Loading...
05/22/2000 - 00008728THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 22, 2000 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: MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilmember Billings, Councilmember Bolkcom None STATEMENT OF MEETING CONDUCT: Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Wolfe, and Please be reminded that those present at today's meeting may hold a variety of views and opinions regarding the business to be conducted. The exercise of democracy through representative local government requires that ALL points of view be accommodated at these proceedings. It is further expected that a standard of mutual courtesy and respectfulness be exercised by all in attendance, through our individual expression, manner of speaking, and conduct. Therefore, please receive the views of others with the same degree of courtesy and respect in which you desire to be given your views and opinions. Any departures from this standard will be addressed by the Presiding Officer through whatever means are deemed appropriate. Thank you for your attendance at today's meeting, and your agreement to abide by these standards of personal conduct. PROCLAMATION: Public Works Week: Mav 21-27, 2000 Mayor Jorgenson proclaimed May 21 - 27 as Public Works Week in the City of Fridley, and called upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the problems involved in providing public works services, and to recognize the contributions Public Works Department personnel make every day to our health, safety, and comfort. Mr. Paul Lawrence, Superintendent of Public Works, stated he was present on behalf of the Public Works Department of Fridley. He thanked the City Council for the recognition. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 2 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: State Senator pon Betzold stated that the legislative session finished May 18. This was the second year of the biennium. There was about $529,000,000 in permanent funding that was addressed, which is less than two percent (2%) of the State's budget. They did pass a bonding bill. The Anoka-Hennepin Technical College will stay open. A transportation bill was passed which meant more money for roads. Some tax cuts such as property tax and income tax reductions were made. There is still a sales tax rebate which will be about half as much as last year's. The citizens should be aware of the one-third compromise between the House, Senate, and the Govorner. The tax bill passed by the House of Representatives had reductions in the income tax and sales tax rebate. The levy limit was also eliminated. The Governor pressed for a motor vehicle license tab reduction which was done. The Senate pressed for increased funding for education, health care and the environment. There were not a lot of issues that dealt with local government policy this year. Senator Betzold stated that he authored to Data Privacy Bill. There are a couple of provisions that deal with local government. People were sent out about two years ago to inquire about public information at various places. Generally, there was compliance, but in some instances people were being told to justify their request or were turned down. A Compliance Officer is now required for the governments to identify who the contact person should a complaint be necessary. There is a monetary penalty if the government refuses to release public data, but first someone has to file the complaint. Senator Betzold stated that bleacher standards were modified, and bars are allowed to seize the false identification of underage persons. Some major issues that did not get passed were the unicameral legislature proposal, constitutional dedication for sales tax purposes, a bill for enhancing the animal cruelty penalty did not get passed. State Senator Steve Novak stated that there were a variety of federal dollars that were not part of the one-third split. A lot went to housing. Last year was the big year in terms of the tax rebates. Education was a priority in the Senate. The levy limit policy is probably the most significant thing that affects the City. State Representative Satveer Chaudhary stated that he wished they did a little better for education. They spent most of the session rambling over exactly how much money they had. They had a$1,800,000,000 surplus but there was a lot of discussion about exactly how much they had. He took the conservative view that they only had about $579,000,000 in hand. After agreement on that, there was discussion on what to do with the money. The specific area he would like to see improvement in is education funding. He said that State Representative Alice Johnson kept fighting for more education funding. He complimented the Senate for the amount of money used for education and nursing homes. If the House and the Governor put just a fraction towards education they could have impacted a lot more schools. Many schools will be saved, but many others will have to make cuts this fall. He felt the bonding that was incurred this year was FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 3 excessive and not appropriate with the surplus. The City of Fridley came out very well as far as local projects with Medtronic, Fridley Middle School, and Fridley History Center. Mr. Chaudhary encouraged the City Council and all citizens to stay in touch. Mayor Jorgenson thanked the legislators for coming and for providing an update. She thanked them for lifting the levy limits for Minnesota cities. She also wanted to remind them that Fridley and other cities still pay sales tax on their purchases. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the proposed consent agenda with the deletion of Item No. 4. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 14 AND MAY 8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 3, 2000: RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 3, 2000. 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #00-08, BY MARGARET GRESHIK, TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OVER 240 SQUARE FEET (DETACHED GARAGE), GENERALLY LOCATED AT 121 HARTMAN CIRCLE N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the petitioner requested permission to locate a 24 foot by 30 foot accessory use structure within 9 feet from the property line. The Planning Commission gave their unanimous consent to this proposal at their May 3 meeting. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #00-08, BY MARGARET GRESHIK. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 37-2000 APPROVING A PLAT, P.S. #99-06, BY KURT MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO REPLAT PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING A PORTION OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT- FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 4 OF-WAY, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF RAIL LINE, BEHIND THE EXISTING KURT MANUFACTURING BUILDING AT 5280 MAIN STREET N.E. (WARD 3) Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the plat allows 4.5 acres of railroad property to be combined with Kurt Manufacturing property. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council approved the preliminary plat in October of 1999. Staff recommended Council's approval of the final plat. Since half of the border street is located in Fridley, the City was asked to participate financially. The City's share of this cost is estimated at $131,574. State Aid funds can be used for this purpose. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 37-2000. 4. AWARD CONTRACT FOR CITY' S ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that all six sites for the City's entry monument signs have been secured. Staff is now ready to proceed with the award of a contract for sign installation. Five bids were received for the building of six signs. After interviews with the four low bidders, staff recommended that the bid be awarded to Redwood Signs by Hornibrook from Osseo, Minnesota, at a cost of $33,660. The signs should be installed by mid-July. The total cost for this project would also include costs for landscaping and electrical work The City has pledges of $48,000 from community organizations for the signs. In September of last year Council approved expenditure of up to an additional $25,000. While staff does not yet have costs for the electrical work or the landscaping, they believed that the project could be completed within the $73,000 that Council has approved. Staff recommended that the sign contract be awarded to Redwood Signs by Hornibrook from Osseo, Minnesota at a cost of $33,660. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA UNDER NEW BUSINESS BEFORE ITEM NO. 16 FOR DISCUSSION. 5. APPOINTED BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE TO JOINT CITY TASK FORCE BETWEEN THE CITIES OF FRIDLEY AND COLUMBIA HEIGHTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the Joint Fridley/Columbia Heights Task Force was being organized to study the potential impacts and opportunities of the Medtronic World Headquarters project in Fridley. Each community will be represented by a Councilmember, a Planning Commission member, a representative from its economic development authority, and a representative from the business community. After advertising for the business community representative, a letter from Ken Schultz, CEO for Dasco Systems in Fridley, was received. Staff felt that Mr. Schultz would make an excellent representative of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 5 the business community. Staff recommended approval of Mr. Schultz's appointment to the Task Force. APPOINTED KEN SCHULTZ AS THE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE TO JOINT CITY TASK FORCE. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 38-2000 AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 1999: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that staff recommended Council approval of the budget adjustments for the fourth quarter of 1999. These are changes that have occurred as a result of unforeseen revenues and expenditures for the fourth quarter of 1999. The adjustments are for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds and Capital Project Funds. Staffrecommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 38-2000. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 39-2000 IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT FOR SPRING LAKE PARK DISTRICT 16 YOUTH HOCKEY (K.J.'S RESTAURANT AND BAR, 8298 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.) (WARD 3): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this permit would e�tend from July 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. Staffrecommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 39-2000. 8. APPROVE ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR REPLACEMENT OF BITUMINOUS BERM CURBING WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the Engineering Division staff devised the separate assessment policies for corner lots, T-shaped lots and pie shaped lots. The policy for T-shaped lots was questioned during the assessment hearings for the 1999 Riverview Heights street improvement project. The policy for T-shaped lots is in keeping with the decision reached during those hearings. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR REPLACEMENT OF BITUMINOUS BERM CURBING WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 6 9. RESOLUTION NO. 40-2000 REQUESTING DISSOLUTION OF THE MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that since the Minnesota Police Recruitment System no longer provides police recruitment services for its 36 member cities, the City is joining with other cities to dissolve the organization. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 40-2000. 10. CLAIMS: APPROVED CLAIM NUMBERS 93287 THROUGH 93406. 11. LICENSES: APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED. 12. ESTIMATES: APPROVED ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS: Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432-4381 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of February, 2000 $ 17,911.60 Ron Kassa Construction 6005 - 250th Street East Elko, MN 55020 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Repair Project No. 330 Estimate No. 2 $ 6,930.63 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the agenda with the addition of Item No. 4. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 7 OPEN FORUM,VISITORS: No persons in the audience spoke. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 13. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to waive the reading and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Bill Holm, member of the Charter Commission, stated that the first amendment was Chapter 2.06. In the fall of 1996, the Charter Commission submitted to the Council an amendment to address the issue of what to do to fill a vacancy in the event that an elected official is incapacitated by reason of serious illness, accident or whatever. Council did not approve the amendment because the language was not specific enough and did permit the City Council to perhaps have the possibility of removing a Council member for political reasons. The Charter Commission then revised language and consulted their legal counsel. The legal counsel stated it was inappropriate and violated State law. What is in the Charter is not consistent with State law in that it permits the Council to remove an elected official for failure to perform the duties of the office. The Council, according to legal counsel, does not have that authority. The amendment was redrafted and this change is minor. The Charter Commission recommended that this change be consistent with State law and be specific that an individual can only be removed because of death, resignation, continuous absence from the City for more than three month, conviction of a felony or if an elected official no longer resides in the City. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:02 P.M. 14. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CHARTER: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 8 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:02 P.M. Mr. Bill Holm, member of the Charter Commission, stated that the changes in Chapter 5 are more e�tensive. The Charter Commission has rewritten a significant portion of this chapter. We believe that the procedures for initiative, referendum, and recall need to be clarified to provide consistency between those three types of items. It also better defines the responsibilities for various parties involved in the process. The second change revolves around the recall procedures in which an elected official is recalled. Language changes that better defines the responsibility to the people who circulate the petitions, the role of the City Clerk, and once these steps need to be taken by various parties in the event that a petition does not meet the requirements specified by the Charter. The recall procedure is that the Council calls for a special election. At that recall election, voters are asked to vote yes or no on the issue of recall. They are also asked to vote for a replacement candidate in the event that the recall vote is affirmed. Mr. Lawrence stated that the Charter Commission believed that the situation was inappropriate. The Charter Commission really should separate the issue of recall from electing a replacement official. That is why the Charter Commission has changed the particular language. It is probably more efficient to do it in one election process but the voter should focus on whether the elected official has really committed malfeasance of office. Recall is not insignificant and does require the petitioner to identify reasons why the elected official has committed malfeasance in office. It is not just a case where you dislike the elected official's view on a particular issue. Beyond that they have not changed the overall requirements. It still requires for initiative a ten percent (10%) of approval of the registered voters. Referendum requires fifteen percent (15%), and recall requires twenty-five percent (25%). Councilmember Billings stated that in Section 501 the current language having to do with initiation of any ordinance except an ordinance appropriating money, and then in the referendum aspect you have stricken the words "such an" and inserted "any". He asked what the difference between the two was. Mr. Holm stated that he thought it was a matter of clarifying the language to remove those types of terms. It does not provide any meaningful difference. Councilmember Billings asked if, under the current proposal, it meant that the initiation can be used for any ordinance except appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes or in the referendum provision only applies to those same ordinances of accepting appropriating money and levying of taxes. He asked if the new language would include appropriating money or levying of taxes. Mr. Holm stated that he could not answer that question. Councilmember Billings asked how it works when two .03's are listed. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 9 Mr. Holm stated that does need to be changed. The section underlined of 5.03.3 should be stricken out. Councilmember Billings stated that on page 5 section 5.07, the first line says "When the completed petition is found to be sufficient the City Clerk shall certify transmit the initiative petition to the Council." He asked if the intent was to strike "certify"? Mr. Holm stated that was the intent. Councilmember Billings stated that on the top of page 6 the last three sentences of 5.10 is all stricken but six words are underlined as well. Mr. Holm stated that entire section should be stricken. Mr. Burns stated that section 5.14 deals with the same subject. Mr. Holm stated that it does. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Knaak if typographical areas result in giving the City Council the authority to amend what the Charter Commission is presenting or are they required to vote up or down on what is being presented. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that these are typographical errors, and Council is not, in effect, changing anything. Typographical errors are not deemed to be substantive. Using the word "any" as opposed to "such an" you are in fact using consistent language considered to be better drafting. Councilmember Billings stated that after the first use of the wording there is an exception which does not e�st the second time, whereas "such an" refers directly to the above any ordinance. It also refers to the exception whereas the uses of the word "any" does not refer to the exception. Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings stated that it is changing the language because it is removing the exception for appropriating money and authorizing the levy of taxes that was previously accepted. Mr. Knaak stated that it was referring to the same "any" ordinances previously referred to. It is consistently using the previous language "any" ordinance and intending to apply it to all ordinances. Councilmember Billings stated that the difference is that there is a semi-colon. When you use the "such an" you definitely have to look to find out what it refers to but after the semi-colon to require any ordinance brings it back to the original ordinance prior to the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 10 exception. He asked if they were talking about two or three different things. He also asked if there was any conflict with State law. Mr. Knaak stated that he does not know that there is a conflict with State law. He reads that as being consistent with his previous reading and it was intended to clarify that. Councilmember Billings stated that there are three things intended to be talked about in this particular paragraph. The new language states that any kind of ordinance can be initiated as long as it does not appropriate money or levy taxes. His interpretation of the old language is that any ordinance accept appropriating of money or levying of taxes can be sent to the electorate for approval or disapproval. If his two readings of the old and new language are correct interpretations they may be perpetuating the ambiguity that is there or creating a new ambiguity. Mr. Holm stated that was not their intent. Councilmember Billings stated that the Charter is a constitution of the City of Fridley. The Charter Commission has been trying to go through and clean up some passive language that is there. The Charter Commission does not take their task lightly and any changes that they recommend need to add to have a zero vote of Council. Mr. Holm stated that they sometimes miss things. If this is an issue of concern to Council then they will have specific information to take back. Councilmember Billings stated that maybe all it takes is an interpretation of one attorney or something in the record that indicates this does not change it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would make sense to close the public hearing and have the Commission go back and look at some of the language that Councilmember Billings brought up and to continue the hearing. Mr. Knaak stated that they could continue it. This does not need a certain period of time. That particular provision is not intended to modify the e�sting authority. Councilmember Billings correctly stated that three things are provided for. The first is the right of the citizens to initiate on their own ordinances through petition. The only kind of ordinance they cannot initiate is the one that is accepted which is the ordinance appropriating money or authorizing a levy. The second point is that the citizens can use the process to review any ordinance that Council passes. The third course is a major recall. What is being proposed here is a clarification and not a substantive change. Councilmember Billings asked if he meant that right now before the language is changed, the referendum does apply to any ordinance including ordinances appropriating money and ordinances that levy taxes in terms of what the citizens could initiate that they have already passed. Mr. Knaak stated that was correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 11 Councilmember Billings asked if they were adding anything. Mr. Knaak stated that it is a clarification. Mayor 7orgenson asked Mr. Holm if he would like the public hearing to continue until the summer or early fall. Councilmember Billings stated that he understands that these are typographical errors and the only problem possibly e�sting is that they would be renumbering 3,4,5, and 6 in section 5.03 and they may need to make a change in the referencing. He would not have any problem voting in favor of the changes recommended by the Charter Commission. Mr. Knaak stated that they could insist that it be published with the typographical errors deleted as long as they are not substantive in character. Councilmember Billings stated that this could be checked by staff quite readily in the ne�t two weeks. He said he would not have a problem with voting on this. Councilmember Barnette asked if they could voluntarily withdraw it and present it at a later date. Mr. Pribyl stated that this is a public hearing. He does not think there would be a problem closing the public hearing and bringing it back to Council as a first reading and second reading with the language cleared up at both of those points. Mr. Holm stated that they have no problem with correcting the typographical errors. The issue is that word "any" and how that is used. If it requires additional discussion by the Council then it has to go back to the Charter Commission for further consideration. Councilmember Billings stated that the ordinance as it reads now does not create a change. He said he did not have a problem with the word "any". Mr. Holm stated that they would be glad to work with staff to correct typographical errors and have it ready for the ne�t time. Mayor Jorgenson asked if they wanted them to close the public hearing and for the first reading include the clarification and renumbering. Mr. Holm stated that was correct. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 12 Mayor Jorgenson stated that the Charter Commission had five vacancies. If residents develop an interest in serving on the Charter Commission they should feel free to send in a letter stating the intent to service and send it to the attention of Rick Pribyl at the Municipal Center. Councilmember Billings stated that there is a change in policy and procedure in setting the dates for the special election. It has been moved from a range of 30 - 45 days to 49 - 60 days. Mr. Holm stated that the City Clerk advised them that would be consistent with current State law. 15. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #00-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, INTENDED TO MINIMIZE LOSS OF URBAN FOREST BY REQUIRING TREE PRESERVATION PLANS AS PART OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to open the public hearing and waive the reading. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:37 P.M. Ms. Julie Jones, Planning Assistant, stated that this issue came about last year in relation to the plat review for the Gardena-Benjamin property. The City Council asked staff to investigate the degree of tree loss occurring in subdivisions in the City and study tree preservation ordinances and activity in other communities around us. Staff discovered there are some tree preservation requirements in our existing code. One way is to preserve trees by protecting trees through disease control. There are also tree preservation requirements regarding trees that are on City property. In the zoning ordinance, landscaping requirements address all types of property except R-1, single family residential. Ms. Jones stated that the potential through the GIS mapping research is that there are 700 parcels in the City that could divide and meet setback requirements. There has been an average of about three significant trees per parcel being removed. The applicants have contested replacing the trees. Trees are noise and visual buffers. Trees bring new carbon dio�de to produce o�ygen and provide shade. Planted east and west of a home trees can cut cooling costs by fifteen to thirty-five percent (15-35%). Trees can also provide windbreaks to lower home heating bills by ten to twenty percent (10-20%). Trees shade the concrete and help cool the entire neighborhood. Trees increase property value as much as fifteen percent (15%) or more. Trees support many generations of birds and other wildlife. If thirty percent (30%) of the skyline in an average city is covered by tree canopy, the flow of storm water can be reduced by fourteen percent (14%) so there are also many flood control and water quality benefits. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 13 Ms. Jones stated that mature forests can reduce forty to si�ty percent (40-60%) the amount of water flowing to streams and use nitrates and phosphorus for nutrients preventing them from flowing into a river. Trees are critical for protecting wetlands to dramatically reduce flood levels. The Environmental Quality and Energy Commission was the first committee to review staff's recommendations. They agree with staff that the subdivision applications are the most appropriate place to address tree preservation requirements in the City Code. They felt strongly that the City should not monitor existing residential property in regards to tree removal and replacement. They felt that most property owners are aware of the value of trees on properties and do not remove them without good reason. They also have concerns that if the City were to monitor every tree removed, there would be tremendous staff cost. They would like the City to place efforts to education about trees and providing possible reduced cost tree opportunities for replacing trees that are lost due to storm damage or whatever. In 2001, the Community Development Department would like to conduct a tree sale with reduced cost. Ms. Rosie Griep, Public Safety Projects Coordinator, is also working hard in this effort as part of the Project Impact. Ms. Jones stated that the Planning Commission agreed with the passage of the language. Their concerns were that they wanted staff to reconsider the possibility of including the tree preservation section of the City code and the possibility of a subdivision applicant clearcutting the property and then coming in to apply for a subdivision. Staff's recommendations are to protect significant trees by requiring replacement of four-inch diameter deciduous type trees through the subdivision process. The zoning te�t amendments proposed would require a tree preservation plan prepared by a qualified professional. If significant trees are present, it would require a forestation plan to reduce the impact to significant trees. It would require replacement of each significant tree removed with three trees per parcel. The City would maintain the right to require more than three new replacement trees on larger than average parcels. It would require replacement of the trees in one year of the building permit issuance. Stipulations would be applied on the application if trees were removed knowingly by staff prior to the applicant coming in for a subdivision. The benefits to the zoning te�t amendments are that they address the concerns protecting adjoining property values, allow staffto treat all subdivision applicants consistently, address the problem of tree replacement up front so the cost can be incorporated into the resale of the property, and it formalizes the procedure so that staff can apply stipulations. Staff recommended Council's approval. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Ms. 7ones for more information about other city's tree preservation ordinances. Ms. Jones stated that they did receive many copies of other city's tree preservation ordinances. Blaine's tree preservation ordinance applies to all properties in the city. Blaine admitted that they are in serious trouble in keeping up with monitoring all properties, which is why Fridley strayed away from that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Fridley is basically looking at subdivisions, not residential. Some of her colleagues say that that we are infringing on private rights. The FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 14 City is, but in a sense with subdivisions, we are talking about developers. This will not prevent clearcutting a subdivision, but the City can apply stipulations to the application for a subdivision. Councilmember Barnette stated that he does not like this at all. There are heavily wooded lots in Blaine. Two of his friends had to clear some trees to put their houses in. They had to plant five trees. It does not make a lot of sense. That is an infringement on them. He does not think people will clearcut trees on beautiful heavily wooded lots to build houses. Councilmember Wolfe stated that he agreed with Councilmember Barnette. He could not imagine anyone owning a house without trees on the lot. The issue with the Benjamin Street-Gardena Avenue plat was that the neighbors wanted to keep the trees. He did not feel that the City has the right. Businesses are different because they do not need trees around their property to make it more valuable. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that there are a lot of neighborhoods in the suburbs that have tiny trees in the front yard, and everything has been clearcut. It would be different if there were tons of property with tons of trees. Fridley does not have that. If her neighbor cut down a bunch of trees to subdivide it and sell, it would change the nature of the neighborhood. When a property is subdivided, Council has to look at what is there and the preservation of how it used to be. This is not much different from other communities who want to do this. Councilmember Wolfe stated that the trees that are replanted where many trees are cut down are going to grow. It is very expensive to drop full trees, and some people have to cut down trees to build their house. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the zoning te�t amendment is not saying that they have to. The issue behind it is that they need to work with staff when replanting and cutting trees down. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the City just put a tremendous investment in the Riverview Heights area to deal with flood water. The mature trees help maintain the storm water system. This issue is not all aesthetics. Council needs to be able to look at what makes sense for a neighborhood and watershed district. Councilmember Barnette stated that both the Riverwood School and Rice Creek School properties were basically clear land. Both those schools were removed and sold for lots. If you drive through there today, it really looks nice with a lot of mature trees planted by all the residents. People left alone will do that. He asked if this ordinance would require a person to plant three trees on a single lot where people would want to build. Ms. Jones stated that this only applies where trees are being removed. If ten trees were being removed, they would require three trees to be replaced. If there were no trees in the beginning they would not be requiring any trees to be planted. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 15 Councilmember Wolfe asked if someone has twenty trees left on the lot after taking twenty trees down, if they would still have to plant three more. Councilmember Barnette stated that was correct. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if staff would work with the property owner with a variance. Ms. Jones stated that in a case like that staff would work with the owner. Councilmember Barnette asked how much it would cost to replace a tree. Ms. Jones stated that it depends on the species but probably around $100 to $300. Councilmember Barnette stated that the variance is pretty broad. Ms. Jones stated that the concern of the cost of this process is that the Florida Department of Natural Resources stated that each tree in an urban environment is worth $275 of benefit each year due to the reduction in air condition cost, erosion control, wildlife protection and air pollution control. The one-time cost of $200 per tree is saving the community the added cost of energy and environmental cost each year. Councilmember Barnette asked why people would not replant trees then. Ms. Jones stated that they would not be talking about this if it were not an item of contention over and over again in the application process. Staff has consistently put the stipulation in about replanting a tree, and it always ends up being a serious item of debate in the application process. Staff wanted to ensure that they are treating all properties the same, and it is difficult to do that if they do not specify requirements. Councilmember Wolfe stated that it sounds like staff wants it and the residents do not. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. 7ones if one tree in a buildable area were removed, if three trees would need to be planted. Ms. Jones stated that if one tree was removed, one tree would be required for replacement. Councilmember Billings asked if he removed twenty trees in a buildable area, if only three trees would have to be replace. Ms. Jones stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings asked what is a buildable area. He did not see a definition. Ms. Jones stated that that is referring to the footprint of the building. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 16 Councilmember Billings asked if it was referring to that or to the footprint of the property within the setback. He asked if there was somewhere else in the code that defines buildable area. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that there was not but is something they could add to the definitions. The buildable area is talking about the area considering the setbacks from the property line and the area for the original construction or where expansion is possible. Councilmember Billings asked if there was a 35 foot front yard setback, and he took down six trees in the front yard setback if he would be required to replace any trees. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings stated that if he is putting an 1,100 square foot home on a 14,900 square foot lot and across the back there is a 25 foot setback, he can take any trees down in that area. Then there is another 35 feet of backyard that is so dense with trees that grass will not grow in that area. The home would not be built back there, but in order to have the grass grow trees would be cut down. If they happen to be in the building area, then the property owner would need to replace them somewhere else on the lot. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Councilmember Billings asked if he would be required to replace a tree taken out for a second accessory building with another tree years down the line. He asked who would be tracking it. Ms. Jones stated that the requirements only apply to a subdivision application, not applying to an e�sting property five to ten years later if the owner decided to add on. Councilmember Billings stated that it does not state that this only applies to the first building put on the property. Mr. Edman, 230 Craigbrook Way, stated that he is not against this, but he was concerned about future restrictions on R-1 property. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Council was more concerned about large lots where a developer will come in and clearcut the lot and not put trees back up. Mr. Edman asked if the City replaces trees when they do City projects. Mr. Flora stated that a diseased boulevard tree would be cut down and replaced on the property owner's property. As far as street projects, they do not. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 17 Mr. Edman stated that near Stonybrook Creek many trees were cut down about five years ago. He thought that it was fair that when the City cuts down trees they should replant them also. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the project was done as a special assessment primarily to the watershed district. Anything taken down was paid for by the assessment district and with some City money as well. If the City put trees in, it would have increased the cost to the assessment area. That area was difficult because they could not access that without taking trees down. Mr. Edman stated that a neighbor's trees ended up dying because the roots were so damaged because of the bulldozers used in taking down those trees. With the East River Road project, the County did not replant the trees taken down. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that part of the reason is that they will not plant trees close to the shoulder of the road. Mr. Edman stated that this is like the owner who built the house where all the trees were on Riverview Terrace. If he has to plant more trees, they are all going to be scrunched up near the house. He thinks people do a good job with their own judgment. Councilmember Billings stated that he understood the answer that this is not going to be retroactive on any subdivisions that currently e�st today. He also understand that any subdivisions that are inactive in the future after the enactment of this particular ordinance would be subject to its provisions. Councilmember Barnette stated that Blaine has a forester who marks the trees that they cannot take out. That is getting to be too much. He likes the wording of the second paragraph that says that the EQEC members felt that the City should encourage reforestation of the City through public education and have low-cost tree sales to Fridley property owners. Councilmember Wolfe asked for more information about the low-cost tree sale. Ms. Jones stated that what is spelled out in the definition of a replacement tree is a 2.5 inch diameter tree. Project Impact tries to have more high wind resistant trees to help prevent them from being lost in the storm. They are hoping to use the grant money for coupons for $20 or $30 off for local suppliers in town. That is currently in the planning stages. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:26 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 18 NEW BUSINESS: 4. AWARD CONTRACT FOR CITY' S ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNS: Councilmember Billings stated that he asked to have this pulled because he would like the public to know where the monument signs will be and what they will look like. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that the signs would be placed at entry points of the City. Six locations have been secured for the monument signs in the City of Fridley. The first of those locations will start at the top of East River Road. There is a resident at 8360 East River Road with a very wide lot. We negotiated with the property owners to have a 20 foot by 20 foot area on the south edge of the front of the lot. There is a nice existing tree for a backdrop, and there will be new landscaping around the sign. Staff felt it was appropriate to reduce that sign size from 5 feet by 10 feet to 4 feet by 8 feet to give it more of a residential scale. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why they were using timbers. Mr. Hickok stated that at three of the six locations it is a State requirement. For safety purposes the State required break-away materials if a car hit the signs to reduce damage to the vehicle. Mr. Hickok stated that at the south end of East River Road there was very little opportunity for the right-of-way for the signs. There is an auto recycling facility with a screening fence around the perimeter of the property. A location was decided on further to the north at the Wellhouse #13 site. There is a backdrop that e�sts with a nice green vegetation, and it will not interfere with the roadway or wellhouse operations or the Sprint tower. The County did not feel that they wanted our sign on County property on the right-of-way or the median and encouraged us to push it back onto the City's private property. North of University Avenue, there is a knoll that exists at the Wal-Mart Slumberland site north of the City along the southbound lane between the service drive and the University Avenue bikeway/walkway. That has been negotiated. That sign would be more appropriately scaled at 12 feet by 6 feet. On the south end there is a location along the opening on the on ramp to I-694 as you are heading northbound on University Avenue. The fifth location was decided to be the northernmost 300 feet south of Osborne Road on Highway 65. There is an Amoco facility at that intersection and a service drive. The State has given us an easement to put the sign 300 feet south of that intersection. The sign would be on the back side of open grass area and prominently placed on southbound Highway 65. South of I-694 at the corner of 53rd and Old Central Avenues is a very prominent setting and provides a perfect opportunity for the sign. Mayor Jorgenson asked for clarification about the $48,000 that was given from the business community. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 19 Mr. Hickok stated that the SOth Anniversary Committee worked very hard on this, and the funds were raised from the service organizations in the City. Initially, they set out to have six service organizations donate funds for the signs. To their surprise they found a total of eight service organizations giving a gift of $6,000 each. That provided $48,000 towards the sign budget. The organizations that donated money will have their names sandblasted on the bottom of the entry monument sign with eight service placards that will have the same character as the sign itself. Mr. Hickok stated that the proposal for the sign shows "Fridley Welcomes You" in gold leaf which has a reflective quality when the light hits it. The background will be a rich blue and a darker shade of blue to help the letters stand out. At the top of the plaque the Bar�fill-Locke House is nestled amongst the trees and the bluff as it overlooks the Mississippi River. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she was concerned because she thought the signs were going to be basically of the same material and size. Mr. Hickok stated that is a consequence of the locations. To get good visibility, they felt that it was very important to work with the guidelines that MnDOT gives. Staff felt it more appropriate in a residential area to not have brick bollards in someone's front yard. This location could be brick The south end of East River Road is on City property and there is flexibility there also. The south ends on University Avenue and on Highway 65 are MnDOT right-of-ways so they really have no choice. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the reason behind the brick is to carry the same theme they have at Christianson Crossing and now on 57th and they want to kind of mimic the same thoughts. She thought they should do the same brick on as many as they can. She has heard neighbors say they would rather have brick for a classier and more distinct look. Mr. Hickok stated that the City is in the driver's seat in the locations where there is brick. The neighborhood homeowners have said yes to whatever has been decided. If you feel brick is appropriate they can go with brick. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the signs with wood would still have the placards on the bottom of the sign. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. There is a cost of savings in not doing the brick, and they could enhance the sign and create the same scale by landscaping. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the bottom portion of the sign would be separate. Mr. Hickok stated that it is a separate sign but hangs on the uprights. Councilmember Barnette stated that on Highway 65 Blaine has some signs that do not look good because of the landscaping. Elk River on Highway 10 by the lake really looks FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 20 nice. Landscaping is important and they have talked about who would take care of the landscaping. Mr. Hickok stated that the thought is to have the gold leaf on the sign and have some lighting behind the sign above the landscape to create a glow around the sign itself. Councilmember Barnette stated that the signs are a great idea and will add a lot to the City and its image. He asked when they would be put up. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the sign in the neighborhood would be left up to staff. Councilmember Billings stated that he heard staff say they will change that one to brick on her recommendation. Mr. Hickok stated that the sign would be fabricated in six to eight weeks. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to award the contract for the City's entry monument signs to Redwood Signs by Hornibrook Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZT #00-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, INTENDED TO MINIMIZE LOSS OF URBAN FOREST BY REQUIRING TREE PRESERVATION PLANS AS PART OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table the first reading of this ordinance for a zoning te�t amendment, ZTA #00-01, by the City of Fridley, intended to minimize loss of urban forest by requiring tree preservation plans as part of subdivision applications until staff comes back with definitions regarding the building definitions and clarifications on cutting of the trees. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. RESOLUTION NO. 41-2000 DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN PARCEL IS OCCUPIED BY STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS AND IS TO BE INCLUDED IN A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (349-353 57TH PLACE N.E.): Councilmember Billings asked where this was in relationship to the duplex the City just bought. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that it is right on top of it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 21 MOTION by Councilmember Billings to adopt the resolution determining that a certain parcel is occupied by structurally substandard buildings and is to be included in a tax increment financing district. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #00-06, BY GREAT LAKES CHINESE RESTAURANT, TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN FROM 80 SQUARE FEET TO 92 SQUARE FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7890 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that the petitioner was seeking to increase the size of a free-standing sign from 80 square feet to 92 square feet to allow continued use of a free standing sign. The e�sting pylon sign was illegally installed without a sign permit or prior variance approval. The property is located on the north end of University Avenue. It was platted in 1962, and the restaurant was constructed in 1977. There have been a number of sign permits issued for this site from 1978 through 1996. The current sign was installed in 1998 without a sign permit. Code allows the ma�mum size of a pylon sign to be 80 square feet in area. The petitioners are seeking a variance to increase that size by 12 feet. Mr. Hickok stated that staff observed there was an additional illegal sign installed without a permit, and that was the sign stating kids eat free Tuesday and Saturday. That sign has been removed. Great Lakes Chinese Restaurant sign is 92 square feet. There are other signs on the building as permitted by the sign code on the south and east sides of the building. The Code also allows for advertising on windows using not more than fifty percent (50%) of the window area. The petitioner's summary of hardship states as follows: "Given that the sign frame has existed prior to Mr. Huynh's purchasing the business, and the sign frame in question was allowed to exist under the ownership of the prior business, Mr. Huynh maintains the prior existing sign frame constitutes an exceptional or e�traordinary circumstance." Mr. Hickok stated that one of the code requirements for sign variance approval is that the exceptional or e�traordinary circumstance applicable to the property or to the intended use does not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity or district. The sign code is uniform across the entire City, and no single occupancy signs in the vicinity exceed 80 square feet in size. Another criteria is that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and district but which is denied the property in question. The larger than code signs are not a right possessed by others in the vicinity and the petitioner has pylon and wall sign opportunities on the site. Any larger than code sign is for multi-tenant properties. The ne�t criteria that the normal application of the sign code will constitute an unnecessary hardship. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 22 Mr. Hickok said the petitioner failed to apply for sign permits prior to installation despite being encouraged to do so by City staff. If the petitioner had applied for a sign permit, the petitioner would have been required to construct an 80 square foot sign, saving the added expense that went into the 92 square foot sign. The final criteria for granting a sign variance is that granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or detrimental to the property in the vicinity. The e�sting sign can be modified to meet the code. Granting of the variance would be detrimental, as it would set a precedent for increasing sign size for single occupancy commercial buildings along University Avenue and change the new standard for the sign code. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission concluded that the petitioner's lack of hardship and the sign size is inconsistent with the recent history and recommended denial. Staff recommended denial in that the petitioner has no statutory defined hardship, no comparable variances have been granted for the past five years, and this would be detrimental as it would set a precedence. Granting the variance would encourage businesses to erect larger than code size signs without a permit and then seeking a variance once the citation has been issued. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is any sign along University Avenue in the area that has been granted to a single tenant of this nature and size. Mr. Hickok stated that there has not been. Mr. Mike Verbrick, attorney for the petitioner Mr. Huynh, stated that there is no statutory hardship here. They are asking the City to grant the variance anyway. His client bought the restaurant in 1998, and there were no face panels at all on the signs. He bought the business with the face panels and did not construct the sign. He should have applied for a variance at that time, but he did not know he had to. He thought the Fridley sign code states that the sign erector has the responsibility to apply for a variance. The sign company that did this took $10,000 of his client's money and left his client in a lurch. Mr. Verbrick said that around that time, the City of Fridley sent his client a letter saying that the sign was illegal. His client probably threw it away because he does not read English. He was born in a war zone in Vietnam and came over here by way of a 27 foot Malaysian fishing boat in 1989. He has a nineth grade education and is illiterate in two languages. He asks you to consider the equities of the situation. This is the first business this refugee has ever owned. His client is being prosecuted criminally for failure to put up the sign and charged with a misdemeanor. The old business went bankrupt and the sign frame was there before. He just put in nice looking face panels. His client has not ever received one telephone call from anyone associated with the City. He is a nice guy and would like to see the City of Fridley reach out to him. He has never received one invitation from the Chamber of Commerce or the City of Fridley's Small Business Owner's Association. This proceeding could help him form some networks and contacts to bring him into the City of Fridley business owners' community, and he may feel a little more a part of the community and less intimidated and willing to approach the City government when he has a problem. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 23 Mayor Jorgenson asked if his client receives other mail like water billings, electric bill, gas bills, sales tax information notices. Mr. Verbrick stated that he does. Mayor 7orgenson asked how helps him with that. Mr. Huynh's interpreter stated that sometimes he gets an interpreter and other people to help him. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the sign company that took $10,000 from Mr. Huynh applied for a sign permit. It seems the injustice is that this company would have applied for a permit to begin with the client would have been well aware that the City of Fridley does have a sign code and the signs can only be 80 square feet. At some point there is a precedent here and they have to follow the rules. The company that erected this sign has done the injustice here. She asked if the petitioner could go to the sign company and have them reduce the sign size. Mr. Verbrick stated that there is $1,800 in damages, and his legal fees are appro�mately $1,800. Councilmember Barnette asked if they are also co-defendants in this criminal action. Mr. Verbrick stated that they were not. Mr. Hickok stated that Taurus Sign Company would be cited in this action. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they are probably not licensed and bonded in the State, so they can probably go back to the State because most contractors have to be licensed and bonded. Councilmember Wolfe asked if they could go after the sign company and have them take on all the costs because they are the ones who made the mistakes. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that when you sue anybody there are costs involved, and that is a financial consideration. Yes, there is a hard and fast rule here that says that signs must be a certain size. If someone constructed a sign in violation of that it is a criminal offense, but there are also zoning code issues that have to deal with the landowner directly. In this instance, a criminal charge was brought and will be modified or dropped, but at least the sign company will be brought in. Sometimes the sign companies are companies in name only and they are not reputable and disappear. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the petitioner was the landowner. Mr. Knaak stated that he was not. Mayor Jorgenson asked if the petitioner was the lessee of the land. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 24 Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Mayor 7orgenson asked if it would be allowable for Council to allow the sign to remain until court action has been taken for the sign erector and the landowner. Mr. Knaak stated that they could, but then it would have to be done for anyone else in a similar situation. It happens often enough that it would be a concern. Mayor Jorgenson stated that this gentleman was taken by a sign contractor, and the owner has some obligation to make sure the sign erected was correct. She asked if someone else should appear before the Council. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the petitioner tonight is one who paid money to erect the sign. Mr. Knaak stated that there is no dispute that this sign in not conformity. This applicant was seeking to get that variance. The obligation is criminal and civil. A civil action would compel that over fifteen feet be cut off and be directed at the lessee, respective of whether they were able to recover from the owner. One solution would be to give them a certain period of time to come into compliance. The circumstances are unique to this individual. There is a lot of creativity in the sign business, and there are a lot of interesting arguments. He had no doubt that if a sign that 92 square feet was allowed to stay up, word would be out in a very short period. Mr. Burns, City Council, asked if they could table the variance request to allow si�ty days. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they are not sure if they are going to go after the sign company because of the amount of money involved in taking legal action. Mr. Knaak stated that this is already in non-conformance. Tabling the matter does not reduce or change the status in any way. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they do not have to totally destroy the $10,000 sign. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Council has been firm on allowable signage for businesses. She is concerned that they give the petitioner adequate time to try to make adjustments to the sign. She asked if the City ever gives a telephone call to the businesses. Mr. Hickok stated that they send out a series of letters with the end result being a citation. There are certain situations where the recipient of the letter will call back and start a dialogue. The written word by the U. S. mail has proved to be the best opportunity, and the City is always available for questions or clarifications. As for where they are at in the si�ty-day process, May 30 is the end of the si�ty days. Staff was told by the sign fabricators that there is a six to eight-week window for sign fabrication. Staff FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 25 recommended denial of the variance and to allow six to eight weeks to have the sign put up. Beyond that, there is no variance, and the sign is down. The court issue does not make this better for the variance. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to deny Variance Request, VAR #00-06 by Great Lakes Chinese Restaurant. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. Mayor 7orgenson stated that hearing impaired individuals can have interpreters brought in. She asked if the same law relates to people of a diverse culture in providing interpreters for individuals who do not speak English. Mr. Knaak stated that the answer is yes, but while the publication is generally given in this instance, the applicant has come forward with a translator and is represented by counsel. He has heard no objection of any sort about the manner in which this hearing has been conducted. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she is concerned about the original letter not being responded to. She asked if the City had any obligation to contacting the petitioner to see if there was further clarification needed. Mr. Knaak stated that Fridley takes e�traordinary steps to contact individuals, The City relies on people being able to read and communicate or have somebody read to them. The City's record has at least two mailings before a charge was brought. The fact that this is part of the explanation why a charge had to be brought does explain some things, but this individual is going to be relieved of the criminal citation. It still does not change the issue with respect to the fact that it is a non-conforming sign. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that if this denial was passed, her intent was that she wanted to make a motion to allow the petitioner ninety days to give him time for the six to eight weeks for the sign fabrication and to work with the company. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to allow Great Lakes Chinese Restaurant ninety days to bring the sign into conformance. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that if the sign would take longer than ninety days, the petitioner should speak to Mr. Hickok for an e�tension onto that motion. Mr. Verbrick thanked Council for trying to work this out. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2000 PAGE 26 19. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the residents on Starlite Boulevard asked staff to speak to Northern States Power Company (NSP) about replacement trees that were removed by NSP crews. He has contacted NSP, and they said they are not going to replace the trees. They do not want to do it on railroad property. Mayor Jorgenson stated that on Tuesday, May 23, there will be a Council review session. Ms. Connie Metcalf will be the moderator. Mayor Jorgenson encouraged residents to watch that session and call in with questions or comments. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. Flora has invited the neighborhood of Rice Creek to a meeting regarding the bank stabilization project of Rice Creek on Wednesday, May 24, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Center. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MAY 22, 2000, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Nancy J. Jorgenson Recording Secretary Mayor