Loading...
CCM 11/05/2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY NOVEMBER 5, 2012 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 Darcy Erickson, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director James Kosluchar, Public Works Director Darin Nelson, Finance Director Deborah Dahl,Human Resources Director Cyndi Harper, Metro Transit Jill Hentges, Metro Transit Maurice Roers, Metro Transit Travas Uthe, Trav’s Outfitter Scott Ingalls, Advantage Scaffold and Ladders Davene Smith, 7751 East River Road PRESENTATION: Metropolitan Transit Update by Cyndi Harper and Maurice Roers and Jill Hentges. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of October 22, 2012. APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 1.Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 17, 2012. RECEIVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 2 2.Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #12-02, to Create Two Buildable Lots, Generally Located at 5825 and 5833 – 2 ½ Street (Ward 3). William Burns, City Manager, stated staff is requesting Council split 20 feet from the lot at 5825 – 2 ½ Street and add it onto the lot at 5833 – 2 ½ Street. This will enable the HRA to have two buildable 60-foot lots for construction of two new single-family lots as part of their scattered site housing program. The Planning Commission provided unanimous approval at their October 17 meeting. While the HRA did not take official action on it at their November 1 meeting, they discussed it and reviewed the matter without any objection. Staff recommends Council’s approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-80. 3. Claims (157128 - 157286). Councilmember Bolkcom asked with respect to Claim No. 157207 for Bolton & Menk, Construction Assistance, what is that for. James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, replied that is for inspection services. They had an inspector who left the City in August. That inspector was contracted to fill in time for the 2012 street project. He was part-time and they tried to have somebody on-site. Councilmember Bolkcom asked with respect to Claim No. 157224 Gopher Sign Company in the amount of $2,800 for barricades, was that for some event. Mr. Kosluchar replied, those are materials for the City’s own in-house barricades. They have been gradually trying to bring those to standard. They are probably on about year 3 in trying to upgrade them. APPROVED. 4.Licenses. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Bolkcom requested Item No. 4 be removed. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item No. 4. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 3 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of Item No. 4. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: No one from the audience spoke. 4. Licenses. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the licenses for 6551 and 6871 Channel Road NE (Winnetka Investments) are being removed because there is a failure to have paid a significant amount of property taxes and that includes a large certified utility delinquency and there is a pattern with the properties with respect to their payment of taxes and utilities. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom approving the licenses as submitted, with the removal of 6551 and 6871 Channel Road NE (Winnetka Investments). Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: 5.Consideration of a Rezoning Request, ZOA #12-02, by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley to Rezone the Following Properties: 6071 University Avenue, City Right-of-Way, 6061 University Avenue, 6041 University Avenue, 6005 University Avenue, 5943 University Avenue, 5925 University Avenue, 5905 University Avenue, 5895 University Avenue, 5865 University Avenue and 5831 University Avenue from C-2, General Business to S-2, Redevelopment District, to Accommodate Future Redevelopment on the Properties that are Owned by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) (Ward 1). MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:06 P.M. Scott Hickok , Community Development Director, stated these properties are approximately six thst acres in size; and are along the frontage of University Avenue from 58 to 61 Avenue on the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 4 east side of University. They were originally developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s as commercial uses, restaurants, gas stations. When access became limited as a result of upgrading University Avenue, several of those businesses began to suffer. As a result of vacancies of business over the years, the buildings became blighted as they came into their second, third, and fourth generation of use. Mr. Hickok stated the City and HRA have wished to redevelop this area for a number of years. The HRA started to acquire some of the properties in 2006. Acquisition of the properties concluded in 2011, and demolition of the properties happened in two phases. The first phase happened in 2009 and the second phase took place in 2011. Mr. Hickok stated the HRA currently owns all of the subject properties except 5895 University Avenue, which is currently owned and operated as an animal hospital. To avoid spot zoning, this property has been included in this rezoning request as well. Mr. Hickok stated prior to demolition of the buildings, resolutions were adopted determining that certain parcels were occupied by structurally substandard buildings. This is significant because that is essential to obtain tax increment financing, and the buildings did qualify. To acquire and prepare the sites for reuse, the HRA has spent over $4.5 million. The properties have a value, depending on reuse, between $1 and $2 million. Mr. Hickok stated it is a difference of $2.5 to $3.5 million that will be paid from the tax increment financing. If it was not for the ability of tax increment financing to pay for acquisition, demolition, relocation, environmental remediation, infrastructure, and site preparation, this project would not have happened. Mr. Hickok stated in late 2011, the HRA hired Premier Commercial Partners to market the properties. Over the past few months there has been several folks interested. Three different parties wanted to purchase all or at least portions of the property for redevelopment. As a result, the City planning staff and the petitioner, the HRA, decided it would be beneficial to have the properties rezoned from a commercial zoning to redevelopment district to give the potential buyer development more flexibility when designing the project. Mr. Hickok stated because the properties are within the Transit Oriented Overlay District as well, any potential project will need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated the Comprehensive Plan’s 2030 future land use map designates this area as redevelopment which justifies the reason for approving the proposed rezoning. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on October 17. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning. Also, the City had its corridor housing initiative series of four meetings over at the Community Center and, during that discussion, went into great detail about what might be for future use of this site and in all cases it would likely require some flexibility of the zoning because of the relatively shallow dimension of the site. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 5 Councilmember Saefke asked Mr. Hickok to describe the difference between a C-2, general business, to an S-2 and what that would provide for this development. Mr. Hickok replied C-2 is the general business zoning which is very typical along University Avenue. It is mid-range in terms of the amount of uses that can happen with that type of zoning. Typically you are going to find office or retail uses in the C-2. They will have a standard setback of 35 feet for a front setback. The rear setback can typically be 50 feet. The side setbacks will depend on whether there is a driveway on the side or not but at least a minimum of 2 and 50 feet a piece. The C-2 district is one that is more of a traditional type zoning with more traditional type performance standards. An S-2 redevelopment on the other hand is predicated on a master plan. It would be more akin to a plan in the development where there is a plan that comes in, the City Council would approve that plan, and that plan then would be the foundation for what gets built there. Any changes they would make in the development they want to do would have to come back to have a master plan modification done. But, could you then have a mix of uses in an S-2. Unlike the C-2, it also broadens the amount or types of uses that could be in there. For example, if somebody wanted to do a mixed use commercial/residential, they could do that in an S-2 where they could not do that in a C-2. Councilmember Saefke stated that is what he wanted Mr. Hickok to point out is the fact that converting the C-2 to an S-2, allows the developers to propose, for instance, a residential building. This will open and provide greater opportunities for development of this property. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if S-2 means higher density. Mr. Hickok replied, no. It does not refer directly to density in any way. It could mean housing, commercial, a mix of both housing and commercial, but it does not automatically speak to density. Councilmember Bolkcom asked does it give the City more latitude in the sense there has to be a master plan, it has to come before the Planning Commission and in front of the City Council. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it gives the developer more latitude. It is a bit more inviting because, unlike traditional zoning, it might be a little bit difficult to meet those standards and still build an interesting building. However, with the combination of a TOD and, in this case, the S-2 master plan, Council will get another look at their master plan when that comes through. You have quite a bit of latitude there. You like it, you don’t, or you like it with some modification. The S-2 allows you to do that, and they have found some success in Fridley with the S-2 with the Medtronic campus, the City’s latest developments, along old Central. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was a detriment to the 6895 University property, the Family Animal Hospital. She asked if it would hurt their property if they wanted to redevelop it, put an addition on, sell it, etc. Would that be part of a master plan, too? Mr. Hickok replied, on the contrary it would help them. It provides greater flexibility. It will also match the surrounding zoning if they choose to go to an S-2. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 6 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it will increase the cost to their property at all if they have to come forward with a master plan if they wanted to change their property in any way, as far as the building itself, adding onto it, etc. Mr. Hickok replied he did not believe so. Development, generally, whether they are building their building to match the S-2 zoning or the C-2 zoning, would take laying it out on the site and ultimately in this particular case it would take Council’s approval. It would be that process but the flexibility far outweighs the added cost and time it would take to have that approved. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether the City has heard anything from the property owner. Mr. Hickok replied, no. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were notified as part of the whole process. Mr. Hickok replied, yes. Not only were they notified by the standard notification process, but on September 27, they were given an individual letter asking them to comment or to provide the City with some feedback on their thoughts. Councilmember Varichak asked if the S-2 pertains to any single-family development homes. Mr. Hickok replied, it could. However, they might recall on the housing meetings, the Corridor Housing Initiative, with $4.5 million worth of development there, you could not do enough single-family on that land to make any sort of development try and pay for itself with tax increment. It is not always the City’s goal to try and pay for itself. Some of it is accomplishing other goals like cleaning up blight and creating a signature image along the corridor. However, single families would not have a high likelihood here either because of the lay of the land; and the City does think there is better potential under the S-2 for residential perhaps, but likely not single-family residential. Councilmember Varichak asked in that development would the University Avenue chain link fence be removed at that time. Mr. Hickok replied, it would be part of the design process with a new fence or a continuation of st the fence that was built there. The old chain link would be nonexistent they hope up to 61 and probably further as they develop. The Citgo site to the north has also been included in the tax increment district the HRA has defined, so that could lead to development there which would affect the fence there as well. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to close 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 CLOSED AT 8:21. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 7 NEW BUSINESS: 6.First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code by Amending Chapter 3.04, Personnel. Deborah Dahl, Human Resources Director,stated this is simply to raise the amount of annual leave an employee is allowed to maintain at year-end. Staff’s proposal is to raise the cap from 30 to 35 days or by 40 hours. Chapter 3 of the ordinance which was No. 766 was established back in 1982 to deal with fundamental personnel changes and matters like hours of work, vacation, and sick leave. In 1983 the City approved an amendment to convert staff’s vacation and sick leave program to an annual leave program or PTO system which a lot organizations use. Ms. Dahl stated the current ordinance allows employees to accrue annual leave. The annual leave is a process that staff enjoys and is used in lieu of sick time or vacation time. Staff has a maximum currently of 30 annual leave days which equates to 240 hours based on an 8-hour workday. Staff’s goal with union negotiations this year they may recall was to maintain consistency across all labor groups. It has been a very important process for all of their negotiations. Ms. Dahl stated Council requested that the annual leave sell-back program (where employees are able to sell back up to 5 vacation or annual leave days) be eliminated because of economic circumstances. They were very successful in removing that item from all the contracts which include police patrol, police sergeants, and firefighters. It was also discontinued for non-union employees as well in 2011. This was a difficult process in the negotiations. It was a very valued benefit to the employees. Ms. Dahl stated in order to exchange that or some of that, discussion took place to offer an additional leave salary cap of five days. That helped soften the impact, and staff was able to negotiate that fairly with each of the groups. In essence they were able to raise that 5 days for police patrol and police sergeants as well. That was approved by Council earlier in the year. The Fire union already has a higher cap, and it is very complicated at this point but they have a longer workday. It is based on 11.2-hour workday on average vs. a normal 40-hour workweek which includes 8 hours. This did not come up into negotiations this year, but they do expect that the union will want to mirror the same benefit for the same number of days. The only other exception they have right now is six employees in 1993 were given the option to have a higher cap when they converted their sick leave. They are currently over that 240-hour cap. Ms. Dahl stated in researching how the City of Fridley sits with other cities in the metro area, Fridley’s max cap is lower than other peer cities (cities Fridley has identified as its peers when it has done compensation studies). Currently Fridley’s cap is at 30 days, and its peers are appearing to be at 58 days. Well over what Fridley offers. The City’s benefit has not been adjusted since the inception of this personnel ordinance back in 1983. Staff expects this will help ease staffing levels at the year-end when people are pressured to take their time off instead of losing it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 8 Ms. Dahl stated the cost of this is a little difficult to measure. The City has 38 employees right now who on average earn approximately $30 an hour. That additional 40 hours, if they were to use all of those or an employee would obtain all of those, it would cost an estimated $46,000 over the entire number of career folks involved. It would essentially be incurred when the employee leaves employment, not necessarily each year as it was with the annual sellback program. Ms. Dahl stated staff is not proposing any change to the current budget. It would just allow people to carry over an additional 5 days if they accrued that much. This would help the City keep consistent with all labor groups and keep a level playing field. The ordinance change would require just a first and second reading. If adopted, it would become effective on December 3 of this year. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the $46,000 was based on. Ms. Dahl replied it is not easy to follow. The math the staff followed was there are 38 employees and they took their hourly average of $30 an hour. If you took 5 days (40 hours) per person at that rate that is what the $46,000 would equate to. Essentially, if it were her situation, she would be allowed to raise her cap an additional 5 days; but she probably would not cash that out any time until she left employment. She is really carrying over those 5 days for the remainder of her employment. She is not cashing it out every year, she is just being allowed to raise that cap over. If everyone left in one year with those additional 5 hours, that is what the cost would be-- $46,000. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, however, if those same employees are carrying over the 5 days by the end of their employment, it would be much higher than the $46,000 as they are getting increases in pay, would they not? Ms. Dahl replied, yes. It is a difficult process to estimate with the cost-of-living adjustments, etc. She does not know that all employees would end up reaching that cap as well. They really do not have a sense if all 38 of those employees would go over that 240-hour cap. Councilmember Bolkcom stated in the private sector you see a lot fewer days you can carry over. She has friends who can only carry over 5 or they have to use it by the end of the year. Where she works it has decreased in the amount you can carry over to the next year because it is on the books and it will have to paid out at some point. She is not disagreeing with this. It is something that has been negotiated, but it is pretty generous compared to the private sector. Councilmember Varichak stated they do not have this at her place of employment either. Their cap is she believes 240 hours. This additional 5 days is very nice. She asked if it was the total amount of hours for annual leave, sick and/or vacation days. Is it paid out when people quit? Ms. Dahl replied, they do not have sick time. It is called PTO or annual leave. It is a combination of annual leave and vacation time. Councilmember Varichak stated it does get paid out when an employee leaves. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 9 Ms. Dahl replied, yes. Mayor Lund stated keep in mind it was a trade off. This was a better value for the City. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7.Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #12-06, for Trav’s Outfitter, Inc., Located at 7315 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2). Scott Hickok , Community Development Director, stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow an electronic reader board sign as part of his freestanding sign at 7315 Highway 65 N.E. to be turned on and operated. The freestanding sign is 72 square feet. The existing electronic reader board portion of the sign is approximately 24 square feet. When the sign was originally installed in 2011, the petitioner decided to wait on getting the special use permit for the electronic message sign. This subject property was rezoned in 2010 from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business; and is located in the northeast corner of Highway 65 rd and 73. Mr. Hickok stated also in 2010 a portion of 73½ Avenue located directly north of the subject property was vacated. The vacated right-of-way then became part of the subject property. As to Code requirement, electronic message center signs or changeable signs are an approved special use provided the message does not change more than once every 45 seconds. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission considered this at their October 17 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of this request with the following stipulations: 1.The petitioner shall be allowed to turn on the electronic message center portion of the sign. 2.Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3.Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular traffic in the area. Councilmember Varichak stated it is pretty straightforward. They have had these before, and she does not see any issues with this. Councilmember Bolkcom asked the petitioner if he is okay with the stipulations. Councilmember Varichak stated according to the Planning Commission meeting minutes the petitioner did wish the reader board could switch more often than the 45 seconds but City Code does not allow that. She asked whether he did not have a problem with that. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 10 Travas Uthe , Trav’s Outfitter, replied, they are prepared to abide by that. Councilmember Varichak asked Mr. Hickok if staff has heard from any of the surrounding neighbors or anything in regards to this? Mr. Hickok replied, no. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to adopt Resolution No. 2012-81, with the following stipulations: 1.The petitioner shall be allowed to turn on the electronic message center portion of the sign. 2.Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3.Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular traffic in the area. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8.Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #12-07, for Advantage Scaffold and Ladders, Located at 5261 Ashton Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). Scott Hickok, Community Development Director,stated this request is to allow limited outdoor storage of galvanized scaffolding along the southeast side of their property at 5261 Ashton Avenue NE. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. It was developed in 1999 with the construction of the existing building in 2008. The property received a special use permit to have outdoor storage; however, that special use permit never ended up being used so it became void. Mr. Hickok stated as part of this approval of this special use permit, staff would recommend revoking the earlier special use permit, #08-02, to clean the record. Mr. Hickok stated City Code does allow limited outdoor storage in the industrial districts up to 50 percent of the building footprint with a special use permit. The building’s square foot dimension in this case is 44,350. The City Code would allow 22,175 square feet of outdoor storage. The petitioner is proposing to fence in the yard on the south side of their property. However, they are only going to use 11,784 square feet of area for their outdoor storage needs. Mr. Hickok stated the outdoor storage area will be used to store the galvanized scaffolding. The remaining yard area will be used for maneuvering trucks either delivering products or customers picking up product. This did come up at the Planning Commission. They wondered whether there would be paint on the floor or something else that would say where that storage gets to be. If you take a look at the building and where the doors are, and how you need to maneuver to get FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 11 either into those parking stalls or a large truck back to the doors, they are going to need to stay confined to this yellow area; and they think it will be pretty self-policing. The material is neat. It is able to be stacked in a fairly tight order. Mr. Hickok stated at the October 17 Planning Commission meeting there was a hearing held, and the Commission unanimously recommended approval with the following stipulations: 1.Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the 11,784 square feet area submitted on the site plan dated 10/8/12. 2.New parking stalls shown on site plans dated 10/8/12 shall be striped to designate the location of the proposed 22 stalls. 3.If parking of customers, employees, or delivery trucks within the public right-of-way becomes an issue, additional parking stalls will need to be created on site. 4.Screening gate to the yard shall be closed except when used for entering and exiting to allow proper screening. If necessary an automatic screening gate shall be installed to allow proper screening. 5.Per Section 205 of the Fridley City Code, this Special Use Permit will become null and void one year after the City Council approval date if work has not commenced or if the Petitioner has not petitioned the City Council for an extension. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if that special use permit is there, could they store anything else besides scaffolding? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, they could. This is about a special use permit for that amount of square foot area there. They handle a number of different kinds of scaffolding; however, it is typically the painted stuff that stays inside and there is the galvanized type that can stay outside. If they decided, for example, they had other features that would go on scaffolding perhaps planks that are metal and galvanized, they would not need to come back to the Council. If they decided to use more than that area, they would have to. They could go up to 22,000 square feet but then maneuvering into the doors gets to be difficult. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they could have barrels and other types of things sitting there. Mr. Hickok replied, there are other things that would govern that. Other standards they would have to live by if there was going to be any sort of product involved. There is a way that you have to store that. They would need to go through the Fire Marshall, and they would need to store the material in accordance with the law depending on what that product would be in a 55- gallon barrel. Typically you are not seeing the barrels outside. One reason is because of the durability and also because of the potential for contamination. They are not anticipating seeing that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated in Stipulation No. 4, the word “existing” should be replaced with “exiting.” Also, the stipulation is a very long sentence. Mr. Hickok replied two sentences would be better there. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 12 Councilmember Bolkcom asked the petitioner if he was okay with what they want to do with Stipulation No. 4. Scott Ingalls, Advantage Scaffold and Ladders, replied, yes. Mayor Lund stated by installing this outdoor storage area, it eliminates some parking stalls. They have to do some proof of parking yet. He asked if there was an issue with removing some parking area. Mr. Hickok replied staff has spoken with the petitioners on this and are comfortable, based on the amount of staffing they have and the amount of parking demand they have, that this is okay. Proof of parking is always something that is an option. If they are putting it to other use and they do not need the parking, the City is okay with that as long as, at the point when it is necessary, it can be recovered and used. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to amend Stipulation No. 4 to replace the word, “existing” with the word, “exiting.” Also, to replace the comma with a period, making the stipulation read as two sentences. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2012-81 with the following stipulations: 1.Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the 11,784 square feet area submitted on the site plan dated 10/8/12. 2.New parking stalls shown on site plans dated 10/8/12 shall be striped to designate the location of the proposed 22 stalls. 3.If parking of customers, employees, or delivery trucks within the public right-of-way becomes an issue, additional parking stalls will need to be created on site. 4.Screening gate to the yard shall be closed except when used for entering and exiting to allow proper screening. If necessary an automatic screening gate shall be installed to allow proper screening. 5.Per Section 205 of the Fridley City Code, this Special Use Permit will become null and void one year after the City Council approval date if work has not commenced or if the Petitioner has not petitioned the City Council for an extension. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 13 9.Resolution to Vacate a Portion of an Existing 10-Foot Drainage and Utility Easement and Dedicate a New Drainage and Utility Easement, Generally Located at 7751 East River Road, Petitioned by the Property Owner, Davene Smith (Vacation Request, SAV #12-02, by Davene Smith) (Ward 3). Scott Hickok, Community Development Director,stated Ms. Smith is seeking to vacate a portion of the 10-foot drainage and utility easement that is currently located under the existing Crayon Box building located at 7751 East River Road. When the property was proposed to be developed in 1979, an application was submitted to the City to have the 10-foot drainage and utility easement vacated so there was adequate room for construction of the building. A public hearing and a first reading were held on the vacation; however, Council decided at that time to hold the second reading until a total development plan for the property had been received. A plan was never received, and the second reading of that ordinance did not occur and the easement not vacated. Mr. Hickok stated in 2003 when the City received a building permit application for the existing building, staff researched and found the records indicated there had a vacation of the easement processed in 1979 and so a building permit was issued. It was not until recently, when the property owner was going to have the property refinanced that it was discovered the easement was still in place, and the City did not finalize the process that had originally been started. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this on SAV #12-02 on October 17. They unanimously recommended approval with one stipulation. Staff recommends Council’s approval. Mr. Hickok pointed out differences in a revised resolution he handed. In the heading what they had not done is talked about reserving a portion of that existing easement. The intent was there, the language was not. Also near the bottom under Bullet No. 1, where it starts “The City of Fridley vacates the following. . .” they have added “portion of a previously dedicated easement.” At the top of the next page, in Bullet No. 2, again they are talking about the remainder and it should read, “The City of Fridley reserves onto itself and other utility providers the remainder of a previously dedicated easement for drainage. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they had something in place so something like this does not happen again. Mr. Hickok replied, new things have happened where the City would have a better handle on this. What happens is that the easements were dedicated as part of the plat. The plat happened many years before 1979. When they were looking at developing the land in 1979, they went through this process. That file was then filed in the City’s archives. The records upstairs showed there was a vacation application that was processed and that it went through the public hearing process. It probably was not as descriptive as it could have been. It just simply said a vacation had been processed, public hearing had been held, and it gives staff the dates. The new thing the City has is it is going paperless and those archives will be at their fingertips. The City typically does not go to Anoka County when somebody makes an application to see what the Anoka County records show. They do trust the City’s records, and 99.7 percent of the time they are right; .03 percent of the time there is a bit of a problem. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 14 Councilmember Bolkcom asked petitioner if she was aware of the new resolution and she was made aware of the changes. Davene Smith , 7751 East River Road, yes, she was. Councilmember Bolkcom asked and she agrees with those changes? Ms. Smith replied, yes. Mr. Hickok stated Ms. Smith was gracious that she allowed an additional easement to be added to the property, outside of her parking lot and playground to the north, she allowed the area near the creek that goes through to have an easement so the City can have access for maintenance, etc. The easement document was signed by Ms. Smith today and will be filed with the County as well. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2012-83 with the following: 1.The petitioner agrees to dedicate an area approximately 75 feet from the northern property line as a drainage easement. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10.Resolution Receiving Report and Calling for a Hearing on Improvement for Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2013-01. James Kosluchar , Public Works Director, stated on July 19, 2012, the City Council passed a resolution addressing staff to prepare a preliminary report. This allowed staff to officially begin work on the preliminary design and analysis to determine whether this project, which is the 2013 street rehabilitation project, is feasible. Mr. Kosluchar stated the southern portion of the Jackson Street segment was also petitioned this year which is kind of unusual. The City has not had petitions for street work in the recent years, but it was combined with the storm water petition the City received. Mr. Kosluchar stated the conceptual segments staff proposed to construct in 2013 included local rd streets in Meadowmore Terrace and Flanery Park neighborhoods. That is basically north of 73 rd Avenue and east of Old Central. Also included is Jackson Street from 73 to Osborne; and then th 69 Avenue east of Old Central to the city limits. Additionally, in 2011, they had deferred several commercial roadways in the north industrial area. These were combined for the City’s proposed 2013 project, for a total length of 7.3 miles. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 15 Mr. Kosluchar stated staff reviewed the feasibility of this project and prepared a report that includes an analysis of the street improvements, the City utility and storm water improvements, private utility and other coordination considerations in an estimated costs and schedule. Mr. Kosluchar stated during the development of the feasibility report, staff held an open house to alert people who might be impacted by the project, solicit input regarding the project and its need, discuss specific project concerns the owners may have had, and to provide feedback to staff regarding existing issues. They had 74 attendees at the open house. Mailings were made prior to the open house to 380 residential and 90 commercial properties. Staff gave a presentation. Questions were answered regarding the assessment, construction, and utility services. Mr. Kosluchar stated some of the feedback from the open house included some very positive comments from the property owners in residential project areas. They were generally in support of the project. There were a couple of comments that the proposed assessments were lower than they expected them to be. There was also some negative feedback on the project from the commercial property owners because of concerns regarding the economy. Mr. Kosluchar stated staff did a follow-up from the open house. They discussed with Council the informal property survey that identified the commercial area properties that were advertised for lease or for sale. The condition of the area is much the same as it was in 2011 when this project area was first deferred. They have not seen much improvement in 2012 yet. Staff had looked at it in 2010. In addition, they had notice from MnDOT that funding was delayed for the th railroad crossing on 69 Avenue. Staff had expected that to be in place for 2013. They had th rescheduled the funding to 2014. Staff wants that area of 69 Avenue to be constructed with the railroad crossing. They do not want to do two constructions in subsequent years on the same segment. Staff eliminated the following segments from consideration in the feasibility report: th the north industrial area segments and the 69 Avenue segment (because of the delay in the railway crossing construction). These areas would be deferred to 2014. Mr. Kosluchar stated the remaining recommended segments are Meadowmoor Terrace and the rd Flannery Park neighborhood. North of 73 Avenue, east of Old Central, to the City limits and rd Jackson Street from 73 to Osborne. This would 3.9 miles total which is probably about what the City has been doing in the last three years in a fairly aggressive rehabilitation program. Mr. Kosluchar stated staff is recommending reclamation for all these streets because of condition due mainly to age--35 plus years of age generally. Some are close to 45 years. Utility work has been identified. There is a minor amount of work on the City’s own utilities relative to the 2012 project. Mr. Kosluchar stated the project budget of just over $1 million is within budget after shifting th the north industrial and 69 segments forward to 2014. The project is going to be constructed between June and August of 2013. Staff has completed the report which has been provided to Council. Staff has determined that the project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. Staff recommends the City Council move to approve the resolution which receives the feasibility report and sets a preliminary hearing date and time. This resolution also outlines the streets FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 16 which were considered at the preliminary hearing and perhaps more importantly those which will not be considered further for 2013 construction. If approved tonight a public hearing will be set for December 10 at 7:30 p.m. Properties identified as benefiting and subject to special assessment will be noticed by mail ten (10) working days prior to the hearing. At the hearing, those persons with property subject to assessment will be heard regarding the proposed project. Councilmember Varichak asked when the City originally did this and included the commercial property, they discussed withdrawing that. Also, she thinks at that meeting they discussed contacting some of the commercial businesses to see if the City was right in its assessment that they did not want to have this done. She asked Mr. Kosluchar if he heard any feedback from the commercial properties. Mr. Kosluchar replied, staff sent a letter and asked for their feedback and if they had any concerns. The City has not heard from any owners. Councilmember Bolkcom replied, she heard from two. She heard via e-mail because she sent out e-mails after they decided to send out a letter. They were both appreciative of the project not happening. One was not appreciative even if it were to happen next year. They do not agree with how the City assesses commercial properties versus residential. They would like the City to look into that further if it happens in 2014. She asked Mr. Kosluchar if staff would be sending out a letter to those who were invited and will now not be included so they know where it is at. Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, they can certainly do that. Also, they are happy to take any comment they have up to next year. Next summer is probably when staff would be contacting them again about a 2014 project. th Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether there are any properties on 69 Avenue and the railroad crossing that need to know. th Mr. Kosluchar stated they really did not hear from anyone on 69 Avenue prior to the open house. No one from that area attended the open house. They have not heard from them since staff did subsequent mailings to them. It is more from the industrial area to the north. Staff did verify they mailed to the correct properties. There are only two or three properties on the north side, and many of other properties that are residential face the side street and are not subject to assessment so you are probably dealing with only 7 or 8 properties total. Mayor Lund asked if there was an exception for Brigadoon Place. Why was that not included? Everything else is included in the Meadowmoor neighborhood. Mr. Kosluchar stated actually staff selects segments on the basis of condition. Also, Stinson Boulevard is not included. Brigadoon’s condition rating is very high. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to adopt Resolution No. 2012-84. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 17 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11.Approve Revision to 2012 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2012-01 Assessment th Roll (Revised Assessment for 355 – 66 Avenue N.E.). James Kosluchar , Public Works Director, stated staff is asking Council to make a correction in the assessment roll that was approved on October 8, 2012, that was approved by Resolution No. 2012-72. The project included special assessments supplied to 227 benefiting properties. After th the hearing date, the owner of property at 355 – 66 Avenue NE contacted staff inquiring as to the amount of the assessment applied to his property. The amount reflected a double parcel assessment. A double parcel assessment is typically applied to parcels when a lot can be subdivided without the need for a zoning mechanism such as a variance. Engineering staff had incorrectly determined that the double assessment was appropriate for this parcel. The parcel is about 5 feet short of the frontage needed to subdivide without that variance or zoning mechanism. Mr. Kosluchar stated staff is requesting Council move to amend the assessment roll approved by Resolution No. 2012072 for PIN 143024240025 from $3,861.88 to $1,930.94. The request will not have an impact on the project budget. A single assessment was accounted for in the initial project budget as it was. If approved tonight, the owner would be notified by mail and telephone of the change in special assessment applied to this property. Staff has had a couple of conversations with the owner. Mr. Kosluchar and Darin Nelson have both met with the owner. Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, stated what he could do is move to direct the Finance Director to modify the final assessment roll before he transmits it to Anoka County just to reflect the reduction in this PIN number. Mayor Lund stated he understands this would be the cleanest way to do this, to take it out of the MSA funds rather than readjust all the properties just for the few dollars. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how this happened. Mr. Kosluchar stated initially they had budgeted for one parcel. Somewhere along the line it had gotten reviewed and appeared to be a double lot which was able to be subdivided without any mechanism. Typically, what they do is apply that two-lot assessment. At some point that got modified. Assistant Public Works Director Layne Otteson had taken a second look at the parcels and looked for those subdividable parcels and presumed this one met the criteria. He thought it was a 75-foot lot frontage requirement which would have made 150 subdividable. The lot was 155 feet and actually the zoning here requires 80-foot lot frontage. Councilmember Bolkcom asked in the future how will staff work to ensure accuracy. Mr. Kosluchar replied, duplicating the review on any double lots. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2012 PAGE 18 Mayor Lund stated looking at the drawing, many of the lots are 75 feet. Does this make these non-conforming? Similar to what they had in the northwest area of the community at one time? He thought the City’s ordinances were such that a minimum lot was 75 feet. This is a different area that puts it at 80 feet and which puts a lot of these properties in non-conformance status. Mr. Kosluchar replied it is his understanding that there is an 80-foot requirement. Mr. Hickok stated the developer may have chosen that 80-foot lot here. The standard is 80 feet on a corner in the subdivision ordinance; however, 75 is still the standard in this neighborhood. th Typically on a corner, it is 80 feet. However, on 67 Avenue some developers chose to go with the wider standard and not go with the minimum 75-foot lot. He suspects that is what happened th on 67 Avenue. Mayor Lund asked, just to be clear, the standard is 75 feet is a minimum lot but, when it comes to any corner lot, it has to be 80 feet. And that is throughout the city. Mr. Hickok replied, correct. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve a revision to the assessment roll for the 2012 th Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2012-01(Revise Assessment for 355 – 66 Avenue N.E.). Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. Informal Status 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 9:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor