanical Inc 315 Royalston Ave N Minneapolis MN 55405 Philips Plumbing 1579 2 Ave Newport MN 55055 Ritter Duane Excavating & Plumbing 7120 Vernon St Rockford MN 55373 ROOFING Grussing Roofing Inc 4305 Shady Oak Rd Hopkins MN 55343 SIGN ERECTOR Attracta Sign 7420 West Lake St Minneapolis MN 55426 Demars Signs 410 93 Ave NW Coon Rapids MN 55433 Leroy Signs Inc 6325 Welcome Ave N Brooklyn Park Mn 55429 Scenic Sign Corporation PO Box 881 St Cloud MN 56302 Barry Fassett Dennis Doeddeker Dean Neisen Douglas Hayes Philip Wanty Duane Ritter Don Grussing Tom Buettner Desiree Demars Ruth Miller Robert Gruber 8.�7 Same STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Same Same Same Universal Signs Inc 1033 Thomas Ave St Paul MN 55104 WRECKING Horton T L& Son Contracting 1Q080 Jackson St NE Blaine MN 55434 Rybak Excavating & Contracting 3134 California St NE Minneapolis MN 55418 Rick Palmateer Thomas Horton Dave Rybak : 1 : Same RON NLKOWSKI Building Official Same r L UlY OF FRIDLEY Insituform Central, Inc. 4510 - 77�' Stre.et Edina, MN 55435 ESTIMA�� JUNE �; 1998 � Sanitary and Storm Sewer Repair � Project No. 314 , � EstimateNo. 2 ......................................................................................... $ 64,628.50 M.C. Magney Construction, Inc. 19245 Highway 7 P.O. Box 249 Excelsior, MN 55331 Well House No. Project No. 298 Estimate No. 8 1 and Booster Station ...................................................................................... � 16,459.70 Park Construction Company 7900 Beech Street N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55432-1795 Rice Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 309 Estimate No. 2 ...................................................................................... $ 36,311.85 Ron Kassa Construction 7438 Upton Richfield, MN 55423 1998 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Project No. 315 EstimateNo. 2 ........................................................................................ $ 5,170.85 9.01 � . � � � � C]TY OF FRIDLEY Forest Lake Contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 ESTIMATES J U N E 8, 1998 Hackmann Avenue/Hackmann Circle Street Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1998 - 2 EstimateNo. 4 ................................................................................... $104,256.12 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of March, 1998 ................................................ $ 16,582.50 9.02 . � � � UI'Y OF FRIDLEY Insituform Central, Inc. 4510 - 77�' Street Edina, MN 55435 ESTI MATES JUNE8,1998 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Repair Project No. 314 � Estimate No. 2 ......................................................................................... $ 64,628.50 M.C. Magney Construction, Inc. 19245 Highway 7 P.O. Box 249 Excelsior, MN 55331 Well House No. 1 and Booster Station Project No. 298 Estimate No. 8 .........................�............................................................ $ 16,459.70 Park Construction Company 7900 Beech Street N.E. NIlinneapolis, MN 55432-1795 Rice Creek Bank Stabilization Project No. 309 Estimate No. 2 ...................................................................................... $ 36,311.85 Ron Kassa Construction 7438 Upton Richfield, MN 55423 1998 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Project No. 315 EstimateNo. 2 ........................................................................................ $ 5,170.85 . � � � CR7 OF FRIDLEY Forest Lake Contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 ESTI MATES JUNE8, 1998 � ° Hackmann Avenue/Hackmann Circle Street Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1998 - 2 Estimate No. 4 ................................................................................... $104,256.12 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of March, 1998 ................................................ $ 16,582.50 Frederic W. Knaak, Esq. Holstad and Larson, P.L.C. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of May, 1998 ................................................................ $ 4,250.00 CITY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER r�1-r �! FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMF BOWLING CENTERS (AMF MAPLE LANES) DATE: JUNE 4, 1998 On the June 8 City Council agenda is a public hearing to consider the approval of an Intoxicating Liquor License for the owners of AMF Maple Lanes, 6310 Highway 65 Northeast. 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 AMF Maple Lanes and Public Safety Director Sallman has not found any reason to deny this request. Closing on this business is scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, and staff recommends final approval only if this closing is successful. 6 10.01 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 8, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. on the question of issuing an Intoxicating Liquor License to AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. d.b.a. AMF 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, 1998. Anyone having an interest in this matter should make their interest known at this public hearing. William A. Champa City Clerk Publish: May 28, 1998 10.02 CITY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM 0 TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER c� I° � FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR COLUMBIA ICE ARENA DATE: JUNE 4, 1998 On the June 8 City Council agenda is a public hearing to consider the approvai of an On-Sale Beer License for the owners of Columbia Arena, 7011 University Avenue Northeast. A Public Hearing Notice is attached for your review. Pursuant to Chapter 602 Section .05 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 Columbia lce Arena and Public Safety Director Sallman has not found any reason to deny this request. Staff and the applicant have agreed on the following stipulation: beer sa/es may only occur during Twin City Vulcans' Junior A hockey games. x ___ . 11.01 � 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 8, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. on the question of issuing a Beer License to Columbia lce Arena for�the property located at 7011 University Avenue. 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, 1998. Anyone having an interest in this matter should make their interest known at this public hearing. William A. Champa City Clerk Publish: May 21, 1998 ,. . 11.02 � � �1� � Recrea�'��. 4�' . . � � ��-. _�. .� May 26, 1998 Park and :Recreation Department , . Cit.y of Roehester : � . ' � :. :. .; ., 201 1''ourth Street SE • Room 150 �• Rochester, MIY 55904 (507) 281-6160 • FAX (507) 281-6165 ' ' Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission Paul Erickson 1700 105�' Avenue NE Blaine, NiN 55449 Dear Mr. Erickson: I just wanted to confirm with the MASC that the City of Rochester has had a successful experience with the sale of beer at Rochester Mustangs hockey games. Four years ago we introduced th� sale of beer at the city owned Olmsted Recreation Center. The Rochester Mustangs play all of their home hockey games at our arena. We allow temporary signage and beer sales only as part of the Mustangs games. It has worked out well and we have not had any groblems. rely, �. '� � \ Roy Sutherland Superintendent City of Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager�� PW98-125 4 FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director Jon H.,�ukaas, Assistant Public Works Director �� DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the 57�' Avenue Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1997 - 4 The City Council has set a public hearing for the 57�' Avenue Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1997 - 4 for June 8, 1998. The proposed assessments are for concrete medians and concrete curb maintenance edges, lighting, sidewalks, and landscaping. The estimated assessment is $101.31 per lineal foot. There are a total of seven property owners along the projeet. Four of these property owners totaling 72% of the front footage of the project have previously approved the assessments and petitioned to waive the public hearing to expedite the approval process. Of the remaining three properties, approval and the necessary easements is expected soon by Hardee's and Cattle Company. The Rusts, who own the apartment building on the north side between Hardee's and Burger King, do not approve of the assessments and are expected to contest it. Recommend the City Council approve the assessments and award the contract to Forest Lake Contracti.ng. The Rust property can be excluded from the project until the needed easements or right-of-way can be obtained, through condemnation if necessary. JHH/JGF: cz 12.01 � 5735 Quincy St NE Fridley, MN 55432 June 8, 1998 Mr. John G. Flora Director of Public Works City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Flora: RE: 57TH Avenue Improvement Project For the record you are being informed that we are opposed to this project. We feel that the scope of the project is not in sync with conservation of natural resources; the cost of the project is excessive; and the method of financing, e.g. assessments per lineal foot, are improper. The improvement project will not be an improvement to our property. Rather, the size of our property will be diminished making it less marketable in the future. /nr Si� ely, �/��-c.� L�c��-L/ `� �ZDLrnc�. �/(� David and Norma Rust �� .�� M 6�B�s� �� . �S � � � LAW OFFICE LAWRENCE P. MAROfSKY May 28, 1998 Scott J. Hickok - Planning Coordinator City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Boulevard Plaza Office Suites 7022 Brooklyn Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesata 55429 Area Code 612 Telephone 566-4570 Fax 566-9909 imarco � concentric. net Re: City Project NO. ST-1997-4, S.A.P. l 27-010-15 and S.A.P. 127-301-04 My File NO. 10558-0 Dear Mr. Hickock: Please be advised that this office represents David and Norma Rust, owners of the property which you have delineated as Parcel Na. 4. We do not know where you are getting the names trving and Efron I.S. Herman, those individuals have ceased to have any interest in the property long ago. Pfease be advised that Mr. and Mrs. Rust will not consent to the improvements, and object strenuously to these improvements. The proposed improvements over their �roperty will be a s�bstantial detriment to their property. First of all, during the c�nstruction period, they will lose ali of the parking at their apartment building. This will mean that there will have to be alternate parking and will resuit in an inability to collect fair and reasonable rent for the premises. Secondiy, the permanent taking of the property will reduce the number of existing parking spaces available for the property. This will then make the entire property into a non- �.cr��':,�;��n� ��GNt�t'tj/ iiii�lEi" �li.)% �o�e anci as such wili be an impediment to niture saie and increase the insurance cost. This will also result in a diminution of income and value for the property The proposed improvement, when completed, will not add any value to my clients' property. We �nntP that thP ri�h,u-�st' -�-J --- _________�� _�o �� „pr lin al..fOOt. Lineal foot assessments are r�Qt annronriate under the law. The city can only assess for the increase in market value to the subject properry. These improvements will not increase the value of this apartment building one iota. J�� iS t1'r1aiA��''JC P ��}% w�'► �'l. ca,,,, b� ,. . " .�. '`�-i) �, Y � �nc,�G�Se �„ Vot�Ue. o �f"h►s i s'�►c rw,or�' t� �asi S�rr �sS�SS Mtui."� � re �u�Aneel ya►)v�- . �'en G�� , �'� Us��ll� � ��`w�'3 �e s �'a�� i'�' ►s nc�' � e�ssessrv►�e��i' atprc�. - Z ��ea!� `��}' rev+� i s n c�' .� S1�a*� ca's� "�'r�' es�'ab1�s� �- ,�Sl' sav►�c i�+G� ;►� val��. �r c. Therefore, you are hereby notified that Mr. and Mrs. Rust wili not only not agree to this assessment, but hereby object to any proposed assessment and give notice that they will appeal from any such assessment. Yours truly, � � -, u� ` - Lawrence P. ar sky LPM:cIo cc: Mr. 8t Mrs. David Rust c:\wpdoct\c\05 58Assess.lt 1 MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISI4N DATE: June 4, 1998 TO: William Burns, City Manager ,� � d� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director and Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Special Use Permit for Express Auto, 7976 University Avenue On May 18, 1998, the City Council considered Special Use Permit #98-04, for Express Auto at 7976 University Avenue. Mr. Walter Klus, representing the building owner requested additional time to evaluate options. The City Council asked that the item be brought back on their June 8, 1998, agenda. The purpose of this memo is to provide an update for the City Council regarding staff discussion with Mr. Klus on Wednesday. On Wednesday May 27, 1998, staff met with Mr. Klus, who provided an engineers drawing of an option for a reworked parking lot, showing additional parking outside of the Express Auto office. Other than the parking outside of Express Auto, no modifications were identified for the parking lot. The drawing has been attached for your review. Although, the additional parking stalls and petitioners efforts have been noted, the new arrangement does not warrant a recommendation of approval of a Special Use in this location. After the meeting on May 27, 1998, the petitioners offered a letter indicating that they would agree to a Special Use Permit through November 30, 2001, at which time they would agree to cease operation of the business in this location. Attached you will find a second letter from W.W. Klus stating that they would agree to a 2- year term for the Special Use Permit. This term would end November 30, 2000. The two year option offered by Mr. Klus requires a 2- year lease extension, prolongs the use in an inappropriate location, and may send a signal to others looking for a used car location that the City allows them in multi-tenant locations. 13.01 EXPRESS AUTO PAG E 2 JUNE 3, 1998 Express Auto (d.b.a. R& R Industries, Inc.) has a copy of their lease terms filed with the State of Minnesota Dealer Division. This document indicated the termination date of their current lease; in this location is November 30, 1998. As such, staff recommends the Council approve one of the following options. 1. Approve a short term Special Use Permit until November 30, 1998, with the stipulations outlined in staff s May 29, 1998, letter to Mr. Klus. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit as recommended to the City Council on May 18, 1998. SH/jt Enclosure M-98-131 13.02 ; � _ CITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY NIUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNNERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 May 29, 1998 Walter W. Klus W. W. Klus Realty, Inc. 5100 Eden Avenue Suite 112 Minneapolis, MN 55436 RE: Special Use Permit Express Auto 7976 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Klus: In response to your letter of May 28, 1998, the City's response is as follows: 1. The term of the special use permit shall coincide with the lease document filed with the State of Minnesota, Motor Vehicle Dealer License, Dealers Unit, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155, which identifies November 30, 1998, as the termination date of the lease. 2. Messers William John Richards and Vemon David Riediger of Express Auto (d.b.a. R and R Industries, Inc.), shall contact Mr. AI Crook, Minnesota Deale�'s Unit, 395 John Ireland Blvd., St. Paul. MN 55155, by letter, with a copy sent to the City, by November 15, 1998, indicating that their zoning approval for their business at 7976 University Avenue expires on November 30, 1998. 3. The special use permit applies only to the space currently addressed as 7976 University Avenue. 13.03 Walter W. Klus May 29, 1998 PAGE 2 �0 4. The special use permit will allow for the storage and display of,� vehicles. _ 5. A 6 vehi es shall la d in the s ces, alon he wes m dge of the si , ehind the a II buildin ' cent to Ra s Road). 6. All 10 self-imposed stipulations outlined in your letter of April 27, 1998, shall apply to this approval, including: • Express Auto will work on an appointment only basis. • Express Auto relies solely on advertising and referrals to generate appointments. • Express Auto does not rely on drive-by traffic attention. • Express Auto pre-approves every customer before they are shown a vehicle. • Express Auto only places in the windows what the law requires them to. They do not paint their vehicle windows with numbers or letters. • Express Auto does not paint their storefront windows with letters or numbers to catch drive-by tra�c attention. • Express Auto does not put large or small inflated gorillas, chickens, monkeys, or anything else on the roof to draw attention to its car lot. • Express Auto does not hang glittery streamers from light poles to draw attention to the dealership. • Posted store hours of Auto Express are M-F, 9-5 and Saturday, 10-2. 7. All theft deterrent devices shall be installed in each of the 26 autos displayed in accordance with Bill Richards discussion with the City Council on May 18, 1998. 8. A repair garage at 7920 University Avenue has not been granted a special use permit. A special use permit is required for this use. Therefore, the use shalt be discontinued in conjunction with the termination of the Express Auto Use at 7976 University, unless an appropriate special use permit is applied for and granted prior to that date. In reference to the comment in your letter dated May 28, 1998, regarding a special use permit granted in 1981, the City has no record of such permit. On October _ __ ___ 13.04 Walter W. Klus May 29,1998 PAGE 3 17,1983, a special use permit for auto repair was granted for the address 7948 University Avenue. The special use permit had a term limit of 3 years. After October 17, 1986, the special use permit was to become null and void, unless extended for another 3 year period by the City Council. No record of a special use extension was evident through this research. Sincerely, CITY,�F FRIDLEY � C�,T� . .0 S tt J. Hick k � P nning Coordinator C-98-114 cc: Barbara Dacy, Communiiy Development Director Fritz Knaak, City Attomey 13.05 W. W. Klus Realty, Inc. � Commercial Real Estate Specialists Suite 112 • 5100 Eden Avenue • Minneapolis, MN 55436 •(612) 922-2560 • FAX (612) 922-2927 June 3, 1998 Mr. Scott J. Hickok Plar.ning Coordinator City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Special Use Permit for Express Auto, 7976 University Avenue NE Dear Mr. Hickok: This letter is in response to your correspondence of May 29, 1998 which has not been delivered to my office as of today. I received the copy by FAX from you on June 2, 1998 at approximately 12:30PM. Term of Special Use Permit The term of the Special Use Permit, proposed by you to terminate November 30, 1998, presents a problem for the owner and the Tenant. The Landlord and Tenant had discussed and agreed upon a three (3) year Lease Renewal effective December 1, 1998. The Tenant has planned its overall strategy for a three year program. The Landlord has presented this renewal as an integal part of the financial basis for a mortgage on the improvements. We are willing to shorten the proposed terrn limit to two years beginning December 1, 1998. Two years was mentioned in our meeting as the outside time limit the City might be willing to accept. P�rl�ing We request that you forward on to the Council the revised parking plan which we had prepared. As you know, that plan showed the addition of 18 spaces, over and above the 244 that are currently provided for Phase I and Phase II. Previous reports from the City have indicated that 2�6 would be required, applying the ratio of one parking space for every 200 square feet of building area. This leaves us with a surplus of six (6). In addition, we will arrange with the owner of the property to the north to allow our tenants to park on 21 spaces adjacent to the property line, w�hich easement will "sunset" with the termination of the Special Use Permit. We will not be required, as a condition of receiving this easement, to grant a reciprocal cross-easement to the adjoiring property owner. As you indicated at the meeting, the property owner to the no�th has 21 "extra" �arkin� spaces that are not required to satisfv the code requirements for th�t property. This ��-i11 result in 21 additional spaces available for the use of our tenants, plus the six additional � � � �� .. ....u..� /CSC r ! 13.�6 al Council � Centers Site Selection • Asset Management • Invw�m rroperry Brokerage • Property Management . �• Mr. Scott Hacek June 3, 1998 Pa;e 2 spaces created by the restriping on our own property, resulting in 27 spaces over and above the 256 spaces required by City ordinances. We will limit the storage of vehicles onsite to this number of excess parking spaces. In addition, we again address the attention of Staii and the Council to the adjustments to the required parking ratios discussed in the Memorandum prepared by our attorney and submitted to the council at their last meeting. Safety As indicated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of your correspondence, we will abide by the ten conditions as indicated in our conespondence of Apri127, as well as the requirement of installation of theft deterrent devices in all stored vehicles. We respectfully decline the suggestion in paragraph five (5) of your letter that the stored vehicles be placed along the western edge of the site behind the Phase II building. Obviously, this is e�remely inconvenient for the location of the Tenant's office. In addition, placement of vehicles in this more remote or secluded, less traveled area increases the safety risks, and their placement in the existing area adjacent to the office at 7976 University Avenue NE does not subject them to any safety or traffic congestion risks. As you may remember, our most intense parking uses are for the spaces located between the buildings of Phase I and Phase II, and none of the vehicles will be stored in this area. Repair Garage at 7920 University Avenue We will apply for a Special Use Permit with respect to this use, and understand that it will be discontinued at the same time as the termination of the Special Use Permit granted for 7976 University Avenue. The building owner's preference is to relocate this facility out of the ena-vap into a less obvious tocation elsewhere in the same buildina. This is in keepi�g with the owner's ongoing efforts to restore both buildings to first-class retail uses wherever practical. By the way, the auto repair facility will be limited to cleaning vehicles , both inside and out, oil changing and lubrication, replacement of tires, and possibly brakes repairs, but no body work or other engine work No Extension or Renewal Both the building owner and the Tenant would agree not to seek a renewal or extension of these Special Use Permits once the two year extension from December 1, 1998 has expired. As we mentioned in the meeting, we feel that we are making excellent progress in restoring this center to a first-class retail type use wherever practical, and believe that the two (2} year extension from December l, 1998 will be sufficient in accomplishing these purposes, but allowing 13.07 Mr. Scott Hickok June 3, 1998 Paje 3 Express Auto sufficient time at a profitable location to be prepared to relocate when these Special Use Permits expire. I appreciate the efforts that the City Staff has made in trying to reach a mutually acceptable compromise solution. Certainly, the building owner and Tenant have u<o� lced har� to take steps to alleviate the Staffs concerns as well. At this point, we seem to be arguing only about the length of time these Special Use Pernuts should be in place, and I am hopeful that our compromise proposal , as presented, which places a time limit of two (2) years from December 1, 1998 will be acceptable to the Staff and City Council. Very truly yours, W. �J. �lus Realty Inc. �� ,��, �_ .�-T�'` Walter W. Klus cc: Barbara Dacy , Community Development Director Fritz Knaak, City Attorney 13.08 W. W. Klus Realty, Inc. � Commercial Real Estate Specialists Suite 112 • 5100 Eden Avenue • Minneapolis, MN 55436 •(612) 922-2560 • FAX (612) 922-2927 May 28, 1998 Scott 7. Hickok, Planning Coordinator City of Fridley Municipal Center � 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Special Use Permit �,xpress Auto 7920(?) & 7976 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Hickok: Pursuant to our meeting of yesterday, May 27, 1998 concerning the above subject our response is as follows: 1. Express Auto will have a 3 year Lease Renewa.l beginning December 1, 1998. 2. In our meeting we discussed having a Special Use Permit for a specific time period. Referencing #1 above, we would need to have the Special Use Permit approved for the period of June 1, 1998 through November 30, 2001. 3. We would be willing, as a representative of the Landlord, to agree to a cancellation of the Special Use Permit if Express Auto should cease to operate as a business at this location. 4. L. r��.�:ev��:nb your previous repor�s I n�trd yeu have tied toge±he* the two (2; addresses listed in the subject. We have been discussing the 7976 address as the location for the auto sales. I have not considered the 7920 address as a location for presenting automobiles for sale. 7920 was previously approved for a Special Use Permit in 1981 and we feel it would in everyone's best interest if these were combined with the express condition that 7920 is to be used for reconditioning automobiles and for minor servicing. Minor servicing could be defined to include brake repair, lubrication, minor tune-up, and tire repair and replacement. Servicing could be set to exclude heavy engine repair and replacement, and body repair. The above is w-ritten as a response to the request arrived at in the meeting of May 27, 1998. � � � � � �� IC�� Memlv�r �,( ■ �al Council �� 13.�9 �9 �nters Site Selection • Asset Management • l xrty Brokerage • Property Management Very truly yours, W ,W. �u�ealty; Inc. �:`c � C�,, C� 1�� -. Walter W. Klus cc: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director 13.10 .--. -. i � � �/ � � � i � � � I ! � � I � '� I � --� � 1 13.11 . R ,�° r � �� U z� � �U � �� Z �� a � � � W �� V � O � U = �� > � E � � i c �„ � > � , � �� o ' � �� s� ; �� , o��^ � �� g �� a�� . � �� . � �� 3� a �a �€€� � City of Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager ��j� � FROM: Jon H aH ukaas, Assistant Public Works Director John G. Flora, Public Works Director DATE: June 8, 1998 � SUBJECT: 57�' Avenue Reconstruction Project No. ST 1997 - 4 PW98-117 Bids were opened for 57`� Avenue Reconstruction Project No. ST 1997 - 4, at 10:00 am on Apri130, 1998. The low bidder was Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. of Forest Lake, MN, at $886,687.92. This is approximately 7% over the estimated cost of the project. Anoka County approves awarding the contract with the stipulations that the City provide the previously discussed $100,000.00 toward the County's storm sewer and road construction costs and shares the construction cost over their budgeted $300,000.00. The final cost allocation and reimbursements is attached. Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the contract for the 57�' Avenue Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1997 - 4 to Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $886,687.92. JHH/JGF:cz Attachment 14.01 57th Avenue Construction Cost Distribution Anoka Countv � Construction Cost $ 467,583.45 City of Fridley Commitment $ (100,000.00) 1/2 Cost over $300,000.00 $ (33,791.73) Net County Responsibility $ 333,791.73 Citv of Fridlev Original Commitment Consultant Fees: Construction Costs Const. InspectioNStaking DesigNLegal Desciptions Testing TH 47 Signals 57th Ave (East of TH 47) 57th Ave (TH47 to Main St) Total Costs Cost Offsets Home Depot Design Contribution State Reimbursement TH 47 Signals 57th Ave (East of TH47) HRA Contribution Assessed Costs @ $101.31 / LF Total Offsets $ 100,000.00 (Stormwater) $ 83,200.00 $ 66,040.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 24,022.30 * $ 35,209.11 * $ 428,107.29 '* $ 744,578.70 $ 25,000.00 $ 24,022.30 ' $ 35,209.11 * $ 109,972.50 ** $ 213,117.10 •"` $ 407,321.01 Net City Responsibility 337,257.69 14.02 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The Northco Corporation is requesting a variance to reduce the side yazd setback from 20 feet to 5.4 feet. If the variance is approved, the petitioner will be allowed to keep an existing enclosed loading dock. The loading dock is 5.4 feet from the property line and is 37 feet wide. The loading dock is located at the northeast corner of the building, 494 Northco Drive NE. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: A building permit was granted for the construction of the enclosure on October 2, 1997. The site plan that accompanied the building permit application portrayed the property line before the last subdivision. The side yard setback for the enclosure was illustrated at a distance of over 200 feet instead of the actual 25 feet and, subsequently, the building permit was approved. The zoning regulations require a structure, such as a covered loading dock, to be a minimum of 20 feet from the property line. An agreement was signed between the owner of the property, James A. Gray and the Dayton Hudson Corporation on May 18, 1994, in regards to a 60 foot cleaz area between buildings. The clear azea consisted of 25 feet on the Gray property and 35 feet on the Dayton Hudson property. No structures were to be built within the 60 foot cleaz area. The Uniform Building Code (LJBC) defines the existing building as an unlimited azea building. The UBC requires buildings of this nature to be 60 feet from lot lines. This building is 25 feet from the east property line and the loading dock is only 5.4 feet from the east property line. The standards of the UBC would not have permitted the dock to be enclosed due to its proximity to the property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: Staff recommended that the Appeals Commission deny the variance request. The building permit was approved due to inaccurate site plans that were supplied to the City. Approving the variance would be contrary to the requirements of the UBC in regards to cleaz area distances between unlimited area buildings. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATON: The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the stipulation that, "The structure shall meet the State building codes or the State shall grant a waiver of those building codes." __ CITY COUNCIL RECOMMEND TON: Staff recommends that the City Co il deny the vari e request. 1 StaffReport: VAR #98-13 494 Northco Dr. NE Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: A variance to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5.4 feet to allow an existing loading dock covered. The loading dock is 5.4 feet from the property line and is 37 feet wide Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Lot Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: UBC Issues: Site Planning Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: 494 Northco Drive NE Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business Park Fifth Addition 609,825 squaze feet / 14.0 acres Flat Typical Suburban M-2, Heavy Industrial District Connected Northco Drive NA 60 foot clear area between unlimited azea buildings Side yard setback; restrictions created on adjacent parcel to the east. Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this location. The petitioners were heard at the May 13, Appeals Commission meeting. 15.02 2 Staff Report: VAR #98-13 494 Northco Dr. NE Page 3 DEVELOPMENT SITE :_ • � The Northco Corporation is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5.4 feet. If the variance is approved, the petitioner will be allowed to cover an existing loading dock. The loading dock is 5.4 feet from the property line and is 37 feet wide. The loading dock is located at the northeast corner of the building, 494 Northco Drive NE, Attachment A. ��/:��1► � I' . � ul ►I! As indicated from correspondence with the Northco Corporation: The open loading dock has served the building for a long time. An unenclosed loading dock is not considered part of a building for determining building setbacks, but an enclosed dock is. The company, Carter Day, is utilizing the north half of the building and asked the owner for permission to enclose the loading dock in September of 1997. The owner and a prospective owner approved of the enclosure, and the City issued a building permit for it on October 2, 1997. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the City for the enclosure on March 17, 1998. � .i' •►/.1 •: The subject parcel is located on the east side of Northco Drive, south of 73'� Avenue NE and north ni the City Public Works Garage. The properiy is 14 acres in size and a 178,338 square foot 1 story warehouse is located there. The building is occupied by two tenants, Carter Day and Kwik File, Inc. In 1968, Carter Day constructed a manufacturing building on Tract B, RLS No. 6, Attachment B. Since that time the manufacturing building has gone through three lazge expansions. The property was platted as part of the Northco Business Park in 1989. In 1993, it was replatted as Lots 3& 4, Block 1, Northco Business Pazk 4�' Addition. In 1994 it was resubdivided twice. In July, it became Lot 1 and Outlot A of the Northco Business Park 5�' Addition. Outlot A was sold to the Dayton Hudson Corporation (Target) and became part of the Target Northern Distribution Center 2°d Addition in July of 1994. The site has also gone through three address changes. It was 504 73'� Avenue NE originally, then became 502 Northco Drive. Presently, the building has two businesses and two address, 490 and 494 Northco Drive. �_� � ►M ��r� Zoning: M-2, Heavy Ind. Zoning: M-2, Heavy Ind. Land Use: Industrial Land Use: Target Distribution Center South: Zoning: P, Public Facilities Land Use: Columbia lce Arena & Public Works West: Zoning: M-2, Heavy Ind. Land Use: Retail Sales & Industrial 15.03 3 Staff Report: VAR #98-13 494 Northco Dr. NE Page 4 �� _ - The loading dock was actually enclosed earlier this year. A building permit for the structure was issued by the City on October 2, 1997. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 17, 1998. The need for a variance has arisen, because a prospective purchaser of the property is concerned that the dock enclosure encroaches into the required side yard. The purchaser is concerned that there may be difficulty in future refinancing, leasing or selling of the property due to the new structure, Attachment Cl-2. Building Permit In the building plans that were submitted for the dock enclosure, the property line to the east of the dock was improperly located. The plans show the east property line 217 feet from the dock, the actual property line is 5.4 feet east of the loading dock, Attachment D. The property line that was indicated is the east property line of Outlot A, Northco Business Park 5�' Addition (Outlot A). The west property line of Outlot A is 5.4 feet from the loading dock, Attachment A. Outlot A was originally owned by James Gray, but is now owned by Tazget. It is unlikely that the building permit wquld have been granted knowing that the dock structure would have been in the required 20 foot side yazd setback as defined in the Fridley City Code and in the 60 foot clear area setback from property lines as define in the Minnesota Uniform Building Code (iJBC), Attachments E& F. Plat PS #94-02 The plat, Northco Business Pazk 5`� Addition (PS #94-02) was approved on May 16, 1994. In stipulation 4 it states, "An open air easement shall be executed and recorded against Lot 1, Block 1, Northco 5�' Addition between Fridley Business Center Partnership and Dayton Hudson. This open air easement shall prevent construction of any structures within the 25 foot easement," Attachment Gl-2. Agreement (60' Yard) The property owners of the two adjacent lots, James Gray and Target, have also signed an agreement indicating that the building on Gray's property could not be expanded to the east. This agreement was signed on May 18, 1994, Attachments Hl-4. Enclosing the loading dock was pernutted due to the fact that the City was supplied with inaccurate information. A hardship to grant this variance is not evident, being that the situation was caused by the property owner or his agents. Granting of this variance restricts the use of the property to the east. Due to the nearness of the enclosed loading dock to the property line, the setback or building materials for an unlimited sized building on Outlot A will become more restrictive. 15.04 4 Staff Report: VAR #98-13 494 Northco Dr. NE Page 5 `_ �U�►/� ��: �\ � � � '' • �U�UI_ . �� Staff recommended that the Appeals Commission deny the variance request. Besides the requirement of a 20 foot side yazd setback from the zoning ordinance, the UBC also requires a 60 foot cleaz area distance between unlimited area buildings and property lines. The building permit was approved due to inaccurate site plans that were supplied to the City. Approving the variance would be contrary to the requirements of the iTBC in regards to clear area distances between unlimited azea buildings. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATON: The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the stipulation that, "The structure shall meet the State building codes or the State shall grant a waiver of those building codes." CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATON: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission recommendation. 15.05 5 � l � F • � '' eii � j s•Y � j� `t j.:..�.{�••��i;•^ � ��? .... .. , y � � � � , ��e�t = S� �'- � � Z &� 6i= S= 6` s` �y �.�si;� ��+ , f, � : � p{. � � _� ��e � C� ` : $- 6eS c« t� g6 ~�gl;3:�:6p4� (°}: �_ �� 1 Q 1E ay :Yj3€ 3i iy ��i .;:iii� L�� E: d •: �� tje$..iX'�i3= I� �F �� ;� 3 @i �iilt0� :� 5es i[� # ; f�RR�: i;7 �` �i _ �6q vS;Y�j2 'tE�-i� � ��_ • � d€ ii�3� �' G8 {�� a� t ,'� _� _� a' li��iE�,�y��:YS� � f t=: � �'^ �l �� s� r �- �E �`� $ r � tl-e Y� rW ��g 6T�f��i''' E�•g�[�: ' _�f� I . � � �� `�i� 61 '� ��B � f �5�;� 15i •s jb " �� 8 �°S.,�a ;ZS�$�+ � � '� s�� I }�-_ � a � : 5ss �; la � � � �.��? i:� "c'• i� � 8?� _��aa3,�a�faj�e=' : Y � i.�: i • � ` � �s y��aii s, =? Eg� d a � ia� :� :� � F�E z��t��i�s��g;��a �a � ; :�� , �1 : ��i =%Z �'!� � � �eeq I , � . � � .. . : . : : - = - ��=��s.�Y=i j� _ � �71LS I 5E d l� � ;:i;siiY�Yi�i��3 8 d : �YtYti ) � �0� �N�d�O`I � � � � . -� � � �n _ _ _ .,., , ,.,,.., �-,�..,�� .�.��nn`� gn.�-� .�_�y•�"..-. �ni�n�l�.�i,_in iv�_..LJ�_viv i_..i�_v1 s 9 IvV�y1VV V ! V�V�/ •_J./ ,VV�l� �V �Q � I . s� � �� , . .. 4� ---�----------- ; -------------- — �-� I ------ .` -- --�-y3 ; f 1 � — —� { 7` � ?... �... . . S ^ � C9Z69 _ _ .r:.i.aw'en'�.� M.IC.¢Z ON n �� '._. � `�* ` �.i ' � �,I, " � ! � � �-de' � n,c..n � .n_ _ � _ r,n.n, e � � r,m �...�o � a:`� .ai. • _sr. _ nr�an \,��' \�.�:._�•\\ � \ � \ � � _ • U ('r ; ` = ; i � - \ `;\: \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\\\ � 1»'� e . .� . �'� . � �\�\\•� \\�\ ��. \�\\\\\��\ �� Ys � �-�n ,. L � \�\� \ \ � ( ,_ � c- �' - � � y� e \�\\� �� ;r ' I � : � ` ,;\ . ` v+ � � :i c;� _ ,.., .� �. � _� c� o � �:��\ c\ , ` � � t YJ �� : �� I I � �` =I � I < �; n ��. �� •.\�\ _ � � \ �\ ti � � , � ( ; r l �\�, ; _� s ' ` � I I I : ) -`— � � � ?��: ��? g� � �\ � i � �� . I � � \ �_ —� � � _` �- L �� , . � �� . �.� � < � 4 , ¢ .a. � ... � � '� _p� � � � � F - �' � �= � •:\: =y� �� .\ � � � � I . - �� J �� l � ` r ''.�\\\� � � � : y€ � , , F �' _` � � • � � \��\\ W �� \ \ � '"i rZ �� . I ` ��\`� ` � � � � :�� \ � ��.\ � � J ��- ;, � �I� \�. ;Q �� . \ ; <I n ��w\.,��:\' D�� \\� �� y :� �Y ; � f R� _ >.,, • :��. �_p �.�\��.�.\\��\ � ��... � S: 51 � � ( o � �� .� ` \�� \�� \\`� � � � jp << <' `��C .� zj �\\�\\ ��; ��\�\ �` � .. \ ' � � ;� ��\� _ � i 'Y :� � �� \ \ \�\," \\ \\\\\\ A � ` �. .• � � \.,\ \ ; � �. :.::. . y. / . ^ I� I ' � �� •' �._. �� `� _ a �� _'II I:_ o � � , m. ..e, <,., ,,.�.• ... . •, .H--rc:ee , .�..,,- . ' -- — ---- --r —� -r^r ' --' � s � I I I I. I I B I( I ��I•M 0� bO�Y iR�Cf � ]M�Y • I�ws�1 f�w1+� RD9� _ �wwi�� Fw� ew \fm� 1 �� J ., � --- ` � I . .1- � �-,�.��- — —_ - - _ _ � _ =I=I 1-I� :i _ �C— --- �=F=--� � �.�.a:.... " � IU�i�� pfAw� }u)N �` i �� I I ` ;$� I ^ �� \ ;r_ �9� V , , I /��` - I � �`� �� L_ s r; . l 1 � � -, 0 ,, � ��, �=�� - I I � \�, e � � �"' •. � : I � 4 ."�,� �,\ � , � . . ; �� j 1 R _ � ; -t � � ; ��I ' � _� =°Z'� � � � � m.n.eu 1f� � b „ rrrat'�eRQTJRT• " — • Q�T O �N • � � ti` � ' ; . � ' ,. --- - - " �.. � � .. .. M.IC.6I.ON \ ��a � '; =Q . e... �, ` s ... t tl1'� 10� P l�t �N)� `. �� ,�� ... o,.�. �..o. i..�e l S t�00�'t N� O MI �\T �' .••- ' 8 � e S � � i:� N � s _ 1 �� .� �, �; s� ( D� "v� c J- �� r r s ;; ; <' �� . � � i �c p =� � _ ;r, ` v �� _'�� a r , �) �, a¢ i Y Y Y,�Q i � x'iaW a M1h \ i �� -Q >e,a 4� � '1` -� �ar��d��s�:�#�;ar��§ � _ ; — � � »., ..»�..��.. ��crere_=er�rrr__er �J� . �� °,74gY49`l4�?YYYYYYYYY � ) rteMxxa�nunartaxexrtaxa c �- � �" '� � � ..� 3 ° -- �_ � �` �A':'c�l�atdi.3�:.fd'f£� � 15.06 �."' � � � � .� � � O � � : ; : � � ddw No�ld�o� �c_==�`W�m :.�, .. _._ --- ------ _. �. a , M ^� � «��gW h ' � . ,oW�z � � - . i�(� Y Z Z� � E i �.� ° ° =v � � ! ! � _ - = W � ' � - — — - - ------ - `I =p i � �� - . - • , - - _ i � -�--- � .--„-- � !' . i ' �I I � ! : � / I � il � �1. � � .� � . � � i I J . i; �, i ( i-'1 I I � i i � � , i . . "1'` � • � � � `? , � � I • � - :I � i'. i I � I � � � , �1 � � i w � O . ' � � � �J � � � � � U O -W � �. � . v N ` � � � � 1 \ 1 � (V n.n O - � `3 � ��'b v . - ��. p - � . J . Oyai Oy � ! ; � m � ; •� :� F i � . , � "�a, a � : � � �� ~ -- �s—�'t -�--• ' � " --- I' /� �N i� y � O J _ ..,.._ -- 't� i �� 11 \. �L� - ; �� - � � � � �y�t` = �� ° ' o ` �...1 � � I . ---. . - -- _ , , . W L' �: -i i . T � � T ?: : � w o w � �`.�, .� : � � a �, � �d u�i a � �.�• ,j ,z O o� L� i��7 �a� � J � Z �v �, � a . � 4J . ;.� �� 1f �:'.�.� �-> � �,..�� I. ;: ; ::,.:i •��. �.�`` ,, � � � Q � j� '''' :,�' ��\' .�I- f ? . ' f ��i 4 3n '� j`•M 1 ' J a �0�! !' p • . a .�` �� ' Z•! l .. . _.. v . _. - - �... . ..- -�- ..... � � . �� __. ••- " ..�__"_-.-.' ' • .... 15.07: _.----� FREDRIKSO�T &: BYRON, P.A. Auorneys Ac I.aw :- April 15, 1998 � � : Mr. William Hise, Esq. Dayton Hudson Corporation 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 [ l00 [ncernacional Crncrr 900 StconJ �vcnur Suuch �linneapolis. �[� Sj�p?-3397 (5l?) 3�7-i000 E:�X (613) .i-17-70i7 Direct Dial No. (612) 347-7052 LBerg�frediaw.com Re: Northco Business Park S'� Addition/ Tazget Northem Distribution Center 2°d Addition, Fridley, Minnesota (Anoka County) Deaz Bill: I need your help solving a problem so that Jim Gray can complete his sale of the building at 494 Northco Drive. We aze seeking the consent of Dayton Hudson Corporation to permit the continued existence of an enclosed Ioading dock. The existing tenant, Carter Day, Inc., enclosed the open loading dock which has long served the building. This was done with the City's consent. Prior to enclosure there was no problem because unenclosed loading docks aze not considered a part of the buildi.ng for purposes of determin;ng set back compliance. An enclosed load.ing dock, however, is considered to �e a part of the building and by constructing the enclosure Carter Day has created a set back problem. Additionally, Dayton Hudson Corporation and Jim Gray are parties to an agreement dated May 31, 1994 which provides for a no-building buffer zone. The open loading dock was always in that zone, but didn't count as a building. With the enclosure of the loading dock there is now a technical breach of that agreement. (I have enclosed a copy of that agreement, Exhibit A to which shows the no-building zone, but does not show the loading dock. I have also enclosed a survey that shows the unenclosed loading dock, and a more recent survey that shows the loading dock as enclosed. I have also enclosed a letter from the City indicating that the City doesn't object to the continued existence of the enclosure.) Jim Gray's purchaser has requested that we formally apply to the City for a variance permitting the enclosure to stay in place, and we have done so. (Just in case it would be helpful, I have enclosed a copy of that material.) We anticipate a decision by the City in early June. I believe 15.08 C-1. FREDRIKSO� 8c BYRON, P.A. Accorneys Ac I.aw 1�/TI'. W1111a1T1 H1S8 April 15, 1998 Page 2 that it would be helpful to obtain something from Dayton Hudson indicating its feelings about the enclosure of the formerly open loading dock. Please call me after you have had time to review the enclosed material. I will do my best to answer any questions you may have. You may also wish to speak with Barb Dacy, Fridley's Planning Director (571-3450) to discuss whether any of this would have an adverse effect on Dayton Hudson. Best , , _.j J. Berg l/ L 2227566-1 (191n201 !.doc) cc: Jim Gray Bazb Dacy John Saunders, Esq. Pete Talmo Kevin Berg, Esq. 15.09 C-2 M�- w 1.. J � J � W W �� o�o, J � � � � � �1 Q U � � W ? (� W Q X 0 W , �. � _ � o�� ^z � ~ H � � �� , J� � � > �� m W U �� al Y . . _.�..�' —. . W J z �u i W � �-� ...�r - ��. �.� . � U a 6 � J Q aZ W Q OC = a Z /�d�b�, < '� r W N � U ` � y � �a �' au� � dp� • � 0� Jaoro,a �, _._ c/ N . Q d' l7 � ` � _�� Np: 2 ` 'i'b�,�� /'� �_w ,°``_� U �D `� Y+ �` � o .` � � .b2 Z � � 4 � o � � O a � � V�- � � �--- � � � � 4 � 15.10 0 N W a � U N fO 7 U � � � �� ,, ,� �b�� rnl � � ` � m � � � ' � � �.�V ��c � � � � � ��; �,j q \`( � � � �U \ � . I � �; � � `�` �W� �� , � � .� � � � : �� p�� ,�-� ;� �� , � �� t��/�\ � _ I��, ' \ - �\ � � � � �- -- --- ol� X � b ► �� ; °d �� %b� � �o`_ �,/,� / . W 7 i/ � � � � U N . � r a. � 3NIl AMQNf1�H D 3 .6Z ,?2 .i S — — � (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 s�ated 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 specia2 use permit requests. the City shall consider the following factors in determining the effect of the increase in lot coverage: (a) For existing developed properties, the total amount of existing hardsurface areas shall be evaluated to determine whether a reduction in the total building and parking coverage can be achieved.. (b) 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 twenty (20) 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 provided between two �.(2)� buildings requirements of the Building Code. (3) Rear Yard: a common wall is: which meet the: A rear yard.depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet is required, with an additional foot of rear yard depth for each four (4) feet or portion of building height over thirty-five (35) feet. (4) Additional Setback Restrictions: Whenever any industrial district is adj acent to or adjoins on any other district. permitted buildings and uses, except 205.18.03. 15.11 6/92 205.M2-6 � �. ��. E SECTION 505 — ALLOWABLE AREA INCREASES �0�.1 General. The floor areas s�cified in Section �04 mav be incressed b�� rmployins one of :he provisions oi this section. � 0�.1.1 Separation on two sides. w'here public w•ays or }•ards more than 30 fe�c (6096 mm? in u•id[h e�tznd alons and adjoin tw�o sides of the buildins. floor areas may be increased at a rate of t ii.� percen� foreach foot (30� mm} b}� which the minimum w�idth exce�ds 20 fe�t (b096 mm). but � the i;�crea�e shalt not exceed �0 percent. :0:.1.2 Separation on three sides. �4'here public �•a��s or.•ards more chan'0 feet (6096 mm) in w�idth excend �lor.s and adjoin chree sides of the buildins, floor areas ma�• ix increased at a rate of'_ �i= pzr•enc for each foot (305 mm) by µ�hieh the minimum w�idch exceeds ?0 fezc (6096 mm). but the increase sha11 not exceed 100 percznt. :05.1.3 Separation on all sides. Where public ways or yards more than 30 feat (6096 mm) in K�idth extend on aIl sides of a buildins and adjoin the entire perimztec. floor areas may be in- 1-87 505.1.3-506 i994 UNIFORM BUIL�ING CODE creas.d at a r�cc ut � p�rc�n� tor aach fout ( 30� mm) by which th� minimum ex��ds 20 [eet (6Q96 mm�. Such incre:ues �hzll no[ �xceed l00 pzccent. except that �raater increa,e� shall be pe:- micted for chz toltowin� ocrup;uicies: � t. Group S. Di�•i�ion l aircraft s�orase han�ars aoc zxceedins one scory in heishc. '_. Group S. Division 2 oc Group F. Division 2 Occupancies not exce:dinJ tw�o �:ocies in heisht. �. Group H. Divi;iun � aircrafc r�pair hansars noc exceedinQ one story in hei�h�. �rea increases snall not tr�zed �00 pzrc�nc for aircrafc repair hangars axcept as pro��idzd in Section �0�?. �jE-- � 0�? C'nlimited .area. lite area ot any one- or two-story buitdins ot Grouos B: F. Division l or?: �l. S. Dtr t�ton ._. �. -t or �: and H. Division � Occupancies shall not be limiced ir the buildins is providrd with an approved aucomacic sprinkler system throughout as specitied in Chapter 9. and znciretv sucrounded and adjoined bv publie wavs or vards noc le�s than 6Q fe�� ( l3 ?33 mml in ...:.,.� The area of a Group S. Division 2 or Group F. Division 2 Occupancr• in a one-story Type II. Tvpe III One-hour or Type IV building shalt not ix limited if tha buildin� is entirelv surrounded and ad- joined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet (13 283 mm) in width. �3 utomatic Sprinkler Sr•stems. '[he areas specified in Table �-B and Section �04? may be cnp zd in one-story buildinss and doubled in buildinos of more than one scor� if thr building is pra vided with an approved automatie sprinkler system throughout. The area inereases pecmicted in this subsection may bz compounded with thst specified in Section �0�.1.1. �0�. t.? or �0�.1.3. The in- crea.,e� permitted in this subsection shall not appl,v when aucomatic sprinkler sys[ems are installed under che followin_ provisions: l. Szction �06 for an increase in allowable number of stories. � ?. Section 90�1.2.�.1 for Group H. Divisions l and 2 Occupancies. 3. Subscitucion for one-hour fire-resiscive construction pursuant to Section �03. -i. Szction �l02. ,atria. ; � � � � 15.12 � _ CI1Y OF FR! DLEY FRIDLF:l" �Il �lCIP.-�L CE`TER • l,-t; I C.:`f� ERSi"i'Y' .��'E. �.E. FRIDLEY". :�t� 5i-i;? .(h!'_i i?l-;-liU • F.-�`i I61'_l �'(-i'_;t7 � CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE May 20, 1994 Fridley Business Center Partnership Dale Edstrom 1201 Marguette Avenue, Suite 110 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Dear Mr. Edstrom: On May 16, 1994, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a plat, P.S. #94-02, Northco Business Park 5th Addition, to replat property generally located at 500 - 73rd Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. Access from 73rd Avenue shall be limited to one driveway on Lot 2, Block 1, Northco 4th Addition. 2. A joint driveway easement shall be executed between Fridley Business Center Partnership and Dayton Hudson regarding the easterly driveway located on Lot 2, Block 1, Northco 4th Addition. 3. The 100 foot vegetative buffer adjacent to 73rd Avenue shall be maintained. 4. An open air easement shall be executed and recorded against Lot 1, Block 1, Northco 5th Addition between Fridley Business Center Partnership and Dayton Hudson. This open a�r easement shall prevent construction of any structures within the 25 foot easement. 5. Park fees shall be paid at time of building permit issuance. 6. Outlot A shall be replatted with either Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business Park Sth Addition or Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business Park 4th Addition if Outlot A is not purchased by Dayton-Hudson Corporation, the adjacent property owner. 15.13' ,�71-1 Fridley Business Center Partnership DaZe Edstrom May 20, 1994 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3590. Sincerely, Barbara Dacy, AICP Community Development Director BD/dn Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by June 3, 1994. Concur with action taken. 15.14; G'2 .� GRE E.�LE.` T (60' Y�►RD) This agre.�ment is made ef`eLtive as of che � day of , 199� by .-. lames A. Gray, an individual, hereinafter called "Gcay", and Dayton Hudson Corpocacion, a �tinnesota corporacion, hereinafter cali°d "Target". RECTTALS WHEREAS, Gray is the owner of that certain tract of land located in the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business Park �[i� Addition; and WHEREAS, Target is the owner of that certain tract of land located in the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, legalty described as Outlot A, Northco Business Park Sth Addition; and WHEREAS, there exists on the property owned by Gray one (1) building, which may be expanded or replaced by other building(s) in the future, and in the future Target may w�ish co construct a building or buildings upon its property (said present or future buildings located or to be located upon Gray's property or Target's property being hereinafter referred to in this Agreement as the "Primary Buildings"); and Gray and Target have agreed that the Primary Buildings shall be treated as a single unit for the purpose of establishing a sixty (60) foot clear area, hereinafter called the "Yard", in compliance with Secdon 506 of the Standard Building Code 1988 Edition, with 1989/90 revisions (the "UBC"), which has been . adopted by the City of Fridley (the "City"). -I- 15.15 H� 1 ` ` ! ` e ' � � � NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby aclrnowledged, Gray and Target agree that the real estate describe� herein shall be held, sold and conveyed subje�t to the following covenants and restrictions which shall run with the land herein described, shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the land herein described land, and upon their heirs, successors, and assigns as owners thereof: 1. Gray and Target agree that the Yard as shown cross-hatched on the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A shall be maintained free of any building or structure, and shall be maintained as a Yard as defined in the UBC, provided however, that this Agreement shall not prevent the Yard from being used for driveways, sidewalks, curb and gutter, parking, landscaping and similar uses which do not constitu[e buildings or structures as contemplated by the UBC. 2. This Agreement shall not prohibit ths expansion, construction, reconstruction or replacement of any Primary Building so long as no part of a Primary Building is located within the Yard. 3. This Agreement shall not be amended, revoked or altered without the written consent of the City endorsed thereon and filed with the Registrar of Titles in and for Anoka County, Minnesota, it being understood however that if the UBC is amended to eliminate the Yard requirement or if the Primary Buildings or their replacements do not require the estabiishment of the Yard, the City shall consent to the termination of this Agreement if all other building, fire, and land use regulations are satisfied. -2- 15.16 H�2 � : � � � � � 4. The City is he:eby granted the power to enforce the requirements of this Agreement as if it were a party hereto, which power of enforcement shall be in addition to aIt other legal and equitable remedies avaiiable to the City, including the refusal to issue building permits fo� any building or structure which would violate the Yard. IN�'�IiI'NFSS VVHEREOF, the parties have executed this Aoreement on the date first above writteri. DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation � By Its � Ja s A. Gray �iii . ' 1 11 ; � �j , � ' ' i r � • ► � Za�n � -3- 15.17 �'3 / � � � _J _� I I �. ..: I �� _ � .:; . � �� . I- �' .. .; . , ., ., ,, I ' �" ., ., �% I : ------- . . , '� � : �. � . . . . � . � :, � % � : ' '• ; � , ' , , . � � � `. � � � . � ; : . . . . � . , I ; ; � . � � � � � � � � • � � , • • , , • ,. � � i � � � • �` , : ' • 7 • , , r�� . . . � . . � . ��----^�-'� • ��• � :-. . � o, ;:, ... - :�. ' — .. . � • . � � -�_�. ; I _�: : �:`, .�. J— .�,' I ° I •,� -; -;. � I :.. _, i i �• -= .;=� .: . .. : � ._ .. � � ��=_ � . . .,. . .. . -; ... � � .:.. � 1 ::�: � � f � �� . .�-�.,s,�ti s, . .� � � � � v 0 J � •:: � � W � � 0 v � 0 � � � � �� -.. ._.... , ,� _ v 0 "' '~�i•.. 15.18 z : t:, t, :� :r' ii cZ �3J Lr; •T �j• s: , � : 0 . �: � �� V • tr � � � � �' � � � ;�: G �i N , O °�' � , � � No�� ::: � � � CITY OF FRIDLEY NOIZTHCO � RE.aI EiT.�T2 SERV��ES B.��i�sa�.� K. �l��it�;.:ir��. EZP.� ASSISTAVT PROPEEtTY ��LivAGER 6431 L�"IVERSITY �VE�i'UE �y� u� v�KC�c D��ve FRIDLE�', � 1N 5�4�2 Eut�,�. i�(� '»-��-�31� :.�.�_. (612) �71-34�0 Te�:�t'.��.�h�,;� �.�'.�- F.�x: 612.5?i �.16?�l �'„�� COVI_I�IUNITY DEVELOPMEi� i��r�i:.�t� i -- - r -- ` V.�RI:�rCE APPLICATIOY FOR: Residential X�Y CommerciaUIndustrial Signs PROPERTY INFORirIATIOr: --site plan required for submittal, see attached Address: 494 Northco Drive, Fridlev. Minnesota Property Identification Number: 11-30-24-42-0008 Legal Description : Lot 1 Block 1 TracVAddition Northco Business Park Fifth Addition Current Zoning: M-2 Square footage/acrea�e: 609.825 or 14.0 acres Reason for Variance: A dock enclosure was constructed for the dock located on the'I easterly side of the buildin; on the propertv. The Citv issued a certificate of occuvancv for the I dock enclosure on March 17. 1998 which states that the enclosure complies with all requirements of the buildin; codes of the Citv of Fridlev, but it has subsequentiv been determined that the dock enclosure encroaches onto the sideyard setback. Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No X If Yes, which city? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No i FEE O`V�iER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) Name: James A Grav Address: 80 South 8�' Street 4�10 IDS Center Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Daytime Phone: 672-0477 Si;nature/Date: 15.19 PETITIONER INFORitiIATION NA;vIE: Northco Corooration ADDRESS: 4900 VikinQ Drive. Edina. Minnesota ��435 ' DAYT�IE PH0�1�E: 820-1639 SIGNATL'RE/DATE: �D' (��, %�/r� I'I Section of City Cocte: FEES Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or si�s: Fee: $60.00 for resi tial prope 'es: Application Numb . � _ Scheduled Appeals Co ssion Date• Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application 60 Day Date: � 2120832-1 (19gg00 t !.doc) Notification Date: Receipt #: Received By: 3 . � �7.� 15.20 CITY OF FRlDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION . TD: Property owners within 350 feet of 494 Northco Drive CASE NUMBER: VAR #98-13 APPL/CANT: Northco Corporation PURPOSE: To reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5.4 feet to allow the enclosure of an existing loading dock LOCATION OF PROPERTY. 494 Northco Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business Park 5"' Addition DATE AND T/ME OF Appeals Commission Meeting: HEAR/NG: Wednesday, May 13, 1998, 7:30 p.m. The Appeals Commission meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 35. PLACE OFHEAR/NG: Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers, 6431 University Avenue HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTIC/PATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, or Paul Tatting, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432, or fax at 571-1287. SPFC/AL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMMODATIONS: interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than May 6, 1998. ANY QUEST/ONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator, at 572-3599, or Paul Tatting, Planning Assistant, at 572-3593. Mailing Date: May 1, 1998 15.21 � < � � � � Z � � � � < n i Z �:�-_ �, �` � � �.- �, 8� �� '` � / i �� \�/ "=i �_ '��}- 3��,� ;``��%��'�'.� ��y;� .� � I �__! ��, �-�,��, :�� , �\�.'�/3�� ." _ ; � !, R1� �__ J-_.._ =--_. �.=_: �;;,;, ,, �� ; ; �= � � � __:____—: --_____ -�:__ �---_.:, —� -� � . . � . , � . . � : y I • L ' J �. ` .�� W z : �! Q '' .►--�+ .� L � � .� �� 3 � Zarung Oesic,�a6�rs: � �, - a� F�;y ury� 0 F�2 - Two Farrily Urits Gl F�3 - Gener'al Mldple lkns � R.d -.I�tbile Fbrre Parls � Puo - qan'e° una °e''��°prtg,c � S1 - Flycie Par1c NeigF�bOrtnod � sz - �t Q� Q o� - L.od eusness C] G2 - � �� G3 - Gerieral SfbPpn9 � GR1- General Cffice 0 11M1 - Light �ndtsUial � ►�2 -�� nn,'i - atcl�oor trtens;�e rieavy �nd � RFt - F�ailroeds 0 P - Pttlic Fadlibes wA�R 0 PoGFiT-OF-WAY n e,� r� n nv� ne n a� rf Variance from Side Yard Setback Petitioner.• Northco Corp. I�cn�icu�ce, vA.R #98-13 Zoning.� N�2, Heavy IndZrstrial 494 Northco Drz 15.22 N ��'*'(J ;_�` ' �11 1 W�' E � OF S ��'�7 I}ate: 04/24/1998 � I CArrpiled ard draHn fr�an offidai recorrls b�ed I Ofl OR��12►108 N0. 70 �Yld ZOf1f19 (1� �2C�� _ � aate 1/27/56 t�ogett�r with all arrer�dng atin- i arnes adopted and effective as cf 2117�97. The City of Fridey tr� taken every effat b pro-- yide the most u�o-dabe intom�on availabie. The �ata p�esented tle�+E i.S si6jeCt b diarig� The �ty d Fridey vrill not be respons+ble fa uiv�seen erras or usage of trys doarneri. _- APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE o Dr. Vos sta the fax regarding this request included a concem about venting the heater and the proximi f the two homes. Is that addressed in the Uniform Buiiding Code? Mr. Tatting stated he beii�ved this was in the Building Code. This could be included in another stipulation if appro�ed. Ms. Mau stated the petitioner i�requesting a gas fireplace. Mr. Tatting stated that is correct, t�t that could be changed in the future. Mr. Jones stated he understood tha the fire code requirement was on the existing garage because it is 5 feet. If this distance i 5 feet or less, would the petitioner have to do some work on the existing garage or just on hat wall that is closest to the house? Mr. Tatting stated it is the garage wall ' elf. If the distance is 5 feet or less, they could not have any openings in that wall along th t portion of the wall where the two buildings are 5 feet apart and would be required to insta I a fire-proof material on the inside of the garage for additional fire protection. � The petitioner was not present at the __. M TI by Ms. IVlau, secondeii by 11i1s. next Appeals Commission meeting. ng. �ulieu, to continue the public hearing to the �� __ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY CHAlRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau�to receive into the public record the fax received from Janice Frakie dated May 13, 998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. KUECHLE DECLARED 3. ��LIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #98-13 BY NORTHCO CORPORATION: Per Section 205.18.03.d.(2) of the Fridley Zoning Code to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5.4 feet to allow the enclosure of an existing loading dock on Lot 1, Block 1, No�thco Business Park 5th Addition, generally located at 494 Northco Drive. M TI N by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. 15.23 APPEALS COMti11SSIONi�tEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 7 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:02 P.M. Mr. Tatting stated the petitioner is requesting a side yard setback variance from 20 feet to 5.4 feet to allow the enclosure of an existing loading docic. The existing building is 25 feet from the property line, the enclosed loading dock is 5.4 feet from the property line. The parcel is 14 acres. The building is 170,000+ square feet. The building is 25 feet from the east property line and over 100 feet from the other property lines. The building is occupied by two tenants, Carter Day and Kwik File, Inc. Mr Tatting stated the original building was constructed in 1968 and has gone through four phases of construction. The land it is sitting on has been subdivided three times. The property is zoned ti1-2, Heavy Industrial. To the north is M-2, Heavy Industrial. Across 73rd is R-1, Single Family, and to the south is public zoning. Mr. Tatting stated the loading locic was enclosed earlier this year. A building permit was issued by the City but the site plan indicated an incorrect property line. On tF�e site, the area of the loading dock is at the northeast portion of the building. The building is 25 feet from the side property line. The load dock, which has existed for a number of years, was not enclosed until earlier this year and is actually 5.4 feet from the property line. The . __._ code_does _not_require_an unenclosed_loading.dock to.meet the setback requirement.__ _. __ _. _ __ _. _ However, now that it is enclosed, it must meet the setback requirements. Mr. Tatting stated that when the building official saw the site plan, the property line was indicated in an improper location. The parcel to the east did be(ong to Northco and was later sold to Dayton-Hudson. When the building was constructed, there was considerable space. After selling the parcel to the east, the property line located 5.4 feet from the enclosed loading dock came into effect. Because the City was given an inappropriate site plan, the inspectors did not catch this and issued a building permit. Mr. Tatting stated the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires a 60-foot setback between unlimited area buildings and a property line. Also,. a 60-foot open area easement exists between the subject property and Target. In the open area easement, no structures are to be built including an enclosed loading dock. This also brings in an interpretation of the UBC. In 1994, when the plat was approved, the State must have okayed that these finro unlimited area buildings could be 60 feet apart. In that case, that is why they created the 60-foot area. The present building official is saying that unlimited area buildings must be 60 feet from their actual property line. Mr. Tatting stated staff recommends denial of the variance request. The hardship for the variance is self-imposed. The standards of the UBC may not be varied. Even if the City granted a variance, this still would not meet the state's UBC requirements. This building cannot be expanded in size until it meets both the zoning codes and the UBC. As it exists, it cannot be expanded because it is an illegal nonconforming use. 15.24 APPEALS COti1ti11SSIONMEETiNG, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 8 I�ir. Tatting stated that when looking at the property, staff looked at possible a(tematives: Deny the variance and aliow it as an iilegal nonconfoRning use untit Target develops the area in the open area easement. Because Target also had this agreement that they cannot build within the open area easement, they may have some legal recourse with regard to the structure and the open area easement. 2. Deny the request and require that the enclosed area meet the requirements immediately and the enclosure be removed. 3. Northco could purchase the approp�ate land from Target to make the building legal and conforming. 4. Approve the variance contingent upon meeting the UBC. A video of the area was shown. Mr. Kuechle asked if it was only the loading dock that was not in compliance. ___.._ Mr. Tatting stated the open air easement.is the big concem. The dock area was�the portion�that was recently built. The City was given an incorrect site plan so it should not � have been built in the first place. This has come up because Mr. Gray is thinking about � selling the property and found the 60-foot agreement. Now that the seal is on the building permit, we found that this is not in compliance with that agreeme�t and not in, agreement with the actual plat. Mr. Kuechle asked if the problem was then the 60-foot agreement. Mr. Tatting stated the building is now in noncompliance. They wanted staff to help them remedy the situation. The City's remedy to help the title company would be io grant the variance. After looking through the file as to the plat and this agreement, staff really cannot recommend approval because there are too many issues involved. Ms. Beaulieu asked if, even with a variance, the petitioner would still not be in compliance with the easement. Mr. Tatting stated this is coRect. Target could still build up to the 60-foot mark from their property line, but there are other issues Target would have to look at that they would not have to otherwise. In 1994, when the plat was approved, there was 60 feet between the buildings. fn looking at the file, staff did not find a statement from the State saying that this is what is needed. Ms. Beaulieu asked what Target thinks about this. Have they contacted the City? _ 15.25 APPEALS COMNIISSION��icETiNG, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 9 Mr. Tatting stated they have had limited discussion with Target. Due to thai easement, they can enforce that easement (egaliy, but they have not talked with them specificaily about what they pian to do or how they are going to use the site. Mr. Kuechle asked if the 60-foot area being discussed was required because of the unlimited building size and if that was required in the code. Mr. Tatting stated this is correct. Mr. Jones asked if the requirement is 60 feet on either side of the property line. Mr. Tatting stated that in looking at the building code itself, it says that an unlimited size building needs to be 60-feet from the property line. It then talks about potentially having agreements where the buildings need to be 60-feet apart even with the property line in between. That is what staff is trying to get from the State. If the City can get a statement from the State saying 60 feet is okay, they could then have 25 feet on the Northco side and 35 feet on the Target side. Mr. Berg, attomey at law, stated he represented Mr. Gray. He thought there had been a terrible misunderstanding and a lot of confusion. He hoped that he could make a little of . _ this clearer. He thought that_ Jerry Slater and Pete Roth from Carter Day_ and Pete.Talmo. __ .___. __._ from Northco would be able to give a lot of the minute details. He would like to provide a skeleton. Mr. Berg stated the building had a loading dock but it was not enclosed. With a loading dock, there is no problem. But when it was enclosed, the loading dock became a part of the building and, therefore, there is suddenly a problem. Mr. Berg stated Carter Day is one of the tenants in that building.� They have a business � where, because of foreign competition, there were some problems and it was essential to therri to be able to enclose the loading dock. They actually got down to a point where they had 40-42 employees. After enclosing the loading dock, they now have 100 employees. It is essential that the loading dock be enclosed if those people are going to continue working. Therefore, they came to Mr. Gray and said they needed to enclose the loading dock. Mr. Gray, who has a signed purchase agreement for the sale of this � property, said they should not ask him but should ask the prospective owner. Mr. Gray stated it did not bother him ff it is all right with the new owner and if it is all right with the City. Mr. Berg stated, at that point, Carter Day's structural engineer said they needed site plans so they could draw the plans. Carter Day then went to the City, and the City provided this tenant with the same site plan with the wrong property line. The City provided the incorrect site plan with the incorrect property line. The property line exists on paper. They did not know about some of the later replattings. They were looking to the City to 15.26 APPEALS C01�1MISSIONNIEETING, ��1AY 13, 1998 PAGE 10 give them usefui and accurate infoRnation, which they did not get. In reliance on what the City gave them, they came to the prospective new owner and asked if they could do that. The prospective owner stated it was okay with him as long as it was okay with the fee owner and okay with the City. They then took this plan drawn on that site plan with the City's inaccurate rendition of the boundary ta the City. The City then said this is fine and issued a building permit. In reliance of what the City did, Ca�ter Day spent a fot of money to enclose the loading dock. Mr. Berg stated that when they had completed the build-out, some time passed before the prospective owner knew there was any problem. The prospective new owners' time to complain about things like that had passed. After all, there was a building permit. He didn't do further research with the City to find out if the City had made some mistakes so the new purchaser is in an awicward spot because, if they close, can they refinance this in seven or so years? That is not fair. � Mr. Berg stated they requested a letter from the City saying they could keep this, and they got a letter from the City saying this is fine. At that point, the prospective owner contacted an attomey. He was made nervous by all these errors. The attomey said he was not sure that the, letter was enforceable and that he should try to get a variance. - . ...____ __ ._ Mr` Berg_ stated� with_respect to.this side issue about whether it is 60 feet or 120 feet o�en �- air space, the City has in its file a letter directed to Mr. Scott McClellan dated 3/21/94, '__ prior to the final subdivision, asking Mr. McClellan if it is 60 feet on each side or if it is 60 feet altogether. Mr. McClellan sent back a list of frequently asked questions issued by the Minnesota Department of Administration, Building Codes Standards Division. He cannot tell when this was faxed to Mr. Edstrom. Mr. Edstrom died some years ago, but this has to predate his death and predates the subdivision of the property. The State says a recorded agreement that runs with the property which could not be revoked without permission from the jurisdictions has been used in some jurisdictions to allow the use of � yards on adjacent properties. Othervvise, the City of Fridley's ordinance would have required more by the way they define yard. But the City said at that time, if the State of • Minnesota is happy, we're happy because the whole requirement is to make sure there is a certain separation. That separation is achieved whether it on one lot or two-60 being the magic number—so long as one owner or the other owner cannot modify that unilaterally. For any agreement that is on record, the City has to give its blessing before anyone can encroach upon that 60-foot yard. In real life, it isn't 60 feet. The reason it is not 60 feet is that you ignore the loading dock in that dimension. If you count it, it is not 60 feet. � Mr. Berg stated that under the ordinances of the City, you ignore the loading docks. If a Ioading dock is enclosed, it suddenly gets counted in the measurements. This is all terribly regrettable. There were other ways to do this, but the City told them that it was okay to spend a rather substantial amount of money to do this. In essence, if you now say something like you have to take it down, in his mind that would be a terrible injustice. 15.27 APPEALS COMi�11SSIONNicET1NG, y1AY 13, 1998 PAGE Ii They are not the ones who m2de the mistake. He would app(y the argument that says they were deceived by this lie. I�tr. Berg stated one of their problems is that no one is willing to accept responsibility, and it is staff s duty to cioublecneck things like that. In this case, the people who submitted these things had no clue where the property was. The City has a file on this property. �Nhile this piece of property had besn subdivided five times, overall this whole industrial development has been subdivided many more times. They have worked with the City each and every time. He has done most of it. ln all faimess to City staff, they have been the most able, accommodating, responsive City staff that they have dealt with, and they do business all over the country. They are not angry. If they have made a mistake, this is probably the only mistake they ever made with all the things they have ever done. The problem is that they did not make a mistake to them but rather to a manufacturing company that is only trying to do business and compete with foreign competition. � Because of that enclosed loading dock, there are 60 more people with jobs in the City of Fridley than there otherwise would be. He will allow them to tell what would happen if that enclosure had to go because they could not stay at the 100 employee point which would . be a disaster for those people's lives. � � - Mr. Berg stated the loading was fine. By putting something on top of the loading dock there is a problem_There is no fire hazard. _ It is imaginary_ Why wouldn't there be a fire ___ hazard if the loading dock were gone? This is all paper. There is no problem here. In his_ mind, what ought to happen is that two variances should be given. He has talked to Target, and they have been most accommodating as well. Target indicated they have no objection as long as there no impact on them. While they do not plan to expand, they are not going to surrender their right to do so. They expect to be able to build out to that line which is 35 feet from the property line and 25 feet from their building for 60 feet. However if you count the loading dock which is enclosed is no longer 60 feet, they are saying if you get a variance make sure that the City does it on the other side as well so they can build out as far as well. He promised that he would make this known to the City. He does not want to needlessly waste time, but the very person who got the site plan from the City is here. He got more than one copy and brought those along. Mr. Slater can speak to the other issue of the employees. Mr. Barry stated Mr. Roth made the inquiries of the owner and the City, picked up the drawings, etc. They are all very sorry that this happened. They certainly never intended to create a problem. They were all very startied when they discovered this problem. They are not interested in going on a hunt for the guilty, but when you have a property that should have closed in September and was extended to February, and to protect themselves they have started cancellation proceedings in case the City denies this - variance request. He thought they would have to be in a position to have their property back and be able to sell it to someone else. In his opinion, they have the right to tell this tenanf that it is their problem and to work it out with the City but they consider that irresponsible. He would prefer that the Commission hear the facts from those who 15.28 APPEALS COMti1(SSION��tEETiNG, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE I2 � actually lived through tfiis, talked with the Cit��, talked to the owner, taiked with the prospective new owner, got the building permit, got the loading and are operating it very efficientiy. But for an awkward problem, everyone is happy. Ms. Beaulieu asked if he was saying that if the City grants two variances to Target and Northco that this will satisfy the state building code requirements. Mr. Berg stated he wished he could say that, but they would have to talk to the state about it. Based on their conversation, they did not seem to be troubled by it but they did not come close to saying it was okay or not-okay. Ms. Beaulieu asked if this was then step one in clearing up this matter. Mr. Berg stated the state will not have a problem unless or until Target tries to build closer to them than 60 feet. At that point, the state will let the City know that you should not approve it in which case Target will then sue. He does not want that to happen. His understanding from Target is that, as long as this does not have an adverse impact them, they really don't care and they don't think they are going to build out. But, they don't know � what may be appropriate in 20, 30 or 40 years from now and they don't want to give up something valuable for free. As their attomey said, if they really needed it and the only _ _._ __ ._ way_the�y could do it_was with some special._fire wall structure,_for the size of the building ____ that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars The line as subdivided was chosen. by �_ Target. They really did not care where the line went. Target wanted the line there so they could have the maximum amount of expansion room. This cannot be changed without the City's consent. Ms. Beaulieu asked if he was asking for variances for both properties to settle legal issues. Mr. Berg stated, yes. Target has not filed an application for a variance. They are not in a hurry. If all they have to do is have someone file an application and pay a fee, that is not an issue. They do not know what the State will say. If the State says it is not okay, then he does not know what they will do. All he knows is that they would not have done this if the City had not said it was okay. Mr. Slater stated he works for Carter Day. He is concemed about their business, where they have been and where they are going. At one time, they owned all that property.� - Through hard times, they sold off the land and down sized to 40 people. Over the last 4 or 5 years, they have tried to get their business back and part of getting that business back is picking up more square footage. They have three major foreign competitors who have done damage to Carter Day. They plan to have a marlcet study done and plan to get that business back. Carter Day has gone from 43 people to 100 people. The dock enclosure, which is 4,000 square feet, is a major move for Carter Day to put more people in to accommodate the quick deliveries which are key to the success of their company. In 15.29 APPEALS COMMISSION�;tEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE I3 the mar'�cetpiace this year they have offered two-week deliveries which helps in both the domestic and intemationaf marfcets. In the intemational maricet, you can get things there in eight weeks. They have to delivery in two weeks to get it there in six. In the U.S. mar'�cet, they took away a big share of their business. They are trying to get that business back and hold onto it. They have one shift right now with 100 people. They hope to continue growing. 4,000 square feet does not seem like a lot of square footage but it makes a difference. They put a lot of parts in stock now so they are able to deliver in two weeks. The key is inventory and being able to tumaround quickly. N1r. Kuechle asked if this (oading docic was enclosed by Carter Day or if it had been enclosed by the owner. Mr. Slater stated Carter Day enclosed the loading dock. They went to the landlord and stated they would like to have the loading dock enclosed. The landlord said they could do that but that would need drawings so they did a rough drawing of what they wanted. At that time the landlord was selling the property so the landlord said they would have to work with the prospective purchaser so that is what they did. Mr. Roth got the drawings from the City. They needed the footings and soil samples. -They did not have that so they requested it from the City and gave it to the contractor. They went to the landlord� the City and the contractor. They were just looking for a dock enclosure and thought everything looked good until recently. Mr. Roth stated he is a manufacturing engineer with Carter Day. He had a copy of one of the prints obtained from the City. The request to the City was whether they had on file as- builts of the original structures and the site plans. They talked with Ron Julkowski and got the prints one year ago last November. They were in tum were submitted and reviewed by the contractor and structural engineer that prepared the structural drawings and the site plan for this construction. They knew that in order to deal with the City they needed a set of prints. That was his involvement other than some ottier aspects of construction. Ms. Mau asked if he was aware of the 60-foot requirement. Mr. Roth stated he was not aware of that. It was never talked about. His interpretation was that they were building up and not out. His concem was about the soil sampling and the footings details on the existing dock which it tums out were sufficient to do this. Ms. Mau stated that, in their minds, they were taking the property they atready had and putting something on top of it. It was not like you were expanding. Mr. Roth stated that was a perfect characterization. They were building up and not out. They really had no concems or discussion about it. They frankly received no feedback about fihat from the building department. It was not brought to their attention. Ms. Beaulieu asked if Mr. Roth knew where the property line was located. 15.30 APPEALS COM1�11SSIONN1EETiNG, 1�1AY 13, 1998 PAGE 14 i�lr. Roth stated he did not know. There was no evidence that would lead them to believe there was a probiem. Mr. Slater stated th.ey were the tenants. They did not know where the property line was. They know now. � I�Is. Mau stated they then did not have any concems because they thought it was no problem. Mr. Siater stated that is correct. They thought someone would reject the plan if there were any problems. Mr. Roth stated there was no discussion with the City of Fridiey either from Mr. Julkowski or the inspectors office, no questions from the contractor or from the structural engineer. They were surprised when this came up. Mr. Slater stated Mr. Greg was concemed with the look of the building so it was the same on both ends. They could have�done it either way. If they had known that, they would - have built on the opposite end. They just wanted the square footage, the dock was there� it was the same to them whether it was at one end or the other. In making the change, it was not only the expense of it but the_:equipment the�r also _purchased to continue and be_ _ � � competitive. It also what they have spent in the last six months. � -�- _� Mr. Roth stated it is relatively low square footage but it is an end step in a process in doubling their square footage in Fridley. They doubled their square footage inside the original building and then topped off the dock. Mr. Slater stated it was very important to them in serving their customer base. That is a real concem to them. This is their business. Mr. Jones asked if the landlord approved the plans. Mr. Slater stated the landlord looked at it. As long as it looked the same, he did not care. Mr. Talmo stated he was the property manager with Northco Real Estate. He was the manager there in 1990-91 and came back iri 1997. In mid-summer of 1997, Carter Day came and asked to expand their warehouse on top of the loading dock area. The response to them was, as long as you get City approval, the permits, a certificate of occupancy, etc., they did not have a problem with it. They proceeded to get the plans, the drawings which they reviewed, sent them to the owner for approval and to the prospective buyer for approval. All parties signed off on it. They granted approval to go ahead and build the structure. Then it came up that it was a nonconforming structure. 15.31 A°PEALS COti1MISS(ON4IEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE i5 Ntr. Jones stated he and the owner reviewed the pians which showed the property line severai hundred feet to the east when in fact it was not. Ms. Beaulieu aske� if they thought that was the property line. Mr. Taimo stated to be honest he wasn't even thinking about that. The building was going on top of the loading docic. His concem was the aesthetic look of the building and the type of construction. . Ms. Beaulieu asked if Mr. Talmo knew where the real property line was. Mr. Talmo stated he did not. Mr. Kuechle asked how it came to be that the property line was indicated incorrectly on the drawing. Did the properiy line change after the drawing was made? Mr. Talmo stated he left the tenant to do the legworlc. They did that, and he leamed they got a site plan and soil data plans for the City. These plans were drawn up from those and submitted. _. __ Mr. Kuechle asked if it would not norma� be the practice of the property owner to do a^____ __ site survey before doing a building addition. Mr. Talmo stated yes, one could say that. He reviewed what he had in front of himself and there was nothing in the way that showed they were encroaching on property. Mr. Berg stated there is one thing to remember which is the owner did not build on this. The tenant built on it. The only concem the owners had was aesthetics� making sure that the tenant did nothing to disrespect the owner. He thought they assumed that, if there was a problem with the City, they would let them know. Mr. Gray is wondering how this could happen. The City approved it. When they came in and asked what can they do � �� about this, the City said not to worry about it. They have a letter that says it is not a problem. If not for the buyer and his lawyer, they would not be asking for a variance because no one cares. In the video it is a long way to the other building. When Target purchased that property from them, they wanted the property for parking. Over the years since this has happened, they may have changed their mind. His conversation with their lawyer indicated that they have no present plans. But they did purchase the property, and they should be able to do whatever they want within whatever the law permits. Mr. Jones asked if the property line changed at the time Target purchased the parcel to the east. Mr. Berg stated, yes. Target did a plat on their land and platted a portion as Outlot A and part became Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business_Park. Then they sold Target Outlot A. 15.32 APPEALS COMtitISSIONMc�TING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 16 While this happened extemporaneously, they needed to record their plat first so that they couid then record their plat. Tne truth of the matter is, because this is such an artificial line, it does not look (ike anything. The line exists on paper. He did not think anyone could have known about this unless someone asked about the property line. It was replatted a long time ago. He did not know that he would have recognized it as being wrong. If someone would have questioned, then he may have gone back to his file. Because it came the City, he thought it was coRect. Every time they do something with the City, the City always had the most up-to-date information that they have had. If he had any idea there would be a problem, they could have done this differently. This is something Carter Day wanted. They were about to close on the property. Their only concern was that they not violate any law or upset the prospective buyer. As far as the prospective buyer, they were not concemed because the City had issued a buifding permit so there did not seem there was a problem. Ms. Beaulieu asked if there was any explanation as to why the City did not have an updated plan. � Mr. Berg stated the City does. He is assuming the person who pulled it out of the file thought they had the most cuRent plan. If that person had been given any kind of a hint that there may be any more around because of the changes in the plat, that persori may have checked further. It is not common to have a piece of property platted as often as _ . -- — this one. Every time a parcel is sold to a buyerwhen they build, they always haci the --- -� -�. _ design of their building that did not quite fit on the parcel so they kept having to replat so their buildings would fit. He is sure that person who did this probably feels terrible. In.his • mind, he probably pulled out the thing in the file that he thought was the most current. The City has copies of the most current plat. He brought them over. He knows the City has them, and it is likely a matter of things being in different file folders. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought it was fair to point out that it is not the City's responsibility to provide a correct plat. The City provides it to you for the builders information. They provide an as-built survey which in itself the as-built portion was coRect. Mr. Berg stated he did not disagree. However, most of the renditions probably would not have shown a boundary line at all, and the City has a responsibility to double check this. People depend on the City to tell them what they are allowed to do. Staff are the ones who are familiar with the ordinances. If you come in for a building permit, you can come in with something that you are convinced is pe�Fect and spend a lot of time here. When they come in for a building permit, they mark off an entire day and usually bring the team with them because the City always has questions that would have sent them back home. It is very difficult to get a building permit. It may be that this City is more efficient. Generally speaking, he cannot remember a time when he asked City staff a question when the staff did not know the answer off the top of their head. This goes back to the 1980's or eariier. Staff that have been here have been able to look at things and say whether you can or cannot do. The City staff has always provided altematives. 15.33 A°PEALS COti1MISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 17 Dr. Vos ofered a suggestion. He was not sure that they were going any piace. Ali they have been discussing for the last hour is the City versus the tenant versus the landiord versus the landowner, etc. What he thinks wiil happen is that this will end up with the elected officials anyway because it is an M-2 variance request. He has heard enough unless there is something else that is going to clarify it in a second but he did not think there would be. Mr. Tatting stated the Carter Day staff indicated they were getting as-built plans: The building was built before the last plat. Those plans would be old so they would show the old property line. The thing that is driving this is the UBC. He looked at the last two pfats for Target and Northco. He did not find a letter from Mr. McClellan. Mr. Berg stated he sent a copy of the State's questions and answers. He staRed some things and sent that over saying that all they had to do was come up with this document. Mr. Tatting stated staff is concemed with the State's building code and the state requirement between the two buildings - 60 feet or 120 feet. If they can come up with some arrangement to comply, he did not know whether that would be an agreement or a replat. Mr. Berg stated Target is not interested in selling any land. There is no way to do that_ __ The�e will be no change in the boundary lines. � Mr. Tatting stated they have indicated they might approve another agreement. The addition is 20 feet into that 60 fieet so there is now an area of 40 feet. If we have an agreement saying that we have 60 feet, we would have to add 20 feet on to the side. Mr. Berg stated Target has already said, no. Mr. Tatting, in regard to the building code and with the buildings being 60 feet apart, if one caught on fire, there may be concem about getting vehicles in this area. That was one of the altematives. If we can meet the building code, the City could approve a variance just making sure that the state building code requirement are being met. Mr. Berg stated the flaw with that argument is that the loading dock was there. There is now something built on top of it. It's not like it wasn't there. It was there. It has been changed a bit but it has not gotten any bigger. . Mr. Kuechle stated he felt they were not getting very far. He would to close the public hearing. . Mr. Hickok stated he would like to re-emphasize that, as you have heard tonight, this is a wonderful business. This is an unfortunate situation. Lest the City come off looking like it is anti-business in any way, that is certainly not the case. There were a number of 15.34 APPEALS COM�IISSION��IEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 18 altematives provided for a solution. He wouid like to addrzss the comment of "who cares". That is not the approach. That is paraphrasing in a way that he thinks is dangerous for the public to hear. This is truly not a matter of who cares. titr. Hicfcok stated that at this point, the City is acting on information given by the state rapresentative of the code stating at that time that was their interpretation of the distances between the buildings. Today, Ron Julkowski has that same set of common questions and answers. In that it states, "Is it the intent of the code to maintain 120 feet between building using the unlimited area concept or to just maintain 60 feet of open space between unlimited area buildings?" The answer to that, "Two buildings of unlimited area on the same property may share a common 60-foot yard. In the case of two buildings on adjacent pieces of property, the code would not permit these two properties to share one common yard as it requires that the yard be on the same property as the building. A recorded agreement that runs with the property which could not be revoked without permission from the jurisdiction has been used by some jurisdictions to allow the use of yards on adjacent properties." � Mr. Hickok stated the next point he would reiterate is that, when the tenant comes in and asks for plans, staff tries hard to provide the information as requested. The as-builts are very different than showing where the lot line is. You have heard that there are a number of players in the discussion. The as-builts will give you information about where the _ building is. That shows that they were a couple of hundred feet from�the lot line. �`f�se �-- -` __ folks used that drawing and came back with an addition to their building. They did not have the benefit of all of the players in this room, obviously, or they would see that there is a lot line dispute about the dimension between that addition and the lot line. It is important to note that, if all of the players that are in this room this evenings were in this discussion, or like the homeowner that puts a three-season porch on their house, they got a survey of their property. The City is being held up for infoRnation it provided. The reality is we are talking about a five-digit addition that was based upon information that the tenant got when asking for as-built drawings. It is typically the case in a situation like this that a survey of the property would be done. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Staff did provide what was asked for. Ms. Beaulieu stated that when they do come back with that picture, then does the City check to see that the lines are where they should be? Mr. Hickok stated that is why the survey is so important. These people have prepared a expensive expansion based on presumptions of where the lot line is. The building staff, if the code is correct and the addition meets the building codes, are relying on information that they have been provided. It is not their responsibility to request a survey. Unfortunately, most folks when they are putting this type of enhancement on their property will check to be certain where the lot lines are. In this case, they based their addition on points several hundred feet out that are no longer germane because there has been a subdivision. Had they talked to Mr. Berg who was involved with that, they 15.35 APPEALS COMMISSIONI�tECTING, N1AY 13, 1998 PAGE 19 wou(� have gotten that information. At that point, they wou(d have been operating on the facts. The City would have had a correct pian, and he did not think they would be here this evening. Ms. Mau stated that if it were not for the 60-foot distance that has to be between the buildings, having that enclosure would not make any difference as far as where it is from the property line. Mr. Hickok stated that at this point, staff is saying there is not an issue in terms of fighting fires or anything else as long as the state is okay with it. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:09 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he can see that the petitioners made an inadvertent error. They certainly went forward in good faith to do the best job they could and thought they were doing all the correct things. Unfortunately, they did miss a key issue and that is to clearly establish the property lines. He can understand how that would happen. Nowever, it is also not clear to him how they can easily rectif� the situation. He was not sure that ' recommending the variance request is going to do the job. What he can see doing is to � recommend approval based on the property meeting� all the building codes. It seems to him that there is a clear issue there. He is not sure it is up to them to grant a variance simply because, even though they did, it may well not be in compliance with the state code and would not do any good. It is the state code that is going to be the u(timate decision maker. He is willing to recommend approval of the variance with the stipulation that all the state codes have to be met. Ms. Beaulieu stated she agreed that this was the only way that it can be done. She had - made a note that approval be conditioned on a stipulation that Target also be granted a variance, but by saying that it has to comply with the state building codes. They have to work it out with Target and with the state. � � Mr. Kuechle stated the Appeals Commission is interested in trying to get this resolved but they are not sure exactly how to make that happen. Dr. Vos stated there is a bike path that goes through there and asked if the City had an easement with Target for that. Mr. Kuechle stated he did not see that as being a problem because that is still a green area. He is willing to approve the variance with the stipulation that it meets the state zoning and building codes. 15.36 APPEALS COM��ISSIONI�IEETING, N1AY 13, 1998 PAGE 20 ��is. ��fau stated she thought this is a very difficult situation. It is very obvious that this was done without intent. She does not want to put Target in the position where they cannot expand if they tell the petitioners this is okay. She did not want to put in the situation where they would be having this same conversation with Target down the road. Mr. Jones stated he agreed. He does not want to put the Commission in the position where they would be recommending something less than what the state code woufd require. He also believes it is unfortunate that it has gotten to this situation. He thought it is the responsibility of the owner of the building to have a current and valid survey of the property and that was not done for whatever reason. MOTIC7N by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mau, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-13, by No�thco Corporation, to reduce the side yard setback from 20. feet to 5.4 feet to allow the enclosure of an existing loading dock on Lot 1, Block 1, Northco Business Park 5th Addition, generally located at 494 Northco Drive, with the fo(lowing stipulation: The state zoning and building code requirements shall be met. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOT10N CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IMr. Tatting stated the City Council would consider this request on June 8. � Mr. Berg asked if the only way they could comply is to buy land from Target which Target has already said they will not sell. Dr. Vos stated their responsibility is to approve or deny the request. Mr. Berg stated what was approved cannot be done. Mr. Kuechle stated they cannot approve a variance request unless it meets state codes. Mr. Berg stated they may need to get a waiver from the state. The stipulation stated they must meet the requirements but does not mentivn anything about a waiver. Mr. Kuechle stated what he meant was that he is willing to recommend approval of the variance request if all these other factors can be taken care of. Mr. Berg stated they would like to petition the state to waive that separation requirement by a few feet. Including this in the stipulation would be satisfactory. Dr. Vos stated it really has two parts—either the compliance with the UBC or their waiver granted for the UBC. 15.37 APPEALS COMMISSiONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 21 Mr. Jones asked, if the Commission does that, are these waivers that are granted tied to the property and would they be tied to both prope�ties? Mr. Tatting stated, yes. It would be like the existing agreement. That agreement would stili be in effect so that originai agreement would aiso have to be changed. That is done between Target and the property owner. Dr. Vos stated that in faimess to the petitioner, the Commission should have as clear as possible their intent in the motion and not in the discussion. M TI N by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to rescind the previous motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Beaulieu stated she would amend the motion to clarify the motion and add the language that to either comply with the existing state building codes or get a waiver of those building codes. � - M TI N by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Mau, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-13, by Northco Corporation, to reduce the side yard setback from 20 _. _ feet to 5.4 feet to allow the enclosure of an existing loading dock on Lot 1, Block 'i,— --�— Northco Business Park 5th Addition, generally located at 494 No�thco Drive, with the following stipulation: 1. The structure shall meet the State building codes or the State shall grant a waiver of those building codes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOT10N CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Per Section 205.07.03. ..(c).((1)) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the side yard setback on a comer lo m 17.5 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of an accessory structure (in-groun ool) on Lot 4, Block 3, Riverwood Park, generally located at 7115 Riverwoo rive. . M TI N by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Ma to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRP SON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING EN AT 9:23 P.M. 15.38 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Steven Barrett, of Menard's, Inc. is requesting a variance to allow 199.5 additional square feet of signage on their building at 5351 Central Avenue N.E. HARDSHIP STATEMENT: ....We used the product signs to "break up" the larger wall areas, and give the building a more complete, lighter appearance. Given the proximity of the Skywood Mall and other large uses in the area, this nezv look is designed to enhance the overall commercial area.... ....Menards is more than a hardware store....the product signs immediately disclose to customers what the new Menards has to offer.... SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Section 214.11.5 of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance limits wall signs to a maximum size of 15 times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed. The public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual degradation by eliminating large and excessive signs. Menards west building elevation qualifies for 325 square feet of signage and they have requested a sign package of 534.5 square feet for that elevation. SIMILAR PREVIOUSLY GRANTED VARIANCES Though numerous pylon sign requests have been approved, no similar wall sign size requests have been approved. APPEALS COMMISSION ACTIONS: The Appeals Commission recommended denial of variance request, VAR #98-15. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission. 1s.o1 Staff Report VAR #98-15, 5351 Central NE Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: Steven Barrett, of Menard's, Inc. is requesting a variance to allow 199.5 additional square feet of signage on their building at 5351 Central Avenue N.E. Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Lot Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/ Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Site Planning Issues: Comp. 5351 Central Avenue N.E. Auditor's Subdivision No. 94 9.46 acres Generally level, with an incline at the east and northeast property boundaries. Urban landscape on the level portion, mixed native vegetation, trees, shrubs on the sloped areas. C-3, General Shopping Center / Auditor s Subdivision 94 with metes and bounds exceptions Available Via 53=d Avenue NE and Cheri Lane Central Avenue NE 53rd Avenue NE Easement across site has been relocated The Menards site has been redeveloped and the Skywood Mall was purchased and developed as an extension of the Menards Facility. ___--� ---- 16.02 � Staff Report VAR #98-15, 5351 Central NE Page 3 Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: The zoning and use of this land are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. To be taken ADJACENT STTES NORTH: Zoning: R-3, General Multiple EAST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family SOLTTH: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Land Use: Multi-Family Residential Land Use: Single Family Land Use: Retail WEST: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Land Use: Retail DEVELOPMENT SITE REQUEST Steven Barrett, of Menard's, Inc. is requesting a variance to allow 199.5 additional square feet of signage on their building at 5351 Central Avenue N.E. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The properiy is located south of Highway 694 and East of Highway 65, Central. Presently a 111,753 square foot Menard's store exists on site. ANALYSIS Section 214.11.5, of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance limits wall signs to a maximum size of 15 times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed. Public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual degradation by eliminating large and excessive signs. Section 214.02.07, defines Banners and Pennants as: A temporary sign constructed of cloth, canvas, paper, plastic film light fabric. � Code Section 214.11.02, Portable Signs may be displayed for a period of 14 days after a permit has been issued by the City, such signs shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/ development at any one time. A total of two permits per year may be issued for a single use. 16.03 Staff Report VAR #98-15, 5351 Central NE Page 4 Proposed Signs The signs that the petitioner proposes aze of two categories. These categories include: permanent signs on the west building face and "permanent" banner signs (See Attached letter from Mr. Barrett dated May 8,1998). The breakdown of the request is as follows: REQUESTED PERMITTED West Facing Signs = 444.5 sq. ft. Banners = 90 0 s�, ft TOTAL = 534.5 sq. ft. 335 sq. f t. Originally, the petitioner had also requested a variance for the north building face as well. A total of 268 sq. ft. is permitted on the north building face. After further reviewing the plans, the petitioner has determined that Menards can operate within the permitted 268 sq. ft. on the north face. � Location of Signs See Illustration provided Review of Sign Code Prior to granting a variance from the literal provisions of the Sign Code, four conditions must be met by the applicant. These four conditions are outlined in Section 214.21.02 of the Sign Code and are as follows: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Reponse: The Menards site is one of the sites in the City with the greatest visibility from both Highway 694 and Highway 65; this is not an exceptional or unique site. B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. Response: The Menards site would not be deprived of any property right, enjoyed by others in the same vicinity. C. That the strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Response: No, the petitioner would still have the a6ility to have a 335 sq. ft. sign. D. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is 16.04 Staff Report VAR #9$-15, 5351 Central NE Page 5 located. Response: An over-abundance of signage can lead to visual clutter. Further, other property owners in the same vicinity may request additional signage to try and balance with an over- abundance of signs on this site. SIMILAR PREVIOUSLY GRANTED VARIANCES Though numerous pylon sign requests have been approved, no wall sign size requests have been approved. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The appeals Commission recommended denial of variance request, VAR #98-15. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Appeals Commission s recommendation. 16.05 16.06 W z � � � > Q � � � c� � ��: 0 R-1 - One Farrdy Uri� �-s -Two �ay ums 0 � - c�,� � urns R a - �,+oa�e ��,e � � Pw - Rarned u;t oevelopr,enc � s� - Mrde Pa�c Meishbat+ooa S2 - Redauelaprnat Oistrict 0 G1 - Local Bt�sness G2 - Ger�aral B�siness �� -�� a�- c�,� afi� C] NF1 - L.ight tr,d��stria� � M-2 - � �r�d��I � M3 - Oil�doar Irter�sive Fieavy Ind �� -� ;�� P - Rdic Fadlities __�'__, �� 0 PoGFff-OF-W4Y I-694 Variance Request for Signage Petitioner:• 11�lerrar� Inc. v��e, V� #9s Is Zoning.• C-3, Genercrl Shopping 5351 C eniral Avenue 1VE �� 1b.V! .�. ��Tq� N �E _ -r S Date: 04/23/1998 �� FRIDLEY MAY 08 1998 1@�55 FR PROPiADU MENARDS May 8, 1998 Scott Hickok _ Planning Coordinatoz City of FridleY 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, N1N 55432 g�: Signage Varian�e "��rion of Banners Dear Mr. Hickok: 715 876 2555 TO 16125712287 Fax: (612) 571-1287 P.0i�01 I spoke with Paul Tatting earlier this week about sdding two (2) banners to our si�nage variance application. These banners � b�iness hours. Th� bt�� p�e� t�►ey will be on display each day during norm near the front doors, aze describcd as follows: 1�, Semi-Weekly sale banner; 3 ft. x] 5 ft. (somet W�temW 1� Led,tal squaze footage of 45 square fcet; predominantly yellow and oranSe acce�ts. 2), Banner advertising Menards `Big Card"; 3 ft x 15 ft; total square footage of 45 square ft; predominantly white with r�d, yellow and orange accents. These additional signs will increase the total squaze footage to 534.5 sq. ft. on the front of the building. Our vaziance request for the front of the building is thus 209.5 sq. ft. �-, If you have anY fu�heT Questions regatding this recluest, please call me at (7I5) � . 876-2810. Thanlc you for your considerati SPB/jS Rcal Estate Associate ��,�, � h Menard, Inc. �� 16.08 4777 MENARD ORIVE EAU CI.AIRE, WI : , Q1960 �vth s 9998 D � Anui+�erary � � �� TELEPHONE (715) 876-59f 1 FAX: 715-876-5901 ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Over the past two years, the Fridley Menards has undergone great changes. The store is bigger, brighter, and better. This variance request is another step in our remodeling project. The following represent our rationale for requesting this action: One intention for remodeling the Fridley store is to bring it in line with our new, larger flagship prototype stores. We used the product signs to "break up" the larger wall areas, and give the building a more complete, lighter appearance. Given the proximity of the Skywood Mall and other lazge uses in the area, this new look is designed to enhance the overall commercial area. Menards is more than a hardware store. This is especially true with our newer, larger remodeled store. The product signs immediately disclose to customers what the new Menards has to offer. The requested signage variance does not negatively impact surrounding users. Only the "Save Big Money" sign is illuminated. Given its location, it will not adversely affect neighboring properties. In fact, the signage on the fence will actually dress up that portion of fence that faces Central Ave. In conclusion, the proposed signage will enhance the commercial region along Central Ave. without adversely affecting neighboring property owners. Submitted for your consideration. Sincerely, Steven P. Barrett Real Estate Associate Menard, Inc. 16.09 EXPLANATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST MENARD, INC. I. WEST ELEVATION Building Wall Length : 470 ft. Signage Allowed : 325 sq. ft. Proposed Signage : 444.5 sq. ft. ("MENARDS" and Product Signs) VARIANCE : 119.5 sq. ft. II. NORTH ELEVATION (Building) 11 Building Wall Length : 64 ft Signage Allowed : 120 sq. ft. Proposed Signage : 53 sq. ft. No Varience Necessary NORTH ELEVATION (Fence) Fence Length Signage Allowed Proposed Signage VARIANCE : 77 ft. : 132 sq. ft. : 246 sq. ft. : 114 sq. ft. 16.10 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 24 have any impact on those issues. Whii�he concurs that there is not a severe hardship, the request also has minimal impact. Ms. Beaulieu agreed. TI N by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Be� Request, VAR #98-14, by James and Dian comer lot from 17.5 feet to 10 feet to allow ground pool) on Lot 4, Block 3, Riverwood Drive. lieu, to recommend approval of Variance Felton, to reduce the side yard setback on a �e construction of an accessory structure (in- rk, generally located at 7115 RivenNOOd UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C�IAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � ' 5. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #98-15 BY MENARD. INC.: Per Section 205.11.05 of the Fridley Sign Code, to allow an increase in the maximum size of wall signage on Lots 9 and 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94, generally located at 5351 Central Avenue. __ _____ ___ MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded_by Ms._Beaulieu, to waive the readin� of thepublic _____ _ --_ _ _ -- - - - -- - — hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:38 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the variance request is for two sign variances for Menards, Inc. One variance is to allow an additional 119.5 square feet of permanent signage. The second variance would allow two permanent banners - each 45 square feet - to be placed on the front of the Menards store. The code limits wall signs to a maximum of 15 times the square root of the wall length where the sign is to be placed. Originally, Menards had requested an additional variance for signs along the north face of the building. They worked with staff and the maximum allowances and eliminated the need for that variance. Mr. Hickok stated the property is zoned C-3, General Shopping Center. Around the site is a mix of other C-3, General Shopping Center; some R-1, Single Family; and some R-3, Multiple Family units. It is located at a primary intersection, I-694 and Highway 65. Mr. Hickok stated that although there have been many variance requests for larger pylon signs, no building sign variances have been granted by the City. Further, competing business or businesses with similar site conditions may feel the need to compete if the variance is granted in this case. Staff recommends denial of the variance. There is no unique hardship and a favorable series of sight lines for this site. It is possibly one of the most visible intersections in the City. 16.11 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 25 Mr. Hickok stated the request is for individual product signs, ie. "paint", "hardware", "cabinets", etc., indicating materials that are available at this location. Staff understands the philosophy and that it perhaps adds some distraction to what is otherwise a large area. When analyzing a sign variance, staff considers the following criteria: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. The Menards site is one of the sites in the City with the greatest visibility from both I-694 and Highway 65. B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. The Menards site would not deprived of any property right enjoyed by others in the same vicinity. C. That the strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. -- - — -- - --- -- -- - - --- -- - - - Denial would not constitute a hardship. D. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. An over-abundance of signage can lead to visual clutter. Further, other property owners in the same vicinity may request additional signage to try and balance with an over-abundance of signs on this site. Mr. Hickok stated there have been no previously granted variances of this nature. Ms. Mau asked if this request would fall into the same category as the Medtronic sign that was approved for the skyway over the road. Mr. Hickok stated, no. The Medtronic sign was a property marker as opposed to a wall sign. They have a skyway across the roadway. That in and of itself causes a distraction as you pass under it. There were conditions there that were very different from this. It was not about products, but about identifying the complex. Dr. Vos asked if the permitted amount of wall signage using the formula would total 593 square feet. 16.12 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 26 Mr. Hickok stated, yes. Dr. Vos asked, of that 593 square feet, how much of that is used for the present signage on the wail. Mr. Hickok stated their wall sign currently on the west face is simply the Menards sign. That is going to be modified only in that they are taking the clover off in exchange for the product signs. They are reducing that sign a bit in order to add some of the product signs. What exists is less than what is being requested and is within code. Dr. Vos stated, to put it another way, Menards basically has 20 feet x 30 feet to work with on the wall signs. They are requesting a variance over and above that by 210 square feet. So they would be permitted to do about a 10 foot x 20 foot area without coming in for a variance but they want another 210 square feet above that. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. On a similar site along I-694, Home Depot typically under their store identifier have another phrase. The sign code allowed them to do the large 'Home Depot' that they wanted to do but they sacrificed the phrase to fit within the requirements. Target also has a sign relative to the size of their store front. _____ __ ___ Ms_Beaulieu asked_if Home Depot received a variance._ Mr. Hickok stated they did not get a variance for the building face. They did ask for a variance for a free standing sign which later they decided not to use. Dr. Vos asked if the sign for Gander Mountain comes within the standard formula. Mr. Hickok stated it does. In a multi-tenant building, each tenant space is used to determine the formula for their signage. Mr. Barrett stated that until six months ago, he lived on Innsbruck Drive and walked to this Menards. The hardship associated with the request is basically aesthetic in nature. The location of the store coupled with the remodeling project they feel warrants the product signs on the west elevation. What they have now is a very large brown building. They use the product signs as a decorative device to break up the monotony of the large face of the building. He heard in the first public hearing this evening the concem about a 40- foot wall and breaking up the monotony. That is important. On the west elevation, they are dealing with a 470-foot wall. They feel the product signs give the building a better appearance, enhances the building, does not add to the clutter because you really cannot read the signs unless you come into the parking lot. This is the last part of their remodeling project. With the remodeling, they feel it would warrant breaking up that long brick wall. The signs do not add to the clutter, but breaks up the large wall. Ms. Beaulieu asked how big the Menards sign was. 16.13 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 27 Mr. Barrett stated the sign is 312 square feet. Dr. Vos stated, of the 593 square feet, the identifier sign takes up 312 square feet. That leaves 281 square feet left that could be used for possible product signs. Mr. Barrett stated for the west elevation.they only have 325 square feet. Dr. Vos stated that is mostly used up by the Menards identification sign. They would have to go to the north elevation. Mr. Hickok stated page 4 of the staff report breaks out the north facing and west facing signs and the banners. On the north facing sign, Menards has agreed to reduce that from 299 square feet to 268 square feet. They are talking about the west facing signs or 444.5 square feet. Dr. Vos stated that on the west side they have already tied up 312 square feet with the Menards sign so they would have 132 for product signs. Mr. Hickok stated 325 square feet is the allowance for the west side of Menards. Dr. Vos asked they could not really_put anything on the west side without a variance. - -- - - — - --- – _---- ---- ------------ V1/hat was allowed on the north? Mr. Hickok stated, on the north side, 268 square feet is allowed. They have reduced it to 268. They will be able to add three product signs for the north side and could also add a "Save Big Money at Menards" sign on the angled comer. The banner would become a permanent sign and would be an addition to what is seen on the site now. They have a unique situation on the north face in that much of the face of the building is behind the wall. Staff made a determination there of what would be an acceptable square foot dimension based upon what is hidden and what is seen. They were able to comply with the 26$ square feet. - Ms. Matthews stated that, aesthetically, more is not necessarily better. In 1996, Menards began a reconstruction project and she would like to see one project completed before another variance is granted. They have not completed items with the fence and the landscaping. They have not done the plantings behind the fence for the erosion. As far as the signs, she thought less was better. They have for many years been too visual. First, she would like so see the first set of stipulations completed. Mr. Hickok stated Menards is still in the midst of construction. If there are concems about what is to be completed, let staff know what those concerns are. There has not been a final sign off. Staff recognized there are landscaping and some other elements that they are working on. 16.14 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 28 Ms. Matthews asked what their time frame was for completion. Mr. Hickok stated they have kept the project moving. Generally, there is 120 days to keep a project alive but if you keep moving on it there is no project end date. It is a project in motion and staff recognize that it is a project in motion. If there are specific concerns, those can be presented and discussed further. Ms. Matthews stated her concerns include soil erosion and the plantings behind the fence, the material in the fence is tongue and grove but has gaps in places, repaving is not completed, etc. It is more visually appealing. The sign request concems her that they will end up again with more garbage. People know Menards is there. She would like to meet again if this does not progress. In the beginning they were told they were under a bond. Mr. Hickok stated there is a bond in place for site improvements. There is a larger bond in place for the rear yard construction. Ms. Matthews stated she recognizes there was time that they could not get started. She will contact staff. __ ____M TI .by Mr. Jones,_seconded by Ms. Beaulieu,_to close the_public hearing_ __ _______ __ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:02 P.M. Dr. Vos asked if sign variance requests go to the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. Ms. Beaulieu stated she thought they were asking for a lot of variance. It seems what they are allowed should be adequate. If they want the smaller signs, they would need to make the large sign smaller. Mr. Jones stated the request was for aesthetics. It does not make the sense to use signs for aesthetics. That should be in the design. From that standpoint and from the standpoint that they have an adequate amount of sign space, he would not be in favor of the request. Mr. Kuechle agreed. He differs in the fact that the signage as laid out could have some aesthetic appeal if done correctly. For him, the issue is that they have denied similar requests. He cannot identify a unique hardship. He cannot recommend approval. 16.15 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 29 Dr. Vos stated they have not yet had a wall sign request. All the denials were on the pylon signs. He would not recommend approval because he does not want to set a precedent. Mr. Mau agreed. She is worried about setting a precedent. She thought having that long wall with nothing on it would look better with something there, but that was not thought about in the original structure. She dld not think putting signs on it would necessarily make it better. She did not think it would look that bad, but it is the idea of opening up that can of worms and having banner signs. She did not think that was positive. She concurs unless they found a way to change the large sign or make it smaller to come closer to the code requirements. JVIOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance Request, VAR #98-15, by Menard, Inc., to allow an increase in the maximum size of wall signage on Lot 9 and 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94, generally located at 5351 Central Avenue. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -- -- ___ -- - ---- -- - — - --- Mr. Hickok stated the Cify Council would consider this �equest on Tune 8: - 6. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISION MEETINGS Mr. Hickok stated the City conducted a series of six meetings with the seven planning areas related to the comprehensive plan. They are now moving into the next phase which involves vision meetings. A vision meeting is a group of people who gather because they care about the City's future. Anyone who lives, works or owns a business in the City is invited. The first meeting will be held on Thursday, May 28, 7:00 p.m. and on Thursday, June 25, 7:00 p.m. in the gymnasium of the Fridley Community Center, 6085 Seventh Street. Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of the first meeting is to talk about what is Fridley. What does the community want in the year 2010 and the year 2020? What characteristics do we want the City of Fridley to have? Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of the second meeting is to explore the ideas identified in the first meeting, weigh priorities, and identify benchmarks for success. Mr. Hickok stated Horsington Koegler Group, Inc., a planning consultant team, has been hired to facilitate these meetings for the City. They use group discussion techniques and have extensive experience in the metro area. The public will be invited through a press release, a newsletter article and cable television. There will also be a mayor's invitation 16.16 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 30 going out to a cross section of the community to assure a balance of ideas and opinions. Commission members are invited. Mr. Hickok stated that after the meetings are completed, a summary will be compiled and published in the newspaper with a retum comment sheet. The outcomes of these meetings will be reviewed with the Commissions and Council members. Staff will then begin the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. ' Mr. Hickok stated the Horsington Koegler Group was hired for the vision meeting process only. Staff is preparing a request for proposal at this time for completion of the plan. The tentative consultant start date for that is June, 1998. More public meetings will occur in late 1998 or earfy 1999. • • i � - . . • • . . . _ • • • . . ; . . Mr. Kuechle opened nommations for Chairperson of the Appeals Commission for 1998- 99. . Ms. Beaulieu nominated Mr. Kuechle for Chairperson. Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Kuechle closed the nominations for Chairperson. - - -- — -- M T N by Ms. Mau, seconded by Mr. Jones, to cast a unanimous ballot for Mr. Kuechle for Chairperson of the Appeals Commission for 1998-99. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kuechle opened nominations for Vice-Chairperson of the Appeals Commission for 1998-99. Mr. Jones nominated Ms. Mau for Vice-Chairperson. Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Kuechle closed the nominations for Vice-Chairperson. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to cast a unanimous ballot for Ms. Mau for Vice-Chairperson of the Appeals Commission for 1998-99. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Tatting provided an update on Planning Commission and City Council actions. 16.17 APPEALS COMMISSIONMEETING, MAY 13, 1998 PAGE 31 ADJOURNMENT: TI N by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Jones, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE i/OTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 13, 1998, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AD.lOURNED AT 10:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 0 , Cc-��-n•�.� �� Lavonn Cooper �' �� Recording Secretary 16.18 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRlDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/industrial PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site pian required for submittal, see attached Address: /1?cr��as �' 3 5/!',�n �-�! i4vt . �tJ�, �_d IT . �'yin/ Ss4 Property Identification Number. Legal Description: Lot �� 1 Block TractlAddition � d� iar3 �� a Sians � Current Zoning: Cor►� • Square footage/acreage: I,�J. 753 �a ,-��-. Reason fo� Variance: sc� a.tt�� .,� �h�G� Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? _. Yes � No If Yes, which city? n vmr�o� o�h� �s If Yes, what type of business? �,�,��. .='m�o;��f s�ort - Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No ✓ r= � V �I�r^��/^I^�tititi11�I��ti�/��IMYti^I��tir��I�r�ISrtirlr�ll�INAI�r�Y^I�IA�� V �Y�►I��1/� V ��I1►I�Y�IAr�I��IA/�I��Y1ItiM�V/��^I�I FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: /)'Icnar�� '�c. • A�f/n : �S�cven �3G.rr�t� ADDRESS: 777 �lenc✓d, �� .� C u�►%e 3''�703 DAYTIME PHONE: 71S�87b-�S10 IGNATURE/DATE: `' 15 PETITIONER INFORMATION - - N/'UYIE. .� SLawG. 0.9 c`�DC�IG �' . _ ,;> ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE: ��..,...��..��.r.,.�_��..__��.�.�......��..�.,:........,��.,....��..:.,.� Section of City Code: a�`� • I! FEES � Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or gns ✓ . Fee: $60.00 for residential roperties: eceipt #: �9a� Received By: M'lication Number: '� � /� Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: t�A� �3 t9 Scheduled City Council Date: �3'�h� P� ,► � - 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: c>___^____ ATr l Z7� /91 � 60 Day Date: � 1�� l`la $ 16.19 - c�1.gt � � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF �oF JUNE 8,1998 FRIDLEY � p , r. City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager FROM: John G. Flora�blic Works Director DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: TH 65/Lake Pointe/I-694 Contract Award PW98 Three bids were received for the TH 65/Lake Pointe/I-694 improvement project on May 28, 1998. P.C.I. was the low bidder at $4,626,151.15. In order to proceed with the improvement project, the State requires the City Council to approve the award of the project. The attached resolution satisfies that requirement. Recommend that the City Council approve the attached resolution recommending the award of the project to P.C.I., in the amount of $4,626,151.15. JGF:rsc � , ; i RESOLUTION NO. - 1998 RESOLUTION RECOI��NDING AWARD OF TH 65/I-695/CSAH 35 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (S.P. 0207-66, 127-010-13, 127-315-05, 02-635-06, 127-029-19) WHEREAS, bids for the improvement of TH65 from 53rd Avenue north to the Lake Pointe intersection were opened on May 28, 1998, and WHEREAS, bids were received from P.C.I., Shafer Construction, and C.S. McCrossan, and WHEREAS, P.C.I. appeared to submit the lowest bid at $4,626,151.15, and, WHEREAS, the bids were reviewed by MnDOT, and WHEREAS, it appears to be a benefit of the City and the State to improve this section of TH 65. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the �ity Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, recommends that the Commissioner of Transportation, as an agent for the City, award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, P.C.I., at the submitted cost of $4,626,151.15. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1998. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK �I NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR I .J . � ¢ , � City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager `� � PW98-119 � FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the TH 65/Lake Pointe/I-694 Intersection Improvement Project The attached agreement with MnDOT provides for reimbursement of $318,530 in design costs to the City for the Lake Pointe intersection project. This is the portion of the project attributable to the Staxe's project components. The agreement also establishes that MnDOT will advertise, award bids, and generally supervise all aspects of construction for the intersection project. Finally, the agreement establishes that we approve the project as designed and authorize its execution. - JGF:WWB:rsc Attachment a � RESOLUTION NO. - 1998 RESOLtJTION APPROVING THE AGREEM$NT �ITH TH}3 MINNLSOTA D$PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NO. 77381 IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Fridley enter into MnfDOT Agreement No. 77381 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the design costs for the Trunk Highway No. 65 construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 65 from 53rd Avenue Northeast to Lake Pointe Drive within the corporate City limits under State Projects No. 0207-66 and No. 127-010-13 (T.H. 65- 005) . IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1998. NANCY J. JORGENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 4 � DESIGN STATE OF MINNESOTA SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and The City of Fridlev Re: State design cost by the City on T.H. 65 from 53rd to Lake Pointe Drive • Mn/DOT AGREEMENT NO. 77381 S.P. q207-66 (T.H. 65=005) S.P. 127-010-13 (T.H. 65) Fed. Proj. STP 0299(025) ORIGINAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED __ .,,� �� Mn/DOT Accounting Information: VmdorNumbm Fi+call'eu: ABm�Y' T—'�9 Fund: Org/Sub: Appr. Amount: Contract: Number/Date/Entry Initials Order: Budget Office: Number/Date/Signatures (Individual signing ceRiftes that junds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat § 16A.15.J (Authorized Signature) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State", acting by and through its "Commissioner��, and the City of Fridley, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City". 1 77381 WHEREAS plans designated as State Projects No. 0207-66 (T.H. 65=005), No. 127-010-13, No. 02-635-06, No. 127-020-19 and No. 127-315-05 and in the records of the Federal Highway Administration as Minnesota Project No. STP 0299(025) have been prepared for grading, surfacing, storm sewer, curb and gutter and traffic signals construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 65 from 53rd Avenue Northeast to Lake Pointe Drive within the corporate City limits; and WHEREAS the project is a local design and federal aid construction project with involvement by the State on Trunk Highway No. 65; and WHEREAS the State has agreed to participate in the Trunk Highway No. 65 design costs; and WHEREAS payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the design costs incurred by the City in connection with the contract construction shall be made in lump sum payment as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS the City has requested the Commissioner to act as its agent in contracting for, constructing and accepting Federal-aid funds made available for the contract construction; and WHEREAS the State has agreed to perform the construction engineering on the project; and WHEREAS an existing State Aid agency agreement between the City and the Commissioner provides for the Commissioner to accept both City and associated Federal-aid funds made available for the contract construction; and WHEREAS Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2(1996) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements 2 � 77381 with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - AGENCY APPOINTMENT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.38 (1996), the City does hereby appoint the Commissioner to act as its agent to let a contract pursuant to law for the contract construction to be performed under State Projects No. 0207-66 (T.H. 65=005) et-al. The Commissioner hereby accepts the foregoing agency appointment by the City. ARTICLE II - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATE Section A. Contract Advertising, Letting and Award The State shall advertise for bids, let a contract and award same to the lowest responsible bidder, and administer and manage the construction contract in accordance with plans, specifications and/or special provisions designated as State Projects No. 0207-66 (T.H. 65=005), No. 127-010-13, No. 02-635-06, No. 127-020-19 and No. 127-315-OS which are on file in the office of the City Engineer at Fridley, Minnesota, and in the office of the Commissioner at St. Paul, Minnesota, and are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. In the letting of the construction contract, the following procedures shall be followed, to-wit: The State shall cause the advertisements calling for bids on the construction contract to be published in the Construction Bulletin and shall cause advertisements for bids to be published in the officially designated newspaper of the City. The advertisement or call for bids shall specify that sealed proposals or bids will be 3 77381 received by the appropriate City official on behalf of the Commissioner as agent of the City. Proposals, plans and/or specifications shall be available for inspection by the perspective bidders at the office of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, and at the office of the City Engineer, and the advertisement shall so state. The bids received in response to the advertisements for bids shall be opened for and on behalf of the Commissioner by the State's Metropolitan Division Engineer at Roseville or his authorized representative. After the bids have been opened, the City Council shall first consider same and thereupon transmit to the State all bids received together with its recommendation that either the lowest bid submitted by a responsible bidder be accepted or that all bids be rejected. Upon receipt of all of the bids, the State shall tabulate all of the bids'in accordance with law and shall thereupon determine who is the lowest responsible bidder and shall either award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder or reject all bids. If all bids are rejected, the State may readvertise and award a construction contract for the construction as provided in this Agreement. Section B. Direction, Supervision and Engineering of Construction The State shall direct and supervise all construction activities performed under the construction contract, and, except as provided in Article II hereunder, perform all construction engineering and inspection functions in connection with the contract construction. All contract construction shall be performed in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and/or special provisions. Section C. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc. The State shall make changes in the plans and/or contract construction, which may include the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement, and shall enter into any necessary addenda, change orders and/or supplemental agreements with 4 � � 77381 the State's contractor which are necessary to cause the contract construction to be performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. However, the State's Metropolitan Division Engineer at Roseville or his authorized representative will inform the appropriate City official of any proposed addenda, change orders and/or supplemental agreements to the construction contract which will affect the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. Se^*ion D Pa�nnent of Construction Costs to State's Contractor The State shall pay the final amount due the State's contractor for the construction performed upon completion and acceptance of all of the contract construction. Gp�+-ion E Satisfactorv Completion of Contract . The State shall perform all other acts and functions necessary•to cause the contract construction to be completed in a satisfactory manner. The decisions of the State on the matters set forth herein shall be final, binding and conclusive on the parties hereto. Sea�ion F. Settlements of Claims All liquidated damages assessed the State's contractor in connection with the construction contract shall result in a credit shared by the State and the City in the same proportion as their total construction cost share covered under this Agreement is to the total contract construction cost before any deduction for liquidated damages. �,RTICLE III - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY Sect�Qn A Right-of-Way Easements and Permits • The City shall, without cost or expense to the State, obtain all rights-of-way, easements, construction permits and/or any other permits and sanctions that may be required in connection with the contract construction. Prior to advance payment by the State, the City shall furnish the State with certified copies of the documents for those rights-of-way and easements, and certified copies of those 5 77381 construction permits and/or other permits and sanctions required for the contract construction. Section B. Addenda, Chanqe Orders and Supplemental Agreements The City shall share in the costs of construction contract addenda, change orders and/or supplemental agreements which are necessary to complete the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. - . -.- . . -. _ - . . _ _.� When the contractor has completed the contract construction, the City shall inspect same and upon the completion of the inspection advise the State whether or not the construction performed should be, by the Commissioner as*its agent, accepted as being performed in a satisfactory manner. If the City should, after the inspection, recommend to the State that it should not accept the construction, then the City shall, at the time such recommendation is made, specify in particularity the defects in the construction and the reasons why the construction should not be accepted. Any recommendations made by the City are not binding on the State. The State shall have the right to determine whether or not the construction has been acceptably performed and the right to accept or reject the contract construction. ARTICLE IV - PAYMENT BY THE STATE The State shall advance to the City, as the State's full and complete share of the design costs performed on Trunk Highway No. 65 from 53rd Avenue Northeast to Lake Pointe Drive within the corporate City limits under State Projects No. 0207-66 (T.H. 65=005) and No. 127-010-13, a lump sum in the amount of $318,530.00 The State shall advance to the City the lump sum amount after the following conditions have been met: � � � 77381 A. Encumbrance by the State of the State's full and complete lump sum cost share. B. Receipt by the State from the City of certified documentation for all of the right-of-way and easement acquisition required for the contract construction, and the approval of that documentation by the State's Land Management Director at St. Paul. C. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's transmittal of same to the City. D. Receipt by the State of a written request from the City for the advancement of funds. . ,�RTICLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS Gp�}��n A Replacement of Castings The City shall furnish the State's contractor with new castings and/or parts for all inplace City-owned facilities constructed hereunder when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State or the State's contractor, except for replacement of castings and/or parts broken or damaged by the State's contractor. Section B Termination of Commissioner's A�pointment as Agent Upon satisfactory completion of the contract construction to be performed hereunder and upon acceptance by the State thereof, the Commissioner's appointment as agent for the City as set forth in Article I of this Agreement shall be terminated. Section C Maintenance by the CitX Upon�satisfactory completion of Lake Pointe Drive, Central Avenue, Hackman Avenue and Moore Lake Drive construction to be performed under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the roadways and all of the facilities a part 7 77381 thereof, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, resurfacing and/or seal coating and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the roadways in a safe and usable condition. Upon satisfactory completion of the storm sewer facilities outside of the Trunk Highway rights-of-way, the City shall provide for the , proper maintenance of those facilities, without cost or expense to the State. Upon satisfactory completion of the brick and concrete walkways construction to be performed under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the walkways, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, snow, ice and debris removal and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the walkways in a safe and usable condition. Section D. Additional Drainage Neither party to this Agreement shall drain any additional drainage into the storm sewer facilities to be constructed under the construction contract, that was not included in the drainage for which the storm sewer facilities were designed, without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. The drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities constructed under the construction contract are shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT "Drainage Area", which is on file in the office of the State's Division Hydraulics Engineer at Golden Valley and is made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. Section E. Examination of Booka, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16B.06, subdivision 4 (1996), the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and : 77381 practices of the State and the City relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the State and the City, and either the legislative auditor or the State auditor as appropriate. Section F. Claims All employees of the City and all other persons employed by the City in the performance of any maintenance covered under this Agreement shall not be considered employees of the State. All claims that arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the employees while so engaged and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the employees while so engaged on maintenance covered under this Agreement shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the State. , All employees of the State and all other persons employed by the State in the performance of construction engineering and/or maintenance work or services covered under this Agreement shall not be considered employees of the City. All claims that arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the employees while so engaged and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the employees while so engaged on construction engineering and/or maintenance covered under this Agreement shall in no way be t.he obligation or responsibility of the City. Section G. Agreement Approval Before this Agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved by a resolution of the City Council and receive approval of State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner or his authorized representative. �� 1!�!z • � � sl! 77381 The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek, Municipal/Utility Agreements Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612} 296-0969. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is John Flora, City Engineer, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 6431 University Avenue Northeast, Fridley, Minnesota 55432, (612) 571-3450. ��, � � 77381 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. � �.� ti�r �i� • i�_� ' � � • � - . - •-. . _.. • By ivision ngineer Approved: By a e esign ngineer Date • •� •-�! � L=- Approved as to form and execution: By ssis an orney enera s ; � By ayor Date By (Title and Date) ' �� _�t� �i� z��r__ s _ �z •� By Date �+�� State of Minnesota County of Anoka This Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 1998, by and � (Name) , the Mayor and (Name) (Tit e) of the City of Fridley, and they executed this Agreement on behalf of the municipality intending to be bound thereby. Notary Public � ,��,.�1� My Cammission Expires � �SF' 11 � A� t�,�,�er��„y Sc ci W�ICr f'arks Streets rA.,inten.�ncv City of Fridley 1� TO: William W. Burns, City Manager � PW98-120 FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Resolution for Maintenance of Signals on TH 65 Improvement Project The Minnesota Department of Transportation has provided four copies of an agreement dealing with the signal improvements on the TH 65/Lake Pointe/I-694 improvement project. This agreement is executed between the City, the County, and MnI)OT, and provides for the furnishing of materials as well as the future maintenance responsibilities for the signals at 53'�, I-694, and CSAH 35. Routinely, the City's costs include power, lamping, and painting.. This agreement also includes the installation of emergency vehicle preemption and internally illuminated street name signs. Costs associated with the installation for the City's portion of the work are covered by MSAS funds. � Recommend the City Council adopt the attachec� resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Agreement No. 77548 for traffic control signals on the Highway 65 improvement project. JGF: WWB:rsc Attachment RBSOLIITION NO. - 1998 RSSOLUTION APPROVING A SIGNAL AGR$SMENT WITH TH13 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR IIPGRAD$S ON TRONK HIGIi�PAY 65 AT 53R' AVENOL, I-694 AND C.S.A.H. 35 BE IF RESOLVED that the City of Fridley enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at 53rd Avenue northeast; ;install new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at Trunk Highway No. 694 South Ramps and at Trunk Highway No. 694 North Ramps; and remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 353 (Central Avenue) - Lake Pointe Drive in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 77548, a copy of which was before the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, are authorized to execute the Agreement. • PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1998. NANCY J. JORGENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK � MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 77548 BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COUNTY OF ANOKA AND THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TO Revise the existing Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption, Interconnect and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at 53rd Avenue Northeast; Install new Traffic Control Signals with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption, Interconnect and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at Trunk Highway No. 694 South Ramps and at Trunk Highway No. 694 North Ramps; and Remove the existing Traffic Control Signal and Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption, Interconnect and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Central Avenue) - Lake Point Drive in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. S.P. 0207-66 S.P. 02-635-06, 127-010-13, 127-020-19 and 127-315-05 F.P. STP 0299 (025) Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE Citv of Fridlev S 7,500.00 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED None Otherwise Covered THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State", and the County of Anoka, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Fridley, hereinafter referred to as the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 (1994) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system; and WHEREAS, it is justified and considered mutually desirable to revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at 53rd Avenue Northeast; install new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at Trunk Highway No. 694 South Ramps and at Trunk Highway No. 694 North Ramps; and remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Central Avenue) - Lake Point Drive; and 77548 -1- � WHEREAS, the City requests and the State agrees to the installation of Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Systems hereinafter referred to as the "EVP Systems", as a part of the new traffic control signal installations on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at Trunk Highway No. 694 South and North Ramps and on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Central Avenue) - Lake Point Drive and in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, it is considered in the public's best interest for the State to provide three (3) new cabinets and controllers for said new traffic control signals. Such materials as described immediately above shall hereinafter be referred to as "State furnished materials"; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the new and revised traffic control signals with street lights, EVP Systems, interconnect and signing work is eligible for 80 percent Federal-aid Surface Transportation Program Funds; and WHEREAS, a contract for the construction of all of the facilities contained in the aforesaid City plans will be advertised, awarded, administered, supervised and directed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in an existing "Agency Agreement" between the City and the Commissioner of 77548 -2- Transportation which "Agency Agreement" also provides for the said Commissioner to act as agent for the City for the acceptance and the receipt of all Federal funds made available for City projects; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said "Agency Agreement" the said Commissioner will, among other things, administer the contract for the construction set forth in the aforesaid City plans and in conjunction therewith make payments to the Contractor; and WHEREAS, the County, City and the State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the new and revised traffic control signals with street lights, EVP Systems, interconnect and signing as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City shall prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal which shall constitute "Preliminary Engineering". The State shall perform the construction inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set forth, which shall constitute "Engineering and Inspection". 2. The City with its own forces and equipment or by contract shall revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, EVP System, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at 53rd Avenue Northeast [System "A"]; install new traffic control signals with street 77548 -3- � lights, EVP Systems, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at Trunk Highway No. 694 South Ramps [System "B"] and at Trunk Highway No. 694 North Ramps [System "C"]; and remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, EVP System, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Central Avenue) - Lake Point Drive [System "D"] in accordance with the plan and specifications for State Project No. 0207-66, State Project No.'s 02-635-06, 127-010-13, 127-020-19 and 127-315-OS and Federal-aid Project No. STP 0299 (025). The existing "Agency Agreement" provides for payment of all funds for the traffic control signal work stated above. 3. The State will furnish to the City the State furnished materials to be installed with the City work provided in Paragraph 2. Estimated cost for State furnished materials (Systems "B" and "C") is $30,000.00. State's share is 100 percent. Estimated cost for State furnished �naterials (System "D") is $15,000.00. State's share is 50 percent. City's share is. 50 percent. 4. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in writing by the State, the City shall advance to the State an amount equal to its portion of the costs as specified in 77548 -4- Paragraph 3. The City's costs shall be based on the estimated costs for State furnished materials. 5.` Upon compilation of the actual costs for State furnished materials, the amount of the funds advanced by the City in excess of the City's share will be returned to the City without interest and the City agrees to pay to the State that amount of its share which is in excess of the amount of the funds advanced by�the City. 6. The cost to the State for administering the contract and for performing the Engineering and Inspection, and the cost to the City for performing the Preliminary Engineering for the work provided for in Paragraph 2 are considered equal in value and n� charges will be made by either party to the other therefore 7. The City shall provide and/or perpetuate an adequate electrical power supply to the service pads or poles, and upon completion of said new and revised traffic control signals with street lights installations (Systems "A", "B", "C" and "D") shall provide and/or continue to provide necessary electrical power for their operation at the cost and expense of the City. 8. Upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 2(Systems "A", "B" and "C") hereof, it shall be the 77548 -5- City's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; (2) relamp the new and revised traffic control signals and street lights; and (3) clean and paint the new and revised traffic control signals, cabinets and luminaire mast arm extensions. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the signing and interconnect and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 9. Upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 2(System "D") hereof, the responsibility for the new traffic control signal is as follows: a) It shall be the County's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to: (1) relamp the new traffic control signal; and (2) clean and paint the new traffic control signal and cabinet; b) It shall be the City's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to: (1) clean and paint the luminaire mast arm extensions; (2) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; and (3) relamp the street lights; and c) It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the signing and interconnect and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 77548 -6- 10. The EVP Systems provided for in Paragraph 2 (Systems "A", "B", "C" and "D") hereof shall be installed, operated, maintained, or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: a. All maintenance of the EVP Systems shall be done by State forces. b. Emitter units may be installed and used only on vehicles responding to an emergency as defin�d in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169.01, Subdivision 5 and 169.03. The City will provide the State's Assistant Division Engineer or his duly appointed representative a list of all such vehicles with emitter units. c. Malfunction of the EVP Systems shall be reported to the State immediately. d. In the event said EVP Systems or components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after receipt by the City of written notice thereof from the State, the State shall remove the EVP 77548 -7- Systems. Upon removal of the EVP Systems pursuant to this Paragraph, the field wiring, cabinet wiring, detector receivers, infrared detector heads and indicator lamps and all other components shall become the property of the City. e. All timing of said EVP Systems shall be determined by the State through its Commissioner of Transportation. 11. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County or State and any and all claims that may or might ari�e under the Worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any fourth party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility of the County or State. The City shall not be responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees of the County or State. 12. Al1 timing of the new and revised traffic control signals provided for herein shall be determined by the State, 77548 -8- through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except with the approval of the State. 13: Upon execution and approval by the County, the City and the State and completion of the construction work provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate the operation and maintenance terms of Agreement No. 68243, for the intersection of Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at 53rd Avenue Northeast, dated June 24, 1991, between the City and the State and the City of Columbia Heights and the City of Hilltop. 14. Upon execution and approval by the County, the City and the State and completion of the construction work provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate the operation and maintenance terms of Agreement No. 64319, for the intersection of Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue} - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Central Avenue) - Lake Point Drive, dated November 2, 1987, between the City and the State. 77548 -9- APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: County Highway Engineer COUNTY OF ANOKA By Chairman of the Board Date By Title Date State of Minnesota County of Anoka This Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of 1998, by and , (Name) , the Chairman of the Board and (Name) of the County of Anoka. (Title) Notary Public My Commission Expires 77548 -10- APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney State of Minnesota County of Anoka CITY OF FRIDLEY By Mayor Date By Title Date This Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of 1998, by and , (Name) , the Mayor and (Name) of the City of Fridley. Notary Public My Commission Expires 77548 -11- (Title) STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Assistant Division Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: Assistant Attorney General State of Minnesota 77548 -12- 0 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By Assistant Commissioner Dated DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION By Dated 0 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Anoka enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at 53rd Avenue Northeast; install new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at Trunk Highway No. 694 South Ramps and at Trunk Highway No. 694 North Ramps; and remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Central Avenue) - Lake Point Drive in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 77548, a copy of which was before the Board. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board and the are authorized to execute the Agreement. (Title) CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Anoka City of Fridley I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Board of the County of Anoka at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 1998, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Notary Public My Commission Expires (Signature) (Title) RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To revise the existing traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at 53rd Avenue Northeast; install new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) at Trunk Highway No. 694 South Ramps and at Trunk Highway No. 694 North Ramps; and remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 65 (Central Avenue) - Trunk Highway No. 65 at County State Aid Highway No. 35 (Central Avenue) - Lake Point Drive in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 77548, a copy of which was before the Council. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the are authorized to execute the Agreement. CERTIFICATION ' State of Minnesota County of Anoka City of Fridley (Title? I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Fridley at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 1998, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. (Signature) Notary Public (Title) My Commission Expires City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ��" PW98-123 � FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director Jon H. Hauka�,�Assistant Public Works Director DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Central Avenue Improvement Project No. ST. 1998 - 4 The County is preparing to upgrade Central Avenue from Osborne Road to Rice Creek. In that process, they will be installing concrete curb and gutter, storm water improvements, and a bituminous path on the west side of the road. It is estimated that the City's cost for the improvement will be approximately $265,000 including engineering costs associated with this project. The attached resolution requests State Aid Off- System funding for the Anoka County Central Avenue improvement proj ect. The Mn/DOT State Aid office has approved the plans as 100% State Aid reimbursable. Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution requesting Off-System Municipal State Aid Funds for County State Aid Highway (CSAI� 35, Central Avenue, Osbome Road to Rice Creek. The public hearing for this project was conducted on Monday, May 18, 1998. When the plans for the improvement have been received, we will present them to the Council for approval and execute a Joint Powers Agreement with the County. JHI3/JGF:cz Attachment R$SOLUTION NO. - 1998 RESOLIITION AIITHORIZING MIINICIPAL STAT$ AID FIINDS TO COUNTY STAT$ AID HIGHFiAY (C.S.A.H. 35) C$NTRAL AVEN[JS - OSBORNE ROAD TO RICL CRE$K (SAP 02-635-00) (SAP 127-020-21) wHEREAS, It has been deemed advisable and necessary for Anoka County to reconstruct the surface of Old Central Avenue between Osborne Road and Rice Creek including grading, Class V, bituminous, concrete curb and gutter, channelization, storm sewer drainage, bituminous bike path and miscellaneous improvements, and WHEREAS, the City is requesting off-system MSAS funds for the City's participating cost in the amount of $265,000, and WHEREAS, said improvement project includes bituminous bikeway/walkway and storm sewer on the west side from Osborne Road to Rice Creek, and WHEREAS, said construction project is being submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Office and identified in its records as S.A.P. 127-020-21. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, that an appropriation from the Municipal State Aid Funds in the amount of $265,000 be made to apply to the construction and engineering of said improvement (S.A.P. 127-020-21) and request the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to approve this additional appropriation. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1998. NANCY J. JORGENSON, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK RSSOLUTION NO. - 1998 A RLSOLIITION OF THF3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNgSOTA, AUTHORIZING TH8 ACQUISITION OF AN EIrIlrlINENT DOMANIAN PROCSBDING TO ACQUIRB FS$ SIMPLB WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fridley has determined that there is a need to reconstruct 57`h Avenue from University Avenue to Main Street; and WHEREAS, a traffic study dated March 1997, prepared by BRW Inc. documents the need for reconstructing 57`h Avenue; and WHEREAS, the traffic study determined that there was a need to create additional�right-of-way for travel lanes and turning lanes as well as a need to reduce access points to 57"` Avenue; and ' WHEREAS, the City and the Fridley Housing Redevelopment Authority typically make other streetscape improvements as part of its street improvement projects; and WHEREAS, typical streetscape improvements are proposed including decorative street lights, landscaping, concrete pavers, and decorative fencing; and WHEREAS, the Council believes the acquisition of the property described in Exhibit A is reasonably necessary for the completion of the 57`" Avenue reconstruction Project No. St-1997-4; and WHEREAS, the City has been unable to negotiate the acquisition of the described property in exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the acquisition of said land by eminent dominion pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,.Chapter 117; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Attorney is requested to file the necessary petition therefore and to prosecute such action to a successful conclusion or until it is abandoned, dismissed or terminated by the City Council or the court. PASS$D AND ADOPTSD BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 8TH DAY OF JUN$, 1998. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A CATTLE COMPANY A Permanent Easement for Highway purposes over, under and across the North 3.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, HOLIDAY NORTH 1ST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. Hardee's Restaurant A Permanent Easement for Highway purposes over, under and across the South 14.20 feet of Lots 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and the West 25 feet of Lot 13, Block 7, CITY VIEW, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. 8partment Building A Permanent Easement for Highway purposes over, under and across that part of Lots 3,4 and 5, Block 7, CITY VIEW, according to the recorded � plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying South of a line beginning at a point of the east line of said Lot 5, distant 10.14 feet north of the southeast corner thereof; thence westerly to a point on the west line of said Lot 3, distant 7.43 feet north of the southwest corner thereof, and there terminating.