The URL can be used to link to this page

10/28/2002 - 4761OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2002 �� -r rt ► i � � � � � � CffY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers Attendance Sheet ALFASF AR/NT NAMF, ADDRFSS AND /TFM NUMB�'R YOU ARF /NifRFSTFD /N. � � � CffY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers Attendance Sheet ALFASF AR/NT NAMF, AflaRFSS ANa /TFM NUMB�'it YOU ARF /NTFRFSTFD /IY. , a� : �� , ��y �`� � ;, � , . ' ° ; �,�"a��iC� Nam�, �1+e��'�+''� �'�:, � ` � ' �'' !�� , �. ,. �� '�, .. ,, , _:,, ��c , �.,, ; �;-��, �� .. ,�, _ �._ � . _. , � a � /' � /V,� , ,� '� r � z� t� � �� ._ l��-� `�" � � r� �1'� 5�) y.S !? � ' � � /� � � ��; ,� �� - �� c=-� -�'- � �(�2 t; , l �. ' �1 i � ( 1�V � � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCiOBER 28, 2002 CffY OF FRIDLEY 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, reliaion, ' 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 572-3�00 at least one week in advance. (TTD/�72-3�34) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATIONS: Student Foreign Exchange Week - October 28 through November 3, 2002 Natalya Munoz — Chile Caroline Schaer — Switzerland Jaruwan Limsukhakorn - Thailand APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of October 14, 2002 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution Certifying Certain Delinquent Utility Services to the County Auditor for Collection with the2003 Taxes ................................................................................................ 1- 7 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 2. Claims ....................................................................................................... 8 3. Licenses _ ..................................................................................................... 9 11 4. Estimates ................................................................................................... 12 ADOPTIO�V OF AGENDA. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda —15 minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. Consideration of the Suspension or Revocation of the Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., d/b/a Maple Lanes, Generally Located at 6310 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) (Continued from April 22, 2002) .......................................................... 13 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED): 6. Consideration of the Assessment for Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2001 — 1 .............................................................. 14 - 15 7. Consideration of the Assessment for the Varichak Utility Project No. 342 .......................................................................... 16 - 17 8. Consideration of the Assessment for the 2002 Nuisance Abatement ................................................................................. 18 - 19 9. Consideration of Amending Chapter 506 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Snow Removal (Violation and Towing) ....................................................................................... 20 OLD BUSINESS: 10. 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. (Ward 2) (Tabled August26, 2002) ................................................................................................ 21 - 34 11. Special Use Permit Request, SP #02-08, by Van-O-Lite, to Allow Exterior Storage of Materials in a C-2, General Business District, Generally Located at 5945 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) (Tabled October 14, 2002) .......................................................... 35 - 39 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 PAGE =t NEW BUSINESS: 12. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 506 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Snow Removal — Viotation and Towing .......................................................... 40 - 41 13. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 205, Sections 205.17, 205.18, 205.19, 205.20 and 205.25 Related to Outdoor Storage in the Industrial Districts ..................................................................................... 42 - 50 14. Resolution Revoking Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers Inc., D/B/A AMF Maple Lanes, Located at 6310 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ........................................... 51 - 54 15. Resolution Adopting Assessment for the 2001 Street Improvement Project No. 20Q1 — 1 ......._ .................................................. 55 - 65 16. Resolution Adopting Assessment for the Varichak Utility Project No. 342 ........................................................................................ 66 - 72 17. Resolution Adopting Assessment for 2002 Nuisance Abatement....................................................................................................... 73 - 7� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 PAGE 5 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 18. Variance Request, VAR #02-17, by Robert and Constance Metcalf, to Exempt the Property Owner from Installing the Code Required Hard Surface Drive, Generally Located at 860 West Moore Lake Drive (Ward 2) ....................................................................................................... 76 - 83 � 19. Public Informatibn Meeting on the City of Fridley Part I Wellhead Protection Plan ............................................................. 84 20. Informal Status Reports ....................................................................................... 85 ADJOURN. r � F�2IDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 ' QTY OF FRIDLEY "I'he City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, seY, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status w7t� regard to public assistance. Upon request. accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disa'�ilities to participate•in any of Fridley's services. programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persor�s who need an interpreter or otr.er persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Robe�'Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Ci��,� y" APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: (7 �� ; 7 NEW BUSIfdES3 {CONTINUED): PROCLAMATIONS: � � L Student Foreign �xchange Week - October 28 through November 3, 2002 Naialya Munoz - Chile Caroline Schaer - Switrerland Jaruwan Limsukhakorn - Thailand p 1�.� APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:I-"b �� APPF�OVAL OF MINUTES: %k;7 �� F pS%'r �` 4. Estimates ADOPTiON OF AGENDA. ....... 12 City Cauncil Meeting of October 14, 2002 O�EN FURUM, VISITORS; Consideration of items not on Agenda - 15 minutes. iVEW BUSiNESS: Resolution Certifying Certain Delinquent Utility Services to the County Auditor for Collection with the 2003 Taxes ........................ ..... 1- 7 �� ,,�� 2. Claims 3. Licenses i �� RUBLIC HEARiNGS: �% (�C-�i�!�� r' 5. Consideratian oi the Suspension or Revacation Qf the Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bow6ng Centers, Ir�c., d/b/a Maple Lanes, Generally Located at 6310 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) (Continued from April 22, 2002) .................................. .................... 8 �' � .................... 9 - 11 � � �s � 6. Cc;nsideration of the Assessment for Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2�01-1 ..............................:... 14-15 oc�'� �� , b � � �s P` FRIDLE�' CITY COUNCIL 1VIEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTiNUED): 7. Consideration of the Assessment for the Varichak Utility Project No. 342 ........ 16 - 17 e�,�1 �� ,��b � � � � � � 8. Consideration of the Assessment for the 2002 Nuisance Abatement ................. 18 - 19 d ��'��`� b1��P� � �5 �5 9. Consideration of Amending Chapter 506 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Snow Removal (Violation and Towing) ....................... 20 � �� 5� ��` � ��X � P` OLD BUSINESS: l 10. Variance Request, VAR #02-13, by Jim Kiewel, to Increase the Total Square Footage of aii . Accessory Buildings to Allow the Construction of an Additional Garage, Generally Located at 1631 Rice Creek Road N�. (Ward �)�d August 26, 2002) ......... ...........x..,�... 21 - 34 �� e � � s �� 11. Special Use Permit Request, SP #02-08, by Van-O-Lite, to Allow Exterior Storage of Materials in a C-2, General Business District, �, Generally Located at 5945 University Aven 1 N.E. (Ward 1) (Tabled October 14, 1�°. 2002) ..................... .......... 35 - 39 `� � . Lo . •- �� k° ��` �� . � f �v' �� F� v ,�'��6 �t �C � � �'_ NEW BUSINESS� `�Q' i 12. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending , Chapter 506 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Snow Removal — Violation and Towin �� ................................... 40 - 41 p�� P 13. First Reading of an O�dinance Amending Chapter 2Q5, Sections 205.17, 205.18, 205.19, 205.20 and 205.25 Relatea to Outdoor Storage � in the I�strial Districts ..................... 42 - 50 x� ��-�� '�,,�^ . � ��. PAGE 2 _ a,�, �- r . NEW BUSINESS (CONTIiVUED): '� /r 14. Resolution Revoking Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers inc., D/B/A AMF Maole Lanes, Located at 6310 Hi hway 65 N.�. (Ward / aa ..... .. ..................... 51 - 54 �•� � � � a o� �� k ^ a �,\� `�,y�1 �d� ��. �� 15. Resolution Adopting Assessment `or the 2001 Street Improvement Project No. 2001 — 1 ................................... 55 - 65 , - n�.," � .f-�o a � �� Y�6��c�✓�` . � 16. Resolution Adopting Assessment for the Varichak Utili�y Project No. 342 ........................ 66 - 72 � �� i - �ao � ►�- �S �` 17. Resolution Adopting Assessment for 2002 Nuisance Abatement ........ ........................ 73 - 75 � � �,'�'`� , _ � * � � � �i o� � �--- �� ,18. Variance Request, VAR #02-17, by Robert and Constance Metcalf, to Exempt the Property Owner from Installing the Code Required Hard Surface Drive, Generally Located at 860 West Moore Lake Drive 2) ................................... 76 - 83 �� ,,��N.�''' � �s � �!°�k� �� 19. Public Information Meeting on the City of Fridley Pa�t 1 Wellhead Protection Plan................................... 84 20. Informal Status Reports ...................... 85 ADJOt1RN. �� ! � � ` (� � �-� P� �� . =!= =1= =_� Student Foreign October 28 through Exchange Weeh November 3, 2002 WHEREAS, our community's greatest asset is our youth; and WHEREAS, the American Field Service (AFS) organizes and administers a program which brings stzcdents from around the world to our community; and, WHEREAS, this interchange of culture and philosophy contributes to the edzccation and matzcration of our youth in many and varied ways; and, WHEREAS, it is the desiYe of the City of Fridley to show its appreciation and support to our distingacished guests; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, hereby proclaim October 28 through November 3, 2002, as Student Foreign Exchange Week, IN HONOR OF NATALYA MUIVOZ - CHILE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Natalya Munoz be made an honorary citizen of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, during her stay. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Fridley to be affixed this 28`h day of October, 2002. Scott J. Lund, Mayor =i= =�_ Student Foreign October 28 through Exchange Week November 3, 2002 WHEREAS, our commzcnity's greatest asset is our youth; and WHEREAS, the American Field Service (AFS) organizes and administers a program which brings stuclents from around the world to our community; and, WHEREAS, this interchange of culture and philosophy contributes to the education and maturation of our youth in many and varied ways; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Fridley to show its appreciation and support to our distinguished guests; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, he�eby proclaim October 28 through November 3, 2002, as Student Foreign Exchange Week, IN HONOR OF CAROLINE SCHAER - SWITZERLAND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Caroline Schaer be _made an honorary citizen of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, during her stay. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Fridley to be a�xed this 28`h day of October, 2002. Scott J. Lund, Mayor '= =1= Student Foreign October 28 through Exchange Week November 3, 2002 WHEREAS, ozcr commzcnity's greatest asset is oicr youth; and WHEREAS, the American Field Ser-vice (AFS) organizes and administers a program which b�ings students from around the world to our commzcnity; and, WHEREAS, this interchange of cultu�e and philosophy contributes to the education and maturation of our youth in many and varied ways; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Friclley to show its appreciation and support to our distinguished guests; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED, that 1, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, hereby proclaim October 28 through November 3, 2002, as Student Foreign Exchange Week, IN HONOR OF JAR UWAN LIMSUKHAKORN - THAILAND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Jaruwan Limsukhakorn be made an honorary citizen of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, during her stay. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Fridley to be affixed this 28`h day of October, 2002. Scott J. Lund, Mayor THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 -- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 The Regular Nleeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 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 Bolkcom and Councilmember Wolfe [�1 �u � � - _ � ��!_ � • - OTHERS PRESENT: William W. Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director Dave Sallman, Director of Public Safety Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Frederick Knaak, City Attorney . APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: City Council Meeting of September 23, 2002 APPROVED. 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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLAI�INING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2002. RECEIVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 2 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 2002. RECEIVED. 3. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUE�T, SP #02-09, BY KEVIN SWANSON, TO ALLOW A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OVER 240 SQUARE FEET FOR STORAGE AND RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7053 HICKORY DRIVE N.E. (WARD 3). Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to siY stipulations. APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #02-09, WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1) PETITIONER SI�ALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION; 2) THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR A HOME OCCUPATION OR LIVING AREA; 3) TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MUST NOT EXCEED 1,400 SQUARE FEET; 4) GARAGE SHALL BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING HOME AND FINISHED WITH SAME SIDING AND COLOR SCHEME; 5) ALL VEHICLES SHALL BE STORED ON A HARD SURFACE AS APPROVED BY THE CITY; 6) STAFF SHALL CONDUCT REGULAR INSPECTIONS OF THE SITE. IF, AT ANY TIME, A TRAIL SIMULATING A DRIVEWAY IS PRESENT, A HARD� SURFACE DRIVEWAY, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY, WILL NEED TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN 90 DAYS. 4. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-09, BY PAUL WESTBY, TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF A SIGN FROM 24 SQUARE FEET TO 38 SQUARE FEET AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF A SIGN FROM A DRIVEVVAY FROM 10 FEET TO 2 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MONUMENT SIGN, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6425 HIGHWAY 65 N.E. (WARD 2). Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated the Appeals Commission approved the setback variance but denied the sign variance at their September 25 meeting. The setback variance was allowed due to the City's fire access requirements. There was no apparent hazdship, however, to justify increasing the size of the sign and the Appeals Commission rejected that. Staff recommended Council's approval of the setback variance and denial of the sign vanance. APPROVED VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-09, BY PAUL WESTBY TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF A SIGN FROM A DRIVEWAY FROi�I 10 FEET TO 2 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1VIONUMENT SIGN AND DENIED A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE _. _. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 3 ALLOWABLE SIZE OF A SIGN FROM 24 SQUARE FEET TO 38 SQUARE FEET. 5. SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 28, 2002, TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 506 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE PERTAIlvING TO SNOW REMOVAL — VIOLATION AND TOWING. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 28, 2002. 6. CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO APPOINT JAMIE A. RAMACHER TO THE POSITION OF RECREATION SUPERVISOR. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated this position was previously vacated by Deborah Campobasso. Ms. Ramacher was chosen from 117 applicants for the position. She has a Bachelor's of Science degree in Recreation and Leisure Services from the University of Minnesota. Her experience includes work as the program coordinator for the City of Shoreview where she has worked for the last 2 1/2 years. She has been an active member and leader of the Minnesota Parks and Recreation Association and she has also served on the University of Minnesota Professional Advisory Board where she evaluated the curriculum and staffing at the University. Staff recommended Ms. Ramacher's appointment. APPOINTED JAMIE A. RAMACHER TO THE POSITION OF RECREATION SUPERVISIOR. 7. CLAIMS. APPROVED CLAIM NOS. 107559 THROUGH 108079. 8. LICENSES. APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED. 9. ESTIMATES. APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES: Ron Kassa Construction 6005 — 250�' Street East Elko, NIN 55020 2002 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 344 Estimate No. 6 $ 13,596.11 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 4 Park Coristruction Company 7900 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 5543?-179� 57`'' Avenue Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 346 Estimate No. 4 $ 72,038.99 Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 5�025-9461 Hartman Circle Watermain Looping Project No. 347 Estimate No. 4 $ 8,141.50 W.B, Miller 6701 Norris Lake Road NW Elk River, MN 55330 2002 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2002 —1 Estimate No. 7 $ 96;202.99 ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she approved the consent agenda if she was agreeing to the setback for Dr. Westby sign and denying the size increase for the sign. Mr. Burns agreed. Councilmember Bolkcom inquired as to the change being made in the snow removal ordinance. Mr. Burns responded that the date change from May 1 to April 1 was made last year but it was inadvertently not changed in one section of the City Code. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to adopt the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 5 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LU�1D DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Mayor Lund asked if there were any members in the audience who wished to speak to Council on any non-agenda items. Mr. Jack Kirkham, 430 - 67`'' Avenue, approached and stated that at the last meeting, he was disturbed by the reaction given to a citizen who regarding a survey that was submitted on Brandes Place. When asked if such a request would be a main factor of consideration of whether to approve or deny the Brandes Place request, they were told it would be a consideration but not a main consideration. He asked what other issues or factors were more important than the will of the citizens. He stated that he did hear of some other factors that appeazed to intimidate the Council, such as the mention of the federal law and the Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan. He said that this made him wonder where the plan even came from. He asked who wrote the plan and who said this plan must be approved. He said his main concern is that we have come to a point where a citizen has no longer any real self-determination; that the City Council has told them generally. Mayor Lund stated in relation to Mr. Kirkham's question, he stated he thought the staff and the City Attorney would have some insight. He said that when he was talking to the gentleman at the last City Council meeting, he may have made the statement that it would not be the only factor taken into consideration. He stated that he thought it was important to get all the aspects in order to make an educated decision. Mr. Kirkham asked where the Comprehensive Plan originated. He asked if it was something that was provided to the City based on the citizens' conveying a need to the government or if it was something qualified through the Metropolitan Council and the HRA. - Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, replied that the Comprehensive Plan is the City of Fridley's document drafted by and for the City of Fridley. Citizens were invited to a series of _ commission meetings and neighborhood meetings to talk about their visions and what the� wanted included in the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan is ultimately approved by the Metropolitan Council but it is a document drafted by staff, recommended and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Councilmember Bolkcom mentioned that not only was it discussed at meetings but there were also some surveys that were sent out by the Planning Commission. She said there was neighborhood input and that Council also heard testimony from staff. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 6 Mr. Hickok stated it was a two-year process. Councilmember Billings stated that at the beginning of the public hearing, there was a visual presentation and the City Attorney read a decision by the Supreme Court. He asked if staff hat that with them. Mr. Hickok stated they did not have it and asked the City Attorney to respond. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that this was a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court on a case involving Northwestern College. The decision, which has been consistently upheld since, is that neighborhood oppositions alone cannot serve as the basis for a valid zoning decisian. In other words, if you use neighborhood oppositions as the sole criteria or as the predominant criteria in a zoning decision, it will be undoubtedly detrimentaL Councilmember Wolfe inquired whether he was talking about the neighborhood or the whole city. Mr. Knaak stated it was his recollection that it was mostly the neighborhood immediately. surrounding Northwestern College in Arden Hills. OLD BUSINESS: 10. RESOLUTION NO. 57-2002 SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR JAMES NICKLOW AND THE SHOREWOOD RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 6161 HIGHWAY 65 N.E. (TABLED SEPTEMBER 9, 2002) (WARD 2). MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Sallman, Director of Public Safety, stated that on September 9, 2002, the City Council tabled the decision to suspend or revoke the tobacco license for the Shorewood Restaurant and asked staff to look into the matter. He reported that the employee who sold the tobacco products did plead guilty in county court. The City is recommending a suspension at this time until the $500 administrative fee is paid. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve Resolution No. 57-2002, suspending the tobacco license of the Shorewood Restaurant until December 31, 2002, and subsequently thereafter until the $500 penalty is paid as required under Chapter 12 of the City Code. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 7 NEW BUSINESS: 11. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #02-08, BY VAN-O-LITE, TO ALLOW EXTERIOR STORAGE OF NIATERIALS IN A G2, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5945 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. WARD 1). Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that they received a letter from the attorney representing Van-O-Lite asking if Council would consider putting this item on the October 28, 2002, agenda, as he had a conflict and was unable to attend tonight's meeting. ' MOTION by Councilmember Billings to table this item until October 28, 2002. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive the letter for continuance. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT NO. 343. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated for the last year, they have put together a project for the expansion of the offices and personnel facilities at the public works garage. He said they opened it up for bids on October 8, 2002, and received 17 bids. The bids were within 15 percent of each other. There are potentially two bidders depending on whether we approve an award based on the base bid or on the base bid plus alternates. There were five alternates. They included: 1) code required sprinkler system, 2) City log and entrance signage, 3) a window into the mechanics bay from the upper office, 4) roof screening of inechanical units, and 5) exterior painting of the vehicle storage building. Mr. Haukaas stated that during the last few days, there was concern that wage provisions were not included in the bid documents. That was, however, covered and there is language in the specifications stating that they must abide by all cities' policies which includes minimum wages. He stated that is pretty common with all cities and counties at this point. He said they did contact the potential low bidders and have received signed statements stating they will abide by all prevailing wage rules. Mr. Haukaas stated that staff s recommendation is to award the contract with all alternates because each one has merit. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 8 Councilmember Barnette asked vir. Haukaas if he could answer the question on comparable wages for the general public. Mr. Haukaas explained that prevailing wage rules are essentially a set of wage rates based on a greater range of wages which evens the board with using union contractors and non-union contractors. Cities, counties and MnDOT have adopted these standards. Councilmember Bolkcom pointed out that "winter con�itions" are mentioned. She inquired whether it would cost less if we waited until spring. �1r. Haukaas stated that they did not believe so as there is an annual increase in labor rates. He said that right now there are a lot of coniractors looking for work, and by the large number of ' bids received, it tells us this is probably the best time to proceed. Councilmember Bolkcom inquired as to the change in seasons for doing the work and comparing the cost. Mr. Haukaas replied that there are not a lot of employees right now as compared to next summer. Right now there are just the full-time employees and in the summer they will be working around an additiona130 to 40 seasonal employees. Dr. Burns, City Manager, asked what the successful bidder's amount was. Mr. Haukaas replied they are recomm�nding the approval of the award with ali alternates to CM Construction in the amount of $730,�00. Councilmember Wolfe replied his calculation of the bid came to a total af $736,950 Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the budgeted amount was. Dr. Burns, City Manager, replied $600,000. Councilmember Bolkcom asked where the rest of the money was eoming from. Dr. Burns replied the fund balance was �oing to be from the construction fund. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was enough money. � Dr. Burns responded that there was. Mayor Lund asked if Mr. Haukaas would accept the recommended bid of CM Construction with one or more of the alternates removed. Mr. Haukaas replied that removing an alternate may change who ends up having the low bid. The other firm involved is Spectra F3uilding. .. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 9 Mayor Lund replied that the only question he had is why we are picking alternates. Mr. Haukaas replied that may change who ends up with the award. If we take Spectra Building with all alternates, the amount is at $731,950. There is only a$1,450 difference if you do it w-ith all alternates. The roof screening is on a number of buildings. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if anyone else has been asked to use the screening. Mayor Lund asked if the roof screening was to protect from the sun and elements. N1r. Haukaas answered it is visual screening. He said when they were first putting the project together they looked at it as being more than just a personnel issue but also looked at the entire facility for storage of vehicles and maintenance of vehicles. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this project was also being done because of OSHA requirements. Mr. Haukaas answered those were some of the issues that were involved. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to award the construction contract for the Municipal Garage Expansion Project No. 343, with all alternates, to CM Construction in the amount of $730,500. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAivIMOUSLY. 13. RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA #02-01, TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6160 FIFTH STREET N.E. (WARD 1). 14. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, NIINNESOTA, BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZOl�TING DISTRICTS (REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #02-01, BY BRANDES PLACE LTD PARTNERSHIP) (WARD 1). 15. APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST, PS #02-03, BY BRANDES PLACE LTD. PARTNERSHIP, TO REPLAT PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6160 FIFTH STREET N E(WARD 1) Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that Brandes Place Limited Partnership is recommending three separate land use actions in order to construct a 16-unit townhouse style multi-family development at 6120 Fifth Street NE. The actions being requested are a plat, comprehensive plan amendment, and a rezoning. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 10 Attorney Knaak, City Attorney, spoke of two issues in particular that he had. He stated at the last meeting a majority vote was necessary. This has raised questions because the City's ordinance, which is was based on the previous state statute that has been since amended, states that a two-thirds or four-fifth's vote is required. In these instances, state statute will prevail. He refened to the Attorney Generals Opinion (provided to Council) that addresses this eYact same point with another charter city to whom the question was directly asked. Mr. Knaak said that the second issue he wanted to address was the presence in this case of potential application of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA). In this case, there are two provisions of that Act which have to do with the fact that it is unlawful for the City to impose a substantial burden upon the religious exercise of a person putting in a religious assembly or institution. Regarding the question of whether or not the applicant's case is a religious institution for purposes of the Act and whether this particular activity is a religious exercise for the purposes of the Act, Mr. Knaak stated that no direct case law directly on point in this instance. But it is no different here, since both of these are being served and present in this case and we are dealing with a non-profit church-affiliated organization in addition to the fact that he cannot definitively say that the provision of affordable housing is not a religious exercise. Mr. Hickok stated the plat is being requested to create a new parcel for the construction of 16 townhome style multi-family units on the parcel. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is to change the City's Future Land Use Map, designating the future land use as a newly created parcei as multi-family housing. Finally, the rezoning of the new parcel to R-3 multi-family residential will allow the construction of the townhomes. Brandes Place is on St. Williams' property in the northeast corner of the campus. Brandes Place is seeking plat to divide the cunent St. Williams property into separate parcels. The plat will create the lot descriptions necessary for transferring the property from St. Williams to Brandes Place Limited Partnership. The creation of the second parcel will allow the lot axea needed to construct the proposed townhome units. Mr. Hickok stated that the proposed lot for Brandes Place is 1.17 acres and proposed Lot 2, the remaining campus is 5.8 acres. The proposed plat will not create any non-conformities for the existing church on St. Williams' campus. Mr. Hickok stated that staff recommended approval of the plat with the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner to dedicate street ROW as indicated on Preliminary Plat drawing. 2. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for stormwater run-off and management. 4. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and NURP ponding for entire site. .. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 11 6. City Enaineering staff to review and approve gradina and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Code required refuse and recycling enclosures must be installed. 8. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permit. 9. Petitioner to pay any required Park dedication fees. 10. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual se�vage treatment systexns located on the site are property capped or removed. 11. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay required park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, reported that Brandes Place is seeking to amend the future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designating the new Brandes Place parcel, Lot 1, to a multi-family residential property. He said that prior to the Brandes Place parcel being rezoned, future land use designation on the site must be changed to Multi-Family Residential in order for the rezoning to be in conformance. Mr. Hickok said that the Comprehensive Plan is the vision for the City's future. Sc�me of the public designations placed under all conditional type uses within the City include churches, schools, hospitals and city buildings. The design and location of the developmen� will help provide for a positive community image and will provide for the development of affordable housing for all age groups. Due to the fact the proposed project helps us further a number of goals in the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommended approval of the request with the twelve stipulations. Mr. Hickok said that there is also a rezoning request. Brandes Place Limited Partn.ership and Church of St. Williams are seeking to rezone both of the pazcels to R-3 Residential. St. Williams' campus and the proposed Brandes Place project are currently a mix of R-2 (Two Family) and C-3 (General Shopping Center) zoning districts. This designation is necessary for the Brandes Place development and is not an uncommon zoning designation for church property in Fridley. Mr. Hickok stated the City authority can rezone property from one designation to another so long as the zoning conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of this request would not result in "spot zoning." The granting of this request would be an expansion of the e:�isting R-3 zoning just to the north of the property (the Norwood Square property). There is very little developable land in Fridley. Undeveloped multi-family sites are non-existent. This site is unique FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 12 in that it borders eYisting R-3 property and the eYpansion of this zoned district presents an opportunity to expand housing options in Fridley. He said that staff recommended approval of this as well with 12 stipulations as outlined above. Mr. Hickok stated there were nine hours of public hearings between the Planning Commissi�n and the City Council. There was much testimony received and we have sought to answer the questions that came up through that process. He said that there was one comment about having enough affordable housing. He replied that the Comprehensive Plan addresses housing diversity and affordability. Specifically, this comes directly from the Comprehensive Plan. In high demand are affordable units with three or more bedrooms. Recent figures obtained through the Anoka County Housing Coordinator for the Metro HRA indicate that there were 125 Anoka county families for rental assistance since September 1999. Of the families waiting for three- bedroom units, 19 or 60 percent were for Fridiey units. Mr. Hickok stated that answering the inquiry about crime, the Police Department has prepared two different analyses of existing apartment complexes in Fridley. He said there are 141 units in the market rate development and the subsidized development has with 196 units. For robberies the market rate had 0, and the subsidized had 1. For warrant arrests, the market rate had 4 and the subsidized had 3. For family assistance, the market rate had 17 and the subsidized 24. "Miscellaneous" calls included medical, first responder-type calis. He wanted to point out that the subsidized development is one-third senior. For Disorderly Conduct, the market rate had 6 and the subsidized 18. For damage to property, market rate had 17 and subsidized had 1. For thefts, market rate had 13 and subsidized 4. This example gives us a sense that crime exists and it is not all at individual, subsidized or market rate units. It is important to know there are other factors that influence some of the calls. He stated that the second comparison made by the Police Department was a comparison of identical buildings with different management. The buildings are exactly the same design, are built side-by-side but have different owners and different management. There is a significant difference in the number of crimes. The time period was from the first nine and one-half months of 2002. Assaults, 4-1; Burglary 1-1, Disturbing the Peace, 18-1, Criminal Sexual Conduct, 2-0; Theft, 5-2; Other Crimes, 11-1 (Total 41-6). Mr. Hickok thinks this really indicated that an important factor is management. With respect to Project Based Section 8 development, the last ten years of information are looked at, including information from previous states people have lived in, previous credit information, previous crime information, and previous towns lived in. Mr. Hickok stated it is an important thing to understand that management can make a difference in crime statistics. Mr. Hickok said that answering an inquiry that Fifth Street cannot handle additional traffic, the street is a Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roadway. It was designed to collector standards. He presented a visual chart of the Fifth Street traffic count history, for the Years 2001, 1997, 1995, 1991, 1985 and the average trips for two different segments, "Mississippi to 63�d" and "63�d t0 6151." He pointed out that the road was designed to collector standards allowing well over 4,000 trips. He said there and there are 2,600 to 4,600 in the segment of Mississippi to 63`d but there is also the use by the Target employees. From 63`d to 615` the numbers drop incredibly from 1985 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 13 through the year 2001 and have stayed there pretty much consistently; there was a difference of 1,550 to 1,450 cars on an average daily basis. We are looking at about 1,300 on that roadway segment in 2001. Remember that each one of these units have the expectation of generating 7 trips (for 12 units) for the development each day. Mr. Hickok proceeded to comment on the impact to schools. He said it was mentianed that the schools are "swollen and that they can't afford these students." Mr. Hickok stated they have asked the School District to respond to them and they have not taken any stance on this matter.. _ However, they have indicated the following: If 25 new students are added, an additional revenue of $156,000 would be received by the school. An additional teacher may be required at the cost of approximately $65,000, leaving $91,000 for additional school district funds based on 25 new " students. Mr. Hickok stated that with respect to the comment about the area having too much multi-family housing density, he provided an analysis of .the City in half-mile segments which showed very specific GIS data of the land use in each segment. He said that in each one of the areas, they use mathematical and scientific information to determine the information. He stated that by looking at the areas, 2 percent of the land is dedicated to R-2, 12 percent is dedicated tc► R-3 and 7 percent of the overall land area is dedicated to R-2 or R-3 residential. He said�it is :important to understand that density is relative to location and as you lay out a land use plan, there are areas that are truly higher density than some neighborhoods. But one of the factors that makes higher density work and is the higher capacity roadways that allow people to leave the development, not travel through a single-family neighborhood. Mr. Hickok pointed out that by looking at the map, we can see that there is higher density and more concentrated land use of commerciz�l land along those roadways because it allows for people to get in and out of those developments without traversing where larger single-family developments are. Mr. Hickok said that in answer to the comment that this development will flood Moon Plaza, the designers of Brandes Place will be required to deal with storm water runoff, retention and a treatment pond. It will be physically impossible for the development at Brandes Place to flood Moon Plaza due to the elevation differences. The main problem with the Moon Plaza property is its lack of storm water controls for its own runoff. This property is neazly all building or asphalt parking lots with no ponding or other storm water retention/treatment opportunity which does create its own problem. Mr. Hickok stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the outlined stipulations. � Councilmember Wolfe asked about the crime study and if there were any comparisons done including residential single family. Mr. Hickok replied it was requested that it be done using multi-family. Councilmember Billings recalled the cooperative agreement between St. Williams and Catholic Charities. He said that Brandes Place Limited Partnership, however, comes into this as an entity. FRIDLEY CITY COU�iCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 14 He said it was his understanding that the federal holder of the property would be Wells Fargo Bank and they would then lease the property to Catholic Charities. He asked if the loan could be sold, what type of lease it was, and who the titleholder would be. Attorney Knaak replied that the question is in the context of RLUIPA since that is the issue and that changes somewhat the burden ultimately that the City agree with any of these applications. Specifically, if this passes into the ownership of a third party that is more obviously a religious institution, does that somehow mean that RLUIPA in those terms still applies. He stated he believed the answer to the question is, no, it does not mean that. For example, school districts _ routinely will lease space to religious organizations and communities for the purpose of conducting religious services. No one azgues that as a result of that, those are no longer religious services or activities and that the school district owns the church. The issue as far as RLUIPA is ' concerned is the nature of the activity itself, not necessarily who owns the property. It is his understanding we are concerned right now with the present application. Any arrangements and ' assurances that can provided by Catholic Charities are unknown. For purposes of RLUIPA the fact that it is owned by a non-religious institution really is inelevant; it is what is going on there, that it is a religious exercise, and whether it involves the participation of a religious institution. Dr. Burns asked about the connection with RLUIPA. Attorney Knaak replied if Catholic Charities or some other organization were to provide free housing as part of a ministry, would that or would that not be is the speculative argument. An argument can certainly be made that this is part of their ministry. Mr. Hickok stated he does have somewhat of an understanding from discussions with the petitioner about the relationship with St. Williams Church and Catholic Charities, the Community Housing Development Corporation, and the bank. There is a complex financial arrangement that depends on a 30-year relationship. The land is being given from St. Williams to the new landowners with the specific stipulations that the land does not change ownership and that agreement is drawn very tight. The bank and the federal funds depend on this also staying at the current use. So, the funding pacl�age only works if there is a commitment to keep moving in the direction that they are to provide affordable housing. On top on that understanding is that the development corporation would not want to get the funds and turn around and contradict the arrangements that were made. He stated that he has had their assurances that there is no intention to turn it into another use or turn it over to another landowner. Councilmember Barnette asked if they could sell the property. Mr. Hickok explained that the arrangement is very much like many other religious institutions � across the country, that do not have their own method of financing a church so that they go to the bank to do that. There are many, many churches that are funded through banks and institutions. It does not in any way make them a church. It also puts them on the line as the debtor to the bank as it gives them a commitment to repay the mortgage on that property. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14. 2002 PAGE 15 Ms. Janet Pope, Asset/Developer Manager for the Community Housing Uevelopment Corporation, approached to provide an answer to the question. She stated that Br.andes Place Limited Partnership would be the title owner, Wells Fargo would be a limited partner and would have very limited duties such as to invest funds based on the use that Brandes Place will be put to, and that is affordable housing. Wells Fargo would pay penalties if the housing is used for anything different than affordable housing or it is sold to anyone else who uses it for anything else other than this specific use. The Community Housing Development Corporation will be the managing general partner. The company has done this for 11 years and has never sald any of its property. They will have a lease agreement with Catholic Charities whereby they wi11 essential�y operate, manage, and provide the services to residents of the property. Councilmember Barnette asked how the Community Housing Development Corporation would still hold the title. Ms. Pope replied that the Community Housing Development Corporation and `vVells Fazgo formed a third entity called the Brandes Place Limited Partnership which will actually own the property. This is all according to federal law. Councilmember Barnette asked if the request for rezoning portion of this should fail, does the whole procedure at this point stop or would there be a second reading two weeks from now. Mr. Hickok replied that if the motion to approve this project fails, there is a process by parliamentary procedure to create an opportunity to amend the motion. Councilmember Barnette asked if the land would change hands at that stage. Mr. Hickok responded that it is all tied together. If one fails, they all fail Councilmember Billings asked if someone could review the policies for screening tenants for the proposed site. Mr. Hickok replied that the screening procedures are for project-based Section 8 housing and are contained in the packet. Section 8 tenant screening has a stricter process than many mazket- based developments. The City has no control over the private landlord screening or not screening their prospective residents. On the other hand, project-based goes through a tenant screening for all prospective tenants, including rental, credit and criminal history. The last ten states the prospective tenant has lived in are checked and 7 years of poor rental, criminal and credit history are held against the prospective tenant. Councilmember Billings asked would do the screening for the project. Mr. Hickok responded that is part of the management project and is tied into the funding and management arrangement. In this case it would Catholic Charities. FRIDLEY CITY COU�iCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 16 Councilmember Billinas asked if they could explain the process of what they would do and how it would work. � Ms. Tracy Berglund, �ssistant Administrator for Catholic Charities, stated that they do the regular screening that 1�1r. Hickok talked about and also have a panel selection. Councilmember Billings asked her to explain a little more about the panel selection. Ms. Berglund replied that generally the panel is made up of senior management, property _ management staff, staff from Catholic Charities and also staff from the local community. Councilmember Barnette stated he was asked whether the buildin�s are accessible under the " Americans With Disabilities Act. He asked for an explanation of what measures have been made and why they have to be made. Mr. Hickok replied that two units that are required to be accessible in a 15-unit develapment such as this. One is a physical accessibility unit which addresses physical challenges and the other is for hearing or sight challenges. On the model there are two buildings side-by-side which were identical. Those presumably would be the two northernmost buildings. The southern buildings, particularly the building closest to the existing administration building on the church campus has one unit that is a one-level unit, so the building would be designed in a way to allow a one-level unit in a group of four to exist. That is the unit for the physically challenged. Councilmember Wolfe asked if the Section 8 screening could be mare restric±ive for Brandes Place. Mr. Hickok replied that the project-based screening process is the one described and, in this case, is the one Catholic Charities would be responsible for. It would necessitate going back and looking at the applicant's history, checking back ten states, checking the crime record and checking the credit rating. That is a standard process. For a tenant lease situation, it is truly up to the management of that complex. If they choose not to screen tenants, you may have a system where a tenant has not been well screened and have problems because of that. Councilmember Bolkcom said the Ciiy does have a rental ordinance and they will have to have a permit to rent these properties. There is a conduct of code in the ordinance. There are provisions in the rental ordinance about behavior of tenants. She said she knew they worked and she also thought it was an opportunity for a landlord to get rid of a so-called problem tenant. Mr. Hickok replied that that was true. He said that this is way the process is identical. Whether it is a unit that has a subsidy or whether it is a market rate unit, there is truly an eviction process that will eliminate the bad tenants. There is inspection of the units. We also have a code of conduct in that ordinance that really keeps the management on their toes. If they get to a point where they have a series of repeat offenses of a certain type, their license can be recalled. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 17 Ms. Janet Kreutter, 5916 Second Street, stated she grew up in Coon Rapids and was a number. She moved to Fridley where the schools are a small size. According to Minnesota state law, there should only be 19 students in an elementary classroom. The first grade has four sections, four teachers, and 24 kids per section. Second grade has three sections, three teachers, and 24 kids per section. Third grade has four sections, four teachers, and 26 kids on the average. Fourth grade has three sections, three kids, and 30 kids for an average. The seventh grade is full. She said she wished that a senior development would be built. She said she believed that the estimate of adding 47 kids would be too many for the schools. Mayor Lund stated that with respect to her request that a senior center be built, the Council cannot vote for senior housing as that is not the request before them. He said that asking for senior housing would still result in a rezoning request. Ms. Kreutter said she is talking about the schools. She graduated with over 900 kids and her daughter graduated with 198. She said she believed that we're going to lose it. Mayor Lund replied that the rezoning issue is currently being discussed. The property is now R-2 and the petitioner is asking for it to change to R-3. He said that what Ms. Kreutter is asking for would also require an R-3 rezoning. Mr. Dick Snyder, 5901 Second Street N.E., said he had lived in Fridley for 39 years and brought up two kids. He feels there is a lot of affordable housing. His big concern is safety and the water runoff situation. Mr. Hickok replied that the Brandes Place project will be required to hold its own water. The law requires that pre-imposed development water runoff needs to meet certain standards. The project will not move forward with permits until a satisfactory solution for ponding has been created. As for ponds in developments, it is not an unusual thing. As a matter of fact it is state law that ponding occur on sites for all developments to exist. We do not fence in ponds for the protection of children. That is not a typical standard; they are created typically in the amenities of the development. Mayor Lund replied that when the Community Center was expanded, there was no ponding originally there. When the City made a joint deal with the school district and added onto the community center, a ponding area was created to take into consideration additional runofF of the increased parking lot and increased impervious surfaces. Councilmember Wolfe commented that we cannot separate seniors and other ages. That is something the City cannot do. He knows a lot of people want a senior center, but the City is unable to discriminate based on age. Mr. Ed Sworsky, 491 - 61 S` Avenue N.E., stated that when he went to school he was taught that he lived in a democracy and they elected representatives who did your will and the majority would rule. It seems to him that somewhere down the line the majority does not rule. He thinks FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 18 that we need to remember that Council is elected and they are representing the residents. We have listened to more people who want it than people who don't want it. Ms. Jody Gambel, 6020 Si�cth Street N.E., asked if they used the same screening for the people that live in other Catholic Charities buildings. Councilmember Billings asked for clarification of the question, asking if she wanted to know if they use the same type of screening far the same types of facilities. They have several types of facilities throughout the metropolitan Twin Cities area. Ms. Gambel confirmed she was asking about similar facilities and if they use the same screening. She also commented that on the traffic issue and that the road can handle the traffic. The question is if the people, not the road, can handle all the traffic. She stated that we're talking about a huge complex and she is a little frustrated that they keep answering the question about the road, and that they're talking about the road, not the "people." She stated if you're talking about Village Green, they have a lot problems and you can call them up and ask them yourself. She said the ordinances do not always work and Village Green management can tell them that. She said she thought this project was too overwhelming for their neighborhood. Ms. Pope replied they do have tenant screening for similar type of buildings. They do have a very broad range of facilities to give shelter. They have very strict screening for this type of facility. Councilmember Bolkcom inquired if traffic counts are done on roadways for any type of rezoning. She asked if they looked at the number of the cars that might go up and down any of the streets, whether residential or feeder streets, and the increase in numbers. She asked whether we are doing anything different when evaluating the traffic counts in this area compared to any other project. Ms. Hickok replied, no. This is a uniform development standard that is used. He said that everyone has their own perception of what development will do and what traffic will do, but the numbers are what are utilized. Mr. Marv Peters, 6220 Sixth Street N.E., asked if the Council received a packet sent out by his son. Mayor Lund confirmed that they had. He stated there are questions and facts in the packet. He stated he is a landlord. He said when Catholic Charities stated that they would be screening tenants, that does not always work. He said it is difficult to You do not get factual information. When you call another landlord and ask for references, if it's a bad tenant, they will say, yeah, he's a pretty good one. He stated he could talk for hours about the difficulties he has had with different tenants. He had two private investigators do his screening and it does not always work. You only get certain information. He has also had trouble with gang members, and not knowing they were gang members hecause he could not get that information. Keep that in mind. Ms. Katy Vechell, 6201 Fifth Street N.E., approached and commented on the traffic. She stated she conducted her own study on Monday, September 30, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. She said FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 19 that within 30 minutes, 71 vehicles went by her house, and within one hour, 101 vehicles. She stated that a total of 322 vehicles in three hours passed by her house, not counting 6 police officers that went by, 2 community officers, 2 school buses, three large vehicles such as UPS and Metro Mobility, three motorcycles, 14 people on bicycles, and 14 people walking. She stated that was an average of one vehicle per second. She stated that sometimes she cannot even get out of her driveway. She replied that there is a retirement home on her block and the residents walk up and down the street with their walkers. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hickok if the traffic counts are required every four yeazs. Mr. Haukaas replied that traffic counts are required by MnDOT for state aid streets. He said that right now they are on a four-year cycle. A lot of the fully developed communities elect to go to a four-year cycle because traffic counts haven't changed much: He replied that Ms. Vechell probably had very valid counts. A majority of the traffic occurs during the day. He said they could put out a traffic counter strip and get another number. However; he feels safe guessing it would be within the range they are talking about, 1400 cars a day. Dr. Burns commented it should be pointed out that the last one done was in 2001. Councilmember Wolfe inquired if the studies are done like MnDOT where they count cars per hours. Mr. Haukaas replied they use a rubber hose that goes across to a mechanical counter. Mayor Lund asked how long they leave the hose to traffic count in a specific area. Ms. Haukaas stated they will do it for a 48-hour period. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was only during the week. Mr. Haukaa.s replied that is conect. Mayor Lund commented regarding the traffic count charge that from 63'd to 61 S`, it is actually down and the average appears to be azound 1,400. He said that it also states that Fifth Street is a Minnesota State Aid Roadway and it is designed as a collector and as a collector it is not unusual to find 4,000 or more vehicles on the roadway. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated he would like to know if Council would like the Section 8 area across from them. He thinks that putting in senior housing would be better. Mayor Lund commented to Mr. Eisenzimmer that he is bringing up the same issue that was brought up earlier. Mr. Eisenzimmer replied the people in that area do not want that project it in there. He said Council should go back to the property owner and see if a senior center could be built there.. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 20 Mayor Lund commented that if they were to ask for a senior citizen building, it would require the same type of zoning that is being requested. Ms. Jean Hegberg, 5881 Second Street N.E., stated that 80 percent have said that they do not want it. She said she has decided to run for City CounciL Ms. Sue Watlov Phillips, 13» Hillcrest Drive, asked if anyone has asked the organization how the rent was going to be utilized? She also asked if this property is going to be treated any differently than other similarly zoned property. Mr. Hickok replied that it would not. Mayor Lund replied they are giving them due process. Councilmember Billings stated he believes it depends on what questions remain. He asked if City staff asked different questions than they have for a similar project. He asked if the criteria was the same as it would be for another project. He said the answer is yes. The City is not just city staff or the City Council. The city is the people that live in the city. There are a number of people who are asking a number of questions. He said that the City Council is trying to respond to those questions and give Catholic Charities and St. Williams Church an opportunity to respond to the questions of the neighborhood. So in the broader sense, is the petitioner being asked to respond to questions that they might have otherwise been asked to respond to? Probably so, based on the emotional feelings of the neighborhood, but he does not think, in terms of the legislative process that the City Council and city staff are going through, that they are asking different questions than they would normally ask the petitioner. Mr. Roger Avery, 6010 Glenco Street N.E., states he would like to be sent a copy of the density drawing. Father Joseph Whalen, Pastor of the Church of St. William, stated that when they went through the process in the winter and early spring of 2000, several open meetings were held not only for parishioners of the parish but for neighbors as well, to discuss the donation of land. In the course of those hearings, several questions arose about whether the land should be sold or used differently. He said he thought the discussions were extensive, comprehensive, and met all of the questions that were raised. During the process, it was determined that the land should be donated to Catholic Charities. Mr. Don Mahr, 6181 Fifth Street N.E., stated he lives right across the project and with respect to what the priest just said, nobody informed him about it. He also believed it was all cut and dry before the meeting. Mr. Rusty Quinn, 6271 Sixth Street N.E., stated he has lived in Fridley for well over 40 years and attends St. Michael's parish. He states the parishioners were not advised of this and were not asked. He stated to his knowledge, 85 percent of the parishioners are against it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 21 Mayor Lund reminded Mr. Quinn that is a question for the church. Councilmember Wolfe stated they have no say with how the church operates. N1s. Joanne Zmuda, 60� 1 Fourth Street N.E., commented on the safety of the holding pond. She read an excerpt from RLUIPa stating that no government shall impose an incident of land use regulation in a manner that imposes a financial burden on religious exercise of a person. To date 12 land cases have been decided under RLUIPA and not one case pertaining to land being used for any other purpose other than religious worship or schools. For example, RLUIPA applies by allowing an establishment of a place of worship such as allowing worship services in homes or malls not zoned for such purpose. She states that is a big difference than what is being discussed - presently. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, replied that he did not know of any holding pond in the City that has fences around it. That may be a decision of the property owner. The majority of the ponds are considered dry ponds -- they only hold water immediately after it storms. There is no requirement for fencing. Mr. Avery asked is this a profit or non-profit corporation? Ms. Pope approached and stated that ownership entity will be a for profit corporation, Brandes Place Limited Partnership who will have to carry a non-profit corporation to manage the property and provide services to the residents. Community Housing Development Corporation is the general partners of the limited partnership that aze one partnership -- that entity is non-profit. Mr. Avery asked if it was a for profit organization? Ms. Pope replied that it was a for profit organization that owns the land. Mr. Joe Weber, 6021 Sixth Street N.E., approached and commented on the city map and noticed some of the statistics. He said if you were to draw the map a little differently and start with Fifth Street to the corner of Fridley, there is no question that this is where all the multi-units are. He commented on the Village Green statistics and the definition of the road. Mr. Hickok stated that if someone wants a copy of the map, they are welcome to it. The City is _ broken up already into one-mile sections and for purposes here they were broken down into one- half sections. He pointed out that the roadways are there and this area is next to a major . transportation route and certainly would fit the land use tenants. Mayor Lund stated there was another comment about the street being designated as a collector street, that it is more of a thoroughfare since Sixth Street does not go all the way to Mississippi.. Mr. Kirkham approached and stated he had a few things he wanted to address. One was about the splitting up of the segments showing the traffic on the roadway. He stated to Mr. Hickok he FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL i�IEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 22 knew he had put in a lot of work into the presentation and asked him who was paying him, Catholic Charities or the City of Fridley. Councilmember Billings replied that Mr. Hickok had provided the answers to the questions that the neighborhood and City Council asked. He said he thought he has done it in a fair and objective manner. He said he thought Mr. Kirkham's comment was totally, completely inappropriate and out of place and requested that Mr. Kirkham apologize to him. Mr. Kirkham apologized to Mr. Hickok. Mr. Kirkham stated he had a question about the easement and right-of-way for the area of the map indicated by the purple. At the last council meeting someone asked what the difference was. Mr. Hickok replied that it is most typical in a plat to have the street surrounding the plat dedicated as right-of-way. It dozs not at all change the way we serve the property in terms of street cleaning and maintenance. Mr. Kirkham commented how the property in question was properly zoned R-2. He said he thought the correct comparison would be to compaze R-3 multiple housing statistics to R-1 and R-2. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is a lot of talk about whether there is more crime at places that have Section 8 than at those places that do not accept Section 8. She stated she did believe that Mr. Hickok did answer the question. What they did try to do was compare an area that does have Section 8 and one that does not. She commented that there are some single-family homes that are rental properties that we have issues with. Ms. Mary Vasecki, 6909 Hickory Drive N.E., asked how many possible uses there could be without any variation from building codes. She said that according to RLUIPA you do not have to vote for it if it causes hardship to the community. She stated she would contest that putting many units on that property would cause hardship to the community because of the schools. She said that it is a proven statistic that lower-income students require more resources in the school district. She stated she believed affordable housing is good but added if you go through the newspaper you will see that Fridley has more affordable housing than any of the other communities around. She stated that she has her own rental property. Mr. Ed Sworsky, 491 - 615` Avenue N.E., approached and stated he wanted to say that the roads _ in Fridley are beautiful. He commented that after the State pays for a portion of the paved roads, so do the residents. . Mr. Eisenzimmer commented about the holding ponds containing a lot of mosquitoes and that the more ponds, the more breeding there is, which in turn, brings in more medical problems. Mayor Lund pointed out the Attorney General's opinion that adopting an amendment of a certain zoning amendments would require a majority of voting members. In other words, a 3-2 vote would prevaiL FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 23 Councilmember Wolfe stated the citizens' input does count. Council received a lot of petitions. He said goes by what he has seen. It is very clear to him people are concerned about the drop in property value. Also, health and welfare was a concern. He commented on the statement that we need more housin�, and stated according to statistics the percentage of Fridley residents who own or occupy homes is 66. Rental homes are occupied by 34 percent. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she thought this is a tough emotional issue. She stated that a lot of people were unable to comment, no one came to her home with a petition, and there was no citywide telephone surve�. She said she thinks they are placing judgment on people who are not as fortunate as we are and we do not have all the facts. She said that people are making assumptions that suddenly since there are 16 townhomes, they are going to be overrun with traffic and crime. She said if the project does go through the Church and Catholic Charities should be held responsible for their tenants. Just like we need to hold our other landlords responsible. She said we need to judge based on the facts. Councilmember Wolfe commented he thought the concept is wonderful. He just believed that the neighborhood is overwhelmed--mathematically, 16 1/2 to 1. Counciimember Bolkcom asked him if legally, we can base this solely on the opposition from the neighbors. Councilmember Barnette commented that with respect to the issue of senior housing, unfortunately they aze not dealing with it at this time. He said they have heazd about the politics within the church and that is none of their business. He thinks this particular neighborhood has its share of multiple housing. He was a councilmember back in the 70's and 80's and they had some of these same kinds of issues come up at that time. They had a request from Anoka County to provide four units for handicapped adults on 54`h and Fifth Street and they heard some of the same azguments at that time and he voted in favor. Also in 1980, he was on the Council when the Village Green request was made and he voted for that also. He was also the chairman of the committee formed when the Medtronics Corporation built their site between Fridley and Columbia Heights. They had an independent study done of the housing in Fridley and they found at that time about 75 percent of all Fridley properties fell at or below the affordable housing limit set by the Metropolitan Council. At that time he thought the figure was $144,000. He asked himself, does Fridley have its share or more of its share of rental units and affordable housing. In relationship to contiguous districts and communities around Fridley, he personally thought the answer is yes. He asked if this rezoning request was a good fit for what he sees as the future of Fridley. He felt he had to answer no. He thought the fact of the school district is a mute point. He asked if this request had the support of the local neighbors, which is no. But, he said, we do not know what the other 27,000 people in Fridley thought. Finally, as Mr. Sworsky brought up, we live in a representative form of government. We cannot have a public hearing or town meeting on every issue that comes up. That it why the Council is elected. Mayor Lund commented he looked at what he thought was best for the City of Fridley. The current zonina appears to be appropriately zoned as R-2. He said he would vote for it to remain FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 24 that way. He stated that because of the negative comments he sometimes felt compelled to vote the other way. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that ��-e have a responsibility to have affordable rental homes. She said that five years from now there won't be the impact that people think is going to happen. Councilmember Billings commented that there has been a tremendous amount of telephone calls, etc., regarding this issue. He appreciated the willingness of the people to address the issue. He said he has been telling everyone since day one that he makes his decisions based on fact, state statutes, city ordinances, the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and City Charter. He has said all along that his decision was going to be based on the facts, not on emotions. They as a City Council are specifically looking at whether they should split the property into two parcels and specifically whether they are going to rezone the property. He is not basing his decision on the specific use that the property owner is planning on using the property for. He is basing his decision on whether or not R-3, whether used for senior, low- income, or market rate housing, is an appropriate use of the property. He said that as far as he was concerned RLUIPA has no impact on what he is about to vote on and may or may not apply to this case. He said he is voting on what he sees are the facts and laws before him. There are a number of other laws that impacted his decision. One is the state law that we cannot let the Council in any issue cannot be arbitrary and capricious. They have already zoned a small portion just north of this property R-3. Although there were not as many people that were opposed to Norwood Square project than there are in this land use, they were hearing some of the same arguments that it was going to be too much traffic, too dense, etc. The different this time is that the arguments are based on a tremendous amount of fear. He said he is not very happy about that and feels it is totally inappropriate. We had similar concerns back in the early eighties when Community Action wanted to put in a facility on, he believes Fifth Street at the 5400 block. Now some 15 years later, the people down the road think they are some of the greatest neighbors they got and have more problems with neighbors that live in single-family homes. He has to consider the responsibility he has to all the citizens of Fridley plus the financial responsibility he has. There are any number of reasons a property owner who receives a decision of the City Council that they don't like can seek litigation. The church is not threatening us with litigation, but he always has to keep in mind that if the petitioner disagrees there is that possibility. He believes in this case, if he were to vote against it and the petitioner would disagree, he thinks it highly likely that it would end up in court. In the Community Actions case, the City Council voted against the project. Community Actions did not like the decision of the City Council, went to court. He said he encouraged those in the neighborhood to contact Catholic Charities and the church and see if they would consider senior housing. He is going to be voting in favor of all three items as the responsibility of a member of the City Council. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve preliminary Plat Request, PS #02-03, by Brandes Place Limited Partnership to replat property into two lots, generally located at 6160 Fifth Street N.E. with twelve stipulations. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2002 PAGE 25 UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AIYD COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve the resolution approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #02-01, to Change Lane Use Designation from Public/Semi-Public to Multi-Family Residential in the City's Comprehensive Plan, generally located at 6160 Fifth Street N.E. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, to approve the first reading of an ordinance to amend the City Code of the City of Fridley to make a change in zoning districts pursuant to Rezoning Request, ZOA #02-01 by Brandes Place Limited Partnership with 12 stipulations. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED. 16. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS. None. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE OCTOBER 14, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:36 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Letendre Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor / f GTY OF FRIDLEY TO: AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 WILLIAM W BURNS, CITY MANAGER FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR ALAN D. FOLIE, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR JUDY 1VI. NIELHAM, UTILITY BILLING CLERK SUBJECT: DATE: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY SERVICES October 23, 2002 Attached is a resolution for the purpose of certifying delinquent utility accounts to the County for collection with the ta.�ces in the year 2003. All property owners have been notified that the utility bills are being certified to the County and have been given adequate opportunity to pay the bill. The penalty shown on this resolution is in addition to the regular penalties that accrue on the utility bills. The number and dollar value of accounts varies each year. We cannot be sure of the final count or dollar value until mid-November since property owners have 30 days after the adoption of the resolution to pay without penalty. RDP/me Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING CERTAIN DELINQUENT UTILI7I"`: SERVICES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION WI'�°I::;: THE 2003 TAXES WHEREAS, certain utility services for the City of Fridley aze delinquent in payment, and WHEREAS, Chapter 402, Water and Sewer Administration, Chapter 113, Solid Waste Dis�ef� Recycling Collection, Chapter 216, Storm Water Urainage Utility, and Section 1.02 oF �ta�, ...:.;, Charter provides for the certifying of delinquent charges to the County Auditor for collection �, •.: taxes, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and diz� certify the following chazges to the County Auditor for collection with the 2002 taxes d�� payable in the yeaz 2003, to wit: All these noted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY T"I� � -. DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR 2 2002 DELINQUENT UTILITY CERTIFICATION LIST - EXHIBIT A CITY OF FRIDLEY DELINQUENT UTILITY SERVICES - 2002 p�N ACCT # LOCATION # ADDRESS BALANCE PENALTY TOTAI ACTIVE ACCOU'NTS: 26 30 24 26 30 24 14 30 24 14 30 24 26 30 24 26 30 24 23 30 24 26 30 24 26 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 11 30 24 23 30 24 14 30 24 14 30 24 14 30 24 14 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 14 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 14 30 2 23 30 2 23 30 2 23 30 2 13 30 2 13 30 2 15 30 2 15 30 2 15 30 2 15 30 2 15 30 2 15 30 2 13 30 2 14 30 2 15 30 2 13 30 2 15 30 2 15 30 2 13 30 2 13 30 2 14 30 14 30 2 32 0062 32 0049 23 0086 23 0046 32 0079 32 0033 23 0072 32 0099 32 0094 22 0009 34 0031 34 0020 31 0075 31 0055 31 0055 31 0055 31 0052 21 0130 21 0103 21 0019 21 0044 34 0071 34 0076 34 0082 34 0016 31 0103 24 0045 24 0059 21 0054 21 0088 34 0066 31 0092 13 0120 4 31 0016 4 43 0021 4 43 0020 4 42 0032 4 44 0049 4 44 0051 4 43 0032 4 43 0093 4 44 0010 4 44 0012 4 43 0020 4 43 0023 4 34 0011 4 31 0024 4 41 0091 4 42 0047 4 42 0099 4 13 0024 4 13 0109 4 14 0042 24 24 0061 4 13 0050 505 595 124905 103385 1T15 122905 127865 2T65 115705 89265 15175 102695 127915 97095 122115 9T665 15455 119335 89325 94535 17045 104105 89335 106185 94215 110665 17995 81805 18255 18335 126935 122205 19105 1036T5 108475 21265 93705 127955 97685 4875 4885 94115 5005 5205 5265 23055 118645 28865 23205 95235 5965 110145 23395 126975 24725 443880 4740 443970 4832 444560 6530 444620 6701 445080 4744 445200 4832 445510 5847 446110 4700 446210 4756 447150 6007 458410 5330 458520 5423 458590 5519 458600 5600 458620 5602 458630 5604 458680 5614 459160 5981 459230 6034 500650 7501 460260 6020 460390 6111 460450 6161 460510 6221 460570 6252 460890 5529 461180 5820 461310 5901 461440 5956 461520 6000 461730 6130 462190 5536 462270 5741 462980 6360 464340 545 464360 553 q64520 530 465700 1601 465720 1621 448180 131 448190 140 448280 11 448310 . 30 448510 146 448570 182 466140 1100 547430 459 q4g690 71 466280 1356 44g940 120 449270 81 467180 1376 466470 1601 467490 391 467800 548 3 2 ST 2 ST 2 ST 2 ST 2112 ST 21/2 ST 2112 ST 3 ST 3 ST 3 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 5 ST 5 S7 5 ST 5 ST 5 ST 6 ST 6 ST 6 ST 6 ST 6 ST 6 ST 7 ST 7 ST 7 ST 54 AVE 54 AVE 57 AVE 61 AVE 61 AVE 62 WAY 62 WAY 62 112 WAY 621/2 WAY 63 WAY 63 WAY 63 AVE 63 AVE 63112 WAY 64 AVE 641I2 WAY 66 WAY 66 AVE 66112 AVE 67 AVE 67 AVE 100.54 S 225.57 1,263.27 125.75 532.67 125.91 83.71 174.83 114.T5 394.99 493.84 132.70 76.80 513.15 343.26 798.65 954.38 287.06 181.14 442.55 111.05 213.58 268.92 371.84 970.72 164.93 289.50 427.03 121.63 486.35 129.63 285.21 385.01 1,052.05 399.49 319.66 120.00 159.48 550.60 200.00 414.57 293.07 975.07 501.90 401.25 1T0.38 505.47 284.52 263.03 589.08 225.00 710.84 540.96 236.17 860.08 10.05 S 22.56 126.33 12.58 53.27 12.59 8.37 17.48 11.48 39.50 49.38 13.27 7.68 51.32 34.33 79.87 95.44 28.71 18.11 44.26 11.11 21.36 26.89 37.18 97.07 16.49 28.95 42.70 12.16 48.64 12.96 28.52 38.50 105.21 39.95 31.97 12.00 15.95 55.06 20.00 41.46 29.31 97.51 50.19 40.13 17.04 50.55 28.45 26.30 58.91 22.50 71.08 54.10 23.62 86.01 110.59 248.13 1,389.60 138.33 585.94 138.50 92.08 19T.31 126.T3 434.49 543.22 145.97 84.48 564.4T 377.59 878.52 1,049.82 315.T7 199.25 486.81 122.16 234.94 295.81 409.02 1,067.79 181.42 318.45 469.73 133.79 534.99 142.59 313.73 423.51 1,157.26 439.44 351.63 132.00 175.43 605.66 220.00 456.03 322.38 1,072.58 552.09 441.38 187.42 556.02 312.97 289.33 64T.99 247.50 781.92 595.06 259.79 946.09 14 14 10 10 11 11 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 10 13 24 13 12 13 13 24 24 12 12 13 13 14 24 13 13 12 13 13 13 23 23 3 14 26 13 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 15 15 15 10 10 3 3 15 3 3 3 24 25 24 3 PIN 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 13 0027 22 0013 43 0024 az oos� 14 0071 24 0074 13 0082 12 0104 41 0061 23 0016 23 0010 22 0024 22 0023 42 0007 14 0068 14 0027 14 0120 12 0051 32 0034 43 0018 11 0033 44 0134 11 0112 11 0133 23 0035 41 0037 44 0033 12 0077 43 0006 13 0047 �z oon 24 0041 24 0015 21 0003 43 0050 43 0005 32 0160 32 0213 23 0092 31 0056 41 0098 41 0101 41 0096 41 0114 44 0229 44 0233 44 0191 44 0192 44 0193 41 0071 42 0096 12 0015 11 0013 11 0011 43 0008 22 0083 42 0022 44 0071 24 0021 23 0198 11 0085 21 0019 33 0014 43 0015 ACCT # LOCATION # ADDRESS 24765 467840 565 67 AVE 108315 501050 226 69 AVE 59215 501910 158 71 WAY 121125 502010 115 71 112 WAY 59695 502380 895 73 AVE 109435 502690 360 74 AVE 86775 502970 1390 75 AVE 60865 503520 1409 76 AVE 96865 468630 6400 ABLE ST 106035 498350 7419 ABLE ST 121095 498530 7501 ABLE ST 123385 498550 7513 ABLE ST 119245 498600 7529 ABLE ST 56095 498830 125 ALDEN CIR 25945 469020 6683 ANOKA ST ' 26155 469230 5821 ARTHUR ST 26505 469580 6655 ARTHUR ST 57175 499910 7689 BACON DR 36095 479060 6444 BAKER AV8 113575 469830 6250 BEN MORE DR 27255 470320 6021 BENJAMIN ST 25975 469050 1623 BRENNER PASS 93345 500500 7580 BRIGADOON PL 93435 500640 7675 BRIGADOON PL 36125 479090 6554 BROOKVIEW DR 101635 471400 16T0 CAMELOT LN 109655 470810 6201 CAROL DR 91525 471900 6075 CENTRAL AVE 28905 471960 6271 CENTRAL AVE 93285 472080 6525 CENTRAL AVE 119215 529230 7639 CENTRAL AVE 85085 472380 6580 CHANNEL RD 101785 472410 6609 CHANNEL RD 29595 472650 6801 CHANNEL RD 29825 472880 501 CHERI LN 29915 472970 536 CHERI CIR 61865 504490 640 CHERYL ST 105045 545940 167 CHRISTENSON CT 7055 450340 5017 CLEARVIEW ST 95875 474010 6367 DELLWOOD OR 31435 474430 5529 EAST BAVARIAN PASS 106685 474450 5531 EAST BAVARIAN PASS 117515 474470 5533 EAST BAVARIAN PASS 111105 474T10 5580 EAST BAVARIAN PASS 123205 473600 5437 EAST BRENNER PASS 110925 473610 5439 EAST BRENNER PASS 30715 473750 5471 EAST BRENNER PASS 119445 4T3780 5475 EAST BRENNER PASS 108695 473820 5479 EAST BRENNER PASS 14555 45T800 6305 EAST RIVER RD 99795 457860 6431 EAST RIVER RD 63355 505980 6827 EAST RIVER RD 63825 506450 7513 EAST RIVER RD 119115 506470 7525 EAST RIVER RD 96215 506650 7899 EAST RIVER RD 111635 506930 8340 EAST RIVER RD 127365 547890 6410 EAST RIVER RD 94045 506970 7751 ELM ST 65315 507910 8112 FAIRMONT CIR 65595 508780 615 FAIRMONT ST 105965 475160 1567 FERNDALE AVE 124655 475310 5261 FILLMORE ST 32355 4T5340 5300 FILLMORE ST 65885 508460 7843 FIRWOOD WAY L, BALANCE 775.03 180.91 577.36 132.26 395.18 236.02 320.40 401.54 236.79 346.98 117.33 407.70 306.96 239.21 837.13 411.30 357.44 219.41 395.53 150.22 348.31 181.13 241.81 164.67 175.04 426.11 99.25 167.21 100.58 490.96 371.59 315.40 401.59 231.57 130.30 218.75 115.02 96.81 131.25 160.90 279.28 164.78 331.04 102.41 114.91 202.94 559.58 243.95 276.34 354.46 361.53 303.75 513.95 420.58 7,980.23 330.11 30.73 1,799.71 680.17 265.40 185.98 259.38 36T.75 87.17 PENAIN 77.50 18.09 57.74 13.23 39.52 23.60 32.04 40.15 23.68 34.70 11.73 40.77 30.70 23.92 83.71 41.13 35.74 21.94 39.55 15.02 34.83 18.11 24.18 16.47 17.50 42.61 9.93 16.72 10.06 49.10 37.16 31.54 40.76 23.16 13.03 21.88 11.50 9.68 13.13 16.09 27.93 16A8 33.10 10.24 11.49 20.29 55.96 24.40 27.63 35.45 36.15 30.38 51.40 42.06 T98.02 33.01 3.07 179.97 68.02 26.54 18.60 25.94 36.78 8.72 TOTAL 852.53 199.00 635.10 145.49 434.70 259.62 352.44 441.69 260.47 381.68 129.06 448.47 337.66 263.13 920.84 452.43 393.18 241.35 435.08 165.24 383.14 199.24 ' 265.99 181.14 192.54 468.72 109.18 183.93 110.64 540.06 408.75 346.94 441.75 254.73 143.33 240.63 126.52 106.49 144.38 176.99 307.21 181.26 364.14 112.65 126.40 223.23 615.54 268.35 303.97 389.91 397.68 334.13 565.35 462.64 8,778.25 363.92 33.80 1,979.68 748.19 291.94 204.58 28a.3� 40�,. ±�3 ��.Fi9 13 13 13 24 24 3 3 3 3 24 24 15 24 24 12 15 24 24 24 26 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 23 11 11 11 11 3 3 3 3 14 14 14 3 3 4 3 12 12 12 3 25 10 10 3 3 13 24 24 24 11 11 11 23 14 27 26 PIN 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 30 24 14 0060 14 0049 14 0053 12 0025 14 0018 23 0104 23 0075 23 0170 23 0203 24 0083 24 0065 12 0056 32 0061 31 0043 13 0057 12 0022 12 0040 12 0036 12 0062 22 0059 24 0079 24 0139 23 0044 23 0046 23 0196 23 0153 23 0187 13 0005 41 0011 14 0048 14 0008 11 0028 11 0023 23 0228 23 0120 23 0142 23 0122 32 0013 11 0017 14 0103 22 0131 23 0127 14 0003 22 0071 11 0007 11 0009 11 0102 42 0085 21 0115 42 0033 42 0032 42 0073 31 0131 24 0026 32 0040 31 0026 31 0025 24 0040 12 0016 12 0010 13 0073 12 0100 44 0011 32 0070 ACCT # LOCATtON # ADDRESS 32615 475600 6600 FRIDLEY ST 32655 475640 6631 FRIDLEY ST 89725 475740 6694 FRIDLEY ST 119475 475950 1337 GARDENA AVE 33245 476230 1634 GARDENA AVE 66275 508840 538 GLENCOE ST 66385 508930 565 GLENCOE ST 66495 509040 629 GLENCOE ST 106065 509100 680 GLENCOE ST 34025 477010 5882 HACKMANN AVE 125535 477090 5917 HACKMANN AVE 66845 509390 173 HARTAAAN CIR 34175 477160 940 HATHAWAY LN 83245 477300 1030 HATHAWAY LN 67045 509590 T458 HAYES ST 109575 509760 6507 HICKORY ST 35125 4T8110 1340 HILLCREST DR 35175 478160 1348 HILLCREST DR 92345 478270 1359 HILLCREST DR 122975 452000 5109 HUGHES AVE 68265 510800 420 HUGO ST 68305 510840 451 HUGO ST 113325 510880 517 HUGO ST 108015 510940 551 HUGO ST 108585 511040 610 HUGO ST 111845 511150 657 HUGO ST 124315 511220 680 HUGO ST 68745 511270 265 IRONTON ST 36525 479490 5705 JACKSON ST 80865 512030 7370 JACKSON ST 69615 512130 7441 JACKSON ST 102525 512310 7600 JACKSON ST 104405 512420 7678 JACKSON ST 70105 512610 585 JANESVILLE ST 70185 512690 641 JANESVILLE ST 114515 512700 648 JANESVILLE ST 70235 512740 679 JANESVILLE ST 8965 452240 6270 JUPITER RD 37695 480650 800 KENNASTON DR 101885 480760 6700 KENNASTON DR 91835 512940 615 KIMBALL ST 70475 512980 646 KIMBALL ST 123025 513060 735 KIMBALL ST 70655 513150 583 LAFAYETTE ST 85625 513320 7513 LAKESIDE RD 70895 513390 7570 LAKESIDE RD 70935 513430 7590 LAKESIDE RD 71195 513690 225 LIBERTY ST 38385 481330 5197 LINCOLN ST 97235 514040 116 �� PK� 123565 514060 130 LOGAN PKWY 94075 514320 201 LONGFELLOW ST 72055 514550 410 IONGFELLOW ST 93645 481690 6645 LUCIA LN 38935 481880 1070 LYNDE DR 38965 481910 1100 LYNDE DR 38985 481930 1110 LYNDE DR 97325 514780 7361 LYRIC LN 96235 515000 7523 LYRIC LN 125935 515060 7549 LYRIC LN 39585 482530 5720 MADISON ST 40095 483040 6881 MADISON ST 8985 452260 4500 MAIN ST 84065 452450 4709 MAIN ST �� u BALANCE 691.43 731.28 131.92 199.69 460.77 117.37 546.12 237.93 484.13 631.95 213.15 317.96 344.56 271.12 565.92 231.91 321.85 240.89 421.60 196.42 290.59 115.02 550.00 103.33 168.69 449.09 442.02 656.75 241.71 199.55 462.45 223.55 363.17 770.97 273.38 156.20 445.60 531.61 311.21 272.44 184.15 194.48 282.55 297.18 249.54 196.64 260.26 106.02 665.85 584.39 165.32 463.21 165.69 615.34 147.67 223.82 616.55 524.29 90.75 177.94 264.08 489.34 1,490.51 361.49 PENALTY 69.14 73.13 13.19 19.97 46.08 11.74 54.61 23.79 48.41 63.20 21.32 31.80 34.46 27.11 56.59 23.19 32.19 24.09 42.16 19.64 29.06 11.50 55.00 10.33 16.87 44.91 44.20 65.68 24.17 19.96 46.25 22.36 36.32 77.10 27.34 15.62 44.56 53.16 31.12 27.24 18.42 19.45 28.26 29.72 24.95 19.66 26.03 10.60 66.59 58.44 16.53 46.32 16.57 61.53 14.77 22.38 61.66 52.43 9.08 17.79 26.41 48.93 149.05 36.15 TOTAL 760.57 804.41 145.11 219.66 506.85 129.11 600.73 261.72 532.54 695.15 234.47 349.76 379.02 298.23 622.51 255.10 354.04 264.98 463.76 216.06 319.65 126.52 605.00 113.66 185.56 494.00 486.22 722.43 265.88 219.51 508.70 245.91 399.49 848.07 300.72 171.82 490.16 584.77 342.33 299.68 202.57 213.93 310.81 326.90 274.49 216.30 286.29 116.62 732.44 642.83 181.85 509.53 182.26 676.87 162.44 246.20 678.21 576.72 99.83 195.73 290.49 538.27 1,639.56 397.64 23 14 14 2 24 24 24 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 14 24 24 24 24 13 13 13 12 12 12 10 10 12 12 12 14 13 3 13 14 14 2 24 24 15 15 13 14 14 15 15 10 4 3 3 15 13 12 12 !2 PIN 30 24 23 0108 30 24 23 0099 30 24 23 0026 30 24 33 0019 30 24 42 0051 30 24 42 0058 30 24 11 0017 30 24 12 0071 30 24 13 0049 30 24 13 0105 30 24 13 0095 30 24 14 0039 30 24 13 0090 30 24 13 0092 30 24 32 0033 30 24 32 0023 30 24 42 0125 30 24 13 0012 30 24 42 0011 30 24 42 0008 30 24 41 0115 30 24 13 0021' 30 24 13 0006 30 24 41 0029 30 24 42 0025 30 24 41 0226 30 24 41 0039 30 24 41 0034 30 24 11 0099 30 24 11 0094 30 24 11 0108 30 24 31 0020 30 24 31 0033 30 24 13 0069 30 24 14 0028 30 24 14 0023 30 24 22 0013 30 24 22 0012 30 24 12 0061 30 24 14 0097 30 24 22 0059 30 24 34 0018 30 24 31 0040 30 24 23 0058 30 24 23 0035 30 24 32 0019 30 24 31 0093 30 24 31 0061 30 24 14 0008 30 24 14 0001 30 24 44 0007 30 24 22 0050 30 24 21 0040 30 24 42 0086 30 24 42 0079 30 24 42 0053 30 24 14 0014 30 24 24 0057 30 24 24 0053 30 24 41 0085 30 24 41 0044 30 24 14 0011 30 24 14 0050 30 24 14 004T ACCT # LOCATION # ADDRESS 9425 452700 5765 MAIN ST 114205 452980 6661 MAIN ST 9735 453010 6721 MAIN ST 88395 515470 7775 MAIN ST 40585 483530 5500 MATTERHORN DR 71075 483600 5555 MATTERHORN DR 39125 482070 5985 MCKINLEY ST 107685 515640 . 1377 MEADOWMOOR DR 102555 516460 7410 MELODY DR 92125 516520 7432 MELODY DR 103215 515960 7369 MEMORY LN 95355 516050 7381 MEMORY LN 91865 516090 7386 MEMORY LN 116875 516130 7390 MEMORY LN 9815 453090 222 MERCURY DR 9825 453100 231 MERCURY DR 41145 484090 506 MISSISSIPPI ST 41155 484100 509 MISSISSIPPI ST 124735 484170 574 MISSISSIPP� ST 41275 484220 620 MISSISSIPPI ST 41405 484350 772 MISSISSIPPI ST 41875 484810 1361 MISSISSIPPI ST 101075 484920 1465 MISSISSIPPI ST 117355 485650 6381 MONROE ST 102795 486200 1455 NORTH DANUBE RD 103985 486580 5610 NORTH INNSBRUCK CT 84625 486700 1546 NORTH OBERLIN CIR 127255 486800 1566 NORTH OBERUN CIR 74335 516790 1501 NORTH TIMBER RIDGE 74445 516890 1521 NORTH TIMBER RIDGE 1025T5 516950 1534 NORTH TIMBER RIDGE 104415 517180 1275 NORTON AVE 125225 547730 1280 NORTON AVE 125625 517280 1365 ONONDAGA ST 1277T5 517850 30 OSBORNE WAY 75455 517890 51 OSBORNE WAY 75665 518100 940 OSBORNE RD 94725 518120 980 OSBORNE RD 105695 518250 1424 OSBORNE RD 126275 487590 6750 OVERTON DR 113825 488550 930 PANDORA DR 106125 518530 7865 PEARSON WAY 45125 488010 6436 PIERCE ST 88435 453800 6T31 PLAZA CUR 10635 453910 6800 PLAZA CUR 99285 517780 8010 RANCHERS RD 46455 489340 5650 REGIS DR 90095 489540 5603 REGIS TRAIL 12195 455470 58 RICE CREEK WAY 127835 455480 59 RICE CREEK WAY 116315 489760 1520 RICE CREEK RD 76285 518T10 254 RICE CREEK BLVD 95085 518950 424 RICE CREEK BLVD 11645 454920 6440 RIVERVIEW TER 11655 454930 6441 RIVERVIEW TER 107465 519500 7138 RIVERVIEW TER 77435 519830 8241 RIVERVIEW TER 106215 520000 8121 RUTH CIR 123485 520100 8161 RUTH CIR 90015 455740 115 SATELLITE lN 49775 492650 6311 SQUIRE DR 77765 520160 7360 STINSON BLVD 102895 520180 7400 STINSON BLVD 127515 520210 7450 STINSON BLVD LJ BALANCE 175.75 870.04 338.72 171.40 939.56 402.31 153.05 158.12 129.38 173.15 339.09 754.26 448.84 195.49 463.49 164.72 397.T3 129.81 130.76 385.17 299.T1 586.29 499.71 529.77 147.10 119.18 ' 1,210.11 213.83 380.35 284.56 165.03 475.43 488.4: 584.33 252.06 331.96 796.53 126.12 459.55 138.76 118.87 382.24 622.00 336.89 410.00 1,250.71 457.82 185.43 545.29 121.92 376.04 187.06 658.80 305.31 185.10 130.40 210.93 216.83 242.70 531.70 502.98 334.51 502.03 64.13 PENALTY 17.5� 87.00 33.87 17.1�- 93.9� 40.23 15.31 15.81 12.9� 17.32 33.91 75.43 44.88 19.55 46.35 16.47 39.77 12.98 13.08 38.52 , 29.97 58.63 49.97 52.98 14.71 11.92 121.01 21.38 38.04 28.46 16.50 47.54 �.� 58.43 25.21 33.20 79.65 12.61 45.96 13.88 11.89 38.22 62.20 33.69 41.00 125.07 45.78� �a.0 54.53 12.1� 37.60 18.T1 65.8� 30.5� 18.5 i 13.04 2�.0� 21.6� 24.27 53.17 50.30 33.45 50.20 6.41 . . ' ,.�.�' F:�. •lu. ;<,�., � f;��4�'.; �.>,.i;;. ?:� 4r ° � .t',;' ..F�t':a`,. d�".� ,.afaf�- A E ,s �?'.. . i;4r.?. ;'35. �.. ::� .#..k%;:`, �A4o"�:: ..'.. fi.t �; ;i;4 t �:�d f>A� •,€� �E 6`�� .�.+pTKe. �� .. �_,.��i:-=... � E, �°�:,f� is _ �!�� . ¢� �',<^, °. .;sb .,, � �� i B ,� : �; ,-:�A t !� , r,�8 ;'.� 39 =:� ��a _ �: ;� s� .x t� r�� ; t..�?3 ;��4 PIN 14 30 24 14 30 24 15 30 24 11 30 24 10 30 24 25 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 24 30 24 15 30 24 25 30 24 14 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 11 30 24 23 30 24 23 30 24 24 30 24 23 30 24 13 30 24 24 30 24 33 0043 33 0045 41 0052 24 0139 13 0005 22 0028 23 0140 12 0044 41 0176 44 0045 11 0077 34 0004 24 0090 24 0091 24 0092 24 0095 24 0096 14 0080 11 0069 11 0081 33 0040 13 0007 43 0046 14 0016 44 0016 12 0063 ACCT # LOCATION # ADDRESS SUNRISE DR 13295 456540 6�0 SUNRISE DR 13335 456580 6240 SYLVAN LN 113115 456610 �� SYMPHONY ST 125995 520700 7398 TALMADGE WAY T8425 520820 115 TAYLOR ST 90105 492890 5235 TEMPO TER 78765 521150 738� TEMPO TER 79055 521430 7519 T�qpp CT 109065 493160 151T TRINITY DR 13855 457100 6170 TROLLHAGEN DR 50655 493520 1564 UNIVERSITY AVE 51435 494290 6225 UNIVERSITY AVE 7g645 522020 7315 UNNERSITY AVE 79675 522050 7325 UNIVERSfTY AVE 79685 522060 7337 UNNERSITY AVE 103585 522130 7373 UNNERSITY AVE 118025 522160 7387 VAN BUREN ST 80565 522930 7411 y� gUREN ST �yqq25 523100 T528 VAN BUREN ST 118775 523130 �5� VENTURA AVE 14125 45T370 �Z6 WASHINGTON ST 53265 496100 5797 yyEST DANUBE RD 5q3q5 497170 1418 52855 495690 5751 WEST M WOODSIDE CT 55285 498090 1629 yy00DY LN 107885 497810 6083 FINAL BILLED ACCOUNTS: 23 30 23 30 23 30 23 30 23 30 23 30 13 30 12 30 11 30 10 30 24 30 24 30 10 30 15 30 26 30 24 30 24 30 12 30 14 30 11 30 23 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 21 0098 31 00T5 34 0034 24 0060 34 0074 14 0024 12 0008 22 0018 14 0061 12 0022 41 0109 41 0108 14 0004 12 0019 23 0118 41 0034 41 0036 13 0086 33 0004 24 0091 14 0019 107835 110015 123055 18145 122185 113555 125205 123015 111545 56215 112375 124615 116695 125825 8555 105425 128465 748T5 13285 112065 124855 459320 458590 458350 461330 462090 465450 501270 498730 498370 498950 474580 474540 506330 509810 451830 486800 486760 517310 456530 522040 495630 6081 5519 5310 5909 5360 695 1390 7597 7430 7540 5544 5540 7315 6817 5012 1566 1558 1382 6211 7323 5719 Sub Total Active Accounts 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 6 ST 7 ST 59 AVE 69 AVE ABLE ST ABLE ST ALDEN WAY EqST BAVARIAN PASS EAST BAVARIAN PASS EAST RIVER RD HICKORY ST HUGHES AVE NORTH OBERUN CIR NORTH OBERLIN CIR ONONDAGA ST SUNRISE DR UNIVERStTY AVE WEST MOORE LAKE DR Sub Total �nal Billed Accounts Grsnd Total Actives & Finals 7 BALANCE 475.94 178.64 367.17 220.57 178.07 915.59 638.29 909.68 452.84 589.62 453.37 1,033.85 125.50 116.23 253.71 247.35 430.37 566.96 470.52 392.35 352.04 124.12 809.94 303.80 411.78 458.39 PENALTY 47.59 17.86 36.72 22.06 17.81 91.56 63.83 90.9T 45.28 58.96 45.34 103.39 12.55 11.62 25.37 24.74 43.04 56.70 47.05 39.24 35.20 12.41 80.99 30.38 41.18 45.84 TOTAL 523.53 196.50 403.89 242.63 195.88 1,007.15 702.12 1,000.65 498.12 648.58 498.71 1,13T.24 138.05 127.85 279.08 272.09 473.41 623.66 517.57 431.59 387.24 136.53 890.93 334.18 452.96 504.23 5107,761.07 S 10,776.24 S 118,537.31 14.38 117.63 10.14 176.73 254.34 50.34 373.74 226.60 77.21 66.01 68.30 117.22 583.89 419.01 353.94 188.67 20.19 456.07 22.4T 67.84 156.9T 1.44 11.76 1.01 17.67 25.43 5.03 37.37 22.66 7.72 6.60 6.83 11.72 58.39 41.90 35.39 18.87 2.02 45.61 2.25 6.78 15.70 15.82 129.39 11.15 194.40 279.77 55.3T 411.11 249.26 84.93 72.61 75.13 128.94 642.28 460.91 389.33 207.54 22.21 501.68 24.72 74.62 172.67 $ 3,821.69 $ 382.15 S 4,203.84 $ 111582.76 S 11,158.39 S 122,741.15 � f cmr aF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 CLAIMS � 08080 - � 08273 : � � CITY OF FRIDLEY Tvpe of License TREE REMOVAL Over Grown Tree 14165 Naples St Ham Lake, MN 55304 AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 LICENSES : Lawrence Sahr 0 Approved By Public Works Fees $40 � $ ; � City of Fridle AGENDA ITEM City Council Meeting Of Monday, October 28, 2002 � Excavatina Park Construction Co 7900 Beech St NE Bruce Carlson Minneapolis MN 55432-1795 Gas Services Bell-Air Heating 203 Rustle Rd Tom Yarusso Jordan MN 55352- Smith Joel Heating 8� Air Cond 14034 Lexington Ave NE Joel Smith Ham Lake MN 55304- General Contractor-Commercial Dalco Roofing 8� Sheet Metal Inc 15525 32 Ave N Richard Tn.imble Plymouth MN 55447- Managed Services Inc 6500 Oxford St David McCarthy St Louis Park MN 55426- General Contractor-Residential 3-D Builders 8 Restoration (20233912) 542 37 Ave NE Dan Blackmun Minneapolis MN 55421- Installed Products USA LLC (20318345) 207 Kelsey Ln STE G Boyd Lipham Tampa FL 33569- 10 Aparoved Bv: Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julko�rski Building Ai'f�cial State of �c�N State of fVii'� Kirk Construction Co (5839) 423 E Wyoming St St Paul MN 55107-3119 LaFrance Exteriors (20265227) 6610 155 Ave NW Ramsey MN 55303- Renown Construction Inc (4297) 17758 Palm St Andover MN 55304- Heatin Beil-Air Heating 203 Rustle Rd Jordan MN 55352- Smith Joel Heating & Air Cond 14034 Lexington Ave NE Ham Lake MN 55304- Plu� Gavic 8 Sons Plumbing 12725 Nightingale St NW Coon Rapids MN 55448- Team Mechanical Inc 3560 Snelling Ave Minneapolis MN 55406- � Charles Kirk Jeff LaFrance Bruce Westman Tom Yarusso Joel Smith Paul Gavic Gorge Carlson Anaroved Bv: State of MN State of MN State of MN Ron Julkowski Building Official Ron Julkowski Building Official State of MN State of MN 11 r AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF ��f OCTOBER 28, 2002 FRIDLEY ESTIMATES W.B. Miller 6701 Norris Lake Road NW Elk River, MN 55330 2002 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2002 —1 EstimateNo. 7 ....................................................................................... $142,108.51 0 12 � � Cff1' OF FRIDLEY To: From: Date: Re: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 20�2 William W. Burns, City Manager �� Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk October 23, 2002 Resolution Revoking On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers Inc., d/b/a AMF Maple Lanes Located at 6310 Highway 65 NE The City Council held a public hearing on April 22, 2002, as required by Fridley City Code Section 603.17, due to non-compliance of the food to liquor sales required by Section 603.10.19. At that time the City Council made a motion to approve a probationary license for six months and to continue the public hearing to October 28, 2002. Staff is now recommending that the item be removed from the table and that the public hearing be continued to hear further testimony in regard to revocation of the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers Inc. 13 � f QTY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: AGENDA ITEM `'' CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBE� �� f` � . �� ' ,' -�,"1 WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER � �� RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SHARON FETTING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJEC:'�' �� `. � 2001-1 DATE: October 16, 2002 - Attached is the Public Hearing Notice for the assessment for the Street Improvement Proj�c:� a�� . :�� '. 2001-1. The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Focus newspaper on October 3, 2002 as r�:��,� _�; �.'. ``_ State Statute. RDP/sf Attachment 14 CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Fridley City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on October 28, 2002 in the Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment for the following improvements: 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Project #2001-1 UTILITY PROJECT Project #342 2002 NUISANCE ABATEMENT 1110 Lynde Drive 7300 Hayes Street 5541 5`h Street 1424 Osborne Road Assess 10 years @ 6.5% Interest $87,746.28 Moore Lake Hills Neighborhood Assess 15 years @ 6.5% Interest $11,150.60 Varichak Addition $ 2,824.76 Assess 1 year @ 6.5% Interest The proposed assessment rolls are on file for public inspection at the Finance Office. Notices are being mailed to all property owners. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or is presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may, upon such notice, consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting, upon such further notice to the affected property owners, as it deems advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. The City of Fridley has adopted Resolution No. 14-1995 deferring special assessment payments for senior citizens. The City Council may defer the payment of special assessments for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. Publish: October 3, 2002 Scott J. Lund Mayor 15 � � GTY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: SUB.TECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �� RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SHARON FETTING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ON THE VARICHAK UTILITY PROJECT #342 DATE: October 16, 2002 Attached is the Public Hearing Notice for the assessment for the Varichak Utility Project. The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Focus newspaper on October 3, 2002 as required by State Statute. RDPJsf Attachment 16 CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Fridley City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on October 28, 2002 in the Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment for the following improvements: 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Assess 10 years @ 6.5% Interest $87,746.28 Project #2001-1 Moore Lake Hills Neighborhood UTILITY PROJECT Assess 15 years @ 6.5% Interest $21,150.60 Project #342 Varichak Addition 2002 NiTISANCE ABATEMENT Assess 1 year @ 6.5% Interest $ 2,824.76 1110 Lynde Drive 7300 Hayes Street 5541 5�' Street 1424 Osborne Road The proposed assessment rolls are on file for public inspection at the Finance Office. Notices are being mailed to all property owners. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or is presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may, upon such notice, consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting, upon such further notice to the affected property owners, as it deems advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. The City of Fridley has adopted Resolution No. 14-1995 deferring special assessment payments for senior citizens. The City Council may defer the payment of special assessments for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. Publish: October 3, 2002 Scott J. Lund Mayor 17 / f GTY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBE� E:r � WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �� RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SHARON FETTING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ON THE 2002 NUISANCE ABATEMEI��'`': i�� ;j, +;;; . DATE: October 16, 2002 y . � ,. . . . _:.:;� Attached is the Public Hearing Notice for the assessment for the 2002 Nuisance Abatemer�z.: The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Focus newspaper on October 3, 2002 as re��: �� •.:� Statute. RDP/sf Attachment • 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, NIINNESOTA PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Fridley City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on October 28, 2002 in the Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment for the following improvements: 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Assess 10 years @ 6.5% Interest $87,746.28 Project #2001-1 Moore Lake Hills Neighborhood UTILITY PROJECT Assess 15 years @ 6.5% Interest $11,150.60 Project #342 2002 IvUISA1�iCE ABATEMENT 1110 Lynde Drive 7300 Hayes Street 5541 5�' Street 1424 Osborne Road Varichak Addition Assess 1 year @ 6.5% Interest $ 2,824.76 The proposed assessment rolls are on file for public inspection at the Finance Office. Notices are being mailed to all property owners. Written or oral objecrions will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is fled with the clerk prior to the hearing or is presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may, upon such notice, consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting, upon such further notice to the affected property owners, as it deems advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. The City of Fridley has adopted Resolution No. 14-1995 deferring special assessment payments for senior citizens. The City Council may defer the payment of special assessments for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. Publish: October 3, 2002 Scott J. Lund Mayor 1� � � CRY OF FRIDLE7 TO: FROM: DATE: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager i� ` � � Jon ��aukaas, Public Works Director October 22, 2002 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Snow Remaval Ordinance Amendment PW02-084 An inconsistency was found in the City Code pertaining to overnight parking of vehicles during the winter months. When the City Council adjusted the overnight parking ban end date from May 1 to April 1, the change was made to Section 506.04 but not to Section 506.05. Recommend the Ciry Council hold a public hearing on the ordinance amendment as presented. JHH:cz Attachment zo � ` QTY OF FRIDLEY Date: To AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 October 23, 2002 William Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stephanie Hanson, Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #02-13, Jim Kiewel M-02-125 INTRODUCTION Jim Kiewel, property owner at 1631 Rice Creek Road, was originally seeking a variance 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' by 37' second accessory building. At the August 26, 2002 City Council meeting, Mr. Kiewel requested the Council not take action on his item until he had a chance to review alternative layouts. Mr. Kiewel's new proposal is to construct an 1,110 sq. foot (30' X 37') expansion connected to the existing garage by a stairway. Thus, the new request is to expand the allowable square footage of the first accessory building from 1,000 square feet to 1,686 square feet. If granted, the variance would also allow the footprint of the garage to exceed the square footage of the home's living area, by approximately 282 square feet. The garage addition is still proposed to have a flat roof and pre-formed concrete walls. A site plan of the new proposal is in your packet. Mr. Kiewel submitted a letter on October 18, 2002 stating his desire to withdraw his variance from Council's consideration. Due to the fact that the Council has already held and continues to hold open the discussion on this item, Council is advised to close the Y discussion and take action on this item. The 60 Day date has already been extended until November 8`h and further extensions are not possible. The petitioner has failed to provide any plans that are significantly different from the proposal unanimously denied by the Appeals Commission this past August. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the August 14, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR 21 #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 the Council take action on this variance request and strongly recommends denial of the variance request. The petitioner does not meet the statutory tlefinition of hardship and the proposed expansion has an industrial look that is not in character with residential properties in Fridley. Staff recommends the petitioner obtain a SUP to construct a detached garage, meeting the City's size requirements, and architecturally finished to match the existing residence. Such a garage would not require a variance. STIPULATIONS If the Council does approve the new request, staff would advise attaching the fallowing 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". 6. 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. 7. 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". 8. 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. 22 6' October 28, 2002 Mr. 5cott Hickock, Gity I'lanner Gity of Fridley 6431 Univer5ity Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Variance Rec�ue5t VAR #02-13 Mr. Jim Kiewel 1631 Rice Creek IZoad NE Hand Delivered 10-28-2002 Dear Mr. Hickock: I'lea5e con5ider thi5 letter my formal withdrawal of my rec�ue5t for the above referenced variance at my home at 1631 Rice Greek Road NE, Fridley, MN. I have been reviewing my addition need5 with an architect. I will 5ubmit a new rec�ue5t if needed after the architect ha5 prepared plan5 to my rec�uirement5. I will not be at the meeting thi5 evening 5ince thi5 matter ha5 been withdrawn. 5incerely, i � % � r � f y Jim Kiewel 163112ice Greek Road NE Fridley, MN 5432 Gc: Mr. Richard Wolfe, Ward 2 Gouncil I'er5on I'HILLII'S Architect5 & Contractor5, Ltd. City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR#02-04 August 14, 2002 GENERAL INFOR1vIATION SPECIAL LYFORiVIATION Applicant: Jim Kiewel 1631 Rice Creek Road Fridley, NIN 55432 Requested Action: Variance Purpose: To increase the allowable square footage of all accessory buildings form 1,400 square feet to 1,612 square feet. Existing Zoning: Residential - 1 Location: 1631 Rice Creek Road Size: 27,550 sq. ft. .6 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family 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 Confoimance: 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 Description of Property: The E. 145' front & rear thereof of the S. 190' thereof of Lot 6, Auditors Sub. #22, subject to an easement over the S. 30' thereof for road purposes. 23 Council Action: August 26, 2002 - Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: Home is accessed by Rice Creek Road. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban residenrial landscaping, lot slopes towards back. SUMNIARY 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 construction of an additiona128' X 37' detached garage. SUIVI�vIARY OF HARDSHIP `:4dditional 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 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial of this variance request. No similaz variances to allow 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 petitionets previous request (attached garage expanded to be 1,392 square feet) , Staff Report �Prepared by. Paul Bolin 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 Rice 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 twocar garage. The home was built in 1953 and the attached �arage was added in 1961. The petirioner has owned the property since 1994 and in 1995 applied for a variance to construct an attached garage addirion 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 acrion, to increase the size of accessory structures 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 existing 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 stnzctures. The City Council tabled this request to explore the necessity of any changes to the accessory structure portion of the Code. On Febtuary 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. 24 Due to the lapse of Variance #9�-23, the petitioner 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 foota�e of all accessory buildings proposed was 1,666 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the variance due to a lack of hardship and the petitioner withdrew the request prior to the Appeals Commission. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VAR #02-13 (C�rrent Req�est) & VAR #9j-23 (Past �ar�ance grantea, thatiapsed) Through out the application process, the petitioner has repeatedly inferred to staffthat we should recommend approval and that the Appeals Commission shouldn't have a problem granting this variance request since he was granted one in the past. The two variances are very different in scope and there is no hardship warranting 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 first 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. T'he 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) detached 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) ":ldditi�>r Lucaren* (View of proposed garage tocation from West 25 RECOVINIENDATIONS 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. • Petitioner does not meet statutory definition of hardship • This request is not comparable to petitioners previous request (attached garage expanded tobe 1,392 square feet) STIPULATION Staff recommends that if the variance is granted; the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary pemuts prior to construction. 2. The peritioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by July l, 2003. 3. The accessory stracti.u-e 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". 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 azea without first obtauung 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 addirional 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 desi� to be approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a building pemut. Remedy must be installed prior to building pemut 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 Staffprior to the issuance of a building pernut. 11. Variance shall become null and void unless a Special Use Permit is successfizlly obtained to construct �� CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 14, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the August 14, 2002, Appeais 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.B(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 27 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 shouid 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 vehicles 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 concem 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. : 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 wili 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 concern 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 will 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 fo� 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 29 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 4 surrounding exterior walls of the buiiding. 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 thaf 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 205.07.01.6.(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 rrzore 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 prope�ty line. Mr. Kiewel stated that on the west side of the property 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. 30 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 Mr. Kuechle stated that detached is giving the more preferabie 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 fire 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. 31 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 tak� 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 guideiines. 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. 32 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PAGE 7 Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Kiewei 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 run- off problems. It would be difficult to grant this variance. Mr. Jones stated he is concerned 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 concerned 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. 33 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 2002 PA��' 8 MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance f��:quest, VAR #02-13, by James Kiewel. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARE� "? €�IE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bolin stated that this will go to City Council on August 26. �C� � ` cmr oF FRIDLEY Date: To: From: Subject: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 October 23, 2002 William Bums, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stephanie Hanson, Planner Special Use Permit Request, SP #02-08, Van-O-Lite M-02-124 INTRODUCTION Van O Lite, owner of 5945 University Avenue, is seeking a special use permit to allow the outdoor storage of containers in the rear yard. The unscreened containers are used for housing inventory and staging product for delivery. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the October 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP #02-08. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended denial of special use permit, SP #02-09. THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 5-1 VOTE. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff strongly recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission, as granting a Special Use Permit to allow unscreened outdoor storage in commercially zoned properties would be precedent setting. 35 City of Fridley Land Use Application SP #02-08 October 2, 2002 GENERAL INFORitiIATION SPECIAI. IrFORtiIATION Applicant: Van O Lite 5945 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Special Use Permit to allow exterior storage of materials in a C-2, General Business District. Existing Zoning: G2 (General Business District) Location: 5945 University Avenue NE Size: 24,570 sq/ft. .86 acres Existing Land Use: General Business Su�rounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Commercial, G2 E: Single Family, R-2 S: Commercial, G2 W: Single Family, S-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Confom�ance: Sec. 205.07.B3 requires a special use permit to allow exterior storage of materials. Legal Description of Properry: See attachment _ Public Utilities: Business is connectecl. Transportation: E. University Avenue Frontage Road provides access to the site. Physical Characteristics: Level, typical suburban grass covered lot. SUVIVL�RY OF PROJECT Petitioner is seeking a special use pemut to allow exterior storaQe of containers in the rear yard. SUvLVIf1RY OF A��1:�LYSIS City Staff recommends denial of this special use permit. Staff recommends denial of SP #02-08 due to the impact of or�tdoor stora�e on neighboring residenrial properties, the dinunishing image of a building along the major City corridor and the diminished ability of fire fighters to maneuver in emergency situations. CITY COC�CIL ACTION/ 60 Df1Y DATE Ciry Council — 10/14/02 60 Day — 10/28/02 (View of containers from 60`h Avenue) Staff Report Prepared by: Stephanie Hanson 36 � •. CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2002 SP #02-08 IN THE MATTER OF VAN-0-LITE, INC. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION MEMORANDUM OF APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF THE GRANTING OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2002 IN RE: VAN-O-LITE, INC. - SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY PETITIONER'S SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION WAS ARBITRARY AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD The Planning Office Staff in its initial papers gave three reasons for opposing the Special Use Permit Application by Van-O-Lite, Inc. ("Applicant"). They were that the outside storage now being used by Applicant: 1. Impacts the neighboring residential property. 2. Diminishes the image of a building along the major City corridor. 3. Diminishes the ability of fire fighters to maneuver in emergency situations. The Applicant in both its papers and presentation to the Commission successfully disproved each and every one of these reasons used by the StafF in support of its recommendation that Applicant be denied a permit. However, the Commission failed to adequately address any of the three reasons in reaching its decision, instead it based its decision to deny the permit on the fact that it did not want to create a precedent. The basis for adopting this reasoning is not stated in the minutes of the meeting. There is no explanation as to how this conclusion was reached, other than a terse statement of not wanting to create a precedent. Without articulating exactly what precedent it did not want to create, the Commission failed to add any clarity to the record in this matter. This concern about creating a precedent that formed the basis for its decision was only raised after the Planning Commission closed the record, thus precluding Applicant an opportunity to respond. Contrary to the Commission's finding, the issuance of a permit in this case would not create an unwieldy precedent. This record does not contain any references to permits previously granted, but a reading of the record from such cases, if there were any, would no doubt show that they were granted based upon a unique set of facts. Black's Law Dictionary defines a precedent as °an adjudged case or decision of a court of justice, considered as fumishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law." (Emphasis added) Every decision creates a precedent, and it can only be applied in a similar or identical case. It is submitted that Applicant's case for a permit is a persuasive and valid one and creates, if anything, a very good standard upon which to establish a precedent against which future applications can be evaluated. Applicant has met all the criteria established by the City to secure a permit and it should not be denied one for arbitrary, capricious and unarticulated reasons. As stated by the court in BECA of Alexandria LLP v. Countv of Dou4las ex rel. Bd of Comr's, 607 NW 2d 459 (2000): If an entity's zoning ordinances specify standards to which a proposed plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat, which complies in all respects with the ordinances. Although the Commission did not make any specific finding as to the impact of the Applicant's storage containers on the residential neighborhood, a Minnesota Court has found that "neither opposition of neighbors nor tra�c concerns were an adequate basis for denial of conditional use permit.° (See Northpointe Plaza v. Citv of Rochester, 457 NW 2"� 398 (1990).) II THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT TO ALLOW A SHORT TERM BUILDING PROJECT IS NOT PROSCRIBED BY STATE STATUTE In addition to the Commissioners discussing the precedent issue with the Staff after the closing of the record, thus denying Applicant the right to be heard on that issue, a second issue was also discussed with the Staff after the closing of the record, causing further obfuscation of the record. This discussion was in connectian with a state stature dealing with permits.' This came up because of � The state statute that deals with certain use permits, Minn. Statutes, Section 462.359, does not make any reference at all to time limited permits. The statute is silent on this poirrt. The pertinent provisions of the statute provide as fdlows: Conditional use permits, Subdivision 1. Authority. The govemment body may by ordinance designate certain type developments, including planned unit developmerrts and certain land developmerrt adivities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by the goveming board or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the standards and aiteria stated in the the fact that at the present time, contracts have been executed by the Petitioner with building contractors for the installation of a fire depressant system and a mezzanine in its Headquarters building located at 5945 University Avenue NE. The completion of this project will obviate Applicant's need of container storage (See attached Exhibits No. 1& 2). The current container storage being used is only needed for a limited period of two to four months. The construction of the project itself will take only approximately eight weeks, and any additional time may, or may not, be necessary, depending upon the speed and efficiency of the City's building permit-processing system. The attached papers, filed with the Planning Commission on October 2, 2002, explain in detail why the use of the outside containers has always been considered by the Applicant to be interim and short time solution to its current storage dilemma. (See Exhibit No. 3.) ` Although Applicant has shown that it is entitled to an unrestricted permit, it did offer to make use of it for a limited time period. In any event, an application for a short-term permit should be judged under the terms of Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.3597, which deals specifically with interim use. That statute provides as follows: ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as pradicable, requirements specific to each designated oondi6onal use. Subd. 3. Duration. A oonditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are obsenred, but nothing in this section shall prevent the municipality form enacting or ame�ing offiaal controls to change the status of conditional uses. Although there is an Attorney General Opinion on the meaning of the wording of the statute, that opinion is neither on point nor corrtrolling, since Applicarrt is qualified to receive a regular permit. (Op. Atty. Gen. No. 59a, Feb. 27, 1990) There the question asked was: Under Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.3595 (1988), may a muniapality enad or enforce a adinance provision for conditional use permits which allow it to tertninate permits regardless of whe�her or not the condifions agreed upon are observed? The Attomey General's Opinion was as follows: Under section 462.3595, a muniapality may not enact or enforce ordinance provisions for conditional use permits which allow it to terminate permits regardless of whether or not the conditions agreed upon are observed. Subdivision 1. Definition. An "interim use° is a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. This statute section establishes a framework for determining the propriety of granting a time-limited permit. There is no question that under this statute the City can issue a temporary permit if it so chooses. The parties, the City and Applicant, can agree upon the duration of the permit, which in this case would be until completion of the construction work described above. There is no need to force this interpretation of the statute; its meaning is not in doubt. Upon the completion of the construction described above, the Applicant would no longer have a need for a permit. III CONCLUSION Over the many years Applicant has headquartered its business in Fridley it has always cooperated with the City. Its newest place of business is housed in an attractive, modern building with outside landscaping that has much improved the look of the block along University Avenue where it is located, thus benefiting the City. This result has been accomplished at much expense to Applicant; however, the Applicant believes it to be a good investment in its business and the community. Applicant is now in the process of further upgrading its building by the installation of a fire suppressant system and an interior mezzanine. To penalize Applicant by denying it a permit, that it is qualified for, would be wasteful and counterproductive. The record herein provides more than ample factual support for the Council to grant Applicant's request for a permit to use its container storage for a short time pending the completion its construction project. Dated: October 28, 2002 RespectFully Submitted, �. Robert J. Fulgen . Attorney at Law Attorney No. 32621 5620 Code Avenue Edina, MN 55436 Tel. (952) 920-9311 Attorney for Van-O-Lite, Inc. EXHIBIT LIST 1. Midwest Fire Protection, Inc. contract with Van-O-Lite, Inc. for installation of a fire sprinkler system at 5945 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN. 2. JTD contract with Van-O-Lite, Inc. for the installation of an indoor mezzanine at 5945 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN. 3. Applicant Van-O-Lite's submission to the Planning Commission October 2, 2002. Oct 11 02 08:02a MidwesL rire rroLectiion oa��.i�� ✓�Minnesota Licenso #C00021 �� 324 Warding Street NE Fi PR��(,'�11�N�?NC�, Minneapolis, MN 55413-2802 (612) 331-1411 FAX (67.2) 331-1412 r0: Van-O-Litie 5945 University Ave NE FridlCy, MN 55432 Attn: Paul McLellan PHONE DATE 754-5�A— — — JOB NAME I LOCATION Same r•� Exhibit 1. � � Furnish and install a complete system of Wet Pipe Automatic Fire Sprinklers for the entire above two story building and new storage mezzanine. System to begin with a new tap in the existing City Main in 60th Avenue NE and will include a new tire line into the building, valves, alarms, drains, fire department connection, pi.ping, hangers and sprinkler heads required are included. Sprinkler heads in areas with lay-in ceilinqs to be chrome semi-reccesed and will be located for code comp�iance only. All materials used will be per NFPA 13 Standards at Midwest Fire Prote�tion, Inc.'s option. Owner to assist in relocating product, equipment or funiture as required �or installation. F•xcluded from this proposal are painting of piping, electri.callalarm wiring, and from the undeYground piping: SAC/WAC charges, Dewatering if requi.red, Meters, Soil coxrection of any type, Stakxng, soil testing, Trench drains (if required), F.ngineering, Allorrnace for any digging in or removal of shale or bedrock, A.s built drawings or drawings of any type, and No air testing of piping of storm sewer or storm sewer man holes, if required. One final acceptance test kith the city is included. Prior to this test, all alarms must be hooked up and in operation, including any to central station. Nc work to begin until Midvrest Fire Protection, Inc. is in receipt of a signed copy �, of this proposal, appsoved drawings from the authority having jurisdiction and the `' architect/engineer ai-�d a complete set of plans and specifications, if applicable. All scheduling of work is to be coordinated through Bill Connoz, Midwest Fire Protection, Inc. SPP attached Per�ormance-Warranty tpage 2), as it is nart ot the document. �E Pj� (�P�$E hereby !o fumish materiat and labor —complete in accordance with the above specifiqtions: ior the sun ot: FQrt,3�7 Thp��eanrl ThrcF. Ai�ncirPri Sixt� Tu�n anrl DO/l�(l btillarc da��$ 40�362.Ob Payment to be made as fdlows: �—� p • Net 10 days on progressive monthly billings M rrk�teiial is guarantaed to bs as specified. AB work to be ccmpieted in a protessronat mai:n2� aCwruing to sw�xl:ud praG�:es. !ury alternUw� ur i:i;viaLw� ii�ai a:wv� sp�u(ivati�:u hwotving extra oosts will be executed oniy upon written orders. and mll bewrr�e an exlra char�e wer and above ihe esthiate. al agreements contingeM uport sW�es, a�idents or delays beyord our eorirol. Owner to carty ir� bmado, and oM�er necessary �surance. Our workers are fuNy covered by Wakers Compensatipn insuance. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL —rne abo�e pdces, specilications and conditions ere satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are a�ihor¢ed ro do ihe work as specitied. Payment wAI be made as out6ned atrove. Date ol Acceptance: ��% " /� ` �i � t;utiwrize.ki Signature Note:Thispropos be withdrawn by us it not accep wiUNn 3 � days. Signature � I YAZ' �' Signature PPOCUCTI]�t6T fQDI{T{r.YTOFITCO�lPAVONllIW�6WEFNYEIOPE. Rillf�R"U-SA /i • J �ct 11 02 08:02a MidWest Fire Probection b1��ll�lc Page 2 of 2 MIDWEST FIRE PROTECTION, INC. PERFORMANCE-WARRANTY Warranl [�idxest Fire Pro;eclan, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as �MFF') warranls �s �r°r� �a a peiwd of one y�r. Th� warran(y � imited io ihe laba e�ense of correc mg • such defecls and sha� not indude rEplacemenl cost of materials.lNarranty v�arkwil be performed during regular h�aking ho��s. U(mn compl�i°n of work, MFP tr�l seal and lzg 211 syslem contrd veNes• A� tampe�� of U�ese devices terminales Ihis warranty. Workmanshi MFP's work shail be parformed by lhoroughy Vained sprinider filters in a neat workmanGke manner, ��, R�xn Mlateaal Sio�aae and Paruer S Sprinlder system Pucchaser (hereurofter referred to as'Purchaser� shall make appropriate arrangemenls lo prov'�de suffident inside bench mom, sl°rage space, light: waler, heal when practical, and powe suppiY for MFP's eq�Npment. Claims In the event the Purchaser has a claim againsi h�FP, Purchaser shal pravide a wrilten complaint wifi speci�C descrip6on of Ne basis lor �s daim �rithin fileen (1� da�s after anyl occurtence. CooperaCron ie and teasonable coopera6on during MFP's esfimates fa complef'an oi wark inchding oosl and duration are based on the undeisian�ng Uiat there wia be apP� �e �� p�rchasec �qrees Ihs instaiation. PAFP sha(I not be fable (a a�Y co�� 9�s wNch arse Uam Pu�chase�s conduct which may delaY to hdd N�P harmless trom any daim, Injury or loss related to the iu1a11ation, maintenance and use of this sprinkler system. Sprinkler LocaCmn � Y ble or a{grred with fghts a ci�users unl�ss 8prink(er heads are posiGuned in acca�dance with oode r eemen� and ma noi be bcefed in the cer►ter d anY ceiing � specificalY n�ied at prnposaVconitact. Sprinkler heac� witl not be i�laNed 'n cdd areas a noo-aceessible areas un�ss sp��y stafed in Ihe proposaUcentrad Drop Npples Orap nipples for concealed piping syslems, if applicable, are afigned al the time of instal�fwn roug� in. t�P shall not be responsible ia the movement an or damage o( drop nipptes by other trades. Purchaser requests for realgnmenl and�or repfacement wcrk musi be in a wrillen ct►ange ader and wUl affect t�e iotal conlract pr�e. Engineerinq 5�mp If any auihairy ot agancy requires a professional enginee�s review a se�ling of ih�s contract's engineering documenls, �en the cosls of 5aid professional services sha11 be added lo the base bid price. Ilan ers MFP shall use hangzrs which have been approved for sprinlder pping and designed far sofid attachment to buiWing consWdion P�rchasa shall be respons�le or dalermining Ihat the buildrt�g h�s ttie appropriaie structutal strengt� of ihe buildng lo enable lo support loaded sprinkler pping. Late Paymenl A1 cosls incurned by MFP, fncludtx3 hut no� �imited to teasonable atlorne}�s fees, �sls and disbursements, in pursuing �ale or fmal paymeni shall be added ta rema�ing unpald conhaci balance. In addition, in the event Purchaser ie�es this P►nPosaUCon�a°� P�or �o MFP's camplet�n of work, Parchaser sha� be IiaWe fa all cosfs and e�enses reasonably incurred by h1FP P� � th� conUad's termina6on, induding bul not limited io reasona6le aUome�/s fces, costs and d�sbursements. Backchar as Ap requesls [a badcchatg� musi be submitied in writing to Ihis off�e. �� hours. Werlime woflc shal be an additian lo the or�ircal This proposaUcontract is based on aq wark �i�g Perf°m�d during regular, {7:OOAM-3: 30PM), waking conVacl price and wiR commence oniy upon priot wri�ten app�oval. Sleeves Sleev�s For tre proiection syst�rs are nol normally requrted, but x�11 be inslal�d at lhis coniractor�s op�on. �� P�° �"�0� �� 9 ans are fumished as a part oi ihb propGSal and wi� be h1FP prepares detailed walang plans irdicaUng IocaGons and measu�emenls ot fts i n. These worki�g pl �p� a� M�p,s iumishEd, upon r�quesi, ta �►e ofier trades. This proposaVcontract is based upon Ihere being no inlerterence by other Vades with pre�ft5ed P;pm9. 7friss insta(la6an � hydraul'aal� r�stricted by Ure rules and regulafwns of 1he lkidecv�rciters of �J.F.P,A. Slandardst has no�t bcen ayreed b by R+�P prior to r changes in the bca�ons d�s pping d�e to interference of dher trades e�ripment when fhe locations o( thal equpm ordering ils materials. Purchaser's Resoons_'t�'�1( Automatic sprink�r systems '(�e resppnsi�iity for propedy rnaintaining a sprinklet system is tt� oCligal'wn ot the Purchasets andlor occupants ot the pro�tY. instaUed in acoord�nce wilh N.F.PA. Slandatd� ceqqwre a minmwn oi inspection, testing, and manlenance; bwever, deteriorafion a impairmeM maY resdl (rom e neg�cl. Proper period�c tests wdl dele�m'uie whether the equipment a in 9ood operatn9 ca��uon or whether ihere of �� 1es �� om t�reezing. �s • are made, however, al the Purchasers responsibBiy and risk. U is me Puchasers sole tesponsbi6ty to Pre�ent any part OCT-11-2002 15�47 �...-d 2978 Cleve�and Ave. N. Roseviile, MN 55113 Tel: (651) 639-0078 FaX: (651) 639-9897 � v�►nou� VAN O LIT� 5945 UN{VERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY� MN 55432 Paul McLellan 1.00D CA7INALKSYSTEM Oqwaqc 31' 3 3l�" x S� x 1� I�iglf r.000 �6U�ato 36~ x Z4" x �6' wr �o �+.hr.s 51.000 16UL48245 48" x?A" x 16' w 5 shslvea We will utilize existing shelves for main 1eve1 QUOte i�uots No. 560�42 Quote Date 10/11/2002 Enterod by �CS Salsspsrson Derek Schmitt Terms NET 30 EOB frankfon, KY (768}5�8-2609 Exhibit 2. ....,... . . . . . ...,, �.. . . . :. . .. �... . . ....... . • EA6 TA�.-. ••..EX;�PRIC6 . . �pR!c�-. . H =� .. . . . .. 31.000 R�S36 Oeck Suppon 8.000 RDS48 D.ek Suppott 31.000 300-12A Sletled Anyle 1,ppQ ST1A36 38` x 14 Step Stairease 70.09G PB21.l6 Pb Deekin0 255.000 PB?M8A Pb Deciciop �,Qpp p�T7Xy T x T Custom Platlomt 498•000 PLANK GRATE Sq- �. � �/2" x 1 T' x 12• Plank 6rat, 1.000 INSTALLATfON I�II�tiOh �.oao cr�oRS e�r eactc aa � 2.00 buy back p�� posi as well as other left over material 19,05000 T 11�050.00 p,pp 0.00 o.o0 0.00 o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 O.Ob 6,000.00 a.00 o.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.000.00 0.00 . L.��`� This CuWation is acaePted SubleGt b P�k p�oe ESCi�tlGon �►om manutacturer, Items not incwded uniess specnk�ih snovm: freipt�t, a'ty sales taoc. stste ssles tax, us Govemment sxcise SubTetal 316,050.00 ta,ces, Au �ms na spedlbaNy shaMm are by oitw.rs. Labor is a+y an estirtntion until a sit� T� MN Sr718.25 �rv�y is compi�iee by d7D at the cxfsbn+e�s rea�si and expe�ae. No eqWpn►a�l �ntal is ;nckided irt this quoee ( i.e. torkNR, sdssors H't, etc.) UM�+g v�d rrom irudc to site ta not inciude0 in ite�Oht or la6or estimateS. En�rS or amissions v� not be honored- Quotalions ae Subject to change without frotio4. JTD is not I�b� for fdpu►s m pertom� resulting from Shipping 3'tB3.89 oontingenaes beyoerd our °°n�i __ i y� Authorized by Totai 516.952.14 Thank Xou! � d�� ' � ° CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2002 SP #02-08 IN THE MATTER OF VAN-0-LITE, INC. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION MEMORANDUM OF PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF THE GRANTING OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT Exhibit 3. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2002 IN RE: VAN-O-LITE, INC. - SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION The Citv Staff's Recommendation Res�ardin� Denial of SP #02-08 is Not Supported bv the Facts The Staff �ecommendation to deny the permit sought by Van-O-Lite, Inc. (°Van- 0-Lite") is not supported by the factual record herein. The stated basis for denial is that the outdoor storage impacts on neighboring residential properties, diminishes the image of a building along the major City corridor, and diminishes the ability of fire fighters to maneuver in emergency situations. As more fully explained below, the containers presently being used by Van-O-Lite do not: 1. Impact the neighboring residential properties, as they are well maintained and painted to blend in with the existing building in an attractive manner; 2. Diminish the image of a building along the major City boulevard (which is University Avenue NE and not 60th Street) since the storage containers can not be seen ftom University Avenue NE; 3. Diminish the ability of fire fighters to maneuver in emergency situations because, according to the City Fire Department Rules, the required space for entry of emergency vehicles is now adequate. u Factual Back�round Van-O-Lite, Inc. ("Van-O-Lite°), now located at 5945 University Avenue NE, has been a corporate citizen of Fridley since 1969. Its original and long-time headquarters in Fridley was located at 6041 University Avenue NE ("6041"). Over the years Van-O-Lite has grown and prospered. In 1998, management determined that in order to continue on this successful path that the company needed to move to a larger facility, and although the company had many choices, it opted to continue to make Fridley its corporate home. While searching for an appropriate real estate site on which to build a new facility that met its business needs, it was discovered that the nearby lots owned by Fridley ALANO Socieiy of the Northwest Suburbs (°ALANO") were both availabfe and suitable. An added benefit of locating a building on that property was its proximity to the existing building which the company could then retain and use for long term storage. Prior to completion of the new headquarters and because of the limited storage area at 6041, the company decided during 2000 to use an outside storage container on a temporary basis as an interim solution to this problem. Before acquiring such a container, company personnel contacted the City Planning Office by telephone to find if such storage was permissible and was told that although not encouraged, there was no law prohibiting it. Following this conversation a container was purchased, placed to the back of the building and used for storage purposes for approximately 18 months during 2000 and 2001. Also during 2000 the ALANO real estate was acquired, architecture plans for the new building prepared, and submitted to the City Planning Office. The Planning Office granted approval of the plans and the construction began soon thereafter in May of 2001. The original plans called for a mezzanine area in the building, but that design feature was not included in the plans submitted to the Planning Office. The contractor recommended that the mezzanine portion of the plans not be submitted with the initial building plans. The reason for that recommendation was that before actually installing the mezzanine the rest of the building should be completed and the office furniture, inventory shelves and other items be placed in their intended locations on the ground floor of the building. This approach would permit the creation of exact engineering drafts so that the correct size and location of the mezzanine support structure could be determined and built to meet specific storage needs. Soon after occupancy of the new Van-O-Lite building at 5945 University Avenue NE (°5945") in November of 2001, the contractor took the measurements for the mezzanine area, prepared the engineering drawings, and made a visit to the Planning Office to deliver the plans and secure construction approval. It was at this time that the Planning Office advised the contractor that in order to build the mezzanine the building would have to have a fire suppression system installed. This new requirement was the result of the decision of the City to adopt State Building Code Chapter 1306 as City Ordinance 1159. The City had a choice of adopting Subparagraph 3, Part 8 or Part 8a of the Code. The City selected Part 8 that provides that occupancies with "...2000 or more square feet of floor area or three or more stories in height..." must have a fire suppression system. This action was taken on September 15, 2001; a date between the time when the original building plans were submitted in late 2000 and approved by the Planning Office and the submission of the mezzanine plans to that Office in November 2001. Clearly, if the original plans submitted to the Planning Office had included the mezzanine feature that structure would have been approved without the necessity of the fire suppression system. Van-O-Lite has received a cost estimate of approximately $65,000.00 to install the fire suppression system and the mezzanine. Without the fire suppression system, the cost to install the mezzanine would only be $25,000.00. As a result of the inability to build the mezzanine as planned, because of the need for a fire suppression system, the company sought a temporary solution to its storage problem pending the installation of the system. In January of 2002, the company decided to move the storage container from 6041, where it had been used to alleviate the earlier storage problems, to the new building at 5945. A second container was acquired in April at a cost of $1,600.00. These two containers are being used to house product necessary to the day-to- day efficient functioning of Van-O-Lite's business. These containers were placed at 5945 in reliance upon the conversation with the Planning Office in 2000 and the fact that during the 18 months period that the container was used at 6041 no questions were ever raised by city officials. In 2000 an affiliate of Van-O-Lite, Lite-House.Com, LLC, secured a SBA loan to cover the construction of the 5945 building. Van-O-Lite also secured a loan of funds from Well Fargo Bank for various business purposes, including the construction of a mezzanine, for which the above-mentioned $25,000.00 was allocated. Van-O-Lite, although a solid company, is nevertheless a small business. In order to finance the installation of the fire suppression, it has been necessary for Van-O-Lite to apply for another loan from Wells Fargo (See Exhibit 1). The estimated cost for the installation of the system is approximately $40,000.00. In the meanwhile, and in order to continue to operate its business in a profitable manner, it is mandatory that the company have additional storage space at its 5945 location until the installation of the system is completed. I11J Notice to Van-O-Lite Understandably, Van-O-Lite was surprised to receive a letter dated July 29, 2002, notifying the company that the outside storage of inerchandise in containers was not permitted without the appropriate special use permit. This was the first time Van-O-Lite was aware of the permit requirement and shortly after receiving this notice Van-O-Lite on August 15, 2002 filed an application for such a permit with the Planning Office. Fridley City Code Section 205.14, C-2 General Business District Regulations, Section 7 Performance Standards, Paragraph B Exterior Storage, Subparagraph (2) provides "All materials and commercial equipment shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened, so as not to be visible from any public right of-way adjoining the property of another district; Subparagraph (3) provides: "The City shall require a Special Use Permit for any exterior storage of materials." The Code does not define the term "fully screened", but it is submitted that in all essential respects the containers being used by Van-O-Lite °fully screen" the view of their contents from the public right-of-way. In addition, the Code itself does not prohibit outside storage, only that a Special Use Permit must be secured for such storage. And there is nothing in the Code suggesting that a request for such a permit will be arbitrarily withheld. The City itself has recognized the need for outdoor storage saying that it may be in the City's interest in protecting the health, safety and welfare and that °...the public might be better served by allowing permanent [outdoor] storage ... subject to screening requirements and acquisition of a special use permit...." (Fridley Community Report, Sept./Oct., 2002, No. 117, p. 2.) It should be noted that Van- 0-Lite is seeking a temporary permit, not a permanent one. Interestingly, the Code under Section C, item (8) also provides for the granting of a permit for "Unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment." It is difficult to understand how the Code can provide for the issuance of permits for unscreened material storage and at the same time deny Van-O-Lite's application for a temporary permit when it has in all respects complied with the letter and intent of the Code. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a basis on which such a permit would ever be granted if Van-O-Lite's application is denied. Il'I The Van-O-Lifie Buildin� Improves the Nei�hborhood The Van-O-Lite building's architecture, design, construction and landscaping are esthetically pleasing and far superior to that of any other business buildings in the vicinity. It greatly enhances the area and to suggest otherwise ignores the condition of nearby buildings. The City should be pleased that Van-O-Lite decided to stay in Fridley and invest in a new and attractive building. The improvements to the neighborhood are obvious to anyone who visits the area. In the City of Fridley, businesses with outside storage are the rule, not the exception. (See Fridley Community Report, Sept./Oct. 2002, No. 117, p. 2.) The buildings on either side of 5945 have tenants that are using such storage, as does nearly all of the other nearby businesses. Most, if not all, such storage facilities and screens are of extremely poor quality construction and are poorly maintained, especially when compared to thos� of Van-O-Lite. To prohibit Van- O-Lite the right to the use of outside storage for a temporary period while at the same time permitting other nearby business to continue to use such storag� on a permanent basis would be grossly unfair and result in a needless financial burden on Van-O-Lite. 11 Permit Application Approval is Mandated bv the Code The storage containers at 6045 do not adversely impact either the business or nearby residential neighborhood. They are well built and tastefully color coordinated with the building, thus making them difficult to distinguish from the building itself. They are well maintained and will continue to be so in the future. (See Exhibit 2.) In addition, between the 6045 property and the residential property, Van-O-Lite has built a high fence that obscures the containers from the adjoining residential property. The parking slots located in the back of the building are restricted to automobiles, thus allowing easy access of emergency personnel and equipment. The containers pose no health or safety hazard according to the Fire Department's rules, as there is the necessary 20 foot unobstructed clearance width for the entry of fire apparatus. (See Section 10.204(a) of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code.) VI Conciusion Van-O-Lite has met with all the Code requirements necessary to receive a permit for the use of its storage containers. In addition, the Van-Lite request is for a permit limited to the time necessary for the installation of the fire suppression system and the construction of the mezzanine. For all the above-cited reasons, Van-O-Lite's request for a Special Use Permit should be approved. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. ulgen Attorney at Law Atty. No. 32621 5620 Code Avenue Edina, MN 55436 (952) 920-9311 Attorney for Van-O-Lite, Inc. Dated: October 2, 2002 EXHIBIT LIST 1(a) Letter from Wells Fargo Bank regarding the Van-O-Lite loan. 1(b) Letter from JTD Industrial Supply regarding installation of inezzanine and sprinkler system. 2(a) Photograph of back of Van-O-Lite building. 2(b) Photograph of view of the back of Van-O-Lite building from residential area. Small Bustness Banking Fridley Offlce MAC N9363-011 6315 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, MN 55432 612 316-4023 612 316-4025 Fax ' October 1, 2002 David J Mclellan Van-O-Lite 6041 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Dave: Thank you for banking with Wells Faxgo Bank. We have received your financial statements and currently considering an additional $65,000 term loan for a construction project you are considering at 6041 L7niversity Ave. N.E. Fridley, Minnesota. If you have any additional information that you feel would be helpful, you may contact me at 612.316.4004. Sincerely, �-i � r—�'li�t�2-��1.�-v ',.-�.,� Dan Weninger � Assistant Vice President �� INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY JTD is currently involved in the design of a Storage Mezzanine and Sprinkler system for Van O Lite Inc. in the city of Fridley. If you have any questions or need specific information, please do not hesitate to call me at 651-639-0075 ext. 315 Derek C. Schmitt Account Manager JTD Industrial Supply U��.A�..�.�� _ J 29?6 Cleveland P,ve. �! Rosevill�, MN 55113 PHONE: 65' S39_On75 ��X: 551-539 9�97 h'�p:;'��^�M,^�ti�.jtdindustr�u!.com � � �-� � � f_ _� � � _.._`-a �., � � - � �� - � ..� � . . � .: � ! �rj` � , � i , ' �'; ,: �:�,c�. �� i ,; S G� � „ ; ' �; � � ; j � �' � � o� � �� i� � � � ;�' �;�' �� ;: � ��) �' ��. i �I. i;, � : ; . a_� � ., . ._, , _ , .____ --�— . �-a�=�:;:� , ;��. � � � :� - Y' �3, � � ; � �� Q' . Y - �� z�� _ 1 � 2.-, " '' - y { � .. . . .. � I � ' . . ` y ` 4 � ��s � `'� ;} ��- _ _ __ _. �� - � �� ---'-�.-.� � ,�� , - ��,� . -:;� r: � 6 t � � -� P�r..� � f.h �, ��L. „' S!a Y � y� � �! �1�� A=� i � �S'��:.� � �� 'h^.v r�` . �T�j�' �c.,r.. _ .�! . �1 D� �� a�'�..1u� ��_ � . �. , � . _ . . . _......_. ._/: . ii �� ►�y � �- �-_ _, , ...._ _R" .,.�-.�� .�""'�.:fii6_►a"^"F?� •T' __, :�:;,.��_k.�#• - � . i��, M .. ...... . � =�;.�.�.�'�,R ✓ : ' °-__ _ a___.. ,.�" , ,. �_.._._: �� ._..._ ., _4 n ,....�s.�,. .__.. �...^�.,.-:.�:: '� _ _ t, . _ _., ---- - - ` T�'�'.:° - , , - _�-�,:� . a -�s �_ ----�8. ;�,��r� a.: ---- --b'-�, . q r� ?c . _ ° � r „,`, ' _ �----- ` �i" ��+ ° � t � ` �. �`�""��, �3�` r. -.-.�-��a 6LY'�� , �_� .., -'r-ra� .. .� .. .a., ("_°.Q''-ct.`. _ Eo .. �. - _ � '�� x � � — �-- � mum.aa e. �f,��' �y4 1�; f{ � "--- �i°:ri..ffi f ��., 4. • . . ' f5.a�r i �"'-.•--_ lrNSrtlqLM.;" `., ,' . � �$� Y ... F 2' 't,: 3..�. . f. ,� -�"sa., ,Y- ^`� v t. �+�a�. � ... , � - . . . —° �---'�.ta� ...p � ..c ,. . ' '"u�'s----�.,-�..�ar+ir..�.... . . ..... SP #02-08 RE UEST The petitioner, Van O Lite, is seeking a special use permit to allow the outdoor storage of containers in the rear yard. The containers will be for housing inventory and staging product for delivery. ANALYSIS The property is located on East University Avenue Frontage Road. The existing building, constructed in 2001, required a number of variances for the structure and parking requirements. As a result, the open space around the building is at a premium. There are alternatives to outdoor storage on this site. The Petitioner applied for a permit for a mezzanine, which would be used for storage of materials. However, the Petitioner chose not to pursue the construction of the mezzanine due to the sprinkler requirements of City Code, Chapter 1306. Though the Petitioner does not favor the alternative of building a mezzanine, it is the best alternative for storage on the site according to staff s analysis. The C-2, General Business zoning along University Avenue, comes from a time when commercial use along the main corridors had direct access to University. Once direct access was terminated, a frontage road system was required. This left shallow lots for commercial development. Developers of these shallow lots must consider the site dimensions and build accordingly. If this consideration is not taken into account, the City may be left with undesirable image issues. Outdoor storage of containers would be one such issue. The containers are highly visible from 60`h Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the east. The storage of the containers will potentially diminish the normal enjoyment of the properties surrounding the site. Finally, fire roadway standards require access with a minimum of a 20-foot width of unobstructed clearance (Article 10, Section 10.204a). Because this site is already maximized, further reduction of the aisle space would potentially harm firefighters' ability to maneuver on the site. City staff has received comments from neighboring property owners. Donna Ruch, whom resides directly behind Van O Lite, does not want to see any outside storage. 37 Existin� Buildin� i RECOMMENDATIONS City staff recommends denial of the outdoor storage of containers with special z�se permit #02-08. Staff recommends denial of SP #02-08 due to the impact of outdoor storage on neighboring properties, diminished image of buildings along City corridors, and the diminished abiliry of firefighters to maneuver in emergency situations. � I � CRY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager � �� Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director October 7, 2002 First Reading: Snow Removal Ordinance Amendment PW02-079 An inconsistency was found in the City Code pertaining to overnight parking of vehicles during the winter months. When the City Council adjusted the overnight parking ban end date from May 1 to April 1, the change was made to Section 506.04 but not to Section 506.05. The attached Ordinance corrects this oversight. Recommend the City Council approve the first reading of the ordinance amendment as presented. JHH:cz Attachment .� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 506 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE PERTAI1vING TO SNOW REMOVAL — VIOLATION Ai�TD TOWING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That Section 506.05 is hereby amended as follows: 506.05 SNOW REMOVAL - VIOLATION AND TOWING 1. During the winter months, commencing on the first day of November of any year, to and including the first day of �-Anril of the following year, it shall be a violation for any person to stop, park or leave standing a vehicle on any street or highway in such a manner as to impede the plowing and/or removal of any snow, ice, or waste on such street or highway. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN, CITY CLERK _ First Reading: Second Reading: Published: 41 SCOTT J. LUND, MAYOR � AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER �� `�� CfiY OF FRIDLEY Date: 10/24/02 To: William Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, CDD and Paul Bolin, Planning Director RE: Information on Ordinance Amending Chapter 205, Related to Outdoor Stora��:: :;�� the Industrial Districts. INTRODUCTION Fridley's current Code requirements for outdoor storage in industrial zoning district� i�F�. ,==�p best, been described as confusing, open to interpretation, and unfair to industry. St� '� investigated different ways to clarify Fridley's requirements, allowing limited outdoor storage while still protecting the City's interests. Staff has worked to develop an Or�� . r��:j revision that repeals and replaces the current requirements with more clearly written language that balances industry needs with broader community needs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION / CURRENT REGULATIONS The current regulations allow outdoor storage in the M-1, M-2, M-4, & S-3 zoning ds, � through a special use permit process, if the items being stored are "incidental" to t�Ef� business. "IncidentaP' storage has been interpreted to mean that the storage is t�mr�� c:� in nature and the short term storage is not required as an on-going part of the busi��_ -� The confusion is in defining temporary and determining whether or not an item is � part of a business. City Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of th� ; changes to the outdoor storage requirements in Fridley's Industrial Districts, . exception of the S-3 (Onaway neighborhood) zoning district. The proposed ch��.: allow Fridley industries to maintain some outdoor storage while not being detr��rp� rr7 '� F;:. surrounding properties. The proposed ordinance does not address the S-3 (Onaway Industrial District). �T : many unique features of the Onaway District, additional time is needed to further �j�. the needs of the Onaway district. Therefore, the changes proposed at this time ��_ _ the M-1, M-2, M-3, & M-4 industrial districts. Changes to the Onaway zoning di��: ` outdoor storage requirements wilf be further developed through neighborhood rr�• : the near future. �� STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the outdoor storage requirements in Fridley's Industrial Districts. The proposed changes will allow Fridley industries to maintain some outdoor storage while not being detrimental to surrounding properties. All changes to the zoning ordinance are noted in the attached ordinance format. Staff further recommends that Council hold the first reading for the proposed zoning text amendment. 43 Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 205, SECTIONS 20�.17, 205.18, 205.19, 20520 AND 20�.25 RELATED TO OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS The Fridley City Council hereby finds after review, examination and recommendation of staff that Chapter 205 related to outdoor storage in Industrial Districts be amended as follows: SECTION 1. That the following lanb age in Sections 205.17.O1.C.(11 j, 205.18.O1.C.(12), 205.192.C.(4), 205.20:O1.C.(2), and 205.25.04.C.(12) be hereby repealed: ' . •• =- - - - :-,..�:,..,: -_.._-.:,:.:,.,_.�,:�,,._: . . - • - - - . . . . �a „ _ ��— --- - �t,� �� « i * • �.' i a * ., o vor* ; ., 1.,,,:ia:.,,. „ o �,it., oa � ,,. «�, t�o < �:i.io �>,,.... . „ . `!,!C}\l n r �;.ao..f:.,t .i;�.*,-;�t_..,a:.,..o„t r„ rl,e , o. � ��1�� '.7 r'.,1 .a; ��,-;..+ ., ., _�� 1�1;.. ,-�o t ,.� ....,J, �-.,.., *l,e . ��\� A �i �� * r ��o a.,°' . n �cixc cv ..� !/�\l A ....L,l.n ,-..tl,r �,F.:t..�. nll;,,,.o„* 4., +l.o , CC-' --- -- -� - �-- -- > > !1 c\ F or :., 1.o:�izt- " ----- - --- � --� _T_l7f�7E1� �;,i - - - - = - - - - -- - - -_-- - _ _ -- SECTION 2. That Section 205.17 be hereby amended as follows 205.17. M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTR3CT REGULATIONS 1. USES PERMITTED C. Uses Permitted With a Special Use Permit. (11) LIMITED OUTDOOR STURAGE . . All limited outdoor storaQe shall satisfy the followinQ requirements and other stipulations deemed necessarv due to site conditions: (a) The outdoor storaQe area is limited to a maximum size equal to 50% of the principal buildinQs footprint. This area must be desianated on a site plan submitted with the Special Use Permit (SUP) application and must be located in the side or rear vard. (b) The materials and equipment kept in the desiQnated outdoor storaQe area must be fully screened so as to not be visible from: �(1)) A residential district adiacent to the use; ((2)) A residential district across a public ri�ht-of-wav from the use; ((3)) A public park adjacent to the use; {(4)) A public ri�ht-of-wav, includin� railroad ri�ht-of-wav, adiacent to the use; or ((5)) Anv commercial use adiacent to the use. (c) ScreeninQ of the outdoor stora�e area shall be achieved throuQh a combination of masonrv walls, fencin�, bermin�, and landscapin� in accordance with Section 205.17.07.G.(1)(a) (d) Materials and ectuiument stored outside must not exceed 12 feet in hei�ht. (e) The outdoor storaQe area must be a citv-avnroved hard surface and bound on the perimeter bv B-6-12 concrete curb and Qutter. �fl Special use permit for limited outdoor storaQe shall not permit the outside stora�e of semi-trucks, semi-trailers, or heaw construction equipment. jg) Hazardous chemicals and materials are prohibited from bein� stored outside. (h) The outdoor storaQe shall not affect the required amount of parkinQ stalls needed on site. (i) The location and types of materials to be stored are to be reviewed bv the Fire Marshall. SECTION 3. That Section 205.18 be hereby amended as follows 205.18. M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2. USES PERMITTED 45 C. Uses Permitted With a Special Use Permit. (11 j LIMITED OUTDOOR STORAGE All limited outdoor storaQe shall satisfv the followinQ requirements and other sti�: t.�s deemed necessary due to site conditions: (a) The outdoor stara�e area is_limited to a maximum size equal to 50% of tl;, ; principal buildin�s footprint. This area must be desianated on a site p1ar� submitted with the Special Use Permit (SUP) avplication and must be lo�%�t�� in the side or rear vard. (b) The materials and �quipment kept in the desi�nated outdoor storaae area .� :;: fullv screened so as to not be visible from: ((1)) A residential district adiacent to the use; ((2)) A residential district across a public ri�ht-of-wav from the use; ((3)) A public park adiacent to the use; ((4)) A public ri�ht-of-wav, includin� railroad ri�ht-of_wav, adiacent tc= �?�.t;� or ((5)) Anv commercial use adiacent to the use. �c) Screenin� of the outdoor stora�e area shall be achieved throu�h a combin��rYk.} C��' masonrv walls, fencin�, bermin�, and landscapin� in accordance wrth Sc_:: << 205.18.06.G.(1)(a) (d) Materials and equipment stored outside must not exceed 12 feet in heig��_,. (e) The outdoor storaQe area must be a city-approved hard surface and boun�,=u�� tf�. perimeter bv B-6-12 concrete curb and �utter. (fl Special use permit for limited outdoor stora�e shall not permit the outsi �r,. .. „ of semi-trucks, semi-trailers, or heaw construction eQUipment. fg) Hazardous chemicals and materials are prohibited from bein� stored o�t� �h) The outdoor stora�e shall not affect the reauired amount of parkin� st�� ,. on site. OThe location and types �of materials to be stored are to be reviewed by �?�� MarshalL . � SECTION 4. That Section 20�.19 be hereby amended as follows 20�.19. M-3 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, OUTDOOR INTENSIVE DISTRICT 2. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses The following are principal uses in N1-3 Districts: (3) Uses whose principal use requires the outdoor storage of materials, motor vehicles, or equipment, including the outdoor manipulation of said materials, motor vehicles, or equipment under the followin� conditions. �i) The materials and equipment must be fullv screened so as to not be visible from: ((1)) A residential district adiacent to the use; ((2)) A residential district across a public ri�ht-of-wav from the use; ((3)) A public park adiacent to the use; ((4)) A public ri�ht-of-wav, includin� railroad ri�ht-of-wav, adiacent to the use; or ((5)) Any commercial use adiacent to the use. (k) Screenin� of the outdoor stora�e area shall be achieved throu�h a combination of masonrv walls, fencin�, berming, and landscapin� in accordance with Section 205.19.07.G.(1)(a) (1) Materials and equipment stored outside must not exceed 15 feet in hei�ht. (m) The outdoor stora�e of motorized vehicles must be on a citv-approved hard surface and bound on the perimeter bv B-6-12 concrete curb and gutter. (n) Hazardous chemicals and materials are prohibited from bein� stored outside. (o) The location and tvues of materials to be stored are to be reviewed bv the Fire Marshall. (�}� Telecommunications Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are regulated in Section 205.30 (Ref. Ord. 1112). 47 SECTION 5. That Section 20�.20 be hereby amended as follows 205.20. L�I-4 MANUFACTURING ONLY 4. USES PERYIITTED C. Uses Permitted With a Special Use Permit. �11) LIMITED OUTDOOR STORAGE All limited outdoor stora�e shall satisfy the followin� requirements and other stipulations deemed necessarv due to site conditions: (a) The outdoor stora�e area is limited to a maximum size equal to 50% of the principal buildin�s footnrint. This area must be desi�nated on a site plan submitted with the Snecial Use Permit (SUP) application and must be located in the side or rear vard. (b) The materials and equipment kept in the desi�nated outdoor storaQe area must be fullv screened so as to not be visible from: ((1)) A residential district adiacent to the use; ((2)) A residential district across a public ri�ht-of-wav from the use; ((3)) A public vark adiacent to the use; ((4)) A public riQht-of-wav, includin� railroad right-of-wav, adiacent to the use; or ((5))Anv commercial use adiacent to the use. (c) walls, fencin�, bermin�, and landscapin� in accordance with Section 205.20.06.G.(1)(a) (d) Materials and.equipment stored outside must not exceed 12 feet in hei�ht. (e) The outdoor stora�e area must be a citv-apnroved hard surface and bound on the perimeter bv B-6-12 concrete curb and Qutter. (fl Special use permit for limited outdoor storage shall not nermit the outside stora�e of semi-trucks, semi-trailers, or heaw construction equipment. (�l Hazardous chemicals and materials are prohibited from beina stored outside. (h) The outdoor storaQe shall not affect the required amount of parkin� stalls needed on site. . ; (i) The location and tvpes of materials to be stored are to be reviewed bv the Fire Marshall. SECTION 6 That Section 20�.25 be hereby amended as follows: SECTION 205.2� S-3 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, ONAWAY ADDITION DISTRICT USES PERNIITTED C. Uses Permitted With a Special Use Permit. (11) LIMITED OUTDOOR STORAGE All limited outdoor storaQe shall satisfv the followin� reQuirements and other stipulations deemed necessarv due to site conditions: (c) The outdoor storaae area is limited to a maximum size equal to 50% of the principal buildin�s footprint. This area must be desi�nated on a site nlan submitted with the Special Use Permit (SUP) application and must be located in the side or rear vard. (d) The materials and equipment keut in the desi�nated outdoor stora�e area must be fullv screened so as to not be visible from: ((1)) A residential district adiacent to the use; ((2)) A residential district across a public right-of-way from the use; ((3)) A public park adiacent to the use; ((4)) A public ri�ht-of-way, includin� railroad ri�ht-of-wav, adiacent to the use; or �(5)) Anv commercial use adiacent to the use. (e) Screenin� of the outdoor stora�e area shall be achieved throu�h a combination of masonrv walls, fencin�, bermin�, and landscapin� in accordance with Section 205.25.09G.(1)(a) (fl Materials and equipment stored outside must not exceed 12 feet in hei�ht. (�) The outdoor stora�e area must be a citv-approved hard surface_and b_o_und on the perimeter bv B-6-12 concrete curb and �,itter. (h) Snecial use permit for limited outdoor stora�e shall not permit the outside stora�e of semi-trucks, semi-trailers, or heavy construction equipment. (i) Hazardous chemicals and materials are prohibited from bein� stored outside. . • (i) The outdoor stora�e shall not affect the reQUired amount of parkin� stalls needed on site. (k) The location and tvpes of materials to be stored are to be reviewed bv the Fire Marshall. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF 2002 ATTEST: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 50 Scott J. Lund, Mayor f GTY OF FRIDLEY To: From: Date: Re: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager ��"' R.ichard D. Pribyl, Finance Director Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk October 23, 2002 Resolution Revoking On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for AMF Bowling Centers Inc., d/b/a AMF Maple Lanes Located at 6310 Highway 65 NE The City Council held a public hearing on April 22, 2002, as required by Fridley City Code Section 603.17, due to non-compliance of the food to liquor sales required by Section 603.10.19. At that time the Ciry Council made a motion to approve a probationary license for six months and to continue the public hearing to October 28, 2002. Finance Director Pribyl notified Licensing Manager Sara Terrell by telepho� shortly after the public hearing that AMF was required to submit a monthly report indicating the food to liquor sales ratio. He again reiterated that fact in a letter to AMF's Attorney James Moran Staff received one report dated August 22, 2002, for the months of May, June and July. This report indicates the food sales falls significantly below the 40% minimum requirement: Month Food Sales May $5,574 June $2,710 July $3,173 Liquor Sales Percenta�e $15,341 27% $7,382 27% $7,315 30% Staffreceived a letter from AMF's Attorney James Mora� dated September 11, 2002, stating his client will be unable to meet the 40% food sales ratio in the foreseeable future. Based on the information above, and the fact that the city did not receive additional reports for the months of August and September from AMF, staff feels it is necessary to enforce the city ordinance. At this time staffrecommends revocation of the intoxicating liquor license held by AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., d/b/a AMF Maple Lanes due to norrcompliance of the city ordinance. A resolution has been prepared with Findings of Fact for the City Council to review and adopt. 51 RESOLUTION NO. - 2002 A RESOLUTION REVOKING L�1'TOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AMF BOWLING CENTERS INC. D/B/A AMF tiIAPLE LANES LOCAT'ED AT 6310 HIGHWAY 65 NE WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota, regulates the sale of intoxicating liquor in establishments located within the City, pursuant to the authority granted to it under Minnesota Statutes Section 340A, by ordinance, specifically Section 603 of the Fridley Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Fridley City Code, Secrion 603.10.19 states that at the time of renewal of any license for the sale of liquor within the city, "Lhe applicant shall submit proof to the City that a minimum of 40% of the gross sales, derived from the sale of food and intoxicating liquors of the establishxnent, for. which the "on-sale" license is to be used, is in the serving of food, as required by Section 603.10.18"; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2002, the City of Fridley received a renewal application for intoxicating liquor for AMF Bowling Centers Inc. d/b/a AMF Maple Lanes (hereinafter referred to as "AMF") located at 6310 Highway 65 NE stating their food to liquor ratio was 40% food sales and 60% liquor sales;and WHEREAS, it is the usual and ordinary practice of the City in the enforcement of Section 603 of the Fridley Municipal Code to require the certification of a Certified Public Accountant of the sales ratios of food to liquor sales on any establishment selling liquor within the City; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2002, after reviewing the renewal application, staff forwarded a request to AMF requesting a CPA Statement of gross receipts for food and liquor sales for the previous license year, as it was not included in the application; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2002 staff received a copy of a P& L Revenue Spread Report, in lieu of a CPA Statement, on gross receipts for food and liquor sales for the twelve months ending December 31, 2001, for AMF Maple Lanes; and WHEREAS, after staff reviewed the information provided by AMF, staff deternuned the actual food to liquor ratio appeazed to be 72% liquor and 28% food, as AMF had not included beer and wine sales in their equation; and WHEREAS, the actual ratios of food and liquor sales based upon the data and information provided to the City by AMF would place AMF significantly out of compliance with the required food and liquor sales ratios required by the aforesaid ordinance; and WHEREAS, Fridley City Code Section 603.17 states that, "the City Council may suspend or revoke any license for the sale of intoxicating liquor for the violation of any provision or condition of this Chapter or of any State law or Federal law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquor"; and WHEREAS, Fridley City Code Section 603.18 requires that, "a revocation or suspension by the Council shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public hearing. The notice shall give at least ten (10) days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee"; and 52 WHEREAS, on March 28, 2002, the city clerk prepared and mailed a letter to the AMF Corporate Office and AMF Fridley Office, via certified mail, notifying AMF they did not meet the food to liquor sales ratio required by the City Ordinance and that staff would be scheduling a public hearing in front of the City Council on Apri122, 2002, to suspend or revoke the intoxicating liquor license for norrcompliance with the provisions of the ordinance and staff received signed return receipts cards; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2002, the Fridley City Council held a public hearing on AMF's renewal application, granted AMF a probationary license for six months and continued the public hearing to October 28, 2002; and WHEREAS, on or about April 25, 2002, Finance Director Richard Pribyl discussed by telephone with Sara Tenell, AMF Licensing Manager, the monthly reporting requirements AMF would need to provide to the City of Fridley to assure compliance with the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2002, a letter was sent by Finance Director Richard Pribyl to James Moran, attorney for AMF, informing him of the probationary license period, monthly reporting requireme nts, and definition of food sales; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2002, staff received a letter from AMF reporting their food to liquor sales for the months of May, June and July which showed that AMF had not yet met the food to liquor sales ratio; and WHEREAS, a letter dated September 11, 2002, from Attorney Moran, indirectly stated AMF could not meet the 40% food ratio; and WHEREAS, based on the information received from AMF, staff recommends enforcing the ordinance by permanently revoking the liquor license for this location and owner. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley after listening to all of the facts presented hereby makes the fallowing FINDINGS OF FACT: 2 � That each and all of the foregoing factual statements aze true and correct and are incorporated herein as part of the findings of fact and record of these precedings. That AMF has not provided the City of Fridley with a report of the food to liquor sales ratio on a monthly basis as required by the letter dated June 3, 2002; and That, based on the letter dated September 11, 2002 from Attorney Moran, it appears AMF will be unable to meet the 40% food sales rario in the foreseeable future; and 4. That Fridley City Code Section 603.17 states, "that the City Council ryay suspend or revoke any license for the sale of intoxicating liquor for the violation of any provision or condition of this Chapter or of any State law or Federal law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquor." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE THAT based on these findings the City Council of the Ciry of Fridley hereby revokes the Intoxicating Liquor License to AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., dba AMF Maple Lanes located at 6310 Highway 65 NE as allowed by Fridley City Code Section 603.17. 53 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF 2002. Attest: Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk 54 Scott J. Lund, Mayor Month Aprii May June July August September Recap of total Food & Beverage Sales - ihrough the first 3 Per's Ending 9/9/02 Maple Lanes - AMF Bowling Center Food Revenue 13508 Candy & soda Revenue 2087 Total Food Revenue 15595 Liquor Revenue 26542 Total F&B Revenue 42,137 Food % to total 37% Food Sales $5,574 $2,710 $3,173 $2,714 $2,635 $8,159 Liquor Sales $15,341 $7,382 $7,315 $6,203 $3,199 $17,140 Percentage 27% 27% 30% 30.40% 45.20% 32.30% 1�; �` � ` � � I �• f, 4 . ��.';l �, :�!`" � �, , �• � � ( �.'�.. �� ; r�� i"'` ,� �'� , Y G�Y � � CffY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �� FRONI: SUBJECT: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SHARON FETTING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2001-1 DATE: October 16, 2002 Attached you will find the final assessment roll for the 2001 Street Improvement Project No. St. 2001-1 along with the Resolution to adopt the assessment. This project included 103 properties. Ten of the property owners petitioned the City to replace their existing concrete curb and gutter. The assessment will be for 10 years at a rate of 6.5%. RDP/sf Attachment 0 55 RESOLUTION NO. -2002 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2001-1 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the 2001Street Improvement Project No. 2001-1. � NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA: Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein and each tract of land therein included is hereby founci to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2003, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6'h percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2003. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be chazged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made befare November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. The Finance Director shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal t�es. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR t�l•� ESS�S1V�iT ROLL FOR 2001 STRE�Z IIV�80VENN�NNT PROJECT NO. ST 2001- 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $15 per Front Ft $9.83 per Front Ft SKJONSBY BOMVIE 133024430060 90 $1,350.00 $884.T0 6096 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 STRAND MARY ANN 133024430061 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 6122 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LIABRAATEN CLAIRMONT & N E 133024430062 85 $1,275.00 $835.55 6128 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DEMELLO FRANK J& SHARON J 133024430063 100 $1,500.00 $983.00 6134 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GERGEN DA1vIEL J& SHELLOY M 133024430065 100 $1,500.00 $983.00 6133 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ADOLPHSON LOREN A& LOIS Y 133024430066 70 $1,050.00 $688.10 6131 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DAVIDSON KIITH A& DONEPTA R 133024430067 100 $1,500.00 $983.00 6127 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GAGNER LORRAINE A 133024430068 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 6125 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ASP ANDREW M& JHANINE L 133024430069 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 6115 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 TOLER KEITH D 133024430070 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 6105 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LOHMER GEORGE C& NATALIE J 133024430071 85 $1,275.00 $835.55 6095 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 QUINN MICHAEL R& LOLTISE D 243024120002 67 $1,005.00 $658.61 6005 GARDENA CIR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 57 ESSFSSN�IT ROLL FOR 2001 STREEr IIV�ROVIIV�NT PROjECT NO. ST 2001- 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $1 S per Front Ft $9.83 per Front Ft CARISON BRETT R& RENA J 243024120003 67 $1,005.00 $658.61 6003 GARDENA CIR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LEWIS DONALD R& PATRICIAA 243024120004 6? $1,005.00 $658.61 6001 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HILBER LONTTA L 243024120005 75 $1,125.00 $73?.25 5951 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 NEISON MARGARE'f R 243024120026 142 $2,130.00 $1,395.86 6090 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MENDOZA SALVADOR & MARIA 243024120080 100 $1,500.00 $983.00 6084 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN MC AFEE RAYMOND L& BE'TTY J 243024120030 88 $1,320.00 $86S.U4 1360 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CULBERTSON TERRY M& SUSAN E 243024120031 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1358 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MOSS DALE ALLAN & JEAN M 243024120032 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1356 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 WERNER ELIZABEfH A 243024120033 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1354 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GILMORE STEVEN J& KARENA 243024120034 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1352 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MEYERHOF'F HANS P& ROSE 243024120035 80 $1,200.00 $786.4U 1350 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DUAVICKJLTNE 243024120036 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1348 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 TUMMS PAUL G& ROBERTA M 24302412003T 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1346 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 i ESSiSS1V�iT ROLL FOR 2001 STRE�T IIV�ROVIIV�NT PBOjECT NO. ST 2001- 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $15 per Front Ft $9.83 per Front Ft ZAPPE THOMAS A& LINDA O 243024120038 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1344 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SHOGREN, GERALD J& SFiRPiH 243024120039 77 $1,155.00 $756.91 1342 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HAMERIVICK DAVID M& HELEN J 243024120040 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1340 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 COLSTROM PAUL A& MARY E 243024120041 75 $1,125.00 $?37.25 1338 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HIESTAND'THADDEUSG&LUANN 243024120042 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 B 1336 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOHNSON HAZII, V 243024120043 T5 $1,125.00 $T37.25 1334 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GANNUCCI MICHAEL D& M M 243024120044 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1332 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ' MODIG RICHARD A& COMJIE J 243024120045 80 $1,200.00 $?86.40 1330 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 BRUTLAG KIITH W& DOROTHYA 243024120046 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1328 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 I,INDQUIST RICHARD O& J R 24302412004T 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1326 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GLASPER ST'EPHEN M& JOAN S 243024120048 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1324 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 KIVLTDSONMARGARETJ 243024120049 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1322 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 KELLY SHAWN P& BIRGIT L 243024120050 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1320 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 59 ESSFSSN�N'P ROLL FOR 2001 STR,EST IIV�ROOIIV�NT PROJECT NO. ST 2001 - 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $15 per Front Ft $9.83 per Front Ft SEDZIELARZ FRANK S& MAIJA 243024120051 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1318 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DONOHUE W J& M L TRUSTEES 243024120052 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1316 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 THORESON ALAN R& PAULAA 243024120053 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 1314 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 PEARSON CHARLES E& SUSAN j 243024120055 ` 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1310 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MORRIS LAWRENCE & MAUREEN L 243024120056 143 $2,145.00 $1,405.69 1345 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JECHOREK MICHAII, W 24302412005T 115 $1,725.00 $1,130.45 1349 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 THOMPSON MERLE M 243024120058 100 $1,500.00 $983.00 1351 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HOLLERICH DANIEL C& DEBORA 243024120059 90 $1,350.00 $884.70 1353 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 PHILLIPS SUZ.AIVNE W 243024120060 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1355 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FAGAN MARK G& DEBRA J 243024120061 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1357 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN SS432 HOPWOOD JAMFS J& NANCY L j 243024120062 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1359 HILLCREST DR NE - FRIDLEY MN 55432 _ NELSON RANDAL T& VIKHI R 243024120063 150 $2,250.00 $1,474.50 6083 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GARCIA MAURICIO E& P 243024120064 130 $1,950.00 $1,2T7.90 6075 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 �� E�AV�NT ROLL FOR 2001 STRE�'P IIU�ROVIIV�NT PROJECT NO. ST 2001 - 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $15 per Front Ft $9.83 per Front Ft QUERIMITMICHAEL$cREGINA 243024120065 130 $1,950.00 $1,277.90 6069 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 BOWERSBAR.BARAE&JOHNSON 243024120066 132 $1,980.00 $1,29T.S6 I�Y 1313 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 58432 MANIVINGTHOMA.SA&HELFRIDE 24302412006? 130 $1,950.00 $1,277.90 1315 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 KASPSZAK HII,EN P 243024120068 90 $1,350.00 $884.T0 1317 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HING GARY WILLIAM & GLEN R 243024120069 85 $1,275.00 $835.55 1319 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HANSON HAROLD C& LEONA C 243024120070 80 $1,200.00 3T86.40 1321 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 BOURNE RYAN D 243024120071 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 1323 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 85432 NYVOLDBETTET 2430241200T2 90 $1,350.00 $884.70 1325 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 PRICE DXPIIEL P& SUSAN M 2430241200T3 lOS 31,575.00 $1,032.15 132T HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SCHREINER SARA H& V�SCIO P J 243024120074 115 $1,725.00 $1,130.45 1331 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 NGUYEN NAM THI 243024120075 150 52,250.00 $1,4T4.S0 1337 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LIND DONNA M 243024120076 100 $1,500.00 $983.00 6076 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JEZIERSHI DIANE R& HADRATH J 243024120079 100 $1,500.00 $983.00 6072 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 61 ESSi�SMEN'P ROLL FOR 2001 STRE�R IIV�ROVE1V�iT PROJECT NO. ST 2001- 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & F,ctual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $15 per Front Ft $9.83 per Front Ft THOMAS MARK A 243024210008 60 $900.00 $589.80 6054 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 WIKSTROM GUIVNAR JR 243024210012 75 $1,125.00 $73T.25 6035 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 BERG STANfON O& JUNE K 243024210013 82 $1,230.00 $806.06 6025 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OLSON DONNA C 243024210014 67 $1,005.00 $658.61 6015 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SCHUTZ M�iRTIN D& SANDY J 243024210015 88 $1,320.00 $868.04 5991 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CRAFP DENMS j& ANfOINEZTE M 243024210016 80 $1,200.00 $786.40 6030 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LY'i'WYN NESTOR M 243024210017 75 $1,125.00 $?37.25 6010 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 WUERTL, BRIAN L& BEVERLY R 243024210018 133 $1,995.00 $1,307.39 5980 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SWANSON HAROLD E& IONE K 243024210019 90 $1,350.00 $884.?0 6064 WOODY LN NE - FRIDLEY MN 55432 TOMCZYK KAZIMIERZ AND MARTA 243024210020 I 10 $1,650.00 $1,081.30 6060 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOHNSTON KEITH D& DIIVISE M 243024210033 82 $1,230.00 $805.06 1306 HILLCREST DR NE • FRIDLEY MN 55432 ERICKSON OLIVER R& EDNA D 243024210034 60 $900.00 $583.t30 6056 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 BURTON JOHN & LUEHMANN 243024210037 121 $1,815.00 � I,1 f°::", ;:: SANDRA 6061 WOODY LN NE � FRIDLEY MN 55432 62 3SSE4SN�NT ROLL FOR 2001 STRE�T IIV�ROVELV�NT PROJECT NO. ST 2001- 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $15 per Front Ft $9.83 per Front Ft BYRNE TIMOTHY & MARY 243024210046 80 $1,200.00 $T86.40 6053 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 BALDAUF'FROBERT&CAROL 243024210047 12S $1,875.00 $1,228.25 6045 GARDENA LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 WALI,ACHLAURAR 243024240032 TS $1,125.00 $73T.25 5849 TENIVISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CAPUTA ELEANOR J 243024240033 75 $1,125.00 $737.25 5841 TEMdISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GERGESSAMIY 243024240034 T5 $1,125.00 $737.25 5833 TENMSON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 NOREN RONALD & SCHNEIDER D R 243024240035 75 $1,125.00 $737.25 5825 TENMSON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ERICKSON GARY L& M L TRUSTEES 243024240036 75 $1,125.00 $737.25 581 T TENDTISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GAHR THOMAS C& DHIIN KAREN 24302424003? 93 $1,395.00 $914.19 J 5809 TEMVISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LYONS TIMOTHY P& LORI j S 243024240038 102 $1, 530.00 $1,002.66 5801 TENNISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GARBER SHELLEY A 243024240039 102 $1,530.00 $1,002.66 5800 TENPiISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SOPCINSHI RAYMOND & DII,ORES 243024240040 93 $1,395.00 $914.19 5808 TENIVISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 63 ESSFSSN�IT ROLL F08 2001 STREEP IIVBROVE1V�AiT PRO]ECT NO. ST 2001- 1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Front Gutter Based on Assessment Address PIN No. Ft $15 per Front Ft $9.83 per Fzont Ft SEXTON WILLIAM J& YVONNE M 243024240041 T5 $1,125.00 $737.25 5816 TENMSON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 VAJDA JOHN A& CR.S.S�iNDRO I 243024240042 75 $1,125.00 $73T.28 5824 TENTTISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JAWORSHIMARKH 243024240043 75 $1,125.00 $737.25 5832 TENPiISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LASSERTHOMASH&LYNNM 243024240044 105 $1,5T5.00 $1,03Z.15 5840 TENDTISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 � FUHRMANM DAVID J& THERESA 243024240061 75 $1,125.00 $737.25 5855 TEPTNISON DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 TpTgt, g,qgES�y�NT S81,T46.28 � ' ESSE4SIV�NT BOLL FOB 2001 STREE'P IIVBROVIIV�NT PROJECT NO. ST 2001-1 Estimated Assessment for Concrete Curb & Actual Address PIN No. Front Ft Gutter Assessment xttrrr�t J�fs & joxrr 243024210025 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 6014 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HLTYNH CT & QUACH L& HUYNH T 243024210026 $600.00 $ 600.00 5948 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HEGI CAR.RAIG G& I�LLY A 243024210042 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 6001 WOODY LN PTE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LU STEVEN N 243024210041 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 601 S WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MAGNUSON JAMES & TERESE 243024210024 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 5988 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ALLANSON RICHARD & MARY 243024210023 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 6020 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LANDES DAVID & SHARON 243024210027 $ 600.00 $ 600.00. 5928 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LINDEMAN WALTER & SHARON 243024210022 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 6040 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 NEEB TIMOTHY & DEBRA 243024210039 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 6041 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 LINDBLAD WAYNE & MARCIA 243024210040 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 6021 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 $ 87,T46.28 TOTAL ASSESSMEN'I5 �� CRY OF fRiDIEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 200� j� TO: WILLIAlV1 W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �+� FROM: SUBJECT: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SHARON FETTING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE VARICHAK ADDITION UTILITY PROJECT #342 DATE: October 16, 2002 Attached you will find the final assessment roll for the Varichak Additian Utility Project #342 along with the Resolution to adopt the assessment. The assessment is for two properties in the Varichak Addition. The assessment was $23,295.60 of which $12,145 was paid by the developer, Stephen Varichak. The remaining balance of $11,150.60 will be divided equally between the two properties. The assessment will be certified for 15 years at an interest rate of 6.5%. We have also attached a copy of the signed Assessment And Payment Agreement. Please note that in said Agreement, under the section AGREEMENT, number 9 states that any outstanding balance wi11 be assessed at 7% for 15 years with an additional5% administrative charge. The City has chosen to reduce the interest rate to 6.5% and to eliminate the 5% administrative charge. RDP/sf Attachment .. RESOLUTION NO. -2002 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR THE VARICHAK UTILITY PROJECT NO. 342 WHEREAS, an Assessment and Payment Agreement For Certain Improvements Located in the Varichak Addition, City of Fridley Minnesota is signed by all interested parties, AND WHEREAS, the Agreement states that the outstanding balance will be assessed at seven (7) percent over fifteen (15) years with a five (5) percent administrative charge added on, AND WHEREAS, the City has chosen to assess the project at six and one half (6%Z) percent over 15 years without the 5 percent administrative charge. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA: Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of fifteen years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2003, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6'/2 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2003. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid instaliments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. The Finance Director shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR 67 VARICHAK UTILITY PROJECT #342 Name PIN No. Act�,:�l Asses�.�..��nt Angelique K. Fredericksen et al 24-30-24-11-0131 $11, 64`A �30 5942 Benjamin Street NE Fridley MN 55432 6 072..�n� $ 5,575.�C� Current Owner 24-30-24-11-0132 Steven & Karen Hank $11,647.80 5924 Benjamin Street NE Fridley MN 55432 6 072.�Q $ Agreement Signed By Previous Owner S,SZ5.30 Beverly Wales 9509 Dogwood Avenue N Brooklyn Park MN 55443-1564 .: ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN I1�IPROVENiENTS LOCATED IN THE VARICHAK ADDITION, CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA Recitation. The undersigned parties make this Agreement for the purpose of paying for certain improvements contracted by the City of Fridley, Minnesota (hereinafter, "the City") in the form of sewer and water utility service line connections from the City owned mainlines to the property lines located at the Benjamin Street face of the Varichak Addition in the City of Fridley. Together they state as their understanding, the following: l. Partners Stephen P. Varichak, Delores M. Varichak, James Surdyk and Lynne E. Surdyk (hereinafter, "Varichak" or Varichak-Surdyk Partnership") replatted certain property located within the City of Fridley and now known as the "Varichak Addition". 2. That Varichak and the City negotiated and executed a Development Agreement (hereinafter "the Agreement") that was intended to define the duties and responsibilities of the City and Varichak, as well as his assigns, in developing the Varichak addition. That Agreement dated August 9, 1999, and recorded December 3, 1999, as Doc. No. 1472910 in the Anoka County Recorder's office. 3. That three lots were created in the Varichak addition. One of the three lots, Lot 3 of Block One of the Varichak addition, already had a connection with the sewer and water lines located in Gardena Avenue. The other two lots had no such connection. 4. That of the rivo remaining lots, one was sold to Beverly Wales (hereinafter, "Wales"), and the other to Angelique Frederiksen and Susan Okerstrom, as joint tenants (hereinafter, "Frederiksen and Okerstrom"). 5. That Wale's lot is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1 of the Varichak addition. 6. That Frederiksen's and Okerstrom's lot is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Varichak addition. 7. That Lots 1 and 2 of the Varichak addition are not buildable lots until sewer and water service lines are made available to them from Benjamin Street. 8. That the City, in Resolution 34-2001, ordered the preliminary plans, specifications and estimates for the construction of the sewer and water connection between the City and the � above-described lots pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §429. 9. That the City, in Resolution 35-2001 received the preliminary engineering report and set a public hearing for the improvements in this project, again pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §429. . • Varichak Assessment & Payment Agreement Page 2 10. That the aforesaid improvements were ordered by the City and the project received the designation of Fridley "Utility Project No. 342". 1 l. That a contract for the work was awarded to Lametti and Sons, Inc., for $21,570 to which was added the City's standard engineering and inspection fee of 8%. 12. That the parties contemplate that the work has been commenced and will be cornpleted in the 2001 construction season. 13. That the parties agree that Utility Project No. 342 will benefit Lots 1 and 2 of the Varichak addition. 14. That the parties wish to fully and fairly allocate the costs of Utility Project No. 342 based upon the benefit received, as weli as the terms of the Agreement. 15. In consideration of the mutual promises and payments noted herein, as well as the release from any future claims under the terms of the Agreemenx, the parties have reached the following: AGREEMENT 1. That Vanchak, Wales, Frederiksen and Okerstrom shall bear the full cost of the Project . up to the amount of the contract price. 2. That the total cost payable by Varichak, Wales, Frederiksen and Okerstrom shall be $23,295. 3. That the parties contemplate that Varichak will pay $11,570 of the underlying contract cost of $21,570. Wales shall pay $5,000.00. Okerstrom and Frederiksen shall pay $5,000.00. 4. That the City's fee of $1725 shall be born equally by the parties Varichak, Wales, Okerstrom and Frederiksen. 5. That Varichak's payment shall be due and payable immediately upon execution of this Agreement. 6. That Lots 1& 2 of the Varichak addition shall each b� assessed $11,647 for the project. 7. That Varichak's payment shall be applied equally to the assessment of both lots. 8. That the owners of either lot may pay off the outstanding amount due and assess�d against that lot without penalty within 30 days of ihe Assessment. 70 Varichak Assessment & Payment Agreement Page 3 9. That any outstanding balance shall remain assessed against the property and the cost will be assessed at 7% interest over fifteen years with a 5% administrative chazge. 10. That the work shall be completed in the 2001 construction season. Signed: City of Fridley, Minnesota By: Scott J. nd, ayor ATTEST: De ra A. Sko en, C' Clerk Dated: C� 1-'� b l Dated: q'Z7 �Q / Developer Varichak-Surdyk Parnership Dated: By: Stephen P. Varichak, Partner ` , ,, i��-C,� � Dated: % � �� " Z � � 2 Susan Okersti'bm Beverly W es This document drafted by: Frederic W. Knaak (MN. Lic. 56777) Holstad & Knaak, P.L.C. 1690 World Trade Center 30 E. 7th Street St. Paul, MN. 55101 Dated: g � � �" � Dated:�C� � Z� 71 Sep 18 O1 02:O1p MHE LRW OFFICE 76357125�9 P,2 7. That Varichdk's payment sna(f be applied equally to the assessment of both lots: 8. That the owners of eithPr lot may pay off the outstandiny amount due and assessed against that lot without penalty within 34 days of the Assessment. 9. That any outstandiny t,alance shall remain assessed against the property and the cost wiN be assessed at 7%o interest over fifteen years with a 5°fo administrative charge. 10. That the work shall be compl�ted in the 2001 constrcaction season. Signed: City of Fridley, Minnesota By: Scott Lund, Mayor ATTEST: Dated: Dated: Developer /, LI�P _- ,-- � ; � � c`;-.�..��-�_ , -� ._.�y. ��t Dated: `� ` � �7- � i Angelique F�ederiksen Susan Okerstrom Beverly Wales Dated: Datcd: Dated: This document drafted by: Froderic W. Knaak (MN. �ic. �677i) Holstad 8 Knaak, P.L.C. 1690 Worid Trade Center 30 E. 7"' Street St. Paul, MN. 55101 72 � � � � QTY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SHARON FETTING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2002 NUISANCE ABATEMENT DATE: October 28, 2002 Attached you will find the final assessment roll for the 2002 Nuisance Abatement along with the Resolution to adopt the assessment. The assessment includes 4 properties at a cost of $2,824.76. The assessment will be certified for 1 year at an interest rate of 6.5%. RDP/sf Attachment �� RESOLUTION NO. 2002 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 2002 NUISANCE ABATEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the 2002 Nuisance Abatement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA: Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of one year, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2003, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6%2 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installmenf shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2003. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such proper�ty, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of tlxis resolution. The Finance Director shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the caunty. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 2002. ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR 74 ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 2002 NUSIANCE ABATMENT Name PIN No. Actual Assessment Gary Wojtowicz 24-30-24-31-0025 $ 266.25 1110 Lynde Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Kristina Harrison 12-30-24-13-0024 $ 114.54 7300 Hayes Street Fridley, MN 55432 Tim Sylvester Builders 23-30-24-31-0110 $ 711.84 27875 Hwy 65 NE 5541 5`� Street $ 148.19 Isanti, MN 55040 $ 860.03 Dameon Johnston 12-30-24-12-0061 $ 81.25 1424 Osborne Road $ 1,441.75 Fridley, MN 55432 $ 60.94 $ 1,583.94 � 75 � � QTY OF FRIDLEY Date To AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 October 23, 2002 Wiiliam Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinatar Stephanie Hanson, Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #02-17, Robert & Constance Metcalf M-02-125 INTRODUCTION Constance & Robert Metcalf; owners of 860 West Moore Lake Drive, are seeking #o be exempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes & Council resolution that has declared gravel drivpways to be a public nuisance. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the October 9, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearir�g was held for VAR #02-17. 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 denial as the City Council deemed all gravel drives a public nuisance in 1997. Granting of this request would be very unfair to the 435 property owners who have complied and paved their drives since 1997. Granting of this variance would be precedent setting and entitle the few other property owners, who have failed to comply, to the same variance. Granting of this request would, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion uf the public nuisance section of the Code unenforceable. 76 City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #02-17 October 9, 2002 GENERAL INFOR�vIATION SPECI.aI. INFORVLATION Applicant: Constance & Robert Nletcalf 860 West Moore Lake Drive Fridley, iVIN 55432 Requested Action: Variance to exempt property owner from installing code required hard surface driveway. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 860 West Moore Lake Drive Size: App. 11,050 sq. ft. .25 acres E�cisting Land Use: Single family home. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family, R-1 E: Single Family, R-1 S: Moore Lake W: Single Family, R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.07.06.A.(2) requires all vehicles to be parked on a hard surface. Sec. 110.02 has declared all gravel drives to be a public nuisance in the City of Fridley. Zoning History: 1956 - Lot is platted. 1958 - Home is built. Legal Description of Property: Lot 3, Block l, Shorewood 2°d Add. Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportarion: W. Moore Lake Drive provides access to site. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban landscaping. 77 SU1�TivI11RY OF PROJECT Peritioner is seeking to be e:cempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes, which have declared �avel driveways to be a public nuisance. SUVIVIARY OF HARDSHIP "The main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non-inclining naticre of our driveway. I believe oa�r propertv is icnique in this respect and therefore qa�alifies for a variance. "— Constance & Robert Metcalf SUMi�TARY OF ANALYSIS Ciry Staff recommends denial, as the City Council deemed ALL gravel driveways to be a picblic nuisance in 1997. - Granting of this variance would be precedent setting CITY COLINCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE CC-10/28/02 (Existing Drive) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin, Stacy Stromberg, & Jon Haukaas VAR #02-17 xEQ�EST Constance & Robert Metcalf, owners of 860 West 1�loore Lake Drive, are seeking to be exempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes & Council resolution that has declazed gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. SUMVIARY OF HARDSHIP "The main emphasis of nry appeal is the flat, non-inclining nature of our.drivetivay. I believe our properry is uniqtce in this respect and therefore qualifies for a variance. I also am personally concernec� about the aesthetic impact of a concrete or hard surface driveway on #he appearance of our property. " — Constance & Robert Metcalf Ai�tALYSIS The property is located on the north shore of West Moore Lake. The lot is somewhat rectangular shaped, with the home facing �est Moore Lake Drive. The existing home and carport were built in 19�8. The petitioner is seeking a variance to be exempt from City Gode requirements for hardsurface drive and parking. The petirioner is also seeking an exemprion from the City's Public Nuisance Ordinance which states that gravel driveways are a public nuisance. In 1997, the City Council adopted an ordinance declaring �-avel ciriveways a public nuisance. They were declared a public nuisance for a number of reasons, such as: they can cause erosion, contaminate soil with oil and other vehicle fluids, and deposit gravel in the City's storm sewers and detention poz�ds. When gravel driveways were declared a public nuisance, the City Council gave property owners five years to have their gravel driveways paved: The five yeaz deadline is quickly approaching, which means all gravel driveways in the City of Fridley must be paved with approved concrete or asphalt by D�cember 31, 2002. Though the Metcalf s drive may be aesthetically pleasing to them, it is a public nuisance, as evidenced by the photographs provided by the petirioners (attached). Photo number two clearly shows rutting of the wheelpaths as the driveway intersects with the city sidewalk. There is also visual evidence of gravel being eroded onto that sidewalk from the driveway traffic and rain. Only light rains or contaminants such as slow dripping oil or antifreeze can infiltrate on a rock or gravel drive�vay. A rock/gravel driveway is effectively impervious under heavier rains forcing the water to run off and carry some of the rock/graveUsoil materials with it, hence erosion. Dtuing the winter months; the ground is frozen and no infiltration is happening. Therefore the change to a paved driveway will not have any effect on the amount of water ponding at the end of the driveway (Photo #6 & 7). This is merely the result of the curbline of West Moare Lake Drive in front of the property being north facing and heavily shaded from the e�cisting trees. This rype of eYposure does not : allow the sun to melt the snow along the edges of the street, therefore hinderin� the free flow of snow melt to the storm sewer system. A grouted flagstone driveway similar to the walk and stoop pictured in Photo number 4 could be an acceptable alternative allowing the Metcalfs to achieve the natural aesthetic look they are trying to maintain for their properiy. Granting of this request would be very unfair to the 435 property owners who have complied and paved their drives since 1997. Granting of this variance would be precedent setting and entitle the few other properiy owners, who have failed to comply, to the same variance. Granting of this request would, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion of the public nuisance secrion of the Code unenforceable. For all of the reasons mentioned in this report, staff strongly recommends denial of this variance request. RECOi1�IMENDATION City Staff recommends denial as the City Coa�ncil deemed all gravel drives a public nicisance in 1997. 79 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the October 9, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter, Sue Jackson Members Absent: None Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Robert and Constance Metcalf, 860 VWest Moore Lake Drive Ken and Cathy Anderson, 132 River Edge Way PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #02-17. BY ROBERT 8� CONSTANCE METCALF: Per Section 205.07.06.a.(2) and Section 110.02 of the Fridley City Code, to exempt the prope�ty owner from installing the code-required hard surface driveway on Lot 3, Block 1, Shorewood Addition, generally located at 860 West Moo� e Lake Drive. MOTION by Ms. Jacksan, seconded by Mr. Jones, to open the public hearing. UPON A!/OICE VOTE; ALL VOTING AYIE, CHAIRP�RSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED �►T 7:34 P.M. Mr. Bolin siated the petitioners are requesting a variance to be exempt from installing a hard- surface driveway as required by City Code and Council r�solufion that has declared all gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. Mr. Bolin stated the subject property is located on the north shore of West Moore Lake Drive. The existing home and carport were built in 1958. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dweiling, as are all surrounding properties. The petitioners' summary of hardship statement is the "the main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non-inclining nature of our driveway, I believe our property is unique to this respect, and therefore qualifies for a variance. I also have personal concern about the aesthetic impact of a concrete or hard-surface driveway in the appearance of our property. " Mr. Bolin stated that in 1997, the City Council adopted an ordinance declaring all gra�el driveways a public nuisance for a number of reasons, such as causing erosion and contaminating soil with oil and other vehicle fluids. Gravel driveways cause a large amount of gravel in City storm sewers and retention ponds. The petitioners are requesting a varianc� fc� h� exempt from the City Code requirement for hard-surface parking and from the City's publi� nuisance ordinance which previously stated that all gravel driveways in the City are a publie nuisance. �� APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolin stated that when gravel driveways were declared a public nuisance, the City Council gave property owners a five-year deadline (December 31, 2002), which means all gravel driveways within the City of Fridley must be paved with approved concrete or asphalt by December 31, 2002. Mr. Bolin stated that although the Metcalfs' drive may be aesthetically pleasing to them, it is a public nuisance as evidenced by the photographs provided by the petitioners. Only light rains or contaminants such as slow dripping oil or antifreeze can infiltrate on a rock or gravel drive. A rock gravel driveway is effectively impervious under heavier rains, forcing the water to run off, and carrying some of the rock gravel soil and mate�ials with it; thereby causing erosion and getting into City storm sewers and catch basins. Mr. Bolin stated that during the winter months, the ground is frozen and no infiltration is happening; therefore, there is no effect from the amount of water running off the driveway. The ponding shown in the photos provided is a result of the curb line of West Moore Lake Drive in front of the petitioners' home facing to the north and is heavily shaded from the existing trees. This type of exposure does not allow the snow to melt along the edges of the street; thereby hindering the free flow of snow melt into the storm sewer system. Mr. Bolin stated one driveway option would be a grouted flagstone driveway, similar to the petitioners' existing walk and stoop. This would allow the Metcalfs to achieve the natural aesthetic look they are trying to maintain for their property while still meeting the City's pavement requirements. Mr. Bolin stated that granting this request would be very unfair to 435 property owners who have complied and paved fheir driveways since 1997. Granting this variance would set a precedent and entitle this same variance to the few other property owners who have failed to comply. It would also, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion of the public nuisance section of the City Code unenforceable. City staff recommends denial of this variance request as the Ciry Council deems all gravel driveways a public nuisance. Ms. Jackson asked if the ordinance specifies concrete or asphalt or just hard surface. Mr. Bolin answered "hard surface." Mr. Kuechle asked whether the City has any other areas where there are a lot of exemptions; for example, length of grass. His inquiry was made in relation to the long prairie grass that people have for natural lawns. Mr. Bolin replied, no. Mr. Zinter stated he was uncertain on the non-inclining definition. Are there other driveways that have that same condition? Mr. Bolin stated that 476 drives were identified in 1996. Most driveways are fairly level and when paving, you can direct the surface water any way you wish. You can make the water run off on both sides or build the driveway up on one side to make the water run away from the home. The petitioner, Ms. Constance Metcalf, pointed out again the flatness of their driveway and stated it is not a hazard for runoff carrying the rock because, as seen in the photo, the rock is not carried away and it is very, very flat. She also pointed out in the photo how the design is very natural. : APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 3 Ms. Metcalf stated she also wanted to appeal being in the "11`h hour" of the ordinance as they had not received the first letter from the City regarding the requirement. The first they heard of this requirement was when a salesman came to their door a few years ago. Ms. Metcalf wanted to make a point in terms of water runoff, stating she remembered back in the first days when everyone was very conscious of the environment, there was publicity about the open parking lot for bricks being porous and allowing water to soak into the earth, rather than the problems they have now with all the concrete and blacktop causing the water to rush down to the Mississippi River. She feels in that respect their driveway is a good thing. Ms. Metcalf stating the suggestion of Mr. Bolin to use flagstone was a good idea but she is afraid of the cost. Regarding the collection of water at the end of the driveway, she stated they do need to fill that in some. Mr. Zinter asked Ms. Metcalf if they have had to periodically add rocks to the driveway over the years. Ms. Metcalf replied that it is remarkable the way the driveway maintains itself and that only a couple of times have they had to add rock. Mr. Metcalf inentioned the statement about erosion in the first paragraph of the ordinance: He stated their driveway does not have any erosion problems. It is paved with crest red river road and, with its jagged edges, it packs into a hard surface. He states there is a very smalf hole from the house to the street, just a few inches, caused when the street was put in 15-20 years ago. The street was too high, and there is only about six inches of elevation from the front road back to the sidewalk. He stated a light rain mostly soaks into the driveway, and a heavy rain runs out the back of the carport into Moore Lake. Mr. Metcalf stated he and his �vife are retired and living on a fixed income and do not welcome this unnecessary requirement. Ms. Jackson inquired as to whether there is a product that could be laid over something like crushed red rock to seal it and glue it down. Mr. Bolin stated he knew of an aggregate mix that is used and the red rock is actually mrxed in with the concrete. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Zinter, to close the hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING ClOSED AT 7:51 P.M. Dr. Vos stated that a requirement for a variance is a hardship, and he did not see anything in this request that shows a hardship. He states he would vote against the appeal. Mr. Jones agreed. Mr. Jackson stated she believed this is a very important, viabie ordinance, and it would be v�ry difficult for the City to start measuring different levels on every driveway and try to have an exception based on decor. She understood that b(ack asphalt may not look as good in the petitioners' situation, but, hopefully, the petitioners can find another option that would maintain the look of their driveway. She commented on how the Commission must be fair #o everybody. : APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 4 Mr. Zinter stated that in the winter, it must be hard not to pick up some of that gravel with a shovel or a snowblower, and having it end up on the driveway, on the sidewalk, or on the street. He, too, would vote for denial of the variance. Mr. Kuechle stated he looked at the property, and there is no doubt the petitioners have done a good job of maintaining it. He did not think the small water retention is really a big issue and thinks the argument can be made the water runoff to the street in their situation is minimal. However, he also is not able to come up with a clear hardship, and there are alternatives if they do not choose to use concrete or bituminous surface. They could use flagstone which is of course a little more expensive. The concern he has is setting a precedent. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of variance request, VAR #02-17, by Robert and Constance Metcalf. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECFiLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kuechle stated this will go to City Council on October 28. Ms. Metcalf asked what the term "hardship" meant, and Mr. Kuechle provided an example. : 3 r s CfTY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 William W. Burns, City Manager fi�l' Jon . aukaas, Public Works Director October 8, 2002 Wellhead Protection Plan Informational Meeting PW02-080 The Minnesota Department of Health has notified us of the approval of our Part I Wellhead Protection Plan which includes: (1) the delineation of wellhead protection areas, (2) the delineation of Drinking Water Supply Management Areas, and (3) the assessment of well and aquifer vulnerabilities. We are providing this information to our neighboring local units of government which overly these areas. The Minnesota Wellhead Protection Rule 4720.5330 subpart 7 requires t.hat the city hold a public information meeting to present these findings to the general public. Recommend the City Council hold a public information meeting on the Ciry of Fridley Part I Wellhead Protection Plan at its October 28, 2002 regular City Council meeting. JHH:cz ., � � AGENDA ITEM aTMOF CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FRIDLEY OCTOBER 28, 2002 INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS :