CCA 08/14/2017
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access
to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status
with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow
individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities.
Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who
require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500. (TTD/572-3534)
CONFERENCE MEETING (5:15 p.m.)
1. Emerald Ash Borer Pilot Program Report
2. Public Art
3. Locke Park Boundary
4. Liquor Store Plans
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PRESENTATION:
Community Partnership Grant from CenterPoint Energy
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of July 24, 2017 .......................................................... 1 - 14
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Claims: 177536 - 177776 ............................................................................ 15 - 45
2. License: Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor ......................................... 46
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017 PAGE 2
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
Consideration of items not on Agenda – 15 minutes.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3. Consider Transferring Property from the
City of Fridley to the Fridley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority for Development
(Continued July 24, 2017);
and
First Reading of an Ordinance Pursuant to
Section 12.06, of the City Charter Declaring
Certain Real Estate to be Surplus and Authorizing
the Conveyance Thereof .............................................................................. 47 - 54
4. Consider Revocation of Special Use Permit,
SP #16-04, for Mobile Maintenance, Inc., to
Expand Automobile Parking in an R-1 Zoning
District, Generally Located at 513 Fairmont
Street N.E. (Ward 3) ..................................................................................... 55 - 65
5. Consider Revocation of Special Use Permit,
SP #93-10, for Mobile Maintenance, Inc., to have
Exterior Storage of Materials and Equipment in a
C-1 Zoning District, Generally Located at 505
Fairmont Street N.E. (Ward 3) ..................................................................... 66 - 72
6. Informal Status Reports ................................................................................ 73
ADJOURN.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
JULY 24, 2017
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Lund
Councilmember Barnette
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT:
Wally Wysopal, City Manager
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Shelly Peterson, Finance Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
Deborah Dahl, Director of Human Resources
PROCLAMATION:
Night to Unite – August 1, 2017.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of July 10, 2017.
APPROVED.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Fridley City Code, Section 102.01,
Disposal of Lost and Stolen Property, to Allow for the Private Sale of Unclaimed
Property to a Non-Profit Organization with a Significant Mission of Community
Services;
and
Resolution Approving Private Sale of Bicycles that have been Declared as
Unclaimed Property to a Local Non-Profit Community Organization for the
Calendar Year 2017.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 2
WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO.
1346 ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2017-36.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of June 21, 2017.
RECEIVED.
3. Final Plat Request, P.S. #17-03, by Kurt Manufacturing Co., Inc., to Replat the
Property by Taking Two Irregular Shaped Lots and Creating Two Rectangular
Shaped Lots, Generally Located at 7585 Highway 65 N.E.
and
Resolution Approving Final Plat, P.S. #17-03, by Kurt Manufacturing Co., Inc., to
Create Two Rectangular Shaped Lots from the Properties Located at 7588 Highway
65 N.E. and the Vacant Lot to the east of 7585 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
APPROVED ANDADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2017-37.
4. Receive Bids and Award contract for the Main Street Drainage Improvements
Project No. 17-486 to Lametti & Sons, Inc.
Mr. Wysopal
stated this was in the amount of $183,950.
RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED CONTRACT FOR THE MAIN STREET
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 17-486 TO LAMETTI & SONS, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $183,950.
5. Claims (1707 (ACH PCard) and 177308 - 177535
APPROVED.
ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION
by Councilmember Barnette to adopt the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 3
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
No one in the audience spoke.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION
by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember
Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6. Consider Transferring Property from the City of Fridley to the Fridley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority for Development;
and
First Reading of an Ordinance Pursuant to Section 12.06, of the City Charter
Declaring Certain Real Estate to be Surplus and Authorizing the Conveyance
Thereof.
MOTION
by Councilmember Saefke to 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 7:12 P.M.
Scott Hickok,
Community Development Director, stated earlier this year, the City approved a
plat for the entire Locke Park Pointe Development area. Once platted, the HRA transferred
ownership of parcels necessary to accommodate the Civic Campus.
Mr. Hickok
presented a map and described the original Columbia Arena site. He said the
original plat then took the larger box which would have included the park area, soccer fields,
etc., below and also the existing Public Works facility which is part of what they now see as
Outlot A. To accommodate the civic campus, Lot 1, Block 1 was transferred to the City and also
Outlot B which would accommodate the pond area which was really the storm pond area for the
civic portion and the private development as well. Lot 1 and Outlot B were conveyed to the City
from the HRA in the portions that were owned by the HRA.
Mr. Hickok
stated in the transfer of property being considered tonight, the result Lot 1 and
Outlot B now belong to the City. In exchange, the City has asked to transfer Outlots A, C, E,
and F to the HRA to accommodate a private mixed development.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 4
Mr. Hickok
stated staff recommends Council hold a public hearing and receive comment at this
meeting and recommends approval of the first reading of the attached ordinance which would
allow the conveyance of Outlots A, C, E, and F to the HRA. The second reading is anticipated to
be held on August 14.
Mayor Lund
stated Mr. Hickok referenced in his presentation about transferring Outlots A, C,
and F. His comment is related to transferring Outlot E to the HRA. He said he lives in the area,
and this is currently where one of the pump houses for the City is located. There is also a small
neighborhood park with some playground equipment located there. He said he did want to
involve the neighborhood that is directly adjacent to the park. In all fairness they should be
made aware of that change. He is requesting a continuance of the public hearing to allow the
neighbors to come to the next meeting.
Councilmember Barnette
stated he supports that 100 percent. He said he also lives in the area
and has strong to keep the park area.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated the possibility that the park could go away was news to
Council as they read their packet this weekend. She asked Mr. Hickok to talk a little bit about
options.
Mr. Hickok
stated they have talked about the patio homes that would have been on Outlot F and
18 patio homes along two north/south streets. It was only after the developer responded to their
RFQ that the question or possibility of additional units was discussed. Now it is being discussed
in more of a negotiation format. Staff and the HRA understand the interest in the parks and there
were some discussions about the soccer fields and the playgrounds.
Mr. Hickok
stated what the developer has said though is that 18 units is not quite enough for
them as they see it, although it does provide some of the patio homes residents have asked for.
When they have sold 90 percent of the units to an association, they want to be certain there is a
strong enough number of units so that there is a healthy association.
Mr. Hickok
stated national statistics show that you need a certain amount of people in there.
With 18 units there is going be some excitement early on, you will get a 4/5 person board out of
18 units, but after the first couple of years and people have decided they have done their term,
you want enough people in there to continue to have a healthy board. A board is a really
important thing to a homeowners association and the City wants to have a healthy one.
Otherwise, you have 18-30 units joined at the hip without any cohesiveness and the City may
start to hear from the residents who live there that they are not doing what is expected to be done
as part of their association fees.
Mr. Hickok
stated staff did some research and found that 30 units would be an adequate number
of units to be healthy. Staff looked at alternatives. He thinks there may be an opportunity to take
the playground and reposition it, but they do not have an absolute answer as to where it would
be. This is part of the current negotiations, and staff hopes to come to Council shortly with more
conclusive descriptions of how it would all work.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 5
Mr. Hickok
stated in the meantime, the HRA would like to be able to know they have some land
area to negotiate with. The HRA does not just see this as a land grab. If the land does not have
to be developed, it could be left as an outlot. This discussion truly has unfolded as they have
negotiated and talked about how this development will ultimately happen. They will bring it to
Council as soon as they know.
Mayor Lund
said he is willing to be open-minded. He does buy into Mr. Hickok’s comments
that the developers have made a change they see as a benefit. Mr. Hickok is correct in saying if
the development is too small, the association is less likely going to be successful over time. A
larger association probably has its merits. On the other hand, while he thinking about this and
weighing the good and the bad, he does feel a strong obligation to the neighborhood. There has
been a lot for the neighborhood to swallow over the last couple of years while they have gone
through this process. This is enough of a little winkle, and he has told them repeatedly he would
keep them informed as things occurred that merited their attention. They should continue the
public hearing and allow for public comment. They should notify the neighborhood that is
mostly affected.
Mr. Hickok
stated he recognizes and respects that.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated they also discussed it would go back and staff would come
back with some options to go to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Saefke
stated he understands the logic behind the developer’s proposal. On the
other hand he also recognizes there is a big demand for those types of patio units. A lot of
people have approached him about them. However, he does believe they owe it to the
neighborhood to inform them of this new wrinkle. He agrees with the Mayor and everyone else
that it should be continued.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if they should have a meeting before the public hearing with
the neighborhood to lay out the options.
Mayor Lund
stated he does not see that. The neighborhood will have an opportunity to come to
the public hearing and comment.
Councilmember Barnette
stated it will be something that will be discussed at Night to Unite.
Mayor Lund
stated it will just be an invitation.
Darcy Erickson,
City Attorney, thought a mailing to the neighborhood should be done.
Mayor Lund
stated either that or he was going to contact the block captions.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated it makes sense to do a mailing indicating there is going to be
further discussion about the park and they should come to the public hearing, and if they cannot
attend and want information, list who they should contact.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 6
MOTION
by Councilmember Saefke to continue the public hearing and the first reading of the
ordinance to August 14, 2017. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CONTINUED AT 7:30 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS:
7. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Fridley City Charter, Chapter 7,
Taxation and Finances.
Deb Skogen,
City Clerk, statedMinnesota Statutes allows for a Charter amendment by
ordinance upon recommendation of the Charter Commission. It does require publication of the
public hearing notice and the full text of the proposed amendment at least two weeks prior to the
public hearing. The Charter Commission recommended the amendment to the City Council on
May 15, and then scheduled the public hearing on May 22. The public hearing notice before the
City Council and ordinance text were published in the official newspaper on June 2. The public
hearing was held on June 26, 2017, and the first reading was held July 10.
Ms. Skogen
stated the amendment to Section 7.02.1 proposes a change to the restriction by
removing the inflationary consumer price index (CPI) allowing Council to increase the tax levy
up to 5 percent over the previous year’s tax levy and up to an additional 3 percent with an
affirmative vote of 4 members of the City Council. The amendment now requires a second
reading and a unanimous vote of the City Council to become adopted. If the vote is unanimous,
the ordinance becomes effective 90 days after publication, or on November 2.
Ms. Skogen
said staff recommends waiving the second reading of the ordinance and adopting
the ordinance amending the Fridley City Charter, Chapter 7, Taxation and Finances.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if the second reading passed, would it be published on Friday,
August 4.
Ms. Skogen
replied next Thursday.
Councilmember Bolkcom
replied, it states in their packet August 4.
Ms. Skogen
stated they usually get the paper on Thursday, but the actual publication is Friday.
MOTION
by Councilmember Saefke to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt Ordinance
No. 1345 on second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 7
NEW BUSINESS:
8. Resolution Abating the Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST 2016-01 on PIN
Number 26-30-24-32-0028 (Ward 3).
Shelly Peterson
, Finance Director, stated this is an abatement on a particular PIN within that
project area. This is a parcel that does not have an address or street access. It was submitted to
the County in error; therefore, the City has to go through the abatement process to remove it
from the assessment. The County would then go through the same process.
Mayor Lund
asked if it was a buildable lot.
Ms. Peterson
replied they have determined that you cannot build on this property.
Mayor Lund
asked if there was a way to add other property adjacent to it that would make it a
buildable lot.
Ms. Peterson
replied the property is not owned by the person who lives adjacent to it. At this
time it is unbuildable.
Mayor Lund
stated so there is a property owner who is not directly connected to this property, is
not adjacent to it; and this person is paying taxes on it albeit probably small taxes. He is just
wondering if he would ever sell it. He said there was not access or curb cut.
Ms. Peterson
replied correct.
Mayor Lund
stated that is the only thing that makes it different from being accessible to the
street, there is no curb.
Ms. Peterson
stated there is no sewer or water connection at that location either.
Mayor Lund
stated he just wanted to make sure it was not buildable and if it ever was.
James Kosluchar
, Public Works Director, stated the lot is 35 feet wide. Setbacks would
encroach pretty dramatically into that. You could potentially build some kind of structure, but it
would not be habitable. It is kind of strange because this lot was like this from the original plat.
When they put in utilities, they did not stub out water for sure. Not sure about sewer. They
bypassed this lot specifically. It is a strange artifact from an older plat that they would have left
this as an outlot more or less. The neighbor could build on it.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated the reason this was missed on the assessment roll is sometimes they deal
with typos with PIN’s and things like this. However, this was actually filtered through. The
individual who lives in the neighborhood did get assessed on another parcel and his ownership
address showed up as a larger lot. The City has created a new practice to filter through that a
little bit better.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 8
Mayor Lund
stated he is not against this change. He thinks it is great that they caught it and it
shows the honesty and the integrity of staff.
Ms. Peterson
stated in this situation, the property is owned by someone other than the adjacent
lot owner. If it ever were owned by the adjacent lot, the assessing department does have a
method of increasing that value for the benefit of that neighbor. As far as the assessment goes,
staff would like to look at that in the City’s policy to see how they would address that moving
forward.
Councilmember Saefke
stated it says the original assessment was $2,125.93 yet they are
approving an abatement of $2,262.61. The balance on it is $1,913.34. If you take the $1,913.34
and add the $349.28 which they have already paid, you come up with $2,262.62. When you
subtract the $2,125.93, and you wind up with $136.69.He asked where that came from.
Ms. Peterson
replied it is interest and it is better described in the resolution.
Councilmember Saefke
asked if the owner is getting the interest back.
Ms. Peterson
replied yes.
MOTION
by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. 2017-38. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Resolution Authorizing Signing an Employment Agreement between Certain
Employees Represented by Local No. 1986 (Firefighters).
Deborah Dahl
, Director of Human Resources, stated the Fire Union is identified as I.A.F.F.
Local No. 1986. It is one of three labor groups at the City. Currently, there are three members in
this fire union, and their titles are only captains, even though the Agreement stipulates they are
the City’s full-time firefighters and full-term inspector in terms of the Agreement.
Ms. Dahl
stated the contract expired on December 31, 2016. Because these are essential
employees, they must reach an agreement with the City. They cannot strike. If they cannot reach
an agreement, they need to go to arbitration to resolve any dispute.
Ms. Dahl
stated this year they met on three occasions and discussed a number of interests and
negotiated terms. She is very happy to tell Council they were able to reach a tentative
agreement.
Ms. Dahl
stated the Fire Union recognizes the burden of the City’s economic conditions and
appreciates the challenges it faces because of the levy restrictions, as well as some of the
priorities with the new civic campus.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 9
Ms. Dahl
stated wages were at the center of their discussions. The market is always the primary
issue in trying to remain competitive. The challenge with this group is trying to identify the
market. It is important to note that very few cities compare to the Fridley in terms of the kind of
Fire Department it offers. It has what the City calls, a combination department with full-time
and paid on-call.
Ms. Dahl
said in 2006, the City started revising a lot of its compensation plans. The City wanted
to revise them for non-union, and also use them as a benchmark for its other unions.
Ms. Dahl
stated in 2015, staff took its revised list and tried to provide that to the City’s unions to
agree to a new market. Again, similar with the sergeants in the Police Department, that was not
obtainable with this group.
Ms. Dahl
stated staff proceeded with what they felt were good discussions. The message was
really to keep pace with what was perceived to be the market. The City is continuing to lag
behind just slightly with a number of the base wages. Staff sees that across this group as well as
with non-union employees.
Ms. Dahl
stated for Fridley, recruitment and retention is critical, not only for wages for staff to
compare to the market, but also internally. Staff is always trying to maintain a good balance
between the City’s current employees--non-union, and unions. Staff spends a lot of time trying
to make sure they hear what the concerns are and work the relationships through.
Ms. Dahl
stated what Council has before them are the terms of the agreement that was agreed
upon by the parties. It is a three-year contract for 2017-2019. The insurance, like the other
groups, is the same as the City’s non-union employees. That has been something the City has
been able to maintain for a very long time.
Ms. Dahl
stated the wage increase for this group is only going to be at the captain’s level, which
would be 2 ½ percent for 2017, 2 ¾ percent for 2018, and 3 percent for 2019, on base wages
only. With respect to the full-time firefighters and full-time inspector who are listed in the
contract, there are no people in those positions. The parties agreed to leave those wages flat.
Ms. Dahl
stated the non-union, as Council will remember, received 2 percent for 2017 and 2
percent for 2018. This contract also mirrors a lot of what they saw in the sergeants’ contract.
Ms. Dahl
stated the contract provides for one additional City-paid holiday, making it 12 days.
They increased their uniform allowance, $5 in 2018 and $10 in 2019. The current rate for that is
$545 per year.
Ms. Dahl
stated there was just a minor language change to move the retiree health savings
account which they contribute to under Insurance, Article 21.10.
Ms. Dahl
stated she estimated the costs in the memorandum for 2017, 2018, and 2019. It
increases the City’s fund for unplanned expenses about $2,013.06 for 2017. These wages do not
include overtime and sometimes, very rarely, there may be court time. It is unplanned in terms
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 10
of any kind of overtime. It is possible that PERA will come back with a legislative change in
this coming year which might increase that contribution; therefore, she has not estimated that as
well.
Ms. Dahl
stated at the last meeting, Council approved the Sergeants’ Labor Agreement. As to
patrols, the negotiations are continuing. There may be mediation with them later in August, but
there is still an opportunity for them to meet and try to resolve some of those concerns as well.
The City does not have a maintenance union which is rare. That union asked to be decertified in
2000.
Ms. Dahl
stated staff is asking for Council to approve the resolution before them. It will then
make that effective January 1, 2017, and retroactive pay will begin within the next few weeks.
She said she was proud of the work that went into the labor negotiations. All the labor groups
and the representatives are very dedicated and passionate. Their requests were reasonable. She
is grateful for Chief Berg’s participation and leadership.
Mayor Lund
stated it seemed to be a fair deal as he read through it.
Councilmember Saefke
stated he believed the contract to be fair and reasonable and had no
problem with it.
MOTION
by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2017-39. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Fridley and the
Rice Creek Watershed District for a 2017 Metropolitan Council Stormwater Grant
for the for the Fridley Civic Complex.
James Kosluchar,
Public Works Director, stated in the spring of 2016 and 2017, staff requested
the Rice Creek Watershed District to apply for a stormwater system grant through a Met Council
program for the Fridley Civic Campus Project. They had to actually re-request in 2017 because
the City was not selected in 2016.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated the new program is intended to fund water quality improvements for
projects that go above and beyond their required regulatory threshold. The proposed project will
be on the Fridley Civic Campus, and will serve the private development to the south as well. It
will improve the water quality of the stormwater runoff by adding iron-enhanced sand filter
treatment systems. Basically they look like golf course sand traps. There is a system that pumps
water up to them, and the water will recirculate through the City’s ponds.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated the City had the highest score of the project submitted this year. The Met
Council awarded a grant of $159,000. They had requested $209,000 but they had a lot of
projects and spread the awards around a little bit more.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 11
Mr. Kosluchar
stated in addition, the Rice Creek Watershed District budgeted $70,000 in their
2017 budget to assist with this project.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated the Rice Creek Watershed District as a formal grantee will be the agent
for the grant. In the Memorandum of Agreement, the Rice Creek Watershed District identifies
what the City will be responsible for. The City prepares the work plan and the budget, the local
match, completes the construction for the Grant Agreement, and performs the required operation
and maintenance. The estimated breakdown of funds is $159,000 from the Met Council, $70,000
from the Rice Creek Watershed District, and $192,000 plus in City funds. The City has a budget
for the stormwater system, and will be able to provide for the stormwater and some of the
pumping that is covered under this grant. The City will be able to provide improved water
quality for the development and actually save $143,500 to the funding allocated in this grant.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated in order to formalize the funding commitment for the Met Council and the
Rice Creek Watershed District, the attached Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) needs to be
signed. It has been reviewed by legal counsel. There is one small change that needs to be made
on the signature block and they let the Rice Creek Watershed District know. The Rice Creek
Watershed District has a hearing on July 26, 2017, for the approval of the MOA. If approved,
they will sign the documents and forward them to the City. Staff recommends the City Council
move to approve the attached MOA with the Rice Creek Watershed District for the 2017 Met
Council stormwater grant for the Fridley Civic Campus. If approved, the MOA will be executed,
and implementation directed upon its receipt.
Councilmember Saefke
referred to two agreements and asked if they should be signed
separately.
Attorney Erickson
, City Attorney, said the second agreement is one she understands will exist
between the Rice Creek Watershed District and theMet Council since they are the grantee and
the agent. The City is signing the first agreement because it essentially binds the City and would
require them to do everything the Rice Creek Watershed District is going to have to do.
Councilmember Bolkcom
referred to page 113. Under paragraph 6(b) it states “As between the
parties, the City will fully bear: (1) Project cost increases; (ii) the risk that, for any reason, the
Council does not provide the full grant amount; and (iii) the obligation to return or repay any
grant amount; as whether may arise under the Grant Agreement.” The City is not going to go
through this if it does not have the second Agreement signed. If passed by Council, does it mean
it would not go forward if for some reason the Met Council and Rice Creek Watershed District
did not sign the second agreement? She asked if there were any projected increased costs that
would come back to the City.
Mr. Kosluchar
replied the City would be responsible for increased costs. They will be
providing the unlimited match. He does not mean to say it is unlimited in costs as they have a
pretty good estimate. A lot of the work has been bid already and the City has alternate bids.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 12
MOTION
by Councilmember Saefke to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the
City of Fridley and the Rice Creek Watershed District for a 2017 Metropolitan Council
Stormwater Grant for the for the Fridley Civic Complex. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
st
11. Approve Change Order No. 1 for the 71 Avenue Watermain Project 17-513.
Jim Kosluchar
, Public Works Director,stated on April 24, 2017, the City awarded a contract to
st
Land Pride Construction for the 71 Avenue Watermain Project. The goal was to relocate and
upsize an existing distribution main for Locke Park Pointe redevelopment. The old main that
serves Public Works, the fire training center, and Columbia Arena itself ran through the middle
of the site, and the City needed it to move it.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated the project included 1,370 lineal feet of 12-inch watermain, hydrants,
valves, and utilities stubs and fittings. The project had a very tight timetable. Being awarded at
the end of April, they had about two to three weeks in May to get it done to avoid a conflict with
the Fridley Civic Campus Project. The contractor also needed to maintain access to the existing
Public Works facility for operations purposes.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated there were a number of changes. There was realignment to avoid utility
conflicts in the Public Works area. That was a reasonable amount. The second and third
changes were the tough ones. They had some changed groundwater and soil conditions that
affected about one-quarter of the project. Unfortunately, they were not able to successfully bore
the pipe through that section. Staff knows that directional boring from the City’s other bids and
alternate bids in the past have been cheaper. The reason is because of No. 3, which was the
restoration work.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated No. 4 was a simple soil correction at the Public Works site. They ran into
some organic soils and removed those, and they had dewatering. Numbers 2, 3, and 5 are kind of
lumped together based on a groundwater condition that was about four feet higher than what the
City’s borings showed on the site. They had a lot of borings on the site.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated he knows the change order is quite substantial. Staff directed this
additional work because of the conditions that had changed. The contractor worked diligently
and hard to perform corrective work without delay. They also absorbed some of the
miscellaneous cost of the additional work. The work is being funded by the Water Utility Fund,
and will amend the Capital Investment Plan. They had it in the draft for this year, so it was at the
original bid amount.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated staff recommends Council approve Change Order No. 1 which is the final
change order for this project in the amount of $146,065.68 to Land Pride Construction. If
approved, their contract amount would increase accordingly.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 13
Mayor Lund
stated it is surprising from last year to this year how the water table was so
dramatically higher.
Mr. Kosluchar
replied, and that is a common condition they have had throughout Fridley. He
would say it is higher than anybody recalls who is working with the City. They have up to 37
years on the City’s employees. There are homes which are 50 years old that do not have sumps
and are starting to leak water. They had the September rainfall that was severe and it just has
never stopped. Staff is dealing with it pretty much all over the City. They did not anticipate that
much of a difference. They felt comfortable and even had monitoring wells on the Columbia
Arena site that were monitoring and verifying that the groundwater readings from the borings
were right and they were right on and consistent. It was the stretch basically west of the Public
Works garage gate.
Mayor Lund
stated on the same property recently one of the City’s mowers got stuck in the
th
grass mowing near 69, right on the curb. That has leaked for several years. He has mentioned
it before thinking either it has to be groundwater seeping out of the ground which has created
that soft spot because even when it is dry for weeks, water will seep out of that ground right by
the curb and run down the street. Or, it has to be an irrigation leak. That has been like that for
four or five years now.
Mr. Kosluchar
stated he believed the Water Department staff went out there and sampled and
looked for chlorine and did not pick any up. They presume it is groundwater. He said he was
contacted by a few citizens at Craig Park, and they cannot get in there to mow at all. It has never
been that bad.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked where the money was coming from.
Mr. Kosluchar
replied it is all being budgeted to the Water Utility Fund.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if the cost increased because of the timeframe.
Mr. Kosluchar
replied, they had a tight timeframe in the bid so that may have been reflected
somewhat in the initial price. The change order work itself did not increase because of the
timeframe. He said the contractor stayed until this was done and fixed. They probably had work
lined up that they had to push back.
Councilmember Saefke
stated back when the addition of the office area was put on the Public
Works building, the City’s Water Department had to move the watermain because it would have
gone straight through the office area. They worked on the weekend to move it. He can verify
the fact that they did hit water but it was right at the 6 ½ foot mark. They had to kind of work
fast. He can understand why it would have been high because where it went, just outside the
gate, used to be pretty much a wetland to begin with and the soils are not very good either. It is
not pleasant but he can understand what happened. Also, it is tough working in those conditions.
st
MOTION
by Councilmember Saefke to approve Change Order No. 1 for the 71 Avenue
Watermain Project 17-513. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 24, 2017 PAGE 14
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Informal Status Report
– There were no 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
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT
8:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
AGENDA ITEM
COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017
CLAIMS
CLAIMS
177536 - 177776
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
AUGUST 14, 2017
LICENSE LIST
Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Public Safety Director
Liquor August 16, 2017 at Springbrook on 9/15/17 City Clerk
AAGENDAA ITEMM
CITY COOUNCILL MEETTING OFF
Auugust114, 2017
DAT
E: Augusst 10, 2017
TO:WallyWysopal,ity Manage
CCgr
FRM: ScottHickok, Cmmunity evelopmet Director
OOooDDnn
Continuation off thePublicc Hearingaand First RReading off
SUBJECT:
an Odinance t TransferProperty rom the City to
rrooff
Fridleey HRA forrDevelopmment
Introoduction
Youwill recall tat at its lat meeting the City Cuncil opened its publc hearing
hhssoonii
discssion on tis item. Cuncil exprssed conern over te lack of public
uuhhooeecchh
discssion ove potential evelopmet concept offered bck by the rivate
uurrddnnssaapp
devloper. Council and stff have wrked hard o communicate with the public n
eeaaoottoo
eac step of this civic projct and didnot want tis transfe of propert to now b
hheehhrryyee
the fcus of cocern. Clearly, their cntinuationof the public hearing ffered an
oonnoooo
opprtunity to tep back ad to bette articulate what is being requested of
oossnnrr
Coucil at this ime and to make that action as lear as posible to th public.
nnttccssee
Simly put, the purpose o the transfr at this tie is to allw the City’s
ppffeemmoo
devlopment prtner, the RA the oportunity t negotiat the best lyout
eeaaHHppooeeaa
posible for on level, ower occupid patio hoes for the City and tis
sseenneemmhh
devlopment. platted pump house parcel and a platted ark/tot lot ill be part
eeAAppww
of th overall laout ultimtely, but th HRA wold like the lexibility t best
eeyyaaeeuuffoo
negootiate a layoout that makes sense ffor all partiees and thenn convey thhe pump
houe and tot lt parcels ack to the City when he ultimat layout is nown.
ssoobbtteekk
Elemments
ttahed, Coucil will find a letter of nderstaning from te HRA. In that letter f
AccnnUUddhhoo
Undrstanding,it is clear that the Cit’s Develoment parter, the HA has
eeyyppnnRR
askd for the athority to se four parcels to neotiate the private residential lan
eeuuuuggidd
dealfor Locke ark Point. In that leter of Undrstanding,you’ll also note the
PPeettee
HR is requestng the oportunity to use the deined parcls includin, “Outlot ”
AAiippffeeggEE
(tot lt/pump huse parcel) to provid maximum flexibility fr the futue patio
ooooeemoorr
hom layout. Iportant to note also, he HRA wll then plat and provie back both
eemmttiidd
a pup house nd tot lot arcel to th City, onc the ultimte develoment layot
mmaappeeeeaappuu
is known. This ransfer is or flexibilit of layout, not to elimnate the tt lot or the
ttffyyiioo
pump house as City assets. It is likely this element in the discussion at the July
24, 2017 portion of the hearing that was not clear and caused Council much
concern.
At this time there is no final layout that works best for the City, HRA, or
developer, but it is the quest for that best layout that can be advanced by this
transfer to the HRA. It is true that the developer has indicated that they believe
that for the healthiest prospects for a future homeowners association that a
number closer to 30 patio homes would be preferred, rather than 18 as earlier
laid out in concepts used in public discussions. Time would tell as the analysis
continues whether the ultimate layout is 18, 30 or some number of patio homes
in between. That negotiation and analysis hope to have the flexibility of using
Outlots A, C, E & F to make the final layout determination.
This transfer requires approval by ordinance and Council will find that ordinance
attached as well. In the ordinance, like in the Letter of Understanding, Council will
find that it is the HRA’s intent to request a plat and give back a Pump House and
tot lot Parcel in the process. That plat process will require public input through a
public hearing and at that time the final layout and tot lot location will be known
and can be further commented on. At that time if Council is not comfortable with
an element like the tot lot location, modifications would need to be made.
Plat with Lots and Outlots Identified
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council hold a public hearing and to receive public
comment at the August 14, City Council meeting. Further, staff recommends
approval of the first reading of the attached ordinance that allows the transfer of
Outlot A, C, E & F of the City property to the HRA. The second reading is
anticipated to be held at the August 28, City Council meeting.
Signatures to the Letter of Understanding, with the HRA, would occur after a
second reading of the ordinance.
HRAA MEMOORANDDUM
DAT
E: Augusst 9, 2017
TO:WallyWysopal,ity Manage
CCgr
ScottHickok, Coommunity DDevelopmennt Director
FRM: Paulolin, HRA Asst. Exeutive Direto
OOBBccccr
Tranfer of Outot E to HA for Redevelopmet
SUBJECT: ssllRRnn
It is y understanding tha the HRA equest to ave the City transfer Outlot E to
mmttrrhh
theuthority raised a nuber of quetions. The purpose o this mem is to
AAmmssffoo
further explain hy the Authority has asked that Outlot E, e transfered along
wwbbrr
withOutlots A, & F. The Authoritynd City have been, and will coninue to be,
CCaatt
parters in devloping the property around the ew municipal cente. The City
nneennr
is, o course, dveloping te majority of the public improveents. Th Authority
ffeehhlmmee
is wrking, on te City’s bhalf, to mximize priate develpment on he site.
oohheeaavvoott
Why is Outlot E needed?
As City and HRA staff have worked with Landform/Flaherty & Collins in
developing scenarios for the site, much needed patio homes can be constructed
on Oultots E and F. The combined properties allow more flexibility in the number
of units, creativity in road patterns and lot layouts. We have also learned that
homeowners associations need close to 30 members to be effective.
The Authority is simply seeking ownership of the Outlots, including the water
filtration plant on a temporary basis, to use in negotiating with the private
developers. An area large enough to accommodate the filtration plant, with room
for expansion, will be included in a future plat and returned to the City. It is also
the Authority’s intent to ensure that adequate park and play facilities are included
as part of the new development. As negotiations continue and the development
is further defined, it will need to contain adequate recreational opportunities for all
ages.
HRA Attorney Casserly has updated the ordinance language and drafted a “letter
of understanding” to further protect the City’s interest in the water filtration plant,
until the property is replatted and returned to the City. That letter is attached to
this memorandum. Please let me know if there are any further questions or
concerns with the transfer.
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
This Letter of Understanding (“LU”) dated as of ___________, 2017 is between
the City of Fridley (the “City”) and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the “Authority”).
FINDINGS
1. The Authority has previously conveyed property in the plat of Lake Park
Pointe to the City to allow the City to commence construction of its Civic Campus.
2. The Authority is redeveloping the property in Lake Park Pointe known as
Outlots A, C, E and F (the “Outlots”).
3. To facilitate the redevelopment the Outlots will need replatting.
4. Outlot E has a tot lot and a water pumping facility that will require
expansion.
5. The Redevelopment of the Outlots requires that there be sufficient space
for the expansion of the water pumping facility and that there be recreational
opportunities for the occupants of the redeveloped Outlots and the adjacent community.
ACTIONS
To facilitate the redevelopment the City and the Authority agree as follows:
1. The City will convey the Outlots to the Authority.
2. The Authority and the City will agree as to the space needed for the water
pumping facility.
3. The Authority and the City will agree as to the amount of space, design
and location for recreational opportunities including a tot lot to service the future
residents and the adjacent community.
4. After the Authority replats the Outlots, it will convey to the City the property
needed to effectuate Action Items 2 and 3 above.
5. Action Item 1 is intended to occur within 60 days and Action Item 4 within
180 days.
This LU is executed by the City and the Authority as of the day and year written
above.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Dated:_______________________
By_______________________________
Its Chairperson
And by___________________________
Its Executive Director
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
Dated:________________________By______________________________
Its: Mayor
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
By______________________________
Its City Clerk
4847-6729-4284, v. 1
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.06 OF THE CITY CHARTER
AND MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 465.035
REGARDING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE AND
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE THEREOF
SECTION 1. The City of Fridley is the fee owner of the tract of land within the
City of Fridley, Anoka County, State of Minnesota, described as
follows:
Outlots A, C, E and F, Locke Park Pointe, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota (the “Outlots”).
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby determines the following:
A.The Outlots are to be part of a redevelopment project
undertaken by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the “Authority”).
B.The Outlots will be replatted to assist with the redevelopment.
C.After replatting the Authority will reconvey to the City a portion
of the Outlots for the existing and proposed expansion of the
water pumping facilities and for park and recreation purposes.
D.The City Council is hereby authorized to transfer the above
described real estate to the Authority.
SECTION 3. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the
necessary contracts and deeds to effect the transfer of the above
described real estate.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
_____ DAY OF AUGUST, 2017.
SCOTT J. LUND – MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
DEBRA A. SKOGEN – CITY CLERK
August 14, 2017
FOR DISTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL MEMBERS IN
ADVANCE OF THE AUGUST 14, 2017, CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
VIA EMAIL ONLY
The Honorable Scott Lund and
City Council Members
City of Fridley
6431University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
RE: Metropolitan Council’s Opposition to the Proposed Ordinance Authorizing the
Conveyance of Property (Outlot F) to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The Metropolitan Council is sending this letter to express its significant concerns with the City’s
proposedaction to convey Outlot F to the City’s HRA for the purposes of development.
The Rice Creek West Regional Trail travels through the Civic Center project site and through Locke
Park, which is adjacent to the project site.Locke Park is regional parkland associated with the Rice
Creek West Regional Trail Corridor. The Regional Trail Corridorand associated parklandareoperated
by Anoka County and are subject to the requirements of the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Regional
Parks Policy Plan. Staff from the City of Fridley, Anoka County, and the Metropolitan Council met on
December 22, 2016, to discuss the Civic Center Redevelopment Project and its impact on the Rice
Creek West Regional Trail. Part of the conversation focused on the City’s desire to route a portion of
the development’s proposed roadway on regional parkland associated with the Rice Creek West
Regional Trail, east of the existing Public Works Facility.
The proposal that was discussed was to remove 1.8 acres of regional parkland for the roadway that
would be replaced with 1.9 acres of city parkland at the southeast portion of the redevelopment project
site. To help facilitate the City’s redevelopment project, the Metropolitan Council consideredAnoka
County’s request for a land exchange and master plan boundary amendment that adjusts the boundary
of the Rice Creek West Regional Trail corridor, shifts the alignment of the trail south of the proposed
roadway, and adds trailhead parking at Locke Park.
The Anoka County Board of Commissioners proceeded to act on the land exchange at itsFebruary 14,
2017, meeting (Resolution #2017-18). The County then submitted its request to the Metropolitan
Council for a land exchange and boundary amendment for the Rice Creek West Regional Trail.
Following Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and Community Development Committee
recommendations of approval, the governing body of the Metropolitan Council approved the land
exchange and boundary amendment (Business Item No. 2017-77) on April 26, 2017, taking the
following actions:
1.Approve a land exchange between Anoka
County and the
City of Fridley that exchanges 1.8 acres of regional parkland at the Rice Creek West Regional
Trail for 1.9 acres of City-owned land adjacent to the trail corridor as described in Attachment 1
and depicted in Attachment 2. (Attachment A of this letter)
2.Approve a master plan boundary amendment to the Rice Creek West Regional Trail corridor
that removes 1.8 acres and adds the adjacent 1.9 acres as depicted in Attachment 2, adds
trailhead parking, and shifts the trail alignment approximately 100 feet south of its current
location as depicted in Attachment 3. (Attachment B of this letter)
3.Require that the City of Fridley ensure that an easement of acceptable width to Anoka County
for the relocated regional trail alignment is granted at no cost to Anoka County.
4.Determine that the costs associated with relocation of the Rice Creek West Regional Trail are
not eligible for regional parks funding from the Council.
These actions were based on the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Planand the policies regarding “System
Protection Strategy 2: Conversion of Regional Park System Lands to Other Uses.” Specifically:
Lands in the Regional Park System will only be converted to other uses if approved by the
Metropolitan Council through an equally valuable land or facility exchange.
“Equally valuable land” is defined as land that:
Is contiguous to the Regional Parks System unit containing the land proposed to be exchanged
(within the same park/trail unit)
Has comparable or better natural resource characteristics, and
Could provide comparable or better recreation opportunities than the land being released
At the request of the City,the Metropolitan Councilentered these discussions in good faith, seeking
solutions that would allow the City to proceed with its redevelopment plans while still protecting the
regional trail and regional park land. Council staff have invested significant time in the past two weeks
through emails and meetings to resolve the City’s perceivedissues with the land exchange, which only
arose afterAnoka County and the Metropolitan Council took their respective actions. The City appears
to be proceeding with transfer of the 1.9 acres of land exchange property for private development
interests, in clear violation of the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan(p.110).
Release of the regional parkland for the proposedroadway is contingent upon the Metropolitan Council
approved land exchange. Without upholding its obligations for the land exchange, the City will not be
able to proceed with developing a roadway on the 1.8 acres of regional parkland.
It also appears that the City’s proposal to develop housing on parkland is not consistent with its 2030
Comprehensive Plan, which states:
The City should not allow conversion of park land and public open space to other uses except
when no feasible alternative exists. When such conversion is unavoidable, the taking agency
shall pay for the replacement of equal or greater value land and facilities to serve the needs of
thepeople in that area.
If the City were to proceed with development plans that include potential new housing on the property
that was subject to the land exchange, it would first need to revise the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for this project. Then it would need to submit a comprehensive plan amendment to the
Metropolitan Council for review to reguide the property from Park & Recreation to a land use category
that allows residential uses. Based on the City’s proposed action, the Metropolitan Council staff likely
would recommendthat the Councilfind that the amendment does not conform to the 2040 Regional
Page -2|August 14, 2017|METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Parks Policy Plan. A finding of non-conformance would allow the Metropolitan Council to require a
modification of the City’s comprehensive plan to keep the land guided for Park & Recreationin order to
retain the land as regionalpark land.
Further, the City should note that the 2040 Regional Parks Policy also states that, “Where appropriate,
the Council will initiate or accept for initiation a metropolitan significance review of specific projects if it
is necessary to help protect the Regional Parks System.”Minnesota Statutes 473.173 provides for the
Metropolitan Council’s review of development projects to ensure that all effects are considered before
it’s too late to effectively deal with them.
If the City chooses to move forward with its Ordinance to convey Outlot F to its HRA, the City shouldat
a minimum include the agreed-upon parkland conversion as a restriction on theproperty as part of the
conveyance,as well as recognize the required Regional Trail realignment and associated easement.
Without these restrictions, it is unclear how the City will uphold its obligations under these agreements
and under regional policy.
Sincerely,
LisaBeth Barajas, Manager
Local Planning Assistance
Attachments
CC:John VonDeLinde, Anoka County Director of Parks and Community Services
Wally Wysopal, City Manager / HRA Executive Director
Scott Hickok,Community Development Director, City of Fridley
Lona Schreiber, Metropolitan Council District 2
Wes Kooistra, Regional Administrator, Metropolitan Council
Beth Reetz, Community Development Director, Metropolitan Council
N:\\CommDev\\LPA\\Communities\\Fridley\\Letters\\Fridley 2017 Civic Center -Parkland Replacement.docx
Page -3|August 14, 2017|METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Attachment A: Land Exchange Parcels
Page -4|August 14, 2017|METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Attachment B: Existing and Proposed Alignments for Rice Creek West Regional Trail
Page -5|August 14, 2017|METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
JIM KORDIAK
County Commissioner
District #4
August 14, 2017
Scott Lund, Mayor
and City Council Members
City of Fridley
6431University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Re:
Conveyance of Property (OutlotF) to the Fridley HRA
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
AnokaCounty submits this letter to express its deep disappointment and concernwith the
itsproposed Ordinance,which is set for public hearing andfirst reading
on August 14, 2017. This proposed actionmarks a critical point in the
failuretorecognize itsprior agreements with the Countyrelating totheproposed
development of the Fridley Civic Center Campus.
Ifthe plan proceeds as City staff has outlined, the City will essentially ignore a critical
agreement secured with theCounty,and subsequently with theMetropolitanCouncil,for a
land exchange involving the dedication of replacement parkland adjoining Rice Creek West
Regional Trail (Locke CountyPark).This land exchange was a necessary piece of the
proposed development to ensure compliance with Met Council regional park policies.
To ensure that the City Council has all of the relevant facts, the County will provide a brief
historical context ofits negotiations and prior agreements with the City.
The land exchange between the County and City was the culmination of numerousjoint
activities between the City,Anoka County,and the Met Council. These actions were
brought forth andexpedited, at the request of the City
for the Civic Center developmentprojectwould be maintained.
adjoining the regional park
landwillingnessto involve the County in its early stages of
perspective
land (within Outlot F), to compensate for park land that would be developedby the City for
Cityroadways. The purpose of the City roadwaysis toprovideaccess to the townhome
developmentand civic center campus adjacent to the park.
initial plan, provided to the County at one of its Parks Committee meetings, is
Exhibit A
attached as ve park land
rd
Government Center 2100 3Avenue, Suite 700Anoka, MN 55303-5024www.anokacounty.us
Office: 763-324-4700 Fax: 763-324-5490
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 2
by offering a replacement parcel (in green) in exchange for construction of the roadway (in pink) within
Locke County Park.
The began in June 2016, and continued through June 2017. An outline
of the Count-upon land exchange with the City
Exhibit B
is attached to this letter as . Those activities included on-site meetings among City staff,
County staff, and Met Council representatives, to discuss the impacts to the park and the proposed land
replacement. The County passed Resolutions authorizing the land exchange, and sought approval from
the Metropolitan Council, which has jurisdiction over regional parkland conversions, to effectuate a
master plan amendment. All of these actions were successfully completed by the County and fully
acknowledged and supported by City staff.
Sometime in June, 2017, without notice to the County, the City unilaterally changed its plans and is
now moving forward with a development affecting all of Outlot F, including the parcel previously
designated as replacement park land. The County also understands that the public, including families
with neighboring properties, may not have been adequately The
Exhibit C
County only recamended development plan, attached as ,
which incorporates a full development of townhomes across all parcels (Outlots E and F). The overlay
area shaded in yellow represents what was previously offered by the City as parkland replacement, in
exchange for the proposed roadway (in pink) which impacts the regional park.
Met Council policy is clear
uses if approved by the Metropolitan Council
The land exchanged must be contiguous to the park system, of comparable or better natural resource
characteristics, and able to provide comparable or better recreation opportunities than the land being
released from the system. (See Met Council Regional Parks Policy Plan, Chapter 4, page 110). All of
with the County. None of the criteria
is satisfied if the replacement parkland is developed with townhomes.
the adjoining park land will be
negatively
in working with the City was intended to avoid this very consequence. The loss of park land not only
, and City policy, but represents a substantial departure
from Met Council policies and rules governing Regional Parks Systems. The Met Council may impose
its own consequences for such action.
Within the past two weeks, County staff invested substantial time and efforts in an attempt to resolve
these issues, short of any formal action to . The efforts of
County staff included numerous meetings and emails with City staff, as well as a joint meeting with
Met Council representatives. Those meetings were not only unsuccessful, but revealed an independent
motivation of certain key City staff members who intend to push forward (1) without recognition of the
public interests involved; (2) contrary to all prior agreements with the County; and (3) in clear violation
of Met Council policies governing the conversion of regional parkland for commercial development
purposes.
As a result of the above, the County has formally referred this matter to its for
consideration of further action. Because it
with the City, we now appeal to this Council to carefully consider these matters prior to adopting any
Ordinance conveying the property under the current development plan.
Page 3
If the City does move forward with the Ordinance to convey the property to the HRA, it should at the
very least, include the agreed-upon parkland conversion as a restriction within its conveyance.
Without formal acknowledgement of its prior agreements with the County, the HRA will
inherit a property marked with non-compliance, and wilany
proposed development of the property that does not adequately compensate for impacted park land.
Sincerely,
Jim Kordiak Rhonda Sivarajah, Chair
Anoka County Commissioner, District 4 Anoka County Board of Commissioners
c: Anoka County Commissioners
Jerry Soma, Anoka County Administrator
Wally Wysopal, City Manager / HRA Executive Director
Scott Hickok Community Development Director, City of Fridley
Jack Kirk, Parks Recreation and Director, City of Fridley
John VonDeLinde, Anoka County Parks and Community Services Division Manager
Jan Youngquist, Metropolitan Council
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, City of Fridley
Christine Carney, Assistant County Attorney
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
AUGUST 14, 2017
Date: August 10, 2017
To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Revocation of SP#16-04 for Mobile Maintenance for Parking
Background
In June of 2016, the owner of Mobile Maintenance, located at the corner of East River Road and Fairmont
Street, obtained a special use permit to expand his business’ parking lot onto a residentially-zoned parcel
he owns adjacent to his business. He was given a deadline of September 30, 2016 to install pavement and
curb and gutter. The owner did not meet that deadline for the stipulations of the permit, and the City staff
negotiated an extension to May 15, 2017 to complete the improvements.
With the improvements and stipulations still not begun a full year following issuance of the permit, staff
met with the property owner a few weeks ago. Steve Witzel, the property owner, indicated that he had
decided not to expand his business parking lot onto the adjoining residential lot. He had, instead,
purchased a different business site, was moving his larger trucks to the other site outside of Fridley, and
was going to instead comply with the stipulations of a 1993 SUP for outside storage on the property and
bring the business lot into compliance with parking setbacks, installing curbing and landscaping on the
west side.
Staff explained to Mr. Witzel at that time that there would need to be a public hearing to declare the 2016
SUP for expanding business parking onto a residentially-zoned lot null and void as he did not meet the
stipulations due to a business plan change. Staff warned Mr. Witzel that the 1993 SUP was contingent on
him meeting the 5’ parking setback on the property’s west side and moving his larger trucks to his
business location in a different city. This matter was advertised to be heard at a public hearing on August
14, 2017.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on August 14, 2017 to consider revocation of
SP#16-04 since the property owner has decided to take a different approach to solve his truck parking needs.
However, the business owner has not yet completed the agreed upon alternative. Therefore, staff
recommends that the City Council hold the public hearing open until September 11, 2017, to coordinate
action on this permit with a related special use permit at the same business. This will allow the Council time
to consider their decision regarding the attached resolution proposed on the same schedule as the related item
on the Council agenda on August 14 for this business.
SummaryofMobileMaintenanceCase
Notethatpropertyincludes3parcels:8150EastRiverRd.,505FairmontSt,and513FairmontSt.
DateAction
July19,1993CitygrantedSP#9310toallowoutsidestorage
October19,1994SteveWitzelpurchasedlotat513FairmontSt
June23,2009Systematiccitywidesweepbysummerintern
resultedinrealizationthatownerwasnotin
compliancewith1993SUP&letterwassentto
owner.Caseclosed
July9,2009Staffgrantedanextension
July23,2009Casewasclosedduetocompliance
August23,2010Staffsentownerletterregardingviolationsof
outsidestorageSUP&parkingemployeevehicles
onthestreet
September16.2010Metwithowneronsite&grantedextension
October1,2010Closedcase
February22,2012Staffsentowneraletterregardinglumberstored
abovethefenceline
March9,2012Staffclosedcaseduetocompliance
December18,2013Staffsentownerletter,statingthattheywerein
violationofstipulationsof1993permitwithtruck
parkingonaresidentiallot,truckparkingona
Countyownedlotacrossthestreet,andparking
onunpavedsurfaces.StaffbroughtSP#9310back
beforeCouncilforviolationofstipulations
February10,2014CityCouncilheldpublichearingtoconsider
revocationofpermit,butinsteadofrevokingSUP,
th
passed Res.#201418,addinga7stipulation,
givingowneruntilFebruary10,2016toinstallcurb
andgutter,movingpavement5’backfromwest
propertylineof505FairmontStlot
May27,2015Engineeringsentpropertyowneraletterwith
drawingtofurtherexplainwhatneededtobe
donetoinstallcurbing
March30,2016Aftercallingownertheweekprior,anddiscovering
thathewantedtoapplytorezonetheresidential
propertyat513FairmontSt,staffnotifiedproperty
ownerthathisdeadlinetoinstallcurbinghad
passedwithnolandalterationpermitappliedfor,
sostaffwouldproceedtoscheduleanotherpublic
hearingre:revocationofSP#9310ifrezoning
requestwasnotreceivedbyApril15,2016
April25,2016Aftermeetingwithstaff,propertyownerinstead
appliedforanSUPtoexpandautomobileparking
ontotheresidentialpropertyheownedat513
FairmontSt.
June15,2016CityCouncilgrantedSP#1604toexpand
automobileparkingat513FairmontSt.
June30,2016RecordsofSP#1604werefiledattheCounty
October18,2016Staffconfirmedbyinspectionthatownerfailedto
completepavingbySeptember2016deadline,
makingseveralcallstoowner&watersheddistrict
October19,2016Staffnotifiedownerthatapublichearingwas
beingscheduledforNovember14,2016to
considerrevocationofbothofhispermits
Fall2016Staffcontactedpropertyownerregardingmissed
deadline.Heclaimedhehadproperdocuments
waitingattheCountyforrecordingtosatisfyterms
ofWatershedpermit,sostaffdidnotadvertise
publichearing,givingownermoretimetoobtain
thewatershedpermit
February13,2017StaffconfirmedwithCoonCreekWatershed
Districtthatownerhadstillnotcompletedthe
stepsnecessarytoobtainhiswatershedpermit,
despitetheirattemptstoresolvetheissue
June13,2017Staffsentpropertyowneraletterconfirming
August14,2017publichearingdateforrevocation
ofbothSP#9310&SP#1604
June28,2017Staffmetwithpropertyowner,notifyinghimthat
wewereproceedingwithhearingdateofAugust
14,givinghimtimetocompeteimprovements
August9,2017Staffattemptedtoreachpropertyownerbyphone
asareminderofhearing,buthisvoicemailboxwas
full
Thepetitionerhasoperatedhisbusinessat505FairmontStreetfor26years.TheCityCouncilgranteda
specialusepermittoallowoutdoorstorageofmaterialandequipmentonthe505FairmontStreet
propertyin1993.Severalstipulationswereattachedtothatspecialusepermitapprovalin1993.When
theCityconductedsystematiccodeenforcementinspectionsofourcommercialandindustrial
propertiesin2009,staffnoticedthatthepetitionerwasinviolationofhisspecialusepermitrelatedto
theoutdoorstorageandinoperablevehicles.Since2009,citystaffhasnotifiedthepetitionerin2010,
2012,and2013ofspecialusepermitviolationsonthepropertyrelatedtooutdoorstorageandparking
violations.In2014,citystaffbroughtthespecialusepermitbeforetheCityCounciltoconsider
revocation.Instead,theCityCouncilamendedSP#9310withaseventhstipulation,clarifyingthatthe
propertyownerneededtoinstallcurbingonthewestpropertyline.In2016,theownerobtainedanew
SUPtoexpandautomobileparkingontoaresidentiallotthathehadpurchasedin1995adjoininghis
business.Thepropertyownerdidnotobtainthenecessarypermitstocompletetheimprovements.
Instead,inMayof2017,thepropertyownerdecideditwastooexpensivetoexpandtheparkinglotfor
hisbusinessanddecidedtocutbackthepavedareaonthe505FairmontStreetlotasstipulatedby
Councilin2014.However,asofAugust9,2017,thatworkhasnotcommenced.
RESOLUTION NO. __-2017
A RESOLUTION REVOKING SPECIAL USE PERMIT #16-04 FOR MOBILE
MAINTENANCE, INC. TO EXPAND AUTOMOBILE PARKING IN AN R-1 ZONING
DISTRICT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 513 FAIRMONT ST NE, FRIDLEY
WHEREAS,
Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City of Fridley to create zoning
ordinances that regulate the use of land in order to protect the public’s health, safety, morals, and
general welfare; and
WHEREAS,
on June 13, 2016, the City of Fridley issued special use permit SP#16-04 for
expanding commercial automobile parking in an R-1 Zoning District at 513 Fairmont Street,
legally described as Lots 9 and 10, Block I, Riverview Heights, subject to six stipulations that
were required to be met by September 30, 2016; and
WHEREAS,
to date, the owner of Mobile Maintenance has not completed the improvements as
stipulated due to a change in business plans and has indicated that he no longer plans to expand
his business’ parking lot as allowed in SP#16-04; and
WHEREAS,
City Zoning CodeSection 205.05.5.H requires the City Council to revoke a special
use permit, following a public hearing, when there is failure to comply with any and all
conditions and stipulations of the issued permit;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
that based on failure to complete the
improvements as stipulated, the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby revokes the special
use permit SP #16-04 for expansion of automobile parking at Mobile Maintenance, Inc. at 513
Fairmont St NE.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
____ DAY OF __________, 2017.
_____________________________
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
AUGUST 14, 2017
Date: August 10, 2017
To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Revocation of SP#93-10 for Mobile Maintenance for Outside
Storage
Background
Over the past several years, City staff has been trying to bring Mobile Maintenance, at 505 Fairmont
Street, into compliance with parking and paving requirements related to a special use permit for exterior
storage that was granted by the City in 1993. Last year, the owner applied for an additional SUP to
instead expand his parking to the west. However, this past May, he indicated to staff that he had changed
his plans to expand the parking at his Fridley location and was instead moving trucks to another site
outside of Fridley. He was given a deadline of September 30, 2016 to install pavement and curbing. The
owner did not meet that deadline for the stipulations of the permit, and the City staff negotiated an
extension to May 15, 2017 to complete the improvements.
The presence of the screened exterior storage area on the property has caused a shortage of parking on the
site. The business owner says he has an agreement with the adjoining laundry mat owner to allow his
employees to park their personal vehicles there. He said he was moving his larger trucks that overhang his
south property line to another location, but they remain on the site
Staff met with Mr. Witzel on June 28, 2017, and warned Mr. Witzel he was in danger of losing the 1993
SUP for outside storage as it was contingent on him meeting the 5’ parking setback on the property’s west
side and moving his larger trucks to his business location in a different city. A public hearing notice was
published to consider revocation of SP#93-10, which allows outside storage at 505 Fairmont Street.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the public hearing on August 14, 2017 to consider
revocation of SP#93-10 since the property owner has yet to initiate construction of the new curbing and meet
standard commercial parking requirements at either the 505 Fairmont Street parcel or the 8150 East River
Road parcel, despite several extensions granted over the years by the City. Staff recommends that the City
Council hold the public hearing open until the September 11, 2017 City Council meeting, allowing time to
consider the terms of the attached resolution, which will remove Mobile Maintenance’s ability to continue to
have outside storage at 505 Fairmont Street.
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N. E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(763) 571-3450 FAX (763) 571-1287 WWW.CI.FRIDLEY.MN.US
May 27, 2015 PW 15-010
Mr. Stephen Wetzel
505 Fairmont Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Re: 505 Fairmont Street NE Curb Requirement
Dear Mr. Wetzel
Attached is a figure showing the location of the curb to be installed on the west side of your
property at 505 Fairmont Street in Fridley. The new curb is to be located five (5) feet east of the
west property line of the lot. The curb is to be extended to the existing curb in Fairmont Street
as shown.
If you have any questions in this matter, please feel free to contact me at (763) 572-3551 or by
email at jon.lennander@fridelymn.gov.
Best Regards,
Jon Lennander, PE
Assistant City Engineer
JXL/jl
SummaryofMobileMaintenanceCase
Notethatpropertyincludes3parcels:8150EastRiverRd.,505FairmontSt,and513FairmontSt.
DateAction
July19,1993CitygrantedSP#9310toallowoutsidestorage
October19,1994SteveWitzelpurchasedlotat513FairmontSt
June23,2009Systematiccitywidesweepbysummerintern
resultedinrealizationthatownerwasnotin
compliancewith1993SUP&letterwassentto
owner.Caseclosed
July9,2009Staffgrantedanextension
July23,2009Casewasclosedduetocompliance
August23,2010Staffsentownerletterregardingviolationsof
outsidestorageSUP&parkingemployeevehicles
onthestreet
September16.2010Metwithowneronsite&grantedextension
October1,2010Closedcase
February22,2012Staffsentowneraletterregardinglumberstored
abovethefenceline
March9,2012Staffclosedcaseduetocompliance
December18,2013Staffsentownerletter,statingthattheywerein
violationofstipulationsof1993permitwithtruck
parkingonaresidentiallot,truckparkingona
Countyownedlotacrossthestreet,andparking
onunpavedsurfaces.StaffbroughtSP#9310back
beforeCouncilforviolationofstipulations
February10,2014CityCouncilheldpublichearingtoconsider
revocationofpermit,butinsteadofrevokingSUP,
th
passed Res.#201418,addinga7stipulation,
givingowneruntilFebruary10,2016toinstallcurb
andgutter,movingpavement5’backfromwest
propertylineof505FairmontStlot
May27,2015Engineeringsentpropertyowneraletterwith
drawingtofurtherexplainwhatneededtobe
donetoinstallcurbing
March30,2016Aftercallingownertheweekprior,anddiscovering
thathewantedtoapplytorezonetheresidential
propertyat513FairmontSt,staffnotifiedproperty
ownerthathisdeadlinetoinstallcurbinghad
passedwithnolandalterationpermitappliedfor,
sostaffwouldproceedtoscheduleanotherpublic
hearingre:revocationofSP#9310ifrezoning
requestwasnotreceivedbyApril15,2016
April25,2016Aftermeetingwithstaff,propertyownerinstead
appliedforanSUPtoexpandautomobileparking
ontotheresidentialpropertyheownedat513
FairmontSt.
June15,2016CityCouncilgrantedSP#1604toexpand
automobileparkingat513FairmontSt.
June30,2016RecordsofSP#1604werefiledattheCounty
October18,2016Staffconfirmedbyinspectionthatownerfailedto
completepavingbySeptember2016deadline,
makingseveralcallstoowner&watersheddistrict
October19,2016Staffnotifiedownerthatapublichearingwas
beingscheduledforNovember14,2016to
considerrevocationofbothofhispermits
Fall2016Staffcontactedpropertyownerregardingmissed
deadline.Heclaimedhehadproperdocuments
waitingattheCountyforrecordingtosatisfyterms
ofWatershedpermit,sostaffdidnotadvertise
publichearing,givingownermoretimetoobtain
thewatershedpermit
February13,2017StaffconfirmedwithCoonCreekWatershed
Districtthatownerhadstillnotcompletedthe
stepsnecessarytoobtainhiswatershedpermit,
despitetheirattemptstoresolvetheissue
June13,2017Staffsentpropertyowneraletterconfirming
August14,2017publichearingdateforrevocation
ofbothSP#9310&SP#1604
June28,2017Staffmetwithpropertyowner,notifyinghimthat
wewereproceedingwithhearingdateofAugust
14,givinghimtimetocompeteimprovements
August9,2017Staffattemptedtoreachpropertyownerbyphone
asareminderofhearing,buthisvoicemailboxwas
full
Thepetitionerhasoperatedhisbusinessat505FairmontStreetfor26years.TheCityCouncilgranteda
specialusepermittoallowoutdoorstorageofmaterialandequipmentonthe505FairmontStreet
propertyin1993.Severalstipulationswereattachedtothatspecialusepermitapprovalin1993.When
theCityconductedsystematiccodeenforcementinspectionsofourcommercialandindustrial
propertiesin2009,staffnoticedthatthepetitionerwasinviolationofhisspecialusepermitrelatedto
theoutdoorstorageandinoperablevehicles.Since2009,citystaffhasnotifiedthepetitionerin2010,
2012,and2013ofspecialusepermitviolationsonthepropertyrelatedtooutdoorstorageandparking
violations.In2014,citystaffbroughtthespecialusepermitbeforetheCityCounciltoconsider
revocation.Instead,theCityCouncilamendedSP#9310withaseventhstipulation,clarifyingthatthe
propertyownerneededtoinstallcurbingonthewestpropertyline.In2016,theownerobtainedanew
SUPtoexpandautomobileparkingontoaresidentiallotthathehadpurchasedin1995adjoininghis
business.Thepropertyownerdidnotobtainthenecessarypermitstocompletetheimprovements.
Instead,inMayof2017,thepropertyownerdecideditwastooexpensivetoexpandtheparkinglotfor
hisbusinessanddecidedtocutbackthepavedareaonthe505FairmontStreetlotasstipulatedby
Councilin2014.However,asofAugust9,2017,thatworkhasnotcommenced.
RESOLUTION NO. __-2017
A RESOLUTION REVOKING SPECIAL USE PERMIT #93-10 FOR MOBILE
MAINTENANCE, INC. TO HAVE EXTERIOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT IN AN C-1 ZONING DISTRICT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 505
FAIRMONT ST NE, FRIDLEY
WHEREAS,
Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City of Fridley to create zoning
ordinances that regulate the use of land in order to protect the public’s health, safety, morals, and
general welfare; and
WHEREAS,
on July 19, 1993, the City of Fridley issued special use permit SP#93-10 for
exterior storage and materials at 505 Fairmont Street, legally described as Lots 9 and 10, Block I,
Riverview Heights, subject to six stipulations; and
WHEREAS,
from August 2010 to present, City staff sent several letters and has met with the
property owner, attempting to gain compliance with the code requirement of parking business
vehicles on the business’ property and installing curbing five feet back from the west property
line as code and the stipulations of SP#93-10 requires; and
WHEREAS,
City Zoning CodeSection 205.05.5.H requires the City Council to revoke a special
use permit, following a public hearing, when there is failure to comply with any and all
conditions and stipulations of the issued permit;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
that based on current conditions, the City Council
of the City of Fridley hereby revokes the special use permit SP #93-10 for exterior storage of
materials and equipment at Mobile Maintenance, Inc. at 505 Fairmont St NE.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
, that the owner of 505 Fairmont Street will have until
November 15, 2017 to remove the contents within and outside and fencing for existing outside
storage area at 505 Fairmont Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
____ DAY OF __________, 2017.
____________________________
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2017
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS