06/13/2005 - 00026823CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
J U N E 13, 2005
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Billings
Councilmember Wolfe
Councilmember Bolkcom
William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Don Abbott, Public Safety Director
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director
Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary
PRESENTATION OF VALUES FIRST 2005 COMMUNITY RECOGNITION AWARDS:
Councilmember Barnette presented the following recognition awards:
Individual: Gretchen Hanson
Business: Joe DiMaggio's
Community Organization: Banfill-Locke Center for the Arts
High School Sportsmanship: Amy Lindstrom and Stashie Mack
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of City Council minutes of May 23, 2005.
APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 2 of 38
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Extension of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #03-18, by Town Center
Development, Generally Located at 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490
Central Avenue NE.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained that since the developer, Richard Whinnery of Town
Center Development, has been unable to close on these properties due to legal
challenges, he is asking for a six-month extension of the preliminary plat. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE
REGULAR AGENDA.
2. Approve Metropolitan Council Section 8 Housing Assistance Program
Contract for Administrative Services between the City of Fridley and the
Metropolitan Council.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City has been providing Section 8
administrative services since 1976. Due to Federal budget cutbacks in this program,
the Metro HRA lost some of their funding and is pulling back services that they once
contracted out. Since Fridley has taken on a number of extra services in past years, the
City is facing some cutbacks and other changes in its contract with Metro HRA. These
include screening of waiting list selections and the screening of applicants who are
moving to Fridley from other communities. We expect to lose $2,000 to $3,000. The
City is also losing the administration of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, a program
that creates an incentive for Section 8 recipients who become employed full-time over a
five-year period. The City has 10 FSS clients at $26.16 per month administration fee
resulting in a loss of $261.60 per month. These take-aways have been replaced, at
least partially, by new funding for conducting informal hearings for those who due to
their abuse of the system have lost their Section 8 funding. The City also expects to
potentially benefit from the removal of the $10,000 cap that Metro HRA has imposed on
the City's use of surplus money. This will enable the City to use any administrative
reserve funding from Metro HRA that it has not used to pay for its cost of administration.
Since there have been some program reductions, the City does expect that any
amounts over $10,000 will be minimal. City staff estimates the total revenue from this
contract for 2005 will be $10,080. Staff recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
3. Approve the Anoka County Community Development Block Grant Program
Agreement between the City of Fridley and the County of Anoka.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the contract with Anoka County and the various
exhibits attached to it provide the terms and conditions that govern the City's use of
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 3 of 38
$164,876 in CDBG funding. The money will be used for demolition and removal of
blighted properties in the Gateway West project area. Staff recommends Council's
approval.
APPROVED.
4. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on Modifications to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax
Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-3,
6-7 and 9-17, Creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 18 and
Approval and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating
Thereto.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff recommends Council's adoption of this resolution
to set a public hearing for August 8 on this matter.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
5. Resolution Authorizing Final Changes in Appropriations for the General
Fund, Special Revenue Funds and Capital Improvement Fund for the Year
Ended 2004.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this re-appropriation moves money from line items
where the budget allocation was not used to other line items where it was exceeded. It
also seeks to align revenues for the various funds with expenditures. For the General
Fund, the City used $58,104 of the $100,000 anticipated for unexpected expenditures.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-29.
6. Motion Withholding Sale of Tax ForFeit Land Identified in Anoka County PIN
No. 24-30-24-31-0111 and Directing Staff to Initiate a Request for an
Application to Acquire a Tax ForFeit Parcel for Right-of-Way Purposes
(Generally Located at the Corner of Regis Lane and Fillmore Street)
(Ward 2).
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the subject parcel is under a street at the intersection of
Regis Lane and Fillmore Street. The action tonight requests that Anoka County
withhold the parcel from their sale of tax forfeit properties. Staff recommends Council's
approval.
APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 4 of 38
7. Appointments — City Employees.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff recommends the appointment of Steve Monsrud to
the Sergeant's position recently vacated by Michelle Gease. Steve has a Bachelor of
Science degree in Law Enforcement from Mankato State University. Steve has worked
as an intern, a CSO and a police officer for the Fridley Police Department, and most
recently, finished first in a multi-faceted testing process for this position. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
Dr. Burns stated staff is also recommending the appointment of Robert Larson to the
police officer vacancy. Robert has a Bachelor of Science degree in Law Enforcement
from Minnesota State University in Mankato. He has been a part-time police officer for
the Hudson, Wisconsin, Police Department since September 2004. He has also worked
for the Hudson Parks Department and as a bouncer at Dick's Bar and Grill in Hudson.
He has been working as an officer recruit for the Fridley Police Department since May.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENTS OF STEVE MONSRUD AND ROBERT LARSON.
8. Claims (121737 — 122038).
APPROVED.
9. Licenses.
APPROVED.
10. Estimates.
APPROVED.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the consent agenda with the removal of Items 1, 2 and 4.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to adopt
the agenda with the addition of Items 1, 2 and 4.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 5 of 38
OPEN FORUM: Consideration of items not on agenda (15 minutes)
Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated the City has spent over $270,000
repairing storm sewer problems at the Springbrook Nature Center. He's had a drainage
problem in his yard for over 15 years and has not received any assistance from the City
to resolve this problem.
Councilmember Bolkcom explained that a majority of the money spent at Springbrook
was from grants from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Springbrook
improvements were made not only to control drainage but to improve the quality of
water that leaves the Springbrook property and ends up in the Mississippi River.
PUBLIC HEARING:
11. Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development
Corporation, to Rezone Property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General
Business, and R-1, Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, Generally
Located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461
Central Avenue NE (Ward 2).
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to open the
public hearing and waive the reading.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:55 PM.
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner, John DeMello, is requesting a
rezoning of five lots to S-2. These lots are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street
and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting approval
of a preliminary plat for the same property to allow construction of an Italian Villa style
mixed use development. There will be 10,492 square feet of retail space on the lower
level at the corner of Mississippi and Old Central, and 70 senior condominium units in
the bulk of the development. The 1, 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units will be owner-
occupied and have underground parking. Access to the complex would be directly
across from the anticipated Town Center development on Central and Mississippi. The
petitioner submitted a different proposal for a larger development in 2004 and that was
denied. The 2004 denial revolved around concerns about density, traffic on 64tn
Avenue, limited snow storage area, and landscaping opportunities.
Ms. Jones explained the current proposal differs from the 2004 submission in that there
are not two separate parcels; the retail and housing are in the same building on the
current plan. Also this proposal does not include the three properties on 64t" Avenue,
contains less retail space, is three stories high rather than four, and has 20 less
condominium units.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 6 of 38
Ms. Jones stated there is currently a mixture of zoning classifications on this site, C-1,
C-2 and R-1. The properties at 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning with
C-1 along Old Central and R-1 on the east portion of the property. The rezoning to S-2
makes it possible to have a mixed use development with retail and housing combined in
one development. The S-2 zoning requires the site to have a Master Plan approved by
the City. The site plan becomes the Master Plan and any modifications to the site plan
following Council approval must be brought back to Council for review. The HRA must
also review the redevelopment Master Plan, which they did at their June 2 meeting.
Ms. Jones said that In relation to the City's Comprehensive Plan, such a rezoning needs
to be consistent. The proposed retail/housing complex does meet several objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan:
• Provides more efficient land use.
• Provides an opportunity for senior housing.
• Provides added tax base and new jobs.
Ms. Jones further stated this rezoning helps achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goals
for this corner.
Ms. Jones said petitioner had a housing market study done in 2003 and then updated in
2004 and 2005. This study indicated that senior housing was the best market for this
site and that a market exists for 70 units, even with the Town Center development
proposed for the opposite corner. Updated figures indicate the retail prices for the
condominium units should range from $156,000 to $279,000, depending upon the size
of the unit. The plat analysis reveals that the plat would consolidate five parcels into
one. Although the petitioner is requesting S-2 zoning, the site will be planned according
to C-2, General Business, and R-3, General Multiple Unit Housing regulations. The
10,492 square foot retail area meets speculative parking requirements, if proof of
parking is included. There will be 46 stalls provided (52 are required) plus proof of
parking for 8 additional stalls. The retail parking will not meet the setback requirement
due to the County's request for additional right-of-way. The lot coverage for this
development is at 28% which is below the code limit of 30%. The housing portion of this
plat is 120,199 square feet and there will be three levels. The 70 condominium units
would require a total of 129 market rate parking spaces or 70 spaces for assisted living
facilities for the elderly. The petitioner is proposing 122 spaces with 110 of those
spaces provided in underground parking. Staff is comfortable that they are meeting the
parking requirements. The potential County right-of-way acquisition is what is creating
problems with the parking setback requirements but the building setbacks are being
met.
Ms. Jones stated the landscape plan has been revised since the Planning Commission
hearing on this proposal. The petitioner's landscape plan now provides 152 of the160
trees required. Staff has decided to set a policy where they would provide a 15% credit
for developments utilizing rain garden areas in lieu of trees. Petitioner would get credit
for 10 trees in exchange for the rain garden areas they have proposed. This proposal
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 7 of 38
would then meet the landscape requirements. The change from the Planning
Commission hearing is that petitioner is adding a landscape buffer in lieu of fencing on
the south side of the property.
Ms. Jones said the 2001 City Comprehensive Plan reports that the Old Central and
Mississippi intersection is carrying 57% of the traffic for which it was designed. The
petitioner hired TDI to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. This was recently updated and
TDI found that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection either pre or post
development. This includes the impact of the development proposed for across the
street. TDI continues to report that the existing roadway network will accommodate this
development.
Ms. Jones explained that the petitioner is working with the City's engineering staff and
the Rice Creek Watershed District to refine necessary plans and obtain all necessary
permits for storm water on this site. The major ponding and drainage concerns have all
been met. The current proposal does not include the three lots on 64t" Avenue where
there had been drainage concerns in the 2004 proposal.
Ms. Jones said staff has received some calls from the public regarding this proposal.
The petitioner held two neighborhood meetings which staff did not attend. Several
residents spoke at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting. Their comments were
mostly related to a disagreement with the Comprehensive Plan, traffic concerns, and
the S-2 zoning. At the Planning Commission hearing, the landscape plan was short 69
trees. A subsequent discussion regarding the fencing requirement in Stipulation 15
resulted in a proposed change to the landscape plan. The petitioner feels there is a
movement toward less fencing and more open area so they are proposing to make up
some of the tree shortage and provide screening by providing landscaping rather than
fencing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZOA #05-02 and PS
#05-02 with the stipulations presented by staff.
Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to
approve ZOA #05-02, as the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and it will provide additional senior housing, retail opportunities and job
opportunities. Staff also concurs with the Planning Commission regarding approval of
PS #05-02 with the following stipulations:
1) Property to be developed in accordance with the Master Plan as shown on
the site plan dated June 8, 2005.
2) Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan
A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05.
3) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4) Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International
Fire Code.
5) Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 8 of 38
6) Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and
1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central.
7) Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet
the Rice Creek Watershed District's regulations prior to issuance of a building
permit.
8) No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any
planning within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to
planting.
9) Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
County right-of-way. (A letter from Anoka County was presented to the
Council this evening in which they are requesting a right turn-in and right turn-
out only from this site onto Old Central.)
10) Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations
for approval by the City Engineering staff.
11) Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of
building permit.
12) Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed
District permits.
13) City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior
to issuance of building permits.
14) Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the
City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005.
15) Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along
the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G91) of the
Fridley Zoning Code.
16) Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square
feet of land times .023 per square foot).
17) Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents
prior to issuance of a building permit.
18) Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in
association documents and filed with the County with the final plat.
19) Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems
located on the site are properly capped or removed.
20) 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.
21) The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development,
including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by
Anoka County.
22) A development agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install
utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner
prior to final plat approval.
23) The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian
connections at the north and west sides of the property.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 9 of 38
Councilmember Wolfe questioned if the right turn-in and turn-out requirement will result
in a lot of U-turns.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained that entry into the site from southbound
traffic would best be accomplished by turning east on Mississippi and then entering this
site from that location. Anoka County is trying to eliminate a lot of left turn movements
with this requirement and those left turn movements cause more confusion and
accidents than the right turn-in.
Councilmember Wolfe asked how many rental properties there would be in the
residential building.
Ms. Jones responded that it is her understanding the entire development is proposed to
be owner-occupied.
Councilmember Barnette stated some of the calls he received expressed concern over
the number of rental units. He asked what assurance the neighbors have that these
units will remain owner-occupied.
Councilmember Wolfe expressed concern that the association rules for this
development could change at some point in the future to allow rental units.
City Attorney Knaak stated it is true that association by-laws can be amended, but they
would not supersede restrictions placed on the property by the City.
Councilmember Billings commented that if a percentage of the units do not sell, the
developer would still be the owner of those units and would be paying the association
fees on those units. Oftentimes as such associations get started, the developer is the
association.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there have been questions raised about the notification
process for this meeting and asked Ms. Jones to review that process.
Ms. Jones responded that code requires that property owners within 350 feet be notified
of the public hearing for such a project. City staff did meet that requirement and went
one step further by notifying individuals who had attended previous public hearings on
this matter. The public hearing notice goes out before the Planning Commission public
hearing. Public notice for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings
are published in the Fridley Focus newspaper. She added that her telephone number is
on the public hearing notice and residents are always encouraged to call with questions.
Mr. Knaak indicated that staff did follow the correct notification procedure for this matter.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that a couple of months ago, when it was
discussed that this proposal would be coming before Council, a statement was made at
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 10 of 38
that time that residents within 350 feet would receive a letter advising of the date. To
her knowledge, that letter did not go out.
Ms. Jones stated she is not familiar with the meeting Councilmember Bolkcom is
referring to but there was not a separate notice mailed for Council's public hearing.
At Councilmember Bolkcom's request, Ms. Jones reviewed the site plan, specifically the
setback requirements. The building setback along Old Central is being met, but the
drive aisle setback is not. Along the north end of the property on Mississippi, the
parking setback will be approximately 8 feet short. Those setback shortages are due to
the amount of land the County is taking along Old Central and Mississippi for the
possibility of future expansion of those roadways.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification on the parking requirements for this site.
Ms. Jones responded they are meeting the parking requirements for the housing and
retail sections. They have proof of parking for 8 additional stalls in the retail area. If
the housing area is treated as market rate rather than a senior building, the parking
space requirement would be higher. Since this is restricted to seniors, the parking
requirement is lower.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the change from a fence to landscaping. She
asked if the landscaping will provide as much privacy for the adjoining properties as a
fence would.
Ms. Jones stated that would be a matter of personal preference. City code gives the
developer the option of either putting in a fence or opaque landscaping (coniferous trees
that will be full year round). On the east end, in addition to the landscape screening, the
developer is proposing a retaining wall and berm to help screen that side of the
development. The trees will be located on top of the berm. Along the south end, the
developer is proposing 60 arborvitae which will be spaced together as close as they
can. Along the east there will be a couple of different kind of spruce trees.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if staff has looked into the rain garden option and
how other cities are handling this. She asked how staff arrived at a 15% credit towards
landscaping trees in exchange for the rain gardens.
Ms. Jones responded that staff is not aware of what other cities are doing with respect
to rain gardens associated with developments. Other cities are utilizing rain gardens in
relation to street construction projects. The types of plants in a rain garden are
important for it to function properly for storm water filtration. Staff looked at the shortage
of trees and considered setting this as policy, not just for this development, but for other
such proposals. It is difficult with the storm ponding requirements new developments
face to have enough space to meet the tree-planting requirement. To take 15% of the
amount of trees required and allow them to make up for that with rain garden areas is a
reasonable compromise.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 11 of 38
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about Stipulation #7.
Ms. Jones stated that is actually out-dated because the developer has obtained the
exemption for the wetland. Staff has received the paperwork from the Rice Creek
Watershed on this matter. To her knowledge, the petitioner is in compliance.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas to explain the relationship between the
height of this building and the watershed concerns. She asked if there is any other
option as far as the height of this building.
Mr. Haukaas responded he does not see a relationship between the watershed district
and the height of the building. He stated the concern would be the depth of the
basement in relation to the water table in that area. The watershed district concerns
would be related to water run-off which is affected by the surface area, not the building
height.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that what Mr. Haukaas is saying is whether the
building is one story or three stories high, it is basically the same as far as storm water.
Mr. Haukaas stated that is correct.
Councilmember Wolfe questioned the age of the statistics used to determine that
people 55 and older do not drive as much as those 55 and younger.
Ms. Jones stated she was not referring to any study but the City requirements for
parking. The code gives an allowance for assisted living senior facilities. Staff is happy
that this petitioner is exceeding the requirement of 70 parking stalls because staff does
not believe that would be adequate for this age group.
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the Planning Commission minutes where the
petitioner's architect stated that the watershed district requires that structures be two
feet above the high water mark.
Mr. Haukaas responded that the watershed district does have a requirement similar to
flood plain requirements that the base level of a building be at a certain elevation above
the high water mark of any ponding or storm water features or creek or river in the area.
By calculating what their storm water is going to be and how high the storm water ponds
may be that sets a minimum for where the building will be constructed.
Mr. John DeMello, petitioner, stated he is the president of Family Lifestyle Development
Corporation. To address some of the questions regarding rental property, he explained
most banks require 50% of the project to be filled prior to ground-breaking. In addition,
they will limit the amount that will be rented to the 5% figure that Town Center has
proposed. They hope, however, that the building will fill up immediately so that rental
units are not a concern. He stated they do have a very high water table on this site
which is a major reason why a lot of land has to be brought in and the building has to be
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 12 of 38
constructed basically on top of the ground. Their project will actually provide relief for
drainage issues on some of the surrounding property.
Mr. Peter Villard, Architectural Works Villard, Inc., explained the major issues in the
initial proposal were density, traffic, building height, snow removal, sunlight, and
setbacks. They have tried to address those concerns by coming back with a smaller
building, a smaller site, one parcel instead of two, 20 less units, 2'/ less units per acre.
There are 22 less parking stalls for housing and 27 less stalls for the retail area for a
total of 49 less parking stalls on site. The building itself has 7,500 less square feet of
underground parking, 38,000 less square feet of housing and 3,000 less square feet of
retail, for a total of 49,000 less square feet.. The building height is ten feet lower. They
added the landscape screening on the east and south as well as major snow removal
areas. They do have the conditional approval and wetland exemption from the Rice
Creek Watershed District. They also received county approval for the right-of-way on
June 8. The building setbacks are pretty extensive; 140 feet on the north, 104 feet on
the west, and 18 feet on the east and 40 feet on the south. To address the sunlight
issue, they are proposing 10 less feet in building height which allows for more sunlight
to the properties east of this location.
Mr. Villard further explained that the high water mark has been established on this site
by their engineering consultants and the watershed district. The garage floor must be
two feet higher than that high water level. The water table on this property is up so high
they could not sink the building any further. They are adding the features required to
accommodate the high water table on this site. He reviewed the landscaping proposed
for this development. He stated along the east property line there is an 18-foot setback
from their balcony to the property line and an 8-foot City easement. There will be
spruce trees along the east as well as a retaining wall. On the south elevation, there
will be 60 seven foot high arborvitae. All of the surface water coming from the south
towards this site will be draining into this proposal's retaining area.
Mayor Lund questioned who commissioned the study that determined the best use for
this site.
Mr. DeMello responded that his company commissioned Maxfield Research to do a
feasibility study; including a demand analysis. Town Center development was included
in that study. Maxfield Research typically tries to error on the conservative side and
they think this project will be consumed at a rate of 4 units per month. As to comments
that the developer paid the researcher to say what he wanted to hear, he said that
would not be in the best interests of the developer, the banker or the investment group
who will be risking millions of dollars.
Mayor Lund commented that he believes the owners of the condominium units would
work to keep the rentals to a minimum to protect their investment. He stated the
association documents will set the standard for the number of rental units and stated he
would like to see some limitation on rental units added to Stipulation #17. He added
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 13 of 38
that he realizes it is not uncommon for such developments to allow perhaps 5% of the
units to be rental on a short-term basis.
Mr. DeMello responded that his father will be purchasing one of these condo units. It is
difficult to not allow rentals at all, but he believed a small percentage would be
reasonable. He added that he does not want to see this become a rental property.
Mayor Lund stated he would like to see that in writing; a limitation on the rental units in
this property. He also asked if there will be a cement median in the entrance of Old
Central that will restrict the right-in and right-out.
Mr. Villard presented a copy of the County's right-in right-out and it does include a
median.
Mayor Lund asked if Council is being asked to rezone those single family homes along
64t" that are no longer in this project.
Ms. Jones responded that during the initial presentation on this property last year, staff
recommended including the three properties along 64t" to avoid spot zoning because
they typically rezone to a physical boundary, such as a street. However, in the public
hearings held last year there was a public record created by the surrounding
neighborhood indicating they did not want those parcels on 64t" Avenue to be included
for reasons of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. Because that
record has been created it is within the City's legal authority to rezone only to 6421
Central Avenue and not have it considered as spot zoning.
Mr. Knaak concurred with Ms. Jones' statement. Spot zoning tends to be an island that
is being created to accommodate a specific development, but if the uses are consistent
in the rezoning with the contiguous parcels, for the most part it is not a problem.
Councilmember Billings asked who determines what spot zoning is.
Mr. Knaak responded that ultimately that would be determined by the courts.
Councilmember Billings added the court would only determine it to be spot zoning if it is
inconsistent with the surrounding zoning. It is up to the City Council to determine what
appropriate zoning is for the City of Fridley and what appropriate zoning is for specific
sites as long as Council considers the other elements that surround it. Rezoning to S-2
is an opportunity for the City to be able to maximize their zoning districts and create a
mixed use on a specific site. Determination as to whether or not five, eight or ten lots
are adequate to create an S-2 district is up to Council to determine. If Council does
something that another party vehemently objects to, that party can go to court and it
becomes their responsibility to prove to the court that what was done was without
adequate foundation. Staff's preference and prior preference has been not to have a
portion of a block one zoning and another portion of the block a different zoning.
Council has tried aggressively to correct those kinds of situations.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 14 of 38
Mr. Bernard Marihart, 1373 64t" Avenue, stated he owns the property directly east of
this proposal. He questioned if the developer made an effort to find property that was
already properly zoned for this development or if the City offered some guidance to find
appropriately zoned property.
Mr. DeMello stated he owns this parcel of land and he is asking to develop this property.
Mr. Marihart stated there are real estate investment companies that have a reasonable
expectation that developers will at least look at their properties before the City rezones
property for such a development. He presented digital pictures he created in an attempt
to show how the building proposed for this site would look in relation to the buildings on
his property. He explained that the 8 to 12 foot berm would be higher than the fence on
his property and the building will be started above his fence. The proposed building will
be 26 feet from his property line. He added that they will be knocking down most of the
existing trees that would help shield some of the view of the new building from some of
his neighbors.
Mayor Lund and Councilmember Bolkcom commented that any property owner has the
legal right to approach the City and request approval for rezoning.
Mr. Marihart stated existing commercial property values would be negatively impacted if
developers are not encouraged to develop those properties rather than seek rezoning.
Councilmember Billings stated there is no property within the City of Fridley that is
specifically zoned for this development. The current zoning on the petitioner's property
is C-2, General Business; R-1, Single Family; and C-1, Local Business. There are 5
pieces of property with 3 different zonings involved in this proposal. The petitioner owns
this property and is asking to develop it. He does not believe Council is working
negatively towards the interest of any commercial property owner. This is 80% of what
the City Council does; work on land use issues. Council and City staff work with people
to try and accommodate the current and future needs of single family, business and
industrial owners. There is nothing that gives the City Council the authority to tell a
property owner that he must look into property already properly zoned. Council is
obligated to hear proposals from individuals who own property they wish to develop.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, said the City's zoning ordinance requires that a petitioner
have site control over the property they are planning to develop.
Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated this project has been going on for
about two years. It originally had 70 units. Council then asked the petitioner to revise
their plan and the petitioner returned with a proposal for 90 units. Now they are back
before Council with 70 units which he does not see as a compromise. They are putting
a lot on a small area. If the County decides to widen Mississippi and Old Central, they
will need the land for that expansion. He expressed his opposition to this proposal.
Councilmember Billings asked for clarification on the right-of-way lines.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 15 of 38
Mr. Haukaas stated the right-of-way shown includes the additional right-of-way
requested by the County.
Mr. Villard explained that petitioner has agreed to give 10 feet on Old Central and 30
feet on Mississippi.
Councilmember Billings stated if the developer were not donating land to the County
there would not be any setback issues.
Mr. Villard responded that is correct.
Councilmember Billings commented that Council could fix that by removing any
stipulations that the petitioner give this property to the County and the County and the
taxpayers can pay for the land when they want to condemn it in the future.
Ms. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 - 64t" Avenue, questioned if a building of this size could be
constructed in the existing zoning. She asked that this property be developed with care
so that it does not change the character of the neighborhood. She was concerned that
people will miss the right turn in to this site and then use 64t" to turn around. She stated
that she and her family spend a great deal of time in their backyard and fear that this
proposed development will take away from their enjoyment of their property.
Mr. Virgil Okeson, 1423 - 64t" Avenue, expressed his concern about the City setting a
precedent for other developers to request this type of zoning change and side-stepping
the zoning requirements. This should be taken into consideration. The shortages of
parking, setbacks, and trees are all important issues to adjoining property owners. He
is also concerned about 64t" Avenue being used as a u-turn street because of the right
turn-in requirement. The residents of the condominium units will have visitors, yet there
are only 12 parking spaces provided for guest parking. There will also be vendor trucks
and repair trucks needing to access this area. There may also be an issue with flooding
in this area based on the history of drainage concerns in this area. He was also
concerned about the developer's ability to influence the amount of rental property
allowed. This should be considered by the Council. He also referred to the effort by
organizations, including the City's Chores and More program, to keep seniors in their
homes. He took issue with the comments that a lot of people in the City want to move
into facilities like this one being proposed.
Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 - 64t" Avenue, stated he is very disappointed that he did not
receive written notification of this hearing before Council. There was no publication of
this meeting in the local paper. He believes this would constitute spot zoning. The
record would reflect that the neighbors did not want S-2 zoning in this area at all, not
just to 64t" Avenue. Due to the problems with the water table and the fact that this is the
same plan as presented previously with the same problems, this is too much of a
development for this piece of land. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the character
of a neighborhood should not be changed as a result of a redevelopment. He
expressed his opposition to this proposal.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 16 of 38
Ms. Jones presented a copy of the notice of this hearing which was published in the
June 2, 2005, issue of the Fridley issue of the Sun Focus.
Mr. Steve Williams, 1357 - 64t" Avenue, stated he moved to this property 10 months
ago in an effort to escape the density of the city neighborhood where he previously
resided. The trees in the woods behind his property are 50 to 60 feet high and provide
a good buffer. It would be a shame to clear-cut those trees just to create this new
development. The proposed landscaping will not provide adequate screening. He
asked that the existing trees remain.
Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64t" Avenue, stated there were two neighborhood meetings
held by the developer but the notices for those meetings were inadequate, which she
believed showed total disregard for the residents. The initial proposal on this site was
for 71 units with general retail. The Council indicated that was too large. This current
proposal is only one less unit and the density appears higher. The building height will
be, in reality, four stories. There is no allotment for an alley easement on this plot even
though there is an existing easement off of 64t" Avenue. The driveway on the west side
is only two feet from the property line. The required walkway would be close to the
property line. The east setback is only 18 feet and a 7-foot fence and trees will do
nothing to screen the view from the surrounding homes. The proposed landscaping will
take 30 years before it has any effect on screening. The traffic count is estimating 845
total trips should be compared to the traffic from the existing three houses and one
small business.
Ms. Schwartz said the Comprehensive Plan states that the character of a neighborhood
should not be changed. The parking spaces along Mississippi are within the 35 foot
setback, much the same as they were last year. She questioned staff referring to any
senior housing as an assisted living facility with regards to parking requirements. A
senior condominium should not be referred to as assisted living unless there are
facilities and staff that makes it assisted living. Many recent studies done on senior
driving habits show that those driving habits have changed and are much the same as
the general public. They still propose to remove single family homes and rezone R-1
land. The residents do not want this and do not believe this type of housing is
appropriate for this area. Nothing has changed. She stated she is not opposed to
redevelopment, but they need to be appropriate uses. There is no reason to place a big
apartment building in the middle of single family homes. She pointed out an error on
the preliminary plat for Spring Valley Estates in that one of the homes is missing and
questioned what else is missing. S-2 zoning calls for all performance standards for
uses in the district to be comparable or similar to uses allowed in other districts. This
does not meet the standards in other zoning districts in many ways. To allow this to be
built would be setting a precedent that allows every zoning code law to be thrown out.
She understands there is latitude with the S-2 zoning, but thought there should not be
as much latitude allowed. Looking at the 71-unit original proposal, the density was 26%
and this proposal is 28%. She referred to a petition circulated last year with
approximately 400 signatures of those residents opposed to the 71-unit housing
development, against the rezoning, the retail, and the traffic and noise. She stated as
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 17 of 38
far as she is concerned, this petition is still valid. The overall discussion of the issue of
zoning was that the neighbors did not want the S-2 zoning at all. It totally defies logic to
stick an apartment building on property with single family homes and which abuts single
family homes on two sides. There are a lot of open retail spaces in Fridley now. This
was denied last year in a way that a lawsuit to challenge it would hold up. If Council
looks at the reasons for denial, they are basically the same for this proposal. Talking to
people in the community, she claimed that Fridley residents feel there is a need for
more nice, single family homes, not more apartments.
Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, referred to the minutes of the original meeting in
March 2004 when the proposal was for 71 units. The consultant for the housing forums
stated the City needs to give particular care to the integration of redevelopment projects
when located adjacent to single family neighborhoods. She stated this proposal will
drastically change the character of that neighborhood. The neighbors understand that
sooner or later this site will be developed but not with two behemoth buildings.
Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street NE, referred to the 64t" Avenue storm and
sanitary sewer project that was necessary due to some significant drainage issues.
That project tried to correct some of those drainage problems. Developing what are
now two large vacant properties will significantly change the storm water flow. She
asked that staff inembers look at the material related to the 64t" Avenue drainage
problems.
Mr. Kurt Olson, 1384 - 64t" Avenue, asked if this petitioner will be the only benefactor of
the change in the City's policy regarding rain gardens.
Councilmember Billings responded that the Rice Creek Watershed District made a
presentation to Council earlier this year and requested that Council allow the rain
gardens in such developments as well as in conjunction with street projects. The
proposal before Council tonight would be the first development where the rain garden
concept will be tried and if it is successful then it will be utilized in future developments.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are many other communities, such as Maplewood
and Woodbury, where rain gardens are being used. It is not a new concept, but it is
new to the City of Fridley.
Ms. Marvel McNaughton, 6300 Pierce Street, asked if staff had located the proof of
publication for this hearing.
Mayor Lund responded that Ms. Jones does have a copy of the notice of this hearing
and it was published in the June 2 edition of the Sun Focus.
Ms. Susan Okeson, 1423 - 64t" Avenue, expressed her concern about the landscaping
for this proposal, particularly the planned rain gardens, because they will not offer the
screening of mature trees.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 18 of 38
Ms. Andrea Olson, 1385 - 64t" Avenue, stated there is one clear theme; if there is not
enough room for this development to meet setback requirements on the north and east
side or for all the tree requirements or trees and a sidewalk on the south side, there is
just not enough room on this site for this proposal. There are many people in that area
with a uniform, consistent message of opposition. Underground parking is not
underground if you have to push dirt up. If the underground parking is higher than the
homes around this site, it is not underground, which makes this a four-story building.
She questioned why the neighbors should be forced to accept this structure because
the petitioner purchased property with a high water table. The height of this structure
will have to have a negative impact on the surrounding properties and drainage issues.
It makes sense that this petitioner build a development that is appropriate for this site.
The petitioner should not ask the City and the residents to make exceptions just so he
can make a profit from this site. She believed the way the petitioner handled the
neighborhood meetings was "deceitful" and that the neighbors were not advised of this
hearing even though they had been given the assurance they would be. She also
stated that this is spot zoning because it is an island to accommodate a specific project.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to accept
into the record the ordinance presented by Ms. Jones with the new stipulations and the
letter from Anoka County (regarding the access to this development.)
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive
the unapproved Planning Commission minutes of June 1, 2005.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to accept into the record
the letter dated June 8, 2005 from Marvel McNaughton.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to other S-2 developments approved in an area of
mixed zoning, including Medtronic and Christianson Crossing. She then asked about
the alley easement.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated there is right-of-way provided which still
exists and will continue to exist. There is no distinction between alley and street right-
of-way.
Councilmember Billings asked for clarification as to the City's policy regarding alleys.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 19 of 38
Mr. Haukaas responded that the general direction he has been giving is that the City
wants to vacate unused alleys and return the area to adjacent property owners. The
right-of-way in this development, however, does need to be preserved because of the
storm sewer project in that area. He does not believe there is any interest by the
developer or the neighborhood to put a street through the right-of-way in question, so he
does not see the need to take additional right-of-way at this time.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if he is comfortable with the drainage plan
for this development.
Mr. Haukaas stated the developer's engineer, BKBM, has submitted storm water plans
and calculations that show they are reducing the run-off to the east. In addition, the
building plans include a piping system to collect the roof run-off and direct it into their
ponds.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the traffic studies that have been done and how it
relates to the traffic study performed by the City.
Mr. Haukaas stated the City runs traffic studies on a four-year cycle and the County
does them on a two-year cycle. There has not been an appreciable increase in those
counts for a long time.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. Haukaas is aware of any plans to increase
Mississippi or Old Central in the next five years.
Mr. Haukaas responded he does have a copy of the County's written five-year plan and
proposed plans for the next ten to fifteen years and there is no intersection improvement
included for Mississippi and Old Central.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what height a structure could be erected in the C-2
or C-1 zoning currently on this site.
Ms. Jones stated she would have to research that and get back to the Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated at a recent joint meeting with the HRA, three
developers who participated in that meeting indicated that there is an over-abundance
of condominium units in the Minneapolis and St Paul areas, but not in the suburban
areas. They also indicated there are a lot of people at all age levels who are looking for
town homes or condominiums. She asked Councilmember Wolfe if, as a realtor, he
sees a negative impact on surrounding single family homes when a condominium
development goes in nearby.
Councilmember Wolfe responded that every house is worth what you can sell it for.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to close the
public hearing.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 20 of 38
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:35 PM.
OLD BUSINESS:
12. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of
Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning
Request, ZOA #05-01, by Har-Mar Incorporated, for Property Generally
Located at 7110-90 University Avenue NE) (Ward 3).
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated this is the second reading of the ordinance.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their April 20 meeting
and unanimously recommended approval. Council held a public hearing on this matter
on May 9, and the first reading of the ordinance was held on May 23. Staff
recommends approval of this rezoning. The next item on the agenda pertains to this
property as well because in rezoning this property, staff recommends Council approve a
resolution to remove the four special use permits that exist on this property which will no
longer be necessary after the rezoning. Staff received no calls regarding this matter
after the first reading.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the tenants currently on this property fit the
commercial zoning better than the existing zoning.
Ms. Jones added that another factor is Billiard Street Cafe is seeking to obtain a liquor
license which they cannot do in an M-1 zoning. Many of the special use permits are
related to Billiard Street Cafe. She concurred with Councilmember Bolkcom's comment
that the proposed rezoning fits the current uses better than the M-1 zoning.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to waive the
reading of the ordinance and adopt Ordinance No. 1203 on second reading.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS:
13. Resolution Eliminating Four Special Use Permits for the Property at 7110 —
7190 University Avenue, legally described as Lots 4-6, Block 1, Paco
Industrial Park, except the North 35 feet of Lots 4, Anoka County,
Minnesota (Ward 3).
Ms. Jones explained two of the special use permits allowed expansion of the Billiard
Street Cafe; one to reduce the parking setback and one to allow the use of office space.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to eliminate
the four special use permits for the property located at 7110-7190 University Avenue.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 21 of 38
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2005-30.
14. Approve Liquor License to Greg Asproth for Billiard Street Cafe, Generally
Located at 7178 University Avenue NE. (Ward 3).
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the Billiard Street Cafe has been in business in the
same location for 17 years. A public hearing was held May 9 regarding the liquor
license. The Police Department reviewed the backgrounds of the owner and manager
and found no reason to deny this request. Staff recommends approval.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Greg Asproth, owner, if he will be applying for the 2:00
a.m. closing license and if he was aware of the requirements for that license.
Mr. Asproth responded he will be applying for the late close and is aware of the
restrictions related to that. He further stated they have worked closely with the police to
address concerns regarding minors.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she forwarded to Public Safety Director, Don Abbott, an
e-mail she received from a resident regarding this issue.
Mr. Abbott stated he received the e-mail expressing concerns that minors would be
allowed in the building where liquor is served. He explained that is not correct as the
City ordinance prevents anyone under the age of 18 from entering the business except
to eat, perform work, or in the presence of a parent or guardian. The entire
establishment will be licensed. There will not be separate areas.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the liquor license for Greg Asproth for Billiard Street Cafe located at 7178 University
Avenue NE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development
Corporation, to Create One Parcel Out of Five, Generally Located at 1314
and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461 Central Avenue NE
(Ward 2).
Mayor Lund repeated his concern to limit the amount of rental units to 5% or 10% in this
development in the association agreement with the intent that it be for short-term only.
The spot zoning concerns have been discussed at length and have been clarified. He
questioned how the berm along the east side of the property will affect run-off.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 22 of 38
Mr. Haukaas responded the berm along�
improvement that was put in for the 64"
drainage will still get to that drain.
the eastern edge is west of the drainage
Avenue drainage project. The residential
Ms. Jones suggested the architect review the drainage plans for this proposal.
Mr. Villard stated they have addressed all of the surface water and it will be collected
and filtered on site. All of the hard surface drainage from the roof is being collected with
a series of downspouts into underground drainage pipes that go into the north catch
basin, then to the collecting pond, and finally into a sedimentation pond. The proposed
rain gardens will also drain to the sedimentation pond. All of the water from around the
site collects from a number of areas and drains into the filtration pond. From that pond,
it leaves the site at the southeast corner and goes into the storm sewer. They will also
be collecting about 30% of the water from the properties to the south that drains toward
their site.
Ms. Schwartz commented that the pipe this entire site drains to already backs up and
floods her back yard.
Mr. Haukaas explained that the pipe Ms. Schwartz referred to goes into the ditch that
comes from Harris Pond, then into a small ponding area off Rice Creek Road, then
eventually goes to Moore Lake. Moore Lake drains to the north, back to Rice Creek,
along Highway 65. The engineers for this development have designed a system to
retain the surface water on site; the ponds are as much infiltration ponds as they are
sedimentation ponds. The intent is to put the run-off back into the ground on site rather
than allow it to run off to Moore Lake or Rice Creek. The outlet to that pond is 6 to 8
feet higher than the bottom of the pond so there would have to be about 8 feet of
standing water in the pond before it would even go into the outlet and leave the site.
They have shown that it would be at a lesser degree than prior to this development, so
under most conditions there should be less water going into the pipe on 64t" Avenue
than in a pre-developed state.
Mayor Lund questioned what provisions have been made for guest parking for the
condominium units.
Mr. DeMello responded they would hope some of the retail spaces would be available,
particularly on the weekends. In similar facilities, there is typically not a parking
problem.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that what she has seen of senior housing units is
that parking is not usually a problem.
Mayor Lund stated in the original presentation snow storage was a concern and he
asked if that has now been addressed.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 23 of 38
Mr. DeMello responded that they have specifically set aside large portions of the area to
address the snow storage.
Mayor Lund stated that since the Planning Commission meeting, it appears the
developer has made an effort to comply with the landscape requirement of 160 trees.
He stated he thinks the rain gardens will work well for absorption of surface water. Had
it not been for the County requesting the right-of-way dedication, there would be no
setback concerns for the parking. He commented that he has some concerns regarding
the sensitivity to redevelopment in residential areas. He believes this proposal fits in
this residential area and he liked the idea of combining the different zonings.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there appears to be a fair amount of difference
between this proposal and the previous one. The snow storage concerns have been
addressed; the setback issues are not nearly as significant; the lot coverage is about
the same; and the landscaping is better in this proposal.
Mr. DeMello stated he reduced the size of the building from four to three stories. There
had been two lots with separate retail and residential areas with more of a setback
encroachment.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated another issue raised last year was the traffic on 64tn
Avenue. This proposal has addressed those concerns by eliminating the access to 64tn
Avenue.
Councilmember Wolfe referred to the section of the Comprehensive Plan regarding
drastic changes in the character of a neighborhood. He stated he has a problem when
he hears from so many of his constituents who do not support such a project. He was
also concerned with the removal of the existing mature trees to be replaced by new
landscaping. He understood that the size of the building being proposed is a problem
for surrounding neighbors.
Councilmember Barnette stated he voted for this project originally and with all due
respect to the surround neighbors, he believes the developer has made some
significant changes since the original proposal, particularly how it affects those along
64t" Avenue. He believes more traffic will be generated by this development but other
than peak hours, the surrounding roads are not that busy. Some of the neighbors would
prefer that nothing be allowed on this site. Still others would prefer nothing but single
family homes. This property could be developed commercially and he would prefer
housing to commercial. All of the neighborhoods have gone through changes over the
years. Council has a legal obligation to consider this petitioner's proposal and a moral
obligation to consider the constituents concerns. Will Fridley continue to redevelop?
He stated he hopes it does. Fridley has gotten older and needs redevelopment areas.
Councilmember Billings pointed out that what is on the agenda tonight is the plat
approval only. The rezoning will be voted on at the June 27 Council meeting. He
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 24 of 38
commented that it would be foolish to vote for the plat if they did not intend to vote for
the rezoning.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to approve
Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-02, for the properties located at 1314 and 1340
Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461 Central Avenue NE with twenty-three
stipulations.
Councilmember Billings questioned Stipulation #21. He stated the surrounding roads
are designed to carry far more traffic than this development will generate and he
questioned how the City can require this developer to pay for signals at the intersection
of Mississippi and Old Central at some point in the future. He did not believe that is a
fair stipulation. The development across the street will generate even more traffic.
Ms. Jones stated Town Center has the same stipulation in their approval, but if the
signals do go in at some point in the future, the costs will be shared.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to amend
Stipulation #21 to read "The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing in the cost of any
traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the
development, including signalization or other improvements if determined necessary by
Anoka County."
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
TO AMEND STIPULATION #21 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PS #05-02, WITH THE FOLLOWING 23 STIPULATIONS AS
AMENDED CARRIED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE
VOTING NAY.
1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan-Landscape and
Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan-Utility and Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated
June 8, 2005.
2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan
A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05.
3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International
Fire Code.
5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements.
6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and
1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central.
7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet
the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building
permit.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 25 of 38
8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any
planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting.
9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
county right-of-way.
10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations
for approval by the City Engineering staff.
11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of
building permits.
12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed
District permits.
13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior
to issuance of building permits.
14. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the
City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005.
15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along
the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the
Fridley Zoning Code.
16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square
feet of land times .023 per square feet).
17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents
prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in
association documents and filed with the County with the final plat.
19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems
located on the site are properly capped or removed.
20. 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.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing in the cost of any traffic
improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by
the development, including signalization or other improvements, if determined
necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install
utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner
prior to final plat approval.
23. The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian
connections at the north and west sides of property.
16. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03, by Timothy Van Auken to Subdivide
Two Multi-Family Lots, Generally Located at 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue NE
(Ward 2).
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner is requesting to subdivide his
property at 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue to create a total of 6 lots to allow for the
construction of two new twin homes. The properties are zoned R-3, multiple unit
residential. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet and
the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for two unit buildings. The new twin homes
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 26 of 38
will meet all the necessary setback requirements. The lot coverage is shown at 25%
which is below the minimum of 30%. All necessary utility/drainage easements are
provided on the plat. The proposed lots would be too small for R-3 uses or construction
of single family detached housing units in the future. The continued R-3 zoning is
inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, so a minor Comprehensive Plan
amendment continuing the R-3 zoning should be completed if this plat is approved.
Ms. Jones further explained the proposed plat includes extending access from the 73'/
Avenue cul-de-sac to 10 feet within the back of the 1475 - 73rd Avenue lot. The ideal
access design option would include moving the cul-de-sac west. Staff is analyzing the
possible design and costs for this proposal.
Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03,
as it provides additional home ownership opportunities. If approved, staff recommends
the following stipulations be attached:
1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Any remaining debris from demolition of existing home and any brush piles on
site shall be removed prior to granting of final plat.
3. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to
the issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the
surrounding properties.
4. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage
treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable.
6. Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $3,000 prior to issuance of
building permits.
7. Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary
sewer extension.
8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All
trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
9. Twin homes shall meet all parking requirements.
10. Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code.
11. The petitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall
be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with
their final plat approval.
Councilmember Barnette asked Ms. Jones to review the site plan.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained the two properties are on 73rd Avenue
with the back of the properties extending almost to 73'/. There is a cul-de-sac at the
west end of 73'/ with a half street currently constructed that extends farther to the west.
Mr. Van Auken is proposing to split the north half of his two lots and create 4 lots with 2
twin homes. Staff would prefer to see the cul-de-sac at the west end of the petitioner's
lots, but they have never forced a petitioner to purchase additional property from their
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 27 of 38
neighbors. Mr. Van Auken is proposing to make the half street a whole street and he
did reach an agreement with the property owner to the northwest who is willing to
provide an easement to extend the half street all the way to the western edge of Mr.
Auken's properties. This would allow a full width street past the new twin homes and
allow driveways to come out onto that street and would provide snow storage area and
turn-around area. In this case, there is a clear definition between the street and the
driveways and the City already plows the existing half street. This proposal would
create another dead-end street and the staff would prefer to have the cul-de-sac. Staff
has looked at other options and has had discussions with the neighbors but some of
them are not interested in a full size cul-de-sac. He recommends against putting in less
than a full size cul-de-sac. Staff also looked at offsetting the cul-de-sac on Mr. Van
Auken's property but that creates setback problems. Because there is already a half
street there, there must have been some plan to develop it into a full street at some
point in the future, so it would not be reasonable to deny this request just on that basis.
He added that without full buy-in from the properties to the north, this seems to be the
best plan and staff can support it.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned staff's objections to installing a smaller radius cul-
de-sac.
Mr. Haukaas stated the smaller radius is a concern for snow removal and emergency
vehicles. Also the old cul-de-sac would have to be removed and a new one installed.
The fire vehicles need a certain size to turn around. Staff can live with extending the
dead-end street because it is already there and it would be a short extension. The Fire
Department has a minimum distance they will go into a dead-end street and this would
still fall within their minimum. Eliminating the existing cul-de-sac and putting in a smaller
radius cul-de-sac at the west end would result in too great a length for the fire trucks.
Also, Council has always been concerned about setting a precedent, so if we go to a
smaller cul-de-sac for this petitioner they would have to do the same for the next.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the City should not set a precedent for dead-end
streets either.
Councilmember Billings stated his understanding is that if a reduced radius cul-de-sac
were installed, staff would recommend removal of the existing full size cul-de-sac which
means emergency vehicles would have to back all the way out to Pinetree Lane. He
then questioned why the full size cul-de-sac would have to be removed.
Mr. Haukaas responded if the full-size cul-de-sac remains, there is no need to install the
smaller cul-de-sac.
Councilmember Billings questioned if there is an easement for the road on the property
to the east.
Mr. Haukaas responded that easement exists.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 28 of 38
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that single-family homes could be placed on this
site.
Ms. Jones responded that is correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there does not seem to be a very good solution for
handling the traffic out of these properties.
Mayor Lund questioned how much more of this area is zoned R-3.
Ms. Jones stated there is still large area with R-3 zoning, which would allow for the
construction of an apartment building.
Councilmember Billings questioned what is currently on the property immediately to the
west and what is on the northern edge of that lot.
Mr. Haukaas explained that apartment building was built about 6 or 7 years ago and
their storm pond is along the northerly edge.
Councilmember Billings stated he is concerned that the owners of that property, once
the street goes in, will want to have access across that so they come in from 73'/.
Mr. Haukaas responded that would take a significant amount of redevelopment of their
lot to be able to restore the ponding someplace else and make that connection. He also
explained that the road as proposed would stop short of that property for storage
purposes.
Councilmember Billings suggested we stop the dedicated plat and get an easement for
the last ten feet so someone else can not connect to the roadway.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this property is zoned R-3 how did it appear as a
different zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. She also questioned the difference
between a twin home and a double bungalow.
Ms. Jones explained she assumes that this occurred because even though the property
is zoned R-3, they contain single family homes, so the Comprehensive Plan reflected
the zoning that would be consistent with the existing use. A twin home would be an
attached single family home where each owner owns the property around their housing
unit and is responsible for caring for that property. She added that the petitioner plans
to live in one of the units.
Councilmember Billings commented that a double bungalow is typically owned by one
person.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 29 of 38
Mr. Haukaas stated staff did require the petitioner to extend the proposed roadway 20
feet beyond the last driveway so they could back up onto the street and drive straight
out.
Petitioner Timothy Van Auken, 1475 - 73rd Avenue, stated he respects Council's
concerns. He initially planned to proceed with this project and finish the existing dead-
end street. He has owned the properties over ten years and knew when he purchased
the property there was a risk associated with the R-3 zoning. Six to seven years ago, a
20-unit apartment building was constructed right next to his home. At that time, he had
an opportunity to buy his neighbor's property. A lot of developers have been interested
in purchasing his property for the construction of an apartment complex. He has also
looked into building single-family homes but the cost of extending the sewer and water
and finishing the roadway made that prohibitive. There is water and sewer available at
the back of 1485 with the intent of having that area developed. Also 1-'/ feet of the
roadway easement is on his property. He initially proposed extending the half street but
staff wanted him to share a driveway for the two proposed units, which he did not feel
was feasible as far as curb appeal. He contacted his neighbor and obtained a roadway
easement across her property to finish the half street. He is not closed to the cul-de-sac
option but knows there is some concern about the size of the cul-de-sac. He stated he
believes a precedent has been set with an unfinished dead-end street and he is just
asking to be allowed to finish that dead-end street. He plans to be an owner-occupier
with the intention of leasing out the one side--hopefully executive leasing to Medtronic
employees. He is educated in residential property management. He would appreciate
the opportunity to exercise his legal rights to develop his property in accordance with
the City ordinances. He cares what his neighbors think and he does not want to create
bad feelings.
Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, stated there is R-1 zoning around the R-3 and if
allowed to develop as R-3, it would bring R-3 uses into a single family neighborhood.
The decisions the Council makes today could affect what happens to this single-family
neighborhood in the years to come.
Ms. Sue Sherek, 1530 73 '/ Avenue, stated the present zoning is R-3; however single-
family homes have been on this property since 1951. The R-3 zoning is not consistent
with the current or previous Comprehensive Plan. The future land use for the parcel in
2020 also shows single family. The west cul-de-sac on 73'/ is all R-1. The first R-3
property to the east is another single-family residence. At the Planning Commission,
meeting the members suggested that Council address the issue of whether this property
should be rezoned to R-1 to match the existing uses. The multi-unit apartment building
to the west of the petitioner is completely fenced off with a 6 to 7 foot high fence. She
asked Council to take action necessary to bring the zoning into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and with the uses in the neighborhood. This also meets the
second goal of the plan to provide single-family lots for residential construction.
Mr. John Jackels, 1479 - 73'/ Avenue, presented a petition requesting that Council
make the zoning on this property in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 30 of 38
neighbors feel strongly about the single-family characteristic of the neighborhood. The
other R-3 zoned properties do not have access onto 73'/ Avenue.
Mayor Lund commented that the petitioner could sell the properties and a large
apartment building could be constructed on the site because it is already zoned R-3.
Mr. Jackels stated this proposal is the least attractive alternative for this property. The
apartment building has been a good neighbor.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if Council can legally change the zoning on this
property when what is before the Council is a plat approval.
Mr. Knack, City Attorney, stated what the Council is considering is a replatting and the
question is whether or not this is appropriate in this zoning district. If the replatting is
appropriate for the existing zoning and Council denies this, Council could face some
difficulties if they do not have a concrete, factual basis for doing so.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if the neighbors' opposition could be considered a
factual basis for denial.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, commented that the petitioner has applied for a replat and that
is the question Council has to answer at this point.
Ms. Sherek stated the second matter is the extension of the cul-de-sac which staff has
stated cannot be constructed and still have buildable lots. With the entire square
footage of the two properties, the lines to replat can be moved in such a way to have
buildable lots. Mr. Van Auken's plan does not create an equal split between the north
and south lots. If he moved those lines to the south he would create enough area to put
the cul-de-sac on his own property. The City Code, Section 211.07.12 provides for
dead-end or cul-de-sac streets and it does not say that a dead end street does not need
to have this. Staff stated at the Planning Commission meeting that a precedent was set
when the half street was done in 1986. No one determined the reason behind that
action. That unusual extension occurred in anticipation of further subdivision of the
remaining property to the west. It was assumed that a cul-de-sac would be placed at
the end or the street would go all the way through to Hayes. Subsequent development
to the west of the petitioner means it cannot be extended to Hayes but it does not mean
the cul-de-sac can not be moved there. In fact, the existing cul-de-sac was done in
bituminous in anticipation that eventually the whole thing would move. Also, members
of the Planning Commission stated they could not vote for this proposal with the dead
end option and they asked staff for the cul-de-sac options. If the development proposal
goes forward, they would request that Council direct staff to work with the petitioner on
the cul-de-sac proposal.
Mr. Jackels stated he prepared a drawing showing the cul-de-sac at the west end with
the standard 40-foot radius centered on the property line. His calculations show that in
order to complete the cul-de-sac approximately, 500 square feet of his property would
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 31 of 38
be lost including a large tree. He is not in favor of losing the tree. He met with staff
members to discuss the reduced radius cul-de-sac option. With the reduced radius cul-
de-sac, Mr. Van Auken would still be able to make two 10,000 square foot lots. He also
worked on drawing an offset cul-de-sac option in which he would not have to lose his
tree but a fire hydrant would have to be relocated. His main point is that two buildable
lots are possible on the petitioner's property with the cul-de-sac installed. As a traffic
engineer, he believed that backing in and out of a dead end street would be very
problematic at best, which is why he would like to see the reduced radius cul-de-sac.
He further stated he would rather see a 34-foot dead end street width rather than the
30-foot width being proposed by staff. He also suggested the existing curb be relocated
to center that street on the property line.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to accept
the petition and the letter from Sue Sherek into the record.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALLVOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Lund stated he is inclined to agree with Mr. Jackels that a cul-de-sac would be
best. He did not see that the Council can now rezone the property to R-1.
Mr. Van Auken agreed about the cul-de-sac, but the issue is the affected property
owners being willing to dedicate the right of way from their property. He also stated he
cannot move the property line to the south as suggested by the neighbors. He is willing
to work with the neighbors but if Mr. Jackels does not take some of the setback on his
property to allow the cul-de-sac, the petitioner will have problems.
Mayor Lund suggested the petitioner try and work out some of these issues prior to the
next meeting.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she cannot support the dead end street and asked if
staff can reach some resolution regarding the cul-de-sac prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Haukaas agreed that the cul-de-sac is the best option. If Council is not in favor of
the dead end street, he agreed that the matter should be tabled until the next meeting.
Ms. Debra Jackels, 147 73'/ Avenue. stated if this is approved, the petitioner will be
putting up four homes the size of their home in less property which will change the
neighborhood.
Mr. Michael Tippler, 1667 73rd Avenue, stated this is an R-1 neighborhood. His back
yard looks onto the east end of 73'/. He has lived there since 1992 and he agreed that
this proposal is too much development in too small an area. Earlier this year he wanted
to improve his home by creating an enclosed garage where a dilapidated carport
existed. City staff indicated he could not do this because the lot he purchased has
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 32 of 38
1,470 square feet of accessory structure. He asked for an explanation why he was not
allowed to proceed with his plans.
Councilmember Billings asked what accessory structures are currently on Mr. Tippler's
property.
Mr. Tippler responded there is a four-car detached garage and a 12' x 16' shed. All he
was trying to do was get rid of the flat-roofed carport and build a garage in the same
amount of square footage.
Mayor Lund asked that Mr. Tippler work with City staff to resolve his concerns regarding
the garage.
Mr. Tippler stated he thinks it would be a mistake to add more rental property when the
current rental areas are already creating problems.
Mr. Jackels stated he could not find a definition for "twin home" in the code and he
questioned whether they will be owner occupied or rental.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to table this
matter to the June 27 Council meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fridley City Charter,
Chapter 7, Taxes, Section 7.03.A, Pertaining to Utility Fees.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated earlier this evening, he handed out a corrected
ordinance to Council members. As a result of the 2005 City Council and Commission
Survey, it was determined that the City should limit its losses in the water and sanitary
sewer utility funds due to increasing costs and the limitation of the City Charter, by
holding a special election to amend this section of the Charter. Minnesota statutes
allow an amendment by ordinance subject to the Charter Commission review. The
ordinance before the Council is proposing a charter amendment that would begin the
public discussion on this issue. If Council wishes to proceed, this would be the first
reading and then it would be forwarded to the Charter Commission for review. The
Charter Commission has a 60-day review period for approval or denial of the proposed
amendment and that date would be August 12, 2005. If more time is needed for the
review, the Charter Commission may adopt a resolution requesting a 90-day review
period which would actually take the matter to November 10, 2005. The ordinance
would need to be forwarded to the Charter Commission on June 14 for their review.
State law requires that charter amendments that are to be placed on the ballot for a
general election be forwarded to the county 12 weeks before the general election, which
would require the City to notify the Anoka County by August 16, 2005. When forwarding
the ordinance, the City Council may wish to express an urgency and request the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 33 of 38
Charter Commission try to make their recommendation to the City Council by August 8
to allow enough time for the City Clerk to notify Anoka County of the special election.
Mr. Pribyl said in 2000, there was a successful initiative petition which amended the City
Charter. In 2000-2001 an Ad Hoc work group met to remedy confusing language and
recommended an amendment to the Charter Commission to review. In 2001, the
charter was amended by Ordinance 1152. In 2004, the Charter was amended by
ordinance and a successful referendum petition was circulated resulting in a defeat of
the amendment at the general election. During the 2006 budget preparation and
planning, it was discovered that we were unable to recover the costs for providing water
and sanitary sewer services to customers due to the language in the charter. Some of
the costs incurred were due to Federal mandates regulating higher water standards,
higher sewage disposal rates imposed by MCES and ongoing repairs and maintenance
of infrastructure. This proposed charter amendment would help eliminate the potential
for long-term subsidy from the general fund. The Charter review and recommendation
should be returned to Council by August 3 so the second reading can be held at the
Council meeting on Monday, August 8. If the second reading is held, the proposed
special election would be held Tuesday, November 8, 2005, in conjunction with School
Districts 13, 14 and 16. Staff's recommendation would be to discuss this item and pass
the first reading of this ordinance and forward it to the Charter Commission.
Councilmember Barnette commented the biggest reason for the failure of this issue
during the last election was that the ballot question was very difficult to understand.
Mr. Knaak explained that the ballot question has to be laid out by Council and must be
"sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every
other question on the ballot." The closer you get to the actual language the less likely
there would be a challenge to the ballot.
Councilmember Barnette commented that the summary is fairly clear and the more
words that are added, the more confusing it becomes.
Mayor Lund commented that the Council could pass this on the first reading since it
would then go to the Charter Commission who could further clarify the language.
Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street N.E., Charter Commission member, stated the
Charter Commission does not meet again until September 26. However, they are going
to attempt to meet in July to review this recommendation. They have discussed this
matter several times. At its last meeting, the Charter Commission decided that the
ballot question needed to be simplified and time was needed to educate residents on
the issue. The Charter Commission, therefore, recommends that there not be a special
election this year and that they work with the City Council to amend Chapters 7 and 11
at the same time. There are a number of reasons for this recommendation. There will
be levy referendum issues for School Districts 13 and 14 on the ballot this year. It is
very difficult when the City comes up against a School referendum, as most voters will
support the increase for the children but not for the City's ballot question. She stated
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 34 of 38
she will call a special meeting of the Charter Commission in July and pass their
recommendation on to Council.
Mayor Lund stated Council could proceed with passing this on the first reading because
in 2005 alone the City is looking at about half a million in losses that have to be pulled
out of the storm water/sewer fund reserves.
Ms. Jorgenson stated the Charter Commission believes the City should operate as a
business. Also, they are aware that the City cannot charge more for water and sewer
than the actual cost to maintain those services. They do believe the City should be able
to make up those losses.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated Council did hold a joint meeting with the Charter
Commission related to this survey and she thought there was support at that meeting
from some of the Charter Commission members.
Ms. Jorgenson stated at the last Charter Commission meeting, only three of the
members present wanted to go forward with this ballot question this year. The others
did not. One of the issues the Charter Commission has discussed was not only looking
at the fees for the cost of services but also having charges for the product consumed or
post consumed wastes. She will inform Council members of the July meeting date.
Mr. Bill Holm, 7424 Melody Drive N.E., Charter Commission member, stated he would
like to applaud Council for bringing this item back for consideration. There may be
some advantages to bringing this ballot question to the voters this year because there
are fewer issues on the ballot which may result in more focus by the voters. However,
there may be less turn-out than there would be in 2006. The key point is this needs to
be on the ballot and the public needs to be informed as to how critical this issue is.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive
the reading of the corrected copy of the ordinance and approve the ordinance on first
reading.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18. Resolution Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook Nature Center
Associated with the SPRING (Sanctuary Protection & Renewal into the Next
Generation) Project and Supporting the Request to the State of Minnesota
for Financial Assistance.
Mr. Jack Kirk, Recreation and Natural Resources Director, explained that Council has
before it a preliminary grant application to the State of Minnesota and a resolution
supporting improvements to the Springbrook Nature Center. A joint committee with
representatives from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Springbrook
Foundation has worked on this application and continue to refine the overall plan for this
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 35 of 38
project. The estimated overall cost for this improvement project is $5,000,000 and the
grant application seeks half of that from the State of Minnesota. The remaining half will
come from private sources. The preliminary application deadline with the State is June
15. A more detailed application is due the end of September. The Parks and
Recreation Commission has reviewed the application and the resolution and passed a
motion in support of the application and the resolution. The application would be from
the City of Fridley for a City of Fridley park. The application requires an accompanying
resolution of support from the governing body. Staff recommends Council's approval.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if passing this resolution obligates the City in any way
to extend funds to this project. It is her understanding that there would also be funds
set aside for ongoing maintenance of improvements made as a result of this project.
Mr. Kirk responded as stated in the application, the funds will come only from the State
grant and private sources and will not involve City tax dollars. As part of the detailed
plans, there will be a business plan that sets forth the maintenance dollars required
which will be generated by fundraising dollars and increased revenues.
Councilmember Wolfe stated grant money is taxpayer's money. It needs to be stressed
that if by some miracle the foundation raises $2.5 million, they have to have enough
money in escrow to run the Nature Center at no more cost to the City of Fridley. The
Springbrook Nature Center is a beautiful place, but he has a problem with spending
more tax dollars and he cannot support this. He would like to see the Foundation raise
the $2.5 million first and then request grant dollars. He asked if by supporting this, the
City is making a guarantee that they will come up with the $2.5 million.
Mr. Kirk said no. It is in the application that the matching funds will be raised from
private sources. The City is not committed at all. They also state in the application that
the additional operating dollars will come from a combination of increased revenues and
fundraising by the Foundation. All these issues will be addressed in detail in the
business plan that will be submitted as a part of the final application.
Mayor Lund reviewed the wording in the application and stated he believes it is very
clear that the City is not committing dollars to this project or future maintenance.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-31.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A
FOUR TO ONE VOTE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY.
19. Receive Proposal and Award Contract for the Installation of RediNolt
Surge Protection Devices to Wells 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated they worked with a company called
enterTECH to provide a performance contract that installs energy saving devices that
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 36 of 38
and surge protection systems on major electrical sources. They are guaranteeing a
20% savings in energy costs by reducing the transient voltage and other stray voltages
that go through the meter and are essentially wasted. State Statute 471.345, the
Uniform Municipal Contracting Code, allows cities to enter into performance-based
contracts for energy efficiency projects such as this one without going through a full
competitive bidding, generally because there are not enough companies for competitive
bids. This case falls under Subsection 13 which states "A guaranteed energy savings
contract that includes written guarantees that savings will meet or exceed the cost of
energy conservation measures is not subject to competitive bidding requirements of this
section or other law or City charter." They have been given such a guarantee. They
have also spoken with the City of Coon Rapids and the City of New Brighton who have
had these devices installed. This contract totals $58,000, and includes installing these
devices on six sites covering about eight wells with a rate of return of about 35 months.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
Mayor Lund questioned what the guarantee is if the City does not realize the minimum
20% return.
Mr. Haukaas responded that the company would cut a check to the City. They are
guaranteeing 20%, but they expect the City to see a greater savings than that. The City
of Coon Rapids exceeded the 20% mark, Crooked Lake Lodge saw a 22% savings, and
Hampton Inn realized a 23% savings. These devices have consistently hit at or above
the 20% range.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to award
a contract in the amount of $58,000 to enterTECH of Minneapolis for the installation of
Redi/Volt surge protectors to wells 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Approve Metropolitan Council Section 8 Housing Assistance Program
Contract for Administrative Services between the City of Fridley and the
Metropolitan Council.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to enter into
the record an item received from Dr. Burns during the Council's pre-meeting related to
this item.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bolkcom explained the main reason she removed this from the consent
agenda is she would like to know if this will negatively impact the Section 8 recipients
and how much funding the City will lose.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 37 of 38
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated he discussed this with the City's Section 8
Administrator, Pat Wolfe, and her main concern is the loss of the incentive program.
She was responsible for investigating the properties and making sure the rates were fair
and that will now be turned over to the Metropolitan HRA. Her experience has been
that she is much more familiar with the conditions of rental property in our city and with
the appropriate rates. However, the City has no choice but to hand that program over to
the Metropolitan HRA. The City's role with the HRA has been to administer what
essentially is a Federal program that passes through the Metro HRA. We have
contracted with the HRA to provide certain administrative services. The Metro HRA has
faced cutbacks in Federal funding housing assistance program and as a result, some of
the added services the City has voluntarily taken on for Section 8 housing clients are
now being recaptured by Metro HRA so they are not paying us for administering that
part of the contract. We are losing some services, but on the positive side, they are
eliminating the $10,000 cap on the City's ability to keep revenues that exceed the
amount of costs that we have for providing the service. This should help the City to lay
claim to some balances the City has, which is approximately $98,000. Anything the City
is able to save on will be the City's to use for housing programs. The housing forums
the City held last year were funded in part by the Section 8 surplus money.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the contract for administrative services with the Metropolitan Council for the Section 8
Housing Assistance Program.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. Extension of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #03-18, by Town Center
Development, Generally Located at 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490
Central Avenue NE. (Ward 2).
Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, explained that she requested this item be removed
from the consent agenda because she believes a year and seven months should have
been long enough for the developers to get their business straightened out. She
originally questioned how the zoning could be changed on this site when the petitioner
did not own the property.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the petitioner is expecting a decision from Anoka
County courts soon. The intent is to bring back the final plat once the legal issues have
been resolved in the petitioner's favor. This request is for a six-month extension and if it
is not resolved during that time, it will have to be considered again.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented the judge just received the Court record last week
and has 90 days to respond, so the Council has to give the petitioner 90 days.
Councilmember Billings stated another thing to keep in mind is it is not the developer
who has created this problem but the current owner of the property who entered into the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 38 of 38
contracts. The developer entered into agreements with the owner in good faith and now
the owner is unable to deliver.
Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 — 64t" Avenue N.E., asked if this gets resolved, would there
be any more discussion with Council. She would like the opportunity for another public
hearing.
Dr. Burns responded that their final plat will have to be approved and there is no public
hearing.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to
approve a six-month extension for Preliminary Plat, PS #03-18, by Town Center
Development.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on Modifications to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax
Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-3,
6-7, and 9-17, Creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 18 and
Approval and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating
Thereto.
Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive N.E., requested this item be removed from
the consent agenda but subsequently submitted a note withdrawing his request.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-28.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:45 A.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys
Recording Secretary
������
Scott J. Lund
Mayor