10/28/1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1992
7:30 P.M.
Public Copy
Planning Commission
City of Fridley
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1992 7:30 P.M.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: October 14, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-11,
BY CELLULAR ONE:
Per Section 205.18.01. (C) . (7) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
radio transmitters and microwave towers, on Lots 3-6, Block 7,
Great Northern Industrial Center, generally located at 5330
Industrial Boulevard N.E.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #92-07,
DOWDS ADDITION, BY GLACIER PARK COMPANY:
To replat that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 34, T-30, R-24, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the south line of Lot 36,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 39, Anoka County, Minnesota, with the
east right-of-way line of Anoka County State Aid Highway No. 1
(also known as East River Road) ; thence northerly, along said east
right-of-way line, a distance of 134.5 feet; thence easterly,
parallel with said south line of Lot 36 a distance of 145.00 feet
to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence
westerly, deflecting 180 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds to the
right, a distance of 145.00 feet; thence northerly, along said east
right-of-way line of said highway, a distance of 580. 00 feet;
thence easterly at right angles a distance of 100.00 feet; thence
southerly, parallel with said east right-of-way line of said
highway, to the point of intersection with the northwesterly
extension of the east line of the parcel described in that certain
Correction Warranty Deed from Burlington Northern, Inc. , and from
the Minneapolis, Anoka, and Cuyuna Range Railroad Company to
Dunkley Surfacing Company, Inc. , dated July 3, 1973, filed in the
office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, on July 18, 1973, and
recorded in Book 1047 of Deeds, Page 396; thence southeasterly,
along said northwesterly extension, to the point of beginning.
This property is generally located at the 4000 block of East River
Road N.E.
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
October 28, 1992
Page 2
OTHER BUSINESS:
Review of Water Quality Ordinances:
* Chapter 208, "Erosion Control"
* Chapter 205, "Zoning" amendment
Review of ISTEA Bikeway Funding.Application
Review Housing Program
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1992
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 1, 1992
ADJOURN:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the October 14, 1992, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, _
Sue Sherek, Diane Savage, Connie Modig,
Brad Sielaff
Members. Absent: None
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Justin Droessler, 8141 Riverview Terrace
Bob Schroer, 7620 University Avenue N.E.
Andy Lindquist, 200 Ely Street N.E.
Bob Lehraz, 490 Rice Creek Boulevard
Peggy Smith, 170 Liberty Street N.E.
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 9; 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the
September 9, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#92-10, BY JUSTIN DROESSLER:
Per Section 205.24.04. (D) of the Fridley City code, to allow
construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 31
and 32, Block S, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8141
Riverview Terrace N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection
of Riverview Terrace and Hugo Street. The property is zoned R-1,
Single Family Dwelling. The petitioner is proposing to construct
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 2
a 20 ft. by 24 ft. attached garage onto the existing single car
garage and single family dwelling unit.
Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to the special use permit,
the petitioner has also applied for a variance. The variance
request was to reduce the rear yard setback from 29 feet to 8 feet
to allow the proposed accessory structure to be constructed. The
total addition would enlarge the petitioner's existing single car
garage to a three-car garage.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located in the CRP-2 or Flood
Fringe District. The Zoning Code does allow construction in the
Flood Fringe District; however, a special use permit must be
granted by the City prior to construction of either habitable or
accessory structures. Habitable structures are required by Federal
Law and the Zoning Code to be constructed one foot above the
regulatory flood elevation. However, accessory structures can be
constructed below the regulatory flood elevation if they are
floodproofed according with to applicable regulations. If the
special use permit is approved, ' staff has stipulated that the
expansion of the accessory structure would be floodproofed in
accordance with the applicable regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated the Engineering Department had requested that
the petitioner execute a 20 foot street and utility easement along
Riverview Terrace for the future expansion of Riverview Terrace to
meet Minnesota State Aid Street Standards. However, staff has
since been advised by the City Attorney that the City cannot
require the petitioner to sign the easement as a condition of
approval. Therefore, stipulation #1 as recommended by staff should
be struck by the Planning Commission.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner does have the option of con-
structing a detached accessory structure which would not require
a setback variance. The Appeals Commission recommended that a
variance only be granted to enlarge the existing garage to a two-
car garage, which would reduce the rear yard setback to 18 feet
from the requested 8 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request
either for the first proposal of the expanded garage or for the
second proposal of the detached accessory structure, with the
following stipulation:
1. The expanded accessory structure shall be floodproofed
in accordance with all applicable regulations.
Mr. Betzold stated that in the past whenever they have had a
request for construction in the floodplain, the Planning Commission
has usually recommended that the petitioner sign a hold harmless
agreement to prevent any lawsuit against the City. Has the City
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 3
Attorney ever given any opinion on whether or not a hold harmless
agreement should be required?
Ms. McPherson stated the City Attorney has never given any
indication as to whether or not a hold harmless agreement should
be required in all instances or only be required with the construc-
tion of habitable space. A hold harmless agreement would
specifically state that in addition to the special use permit, the
City acknowledges that the petitioner is constructing in the flood
fringe, that it is possible the property may flood; however, while
the City is granting permission for the construction, it is not to
be held liable for any damage that would occur as a result of the
City granting the special use permit.
Mr. Betzold stated he would like the City to require a hold
harmless agreement whenever there is any construction in the Flood
Fringe District.
Mr. Betzold stated that in the staff report, staff had also
recommended a second stipulation: "Variance request, VAR #92-19,
shall be approved. "
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's preferred option is to expand
the existing garage which requires the variance. However, it would
be possible to construct a detached accessory without violating the
setback requirements to the Zoning Code. He has enough space to
meet the 3 foot setback required in the Zoning Code. Therefore,
she believed that stipulation #2 is no longer necessary.
Mr. Droessler stated he had nothing to add to the Staff Report.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City
Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #92-10, by Justin
Droessler, per Section 205.24.04. (D) of the Fridley City code, to
allow construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 31
and 32, Block S, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8141
Riverview Terrace N.E. , with the following stipulations:
1. The expanded accessory structure shall be floodproofed
in accordance with all applicable regulations.
2. The petitioner shall sign and record against the property
a hold harmless agreement which releases the City from
any liability.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 4
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL.VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that the variance request and special use
permit request will go to City Council on November 9, 1992.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S.
#92-06, LYNDALE GARDEN CENTER, BY ROBERT SCHROER OF EAST RANCH
ESTATES:
To replat Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates 1st Addition; Lot
1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates 3rd Addition, including that
part of vacated 77th Avenue; the south 33 feet of Lot 5, Block
2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, including that part of
vacated 77th Avenue; and . Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates
2nd Addition, except the east 200 feet thereof, as measured
parallel with the east line of said Lot 4, and also except the
west 115 feet of the east 315 feet of the north 160 feet of
said lot, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 7620
University Avenue N.E.
MOTION. by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection
of the West University Avenue Service Road and Osborne Road. In
the past year, the City has processed several land use requests for
this parcel, including a rezoning, a lot split, and a street
vacation for the redevelopment site. In addition to the plat
request, there is also a variance request regarding the rear yard
setback, the required number of parking spaces, and, while not
associated with the plat, there was also a sign variance request.
The variance request was reviewed by the Appeals Commission on
October 6, 1992.
Ms. McPherson stated that during the original review of the
proposed development, it was the intention that Bob's Produce would
continue to own the entire redevelopment parcel and would lease a
portion of the site or building to Lyndale Garden Center as a
secondary tenant. This particular request is generated as a result
of Lyndale Garden Center wanting to create its own lot for fee
simple ownership. The request is similar, but more complicated,
to the request by Skywood. Mall and Kelly Inn to divide ownership
along a zero lot line. Unlike that request, the buildings are at
a 90 degree angle to one another versus at the same building line.
Ms. McPherson stated this plat request is unique in that the parcel
is uniquely shaped. There are also easements held by the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the St. Paul Waterworks
which limit the site's developability. The buildings are located
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 5
on the site due to the location of the easements. Due to these
factors, a typical subdivision cannot occur on this site. The lots
meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for C-3,
General Shopping Center District.
Ms. McPherson stated that while the variance request is to reduce
the required number of parking spaces from 102 to 13 based on the
development which includes a large amount of outdoor sales space,
the Lyndale Garden Center parcel can accommodate approximately 97
parking spaces, which is only 5 short of what is required by Code.
Ms. McPherson stated the lots continue to function as one develop-
ment; therefore, staff is recommending that cross parking and
access easements be executed between the two lots in order to
provide access and parking as long as the development exists.
Ms. McPherson stated the rear yard variance is to reduce the rear
yard setback from 40 feet to 0 feet; however, there is a minimum
of 85 feet between the rear of the Lyndale Garden Center building
and the southerly lot line of Lot 5, Block 2, East Ranch Estates
2nd Addition. The distance separation between the southerly lot
line and the building to the north does far exceed the 40 feet
required by Code. Zero lot lines are permitted in the C-3, General
Shopping Center District; therefore, a variance is not necessary
to create the zero lot line for the existing buildings.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat request with
the following stipulations:
1. Variance request, VAR #92-21, shall be approved.
2 . The petitioner shall execute cross parking and access
easements between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Lyndale
Garden Center Addition.
3 . The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan and drainage
calculations for the redevelopment parcel.
4. The petitioner shall execute and record against Lot 1,
Block 1, Lyndale Garden Center, a detention pond or storm
water pond maintenance agreement.
Mr. Betzold stated that if something happened to the existing
building and the owner decided to rebuild in the same location, is
that desirable or should the Commission put in some contingency
that would change the configuration of the property?
Ms. McPherson stated the original redevelopment proposal looked at
tearing the existing building down and moving it north of the MWCC
sewer easement. However, due to soil problems, the petitioner
opted not to do that and is proposing to construct the addition as
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 6
proposed. She is not sure that by approving the plat, the City
could legally require either the current owner or a future owner
to relocate the building in any other location except where it is
proposed. The City granted several variances to the existing
parcels as they are currently legally described. Staff would
recommend that the Planning . Commission not stipulate where the
building is to be located.
Mr. Bob Schroer stated he had nothing to add to the Staff Report.
He stated Barbara Dacy and Michele McPherson have done an out-
standing job in their assistance with this project.
Mr. Saba stated that if this plat request is approved, he would
like to add a stipulation as . a reminder to staff that a landscape
plan shall be submitted and approved by the City.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to City
Council approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #92-06, Lyndale Garden
Center, by Robert Schroer of East Ranch Estates, to replat Lot 1,
Block 1, East Ranch Estates 1st Addition; Lot 1, Block 1, East
Ranch Estates 3rd Addition, including that part of vacated 77th
Avenue; the south 33 feet of Lot 5, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd
Addition, including that part of vacated 77th Avenue; and Lot 4,
Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, except the east 200 feet
thereof, as measured parallel with the east line of said Lot 4, and
also except the west 115 feet of the east 315 feet of the north 160
feet of said lot, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at
7620 University Avenue N.E. , with the following stipulations:
1. Variance request, VAR #92-21, shall be approved.
2 . The petitioner shall execute cross parking and access
easements between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Lyndale
Garden Center Addition.
3 . The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan and drainage
calculations for the redevelopment parcel.
4. The petitioner shall execute and record against Lot 1,
Block 1, Lyndale.Garden Center, a detention pond or storm
water pond maintenance agreement.
5. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the
City.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 7
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that on November 9, 1992, the City Council
will establish a public hearing for November 23, 1992 .
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #92-06, BY
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
To rezone the following properties from M-2, Heavy Industrial,
to M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial:
Lots 9-22, Block 13, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 14-35, Block 12, Spring Brook Park Addition.
Lots 18-31, Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 22-27, Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying easterly of the
easterly right-of-way line of the railroad, southerly of the
North 135 feet of said Quarter, and northerly of the South 844
feet of said Quarter, except that part taken for road; subject
to easements of record.
The South 844 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24,
lying easterly of the easterly right-of-way line of the
railroad; except that part taken for road; subject to
easements of record.
Parcel A, that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying west of the East 230 feet thereof and lying
north of the South 60 feet thereof.
Parcel B, the East 230 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Mar-Len
Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka
County, Minnesota, and the South 60 feet of that part of said
Lot 1, lying west of the East 230 feet thereof.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:20 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated this request is to follow up on the City's
adoption of the M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial District.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 8
The City has created a third industrial district from the M-1,
Light Industrial District, and M-2, Heavy Industrial District. The
purpose of the M-3 district was to create a district in which those
uses which require a large amount of outdoor storage would have to
be limited and controlled in that particular district. Staff was
specifically concerned about trucking terminals and outdoor storage
yards. The City Council had a desire to have more control over
where those types of uses would be located in the City. During the
evaluation and creation of the ordinance, staff looked at three
options:
A. Create M-3 zoning district in text only.
B. Create M-3 zoning district in text and on map.
C. Maintain current ordinances.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council chose Option B to create the
text, create the new zoning district, and rezone certain parcels
to M-3 district.
Ms. McPherson stated that while adopting the M-3, Outdoor
Intensive, Heavy Industrial zoning district regulations, the City
also amended the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial
zoning district regulations in order to eliminate the outdoor
intensive uses from those districts. The properties to be rezoned
contain outdoor intensive uses and they are generally located north
of 79th Avenue, west of University Avenue, and east of the railroad
tracks. These properties include Park Construction, ANR Trucking,
Joseph Land Trucking Company, the small vacant piece just east of
Joseph Land Trucking Company, and a vacant piece west of Hickory
Street and east of the Burlington Northern Railroad Tracks, just
south of the Springbrook Nature Center.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed rezoning brings the trucking
terminals and construction companies into conformance. At the same
time, the M-3 district still allows those uses which are currently
permitted in the M-1 and M-2 districts, so the properties still
have a wide variety of uses: The adjacent roadways have been
designed to accommodate the amount of daily truck traffic in the
area associated with these uses. It is the City's opinion that
this area of the community is best suited for the M-3, Outdoor
Intensive, Heavy Industrial zoning classification.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of these parcels from
M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial.
Mr. Betzold asked if the businesses located in the new M-3 district
will be allowed to do anything different in M-3 that they were not
allowed to do in M-2 districts. Are there any more restrictions
in the M-3 district?
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 9
Ms. McPherson stated the only significant difference is that
trucking terminals and outdoor storage yards are permitted in the
M-3 zoning district and are no longer allowed in the M-1 or M-2
districts. There are significant landscaping and screening
requirements for these types of uses.
Mr. Kondrick stated he has driven by Park Construction recently,
and their gravel pile is very high, beyond what he would think
would be an acceptable height. Is there any way to restrict the
height of the gravel pile?
Ms. McPherson stated Park Construction is issued a rock crushing
permit every two years. That would be the vehicle by which the
City could control the height of the piles of dirt, asphalt,
concrete chunks, etc. As of right now, there is nothing in the
ordinance that deals with this particular issue.
Mr. Kondrick stated he believed the Planning Commission should be
notified when the rock crushing permit is going to be reviewed by
the City Council.
Mr. Andy Lindquist, 200 Ely Street N.E. , stated that he lives
across the tracks from the proposed rezoning. He asked if it would
be possible to grandfather in the outdoor intensive use so the
existing businesses have their current abilities, rather than to
rezone the property? He understood that staff is saying the use
of these properties is going to remain the same, but with the
rezoning, he could see these businesses getting away with more and
more before the City finds out and cracks down on them.
Mr. Lindquist stated he agreed with Mr. Kondrick, that the gravel
pile at Park Construction is horrible. His neighbors complain
every time it is windy and the dust from that pile blows all over.
Mr. Lindquist stated one of his neighbors who could not attend the
meeting asked him to submit a letter to the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive into the
record a letter from Edward Bishop, 212 Ely Street N.E. , in which
Mr. Bishop stated that he is opposed to the rezoning and that the
Planning Commission should consider the impact this rezoning will
have on the residential neighborhood and Springbrook Nature Center.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lindstrom stated his neighbors also complain about noise from
Park Construction, especially when the concrete is being crushed.
When the City is reviewing the rock crushing permit, he would also
like the City to consider, not only the height of the gravel pile,
but also the hours of operation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 10
Ms. Dacy stated that in the four years she has been with the City,
she has not received any complaints from the neighbors about Park
Construction's operation. She would encourage the neighbors that
if there are problems, the City staff needs to know about those
problems. The Council will react to the testimony of the neighbors
at the public hearing on this rezoning.
Mr. Betzold stated he would also encourage the neighbors to contact
not only City staff, but also City Council members, so the Council
members are aware of these problems.
Ms. Dacy stated the rock crushing activity will still require a
special use permit under the M-3 zoning, so the City still has the
ability to enforce stipulations if they have a documented record
of noise issues and complaints over a sustained period of time.
Ms. McPherson stated the City has adopted by reference the MPCA
standards which would require Park Construction to comply with air
pollution and dust standards. The City has limits on hours of
operation in general. The City also has a noise ordinance and the
City's Code Enforcement Officer or police will take sound tests.
Additional staff people are also available through the MPCA to help
mitigate some of these issues. But, first, the City has to know
about these problems.
Mr. Saba stated that if they do not have height restrictions now
for Park Construction, they should address that now, not wait for
another two years.
Ms. Peggy Brown, 170 Liberty Street N.E. , stated that noise from
Park Construction has been a problem, but she now knows what the
neighborhood has to do to bring that issue to the Council. She is
not concerned about the height of the gravel pile other than from
a safety standpoint when children climb on it. She stated her only
concern with the rezoning to M-3 was that these businesses were
going to be allowed more than they were allowed in M-1 and M-2
zoning, but she no longer has that concern.
Ms. McPherson stated the other issue is that once they have
property that is nonconforming, policy-wise it becomes very
difficult to deal with. With Park Construction, there are other
avenues to explore to correct any violations.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public •
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council approval of Rezoning, ZOA #92-06, by the City of Fridley,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 11
to rezone the following properties from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to
M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial:
Lots 9-22, Block 13, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 14-35, Block 12, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 18-31, Block 5, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 22-27, Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of Secton 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying easterly of the
easterly right-of-way line of the railroad, southerly of the
North 135 feet of said Quarter, and northerly of the South 844
feet of said Quarter, except that part taken for road; subject
to easements of record.
The South 844 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24,
lying easterly of the easterly right-of-way line of the
railroad; except that part taken for road; subject to
easements of record.
Parcel A, that part of Lot 1, Block 1, Mar-Len Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying west of the East 230 feet thereof and lying
north of the South 60 feet thereof.
Parcel B, the East 230 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Mar-Len
Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka
County, Minnesota, and the South 60 feet of that part of said
Lot 1, lying west of the East 230 feet thereof.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 3 , 1992 , HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
September 3, 1992, Human Resources Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 10, 1992, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
September 10, 1992, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 12
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 14, 1992, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the
September 14, 1992, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE OCTOBER 6, 1992, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
October 6, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY..
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the motion carried unanimously and the October 14, 1992,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Re pectfully s mitted,
e Saba
Recording Secretary
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date : October 28, 1992
City Council Date : November 9, 1992
REQUEST
Permit Number SP #92-11
Applicant Cellular One
Proposed To allow radio transmitters and microwave towers
Request
Location 5330 Industrial Boulevard N.E.
SITE DATA
Size
Density
Present Zoning M-2, Heavy Industrial
Present Land Use(s) Industrial
Adjacent M-2, Heavy Industrial to the North, South, East', and West
Zoning
Adjacent Land Use(s) Industrial
Utilities
Park Dedication
Watershed District Six Cities
ANALYSIS
Financial Implications
Conformance to the
Comprehensive Plan
Compatibility with Adjacent
Zoning and Uses
Environmental
Considerations
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Approval with stipulations
Appeals Commission
Planning Commission
Author MM/dn
•
SP".#92-11
Cellular One
S //2 SEC. 22, 7 30, R.24
CITY OF FR/DLEY
20 •
r� 42
I',^/
I (til
i
I l�r fry—__ _wf 1
- • '# , y. #
.R R.L.S. . e; i� ` Ik it
y '' "o j , ; .
:� �. ' Ue. AUDITORS/ < wr
/ 1/i F.:
." / fwI/
/ '4 rn / I
,/ � _ I
kt
0.
r " � �r.
a , ,._—�_/LATER _�
��'" j' i • '" ice-- - V 1 lilt,��: .
'/ / '••
( l i ; 'i ; GREAT ,= «/ tqi
% ; Via» ,. \•» il i,.
i 4... * ;:i iZ''
•l--*L-1' •
/ % h
// /' -' i ,/ ,pl,
, , VN :TH.
1/1
t.
l i i' /2. s 0 L ‘µ4!
,)} \ _ �1 - . L W,
:-7 ---' ti-i ..' , -^- "
7.
p r s, h.3 •�`• C*•, pO V v�
ism : ' DU -,.::� a
F.AGC.C•7 • .. / • ti• /• ,�` i'` ,'• ,w� 'S ' . "
:...•14;..:.;)".:'';1"•
14
' i pit 4 :... 7i tt ..� 4
tt/ i ` ` .: ,, •: OUTLOT E CO I S,• i
' `.110.: , z. 8 r
::
z` y, ;�, ,` �,� fl __ „�. �t' CENTER ,
7' /rill
/ / •1. -
.. .UTLOT .. _
a ; �..... «�x< S/.v CORNER I 0 DO i u, a. .3
u
1 / 11 m• a f.r........e.b.. Sc.E tt ,,. .
/ I O.
O �
0 • 30 i
_ ••um:KATES d
III
LOCATION MAP
' • SP #92-11
Cellular One
1 - ••••%•• • . . ' / — . - / / - 2. //;". - Y
/ i
it rrrr r
D % ! ao• I�r�ll�l�r+r/r�rr
- - �� ��irrrirr0rrirrrirrr
•
• ��_ .�- - - -- TATEj /1 .
'NK- HIGHWA
I I I
Is GREAT % r%
// 1/ .
2 ii . •
•
• .": /4 / :4 0 •
, v; : # /; '//,/ ii %
/ ,..* C- / - 4: / 7/ t 1 %
/ 10 0 is p," ,7 - 0
/ /*ski; / 0/ 77 # , d/4, f
/ • I i, /.. /# ,,,..4 .0.:4, t,) f
. itACT 1 V/
.icy :. 4 I g3•
/ /�, V4y17kri i'% / �. /♦ ► ,*./ . /�/
X. '7
.,:5,-j-.,-‘54:451"1-#454:A/ - Ar . .
• r (ki . 1 t.-Zeil , 7-- , .,
/ /z, 9
, .. ,..,,, _____
, , .
1 vz.- 4-, Ai . 4,#/z," ,
i ' - a . . I r%1 . • i• /ice : 5241 -
, iRY1 ,i; 72J(
/
! - • i r'ocl'r I yr7-/" di Z
' ';,44,)(/con-iv I :,/ .".../r,'%"5/:?' ;KI-..e;_..1:./#'////d're"/".#7,fr://40/.1rel 7
J• r I 1. „," eI ,y-,:.-1;..., 4I 4A.:;,;
• . . .,,...: .•
I � 1 .i.i..........,,
1
f ♦ t {
i •
4.1)(e ' •
1
1
ed,i-
7
( t-, t., c) t . ,•1° 4,9
A 9 e:y . ; /*. ,it• •
ZONING MAP
•
Staff Report
SP #92-11, by Cellular One
Page 2
Request
The petitioner requests that a special use permit be granted to
allow radio transmitters and microwave towers in the M-2, Heavy
Industrial district. The request is generally located at 5330
Industrial Boulevard N.E. in the Great Northern Industrial Center
which is south of I-694 and west of the Burlington Northern
Railroad tracks.
Site
Located on the property is . American Midwest Power Inc The
property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are the
adjacent properties to the north, south, and east. The Anoka
County Mississippi Regional Park is located to the west of the
property across East River Road.
Analysis
The petitioner proposes to install a 100 foot tall transmitting
tower for Cellular One mobile phones. In addition to the tower,
there will also be a 12 ' x 28 ' shelter containing equipment
associated with the proposed tower. The tower and shelter are
located in the rear yard of the subject property and are partially
screened by an existing wing wall of the Midwest Power facility.
The proposed addition to the property does not adversely affect the
lot coverage, and meets all the required setbacks.
Granting the special use permit would not adversely impact the
subject parcel or adjacent parcels. The monopole is located over
400 feet from the Industrial Boulevard right-of-way, and over 300
feet from 53rd Avenue, therefore if the pole were to fall, it would
not create a public safety hazard. There is approximately 150 feet
between the monopole and the adjacent building to the north. The
monopole is best located in an industrial park where structures are
located farther apart, and where structures are larger. The pole
is located in an area where there are tall light standards (Wickes
Furniture) , therefore, it is not obtrusive.
Staff would recommend that the City enter into a hold-harmless
agreement with the fee owner to release the City of any liability
should the tower fall on the building or damage the property. A
list of other Cellular One sites is attached for the Commission's
information.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the special use permit, SP #92-11, to allow radio transmitters
and microwave towers, with the following stipulation:
1. The petitioner and fee owner shall execute a hold-harmless
agreement which releases the City from any liability as a
result of granting the special usepermit.
• SP #92-11
Cellular One
/ /\\ •
c 3 _ -
"`•e. \
, •:• "1 ,\\I_ i. - -_ - _
a \
/ Ai
I
AA4 t',�At\*. \
6 0 �\
/
/ _..j �tf,rtirri tt'\
v.
' / •- ���tit't / to ,�'\
\�
Qt
�1 / Il
`\
/ g v,'
/ 1t / -._ m / IIII'' `.
I I.
�,
„ ill i / ,,1''I'
1111
/ ) V ill
II
IL III
j II
��lint11 / diI1
•
''(t1 /
N L6
iiiii
/ '
O ,y �\ jrz i
D .Jr 0 W
•
rt;e . . :1• -4 n H
.i 1. oq rcOn ; 71,
< u
CO 3
E, c+ H O 11.
o
m m 6
(0
H o
4
Z
SITE PLAN
•••• • Cellular
••••••
■■■■■ ■
..■■■■■■
The Mobile Telephone Company 2515 24th Avenue,Minneapolis,MN 55406(612)721-1660
September 24, 1992
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN. 55432
Attn: Ms. Michele McPherson,
Planning Assistant
Re: Application for a Conditional Use
Permit
Dear Ms.McPherson:
This letter is submitted with the application of Cellular One of Minnesota for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a cellular telephone transmitting site on
property owned by American Midwest Power, Inc.. Said property is currently
zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial.
Cellular One's license from the Federal Communication Commission to operate
a cellular telephone system in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area requires that
the area be adequately serviced. Currently we are experiencing low signal
levels along Interstates I-94/694 and`surrounding areas. To correct this
problem,it is necessary for Cellular One to construct an additional cellular site
which would provide a strong signal level without interfering with the existing
cell sites which currently surround this area.
Our Engineering department has identified a potential cell site location
southeast of the intersection of Interstate Highways 94 and 694. The enclosed
application is for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 205.18.0C(7)
regarding transmission/radio tower within the Industrial Districts.
This cell site will consist of a shelter building 12'x 28'x 10', made of
prefabricated-concrete, which is brought out to the site completely finished.
The shelter building houses the radio equipment, power converters, computer
and batteries necessary to operate a cell site. Panel type antennas will be
placed on top of a self supporting 100' monopole. The enclosed photographs
show the proposed monopole "air brushed" in as it would appear,if viewed from
various directions.
We have enclosed our check in the amount of$200.00 to handle the application
and administrative fees for a Conditional Use Permit. I have also enclosed the
following material associated with this application:
a. Cellular brochures 12 copies
b. Photographs(4 different views) 12 copies of each view
c. Check number 1055 for $200.00
d. Full size site plan 3 copies
e. Reduced size site plan (8x11) 1 copy
f. Application with attached letter 1 copy
If you need additional material, information or have questions, please call me
at 721-1660.
Very truly,
Cellular One
y()
Warren Dunlap
Property/Site Acquisition Mgr.
ENC
V 1 L f L 1 4 f f V
6127214770 CELLULAR ONE F-341 T-281 P-002 OCT 21 '92 12:48 "'
Arden Hills 4251 Fernwood Avenue On wazitir—k zx
Arden Hills,MN 55112
(612)482-9421
Roose' ille 2420 West County Road C +awev"
Roseville,MN 55113
(612)633-9535
Formac 4699 Humboldt Avenue North This site may possibly
Minneapolis,MN 55430 be moved
(612) 521-1659 ( aice.--1Dvs/e'
Spring Lake Park 8249 Arthur Street Northwest O via &i.
Spring Lake Park,MN 55432
• (612)784-8075
Brooklyn Park 6713-100th Avenue North a l�{� ��O
Brooklyn Park,MN 55443
(612)424-3775
,
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, October 28, 1992 at 7:30 p.m.
for the purpose of:
Consideration of a Special .Use Permit, SP #92-
11, by Cellular One, per Section
205.18.01. (C) . (7) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow radio transmitters and microwave towers,
on Lots 3-6, Block 7, Great Northern Industrial
Center, generally located at 5330 Industrial
Boulevard N.E.
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter
or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than October
21, 1992.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions
related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community
Development Department at 571-3450.
DONALD BETZOLD
CHAIR
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: October 13, 1992
October 20, 1992
y'!2,-?` w "1� ti I`1 r �.'; e: !' ri.4 1 t g �`;n r 3 dt.V` '{pc.,;' ♦ r. � �i ♦ V
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. ''
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
(612)571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. N.
s
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLI���TM��ATION FORM .. - �;
{:. Mi , .S ty , R tit '.: ":
PROPERTY INFORMATION site plan required forsulimittal; see attached
Address: 5330 Industrial Blvd.':Northeast t nk b , r , ' ,
Property Identification Number(PIN) 4 'g u *4" 4 " ' "'
Legal description: Section 22, Township 30, Range24,Mf`SWS _ ;,E ' .a ti' uY;;-T.,~_ ly
g.
Lot 3, 41 5 Sc6 Block 7 Tract/Addition Great Northern industrial` Center
Current zoning:. M-2 Square footagelacreage �_ � � " � 1 .", :$ � - ;
'-':i:
Reason for special use permit: SEE: ATTACHED SHEET, r; .4 7?' :,," :$ r `-
` Section Hof City Code �F.205 '18 O1C (7) ;
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes X No If yes,which city? ` Minneapolis "- ,
If yes, what type of business? Communication 'Y:= - .
Was that licenseever denied or.revoked? Yes No X �,
ri`ri': PEE OWNER INFORMATION`(as°'it appears on the`pro1. pertr title) w r f, : '` � 'I
!. a k.
(Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to rocessin
P P g); , 5
NAME American Midwest Power, Inc- _ :., .Y
ADDRESS - • i ustrial Blvd: Northeast
Minn= •li;, MN �c,F 1 DAYTIME PHONE 571-5555 ' .'x�
�
SIGNATURE- ..� ,, - A ,G t DATE. -
PETITIONER INF 1 R ATION : .., v q •
` w <NAME Cellular One .. " a ,x 4 ,,.
ADDRESS 2515 - 24th Avenue`South , t.; �� '
Minneapoli ,'MN 55406 k k 4. DAYTIME PHONE` 721-1660 'a
SIGNATURE A ._# • --.7":"....... k9 DATE /... �f 7Z
Fee: $200.00 X‘- $is �A '$100.00 ! r '•for'.residental2nd acce , 4 ssory buildings �`
Permit SP# I2=_j ' _. ,Rece'pt# '1/9 3 •' a }'fit Y-
Application received by; lade,- _
Scheduled Planning Commission date: ('+f )f iV` -S,` /9. . : f 4> ``
Scheduled City Council date:
, o-
SP #92-11 Plannin
Cellular One g October 9, 1992
MAILING LIST Council
Cellular One
Warren Dunlap
2515 - 24th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55406
American Midwest Power, Inc.
5330 Industrial Boulevard N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Twin Stores Inc./Wickes Furn.
5353 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Twin Stores Inc.
351 Dundee Road
Wheeling, IL 60090
Wickes Companies Inc.
3340 Ocean Park Boulevard •
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Perlman Rocque
51 - 52nd Way N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Perlman Rocque
` 711 Vandalia Street
St. Paul, MN 55114
Current Resident
5255 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Teachers Retirement System
1601 Response Road, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95815
Current Resident
5301 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Glacier _Park Company
1011 Western Avenue, #700
Seattle, WA 98104
American Midwest Power Inc.
1550 Hamel Road
Hamel, MN 55340
City Council Members
Planning Comm. Chair
a
r STAFF REPORT
Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date: October 28, 1992
City Council Date : November 9, 1992
REQUEST
Permit Number P.S. #92-07
Applicant Glacier Park Company
Proposed To replat a. portion of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 39
Request
Location 4000 block of East River Road N.E.
SITE DATA
Size 62,851. 1 square feet
Density
Present Zoning M-2, Heavy Industrial
Present Land Use(s) Vacant/storage
Adjacent M-2, Heavy Industrial to the North, South, and East;
Zoning P, Public, to the West.
Adjacent Land Use(s) Burlington Northern to the East; Minneapolis Water Works to
the West.
Utilities
Park Dedication $.023 per square foot $1 ,445.58
Watershed District Six Cities
ANALYSIS
Financial Implications
Conformance to the
Comprehensive Plan
Compatibility with Adjacent
Zoning and Uses
Environmental
Considerations
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Approval with stipulations.
Appeals Commission
Planning Commission
Author MM/dn
P.S. #92-07 '
Glacier Park Co.
z
•
'� iA..,.7.1m.... ^I*�: •'1.x • fXs s.'/a`.�F r 1 I �O } •f7 7 SO• �••
' 1 /,%
tb,
i
•' ,••4'' ~ - ,,.t.. 'sdi),1C VIC,-r,1T ryi lA' A r .�' M � i h.
I 'l!//'71J' _ :c... ..•:
;) cam ,,, . fir' / � "�
' k •
�!?„•v3 t -1, ;.SAY y - �y
} _ /\(-f-'1 .i !): \ `-
t �', illt
�T' ( 1 , , i - Saarii //d /Yy o<<
tv' r1..-' LOf,7
p�irpo/irs ; �`� 9 11'` NcrthePA Pvcifi,
,� )t ., ' y a • = , X 2' Rat/way/^�Co.
, /
:f b
,- x
o •
•
S r i r a. f'
< • RRs/ V
., �I) s�' 4;\ \
1 -
, Y rf000 : ,, I,�.f
rTI q J
ie/wo i-s s h /�• -• FOiJi7.........,- ._- Foi.: .4.4r: .,-...„...i.h. .hR I7t A5 : ° I I S �o J 1 ,C tb) 1. y
Y �. 0. V
iv..1,..,
rr
.1:"!.., :,,47-1,',--, :''': -:....,•1 1
. y
•
iT4...i:t.: ,7...::."`,..:' .0**"'_,4...1.•''' , " . • - .:--.. • :....- --,-,.:..1 ,:::...:'.::: $ - I 'i ) t k
, o I -— �1A0O�' ., 1 ' North trn
Paci r�' ' v ) Rai/wa 5_, Co•ti •r% es So) , ,' , ,"•^ t - ., ri ) t \ 4 12O\ 19
fr ) `` . ' +3a -1 7•Vs '%% • yer i I
*- t.i, PT. •44 4hos)O �i r � rra I�-`_•_�s -
y a 5 • 1 �
' %��>*�qo: I.. . I � i . •
a >Y . II, , { /G) 3
' � t ^ tir. .sz. t K 3
', • a,
%� ` ... `k• o-A '_.._.... 1 'fit) - +•-
ci
-Y' — ----•rst A16�tt3' -. . y.•. . '....r
LOCATION MAP
:
- • P.S. #92-07
Glacier Park Co.
(c. 's f•J ' C,- " ii \
7
I ....
. , •._, v r, ui ' -,?) 0 •
)
• 4' 1.' .. 31:;) ...:,, . IS
/
.: I Ct.:;;) j ; :.• )-P3 ' t
i . .1'',3 .i..d .5 -', t"-'1 ••., 1
..4
"t2 ti 0 Q C '';--;";.• ,'""). ' 1 . . .
V,.,6) 0 0 .•::') t'.:-) d I
• 1. . !
", 0 r: c•. .,3
i- A u o 1 ro lir . :
I
• ‘4 ,., I
, z 0
•
cx. •
i
8 ,.. . , I
1
. 1a.
• . ..' ,).,-• t'-'::;) • 0 1, 1
i
--1
- i
ime
--- - . e ,:e-,. :.;gmisris,- me 1 -g4Nri,::0: .:',.4...•
, • -, .. ::"1.1...I 'ta-... :e. 4 % % % % t:^% ."% % % % % % %%. % • .
: • -N•P' _— ..../1:1 - t..). . „. i , / r .4 ,..- v, ,,,,,. ,..,- (.4)3, • n... '.)7 1 0 1
i. to 0 c?4 •-D p) '. 1 r ,
. • ,,, 0 0 ,.,...,,," ,..) ,:) ... i
I
ci f.., ; •i);,:o -14.6. e:,..!,? •
i I
i • e) I own b:- .
. •
::;) •0 C) Ch .. •
•
, ..v..:,. e.,-3 4...„,,, • 1
th, te.:\ (....s e-1"::) • 1
' N A
/ . -fro+. n tp:., ',;,' cyq , `,1 v •
( ttc;i . ftt- .:, - .-:- - - •. ww-F.,1 - i r, , Q r • t.• z N..
: ' ),e 4,i, c,;; 4.7 1-• •
0 1.. i
1
• . , ,, x,-;) ie.. i
! /42
) 3 o-1'; ,. 6, ta' %0,67-- i
,
s
/
, r --.:,.. iiatt, . kj -illti,q.; I
/ • ID-I f-, e '
/ „.., :, , . N__1., •ai C.' .
I
I f
a
., ) • „.- - - ..v k ' -:;.. „Jr-2-x-- ‘..;, ! _ ,- ,
•
ZONING MAP
P.S. #92-07 '
Glacier Park Co.
-a :.: tar.:3 i.i53�::,:i i l 6 35� 481>3
.1 M. 4..:'„r4:5. 7Mgt. -.S i L=OF
-
^i s ,„:.1 sac•.. : y :� 5 v�.,..
E! n ,ii.14134"i1'1921. 3 8: I ' k
C'..1A i 4 3`. till
>. �2 E;sn.:9:i•5Ci„pj $ '8 P a'y i:• 9: r:sp<E
6 5 '9i ;:?» 5• 3'63 4. 3 3 i P tl SS'"� c1 5 13 %"7.1.
24 �a�gg�.�-_: y '� .:k virgay E
5 s� g . .Fsg :f »g' : $ s 3.:4:: . ! " i�tbsi O a `ii" i �i" : : .S ;� . i▪ fy ;- .
8 �9gY�` ?: t83'9 » '
y� : ;itvfk :«4..; 114
gilkil
A •
CA .
1111 •
:ftwIt
C14 ;1,4 'OM ? 3HiNOH •
--:-��
....•�.....<w HO1fNIlNflg / <..nglN.`N.'
O .�..w..y..i M.9S,Lp.SS ST333.49.WE ��
•N .O
Olt I
0O
" t
1Ol ]t I
woos
.,.......,..«. —��`="—_— _
. 3
II:
QYO!! $ 1 t1
k� 'ON OYON If3Alb OIY 1SY3 1 F I.
31Y1S• ��
!i. ; --.--------___-------------------------________________ 1.--_ I .
t.
'1
SITE PLAN
Staff Report
P.S. #92-07, by Glacier Park Company
Page 2
Request
The petitioner requests that a plat be approved to create a
separate parcel. The property is generally located on the 4000
block of East River Road N.E.
Site
The property is currently used as a portion of the Certified Auto
Recovery yard which is owned by James Dowds. The property is zoned
M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are the properties to the north, south,
and east. The Minneapolis Water Works facility is located to the
west of the subject parcel across East River Road.
Analysis
The subject parcel was conveyed from Burlington Northern and the
Minneapolis, 'Anoka, and Cuyuna Range Railroad Company to Dunkley
Surfacing Inc. in 1973. The parcel was then leased to James
Dowds, and in 1988, Burlington Northern sold a large portion of its
excess property located adjacent to its railroad yards to Glacier
Park Company, a real estate subdivision of Burlington Northern, in
order for Glacier Park to dispose of the property through
development or sale. Anoka County recorded the original deed in
1990; however, the County, in attempting to create a property
identification number, observed that the City of Fridley had not
authorized the subdivision. The plat request will legally create
a parcel as was originally described in 1973 . and will allow the
deed to be officially recorded at Anoka County.
The subject parcel. does not meet the minimum lot area. It is
62,851. 1 square feet in area (1.44 acres) . The lot width does meet
the minimum requirements; however, it appears that there is not
adequate depth to allow a buildable lot once the required setbacks
are applied. There are also easements which also affect the lot's
buildability. Specifically, a natural gas pipeline and a utility
easement exist on the lot,. There does appears to be adequate.
buildable area at the south end of the subject parcel; however, the
location of the easements will determine the overall buildability
of the subject parcel.
Anoka County Highway Department has reviewed the preliminary plat.
The County will require that a formal request be submitted if an
additional access is required from East River Road.
In conjunction with the plat request, the petitioner will be
required to pay a park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot
prior to recording the plat at Anoka County.
Staff Report
P.S. #92-07, by Glacier Park Company
Page 3
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the plat
request, P.S. #92-07, with the following stipulation:
1. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $.023 per
square foot ($1,445.58) prior to recording the plat at Anoka
County.
2. The subject parcel shall be combined with the adjacent
property to the south. A restrictive covenant shall be
recorded against the lot which states that the lot is
unbuildable on its own.
3 . A formal request shall be made to Anoka County if another
entrance to the parcel from East River Road is required.
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, October 28, 1992 at 7:30 p.m.
for the purpose of:
Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, P.S. #92-07, Dowds
Addition, by Glacier Park Company, to replat that part
of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 34, T-30, R-24, described as follows: Commencing
at the intersection of the south line of Lot 36,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 39, Anoka County, Minnesota,
with the east right-of-way line of Anoka County State Aid
Highway No. 1 (also known as East River Road) ; thence
northerly, along said east right-of-way line, a distance
of 134.5 feet; thence easterly, parallel with said south
line of Lot 36 a distance of 145.00 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly,
deflecting 180 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds to the
right, a distance of 145.00 feet; thence northerly, along
said east right-of-way line of said highway, a distance
of 580.00 feet; thence easterly at right angles a
distance of 100.00 feet; thence southerly, parallel with
said east right-of-way line of said highway, to the point
of intersection with the northwesterly extension of the
east line of the parcel described in that certain
Correction Warranty Deed from Burlington Northern, Inc. ,
and from the Minneapolis, Anoka, and Cuyuna Range
Railroad Company to Dunkley Surfacing Company, Inc. ,
dated July 3, 1973, filed in the office of the County
Recorder, Anoka County, on July 18, 1973, and recorded
in Book 1047 of Deeds, Page 396; thence southeasterly,
along said northwesterly extension, to the point of
beginning. This property is generally located at the
4000 block of East River Road N.E.
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter
or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than October
21, 1992.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions
related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community.
Development Department at 571-3450.
DONALD BETZOLD
CHAIR
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: October 13, 1992
October 20, 1992
a. ' ., CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY 3° N.E.
x 55Development
O,Tmnmitp el
t Department
(612) 571-3450
PLAT APPLICATION FORM
PROPMY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittals; see.attached
Address: 4000 Block of East River Road,' Fridley
Legal der.iption: see attached
Lot Block Tract/Addition
zoning: M-2 (heavy
current zSquare
industrial)
Reason for plat: approval of subdivision
FEE aFTt R IINFORNATION
(Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME Glacier Park Company
ADDS 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4500
Seadie, WA 98104-4097 LIAYTIME PHONE (206) 467-7132
;., ,
SIGNAZURE eft a September 2 , 1992
PETITI•- Imo` INFORMATION
NAME same as above
ADOff2F5S ,, <.
DAYTIME PHONE
SIGNATURE DATE
Fee:$500.00 for 20:lots - ✓ • r -i � �.
$ 15.00 for each additional lot ='
Permit P.S. # 417--01 . Recepit # . •
! o�
Application received by: pv(.
Scheduled Planning Commission date: or ,� l 2-
Scheduled City Council date:
A
a
•
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 30
North, Range 24 West, 4th Principal Meridian, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the south line of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision
Number 39, Anoka County, Minnesota, with the east right-of-way line of Anoka County
State Aid Highway No. 1 (also known as East River Road) ; thence northerly, along
said east right-of-way line, a distance of 134.5 feet; thence easterly, parallel
with said south line of Lot 36 a distance of 145.00 feet to the point of beginning
of the land to be described; thence westerly, deflecting 180 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds to the right, a distance of 145.00 feet; thence northerly, along said east
right-of-way line of said highway, a distance of 580.00 feet; thence easterly at
right angles a distance of 100.00 feet; thence southerly, parallel with said east
right-of-way line of said highway, to the point of intersection with the
northwesterly extension of the east line of the parcel described in that certain
Correction Warranty Deed from Burlington Northern, Inc. and from the Minneapolis,
Anoka and Cuyuna Range Railroad Company to Dunkley Surfacing Company, Inc. , dated
July 3, 1973, filed in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, on July 18,
1973, and recorded in Book 1047 of Deeds, Page 396; thence southeasterly, along
said northwesterly extension, to the point of beginning.
Planning 10/9/92
P.S. #92-07
Glacier Park Company MAILING LIST Council
Glacier Park Company
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4500
Seattle, WA 98104-4097
Attn: Joanne Mauiek
Petersen, Tews & Squires
4800 IDS Center
80 South Eight Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2208
Attn: Jane Willette
Anoka County
325 East Main Street
Anoka, MN 55303
Current Resident
4040 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
Minneapolis Water Works
4300 Marshall Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
City of Minneapolis
350 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
James Dowds
3737 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, MN 55421
City Council Members
Planning Comm. Chair
'mom,
•
t° COUNTY OF AN
OKA
DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION
��'NE50�
Edward M. Treska, Property Tax Administrator
COURTHOUSE • 325 EAST MAIN STREET • ANOKA, MN 55303
(612)421-4760
April 13, 1992
Mr. Leon Madsen
City of Fridley .
6431 University Ave. NE .
Fridlcsri
ey, MN 55432 •
. .
RE: PIN 34-30.-24-42-0013 • •
•
Dear Mr. Madsen:
The above referenced PIN was established to account for property contained
within the Burlington Northern Railroad operating acres, that was being
leased to James Dowd.
In 1988 Burlington Northern sold part of their operating acres, including
the portion that was being leased to James Dowd, to Glacier Park Company.
Since Burlington Northern no longer owns the property, they can not be
leasing it. I am enclosing a copy of the deed. This document was recorded
March 26, 1990, but did not come to the Auditor's office.
The existence of this document was brought to our attention in July, 1991
(see enclosed letter from Janet Zuber, Glacier Park Company) . In doing the
research for this document, I realized that it created a division of the
Burlington Northern operating acres PIN 34-30-24-43-0014 . Since the
document did not have the city of Fridley's subdivision approval stamp, I
informed Ms . .tuber that the stamp or a resolution from the city would be
needed before we could make this transfer for tax purposes (see enclosed
letter dated Aug. 29, 1991) .
I have spoken with Ms. Zuber twice since I sent her the letter. The last
time I spoke with her, on March 31, 1992, she understood the problem and
indicated that she was having Title Services pursue the division stamp.
It is my understanding that Glacier Park is in the process of selling this
property, so a resolution of the problem should be forthcoming soon. If
you have any other questions regarding this matter or if you would like to
be updated with the current status, please feel free to call me at 421-4760
ext. 1138 .
Sincerely,
Jonell M. Sawyer
Manager of Property Tax Services
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
• •
E •i, ' .
•
•
•
• r• •
• •
0 '' .0/7 /-
896994
ex
i,
a
The total consideration for
this transfer of property is
S1,000.00 or less 5
State Deed Tax Duc:S 3p
•
QUITCLAIM DEED - .
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (formerly named Burlington Northern • •
Inc.), a Delaware corporation, Grantor, for Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00)
and other good and valuable consideration, in confirmation of, and pursuant
to, the Asset Transfer Agreement and Deed as of May 26,'1988 between Grantor
k and Grantee, conveys and quitclaims, without any covenants of warranty
whatsoever and without recourse to the Grantor, its successors and assigns, to ,
GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, of 1011 Western Avenue, Suite
4-; 700, Seattle, Washington 98104, Grantee, all its right, title and interest,
'••' if any, in and to that certain parcel of land located in the County of.Anoka,
`r' State of Minnesota, being more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached
^' hereto and made a part hereof, together with all after acquired title of
:` Grantor therein.
F' •
'. Dated this 7* day of 9.14/11t.,11 , 1922r.tf
M
A N&i • BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY •
. ` R►� BY
Director - Title Services
a.
•
ATTEST:
Anita D. Wells
• a'` Assistant Secretary :-), .
•
a -.. ." . -
,t. , •,ram �••
•'", a',.- .:l
•. • •~ V - ,
•
•
•
•
/I
0 .
• •,
•
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
• ) ss.
• COUNTY OF KING )
The foregoing in trument was acknowledged before me this. 'Tilt- day of
19 . by J. H. Ilkka, Director - Title Services and Anita D.s.a?feriFiLid4 ,
ssIstant Secretary of Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation. on behalf of the corporation.
•
‘-'k.-i.:11
ar xn ulic / /
•
My c. mission exp es:(� o9/5a..
•
This instrument was drafted by: cRICH III,
Glacier Park Company _ A,,,/
Title Services Department k_=,,.�`�t' ''i., Q /,
. 1011 Western Avenue. Suite 700 �. 4y `'�,�����
Seattle, Washington 98104 5 -" ,`Q�lc.)� 's Z
Send Tax STatements to: ,// ,,r'y, Z) eC`:
Glacier Park Co. /j ''Nt.,�.,,.+�G`'�i_�
1011 Western Ave., Suite%w /ildt STATE O `� .
Seattle, WA 98104 \\\�l�t������
•
•
C.
• A
�. • • •. •. •
. . . 0
•
EXHIBIT "A"
That portion of the !NISEI of Section 34, T3ON, R24W, 4th P.M., Anoka
• County, Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: .
' Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Lot 36, Auditor's
Subdivision 39 of the City of Fridley, and the East right-of-way line of State
•
Aid Road No. 1 (also known as East River Road) as said road is platted and
opened, according to the• plat thereof on file and of record in the office of
Register of Deeds, Anoka County; thence Northerly along said East right-of-way
•
line a distance of 134.5 feet; thence Easterly parallel with said South line
of Lot 36 a distance of 145.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the
parcel to be described; thence Westerly, deflecting 180° to the right, a
distance of 145.0 feet; thence Northerly along said East right-of-way line of •
State Aid Road No. 1 a distance of 580.0 feet; thence Easterly at right angles
to the last described course a distance of 100.0 feet; thence Southerly
•
parallel with said East right-of-way line of State Aid Road No. 1 to the point
•
of intersection with the Northwesterly extension of the East line of the
parcel described in that certain Correction Warranty Deed from Burlington
Northern Inc. and from the Minneapolis, Anoka and Cuyuna Range Railroad
Company to Dunkley Surfacing Company, Inc., dated July 3, 1973, filed in the
t° office of the Register of Deeds, Anoka County, on July 18, 1973, and recorded'in Book 1047 of Deeds, Page 396; thence Southeasterly along said Northwesterly
extension to the True Point of Beginning.
•
r-
__..----.._ VA-14-2..o .--- , _
•
-6\1\••—
• ---.. -- --V-(-- .
//96—6 I(o...r ' - '_ j
Si e � \\RA.4a-...--- •
Seqgt uence 37'; ,
10A.3C.3/3771'
.... . ..._. ,.
• • • . . . • . .
. . .
, • •
r . ,
., . • . .
, .
• .
, • . •
. . " . •
' . . . •. . ...
. .
4
I . • . .
.
. , .
.
•
. •
. .
.
. •
. •
. • •
r.....
A
S
•
A•.• '..! :. ' ' • .- • •. •
-...
----1 1111
1 i 3
--...
g I .
• F E.? 2 q .....je
i t..,or ^ P. 1 Cr••
•" 0
. g cra g I 1 w
=
g i...-0.t a pilE0N70Q7 .t.:a. ..
-. CO if
sicz) 6 R 1 E .' gp 1'
Ili Izi' E giR 61 .
111111
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
- .
. .
. .
. .
. .-
• .
. •
_ . .
. . ,
-.-
il-:-: .: - c
t •7--. .
...
4 - -
.. ••
. •
. z • J '
. . E...... L.,.. .
. ,
r . .
• ... _ _.
. . .. ._t:
•
• •_. : .. .
. • •
II'• ...
i •I r si
•
1r .
•
•
• . •
. .
• •
•
• •
; n •
. •
• I
•
S. . V •
1 , .
. • • •• . I .
. •
. • r .
.
i
v .
• • ,• •/ , .
• •
• • .
• .
•
. ,
• . • / .. .
. • . • N • ,
• •• .• • I
• • • •
.. 4
Community Development Department
. PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: October 22, 1992
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Proposed Chapter 208, "Erosion Control"
Please review the attached ordinance establishing Chapter 208,
"Erosion Control". The ordinance sets forth standards for
controlling erosion and sedimentation. The Environmental Quality
and Energy Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at its
October 20, 1992 meeting. The Commission recommended that the
stronger emphasis be placed on erosion control versus the creation
of sedimentation basins.
Revisions will be made to the ordinance after review by the
Planning Commission.
MM/dn
M-92-656
ORDINANCE NO. - 1992
AN CMINANCE ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 208 ENTITLED
'EROSION CONTROL', TO THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
CHAPTER 208
EROSION CONTROL
208.01 PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to control or eliminate soil erosion and sedimentation.
It establishes standards and specifications for conservation practices and planning
activities which minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.
208.02 DEFINITIONS
The following terms have the meanings given them in this chapter:
1. Conservation plan and time schedule. A document listing a set of practices that
when implemented will decrease soil erosion to the soil loss limits on a particular
parcel of land. The "time schedule" sets times to implement, make satisfactory
progress, and complete the conservation plan.
2. Conservation practices.
A. Practices and standards containing a definition, purpose, and conditions
under which the practice applies, including design requirements, and
specifications containing a statement of details required for installing a
conservation practice, including kinds, quality and quantity of work and
materials needed to meet the standards.
B. A conservation practice may be a permanent or temporary vegetative or
structural measure that when applied to the land, will contribute to the
control of wind and water erosion and sedimentation. Conservation practices
may be used in a development activity area or an agricultural use area.
C. Permanent practices are those that have an effective life of ten years or
more and include grassed waterways, terraces, field windbreaks, water control
structures, grade stabilization structures, sediment retention structures,
strip cropping, water and sediment control basins, and other permanent
practices approved by the City.
D. Temporary practices include conservation tillage, contour farming, grasses
and legumes in rotation, emergency tillage, fabric filter barriers, filter
strips, storm water inlet and outlet protection and any other cultural
practices approved by the City.
E. The latest edition of the Field Office Technical Guide or other recognized
technical procedures must be used to design, install, and certify practices.
Page 2 — Ordinance No. - 1992
3. Development activity. A physical disturbance to the land which may result in
sedimentation of adjacent lands or waters. These activities include, but are not
limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting, draining and filling lands.
4. District. The Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District.
5. Erosion. Any process that wears away the surface of the land by the action of
water, wind, ice or gravity.
6. Excessive soil loss. Soil loss which causes sedimentation on adjoining land or in
a body of water, water course, or wetland.
7. Field Office Technical Guide. The guide developed by the United States Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. The technical guide contains methods and
procedures by which the various types of erosion can be estimated and conservation
practice standards and specifications required in the application of soil and water
conservation practices.
8. Land occupier. A person, firm, corporation, municipality, or other legal entity
that holds title to or is in possession of any land as owner, lesse , renter,
tenant, or otherwise. The term includes both the owner and the occupier of the land
if they are not the same.
9. Sediment. Solid mineral or organic material, that, in suspension, is being
transported, or has been moved from its original site by air, water, gravity, or ice
and has been deposited at another location.
10. Sedimentation. The process or act of depositing sediment that, upon inspection, is
determined to have been caused by erosion.
11. Sedimentation control plan and time schedule. A document listing a set of practices
that, when implemented, will decrease sedimentation to the allowable level on a
particular parcel of land. A "time schedule" must set times to implement, make
satisfactory progress on, and complete the "sedimentation control plan".
12. Soil. The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of
the earth that serves as a natural medium for growth of land plants.
13. Soil loss limit. The maximum amount of soil loss from water or wind erosion,
expressed in tons per acre per year, allowed on a particular soil. The United
States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service has prepared a soil
survey that sets out the soil loss tolerances, according to the Field Office
Technical Guide, for each soil found in Anoka County.
Any other soil found in the City of Fridley and not set forth in said soil survey
has a maximum soil loss tolerance of 5 tons per acre per year.
14. Soil loss tolerance. The maximum level of soil erosion that will permit a high
level eLup productivity to be sustained economically and indefinitely.
Page 3 — Ordinance No. - 1992
208.03 TECKKEMLWIMES
The following handbooks are adopted by reference:
1. Field Office Technical Guide of the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
2. Soil Survey of Anoka County, developed by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
3. Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook.
208.05 SEDIMENTATION PLAN SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
1. Prior to any development activity and in conjunction with a building permit or land
alteration permit, a sedimentation control plan and time schedule shall be submitted
and approved as provided herein. The plan shall identify measures and practices to
prevent excessive soil loss or sediment from damaging adjacent land, bodies of
water, water courses, or wetlands.
2. The sedimentation control plan and time schedule must specify haw the movement of
soil and damage to other lands and regions will be minimized zed during the construction
process. These methods include, but are not limited to, the use of: temporary and
permanent seedings, fabric, plastic, or straw barriers, mulch, sediment control
basins, or other conservation practices adequate to prevent erosion and sediment
damage.
3. A sedimentation control plan is not required for the following development
activities:
A. minor land disturbance activities such as home gardens and individual hcane
landscaping, repairs, and maintenance work;
B. construction, installation, maintenance of electric and telephone utility
lines or individual service connection to the utility lines;
C. preparation for single-family residences separately built on lots with slopes
1Pcs than eighteen (18) percent, unless in conjunction with multiple
construction in subdivision development;
D. disturbance of land areas less than 9,000 square feet for commercial or
noncommercial ucc , except that the City may reduce this exception to a
smaller area of disturbed land or qualify the conditions under which this
exception applies;
E. installation of fence, sign, telephone and electric poles and other kinds of
posts or poles;
F. emergency work and repairs to protect life, limb or property; and
G. federal, state, county, and municipal road construction designed and
installed according to standard specifications.
Page 4 — Ordinance No. - 1992
4. The following must be addressed in developing and implementing a sedimentation
control plan:
A. Stabilization of denuded areas and stockpiles;
B. establishment of permanent vegetation;
C. protection of adjacent areas;
D. timing and stabilization of sediment trapping measures;
E. use of sediment basins;
F. stabilization of cut and fill slopes;
G. storm water management for controlling off-site erosion;
H. stabilization of waterways and outlets; °
I. storm sewer inlet protection;
J. working in or crossing water bodies;
K. underground utility construction;
L. construction access roads;
M. disposition of all temporary measures; and
N. maintenance of all temporary and permanent urban conservation
practices.
5. The time schedule accompanying the sedimentation control plan must establish
deadlines for the implementation and completion of each phase or element of the
sedimentation control plan.
6. The Field Office Technical Guide or the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning Handbook shall be the minimum planning standard for a
sedimentation control plan. Any other procedures must be approved by the City prior
to its use.
208.04 SEDIMENTRTION PUN REVIEW
1. The City may appoint the zoning or planning director, building inspector, engineer
or district to review the sedimentation control plan and time schedule.
2. If the City determines that the sedimentation control plan and time schedule will
control sedimentation, the City shall issue a permit that authorizes the development
activity contingent upon the implementation and completion of the sedimentation
control plan. If the City determines that the sedimentation control plan and time
schedule do not control sedimentation, the City shall not issue a permit for the
Page 5 — Ordinance No. - 1992
development activity. The sedimentation control plan and time schedule shall be
rc-submitted for approval before the development activity begins.
3. A person engaged in a development activity who does not secure a sedimentation
control plan and time schedule or make satisfactory progress to complete the plan
and schedule is subject to penalties described herein.
4. Occasionally, erosion control strategies will not be feasible or practical in all
instances. When this occurs, the City shall take into account the facts and
peculiarities of the specific situation and make a decision that is reasonable given
the available information and overall circumstances.
208.05 DESIGN STANDARDS
1. All open channels and ponds shall be designed to prevent damage from a 100-year
storm of 24 hour duration.
2. All conveyance systems Shall be designed for the 5-year storm of a minimum 20 minute
time of concentration.
3. Landscaping, streets, storm sewers, and other drainage and erosion controls shall
be installed as early in the construction schedule as is practical.
4. The area and duration of exposure of disturbed soil shall be kept to a practical
minimum.
5. Whenever feasible, natural vegetation shall be retained, protected, and
supplemented.
6. Where there is inadequate vegetation to protect erosion prone areas during or after
development, temporary or permanent vegetation and/or mulching shall be established.
7. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than two (2) to one (1) unless stabilized
by a retaining wall or cribbing or as approved by the City Engineer.
8. Cut and fills shall not endanger adjoining property.
9. Fill shall be placed and compacted so as to minimize sliding or erosion of the soil.
10. Fills shall not encroach on floodways, natural water courscs, or constructed
channels.
11. Grading shall not be done in such away so as to divert water onto the property or
another landowner without the written consent of that landowner.
12. Provisions shall be made to prevent surface water from damaging the cut face of.
excavations or the sloping surfaces of fills.
13. The use of debris basins, sediment basins, silt traps, or similar measures may be
required to trap sediment in run-off water until a disturbed area is stabilized.
Page 6 — Ordinance No. - 1992
14. The use of ponds for temporary storm water storage is encouraged to reduce peak
rainfall run-off and peak stream flows.
15. Land shall be developed in increments for workable size such that adequate erosion
and sedimentation control can be provided as construction progresses. The area
exposed shall not be exposed for a period of tine exceeding sixty (60) days, unless
otherwise established in the permit. Ground cover shall be established as soon as
possible after work is completed.
16. Development on slopes over eighteen percent (18%) in grade shall not be considered.
On slopes with a grade between six (6) to eighteen (18) percent, development shall
be carefully reviewed to ensure adequate measures have been taken to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and structural damage.
18. Erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be coordinated with the different
stages of the development; appropriate control measures shall be installed prior to
development when necessary to control erosion.
19. The following control measures shall be taken to control erosion during
construction.
A. Exposed slopes steeper than ten (10) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical
shall be sodded to minimize erosion.
B. At the foot of each exposed slope, a channel and berm shall be constructed to
control erosion. The channelized water shall be diverted to the
sedimentation basin (debris basin, sediment basin, or silt trap) before being
allowed to enter the natural drainage system.
C. Along the top of each exposed slope, a berm shall be constructed to prevent
run-off from flawing over the edge of the slope. Where run-off collecting
behind said berm cannot be diverted elsewhere and must be directed dawn the
slope, appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent erosion. Such measures
shall consist of either an asphalt paved apron or a method as approved by the
City Engineer. At the base of the slope, an energy dissipater shall be
installed.
D. Exposed slopes shall be protected by whatever means will effectively prevent
erosion considering the degree of slope, soil materials, and expected length
of exposure. Slope protection shall consist of mulch, burlap, jute netting,
sod blankets, fast growing sAsris or temporary plantings of annual grasses.
A mulch shall consist of hay, straw, or other approved protective materials.
Mulch shall be anchored to the slopes by an approved method to provide
additional slope stability.
E. Control measures, other than those specifically stated above, may be used in
place of the above if it can be demonstrated that they will effectively
protect exposed slopes and are approved by the City Engineer.
Page 7 — Ordinance No. - 1992
20. When construction work is completed, topsoil meeting MnDOT's Specifications 3877
shall be spread over the developed area and turf establishment started. The soil
shall be restored to the minimum depth of four (4) inches and seed and mulch worked
into the area.
208.06 SEVERABILITY
Every section, provision or part of this Chapter is declared seperable fram every other
section, provision, or part to the extent that if any section , provision, or part of this
Chapter shall be held invalid, such holding shall not invalidate any other section,
provision, or part thereof.
208.07 PENAIMIES
Whoever does any act forbidden by this Chapter or omits or fails to do any act required
by this Chapter shall be guilty of a.misdemeanor and is subject to all penalties provided
for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of the Fridley City Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY C70LJNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF
, 1990.
WILLIAM J. NEE — MAYOR
ATI'ESrED:
SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA — CITY CLERK
PUBLISHED:
Community Development Department
::]1
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: October 21, 1992
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Update on Shoreland Ordinance
Staff is currently analyzing the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources' Model Shoreland Ordinance as it pertains to the City of
Fridley. The Shoreland Ordinance defines shoreland as land
adjacent to a lake, creek, or river within 1,000 feet of the
ordinary high water level. Staff's concern is that the ordinance
may impact not only the first tier of lots adjacent to public
waters within the City, but may also cross the adjacent residential
street and impact the second tier of residential lots. In
addition, the minimum lot area and lot width would render
properties adjacent to public waters nonconforming.
We are analyzing the long term policy impacts that adopting the
Shoreland Ordinance would create for the City. Staff is currently
utilizing the Geographic Information Systems to plot maps adjacent
to public waters to determine the existing and proposed setback
requirements as they would be adopted under the Shoreland
Ordinance.
We propose to meet with the Department of Natural Resources'
representatives once our analysis is complete to discuss the impact
of the Shoreland Ordinance on the City and to determine if it would
be more appropriate to adopt a modified Shoreland Ordinance.
I will continue to update the Planning Commission as information
becomes available.
MM:ls
M-92-642
/ Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: October 21, 1992
TO: Planning Commission. Members
FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Review of Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter
205, "Zoning", Building Site
Attached please find a proposed ordinance which amends the
"Building Site" portion (Section 205.04.04.1) of the Zoning Code.
Adoption of the ordinance will allow the City to comply with the
Metropolitan Council mandates to adopt best management practices
as they relate to storm water management. The proposed ordinance
includes the following components:
1. Adopts best management practices.
2. Requires submission of a grading and drainage plan - in
conjunction with a. building or land alteration permit.
3. Requires submission of a sedimentation control plan and time
schedule in compliance with proposed Chapter 208.
4. Requires a "as built survey" of detention facilities.
5. Requires a storm water detention facility maintenance
agreement.
Please review and be prepared to comment regarding the attached
language at Wednesday's meeting.
MM/dn
M-92-650
AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE CHAPTER
205, ENTITLED "ZONING" BY AMENDING SECTION 205.04.04.I
4. BUILDING SITE
A. No lot shall be so reduced or diminished, nor shall any
structure be so enlarged or moved, as to reduce or diminish
the yards, lot area or open space required in the district in
which it is located. No yard or other open space required for
any building shall be considered as providing a yard or open
space for any other building, and no yard or open space on an
adjoining lot or parcel of property shall be considered as
providing a yard or open space on a lot where a building is
to be erected.
B. Only one (1) principal building shall be located on a
buildable R-1 lot.
C. Every lot, in order to be built on, shall have at least
one (1) lot line which abuts for not less than twenty-five
(25) feet along a street or along a permanent, unobstructed
easement of access to the lot from a public street as approved
by the City.
D. Where no curb elevation has been established, the City
shall furnish such elevations. If curb elevations are not
available, the City shall approve the elevation of the
building and the drainage plan before a building permit is
issued.
E. Sidewalks or provision for sidewalks will be required on
all arterial and collector streets. The City will furnish the
elevation for a sidewalk shelf, which is to be put at grade
at the time a building is constructed on the property. The
sidewalk shelf will provide the owner with an approximate
finish grade for a sidewalk.
F. Easements for bicycle ways shall be provided on those lots
designated along trail corridors as noted in the City's
Bicycle Way Plan. The City will designate the required width
of easements and elevations for grades at the time a building
is constructed on the property. The bicycle way shelf will
provide the owner with an approximate finish grade for a
bicycle way.
G. Where the front yard setback of existing buildings is
greater than the minimum front yard setback required and said
existing buildings are within one hundred (100) feet on either
side of a structure to be erected, then the setback for the
new structure can be six (6) feet more or less of this mean
depth of the adjacent structures but in no case shall it be
less than the required front yard setback. In the case where
one of the adjacent properties is vacant, an assumed setback
of thirty-five (35) feet will be used.
H. In computing the depth of a rear yard for any building
where the rear line of the lot adjoins an alley, one half
(1/2) of the width of the alley may be included as rear yard
depth, provided that the actual rear yard depth on the lot
shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in any residential
district and not less than twenty-five (25) feet in any other
district.
I. No land shall be altered and no use shall be permitted
that results in water run-off causing flooding, erosion or
deposits of minerals on adjacent properties. The following
standards shall be implemented:
(1) The City hereby adopts by reference the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Division of Water Quality.
"Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, Best Management
Practices for Minnesota" within which are the National Urban
Runoff Pollution Standards and Best Management Practices.
(2) A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted in
conjunction with a building or land alteration permit and
shall be drawn at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals
two hundred feet, and shall contain, but is not limited to,
the following information:
(a) existing and proposed grades with a minimum of two
foot contour intervals to a known sea level datum;
(b) sufficient spot elevations on all proposed hard
surface areas;
(c) estimated run-off of the area based upon five (5)
and one hundred (100) year storm events;
id) provisions to carry run-off to the nearest adequate
outlet, such as a storm drain, natural drainage way
or street;
(e) location of any proposed pondinq areas, indicating •
the size and depth of the pond and amount of acre
feet of water to be stored;
If) finished floor elevations of all buildings;
(q) identification of soil conditions by type and
location, including identification of the water
table, and suitability of the soil for the proposed
development, and
fh) identification of any areas located within a flood
hazard zone as identified by the City's floodplain
overlays.
a
* / -.
(3) A sedimentation control plan and time schedule shall be
submitted in accordance with Chapter 208.
(4) Stormwater run-off from a developed site will leave at
no greater rate or lesser quality than the stormwater run-off
from the site in an undeveloped condition. Stormwater run-off
shall not exceed the rate of run-off of the undeveloped land
for a 24 hour storm with a 1 year return frequency. Detention
facilities shall be designed for a 24 hour storm with . a 100
year return frequency. All run-off shall be properly
channeled into a storm drain water course, ponding area or
other public facility designed for that purpose. Any change
in grade affecting water run-off onto an adjacent property
must be approved by the City.
(5) In order to ensure the construction was completed in
accordance with the approved design and plans, an "as-built"
survey of detention facilities on the property shall be
prepared and submitted to the City. The plan shall indicate
the size, location, elevation, and depth of the pond as well
as the location of all structures and any ground opening
elevations on them.
(6) For those detention facilities which are to be maintained
by the property owner, a maintenance agreement shall be
executed by the property owner and recorded against the
property title to ensure proper ongoing maintenance.
J. The standards established herein serve, among the other
purposes of this Chapter, to provide each structure located
on any land, a building site suitable to its particular needs
as well as adequate areas of open space between that structure
and any adjacent building, and as deemed suitable or
appropriate to each building or structure and their respective
uses. It is also deemed a purpose herein to provide standards
which encourage uses of land and the erection of buildings
and structures in areas which are open, unplatted or without
any substantial number of buildings located therein, as are
of a type, size, style and design as are deemed by the City
and its inhabitants to meet the needs and the purposes of
residential, commercial or industrial uses; and, to enable an
owner to make a reasonable use of a parcel of land recorded
or approved prior to the enactment of this Chapter and is
therefore, smaller or different in type, size, style or design
from that otherwise required herein.
•
K. No changes in exterior building dimensions, exterior
parking areas or drainage as established in approved City
plans will be made unless reapproved by the City.
((ii I} Community Development Department
\ PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: October 22, 1992
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Bikeway/Walkway Subcommittee Meeting of
October 7, 1992
The . Bikeway/Walkway Subcommittee met on October 7, 1992, and
completed the following tasks:
1. Reviewed the preferred routes and segments of the bikeway
system. Added an additional six segments to those
previously identified by the Bikeway/Walkway Sub-
committee. Also identified and discussed crossing
concerns. These items are identified on the attached
City street map.
2. Determined the preferred route type (trail versus lane)
for the identified segments.
3. Prioritized the top ten segments to be scheduled for
improvements. The top ten segments which were identified
include the following:
a. University Avenue, west side, from 73rd Avenue to
Springbrook Nature Center via 85th Avenue
b. University Avenue, east side, Mississippi Street,
57th Avenue
c. East River Road, Mississippi Street to the Coon
Rapids border
d. Central Avenue, 69th Avenue to .Osborne Road.
e. Central Avenue, 69th Avenue to Highway 65
f. Brookview Terrace, Mississippi Street to Rice Creek
g. 57th Avenue, 7th Street to Main Street
h. Jackson Street, 73rd Avenue to Osborne Road,
including specific crossing markers at 73rd Avenue
Bikeway/Walkway Subcommittee Meeting of October 7, 1992
October 22, 1992
Page 2
i. Mississippi Street from Central Avenue to East River
Road
4. Discussed the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act funding notice from the Transportation
Advisory Board. The segments selected for the funding
application will be discussed in a separate memo.
The remaining items which need to be addressed include the ISTEA
grant application, signage policies, pavement marking policies,
crossing marking, bikeway identification, writing of the
Bikeway/Walkway Plan text, and the generation of maps for the
Bikeway/Walkway Plan. Due to the difficulty in bringing the
Subcommittee members together, staff has decided to do the
remaining work with a variety of City staff from Community
Development, Park and Recreation, Police, and Engineering
Departments. Once staff has generated recommendations and
policies, these will be brought to the Environ-mental Quality &
Energy Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Planning
Commission for review and comment.
MM:ls
cc: Jack Kirk, Direction of Recreation & Natural Resources
Scott Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director
M-92-653
u,y) Ly VnA�n..vy , J
`°fi e"'",J•.71'),�iwi CROSSING CONCERNS
Ji.— y, , A
p �� ��a a �i•74,;1,'N
\ '°' ''•z•,"o ,•, , J.F,TTF$ LOCATION
`_ - rrrr�r ySt.i . 1
�i��, -- E•T A Highway 65 at 68th Avenue
Warms •, i'r E�► B University Avenue at 69th Avenue
C Burlington Northern Route at Osborne Road- milk
�; i� �� D Burlington Northern Route at 77th Avenue
�1a 4t , ( - E Ashton Avenue at Micheal O'Bannon Overpass
�`; ___ ll F Mississippi Street at University Avenue
\3 ::!� \'. Li — '(' G Jackson Street at 73rd Avenue
„g 27-, I - L..
\ vit __ 10 ,11-- 1 B
\-1/IwnVi •
a., ��;�
.. — I-
...:
/ s — G _ _,.,ww11ll — o—
,_ .
-- 23
' - ..-„•_.,.
ii ' s 11 - A rli_9 , ' 'i , MIC, -::::—.N,•; •1 riT i IX''.ftWitrittl 1*.'"" .
t• �4 M1 Y„ J
f7 1 cr,.••=1,1, if mL_, M yJ.,v IR.
- ' ' . . (-7
fly.-,),,,,11é1I * JL1 ��1�
I C__.
o 20 �"V o ' t� r t t ' -
•
IN.
,?o�� 2ION II �^�bQo•,-''w.�'.�'.t�i )-:_- III -��� ' I.I
t \ 16.E....—IL,
m Li
. "2-7.....!---',.. \ Ai.-.7....:.-... irta__1, 1
e.'C.'s C.•. ' I/ I 1 ki L_ ,r• s ..._......:...1 , t ''W it . . h
,,,,, „ .0,, ,,,. am f::i'... • ____,...
' :"'iii:,:c?/ .....:' ::, = ,:i.,liffl U I il [II .sir-:...1.;ii,':.:;."..?g, °ORE , ' ..-4ii:In.:—.
:„:: , r 4 A 11 Proillaillninill .1 b.mair ii,., ,, , , .
, ,,,,,..,,......., ,,:„ . ... _ ri M.I.1 1 •14,M. . 13 ."""."."'.�1 � 41
4,
.
•
n , / Community Development Department
1 PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: October 21, 1992
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
Funding Application
Attached for your review is the proposed funding application which
staff has developed in response to the Transportation Advisory
Board notice for solicitation of funds from ISTEA appropriations.
Staff requests that you review the criteria and the grant
application and respond with any comments and suggestions. The
application must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. , Monday, November 2,
1992, in order to be considered. The Transportation Advisory Board
anticipates that final approval will occur in December.
The City proposes to apply for funding for the following segments:
1. University Avenue from 73rd Avenue to 85th Avenue
2. East River Road in two segments from the City of Coon
Rapids to Mississippi Street, and from.Mississippi Street
to the Islands of Peace Park
3. Central Avenue from Osborne Road to the intersection of
Highway 65 and Central
Staff has identified these segments as those which provide
alternative modes of transportation which is the primary criteria
for selecting projects to be funded.
If you have any questions regarding the process or ISTEA, we can
discuss them at the meeting.
MM:ls
M-92-652
October 22, 1992 PW92-180
Mr. Emil Brandt, Transportation Coordinator
Transportation Advisory Board
Mears Park Center
230 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN, 55101
Dear Mr. Brandt:
The City of Fridley is very excited to learn about your Federal Surface Transportation Program Funding
of Bikeway and Walkway Projects. The City of Fridley has been extremely progressive in its approach to
establishing a comprehensive bikeway/walkway plan for the City. The Fridley City Council,City Staff,and
local citizens identified a need for a bikeway/walkway system through the adoption of the City of Fridley
Bikeway-Walkway System Plan which was established in 1975. The attached map depicts existing City
and County bikeway/walkway corridors which are currently existing in our area,and those which are being
proposed. With possible funding from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act,the City of
Fridley looks forward to further integration of its bikeway/walkway system within the City and the
interconnection with Anoka County and neighboring City systems.
Four are proposed for funding. The proposed bikeway/walkway routes are arterial routes which have been
prioritized according to demand and need. The proposed bikeway/walkway routes are consistent with
the local and the regional comprehensive plans. The routes have been chosen due to their significance
as transportation routes and their interconnection with businesses and public facilities. The routes
coincide with neighboring City and County routes.
PROPOSED BIKEWAY/WALKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECTS
University Avenue/TH 47:
Project Length:
Project Limits: City of Coon Rapids city limits at on 85th Avenue to 73rd Avenue.
Connecting Locations:
- City of Coon Rapids
- Springbrook Nature Center
- Wal-Mart, Target Stores, and Northtown Mall area
- Existing business and industrial areas
- Residential areas
- City of Spring Lake Park trail system
- Woodcrest School trail
Proposed Date of Construction: July 1993
•
October 22, 1992
Page 2
1. The need for the facility is demonstrated by the following:
a. This proposed route provides a connection to our northerly neighbor, the City of Coon
Rapids. This route traverses adjacent to an extremely heavily traveled north south route that
connects businesses, residential dwellings,and a large shopping complex at its northerly
end. This route will also connect the Springbrook Nature Center with other facilities and
neighborhoods in the City.
b. The City of Fridley has adopted and begun implementation of a comprehensive
Bikeway/Walkway Systems Plan. The proposed route is a part of the comprehensive plan.
c. This portion of University Avenue is currently frequented by riders who use the shoulder of
the existing roadway. The Metropolitan Transit Commission Team Transit program recently
began using the shoulders for peak hour bus traffic. As this is a very heavily traveled
roadway, the potential safety hazards are substantial. The construction of a
bikeway/walkway route at this location will help alleviate the hazardous situation and help
reduce the congested traffic.
d. The implementation of the bikeway will provide a third mode of transportation along this
commuter corridor. It will link with other modes of transportation.
2. Existing facilities are being used to their maximum extent. As noted on the attached map,
existing bikeways/walkways are currently in place.
3. This proposed facility will link existing bikeway/walkway lanes to create a safe and effective
corridor through the City. It will also connect to the neighboring City of Coon Rapids.
4. University Avenue creates a natural barrier as it is a very congested roadway which deters a
effective north south connection. Constructing a bikeway/walkway along this route will open up
a north/south access to connect other existing routes, facilities and neighboring Cities.
5. University Avenue is a very heavily traveled and congested highway. The ADT for this highway
is . The addition of a bikeway/walkway at parallel to University Avenue will provide an
alternative to motor vehicle travel. University Avenue is currently being considered as a location
for a future light rail transit system. The construction of a bikeway/walkway system along this
route would provide additional means of access to LRT.
East River Road:
Project Length:
2A—
2B —
Project Limits:
2A—City of Coon Rapids city limits to Mississippi Way
2B— Mississippi Way to County Park System at Islands of Peace Park
Connecting Locations:
- City of Coon Rapids
- Residential neighborhoods
- Industrial and commercial businesses
- Stevenson Elementary School
October 22, 1992
Page 3
- Riverview Heights Park, Craig Park, Logan Park
- Camp Lockslea Girl Scout Camp
- Manomen County Park
- Mississippi Riverfront County Park and Anoka County trail system
- Anoka County trail system connection to City of Minneapolis
Proposed Date of Construction: July 1993
1. The need for the facility is demonstrated by the following:
a. This proposed route provides connections to our neighbors,the City of Coon Rapids to the
north,and the City of Minneapolis to the south, it also interconnects existing and proposed
bikeway/walkway routes. This route traverses along a extremely heavily traveled north-south
route that connects residences along this route with other routes which travel to places of
employment and shopping.
b. The City of Fridley has adopted and began implementation of a very comprehensive
Bikeway/Walkway Systems Plan. The proposed route is a part of the comprehensive plan.
c. This portion of East River Road is heavily traveled with little or no existing shoulders for
pedestrians or bicycles. The potential safety hazards along this area are substantial. The
construction of a bikeway/walkway route at this location will help alleviate the hazards and
help reduce the congested traffic.
2. Existing facilities are currently being used to their maximum extent. As noted on the attached
map, bikeways/walkways are currently in place.
3. This proposed facility will link existing City and County bikeway/walkway lanes to create a safe
and effective north/south corridor through the City. It will provide a complete system from the
Fridley/Coon Rapids border to the Fridley/City of Minneapolis border.
4. East River Road is not an effective bikeway/walkway route due to narrow shoulders and high
traffic volumes. Constructing a bikeway/walkway route within the existing right-of-way will create
a north/south access to connect existing routes and neighboring Cities.
5. East River Road is a very heavily traveled highway. The ADT for this highway is . The
addition of a bikeway/walkway at this location will provide an alternative to motor vehicle travel
along this route. East River Road is a busy commuter route connecting many businesses and
industrial areas to residential locations.
Central Avenue:
Project Length:
Project Limits: Osborne Road to 69th Avenue
69th Avenue to Highway 65
Connecting Locations:
- City of Spring Lake Park trails
- Commercial/industrial areas
- Residential neighborhoods
- Totino High School
October 22, 1992
Page 4
- North Park Elementary School
- Connect to existing routes connecting to City of Columbia Heights
- Rice Creek Park, Flanery Park, Moore Lake Park
1. The need for the facility is demonstrated by the following:
a. This proposed route provides a connection to existing east/west bikeway/walkway trails. This
route traverses adjacent to another heavily traveled north south route on the easterly edge
of Fridley. This route will connect the City of Spring Lake Park to the north, the City of
Columbia Heights to the south and the City of New Brighton to the East.
b. The City of Fridley has adopted and begun implementation of a comprehensive
Bikeway/Walkway Systems Plan. The proposed route is part of the comprehensive plan.
2. Existing facilities are being used to their maximum extent. As noted on the attached map,
bikeways/walkways are currently in place at the north end of this segment and will interconnect
with east/west routes at 69th Avenue and Mississippi Street. Existing facilities are currently used
to their maximum extent. This route will provide a safe north/south route the east side of the City.
3. This proposed facility will link an existing bikeway/walkway lane on the north and connect to
existing designated bikeway routes to the south.
4. There is a natural barrier to connecting the existing bikeway/walkway routes. The lack of
available right-of-way or easements other than along Highway 65 makes this a preferred
north/south route location. Constructing a bikeway/walkway along this route will create a
north/south access to connect existing routes, neighboring cities, public facilities, and provide
a safe means of alternative transportation.
5. Central Avenue is a very congested highway. The ADT for this highway is . The addition
of a bikeway/walkway at this location will provide an effective alternative to motor vehicle travel
along this route.
The City of Fridley is looking forward to pursuing an aggressive Bikeway/Walkway system in order to to
provide an alternative transportation system through the use of bicycles, pedestrians, and other human
powered modes of transportation. The City has budgeted the necessary funds to meet the local match
for these projects. The easements for the proposed routes are existing. We are looking forward to
incorporating the construction of these bikeway/walkway projects into our 1993 Capital Improvement
program. If there is any additional information which you require please give me a call at 572-3551.
Sincerely,
Scott B. Erickson
Assistant Public Works Director
SE/cz
ItMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 7TY 612 291-0904
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
September 10, 1992- - - .
Commissioner, Department of Transportation
Chair, Regional Transit Board
Chair, Metropolitan Transit Commission
County Board Chairs
County/City Park Commission Chairs
Mayors and Town Board Chairs
Re: Interim Solicitation Process for Federal Surface Transportation Program Funding of Bikeway
and Walkway Projects 1992
Dear Public Official:
The purpose of this letter is to request the submittal of bikeway and walkway projects to be funded by the
Surface Transportation Program (STP). The deadline for submittals is November 2, 1992. The Twin Cities
region has been allocated STP funds by the Federal Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA). To date, some of these funds have been allocated to highway and transit projects by the region.
An interim process is being put in place at this time to solicit bikeway and walkway projects. A total of
$1,500,000 is available. A permanent process for allocation of STP and other federal funds will be developed
later this year.
As you may know, "Enhancements"is another category of federal funding that can be used for bikeways and
walkways. Those funds are not included in this process. If the Metropolitan Council/TAB is assigned
responsibility to allocate those funds,a process will be developed later in the year.
While the interim procedures described in the attachment seem applicable for bicycle and walking facilities,
they may need to be adjusted to better serve the region in the future. The TACITAB will utilize the
applications submitted as input for the development of the permanent process for allocating federal funds.
' The accompanying material describes two categories of projects -- traditional and innovative. There are
separate criteria for each category.
All submittals must be received no later than 5:00 p.m.,Monday,November 2, 1992 to be considered. Final
approval of selected projects is anticipated in December.
Please address your submittals to Mr. Emil Brandt, Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory
Board, Mears Park Centre,230 E. Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101.
Sincerely,
Sally Evert •`J
Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
SE:jlm
cc: City Administrators/Clerks
City Engineers
County Engineers
Enclosure
INTERIM STP PROJECT CRITERIA
Bikeway-Walkway Projects - 1992
DEFINITION- Bikeway-Walkway projects must meet the following definition to qualify for further
evaluation:
A CONTINUOUS FACILITY DESIGNED PURSUANT TO AN OVERALL PLAN AND
DESIGNATED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION USE OF BICYCLES, OTHER VEHICLES
PROPELLED BY HUMAN POWER, OR PEDESTRIANS. Specifically, a"bicycle transportation
facility" means new or improved lanes, paths or shoulders for use by bicyclists, traffic control devices,
shelters, and parking facilities for bicycles.
The project must be a permanent improvement. Temporary construction is defined as work which
must be essentially replaced in the immediate future. Staged construction is considered permanent
rather than temporary so long as future stages build on rather than replace previous work.
The right-of-way acquisition costs, costs required to complete studies, engineering, design, etc., will
not be eligible. Noise barriers, drainage projects, fences, landscaping,etc., are ineligible for funding
unless included as part of a larger project which is otherwise eligible.
Designs for,bikeways must be in accordance with AASHTO standards to the extent possible.
A total of$1,500,000 federal STP funds will be allocated in this interim process. The total estimated
cost of a project must exceed $25,000. One unit of government such as a county, could "package"
more than one small project to meet,the minimum level. . This,may be especially applicable to
innovative projects. The minimum local match must equal 20% of eligible project costs. It may
include separate but related elements and support facilities which are not at the same location. The
maximum federal funding for any one project will be$500,000. This may be over-matched up to 50%
of total cost resulting in a $1,000,000 project.
A contract must be let prior to December 31, 1993.
Eligible project sponsors include state and regional agencies, city and county government units. The
project submitter is responsible for the local share of project cost. The project submitter is also
responsible for any liability associated with the project and ongoing maintenance.
The TAB reserves the right to subdivide projects to allow or encourage more projects to be funded.
Points
100 3. Those facilities which link with others,forming a continuous system of similar
facilities, will receive higher priority.
Points
100 4. Those facilities which remove or eliminate a natural or man-made barrier to
biking or walking.
Points
200 5. Those facilities that provide a travel alternative on or parallel to congested
roads or highways.
1000 points
,lm -
r.; 'k
I /
Community Development Department
I
PLANNING DIVISION
J City of Fridley
DATE: October 23, 1992
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Recommended Housing Programs
On July 27, 1992 and September 10, 1992, the attached memo was
presented to the City Council and the HRA. I would like to review
the major recommendations of the attached memo with the Planning
Commission at Wednesday's meeting. I have not included all of the
attachments to the report because of the volume; however, I will
review in detail the proposed recommendations. Should you wish to
have a copy of the full supporting documents, please let me know
and I will be happy to make you a copy.
On October 26, 1992, the . City Manager and I will be presenting
additional information about each of the recommended programs.
Those materials will be distributed at the Planning Commission
meeting.
BD/dn
M-92-657
41
(:] Community Development Department
1 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Fridley
DATE: September 3 , 1992
TO: William Burns, Executive Director of HRA
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Recommendations for Housing Programs
An 11 member interdepartmental staff team was composed to develop
recommendations for housing programs to the City Council and HRA.
This memo discusses the recommended programs, identifies potential
costs, recommends an implementation timeframe, and identifies
future issues which the City Council and HRA will need to address.,
The strategies proposed for the City Council and HRA hope to
interrupt the cycle of declining and deferred maintenance. They
hope to increase community awareness via its neighborhood land use
planning process. They hope to encourage community involvement
which will hopefully remove the fear of a culturally diverse
population. The recommended strategies identify ways to attack
potential problem areas but also to serve the community as a whole.
Recommended Primary Strategies
1. The City should develop an "aggressive inspection program" .
The staff team strongly recommends more rental inspections
per year. The City must aggressively enforce its housing
maintenance codes for rental licensing. Other cities in the
immediate "market area" inspect more units per year than
Fridley (see Exhibit A) . The City of Fridley is at risk of
receiving the displaced problem tenants from those
communities. The age of the multiple family housing stock,
about 30 - 35 years old, also dictates that more inspections
need to be conducted beyond the current amount. About 13% of
the total number of rental units (about 4 , 000) are inspected.
Staff recommends that 2 , 000 units per year should be
inspected. The proposed amount is equal to or greater than
Columbia Heights, Brooklyn Park or Brooklyn Center. Existing
staff cannot perform this amount of inspections; additional
staff needs to be hired.
3-A
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 2
Three options exist to conduct rental inspections: hire
additional City staff, execute a contract with. a private
building inspection firm, or contract with another city who
has inspectors in place (Brooklyn Park has expressed an
interest) . The City of Mound recently went out to bid for a
private firm to do its rental inspections. Using the
information from Mound, about two inspectors and one clerk are
needed for 2000 units/year. Estimated cost would be $110, 000.
The rental licensing fees are a good revenue source to pay for
the inspections. The fees now charged are minimal and should
be increased to pay for inspection costs no matter what option
is chosen (see Appendix B) .
Ordinance Amendments'
Coupled with the aggressive inspection program is a necessity
to research potential ordinance amendments to the City Code.
The inspectors in the staff team expressed frustration over
the court system's apparent lack of interest and concern about
issues pertaining to zoning, housing, property maintenance,
and related areas. Because the legal system is not well
equipped to address these issues, other communities like Coon
Rapids are evaluating establishing administrative procedures
to deal with problems outside the typical court process.
Therefore, staff would like to research further the
administrative "hearing" officer approach, not only on housing
code violations, but nuisance abatement issues as well (see
Appendix C for memos from inspectors) . Further, the City only
has a code for residential rental property and condominium
common areas. The City should investigate the creation of a
housing maintenance code.
2. Scattered Site Acquisition and Abandoned Home Program
An annual amount of $225, 000 per year should be allocated in
the HRA budget to remove blighted, abandoned homes and to
acquire properties for resale for new single family or other
types of construction. A preliminary list of vacant and
abandoned properties has been developed (please see Appendix
D) . Site numbers 1 - 9 refer to parcel numbers that are
listed in the Residential Vacant Land Inventory which is a
separate document enclosed in your packet. Site number 10 -
13 are abandoned homes which do not appear in the Vacant Land
Inventory. Those lots are not large enough for reconstruction
of a single family home according to our ordinance. We have
identified two more abandoned homes which could be acquired
since the City Council meeting. Initial authorization to
proceed this year on two of these properties is requested.
Estimated total cost is less than $100, 000.
, 3-B
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 3
Those lots to be acquired will need to be incorporated into
the redevelopment project area. The appropriate hearings will
be scheduled as needed.
If there are only two or three properties acquired a year, a
consultant may not need to be hired. However, an aggressive
acquisition program may dictate the need for outside help.
In any case, we will develop a ranking system of properties
to acquire and review our recommendations with the City
Council and HRA on an annual basis.
3. Actively pursue MHFA programs.
Single Family
There are two existing MHFA single family rehab programs which
are "lender" administered (MHFA Program Summaries are in
Appendix E) . The MHFA Fix-up Fund and MHFA Minnesota Energy
Loan provide monies for single family owners to do general
code improvements. The City is not directly involved in the
administration of these programs. The City does need to
pursue an aggressive advertising program to make owners aware
of the availability of the MHFA programs (this will be
discussed later in this memo) .
A first time homebuyer program is also available through MHFA,
and it is called the Minnesota City Participation Program. It
requires application by the City during a two week application
period in April of 1993 . While the City prepares the
application, the City also needs to work with the lender to
agree to participate in the program. We would request the
lenders to pay for the application fees ($500-700) , but we may
want to allocate money for other application fees.
Multiple Family
There are several MHFA multiple family rehabilitation,
construction, and conversion programs. The current rental
rehab program will continue to be administered via ACCAP;
however, again the City needs to be more aggressive in
advertising the availability of the program. Some of the
programs do require the cities and/or non-profit entities to
apply. Staff will continue to pursue MHFA funds for any type
of multiple family rehab assistance.
Problem multiple family buildings, those that have high
vacancy rates or are severely deteriorated, should be
identified for evaluation for conversion to three bedrooms or
another housing density. The evaluation should also include
an analysis of whether it would be eligible for a scattered
site acquisition, demolition, and reconstruction project.
These problem buildings can be identified during the
neighborhood land use planning process which is discussed
3-C
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 4
later.
4. The City should institute a "Fridley Rehabilitation Loan
Program" .
The amount of funds provided through the typical state and
federal rehabilitation loan programs are not enough to address
Fridley's housing problems. The staff team completed an
intensive windshield survey to identify structures which need
rehabilitation or need to be demolished. While a majority of
the single family stock is in good shape, there are areas
which need help. Further, there are areas of multiple family
buildings which also need a significant amount of
rehabilitation.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop a rehabilitation loan
program to enable property owners to bring their units up to
code, build garages, or build additions. We have identified
a good way to address single family owner occupied housing;
however, there are less financial resources available for
multiple family.
Single Family
At the City Council meeting on July 27 , 1992 , we reviewed a
general outline of how Fridley would create a rehab program
for single family homes. In essence, area lenders would be
asked to make rehabilitating loans under general guidelines
dictated by the HRA to Fridley residents. The lenders,
though, would have a previous agreement with the Federal
National Mortgage Association (FNMA) to buy the loans once
construction is completed. The City Council liked the concept
and asked us to pursue it. They also asked us to pursue some
type of grant program for low income elderly persons and to
find a mechanism to recover that grant upon sale of the
property.
Since the Council meeting, we have asked Fay Wegner of Miller
Schroeder Financial, Inc. , to assist us in developing a
program. She has worked extensively with Minneapolis and St.
Paul to develop their programs, as well as with area lenders.
She has put together information for us on both programs. We
are currently evaluating both in an attempt to take the best
from both worlds and create our own program.
We have done a lot of research and Fay seems to be very
qualified to help us on this complicated topic. At a future
meeting, we will recommend that the HRA retain Miller
Schroeder to help us define the program, meet with lending
institutions, and complete the necessary work to establish a
3-D
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 5
program. We are in the process of negotiating the terms of
a consultant contract.
There are a number of financing options using the FNMA guide-
lines. Bill Burns has written a summary memo of the current
programs in St. Paul and Minneapolis (enclosed at end of this
memo) . We believe annual costs to the HRA will probably range
between $150, 000 to $200, 000.
Multiple Family
MHFA funding for programs for rental properties is not as
plentiful as it was earlier in the decade. Further, the City
receives only $100, 000 in CDBG funds. The new HOME program
is administered through the County; it receives only $500, 000
county wide. Finally, the FNMA loans discussed earlier only
apply to single family owner occupied properties.
Nonetheless, there are alternatives to pursue. For example,
the CDBG funds could be used toward building garages along
Able and Baker Streets for the 73rd Avenue. The street is
lined with rental duplexes with no garages for tenant parking.
Or, the funds could be used for a handful of low to very low
income properties. There are a number of Federal requirements
to follow which makes the program an administrative headache,
but it may be worth the effort.
In some extreme cases, the HRA may want to consider acquiring
severely deteriorated multiple family structures and selling
the property to a developer to build a new building. There
are several non-profit groups which could be tapped for
funding as well as management of the building. Westminster
Corporation is an example.
For those MHFA funds which can be obtained, the HRA could pay
for the application fees on behalf of the owners to encourage
participation. Costs may range from $200 - $1, 000 per
application.
5. Complete a Neighborhood Land Use Planning Process.
The staff team strongly recommends that a list . of potential
sites for housing and other redevelopment projects be
completed with an accompanying prioritization plan. In order
to accomplish this step, the team recommended that the
planning process be done on a neighborhood basis. The
neighborhood planning process would also serve to encourage
citizen participation and community involvement. The planning
process would determine the acceptable mix of housing styles
and provide the City Council direction on future land use
related decisions.
3-E
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 6
As part of this process, potential sites for senior housing
could also be developed. Char Fitzpatrick submitted
information regarding senior "shared living residences" where
larger homes are converted as residences for a number of
senior individuals. Further, sites for elderly townhomes or
other projects can be evaluated. One site that has already
been discussed is the Westminster project next to St.
William's Church. Westminster is now applying for Section 202
HUD funds to construct a 50 unit senior apartment building.
The City should continue to support Westminster's application
effort.
A neighborhood planning process can also determine potential
sites for the HRA scattered site acquisition program.
6. Secondary Strategies
A. Community Development Department staff should assist in
organizing a multi-family owner, landlord, and manager
coalition, similar to the effort completed in Brooklyn
Center and Brooklyn Park. Assistance would be limited
to initiating the organization and acting as a resource
for information to the owners. Assistance should also
include preparation of a pamphlet describing existing
resources available to multi-family owners and referrals
to key resources. This would serve to improve
communication between the City and owners regarding
problem tenants and promote cooperation between the City
and multi-family properties for rental inspections.
B. Prepare a "how to"rehabilitation booklet for homeowners.
The Community Development Department staff could prepare
it in conjunction with local contractors or other cities
which have completed one.
C. Neighborhood crime prevention is a key aspect of
improving neighborhood quality. How residents perceive
safety in their neighborhood is very important.
Expansion of the Crime Prevention Program should be
evaluated in the future in order to properly maintain and
to improve the neighborhood prevention program.
Alternative funding sources should be researched.
D. Alternative funding sources should be researched to
reduce fees for recreation programs for "at risk" and
lower income households.
E. Zoning Ordinance amendments to create a senior housing
district and to permit shared living residences should
be researched.
3-F
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 7
F. The City should make sure that public improvements, such
as repaving streets, replacing curbs and gutters,
updating streetlights, etc. , coincide with housing
improvement programs.
G. Provide information in the newsletter regarding reverse
mortgages for the senior population (there are two banks
in the metropolitan area that offer reverse mortgages) .
H. Each department, on an annual basis, should identify an
employee to participate in a housing team. The purpose
of the group is to monitor the progress and
implementation of the programs as directed by the City
Council and the HRA. A leader would be appointed by the
group and report to the City Manager on a regular basis.
I. Identify key staff people to act as information sources
for housing issues and social service issues.
J. Develop a marketing program to advertise the availability
of the rehabilitation programs. Incorporate into the HRA
advertising budget for 1993 (note that MHFA does have
pre-prepared brochures on their programs) .
K. Use the Human Resources Commission to study the extent
of social needs in the community and provide
recommendations to target areas for funding with CDBG
programs, non-profit funds, or other services that can
be made available.
L. Continue GIS system coordination with the HTE software
so that housing data and neighborhood information can be
adequately tracked and obtained when needed. Further,
acquisition of the HTE code enforcement software package
should be considered which would computerize the
systematic code enforcement program and would provide
computerization of the rental housing inspection process.
M. Conduct cultural diversity training seminars for not only
City staff but commission and City Council members as
well.
O. Organize a mandatory inspection team of problem
properties including rehabilitation, code enforcement,
building, fire, electrical, and Section 8 inspectors.
P. Adopt an ordinance identifying proper procedures for
mobile home tie-downs, inspection requirements, and
safety requirements.
3-G
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 8
Estimated Costs and Proposed Implementation
We have prepared a matrix showing the costs of the primary programs
and a potential implementation timeframe. Also identified is
whether the cost would be borne by the HRA or by the City.
Summary of Future Issues
Although we have accomplished a significant amount of research to
determine what directions we should head, another set of issues
were determined as a result! To follow is a list of issues which
the City Council and HRA will need to decide in the future as we
begin to implement the recommended programs:
1. Bonds versus Banks
At this point in time, we are finalizing the details of
the FNMA loan option as recommended by Casserly; however,
we will continue to research the availability of bond
funds as a source of financing for programs. If bonds
are pursued, the City would be responsible for
administering the loans (see Question #3 ! ) .
2. Big Brother versus Laissez Faire
The "Big Brother" approach is necessary when doing MHFA
or other federal loan programs. Not only are there a lot
of inspection requirements (at least three) but also the
minimum HUD Housing Quality Codes must be met as well as
other code requirements.
Under the "Laissez Faire" approach, the City has more
leeway because we are using FNMA's money. Do we need to
be as aggressive with the inspections and the eligibility
requirements as other programs are? Secondly, how many
strings do we attach as conditions to the program? If
the program is benefitting the middle income households,
do we still want to pursue enforcement of minimum housing
codes and other issues such as installation of smoke
detectors.
3 . In-House versus Contracting Out (House)
Administration of the single family rehab program will
more than likely need to be done by a consultant like
ACCAP. Further, a likely option for implementing the
rental inspection program may be to contract out to a
private inspection firm (or another community) . Issues
will arise as to where the inspectors are housed, how
long do they work at the "City offices", if at all, how
do they document their work (their system versus our
3-H
Housing Programs Memo
Page 9
computer system) , and how is information coordinated?
4. Condemnation versus Cooperative Acquisitions
How willing is the City Council and HRA to condemn
properties as identified as scattered site targets or
shall we just attempt to obtain cooperative agreements
with land owners?
5. How tough should we be with prosecution?
What is the message that we send to our prosecutors?
Should we tell them to "throw the book at the violators"
or should we tell them to achieve compliance with the
code no matter how long it takes?
6. How much money should we spend for these programs and
where should they come from?
About $1 million is needed for a single family rehab
program for about 100 homes. Is that enough? Should it
be more? Is $200, 000 enough for a scattered site
program? In terms of the rehab program, should we make
money available on a quarterly basis knowing an annual
budget amount, or should the loan program just be made
available in its entirety on a first-come, first-serve
basis?
7. Sources of Funding
What is the best way to use the funding sources available
to us? A recommended standard has been to use other
money first, i.e. , MHFA, CDBG, and HOME programs. What
sources of "our own" money should we use and how much?
Other cities have used an HRA tax levy. Should we do the
same?
HRA Budget Impact
In last month's agenda, we had developed a chart to analyze the
impact of about $500,000 a year. Since then, we have made further
refinements. We will present the revised analysis at the meeting.
Conclusion
No matter what the strategies the City Council and HRA choose to
initiate immediately, it is important to create momentum, energy,
and interest in the housing issue. At the same time, it is
necessary to proceed to the next level of planning and look at the
neighborhoods more closely and determine what makes them vital.
3.1
Housing Programs Memo
Page - 10
It is important to develop a consensus among the neighborhoods as
to future development and housing choices.
We look forward to discussing the future direction of housing
issues at the City Council and HRA's meetings.
BD/ls
M-92-572
•
•
MEMORANDUM
Municipal Center
rl
6431 University Avenue N.E. Office of the City Manager
Fridley, MN 55432 William W. Burns
CIIYOF ' (612) 571-3450
FRIDLEY
TO: File
FROM: William W. Burns, City Manage
DATE: August 19, 1992
SUBJECT: Housing Programs
On Tuesday, August 18, 1992, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Barbara Dacy and I met
with Fay Wegner and Brad Wirt of Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. The
meeting lasted until 4:30.p.m.
Fay.outlined a list of Fannie Mae closing costs, which included:
•
1. An origination fee of 1 to 1.5 percent and title insurance, which is •
based on the size of the loan. If the loan was $100,000, title insurance
would be $450.
2. $50 for assessment and title searches.
3. Hazard insurance for fire and theft when a purchase is involved.
4. Recording fees of $30.
5. Right now, there are no points at 8 1/8 percent.
6. PML insurance would be required if the loan devalue ratio was higher
than 80 percent.
7. Appraisal fees of about $350.
8. Typically, closing costs run about 2 percent of the mortgage.
Fay described the Minneapolis and St. Paul programs. Under the Minneapolis
program, the City of Minneapolis will pay 2 percent on purchase loans and 5
percent on purchase rehab loans or refinancing rehab loans. They will also pay 5
percent on home improvement loans. The amount of the City's participation is
payable at the end of 30 years, when the home is sold, or if the borrower no longer
occupies the house. The term of the loan is 15 years for home improvements, and
15, 20 or 30 years for the other options.
3-M
Housing Programs
August 20, 1992
Page Two
St. Paul underwrites a 7.55 percent interest rate for purchases or purchase rehab
projects, or refinancing rehab projects. The term of the loan is 30 years, and may
range from $20,000 to $180,000. For home improvement projects or second
mortgage projects, the interest rate is 7.75 percent, and the loan runs for 15 years.
The value of the loan may range from $5,000 to $60,000. The interest rate is fixed
for only three years.
We also talked about which program is better. Fay felt that the best program
allowed the banks to stay as close to their normal process as possible. She seemed
to like the Minneapolis program better because of its flexibility. She also pointed
out that the refinancing option is a very attractive option right now because of the
low interest rates on refinancing home mortgages.
If the purchase or rehab loan is sold to Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae requires an
appraisal on the house, and the Fannie Mae appraiser also has to be given a scope
of work description. The appraiser then computes what the "after" appraisal value
of the property is likely to be. When the work is done, the appraiser inspects the
work to make sure that the house is really worth what it is supposed to be. The
appraiser may do interim inspections if interim draws are needed (i.e., for electrical
work). Alternatively, the escrow agent for the bank and Fannie Mae will let the
City do the inspections.
The Minneapolis program works as follows:
1. The borrower applies for the loan with the lender.
2. Once the lender has approved the loan, the lender sends the payment
form to the City of Minneapolis two weeks before the closing on the
property.
3. A copy of the loan application, the property appraisal, and the
mortgage submission voucher (guarantees that the loan is in
accordance with the City's program guidelines) is submitted. A
buyer/seller information sheet is also required (includes information
such as where the borrower lives, where the buyer lived previously,
race, number of children, occupation,and other demographic data).
4. Minneapolis requires that the work be done by an approved list of
licensed and bonded contractors.
3-N
Housing Programs
August 20, 1992
Page Three
5. Minneapolis will send a program inspector out at the time an
application is applied for if the scope of the work warrants it. For
smaller projects, an inspector is not sent. The inspector makes sure
that the loan money is being used to address housing maintenance
code violations.
6. Minneapolis also has rehab inspectors who conduct the inspections on
rehab work.
7. The maximum amount of the loan under the Minneapolis program is
$168,000. The minimum amount is $15,000.
8. Minneapolis is generous in allowing a variety of improvements. They
do allow jacuzzis, but not swimming pools. They allow decks, garages,
attachments, but not sheds.
9. Eligible recipients in Minneapolis include those with household
incomes of $89,000 or less. In addition, the $89,000 may be $750
higher for each adult in the family, and $500.higher for each child: In
the St. Paul program household income can be $96,000.
10. Under Fannie Mae, the loans can apply to duplexes, triplexes or
fourplexes, if one of the units is owner occupied.
11. In Minneapolis, the house may not have a value higher than $168,000;
in St. Paul, $190,000.
12. Minneapolis has a special credit standard that they have negotiated
with the banks and Fannie Mae. Normally, the lending institutions use
a 33/38 credit standard. That is, the PITI can be no higher than 33
percent of the family's gross income, and PITI plus long-term debt may
be no higher than 38 percent of the family's gross income.
Minneapolis raised that to a 36/41 standard.
13. Fay will get me a list of eligible improvements for both programs.
We also discussed advertising. Fay suggested that we use utility bills, local papers,
contractor contacts (including meetings with contractors), and the City newsletter
and videotape to advertise our program.
3-0
Housing Programs
August 20, 1992
Page Four
We also spoke about things that needed to be done. We need a contract with the
banks we are going to use for a loan program. We also need to have a contract
with whoever is servicing the loan (the bank or satellite organization, usually a
mortgage company). We need a housing maintenance code. Fay will get back to
me by Friday with a list of things to do, as well as with information from the
Minneapolis and St. Paul programs.
Finally, I asked Fay to think about what we might do for people who do not qualify
for either the MICA or our loan program. She suggested that we do something
similar to St. Paul's home to ownership program. We should be doing some further
thinking on that topic.
WWB:rsc
cc: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
3-J
13
a)
U 0 0 0 0
SI
Q
CO
v) C)
C)
.y.�y.,4� T
a)/ a �\
Ct O N O O �` p u) 0 0
as 0
< O � 0 cri o O 05 O cj a) 0
= T N O U O O LA 0
C� r N r U a) r 0 LA
(7{} O 4{} E4 .Q C 7R O_
•E Q.
r- 69�
a
4-4
0
0Cd
5 v
a) .
E CV
H C)
.0 C)
ct
En
0 0
O Q 00 0
o CC Li ui
'0 I CV
� zo; CV
t,
O
O
a N
cn cti:s
cn N Q
C c o O F-
•p C p O = N CL
E m = ° ED. E a = E o N v)
+.' t� o a, .N a la poi n.c .0
o c �.CD co Q LL ca r o C
CIaQ ccc _ 0< 2 ccCL z3o.
r CV C7 d' Lt)
Proposed Costs and Implementation of SecondaryStrategies
3-K
p g
Program When
Activities HRA City Implemented
1 . Multiple Absorbed 1993
Family Owner/
Landlord Coalition
2. 'How To' Absorbed 1992
Rehab Book (Grants or donations
from contractors would
be obtained)
3. Neighborhood $30,000 Unknown
Crime Prevention
Specialist
4. Ordinance
Amendments:
Housing
Maintenance $1,000 1993
Senior Issues $1,000 1993
Mobile Homes $500 1993
Abatement Process $1,000 1993
5. Marketing Rehab $5,000 Late 1992
and Other and 1993
Programs
6. HTE Software $20,000
Total $5,000 53,500
SECONDARY STRATEGIES
1 . Multiple Family Owner/Landlord Organization and Pamphlet
2. "How To" Rehabilitation Book
3. Neighborhood Crime Prevention
4. Recreation Programs for "At Risk" Youth
5. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
6. Street Improvements
7. Reverse Mortgages
8. Staff Coordination Team
9. Identify Key Resource Staff
10. Marketing Plan
11. Social Service Needs Study
12. Computer Software
13. Cultural Diversity Training
14. Mandatory Inspection Teams
,o, 4 • ••