PL 08/22/1990 - 30724�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMI3BION MEETING, AIIGIIBT 22,1990
Mw�YNMMMNIrMMIYNIYNMMMMNIrNMM�YMMMMMMNNMNIYIrIrNNMMM��YrNMMMNMNMM1Y1YNMNMMMMMN
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Betzold called the August 22, 1990, Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Paul Dahlberg, Connie Modig
Members Absent: Sue Sherek, Diane Savage
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
William Burns, City Manager
Warren Stock, 289 Liberty Street N.E.
Dale Ekstrum, Northco Corporation
Kristin Larson, Stewart Corporation
See attached list
^ APPROVAL OF AUGUST 8. 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the August
8, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #90-03 BY FRIDLEY
BUSINESS CENTER PARTNERSHIP:
To split Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco Business Park
into the following two parcels.
Parcel 1: Lots 5 ad 6 and the north 87.98 feet of the east
268.02 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, Northco Business
Park, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2: Lot 4, Block 2, Northco Business Park, according
to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County,
Minnesota, except the north 87.98 feet of the east
268.02 feet of said Lot 4.
All generally located east of Northco Drive and south of
73rd Avenue.
r-�
PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 22, 1990 PAGB 2
�"1
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to split an 88
ft. rectangle from the original Lot 4, Block 2, of the Northco
Plat; and, at the same time, transfer a triangular easement to
the parcel to the north, Lots 5 and 6. The purpose of the lot
split is to provide adequate lot area for one of the Fridley
Business Center Partnership's buyers of the property. Included
in the staff report is a site plan for Angeion Corporation, which
has applied for a building permit and wishes to build in
September. By processing and approving the lot split, Angeion
will be able to proceed with construction in September. The plat
application (agenda item #2) will reconfigure the lot line of
the triangular easement area which has too complicated of a legal
description and needs to be replatted.
Ms. McPherson stated entire parcel is located near the
intersection of Northco Drive and what was the old Carter Day
plant. The parcel is currently vacant and is zoned M-2, Heavy
Industrial, as are the parcels adjacent to it.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed lot split does not adversely
impact the existing lots as to minimum lot area or minimum lot
width as outlined in the M-2, Heavy Industrial District, zoning
regulations. The area to be split is rather small compared to
�-,, the overall size of the lots. Staff is recommending the Planning
Commission approve the lot split with three stipulations:
1. The plat, P.S. #90-03, shall be completed by the
petitioner.
2.
3.
Compliance with stipulations of P.5. #90-03.
Park dedication fees shall be paid at time of building
permit issuance.
Mr. Dale Ekstrum, Northco Corporation, stated that when the
property was originally plated, they did not have any potential
tenants or buyers, and basically platted it into smaller lots.
Angeion Corporation, through Stewart Corporation, the developer,
needs Lots 5 and 6 plus 88 feet. It is relatively common today
to do this kind of lot split in a platted business park.
Mr. Kondrick asked what kind of business would be conducted in
this building.
Ms. Kristin Larson, Steward Corporation, stated Angeion
Corporation is a medical manufacturing and research company. At
the beginning, there will be about 75 people on site. With the
t
expansion hat is planned, there would be 98 people on the one
shift. The second shift would have about 25 people. They have
� provided more than the required number of parking spaces for the
-- company now and after the expansion.
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� AIIGIIST 22, 1990 PAGE 3
/'�
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to
City Council approval of L.S. #90-03, by Fridley Business Center
Partnership, to split Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco Business
Park into the following two parcels.
Parcel 1: Lots 5 ad 6 and the north 87.98 feet of the east
268.02 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, Northco Business
Park, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Anoka County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2: Lot 4, Block 2, Northco Business Park, according
to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County,
Minnesota, except the north 87.98 feet of the east
268.02 feet of said Lot 4.
All generally located east of Northco Drive and south of
73rd Avenue, with the following stipulations:
1. The plat, P.S. #90-03, shall be completed by the
petitioner.
2. Compliance with stipulations of P.S. #90-03.
^ 3. Park dedication fees shall be paid at time of
building permit issuance.
�
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P S.
#90-03. BY FRIDLEY BUSINESS CENTER PARTNERSHIP:
To replat Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Northco Business
Park, into two lots, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Northco Business
Park Third Addition, on property generally located east of
Northco Drive and south of 73rd Avenue.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to open the
public hearing.
OPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the plat is to formalize the
previous lot split into correct, simple legal descriptions
instead of a complicated metes and bounds description for that
particular triangular easement discussed with the lot split
request. The plat will create two parcels: Lot 1 and Lot 2 of
the proposed Northco Third Addition. Lot 1 is 4.65 acres and Lot
2 is 6.1 acres. Both lots meet the minimum lot area requirement
and the minimum lot width requirement set forth in the M-2, Heavy
Industrial District regulations.
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 4
�
Ms. McPherson stated environmental considerations suah as tree
preservation and drainage issues were first addressed in the
original plat and those conditions outlined in the original
development agreement will still apply to these new lots.
Ms. McPherson stated cross parking easements were originally
recorded with the original plat for Lots 4 and 5 and the adjacent
Carter Day facility. These cross parking easements will need to
be amended and re-recorded based on the new legal descriptions.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat with two
stipulations:
1. Cross parking easements shall be recorded against Lot
2, Block 1, Northco Third Addition, and the Carter Day
property to the east (Lot 7, Block 2, Northco Business
Park) .
2. A park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot shall be
paid at the time of building permit.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public
�.-, hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL03ED AT 7:50 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to
City Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #90-03, by
Fridley Business Center Partnership, to replat Lots 3, 4, 5, and
6, Block 2, Northco Business Park, into two lots, Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1, Northco Business Park Third Addition, on property
generally located east of Northco Drive and south of 73rd Avenue,
with the following stipulations:
1. Cross parking easements shall be recorded against Lot
2, Block 1, Northco Third Addition, and the Carter Day
property to the east (Lot 7, Block 2, Northco Business
Park) .
2. A park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot shall be
paid at the time of building permit.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLAR�D
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the lot split and preliminary plat will go
to City Council on September 10, 1990.
!'1
�
�"1
n
PLANNING COI�MISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22, 1990 PAG� 5
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
#90-14, BY STOCK ROOFING:
Per Section 205.18.O1.C.(12) of the Fridley City Code to
allow exterior storage of materials and equipment on Lots 10
and 11, Block 7, Onaway, generally located at 7738 Elm
Street N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7s52 P.M.
Ms. Dacy stated the property is located west of and adjacent to
Elm Street and is approximately 14,700 sq. ft. in size. The
property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as is all the property
surrounding it. However, to the north of the parcel is an
existing single family home and to the south of the 16 ft.
platted alley are two other single family homes. The single
family homes are considered nonconforming by ordinance.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit
for outdoor storage. The petitioner is proposing to construct a
3,500 sq. ft. building, part of which will be a garage area for
the petitioner's vehicles. The remaining area will be used as
office area. The petitioner is proposing to have the alley
improved such that access can be made from Elm Street and to
provide access into the proposed building and outdoor storage
area. Three parking spaces are proposed directly in front of the
building. The outdoor storage area is proposed to be contained
by 6 foot tall chain link fence with slats. The fence is
proposed to be located along the property line.
Ms. Dacy stated that on August 7, 1990, the Appeals Commission
consider three variance requests: lot area from 1/2 acre to 1/3
acre, lot width from 150 feet to 104 feet, and building setback
to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. The
Appeals Commission tabled action until after the Planning
Commission action on the outdoor storage issue. One of the
concerns of the Appeals Commission was that one of the reasons
for proposing the building 5 feet from the lot line was that the
long dimension of the building could provide screening of the
outdoor storage area. The Appeals Commission wanted more
information on that issue. The other issue the Appeals
Commission wanted discussed was the relationship of the
industrial properties in this area to the single family homes or
nonconforming properties. Staff has developed more information
on that which she will discuss later in the meeting.
Ms. Dacy stated the proposed business is a roofing business. Mr.
� Stock has indicated that he needs this amount of storage area for
- materials related to the roofing business. This includes the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 6
�
solid asphalt, insulation pallets, equipment such as ladders, and
other materials related to the business.
Ms. Dacy stated that in analyzing the site design of this
particular property because of a lot area that is so small in
relation to what the Code requires, it is difficult to meet all
the required setbacks. The outdoor storage area is large enough
such that if the building was to be reoccupied by a manufacturing
use, the outdoor storage area could be converted into a parking
lot and required parking spaces could be provided on site. The
petitioner is requesting that the outdoor storage area not be
paved but have a gravel/rock surface. Staff surveyed other
special use permits granted in the past, and three properties
have been permitted to not have a paved surface: Central Roofing
Company, Park Construction, and Kohanek located to the west of
this property. There are a large number of oak trees along the
south lot line and the rear of the property that could be
maintained if the outdoor storage area is not paved.�
Ms. Dacy stated the primary issue with the outdoor storage is
that as part of the roofing business, the petitioner has two
asphalt kettles. These kettles are transported to job sites and
heated on site to melt the hard asphalt to liquid asphalt. The
question arises as to how much of a nuisance does the asphalt
^ odors produce when the kettles are returned to the site. The two
asphalt kettles are about 5 feet long and 3 feet wide. The
overall capacity is 175 gallons. The Fire Code prohibits storage
of these kettles in the building. In an attempt to gauge how
much these kettles smell, staff had the petitioner place one
asphalt kettle on the property on Monday afternoon. The kettle
was returned to the rear of the site at approximately 100-150
degrees F. In order to heat the asphalt, it has to reach 450
degrees F. Typically, the asphalt is heated at the job site. It
is her understanding that roofing companies cannot transport
liquid asphalt until it is somewhat hardened in order that the
asphalt liquid will not spill in route.
Ms. Dacy stated three staff inembers walked around the site to
determine if they could smell the odor at the property lines.
Mary Novack, 21 - 77th Avenue, was also at the site. They did
not detect any distinct odor at that particular time, so, based
on that experiment, staff believes two asphalt kettles could be
stored on the property and not cause an adverse impact as long
as:
1. The asphalt is not heated on the site.
2. The kettle is not returned to the site until the
asphalt is below 200 degrees F.
^ 3. The kettles are stored in the farthest corner of the
- site to minimize the view.
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22, 1990 PAGE 7
�
4. The lid be kept on the kettle.
Ms. Dacy stated if there is some type of spillage onto the
ground, as the asphalt cools, it hardens, so there is no threat
to groundwater contamination. She spoke to a representative from
the MPCA who said that asphalt is not found to be carcinogenic,
so it has none of those impacts at all.
Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the proposed access to the
property, the Commission should understand that because this is a
public alley, the petitioner would be required to submit a
petition to the Council to request that the City pave the alley
and assess the cost only to this particular owner. The
petitioner has indicated that the vehicles that would be
accessing the site will back into the property and into the
building so that the materials from the trailers can be unloaded
into the outdoor storage area. Also, that way the trucks can
drive out of the site.
Ms. Dacy stated she would address the nonconforming use issue
which was raised and discussed at the Appeals Commission meeting
on August 7, 1990, regarding what the policies are for the future
for these nonconforming uses. Typically, municipalities use tax
^ increment financing as a typical redevelopment tool. Outside of
that, the only other way that municipalities can acquire property
is through condemnation or eminent domain. For both those
options, the City has to have some type of public purpose. In
the case of tax increment financing, staff has identified four
concerns regarding the use of that tool. Unfortunately, the
state has amended the laws such that they are hampering
municipalities in trying to redevelop properties.
Ms. Dacy stated that creating a tax increment financing
redevelopment district in this area poses the following concerns:
1. One of the major changes in the new state law for
redevelopment tax increment districts includes a reduction
in Local Government Aids (LGA) if a project has not occurred
or increment is being generated within a particular time
period.
2. A typical size industrial parcel that is usable for
industrial development is approximately 3 acres. The amount
of vacant properties total less than one acre in size.
Typically industrial uses are looking for a site that is
least 2-3 acres in size. So the mere size of these
properties poses an issue that the City would have to
address in order to get a developer to look at acquiring
properties, acquire the homes, and propose a project.
�
at
the
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 8
n -
- 3. In doing a brief economic analysis, it appears that because
of the size of the property, they may not be able to
generate enough tax increment to equalize the City's
expenses and putting this into a tax increment district.
`
4. The policy issue the City would have to address is whether
or not the City would be wiling to borrow money from other
districts (which is also under scrutiny by the state) or to
take the loss and acquire the properties.
Ms. Dacy stated that it is her understanding that it is not the
City Council�s policy to condemn single family homes; and, at
this point, that would be an issue the City Council would have to
reconsider if they want to do something in this area. They would
have to make a specific budget allocation to acquire those homes.
Given the recent changes in the state law regarding Local
Government Aids and budget cutbacks the City is dealing with now,
the Council would have to take a serious look at what type of
budget impacts it would mean to acquire some of these properties.
Ms. Dacy stated that as far as staff's preliminary analysis on
nonconforming structures, the structures would remain in this
area as long as they were occupied by the owners or as long as
they were able to be sold as single family properties.
Ms. Dacy stated that based on the odor experiment and staff's
analysis, staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend
approval, subject to ten stipulations:
1. Submission of a landscaping and irrigation plan prior
to issuance of a building permit.
2. The parking area to the west of the proposed building
shall be lined with concrete curb.
3. The outdoor storage area shall be enclosed by a 6 foot
chain link fence with slats. The fence shall also
extend along the south right-of-way line of the alley
providing access to the outdoor storage area. Storage
of materials shall not extend above the height of the
fence.
4. All liquids shall be stored inside the building.
5. Submission of a grading and drainage plan prior to
building permit issuance.
6. Payment of park dedication fees at time of building
permit.
� 7. Approval of variance request, VAR #90-20 and compliance
- with stipulations.
r'1,
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 9
If it is determined that the asphalt kettles will not have
an adverse impact, the following stipulations are also
recommended:
8.
9.
10.
There shall be no heating of the asphalt kettles on the
property or on the adjacent right-of-way.
Temperature of the asphalt kettles must be no higher
than 200 degrees Fahrenheit when they are returned to
the site.
The asphalt kettles shall be parked in the northwest
corner of the site.
The petitioner, Warren Stock, stated his roofing business only
operates during the swnmer months. They are shut down during the
winter. The outside storage would not be used in the winter
time. The trucks and equipment would all be stored inside during
the winter. During the summer, some trucks, equipment
(wheelbarrows, hoists, ladders, carts, etc.), pallets of
shingles, pallets of insulation, solid asphalt, and some lumber
would be stored outside. There would be no storage of chemicals.
Mr. Betzold asked how many vehicles Mr. Stock had and the hours
of operation.
Mr. Stock stated
He stated he has
pick-up trucks.
return at night.
delivery a week.
Mr. Stock stated
close to his home
business. It is
about five years
home.
the business hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
one single axle truck, one dump truck, and five
The trucks leave the site in the morning and
As far as deliveries, there would be about one
the reason he chose this site is because it is
and it is an ideal location for starting a
an affordable property. The proposed office is
into the future. Right now his office is in his
Ms. Modig stated that as far as the odor experiment, she was at
the site at the time of the experiment. Part of the problem with
the experiment was that the street was being sealcoated, so there
was more odor in the street than there was at the site. She
could not detect any strong odor from the kettle until she got
close to the kettle, and she did not think that is going to be a
problem. The lot area is really too small for any kind of
industrial use. Her one concern is the single family homes, even
though they are nonconforming.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that Mr. Stock has indicated that two kettles
� is adequate for his business. How much would his business have
- to grow before he would have to add a third kettle or more?
PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING. AIIGIIBT 22, 1990 PAGE 10
�
Mr. Stock stated there are different types of roofing.
Residential roofing is about 50a of his business and will
continue to be 50%. The other 40o is commercial. Most of their
commercial business has gone to single ply systems which do not
require asphalt. Basically the kettles are used for the other
10% which still believes in the four ply roof. But, percentage-
wise, it is not a business they solicit. That part of the
business is very small, and he did not foresee any need for more
kettles.
Mr. Betzold asked about future expansion.
Mr. Stock stated there is room for expansion. There are
nonconforming homes that might be acquired for possible future
expansion. If not, a 3,500 sq. ft. building with overhead doors
would have a lot of uses for other contractors or trades in the
business.
Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, stated it was at his
urging that the Mayor, City Manager, and Community Development
Director looked into the possibility of acquiring the single
family homes to make one parcel. He thought it would be a plus
for the City and the area to do something right and have one
^ parcel instead of several small parcels. He wanted to thank the
staff for their efforts and for acting so promptly.
Mr. Harris stated he has tried to put together a project for the
four properties. With the four parcels, he is guessing they
could get a 10,000-11,000 sq. ft. building doing a zero lot line
on the north boundary line. At the present taxing rate of around
$1.10-1.15, it seemed this would generate about $11,500 a year.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is estimating between $150,000-200,000 to
acquire the four parcels, demolition, and relocation costs.
Mr. Harris stated they were looking at just the four lots, not
the houses across the alley. The houses across the alley could
conceivably be put together in another parcel.
Ms. Dacy stated the bottom line is really a policy issue for the
HRA and Council. If there is a differential in the amount of
increment that is generated and the amount of original HRA
investment to clear the site, it will be up to the HRA and
Council to decide whether or not they will accept a differential.
Up to this point, it has been the City's policy that the
increment that is generated must be used in a"pay-as-you-go"
approach.
Mr. Harris stated he thought the City has to narrow its scope.
^ Perhaps staff could re-examine the acquiring costs of just the
- four lots. It is his thinking that instead of two small
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 11
buildings, it makes sense from a platting perspective and for the
benefit of this area to have the four lots done as one parcel.
Mr. Francis Anderson, 7748 Elm street N.E., stated he lives
directly to the north of this property. He has lived here for 45
years, and he is opposed to the special use permit for outside
storage and the variances as requested by Mr. Stock.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to accept into the
record Petition No. 14-1990, a petition in opposition to the
variance request by Warren Stock.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY.
�r. Betzold stated this petition would be submitted to the
Appeals Commission.
Mr. John Krall, 19 - 77th Avenue N.E., stated that once Mr. Stock
gets his permit for outside storage, what is going to stop him
from doing whatever he wants? He stated he is opposed to the
variance request and generally opposed to the whole proposal. It
is unreasonable to put this business on such a small area. It
would be better to combine the parcels into one.
Mr. Carl Peterson, Tru Machine, 7791 Elm Street N.E., stated his
business is odor control and he felt the study done by staff was
not sufficient to determine a potential odor problem. He stated
his company has looked at asphalt plants which are different than
asphalt roofing, but the potential odor problem is still there.
On a particular day when the climatological conditions are right,
there might be an odor; and he does not want any odor across the
street.
Ms. Dacy stated it is staff's understanding that the kettle would
leave the site cold, that the kettle cannot be heated up on the
site. When the kettle is returned, it should return at no hotter
than 100-150 degrees F. That is a stipulation the petitioner
must adhere to if the Planning Commission and City Council
approves the special use permit with the recommended
stipulations.
Mr. Peterson stated another concern is what happens when Mr.
Stock sells to a bigger company. He stated there is a dumpster
on Elm Street that shouldn't be there. If the City cannot
enforce something like a dumpster, how are they going to enforce
this special use permit?
Ms. Dacy stated that as
instituted a Systematic
� will address these kinds
- into several districts,
far as the dumpster, the City recently
Code Enforcement Program which they hope
of things. The City has been divided
and staff will be policing the City on a
PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 12
�
- lot by lot basis. Regarding the enforcement of the special use
permit conditions, staff reviews special use permits on an annual
basis for compliance. An option the Planning Commission has is
to place another stipulation on the special use permit that
limits the special use permit to Stock Roofing only. Any future
business would have to go through the special use permit process
again. Another option is to request that the special use permit
be reviewed semi-annually or annually to make sure things are
being done properly. Also, adjacent property owners can call the
City when they see a violation of the special use permit.
n
n
Mr. Krall stated he would be concerned about the spillage of hot
asphalt on the property as outlined by staff in the staff report.
And what is to stop Mr. Stock from heating the kettle at the
site?
Mr. Dahlberg stated that at 150-200 degrees F.,
that there would be little likelihood that there
or liquid asphalt at the site at any point.
Mr. Stock stated that is correct.
it would appear
would be molten
Ms. Lois Anderson, 7748 Elm Street N.E., asked how Mr. Stock is
going to get all his equipment on such a small lot without
infringing on the single family homes.
Mr. Stock stated it is a good sized lot at 14,000 sq. ft. He did
not see any problem in storing his equipment on the site.
Ms. Anderson stated only three parking spaces are designated on
the site. With 5 employees plus himself, where are those
vehicles going to park?
Mr. Stock stated that his employees will park in the rear. The
only reason would come to the site would be to pick up a truck.
Most employees drive directly to the work site. There will never
be any overnight parking. The trucks will be parked inside at
night. He did not foresee any parking problem.
Mr. Stock stated he could understand the neighbors' concerns. He
would have concerns also if someone wanted to put a business in
his residential neighborhood. However, the property is zoned M-
2, Heavy Industrial, and he would like to use the property for
that purpose.
Mr. Stock stated that regarding the concern about the kettles,
the kettles will only be used about six days during the summer.
He has only used one kettle four days this entire roofing season.
He would be happy to show his job sheets to confirm this.
Ms. Mary Novack, 21 - 77th Avenue N.E., stated she was at the
site when the odor experiment was conducted. She could not give
�
�
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 13
it a true evaluation, because the street had just been sealcoated
and there were diesel trucks in the area.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he is familiar with Mr. Stock's business. He
agreed with Mr. Stock that the amount of roofing that is done
these days with tar or pitch and gravel type of construction is
very small as compared to other types of roofing technologies
that are used. He believed Mr. Stock when he says he will not
expand that part of his business even if his business triples
because so few roofs today are built in that fashion. It is
probably accurate that the kettles would be not be used more than
4-6 days out of an entire roofing season.
Mr. James Rhode, Rhode Lock & Glass, 39 - 77th Avenue N.E.,
stated they own a small business on the west side of 7738 Elm
Street. He had a lot of the same concerns as those expressed by
the homeowners. Ae was not as concerned about the kettles. He
stated they had looked at expanding and going through the same
process as Mr. Stock, but they decided it was not worth the time
to go through the process. His concern would be that if this
roofing business doesn't turn out, and they decide to make one
big building, then they still have the same problem with 77th
Avenue. They have an unvacated alley behind them which is used
for parking and access. He stated if a special use permit and
variances are granted to Mr. Stock, then the City would have to
do the same for his business.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOBED AT 9¢15 P.M.
Mr. Saba stated that, as suggested by staff, the City has ways to
limit and address some of the concerns expressed, even if they
recommend approval. He wouldn't recommend approval without
putting all these stipulations on the special use permit. One of
the major concerns is the size of the property; and if the
variances are approved, it would be extremely difficult to claim
any kind of hardship to expand the property. If the Commission
does recommend approval, he would recommend they review the
special use permit annually and that the special use permit be
for Stock Roofing only.
Mr. Saba stated he understands the concerns regarding the odor,
but he did not think there would be much more of an odor than
that of sealcoating a driveway.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed. He understood the roofing
business, and the asphalt is a very small part of his business.
� The use of hot asphalt is too expensive and too time-consuming,
- and the future is other roofing techniques. He agreed that to
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIdIIST 22, 1990 PAGE 14
�
- protect the City, the neighbors, and the petitioner, that the
special use permit be for this business only and that it be
reviewed annually.
Ms. Modig stated due to the fact that the kettles are only going
to be used a limited amount of time during the roofing season,
and that there is literally no activity during the winter, she
would be in favor of recommending approval of the special use
permit, with a review in one year. She stated that sometimes the
City has to do things to encourage small businesses.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he also concurred. The Planning Commission
is not addressing the issue of variances and other issues related
are yet to be resolved by the Appeals Commission. If Mr. Stock
can build on the site and conform to the setbacks, he can do that
without going through the process for variances. So the request
is basically for a use that is allowed within the M-2 zoning and
a use that inherently needs or requires some type of outdoor
storage. If the storage area is handled correctly and it
provides the appropriate screening to the adjacent properties,
and since the odor may potentially be apparent only a few
occasions during a given year, he did not see that the roofing
company is not appropriate within this zoning and on this piece
of property in particular. He would be in favor of recommending
^ approval.
Mr. Betzold stated that when they are looking at particular
requests such as special use permit requests, the City has to
come up with good reasons why it would not be allowed. He has
not heard anything at this meeting that would tell him that Mr.
Stock should not be allowed to operate this type of business on
this property. His concern about the odor was satisfied when he
was told that the kettle would only be used a few days out of the
year.
Mr. Betzold stated what is troubling him is the Commission's role
when they have to take long term views of these kinds of things.
They are recommending approval for a business to go on a little
lot here without regard to what has happened in the surrounding
area. Is this really how they foresee the long term development
of this area? The City recognizes the houses in this area are
nonconforming and will come down some day, but they also
recognize that it is not the City�s policy right now to do
anything about it. They recognize that some of the tools they
have through tax increment financing have been taken away, so he
did not see any initiative starting to show it is economically
feasible to develop this area.
Mr. Betzold stated he wanted to recommend approval of the special
use permit. At the same time, he wanted to recommend to the
� Appeals Commission that they deny the variances so something can
- be done with this corner.
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIBT 22. 1990 PAGE 15
�
Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like the petitioner to consider not
asking for some variances, particularly the setback variance.
Earlier staff explained that the vehicles would back off the
street onto the site, and he did not think that should be
allowed.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to
City Council approval of SP #90-14 by Stock Roofing, per Section
205.18.O1.C.(12) of the Fridley City Code to allow exterior
storage of materials and equipment on Lots 10 and 11, Block 7,
Onaway, generally located at 7738 Elm Street N.E., with the
following stipulations:
1. Submission of a landscaping and irrigation plan prior
to issuance of a building permit.
2. The parking area to the west of the proposed building
shall be lined with concrete curb.
3. The outdoor storage area shall be enclosed by a 6 foot
chain link fence with slats. The fence shall also
extend along the south right-of-way line of the alley
providing access to the outdoor storage area. Storage
^ of materials shall not extend above the height of the
fence.
4. All liquids shall be stored inside the building.
5. Submission of a grading and drainage plan prior to
building permit issuance.
6. Payment of park dedication fees at time of building
permit.
7. Approval of variance request, VAR #90-20 and compliance
with stipulations.
8. There shall be no heating of the asphalt kettles on the
property or on the adjacent right-of-way.
9. Temperature of the asphalt kettles must be no higher
than 200 degrees Fahrenheit when they are returned to
the site.
10. The asphalt kettles shall be parked in the northwest
corner of the site.
11. The special use permit be for Stock Roofing only.
^ 12. The special use permit be reviewed in one year.
PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 22. 1990 PAGE 16
�^1
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. Dacy stated the Appeals Commission will have a public hearing
on the variances on September 11 or 25. The property owners will
be renotified of that meeting.
Mr. Betzold stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation
for approval of the special use permit should in no way affect
the Appeals Commission's recommendation regarding the variances.
He hoped the Appeals Commission could make their recommendation
independent of the Planning Commission's action.
4. RECEIVE AUGUST 7 1990, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the
August 7, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the
^ meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the motion carried and the August 22, 1990, Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Res ectfully s itted,
L n Saba
Recording Secretary
�'1
i"�
�
�
8 I a N- IN B H$ E T
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING,__ ,�iQ �'j �� ( � C%�
�