Loading...
05/08/2006 - 00027488CITY OF COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY MAY 8, 2006 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Billings Councilmember Wolfe Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director/Treasurer PROCLAMATIONS: Peace Officers Memorial Day. May 15, 2006 Poppy Days: May 19 — 20, 2006 Public Works Week May 21 — 27, 2006 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of Apri124, 2006. APPROVED. City Council Meeting of Apri124, 2006. APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 4, Absentee Ballott Precinct Elections, of the Fridley City Code. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 2 William Burns, City Manager, stated this legislation seeks to bring the language in the Fridley City Code on absentee ballots into conformity with legislation passed last year by the State legislature. Rather than relying on precinct officials to count absentee ballots, the new language assigns this to a committee comprised of representatives from the various jurisdictions in the County. These judges/city staff inembers will function as an absentee ballot board. Their role will be to examine absentee ballots for procedural correctness and forward them to the correct precincts for counting. Staff recommends Council's approval. WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1231 ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Resolution of the City of Fridley Terminating ICMA as the Administrator of the City of Fridley Deferred Compensation Plan and Authorizing the City of Fridley, Through its City manager, to Enter Into Necessary Agreements to Hire Wells Fargo, N.A., to Administer the Plan. William Burns, City Manager, stated staff began evaluating the performance of the deferred compensation plan in August of last year and found it lacking. Staff subsequently interviewed three alternative plan administrators and came to the conclusion that Wells Fargo would best suit the needs of the plan participants. They have communicated their intentions to plan participants through two mailings and a participant meeting. They have also discussed the termination of the current plan with Council and employee participants at Council's April 17 conference meeting. This resolution asks that Council terminate its relationship with the current plan administrator, ICMA, and initiate a new relationship with Wells Fargo for purposes of administering the City's deferred compensation plan. More specifically, the resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary documents associated with an amended deferred compensation plan. The resolution also appoints Financial Concepts, Inc., as the City's financial advisor and on matters related to the formulation of the plan and implementation thereof. It also establishes that there shall be an employee investment committee for purposes of overseeing the plan, and that the City Manager shall appoint the committee members. If Council approves the resolution, staff and Financial Concepts will complete a trust agreement which outlines the custodial responsibilities and legal obligations of Wells Fargo. Staff will ask Council for approval of this trust agreement at the May 22 council meeting. The goal is to complete the conversion from ICMA to Wells Fargo by approximately November 1. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 3. Preliminary Plat Extension, PS #05-08, by Blue Print Homes, to Replat to Create 16 New Single Family Lots for the Gateway West Redevelopment Project Generally Located at 271 and 281— 57t'' Place, 5740 University Avenue, and 5917 through 5955 3rd Street (Ward 3). FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 3 William Burns, City Manager, stated staff is asking for the e�tension in light of the title problems at the title examiner's office at Anoka County. Staff's intent is to split the plat and bring the initial plat back at Council's ne�t meeting. They hope to return with the second half of the plat by July 24. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. 4. Approve 2006 SCORE Grant Agreement for Recycling Program. William Burns, City Manager, stated this is an annual event that is the basis for the City's receipt of SCORE funding from Anoka County. This year's agreement provides up to $63,241.60 for the funding of the City's recycling programs. In addition to establishing eligibility for funding, the agreement also defines program components, reporting requirements, billing and payment procedures, letter keeping responsibilities, and other general provisions and responsibilities. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 5. Receive Bids and Award the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2006 — 1. William Burns, City Manager, stated five bids were opened on April 28. The low bid was received from Park Construction in Hanson, Minnesota, in the amount of $3,120,893.85. Of this amount, $330,000 will be provided by the State through the Municipal State Aid System Program; $556,681 will be assessed to property owners for the public share of the project; $333,790 will come from property owner assessments for private driveway construction; $584,517.20 will be transferred from the City's utility accounts for sewer and water improvements; and $1,275,455.57 will be paid through the issuance of general obligation bonds. Staff recommends the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Park Construction, in the amount of $3,120,893.85. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 6. Award Construction Survey Contract for 2006 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Proj ect. William Burns, City Manager, stated the contractor will provide construction surveying, staking, and as-built drawings for the 2006 project at an amount not to exceed $94,396.21. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 7. Approve Contract Amendment with SEH, Inc. for Contract Administration and Inspection Services on the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 4 William Burns, City Manager, stated this addition cost was incurred because of delays caused by the Rice Creek Watershed District approvals on the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. Of the $31,533 additional construction supervision costs, $21,883 is for work completed in 2005 and $10,650 is for work carried over into this year. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 8. Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. William Burns, City Manager, stated staff is asking for approval of a possible change order for the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project in the amount of $49,608. The additional cost is for 14 pressure transmitters that are used for controlling operation of the 7 new water filters. That cost is $30,855. It also includes new chemical feed pumps used for feeding fluoride and potassium permanganate at a cost of $18,753. During the design of the project, these items were originally planned to be reused but, once construction began, they were determined to be worn out. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 9. Claims (126421— 126604) APPROVED. 10. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 11. Estimates. APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES: Maertens-Brenny Construction Company 8251 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Locke Park Water Treatment Plant Improvements Estimate No. 2 ........................................................ $54,756.10 Concrete Idea, Inc. 13961 — 44th Lane N.E. St. Michael, MN 55376 2006 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 365 Estimate No. 2 ........................................................ $ 9,788.80 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 5 Councilmember Bolkcom requested that Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 be removed and placed on the regular agenda. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda as presented with the removal of Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the agenda with the addition of Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and adding Item 15. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): No items presented. PUBLIC HEARING: 12. Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #06-01, by the City of Fridley, to Amend the Sign Code, Chapter 214. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:51 P.M. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the City of Fridley is the petitioner in this case. They have had discussions in the past about signs along the corridors of 694 and also relative to some church requests. They have also had some discussions about signage along the north/south corridors. Mr. Hickok said regarding institutional signage, after discussions with the City Council at one of their conference meetings, many suggestions came forward about how they should handle the topic of churches along the north/south corridors. There was some discussion about signage that competes with surrounding commercial entities and a universal sign amendment that treats all churches the same. After evaluating each alternative, staff believes that an amendment that treats all churches and other institutions — schools, hospital and medical clinics the same — would be the right solution. The current sign code allows churches and other institutions to have one area identification sign of 32 square feet maximum. The Woodcrest Baptist church and St. Philip's Lutheran Church in the recent past have requested variances to increase the size of their FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 6 freestanding signs from 32 square feet to 80 feet respectively. Both of these variances were denied but there was an obvious interest on the part of the churches and, in some cases, school representatives, to allow larger freestanding signage on their sites. Churches in Fridley are generally located in residential districts, so it is understandable signage is limited typically in residential districts. The new language staff is proposing would allow institutions, schools, churches, hospitals, and medical clinics to have up to 80 square feet of freestanding signage as long as they would meet the following requirements: 2. A maximum size of eighty (80) square feet in area is allowed per development provided the following criteria is met: a. Signs over thirty-two (32) square feet shall be placed a minimum of fifty (50) feet in front of any neighboring residentially zoned property (not including a residential site the institution is located upon). b. Sign shall be placed so illuminated sign face is perpendicular to adjacent roadways. c. Sign shall not create a glare that will impact adjacent residential properties. Mr. Hickok stated staff is also proposing to allow institutions to have wall signage and temporary signage in accordance with the standards allowed in commercial and industrial zoned properties. City staff researched several cities in the metro area and found that many cities allow churches or residentially-zoned properties to have a maximum of 32 square feet of signage on their freestanding sign. A few exceptions were Eden Prairie where they allowed churches to have 80 square feet and Mounds View where they allowed up to 100 square feet for ground signs at churches. Mr. Hickok stated regarding Interstate 694 corridor signage, there was some interest in taking a look at this as well. Signage related to the Interstate 694 corridor has been brought to their attention by Medtronic's' recent request to install a billboard type sign on the southwest side of their property to announce community service items. As they are aware, this request was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and, therefore, Medtronic's billboard matter was resolved through a master plan amendment to the S-2 Redevelopment District. For the past several years the Appeals Commission and City Council have seen several variance requests for businesses along Interstate 694. These variances were to allow larger signage. In fact, of the 15 properties abutting 694, 5 of them have received sign variances. Staff determined it would be better to try and match the signage with the size of the development, rather than simply allowing 280 square feet to 500 square feet on all properties along that corridor. So they have illustrated an acreage class and sign size permitted based on that acreage class for Council's review. This would become an integral part of the te�t amendment. A site that is over 35 acres would be entitled to 500 square foot sign. A site that is 10 to 35 acres would be entitled to a 240 square foot sign. A site that is 1 to 10 acres would be entitled to 120 square foot sign. Those less than 1 acre would remain entitled to an 80 square foot sign. At about Seventh Street at I- 694, there is a tiny site that already has a billboard on it, but that is the only commercial site FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 7 along that stretch. There are a couple along the exit less than an acre that would still be entitled to an 80-foot sign which the Code currently allows. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed sign language would require that the sign be located between the principal building and interstate right-of-way. The sign would be in addition to that which the property is entitled to based on the zoning for that property. For example, Tyro Industries could have a 240 square foot freestanding sign based on their size of 25 acres between the interstate right-of-way and the principal building. In addition they could have an 80 square foot sign along East River Road, for example, near the entrance. Staff contacted a variety of communities in the metro area and, of the 10 communities surveyed, half of them had special signage requirements for properties along major highways or interstates, and they run a spectrum of sizes. Mr. Hickok stated in the definition section, the modification to the definitions is simply adding an Interstate 694 corridor definition to match the discussion they just had in the language in the Code, to better define the word "alteration" and to deleting the portable sign definition and combine that with the temporary sign definition. Mr. Hickok stated regarding requirements for political signs, banners, and pennants, this is another issue that has come up in the past. To place political signs in the community, you need to make a$15 deposit. That deposit assures that you will take the signs down after the election. They have always believed that the fee amount should relate to the work necessary. It really has been proven that very few candidates for public office even bother to apply for the permit and pay that minimal fee. Even at $15, it is harder to track down the candidates and get the right person from the campaign office. They are suggesting that the $15 be removed. The city clerk has stated that most of the local candidates will fill out the permit and pay the fee but it is very rare for the state and federal level candidates to do that. Mr. Hickok stated under the code section related to temporary signs, there is a section related to banners and pennants. This section allows banners and pennants for business anniversaries, grand openings, or other special events not connected to the business. Cities by constitutional regulations cannot regulate content. Staff advises they would remove that section. Staff recommends an amendment to the section of the sign code related to temporary signs to clarify the word "temporary" and delete the word "portable" in order to be consistent. Staff also recommends a change to the maximum number of sign permits allowed for multi-use buildings or shopping centers. Currently if a shopping center has 6 to 10 businesses, they are allowed 3 temporary sign permits per year. They would like to increase that number. The business community has indicated that this would be helpful. They would like to increase that number to represent at least half the businesses within the shopping center. They would like to clarify when sign permits are needed and when they are not. They would like to take each subcategory within the sign code and make it state whether a sign permit is required. Mr. Hickok said with respect to adding a section for R-3, they have R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 residential code sections. Section R-3 in every other way is regulated like business. It is a higher density multi-family. The current sign code puts all regulations for residential properties in the same category. That category allows for a 24 square foot identification sign and one wall FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 8 sign at 3 square feet. It means the neighborhood might have had a 24-square foot area identification sign and then each homeowner might get their name and address on the sign. It is common for multi-family properties to want additional wall signage beyond the 3 square feet. Sometimes they use temporary signs because they do not have wall signage permitted. Staff is recommending that we adopt a special section for R-3 properties allowing them to have one area identification sign or a"ground" sign of 24 square feet and wall signage and temporary signage similar to our commercial and industrial properties. That means the wall signage would be relative to that formula based on the size of the wall, and the temporary signage would be by permit through the process that is already outlined in the sign code. Mr. Hickok stated they would like to relocate the billboard section of the code that relates to both commercial and industrial sections. In the code it is in the industrial section with no reference to it in the commercial section. They would like to remove it and have a heading for billboards and put the language there. They would also like to eliminate area identification signs in commercial and industrial districts. Those districts currently allow one area identification sign. The intention behind this was to allow the area to be identified and then each business behind that area identification sign to have its own freestanding sign. Staff is suggesting that the area identification signs be taken out but the freestanding signs remain. Staff would recommend that if it is removed, a reference to the S-2 Redevelopment District be added. They would like to make a reference to S-2 and put it into the section that also includes public and planning unit development. The signs for these districts are controlled by the City Council through the project's master plan. Mr. Hickok stated with respect to updating the non-conforming language related to signs, State statutes were recently changed to allow non-conforming uses to continue to exist through repair or replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not expanded if use is damaged beyond 50 percent. New legislation also states that in order for that non-conforming use to continue to exist, a permit needs to be acquired within 180 days after the sign is damaged. Staff requests that we update the sign code to reflect the newly passed State legislation. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the City's sign code. These changes will not only provide benefits for institutions and businesses along the interstate, they will also help clean up some of the minor imperfections found in the City Code. Councilmember Barnette stated one of the issues he was concerned with was the church signage and the requests they received from two churches that were on major thoroughfares. He had a concern that all churches be treated fairly. He said they had also received a number of complaints over the years about real estate signs, open house signs and garage sale signs. Mr. Hickok replied Fridley Methodist is a good example. What this does is basically defines a spot on the site where it does not impact a neighbor immediately. Mr. Hickok stated regarding the real estate signs, people are entitled to have real estate signs on their property 10 feet back from either property line. On the corner for example, they could conceivably have a freestanding sign on the front of the property and the side of the property, set back 10 feet in. They can use open house signs and can even use those on the right-of-way, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 9 because they are self-regulating, they are self-policing, and they are only out during the open house. The signs that are not permitted are off-site signage. Regarding the proliferation of rummage sale signs in the summertime, our code and every code he has reviewed in the Twin Cities has some language in there about rummage sale signs. They think that code language is adequate and they have not sought to address that. Councilmember Wolfe said with respect to real estate signs, the way most companies do it now, they are buying relatively expensive directional signs to houses; and they are picking them back up. Councilmember Bolkcom said there is a church on Central that says no one can see them. She asked if they could they put up an 80 square foot illuminated sign. Mr. Hickok replied said they could but would need to follow all the code requirements for lighting. They could even go through the special use permit process to do an electronic message center. Councilmember Bolkcom said she thought they were being generous. It seems that there are very few cities that allow an 80 square foot sign in their communities. She is having a hard time with allowing it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the section on illumination. Mr. Hickok said it is under the section on Institutional Signage. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how staff would decide if a sign creates a glare. Mr. Hickok replied the "glare" piece is pretty standard to the City Code. Internally lit signs are deemed to not have horizontal glare. Say there is a nice carved wood sign and people want to put spotlights on it. Sometimes the spotlights are not adjusted properly so if a car is driving by the neighborhood residents might get a glare. It is pretty easy to see when you are out in the field. Staff does enforce it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a temporary sign can be as simple as taking a piece of paper and writing on it. Mr. Hickok replied temporary signs outside typically are not paper signs. They can have paper signs on their windows, as long as they do not cover more than 40 percent of their window. Often there are banners outdoors that might say something about a holiday. Staked in the ground or on the building with grommets and rope, that is more typical of a temporary sign. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she just wanted to have a sign that said `Bingo Tonight" and hang that up, does she need to have a permit? Mr. Hickok said she would need a temporary sign permit. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 10 Councilmember Bolkcom said she could have as many as she wants as long as she applies for them. She asked how long and how many time she could get one. Mr. Hickok replied it is spread out based on the number of businesses in a business district. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the wall sign. Mr. Hickok replied although it always gets a chuckle, it is probably one of the most effective ways for them to regulate sign size relative to the face that it is going on. What it does is put a skill to the sign that is relative to the sign face and, frankly, he has not seen an ordinance that he likes the wording better. It is easy to enforce as well. Councilmember Bolkcom stated with respect to the I-694 issue, the code would allow whatever new business that comes in on East River Road south of I-694 to put in a bigger sign. Mr. Hickok replied, yes. The intent was to make sure the new larger signs are between the building and highway and not on the residential side. Councilmember Billings asked under 214, Temporary Signage, the language for (5), Banners and Pennants was deleted. As he recalled in 1986 when that was put it, it was done to accommodate the `49er Days sign that was put across the street advertising 49'er Days. Also the church off Mississippi would use a banner to advertise Labor Day garage sale. The language was included to accommodate those types of signs. He asked if there was a provision included for those signs. Mr. Hickok replied a few years back, while Michael Servetus Church was putting up the banner over Mississippi, they nearly lost the person putting up the sign. It got caught in the wind, and almost pulled the employee off of the ladder/boom truck There is some liability that goes along with having a banner over the street, and so Council viewed that and discussed it and determined that it would no longer be permitted. The code does permit us to use whatever signs we feel is appropriate for public events. We can use the public right-of-way. Private entities like the churches cannot. Councilmember Billings stated regarding I-694, it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that they do not approve this particular section of changes. He asked what the primary objection was. Mr. Hickok replied they thought it was too much signage along the corridor and felt that our sign code provided adequate provisions for signage. They did not want to go the added dimension. Councilmember Billings stated when staff chose to draft the language relative to the right-of- way for I-694, did they consider drafting language that would be related to, say the centerline median of I-694, thus eliminating the wrap around at the intersections? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 11 Mr. Hickok replied there was some discussion about that, and he thinks it was deemed a bit difficult by staff to make those measurement distances from the centerline of the highway. Instead they chose properties that bordered I-694 but stop at a point where they felt it was out of view of the corridor along I-694. Councilmember Billings stated in addition, staff has chosen a definition of placing the sign between the building and I-694 but allowing whatever signage was on the site to remain. He asked if they considered the possibility of making this a replacement sign. In other words if they chose to use a I-694 overlay sign, would they have to give up the right to their other pedestal sign? Mr. Hickok replied they wanted to leave that to the discretion of Council. In their discussions with Council, they felt there was an interest in having an overlay possibly along I-694 but they also felt there needed to be a distinction. Councilmember Billings stated he knew that this particular section was actually initiated by Council. When it was presented to staff, it was presented as a dimension off of the centerline and it was also presented that the sign had to be within the defined overlay area, thus making it likely between the building and I-694. It was also suggested that if they opted to go for this large sign on I-694, they would give up their other pedestal sign on the site. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thought when they had originally listened to the language that it was going to be more related to how far off they were from 694. She does have a problem that there could be this big proliferation around 694 and with rather large signs. Councilmember Wolfe said there are only 6 or 7 businesses along the interstate. He did not have any problem with it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they are being very generous in the residential area related to churches. She is not against the signage, but she thinks there is such a thing as visual clutters. She said this is a little different from what she thought was originally proposed. Mr. Hickok stated he thinks that is fine that the measurement from the centerline of the right-of- way is just fine. There has to be some way they can articulate which properties would be entitled and which would not. Councilmember Billings stated regarding the area of billboards. They only have the changes before them in the ordinance, and it is hard to see how everything interrelates with everything else. It seems to him that their sign code prohibits new billboards being constructed. Mr. Hickok replied they are just moving it within the code and they are adding the non- conforming language. Other than that they have not changed the regulation at all. He would share that concern; they do not want to make it easier; they do not want to open up new properties that would not otherwise have been entitled. This does not do that. It just moves it to a different area of the Code so it has a distinct heading. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 12 Councilmember Billings asked if there was a current prohibition for new billboards being constructed. Mr. Hickok replied when you go through and look at the regulation as it is defined, finding a site you can actually put a billboard on is nearly impossible because it talks very specifically about where they can be. If you combine that with the zoning where it is permitted, and look thoroughly through our City, there really is no opportunity. A billboard company indicated that the only opportunity they saw was the BAE United Defense site based on how our ordinance was constructed, and BAE was not interested in having one there. Howard Helgen, 6180 Highway 65 NE, approached on behalf of St. Philip's Lutheran Church. He appeared before Council in January 2005 for a variance request for their property. Council denied that request by a 3-2 vote. At that time they were requesting permission to put up a 78 square foot sign but as he pointed out at that time, they are in a rather unique situation. They are not really similarly situated to the other churches in Fridley because they are zoned R-3 as a residential property, but they are located in a busy commercial area, around the corner of Highway 65 and West Moore Lake Drive. They had many pictures and photographs they showed them at that time which showed they are surrounded by large signs. Yet, by their residential zoning they are restricted to a 32 square foot sign. They were told the Council was going to be coming up with some other proposal for signs. Now they have a provision that says churches in Fridley would be allowed to use 80 square foot signs. He asked if the Planning Commission had recommended denial. Mr. Hickok said they had. Mr. Helgen said on behalf of St. Philips he is requesting that Council not go along with the Planning Commission. It does not make sense from their perspective to deny them to be able to put up a sign when they are basically located in a commercial area. He said they would request that St. Philip's be included in a highway sign district. He said their church has over 7 acres of property. If they look at the I-694 corridor proposal, a business that has 1-10 acres would be allowed to put up a 120 square foot sign. They are only allowed 32 square feet and, under the proposed ordinance, they would be allowed 80 square feet. So they are asking the Council to either adopt the 80 square foot provision that staff is recommending or they would really prefer they be a separate highway district that would allow businesses on the highway to be able to construct a reasonable sign. It is really a matter of what is a reasonable use of their property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated one other option they had was they could get the property rezoned. Mr. Hickok replied a rezoning would not get them over what is being granted. Mayor Lund stated about the highway overlay district, he thought there was some discussion about that. Councilmember Billings stated he thinks when he originally suggested this to staff, he suggested that they do an overlay district for highway-traveled streets. He thinks that after staff FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 13 analysis, staff determined that most of the churches are on East River Road, Mississippi Bouelvard, University Avenue, Highway 65, and 73rd Avenue, and by the time they got done doing one that was an overlay district relative to the traffic count, they would have essentially all of them. Staff was also concerned that they were treating the churches differently than the schools, so they decided to bring back the recommendation that they would just do it for all. That does not mean they are all going to put up 80 square feet signs. Some do not need that. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:06 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: 13. Variance Request, VAR #06-04, by Michael McPhillips, to Reduce the Side Yard Setback on a Corner Lot from 17.5 Feet to 6 Feet to Allow a Garage Addition, Generally Located at 291 Sylvan Lane N.E. (Ward 3). Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated petitioner is requesting the variance to allow the construction of a 264 square foot addition to the e�sting attached garage located at his residence. His hardship statement states as follows: "There is minimal traffic on University Avenue Service Drive north of Sylvan Lane. There is a stop sign on Sylvan Lane before entering the Service Drive eliminating sight problems that could be potentially caused by the new structure." Ms. Jones said the property in question is zoned R-1, Single-Family, as are all surrounding properties. The lot is rectangular shaped and fronts on Sylvan Lane. The home and garage were constructed in 1969. In 1986, an accessory structure was built on this property in the rear yard. The property owner obtained a special use permit as was required at the time for the second accessory structure. At the time it was approved, it was stipulated that a driveway did not need to be installed to the accessory structure, as long as the structure was not being used for motor vehicle storage. There is no evidence on the landscape currently that the structure is being used for motor vehicle storage. The City Code requires a 17-'/z foot side yard setback for all structures on a corner lot. The existing garage is approximately 18 feet from the side yard property line and meets City Code requirements. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 12' x 22' addition to the garage. That is to the depth of the existing garage, which would reduce the side yard setback to appro�mately 6 feet. The petitioner's property will continue to meet all other setback lot coverage and allotment of accessory structure requirements after the proposed garage addition is constructed. The proposed addition will be used for storage space of vehicles and other garage materials. City staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions. The City did grant a variance in 1990 to a property just a couple of blocks away from the subject property at 6261 Rainbow Drive. This variance was granted to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 17 '/z feet to 4'/z feet to allow the construction of a second detached accessory structure in line with the existing garage. The Appeals Commission held a public hearing on this variance request on April 26. The variance was FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 14 approved on a 3-1 vote. It was brought before Council because there was not a unanimous vote. Mr. Kuechle on the Commission voted in opposition because of a lack of hardship, noting there was a hardship in the 6261 Rainbow Drive variance because of widening of the University Avenue Service Drive. Since the Appeals Commission meeting, staff has confirmed the information provided by Mr. Kuechle. The house at 6261 Rainbow Drive was constructed in 1953. The University Avenue Service Drive was constructed in 1965 and likely took land from the side yard of 6261 Rainbow Drive. The house at 291 Sylvan Lane, however, was constructed in 1969 which was after the widening of the Service Drive. Ms. Jones stated the Appeals Commission did look at the language in State Statutes regarding hardship and studied and discussed the language at their meeting. Staff does recommend if the City Council does approve this variance, that they also request stipulations on the variance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was any place else this addition could be placed. Ms. Jones said it would be feasible for the petitioner to add onto his existing accessory structure in the rear yard. However, if he did, since he is planning on using this space for storage of motor vehicles, he would need to install a driveway and have additional curb cut on his property to that structure which currently does not have a driveway. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what kind of impact it would have on the neighborhood. Ms. Jones replied it would have less visual impact on the corner and that is the concern of the side yard setback, the vision safety. Councilmember Bolkcom said so the undue hardship is that he would have to have another curb cutting and another driveway to another accessory structure. Councilmember Wolfe said he things it would look nicer doing it the way the petitioner wants to do it. Councilmember Barnette stated he would have to have a curb cut off of the Service Road. To him this makes a whole lot more sense to add onto his existing garage with his existing driveway. Architecturally, visually, and reasonably, it makes sense to him to do what the petitioner is doing. Michael McPhillips, petitioner, stated if he added onto his shed and put in blacktop, he would loose some trees. He mentioned the other property mentioned involved the petitioner getting a double "detached" garage and he does not understand what the hardship was there. Councilmember Billings asked about the property immediately north of the petitioner. Mr. McPhillips replied that house faces east, or University Avenue. Councilmember Billings said so the garage in his yard would be ne�t to their side yard. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 15 Mr. McPhillips replied, yes. Councilmember Billings asked how far was the petitioner's property to the right-of-way. He asked how wide the boulevard was. Mr. McPhillips stated it is a 12-foot garage, 6.2 feet to the property line, and 9.3 feet to the curb. Councilmember Billings stated so the new place is going to be 15 feet to the curb. Mr. McPhillips replied, 15.5 feet. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve Variance Request, VAR #06-04, by Michael McPhillips, with the following two stipulations: Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and garage and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. Approve Roadway Major Maintenance Financing Policy. Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated this is policy on financing for major maintenance of City streets, commonly referred to as the assessment policy. He provided this to Council as an informational item some time back and has given them updates since. Essentially, this is for future street reconstruction. Once they complete their current focus on bringing all City streets up to the standard of concrete curb and gutter, it will continue the past policy of assessing 100 percent of the improvement cost for all properties except those zoned R-1 or R-2, the low-density residential properties and it provides for a new cost share formula for those residential-zoned properties. Major maintenance is defined as total or partial reconstruction of the streets plus mill and overlay type projects. Minor maintenance, which would not be assessed, would be crack sealing, sealcoat, pothole patching, and other asphalt repairs that they do on an ongoing basis. The R-1 and R-2 properties would be assessed on a per lot basis and would be assessed a total of 50 percent of the cost based on a standard street of 30-feet wide. What they would do is, if the street is only 30-feet wide which is the City standard, they would take half that total cost and divide by the number of lots involved. Any property that is addressed on a reconstructed or improved street would be counted in those that would pay an assessment. If the street was wider than the residential standard of 30 feet, any items that pertain to that would be reduced to the equivalent 30-foot wide street standard and the difference would be added to the City's cost. This is an averaging method so that other than the fluctuations in prices from year to year, residential properties are treated basically equal throughout the City. This is becoming the norm across the area. There are several cities that have done a standard street assessment. We would FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 16 prefer to use the actual cost each year as historically Fridley has. Any assessments are based on the real cost. We would have estimates of these costs at the time of the public hearing similar to what we do now, and adjust those based on actual costs after the project is completed. Mr. Haukaas stated utility repairs would not be assessed but rather paid for from the respective utility enterprise funds. They do take roadway reconstruction as the opportunity to repair water lines or sewer lines and make utility adjustments as necessary. They do have a current policy in place for major storm sewer extensions. Councilmember Wolfe asked if everyone would pay the same even if their lot were bigger. Mr. Haukaas said they would. For the most part in residential neighborhoods, everyone gets approximately the same benefit. One house is not getting all that much better of a deal because they have a little bit longer lot or a corner lot. Everyone uses it on average about the same. So they would like to go to a simpler, straightforward assessment policy. Councilmember Bolkcom stated so if she lives on a corner lot would she get assessed on her front yard and her side yard. Mr. Haukaas replied they would continue with the past history of assessing the address side. Councilmember Bolkcom stated in the policy under "definitions" it says property with frontage (rear, side, or front) along a roadway would be considered to receive benefit from any major maintenance projects. It seems to mean on a corner she could be assessed on both sides because she is a benefited party as she drives on both sides. Mr. Haukaas said that definition applies to not only residential but to commercial/industrial. They could further clarify that for those residential properties that it would be based on the address side. Dr. Burns asked what about a property that has two front yards. Mr. Haukaas replied that is similar situation to the corner lot, they would again apply the address side standard to a double front. Councilmember Billings asked if Council had approved something similar to this not too long ago or if they had just talked about it in a conference meeting. Mr. Haukaas said they presented the information at a conference meeting. Councilmember Billings commented the only real change in this is the wider than 30-foot streets section. Mr. Haukaas replied, yes. This is being brought to them as a policy and intended to be a guideline. It is not like an ordinance. The intention is that this applies to 99 percent of the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 17 properties. The other 1 percent special situations would be brought to them through a public hearing prior to starting the project. Councilmember Barnette asked if this policy changed the eventual cost of street reconstruction in comparison to what they have been doing in recent years. Mr. Haukaas replied actually when looking at the numbers, it does not change it too significantly. He said they have a mill and overlay projects this summer and should this be approved that project would be brought forward under the new policy. The project is located at Matterhorn Drive and the remainder of 73rd Avenue. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how he would like them to proceed. Mr. Haukaas replied they can wait and approve this at the ne�t meeting after the language has been added or approve it now contingent on that language being added. They will add language that states assessments are based on the roadway on the address side of residential properties. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table the Roadway Major Maintenance Financing Policy. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Resolution of the City of Fridley Terminating ICMA as the Administrator of the City of Fridley Deferred Compensation Plan and Authorizing the City of Fridley, Through its City Manager, to Enter Into Necessary Agreements to Hire Wells Fargo, N.A., to Administer the Plan. Councilmember Bolkcom said if they discontinue ICMA but are waiting for Wells Fargo would there be any danger because it is not going to happen until November. Dr. Burns replied they will still have the ICMA deferred compensation plan until they have completed the conversion. This establishes their intent to terminate the business arrangement with ICMA. The resolution was drafted by the City Attorney. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, stated the purpose of this resolution is to create and set a process by which the ICMA plan will be terminated. This action is the first step they need to take to terminate the plan and to create a seamless transition between that plan and the plan that has been proposed by Wells Fargo. Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director/Treasurer, stated this is a fairly lengthy process. They have a timetable right now and it is four pages long full of activities in this process. This actually initiates the process of termination. In this timetable, there is what is called a quiet period at the very end of the process where the contributions will cease for that period of time during the actual turnover of the assets between the two retirement corporations. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 18 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. 2006-24. Seconded by Councilmember Billings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Approve 2006 SCORE Grant Agreement for Recycling Program. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why it took so long for the agreement to come before Council. Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, replied there is no rush when they get these agreements to approve them until July. They do not get their first funding payment until July from the County. Councilmember Billings stated there was some discussion previously about their ability to use the funds that they are collecting for the sale of recyclable materials. He asked about the status of that. Ms. Jones replied that has not been worked out. Staff has been working with County staff and had asked if they could change their agreement or their funding policy to accommodate our situation. There were some delays in bringing this agreement forward because of that. They looked at their financial situation and have decided they will proceed to use the revenues from the recycling contract for special events by like the electronics drop off that happened in April and they will continue to do their best to qualify for as much, if not all of, the SCORE funds that we are qualified for. Unfortunately, we did not work out a situation with the County where we could completely balance our fund if we wanted to. They are moving forward with the agreement as written. Mr. Hickok said they analyzed whether it would be in the City's best interests to not sign the SCORE funding agreement and utilize our funds in a manner that would be appropriate for our citizens but would still maximize the dollars to the people without having all of the red tape and strings attached to SCORE funding. Staff determined they will continue to work with the County on SCORE funding. Ms. Jones stated staff felt in the long term that is it was in the City's best interests to continue our relationship with the County and work with them. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the tonnage from the City's special events counts towards the City's total tonnage. Ms. Jones replied, yes. She would say they have no problem making their goal in 2006 because of the tonnage they received at the last event. William Burns, City Manager, stated his recollection is the problem they had is that we are penalized by the County if we use the additional shared revenue from the hauler to cover some of our losses for the basic recycling program. The $60,000 plus they are getting from the County does not cover all of the recycling coordinator's salary. It covers only a percentage of the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 19 program's costs, and the County penalizes us if we try to use some of this revenue sharing money to cover this cost and save the general fund budget. Instead we have to come up with new projects above and beyond the scope of the recycling program. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would be beneficial for a couple of councilmembers to sit down with a couple County commissioners and discuss this. Dr. Burns said every effort would not hurt. Mayor Lund asked if the County commissioners ultimately made those decisions. Ms. Jones replied said they did. There certain County Commissioners are members of the Solid Waste Committee.. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the 2006 SCORE Grant Agreement for the Recycling Program. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive Bids and Award the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2006 — 1. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was concerned about some of the issues that are in the change order related to overruns. She asked if this project had any of those kind of issues. Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director, said we have resolved all of the issues with the Rice Creek Watershed District and they have given us a conditional approval. It is conditional because they do not award it to the City. They award it to the contractor. Until there is a contractor, they do not give their final approval. The contractor pulls the final permit and posts the bond with the Rice Creek Watershed District. The second issue is the construction administration, from our consultant, and with our change in staffing, we are actually handling that in-house. The only thing the consultant is providing is the construction surveying and staking because it is too large a job for us to handle in-house. All inspection and contract management will be handled by the City. The other contract that is referred to is the new contract for construction staking. Councilmember Bolkcom stated so some of the issues from they had at the last street project are basically resolved. Mr. Haukaas replied we believe they have been resolved. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive bids and award the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2006 — 1 to Park Construction Co. in the amount of $3,120,893.85. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 20 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Award Construction Survey Contract for 2006 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Proj ect. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to award the Construction Survey Contract for the 2006 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Project to SEH, Inc., for a not-to-exceed fee of $94,396.21. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Approve Contract Amendment with SEH, Inc. for Contract Administration and Inspection Services on the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the project. Mr. Haukaas said the original design cost was around $130,000. That is the front end and this is for the contract administration cost. It was probably in the range of $150,000 also. He does not like the costs, but he has gone over them with SEH in detail and believes they are justified costs. The driveway is a very minor issue; but it is something he wanted to include in this. It does not cost a whole lot to tear out and build a new driveway but those are the costs and they are stepping up on that one. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and the reason they are stepping up is because it was their design flaw to being with. Mr. Haukaas replied, yes. Councilmember Bolkcom stated he also mentioned the small items that were being worked on. She asked if that had anything to do with the contractor. Mr. Haukaas replied the contractor was still on site and, therefore, they had to have some construction supervision, but without those final approvals they were not getting any significant work done. They were doing some minor cleanup items on the other phases, minor repairs here and there, and those little things when they are being done at the same time as other major items. Councilmember Bolkcom stated so that was all sort of held up because of the Rice Creek Watershed. Mr. Haukaas replied the delays in the project are the primary cause of all of this. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they need to be aware that this caused a significant increase in our costs. She would like to have some reassurance or some letter sent saying what can be done to help the process along. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 21 Mr. Haukaas stated he has gone to the Board for the Rice Creek Watershed District and presented these same facts. Essentially, they said there were just telling us what in general we needed to do. Mayor Lund recalled this discussion probably this time last year that they were having significant problems. He thought it got resolved because somebody came up with the idea of the rain gardens. Mr. Haukaas said that was the solution and it cost not only the delays but the cost to build. Dr. Burns stated this is just the ancillary really that they are talking about. The project cost is well over $150,000. Mr. Haukaas stated, yes, not only the City of Fridley but several other cities. It is a whole other topic of discussion that they will be getting into over the summer. He has made them aware of what this is costing. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she did not think it would hurt for the City Council to send the Rice Creek Watershed District something saying they want to work together on this. Mayor Lund asked how much the driveway reconstruction was. Mr. Haukaas replied it has not been done yet. Mayor Lund asked if $1,000 would cover it. Mr. Haukaas replied, yes. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Contract Amendment with SEH, Inc. for Contract Administration and Inspection Services on the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was kind of concerned again, because they hired someone to help them figure all this out and then they do not really have the true cost. She asked if there was enough money to fix the problem. Mr. Haukaas replied these projects are bid so there is a certain dollar figure contracts have been issued on. Those contracts are issued on estimated costs, and he believes the amount is within that range. He said staff works with the consultants and they try to do it as economically as possible, but they cannot always evaluate every component without completely taking it out of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 22 service. During the design period they do not do this because the plants are still operational. It is one of these situations where, as long as you keep it running, it keeps running but, once you start taking things apart and replacing parts and shifting things around, they are at the point where they cannot handle that additional work on them. These were some unexpected things they found during that construction process. They try to do the best they can, but unfortunately these things do come up. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve Change Order No. 1 to the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. Reconsideration of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 105 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Landscape Maintenance. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to reconsider an ordinance repealing Chapter 105 of the Fridley City Code pertaining to landscape maintenance. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to table this item to a date to be determined. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15A. Informal Status Reports Councilmember Bolkcom wanted to thank the Parks Department, especially Jack Kirk and his group who helped out with the tree sale. She understands there are only seven trees left. Mr. Haukaas replied they have since called back the no-shows and believe they are down to two. They have a couple of people who are interested, so they will recoup all of their costs. Councilmember Bolkcom also wanted to thank all of the other volunteers who helped out on Friday with the trees. Councilmember Bolkcom said they will be planting a rain garden at Jay Park on Saturday, May 13 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., rain or shine. Mayor Lund said he thought the Stargazers event at the High School was very good. He encouraged people to attend ne� year's event. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2006 PAGE 23 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 10:09 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor