The URL can be used to link to this page

08/26/2002 - 4756OFFICIAL CITY COL�NCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 26, 2002 � � CffY 4F FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers Attendance Sheet PLFASF AR/NT NAMF, AflDRFSS AND /TFM NUMBFR YOU ARF /Ni�'R�STFfl /M. ,�a �� r � : �, / � ��sii u'��;�� .� /�'� °'� �� f/��x� a �"�r Y�, �'�� . �� int N�n1+��e�rl�r�� Ac%+�ir�s�i� ;; �� "�� , � ,,. �. � � �t. ,., � ..: � ��..,. . � � �. ,.. � y ., ,<.. � . � ,., � .. r . � � ° 1N � _ �; � �� .�-='ST�2 w��- �P fL��-i� C.,a�x-�. �. 154� ! Co � l S , _J . �/' c.� � `� / �'' �.- �.✓ � � CITY COUNCIL MEETING �F AUGUST 26, 2002 QTY OF FRIDLEY y The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public • assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require awciliary aids should contact Roberta. Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) 0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATIONS: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Joint Powers Agreement with the County of Anoka to Plan, Implement, and Maintain a Public Safety Communications System in Anoka County .................................................................................... 1- 10 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of August 12, 2002 � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 2. Resolution Certifying Proposed Tax Levy Requirements for 2003 to the County of Anoka .............................................. 11 - 12 � 3. Resolution Adopting the Proposed Budget for FiscalYear 2003 ............................................................................................. 13 - 15 4. Resolution Consenting to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Adopting a 2002 Tax Levy Collectiblein 2003 ........................................................................................... 16 - 19 5. Receive the Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 2002 .:................ .................. 20 - 26 - ............................................................ 0 6. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #02-02, to Create an Additional Single Family Parcel, Generally Located at 840 Mississippi Street (1Nard 1) ............................................................................. 27 - 32 � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 7. Approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for Tried & True Tools, Generally Located at 7550 University . AvenueN.E. (Ward 3) ..................................................................................... 33 - 36 8. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Improvement Project No. ST. 2002 — 1 ........................................................... 37 - 39 9. Motion to Accept a Proposal from HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd., for a Study on Chargesfor Services ....................................................................................... 40 10. Claims ....................................................................................................... 41 - 11. Licenses .......................................:............................................................... 42 - 45 � e 12. Estimates ...........................................................................................,........... 46 - 52 � � ' FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 4 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. . . OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda —15 minutes. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 13. Variance Request, VAR #02-13, by Jim Kiewel, to Increase the Total Square Footage of all Accessory Buildings to Allow the Construction of an Additional Garage, Generally Located at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. (1Nard 2) ................................................................ 53 - 66 14. Informal Status Reports ..................................................................................... 67 ADJOURN. u � FRIDLEYCITYCOUNCIL MEETING OFAUGITST 26, 2002 , • I ' i �' ��'. l� . -, T'he City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treaiment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. �� C� �p �tj c�a �1.�n.�o r� NEW BUSINESS: �I �� (��„��-�P � a � . � �S I. Resolution Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Joint Powers Agreement with the County of Anoka to Plan, Implement, and Maintain a Public Safety Communications System in Anoka County ................... 1-10 ,.�o�1i s�l � ��.� �5� � S� a �-� � APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES�� 0.� � v" City Council Meeting of Au ust 12, 2002 �` `�" �'�' 9 � �_ NEW BUSINESS: 2. Resolution Certifying Proposed Tax Levy Requirements for 2003 to the County of Anoka ..................0�................... 11 -12 I� �� 3. Resolution Adopting the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 ............................. 13 - 15 �� APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 4. Resolution Consenting to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Adopting a 2002 Tax Lery Collectible in 2003 ..�� ............. 16 - 19 I� � 5. Receive the Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 2002 ............................... 20 - 26 6. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #02-02, to Create an Additional Single Family Parcel, Generally Located at 840 Mississippi Street (Ward 1) ............ 27 — 32 ,�oz �� 7. Approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for Tried & True Tools, Generally Located at 7550 University Avenue N.E. (V11ard 3) .................... 33 - 36 8. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Improvement Project No. ST. 2002 —1 ................................. 37 - 39 9. Motion to Accept a Proposal from HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd., for a Study on Charges for Services ...................... 40 « ,. . . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 10. Claims ................................... 41 11. Licenses ................................... 42 - 45 12. Estimates ................................... 46 - 52 �� (� ADOPTION OF AGENDA. �� (�� /) ` ~ OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda —15 minutes.��,� ��,� ��,,,,�,; ✓� � ; � , Qjl/� ' c NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 13. Variance Request,'VAR #02-13, by Jim Kiewel, to Increase the Total Square Footage of all Accessory Buildings to Allow the Construction - of an Additiooal Garage, Generally Located at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. (Ward 2) 53 - 66 ��( �� 4t-�C�Q � �G�L vt�� ,,/�di ��' ��p ��.��j ;��,� .-F-��,�. +� �_.e_��. �i _ , , , � � ��,,, ot ��o� 1. I ,�°�r�c,� . ��, � f ��:s -�- �� 4. Informal Status Rep_orts�........... � , �'�, � � ��s�-l.E. �(� -� �� b� , Sc�e C�� < "� � '�" ��t°�'�°� M � — �;�� qir � �;�.� �,-�,��. ��s �;o��, � ,�; , -�o � � � �� „�� e� ��.cc � _ �� -� � ADJOURN. c�l `�e�,+� +^ed wtn�'(.� a- l�� l.c.-�-, nv c�-.��, ,��,�✓/c5 S� ,sl�,�c.� �-I -s ,�,�. a�O C � �F-� ��rc.r�c (s - �da'%v�.c�Oc-v - �k_no-f--- i� -fow� -�;l vux� w�e.i� c,,e,i� _ a. __L_._ �� i . .._ _ , �p � � � �� i� Se.�; v,�s � � /�� ,�p_ C�.((.t��✓t � —E-� ct�-t �� f�: (n'�X,� � �y u �Lt.�;o ��o Sc.�,-. � ,�_ � �i�FJi ! �� : o _1— .�1�.r r.�,.�( ac.ck.K.�+..JL��`�2"-�-� i 0�•vz�J _. _ THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUST 12, 2002 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:32 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ' ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Billings, Councilmember Wolfe and Councilmember Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: None. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Proposed Consent Agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of July 22, 2002 APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF _ JULY 17, 2002: Councilmember Bolkcom sta.ted that in the first paragraph on Page 1, Mr. Hickok stated ' as follows: "Survey results showed that there was no support for drafting new legislation that would allow some outdoor storage subject to screening requirements and obtaining a special use permit." The word "no" is not supposed to be inserted there. The survey showed that there was support. RECEIVED. FRIDLEY CITY COLTNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 2 2. RESOLUTION NO. 42-2002 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS TO ASSIST WITH SECURITY FOR THE IACP CONFERENCE FROM OCTOBER 4 TO OCTOBER 9. 2002: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City of Minneapolis requested that we provide help in securing the 2002 International Association of the Chiefs of Police Conference that will be held October 4 through 9 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Public Safety Director Dave Sallman is recommending that we make one officer available on each day of this event. This seems very reasonable. The Minneapolis Police Department has been helpful in the past when we have requested assistance in the area of K-9's, the bomb squad, and officer response during large disturbances. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 42-2002. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 43-2002 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVAL OF PLANS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: COMMONS PARK PARKING LOT PHASE 1 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 348: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the 2002 General Improvements budget provides $70,000 for the reconstruction of the parking lot, alley and well house lots on the north side of Commons Park. Staff recommended Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 43-2002. 4. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO STREET IMPROVEMENT� (SEALCOAT) PROJECT NO. ST. 2002-10: �� r y� �� Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this is a change order for additional sealcoating the City of Columbia Heights. Our request for the net cost is $4,205 for a revised contract amount of $86,592.76. Staff recommended approval of Change Order No. 1 to Pearson Brothers, Inc. for Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 2002-10. APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO.1. 5. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO SEWER LINING PROJECT NO. 345: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this is a change order to this year's sewer lining project. It removes the previously approved footage for 75`h Avenue. The net change is a contract deduction of $7,848. When the sewer lines were looked at, it was determined that they were too far deteriorated and were collapsing. It was decided that different methods would have to be used to complete the repair. The revised contract amount is $95,894.00. APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12. 2002 6. CLAIMS: APPROVED CLAIM NOS. 106503-106852. 7. LICENSES: APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED. 8. ESTIMATES: APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES: Lametti & Sons 16028 Forest Boulevard North Hugo, NIN 55038 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Lining Project No. 345 FINAL ESTIMATE Gladstone Cosntruction, Inc. 1315 Frost Avenue _ St. Paul, MN 55109 Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Project No. 341 Estimate No. 1 Ron Kassa Construction 6005-250`h Street E Elko, MN 55020 2000 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 344 Estimate No. 3 Pearson Bros. Inc. 240 St. Johns Street Laretto, MN 55357 Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 2002-10 Estimate No. 1 W.B. Miller 6701 Norris Lake Road N.W. Elk River, MN 55330 2002 Street Improvement Edgewater Gardens Project No. ST. 2002 - 1 $ 20,345.70 $ 29,801.50 $ 5,838.15 $76,033.16 $ 34,458.40 PAGE 3 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 4 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Billings to adopt the Agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Mr. Jack Larson, 740 Pandora Drive N.E., stated that last fall he bought a RV. He said he did � not know anything about the new code that was passed. He said that the way the code reads does not address 80 to 90 percent of his neighbor's needs between Mississippi, Rice Creek, Highway 65, and University. Five feet of his proerpty is the boulevard, ten feet is his property, and he is back seven feet from the back of the curb on the boulevard. He asked why the change was passed. Councilmember Barnette asked if he is sure that it is that number of feet away from the curb. Mr. Larson stated that it is seven feet from the back of the curb. It was his understanding that it was his property, but he came to find out it was setback. Councilmember Barnette stated that the ordinance was passed with a fifteen foot setback from the curb so the neighbor who is backing out of his/her driveway looking down the street can see. If they are closer to the street, it becomes a health and safety issue. Mr. Larson stated that he has a 5`h wheel so they can see underneath the overhang. If they could count looking from under the Sth wheel, he could make it. Councilmember Barnette stated that people need a sightline to see other cars driving. Mr. Lazson stated that most of the campers aze pop-ups and that is not fair. Councilmember Wolfe asked how many feet it was from the bottom of the RV to the curb. Mr. Larson stated that it is a good five feet. Councilmember Barnette stated that they passed this to help people. He asked if there were ' many similar situations. Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that there were not. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that they are not doing any systematic code enforcements regarding this and Stephanie probably got a telephone call from someone asking if this was okay. Mr. Hickok stated that was very likely. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 5 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the RV would be allowed in this situation versus a 5`� wheel. Mr. Hickok stated that the ordinance stated they all had to be set back 15 feet. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the ordinance was clarified so they are all included in the 15-foot setback. Mayor Lund stated that he does not know if they could come up with a solution that encompasses everybody's situation. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #02-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AMENDING CHAPTER 205, SECTIONS 205.17, 205.18, 205.19, 205.20 AND 205.25 RELATED TO OUTDOOR STORAGE IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that this is an ordinance amendment and it relates to outdoor storage in the industrial districts. Staff is requesting consideration of changing code requirements related to the number of industrial property owners that are illegally storing goods outdoors. Systematic code enforcement began in late 2001 revealing this problem with numerous industrial property owners. Staff deternuned that the City ordinance should be reviewed. This year's council/commission survey sought input from the commissions and the City Council on this issue. Survey results showed that there was no support for drafting new legislation that would allow some outdoor storage subject to screening requirements and obtaining a special use permit. The survey responses were verified at a joint meeting early this year. In developing the proposed ordinance, staff examined several different options based on other cities regulating outdoor storage. Mr. Hickok stated that Blaine has limited outdoor storage allowed with a conditional use permit, the equivalent of our special use pemut. Storage is limited to a maximum of 50% of the total building footprint and must be fully screened from any public right-of-way, and cannot be taller than 12 feet in height. In Brooklyn Park, outdoor storage is allowed through a conditional use permit in the heavy and general commercial districts. Outdoor storage is not allowed in light industrial districts. Columbia Heights allows outdoor storage as an accessory in the commercial or industrial districts. It must be located in the side or rear yard and screened from adjacent uses or the public right-of-way. Coon Rapids allows outdoor storage in the industrial districts and must be located in the side or rear yard and screened where practical. In Inver Grove Heights, outdoor storage is allowed through a conditional use permit and must be screened from FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 6 residential properties. In Mounds View, outdoor storage is allowed through a conditional use permit in industrial districts and must be screened from their public right-of-way in light industrial districts. There are no requirements for screening, however, in their heavy industrial district. Osseo allows outdoor storage through a conditional use permit in their industrial district and in their highway commercial district. It must be fully screened from adjoining properties. Bloomington allows outdoor storage throuah a conditional use permit and their special limited and general industrial districts. It is limited to an azea not larger than 50% of the ground coverage of the principal building and must be located in the side or rear yard not abutting a public street. Mr. Hickok stated that Fridley's current regulations allow outdoor storage in the Ml, M2, M4, and S3 zoning districts through a special use permit process. Whether or not the items being stored are incidental to the business are considered. Incidental storage means that the storage is temporary in nature and short-term storage is not required as an on-going part of their business. The confusion is defining temporary and determining whether or not the item is required as part of a business. The proposed ordinance would allow storage in up to 50% of the footprint of the principal building. Mr. Hickok stated that currently, no storage of materials, equipment, or motor vehicles is allowed e:ccept under the following conditions: 1. Motor vehicle storage is conducted as provided in Section 205.1707; 2. Materials, motor vehicles, and equipment are kept in a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from a residential district or a residential district across from a public right-of-way, and a public park adjacent to the use or a public right-of-way adjacent to the use. 3. Materials, motor vehicles, and equipment stored outside do not exceed 15 feet in height and screening materials are provided. Mr. Hickok stated that staff believes there is a better way of doing this and the proposed amendment integrates this language into a new ordinance format that makes it easier for the user and better for staff to interpret and enforce. In the light industrial district, language would be added saying that limited outdoor storage shall satisfy the following requirements: Outdoor storage area is limited to a maximum size equal to 50% of the principal building. This area must be designated on the site plan submitted with the special use permit application and must be located in the side or rear yard with the materials and equipment kept in the designated outdoor storage area. 2. It must be fully screened so as not to be visible from a residential district adjacent to the use, a residential district across from the public right-of-way, a public park adjacent to the use, a public right-of-way including railroad right-of-way adjacent to the use, or any commercial use adjacent to the use. Screening of the outdoor storage area shall be achieved through a combination of masonry walls, fencing, berming, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 7 and landscaping. The materials and equipment stored outside must not exceed 12 feet in height. 3. Outdoor storage area must be on a City-approved hard surface and bound on the perimeter by concrete, curb, and gutter. 4. The special use permit of limited outdoor storage shall not permit the outdoor storage of semi trucks, semi trailers, or heavy construction equipment. 5. Hazardous chemicals and materials are prohibited from being stored outside. 6. Outdoor storage shall not affect the required amount of parking stalls needed on this site. 7. The location and types of materials to be stored are to be reviewed by the Fire Marshall. Mr. Hickok stated that the language is the same in Section 205.18. Section 205.19 pertains to the M3 district. The M3 district is a little different because in 1993 when it was created there were discussions about the need for outdoor fences in the industrial district. The M 1 and M2 districts allowed outdoor storage that is incidental to the principal use, basically saying that if it is required, a building must be built around it. The M3 district language required a special use permit if there was incidental outdoor storage. We are asking that M3 use requiring the outdoor storage of materials, motor vehicles, or equipment including the outdoor manipulation of materials and motor vehicles and equipment be allowed under the following conditions: The materials and equipment must be fully screened so as not to be visible from the residential district adjacent to the use, a residential district across a public right-of-way from the use, a public park adjacent to the use, and a public right-of-way, including railroad right-of-way, adjacent to the use, or any commercial use adjacent to the use. The screening of outdoor storage shall be achieved through a combination of materials. Materials and equipment stored outside must not exceed 15 feet in height. Outdoor storage of motorized vehicles must be on a City- approved hazd surface and bound on the perimeter by concrete curb and gutter. Hazardous chemicals are prohibited for being outside and the location of the types of materials to be stored are to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall. Telecommunications towers and wireless telecommunications facilities are allowed with a special use permit. Mr. Hickok explained that Section 205.20, M-4 Manufacturing Only, is a district created in 1997. Limited outdoor storage would be allowed with a special use permit. To satisfy the requirements, the outdoor storage area would be limited to 50 percent of the principal building's footprint with the same screening requirements as previously explained. Outside materials and equipment shall not exceed 12 feet in height and should be on a hard surface surrounded by concrete curb, and gutter. The special use permit for outdoor storage shall not permit semi- trucks, semi-trailers, or heavy construction equipment. It does not allow storage of hazardous chemicals or materials. The outdoor storage shall not affect the required amount of parking stalls needed, and materials stored outside shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 8 Mr. Hickok stated that in Section 205.25, S-3 Heavy Industrial, outdoor storage would be allowed with the same language as in previous sections. Staff recommended approval of the proposed changes. The proposed changes will allow Fridley to let industries have some outdoor storage with conditions while not being detrimental to the surrounding properties. The Planning Commission on July 17 held a hearing and made a unanimous recommendation for approval.. The Commission felt strongly that storage of junk vehicles should not be an appropriate use. We can assure the Commission and the Council that we have that language in the code already regarding this issue. Mr. Burns, City Manager, asked what were the most common things they were finding in their systematic code enforcement. Mr. Hickok stated that pallets aze one of the big things we are seeing outside without dumpster enclosures. The propane tanks have had a vast improvement, and there are production materials such as wire, boxes, and metal. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was some type of communication sent out notifying the property owners. Mr. Hickok stated that the Fire Department keeps an updated record of commercial properties and industrial properties. We sent out letters to all the industrial property owners. We received telephone calls from people about the letters they received. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, stated that he did not receive one, nor did his neighbors. Mr. Hickok stated that he would follow up on that. Mr. Harris stated that most of the area north of Osborne Road has not received a letter. He picked this up from reading the newspaper and watching the Planning Commission. He asked if a letter was sent to the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Hickok stated that they did send a letter to the Chamber of Commerce and did not receive a reply. The replies came from along Main Street and south of I-694. Councilmember Barnette asked if there was any support of this change. Mr. Hickok stated that with the two inspections south of I-694, one was positive and the other ' was not positive because it would probably put them out of business. Most people are understanding. Mr. Harris stated that dumpsters have always been a problem. The new trucks need room to operate and it is difficult to do that with an enclosure. In our area we are trying to encourage dumpsters with wheels on them to push them in and out. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 9 Mayor Lund asked what the rationale was for the height requirement for materials and equipment stored outside. Mr. Hickok stated that they do have an outdoor intensive district, that was one difference in the M-3 district. In the M-3, it was 15 feet in height. Because they do allow some lazger uses. In some other districts it becomes very burdensome to screen some things over 12 feet in height. The M-3 is set apart to do effective screening. M-1 is not outdoor intensive. Mr. Burns asked if there are things stored outside that are taller than 12 feet. Mr. Hickok stated that he is not sure if he could find any items taller than 12 feet being stored outside. They are finding a lot of stuff outside. He said that about 8% of the properties out of the 40% that have been inspected have some sort of issue with outdoor storage. Mayor Lund stated that 12 feet is probably excessive because it is only for outdoor storage, not including semi truck storage. Mr. Hickok stated that this emphasizes berming and landscaping, and it would take a lot of planning materials to effectively screen without a fence. Our districts do not allow ta11 fences. Mr. Harris stated that trash is a way of life and he does not have an objection if things are set back in a corner. The school districts have a real problem. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she thinks it is a problem because there are dumpsters that are not big enough for certain businesses. Mr. Harris stated that sometimes the closures may not be big enough for the number or size of dumpsters. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she thinks it is unsightly with all the junk. People call and say they want all the junk cleaned up around the city. Mr. Harris stated that many things aze unsightly and asked where the line should be drawn. Transformers are just as ugly as any dumpster and those are stuck out right on the street. Mayor Lund asked if the issue at hand addressed screening as well. Mr. Hickok stated that the dumpster screening is already required and a special use permit is needed. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that staff did a systematic code enforcement for residential properties. Now they are inspecting commercial and industrial properties. Mr. Harris stated that in the park on 73`d Avenue there is a dumpster facing the public right-of- way. Maybe the City should try to work with the businesses and take a better look at this. �-Ie said that trash containers for scrap metal are another thing. They are heavy and tough to handle. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 10 Councilmember Bolkcom stated that haulers want to do it quickly and efficiently when they pick up the trash. Mayor Lund stated that his trash hauler has a key to his gate and comes very eazly. The efficiency is lost when they have to unlock the gate. This issue is a work in progress. Councilmember Wolfe stated that everyone complained about having garbage cans in the driveway, but it is garbage day. He has never had a single complaint himself in his 4 years on Council. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that if the gazbage cans aze only out there on garbage day, that is fine. Mr. Harris stated that packaging is a problem a1so. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that since they are not talking about garbage tonight maybe Mr. Harris could get a group of people together and work with staff on this issue. Mr. Harris stated that he would if he could. He asked how these proposed regulations fit with the operations of most of the companies. Mr. Hickok stated that with our statistics fifty-percent of their building floor area would be more than adequate to cover the outdoor storage they would have. That is covering all types of businesses. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Hickok alluded to putting some people out of business. Mayor Lund stated that the business Mr. Hickok was alluding to may have a solution, although the property owner is not here to be heazd tonight. Councilmember Billings asked if this business met the current existing code. Mr. Hickok stated that it did not, and the proposed code is more liberal. Councilmember Billings stated that if we enforce the code as it is today we would have more of a problem than there would be under this proposal. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Mr. Harris stated that talking about putting people out of business bothers him. Councilmember Billings stated that this ordinance does not intend to put anyone out of business. It is much more liberal than is on the books today. This business has allowed itself to violate existing ordinances. This ordinance would give them a better chance of staying in business than enforcement of the rules that we have today. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 11 Mayor Lund stated that we are trying to work with people, not against them. Mr. Harris stated that the height of restrictions with truck trailers may not fit with this thing. Mayor Lund stated that Mr. Hickok identified the distinction between the 15-foot restriction within the different districts. Mr. Harris stated that the two businesses he is thinking about do not fall in the M-3 district. Mayor Lund asked if there has been any distinction about size prior to this. Mr. Hickok stated that there has not been. M-1 and M-2 had tight outdoor storage restrictions. We are now defining it as 12 feet. In the M-3 it is 15 feet. Mr. Harris stated that Target has 100 trailers parked in the distribution center and screening is not very good. Mr. Hickok stated that one of the difficulties we have enforcing this ordinance is that all of the industries could say that they have trucks moving in and out of their site and this will be too burdensome on them. Target has semis that move in and out of those bays regularly. The trailers are moving regularly and are not considered outdoor storage. It is part of their on-going operation. The screening they will have to address. Mr. Harris stated that it is a truck terminal. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the best thing for people to do would be to call the Community Development Department if they have questions regarding this ordinance. They will have an opportunity to work toward conecting any problems. Mr. Harris asked how the operations work with this proposal of the ordinance change. Councilmember Bolkcom stated hat many businesses that are adjacent to residential property will need to work on correcting these things. Mr. Harris stated that there are not many that are close to residential property and the ones that are have kept up good screening. Parking trailers on public streets is a really dangerous issue also. Mayor Lund stated that this will not cover all the bases, but hopefully businesses will look at this in a positive light and work within the parameters. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that we should look at our mailing list in light of some people not being notified and send out a letter to continue the public hearing. Mayor Lund asked how many letters were sent out and if any responses were received. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 12 Mr. Hickok stated that he did not know how many letters were sent out and no alarming responses were received. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that an article in the newsletter was published also. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to continue the public hearing until the first meeting in September. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � 10. CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF-SALE 3.2% MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 4 CORNERS GAS & CONVEIENCE, INC., LOCATED AT 1301 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E. (WARD 2): MOTION by Councilmember Billings to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:45 P.M. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the convenience store on Mississippi Street changed ownership. The Police Department conducted a background investigation and found no reason to deny this application. Final approval is scheduled for August 26, 2002. This license would run to Apri130, 2003. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:47 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: 11. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON 62� WAY MAINTENANCE ISSUES: Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that he was contacted today by Mr. James Nielsen, a local attorney, who indicated that he had been retained by Mr. Potasek and will represent Mr. and Mrs. Potasek on this matter. Mr. Nielsen has expressed hope that this matter could be negotiated and requested a continuance. He said recommends tabling this matter to a future Council meeting. No specific date is necessary but is recommended that it be set within the month. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PA� � Mr. Harris stated that his proposal to pave that section is withdrawn. D Councilmember Bolkcom asked if any discussions that took place would also involve the„ two neighbors. / �- Mr. Knaak stated that it is his understanding that was the intent. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table this agenda item. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Representative Goodwin and all three residents should be contacted. 12. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the East River Road project. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated that corrective work to the concrete curb, storm sewer, medians, and head basins will continue through this week. East River Road will be down to a single lane in each direction from Hartman Circle to I-694. It should be opened up after the end of this week except for the little pieces of work they have to do in some spots. In early September, East River Road will be repaved. The project should be done by the end of September. Please contact the Anoka County Project Inspector, Mike Gabrick, at 763-862-4200 far current information. Councilmember Wolfe thanked all people in Fridley for National Night Out. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it was a good community effort. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that 4,000 participated and thereIwere 100�arties. �� e iY ��,(.a t�+��er l�u n e �� Councilmemb,�er/ Bp1� com stated that the bikeway project may tak some ,�[� z� �-�r�� ..�/��'P �� / hc t4+YJ�s. La �v.r�Cg �epE I�j �.�bl�S'� wf-H. +�.� YP�`zeC�e e� GJrt�eik�'7^ / � �o e� �, Mayor Lund stated that the Grace Evangelical Free Church on 73`d Avenue is having a party in � � the park and the entire community is invited for a free social gathering. It will be held Saturday, August 17, from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Burns stated that the City newsletter will be sent out soon. �'RIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2002 PAGE 14 ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE AUGUST 12, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 0 Signe L. Johnson Scott Lund Recording Secretary Mayor � ` CRY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager� David Sallman, Public Safety Director Public Safety Communications System Joint Powers Agreement August 20, 2002 The County of Anoka is requesting the cities in the county enter into a joint powers agreement to accomplish the design, implementation, and maintenance of a new public safety communications system. The new communications system, commonly referred to as 800 mhz, will provide interoperability between law enforcement and fire personnel and will improve the speed and accuracy of communications. The Anoka County system will build upon 800 mhz radio infrastruc�re already provided by the State of Minnesota. The Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council, the Anoka County Fire Protection Council, and the County of Anoka all support the creat�E�, �. of a new communications system. The Minnesota Legislature passed legislation in 2002 empowering Anoka County to l�� a separate tax on behalf of all governmental units in the County for this improved comrr�..� �ications system. The County of Anoka is requesting all cities in the county to enter into a Joir�,j: '� s�,��s Agreement with the County to allow the project to proceed. In addition, this Joint P��:-E� Agreement amends the 1999 Joint Powers Agreement for the Anoka County Central I��:,.;:°F_p� Project and directs any remaining funds from the 1999A bond issue to be directed to ��- � Safety Communications Project. Staff recommends approval. Attachments 1 RADIO ALLOCATIONS - POLICE ACSO ANOKA BLAINE CENTENNIAL LAKE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COON RAPIDS FRIDLEY L1N0 LAKES RAMSEY SPRING LAKE PARK ST. FRANCIS TOTAL RADIO ALLOCATIONS - FIRE ANDOVER ANOKA/CHAMPLiN BETHEL CENTENNIAL LAKE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COON RAPIDS EAST BETHEL FRIDLEY HAM LAKE LEXINGTON LINWOOD OAK GROVE RAMSEY SBM ST. FRANCIS TOTAL 313,897 95,995 176,617 70,217 93,511 208,459 136,720 78,765 76,281 41,553 31,148 $1,323,163 82,765 56,230 35,353 78,424 47,481 101,651 45,825 76,634 53,679 37,971 45,825 48,443 54,304 114,471 43,207 $922,263 23.72% 7.25% 13.35% 5.31% 7.07% 15.75% 10.33% 5.95% 5.77% 3.14% 2.35% 8.97% 6.10% 3.83% 8.50% 5.15% 11.02% 4.97% 8.31% 5.82% 4.12% 4.97% 5.25% 5.89% 12.41% 4.68% � W RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ANOKA TO PLAN, IMPLEMENT, AND MAINTAIN A PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUlvICATIONS SYSTEM IN ANOKA COUNTY . WHEREAS, the County of Anoka and its municipalities have a desire to implement a public safety communications system that will provide communication between and among fire departments and law enforcement agencies in Anoka County; WHEREAS, the Joint Law Enforcement Council and Anoka County have determined that the speed and accuracy of public safety communication would be improved by the development of a new public safety communications system; and WHEREAS, in order to do so, it is necessary for the City of Fridley to enter into a joint powers agreement as is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Fridley hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager to execute and deliver the Joint Powers Agreement by and between the City of Fridley and the County of Anoka. The Joint Powers Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk on the date hereof. Section 2. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TI�E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY FRIDLEY THIS 26� DAY OF AUGUST, 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 2 SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR ANOKA COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement is by and between the County of Anoka, Minnesota, (the "County") and the following cities and urban townships located within the County: Andover, Anoka, Bethel, Blaine, Burns, Circle Pines, Centerville, Columbia Heights, - Columbus, Coon Rapids, East Bethel, Fridley, Ham Lake, Hilltop, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Linwood, Oak Grove, Ramsey, St. Francis, and Spring Lake Park (each a"City" and collectively, the "Cities"). WHEREAS, the County and the Cities have previously recognized the need to cooperate in their law enforcement efforts, and have created the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council (the "JLEC") for this purpose; and WHEREAS, the fire departments that serve Anoka County have created the Anoka County Fire Protection Council (FPC); and WHEREAS, the JLEC, the County and the Cities have determined that there is a need to communicate among fire departments and law enforcement agencies, to improve the speed and accuracy of fire and law enforcement information requested from another jurisdiction, and to work cooperatively in an effort to improve fire protection and law enforcement and thereby public safety in Anoka County; and WHEREAS, the Cities, through the JLEC, and the County have determined that public safety communication would be improved by the development of a new public safety communications system; and �� 0 WHEREAS, as a result of County efforts, the legislature passed legislation permitting the County to levy a separate tax on behalf of all governmental units in th� County for this improved public safety communications system; and WHEREAS, it is important for these governmental units to understand the undertaking of the County and to provide for a continuation of the system. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein and in exercise of the power granted by Minn. Stat. §471.591, the parties to this Agreement do mutually agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE The parties agree that they have joined together for the purpose of planning, implementing and maintaining a public safety communications system in the County of Anoka and to supplement a 1999 joint powers agreement. 2. TERM This Agreement shall be effective September 1, 2002, and continue until any party terminates, with or without cause, upon thirty days' written notice. The termination by any party shall not affect the validity of the Agreement as to the remaining parties. 3. PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ' The County shall work with the JLEC to plan and construct a public safety communications system in Anoka County using the special law enacted on behalf of Anoka County to finance the system. � 4. CONTRACTS AND PURCHASES All contracts and purchases made pursuant to this Agreement shall be m��° "�y the County and shall conform to the requirements applicable to the County. 5. FUNDING LIMITATION It is understood by the parties that by this undertaking the County may t��-6k ..�.� to 12.5 million dollars to obtain funds to plan and construct the publi� =�:�'�ty communications system. Any funds received from sources other than a tax le� �- ': be applied to reduce the amount of bonds or notes necessary to repay bonds and �k,b :�ct to increase the total expenditure. 6. DISTRIBUTION OF RADIOS It is the intent of the parties to make a one-time distribution of radios cc� ��;�r .€��re departments and law enforcement agencies in the County. The radios will be p�Y°�; ��.E�.��ed from the remaining funds available in the 12.5 million dollars after cons� x:� ';�� ' infrastructure of the system. The radios will be distributed as provided m��:�'r+�� .��., which is attached. It is understood by the parties that the Cities and their in�A�?: �-�' '. departments and law enforcement agencies are responsible for Metropolitan �� . 5 user fees and acquisition and replacement of radios after this one-time provis�.f, � under this Agreement. 7. USE OF SHOP SPARES 0 The parties agree that radios purchased as shop spares, as shown �.i � will be maintained by Anoka County Central Communications for the �� _.__ :- parties hereto. These radios will be made available to the police and fire ��. 5 . substitute for a radio that is being repaired. Additionally, the radios will be available to police and fire departments for public safety situations such as disasters or large gatherings of people that need to be managed. The radios may be used for not longer than the time of repair or incident and, in any case, not longer than three months. There shall be no expense to the police and fire departments for this use provided, however, that the departments shall be responsible for any loss or damage to the shop spares radios they are usmg. 8. JOINT CONTRIBUTION AND ACQUISITION The parties agree that, acting through the JLEC, they may voluntarily contribute to a fund maintained by the County for purchase of public safety communication equipment or other law enforcement purpose. The County agrees to credit any interest earned and maintain the fund to be expended at the direction of the JLEC for the benefit of the contributing party. Contribution by a City may not be expended if a representative of that City appointed to the JLEC votes in the negative on a motion to expend such funds. 9. ACQUISITION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT The parties agree that it is important for the public safety communication system to operate as effectively as possible and that the acquisition and use of common ` equipment is important to that goal. In furtherance of that goal, the parties agree that they will acquire communication equipment through the Director of Central Communications in Anoka County. The County agrees that it will acquire such communication equipme�.t at the lowest possible price and will not charge the party ordering the equipment any amount in excess of that necessary to its acquisition and delivery. The County further � agrees that it will consider the recommendations of the JLEC and the FPC in determining whether the provision of the radios is by purchase or lease and whether the County will finance the acquisition costs. The parties agree that the County will act to preserve the ability of Cities to treat payments as debt service in order to maintain the ability to acquire public safety communication equipment outside any levy limit. . 10. CENTRAL RECORDS PROJECT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT There are unexpended proceeds derived from the issuance, sale, and delivery of the County's General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 1999A (the "Series 1999A Notes"), in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,230,000, issued on January 6, 1999. The Series 1999A Notes were issued by the County pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners on December 15, 1998. The Series 1999A Notes were issued to benefit joint law enforcement efforts of the County and multiple municipalities located with the County (the "Cities") through the coordination of criminal justice records systems of the County and the Cities to more efficiently store and access law enforcement information requested by the Cities and the County (the "Project"). In December 1998, the County and the Cities, pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement under Anoka County Contract No. 990021 (the "1999 Joint Powers " Agreement") provided for the cooperation and respective duties of the County and the Cities in funding and maintaining the Project. The 1999 Joint Powers Agreement also dealt with specific costs associated with performing parts of the Project. The JLEC is hereby directed to use the unexpended proceeds of the Series 1999A Notes in a manner 7 consistent with the general goals of the Project. The unexpended proceeds of the Series 1999A Notes may be eYpended, consistently with Minnesota Statutes, Section 373.01, subdivision 3, as amended, at the direction of the JLEC, in consultation with bond , counsel for the County, so as to not affect the tax-exempt status of the Series 1999A Notes. 11. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY All funds disbursed by any party pursuant to this Agreement shall be disbursed pursuant to the method provided by law for counties and the Division Manager of Anoka County Finance & Central Services shall be the fiscal agent. Upon termination, all infrastructure shall be the property of the County and all radios shall be the property of the governmental units receiving the radios. Any funds held by the County as the result of contributions under Paragraph 8 shall be returned to the party contributing the funds. 12. STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY A strict accounting shall be made of all funds and report of all receipts and disbursements shall be made upon request by any party. 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the parties on � the matter related hereto. The Agreement shall not be altered or amended, except by agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto. �� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement on the dates below: ANOKA COUNTY By: Dan Erhart, Chair Anoka County Board of Commissioners Dated: Attest: John "Jay" McLinden Anoka County Administrator CITY OF FRIDLEY : Scott J. Lund, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager 2002 Dated: Attest: � Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk 2002 � , 0 EXHIBIT A The following page entitled "Radio Allocations - Police" and "Radio Allocations - Fire" is the relative allocation of available dollars to the departments identified for the purchase of radios. It is understood: 1. The final allocation of dollars will not be exactly as shown on the chart. The dollars allocated to radios will be the amount remaining after the infrastructure of the radio system is known. The remaining amount will be first allocated between fire, police and shop spazes as follows: Fire $922,263 38.50% Police $1,323,163 55.24% Shop spares $150,000 6.26% After this allocation, the amount for fire radios and police radios will be allocated to the departments in proportion to the amounts shown. 2. Each department, using the dollars allocated to them, will identify, from a list maintained by Anoka County Central Communications, the type and level of radio they intend to acquire. Anoka County will then purchase the radios as requested from funds remaining after the construction of the infrastructure of the system. 10 0 / f CITY OF FRIDLEY To: From: Date: Re: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director Craig A. Ellestad, Accountant August 20, 2002 Resolution Certifying the Proposed Taac Levy Requirements for 2003 to Anoka County In conformance with Chapter 275, Section 065 of the Minnesota Statutes, attached is a resolution certifying the proposed tax levy requirements to the Anoka County Auditor. Chapter 275 requires the City to certify its proposed tax levy requirements prior to September 15. The staff is recommending a 2003 proposed tax levy of$5,825,855. This is a 3.8% increase from what was approved last year. The make-up of this is: $5,613,131 Certified to County for 2002 212,725 3.8% Inflation Per CPI-U Mpls/St Paul 5 825 855 2003 Proposed Tax Levy We request the City Council pass the attached resolution to certify the proposed tax levy requirements. 11 0 Resolution No. - 2002 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PROPOSED TAX LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR 2003 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA WHEREAS, Chapter Seven, Section 7.02 of the Charter of the City of Fridley, grants the City the power to raise money by taxation pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Chapter 275, Section 065 requires the City to certify its proposed tax � levy requirements to the County Auditor; - NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Fridley certify to the County Auditor of the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, the following proposed tax levy to be levied in 2002 for the year 2003. GENERAI. FUND General Fund $ 5,716,590 ' CAPITAL PROJECT FUND Capital Improvement Fund - Parks Division 94,165 AGENCY FUND Six Ciries Watershed Management Organization 6,200 Stonybrook Creek Sub-Watershed District 8,900 TOTAL ALL FLJNDS $ 5,825,855 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 2002. - ATTEST: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk 12 Scott J. Lund, Mayor ` CRY OF FRIDLEY To: From: Date: Re: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager ��• � Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director Craig A. Ellestad, Accountant August 20 2002 Resolution Adopting a Proposed Budget for the Fiscal Year 2003 In conformance with Chapter 275, Section 065 of the Minnesota Statutes, attached is the 2003 proposed budget. Chapter 275 requires the City to certify a proposed budget to the County Auditor prior to September 15. We request the City Council pass the attached resolution and adopt the 2003 proposed budget. Remember that the levy resolution must be adopted prior to adopting the budget 13 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. - 2002 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 WHEREAS, Chapter 7, Section 7.04 of the City Charter provides that the City Manager shall prepare an annual budget; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has prepared such document and the City Council has met several times for the purpose of discussing the budget; and WHEREAS, Chapter 275, Section 065 of Minnesota Statutes requires that the City shall hold a public hearing to adopt a budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing and has concluded the budget as prepared is appropriate; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following budget be adopted and approved: GENERAL FUND Taues Curcent Ad Valorem Deliquent, Penalties, Forfeited Licenses and Permits Licenses Permits Intergovemmental: Federal Stato- Local Govemment Aid All Other Charges for Services: General Government Pubiic Safety Conservation of Health Recrearion Fines and Forfeits Special Assessments Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Revenues Other Financing Sources: Sales of General Fixed Assets Liquor Fund Closed Debt Service Fund Employee Benefit Fund Police Activity Fund TOTAL REVENUES AND OTi�R FINANCING SOURCES Fund Balance: General Fund Reserve TOTAL GENERAL FUND ESTIMATED REVENUE $ 5,716,590 27,000 202,100 220,700 4,000 2,045,663 593,282 898,570 155,450 4,900 277,600 190,500 7,800 400,000 127,730 35,000 450,000 232,900 20,000 345,195 11,954,980 928,931 $ 12,883,911 14 Legislarive: City Council Planning Commissions Other Commissions City Management: General Management Personnel �8� Finance: Elections Accounting Assessing MIS City Clerk/Records Police: Police Civil Defense Fire: Fire Rental Inspections Public Works: Municipal Center Engineering Lighting Park Mainttnance Street Maintenance Recreation: Recreation Naturalist Community Development Building Inspection Planning Reserve: Emergency Nondepartrnental: APPROPRIATIONS $ 135,446 994 2,645 299,832 152,034 314,018 1,230 676,896 155,995 258,247 173,825 3,991,446 15,68? 1,038,319 I26,560 254,175 541,014 203,600 965,038 1,379,486 943,812 303,431 300,005 462,142 ] 00,000 88,G?A $ 12,883,911 Resolution No. = 2002 Cable TV Fund $ 191,830 Grant Management Fund 240,363 Solid Waste Abatement Fund 282,860 Housing Revitializarion Fund 0 Police Activity Fund 63,000 Fund Balance 458.043 TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $ 1,236,096 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Capital Improvement Fund Taxes-Current Ad Valorem $ 94,165 Interest on Investments 245,000 Pazk Fees 30,000 Storm Water Fund 100,000 Fund Balance 45.935 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $ 515,100 AGENCY FUND Six Cities Watershed Fund Taxes-Current Ad Valorem 6,200 TOTAL AGENCY FUND S 6,200 TOTAL ALL Fi1NDS $ 14,641,307 General Capital Improvement Streets Capital Improvement Parks Capital Improvement Six Ciries Watershed Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this _ day of , 2002. ATTEST: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk 15 Scott J. Lund, Mayor Page 2 $ 127,400 t 90,636 322,865 250,000 345,195 $ 1,236,096 $ 105,000 192,000 218,100 $ 515,100 6,200 $ 6,200 $ 14,641,307 / AGENDA ITEM i CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 CffY OF fRIDLEY DATE: August 23, 2002 TO: William W. Burns, Executive Director of HRA �� FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director Grant E. Fernelius, Assistant HRA Director SUBJECT: Consider HRA Tax Levy for Taxes Payable in 2003 Since 1996, the HRA has utilized a tax levy to help support it housing rehabilitation programs. The levy is equal to .0144% of the market value of all taxable, real property in the City. Last year, the levy generated $215,991 and this year the Authority will collect approximately $227,800. In terms of the impact on taxpayers, the levy would cost $21.60 per year for a home valued at $150,000 and $72.00 per year for a commercial property valued at $500,000. As you recall, the tax levy was originally implemented to help fund the HRA's revolving loan program. In 1997, the City made a loan of $1.5 million to the HRA to capitalize the loan fund. In turn, the tax levy was used to make the debt service payments. The principal balance of the loan is now $651,792. The HRA approved a 2003 tax levy at their August 1, 2002 meeting. The City Council must consent to the levy before it can be placed on the tax rolls. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution consenting to the HRA tax levy for taxes payable in 2003. Attachments M-02-93 16 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA ADOPTING A 2002 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2003. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council) of the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the ' "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority") at its regular meeting on August 1, 2002, adopted the attached HRA Resolution No. 4- 2002: A Resolution Adopting A 2002 Tax Levy Collectible in 2003. 1.02. The Council must consent to any Authority levy prior to its becoming effective as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033. Section 2. Consent. 2.01. The Council hereby consents to the HRA Resolution and to the levy described therein. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA THIS 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA SKOGEN, CLERK 17 SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR HRA RESOLUTION NO. 4- 2002 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A 2002 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2003 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Commissioners") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "Authority"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. T'he Authority is authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033 to adopt a levy on all taxable property within its area of operation, which is the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"). 1.02. The Authority is authorized to use the amounts collected by the levy for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "General Levy"). Section 2. Findin�s. 2.01. The Authority hereby finds that it is necessary and in the best interests of the City and the Authority to adopt the General Levy to provide funds necessary to accomplish the goals of the Authority. Section 3. Adovtion of General Lew. 3.01. The following sums of money are hereby levied for the current year, collectible in 2002, upon the taxable property of the City for the purposes of the General Levy described in Section 1.02 above: Total General Levy: .0144% of Taxable Market Value Amount: Maximum Allowed by Law : Page 2 — Resolution No. Section 4. Report to Citv and Filin� of Levies. 4.01. The Executive Director of the Authority is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council for its consent to the General Levy. 4.02. After the City Council has consented by resolution to the General Levy, the Executive Director of the Authority is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the County Auditor of Anoka County, Minnesota. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TI� FRIDLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF TF� CTTY OF FRIDLEY THIS lst DAY OF AUGUST, 2002. LAWRENCE R. COMN�RS - CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: WILLIAM W. BURNS - HRA DIRECTOR 19 CITY OF FRIDLEY P�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 7. 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the August 7, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Barb Johns, Leroy Oquist, Brad Dunham, David Kondrick, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Dean Saba Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Ted and Kari Ciardelli, 840 Mississippi St., Fridley Siah St. Clair, Director of Springbrook Nature Center Malcolm Mitchell, Chairperson of the Sp�ingbrook Nature Center Foundation Board APPROVE THE JULY 17, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES' Chairperson Savage stated that she was listed as being in attendance for the July 17 meeting, though she was not present. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to approve the July 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Lot Split, LS 02-02, by Ted and Kari Ciardelli, to split the parcel onto two separate lots, generally located at 840 Mississippi Street NE: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that currently the property consists of five separate lots. The split would leave two parcels, both exceeding the minimum lot size standards. Fridley requires single family lots to be a minimum of 75 feet in width and have a minimum total lot area of 9,000 square feet. The proposed lots would be 80 and 115 feet in width, and both are over 10,000 square feet in size after the split. The garage on Lot B would need to be removed as a garage cannot be on a property without a principal structure. A recommended stipulation states the bituminous driveway must be removed and a curb cut taken out and replaced because driveways need to be 3 feet from any property line. Lot A with the existing home has access on Mississippi Street. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 7, 2002 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolin stated that staff recommends approval with stipulations. Both lots do exceed minimum lot size and width and provide additional home opportunity for residents. Ms. Savage asked if there were any calls regarding this. Mr. Bolin stated that three calls were received seeking information and clarification, there was no negative feedback. Mr. Ciardetli stated that he did not have any problems with the stipulations except that when they sell the lot, the petitioner has to pay all the water and sewer connection fees. Mr. Bolin stated they could change that to "new property owner". Mr. Kondrick asked if they had a buyer yet. Mr. Ciardelli stated that they did not. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:40 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated that he is in favor but stipulation #5 should be changed to reflect that the owner at the time of the issuance of the permit should be responsible for getting the water and sewer connections. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to recommend approval of LS #02-02 with the following stipulations as amended: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved by the City's Engineering staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems that may have been located on this site in the past are properly capped or removed. 4. The petitioner shall pay the required park dedication fee prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The new property owner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of the building permit. 6. The garage must be removed from Lot B by December 1, 2002. 7. The existing bituminous drive from Van Buren must be removed and the curb and turf restored prior to December 1, 2002. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 7, 2002 PAGE 3 OTHER BUSINESS: 2. Springbrook Nature Center Foundation raised funds for Phase One of the Gateway Entrance Proiect at Springbrook Nature Center: Mr. Mitchell stated that he wanted to thank everyone for their time and Dean Saba for his work and involvement on the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board. He would also like to thank the people who attended the community meetings over the course of a couple years to provide guidance and suggestions. Dave Kondrick and the Parks and Recreation Commission are appreciated for their review and suggestions to say that what they need to look at is a gateway area project that has clear phases and can be described in a series of elements that can be done as dollars are available. Siah St. Clair and Jack Kirk and the staff are very much appreciated for the excellent work they do to make Springbrook one of the jewels of the City and region and nationally. Mr. Mitchell stated that he and Mr. St. Clair are not at the meeting to request additional funding from the City. They are at the meeting to talk about the multiple stages and ask for support in approving the conceptual outline and design and principal and approving the seeking of funds from a variety of sources. As they began to look at the use of the Nature Center, they realize that annual visitors are continuing to increase to an estimated 160,00-180,000 visitors per year. This has an impact to the natural area. There is a need and desire to manage the use of the entire Nature Center. Experts have indicated that many people well directed will have less impact on an area than less people who are given little direction. Let's focus our energy on the seven areas which are the entry area to the center and keep 120 acres as a more passive natural area that is typical to the Nature Center at this point. Mr. Mitchell stated that the project has been influenced by the City's comprehensive plan process and this is consistent with that. The Nature Center is a resource for a gathering place for Fridley and surrounding cities. This will include major use of the gateway area. As they evolve, this will be for a memorial area, or an outdoor meeting room, or a moderately sized indoor and outdoor amphitheater, and other kinds of spaces for individual and personal use. This recognizes the natural environment, enhances it, and make it efficient. World class global and community education is being developed here also. Design features will provide for integration with the community, and the entry complex should make this a destination on the northern border of the City. Celebrating diversity is included to design many rooms to accommodate many ethnic racial groups. Mr. Mitchell stated they intend to work closely with the City and provide a timely review of this project as they go along. They do not initiate anything until the necessary funds have occurred. They looked at the transition from 85`�' Avenue through an entry plaza area surrounded with parking on the western side. On the eastern side is a manicured environment, and that is a major development of inemorial space, a water feature, circulation kinds of pathway, the outdoor eating room. On the far right is overflow parking which may not be enough. The interpretive center becomes part of the transition at the gateway to a larger passive natural environment which is being addressed through the wetlands project. The new additional building space would be on the west side with an atrium providing an entrance area to the rest of the park. The additional outdoor rooms will be near the parking area. It is a fairly compact design. Mr. Mitchell stated that Vision Package 1 is being discussed tonight. Vision package 2 is the indoor amphitheater that would be added as a necessary part for classroom and education 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 7, 2002 PAGE 4 activities but is protected from the weather to use it year round. Vision Package 3 would be to do the building addition and develop the various pathways. Vision Package 4 is to do the parking. Mr. Mitchell stated that #1 of the Vision Package 1 to focus on is the berming along g5tn Avenue. That would reduce some of the visual and actual noise that people see and would go across the entire 85"' area. The second part would be the Memorial Garden and the water feature and the gathering place areas. Number 3 is the outdoor meetings room and picnic areas that make this area flexible and useful. Number 4 would be the flexible overflow parking. Mr. Mitchell stated the estimate for the berms is about $60,000, provided they pay for the dirt. They may be able to get that as a contribution from a construction site that needs to get rid of fill. The Memorial Garden water feature is $150,000. The other trail shelter, outdoor rooms, small shelters, and garden would be $500,000, and overflow parking would be $30,000. Approximately $740,000 are needed for the phase 1 outside package. They will begin to move forward when they have the dollars for the project. This whole project has a minimal impact on operating costs and could be moved forwa�d without any need to deal with other aspects of the project at the same time. Mr. Mitchell stated they are requesting the Commission approve the concept of the gateway area plan and approve the detailed planning and commencement of the fundraising for vision package 1. Mr. Kuechle asked about the projected timetable. Mr. Mitchell stated they would like to get started next summer. Ms. Johns asked if they would try to get the whole amount needed to complete phase 1, and then break it down and see what package they would do other than phase 1. Mr. Mitchell stated that is correct. Ms. Johns asked how they are adjusting the operating costs. Mr. St. Clair stated that they will meet with Public Works Personnel and look at the whole phase 1 and estimate the increase in cost. It looks like they can actually save some costs by making the mowing and some other things easier to do. There will be a little increased maintenance; and as they progress, they will have sit down with the City to see what the costs are and figure out a plan. Ms. Johns asked if they will figure out how many approximate hours per month it will take to maintain this area of this facility. Mr. St. Clair stated that is correct. Mr. Kondrick stated that it would not take that much more. Mr. St. Clair stated it is just general maintenance for the Public Works at this point in time; they have not looked at exact changes. Mr. Mitchell stated that things like berms do not take long, just spaces that are new. 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 7. 2002 Ms. Johns asked if the overflow area will only be used when needed. Mr. St. Clair stated that is correct. PAG E 5 Mr. Mitchell stated that they have talked about exploring some new surfaces for the parking area, but have to explore it yet. The parking area is the lowest priority at this point. Mr. Oquist asked if there were any preliminary discussions with people for funding and different organizations. Mr. Mitchell stated they did with businesses and others about their interest and potential for ways of supporting. They found a fair amount of support. They are trying receive income and revenue from the use of the facilities once they are built and the use of the space in ways that are attractive. They see it as a resource and amenity for the City and not making it an expensive place to go. The fundraising group will meet in a few weeks, and there is a prospect list of potential funding sources. Mr. Oquist asked if there was any grant money available. Mr. Mitchell stated that they expect that there will be like the McKnight Foundation due to their funding of the wetlands. They are looking at rivers and expanding their view of the river and greenway development within the region. Ms. Savage asked if there would be cha�ges to visitors of the park. Mr. Mitchell stated they only charge for programs like the Halloween Party. They are not expecting to increase the day-to-day approach to the park, but are looking at ways to build a friends of Springbrook group to make this effort a lot of subsets of things like youth group. We may have an annual dinner for contributions and naming things like the picnic area or rooms. Selling bricks for the walk is an idea also, with names on the bricks. Mr. St. Clair stated that the Medtronic Foundation gave them $10,000 for the architectural work for the planning. One of the reasons they are present this evening is to help get the word out and talk about the project, because it is difficult to get the word out. They also need to know if the City is behind this process and approve it so when they do ask for support they can show that the City is supportive. Ms. Johns asked if there would have to be approval for every phase by the City. Mr. St. Clair stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission approved the concept of moving fonNard with phase 1. They would come before the Parks & Recreation Commission again before phase 2. Ms. Johns stated they may not have to present this every time before going forward with this. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is part of being diligent about having the opportunity move forward in a planned way. The language in the Parks & Recreation Commission motion is the language that requires approval in effect of all the bargaining materials for raising funds. The desire to be sure that what they are saying is consistent with the City, but also could be limiting to moving in a timely manner. 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 7, 2002 Ms. Savage asked what he is looking for from the Commission tonight. PAG E 6 Mr. Mitchell stated they are asking for a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Parks & Recreation Commission's recommendation. Mr. Bolin stated that August 26 would be the first meeting available for Council to review this. Mr. Oquist stated that these phases may be able to stand alone. If phase 1 is done, that alone will help the area. Mr. Mitchell stated that is the conceptual design. Mr. Kondrick stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed this issue and voted to endorse improvements by the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation. Dollars are very tough to come by, and they were very careful with the City's budget. This is a massive project and they divided it into smaller projects to be easier. Once the ball gets rolling, it will snowball and the project will be able to see its fruition. They were interested in the promotional language about how to explain the first stage to lead people to think that they would be donating money for every part. They did not want restrictive words. The Parks & Recreation Commission completely endorses this project. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the concept and plans for Phase 1 of the Gateway entrance Project at Springbrook Nature Center and allow fundraising efforts to proceed UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bolin stated this item could be on the agenda for the August 6 City Council meeting. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 30. 2002, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the June 30, 2002, Parks 8� Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 12. 2002. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to receive the June 12, 2002, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JU�Y 16 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: 25 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 7, 2002 PAG E 7 MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the July 16, 2002, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURN MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 7, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, d� c.aAn% ign L. Joh on ,�,�J Recording Secretary 26 � AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 CITY OF FRIDLEY Date: August 21, 2002 To: William Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stephanie Hanson, Planner Subject: Lot Split Request, LS #02-02, Ted & Kari Ciardelli M-02-95 INTRODUCTION Ted & Kari Ciardelli are seeking to split the property located at 840 Mississippi Street into two single family lots in order to construct an additional single family home. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the August 7, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for LS#02-02. After a brief discussion and making some minor changes to the wording of the stipulations, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split request, LS #02-02, with the stipulations. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission. City Staff has further clarified who is responsible for carrying out the stipulation requirements. STIPULATIONS City Staff recommend that the following stipulations be placed upon approval of this request. 1. Property owner of record shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 3. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 27 4. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay required park fees prior to issuance of building permits. S. Properry owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Garage must be removed from Lot "B " by December 1, 2002. 7. Existing bituminous drive from I�an Buren must be removed, curb restored, and turf restored prior to December 1, 2002. : City of Fridley Land Use Application LS #02-02 August 1, 2002 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Ted & Kari Ciazdelli 118 Craig Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Lot Split Purpose: To split property into two buildable lots. F,�cisting Zaning: Residenrial — R-1 Location: 840 Mississippi Street NE Size: 26,065 square feet .6 acres Existing Land Use: Home & Detached Garage Sucrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family & R-1 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family & R-1 W: Single Family & R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.07.01 requires a lot area of 9,000 sq. ft. for single family lots. Zoning History: Land has had SF home since 1940's Existing Legal Description of Property: Lots 1 thru 5, Block 4, Florence Park Council Action / 60 Day Date: 8/26/02 / 9/2/02 Public Utilities: Water and sewer are available at/near the site. ,� Physical Characteristics: Relatively flat, typical suburban landscaping. SUIVI�VIARY OF PROJECT Peritioner is requesting to split these 5 existing lots into two parcels exceeding minimum size standards. SUNI�vIARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of the lot split request, with stipulations. • Both lots exceed minunum lot size requirements. Both lots exceed minimum lot frontage. View from Van Buren Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin LS #02-02 Anaivsis Ted and Kari Ciardelli, petitioner's, are seeking to split the property located at 840 Mississippi into 2 buildable lots. Fridley requires that single family lots in the R-1 district be a minimum of 75' in width with a minimum total lot area of 9,000 square feet. The proposed lots will each exceed the minimum standards. Lot "A" will be 115' in width and 15,295 square feet in size and Lot "B" will be 80' in width and 10,680 square feet in size after the split. The petitioners intend to move the detached garage from Lot "B" onto Lot "A" and build a new home on Lot "B". A stipulation is attached to approval of the lot split to ensure the removal of the detached garage in a timely manner. City Code prohibits a garage from being located on a parcel without a principal structure (home). The existing drive from Van Buren also needs to be removed as it is centered on the property lines. Driveways are required to be 3' from any property line. (Photos: Left, Lot "B" lot; Right, Lot "A".) Staff Recommendation Cify Staff recommends approval of this lot split request, with stipulations. • Lots exceed minimum size requirements. • Does provide an additional homeownership opportunity for Fridley residents. Stipulations City Staff recommend that the following stipulations be placed upon approval of this request. 1. Property owner of record shal! obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. � 3. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 4. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay required park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permif. 6. Garage must be removed from Lot "8" by December 1, 2002. 7. Existing bituminous drive from Van Buren must be removed, curb restored, and turf restored prior to December 1, 2002 31 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION, LOT SPLIT, LS #02-02, TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 840 MISSISSIPPI STREET WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Lot Split, LS #02-02, on August 7, 2002 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council at the August 26, 2002 meeting approved the Lot Split request; and WHEREAS, such approval was to create an additional single-family lot, based on new legal descriptions which read as follows: Proposed Tract "A". Lots 1 thru 3, Block 4, Florence Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, together with %z vacated alley adjacent thereto. Proposed Tract "B": Lots 4 and 5, Block 4, Florence Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, together with '/2 vacated alley adjacent thereto. WHEREAS, the City has received the required Certificate of Survey from the owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley directs the petitioner to record this Lot Split at Anoka County within six (6) months or said approval shall become null and void. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK 32 SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR / � QT7 OF FRIDLEY Date: To: From AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 August 22, 2002 William Burns, City Manager� � Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Subject: Sign Plan for Tried & True Tools Bldg. — 7550 University Avenue M-02-96 INTRODUCTION Paul Williams, owner of the multi-tenant building located at 7550 University Avenue, is requesting that the City Council approve the attached sign plan. To date, there has not been a sign plan for this building. SUMMARY Code Section 214.14, requires shopping centers and multiple tenant buildings to have a comprehensive sign plan approved by the City. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that centers have well planned, aesthetically pleasing, and consistent appearance. The proposed sign plan does meet all the City's criteria and will ensure a more consistent look to the signage of this building in the future. The comprehensive sign plan requires the signs to be internally backlit, red, aluminum cabinets with translucent plastic faces. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends approval of the proposed comprehensive sign plan for the Tried & True Tools building located at 7550 University Avenue. 33 MARLAND-KELM/A, LLC 4795 Lake Sarah Heights Circ% Rockford, MN 5537� (763) 479-2568 August 22, 2002 Paul Bolin City of Fridley 6431 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Paul, Enclosed is the sign criteria we would like to have adopted for our building, located at Osborne Road and University Avenue in Fridley. (7550 University Avenue, 220, 230, 240 Osborne Road) General This Sign Plan is intended to address all exterior signage for the shopping center located at Osborne Road and Unive�sity Avenue in Fridley. (7550 University Avenue, 220, 230, 240 Osborne Road) It is intended that the signing of the retail stores of the center shall be developed in an imaginative and varied manner. Although previous and current signing practices of each Tenant will be considered, they will not govern signs to be installed on the retail stores. The furnishing, installation and maintenance of all signs and all costs incurred shall be the responsibility of the Tenant. A. The area above each Tenant's premises near its entrance shall be identified by a permanent wall sign. The wording of these signs shall be limited to the store name onfy. Multiple or repetitive signing will be allowed only with the approval of the Landlord provided the area of such signing conforms to the limitations set forth herein. 6. In addition to the sign identifying the Tenant premises, each corner Tenant will be permitted to have one additional permanent wall sign on the adjoining wall of the building. This additional sign may contain wording other than the tenanYs store name, as permissible by the City of Fridley Sign Code. C. The Landlord shall designate the use of the freestanding sign, the Tenants and the proportion of space each Tenant is allowed to share on the freestanding sign for the shopping center. 34 D. The character, design, layout, construction and location of all exterior signs whether tempo�ary or permanent shall be subject to the written approval of the Landlord. E. No sign, temporary or permanent shall be installed or displayed without the written approval of the Landlord and an approved City of Fridley Sign Permit as required by the City of Fridley Sign Code. F. Upon expiration or early termination of the lease term, Tenant shall vacate its signs in a manner approved by the Landlord and the City of Fridley at its own expense. Such vacation may include complete removal and repair of all damages to the building caused by the installation, presence and removal of the sign(s). II. Sign Criteria: Permanent Wall Signs. A. All permanent wall signs shall be installed within the limitations of the sign fascia as set forth hereinafter. All signs shall be mounted with their upper edge as nearly at the uppermost portion of exposed brickwork or block on the building i.e. immediately below the metal roof flashing, as practicable. All signs shall be contained within each Tenants lease lines. B. No sign shall exceed 5 feet high. On any wall with more than one sign, no sign shall be less than 4 feet high. No sign shall exceed the maximum area set forth by the City of Fridley Sign Code. C. On any wall with more than one sign, all sign cabinets shall measure 12" deep ± 2". No sign cabinet shall vary more than 2" in depth from an adjacent sign on that wall. D. The following construction standards will be adhered to: 1. The sign cabinets shall be constructed from aluminum with translucent plastic faces. 2. Signs shall be intemally backlit by fluorescent tubes. All electrical components and fluorescent tubes shall be completely enclosed by the cabinet, except for hookup to the electrical supply, disconnect switches and photocell controls. 3. Sign cabinet sides and bottom shall be finished in red, PMS color # 187. 4. Sign frame borders on the face of the sign shall be finished in a color that integrates with the graphics of the sign. 35 5. Signs must meet with City of Fridley sign criteria, and local and state electrical codes. III. Prohibited Types of Signs or Sign Components Any type of sign or sign component prohibited or not permitted by the City of Fridley shall not be allowed. No sign, lettering or symbols shall be directly painted on any surface of the building except for street numbers as needed for each Tenant. IV. Sign Approval Procedure A. Tenant shall submit to Landlord three (3) sets of the drawings and specifications, including samples of materials and colors for each proposed sign. The drawings shall clearly show location of sign on storefront elevation drawing, graphics, colors, construction and attachment details. Full information regarding electrical load requirements, lighting and controls are also to be included. B. Landlord shall return to Tenant two (2) sets of such sign drawings with its approval, suggested modification, or disapproval within 10 working days after receipt of the sign drawings: C. Drawing copy as required by the City that has been approved by Landlord must be presented to the City of Fridley along with permit application to install sign. Sincerely, MARLAND-KELMIA, LLC Paul M. Williams 36 r a CRY OF FRIDLEY � FROM: DATE: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager ,h �� Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director Layne Otteson, Assistant Public Works Director � August 22, 2002 PW02-064 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 to 2002 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2002 - 1 The attached Change Order No. 1 to the 2002 Street Improvement project in the Edge Water Gardens neighborhood is for the relocation of four hydrants and additional watermain work. The net cost for Change Order No. 1 is $13,420. In reviewing the project under construction, it was noted that four additional hydrants were very close to the curb line and had all been damaged by vehicles or plows at some time in the past. This project was the opportunity to relocate these hydrants and correct this problem. The additional watermain work was necessary to avoid other utilities including storm sewer, sanitary sewer, gas mains and telephone. It also covers the extra pipe work to extend the hydrants further behind the curb. The 2002 CIP budgeted $100,000 for watermain work associated with this project. The original bid included only $40,021 in water related work. With this change order, all watermain related work is complete. Recommend the Ciry Council approve Change Order No. 1 to the Edgewater Gardens Neighborhood Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2002 - 1 to W. B. Miller in the amount of $13,420. LO/JHH:cz Attachment 37 CTTY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UNNERSTI'Y AVENtJE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 August 26, 2002 W. B. Miller, Inc. 6701 Norris Lake Rd NW Elk River MN 55330 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1, 2002 Street Improvement Project No. ST 2002 - 1 Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the 2002 Street Improvement Project No. 2002 - 1 by adding the following work: Addition: 1 2 3 4 5 Item Salvage and install hydrant assembly Install Hydrant Assembly Remove existing 6" cast iron pipe F&I - 6" DIP C152 w/8 mil poly rap F&I watermain fittings and appurtenances TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS: Original Contract Amount Contract Additions - CO No. 1 REVISED CONTRACT AMUUNT : Qua�,nn' 4 4 325 325 200 TOTAL Price 385.00 790.00 6.15 19.85 1.35 Amount 1,540.00 3,160.00 1,998.75 6,451.25 270.00 13,420.00 727,400.65 13,420.00 _ $ 740,820.65 - W. B Miller, Inc. Change Order No. 1 August 26, 2002 Page 2 Submitted and approve� Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director, on the 26th day of August, 2002. Jon H. Haukaas, P.E. Director of Public Works Approved and accepted this�U�day of C�t?� , 2002 by W. B. Miller, Inc. Greg Hbllm, Project Coordinator Approved and accepted this day of �, 2002 by CITY OF FRIDLEY Scott J. Lund, Mayor William W. Butns, City Manager Approved and accepted this day of , 2002 by Metro Division Assistant State Aid Engineer 39 / � QTY OF FRIDLEY TO: f�;�IJ� AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER,� RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE A STUDY ON CHARGES FOR SERVICES Date: August 21, 2002 We have received a proposal from the firm of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd., for a Study on charges for services. This proposal was based on a detailed set of specifications that was developed by staff with its end goal to provide a study similaz to the last study that was completed by Publicorp in 1993. The study will encompass the following phases: 1. Inventory all existing charges. 2. Creation of a cost allocation plan for indirect costs. 3. Development of the direct cost of services on a per unit basis. 4. Comparison of existing charges to actual costs. 5. Identification of potential new charges. 6. Comparison of current and proposed fees with surrounding communities. 7. Preparation of report of City council and staff. Each of the phases listed about has a very detailed set of sub activities that both the consultant and staff will participate in. Over the past months, staff has interviewed the following firms in order to find the fum that had the best background for the study along with being the most cost effective. * Deloitte & Touche, FinancialConsulting * Ehlers & Associates * Maximus * HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Staff felt that HLB Tautges Redpath had the most experienced staff and would be capable of delivering the best product at a competitive price. The outcome of the study will be used to determine whether the city is currently subsidizing various services with revenues of other activities and or taxes. The fees associated with this project will range from $16,000 to $18,000 and will be allocated to the various funds (General, Water, Sewer, Storm Water, and Liquor) that will benefit from the study. We anticipate the result of the study will be the basis for increasing some of our fees in an effort to end any subsidies that have occurred by not them over the years. Staff is recommendin g that the City Council make a motion accepting the proposal provided by HLB Tautges Repath, LTD in an amount not to exceed $18,000 for a Study on Charges for Services.. ' �� AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 UiY OF FRIDLEY CLA1 MS �06855-�07079 41 / � CRY OF fRIDLEY Type of License 3.2% MALT LIQUOR 4 Corners Gas & Convenience 1301 Mississippi St NE Fridley, MN 55432 AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 LICENSES � Steven Haw TEMPORARY FOOD SALES 4 Corners Gas & Convenience Steven Haw 1301 Mississippi St NE Fridley, MN 55432 42 Approved By Public Safety Fire Inspector Building Inspector Public Safety Fire Inspector Community Development Fees $50 $30 AGENDAITEM City Council Meeting Of Monday, August 26, 2002 City of Fridle - Electrical R � D Electric Co ' 18477 Krypton NW Anoka MN 55303- Spark Electric Co 2114 Washington St NE Minneapolis MN 55418- Gas Services Brooklyn Aire Heating 8� Cooling 8862 Zealand Ave N STE A Brooklyn Park MN 55445- Care Air Conditioning 8� Heating Inc 1211 Old Hwy 8 NW New Brighton MN 55112- Snell Mechanical Inc 8850 Wentworth Ave S Bloomington MN 55420- Steves Heating 8� Service Inc Po Box 148 East Bethel MN 55011- General Contractor-Commercial New Mech Companies Inc 1633 Eustis St St Paul MN 55108- � Richard Marano Walt Swierczek Michael Glynn Mike Rasmusson Earl Snell Steve Hemmelgam Peter Jordan 43 Approved By: State of MN State of MN Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official � General Contractor-Residential Advanced Exteriors Inc (20133214) 7000 57 Ave Chad Markus Crystal MN 55428- Aqua Seal LLC (20239509) 12821 Industrial Park Blvd Colin Brown Plymouth MN 55441- Arneson Masonry (20216011) 11516 Preserve Ln N Chad Ameson Champlin MN 55316- Hendel Construction (20192308) 4997 Page Ave NE Rick Hendel Rogers MN 55374 Home Pride Builders Inc (20072528) 8535 Central Ave Mark Fick Blaine MN 55434- Marks Total Home (20328279) 3209 Rooseveit St NE Mark Baker St Anthony MN 55418- Merten Builders (20338827) 19486 Vernon St NW Rick Merten Elk River MN 55036- R 8 M Associates (4391) 3482 Auger Ave Ray Palme White Bear Lake MN 55110 Schwickert Co (9194) 330 Poplar St PO Box 1179 Ken# Kaupa Mankato MN 56002-1179 Sears Home Improvements (20090017) 5512 Lakeland Ave N Steve Kaufmann Crystal MN 55433- � �� Apnroved Bv: State of MN State of MN State of MN State of MN State of MN State of MN State of MN State of MN State of MN State of MN � Anaroved Bv: Winger Titus Contracting (20270544) 17715 12 Ave N Joel Ziemek State of MN Plymouth MN 55447- Heatina Brookly� Aire Heating � Cooling � 8862 Zealand Ave N STE A Brooklyn Park MN 55445- Care Air Conditioning 8� Heating Inc 1211 Old Hwy 8 NW New Brighton MN 55112- Steves Heating & Service Inc PO Box 148 East Bethel MN 55011- Sign Erector Signcrafters 7775 Main St NE Fridley MN 55432 Michael Glynn Mike Rasmusson Steve Hemmelgam Mike Lawrence L"_t'� Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official � � GTY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 ESTIMATES Pearson Bros. Inc. 240 St. Johns Street Loretto, NIN 5535� Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 2002 —10 FINALESTIMATE ....................................................................... Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 Hartman Circle Watermain Looping Project No. 347 EstimateNo. 1 .............................................................. W. B. Miller 6701 Nonis Lake Road N.W. Elk River, MN 55330 2002 Street Improvement No. ST. 2002 —1 EstimateNo. 4 ........................................................... Park Construction Company 7900 Beech Street N.E. Minneapolis, NIN 55432 � $ 10,559.60 $108,184.08 .................... $156,386.58 57`� Avenue Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 346 EstimateNo. 1 ......................................................................................... $ 53,602.49 Ron Kassa Construction 6005 — 250th Street East Elko, MN 55020 2002 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb Repair Project No. 344 EstimateNo. 4 ......................................................................... . � ........ $ 4,339.12 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DMSION 643 t University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fridley c/o William W. Burns, City Manager 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Council Members: August 23, 2002 CERTINiCATE OF THE ENGINEER We hereby submit the Final Estimate for 2002 Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST 2002 - 10, for Pearson Brothers, Inc., 240 St. Johns Street, Loretto, MN 55357. We have viewed the work under contract for the construction of Project No. ST. 2002 - 10 and fmd that the same is substantially complete in accordance with the contract documents. I recommend that final payment be made upon acceptance of the work by your Honorable Body and that the one year contractual maintenance bond commence on August 23, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Jon H. Haukaas Director of Public Works JT:cz Prepared by: Checked by: m August 26, 2002 To: Public Works Director City of Fridley REPORT ON FTi�TAL INSPECTION FOR CITY OF FRIDLEY 2002 STREET Il�IPROVEMENT (SEALCOATI PROJECT NO. ST. 2002 -10 We, the undersigned, have inspected the above-mentioned project and find that the work required by the contract is substantially complete in conformity with the plans and specifications of the project. All deficiencies have been conected by the contractor. Also, the work for which the City feels the contractor should receive a reduced price has been agreed upon by the contractor. So, therefore, we recommend to you that the City approve the attached FINAL ESTIlViATE for the contractor and the one-year maintenance bond, starting from the day of the final inspection that being August 23, 2002. Jon Thompson, Construction Inspector Russ Pearson, Project Coordinator . ; August 26, 2002 City of Fridley 2002 STREET TVi IPROVEMENT (SEALCOAI� PROJECT NO. ST. 2002 -10 CERTIFICATE OF CONTRACTOR This is to certify that items of the work shown in the statement of work certified herein have beenactually furnished and done for the above-mentioned projects in accordance with the plans and specificarions heretofore approved. The final contract cost is $86,592.76 and the final payment of $10,559.60 for the improvement project would cover in full, the contractor's claims against the City for all labor, materials and other work down by the contractor under this project. I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is just and correct. Pearson Brothers, Inc. Russ Pearson, Project Coordinator . • August 26, 2002 City of Fridley 2002 STREET IMPROVEMENT (SEALCOA� PROJECT NO. ST. 2002 -10 PREVAILING WAGE VER4'ICATION This is to certify that Peazson Brothers, Inc. has abided by the Prevailing Wage Provisions as specified by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry for Anoka County. I declare under the penalties of perjury that this statement is just and conect. Peazson Brothers, Inc. Russ Pearson, Project Coordinator 50 FROM: City of Fridley Engineering Division TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fridley � 6431 University Ave, NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dated: August 26, 2002 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6431 UNNERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Estimate No. FINAL Period Ending: August 23, 2002 For: Pearson Bros, Inc. 240 St Johns St P O Box 334 Loretto MN 55357 STREET IMPROVEMENT (SEALCOAT) PROJECT NO. ST. 2002 - 10 Job Code: 561-0000-415-4530-2022 (50%) 561-0000-415-4530-2023 (50%) STATEMENT OF WORK �.� �n e 1 n� � �. �� "a"�� ,,Cost� .�oiaf ,�.�, �,�Tp .w °�� r �W ,�� E"sfima � .� ,.�tlnif�� :«�This�� „„�Th�s-� �Quan � `� �-x• .r . :�. , = - _ �; � � - _., . . .. -.,m:s= -- • = ..� �.,„,�. ,; Confract Item Quan `��Unit Price Estimate •-- Estimate _'-_To Date To Date _° Sealcoat with FA-2 aggregate application rate (0.22 gal/sq yd of emulsion and 23 Ib/sq yd of crushed granite aggregate) 89,627 SY 0.51 8,582.00 4,376.82 89,627.00 45,709.77 Sealcoat with FA-3 aggregate application rate (0.27 gal/sq yd of emulsion and 25 Ib/sq yd of crushed granite aggregate) 60,519 SY 0.53 0.00 0.00 67,619.00 35,838.07 Sweep before sealcoat application 150,146 SY 0.01 60,858.00 608.58 157,246.00 1,572.46 Sweep after sealcoat application 150,146 SY 0.01 157,246.00 1,572.46 157,246.00 1,572.46 30 in. x 30 in. �oose Rock Signs 32 Each 50.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 1,900.00 SUBTOTAL $6,557.86 TOTAL SUMMARY: Original Contract Amount Contract additions: CO 1 Contract deductions: Revised contract amount Value Completed To Date Amount Retained (0%) Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE $82,387.76 4,205.00 86,592.76 86,592.76 0.00 76,033.16 $10,559.60 51 $86,592.76 Street Improvement Project (Sealcoat) Project No. ST 2002 -10 Estimate No. 2 Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF THE CONTRACTOR I hereby ce�tify that the work performed and the materials supplied to date under the tertns of the contract for this project, and all authorized changes thereto, have an actual value under the contract of the amounts shown on this estimate (and the final quantities on the final sstimate are coRect), and that this estimate is just and correct and no part of the "Amount Due This Estimate" has been received By Contractor's Authorized Representative (TiUe) CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEER I hereby certify that I have prepared or examined this estimate, and that the contractor is entitled to payment of this estimate under the contract for reference project. CITY OF FRIDLEY, INSPECTOR By Checked By 52 Date Respectfully Submitted, Jon H. Haukaas Public Works Director � AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 , qTY OF - FRIDLEY • Date: August 21, 2002 � To: William Burns, City Manager�'P From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coo�dinator Stephanie Hanson, Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #02-13, Jim Kiewel M-02-94 INTRODUCTION Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the construction of an additional 28' X 37' detached garage. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #02-13. After reviewing the facts, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. The petitioner does ' not meet the statutory definition of hardship. If the Council does approve this request, staff would advise attaching the following stipulations. � STIPULATIONS 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation. 4. Home must be opened to City officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to determine if the property is a legitimate single family home. 5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled". 53 6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the garage. 7. New dwelling area, as labeled on site plan, must be separated from garage in � accordance with building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage area without first obtaining an additional variance. > 8. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto - adjacent properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed necessary by City Staff. - 9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being "finaled". 10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage. Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Variance shall become null and void unless a Special Use Permit is successfully obtained to construct the proposed detached garage. 54 ! � . .. To: Fridley City Council From: Jim Kiewel Re: Variance # 02-13 On August 14t'' 2002 at my appeals commission meeting, a number of issues were brought forward that need to be clarified and resolved. 1. The definition of ( FLOOR AREA ) as it appears in Fridley City Code # 205.07.O1.B.(1). This Code states: THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,400 SQUARE FEET. Fact : No definition of ( FLOOR AREA ) can be found within the definition section of the Fridley City Charter chapter 205. It is this petitioners request that the State definition of ( FLOOR AREA ) be substituted until such definition may be established within the Fridley City Charter. State Uniform Building Code, Chapter 2. ( Definitions and Abbreviations ), reads as follows: THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS OF A BUILDING OR PORTION THEROF, EXCLUSIVE OF VENT SHAFTS AND COURTS. T'HE FLOOR AREA OF A BLTILDING, OR PORTION THEROF, NOT PROVIDED WITH SL�.��1LT i EXTERiC� �� ;,LS S�IAI,L LE T��; TV SCIIJLL A�h L'�'DER THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR ABOVE. This is a finished internal dimension, not an external dimension. Minnesota State Statute # 16B.62 STATE BUILDING CODE; APPLICATION. Subdivision 1. ( Municipal enforcement ) states: THE STATE BUILDING CODE APPLIES STATEWIDE AND SUPERSEDES THE BUILDING CODE OF ANY MUNICIPALITY. THE STATE BUILDING CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO STATE INSPECTIONS REQI7IRED OR RLTLEMAKING AUTHORIZED BY 103F.141, 216C.19, subdivision 8, and 326.244. ALL MUNICIFALITIES SHALL ADOPT AND ENFORCE THE STATE BUILDING CODE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS. 2. During the August 14�h appeals meeting, Paul Bolin stated: The proposed garage is going to be 37 by 28 which is 1036 S/F and then we've got an additional dwelling area which is 17 by 37 and that will separate the two garages. Therefore ma.king the new garage detached not attached. If one wanted to consider the new proposed garage as being attached we would need to also include the dwelling areas in between the 2 garages and then we'de be looking at a variance raising the total square footage of an attached garage from 1,000 S.F. up to 2,241 S.F. When asked by Appeals commission menber Brad Dunham, " how can it be considered a detached garage if it is in fact attached?" Pauls response was. " Because you can only have 1 first accessory structure which is the original garage. If there was not dwelling area seperating the two then this would not be a second accessory structure. That would be an expansion of the first garage. This statement brings into question whether the proposed garage is attached or detached. For your convenience I have provided the relevant city codes in their entirety as they pertain to my proposal so the city council can make an informed decision based on facts and not speculation. 1. Section 205.07.B. (1) THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,400 SQUARE FEET. 2. SECTION 205.07. (4a) A PRIVATE GARAGE IS THE FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING. IT SHALL NOT EXCEED 100% OF THE FIRST FLOOR AREA OF THE DWELLING LJNIT OR A MAXIMUM OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET. 3. SECTION 205.07.0 (1) USES PERMITTED WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE FOLLOWING ARE USES PERMITTED WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN R-! L�ISTRICTS. (1) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OTHER THAN THE FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING, OVER 240 SQUARE FEET. FRIDLEY CITY CODE - 205.03. DEFIIVITIONS. 1. ACCCESSORY BUILDING OR USE. A SUBORDINATE BUILDING OR USE WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR USE AND IS NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE CONDUCT OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR USE. 30. GARAGE, PRIVATE. AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR ACCESSORY PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING WHICH IS USED TO STORE MOTOR VEHICLES OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE RESIDENT. I was unable to find the meaning of attached or detached in either Fridley City or State Code. I did however find the meaning of (DETACHED) in WEBSTERS COLLEGE DICTIONARY. 2 Websters defines ( DETACHED ) as: (1) Standing by itself. (2) Seperate or Unconnected. This petitioners site plan clearly shows that the proposed garage is in fact , attached to the primary building, my home, and not detached. Mr. Bolin stated: We've got an additional dwelling area which is 17 by 37 that will separate the 2 garages. Therefore making the new garage detached and not attached. This is misleading in that it implies there are two separate garages when in fact this proposed private garage which is, by code definition, ( The first accessory building ). See 205.07 (4a), Which states: A PRIVATE GARAGE IS THE FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING. This private garage is attached to and is a( PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ). See 205.03 DEFII�TITIONS. This defines a( PRIVATE GARAGE ) as ( AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR ACCESSORY PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ). As a conditon of my prior variance I was required to block in my lower garage in order to add the new garage area. Simply by adding dwelling area to my home does not detach the garage from my home. In fact, this proposed private garage is fully interconnected to my primary home through stairs and doors. During the August 14`h Appeals meeting, Paul also stated :( If one wanted to consider the new proposed garage as attached we would need to also include the dwelling area in between the two garages and then we'de be looking at a variance raising the total square footage of an attached garage from 1,000 square feet to 2,241 square feet. I did not authorize any arbitrary modifications to my proposal, or site plan, to include my dwelling area as garage space. By what code or authority does planning staff do so. There are also a number of stipulations which are unacceptable or need changes. Stipulation 2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July 1, 2003. Request change to 1 year from issuance of variance. May be unable to meet current deadline with spring construction schedule. Stipulation 4. Home must be opened to city officials, prior to issuance of a building permit, to determine if the property is a legitimate single family home. I do not understand this. Needs clarification. 3 Stipulation 9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious, the water runoff velocity must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area ( rain garden ) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being " finaled ". Stipulation 8 is more practical here. Why build something prior to construction when it could be damaged? Do not understand " finaled". Stipulation 10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the exhisting home and garage. Buildinjg elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Unnecessary. Flat roof with stucco walls to match building. the Stipulation 11. Yariance shall become null and void unless a special use permit is sucessfully obtained to construct proposed detached garage. Request Change to : Petitioner shall obtain special use permit if required by Fridley City Code. Proposed garage is not detached, but attached to the primary building. Section 205.07.C.(1). Fridley City Code, specifically excludes the first accessory building, a ( PRIVATE GARAGE ) from a special use requirement. In conclusion : Several months ago my neighbor across the street found the window smashed out of his car. I would much prefer to keep my vehicles inside to protect them. The fact is, my ha:dship has not changed since my last va.riar.ce w�s grar:ted. I need the space t� stc:e my la,� tractor, boat, motorcyle, trailor and vehicles. This proposed improvement to my home will increase the value of my property and thereby benefit my neighbors as well. Thank you for your consideration. Jim Kiewel 4 � � i �r� ,, % � r- -- . _1., / � � � � � I �_ 3�- y� - I � ,� �`�??�< 2 �/' �� ( f 1 1'� I I ` " `� � i � '� ��,� I �� < ,��- `>�,� � �� ,� ' � , � � �� E x► s7� G� l�'` � ,�/ooR �� I � � _ _ _,_� , I �� I � I � � � � � � _--- y � -s i t.� P1�-�_� � �3�,�� ...� . ., � . . , . - - -- — --- -�-- - L o-�-__�_d_� �ra.�c_e-=.__ y /l 7 S' � �,� /�" % _ J`� �l t� r i� /s' : G �� G}-e � e -- ;�� u-:Y�--G i°-�" T 6 Ta f � �. � � � � �r -c c�. - / yoo �. F Pr �� r_l�c�r �� c-�- '� S'"�--3 G ra �t��' 2- 26`�6 /39Z --i 0 �� ✓� � -� � , « �� _ � �"`�,__ , � j. . . . ._' , : , � 0 • City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR#02-04 August 14, 2002 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Jim Kiewel 1631 Rice Creek Road Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Acrion: Variance Purpose: To increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet. Existing Zoning: Residenrial - 1 Location: 1631 Rice Creek Road Size: 27,550 sq. ft. .b acres Existing Land Use: Single Fanzily Home Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family, R-1 E: City of New Brighton S: Single Family, R-1 W: Single Family, R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Confom�ance: Sec. 205.07.O1.B.(1) requires that the total area of all accessory buildings not exceed 1,400 square feet. Zoning History: Lot platted in 1939. Home built in 1953. VAR #95-23 granted in 1996. VAR #95-23 expires, as it wasn't built, 1997. VAR #00-04 withdrawn prior to action. Legal Descriprion of Property: The E. 145' front & rear thereof of the S. 190' thereof of Lot 6, Auditors Sub. #22, subject to an 55 easement over the S. 30' thereof for road purposes. Council Action: � August 26, 2002 Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: Home is accessed by Rice Creek Road. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban residential landscaping, lot slopes towards back. SUMMARY OF PROJECT Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the const�ucrion of an additiona128' X 37' detached garage. SUMMARY OF HARDSffiP `Additional storage is needed for vehicles & boat. Vehicles need to be stored inside to prevent theft, or damage from weather or vandalism. This will allow me to save offsite storage costs & give a clean appearance to the neighborhood. " Jim Kiewel SLfMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. No similar variances to a11ow the square -� footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet have been granted. Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of hardship This request is not comparable to petitioners previous request (attached garage expanded to be 1,392 square feet) VAR #02-13 REQUEST Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, is seeking to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the construction of an additiona128' X 37' detached garage. PROPERTY HISTORY The property is located north of R.ice Creek Road near the New Brighton border. The home is a 1,500 square foot walkout rambler with a 576 square foot (24'x24') attached two car garage. The home was built in 1953 and the attached garage was added in 1961. The petitioner has owned the property since 1994 and in 1995 applied for a variance to construct an attached garage addition to increase the size of accessory structures to a total of 2,064 square feet. In 2000, the petitioner submitted a variance application, which was withdrawn prior to formal action, to increase the size of accessory structiues to 1,666 square feet. PRIOR VARIANCE REQUESTS The 1995 variance request, VAR #95-23, was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1996 after a total of two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory building to 1,392 square feet. The 24' by 24' attached garage was built as a two story garage, which made the actual square footage of the original garage 1,152 square feet. The original request for Variance #95-23 was to place a 24' X 38' addition attached to the existing garage and home. A variance was needed as this request would not only exceed the square footage of the home, but would also exceed the 1,400 square foot limit for all accessory buildings. This request increased the total square footage of accessory buildings to 2,064 square feet and was denied by the Appeals Commission at their September 12, 1995 meeting. When the variance request went to the City Council on October 2, 1995, the petitioner reduced his request to 1,776 square feet of total accessory buildings by reducing the size of the eacisting lower garage unit to 288 square feet. This request was denied by the City Council. The petitioner then asked the Council to reconsider his request on October 23, 1995. The petitioner agreed to remove the garage door from the lower level and block the space in so that it was not considered part of the accessory structure. This reduced the petitioner's request to 1,392 total square feet of accessory structures. The City Council tabled this request to explore the necessity of any changes to the accessory structure portion of the Code. On February 12, 1996 the City Council determined that the ordinance did not need to be changed and at their February 26`h, 1996 meeting granted approval of VAR #95-23 to allow the size of a first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet. The garage was not constructed and the variance expired in 1997. 56 Due to the lapse of Variance #95-23, the petirioner applied for another variance on March 17, 2000. The March 2000 request, Variance #00-04, was for a 30' X 33' (990 square foot) detached garage addition. The total square footage of all accessory buildings proposed was 1,666 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the variance due to a lack of hardship and the peritioner withdrew the request prior to the Appeals Commission. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VAR #02-13 (Current Request) ciZ VAR #9S-Z3 (Past variance granted, that lapsed) Through out the application process, the peritioner has repeatedly inferred to staff that we should recommend approval and that the Appeals Commission shouldn't have a problem �anting this variance request since he was granted one in the past. The two variances are very different in scope and there is no hardship wamanting the granting of a variance. The previous variance, which was granted but lapsed after one year when construction had not started, was a variance to allow an attached first accessory building to be 1,392 square feet rather than the Code required 1,000 square feet for fust accessory buildings. The total request was 8 square feet less than the maximum square footage of all accessory buildings allowed by code. Both of the petitioners previous attempts to get the total square footage of the accessory buildings over 1,400 square feet were denied due to a lack of hardship. The request to increase the allowable square footage to 2,064 square feet was denied by the Appeals Commission due to a lack of hardship. The revised request to increase the allowable square footage to 1,776 square feet was then denied by the Council due to a lack of hardship. To point out the differences in even simpler terms, the first request was for a 34' X 24' (816 square foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28' X 37' (1,036 square foot) deta.ched garage addition. With VAR #95-23, the total square footage of all accessory buildings was 1,392 square feet. With VAR #02-13, the total square footage of all accessory buildings is proposed to be 1,612 sq. ft.. The granted variance was 8 square feet under the total allowed by Code. The requested variance is 212 square feet more than allowed by Code. (View of proposed garage location from North) *Additi«n Location* (View of proposed garage location from West 57 RECOiVIMENDATIONS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. • No similar variances to allow the square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet have been granted. • Petirioner dces not meet statutory definition of hardship • This request is not comparable to petitioners previous request (attached garage expanded to be 1,392 square feet) STIPULATION Staff recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary pennits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by Ju1y l, 2003. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation. 4. Home must be opened to City of�cials, prior to issuance of a building pemut, to detemiine if the property is a legitimate single family home. 5. All sheds on property must be removed prior to building permit being "finaled". 6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the garage. 7. New dwelling area, as labeled on site plan, must be separated from garage in accordance with building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage area without first obtaining an additional variance. 8. Silt fence required along the East, West, & North property lines to prevent erosion onto adjacent properties. Hay bales in swale areas are also required, as deemed necessary by City Staff. 9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity must be slowed down through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a building pernut. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being "finaled". 10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage. Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building pemut. 11. Variance shall become null and void unless a Special Use Permit is successfully obtained to construct the proposed detached garage. : CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 14, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter, Sue Jackson Members Absent: Ken Vos Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator James Kiewel, 1631 Rice Creek Road PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-13, BY JAMES KIEWEL: Per Section 205.07.02.6(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the total square footage of accessory buildings from 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the construction of an additional 28 foot by 37 foot garage on the East 145 feet front and rear thereof of the south 190 feet thereof of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22 (subject to easement of record), generally located at 1631 Rice Creek Road. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Jackson, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that Mr. Kiewel, the property owner, is seeking a variance to increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings from 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet to allow the construction of an additional 28 x 37 foot detached garage. The petitioner must also receive a special use permit from the Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed garage. Any second accessory structure over 240 square feet requires a special use permit. Mr. Bolin stated that the lot was platted in 1939, and the existing home was built in 1953. A variance for a garage addition was granted in 1996. That variance expired in 1997 because the garage was not built. The petitioner applied for another variance for a garage addition in 2000, but that request was withdrawn prior to any formal action being taken on the request by the City. Mr. Bolin stated that Variance #95-23 was approved by the City Council on February 26, 1996, after two revisions were made to reduce the total square footage of the accessory buildings down to 1,392 square feet. Originally, the petitioner requested a variance for a total of 2,064 square feet, but it was changed to 1,776 square feet. Both requests were denied by the Council, and a variance down to 1,392 square feet was approved. Variance #00-04 was 59 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 2 submitted two summers ago and that request was withdrawn by the petitioner before the Appeals Commission took any action. That proposal was for 1,666 square feet of garage. Mr. Bolin stated that since Mr. Kiewel was granted a variance in the past, this one should not be any problem; however, there are a few differences. Variance #95-23 was a request for a 34 ft. by 24 ft. (1,816 square foot) attached garage addition. The current request is for a 28 ft. by 37 (1,036 square feet) detached garage addition. The garage is considered detached because it is separated from the existing garage by living space. With variance #95-23, the total square footage of all accessory buildings was 1,392 square feet. With this proposal, the total square footage of all accessory buildings is 1,612 square feet, once the existing sheds are removed from the property. Variance #95-23 is actually 8 square feet under the 1400 square foot total allowed by code and the requested variance is 216 square feet more than what is allowed by Code per total. A summary of the petitioner's hardship states: "Additional storage is needed for vehicle and a boat. The vehictes need to be stored inside to prevent theft or damage from weather or vandalism. This will allow me to save some off-site storage costs, and give a clean appearance to the neighborhood. Mr. Bolin stated that the addition would only be one story tall and would not be as tall as the rest of the home and would have a flat roof line. Staff recommends denial due to no similar variances in the past allowing square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet. The petitioner does not meet the statutory definition of a hardship, and this request is not comparable to the petitioner's previous request which was granted. If the Appeals Commission and, ultimately, the City Council decide to grant this variance, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner obtain all necessary permits prior to instruction. 2. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by July 1, 2003. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used to conduct a home occupation 4. The home must be open to city officials prior to issuance of the building permit to determine if the property is a legitimate single family home. (There was concern in the past that the home was being used as a duplex). 5. All sheds on the property must be removed prior to building permit being finaled out. 6. Detailed plans for the new dwelling area must be submitted with building plans for the garage. 7. The new dwelling area as labeled on a site plan must be separated from the garage in accordance with building code requirements and may not be converted to additional garage area without first obtaining an additional variance. 8. A silt fence is required along the east, west and north property lines to prevent erosion onto adjacent properties. Hay bales and swale areas are also required as deemed necessary by City staff. 9. Due to steep grades and amount of additional impervious surface, the water runoff velocity must be slowed own through the use of sod, seed, a small ponding area (rain garden) or other landscaping. Final design to be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Remedy must be installed prior to building permit being "finaled". 10. New addition must be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage. Building elevations to be submitted to and approved by City staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The variance shall become null and void unless a special use permit is successfully obtained to construct the proposed detached garage. . 1 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 3 Mr. Bolin stated that staff has not seen any elevations of the proposed garage yet, but understand it will be pre-fab concrete with a flat roof. Staff has received a few calls from neighbors who are concerned about this home taking on a more commercial appearance with such a large garage and a flat roof that does not really match the architecture of the home. Three calls from neighbors expressed concem with too much garage for a residential site, and concern with erosion was also mentioned. Two neighbors are experiencing silting runoff from this property with some previous yardwork that was done. A letter submitted by one of the neighbors, James and Deborah Wright, 1691 Camelot Ln, was reviewed by staff. Mr. Bolin stated that the existing garage has a 576 square foot footprint. The proposed garage will be 37 ft. by 28 ft. which is 1,036 square feet. An additional dwelling area which is 17 ft. by 37 ft. will separate the two garages. That witl make the new garage detached. If one wanted to consider the proposed garage as attached, the dwelling area would also need to be included. That variance needed would be 2,241 square feet. Mr. Kuechle asked what the maximum variance request given was. Mr. Bolin stated that the last variance approved for a second accessory building was Mr. Kiewel's in 1996 at 1,392 square feet. Mr. Jones asked if when erosion was involved, are people required to have a construction plan submitted? Mr. Bolin stated that a land alteration permit is required. Mr. Kiewel has been working with the Assistant Public Works Director on getting the proper permit and silt fence in place. Ms. Jackson asked if the current garage was a double garage. Mr. Bolin stated that it is. Ms. Jackson asked if the additional garage would be the equivalent of what square footage? Mr. Bolin stated that across the front of the door would be facing north and that is a wide 2.5 car garage in width. Ms. Jackson stated that the current garage is a double garage and the new garage would be larger. Mr. Kuechle stated that it would be about two times larger. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. Mr. Zinter stated that 1,400 square feet is similar to surrounding residential garages. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct; 1,400 square feet is very common. Mr. James Kiewel, 1631 Rice Creek Road, stated that he is surprised to see that this application is incorrect. The square footage is out of line with what is actually proposed. Staff is using exterior dimensions when they should be using interior dimensions according to the code which states that total floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. Minnesota State Code Section 207 F defines total area as the area included within the 61 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 4 surrounding exterior walls of the building. He is in compliance with the code on that basis. The summary of analysis states that no similar variances allowed square footage of accessory buildings to exceed 1,400 square feet. However, one variance was granted to Mr. Kluczar at 1420 Rice Creek Road for 1,432 square feet. That is based on the detached garage. Mr. Kiewel stated that if you look under the definition of the first accessory building, It states that it is omitted in special use permits. In Section 205.07.02.(1), the following uses are permitted in R-1 districts: accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet. By definition this cannot be a detached garage. It is attached to the primary structure. Section 205.07.01.B.(4) states that the following accessory use is allowed in R-1 districts: a private garage used as the first accessory building. Mr. Kiewel stated he does not understand the statutory definition of hardship. His neighbor's hardship was that he needed more vehicle storage for cars. At the October 2, 1995, Council meeting, when asked by Councilmember Schneider the hardship for the variance request, Mr. Hickok stated that it was for the storage of vehicles. Mr. Kiewel stated that he finds this entire document prejudicial to his request tonight. The codes are made for everyone, and everyone should follow them. He is not asking for any more than what is stated in Code. Ms. Jackson asked if he would be putting in another hard surface driveway along the west side of the property line. Mr. Kiewel stated that on the west side of the prope►ty line, it might be tough to do before construction, but after the structure was complete he could have that done. Ms. Jackson stated that the green space would be reduced due to putting in another driveway. Mr. Kiewel stated there is already a driveway. With the garage addition, he would take up approximately 15% of the lot size under the codes. Mr. Kuechle asked the building time table. Mr. Kiewel stated that to put a driveway prior to construction would be too damaging with all the trucks driving in over the asphalt. Mr. Kuechle stated that he is asking for approval now, and there is almost 11 months to finish the driveway. Is he looking at building this fall? Mr. Kiewel stated that he is looking at building next spring. Mr. Kuechle stated that calling this a detached garage was giving preferential treatment to the petitioner. Mr. Bolin stated that if it is considered an attached garage, they are looking at a variance to exceed the maximum square footage of an attached accessory structure from 1,000 square feet up to 2,241 square feet. If it is detached, which the staff, the City Attorney, and the Building Official say it is, then a variance to increase that maximum allowable square footage from 1,400 square feet up to 1,612 square feet is needed. 62 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 Mr. Kuechie stated that detached is giving the more preferable treatment. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct. PAGE 5 Mr. Jones asked how it was considered a detached garage if it was attached to the house. Mr. Bolin stated that you can only have one first accessory structure which is your original garage. If you were to add on to the original garage and there was not a dwelling area separating the two, this would not be a second accessory structure. It would be an expansion of the first garage. Mr. Kuechle stated that even if it is considered attached, it would make the variance request larger than the variance request the petitioner is asking for now. Mr. Kiewel stated that what court of law indicates that you can arbitrarily indicate that my dwelling area is to be considered garage area for accessory structures? That is impossible. It does not matter where he puts the garage as long as it is an accessory portion of the principal building which is exactly what it is. Mr. Kuechle stated that if it is considered the first accessory structure, the maximum the petitioner could have is 1,000 square feet. Mr. Kiewel stated that can be expanded to 1,400 square feet under 205.07.01 which is exactly what is in question here tonight. Mr. Kuechle stated that it is over 1,400 square feet. Mr. Kiewel stated that attaching the dwelling area and indicating that it has accessory area, is not right. By definition it is dwelling area. The floor area definitions are not correct either. Ms. Jackson asked if the 37 foot wall next to the new dwelling area has a door. Mr. Kiewel stated there is a door that goes right into the dwelling. The existing dwelling is also attached through the rear garage through the dwelling area with the stairs that go down through the garage area. Ms. Jackson asked if that would be a fi�e wall. Mr. Kiewel stated that the wall is concrete and cannot be moved and is load bearing. It is required. Ms. Jackson asked if that was already there. Mr. Kiewel stated that it is not. He plans on building some additional dwelling area along with the garage and it will be concrete. Mr. Kuechle asked what the maximum square footage is for an attached garage. Mr. Bolin stated that the total square feet is 1,000 square feet. 63 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 6 Mr. Kuechle stated that even if this is considered an attached garage, the petitioner is way over 1,000 square feet. Mr. Kiewel stated that is why he needs a variance for 1,400 square feet. Mr. Kuechle stated that it is for 1,612 square feet. Mr. Kiewel stated that you are using a definition that is not in the code. He is using interior definitions, not exterior. Mr. Kuechle stated they have always used exterior definitions and he can take it up with the City Council as to what the definitions should be. He has never looked at interior square footage. It is always the footprint and that is Fridley's code as well. Mr. Kiewel stated that he has chosen to exercise his rights under code and does not feel that he should be discriminated against. Mr. Bolin stated that the definition the petitioner is referring to is from the Uniform Building Code, not from the City of Fridley code. Mr. Kiewel stated that he would like to see the Fridley city code definitions. Mr. Kuechle asked if his hardship was different than someone who wants to store more of their material goods on that property. Mr. Kiewel stated that he only wants to store vehicles. It is much better to store them inside. His old variance was reviewed by Mayor Nee and he stated that it may set precedence for vehicle storage. This creates a question of whether or not Council is being arbitrary in ways that do not make sense. People should be encouraged to store their items. The hardship is difficult to define. Being a capitalist in a free enterprise system, that is part of the price to pay. Mr. Zinter asked if there has been recent theft or damage. Mr. Kiewel stated that in the past there has been damage. Recently there has not been any theft or damage. Mr. Zinter stated that the cost of building a garage versus the cost saved from outside storage would be a long payback for a structure like this. Mr. Kiewel stated that in the long term, it is a lot more practical. If you have a Iot of vehicles, it is nice to store them in a garage. Mr. Zinter asked if he would consider any options to stay within the code guidelines. Mr. Kiewel stated he would not. Mr. Jones asked what the difference in square footage would be if he stayed within code guidelines. Mr. Bolin stated that it would be 212 square feet. .' APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 7 Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Kiewel has seen the letter from James and Deborah Wright. Mr. Kiewel stated that he did not and would like to see it. MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Zinter, to receive into the record the letter from James and Deborah Wright, 1691 Camelot Lane. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIIMOUSLY. Mr. Kiewel stated that he spoke with his neighbors today, and they mentioned to him that the City was alerted in May that this run-off of sand may be a problem. These are the new neighbors that called in May, and he received no notice that this was a problem. He would have corrected this had he known. Mr. Jones asked how long the sand has been accumulating. Mr. Kiewel stated that there is black dirt there right now and he has cleaned that up a little bit. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, 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 WAS CLOSED AT 7:59 P.M. Ms. Jackson stated that she has driven by there often and adding a garage would be preferable to the collection of storage spots. It certainly is not attractive with the dirt and the lack of planting. She just cannot see a garage of this size. It is not a hardship if people choose to have many vehicles. She gets a storage spot for her son's car when he goes to college, and they do not try to make the driveway into a parking lot. The petitioner could build a smaller garage, and she does not see approving a garage of this size. Mr. Kuechle stated he concurred. There really is not any special hardship on the lot and the way it is laid out is not conducive for a garage there. The 1991 variance granted was on a very large lot on the south side of that street and was hidden more and did not have erosion or n.in- off problems. It would be difficult to grant this variance. Mr. Jones stated he is concemed about the size of this and he is having a difficult time understanding the entire request. He is not sure what the hardship is. He is also concemed about Mr. Kiewel's awareness of the problem and, on the other hand, not aware of the problem with the erosion and stuff. It depends on what aspect he is talking about. Neighbors are concerned and when he is asked him specifically, he is not aware of any problems. Mr. Zinter stated that taking all the points accumulatively that he has heard, there is no precedence for something of this size. The hardship did not seem a true hardship, and all the stipulations are quite large compared to other variances. That is a warning flag for him. Mr. Kuechle stated that this property is a large property at 27,000 square feet, but he does not see that it is laid out well to handle this kind of structure because you have to go around the house and down the hill which will cause a lot of runoff problems. This mitigates the fact that the lot is a large lot. 65 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 8 MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance Request, VAR #02-13, by James Kiewel. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bolin stated that this will go to City Council on August 26. . . � ` AGENDA ITEM cmroF CITY COUNCIL. MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2002 FRIDLEY INFORMAL STATUS RE'PORTS 67