Loading...
01/23/2006 - 00027399CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY JANUARY 23, 2006 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:34 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Billings Councilmember Wolfe (Came later in the meeting.) Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director/Treasurer Bob Rewitzer, Captain of Public Safety APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of January 9, 2006 APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 205.04 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to General Provisions (Text Amendment, TA #05-06, by the City of Fridley) William Burns, City Manager, City Manager, stated this is an ordinance regarding non- conforming uses of structures. This ordinance brings our City Ordinance Chapter 205.04 into alignment with State law. Currently our ordinance does not allow the reconstruction of a non- conforming structure that has been more than 50 percent destroyed by fire or disaster. The FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 2 revised ordinance does as long as the rebuild is within the original footprint. Staff recommends Council's approval. WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1220 ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. 2. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 110 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Water Quality (Text Amendment, TA #05-07, by the City of Fridley). WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1221 ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. 3. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 603 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Food Sales (Tabled December 5, 2005). William Burns, City Manager, stated this ordinance makes it clear that the food to liquor ratio that is required of on-sale liquor establishments pertains only to prepared food and not to food from vending machines. The item was tabled on December 5 and has been subsequently modified. Staff recommends that through this action the item be removed from the table and approved by Council. ITEM REMOVED FROM TABLE. WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPROVED THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING. NEW BUSINESS: 4. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other Local Use. William Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution requests disbursement of the City's population portion of the Municipal State Aid System construction funds for the 2006 street reconstruction project. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-10. 5. Resolution in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Application for Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce for Billiard Street Cafe Located at 7178 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 2). William Burns, City Manager, stated this is the new license for the Billiard Street Cafe. The North Metro Chamber currently owns a license that allows them to operate in two other locations—Jake's in New Brighton and Jake's in Mounds View. They are asking that we approve the e�tension of their current license which expires on May 31, 2006, as well as approve a new license that will expire on May 31, 2008. Staff recommends Council's approval. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 6. Approve Agreement for Legal Services Between the City of Fridley and Knaak & Kantrud, P.A. William Burns, City Manager, stated the City has contracted with Fritz Knaak since 1996. His current three-year contract expired at the end of 2005. The terms of the proposed new contract are as follows: the monthly compensation has been raised from $5,450 to $5,777 or by 6 percent. The hourly rate for hours of litigation above ten hours per month has been raised from $75 to $85 per hour. The term would run from January 2006 through December 2008. In view of the City's satisfaction with Mr. Knaak's service to Fridley and in view of the very reasonable rate for services, staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. 7. Claims (125021-125244) APPROVED. 8. Licenses APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 8A. Estimate APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATE: Shank Constructors, Inc. 3501 — 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Commons Park WTP Upgrade Project No. 357 Estimate No. 3 ...................... $256,898.00 Councilmember Bolkcom requested that Item 5 be removed and placed on the regular agenda. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda as presented with the removal of Item 5. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE BEING ABSENT, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 4 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of Item 5. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE BEING ABSENT, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): No items presented. PUBLIC HEARING: 9. Consideration of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Application of Michael J. White of White Owl Ventures, LCC, d/b/a Main Event Restaurant, Generally Located at 7820 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE BEING ABSENT, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:42 P.M. Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the Main Event restaurant was recently acquired by White Owl Ventures, LCC. Mr. Michael White of White Owl Ventures has applied for the intoxicating liquor license. The Public Safety Department has reviewed their request, conducted a background check, and has found no reason to deny the request. Staff has provided a copy of the City Code that states all the stipulations that go along with the license in regard to the City Code. Petitioner has requested the 2 a.m. endorsement with their application. Mr. White does plan on opening the restaurant under his ownership on March 1. The notice of public hearing was published in the Fridley Sun Focus on January 5. Final approval for the license is currently scheduled for February 13. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Pribyl to state what the main stipulations were. Mr. Pribyl replied the main stipulation she was referring to is the food-to-liquor ratio. The minimum in regard to food is 40 percent. Staff reviews that on an annual basis to ensure that the ratio is maintained. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there are any further stipulations related to the 2 a.m. endorsement. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 5 Mr. Pribyl replied they actually require that twice a year they submit to the City a report on the food-to-liquor ratio. They want to make sure they are still serving food during the e�tended hours. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the new owner had been informed about his responsibilities. Mr. Pribyl replied the City Clerk reviewed all of the stipulations. They do have a checklist to make sure all of those elements have been reviewed. That is part of the application. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. White if he was aware of the stipulations related to the food and liquor license and the ratios. Michael White, White Owl Ventures, LCC, stated, yes, he was. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE BEING ABSENT, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: 5. Resolution in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Application for Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce for Billiard Street Cafe Located at 7178 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 2). Councilmember Bolkcom said the Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce is asking for a gaming permit in this establishment until the end of May but so they do not have to come back in a very short period of time they are asking that Council actually e�tend it to May 31, 2008. Mr. Pribyl said they are asking that two periods be considered. The first would be a short period to May 31, 2006, and then for the full license period after that until May 31, 2008. The reason for this is because it takes about six weeks for the State to run it through their approval process. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2006-11. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE BEING ABSENT, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 10. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fridley Municipal Code Pertaining to the Late Night Endorsement of On-Sale Liquor License. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 6 Captain Robert Rewitzer, Police Department, stated this ordinance amends Chapters 602, 603, and 606. On June 1, 2003, the State of Minnesota enacted legislation permitting local jurisdictions to e�tend hours of alcohol sales until 2 a.m. On September 13, 2004, Council adopted an ordinance amending the City Code allowing liquor licensees to obtain a late-night license endorsement to sell intoxicating liquor until 2 a.m. The ordinance included a sunset provision. No late-night license endorsement would be effective after Apri130, 2006. This was to allow for review of any detrimental affects of the 2 a.m. closing. The following licensees obtained late-night license endorsements: American Legion, Main Event, Sha�, King's Restaurant, Billiard Street Cafe, Fridley Crab House, and Joe DiMaggio's. In August, 2005, the American Legion reported they were not able to meet the required food-to-liquor ratio and their endorsement was dropped. The Main Event and Sharx submitted reports indicating they were both in compliance. The other licensees did not obtain endorsements until well into 2005 and have not submitted reports. Analysis of police calls indicate no significant impact attributable to the 2 a.m. closing times. Overtime expenses from holding the 3 p.m. to 3 a.m. shift showed no increase over previous years. The Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety noted that accidents had not necessarily increased but had been displaced to later in the early morning. As many of the licensees did not obtain an endorsement until well into 2005, data regarding the impact of 2 a.m. closing times is limited as a result. Staff recommends a first reading of an ordinance continuing the late-night license endorsement until April 30, 2008. This ordinance merely amends the sunset date listed in Chapter 602, 603, and 606. Staff will again review any impacts on police calls for service and will report back to the City Council before the sunset takes affect. The second reading of this ordinance will occur on February 13, 2006. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there has been an increase in calls to Sha�, but Captain Rewitzer felt they were related more to the smoking ban than the 2 a.m. closing. Captain Rewitzer stated they have seen an increase of activity at Sha�. They believe the majority is a result of the smoking ban in Minneapolis that has caused people to seek entertainment options outside of Minneapolis. The closest venue is Sharx. That, coupled with the fact that they have an increased police presence there, has resulted in a higher number of calls for service and increased activity. They do not believe it is necessarily attributable to the 2 a.m. closing. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE BEING ABSENT, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. First Reading of an Ordinance Creating Chapter 205.32 0-7 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Shoreland Overlay District. Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the primary question seems to be is the City really required to have a shoreland ordinance in place. They received a response from the DNR and the Metropolitan Council, and the answer is yes. State Statutes do require all cities that have shoreland within their boundaries to adopt shoreland ordinances. This has been a low priority FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 7 because we are a fully-developed community. The DNR has confirmed that eventually they are going to enforce this and all cities are going to need to adopt an ordinance. It looks like they are even considering putting additional conditions and requirements in place for cities that do not have shoreland ordinances. Ms. Jones said that during the public hearing on this ordinance, it was clear to staff that there was a lack of knowledge among property owners on shoreland property. She wanted to clarify that this shoreland overlay district is strictly about building setbacks and shoreland property and strictly about lot coverage and defining that lot coverage differently. Mr. Jones stated the DNR has selected the following water bodies: the Mississippi River, the wetlands at Springbrook Nature Center, Spring Lake, Locke Lake, Moore Lake, Harris Pond, Farr Lake, Rice Creek, Stoneybrook Creek, Springbrook Creek, Norton Creek, and Oakland Creek They have made some modifications to the City's shoreland map. As a result of some of the negotiations they have had with the DNR, they have removed some areas that were on the map at the public hearing as noted. There is an area along the river in the Riverview Heights neighborhood. That area has been taken out because there is a roadway in between the river and the properties there. In the beginning, the DNR said they had to include those, but they have now worked it out with them that we are making our shoreline overlay definition to be only first tier and only those that directly abut a waterway. There are some other areas that come off of Farr Lake where there is parkland between the private lot and the water body, so some of those have been taken out as well. There are a few properties on Rice Creek where there is park land between them so those are no longer included. As a result, they have actually reduced the number of properties now that are in the shoreland overlay. Some areas were taken out because that part of the creek was not natural anymore. It was piped. Ms. Jones said she also wanted to discuss the existing overlays. There is a Critical Area Overlay. The entire area of the City from East River Road to the river is in the Critical Area Overlay. In this overlay district, the setback requirements they are talking about already exist. They already cannot build any closer than 100 feet to the water. There is also Overlay District One, the Creek and River Overlay District, which is along the Mississippi River, along Locke Lake, along Rice Creek, and around Moore Lake. The properties in this district can build nothing except maybe a parking lot in the floodway. The boundary is designated by FEMA. They actually have more restrictions on them than what will be in the shoreland ordinance. They took a count and there are actually only 73 properties out of the 390 that are now in the Shoreland Overlay which are not already restricted by other overlay district regulations. When they started this back in the late 80's there were going to be over 900 properties that were going to have to be included in the Shoreland Overlay according to the true definition of "shoreland" in the state guidelines. They have now narrowed that down to first tier and only first tier directly abutting the waterway. Ms. Jones stated the DNR has granted the City a great deal of flexibility in the proposed overlay, primarily in the boundaries of the overlay district. The DNR has said the City can make it properties that directly abut the waterway. Another area of flexibility the DNR has granted the City is exceeding the 25 percent lot coverage requirement which is the maximum the State guidelines allow. Staff has provided them sample properties from each of the water bodies that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 8 are included in this overlay and convinced the DNR that if the City were to write an ordinance with the 25 percent overlay, it would be creating a tremendous amount of non-conforming properties. The DNR agreed that is something they did not want to do. They also gave us flexibility in the height requirements. They have a height requirement of no higher than 25 feet. Most of our properties that are in the proposed Shoreland Overlay are R-1 properties and so they had a 30-foot height requirement. Staff argued with the State that they should be allowed to maintain that requirement. Ms. Jones stated another area that staff got flexibility on was the reclassification of Farr Lake. Because Farr Lake had been classified as a natural environment lake that meant the setback requirement was 150 feet. This would have made every single property around Farr Lake non- conforming. Staff asked them to look back on their records and they were able to confirm that Farr Lake really was not a natural environment lake, so it now only has a 50-foot setback requirement. Ms. Jones stated the one thing they did not get from the DNR is a 50 foot setback on Moore Lake. Actually, for recreational lakes such as Moore Lake, it is a 75-foot requirement. The DNR stressed they wanted to keep it at that. There are really only three properties around Moore Lake that do not meet the 75-foot setback requirement. Staff agreed with the DNR it would really be in the best interests for those living around Moore Lake to maintain the existing setback line. Ms. Jones stated there are some wording changes in the ordinance based on comments from the public hearing. The DNR required that they add a shoreline definition. They moved Farr Lake to the new classification and corrected the natural environment and recreational development lake setbacks. The main thing they changed was the very last section, the non-conformity section. They worked with the City Attorney and reworded that section. One thing she wanted to clarify for people affected by the ordinance is that even though these requirements are in place, they could apply to the City for a variance for both the setback requirements and the lot coverage requirements. They would have to provide a hardship statement and provide the City information with some unique circumstance they have. Ms. Jones said an earlier draft of this ordinance was reviewed by the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on November 2 and passed the draft ordinance unanimously. The City Council held a public hearing on this item on November 21. Staff is confident that they have negotiated the best option they can get for the City in shoreland requirements with the DNR. The DNR did indicate that there is no guarantee they could grant this flexibility again in the future. The DNR warned that without a shoreland ordinance, it is very possible the City could have future restrictions placed on it regarding future development or redevelopment. Staff recommends that they proceed with the first reading. The second reading would be held on February 13, 2006. Councilmember Billings asked if it only applies to first tier properties. Ms. Jones replied that is correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 9 Councilmember Barnette asked if he had a home on the Mississippi River that was currently within 50 feet of the water and it burned down, could he rebuild on the same footprint. Ms. Jones replied, yes. Councilmember Barnette said the DNR is saying you better do it now, because there might be tougher restrictions later. Ms. Jones stated there were a number of cities in the Rice Creek Watershed District that did not have shoreland ordinances in place. The value of the shoreland along Rice Creek is major thing for the City. Councilmember Bolkcom said staff did a great job in negotiating on this matter, but she did not think if they do not pass this, the DNR may have stricter regulations. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, said they could. Some of what has been negotiated in this particular case are actually negotiations for less restricted standards than their standard ordinance. They can impose stricter standards. They cannot be unreasonable and do anything arbitrary and capricious, but they have been applying the standard statewide now actually for some years. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is something in this ordinance that states she now has to have her gutters go on to a grassy area. Ms. Jones replied what this section is saying is that if you want to exceed the 35 percent lot coverage area, it is spelling out some things that you could do that would allow you a variance to do that. That is what the reference to down spouts and landscape areas is about. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the three people on Moore Lake who are non-conforming can rebuild as long as it is in the same spot. Ms. Jones replied as long as they do not expand the footprint or non-conformity. Mayor Lund asked about the definition of shoreland and the 1,000 feet from the normal high water mark requirement. Ms. Jones replied this is not to be confused with setback This is what the State in their guidelines defines as shoreland. The 1,000 feet from the ordinary high-water mark is the second tier. The first tier is the 300 feet within the ordinary high-water mark So when they talked about first tier and second tier in the DNR requirements, it is in reference to this definition. Mayor Lund stated he just had some concerns that this definition now puts this into a category of further restriction at some later date because they have defined 1,000 feet. Ms. Jones replied she was concerned about it, too, and contacted Mr. Knaak to make sure it was okay. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 10 Mayor Lund asked if the DNR could become more restrictive at a later date. Ms. Jones replied if the DNR did, it would be statewide. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this is one of the key reasons this has been in the works for 16 years. Their definition needs to be in there in order to be consistent with all the other shoreland ordinances that have been adopted throughout the state. All of the negotiation that we have talked about tonight is what sets us apart from that definition. The ordinance really set us apart from that two-tier standard by just having one tier and, in some cases, as described less than a tier such as in Riverview Heights where they have allowed us just to take that entire strip out and not consider that part of the shoreland. We have really come a long way from their standard definition. Staff felt that without the definition, the ordinance the DNR was approving for us would fall far short because it is not consistent with every other definition out there. Councilmember Bolkcom asked where that said that in the ordinance. Mr. Hickok replied every other specification in the ordinance talks specifically about the setbacks or the lot coverages or the things that apply specifically to the Fridley ordinance. It starts off at the consistent place where the State has started with every other community but from that point forward, our ordinance defines how we differ from the standards that are out there. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the 100 foot setback. Mr. Hickok stated Ms. Jones was describing what a non-conformity is. Mayor Lund said it is his understanding that the DNR has their restrictions. He asked what "flowage" meant. Mr. Hickok replied it is a term that is most often used with things like reservoirs where there is a flowage or current through a larger body of water. It is not a typical stream or creek It is a current that runs through and it may be man-made or a natural feature, but is a current probably with a creek or river coming out but a current that runs through a larger lake area. Probably not all that different than Locke Lake but on a much bigger scale. Mayor Lund commented it seems we are going backwards upstream. His concern is that we are not so overly restrictive so the property owners along this overlay district cannot expand or add onto their home. That would be a detriment or loss of potential value for those landowners. Mr. Hickok said this is a state law. We have an obligation to live by the law, but we have taken the time to figure how to do it in the best way possible. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for a further explanation of "flowage" before the second reading. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 11 MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Resolution Approving a Plat, P.S. #03-08, Town Center, by Town Center Development, for the Purpose of Creating Two New Parcels from 1282 Mississippi Street, 6490 Central Avenue and the Vacant Lot South of Sandee's Restaurant (Ward 2). 13. Approve Development Agreement between the City of Fridley and Town Center Development, Pursuant to Final Plat, P.S. #03-08, Generally Located at 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490 Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2). Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated Town Center Development is located in the southwest quadrant of Mississippi and Old Central. This development at this point has only been approved as a preliminary plat. It was considered by the Planning Commission in November, 2003. Commission and staff recommended approval with stipulations at that time. Subsequent to that, the developer had a neighborhood meeting and redesigned the building based on concerns that a four-story building in the neighborhood would be too much of an imposition and really change the character of the neighborhood too much. At that time they did modify the building. It was originally a four-story, 55-unit building. They reduced it one story, reduced it one unit; and it is now a three-story, 54-unit building. On January 5, 2004, Council approved the preliminary plat and added two additional stipulations which would make 26 stipulations on the project. After the preliminary plat approval, there were several e�tensions that were granted six months at a time. Mr. Hickok said it is required that a preliminary plat come back in its final plat form within six months of preliminary plat approval. If that cannot happen, the developer needs to ask for an e�tension. There were some matters that were before the Anoka County Court for consideration that caused the developer to be delayed in getting the final plat. They did not want to move ahead with the final plat with some uncertainty about the disposition of these other items. This has now been resolved and they have come back in within their last e�tension window. They have the mylars for the project and a negotiated development agreement between staff and developer is ready for approval. One additional stipulation has been added. It mandates a cap of 5 percent rental at any one time. This has come as a product of subsequent discussions they have had with the developer. They have an investment group that is interested and staff wanted to make certain in writing that it is clear that this is to be a primarily owner-occupied building with, if necessary, a small percentage of rental. Oftentimes the estate of a family may need to hold a property for a period of time. Staff recommends approval of the final plat and the development agreement. Councilmember Billings asked if Sandee's Restaurant was part of this plat. Mr. Hickok said it was. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 12 Councilmember Billings stated it has been closed for quite a while for remodeling. He understands there were some problems. Mr. Hickok said they started on the modifications before having a plan for staff to review and without necessary permits and inspections. Councilmember Billings asked if they had something to worry about here in terms of this developer. Mr. Hickok said they have had discussions about this with the developer. The inspection staff has a very good handle on this and will not let them move ahead without having the proper steps in place. Councilmember Billings asked if the Anoka County Health Department had some rules and regulations about getting prior approval of equipment before it is placed in a restaurant. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, and that is a bit perplexing to him because the Anoka County Health Department was in earlier than the City was the did not say anything. The have talked to them about the problem. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they can legally include Stipulation No. 27. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, said they could. Councilmember Wolfe stated he thought he made himself clear in the beginning on how he stood on the whole deal. As councilmembers have stated before, any time there are, for example, 10 stipulations, there is a red flag. He sees 27 here, so he has concerns. There are a lot of stipulations. Mayor Lund asked the petitioner if he had any problems with the added stipulation or the change to Stipulation No. 1. Mr. Whinnery, Town Center Development, stated the added stipulation has been incorporated into the bylaws. Mayor Lund asked about the problem with Sandee's Restaurant. Mr. Whinnery said it did get off on the wrong foot, but they have worked it out. Councilmember Barnette asked about the relocation of the Tamarisk building. Mr. Whinnery stated they are still trying to find a mover. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to adopt Resolution 2006-12 with the following twenty- seven stipulations: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 13 1. Property to be developed in accordance with site plan depicting a 3-story building, approved by the City Council at their January 5, 2004, meeting. 2. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 4. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 5. E�terior remodeling plans for Sandee's to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Patio on the north side of Sandee's to be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the senior complex. 7. Petitioner to provide clearance letter from the to the demolition of the Tamarisk building. 8. Existing Sandee's signs in the right-of-way building permit. State Historical Preservation Officer prior shall be removed prior to issuance of a 9. 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. 10. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county 11 12 13 14 right-of-way. Restoration of bike path along Central after will be required after completion of senior complex. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and management. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 15. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 17. Petitioner to pay any required Park Dedication Fees. 18. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents. 20. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on 21 22 23 24 the site are properly capped or removed. 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. The petitioner to provide a traffic study that is approved by the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 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. 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. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 14 25. The petitioner shall work with City staff and the neighbors to come up with a screening plan to provide adequate screening consisting of adult trees and other creative decorative screening between the proposed development and the neighboring properties prior to the City Council meeting on November 24, 2003. 26. All drive aisles to be used for 2-way traffic shall be 25' in width. 27. The petitioner shall provide that the Building Association documents will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time. Along with Exhibit A. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON 4 TO 1 VOTE. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve the Development Agreement between the City of Fridley and Town Center Development, pursuant to Final Plat, P. S. #03-08, generally located at 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490 Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) with the following twenty- seven stipulations: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with site plan, depicting a 3-story building, approved by the City Council at their January 5, 2004 meeting. 2. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 4. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 5. E�terior remodeling plans for Sandee's to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Patio on the north side of Sandee's to be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the senior complex. 7. Petitioner to provide clearance letter from the State Historical Preservation Officer prior to the demolition of the Tamarisk building. 8. Existing Sandee's signs in the right-of-way shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. 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. 10. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 11. Restoration of bike path along Central after will be required after completion of senior complex. 12. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and management. 13. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 15 15. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 17. Petitioner to pay any required Park Dedication Fees. 18. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents. 20. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 21. 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. 22. The petitioner to provide a traffic study that is approved by the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. The petitioner shall work with City staff and the neighbors to come up with a screening plan to provide adequate screening consisting of adult trees and other creative decorative screening between the proposed development and the neighboring properties prior to the City Council meeting on November 24, 2003. 26. All drive aisles to be used for 2-way traffic shall be 25' in width. 27. The petitioner shall provide that the Building Association documents will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON 4 TO 1 VOTE. 14. Special Use Permit Request, SP #06-01, by RSP Architects for Totino-Grace High School, to Allow an Existing Private School to Exist as a Special Use in an R-1, Single Family Zoning District, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E. (Ward 2). 15. Variance Request, VAR #06-01, by RSP Architects for Totino-Grace High School, to Increase the Height of a Portion of the School Building from 30 Feet to 48 Feet for the Renovation of the School Auditorium, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E. (Ward 2). FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 16 Councilmember Billings asked if they have an application that is signed by the fee owner of the property or a letter from the fee owner agreeing to the request. Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, replied the school signed off on both requests. She stated, in regards to the special use request, Steve Maurelli of RSP Architects is seeking a special use permit to allow an existing private school as a special use in an R-1 Single Family zoning district located at 1350 Gardena Avenue. The private school has been in existence at this location since the school was constructed in 1965. However, a special use permit has never been obtained for the school as a whole. This special use permit request is coming to the City at this time because the school is seeking a variance and building permit to renovate the school auditorium. The petitioner is also seeking a variance request to increase the maximum height of a portion of the school building from 30 feet as allowed in the R-1 district to 48 feet to the midspan of the roof height. The variance request is being requested to allow the renovation of the school auditorium. A summary of the hardship statement is as follows: Totino-Grace is currently planning for a renovation within their existing auditorium space. The footprint for the building will not change. The renovation is primarily increasing the height of the space in order to accommodate production catwalks, increase proscenium opening, and a fly loft over the stage. The variance requested is for only a specific portion of the existing school building. The new theater space is 215 feet from the north property line and 318 feet from the east property line, so it should have no shadowing affect on the adjacent houses. We also feel the distance from the streets will result in the added height having no perceived effect on the spatial character of either street. Ms. Jones said the school was constructed in 1965 with an addition constructed in 1977. Totino- Grace is a co-educational Catholic high school which provides education to approximately 1,020 children, grades 9 through 12. In 2003, the City Council approved a variance request for the subject property to reduce the width of parking stalls from 10 feet to 9 feet to allow an expansion of their parking lot. That expansion added an additiona170 parking stalls. In 1999, a special use permit was issued for the property to allow the school to upgrade the existing track and field facility. Although a special use permit was approved in 1999, it was specifically for the track and field facility, not for the school as a whole. Private schools are a permitted special use in the R-1 Single Family zoning district subject to stipulations. Since the existing school does not have a special use permit, the petitioner is requesting one at this time. The property complies with all setback and lot coverage requirements. In addition to the special use permit request, the petitioner is also seeking a variance to increase the height of the existing auditorium. The auditorium is located in the center of the existing school building. Ms. Jones stated the new auditorium space is 215 feet from the north property line which is Gardena Avenue and 318 feet from the east property line. The ground elevation of the square building is 6 feet lower than Gardena Avenue and Arthur Street and both of the line of sight views will be impacted by the increase in the auditorium roof height less than for the typical home built closer to the street. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 17 Ms. Jones stated petitioner said that lowering the stage floor is not feasible. All of the existing school buildings are slab on grade, and all of the spaces adjacent to the auditorium are the same elevation as the auditorium. Both the stage and the auditorium entries are flush with the adjacent floors. In order to provide flexibility and maintain safe egress, the petitioner states they cannot lower the stage floor and solve their need to have additional fly space over the stage. The City Code requires a 35-foot maximum height in the R-1 Single Family zoning district. The petitioner is seeking to increase that height requirement to 48 feet but only in the location of the auditorium within the school building complex. This variance would allow the renovation of the school auditorium by increasing the height and increasing the number of seats. The building footprint will not change. The reason for the height increase is to create a functional theater in which theatrical, choir, and orchestra productions can be better produced. They are only bringing back the seats they have lost over the years with expansions of the stage. Ms. Jones stated the only concern staff has taken a look at is parking requirements. Currently Totino-Grace has 366 parking stalls. Staff has looked at the parking requirements for all of the different uses of parts of the buildings and determined that the property does fall short of ineeting the Code requirements by approximately 8 parking stalls. Therefore, staff is recommending that if the building's square footage is expanded in any way in the future, that the building would need to come into compliance with the parking requirements. That is one of the proposed stipulations. Ms. Jones stated the Planning Commission had a public hearing on the special use permit on January 4. There was unanimous recommendation for approval with six stipulations. The Appeals Commission held a public hearing regarding the variance request for Totino-Grace on January 11 and also unanimously recommended approval of the request with six stipulations. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding approval of the special use permit request with six stipulations. Staff also concurs with the Appeals Commission recommendation for approval of the variance request with six stipulations. The building height will have little visual impact to the residential character of the neighborhood due to the building's distance from the street. The added height request is a reasonable request that modern theater production requires. Councilmember Barnette asked if letters were sent out to all the neighbors within 350 feet as required. Ms. Jones said they were. Councilmember Barnette asked if they got any reaction from any of the neighbors regarding this request. Ms. Jones said they had one call somewhat opposed and one call strongly supporting the project. Councilmember Wolfe said what he thought was different is this being built in the middle of a building that is already there. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 18 Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was a little concerned about the parking. Ms. Jones replied because they are not expanding the footprint of the buildings, staff did not believe they were justified in asking them to provide additional parking at this time. In addition, they are not expanding the number of seats beyond what they had when the auditorium was originally built. They originally may have had more than the 320 seats they are restoring it to. The school has indicated that it is highly unusual for that space to be used at the same time classes are in session. Councilmember Bolkcom commented this would attract more kids to the school. Mr. Hickok said they have been very consistent with their student population size. This project is not to increase the size of their student population. It is to bring their productions into more of a modern standard for high school. He said he wanted to comment on the parking issue because he appreciates that Council sometimes gets calls that they do not hear about, but they really have not had any complaint except the call that Ms. Jones received that was somewhat against this. It was more about the parking than about the building. They did do quite an analysis on this, and breaking it down to the formula that is spelled out in the City Code, it is 8 stalls short of being what it should. They had a neighborhood meeting a few years ago and staff talked with residents about the potential of signing both sides of some streets with No Parking signs, and interestingly enough, people who lived around there did not see the parking in the area to be enough of an issue that they would want their streets to be posted with No Parking signs. Totino did respond by building a new 80-stall parking lot off Gardena to relieve some of the on-street parking. Steve Maurelli, RSP Architects, made a presentation showing drawings of the school and proposed renovation. Brother Milton Barker, President of Totino-Grace, stated he wanted to address the issue of a parking ramp and where that came from. Eight years ago, when they did a comprehensive master plan for their facilities, it was their desire to build a performing arts and worship space that would seat their entire student body plus faculty staff--about 1,200 people--and at the same time build a new field house that would include both the performance gymnasium area and practice gyms. They did do a plot and footprint of that plan working with people in the City and looked at the possibility of building a ramp because part of the construction would take up existing parking. In sending that plan to an estimator, the cost at that time was $21 million. They could not afford to spend that amount of money. They are basically a tuition-driven school and they knew they would have to change their mission. They would no longer be operating at a tuition of about $8,000 but would be operating at a tuition like the most elite prep schools in the Twin Cities that are $17,000 to $18,000 and they could not do that. So they abandoned that plan and looked instead at trying to redo the interior facility. That was the only time they ever talked about a parking ramp. In order to answer concerns of the City, they did add an additiona124 parking spaces when they did their Totino field renovation and then in 2003 they added an additiona170 spaces as part of a maj or parking program. It is interesting to look at the parking situation because in reality Gardena Avenue is signed one side of the street. It is not signed on the side of the street adjacent to their property. Arthur Street is also signed in the residential area from Gardena to Royal Oaks. The Nature Center is also signed so the parking FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 19 that is available for their students is immediately adjacent to their property line on Matterhorn, Gardena, and Arthur. In general that is where students park On an unusual day, that parking may e�tend to Royal Oaks Court. He said this project will make their facility comparable to other schools. including Mounds View, Spring Lake Park, Fridley, and several other private schools. Mayor Lund commented it seems every time an issue with Totino-Grace comes up the parking and traffic is talked about. Brother Barker said when they get a complaint, they act on it immediately. If it is during the school day, a dean of students goes to the area, finds out who owns the car, comes back to the building, finds the student, tells them to remove the car, assigns a disciplinary sanction, and looks at revoking parking privileges. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve Special Use Permit Request, SP #06-01, by RSP Architects for Totino-Grace High School, with the following six stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements for any new construction, alteration or renovation done on this site. 3. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris. 4. Construction vehicles shall not bring materials before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. 5. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished with complementary e�terior building materials and color scheme. 6. At which time the square footage of any of the school buildings is expanded, the property shall come into compliance with all parking code requirements. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve Variance Request, VAR #06-01, by RSP Architects for Totino-Grace High School, with the following six stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements for any new construction, alteration or renovation done on this site. 3. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris. 4. Construction vehicles shall not bring materials before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. 5. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished with complementary e�terior building materials and color scheme. 6. At which time the square footage of any of the school buildings is expanded, the property shall come into compliance with all parking code requirements. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 20 16. Variance Request, VAR #06-02, by Bruce Odlaug for the Rice Creek Townhomes, to Reduce the Side Yard Setback from 15 Feet to 13.2 Feet to Recognize an Existing Non-Conforming Setback, Generally Located at 1560 — 69t'' Avenue N.E. (Ward 2). Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated Bruce Odlaug of the Lindquist & Vennum firm represents the owner of the Rice Creek Townhomes. They are seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 13.2 feet to recognize an existing non-conforming setback of the townhome buildings on the south side of the development. The property owner would like to refinance the property, and the lenders are requiring variances to recognize any non-conformities or deficiencies as an assurance to their investment. Staff informed petitioner that the City is changing the City Code to match the State statute, but petitioner is interested in having this approached as a variance. The developer donated a portion of land to the south for use as a park and to essentially add requested green space to the development. However, the donation and subsequent requirements created non-conforming status on the side yard. Mr. Hickok said the subject property is located on 69th Avenue, east of Central, and zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential. According to building permit records on September 30, 1969, the City entered into an agreement with Carl Hipp, the former fee owner of the subject parcel, to rezone the property from R-1, Single Family, to R-3, Multi-Family, based on Mr. Hipp conveying to the City a portion of the property for a City park and additional portion of land for highway and utility right-of-way. Mr. Hipp conveyed the subject property to the Rice Creek developers who in turn complied with the agreement and deeded to the City the portion of the land of the park and dedicated the easement that was required. As a result of the agreement, a City park was created south of the subject property. It is common practice for any new development to either deed land to the City or pay park dedication fees. The subject property was then developed in 1972 consisting of 141-unit townhome development. There are 27 four, five and six unit buildings located on the property and all of the 141 units are three-bedrooms which is a rarity in the marketplace. There are 154 garage stalls and 158 hard surface parking stalls for a total of 309 parking spaces. City Code requires an interior side yard setback of 15 feet for all buildings under 35 feet in height in the R-3 district. Subject property is bordered by Anoka Street, 69tn Avenue, and Stinson Boulevard. City Code requires that the narrow street frontage be considered a front yard; therefore, Stinson Avenue is considered the front yard of the development. The petitioner is seeking to recognize the existing side yard setback on the south side of the development for the buildings located at 1578-88 68th Avenue, 1620-1630 68tn Avenue, and 1660-70 68th Avenue. The closest point of the building is 13.2 feet from the property line. Mr. Hickok stated petitioner is seeking a variance from 15 to 13.2 feet. Granting this variance will simply recognize the existing non-conforming setback The Appeals Commission held its public hearing on January 11 and unanimously recommended approval and there were no stipulations recommended. Staff recommends approval consistent with the Appeals Commission. There was a parking variance that came in initially with this request. There was much discussion and analysis done by staff. At the time this building was built, there was an 18- month period whereby the City would come back and tell them whether additional parking would be required. They were a number of stalls short and, at that time, if the City deemed it necessary, they would build the parking. Unfortunately it looks from the record as though that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 21 got lost in the shuffle. Today, they can say in all certainty that there is not enough parking. The Fire Marshall has indicated they would have difficulties getting fire trucks there. The developer is now looking at putting in the parking as required. They have asked that the recognition of the parking shortage be delayed and have waived the 60 days. They said they would like to analyze the situation. They may just prefer to put in the parking as opposed to asking for a variance. At this time, they are only considering the side yard setback from 15 to 13.2 feet. Councilmember Wolfe said the parking issue would be taken care of later. Mr. Hickok said they will bring this back to them as a variance if that is what the final resolution is. Petitioner has indicated a very strong interest and willingness to put in the parking. They will keep them posted. Councilmember Billings stated he would like to have the representative acknowledge the 60- day waiver. Jeff McNaught, Lindquist & Vennum, stated, yes, they acknowledge the waiver of the 60-day requirement. The reason why the variance is the desired mechanism here is because the lender for the refinancing of this property is concerned that in the event of a catastrophic type of destruction of the property that would destroy more than 50 percent of it, the rebuilding under the non-conformity statute would not apply to them. They wanted to make they had the variance. The parking issue is being addressed and they have some engineers that are looking at this as to what can be done in order to expand it. He thought they needed 44 spots. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve Variance Request, VAR #06-02, by Bruce Odlaug for Rice Creek Townhomes. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to divide the motion, as the Variance Request has two parts. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve that portion of Variance Request, VAR #06-02, by Bruce Odlaug for the Rice Creek Townhomes as it relates to the side yard setback, with no stipulations. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to table that portion of Variance Request, VAR #-06-02, reducing the required amount of parking stalls until such time as staff and petitioner are ready to bring it back before the City Council. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 22 17. Resolution by the City of Fridley Supporting the Statutory Referendum Requirement for any County-Wide Sales Tax that may be Levied for a Vikings Stadium in Anoka County. Councilmember Wolfe stated he put this on the agenda as he was asked a number of times to do so and he is interested in hearing what needs to be said. His understanding is there is a group of people who would like to see people not have a say in the sales tax. He is a firm believer that people should have a say in what is being paid for. He thinks it should come to a vote. He thinks if it goes to a referendum, it will not pass and he feels they are trying to skirt around that issue. Councilmember Barnette asked the City Attorney if there is a State law on this. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, replied said there is. The law cited in the resolution does require that if a municipality under special legislation is allowed to adopt a sales tax, that it must conduct a referendum. Councilmember Wolfe asked if there are ways around that. Mr. Knaak said he does not know what Anoka County is doing or not doing. He knows that it is not uncommon when special legislation is sought for something to get a specific exclusion. Councilmember Barnette asked who can make that exception. Mr. Knaak replied the State legislature could. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Anoka County has asked them whether they support their endeavors at this point. William Burns, City Manager, replied, no, not to his knowledge. Councilmember Billings asked if they needed to go to the legislature for this. Mr. Knaak said he believed they would have to go to the legislature to get that authority. Councilmember Billings stated so whatever they do, they need to go to the legislature. Mr. Knaak replied, yes, that is correct. Councilmember Billings stated we have 201 state legislators that are going to hold hearings on this and have committee meetings on it. He has a problem with the language in the resolution that says the City Council was the representative government body of the residents of the City of Fridley. They are elected to run and operate the City. That does not mean that they are the people who are elected to make a decision on all issues that other levels of government are supposed to be dealing with. There are a number of issues that are dealt with by other levels of government that are also duly elected to represent the population of the City of Fridley. We have FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 23 four school districts in this City and two state senators. We have three legislators in the House of Representatives. We have a congressman and two United States senators, and two county commissioners, all of whom are making decisions every day about what is happening to people within the City of Fridley and beyond the borders of the City of Fridley. He said the City Council's mission is not to speak for the citizens of Fridley on issues that relate to the duties of these other elected officials. He said they all have their opinions, but there is nothing that authorizes them to take away the ability of the other residents of this City to be able to express their opinion on this issue. He thinks every citizen of Fridley, whether a resident or business, should be contacting those elected officials who are elected to represent them on this issue to take action and to express their point of view. He presented an alternative resolution. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the Anoka County commissioners had been informed of the resolution on their agenda. Dr. Burns replied he had a brief conversation with Commissioner Kodiak about a week and a half ago letting him know this was a possibility. Ken Christianson, 7525 Fourth Street NE, asked if Councilmember Wolfe presented the resolution to the City Council. Mayor Lund replied there was a resolution on the agenda. Mr. Christianson asked whether the resolution has to be withdrawn or voted up or down before Councilmember Billings' resolution is presented. Mayor Lund replied they will take a look at both of them. Mr. Christianson stated he is not against the stadium but he is for the people of Fridley getting to vote on it. Ron Holch, 6599 Hokah Drive, Lino Lakes, stated he started the Taxpayers Against the Anoka County Vikings Stadium. He talked about the statute for taxes. Councilmember Billings stated what is before them is the question of whether or not they are the representatives that actually even have the right to make a statement on behalf of the thousands of citizens in the City of Fridley. MOTION by Councilmember Billings not to take any more public comment. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Councilmember Barnette stated he had some very strong feelings about the resolution. He cannot speak for all the people in Fridley. He thinks a lot of this is redundant, that there is already a State law that gives us all the right to vote on this. He suggested it would be better to get a petition and go to the state representatives. They are the only ones that can change this law. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 24 Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to hear what people have to say but she would like the side comments taken away. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to remove his motion not to take any more public comment. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Dann Dobson, Executive Director of the No Stadium Tax Coalition, stated the exact language of the State legislation that they are talking about is 297A.99. It says the imposition of a local sales is subject to approval by voters of the political subdivision in a general election. The Anoka County Board has passed a resolution to request that Anoka County be exempted from this law. No other municipality has ever been exempted from this. The legislature in 1999 put this in place to give the voters a say in this kind of situation. It is very vague in the last line of the legislation and there is no language saying voters shall not be allowed to vote in a referendum. It is very clear — all it says is the requirements of 297A.99 do not apply to any tax imposed under this subdivision. So they are trying to do this under the ostentation of very obscure language. What Anoka County is doing is trying to remove the voters' say. The Council will counterbalance at the legislature what the Anoka County Board is doing. Councilmember Barnette asked if he had been at an Anoka County Commissioners' meeting to make this point. Mr. Dobson said they have never held a public meeting or hearing. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the process. Mr. Dobson said he thought there were less than 25 County commissioners and state representatives. What would happen at the legislature is the vast majority, over 90 percent of the people who would be voting on this proposed tax, would not be affected, so there would be no reason for them not to vote for this. It has been drafted in such a way so it penalizes only the residents in Anoka County. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Dobson if he has actually contacted his State representatives. Mr. Dobson replied not for this one but he has been talking for six years up at the legislature about the Twins legislation. He has spoken to a number of Anoka County representatives about this. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how they responded. Mr. Dobson replied most of them are uniformly opposed to the tax and debating the referendum. However, there is a real concern what people out-state will do Bruce Pomerane, 5687 West Bavarian Pass, stated as a whole, the Anoka County Commissioners are not arguing a general principle. They are not doing this for anything that normally the government is required to provide. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 25 Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Pomerane how much the sales tax was expected to cost the averagetaxpayer. Mr. Pomerane said they are $45 per person per capita. That is per capita based on a 300,000 population. That includes children. This will eventually cost every Anoka County resident, $1 billion to $1.25 billion dollars because of the interest over 30 years it would take off these bonds. This will affect four generations. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Pomerane if he was at Anoka County for the truth in taxation hearing regarding the amount his property taxes were going to go up this year. Mr. Pomerane said he was not. He was fine with the taxes up to this point. He is opposed to taxes going to private industry as a principle. Marsha Etticher, 6870 Seventh Street NE, stated she would appreciate it if Council would look at this referendum. She respectfully disagrees with Councilmember Billings. She is neither for nor against the stadium being built, but she thinks that people do have a right to make a decision. She requests that the City Council look at how this will affect Fridley residents. They are close to other counties to do their shopping to avoid the additional sales tax. It could impact Anoka County and the City of Fridley. Councilmember Barnette asked is she agreed that this is in the hands of the state legislators. Ms. Etticher said she agrees, but to her the state legislators are passing it to Anoka County and its residents. If they increased the sales tax on a state level, everybody in the state would be paying for it. She believe that everyone benefits by having the team here. Councilmember Barnette asked is this should be directed at the state legislators. Ms. Etticher replied it should be, but none of them are willing to step forward. None of them are willing at this point to step forward and put their votes on line. Councilmember Wolfe said he feels that the people here would like them to help them by letting the representatives who represent our City know that they support the people. Joe Capra stated he agreed with Councilmember Wolfe. All they are asking for is help. Joy Spencer, 6020 McKinney Street NE, mentioned that KSTP had a camera man here and that is not because they are a nobody. It will be recorded in the news either that they supported the idea of the referendum or they did not. She said she thinks the support of the idea of people voting on it is important. Connie Metcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive, stated the media is not going to decide how anyone is going to vote. Council does represent the City of Fridley and difficulties in speaking with their legislators have been brought up--many of them have made up their minds. All they are concerned about is the right to vote, the right for representation. She cannot imagine the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2006 PAGE 26 State legislators voting against the referendum. The citizens have a right to vote on any taxation bills that come before them, and it is hard for her to believe they could vote for any exceptions in that at all. She has spoken to many people who do simply want the right to vote on this. John Dumanski, Lino Lakes, stated the Anoka County Commissioners have volunteered their pocket books for what is a State problem. This resolution they are being asked to support is simply a statement by them that they expect a state law to be followed. It is important that they do this because they have more recognition than they do as private citizens. They are asking them to say they expect the state law to be followed. John Knight, Minnetonka, stated what this is really about is the law and it does require a referendum. There has never been an exemption granted. What they are asking them to do is simply pass a resolution. It has been done by a growing number of cities in Anoka County and also some cities in Hennepin. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to substitute the resolution with the replacement resolution. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE. MOTINO by Councilmember Billings to adopt Resolution No. 2006-13. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE. 18. Informal Status Reports. 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 11:18 A.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor