02/23/2009 - 4532�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to,
or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard
to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired
persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of January 26, 2009
City Council Meeting of February 9, 2009
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Approve Refund of Building Permit Fee for
6401 Central Avenue (Ward 2) ........................................................................ 1- 2
2. Resolution Requesting Approval of Special
Legislation by the Minnesota Legislature
(Housing Replacement Program) .................................................................... 3 - 12
3. Resolution Accepting a Donation on
Behalf of the City of Fridley (Onan
Homesite Portable Generator Series
6500 from Cummins Power Generation) ......................................................... 13 - 14
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
4. Motion to Approve Assigning the Water
Main Construction Work for Project
ST2009-01 University Avenue West
Service Drive and Sylvan Hills
Rehabilitation Under a Separate
Contract Identified as Utility Project
No. 386 ........................................................................................................... 15
5. Motion to Authorize Staff to Advertise for
Bids for the 2009 Well Redevelopment
Project No. 385 (Wells 11 and 13) ................................................................. 16
6. Appointment of City Employees ...................................................................... 17
7. Claims (140629 — 140783) ............................................................................. 18
8. Licenses .......................................................................................................... 19 - 20
9. Estimates ........................................................................................................ 21
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda — 15 minutes.
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Informal Status Report ....................................................................................... 22
ADJOURN.
CITY OF COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
JANUARY 26, 2009
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 Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of January 5, 2009.
Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009.
BOTH MINUTES WERE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Extension of Variance Request, VAR #06-01, for Totino-Grace High School, to
Increase the Height of the School Building from 30 Feet to 48 Feet for the
Renovation of the School Auditorium, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue
NE (Ward 2).
William Burns, City Manager, stated the height variance for reconstruction of the high school
auditorium was initially approved in January 2006. Council gave them a one-year extension in
March 2007. Given the difficulties with fundraising, they are asking for an additional extension
of the variance until January 23, 2010. Staff recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 2
2. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other
Local Use (85t'' Avenue Trail Project) (Ward 3).
William Burns, City Manager, stated the MSAS funding will be used to pay for the local match
on this project estimated at $175,000. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-06.
3. Resolution Approving and Authorizing Signing an Agreement with Sergeants of the
City of Fridley Police Department for the Years 2008 and 2009.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the City began contract negotiations with the police
sergeants in the fall of 2007. After failure to reach a final agreement on terms during
negotiations and at mediation, the Union filed for arbitration with the Bureau of Mediation
Services. The arbitration hearing was held on November 18, 2008. The arbitrator, Richard J.
Miller, upheld the City's position on nearly all disputed items in the contract. The wage and
benefit terms of the contract are the same as the terms in the current police patrol contract. They
also enable the City to maintain wage and benefit uniformity with other employee groups for
both 2008 and 2009. The cost of the contract for both years is $36,000. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-07.
4. Approve Revised Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council (JLEC)
has been in existence since 1970. The multi jurisdictional body provides direction and oversight
for a variety of county-wide law enforcement functions that benefit from cooperative action. It
oversees the county-wide provision of dispatching services, joint records management, county-
wide law enforcement training, and emergency management. The amended agreement serves to
combine several separate j oint powers agreements into one comprehensive 7LEC agreement.
There are no additional Fridley funds or responsibilities associated with these changes. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
3. Claims (140137-140439)
APPROVED.
4. Licenses
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 3
5. Estimates
Shank Constructors, Inc.
3501 — 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Filter Improvements
Proj ect No. 379
Estimate No. 3 ................................................$49,293.00
Standard Sidewalk
10841 Mankato Street N.E.
Blaine, NIN 55434
2008 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
Proj ect No. 375
Estimate No. 6 ................................................$ 570.15
APPROVED.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to remove the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of
January 5, 2009; the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009; and Item
Nos. 1 and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of the minutes
and Item Nos. 1 and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
Ryan Pobuda, 144 Satellite Lane NE, stated he is very concerned about speeding traffic on the
road. There are quite a few people who work in the area near Main Street, who tend to fly
through the neighborhood. He has small children and his neighbor has a small dog. They cannot
even be in their front yard. He put out a small "children at play" sign. It does not stop people.
He asked that either a speed bump be placed there or even a police officer watch the area.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 4
Mayor Lund asked if he had spoken with the Police Department.
Mr. Pobuda replied he had not.
Mayor Lund said he would mention it to the Police Department and have the neighborhood
resource officer contact him.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they can put the speed board out there.
Mayor Lund said Mr. Pobuda was not the first one who has complained.
PUBLIC HEARING:
8. Consideration of the 2009 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01.
MOTION by Commissioner Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and
open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:42.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated notice of the meeting was published in the last
two issues of the Sun Focus. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments from the
affected owners on the proj ect and future special assessments. In 2006, the City Council
approved a major maintenance financing policy for roadways and this guides our establishment
of special assessments for this resurfacing project.
Mr. Kosluchar stated it is the fourth year under the City's assessment policy for our major
maintenance of streets that have concrete curb and gutter. The project area is University Avenue
West Service Drive and local streets in Sylvan Hills. These locations were prioritized in 2008
upon recommendation of Engineering staf£ On January 21, 2009, a public workshop was held
and approximately 50 owners were in attendance. The program will continue to maintain our
streets. What we are trying to do by overlaying the streets is maintain them in such a way that
we do not have to reconstruct the base material and not get into a more expensive repair later.
This project has been initiated to rehabilitate the asphalt surface in these two locations. We have
targeted necessary water main repair on University Avenue West Service Drive.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the City inspects pavement quality annually and updates information and
uses this to select projects for major maintenance. The University Avenue West Service Drive
has commercial traffic and is our poorest state aid corridor. We are looking at water main
replacement from 73rd to Osborne Road. We do an open cut and replace cast iron with ductile
iron. We are also looking at alternatives in engineering, including pipe bursting and directional
borings which allow us to replace the main with less surface disruption. There are no special
assessments proposed for the water main work It is paid out of the utility fund.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 5
Mr. Kosluchar stated the feasibility report identified the costs and approximate budget that is
available. It is very close to being wholly funded. The proposed assessment has two different
calculations. One is for non R-1 and non R-2 non-residential. This is for basically
commercial/industrial properties. The assessable footage is measured for each property. The
project non-assessable footage is deducted from the project costs, then all those assessable
footages are added together, and it is divided out. Basically the assessable construction is the
entire portion to center line from the abutting property. The cost per lineal foot for the project is
about $44. Under our policy, we assess 50 percent to the non R-1 and R-2 properties which is
approximately $22.
Mr. Kosluchar stated looking back at historic assessment rates for resurfacing projects, they
range from $20-$30 per lineal per foot. We are on the low end. Part of that is due to the width
of the street. Part of the reason that it is higher proportionately is because of current prices. We
are a little guarded on the estimates right now.
Mr. Kosluchar stated for the residential properties assessment, the project costs are totaled and
there is a deduction for public properties, parks, and those kinds of things. Corner lots are
assessed on one side only. The assessment is calculated dividing the total remaining project
costs by the number of residential property units. Twin homes and double bungalows contribute
the equivalent of two properties even if they only have one PIN.
Mr. Kosluchar stated basically each residential unit has an equal property assessment with the
exception of a few unique property assessments, 6348 and 6390 Satellite Boulevard are
recommended for partial assessments. This is pro-rated because a portion of those were
reconstructed under the 2008 street reconstruction project. We would obviously deduct that
footage and prorate their assessment. The property at 6111 Star Lane is assessed as non R-1/R-2
property. It is an apartment complex, so it is commercial.
Mr. Kosluchar showed options for paying the City's special assessments. There can be a lump
sum payment within 30 days of the final assessment hearing; it can be added to the property
taxes that are paid over 10 years, including interest which is typically 6-7 percent; or there is an
option for seniors meeting certain criteria. They can have assessments deferred until the sale of
their property. Looking at a 10-year payment plan for the estimated $950 residential assessment
at 6 percent interest, the payments would range annually from $152 to about $100 in the l Otn
year.
Mr. Kosluchar said they will be trying to do the bid letting on March 17 and will be
constructing during this summer.
Mervin Herrmann, 278 Mercury Drive, stated he lived at his address when the first street went
in. At that time, they were told they would be assessed only one time and after that it would be
maintenance, even the replacement of another street. He felt this should come out of the street
fund which he thinks is supported by tax money. When it was first built, he worked for the City
and worked on the assessment. They were assessed for the street and curbing. It was one of the
first projects that went in with concrete curb. He said he talked to Mr. Otteson and Mr. Pribyl,
and it was agreed that they had actually been assessed for the blacktop streets and concrete.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 6
Therefore, he feels this would be like maintenance more than rebuilding of the street. He said
they were told they would never be assessed.
Mayor Lund stated there are no assessments for any utility work, like the water main they are
talking about in certain areas. In 2008 they finalized the completion of the City's street
reconstruction program which included those older streets that did not have curb. Now we are
into the mill and overlays on the oldest streets built in 1962. Mr. Hermann's street has the status
of being in the worst condition of the streets in Fridley. This is not a new policy. It is the fourth
year of this special policy for this type of work.
Councilmember Barnette stated he thought he did tell Mr. Hermann the only thing he paid for
was curb and apologized if he misled him.
Mr. Kosluchar stated records they looked at showed that the street was assessed along with the
curb and gutter in 1962.
Mr. Hermann stated it may have been a year or so later, but the number of the job is "62."
There was no street of any kind, and because the developer had not done it, we had to pay for it.
William Burns, City Manager, asked if there was a record of the City promising that there
would never be another assessment.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, no.
Mayor Lund said you can either pay more each year to build up the street funds in Fridley or
reassess when the time arises. Now we are back to doing mill and overlays where we grind up
the asphalt and put in a new layer. If we do not do that, we will have deteriorating roads with
more potholes.
Mr. Hermann stated he realizes how the whole thing works, but the thing he looks at is he was
paying taxes and everybody else in his area for the other areas where they did not have to pay for
the street because they had it paved. Now he said they do not get help from taxpayers. We have
to pay the total bill on our own. He said he is not against the project.
Councilmember Bolkcom said he is getting help from taxpayers. State aid money is going
towards this project.
Mr. Hermann said after they initially did the job, it should have been charged to maintenance,
which should have been coming out of the street fund instead of special assessments to the
people who live on those streets.
Mayor Lund stated this is not the first year since the change in the City's policy. We do not
have the funds to continue perpetual maintenance of mill and overlay for the 100 plus miles of
street.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 7
Greg Smith, 180 Sylvan Lane NE, stated he is for the proj ect. Fridley does a great j ob with the
streets. That is why he lives here. He said he thinks what most of the people here were really
trying to get at was why us and why now. Mr. Kosluchar had stated that Sylvan Lane was one of
the worst streets that needed to be done. He asked who was the worst. He asked if Sylvan Lane
was going to be the only project area?
Mayor Lund stated for 2009, yes. He showed the map and pointed out the red areas, and said
Mr. Smith's area was all red. The red areas are the worst. Staff does an annual review of the
streets to see conditions. There are a lot of little red areas and those people would pay a huge
extra cost because of the smallness of the project. We try to include a number of streets. Why
now? Because last year was the end of the reconstruction of the oldest streets in Fridley that did
not have curb. That was how it was easily identified. A lot of them had the old asphalt curb.
Now we are looking at projects that we have been postponing because we only get so much state
aid. There is a cap, and to best utilize the cap from the state aid is to not make the projects too
big.
Mr. Smith stated he thinks the main idea with people in Sylvan from what he has herd was the
issue of the economy. He asked if there was other ways to pay it rather than all at once.
Mayor Lund stated they could pay within 30 days or do the 10-year assessment at about a 6 to 7
percent interest rate. If you are a senior citizen with some restrictions on income, then you do
not have to pay the assessment but most of the interest does accrue until the assessment is paid.
The economy is down. He believes we are getting favorable contractor rates now.
Dr. Burns stated he spoke with Mr. Kosluchar about options. If Council is willing to consider it,
one option that sounds reasonable to him is to hold the assessment over unti12010. There would
be some City expense, some lost interest revenue of $7,000 to $8,000. However, above and
beyond that it is possible to do a project this year, not assess by November 30 or whenever the
County requires, and then implement the assessment the following year. That would give
property owners one year to come up with the first payment on the assessment.
Mayor Lund said he is not against that option, but would like to think about it. He is
apprehensive about two things. First, if we did postpone the assessments for a year and there is
about a$7,000 to $8,000 interest borne by the taxpayers, he does not necessarily know if he
wants to set a precedent for that although the economic times are probably somewhat unique. He
asked if the $7,000 to $8,000 the City incurred would be taxed onto the property owners'
assessments.
Dr. Burns replied he did not think so. The one down side is you are doing something different
than what they did with the Gardena people in 2008. However, maybe they could also justify it
by saying that conditions are different from what they were in 2008.
Mayor Lund stated this is the fourth year of these types of projects and this type of assessment.
Dr. Burns stated one of the things we really have to be careful of is consistency. We have to
treat people the same.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 8
Mr. Smith asked how about spreading the payment on it. Putting it on your first half taxes and
your second half taxes.
Mayor Lund stated it is being spread. It is a 10-year payback that will be split on the two
payments anyways.
Mr. Smith asked if it is going to be split onto two payments.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is if you do not pay it up front.
Mayor Lund said it would be for 10 years at a 6 percent approximate interest rate. The yearly
amount would be split in half, in six-month increments.
David Landes, owner of commercial property at 250 Commerce Circle, stated their address is
actually on the street that is parallel to University. He is not sure what part of their property
would have the new street.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed it is the back half of his property. He asked what the name
of the business was.
Mr. Landes replied, Custom Graphics. He asked whether it is not the part that is parallel to
University.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, it is just west of University.
Mr. Landes asked whether businesses are assessed at a higher rate per foot than residents?
Mr. Kosluchar replied that is correct.
Mr. Landes asked it their streets cost more than residential streets.
Mr. Kosluchar replied generally there is added width and added traffic due to it being
commercial property.
Mr. Hickok asked Mr. Landes what streets his business was between.
Mr. Landes replied between the park and the circle. He said they were being assessed
approximately $7,000.
Mr. Kosluchar stated he would be assessed for the east side of the property.
Mr. Landes stated they have a problem with access to their dock Their access is narrow.
Would this be a good time to look into getting the opening changed?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, absolutely, that is the connection to the existing street. Now is a good
time to talk about it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 9
Councilmember Barnette asked if it is Mr. Landes' or the City's responsibility.
Mr. Kosluchar stated any improvements that you do on your property is going to be at your
cost. He would want to change the cut of the driveway. There is an island that divides the in and
out and he would need the City to approve the narrowing of that island and widening of the
opening so trucks have an easier swing.
Mayor Lund stated it looks like that is something staff should probably look at.
Tom Dold, owner of the double bungalow at 6110 Star Lane, said Star Lane had been
resurfaced, not necessarily torn up and resurfaced, but some gravel has been put on it recently.
He knows we have had some upgrades on the curbs recently. When he drives around Sylvan
Hills and drives from 61st to 57th, there are extremely bad streets in any of those neighborhoods
with the exception of Third Street. He cannot figure out how Sylvan Hills can be in worse shape
than that neighborhood right now. If you drive Main Street from 61st to 57th the roads are in
tough shape. He disagrees with the assessment that Sylvan Hills is the worst neighborhood in
Fridley right now.
Mayor Lund stated 61st actually is in poor condition in his opinion, too, and so is Main Street.
The reason why they are not factored in on this project is because of the pending Northstar
station site there. He would hate to see to have that improved this year with the construction
traffic and things. Also, there may be some changes to the street that need to be made.
Mr. Dold said there were other streets from Main Street to University going south of 61st
Avenue.
Mayor Lund asked, so he is talking about 2"d Street and 2'/z Street.
Mr. Dold replied, yes. Those streets are all in worse shape than anything he has seen on Sylvan
Hills. He does not understand the logic of what constitutes poor condition vs. poorest condition.
Mr. Dold said he was also concerned regarding the double assessment for the double bungalows.
He said he thought the only double bungalows in the Sylvan Hills area are on Star Lane. There
are three properties on Sunrise Drive that take up more linear feet than the first two double
bungalows which he and his brother own. He does not mind being assessed somewhere but
thinks it unfair they are being assessed twice as much as any one of those homes.
Mayor Lund asked how many families are living on Star Lane. There is one family in that
home yet they have a longer frontage. Mr. Dold has a double bungalow with two families in it.
It is probably reasonable to assume that there is probably more usage with two families using
those roads and, therefore, the benefit.
Mr. Dold stated across the street at 6111 which is being assessed as R-1/R-2, there are 24
families living in that building. He asked if they were being assessed 24 times.
Mayor Lund asked if it was an apartment building.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 10
Mr. Dold replied, yes.
Mayor Lund stated the apartment complex is paying the commercial rate and, as he heard from
another commercial property, they are paying a much higher assessment. He asked Mr.
Kosluchar if they had an amount.
Mr. Kosluchar stated on the mock assessment roll our estimated assessment is about $6,000 on
that property.
Mr. Dold replied his is $1,900 for his double bungalow. Between himself, his brother, and the
next neighbor, they have three properties for a total of six units. They are paying the same
amount as an apartment complex. That is where the assumption falls apart that there is that much
more usage. It is just not fair.
Mayor Lund asked if it was more fair to do the linear footage assessment on the three
properties.
Mr. Dold replied they would be getting a better deal than what they are already getting because
it costs $6,000 for an apartment complex that takes the entire half of Star Lane and the other half
is maybe half a dozen properties. He is just saying that with the amount of usage, that
calculation falls short with the apartment complex in his opinion. He would not mind and would
prefer it if the City would at least consider, instead of two times assessment for a double
bungalow or duplex, perhaps 1.5 times assessment to try and equal this out. If they are charged
1.5 times as a duplex it would actually be exactly the same amount as the property behind them
on Sunrise Drive. There are not many properties that would require that assessment.
Mayor Lund stated he has a point.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated after the neighborhood meeting she went away with the
thought, does it make it sense to do something like this, this year, considering that we may be
close to a depression. What is the cost of waiting and doing the proj ect next year?
Mr. Kosluchar stated the cost will be minimal to delay it a year as long as it is programmed in.
If you start falling behind one cycle, then it is going to build up and the cost will build up over
time. If you let it go a year and double it up with another year's project, then we are probably
pretty limited. We will have the maintenance again this year to do, and we did some expensive
maintenance, and did some skin patching.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked where the state aid came from.
Mr. Kosluchar replied that is gas tax funding.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there are any changes we would have to make going in and
out of that neighborhood related to the commuter rail.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 11
Mr. Kosluchar replied they had some discussions on that internally. He met with Mr. Hickok
and they talked about the rail station. Mr. Hickok gave him some history. It is his understanding
that there is some mitigation built in to try and keep traffic out of the neighborhood. One of the
things that came out of that meeting as well is the existing cut-through traffic. What it boils down
to with this project is we would not be implementing any of those measures over and above. In
other words, we would not narrow a street to make it one way. We would sign it one way, it
would be one way, and there would be parking on both sides. To go to the added cost to narrow
the street at this point would probably be excessive.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would hurt to put in a median. We had a fair amount of
discussion years ago when we first started talking about commuter rail and that was one of the
biggest concerns that neighborhood had. Similar to the concerns when Christenson Crossing was
built. She asked Mr. Kosluchar if he felt there had to be any design changes to the road itself, and
are we not hurting anything by doing this? We sure would look foolish if we did something in
this neighborhood and then came back and changed the roads.
Mr. Kosluchar replied right offhand he did not think so. They would like some time to look at
that, too. There is some time. We will be into May before construction is started.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is amazed at how much a commercial property is assessed,
i.e., Bob's Produce and Dunn Brothers. They are looking at $16,000. She knows that $950 is
huge to a resident, too.
Mr. Kosluchar replied the $16,000 is actually two parcels. They spoke with Mike Schroer. He
understood the need for the project. His issue was more of timing. At this time, it is not good
for him.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the idea Dr. Burns was talking about would include the
commercial properties.
Dr. Burns said that was for the whole proj ect.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated regarding the comments about Second and Third Street, she
asked if part of the reason for the delay on these streets is we were waiting for more homes to be
built there. We do not want to do a proj ect in a neighborhood where we are still building homes.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied, Third Street was completed up to 60tn
Avenue last year. The first part of the work was done and it was left that way while construction
was happening on the northern block so that construction equipment moving in and out would
not take a toll on a finished surface. Near the end of last summer the second lift got put down on
Third. As for 2'/z and Second Street, he is not really well-versed on those conditions.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated a couple of those streets are bad but, again, maybe some of the
traffic patterns related to the commuter rail might change what we are doing there. She asked if
staff had spoken with Bob's Produce and some of the other commercial properties about working
late at night. She asked if it would increase costs.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 12
Mr. Kosluchar stated they actually talked about it with Mike Schroer of Bob's Product, and the
cost is not excessive. They are talking with some contractor right now. They think it is a really
good option.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are placing notices on mailboxes.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, as he understands it we place them in the mailbox when we cannot get
to a door conveniently.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is not legal. You cannot put political information or
anything in them so it might be a practice we want to stop doing. At the third hearing she heard
Mr. Otteson talk about an inch and a half of asphalt costs about $900 and an additional half inch
costs $300 more. They want to do this project and they want it to last. She asked if they were
putting two inches down.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we are working on that. Obviously we want to do what is right and what
is going to last for the neighborhood, but we also want to do it with sensitivity to the economy.
It is not a one size fits all for all the streets. Some of the streets are built thicker. Some have a
thicker base. We are going through a little more analysis to try and control costs.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if we are going to be spending the taxpayers' money, we
should at least look at whether they should be spending the extra for the additional asphalt. She
also asked if we have had any duplexes or double bungalows in any of the rest of our street
improvement proj ects.
Mr. Kosluchar replied not that he is aware of.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is truly spelled out in our roadway and major maintenance
financing policy. Does it address bungalows and duplexes?
Mr. Kosluchar replied it is more generic than that. It talks about the use. In other words, if the
property is used as two units, then it is assessed as two units. If Council wanted to get more
specific about amending the policy, we could do that.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like them to go back and see what we have done
and if there have been any double bungalows or duplexes.
Mayor Lund stated and it is always tough. He is not against looking at it. He thinks Mr. Dold
does bring up some valid points. He does not want to be making policy changes that now
become exceptions. We have to be very careful we have some consistencies in the policies and
are not changing them mid-stream.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated when she left the neighborhood meeting and someone came up
to her and said why this year, why not do anything this year, she could see their point. She is a
little concerned about delaying it for a year and then next year if the stock market goes down "X"
amount of points, do we then put it onto the next year. We have to be careful in that respect, too.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 13
Mayor Lund stated he agrees and understands the hardships for a lot people. Nobody knows
what the future will hold. He is a little apprehensive about delaying the project because we do
not know if things will come around in a year and what the price of oil will be. There are a lot
of "ifs."
Dr. Burns said we planned this project before the State decided to do University Avenue in
2009. The State will be coming in and doing milling and overlaying on University Avenue
between some point south in Columbia Heights and some point north around Northtown. He did
not think we want to do our project in conjunction with theirs. He asked Mr. Kosluchar whether
we are going to have enough leeway there to get our proj ect separated from the MnDOT proj ect.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed we will. At this time we do not have a firm schedule from
MnDOT. They are working with our contractor to get the contract approved and signed. At that
point they are going to sit down and work out a detailed schedule. His understanding of the
project is that it is going from 40th Avenue all the way to 610. The University segment we are
talking about here is probably a pretty small portion. They will probably be in that vicinity for a
month or so. He is confident we can work around that. If we do not believe it is feasible for us
to construct around them, then we will come back to Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when we would know. It would be great if they would tear
down the fence and start mowing at the same time.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we are hoping to know within the next month.
Mayor Lund stated Dr. Burns brought up a point. He was wondering if there would be any
potential cost savings for us in running the project in conjunction with the State's mill and
overlay. Have we spoken with the State engineer regarding any potential savings?
Mr. Kosluchar replied he thinks there are some issues of jurisdictional control, and he does not
think the State would want to be bothered, as this is a little project to them. He thinks the City
stands to have potential savings because the State project is ongoing and they receive better bids
not only from the contractor that is in line for that work but the other contractors.
Mr. Pobuda asked with this proj ect, next year, are 2"d Street and 2'/z Street going to be assessed
as well? Would it make sense to lump that in since it is basically a block away? If the City is
going to have a contractor bid, would it not be less money assessed to the taxpayers?
Mayor Lund asked whether staff has looked at this.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we have not yet analyzed our inspections from 2008. This project was
designated based on the 2007 inspections. We will be looking at it. He knows that basically all
the streets are on our radar. They have been concentrating on the MSA routes, so he knows 61st
Avenue is designated for 2010 right now. It makes sense to connect some of those streets.
Mr. Pobuda asked regarding the Northstar station that is being built, how much are they picking
up as far as rebuilding Main Street and 61st Avenue?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 14
Councilmember Barnette replied none.
Mr. Pobuda stated so then it is back on the taxpayers.
Mayor Lund stated there are the MSA state aid monies. Regarding 61st Avenue west of
University, that was potentially earmarked in 2007, but we purposely delayed that because we
did not want to put a new street in and then have the contractor come in and tear it up if they
were bringing in the tunnel that way or East River Road. It may make good sense to look at 2"a
Street and 2'/z Street and other streets south of 61st Avenue since we are looking at north of 61st
Avenue now. As the Public Works Director mentioned, they have not looked at the reviews of
this past summer yet. They are identifying those here later on for 2010. If we do not keep up
with the streets it just means we get further behind.
Mr. Pobuda stated he is in agreement that it has to be done. He would rather pay now then later
because eventually paying later you are going to pay more money in the long run. As far as
owning a rental property, you are making income on that. In his eyes they could actually charge
more.
Councilmember Bolkcom said if state aid funds are cut, would this project go away? If they cut
our funding this year, would it stall this project?
Mr. Kosluchar stated it would be substantially cut back.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but we would still do it.
Mr. Kosluchar replied a portion of it could be done. If state aid funds were taken away
completely, probably very little.
Mayor Lund stated he doubts they would take it away this year, knowing cities have already let
their projects or assigned contracts.
Mr. Dold stated he is an advocate of not delaying this project. However, he has been listening to
a lot of the grand scheme the current administration has in place to revitalize the economy and
put money into infrastructure. If any money ever came to the State and was handed back to the
City of Fridley, would that assessment go away? Is there any chance that assessments like this
would get paid for by that kind of stimulus?
Mayor Lund replied, absolutely not. If there was any money given back, it would be for public
works proj ects and state bridges. It is not going to come down to us.
Mr. Herrmann stated regarding putting the 2-inch overlay, he knows that is one-third more and
basically this thing is going to cost a third more. There are a lot of constant costs involved.
Therefore, he feels that it should not come up more than maybe $150 instead of the $300 because
of the constant costs that are in there. He wished Mr. Kosluchar would look into that. He will
not outlive the street as it is, but he feels this business is still good business. If it would cost like
$150 more, he would still be for it even though he would never benefit from it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 15
Mayor Lund replied we are going to try and get the best deal we possibly can get without
spending any more money on behalf of any of the taxpayers or ourselves.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks he is saying he is all for us doing 2 inches vs. 1'/z
inches if it only costs a little bit more money.
Mr. Hermann stated it may cost a little more. But that it would cost a third more, he cannot go
along with that.
Ray Lenzen, Housing Director at Banfill Crossing, a senior building at 8310 University Avenue,
stated they definitely are all for the project. They have a few concerns about safety of their
residents with driving while the work is being done on the Service Road as well as the work
potentially on University Avenue that the State already contacted them about. They are going to
have a meeting about more traffic being diverted onto the Service Road. One thing they are
concerned about with their residents is walking over to Wal-Mart. The curve is very dangerous
coming from Wal-Mart to their building. Last year there was a fatally accident that happened
there with a vehicle and a garbage truck Originally when Banfill had developed they had the
potential of having a sidewalk from Banfill all the way over to Wal-Mart. He does not know
what happened and was not there back then. They would like that looked into if possible.
Mayor Lund asked if they were willing to pay for the sidewalk?
Mr. Lenzen stated they are already being assessed $11,000. He knows that part of it was
Wal-Mart was not willing to pay for it.
Mayor Lund said they would look at it.
Mr. Lenzen stated Banfill Crossing is owned by a non-profit organization and they have already
put their budget in for approval. They did not get any of the information about the assessment
until after their budget was approved through the board. This year they told the residents they
were not going to raise rents because of the economy. That definitely was a burden to them but
yet they are still willing to do it. If they are able to defer it to the next year as was mentioned,
that would help them to not have such a big loss.
Mayor Lund confirmed their approved budget is for 2009?
Mr. Lenzen replied, yes.
Mayor Lund stated the actual assessment will occur in November. Then they have 30 days. It
is possible to defer it to the 2010 budget. They can pay it off early if they want to pay it in one
lump sum. They may pay for interest just going into 2010.
Dr. Burns stated the assessment does not apply unti12010.
Mayor Lund told Mr. Lenzen he could deal with staff on that payment issue.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 16
Mayor Lund stated we could certainly have a discussion and look at that possibility. It makes
sense, if nothing else, on the safety issue. We will do our best to try and make some type of
accommodation for the amount of pedestrian traffic coming from the apartment complex.
Councilmember Varichak asked what is done with the leftover asphalt? We used it from the
other street proj ect at Community Park.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we will not be generating nearly as much with this type of project. We
are going to be skimming off 1'/z to 2 inches of pavement. That asphalt actually gets trucked
back to the asphalt plant, recycled, and used again.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:09 P.M.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when they would have the discussion about the assessment,
costs, benefits and other issues raised.
Dr. Burns said some issues have been brought up. He asked if it would be appropriate to bring
it back in the pre-meeting on February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but will that stop us from ordering the plans? That would
delay the proj ect.
Mayor Lund asked what the timeline was. Would it negatively impact the project if we delayed
taking action until the next Council meeting?
Mr. Kosluchar stated he would recommend to Council that they be allowed to continue on with
plans as they are going to be constructing and developing the two roadways, whether we do it
now or later.
Mayor Lund stated questions can still be brought up at the pre-meeting before the next Council
meeting on February 9. If Council wants to stop the project, we still have that out.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the whole discussion about delaying assessments is a huge
policy issue. She asked how the people at tonight's meeting would find out the results. We also
have issues regarding the 1'/z vs. 2 inches, deferred assessment and the cost to the City as a
whole, and duplex vs. the bungalow vs. the apartments.
Dr. Burns said if they could answer the question on the deferral of the assessment until 2010
perhaps we can wait until later to get the other questions answered.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she thought they needed to have a discussion.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 17
Dr. Burns asked Mr. Kosluchar what damage would be done to the timetable if they tabled the
resolution ordering final plans and postponed it until February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they needed to do that. The only thing we are going out for
are plans and specifications and estimates. That has nothing to do with the special assessment,
does it?
Dr. Burns replied, right, we are not getting committed to the proj ect; but we are getting
committed to the expense of going for the plans and specifications.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked she does not think anyone disagrees the project needs to be
done; but it is whether we defer the assessment and how we assess.
Mr. Kosluchar stated they are on two independent tracks. There is a design track and a
construction track If Council is entertaining proceeding with the project, then we will
recommend they pass the resolution regardless of how they want to handle the assessment. That
is something that can be discussed at a future meeting.
Dr. Burns asked if there is another step in the assessment process before awarding the bid for
the contract.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if letters could be sent out after this was discussed.
Dr. Burns replied that would make sense.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney if they were doing anything they should not
be doing, as long as we are going to eventually have the actual hearing on the assessment in
October or whenever it might be.
Attorney Knaak answered you are not doing any harm by doing this, because ultimately it is the
decisions you make at that latter meeting that would matter.
OLD BUSINES:
9. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA
#05-03, by JLT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East River Road)
(Ward 3) (Tabled January 5, 2009).
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated on September 12, 2005, Council
approved the first reading of the rezoning to C-3, General Shopping, from M-2, Heavy Industrial,
for the property at 5601 East River Road. At that time Council also approved this condition on a
24-month timeframe.
Mr. Hickok stated at Council's last meeting they did ask some very good questions of the
developer and staff and some assignments were given about things like the uniqueness of this
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 18
request relative to other rezoning requests that might occur. There was a question about an
easement with a neighboring property owner that Council expressed an interest in wanting to
know more about having an easement document in place by the time this came back.
Modifications to the architectural standards for the development were discussed and a parking
layout for the development.
Mr. Hickok stated the uniqueness to the request is very important. Council asked what made
this site different. This is the largest undeveloped parcel left in the City of Fridley. It is over 26
acres including the little entrance piece to the north. The parcel is zoned right now as M-2,
Heavy Industrial, and one is guided Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. In the Council's
recent amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Council did choose to amend this to
Commercial as opposed to Industrial as the guide plans for this property. Also the property is
being requested to be rezoned Commercial and by Council's first reading that did give an
indication, not only for the developer, but to the viewing public that there was an interest to bring
this forward as a Commercial development area as opposed to continuing it as an Industrial area.
Mr. Hickok stated part of that 24-month extension was to bring back the project, and economic
conditions, for one, caused the developer to ask for a number of extensions. To conclude on the
uniqueness of the request, this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial. It has
had its first reading for rezoning. It is the largest undeveloped parcel. Those conditions are hard
to match. Council has its broadest discretion to rezone, but boils down to the simplest question,
is it a proper Commercial district? From staff's perspective, this is a site that is best used as a
commercial site.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding the easement with an adj acent property owner, there was a question
about that and an easement document was included in Council's packet. It is an easement that is
drawn and an agreement between the two property owners.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding modifications to architectural standards, Council found there were
a number of pieces they wanted analyzed and changed. Staff went back and met with the
architect. The architect/developer went back and reviewed those and the changes were made.
Modifications were forwarded and a much improved, packet of criteria for the architecture was
forwarded to them.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding parking layout for the development, there are a couple different
types he thinks are important to show them. The parking lot would be at a 2.2 percent grade
between the base of the building down to an area towards East River Road. The parking lot then
planes out to an area that is just along the right-of-way before it gets to the roadway.
Mr. Hickok stated the developer has added a considerable amount of parking islands in the
parking lot to soften the effect of the hard surface. They also sent photographs of various sites
they have developed. Mr. Hickok presented the photographs. He showed a night-time view of
one of the projects, as he knows lighting is important. There was some interesting discussion
about lighting last time, and Council has a real good sense about what they would like to see
there. They did not want to see a glare and high intensity.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 19
Mr. Hickok presented an aerial view of the site. Previously there was a very large industrial
building that has been removed from the site. He provided more photos from the developer.
Mr. Hickok stated the stipulations have remained the same since staff reviewed this project.
One of the things he would like to note though and apologize for is, when they talked about the
stipulation about the architectural criteria, we should use that more recent date of January 23,
2009, and not the November date they have. Staff feels the petitioner has "passed the test" with
the criteria for rezoning and the stipulations that are included in their packet.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was an additional stipulation.
Mr. Hickok replied yes, Stipulation No. 10. It may be one of the most important additions. The
developer or successors shall agree to bring back the project for further review, if the project
substantially changes from the plan approved. "Substantial" can be defined as the change in the
number of buildings. Change in types of uses or modification of an individual building that adds
or subtracts 20 percent or more to the building's floor area.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok, on page 6 of the minutes from the Council
meeting of January 6, he mentioned there is a 24-month timeframe to allow them to bring back a
full plan for second reading. That is why she asked for the minutes to be pulled. To be honest
with him, if she had known back in August she would have never voted for the first reading
because she really felt they were going to go out and market and actually come back with an
actual use here. She does not see that tonight. She goes back to the minutes of August 2005.
We mention that they will come back with site information and they would be able to market it.
More than just this one but in September, give us that first reading as we know it is going to be
commercial, and we will come back with an actual site plan of an actual retail commercial
property here. She is not seeing that tonight.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked which Comprehensive Plan the City was using. She knows
that we approved the 2020 Plan, but asked if it had been approved by all the agencies.
Mr. Hickok replied it is before the Met Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were still dealing with the previous Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Hickok stated it is not 100 percent official until it comes back from the Metropolitan
Council and any changes they have made are addressed.
Councilmember Bolkcom said but in reality the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is really not our
bible at this point until it comes back from the Met Council.
Mr. Hickok replied Council took their action to designate land areas for the future and in that
they have described this as a commercial site.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 20
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disputing that she feels it should be a commercial
site. She asked if the DeMello proj ect was in our Comprehensive Plan as an S-2 redevelopment.
Mr. Hickok said it was.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak, even though they were asking for a rezoning,
did we not hold them to some very strict guidelines because they actually had a use--they had a
proposed project there. She asked the developer at the last meeting whether he has ever done
this anywhere else. Also, have we ever done it as a City? He gave the legal opinion that this is
unique. However, did we not in the DeMello proj ect have an actual use for that property and
hold them to some very strict guidelines related to their development.
Mr. Hickok stated in all due respect he would say that was not a fair comparison, because the
S-2 Redevelopment District not only is a rezoning request that they made, but their master plan
is predicated on the density, the footprints of the building, the landscape, the number of parking
stalls, etc. It was very much like a planned unit development where they are proposing
something that was basically locked down to a master plan. This zoning going from M-2 to
Commercial does not have that master plan. Essentially what the question before them is, is it or
is it not a commercial site, and have you typically, as a practice, had a land use before you where
you can actually look at and view the architecture. Yes, you have. Does that mean you could
not approve one. No, not at all. In a multi-tenant situation like this, it is not unusual at all for a
developer to not know his tenants are. These kinds of rezonings happen regularly.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they have happened in our City.
Mr. Hickok replied, we have not had that much. It is a large piece of property and it depends on
multi-tenants. This is not a Home Depot with a PetSmart. This is a larger site, and it depends on
a number of tenants and they do not know right now who they are. Staff did deal numerous
times with development prospects who were looking at this site. They did go to the market.
They did exactly what they said they were going to do in 2005. They marketed the proj ect. And
they brought development and there were people knocking on our door. There were a lot of
prospects interested in that site. The fact that they do not have a project for them tonight, does
not mean that they did not market the project.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is really sorry if any way she said they did not market it.
She guessed what she is trying to say is that she thought they said they would bring something
back to Council for the second reading with an actual use for this property. She does not see
that.
Mr. Hickok stated no one is more disappointed than them. They would have liked to have had a
real proj ect there. Staff would like to see a proj ect, but given the current economic market, they
are still interested in pursuing this as a commercial site, and they are acting on a first reading and
a Comprehensive Plan designation that says it is viewed as a future commercial site for Fridley.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she sees a lot of wonderful trees on this property. What would
prevent them to come back and say, you know what, trees are twice as high as they used to be.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 21
What would prevent them to say in this market we cannot put all that in because we had to
promise so much for this and this for these retail properties. She asked if he understands that her
concern is that not even one thing is identified here. She was excited when she saw the pictures.
Right now she sees a bunch of cars and a lot of asphalt in the front as you go down East River
Road. She hopes it is a gateway. We are going to have the commuter rail system. We could
possibly have cars on both sides. That is all people will see. It is hard for her to agree with the
second reading. Do we feel comfortable legally because we have been in court two times
recently related to rezoning issues, including a couple projects in the last couple years. Does the
City Attorney feel comfortable if someone else comes along with another so-called "unique"
property that is identified in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan that he can say that this project is
unique compared to some other property.
Attorney Knaak replied yes. The question that he was asked at the last meeting had to do with
that very issue. If we do it in this case, would we have to do it for someone else. The answer is,
the more similar it is to whatever a subsequent project is, the likelier it would be. Even if you
did not want that project to occur, someone could take you to court and essentially force you to
do it. So here the discussion he had with staff was what specific thing about this site in particular
would make this unique. The size of the site seems to be the primary issue that is involved.
There is no other comparably-sized site that is located as this one is right off the freeway that
makes it amenable to this kind of development. So based on the information and discussion he
had with the staff, he does believe that the City could take the position that this is in fact
sufficiently unique so that this would not get thrown back at them and they would find
themselves being compelled to rezone another parcel.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if the uniqueness was because of the size.
Attorney Knaak replied it has to do with the size and the particular location. It is the size and
the location by the freeway. Under the circumstances here, that is a reasonable assessment.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked so on page 14 of the minutes from the last meeting, the two
comments, does that depict what he said that night?
Attorney Knaak replied it does reflect what he said.
William Burns, City Manager, said he agrees with Councilmember Bolkcom, he sat here when
this came up the first time and it was clearly his understanding that we were going to be looking
at a project when we looked at the second reading. On the other hand, the economic climate has
changed an awful lot since the first reading was approved. The developer and the City had put
some time into reviewing the different proj ects. While we do not have a second reading, we do
not have the protection of a second reading if we agree to it tonight. We do have what he
considers to be a pretty strong stipulation that will under most circumstances allow us to see
what it is that is coming forward at the time that it comes forward when the economy straightens
out. This is not going to be a short-term effort. It is going to be something that is going to take
two or three years or maybe even more. It will take a while. He thinks Stipulation No. 10 gives
us a reasonable amount of protection. He would think that anything that comes back is not going
to be significantly different from what they have tonight. He asked if they liked what they saw.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 22
If they did not, they might want to turn it down. Stipulation No. 10 gives us the ability to protect
ourselves from something that is entirely unacceptable to us at some later point in time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she reads Stipulation No. 10, it says, change in the number
of the buildings. Change in the types of uses. She asked what those types of changes were.
Dr. Burns replied, changes in the footprint of the building.
Mr. Hickok stated the buildings are labeled right now. Certain ones are labeled out as fast food
restaurant, banks, with a large box retailer on the site. Change in use would mean that they are
not having that mix of retail and other services on the site but they are doing something different.
That would come back before you. A rezoning does not just mean they are going to build what
they want there. It would mean they come in for a permit and by that stipulation, they have one
added with criteria and that is if it has changed, they are going to come back to you and you will
have an opportunity to look at it and understand what it is they are proposing.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, so in other words if they come back and instead of a fast food
restaurant they ask for a Dollar Store and a Fanstasy House, will it come back to us?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it would. He said he did not know if the earlier question about the
landscape piece was answered. That is what they are proposing right now. A big part of that is
protected by the ordinances that exist right now. On an enormous site, an enormous number of
trees are required on that site. Also, we have heard from the developer and they demonstrate
from their projects that they do have a strong desire to keep up their landscape and not just go
with the standard but increase the number and increase the size in many cases. The first step to
bringing a project back like that for us is them being able to go out and say we actually have the
zoning to do it.
Mayor Lund stated he has a concern about Stipulation No. 10 as well. He does think it will
allow us some latitude. His question for Attorney Knaak is does one paragraph really give us the
latitude that is being suggested here tonight. For instance, it says the developer's successors
shall agree to bring back the project for further review. So they bring it back for further review.
It does not really tell them clearly that we have the latitude to make changes if there is some
substantial differences.
Dr. Burns replied, what if we said "for review and approval"?
Attorney Knaak replied if you add "and approval" he thinks his concern would be taken care of.
"Re-approval" would be the appropriate term.
Mayor Lund stated he knows they have the required landscaping. The applicant has stated they
do more than the minimal we require. He asked if that should be added.
Mr. Hickok replied that was the distinct difference in the DeMello project, but Stipulation No.
10 brings you a master plan. He can count the trees on this site plan, and he can tell them that a
modification to the site plan that brings you a different number of trees, it starts to look like a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 23
difference to him, and the number of trees is enough that he would consider substantial, we can
go through it again. Even if the uses remain the same but they have shifted the site so that the
landscape gets diminished, he thinks it is worth seeing again. So this really is a master plan very
much like we had on Old Central.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she should move this into the record.
Attorney Knaak replied he does not know if it would necessarily help but it would not hurt.
You do not really have a development agreement. That he thinks is what they were looking for.
This is a little different than that which is why the protection. The development agreement
would provide many of the protections they were concerned about. You could certainly do that
and attach that or incorporate it as part of the minutes or something like that. But that would not
make it a development plan.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated going back to October 4, 2006, related to the agreement
between the City Council and the Met Council, is that all free and clear now or is there still some
work that needs to be done? Should that be made a part of this because the City should not be
paying for any of that and we were administrators of the fund. Does that make a change in any
way because of the plan? Mr. Hickok made some mention of that at the last meeting.
Mr. Hickok replied he thinks it is important that they mention that. Any obligation that we have
really is the conduit for them to obtain that financing and has been taken on by the developer.
Any new obligations that they would have relative to a change would be directly their
responsibility with the Metropolitan Council, and our role would be to make certain that they did
what was necessary here.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if that was inferred anywhere in these stipulations?
Mr. Hickok replied it is really like a neighborhood dispute if you want to put it in other terms. It
is a civil matter between them and the Metropolitan Council at this point. If the Metropolitan
Council asks something of them, including refund of $168,000 to them, then they would be
responsible for doing that. We would be the watchdogs to make sure that happens.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but right now because the City is an administrator of the funds,
are we under any obligation because we are the administrators? Is there an obligation as a City?
Mr. Hickok replied, he just wanted to be clear, he is not saying we have no obligation. Our job
would be to watchdog on behalf of the Metropolitan Council and make sure they are getting their
funds back if that is what is being asked. At this point it is speculation. He just brought it up
simply because when they made their application, they showed 2,000 square feet plus another
mixed retail development on this site, and that is not what we are seeing today. Does that mean
the Metropolitan Council will follow-up and have some administrative sanctions that they would
impose? He does not know of that ever happening. If it did, our role would be to make sure that
what is necessary happens. The developer in this case has taken on the responsibilities from the
City. They could obtain that grant without us but they have agreed to all obligations of that grant
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 24
including all the paperwork, all of the administration, all of the recording back on the expense
with what they did with the funds.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she just wanted to make sure legally in no way would we be at
all involved in trying to pay back some money should the Met Council request it. She asked
Attorney Knaak if he agreed with what Mr. Hickok said.
Attorney Knaak stated his response and understanding would be that the City would not have
any direct responsibility or liability, but given the circumstances he thinks it would be worth
some initial inquiry on his part.
Mark Anderson, civil engineer with McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., the item he was
going to speak to was the landscape plan. The impression he got was the City wants to ensure
that the level of landscaping is similar to this in the final development. His answer would be that
it will be because what you see is essentially the City requirements and it goes into detail on their
landscape plans. He would compliment the City Code in that is very good and it ensures a nice
landscaped site.
Mayor Lund stated it sounds like there needs to be further review on the one question about the
Met Council. He does not know what ultimately their liability would be. He asked if any of the
petitioners had anything to say.
Joe Meyer, JLT Group, asked if they can be on record here tonight saying they understand that it
is their responsibility. If there is anything. Mr. Hickok described it exactly the way they
understand it. Council can rest assured that there is nothing coming from the developer where
they are going to wash their hands of it and say, well, somehow that is the City's responsibility.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated her concern is that because the City Council did approve the
grant application, she thinks there is some obligation. Until they actually get something back
from our attorney, she is not comfortable about this.
Dr. Burns asked does the City's liability under the grant application increase or decrease or stay
the same depending on what we do with the second reading of the rezoning. Is there any
relationship between the rezoning and our liability? He thinks even if the rezoning is turned
down, there was a grant application that we helped and applied for to the Met Council and if the
obligations of that application have not been met and Met Council chooses to come back and
look for money, the liability is still there whether we are referring to rezoning or not. He is not
sure rezoning is relevant to the liability.
Attorney Knaak replied, he believed that was an accurate statement.
Mr. Hickok replied that was really one of the points of him putting that on the record is that it is
an issue that he cannot, and he does not know that the City can, reconcile. In their application to
the Metropolitan Council, they did indicate they would produce on this site, a certain number of
square feet and that it would be a mix of retail and office. So the point is just making it clear for
the record, that there may be an issue that they need to reconcile.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 25
Dr. Burns stated do we want to add a stipulation to protect ourselves regarding this? Is that
something we should consider?
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there could be an attorney out there that says, I do not care
what it says, you still made the grant application. Also,she did not really hear from our attorney
tonight saying there might be, and he needed to do some more research.
Attorney Knaak stated he would want to see the grant again. The question would be, what
would be the liability and if there was an agreement on the part of the developer that any liability
that the City incurred would be covered by the developer or owner.
Mr. Anderson asked is it not also true that anything you decide not to do even emphasizes it
more because there is nothing there today so if we do not get a new plan approved, we have to go
with an industrial site development which would clearly be less development on this site than
what we are proposing?
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to table this item until the next meeting so the
City Attorney can look at the grant application.
Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, stated she has had the pleasure for 25
years designing and master planning and working on many, many millions of square feet of
different retail commercial development. She thinks tonight what they are here for is rezoning
both the developer and the City is looking for on this particular site. Now, Met Council grants
and outside issues such as those are issues that are aside of the fact of this rezoning. She believes
that still we are here to look at rezoning this to commercial. So what they have prepared for
Council are guidelines that gives them kind of a snapshot and scenario. They have reviewed the
City Code and given you a plan; but the Met Council and decisions for the grant monies and
grant approvals are separate from the Council rezoning this property. Things like Arbor Lights,
for instance, that was a gravel pit and the vision was made. The City determined that would be a
good commercial area. However, first and foremost, the City and the developers agreed to work
at getting a commercial zoning, getting it rezoned, taking it to the market so the market will
know this is a commercial site.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked who owned the gravel pit was talking about.
Mr. Anderson replied, Tiller Companies.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was actually owned by the City of Maple Grove before
that.
Ms. Anderson stated Tiller Companies or Tamarack Village, a cow field, or Silver Lake Village,
a rezoning from what was a mall to a mixed use development. The first step though is, and she
thinks everyone was in agreement, we want to have the best and highest quality commercial
development on this site. The Met Council and the developer and that process is separate from
you as a community, and the developer going forward with the commercial development.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 26
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she disagrees with her. If she remembers back in 2005 part of
this whole thing was, to begin with, was to look at a grant application to get this cleaned up and
then rezone it so it is all part of the same process. She feels a little bit like Ms. Anderson is
berating her that she is asking these questions and wants to have this solved before going ahead
with the rezoning. Since we and the developer have been working on this since 2005, they saw
something a few weeks ago and she loves the changes that have come forward and the extra
stipulation, but to get that one other thing solved is what she is asking.
Ms. Anderson stated that is not what she is trying to say. She thought their goal was to get this
rezoned commercial.
Mayor Lund stated he thinks Ms. Anderson is trying to separate the issue. He said do we want
it rezoned commercial. If so, then we pass this and have them bring something final to us. If it
is something substantially different from this, they could end up with something a lot different.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disagreeing it should be commercial. She is just
saying why not figure it out. She heard the City Attorney say maybe we should figure that out
and find out what kind of liability is there.
Mayor Lund stated either we can pass, deny, or postpone it or put a condition on there. He
would like an added stipulation.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how many votes were needed to pass this.
Mr. Hickok said it would take a super maj ority. Four.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to thank Pam Reynolds as she has done a lot of
work and looking at the minutes and some of the other discussion. She brought up a lot of the
minutes and she did ask Dr. Burns to give her those minutes because she was trying to refresh
her memory back to 2005. She really felt back in 2005 that they would actually see an actual
master plan like there was in the redevelopment such as in the DeMello proj ect and she
understands that this is different.
Mayor Lund asked the petitioner if timing was an issue.
Mr. Anderson replied, no. He is encouraging the Council to think of some way to protect itself
in this. Because he thinks what is going to happen is the City Attorney will look at the Met
Council documents and say, well, it says this, it says that, and you are going to end up saying,
well, we want some more assurance from the developer that we are not liable for the cost. He
thinks we are back to, as Dr. Burns suggested, putting a stipulation in the document that says the
City is not liable for those monies that were granted to the developer. He thinks it answers the
question. He is not trying to duck the question.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she guessed her whole point is it has been so long since that
application. She thinks we are going down the right path, she loves the new stipulations and the
new site plan. She is only one so anyone can certainly make the motion tonight to do it with a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 27
new stipulation that Dr. Burns or someone comes up with. She would definitely vote for it once
she has been reassured by our City Attorney in two weeks that he has looked this over and says it
is okay.
Mayor Lund said he likes the idea of the stipulation saying that they are saying right here,
holding us harmless in that particular case. We do not want to be embroiled in a lengthy lawsuit
if the Met Council asks for "X" amount of dollars.
Dr. Burns asked what the name of the grant was.
Mr. Hickok replied Tax Base Revitalization Grant.
Dr. Burns asked when was it received.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated June 28, 2006. She believed she is looking at a memo from
October 4, 2006, and it said on June 28 the City Council approved an agreement.
Councilmember Saefke stated he is going to agree with Councilmember Bolkcom. He does not
think it is going to hurt to wait two more weeks and get a legal opinion from our City Attorney.
It is not an issue that Council does not want to change this to commercial. As soon as Council is
satisfied that the City is protected, he does not think there will be a problem at all. At the last
meeting, he was terribly reluctant to set a precedent because the question had been asked whether
this City had ever rezoned something without some kind of a plan. His question was then what
makes it unique and, again, that was to protect the City in any future types of development. He
guessed he was kind of satisfied with it and having reread the minutes again, going back to 2005,
where some of the references were apparently it was the desire of the Council at that time to
change this to Commercial. To him there was no question about that. It was terribly unusual for
the first and the second readings to be so long apart. One of the things that kind of reassured him
about his feeling on changing the rezoning is that the Mayor asked the petitioner last time
whether they have funding and he said he had a bank willing to give them some money for
building, is that right?
Mr. Meyer replied he thinks he said the current lender designated a stipulation in their loan that
they have the first rights for funding the new project.
Councilmember Saefke asked so he is pretty sure that funding is available?
Mr. Meyer replied, yes.
Councilmember Saefke stated that was one of his concerns, too, during this economy that
everything would be changed and then all of a sudden the petitioner cannot get the money to do
what they need to do and you have half a project. It is a fabulous location for commercial. As
the development goes on and the rail line goes through and there are some other developments
there, he thinks it is going to be an ideal situation. As far as commercial, right across railroad
tracks is Home Depot so it is not like an isolated parcel. He would rather see commercial
development than industrial development.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 28
Mayor Lund stated as Attorney Knaak is going to be looking at this one condition, he is also
going to request that staff include a Sitpulation No. 11.
Councilmember Barnette stated he definitely wants this to be a commercial site. He thinks that
this could go ahead as it is, but he is willing to wait two weeks.
Councilmember Varichak stated she also is in agreement that we can wait two weeks and get
some answers from our City Attorney.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table the second reading of the Ordinance to Amend
the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts
(Rezoning Request, ZOA #OS-03, by 7LT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East
River Road) until the February 9, 2009, Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
Mayor Lund asked the City Attorney to review the question about the potential liability of
reimbursement potentially on Met Council and asked staff to add Stipulation No. 11 along those
same lines and bring it back for further discussion on February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that they actually look at the grant application. She asked that
the date in Stipulation No. 7 be corrected.
Mayor Lund stated in the ordinance, it says 9 stipulations. He asked about Exhibit A.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they need to add the words "and re-approval" in Stipulation
No. 10.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, SAEFKE, VARICHAK
AND BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND VOTING NAY, THE MOTION
PASSED ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE.
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Resolution Ordering Final Plans, Specifications and Calling for Bids: 2009 Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2009-08. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the discussion on the assessment would be.
William Burns, City Manager, replied he would anticipate at a pre-meeting on February 9.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 29
11. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other
Local Use (2009 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01).
Mr. Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated the resolution is required to use state aid dollars.
Fridley is privileged to be one of four communities in Minnesota who has constructed all their
state aid roads to standard and that being such, is allowed to utilize some of this state aid funding
on local roads.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2009-09. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11A. City Council Meeting of January 5, 2009.
Councilmember Varichak pointed out that on Page 21, Item No. 13, it should say
Councilmember `Bolkcom" made the motion.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11B. Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes. Seconded by Councilmember
Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. Extension of Variance Request, VAR #06-01, for Totino-Grace High School, to
Increase the Height 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).
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is hard to keep track of things when they go on and on and
on. She understands funding and it is a bad time of the year. This one started out in 2006. When
do you say enough is enough?
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied if they have not acted on their item
within one year and they have not requested an extension, their variance goes away and they
would need to come back and reapply.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 30
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she had a variance and said, Mr. Hickok, she does not have
any money right now, would she be able to get an extension on residential property.
Mr. Hickok replied he cannot think of one where they have done that administratively. Even
though residential does not come to Council, if there is no controversy about it, if they were
asking for an extension it would come to them.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, okay, so it is not any different from residential.
Mr. Hickok replied, no.
Councilmember Barnette asked if they have to go through the process again, a notice would go
out to all the neighbors again and it would start all over.
Mr. Hickok replied, that is their purpose in applying for the extension, not to have to go through
the process again.
Councilmember Barnette stated but we know the controversy that the other school had, and
here they are raising the height 18 feet. He thinks it pretty important to send notices to the
neighbors.
Mr. Hickok said on this one we had no feedback whatsoever.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks at some point do we look at these and say after "X"
amount of time they go away and they have to reapply. Things do change. The activity in this
neighborhood, the traffic and other things may affect something.
Mr. Hickok stated he would offer that he thinks if we suggest that right up front it really
weakens the integrity of the process to begin with. We want people to apply for, get a grant, and
do it within the first year. As we have now found we have had a streak of these where they are
coming back and not doing them within the first year. Tell them that you are not going to get
many extensions. You might get two historically. When they are granted a variance he does not
want to make any decision about extensions. If they need an extension we will deal with it at
that time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated what prevents them a year from now coming back.
Mr. Hickok stated there has to be a certain time they would have to stop and have them go
through the process again. Even though no one spoke on this to begin with, there may be new
owners in the neighborhood who have a different opinion. As we have done on the last ones that
they have approved, they would send them a letter saying that there would not be another
extension. After this if they were not able to complete it, they would have to come back through
the process.
Mayor Lund stated they are going through the economic downturn like everyone else. He does
agree though. What is too many.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 31
William Burns, City Manager, stated nationally private schools have taken a big hit.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but, again, it was requested in 2006. It seems to her that it is
fair to say this is it.
Dr. Burns asked if the big part was the $1,500 or $2,000 fee that is paid for the variance
application.
Mr. Hickok stated he would say that is not as big as the uncertainty of whether they get it
granted again. You would hate to have three-quarters of your funding raised and then have the
time clock tell you that you have to get another variance and you might not get it.
Mayor Lund stated they should really start giving us more detail about where their fundraising
is. We have to have some kind of evidence that they are actually progressing.
Mr. Hickok stated with this particular application they did invite him out. They have been as
forthright as they can be. They have gone through the plans, they have enlisted an architect, the
same one they had for the auditorium. Part of their issue is that the fundraising is only partly
related to what they need the variance for. The fundraising is to rework space inside the school
also.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to approve the extension of Variance Request, VAR
#06-01, for Totino-Grace High School. Seconded Councilmember Bolkcom.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she would like them to send a letter and say that we really are
looking at granting variances and extensions of variances and we really will need something
concrete to go forward because they have just a one-year extension. She asked if that sounded
reasonable.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Approve Reviewed Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was looking at the revised Joint Powers Agreement and it
says that we as a City Council appoint one person (Police) together with one other individual to
be appointed by the City Council.
Councilmember Barnette replied, that is him. Don Abbott goes and he goes when he is
requested.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the way she understands it he should be going any time he is
needed for any voting.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 32
Councilmember Barnette stated he is the alternate.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are two from each city and he really should be going on a
regular basis. If she is reading this right they have two votes.
Councilmember Barnette when he has gone before he has gone just as observer. If they have
law enforcement issues he is just listening and watching.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it says there is an appointment on an annual basis by each of
the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with other individual and it
goes on to say that each one has one vote and you can send someone else in place of one to vote
for a proxy.
Councilmember Barnette said he would talk to Mr. Abbott.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Revised Anoka County Joint Law
Enforcement Council Joint Powers Agreement. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Informal Status Report.
Councilmember Bolkcom mentioned the upcoming Winter Fest.
William Burns, City Manager, said the February newsletter will be coming out in two days.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated a recycling drop-off will be held on
Saturday, April 11, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and Saturday, October 10, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. This
year we are going back to a leaf dropoff on October 22 and October 29 from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The next paper shredding event is February 7.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is an Anoka County meeting related to 85th Avenue and
the widening of 85th at Springbrook.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated it is Wednesday from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the
Springbrook Nature Center. It has to do with the area east of the Springbrook entrance. They
are putting in turn lanes and widening the road to University Avenue.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated are they actually talking about putting a signal there?
Mr. Kosluchar stated they are talking about moving the existing signal at the University
frontage road.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 33
Councilmember Barnette stated he did not realize they are going to be working on Highway 47
this summer. He asked if Mr. Kosluchar can check with the state to see if there is any chance
they can take the fence along University Avenue down.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Saefke, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
FEBRUARY 9, 2009
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of January 26, 2009
William Burns, City Manager, asked that this matter be tabled to the February 23, 2009, City
Council meeting.
TABLED.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-
03, by JLT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East River Road)
(Ward 3) (Tabled January 26, 2009).
William Burns, City Manager, stated at the January 26 meeting this item was tabled in order to
give the City Attorney time to assess what impact the terms of the Metropolitan Council's Tax
Base Revitalization Grant that had been given to 7LT in 2006 may have on the City's ability to
allow a modified site plan.
Dr. Burns stated City Attorney Fritz Knaak and Jay Lindgren of Dorsey & Whitney, Attorney
for JLT, concur that there is no City liability created by the City's rezoning, based on a modified
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 2
site plan. The Metropolitan Council staff indicated that the grant was "closed out" in 2008.
Although there is no reason to expect a Metropolitan Council "claw back" on the $168,000
Metropolitan Council grant, JLT has indicated a willingness to accept an llth stipulation in
which they agree to indemnify the City for any liability that might have been created by
changing the original site plan. Staff recommends Council's approval of the second reading of
the ordinance.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
2. Resolution Approving Agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of
Transportation for Replacement of the Existing Traffic Control Signal at Trunk
Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive (Ward 2) (Tabled January 5, 2009).
William Burns, City Manager, stated resolution approves an agreement between the City and
MnDOT for replacement of the traffic signal equipment at Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive.
MnDOT would like to replace the 34-year old signal this year. The agreement defines the shared
maintenance and capital cost responsibilities between the City and MnDOT. Capital costs will
be shared on a 50/50 basis. Major maintenance is the responsibility of MnDOT. Minor
maintenance, including lamp replacement and energy costs, is the responsibility of the City.
Dr. Burns stated Council had expressed concern that the new signal be built to accommodate
requirements associated with the future widening of the Moore Lake causeway on Highway 65.
Although MnDOT says it will not accommodate these requirements, they will provide a letter
indicating the City is not responsible for cost sharing in the relocation and restructuring of the
signal that may be needed for the future causeway widening project.
Dr. Burns stated staff recommends Council's approval of the MnDOT agreement.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for
Construction of a Traffic Control Signal System at Trunk Highway 65 and Moore
Lake Drive (Ward 2).
William Burns, City Manager, stated this is a resolution requesting Municipal State Aid System
(MSAS) Funds for the City's share of the Highway 65/Moore Lake Drive signal replacement.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
2
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 3
4. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 21, 2009.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
5. Extension of Special Use Permit, SP #08-06, by Joe Papa, on Behalf of Hitching Post
Motorsports, to Allow a Repair Garage (Service Use) for the Motorcycles and
Recreational Vehicles that are Sold as Part of the Business, Generally Located at
7651 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
William Burns, City Manager, stated the petitioner, Joe Papa, has requested an extension of the
special use permit to allow him time to work out issues with a vendor and work out economic
issues that have kept him from constructing screening of an outdoor storage area required as a
condition for the permit.
Dr. Burns stated staff recommends granting the petitioner a six-month extension until July 1,
2009, to comply with conditions required for the issuance of his special use permit.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
6. Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approval of Plans, and Ordering Advertisement
for Bids: Sanitary Sewer Lining Project No. 383.
William Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution approves plans and authorizes staff to seek
bids for the 2009 sewer lining proj ect. The 2009 Capital Improvements budget includes
$180,000 for the sewer lining projects. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-12.
7. Resolution Ordering Advertisement Bids: 2009 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
Project No. 384.
William Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution authorizes advertisement for bids for the
2009 miscellaneous concrete repair project. This project allows the City to do remedial
sidewalk, pavement and curb repair and replacement. This work is often required because of
utility repairs, deterioration, or driveway entrance improvements made by property owners. The
City has budgeted $45,000 for this work in 2009. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-13.
8. Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropriations for the 2008 Budget for
November through December, 2008.
William Burns, City Manager, stated these are changes that arise as a result of unforeseen
expenditures, donations, other revenues, and reclassification of accounts. In November and
3
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 4
December, those changes include $68,796 in General Fund and $3,000 in Springbrook nature
Center revenues and expenditures. All of the expenditure changes re covered by unexpected
donations or revenues from external sources. Staff recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
9. Claims (140442-140626).
APPROVED.
10. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Barnette asked that Item Nos. 2 and 3 be removed.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that Item Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 be removed.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item
Nos. 1-5 and 8. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of Item Nos.
1-5 and 8. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-
03, by JLT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East River Road)
(Ward 3) (Tabled January 26, 2009).
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the following sentence from the third paragraph of his
letter meant: "Moreover, it does appear that the representations of the City would require it to
rezone the site as it had originally agreed to do."
0
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 5
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, replied in the original proposed agreement, part of what the City
was actually required to do as part of development agreement was to prevent the rezoning based
on the plan that was there. The fact that the City would not do so does not necessarily impose
any liabilities; however, it does create an argument the City had an obligation that it did not
fulfill at that time. By taking this action now, that argument is basically eliminated. The idea
was this was supposed to happen within a timeframe some time ago and it did not. An argument
could be made that the City had some commitment as part of this whole process to engage in this
rezoning at an earlier time. Of course it is discretionary. There is nothing that really requires
them to do that, but that argument is out there. By engaging in this action, that argument goes
away.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the reason the second reading of the rezoning did not happen
was because the City was were waiting for a plan. We gave many extensions beyond the time
originally set up.
Attorney Knaak replied that is all very true. He did not say the City had no defenses. The City
has very good defenses. Nonetheless, the initial commitment was to have this matter rezoned
some time ago regardless of whether 7LT was in large measure responsible for that.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated part of the other reason she tabled this was to make sure we
had all the right dates. She asked whether they are comfortable with the dates in Stipulation Nos.
2 and 7.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said they were.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she knows that it took a long time and the discussion at the last
meeting was a lengthy one, but they now have before them some good stipulations. It has also
been reviewed by our attorney and another attorney, and we are comfortable with what is
happening with respect to the Met Council. This is a unique property because even though the
Comprehensive Plan for 2030 has been approved by the City Council, it has not yet been
approved by all the agencies. She hopes this project goes forward. It is a very large property
that we felt should become a commercial property vs. industrial property because of its
uniqueness in both size and where it is located. She understands that because of economic issues
and other things, this could go on for some time, but they would probably hold the petitioner to a
stronger deadline.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1256 on
second reading with the following eleven stipulations and order publication.
1. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Easement agreement between JLT and US Corrugated to be filed allowing full access and
57th Avenue improvements to be made according to plan submitted and dated 11-26-2008
3. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and
landscaping details, prior to issuance of building permit for individual buildings.
5
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 6
4. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City for the corresponding site plan once specific users
are known.
5. All pertinent plats shall be applied for prior to issuance of building permit for buildings in
that portion of the development.
6. Developer to building in pedestrian access opportunities to serve the development. These
pedestrian plans shall be approved with each set of building plans, prior to issuance of
building permit for each building on site.
7. Architectural criteria submitted, prepared by: Kathy Anderson, Architectural Consortium,
dated 1-21-2009, shall be filed with the County and used as covenants for each future
building's design.
8. All Fire Department and Engineering Department concerns listed above shall be
addressed prior to issuance of building permits for building on this site.
9. Costs of any additional signal or infrastructure improvements deemed necessary to serve
commercial development on this site; by Anoka County, shall be borne by the developer.
10. The developer or successors shall agree to bringing back the project for further review
and re-approval, if the project substantially changes from the plan approved (Substantial
to be defined as a change in the number of buildings, change in types of uses, or a
modification to an individual building that adds or subtracts 20% or more to the
building's floor area.).
11. The petitioner has agreed to indemnify the City of Fridley from any and all Metropolitan
Council action, defense costs related to, or financial impacts that may be imposed as a result
of the modification of the original site plan; that was included in the Metropolitan Council
Grant Application Number: SG2006-75.
Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS:
5. Extension of Special Use Permit, SP #08-06, by Joe Papa, on Behalf of Hitching Post
Motorsports, to Allow a Repair Garage (Service Use) for the Motorcycles and
Recreational Vehicles that are Sold as Part of the Business, Generally Located at
7651 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
Councilmember Varichak asked if there were any problems other than the storage units.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied, they have been a good business. It
was the storage area and screening that is the outdoor issue.
Councilmember Varichak asked if they were setting a precedence granting an additional
extension. She asked if they were going to send a letter strongly urging that they get it
completed in six months.
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 7
Mr. Hickok said they will be sending a letter. He said they would not be setting a precedence.
Each case has its own merits and its own unique history that needs to be considered. Winter
weather is one of those things. They would almost prefer that there be warmer weather for what
they need to do.
Councilmember Varichak asked if they have had any other extensions.
Mr. Hickok said no, he believed this was the end of the first term.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated her only concern was it goes until July. She would like to see
it done before then.
Joe Papa, General Manager of the Hitching Post, stated he had a couple of vendors lined up who
have filed bankruptcy. He is currently working with his fourth or fifth different vendor. The
other problem is economics. July is their selling season. Not a lot of motorcycles are being sold
now.
Mayor Lund asked if he felt confident that he could have the scope of the work done.
Mr. Papa said he felt confident before, but he did not foresee his vendors going out of business.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she understands the economic times with the vendors, but she
wants to put Mr. Papa on notice.
Mr. Papa said he is well aware of it.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to grant a six-month extension of Special Use Permit,
SP #08-06, by Joe Papa, on behalf of Hitching Post Motorsports. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
No members from the audience spoke.
NEW BUSINESS:
11. Special Use Permit Request, SP #09-01, by Glenn Nelson on Behalf of Samir
Awaijane of 7570, Inc., for Automobile Repair Uses Generally Located at 7570
Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that the petitioner, Glenn Nelson and
property owner, Samir Awaijane, have applied for a new special use permit for auto repair at
7570 Highway 65. Special Use Permit, SP #89-08, for auto repair was revoked in November
7
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 8
2008 for non-compliance of stipulations. The petitioner has applied for a new special use permit
to allow auto repair at this location. The Planning Commission is recommending approval. Staff
had initially recommended denial, but is now recommending approval due to changes at the
property since the time of application and the presentation made at the Planning Commission
meeting.
Mr. Hickok stated the property is zoned M-1, light industrial. The smaller building was built in
1955. This building appears to have been destroyed in the 1965 tornados. A new building was
constructed in 1965. The rear second building was constructed in 1967. The rear building was
added on to in 1994 and they obtained a variance after building began.
Mr. Hickok stated the site has two warehouse buildings retrofitted for multiple tenants. The
back building has a paint booth and has now been vacated by Blue Diamond Auto. The front
building currently occupies Grand Central Auto Repair and Ronson Door Sales, Inc. Both of
these businesses are staying and there will be an additional two empty tenant spaces as Rhino
Auto is leaving.
Mr. Hickok stated the site plan revealed that neither building meets the 50' side yard setback
from residential on the south side. The rear building does not meet rear yard setback and is set
right up to the property line. Clear Channel has an easement across the front of the lot for access
to their billboard. There is a fenced in exterior vehicle parts storage area in the rear of the site,
but there is no apparent record of an special use permit allowing exterior storage. In addition,
this auto parts storage area is creating unsafe traffic flow on the site. The rear storage area is
where customer vehicles being serviced need to be stored.
Mr. Hickok stated the site currently contains 31 parking spaces. The petitioner's interior space
calculations show a need for 36 parking spaces which creates a deficit of five spaces. Once the
outside storage of the vehicle parts area and interior fence is removed, there will be room to add
at least five parking spaces in the rear of the site.
Mr. Hickok stated no new buildings or additions are proposed, so no additional landscaping is
required. No impervious surface is being added, so no storm water treatment is required. Staff
recommended denial of SP #09-01 at the public hearing because the owner and tenants had a
history of noncompliance. At the public hearing, the Petitioner convinced the Planning
Commission and staff that he was making changes. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #09-01, with 17 stipulations. Stipulations 16 and 17 were
added at the public hearing. Staff concurs with the additional stipulations. The 6-month review
option is a feature to ensure prompt compliance.
Mr. Hickok stated petitioner is removing the outside storage and cleaning interior spaces to be
rented for office use. The Clear Channel easement has been provided and does not inhibit
parking. Petitioner is willing to meet the 30-day deadline on other stipulations.
Mr. Hickok stated Glenn Nelson is the manager of this site. He was hired by the owner of this
property to take care of the issues on the site. There was a concern because the owner of the
:
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 9
property now resides in Florida. If Council chooses to grant the special use permit, the following
stipulations are recommended:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. The petitioner shall maintain any necessary Federal, State, and County hazardous
waste permits.
3. No outdoor storage of materials shall exist on the site.
4. Existing racking and structure on the south side of the rear building must be
removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
5. No sales of vehicles are allowed from this location.
6. Existing interior site fencing around previous outside storage area and on south
side of front building must be removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP. Fence
on southern and western boundary to remain to screen business from adjoining
residential property.
7. Area between front building and south property line fence needs to be landscaped
with vegetation and maintained. Fence at southeast corner of building to be
removed.
8. All customer vehicles awaiting repairs need to be stored in the rear yard of the
site.
9. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan reflecting the addition of at least five
more parking spaces in the rear of the building.
10. All parking stalls must be striped and vehicles to be kept in defined stalls only.
11. Frontage road cannot be used for parking related to this business.
12. All buildings shall be compliant with all applicable Fire and Building Codes
within 30 days of issuance of SUP, including verification that spray booth and
sprinkler systems are functioning as designed.
13. Provide ventilation calculations for all tenant spaces in both buildings.
14. All structural lintels over garage door openings on front building shall be replaced
upon plan completion by a structural engineer and necessary permits issued
within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
15. A revised sign plan, which incorporates both buildings and the existing free-
standing sign shall be submitted for City Council approval within 30 days of
issuance of SUP. The revised sign plan needs to include a requirement that each
tenant leasing space within either of the buildings on site needs to display exterior
building signage identifying the business to the public.
16. The petitioner will provide the City verification that Clear Channel's easement
shown on 7/12/07 survey does not prohibit parking or access
17. This Special Use Permit will be brought back to the Fridley City Council for
review six months after issuance to ensure continued compliance, and City staff
shall be given the opportunity to review any new leases before new tenants lease
available space.
Councilmember Varichak asked long Rhino would remain on the site.
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 10
Mr. Hickok replied it is his understanding the business has been served notice, and they have a
short term to relocate.
Glenn Nelson, 7570, Inc., stated he wanted Rhino gone at the end of January. There were some
legal processes and they were not able to facilitate that. They are looking at a February 28 exit
date.
Councilmember Varichak asked Mr. Nelson if they will have any problems with the 17
stipulations.
Mr. Nelson replied the only problem right now is with the metal racks. They are frozen into the
ground. It may take him until the end of February.
Councilmember Saefke stated as far as the parking is concerned, Mr. Hickok stated there would
be no more storm water remediation done. He asked if it was paved in the back.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it is. Even under that storage area where the fence will be removed. It
is paved almost to the property line.
Councilmember Saefke stated he read the Planning Commission meeting minutes and was quite
impressed. It seems to him that Mr. Nelson is doing a very good job on the property.
Mr. Nelson said they are going to be a good citizen.
Councilmember Bolkcom said with respect to Stipulation No. 14, what is a lintel?
Mr. Hickok replied it is over a door opening. For example, in the Council chambers behind you
(pointed to feature) there is a piece of stone all the way across the opening. That is the lintel that
is actually supporting the weight above it. In this case those needed help. They are structurally
inept and need to be replaced.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they need to be replaced and there has to be a structural
engineer that brings the plan forward.
Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated her understanding is the petition was made by Mr. Nelson.
She asked if it was actually signed by the owner.
Mr. Hickok said it was signed by the owner. Mr. Nelson indicated that the owner would not be
involved in the discussions on this matter. Part of the agreement between the owner and the
manager is the manager will do all of the management of the site. The owner is not going to be
involved.
10
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 11
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if the special use permit is passed tonight, the owner would
also get a copy of this along with all the stipulations. That way he could not come back at some
point in time and say, for example, that he did not know about Stipulation No. 14.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what happens if Mr. Nelson leaves.
Mr. Hickok said this is a special use permit. If they find in six months that it is not performing,
it could go away, or any month after than.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to approve Special Use Permit Request, SP #09-01, by
Glenn Nelson on Behalf of Samir Awaijane of 7570, Inc., with the following seventeen
stipulations.
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. The petitioner shall maintain any necessary Federal, State, and County hazardous waste
permits.
3. No outdoor storage of materials shall exist on the site.
4. Existing racking and structure on the south side of the rear building must be removed
within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
5. No sales of vehicles are allowed from this location.
6. Existing interior site fencing around previous outside storage area and on south side of
front building must be removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP. Fence on southern
and western boundary to remain to screen business from adjoining residential property.
7. Area between front building and south property line fence needs to be landscaped with
vegetation and maintained. Fence at southeast corner of building to be removed.
8. All customer vehicles awaiting repairs need to be stored in the rear yard of the site.
9. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan reflecting the addition of at least five more
parking spaces in the rear of the building.
10. All parking stalls must be striped and vehicles to be kept in defined stalls only.
11. Frontage road cannot be used for parking related to this business.
12. All buildings shall be compliant with all applicable Fire and Building Codes within 30
days of issuance of SUP, including verification that spray booth and sprinkler systems are
functioning as designed.
13. Provide ventilation calculations for all tenant spaces in both buildings.
14. All structural lintels over garage door openings on front building shall be replaced upon
plan completion by a structural engineer and necessary permits issued within 30 days of
issuance of SUP.
15. A revised sign plan, which incorporates both buildings and the existing free-standing sign
shall be submitted for City Council approval within 30 days of issuance of SUP. The
revised sign plan needs to include a requirement that each tenant leasing space within
either of the buildings on site needs to display exterior building signage identifying the
business to the public.
11
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 12
16. The petitioner will provide the City verification that Clear Channel's easement shown on
7/12/07 survey does not prohibit parking or access
17. This Special Use Permit will be brought back to the Fridley City Council for review six
months after issuance to ensure continued compliance, and City staff shall be given the
opportunity to review any new leases before new tenants lease available space.
Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #09-01, by Select Senior Living, to Replat 5 Lots to
Allow for the Construction of a Senior Living Project, which will Consist of
Independent Living Units, Memory Care Units, and Assisted Living Units,
Generally Located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6461, 6441 and 6421
Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2).
13. Master Plan Amendment, MP #0901, by Select Senior Living, to Allow for the
Construction of a Senior Living Project, which will Consist of Independent Living
Units, Memory Care Units, and Assisted Living Units, Generally Located at 1314
and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6461, 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue N.E.
(Ward 2).
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated he would like to present Items 12 and
13 together. Petitioner is requesting a plat to create two new parcels to construct a senior
housing building. A master plan amendment was also requested. When any property is rezoned
to S-2, it is required it be accompanied by a site plan that will ultimately be the master plan for
the site. Since the proposed project is different than what was originally approved with the
rezoning of this property, a master plan amendment is now required. The petitioner is proposing
to construct a three-story, 141-unit building with 60 independent living units, 27 memory care
units, and 64 assisted living units. All the units will be between 470 and 1,003 square feet. They
are "for rent" units, not "for sale" units. The developer will include 84 underground heated
garage parking stalls and 32 surface parking stalls as well. The building will have a hipped roof
and will be brick veneer. It will have two colors of lap siding on the exterior, and some units
will have balconies. The architecture is very attractive.
Mr. Hickok stated by designing the building to be located as close to what the City Code would
allow if this was an R-3 site to the west property line, the petitioner is proposing to keep as many
of the existing mature trees as possible.
Mr. Hickok stated the Petitioner plans to install a 6-foot privacy fence along the south and east
sides of the property. The site will be landscaped with new deciduous, coniferous, and
ornamental trees along with shrubs, perennials, and annual plantings to provide a welcoming
entrance to the development.
12
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 13
Mr. Hickok stated Petitioner is seeking to replat five lots to create two lots. The reason is that
some of the property is torrens and some is abstract. Anoka County does not allow the
combination of these different types of land without first getting Registration of Land Titles by
Dist�ict Court Order, which can be a very lengthy process. Instead the developer is choosing to
create 21ots, which will be required to be combined to allow for the development to occur.
Mr. Hickok stated rezoning a property to S-2 Redevelopment District allows for some degree of
flexibility when designing a redevelopment project; however, City staff has asked the Petitioner
to design their project to try and meet the rezoning classifications most similar to its intended use
which would be R-3, Multi-Family Residential. The R-3, Multi-Family, code states the average
lot area required per dwelling is 2,500 square feet for the units on the first three stories with an
additional 950 square feet per unit from the fourth through sixth stories. The S-2 district
classification will allow the proposed land-to-unit ratio without a variance.
Mr. Hickok stated there will be a stipulation with the recommendation on this project that
requires that the building continue to be used with the resident population ratios as proposed. If
not, they will need to purchase additional land, and a master plan amendment would be required
prior to resident ratio modification. The reason for that is if they should reduce the number of
memory care or assisted living and increase the amount of independent living units, that would
mean more cars and we would ask them to go with more of an independent living ratio instead of
this lower number of stalls allowed because of it being memory care and assisted living.
Mr. Hickok stated the proposed project is in compliance with lot coverage, parking, height, and
all setback requirements except the rear yard setback So, even though it is an S-2, it is designed
really like an R-3 project. The R-3 code does require a 25-foot rear yard setback, and the
proposed building is setback at 23 feet 2 inches. The rear yard in this case is the one that is
furthest from Mississippi. It is not the one that is to the east but the one to the south that backs
up to the properties. There are single-family residential homes on 64th Avenue.
Mr. Hickok stated Anoka County is requiring that additional right-of-way be dedicated along
both Old Central and Mississippi Street. As a result, the rear yard falls short of ineeting the 25-
foot requirement by 2 feet 10 inches. Flexibility though is allowed in the S-2 District, and the
diminished setback can be recognized under the City's master plan amendment approval and no
variance would be required. They have been very good about keeping this an R-3 development
basically with the exception of that setback.
Mr. Hickok stated Petitioner is also requesting a master plan amendment to the original master
plan approved as part of the 2005 rezoning for this site. The original rezoning and master plan
were approved to allow the construction of a mixed-use building with 10,492 square feet of retail
on the lower level and then a 70-unit owner occupied condominium project above. Despite the
fact that the preliminary plat rezoning and the master plan were all approved for this site, the
project never came to fruition because the final plat was never submitted for approval. If the
master plan amendment being discussed is approved by the City Council, it should be noted that
any major modifications to this site plan would again require that it come back before the City
Council for review and approval.
13
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 14
Mr. Hickok stated the 2020 Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from
several meetings held between 1998 and 2000. The rezoning was approved for the DeMello
project because it was within the City's vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed senior proj ect meets several of the obj ectives residents of Fridley identified in the
visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals identified through those
meetings and a telephone survey was to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to live." Ways to
accomplish that goal are to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a place where
the aged can stay. Only about 8 percent of Fridley's housing is of the townhome or
condominium structure type, yet 23 percent of Fridley's residents are over 55 or were in 2000.
To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens' desires to live in a maintenance-free housing
situation, more types of senior housing need to be constructed. The Comprehensive Plan does
show the area of Old Central between Mississippi and Rice Creek Road as an area for
redevelopment. The Economic and Redevelopment Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan states
that the City should continue to pursue a variety of housing types in this area.
Mr. Hickok stated Petitioner hired Maxfield Research to complete a Preliminary Demand
Estimate for Senior Housing in Fridley; and the analysis takes into account the demand for
independent living, assisted living, and memory care. They have calculated demographics,
economics, and other competitive factors that would impact the current demand in the
marketplace. They feel very comfortable with the proj ect that they have. The market area in
which Maxfield analyzed also included Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park, and Hilltop. The
analysis indicates that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 200 units of this nature.
Mr. Hickok stated the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005 the portion of Old
Central adjacent to the proposed project carried 8,900 vehicles per day. At this traffic level, it is
carrying almost the exact amount of traffic the roadway was designed and constructed to carry
and to function at a level of Service D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan anticipates that Old
Central will be carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2030. At 10,000 vehicles per
day, Old Central will be at its capacity. As a result, Anoka County is requiring additional right-
of-way with this plat to ensure that the additional land needed is available to eventually expand
the roadway.
Mr. Hickok stated Petitioner had Foltz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc., perform a traffic analysis on
the proposed use, using methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7`h
Edition (ITE) which is the industry standard. They used the assisted living land use category in
the ITE manual to determine that the proposed senior project would generate a total of 433 trips
per day if all 158 beds within the complex were occupied. Independent living land use would
generate a total of 340 trips per day if all 158 beds were occupied. The consultants used the
number for the Assisted Living use to provide the worst-case scenario for traffic at this facility
because it generates more traffic than an Independent Living land use. This can be attributed to
the fact that an assisted living facility requires the need for more employees. Also, it should be
noted that according to the ITE manual, studies have shown that less than 5 percent of the
residents in an assisted living facility own vehicles. If they do, they rarely drive them.
Employees, visitors, and delivery trucks make most of the trips to this facility. A delivery
vehicle coming and going is "two trips." The ITE manual also points out that the peak hour
generator typically does not coincide with the "peak hour" of the adjacent street traffic for an
14
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 15
assisted living facility. This is primarily related to the shifts of employees beginning at 7:00
a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. The typical peak hours on most roadways are between 6:00 to
7:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. according to traffic analysis standards.
Mr. Hickok stated Petitioner hired Graham Environmental Services Inc. (GES) to complete a
Wetland Evaluation Report for this project and, based on their findings, no wetlands exist on this
site. The petitioner has submitted the proposed project to the Rice Creek Watershed for the
necessary approvals and that review is underway. Once the Rice Creek Watershed folks have
reviewed the plan and approved, the City's Engineering staff will further review this project.
Mr. Hickok said Petitioner has stated that storm water management for this site will be handled
in an underground drainage system. The cost of those underground drainage systems are very
high, but it allows them to put it underground and keep more landscape on the surface and keep
more open space. By having this alternate design they can work around the trees on the site.
Mr. Hickok stated Petitioner held a neighborhood meeting on January 12, and about 20 to 25
people attended. Specific information about that meeting would be best provided by the
petitioner. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for these items on January 21. After
receiving public comment and having a short discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval with twenty-two stipulations. Staff recommends concurrence with the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
Commissioner Varichak asked if Petitioner had any problems with the 22 stipulations.
Mr. Larson replied, no.
Commissioner Varichak asked whether he has the proper financing for doing this project.
Mr. Larson said he had partners. He does not have financing, but feels very comfortable that
they will be able to get the financing. In today's economy, the banking industry changes daily,
so it is always a challenge. They are closing on a site in Mounds View the last week of February
which is a$12 million site, and their next one will be this one.
Councilmember Saefke asked for an explanation on the difference between Torrens and
abstract properties.
Mr. Hickok said abstract property is probably the most common property. Torrens property
goes back to a formal but court-ordered way of describing land. Because it comes by virtue of
court order, it takes actually a court order to change that back There is a formal process and by
order of the court then they could have that description changed and an abstract designation put
on the property. We experienced that on the southwest quadrant. We went through a process
whereby the developer had some abstract and torrens property. In that case they felt more
comfortable going and asking the court to change it. We have other situations out there where
there is development and there is a mixed of torrens and abstract where the County is okay with
it being a tax parcel but they will not blend the lot lines. They need to keep that distinct unless
the court otherwise orders. He asked Attorney Knaak if he had anything to add.
15
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 16
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, said Minnesota has two different systems for recording land. One
is the normal abstract systems where it is described in metes and bounds, or if you have a plat
that has been platted you can just sell it based on those descriptions. Minnesota also has a
system called the "torrens" system where you basically start a legal proceeding. The purpose is
to make your title good through a declaration of the court. You then get a Torrens Certificate or
an Owner's Certificate. It is considered a far more secure way of owning property. To do
anything, whether you put a mortgage on it or anything like that, you actually have to have it
specifically recorded on the certificate and there is a formal process you follow. The two
systems are parallel. A torrens property can be right next to an abstract parcel. The hope was
that the whole state would eventually go torrens and it has not happened.
Councilmember Saefke said he noticed in the Planning Commission that Petitioner intends to
save as many mature trees as possible. He asked what percentage of trees could be saved. He
said he also noticed Mr. Larson has a 90 square foot tree spade.
Mr. Larson replied he is one of the few developers who actually likes trees. They do have a tree
spade. Their intentions are to use that as much as they can. On the landscape plan they have
indicated a lot of trees on the backside. Depending on what kind of tree it is and how it looks,
they may take it down. Their intention is to put up some more trees to buffer the side yard.
Councilmember Saefke stated he also noticed Mr. Larson had some discussion with one of the
neighbors about fencing, and he seemed very amenable to working with the neighbors on the
kind of fencing that they want. One proposal is a six-foot high wooden fence.
Mr. Larson stated at the neighborhood meeting he did talk to a gentleman who he thinks has the
adj acent property on the backside. He asked him what type of fence he wanted. At that point he
did not have one. If he wants the PVC-type fence that is maintenance free, they would be happy
to do or even if he wants a cedar fence. They are very open to that and can coordinate that
through staf£ They want to be good neighbors. On the design of the building, they also kept the
balconies off the back of the building so they are not looking down on top of the neighbors in
their backyards. The balconies are on the front and on the Mississippi Street side.
Councilmember Saefke asked Mr. Larson if this building is going to be comparable to the
Norwood Square building.
Mr. Hickok replied, comparable in terms of age-restricted, that it has a hip roof on it and it has
some brick on it. He said he though it was more comparable to the Noah's Ark building and the
Banfill building.
Councilmember Saefke asked whether the front of the building will be facing Old Central.
Mr. Larson replied, correct.
Councilmember Saefke asked if that is where the entrance would be.
16
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 17
Mr. Larson replied, correct.
Councilmember Saefke asked if there would be a right turn lane into the development.
Mr. Hickok replied there is no plan because of the volume of traffic for one, to put a turn lane
into their front drive. One of the things that did evolve through their discussions with the County
was that they limited access to Old Central to one access point. That is taken at the point back
where the DeMello proj ect had its access point with the idea that once development happens
across the street, they will be looking across at access points, and it would line up the way we
would want it to. If the roadway is widened, there may be a different design.
Councilmember Saefke stated there has been some criticism about the size of the units. He said
his house is only 938 square feet and two kids and two adults have lived there for almost 40
years just fine. A facility that is very necessary. He does believe that our community is getting
older and there is a need for this type of housing. Some of the concerns of the neighbors have
been taken care of and he thinks Mr. Larson is very willing to work with them. He thinks it is
good proj ect.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there were any concerns related to the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said they looked at the grading plan which does not
seem to be a problem. He does not know the particulars on the underground storage system.
Rice Creek has a fairly elaborate set of rules and instructions that professionals will follow in a
design for a building like this.
Councilmember Bolkcom said but we do not see it at this point because they have only looked
at the grading. They do not really look at any of the other issues until after the Rice Creek
Watershed District gives their approval.
Mr. Kosluchar agreed.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she wanted to go on record that she thinks they either need to
have the maintenance free fence or a wooden fence. She does not think a chain link provides
enough privacy.
Mr. Larson said their intention is to do either wood or maintenance free. Not a chain link.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about variances.
Mr. Hickok stated a 7-foot fence is allowed in the residential district and is very typical.
Mr. Larson stated he is okay with a 7-foot fence if that is what the neighbors and the City want.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, as far as variances, if this was not an S-2, the only variance
they are looking at is 2 feet 10 inches.
17
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 18
Mr. Hickok replied, yes. If we were talking about "for sale" condominiums, we would be
talking about 2,500 square feet of land per unit. But we are not. We are talking about an
assisted living memory care facility where the units are small and that, too, is recognized through
the S-2. It is not that pure formula of one unit per 2,500 square feet that you would find if this
were "for sale" condominiums or something else.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but it is not decreasing in any way the green space or any of
our requirements. The only real variance here is because of it being an S-2. They are not
requesting to have any less green space.
Mr. Hickok said we made a text amendment to the City Code, to recognize that certain types of
senior living would have less demand for parking. There is no commercial included like the
previous proj ect, so the parking requirements are reduced. There will be a lot more green space
on this site.
Mr. Larson stated with respect to the 2 feet, it is just a stairway that is coming out of the
building that is encroaching.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the traffic generated at the site.
Mr. Hickok replied the ITE Manual for owner-occupied units has a number of 7 trips per day if
he is not mistaken and, at 7 trips per day, they would be looking at over 900 trips for this
development. In the presentation, he believed they said the numbers were 480 or 344, depending
on whether they used all independent living or a mix with memory care. The trips generally are
from staff, deliveries and visiting family members, not from the residents.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated from her experience with assisted living and memory care,
there are staff there but it not an incredible increase of staff.
Mr. Larson replied, you will see 1 per 15. Staff park inside and underneath.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the shifts--staff working between 7 and 3 and 11 o'clock
at night. She said she thought the peak morning hours would be 7 to 8 o'clock She asked if
there would be any problems.
Mr. Hickok stated the distinction is if there are any residents with cars there who drive, they are
not going out at those peak hours.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they are talking about probably half the traffic than the
previous development.
Mr. Hickok said he thinks maybe more like an eighth, because the previous project was for an
owner-occupied unit for what they call "active adults" starting at age 55.
:
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 19
Mr. Larson stated their average age is 80 years old. They are there because they need to be
there.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated staff said Stipulation No. 20 says if there was a major
modification in the plan that they would have to come back before Council.
Mr. Hickok said they have much more protection with the S-2 because you do not make a
modification to the footprint of the building without coming back before Council. If you are
going to change the master plan it is going to come back to the Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she went on-line and looked at other facilities with assisted
living and memory care. She looked at the sizes because someone made the comment that these
were small. They are not. They are about the same size you would see at other places. Our
community needs this. Rental property does not concern her. She knows there was also some
question about Section 8, and this is not something that would be in this facility other than the
Anoka County vouchers. It is a wonderful opportunity for people in our own community. She
understands the petitioner is going to be working with the neighborhood. Keeping the big trees
is huge. Also, there is the underground water storage and they do not have to deal with a
ponding issue. It looks like a quality project.
Councilmember Barnette said if the plan ever needs to be modified or anything, it has to come
back before the City, correct?
Mr. Larson replied, correct.
Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Larson, using his facility in Coon Rapids, could he give
them a rough percentage of couples vs. singles residing there.
Mr. Larson said he believes they have two couples in the building. It is just opening now. By
the end of February they should have about 40 residents in it out of the 90-unit building.
Councilmember Barnette asked if there is an association agreement and if they have a say in
how the association is run.
Mr. Larson said there is no. However, they do have monthly meetings with their residents and
get their input on food and activities. They have a full-time activities director. They have full-
time nursing and full-time chefs. There is a lot of common space, so when people start talking
about room sizes, they are basically sleeping in their rooms. They have the ability to have a one-
bedroom plus den if they can afford it, or they can have an efficiency if that fits their budget.
Councilmember Barnette asked about the memory units. He asked if the County would get
involved if there was a need for placement of a person under 55 in a memory unit and if they
would be required by law to provide a unit.
Mr. Larson replied, if a doctor or nurse assessment says there is a 45-year old person who needs
to have memory care, they will look at that, although they are not advertising for that. There
19
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 20
may be laws about that, and they do have to obey them.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is some question about actually increasing the kitchen to
have congregate dining and that other seniors could go there and eat. She asked if it would
generate an additiona1340 trips if all 158 beds were occupied.
Mr. Larson stated budgets are getting tightened up, and Meals on Wheels and all the other
programs are starting to disappear. They would like to be able to market to some of those people
who are 72, 73, or 74 years old who have a friend here and want to come and have lunch with
their friend. They are designing and making the dining hall a little bit bigger to invite those
people to come and have dinner or lunch. It would be surprising if they had 20 people a day
extra stop in and have lunch. They are going to open it up to seniors so they can get a feel for the
building.
Councilmember Bolkcom said that was her only concern. She knows that at the Fridley
Community Center a fair amount of seniors from other communities come to the lunches. She
was wondering about the increased traffic, but he is saying it would be big enough to
accommodate no more than about 20 to 25 people.
Mr. Larson replied, somewhere in that range. He does not know the exact number but they are
making it a little bit bigger. There is also a little cafe out front that seats 10 to 12 people so that
could be another area a group could sit and visit and have lunch together at a cheap price--$3, $4,
or $5 a meal. It is just something they want to offer seniors.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the trips would generate additional traffic.
Mr. Hickok said those are blended into the visitation trips already.
Councilmember Bolkcom said there was a public hearing on this matter before the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Hickok said the two items before them require a public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Lund said he would like to give the people present in the audience an opportunity to give
them new information. They have the minutes from the Planning Commission. There was also a
neighborhood meeting held as well.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, stated one of the things she is wondering about is the replat to two
lots. In 2005, Mr. DeMello sought to replat the multiple lots to one lot. This was granted by
Council. Now the developer is seeking to make two lots because of land recording issues. Her
research took her to the Anoka County property tax records where it showed the property on
Mississippi is abstract and the other one was changed to abstract on February 3 and was
previously Torrens to January 30, 2009. With respect to the properties on Old Central, it shows
one changed to abstract on February 3, 2009, that was previously Torrens through January 30,
2009. Strangely enough, 6441 and 6461 did not appear on any property records at the County or
20
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 21
at the City self zoning. She asked how much of the original plan remains in tact. Does the
County still recommend the 64th Avenue access. There was really no discussion about what the
landscaping will be. There was no discussion regarding the alley easement that people in the
neighborhood had a concern with previously. She said the storm water issues seem to have
disappeared. In 2005 there was concern by Jon Haukaas that there was a problem there. Nancy
Jorgensen said there was a problem there. A document from the Rice Creek Watershed said
there was really no way to tell what the impact would be until the project was built. She is not
sure how much of a difference putting the water underground is going to make. They did find
there was a problem with the underground parking and that is why they built it at grade and
bermed it. In 2005 and in Planning Commission meetings, Stacy Stromberg said that R-3 was
the closest. The DeMello project pretty much had to meet those R-3 requirements, and she
believes our zoning code language in 2005 said it needs to meet the closest. Now the Planning
staff is saying that the S-2 has some special leeway. Our City Code S-2 does absolutely nothing
to describe what the lot lines are and what the usages are. It refers you back to City Code for an
"S" District which tells you nothing.
Ms. Reynolds stated this proposed project is 142,847 square feet with a proposed footprint of
47,508 square feet, giving it a 33.26 percent lot coverage. In an R-3 it would be a max of 30
even with underground parking. The DeMello proj ect was 26.67 percent, and that was one of the
11 reasons given for denying that proj ect was the amount of lot coverage. The R-3 requirement
is what was used on the old one, and she does not understand how a master plan amendment
changes what code requirement they have.
Ms. Reynolds stated Ms. Stromberg noted that the proposal meets several of the goals in the
Comprehensive Plan. However, the one thing she failed to mention is that the citizen survey
identified single-level senior housing as the desire of 67 percent of those polled. Assisted living
and those things came in there, too. She went back and looked at the paperwork from the
DeMello proj ect. Some of the concerns are still very valid. One of those was the height of the
proposed structure on the parcel in the development would significantly block sunlight and
impede the view of adj oining residential development more than what they currently enj oy. All
of a sudden a different developer, and the size of the building becomes okay. She still has a
concern using that piece of property for such a huge building. She wonders what the impact is
and what the possibilities will be for developing the other side of the street. She thinks there are
some issues with the zoning.
Ms. Reynolds stated is also concerned with the number of projects the Petitioner has going on.
They have projects in Coon Rapids, Mounds View, and it is her understanding there is one in
Stillwater. She is also concerned about the cost.
Mr. Hickok said this developer is not getting benefits the other developer did not. The height of
the building, for example, is precisely the same as the DeMello Project.
Mayor Lund asked what the mid-roof height was.
Mr. Hickok replied, 35 feet at mid span.
21
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 22
Mr. Hickok stated the point in coming back for a master plan amendment is that the original
plan did not stay in tact. There is a new footprint, and there is a new project here. Also, they
may recall along the right-of-way side of the road, in the northwest corner of the site, the
DeMello Project had a deficiency that had to be recognized by the S-2 District. This 2-foot 10-
inch variance is much less than the deficiency that revealed itself through the DeMello Proj ect.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding an easement that land locks the land, that does go back to a time
when there was a discussion about a property on 64th that has a right-of-way that runs along the
east side of that property and then dead-ends at their back property line. There was some
discussion during the DeMello project about access. This project does not go down to 64tn
Avenue, so it cannot even be considered here. With respect to the alley behind the building, the
developer has not sought to do anything different other than develop the land they own here. An
alley has not been an issue.
Mr. Hickok said storm water issues go to the Rice Creek Watershed District and only after they
have been thoroughly reviewed do they go to our engineers.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was less of an issue because of the underground parking.
Mr. Hickok stated it is less of an issue. Anytime you limit the hard surface on a site, you are
eliminating some of the runoff. With respect to the landscaping and what will be required, there
was no relaxation of the landscaping requirements for this developer. There is a relationship
between the size of the building and/or the size of the lot and the number of trees that are
planted. That is what is used by staff to calculate whether the project meets the requirements or
not.
Mr. Hickok said the S-2 District is predicated on the master plan. Council has the ability to
approve a project based on its master plan. We ask the developer to match the R-3 as close as
they can. Staff tries to alleviate any problems by asking the developer to do this. It is not a
requirement or law. We are doing that to help make the project blend in the area and make it as
close to the R-3 District as possible. It is based on a master plan, and Council, in its discretion,
can approve a plan that is very, very different than the R-3. With respect to lot coverage, there is
some benefit to parking underneath the building, and it is an incentive for developers because
they can do a bigger footprint if they put the parking underneath the building. It does limit the
surface parking outside and goes a long way to maximizing the green space and the overall
aesthetics of the development.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding blocking access to light, in the R-1 District, they can go that high.
Someone can build a house that is multi-stories high and have the same issue. If you saw a
shadow study on this site, the argument about the shadow would go away pretty quick.
Mr. Hickok said this developer is not being given any breaks.
Mayor Lund stated regarding the DeMello project being under the 30 percent and this one at 33
percent, even though the parking may be less, diminishing the need for some storm water
storage, the footprint is larger. Is it correct this is exceeding it by a little over 3 percent?
22
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 23
Mr. Hickok stated there is a 10 percent benefit basically for a building. This really gives you
the benefit or the incentive to put the parking under the building, and then you can go the full 30
percent with the footprint of the building. With the S-2 master plan, they have some discretion.
They are not held to an R-3 standard. Staff asked the developer to get things down to an R-3
standard if they could.
William Burns, City Manager, asked Mr. Hickok to address Ms. Reynolds' concerns regarding
the two lots that do not appear to be on any property records.
Mr. Hickok said he believes it needs to be investigated further. With respect to property
changing from Torrens to abstract, he would go back to the original developer on this project
who probably did not understand that and came in believing that they could file a plat as one lot
but understanding that they would have to have a court ruling on that piece of property before it
could all become abstract. This developer determined what is Torrens or abstract. A preliminary
plat has been reviewed by the County surveyor. What they are saying is you have an abstract
piece here and you have to reconcile those. You do not have to change it to abstract and have the
entire lot that way, but you do have to recognize that they cannot be j oined and made one lot.
Mr. Larson stated he has a site plan that is basically the same thing the Council has as a
landscape plan, except the landscape plan will identify the species of trees.
Mayor Lund asked if the plan showed every tree that will be on the site.
Mr. Larson replied yes.
Mayor Lund said either by saving a tree or planting a tree.
Mr. Larson replied correct.
Mr. Hickok stated up to a certain percentage, for every e�sting tree that they save, they can take
away trees that they would otherwise be required to plant. That is only a certain percentage of
the overall trees that they are required to plant there. They get a certain benefit that really
behooves them to keep as many of those trees as they can. They get a 2 to 1 ratio if it is over a
certain size.
Mr. Larson said the previous project was a"for sale" project. He is going to own this project
and put his name on it, so he wants a lot of trees. He wants the people who live there to have
trees. He wants it to be beautiful.
Mayor Lund stated but the neighbors recognize that it takes a long time for them to benefit from
those trees when you have a 35-foot tree at the midspan.
Mr. Larson said that is why they are trying to save as many as they can.
23
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 24
Ms. Reynolds stated at no time did she indicate that she felt this developer was getting
something special. She was merely interested in why Mr. DeMello was required to maintain an
R-3 standard, and this project does not. She said if it was originally platted as one lot, why is it
necessary to do it as two, unless Mr. DeMello did not file the final plat.
Mayor Lund stated that is correct. Mr. DeMello never filed it.
Ms. Reynolds stated her biggest concern with S-2 is exactly the fact that there is nothing in
writing that says what can go there, what it has to look like, what the perimeters are. So there are
guidelines that say he would have to reflect the closest thing to it.
Susan Okeson, 1423 — 64th Avenue NE, said she attended the Planning Commission meeting
and the meeting at the Community Center. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting, the
stipulations talked about properties on 64th Avenue. Mr. Hickok indicated that it was a mistake.
She asked if the original stipulations had been corrected.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Ms. Okeson stated all she can say is the landscaping and maintain as much of the woods on the
property as possible is very important to the neighborhood. She asked what happens if a tree
dies after it is planted.
Mr. Hickok said once a landscape plan is approved, it is required. It does not matter if it is
within the first year or 14 years down the road. When the tree dies it needs to be replaced. If
they were counting on an existing tree for their count, if the roots get damaged, etc., and the tree
dies, remembering that the ratio then is 2 trees to 1, they will come back with two trees for one of
those mature ones as a replacement.
Mayor Lund stated regarding a living fence, there has been discussion here about no chain link
fence, and that it needs to be either the maintenance free (PVC over lumber) or just a lumber
privacy type fence. He heard the applicant clearly state that he is amenable to what the
neighborhood would want. He thought there should be some kind of consensus.
He is sure that staff would take that very kindly as to if we can get to some consensus. If one
resident says I want the PVC and the other one says something else, there we are. If there is
some consensus he does not see there is an issue. With respect to the living fence, he
understands that to mean some type of vine or another plant growing on the fence.
Mr. Hickok stated in the landscape portion of our City Code and the different chapters, it does
mention using a fence or using live plant material.
Mayor Lund stated one or the other but not both.
Mr. Hickok replied it could be both. In the context that it was being discussed at the Planning
Commission, he thought it was about planting something that gets better looking all the time. It
is a much better alternative than something that needs maintenance.
24
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 25
Councilmember Bolkcom said we have to be careful that we are not putting in green things that
are also going to need to be replaced and trimmed.
Andrea Olson, 1385 — 64th Avenue NE, said they have gone through all these different sessions
over the years. They are still very disappointed that the S-2 zoning made it through and that they
are going to have this gargantuan building in their back yard. Everything else has been decided.
The landscaping is the last thing they can affect. She would like to see something a little more
concrete to the landscape plan to make her feel more comfortable. It is not about saying, okay,
you have to do this and this. She is wondering about a solid fence and landscaping. While she
thinks that a six-foot fence would provide a lot of privacy, it only provides that privacy if you are
within six feet of the property so it does not do a lot for privacy of her backyard. She wondered
how that is going to inhibit the growth of the plantings and such that he is required to put in. She
is wondering if there is something that could be done outside of even that property line that could
work as far as providing more privacy. Better green space.
Mayor Lund stated the petitioner has publicly mentioned that he wants to be neighborly and
amenable. He thinks the big issue, the living fence, it is best to have trees that would get higher
over time that would add to the privacy above the six-foot or seven-foot fence line. It is more of
a long-term thing, not something that is going to happen overnight.
Kurt Olson, 1385 — 64th Avenue NE, stated he would like to see a stipulation that says, okay, if
he has to replace two for one, he has a 90-inch tree spade, he brings in two 6-inch diameter 20-
foot tall trees and puts them in. Not a 6 or 7 foot tree that is going to take 15 years to grow to
give his yard the privacy that he has right now. His biggest concern is losing his privacy in his
yard. He wants to make sure that his privacy is respected and the petitioner is absolutely held to
putting in trees that are not twigs and wants the maximum tree that is absolutely possible no
matter what his cost.
Mayor Lund asked what the landscape requirements were.
Mr. Hickok stated they are a minimum 2.5 inch caliper tree at a point measured 6 inches above
grade or a 6-gallon coniferous. He is not a tree expert, but will tell them from experience that
the larger the tree, the greater its vulnerability and possibility of it being lost to disease at that
late transplant stage. A 2.5 inch tree is a pretty good size tree. That is the caliper around the area
6 inches above the ground. However, it is a rather tall tree and is close to 20 feet in height; and
that is what Code requires, nothing less than 2.5 inches. What he heard the developer say is to
the best they can, they would spade in somewhere around 6 inch. Now he would say that is
about the biggest tree you would want to spade in based on the vulnerability they talked about.
Mr. Olson stated but that is the petitioner's problem. He is building the building and he needs to
knock down whatever, and he just cannot believe that he is going to be able to leave all that
many trees over there. The plan looks great, but he just does not see it happening. It is a huge
building for that neighborhood so he would like to see something set in stone holding him
responsible. If he brings in 2 and they both die, then he has to bring in 4. He just keeps going
until we get a bunch of trees that make it no matter what his cost is.
25
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 26
Mr. Larson replied he is okay with bringing in as big of trees that he can. When you starting
getting 6-inch or bigger, the chances of living are a lot tougher. He does not have a problem at
all with replacing trees 2 to 1 or whatever. If two die, he replaces them with two. Otherwise you
would have a forest. Also, the 90-inch spade requires a lot of room. This is a tandem truck. He
is more than happy to put in what he can, what will get in there, but they have to reasonable, too.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there were mature trees at the Coon Rapids project.
Mr. Larson replied, yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked approximately how many.
Mr. Larson replied he did not know but they are pretty good-sized trees. They have not finished
the landscaping. The back of that project, similar to the back of this project, was heavily
wooded. They want to go in there and clean it out so people can actually enj oy it, too. They are
talking about saving the big trees. Make it look like a park.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the 2 for 4 does not make sense to her either.
Mayor Lund stated if a mature tree is lost later on that was used as part of the calculation for
what he has to have under the landscaping ordinances, then in that case he is required to put in 2
trees for the 1 lost.
Mr. Hickok suggested the people drive by the Coon Rapids development.
Dan Leverenz, 1340 Mississippi, stated you have to look at the area. There are a lot of dead
trees in there now and the place is a mess. If Mr. Larson is going to do anything, he is going to
put nicer trees there and that is what it needs.
Councilmember Barnette asked the address of the Coon Rapids proj ect was.
Mr. Larson replied, at Hanson Boulevard and Highway 10.
Councilmember Varichak said that proj ect was a renovated proj ect from before. It was not
built from ground level.
Mr. Larson said it was a condo project that they converted to assisted living. One building was
100 percent complete, the other building was just framed. With the economy being the way it
was, it was not going anywhere. They went back to the City and redesigned the proj ect.
Dr. Burns stated Ms. Reynolds voiced a concern about the number of project the Petitioner had.
He thinks the implication is that the Petitioner is overbuilding the market. She felt a concern
about the affordability of the units to Fridley units. While he thinks those are all valid concerns,
are they a legitimate part of this approval process?
26
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 27
Mr. Hickok said the City does ask for a market study. They did one and it was 200 units
relative to Fridley. That recognizes that there are projects going up in Mounds View, New
Brighton, and other places; but it is for Fridley based on what the conditions are right now and
the surrounding development. Regarding the overbuilding, he would see that as a positive thing.
In this market place, if they have a lot of projects going and are successful with them, that says a
lot about the developer.
Mayor Lund stated the discussion was very good and everyone brought up very good concerns
and questions and thinks they were answered adequately or fairly. He knows there is the
diminished privacy issue. It will take time to grow trees and there is no way around it. He does
think there is a need for this and it is supported by the independent study. This may diminish
another project very similar to this. He does disagree that without S-2 those properties could
never be built because of the different zonings. He thinks that we can always legislate and it
changes. He does think that a property owner should have some rights to develop his
property(ies). They are zoned differently. He thinks this kind of cleans it up. It is a big
building. With respect to the ponding issue, the underground tank is a significant improvement.
It creates more green space. He thinks this is a better project all around.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is the petitioner's and the property owner's responsibility to
take care of the storm water. There was some mention related to Mr. Haukaas mentioning this
before, but she also heard that there is not a stricter watershed in the metro area than the Rice
Creek Watershed District. It is definitely a difference in the neighborhood. This is a different
petitioner from the one before who had never done any of these projects. This gentleman wants
to be a good neighbor, and we need to hold him to that and we will do that with the landscaping
and the 22 stipulations. The petitioner cannot change this without coming back to Council. This
will keep people in our community. It is going to be a positive thing for our community and
well-run.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to approve Preliminary Plat Request, PS #09-01, by
Select Senior Living, subj ect to the following 22 stipulations:
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan A1.1 dated
January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A3.1,
A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of
a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-
of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
county right-of-way.
27
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 28
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall provide
necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to
issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance
of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for
residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment
systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. 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.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the proposed
development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City staff prior
to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan amendment will need to be
obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic improvements
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including
signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc.,
will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat
approval.
Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to approve Master Plan Amendment, MP #09-01, by
Select Senior Living with the following 22 stipulations:
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan A1.1 dated
January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A3.1,
A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permit.
:
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 29
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of
a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-
of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall provide
necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to
issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance
of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot).
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for
residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment
systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. 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.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the proposed
development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City staff prior
to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan amendment will need to be
obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic improvements
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including
signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc.,
will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat
approval.
Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS:
2. Resolution Approving Agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of
Transportation for Replacement of the Existing Traffic Control Signal at Trunk
Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive (Ward 2) (Tabled January 5, 2009).
29
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 30
Councilmember Barnette asked what would happen if MnDOT did not approve this
appropriation. She asked if the City be responsible.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated, it is highly unlikely. The State Aid funding
that we are talking about is set aside on behalf of each community from gas tax funds and
managed by the State of Minnesota. That is the only reason for the request.
Councilmember Bolkcom said if the funds do not come through, do we have one more
opportunity to say we are not going to do the proj ect?
William Burns, City Manager, said he thought the deal would be altered by any withholding of
state aid for this proj ect.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney what would happen.
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, said the resolution indicates a j oint activity. He thinks it clear from
the City's position that the expectation is that it is based on State funds. If a fundamental
condition of the agreement fails, in this case the failure of State funds, the City would be able to
back out of the deal.
Councilmember Bolkcom said MnDOT has advised that they prefer not to include this
language in the agreement; however, a written response to our request is expected from MnDOT
that will satisfy this concern. She asked Mr. Kosluchar if he had received a response.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, not yet. He was hoping to have it by the time of the meeting. He does
have a summary of what the letter is going to say.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked who wrote the summary.
Mr. Kosluchar replied the summary is from Mark Lindberg with MnDOT Metro District. He is
the north area engineer.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was concerned about the possibility of widening this road.
She would hate to spend that amount of money if the road if they are going to widen the road.
Mr. Kosluchar read what Mr. Lindberg said in his e-mail: "What I can tell you is that it appears
MnDOT would be willing to bear the burden of the sole cost of a new signal system if there were
a MnDOT-initiated project to widen the causeway with a letting prior to July 1, 2020." What he
is saying is if MnDOT initiates the project and, if that is within the ten years, we would not be
asked to contribute.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt Resolution No. 2009-10. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
30
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 31
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for
Construction of a Traffic Control Signal System at Trunk Highway 65 and Moore
Lake Drive (Ward 2).
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt Resolution No. 2009-11. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 21, 2009.
Councilmember Bolkcom recommended the minutes go back to the Planning Commission and
they look at the minutes. She pointed out a typographical error on Page 7 of the minutes,
paragraph 6, Commissioner Velin stating, "It does not say anything about an existing business,
isn't [tJhe special use permit for a new business? Also, on that same page, Mr. Nelson states
"He is very used to following rules." Finally, on Page 14, the last paragraph, Ms. Stromberg
states "though well-maintained landscape grounds are essential to the project appeal and resident
enjoyment, the size of the lot in this situation can be small because the opportunity for residents
to participate in larger scale outdoor activities on the grounds is much smaller." This does not
make a lot of sense to her.
Mayor Lund stated actually it does. It is saying that because of these types of residents the
scale of outdoor activities is much smaller.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes with the above corrections.
Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropriations for the 2008 Budget for
November through December, 2008.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she understand the $28,474 was paid back to us and was
related to the Republican Convention. She said the Little League fields cost $11,326, but
wondered why we got money back.
William Burns, City Manager, it was from Youth Baseball. It was a park maintenance
donation.
31
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 32
Mr. Kosluchar stated there was a capital proj ect at the Little League fields.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2009-14. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Informal Status Reports.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the 2008 Code Enforcement Report could be reviewed
online.
Mr. Hickok replied said it was not online. It was put together for Council and for people to pick
up, but it could be put online.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thought it was interesting. She thought maybe it could
also be published in the newsletter.
William Burns, City Manager, said there is one in the April issue.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if someone was going to report on our discussion about the
street rehabilitation proj ect.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said there were some concerns brought forward and
they are working with the owners and/or researching the issues. There was a general discussion
about how Council would handle the schedule for this project and whether we should continue
construction this year, and how the assessments should be handled. It is his understanding that
we are going to continue the proj ect and assess it as we have done in the past. However, there
was some consideration given to the gentleman who discussed double bungalows and his
assessment relative to the other residential and commercial units. The direction that staff is
going to take is we are going to look at an amendment to the policy to include those as 1.5
residential units. Also, they will be doing some notification for the residents probably through a
follow-up mailing or maybe the first project mailing.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they had to wait until the first proj ect mailing.
Mr. Kosluchar said they could push it up a little.
Councilmember Bolkcom said there was a fair amount of discussion as to whether it makes
sense to change the policy. One of their concerns was losing almost $8,300 worth of interest.
She said they realize it is a hardship, but they also feel it could be a bigger hardship if the project
is not done this year. Some of the streets are in bad repair.
Mayor Lund stated initially they had talked about possibly deferring the assessment interest for
one year. Upon further reflection, they decided not to. It would have added onto the interest
32
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 33
cost. The other problem is if there is a property that is sold during the delayed assessment, that
may or may not come up in the sale agreement. There may be some problems with the project
MnDOT is doing, but he is in agreement to move forward.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated regarding the commuter rail and some of our rights and ins and
outs of that property, she knows that Mr. Kosluchar or Mr. Hickok are looking at some of the
minutes from the commuter rail meetings we had and some of the concerns from the
neighborhood and some of the recommendations related to traffic in that area. We do not want
to do this project in an area where we change the traffic pattern. We do have some time before
this starts because we are looking at delaying the project because of the University Avenue
proj ect happening first.
William Burns, City Manager, said he received a complaint about train whistles blowing.
Public Safety Director pon Abbott indicated that train whistles have to be sounded while there
are repairs going on in the track right-of-way. They are working there now in anticipation of the
Northstar project. The work should be done soon.
Mr. Kosluchar stated there is a tentative date for a public open house on the Trunk Highway 47
mill and overlay that MnDOT is holding. It will be held at Fridley City Hall in the Council
Chambers on March 4.
Councilmember Barnette asked if the proj ect went from 40th Avenue to Highway 610.
Mr. Kosluchar replied that is right. It is his understanding that MnDOT does notify the adj acent
property owners, particularly businesses.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated we also have an open house in the
lobby of the Municipal Center for the Northstar project on March 3 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. The
groundbreaking will be at 4 p.m. on the site.
Dr. Burns said both of these events are being organized by the Northstar Commuter Rail
Development Authority.
ADJOURN.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Varichak, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson
Recording Secretary
33
Scott J. Lund
Mayor
�
�
CffY DF
FRIDLEY
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23,
I � � �
February 18, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director
Refund of Building Permit Fee - 6401 Central Avenue
Introduction
Robert Calderon, 6401 Central Avenue NE has requested a refund on his building permit. His
permit was issued on December 19, 2007. A person is entitled to and can apply for a partial
refund (up to 80%), provided that it is within 180 days of permit issuance. Obviously, this
request comes beyond the 180 days described by Code; however, due to the circumstances of
this case staff is recommending Council's consideration of a partial refund.
Elements for Consideration
Mr. Calderon's contractor, Northern Exposure Exteriors, applied for the application in December
of 2007. The permit was to allow a substantial residential addition to the home at 6401 Central.
The building permit fee was $1,290.55, Plan Check Fee was $838.86, State Surcharge $76.11,
Fire Surcharge $152.23, License Surcharge was $5.00. All fees totaled $2,362.75.
The building addition was to be valued at $152,227.00 and the fees are typical of a building with
this valuation. What was not typical, was the fact that after preliminary approvals for
construction financing, the financing fell through. This caused the homeowners to not be able to
build. Though this problem is so far unique to us and we have not had similar refund requests, it
probably is not unique in a dismal economic market. People start out wanting to do a project
and lose their financing and find themselves needing to hold-off on plans.
Recommendation
The plan check fees compensated the City for the plan review work that was done. Essentially,
that $838.86 has been spent and cannot be refunded. Likewise, the surcharges paid have been
distributed to the appropriate entities and should be considered non-refundable. The permit fee;
however, could be refunded to a value up to 80%, $1,032.44. The 20% retained pays for permit
technician work, and other administration that has occurred as a result of the permit issuance.
Due to the extenuating circumstances in this case, staff recommends a refund in the amount of
$1,032.44 for permit no. 2007-02364, 6401 Central Avenue, NE.
�
�
C1TY flF
FRIaLE'f
DATE
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23,
2009
February 19, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Housing Replacement Resolution
INTRODUCTION
Please find attached resolution endorsing legislative pursuit of a renewed housing replacement
plan for the City of Fridley. You may recall from our session with our legislative delegation in
January that we encouraged them to help us reinstitute our housing replacement program that ran
from 1995, through 2005. This program was more commonly known locally as our, "scattered
site" program. Many homes have been or may become available on the market, due to economic
factors. This program would allow the City to purchase homes and to use a residential source of
tax increment financing/ pooling to fund a portion of that housing investment.
ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER
In Minnesota Statute (1995), Chapter 264, Article 5, Section 44-47, the Legislature authorized the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority to establish a Housing Replacement Program. The HRA
established the Program and the City Council approved the creation of a tax increment district
that allowed staff to pursue a scattered site/housing replacement program.
Currently, the City and HRA are attempting to address the many issues resulting from housing
mortgage foreclosures, vacant properties and structurally substandard housing. Special legislation
allowing for the extension/reimplementation of the earlier Housing Replacement Program and the
use of certain funds to assist with the Program would be the outcome of our efforts.
If approved, the City would have the authority to purchase as many as 100 houses in a
replacement district and could clean-up blight and allow reinvestment of funds generated through
the type of Special Tax Increment District designed for housing replacement.
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution to allow the City to request of the
Legislature special legislation to allow our housing replacement program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution endorsing legislative pursuit of a renewed
housing replacement plan for the City of Fridley.
RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SPECIAL LEGISLATION BY THE
MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of Fridley, Minnesota
("City") as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1995, Chapter 264, Article 5, Section 44-47,
the Minnesota Legislature ("Legislature") authorized the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Fridley (the "HRA") to establish a Housing Replacement Program (the
"Program"); and
WHEREAS, the HRA did establish the Program and the City approved the creation of a
tax increment district in 1995 and the Authority and City subsequently modified the Program
through 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City and HRA are attempting to address the many issues resulting from
housing mortgage foreclosures, vacant properties and structurally substandard housing; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A is special legislation allowing for the extension of the Housing
Replacement Program and the use of certain funds to assist with the Program.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City requests the Legislature to approve the
special legislation attached as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
�� �_°�� �� r . �
�� °'� � u � r� �
f
�� �� � � � �
James R. Casserly
jcasserly@krassmonroe.com
Direct 952.885.1296
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Fridley
Attn: William Burns, City Manager, HRA Director
Attn: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Attn: Paul Bolin, HRA Assistant Executive Director
From: James R. Casserly, Esq.
Date: February 19, 2009
Re: Housing Replacement Program
Our File No. 9571-13
To assist the City and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority to respond to mortgage
foreclosure issues, we have been working on legislation that would reenact the Fridley
Housing Replacement Program and provide some additional flexibility in the use of tax
increment funds.
Attached as Exhibit A is legislation which we anticipate will be introduced in the next
week. A brief summary of the legislation is as follows:
1. Section 1 expands the City/Authority's ability to pool tax increment to
assist with certain housing that does not exceed 150% of the average
market value of the homes in the City. The assistance can be available to
a parcel that contains up to four family dwelling units and is in foreclosure
or was previously foreclosed and is now a vacant site.
2. Section 2 adds the City of Brooklyn Park to the Housing Replacement
Program.
3. Section 3 allows Fridley, and the other named cities, to designate up to
100 parcels to be included in housing replacement districts. This section
further eliminates the 25% match requirement from non-tax increment
resources.
8000 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-I 178
�'��.952.885.5999 �n,� 952.885.5969
www.krassmonroe.com
4. Section 4 is applicable to the City of St. Paul.
Attached as Exhibit B is a brief overview of the City/Authority's current Housing
Replacement Program. Twenty-one parcels are currently in the Program. The
proposed legislation would allow us to add an additional 79.
Attached are Resolutions Requesting Approval of the Special Legislation by the
Minnesota Legislature for both the City and the HRA.
Fridley was a leader in sponsoring the original legislation and implementing it. The
Program was first established in October of 1995. After 2004, the City/Authority was no
longer able to add parcels to the Program. As noted above, the proposed legislation
allows cities to establish or reinstitute the Program, to add additional parcels with fewer
restrictions and to potentially use some additional tax increment revenues with which to
provide assistance.
JRC/al
Enclosures
KM: 4811-3906-0995, v. 1
Page 2
�.i
I .2
t.�
i.a
I .5
1.6
1.7
t.s
I .�i
i i c,
I�1'
i.�z
1.13
1.1��
t.is
t.ic�
i.i�
i �s
1.19
i .20
I .21
l .z2
I .23
� .2�1
125
I .2G
i.z�
02/181U�) U�:UG PM
EXHIBIT A
i-tousL Rcsen�zcr-� f�s .rMOZ�-t
A bill for an act
rclating to t�x increment financing; expanding pooling authoriry for housing;
autha•izing additional parcels in housing replacemei�t districts; �Ilowing
�dditional auihority to spend increments for housinb replacement district pllns;
authorizing the city of Broolclyn Parl< to establish housi�ig replacement districts;
eliminating the local contribution requirement for housing repl�cement districts;
reauthorizing the city of St. Paul to use special laws for housing replacement;
amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 469.1763, subdivision 2; Laws 199�,
chapler 264, article 5, seclions 44, subdivision 4, as amended; 45, subdivision 1,
as amended.
BC: IT GNACTf;D BY'I'f-IG I�EUISLA"fUIZE OF Tf-IL; STA"1'E OF MINNESO`fl�:
Section l. Minnesota Statutes 2008, secYion 469.17G3, subdivision 2, is amended to
read:
Subd. 2. E�penditures outside district. (a) For each tax increment financing
district, an amount equ�l to at least 75 percent of the total revenue derived from tax
increil�ei�ts paid by properties in the district must be ex��encled on activities in the district
or lo pay bonds, lo che extent that the proceeds of lhe bonds were used to finance activities
in the district or lo pay, or sec�u•e payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds.
For districts, other chan redevelopment districts for which the request for certif cation
was made after June 30, 1995, the in-district percentage for pwposes of the preceding
sentence is 80 �ercent. Not more than 25 percent of the total revenue derived fi•om tax
increments �aid by }�roperYies in the district may be expended, throuah a developtne»t fund
or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of
the pro.ject except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds.
I�or districts, other than redevelopment districcs for which dle request for certification was
inade after June �0. 1995, the pooline percentage for purposes of the preceding sentence is
20 percent. Tlle revenue derived from tax increments Por Yhe district that are expended on
Section l.
02/18/09 05:06 PM HUUSL RGSLARCI-1 AB .1M021-I
2i costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b), m�y be deductecl f rst before
2.z calculating the �ercentages thai musi be expended w�ithin and without Lhe district.
2.3 (b) In the case of a housinb disirict, a housing project, as defined in section 469.174,
z,a subdivision 1 l, is an activity in the district.
�.s (c) All administrative eapenses are for ac�ivities outside of the district, except that
2,c� if che only expcnses for �ctivitics outside of the clistrict under this subdivision are for
2.� lhe purposes described in paragraph (d), atlministrative ex�enses will be eonsidered �s
2.s expenditures for activities in the districi.
2.� (cl) The authority lll�ly elect, Ifl tll� t1X 1RC1'Elll@Ill'�II1I1C111�' j�Jall I`OI' tI7� CI1Sl1'ICl,
2.io to increase by up lo ten percentage points the permitted amount of e�pendit�u•es ior
2. � � activities located oulside the geographic area of the distric� under p�ra�raph (a). As
z i2 permiYted by section 469.176, subdivision 41c, the expenditures, including the permitted
2 i_ cxpenditures undcr ��U'S�I'fl�Il �fl�, need nol be made within the geographic area ot�tlle
z. i�a pr�ject. Exnenditures thlt meet the requirements of this parigraph are legally permitted '
2.�5 expendiYures of the district, IlOL1YIfI15i11lClllla section 4G9.176, subdivisions 46, 4c, and 4j.
z.ib To qualify for the increase under this parabraph, the expenditures must:
z.i� (1) be used exclusively to assist housing that meets the requirement for a qualified
z.ts low-income building, as that tecm is used in sectia142 ofthe Internal Revenue Code;
z.�� (2) not exceed the c7ualified basis ofthe housing, as defined under section 42(c) of
2.ZO Yhe Internal Revenue Code, less the amount of any credit allowecl under section 42 of'
�.z� the lnternal Revenue Code; �nd
z.�� (3) be used to:
zz3 (i) acquire and prepare the site of the housina;
�.2�� (ii) acquire, construct, or rehabilitate the housing; or
z.zs (iii) malce public improvements directly relatecl to the housing; or
z.z6 �4) be used to develop housin� that does not exceed l50 nerceilt of ihe avera��e
2.z� marl<et value of sin�le-family homes in that municipalitv and Yo pay the cost of site
2zs acquisition, relocation, demolition of existin� structures, site preparation, and pollution
z.z� abatement on one or more parcels, if the parcel:
�.�u (i) contains a residence containin� one to four famih� cl���ellin�: units that has been
?.: t vacant for chree or more monlhs:
z.3z (ii) cont�ii�s a residence containin� one to four family dwellinQ units thac is
2.�3 structurally subslandard, as defined in section 469.174, subdivision 10;
z.sq (iii) is in foreclosure as in defined section 325N.10, subdivision 7, but without regard
2.35 to whether the residence is the owner's principal residence; or
Sectiun I. 2
U3/1 S/09 0�:0G 1'M hI0US1� RBSl/1RCl-I A[3 .IMU21-I
�.i (iv) is a vacant sile, if the authoritv uses ehe parcel in conneccion with the
;.2 devclopment or redevelopment of a parcel qualifyine under subclauses (i) to (iii).
s.; (e) For a disirict a•eated within 1 biotechnology and health sciences industry zone
3.� as defined in section 469.330, subdivision 6, or for an existinb district loc�ted within
;,s such a zone, tax increment derived ti�om such a district may be expended outside of the
s.� disu•ict but w�ithin the zone only for expenditures required for the construction of public
3.� infrastrucl�u•e necessary to support lhe �ctivities of Yhe zone, land acquisition, and other
3.s redevelopment costs �is defined in section 469.176, subdivision 4j. These eapendit�n•es �u•e
��� considered as expenditures for activities ���ithin ihe disirict.
;.�o (� The authority �u�der para�raph (d), clause (4), expires on Uecember 31, 2015.
3.i� [ncrements mav conlinue lo be expended under Chis authority afCer lhat d1le, if thev are •
3.�z used to nay bonds or bindin� contraccs that would qualiPy under subdivision 3, n�rasranh
3.13 (a), if Yhe December 31, 2015, is considered to be last date of the five-year neriocl after
3.in cer[if cation under that provision.
3.�5 EFFGCTCVE llAT.E. This section is effective for any district that is subject to the
s.�� provisions of section 469.1763, re�ardless of when the requesi for certification of the
;.i� CIISII'ICl WaS Il1c1CIC.
3.�s Sec. 2. Laws 19I5, chapter 264, article 5, section 44, subdivision 4, as amended by
3.�9 La���s 1996, chapter471, arlicle 7, section 21, ancl Laws 1997, chapter 231, article 10,
3.zo section 12, and Laws 2008, chapter 154, article 9, section 18, is amended to read:
3.z� Subd. 4. Authorify. Foi• housing replacement projects in the city of Crystal,
3.22 "authority" means the Crystal economic development authority. For housing replacement
3.23 projects in thc ciY}� of Fridley, "authority" means the housing and redevelopment a�dhority
s.z�i in and for the city of Fridley or a successor in interest. Por housii�g replacement
s.zs pro.jects in �he city of� Minnea��olis, "aulhority" means the Minneapolis community
3 z6 developrnent agency a� its successors and assigns. For housing replacement �rojeces
3.z� in lhe city of St. Paul, °authority" means the St. Pauf housing and redevelopment
3.2s auYhority. I=or housing replacement projects in the city of Duluth, "authoriYy" tneans the
3.z�� DUIIIiII CCO1101111C CICVCIO�Ji17Clll 1UYI]OI'IY}�. FOl' IIOLiSIIl� replacement projects in the city of
3.3o Richfield, "aulhority" is the authority as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174,
331 subdivision 2, that is designated by the governin� body of lhe city of Richfield. For
3�2 housing repllcement projects in the cily of Columbia l-Ieights, "authority" is the authority
�.33 as def ned in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, subdivision 2, that is designated by
�_� the governin�� bocly of the city of Columbia Heighis. For housinQ replacement projecis in
s._s the cicv of Brool<Ivn Parlc, "authority" is the authority, as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Sec. 2. 3
�
4.2
0?/ I S/09 0�:06 I'M
I-IOUSL: R�SL-N2CI-! AB JM021-I
seccion 469.174, subdivision 2, that is desirnaled bv the Qovernin�� body of the ciYV of
f3rnol:lvn 1'arl<.
�i.3 LFFECTIVE DA'I'E. This section is ef�feciive the day Pollorvin.� f nal enactment
�i.a �u�d applies to the city of Brool<lyn I'arl: wichout local approval �u�der Minnesota Stltutes,
as section 645.023, subdivision l, cl�use (a).
4.6
�I .7
4.S
�i.��
�.lu
�i.ii
4.�2
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.IG
��.��
n is
�i.io
4.20
4.zt
a.zz
4.23
A.24
��.��
�I 26
�.z�
�.zs
4.29
4.30
431
Sec. 3. Laws 1995, chapter 264, article �, section 45, subdivision 1, as amended by
La�as 1996, CI1�l�J�BI' 4%I, lrlicle 7, section Z2, and Laws 1997, chapter 231, article ] 0,
section 13, and L���vs 2002, cilapter 377, article 7, section 6, �ulcl Laws 20U8, chapter 154,
article 9, section 19, is amended lo read:
Subdivision I. G•c,ttion o(' projecfs. (�) An aulhority may crcatc a housing
re��l�cemcnt project under sections 44 co 47, as provided in this section.
(b) ror Yhe cities of Crystal, Fridley, Richfield, �md Columbia l-leights, ancl f3roofclvn
Parlc, the authority may designate up to �$ 100 parcels in the city to be included in a
housing replacement district over the list of a dislricL or districts.
, �
. For the cities of St. P1ul and Duluth, cach
authority may ciesignate not ma•e than 200 parcels in the city to be included in a housing
rcpl�cement district over the life of the district. For the city of Minneapolis, the authority
may designatc not more than 400 parcels in the ciry to be included in housing replacement
disLricts over the lile of the disericts. The only parcels that may be included in a district are
(1) vacant sites, (2) parcels containing vacant houses,.or (3) parcels containing houses
thai are structurally substandard, as def ned in Minnesota Statutes, section 469. ] 74,
subdivision 10.
(C�
� c a , ,
{�1-}'I"he housing replacement district plan must Ilave as its sole object the acquisitioil
of parcels for the p�u•pose of preparing the site to be sold for marlcet r�te housing. As
used in this section, "tnarl<et rate housing" means housing that h�s a marlcet value thai
does not exceed 150 percent of the average �narlcet value of single-family housing in �hat
t1111111Ct�1�lly.
4.32 �FFECTIVE llATE. This section is effective the day followin� final enactment
�i.33 and applies to the af�ected ciYies without local approval wzder Minnesota Statutes, section
�3� 64�.02.�. subdi��ision l. clause (al.
Sec. 3. 4
ozii �ro�� u,:oc, r�M r�ousr: izesc�ria-� f\l3 .IMOZ I-1
s.� Sec. 4. CITY OF S7'. PAUL; AUTT=iORITY TO Ea�I2CTSE SPLCIAT� LAW
;.z AUTI-iORITY.
5.s Notwithstandin� the failure of the �.overnin�; body of the city of St. Paul to �tpprove
;.�i La���s f 99�, chantc�� 264, article 5, sections 44 to 47, as required by Laws ] 995, chapter
s.; 2G4, arlicle 5, section 49, lhe nrovisions of sections 44 to 47, as amended �pply to the city
;,t, of St. Paul ���ithout local approvll untler Minnesota S11Cutes, section 64�.023, subdivision
; � ], clause (��).
;.s EFFLCT[VE DA"I'E. "1'his section is etTeciive the day followin,� final enactment.
Sec. 4. 5
i-
W
J
�
�
LL
�
�
�
U
EXHIt�i i .►�
W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �°
00000000 000000 00000 00 �,,°�
�-� O�� O t7' d' 00 d� � d� ln CO U7 �f' � 00 O e-- N�-- r i
�'Q r 00 CD M N O M(� N d' O(O CO d' d' �- �- r- CD CO O i�
,Q � f'') I` CD T � 00 00 O. T I� T O 00 O � i� (fl � 00 oD � N
W� N �- � N�- e`- N N � N N r' N N � T- � '
� W ' �
U Y '
Z � �
�
— Q '
� �
�
� O O O O O O O'O O O O O O d O O O O O O O i O
x W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O� O
Q O r' N O f` r ln O 00 M �� O� CO M� C'7 O O O � L()
�-- Y C+7 f O � O r V('7 � d� U� 00 M � r- CO I` d' O N N i �
�¢ N M N N N N M M N N N �� M�h ('� M M � 00
i �
� � i
i
O O O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O O O O � O
J1- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � � O O O O O ; O
m W OOT'Or1.C)C�d' I�I�Cfl�-tn� �c-�Ln�'0� ��c- � O
Y�t' O 1` 40 M � 00 � d' C7 Ln l� � tf� CO OD 00 �.C� M N N i N
q Q M O� r c`� O O N d' � M c7 O � Cfl O O T T � ��
75 N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N r�- i�
� � � M
i
O�� N d' �h 00 d' ��� CD �.l� �1' LO CO O�- O � � i� O
Q c- 00 CO CO N O ('7 C� N V O C� CO �1' �t r � r p p ��
W M 1� Cfl c- � 00 00 O � t� r- O 00 O'r I` (O o0 00
� W N r- �- N � r N N t- CV N r- N N�- � i�
_ = i
� J ,
aa �
� '
a �
� �
;
;
O�- N c'7 1� r' � O 00 M t- � O� CO th u� M O O O ; N O
t'7 r- O CO O�- d' C7 �- � Lf') 00 M s- r C� t` 'd' N N
� a N('7 N N N N C'� C'7 N N N �� M V' C7 C'7 i�
�
u- U �
�
F- '
�
�
�p O � r- � C7 �t I� I� CO �� � � � d' �- � � I�
�i' O I� � M r 00 �'d' M tn lf� �� Cfl 00 40 Ln � N N i N O
U ch O�NC'�OON �i'TC�C'�O� tf�C000 �r � M
Q N N�- N N N N N N N N N N N N N � r � m
a �
a '
�
C� �
�
Q '
�
�
F- '
�
t�• c�• t�• c�• c`• c`•
� � � � � � �
N a� a� a� o� ��
� � U U U U'r T' r' N N N N U U C`) C'7 C`) C'`) t� �t d'
t
c. c c c c � c
.Q .� .Q .Q .Q .Q
- �
W��1' CO O�- 'd' I� CO r l.t) O�� O � M M O C� N C�
m 1� N N 00 00 I� C7 M 1� a0 OO � d' � O C7 � I` O I� I�
ONNOOOr�- OOOO�r 0000� t-r-
� � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
,Q N('� c� N N N N N �- c'� N('� M M �- c'� d' N N N N
Z N N N C'') C� N N N r N N N N N N N d' N C� d' d'
� t � i i i � i i � � � t i i � � � i � � i
�e J d' �' � �' d' d' 'd' d' d" �' 'd' 'V' �h �t �t d' �i' d' �t d' d'
o W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U � � i i i i � i � � � � i i i � � � � � �
� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a a c'� ('� c� ('� c'� C� M C'� C'� M M c� M('� M M M C'� M c'� C�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
M c� c� d' �t' C'� c� M N c� c� C� M C� �('� U") M M Ch M
F- a. O O O N N N N N �- O N N N N N T � O O O O
�
W
W�i' d' d' �� CO (D CO N� d' d' �7' '� M�f' � Cfl CO I� 1`
� a o0000000��c�c�c�c��n������
� � ��.�.mm m� m �� ��
� I'� T T�- C'7 C7 'd' 'Cf' �' CD � V' �; �7' d" M�I' �1' r s- c- r
^ r r T r T r[� !� T t-' t� �'"' �' T r T[� r r T r
fi � � � � � � � � Q � � � � � � � � � � � �
� ��� N N C� C� M C� � C� C� (h C7 r d' t� �� ��
� r r�- N N N N N N r- N N N N N N N r- ��- r-
� r- N M � d' U� CO 1� OD � O � N('� d' � CO 1� 00 � O �
� I T T T T r r r' r r T N N
�
_
Q
_
�
X
N
a�
L
�
�%.
d.
�
_
�
�
�
O
a`
C
�
�
N
U
�
Q
N�
I..i..
�
C
.�
�
�
2
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
February 23, 2009
Resolution Accepting a Donation of a Portable Generator
PW09-019
Public Works was contacted by Cummins Power Generation through John Crelly of the Fridley Fire
Department in regard to the availability of a surplus portable generator. The equipment is an Onan
Homesite Portable generator series 6500, a type of equipment currently in use in the Street and
Parks Divisions.
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution accepting this generous donation. If
approved, a letter of thanks will be sent to Cummins Power Generation.
JPK:jpk
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property
for the benefit of its citizens, and
WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds maj ority of
its members.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY,
MINNESOTA accepts with sincere a�preciation the following donations on behalf of its citizens:
1. Onan Homesite Portable generator series 6500, from Cummins Power Generation.
Estimated Value: $1,100.00.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY
OF , 2009.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Layne R. Otteson, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director
February 23, 2009
PW09-017
ST2009-01 University Avenue West Service Drive and Sylvan Hills Rehabilitation,
Assigning Utility Work to Project No. 386
Engineering staff has been in the process of completing plans and preparing for bidding Project ST2009-
01 in accordance with Resolution No. 2009-08. The project includes mill and overlay of approximately 4.5
miles of streets and 0.5 miles of water main replacement. During the design process, staff determined
that the water main reconstruction should be bid separate from the mill and overlay portion.
The reason for bidding the water main work separately is our decision to use trenchless technology for the
utility work. As opposed to open cut construction, trenchless technologies generally require the services of
specialized contractors and techniques. In addition, if the water main remained part of the street
restoration project, this specialized work would be subcontracted and likely increase the additional
overhead premium (typically 10%) to the trenchless water main installation cost.
The cost savings by using trenchless pipe installation is expected to be significant compared with open cut
construction. This is due to existing circumstances, including an unusually high water table and water
main location. Because of the unique nature of this project, staff contacted various sources to determine
the feasibility of other construction methods. Trenchless options were recommended by other cities,
consultants and contractors as a way to reduce surface impacts and costs. Staff has estimated the
savings to be $100,000 over the typical open trench method.
Because of our anticipated construction schedule on the University West Service Drive segment,
separating these projects is also feasible. The utility work can be completed prior to any roadway contract
work on University West Service Drive. We will be directing this schedule in our bid documents.
Staff recommends assigning the water main construction work for project ST2009-01 University Avenue
West Service Drive and Sylvan Hills Rehabilitation under a separate contract identified as Utility Project
No. 386.
JPK:Io
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
February 23, 2009
I,�JL��aiyE:3
2009 Well Redevelopment Project Number 385 (Wells 11 and 13)
Each year the Public Works Department budgets for the preventative maintenance repairs
of each of two or three City wells. In 2009, two wells are scheduled for preventative
maintenance repairs and $65,000 is included in the 2009 budget.
Wells 1 and 11 were included in the CIP, however, run times at well 1 are believed
insufficient to merit preventative maintenance at this time. Upon the recommendation of
Kory Jorgenson, Water Supervisor, we therefore propose to work on wells 11 and 13.
Much of the work necessary cannot be determined until the pumps and equipment have
been removed from the wells. Evaluation of the bids for award will be from a list of base
bid items. Alternate costs are also provided in the bid to cover additional items that may
need repair but cannot be determined until each motor and pump has been removed and
their components examined.
Staff recommends the City Council authorize advertisement for bids for the 2009 Well
Redevelopment Project Number 385.
JPK:jpk
�
�
�rr aF
FRIDLEY
Name
Michael
Keeley
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
Position
Police
Officer
Non-exem pt
Appointment
Starting
Salary
$20.20
per hour
(2008-09 contract)
Mark Police $20.20
Mickelson Officer per hour
Non-exempt (2008-09 contract)
Replaces
Jeffrey
Potter
Lawrence
Farber
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
� �F CLAI MS
FRIDLEY
CLAIMS
140629-1407�3
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
��F LICENSES
FRIDLEY
'Type of License Applicant Approved By:
Tree Removal & Treatment F.A. Bartlett Tree Ex ert Co. Public Works Su erintendent
As Bartlett Tree Ex erts-
To Notch Division
(formerly A Top Notch Tree
Service
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
��F LICENSES
FRIDLEY
Contractor T e A licant A roved B
LAX Fabricating Ltd Commercial or James Jumbeck Ron Julkowski, CBO
S ecialt
Minnesota Concrete Structures Commercial or Paul Anderson Ron Julkowski, CBO
S ecialt
Northern Heating & Air Heating Brad Peet Ron Julkowski, CBO
Conditionin
Residential Heatin & Air Heatin Dean Kolner Ron Julkowski, CBO
TLT Enterprises Commercial or Tim Toesing Ron Julkowski, CBO
S ecialt
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
ESTI MATES
Shank Constructors, Inc.
3501 — 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Filter Improvements
Proj ect No. 379
EstimateNo. 3 .............................................................................
$ 185,812.40
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS