Loading...
04/11/2011 - 29395CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY APRIL 11, 2011 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 Darin R. Nelson, Finance Director Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE Pat Gabel, HRA Commission Member Donald E. Anderson, Jr., 7304 West Circle NE Michelle Livingston, 219 — 57th Place NE Anoka County Commissioner Jim Kordiak APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of March 28, 2011. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 7, paragraph 8, indicating it should read that she said "the City's normal process... ." Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue NE, referred to page 13, paragraph 1, line 4, and said it should read ". .. ordinance, two have. ..." APPROVED AS CORRECTED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Approve Proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment for Fridley Commerce Center, Generally Located at 201— 57t'' Avenue N.E (Ward 3). FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 2 William Burns, City Manager, stated the proposed changes to this plan include LED lighting to replace backlit incandescent lighting and the elimination of a requirement for those letters in the sign to have gold trim. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. 2. Motion to Approve the Recommended Disbursement of the Twin Cities Gateway Community Grant Funds for the City of Fridley. William Burns, City Manager, stated this is Fridley's share of the 3 percent lodging taxes distributed back to cities from Twin Cities Gateway for marketing and promotion of their different events. Cities typically get $2,000 or a portion of the lodging tax, whichever is greater. In the past, Fridley has been getting $2,000 and donating it to the Fridley `49er Days. Our stipend this year is $3,081. Staff recommends the following distribution: `49er Days, $2,000; Pumpkin Night in the Park, $540.53; and WinterFest, $540.50. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 3. Claims (150193 - 150448). APPROVED. 4. Licenses APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Bolkcom asked that Item No. 2 be removed. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item No. 2. 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 approving the agenda with the addition of Item No. 2. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 3 OPEN FORUM: Michelle Livingston, 219 — 57th Place NE, stated she is a recent homebuyer in the Fridley area. She asked about the construction over by Cub Foods. She recently received the construction updates, and all the information was very good. She could not translate it all, but it has been very informative and very prompt. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she was talking about the street reconstruction. Ms. Livingston replied, yes, the infrastructure being one and the transit overlay that is going to be done. She wanted to know what the immediate impact would be with the new construction coming in. Mayor Lund asked if she was talking about the new mill and overlay. Ms. Livingston replied from 59th to 61st. The entrances and exits, the roads, etc. William Burns, City Manager, stated the streets are listed in the April newsletter. With respect to the timing and procedures, she should call Layne Otteson. Councilmember Bolkcom told Ms. Livingston she would get more letters as the street reconstruction happens. Ms. Livingston asked if anyone knew when it would start. Dr. Burns replied, he was not sure they know yet when they are going to start on that project. It would depend on when they had their preconstruction meeting. If she cannot get Layne Otteson, she can give him a call, and he will make sure she gets and answer. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for a flood update. Dr. Burns stated the river hit a peak of 814 on the 79th Lane gauge this morning and is holding steady. The National Weather Service has lowered their predictions for Fridley's section of the river and predicts fairly stable river levels through the week. While significant rainfall over the ne�t few days could cause it to rise, that is not anticipated at this time. They are not planning on installing the 100 hp pump at 79th Way and Riverview Terrace at this time. They will start picking up the neighborhood sand piles later this week unless the situation changes. The flooding situation does not look threatening at this point. PUBLIC HEARING: 5. Consideration of a Text Amendment TA #11-03, by the City of Fridley, to Consider the Creation of a Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zoning District Near the Northstar Train Station (Continued February 7, 2011). FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 4 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:01 P.M. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the purpose of the Northstar Transit Overlay District is to promote all modes of transportation in this area. It encourages pedestrian- friendly development. It would allow for a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. It would create a Northstar neighborhood identity. It would reduce automobile dependency by encouraging a variety of land uses within a half-mile of the station. It would also provide more life-cycle housing opportunities as a result. Mr. Hickok stated the theme here is potential and an invitation for other things that make multi- modal and neighborhood opportunities greater. Hyde Park's smaller lot special zoning transit is needed to support one-car households. Hyde Park contains the type of work force housing that is needed in a transit district. Much of that exists right now. Hyde Park's existing multi-family housing cannot improve without the TOD code. The Hyde Park zoning right now only allows for single-family residential. There was a Hyde Park te�t amendment recently that allowed for the non-conforming uses to become recognized and to be able to be rebuilt within their footprint. A TOD overlay would allow through a TOD-approved plan by Council later, redevelopment of that multi-family as well. The TOD code ensures high-quality building materials if a new multi- family or other development were to occur. Mr. Hickok stated the Fridley HRA reviewed the Code in its draft form on January 6. The Planning Commission held its public hearing on January 19. The City Council held its public hearing on February 7, and Council asked that there be a public meeting with the residents in this area to hear their concerns and to understand what questions they have that might not have been covered as part of the hearing process. A second direct mail notice that was sent to those affected property owners. The City held two informational meetings, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. City Council members attended those meetings as well. At those meetings there was good discussion. Staff attempted to answer the questions and heard opposing views, but no te�t changes specifically were requested or recommended through the audience as part of that process. Mr. Hickok stated regarding Code changes staff proposed, height limitations of the underlining zoning districts shall apply except in the Hyde Park zoning district where a building height of 45 feet shall apply. The Mayor was concerned at the last meeting, and this is an underlined segment of the sentence to define that "if a development includes tuck-under or underground parking." It would give the three-level apartment buildings in that area the opportunity to rebuild maybe with a garage underneath to provide some parking on that site or it would provide opportunities for a new multi-family development and really encourages parking underneath the building as opposed to spreading out on the land. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 5 Mr. Hickok stated staff also recommends changing the process and design criteria language to clarify that single-family housing in Hyde Park is exempt. Therefore, if somebody wanted to buy one of the vacant lots and build a single-family home, they would not go through the transit- oriented development application process. However, anything other than single-family residential would need to come back; and there would be a series of hearings with the Planning Commission and Council, to review the TOD plan. At that time, Council could make the decision whether or not the plan fits this area or if it needs additional work. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the te�t changes under the "Purpose" section which was done. Staff change was conveyed in the February 7 draft. Staff also recommends incorporating the changes in the te�t of the ordinance draft which staff is recommending for first reading, which would be on Apri125, 2011. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok to indentify the boundaries. Mr. Hickok stated the Transit-Oriented District includes the area basically from 61st Avenue south to I-694 and from the river to the backside of what they call Gateway NE and Gateway East on the east side of University Avenue. It does include the first property south of 57tn Avenue on Fourth Street and the SuperAmerica store as well. Mr. Hickok stated there is a little appendage that goes up on the west side of the railroad tracks to 62"d Avenue and then comes back down, takes you over to the river, down I-694 around SuperAmerica, up the frontage road, behind what they call Gateway NE and Gateway East, west around the apartment building on the northwest corner of University, and then follows 61st back to the point of origin. This map actually becomes part of the te�t amendment as well and attaches so that people would know precisely where it is. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would be fair to say that the majority of the people he has heard from that have concerns are the people who live in the Hyde Park neighborhood. Mr. Hickok replied, the majority, yes. That would be fair. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she attended both meetings, and she thought there was some good discussion. She did hear loud and clear from the people from the Hyde Park neighborhood that they did not want to be in this Overlay District. Many of their concerns were they have a lot of rental housing there already and there would be more rental housing. If you look at that little area, there is a lot. Some of them are older buildings and some are not well kept up, and there have been some issues there. She asked if the area could be left out and put back in. She thinks that until the commuter rail starts running more than 12 trips a day, people are probably not going to move to this area unless they have the exact kind of job that takes them downtown and home on that commuter rail. They have heard from many people in these different areas, even at the Corridor meeting, that they do not ride the train because the times are not what they wanted them to be. She asked what it would take to put it back in and what would prevent them from taking it out. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 6 Mr. Hickok replied he would not recommend they do a TOD overlay if they are not going to include Hyde Park. Hyde Park really is essential to part of this TOD overlay district. Part of the problems that have been identified with the aging multi-family housing stock in Hyde Park is by virtue of the fact that there has not been any incentive, and they can now rebuild to gain back as conforming status. However, there is no inspiration. There is no invitation, no opportunity for other development to happen in there. They did hear support from the people who live in Hyde Park or that area who said they need it, want it and support it. He does not think it is entirely fair to say that the people have spoken, and Hyde Park should not be in it. It is really important to know that there is a mix of opinions on that. Why is it that St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Richfield, these other cities are getting development; and we are not? You have to lay out the invitation. Mr. Hickok stated to answer the other part of the question--why not wait and see if train ridership picks up and then put Hyde Park back in, this is a thing that has a long curve. No one expected the parking lot to be half-full even at the time the rail opened up. It takes a long time for people to get comfortable with riding the rail. It takes a long time for that ridership to develop. No one is ready to say, it is a failure or that development cannot happen along this line either. The market will drive when that happens, but it is e�tremely important that, if it is going to happen, there is a welcome mat here that says, alright, the City will consider it. They would have to come back to the City Council and have hearings before a TOD amendment could take place, and they could not do a development anything other than single-family or rebuilding basically the non-conforming use in the same footprint. Anything else would have to come back to them. Mr. Hickok stated the recommendation of staff would be to not do a TOD overlay if Hyde Park was not a part of it. John Anderson, 5909 Second Street, stated the way Mr. Hickok phrased it was we need the TOD district in order for them to have redevelopment in Hyde Park They cannot have redevelopment in Hyde Park because zoning in Hyde Park does not allow multi-family property owners to redevelop their property. One of the things he brought up in the community meeting was why not correct the zoning in Hyde Park that will allow these multi-family owners to redevelop their properties. They can create the height requirements, the density requirements, etc., whatever it might be. The TOD district is not necessary. The apartment building owners should be able to redevelop their property. Not to their exact footprint but to whatever the new zoning might be. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Anderson if he was saying it should be changed to some other zoning. Mr. Anderson replied, correct. There are four apartment buildings behind his property. If they had zoning where they could buy up those four apartment buildings and redevelop them into something better, whether it is the same density a little higher or less, that might give them the inspiration to build something better and stronger, and help build up the neighborhood. There is no inspiration because they refuse to let people be inspired based on the kind of zoning. The biggest problem with the TOD is it gives staff and City Council complete control over FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 7 somebody's property. If you operated within a zoning parameter where somebody came here and they qualified with the appropriate requirements for the zoning, they would not be able to say, no, arbitrarily. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Anderson if he wanted the current or future Fridley City Council or staff to have control. Mr. Anderson replied, zoning would have the control. Mayor Lund said he would give an example of how he thinks there is a gap in what Mr. Anderson is suggesting they do. The Van-O-Lite building on University Avenue was not that old and it has been torn down. It was just a basic block building, two stories tall. People came to them and asked why they would allow that building in a highly-visible corridor like University Avenue. His point was, it never came to them. The owners met the zoning requirements and met the building code. The zoning was in place for them to build the building the way they did. In his mind it belonged back in with the industrial areas. He would think the neighborhood would say, great. If they are okay with redevelopment, then why not have some restrictions where they get something of higher caliber, better quality, conducive to what they envision. They have the Northstar rail which he thinks it is a longer-term commitment of 10 to 20 years or more. There is a redevelopment process that is in the works hopefully for the Cub Foods area. He thinks those are nice elements. Mr. Anderson asked if the City owned the property. Mayor Lund replied, no. The HRA owns it now. Mr. Anderson asked whether the people who complained about it owned the property. Mayor Lund replied, no, they did not. Mr. Anderson asked, who normally has the best interest in a property? The property owner or the person who drives past it? Mayor Lund replied obviously the property owner. Mr. Anderson replied they have to allow for some mistakes. You do not own your view essentially. Mayor Lund stated he thinks reasonableness is important, too. Neighbors should get along. Mr. Anderson asked why it could not be placed into overall zoning of the neighborhood. Ms. Livingston stated she has lived in Fridley for about seven years and purchasing the double bungalow for her was a great opportunity to stay in Fridley. One of the things she likes about Fridley is the ordinances. The control of properties. She understands that sometimes it can get out of hand where it is just a simple thing to a homeowner or even a tenant which she has been FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 8 for seven years. In the broad spectrum of things and representative of community and economic development of things are positive. When she saw and heard about the TOD she was very excited. The home itself presented a great opportunity; however, the neighborhood was blighted to her. She does notice there are many multiple dwellings, but there are great neighbors as well. Some of the properties just have not been kept up to par as she would perceive as a tenant and/or owner so she was excited about it. Her concern with the rail is that she has been trying to catch that train since they brought it in. She rode it the first day, and she absolutely loved it. However, trying to change her life to accommodate the scheduling has been a monster. She was asking why bring this through and spend all this money on it. Everybody is in line to ride it, and they can only ride it if you work 9 to 5 or 8 to 4. The last train leaves out of downtown at 6:15 p.m. Her only concern with the whole change is are they are going to be doing it in vain where the ridership is not going to be there because the availability of the train is not there. However, she is totally all for it. Her biggest concern as a new owner is the cost and affordability for herself as she tries to maintain her property and bring it further up to Code. She has a 1957 30-inch doorway place. With the new development are these requirements going to come to update, upgrade, etc.? Her tenant who just moved in there did say, there is absolutely no lighting on this street; and she was glad to say there should be and maybe eventually there will be. There is a new development coming in. Her tenant did not like hearing that, but she did like knowing that maybe there is going to be lighting. Ms. Livingston stated she is for the economic development. She thinks it is going to do a lot for Fridley. She thinks it is a great place to be. There are a lot of mini malls, but there is no one place in the center of Fridley where people can walk to, catch the bus to, and do all of their business. And then there is the train. Hopefully they will e�tend ridership time and hours so that this whole plan will be effective. She believes as a community they all do live together whether they are renters or owners, and it helps build community when you have certain things that keep other things from getting out of control. Dr. Burns stated to Ms. Livingston if she gave him a call he would be glad to take up her cause on the scheduling of the trains. He can try and help her. He also mentioned the Housing Redevelopment Program she might want to take advantage of. Mr. Hickok stated people should know they are in control of their property. This TOD does not mean that they would lose any control over their own property. Somebody has the ability to say, no, they do not want to be involved in the redevelopment. If a developer comes knocking on their door, they can just simply say, no, do not include my property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks the fear is that I might not want to sell my property but everyone around me does, and now suddenly I am a single-family home and there is a 4-plex that has now become a 8-plex or 16-plex because they bought up a couple of homes. Mr. Hickok stated they would need a TOD approved in order to do what she is suggesting. There would be $4, $5, and $6 million of development at your doorstep that really helps the value of your property. Even if you chose not to be part of that and you are ne�t to it, it has a positive influence on your property as well. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 9 Pat Gabel, HRA Commission member, stated she does not think they are really clear on how a lot of people feel because as she has been working around the neighborhood, there is still a lot of confusion and a lot of distortions and fear mongering. They cannot really control that, everyone tried, there were meetings and all kinds of explanations, people tried to answer them. The people that make the most noise are the negative people. The bottom line is there is one simple truth here. Nothing has happened in Hyde Park for four decades unless the City has done something. The City has gone in there and gotten rid of the mechanical buildings, Sam's Used Cars, and an apartment building. They saw to it that nice new homes went up. As a member of the HRA she is thrilled to see new things happening there. Ms. Gabel stated in four decades it did not happen by itself. It had to have a catalyst. That is the way that she sees the TOD. She has difficulty understanding what anybody is afraid of. Her biggest fear is this will not happen. Good things have to happen slowly. This is not going to happen overnight, or even ne�t year. It will probably be a 5-10-30 year project. She thinks they will see an increase in usage of the light rail with the price of gasoline. Councilmember Varichak stated this basically is a plan and is something where people have to come to the City with the plan, and they can either approve it or not approve it at the time it comes before them. If they feel it is a plan coming in that does not fit in that neighborhood where they want it to go, they have the authority to say, we do not agree with that, correct? Mr. Hickok stated, yes, that is correct. The one thing in this ordinance that is more specific probably than any other chapter though is the fact that they lay it out. If you are going to get to "yes" with this or future Council/staff chose the criteria by which you would do it. It is pretty much laid out in this Code that if you bring this kind of development which has all of the things that are built into the design criteria, that is how you would get to a"yes." Council still has the opportunity to turn it down. There is a lot of room in this ordinance. It is as complex as any zoning ordinance that the City has. They need to meet the City's strict criteria or the development does not happen. Councilmember Saefke stated apparently there are some discussions that this TOD would cost the taxpayers some money, and it is his understanding there is no tax or assessment, etc., associated with the TOD. It is all up to the developers and a lot of it has to do with the things like sidewalks, lighting, etc. When he was a kid, they had a downtown Fridley, and it was walkable. It had sidewalks and the setbacks were not what they are today. That is kind of the vision he has for the future, of course with more modern buildings, etc. Also, this district they are talking about really does not necessarily have any immediate impact on the Hyde Park neighborhood. They are talking all the way from the river to the property the HRA purchased. He can envision a place where you can walk and see an attorney if you need to or a dentist, perhaps a bakery, etc. It reminds him a little bit of the small towns in out-state Minnesota. He does not really see a major impact on individual residential property owners in the Hyde Park neighborhood unless they want to make improvements on their own. Mr. Hickok stated he keyed in on a real important point. The beauty of this is we do not get a lot of development in Fridley. For example, when Medtronic came here, they paid for their sidewalks, their pathways, their lighting, and their landscaping. That is how development FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 10 typically works. In the Hyde Park area there are roads there already so it is not that the developer would necessarily have to put in a road, but around the building they would be required to do the landscaping, the lighting, sidewalk, and the patios that they are building into their project. It would be at their cost. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how they arrived at some of the requirements. Mr. Hickok stated they visited transit-oriented development. Not only in person, but through research about what has worked across the country and here in the metropolitan area. They did a lot of research on what has worked, and they have learned a lot about what does not work around bus/train stations and light rail. There are a lot of factors that go into it. Safety, aesthetics, and ease of movement. As a multi-modal thing, you do not want to put people walking and on bikes where other vehicle activity is without doing it safely. Those pieces were really pieces that they focused on as they looked at the different ordinances that were out there. Mr. Hickok stated it was rare that you would find an ordinance that did not blend the pedestrian and vehicle and bike discussion along with some of the aesthetics you would expect to see that create the environment you would see around a transit-oriented development. They are really exciting places. They are new and vibrant. They are meant to really encourage you to leave the car at home, get out and go for a walk or get on your bike. Those are the kinds of things built into this te�t to make sure that when this happens in Fridley, people could have that same kind of experience. It was a compilation of a lot of ordinances, a lot of visiting, and a lot of research. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether they visited any actual commuter rail vs. light rail areas. Mr. Hickok replied, yes. The northwest Chicago line from Harvard down into downtown Chicago, was one of the sites that they visited. He personally has visited stations along the east coast. He has ridden the train around the Washington D.C. area. He does have personal experience with what he has seen that does work and some tired locations that do not. He can guarantee there are not any of those tired features in this ordinance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there were any areas similar to Hyde Park that often change once they had a transit redevelopment area. Mr. Hickok replied, yes. The further out you get from Chicago, the more "small town" the stations start to feel. Harvard was a great example of a small town that could be Mayberry with its little town square. It is very small town and very quaint. As you move in, Palatine was a city that their staff and developers have described to be very, very much like Fridley where there is a mix of industrial, residential, and some commercial nearby. That is really one of the most interesting stops along that particular trip that they took They basically have the same scale around their station. They have a lot more passenger trains. He thinks they are on a schedule of about every 15 minutes with their commuter rail, much like our light rail is in this metro area. The people at the Northstar Corridor Development Authority have said the Palatine story reminds them very much of Fridley. Palatine about 35 to 40 years ago was probably very much like Fridley is around our station today. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 11 Commissioner Kordiak stated when it comes to the subject of rails, he has to admit he was heavily involved in bringing the commuter rail train to Anoka County and putting it into the State of Minnesota. It is highly unique in this state. It is not light rail. It is commuter rail. It is a"going-to-work" train. It's an 8 to 5 train. It does not work for everybody. Buses do not work for everybody. His wife rides it every day except when she has a doctor's appointment, etc. For the most part it serves a very real purpose. He would like to see the Fridley station far more busy than it is today, but he would agree it was not built for the first day or the first year. It was built for 50 to 100 years. It will be there forever. He expects over time to see an ever-increasing opportunity for use of that rail. His son-in-law lives on the outskirts of Philadelphia. He is on a "going-to-work" train. He works downtown at a university. He takes the train to work every single day and back again. He lives in a neighborhood where that service is provided. It serves a purpose. Will it work for Hyde Park over the ne�t 10 to 30 years? He really thinks so. Circumstances will change, job opportunities will change, and gas prices will change. He would hope that drives people more and more to the train. His wife has several "going-to-work" friends she made that are on the train every single day. She will tell him as many people get off the train at Fridley from coming up north that are going from Fridley downtown. The trip from here to downtown is really short. We are pretty spoiled in this country to be able to jump in our car and drive and waste gas. It is still cost-effective to ride the train. They shuttle kids from bus stations to there. Medtronic does and can. Onan does. The railroad people get off there. People from every facet come and enjoy it. It is not for everybody. They would like to see it more productive but they built it for long term. He said some day Hyde Park will benefit from that infrastructure as well as the rest of the City. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:53 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: 6. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 508 of the Fridley City Code Allowing for the Temporary Sale of Strong Beer and Wine at Commons Park and Community Park during Community Festivals. William Burns, City Manager, stated this ordinance change allows for the sale of strong beer and wine at Commons and Community Parks by non-profit organizations at community festivals. The current ordinance allows for 3.2 beer at Commons Park for community festivals including `49er Days. In response to comments raised at the March 28, 2011, Council meeting, they have changed the words, "non-profit public or private organizations" to "non-profit public and non- profit private organizations." While Council expressed some concern with the term "community festival," the City Attorney is recommending they maintain the current language. This wording gives the City Council full control and discussion over what constitutes a festival and who can run one. Staff recommends Council's approval of the second reading of this ordinance. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 12 Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak whether he is saying that if a non-profit group or non-profit organization comes before them and they say, well, it is a community festival, the City Council still has a lot of discretion. Community festival to her could be 20 people that want to have a party and are inviting people from the community. She asked Attorney Knaak if he felt he could defend this. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, replied, yes. Council has the discretion to define what a community festival is. Somebody would have to come to them and ask Council could establish at that point whatever reasonable criteria they chose. If someone would say there are 20 of us, we want to have a party and we are inviting some friends in the community. Council's response could be no. That is not a community festival. We are looking clearly at something that is in line with something such as `49er Days that has a community-wide impact. If they were to try to force their hand in that kind of situation or take you to court for the right to have their version of a community festival, there is virtually no doubt in his mind that a court would support their view given the fact that the `49er Days festival is already in place as an example. Councilmember Bolkcom stated if that is all it exists for, why not just say `49er Days? What about the Banfill-Locke Center for the Arts? They have an art festival every September. It is a community festival, it is non-profit. Would that be easy to defend if they want to say "no"? Attorney Knaak replied, yes. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, why? Attorney Knaak said it is fully in Council's discretion to describe what community festival is. They might decide to say yes. It gives Council the discretion without having to do a resolution. However, once they have said "yes," he thinks they would have a problem ne�t time saying, well that is really not what we meant. Once they define something that way, collectively as a Council, using Banfill-Locke as an example, then there are two community festivals. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it does leave it open to allow other non-profit organizations to come forward. Mayor Lund asked if she felt more comfortable having it simply say "Fridley `49er Days." Councilmember Bolkcom replied, yes. She is concerned because although Attorney Knaak says he can defend this, a lot of time they have said "no" to something and they have been taken to court and have been proven wrong. Councilmember Barnette asked what would happen if he was going to have a marriage ceremony and was going to lease out the facilities in Locke Park from the County, and he wants to be able to serve strong beer and wine at his wedding. He asked if he could do that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated he is not a non-profit. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 13 Councilmember Barnette replied, no, he is just a guy putting on a wedding. He is not making a profit from it. He is going to provide the strong beer and wine at his wedding. Could he do that? Attorney Knaak replied as a practical matter, no. It would be up to Council to make that decision. However, he does not think they would have a difficult time with that choice. Councilmember Barnette stated he is leasing the facility at a county park in the City of Fridley. He asked why he could not serve strong beer and wine. Dr. Burns stated they already have the community festival language as it relates to Commons Park, and they have had no problem up to this point. He does not think they are going to have a problem. It is hypothetically possible but, based on their past experience, it has not happened. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but they are changing it to strong beer. That is the only reason she is bringing it up because it might be more attractive. Dr. Burns stated if this does not work, they always have the ability to change it at some point. Change the definition to something more finite. Councilmember Barnette asked if he could serve strong beer and wine at his wedding at the County facility. Attorney Knaak replied, not as a community festival, no. Councilmember Barnette stated he thinks there will be those kinds of requests for those kinds of activities as long as this opens that door. Attorney Knaak replied the simple solution is to just keep it restrictive to define just that one organization, and let someone else ask. Councilmember Barnette asked what about another example, Dog Park Lovers, they are a club now. Could they do it? Dr. Burns replied, that would be up to the Council. They would have to determine whether that constituted a community festival which it probably does not. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt Ordinance No. 1279 on second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 14 7. Resolution Authorizing the City of Fridley to Enter into a Connectivity Services Agreement with Community Anchor Institution(s) for Broadband Services and Co- Location Service Site(s) with Anoka County and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute said Agreement (Tabled March 14, 2011). MOTION by Councilmember Barnette removing the item from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Darin R. Nelson, Finance Director, stated this was tabled because of the lack of a countywide uniform agreement. A uniform agreement has now been finalized and prior outstanding issues have been resolved and addressed. One of the main issues delaying this agreement was the lack of the language addressing the City's cable franchise authority. They wanted to ensure nothing in their agreement potentially jeopardized their franchise agreement with Comcast. Specific language has now been added, and the City Attorney has opined that the City can move forward without any renegotiation or concessions with Comcast. Mr. Nelson stated on December 14, 2009, Council passed a resolution supporting the efforts of Anoka County to bid out the broadband vision. Another vision included soliciting public private partnerships and federal funding. Since that time, Anoka County has entered into an agreement with Zayo Bandwidth to construct a$19.1 million fiber optic backbone. Funding consists of $13.4 million from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, along with Anoka County and Zayo Bandwidth each contributing $2.9 million. Even though Fridley is only part of the overall project, laying a fiber network is an expensive undertaking and a self-funded fiber project by the City would be cost prohibitive. However, as part of the countywide federally-subsidized project, the City stands to gain benefits far in excess of its investment. Mr. Nelson stated these benefits include high-speed connectivity not only to remote City locations, but other locations such as Anoka County and the State of Minnesota. High-speed connectivity will enable increased collaboration between agencies allowing for more efficient use of applications. Emergency services will also be enhanced. In addition, the fiber project will have a dark fiber availability for future use. The dark fiber is basically an unused optical fiber that can be used for future services and expanded bandwidth for up to 120 years. Anoka County has an indefeasible right of use (IRU) in this dark fiber. This is kind of an added protection for the integrity of the network. Even if Zayo Bandwidth is no longer available to provide maintenance or support, Anoka County will still have access to that dark fiber. Mr. Nelson stated in addition to these public benefits, our community benefits as well. This fiber network will be owned and operated by Zayo Bandwidth, a private company, which will allow service to local businesses and homes throughout the community. Having this type of infrastructure in place can be a real engine for economic growth. He provided a listing of sites within the City of Fridley that are city-owned facilities, which include City Hall, the Public Works garage, Springbrook Nature Center, the Fridley Community Center, all three fire stations, the Commons water treatment plant, and various other county and school locations as well. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 15 Mr. Nelson stated some of the obligations Anoka County has to the City of Fridley in regards to this agreement are coordinating Zayo activities within the City. They will coordinate between entities on the network to resolve user technical issues, and they will ensure that these are only used to pay direct costs of the project such as the $2.9 million grant match on Anoka County's behalf. Mr. Nelson stated the City needs to provide adequate space for equipment and fiber within our site locations. The City also needs to provide contact information access to the equipment for repairs and maintenance. If the City is electing monthly service, it needs to pay a monthly fee as well. The City needs to cooperate regarding network congestion and other issues. Mr. Nelson stated this agreement will be in effect through August 16, 2016, with an additional three five-year e�tensions on top of that. It is a long-term agreement with the County. The initial equipment cost will be picked up at the anchor site by Zayo. For other equipment replacement after the warranty on the initial equipment is expired in 2017, the City will be required to pay the pro rata cost for new equipment that comes in. Basically that is just the equipment in our building. The City will only be required to pay the portion we are using. If it is being used for private purpose, it will be picked up by the private company. Mr. Nelson stated as far as service-level requirements, through its agreement with Zayo, Anoka County will provide connectivity services to anchor sites previously mentioned. Dark fiber will be installed at each co-location site which again is reserved for future use. The transport services will meet or exceed 99.999% of the network availability for the protected optical network The Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) will be four hours for protected services and eight hours for unprotected services. As far as access requirements, they will need to access the City's equipment obviously from time to time for maintenance and requirements; however, they must abide by the City's security requirements. Their employees will not be given keys, access codes, security cards, etc. The access they need to maintain the City's equipment will be similar to other providers such as Qwest or Comcast. Mr. Nelson stated as far as monthly costs, they will either be $75 or $400 per month, depending on the service capacity requested at each site. Right now, the City's total monthly cost is projected to be $987.50. The Commons water treatment plant and the Public Works garage will have fiber connections, but right now they are not activating them at this time. Therefore, there will be no monthly charge on that until the City decides to activate those. The monthly cost will be offset by eliminating current connections; for example, Springbrook Nature Center will no longer need the current T1 line which costs the City almost $400 a month and is 600 times slower than the proposed fiber connection. Also, because of the low bandwidth connections, these offsite locations are supported with dedicated servers. Now their equipment costing thousands of dollars in high-speed fiber will allow the City to bring these services back to City hall, thus saving associated hardware and licensing costs. Mr. Nelson stated the Connect Anoka County project provides the City with an exciting opportunity to increase the efficiency of government while also being a potential catalyst for business growth. Anoka County has some additional information on this project at connectanokacounty. com. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 16 Councilmember Bolkcom said on Page 44, the second paragraph says, "While these cost savings do not completely offset the projected $1,000-$1,200 per month cost of the fiber network, they do significantly reduce the net cost." He presented a figure of $987. She asked what it is going to save the City. She understands it is faster and more efficient. Dr. Burns stated the Springbrook connection itself is $600 a month right now for the T 1 line. Mr. Nelson stated the cost of $1,000 to $1,200 is in actuality the $987 that he presented in the presentation. It does have the $600 savings for Springbrook along with the equipment that is dedicated out there right now. They are not going to have to replace that. They can bring all those services back to City Hall. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the actual cost was. We do not really know do we? Mr. Nelson replied, correct. We have the $600 savings per month on the T 1 line. The future savings is that we are not going to have to replace the equipment the City has out there right now, and he does not have a cost on that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that was news to her about the Public Works garage and the Commons water treatment plant. Why are those not being connected? Mr. Nelson replied, he believed they currently have connections right now to those sites from City Hall; and they do not necessarily need that additional expense to serve them from City Hall. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would be cheaper to do it now. Mr. Nelson replied, the City can activate that service any time and it is still that set fee per month. Mayor Lund stated the fiber is still going to be run, it is just not going to be activated. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what would happen if the City suddenly needed more. Mr. Nelson replied, he believed that in that fiber optic network, the capacity is going to be almost unfathomable. Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding Page 52 of the agreement, it says if the equipment deteriorates or no longer supports the provision or services. What if they do not maintain it? It sounds like the City agrees to take care of the cost incurred and the replacement of it. In, the first paragraph, second line, it states, "if the ZAYO Equipment deteriorates, or no longer supports the provisioning of services, Entity agrees that it shall pay the pro rata costs incurred in the replacement of such ZAYO Equipment." Is there a difference between them not maintaining it? Mr. Nelson replied he would assume they would want to maintain it so we can maintain a connectivity service. There is a warranty through 2017 on that equipment. At that point it will be time for replacement, and the City will have to pay our pro rata share of that. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 17 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were comfortable that the agency will now service within four hours if something breaks. She does not know how dependent we are going to be and obviously if there is still going to be the big County system and there is the relationship to emergency services. Four hours is a long time if you are waiting for something to come back up. Mr. Nelson replied he would assume on the public safety end of it there is going to be other avenues that they can access for emergency response, etc. With the range part of this fiber project, redundancy is the key factor and he would imagine that if our line breaks here, it can be rerouted back around. Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding page 76, Question No. 8, it just says that each entity has to have it in by April 1, and it is past April 1, but there is no issue here because it was all delayed related to different issues. Mr. Nelson replied yes. The County does want to get this wrapped up as soon as possible as they want to start designing the project, etc. Commissioner Kordiak stated eight communities have approved the agreement. Some of them approved them earlier on. He does think the one they are looking at tonight is the final, final agreement. They need to move this project forward. They will be trying to figure out right away where the lineaments are going to be, where they meet and enter your building, how they are going to accommodate them in the building. They have to do it at 145 locations, assuming that is how many they are going to have throughout Anoka County. He thinks it will more than meet the City` s current and future needs. He is excited about it and they should outreach into the business community because they may be anxious to connect here. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what happens if someone else comes forward and has some more changes in the resolution? Commissioner Kordiak replied the Board has decided there are not going to be any more changes. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how many are there. Commissioner Kordiak replied, there are 145 connections. There are 32 governmental entities. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2011-22. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Approve 2011 Reappointments to City Commissions (Tabled March 28, 2011). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 18 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the 2011 Reappointments to City Commissions and the appointment of Todd Olin, Courtney Ehlers and Jonathan Bonkoski to the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Motion to Approve the Recommended Disbursement of the Twin Cities Gateway Community Grant Funds for the City of Fridley. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how the City decided to distribute the funds. William Burns, City Manager, stated the Parks and Recreation staff recommended those three events. Councilmember Bolkcom said someone had come up to her at a Springbrook fundraising event and suggested the City do a book to promote our community. Dr. Burns said there is not a lot of money available to begin with, and the City has been dedicating almost all of it to the `49er Days event. It seemed appropriate at this point, given the small amount of money, for the City to deal with it internally through its Parks and Recreation staff. Mayor Lund stated prior to the startup of the Twin Cities Gateway, which is a convention and tourism bureau, routinely the convention bureau the City was involved with before, simply gave $2,000, a said amount, rather than what they are doing now. Therefore, all of went to `49er Days as a matter of routine. For now the process through Gateway is a request where the money is supposed to be spent for promotional use and marketing of Fridley and hopefully some services from restaurants and hotels would be utilized as a result. The process is they should make a request to Deb Skogen our City Clerk; and she will pass it on. She is our liaison with the Twin Cities Gateway. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the recommended disbursement of the Twin Cities Gateway Community Grant Funds for the City of Fridley. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 9. Approve 2011-2012 Liquor License Renewals FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 19 MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve the 2011-2012 Liquor License Renewals. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Darin Nelson, Finance Director, said all annual liquor license renewal requests have been reviewed by staff. All renewals have provided the necessary fees, insurance, and bonds. The one on-sale 3.2 malt liquor and wine licensed establishment has provided a CPA statement attesting their gross food sales are over the required 60 percent ratio. All on-sale intoxicating liquor establishments have provided a CPA statement attesting to a minimum of 40 percent gross food sales or 30 percent for a restaurant and bowling center for the year 2010. The highest gross food to liquor sales was Chris and Rob's at 99 percent and King's restaurant at 96 percent. The lowest was the Shortstop Fridley at 40 percent. Mr. Nelson stated the highest volume of calls was to the AMF Bowling Center at .41 calls for service for every $10,000 in revenue; and the lowest volume of calls is for King's Restaurant with no calls for service for every $10,000 in revenue. The Police Department has reviewed all the renewal applications and conducted the necessary background investigation. All on-sale liquor establishments and the Fridley VFW passed both of their liquor compliance checks, the American Legion failed one compliance check, and the Knights of Columbus was closed during both of their liquor compliance checks. Mr. Nelson stated based on all of the information received, staff recommends a motion approving all of the on-sale liquor license renewals at this time. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive into the record a memorandum Debra Skogen dated Apri16, 2011. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it was a little disturbing to her to see one of the City's facilities had a much higher number of calls from the previous year. Mayor Lund stated, the Fridley Grill, LLC d/b/a Pickle Park. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it went from 25 in 2009 to 40 calls in 2010 which included disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, assault, thefts, and hit and run. The recommendation from Director Abbott says he has no concerns and they should renew the license, but she is a little concerned about the increase in calls. She asked Dr. Burns to ask Director Abbott to have a discussion with Pickle Park related to their calls. If there is some sort of pattern going on here, they should be put on notice regarding the number of calls. Also, Councilmember Saefke asked how many of these are happening because they have a late night endorsement. Mayor Lund stated he also has some concern for the Shortstop in Fridley. They are exactly at their 40/60. They should at least be put on notice. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2011 PAGE 20 Mr. Nelson stated regarding Pickle Park, he did talk with Chief Abbott about the number of calls. Chief Abbott said he was comfortable with the volume of calls, and that a majority of the calls were of a low level variety. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is still a significant increase from 25 to 40. Mayor Lund stated they hope this is not an upward trend. Councilmember Varichak stated maybe if they are aware the City is watching them, they are going to be more attuned to make sure their establishment is up to par. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve the 2011-2012 Liquor License Renewals. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Informal Status Reports There were no reports. ADJOURN. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor