PL 11/02/1994 - 6943�
��
�
PLAi1NINa COl�[I88I0�T IL�BTING
RSDNEBDAY, NOVSi[BBIt 2, 19 9 4
7:30 P.lt.
PUBLIC COPY
�
e�
�
City of Fridley
A G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1994 7:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Fridiey Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E.
CALL TO ORDER•
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING CONIlKISSION MINUTES: October 19, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REOUEST, ZOA #94-05.
BY BRUCE MOSEMAN OF SUPREME TOOL INC.:
To rezone from C-2, General Business to M-1, Light Industrial, to
allow construction of a manufacturing facility on Lot 3, Block 1,
A& R Second Addition. This property is generally located north
of 7597 Highway #65.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REOUEST, ZOA #94-04,
BY DAVE MCINTYRE OF CERES ENVIRONMENTAL: .
To rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial to M-3, Outdoor Intensive,
Heavy Industrial, to corporate offices and outdoor storage of
materials and equipment as a principal use Lots 1& 2, Block 3,
Great Northern Industrial Center East. This property is
generally located East of 5101 Industrial Boulevard, North of
F'MC, and adjacent to the Burlington Northern mainline. �
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER
25, 1994
OTHER BUSINESS•
ADJOURNMENT
L a
,�
CITY OF FRIDLIyY
PLANNING CO1rIIKI68ION MEETIN(�, OCTOBER 19 � 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the October 19, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Dave Newman, Diane Savage, Dean Saba,
Brad Sielaff
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Mearlin Nordstrom, 501 Rice Creek Boulevard
Bob Gilstad, 930 Hacl�ann Avenue N.E.
David Stewart, 1005 Fifth Street,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Marlene Knight, 503 Rice Creek Terrace N.E.
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 5. 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by.Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the
October 5, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTL� ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DLCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT L.S. #94-06. BY DAVID STEWART:
To split Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter Addition, City of Fridley,
Anoka County, Minnesota, into two parts:
Parcel A: the south 35 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter
� Addition; and
Parcel B: that part of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter Addition,
lying north of the north 35 feet of said Lot 2,
This property is generally located at 5720 Polk Street.
Mr. Hickok stated the first three items are related. The lot
split involves the property at 5720 Polk Street N.E. which is
owned by the City. The City purchased the property as part of
the Polk Street improvement which required additional right-of-
way to be acquired. In 1992, a house was on the site. Because
the additional right-of-way took enough of the site, the City
purchased the entire site and demolished the house.
�"�
Mr. Hickok stated the lot split involves the southern 35 feet
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOBBR 19� 1994 PAGE 2 �,
�
across the entire southern edge of the property as it abuts the
Moore Lake Apartment property to the south. Mr. Stewart, the
petitioner, is one of the owners of the Moore Lake Apartment
complex, and this lot split is being proposed to add to the
current parking for that site. Originally, there were 70 parking
stalls planned with the apartments. At the time the buildings
were constructed, 64 parking spaces were requ.ired. With time and
two income households using two cars per family, it would
increase the demand and number of spaces required. Our current
standards would require 109 spaces for a complex of this size.
With the complex pre-dating this requirement, it leaves cars
parked on Lynde Drive. The petitioner has discussed this problem
with staff and the City Council. The City Council asked staff to
look at this and evaluate some alternatives.
Mr. Hickok stated staff and the petitioner have discussed
alternatives. Originally it was felt there may be an opportunity
to purchase not only a portion of the City property but also
property to the west owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gilstad and that owned
by Pure Oil Company. At that time, neither the Gilstads nor Pure
Oil Company were willing to sell property; therefore, this
parking lot expansion would accomplish some of what the complex
qwners are after and would certainly help the parking along Lynde
Drive. The construction of this parking area would allow 15 �
spaces on the property. As 15 spaces are created, some other
spaces will be replaced. The net gain is approximately 8 parking
spaces.
Mr. Hickok stated the lot split leaves a portion of the groperty
to the north to be retained by the City which�would accommodate a
single family dwelling. The minimwn lot size in this R-1
district is 9,000 square feet. With the potential sale of 5,705
square feet, there remains a lot that exceeds the minimum
standard for both width and depth.
Mr.•Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the lot split with
the following stipulations:
1. The 35' x 140' parcel adjacent to the Moore Lake Apartment
complex shall be utilized for the parking expansion
indicated on the site plan and shall be landscaped/screened
according to Section 205.07.01.C.(7).
2. The new 35'x 140' parcel shall be consolidated with the
Moore Lake Apartment site as one tax parcel.
3. Special Use Permit, SP #94-16, and Variance request, VAR
#94-26, shall be approved.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
letter of October 17, 1994, from Councilmember Billings regarding
''-�
�,
PLANNINQ COMMI88ION MEBTING OCTOBBR 19. 1994 PAGE 3
the property at 5720 Polk Street.
IIPON A VOICl: VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPFR80N NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRILD IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Newman stated Councilmember Billinqs states in his letter
that, first, selling or leasing the entire parcel would be a
major fix of the parking problem; second, splitting the property
creates a need for additional variances; and third, the reason
for the adjacent zoning change to R-1 would eliminate the
possibility of Union 76 building a combination fast-food/gas
station.
Mr. Hickok stated, in response to the first comment, the proposal
is to split off the southern 35 feet. In previous City
discussions including City Councilmembers, the interest was in
retaining as much of that property as possible while still
allowing some relief, if possible, to the apartments to the
south. It was felt that in the early discussions, for the
residents on Polk Street, this would be an appropriate solution.
After purchasing the property and demolishing the original house,
the potential of construction of a new house with some relief for
the apartments would be there. If the Commission prefers, staff
could do an analysis on what the gain would be in using the
entire site. The circulation would need to be laid out, and
staff would need to see how many spaces could be available on the
site. Staff's understanding of tlieir.direction was that the
southern 35 feet would be most appropriate.
Mr. Hickok stated, in response to the second comment regarding
the need for additional variances, the Appeals Commission
reviewed this item at their meeting of October 11, 1994, and the
Appeals Commission recommended the variances. One variance
reduced the setback from the west lot line of this 35 foot strip
from 10 feet to 0 feet.
Mr. Newman stated this is a side yard setback and to eliminate
that setback could eliminate one parking space.
Mr. Hickok stated this was correct.
Mr. Hickok stated a variance reduced the setback from 10 feet to
5 feet along the northern portion of the parking area to allow
standard depth parking stalls of 20 feet and allow enough room
for the required screening fence and landscaping.
Mr. Newman asked why they reduced the setback to 5 feet rather
than taking another 5 feet from the lot so no variance would be
necessary.
Mr. Hickok stated in doing this the remaining property would be
�r
PLANNIN(3 COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOBER 19. 1994 PA(�E 4
less than the minimum standard. Leaving a standard lot was
important. The City could have set firm with a 75 foot lot and
given them 2 additional feet. They did not do this so 5 feet was
requested.
Mr. Hickok stated, along Polk Street and in order to allow for
another parking stall, a variance was requested to reduce the
setback from 35 feet to 20 feet. In order to accomplish that,
staff has made a recommendation to landscape along the street
side of the project in order to s�ften the impact of that parking
staff.
Mr. Newman asked if there was a need for more parking than what
is provided in this lot split.
Mr. Hickok stated, according to the code, a modern day complex of
this size would require 109 spaces. If you were to determine the
needs based on the demand in that area, one would look at the
cars parked along Lynde Drive. According to windshield surveys
and reports from the complex, about 15 cars are parked on the
street on any given day. With the creation of 15 stalls, it is
getting at the problem but not solving the problem.
Mr. Newman asked if taking all of the property on Polk Street and
turning it into a parking would be too much. ��
Mr. Hickok stated it was possible. Staff can do an analysis to
see how many stalls they could get and what the circulation would
be.
Mr. Hickok stated Councilmember Billings refers to the rezoning
to R-1 which would require a future buffer zone. In the C-1 and
commercial districts in general it states that "permitted
buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces,
driveways, central services, walks, planting spaces, shall not be
clo�er to the boundary line of any adjacent residential district
than 30 feet to allow for plantings, buffers, and screening." In
the comments regarding rezoning, there is concern about the 30
foot buffer. If Union 76 wishes to do certain things, they would
have that issue to deal with on a rezoning to a residential site
to the east. '
Mr. Newman asked what the current setback is.
Mr. Hickok stated, because.the property behind them is
commercial, the commercial property could have a 0 lot line if
the other property was involved. There is more flexibility if
the property remains commercial. That certainly is an issue the
Councilmember is pointing to in the letter.
Mr. Saba asked if the City has tried to sell the property at 5720
,�,
�
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOB$R 19. 1994 PAGE 5
Polk Street before.
Mr. Hickok stated no. He believed this to be the first
discussion.
Mr. Newman asked, with the lot split, will the remaining parcel
to the north meet the minimum requirements for a residential lot.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. The lot would actual exceed the minimum
requirements.
Mr. Newman asked, with the dimensions, can someone build a single
family home without a variance.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. This is a nicely situated site with some
mature vegetation.
Ms. Savage stated there is a very large tree on the site. Is
that on the portion being considered to be sold?
Ms. McPherson stated the tree is on the remnant piece that the
City would retain.
Mr. Sielaff asked the current zoning on the lot and if the lot
would need to be rezoned.
Mr. Hickok stated the lot is currently zoned R-1. That is the
reason for the special use permit which would allow for parking.
on an R-1 property. �
Mre Saba asked if the landscape plan is approved by the City.
Ms. McPherson stated yes. The landscape plan was developed by
staff. The petitioner has seen the landscape plan which is part
of the variance approval as a stipulation.
Mr. Saba asked if there was a date set for completion of the
landscaping.
Ms. McPherson stated she did not believe a date was set for
completion of the landscaping. The stipulation could be amended
to indicate a date.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the apartment owners were willing to pay for
the entire lot. Does this have anything to do with whether they
are willing to do so?
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is present. This has not been
discussed.
Mr. Stewart, a managing partner of the Moore Lake Apartments,
�
,�
,-"'�,
PLANNINa COI�IIBBION MEBTINQ OCTOB$R 19. 1994• � PAaE 7
Mr. Saba stated he would like to see more parking if possible,
but he did not want the entire lot used for parking for the same
reasons as stated. He would be in favor of approval.
Mr. Sielaff stated he agreed for the reason stated.
Mr. Newman stated, as far as the variances go, one variance is to
keep the remaining lot residential. He does want to get into the
realm of the Appeals Commission, but it seems the City
Councilmember raised issues we should address. As far as the lot
split, it makes sense.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve Lot
Split, L.S. #94-06, by David Stewart, to split Lot 3, Block 2,
Sexter Addition, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, into
two parts:
Parcel A: the south.35 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter
Addition; and
Parcel B: that part of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter Addition,
lying north of the north 35 feet of said Lot 2,
This property is generallp located at 5720 Polk Street, with the
following stipulations:
1. The 35' x 140' parcel adjacent to the Moore Lake Apartment
complex shall be utilized for the parking expansion
indicated on the site plan and shall be landscaped/screened
according to Section 205.07.O1.C.(7).
2. The new 35'x 140' parcel shall be consolidated with the
Moore Lake Apartment site as one tax parcel.
3. Special Use Permit, SP �94-16, and Variance request, VAR
• #94-26, shall be approved.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWM�iN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINAIJIMOIISLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP
#94-16, BY DAVID STEWART:
Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(7) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow automobile parking for adjacent uses, on the south 35
feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Sexter Addition, generally located
at 5720 Polk Street N.E.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive.the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMIBBION ME$TINa OCTOB$R 19. 1994 PAGE 8
�
IIPON A VOICE VOT$� ALL VOTING �YE� CHAIRPERSON N$WMAN DBCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND TH� PQBLIC H�ARING OPSrT AT 8:04 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the special use request is to allow parking on
land that is a different classification. In this case, the
zoning is R-1, Single Family. The Special Use Permit would put
stipulations on that piece of property to assure that screening
and other impact elements would be considered as part of the
approval.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the Special Use
Permit with the following stipulations:
1. Variance request, VAR #94-26, and Lot Split request, L.S.
#94-06, shall be approved.
2. A new six foot screening fence shall be constructed on the
northern edge of the easement across the Gilstad property. "
3. The petitioner shall install landscaping along the street as
indicated on the plan developed by staff including the
following elements:
A. 2 - Nanking Cherry
B. 6 - Maney Juniper
C. 8 - Isanti Dogwood
D. 14 - "Miss" Rim Lilac
E. Weed Barrier
F. 3-inch rock mulch
G. Vinyl edging
4. The parking lot perimeter, except for the area next to the
retaining wall, shall be lined with six-inch concrete
curbing in accordance with Fridley Engineering Department
specifications.
5. The petitioner shall install a six-foot high board on board
screening fence constructed of treated wood parallel to and
two feet from the north property line. The fence height
shall be reduced to four feet at a point 35 feet from the
Polk Street lot line. Engleman ivy shall be planted two
feet on center on the north side of the fence.
Commission members had no questions of staff.
Mr. Stewart had no additional comments.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public
hearing.
�
�
;�
�
,�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa OCTOB$R 19. 1994 PAa$ 9
IIPON A VOICL VOTL� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DBCLARED
T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINt� CLOSED AT 8:07 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve Special
Use Permit, SP #94-16, by David Stewart, to allow automobile
parking for adjacent uses, on the south 35 feet of Lot 3, Block
2, Sexter Addition, generally located at 5720 Polk Street N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Variance request, VAR #94-26, and Lot Split request, L.S.
#94-06, shall be approved.
A new six foot screening fence shall be constructed on the
northern edge of the easement across the Gilstad property.
The petitioner shall install landscaping along the street as
indicated on the plan developed by staff including the
following elements:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
2 - Nanking Cherry
6 - Maney Juniper
8 - Isanti Dogwood
14 - "Miss" Kim Lilac
Weed Barrier
3-inch rock mulch
Vinyl edging
The landscaping is to be completed with one year after
completion of the parking lot.
The parking lot perimeter, except for the area next to the
retaining wall, shall be lined with six-inch concrete
curbing in accordance with Fridley Engineering Department
specifications. .
5. • The petitioner shall install a six-foot high board on board
screening fence constructed of treated wood parallel to and
two feet from the north property line. The fence height
shall be reduced to four feet at a point 35 feet from the
Polk Street lot line. Engleman ivy shall be planted two
feet on center on the north side of the fence.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING A7[E, CHAIRPLRSON NEWMAN DECLAR�D
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATIOld OF A REZONING REQUEST. ZOA
�94-03, BY DAVID STEWART:
To rezone from C-1, Local Business, to R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, to allow parking and dumpster placement on the
easterly 120 feet except the northerly 135 feet of that part
of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision #25, which is described as
PLANNINa CO1�+iI88ION MEETINa OCTOBER 19. 1994 PAGE 10
follows to wit: beginning at a point on the north line of
said Auditor's Subdivision distant 221.7 feet east of the
northwest corner thereof which point is also on the
centerline of Central Avenue, then east on said north line a
distance of 270.8 feet, then south a distance of 308.2 feet
to a point on a line parallel with and 160 feet north of the
most southerly line of said Lot 1 which point is 437.44 feet
distant east from the centerline of Central Avenue, then
west along a line parallel �ith and 160 feet north of the
most southerly line of said Lot l, 437.44 feet to the
centerline of Central Avenue, then northeasterly along said
centerline to the point of beginning and except the north 30
feet thereof said 120 feet to be measured along the north
line of said Lot l. This property is generally located west
of 5720 Polk Street and north of Moore Lake Apartments.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON N�WMAN DBCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:09 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Stewart is the petitioner and Mr.
Gilstad is the property owner. The subject parcel is located
between 5720 Polk Street and vacant property owned by Pure Oil
Company, north of the apartment complex, and to the rear of Mr.
Gilstad's dwelling located at 930 HaclQnann Avenue N.E. The
request is to rezone the subject parcel from C-1, Local Business,
to R-1, Single Family Dwelling. While the petitioner has been
the same in all three requests, this request is not directly
related to the other requests being processed by the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated the rezoning request is a result of
negotiations between the petitioner and the owner to obtain
snow storage easement along the north property line between�
subject parcel and the apartments to allow snow storage for
apartment complex.
a
the
the
Ms. McPherson stated, when considering a rezoning request, staff
evaluates three criteria:
• District compatibility with adjacent uses and zoning.
• District intent.
• Whether or not the parcel meets the district requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated, in this particular area, the adjacent
zoning includes R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to the north and
east of the subject parcel; C-1, Local Business, to the west; and
R-3, General Multiple Family, to the south. There are single
�
, �
�''1
!'1
� PLANNINa CO1�II86ION ME$TINa OCTOBER 19. 1994 PA�B 11
family dwellings to the north and east, an apartment complex to
the south, and a convenience/gas station use to the northwest of
this area. Rezoning the subject parcel would be compatible with
adjacent uses and zoning. Use of the property in its current
zoning would be limited due to the shape and location of the
property. The property is also land locked. Any development
which would occur on this property would need to occur in
combination with either property to the north or the property to
the west to provide street access. Due to the current zoning
configuration, the C-1 district ends at somewhat of an awkward
location. By moving the zoning district line, it makes more
sense. '
Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of the district requirements, the
subject parcel is currently vacant and measured 120' x 170' with
an area of approximately 20,400 square feet. The property is
land locked and does not have street access. This property
should be combined with the owner's property to the north.
Currently, there is a low spot in the southern portion of the
parcel that receives stormwater run off from adjacent properties
in the area. With the exception of the lack of access, the
property does meet the minimum requirements of the R-1, Single
Family Dwelling, district.
^ Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of district intent, typically when
the City reviews rezoning requests, staff is looking at a
specific site plan or a specific use. At this time, the
petitioner and the owner are not interested in developing the
property. In the future, any development plans for this parcel
would be subject to the R-1, Single Family District, regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request as
it meets the criteria; subject to the owner combining the parcel
with the parcel to the north as one parcel of record.
Mr.-Newman asked if the parcel directly to the north has a
structure located on the property.
Ms. McPherson stated yes.
Mr. Newman stated, since the subject parcel is land locked, it
would be hard to use it in combination with the parcel to the
north.
Ms. McPherson agreed.
Mr. Ne�,iman asked if this was necessary to accomplish snow
storage.
�`'�, Ms. McPherson stated it was not a requ,irement of the City;
however, it was the agreement between the petitioner and the
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOB$R 19 1994 PAGE 12 ,�
owner of the property.
Mr. Stewart stated the reason for the request is an agreement
with he and Mr. Gilstad. Mr. Stewart wanted to be able to move
the fence off the property line. Currently, they cannot push
snow in that direction. Mr. Gilstad has agreed to grant an
easement to the partnership to allow us to build a fence across
his property line, which will enable them to move the car bumpers
to the property line to the edge of the asphalt and not hit the
fence. They talked about putting the fence back 15 feet which
would be adequate and will make the accessibi�lity of traffic
better. For that reason, he agreed to petition for rezoning as a
means of allowing the partnership to have better access and a
better ability to remove snow.
Mr. Newman stated, from a design standpoint, what you are trying
to achieve is admirable. If it is rezoned from a planning
standpoint, it is difficult to rezone for single family uses. He
thought they could utilize by moving the current structure. The
difficult planning issue is that the property is land locked. It
makes it difficult to rezone until he knows how it will be used.
Mr. Gilstad stated he has been talking to staff in the last 10
years and they were already sayinq then they would like to see ,�
the property residential. The property is land locked. An
easement was given to the property owned by Pure Oil and given to
them. It is his intention for the property is to clean it up and
join it with his backyard.
Mr. Newman stated he could do that as the property is currently
zoned.
Mr. Gilstad agreed. Staff said they wanted the property zoned R-
l. The commercial zoning has no benefit to him. He cannot sell
the property because it is land locked. If joined to the
property, he still owns it either way.
Mr. Newman stated that, essentially, the request is being made in
an effort to accommodate coneerns raised by staff and the City
Council in the past.
Mr. Gilstad stated yes.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the
public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, pOTING AYE, CHAIRPTsRSON NEWMAN DTsCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND TgE pIIBI,IC gEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M.
Mr. Sielaff stated it is an unusual request but he sees no reason
not to approve it.
,,—� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOBER 19. 1994 PAQE__13
Mr. Saba stated he has concerns about a land locked property in
that it creates problems in the future. He did not know that the
request would solve that. They may need to change the code to
make it accessible. This may be the best use. It does solve two
problems. At some point in time, they may have to go back and do
something about it. Anytime there is a land locked property,
there is a problem in the future. In light of that, he would be
will to go along but he has reservations.
Ms. Savage stated she would support approval.
Mr. Newman stated he was opposed. On a land locked piece of
property with no specific plan, he sees no reason to rezone. The
property to the west is commercial. The property to the south is
multi-family and one could say it might be part of the multi-
family. It makes sense to him to keep it as it is. Without a
plan, it makes no sense to rezone.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend
approval of Rezoning Request, ZOA #94-03, by David Stewart, to
from C-1, Local Business, to R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to
allo� parking and dumpster placement on the easterly 120 feet
except the northerly 135 feet of that part of Lot 1, Auditor's
� Subdivision #25, which is described as follows to wit: beginning
at a point on the north line of said Auditor's Subdivision
distant 221.7 feet east of the northwest corner thereof which
point is also on the centerline of Central Avenue, then east on
said north line a distance of 270.8 feet, then south a distance
of 308.2 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 160 feet
north of the most southerly line of said Lot 1 which point is
437.44 feet distant east from the centerline of Central Avenue,
then west along a line parallel with and 160 feet north of the
most southerly line of said Lot 1, 437.44 feet to the centerline
of Central Avenue, then northeasterly along said centerline to
the point of beginning and except the north 30 feet thereof said
120'feet to be measured along the north line of said Lot 1. This
property is generally located West of 5720 Polk Street and north
of Moore Lake Apartments; with the following stipulations:
1. This shall be subject to the owner combining the parcel with
the parcel to the north as one parcel of record.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the easement needed to be addressed.
Mr. Hickok stated the easement is an issue between the property
owners. Staff recommendation for the fence on the back of that
easement was to allow for snow storage which is part of the
parking issue. According to code, the fence would need to be
• nearly on the property line. This is saying is that it would be
� back beyond their private agreement so that he could do the snow
storage. Easement language was tied directly into because staff
PLANNINa CO1�IIiI88ION MEETINa .00TOB$R 19. 1994 PAGE 14 ,�.�
sees this as an issue they are dealing with. There is a fence
that encloses a screening area on the property. If the parking
area is backed up to residential, it requires"a fence. He
thought a portion of that is screened by the dumpster enclosure
but the code requirement would be that the privacy fence be
completed along the back lot line.
Mr. Newman stated he understands the easement is a contractual
agreement between the petitioner and owner. The Commission's
basis for rezoning is good planning. If the easement is not
granted, the fence needs to be on the property line. If the
easement is granted, the fence is to be placed on the easement.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MB. SAVAGE, MR. SABA AND MR. SIELAFF
VOTING AYE AND MR. NEWMAN pOTING NAY� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED BY A MAJORITY VOTE.
Ms. McPherson stated the Special Use Permit, Variance, and Lot
Split would be considered by the November 7, A public hearing
will be established for the rezoning at this meeting also.
4. . CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REOUEST SAV #94 03 BY MEARLIN
NORDSTROM•
To vacate�that part of the drainage and utility easements �
which lie six feet on both sides of the line between Lot 8
and Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota,
and between said Lot 9 and Lot 8, Block l, Holiday Hills
Second Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, and which lie
within the boundary of the following described tract: That
part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the easterly line of said Lot 8, 15
feet northeasterly of the most southerly corner thereof,
thence northwesterly to the most westerly corner of said Lot
8 and there terminating; also Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills,
• Anoka County, Minnesota; also that part of Lot 8, Block 1,
Holiday Hills Second Addition, lying southeasterly of the
following described line: Beginning at a point on the
westerly line of said Lot 8, 55 feet northwesterly of the
most southerly corner of said Lot 8; thence to a point on
the easterly line of said Lot 8, 99.65 feet from the most
southerly corner of said Lot 8 and there terminating. This
property is generally located at 501 Rice Creek Boulevard
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel is located at 501 Rice
Creek Boulevard N.E., which is located south of 69th Avenue and
east of University Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single
Family Dwelling. There is R-3, General Multiple Family, at the
intersection where Woodcrest Baptist Church is located. ^
�...� PLANNINm COMMI88ION MEETING OCTOBBR 19. 1994 P�G$ 15
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that drainage
and utility easements be vacated along the west and north lot
lines of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Second Addition. The
petitioner owns the subject parcel and, over the years, has
acquired small pieces of property to the west and north and
consolidated them into one tax parcel. The petit�oner is
proposing to add on to an existing two-car garage. The location
of the easements are such that they bisect the buildable area,
specifically the area directly west of the subject dwelling where
the petitioner proposes to add on to the garage. The petitioner
is requesting the easement be vacated and that he would dedicate
new drainage and utility easements along the west and north
property lines. There are no public utilities located within the
easement area. Vacating easements would not adversely affect
drainage. Staff did notify the private utilities via fax and
have received one response from Minnegasco who had no objections.
Staff felt they would hear from the remaining utilities prior to
this being heard by the City Council.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner did not submit plans for the
proposed garage expansion. Staff looked at the existing garage
and any potential plans the petitioner may have. The existing
garage is 26 feet x 30 feet or 780 square feet. The code allows
� the first accessory structure to be 1,000 square feet. Without a
variance, the petitioner could add 220 square feet or an addition
il feet x 20 feet. A proposed expansion of that size would not
adversely impact the lot coverage which would be at 15.60. Any
plans by the petitioner would need to comply with code or a
variance obtained.
Ms. McPherson stated the original easements are 12 feet wide with
six feet on either side of the property line.� The City is unable
to obtain the additional six feet from the adjoining property
owners as they are not a party to the request. Staff is
proposing that the petitioner provide 12-foot easements along the
nor�h and west property line.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request
with the following stipulations:
1. A 12-foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated
along the inside of the west and north property line.
2. The garage expansion shall comply with the code
requirements, or a variance obtained.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner would need a permit from the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
� Ms. McPherson stated the impact is smaller than the minimum
requirement. Staff will have the petitioner confer with the
PLANNING COMMI88ION ME$TING OCTOB$R 19. 1994 PAG$ 16
district to be sure no permits are required.
Mr. Nordstrom stated he combined the three lots because there was
a problem with the tax papers. He then found out there were
easements. He wants the easements moved in order for him to keep
cars off the street. Within the last year or so, there was
beginning to be a problem with too many cars on the street.
Mr. Newman asked the petitioner if he was comfortable with the
stipulations.
Mr. Nordstrom stated he was comfortable with the stipulations as
stated.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the
vacation request, SAV #94-03, by Mearlin Nordstrom, to vacate
that part of the drainage and utility easements which lie six
feet on both sides of the line between Lot 8 and Lot 9, Bloc� 2,
Holiday Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota, and between said Lot 9
and Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, Anoka County,
Minnesota, and which lie within the boundary of the following
described tract: That part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills,
Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the following
described line: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of
said Lot 8, 15 feet northeasterly of the most southerly corner
thereof, thence northwesterly to the most westerly corner of said
Lot 8 and there terminating; also Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills,
Anoka County, Minnesota; also that part of Lot 8, Block 1,
Holiday Hills Second Addition, lying southeasterly of the
following described line: Beginning at a point on the westerly
iine of said Lot 8, 55 feet northwesterly of the most southerly
corner of said Lot 8; thence to a point on the easterly line of
said Lot 8, 99,65 feet from the most southerly corner of said Lot
8 and there ternainating. This property is generally located at
501 Rice Creek Boulevard N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. A 12-foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated
along the inside of the west and north property line.
2. The garage expansion shall comply with the code
requirements, or a variance obtained.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON rfEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would establish a date for
the public hearing on November 7.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20 1994 ,��
a : . �
,
� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETIN�3 OCTOBFIt 19. 1994 PAt3L 17
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
meeting of September 20, 1994.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CSAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 11. 1994
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of October il, 1994.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Hickok provided an update on City Council actions on Planning
Commission recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT
� MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms: Savage�, to adjourn the
meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPLRSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE OCTOBSR 19� 1994, PLANNING CONIlKI88ION
MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 8:42 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
� � ���
avonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
�
S I G N— IN S H E E T
. ''`�
PI�NNING COMMISSION.MEETING, Wednesday, October 19, 1994 _
\
r
'�
STAFF REPORT
Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date
City Council Date
APPLIGATION NtJMBER:
Rezoning request, ZOA #94-05
Bruce Moseman, represen�ing Supreme Tool.
Professional Ventures Partnership, owner.
LOCATION:
November 2, 1994
Vacant property located north of Rurt Manufacturing, 7585 Highway
65, N.E. The.property is currently zoned C-2, General Business
district.
RE4UEST:
To rezone the property to M-1; Light'Industrial, to allow.
construction of a manufacturing � facility-.'` �" -
� �; ��
ANAY�YSIS : � � � '•'� � _
z'
s
The petitioner is currently occupying space in the Rurt
Manufacturing building to the south. The peti.tioner is proposing
to construct a 12,000 square foot concrete block building on the
parcel. -
.. 5 ��'�.� - .. . .
In order to evaluate a rezoning request,�three�criteria are useds
. ,, .< r:. � �. . . .. _ �
♦ District`compatibility.with'adjacent uses'�and zoning.
♦ District � intent. � �`� "���� "�' `'�"� �
� -
♦ Whether or not.the_use�meets;:the�district�.requirements.
Compatibility with Adjacent Uses and ZoninQ
The adjacent zoning is:
► C-2, General Business to the north,
► M-1,.Light Industrial to the east and south, and
► R-4, Mobile Home Park and M-i, Light Industrial to the west
across Highway 65.
Staff Report
ZOA #94-05, by Supreme Tool
Page 2
The adjacent uses include:
► Retail to the north
►� Trucking terminal/storage to the east
► Manufacturing to the south
► Mobile home park and industrial to the west
The M-1 zoning is compatible
Granting the request would be
zoning pattern established in
District Intent
with the adjacent zoning and uses.
a logical extension of the existing
this area.
The intent of the M-1, Light Industrial district is to permit
manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesaling uses. The proposed
use by the petitioner is consistent with the intent of the M-1
district.
District Requlations
Staff has reviewed the plans submitted by the petitioner. The
proposed site plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of
the M-1, Light Industrial district.. The petitioner will be
required to submit a landscape plan complying with the ordinance
requirements.-_.The Engineering staff has a number of comments
regarding the grading and drainage plan (see memo dated'October
17, 1994 from Scott Erickson). The petitioner will be required
to comply with those comments prior to issuance of a building
permit.
RECONIIKENDATIOH/STIPULATIONS:
�
. The requests meets.the three criteria;used to:evaluate rezoning
requests.-: Staff�recommends that the Planninq Commission
recommend approval of the request to the City.Council with the
following stipulations: �
1. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan complying with
the district requirements prior to issuance of a building
permit.
2. The petitioner shall comply with the comments in Scott
Erickson's memo dated October 17, 1994 prior to issuance of
a building permit.
�'
�1
�
,
� �
�
�
A,-7!�1�i
�%ia���a���
� o�
�,
/ 1 I
23
ZOA ��94-OS
Supreme Tool
_ �_,
N //2 SEC. /2, �
�
C/T Y OF FR/OL
2
�
�w-
� �1.0 l"'
��� �
�%�� �
:
�, .
LOCATION MAP
- I
ZOA 9f y4—U5 b,� �
Supreme Tool
,
j i �'�,:/� 'r'�'y� / , i i ;•�.-'` ( � j% �:, . �� • _
�i � // j �t � � * , r � � ''� . –r- �----...-�_
� J`% % /��. � / / Z% , . � • ^ � ' �
/� � T �,�
f � i: �!�. "� �2 -.. � _
M-1 r�/ _ ; �� . , �
, , - _ " ' � `
f,•7 . � . „ ' ",� a
'� o00q�oeo �/���� � --- E 6 � . . '
•�{ e o e o 0 0 � �AVE!JUE
� oao6'oo0 000" 0000"ooc`^ � ,
:•.I o00000000eo� , ,
OoeOO'c0 Ooo�ooOC+CO_ /,�' ��� �� j/ ,/,�c 4��
_+ eo eo 0000e0000c^ �
oeo°i�000 n00000c+occ`r �,, ti `.
eeeo oe000000c ���
•� .00a000ccy-_' .
�`'^°,a°o°n°o°c °o°o°o°o°c °_ �r° '�2 0�'i � i �; � '" � 4
¢ 4v'~ ca ° o��, o^o^c+ caocnc ��� �' � _
�o� "�`c � n o °��eer /.� j i� � ' � r--- J Cj �� � S �F ;' C '-�
• ; ��.?� S ---r ��..^c _ 'l./ f � j' 7i �- � ! � . ,'SF � ^ � t
� I ! �j �/, �,.'' C c n'o�c - j � � I ' :1,,
� • � � ��T�'"""'� _ „ �" a / . . y _ — - � , - — �,. ' ' :
��
O r ���C � �/ _� `. '�� . I�IIj:�"� +y.
� �� t � - - � . . .� n .-' E „ h {
, �- _{ _ - - C _ 3 � ., ✓`,` � ('"_'_f--,
, �1 ' ' " f , � . � , ` � � .o ' � � � � '
�� ~° � ; %j' ' r : % . i }-.-e� . `.—� -- � 11 ` � +--- F �:
•�; - ^ _ , , r - - , a
, . _ � - -_� f�: :� , 3 F--- �`
.^�'.." ^_ _ - - (�� J � t._ __n_+_,".
= o `^o 0 0^-°-^� --___ -,I n - - � .� _ .-•�.��3 r� � � �.,`'� . �
- � �. � , �� �... -= J �, . �,, � >>:.�� >> >>, . ; , � R 1
� o�
� o c_��o � -. �����> >'�',-,��`�-�- � � 6.
-Ti ,�'i C - �ao oC - o° n o°o e`o'o° �' '�'o����,����� ����'-.=�','�� t �
p' ' ��� 00`� ]009COJOG '7J J J J.�� � J JJ J'J � � � � u
,,; o c„c o000000o ua���o�������u�o� p 9 K`
0 0000000o u����»o_� ��o���oo� �,-
:�, j.� ,- a o o� o�o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�� o 0 o a� o�� o o� o c
O O O O O O O O O O O O p� p Q Q ��, � J� O
,�, � boo c oo'c o0000000 0�00000000aoo�oo '
... o0000000000. o0000000 000000000000000
- O O O O O O O O O C O 3
��• O O O O O O O O O O O O O � ' -
:�� .:�-���oo 000000000�� , 1�0' 3;
0o a0000000000�.
aea0000000_
, ooa0000000�:
�. ;� :� o00000000�� N �I
.:�i � 00000a000�a- <T 2 �
�oob00000000'
T�; o000000aoo�� }.� ;s �vp
'W�i �� >00000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c �� ,� a I, � ,� ? 4
±�Y�,c �00000000000 .
00000000000c
�ct�' o0000000000 -
� o00000000ccc ;•'�� •�•� • �� � � � � �
m �00000000000
{�--' o0000000000c 73 � .� �E. W -�� • •
• �00000000000 7 V E �� } � � � � � �
�• o00000000c c
00000co c o .� / • '�_� �� �7 �
� �f � 7 �O O�O�O�O COry CC On� � �.� . � � }� .y� / � 4 a f • �� O � • I .
/ i.
.. . . � / /^ - ^0 ono�onoc^fo^ r ' ��/l / � ' f �' .t � - _ • Y . •� ♦.. e
= Qf1 •/G•.1•.1 �!C � ..�TZlr. i . . �.'�• - • . •'..• .O-e.-o 6
- � A _ ��'+ n ,c ��
.. v� 4tie, ...� ��'�/ .� /.� I,� � - �nv -
!92 -
.8
.� �
� � � _ ; �;�
� ;
.�V /` -
�_:,� t,•��r,�,
� % � • . : • .�.� �T�f'_-�1� e � `
. . ;�;'
, �. .. . ,� R_3 ,�,
� �h
, � ' ��• i t.--- �--� ----- • . ., :
I Q � •. • � �._ �B M _ � • 'Ai � ,
� �
�i � R O - - -
/ � • �. • N . . � •
; %•• • •.A' ��•• � * �•�
MINNESOTA � --- �
�� o T RAH DISTRICT LEGEND
� 4 Z - X-1 ONE FAYILr DWG'S ❑ M-1 11�HT INDUSTqIpL ❑
� X-7 TWO FpY1LY DW6'S ❑ M-4 NEAVY INOUSTHIAL �
I� fl-� GEN. MULTIPIE OWO'3 � PUD PLANNEO UNIT DEV. L:
�i N-0 YOBILE HOYE PAR[ ❑ S-/ N�OE P11HK MEIONBORNOGO ❑
Ca c�,�y �J ` ! } P OUBLIC FACIlIT1E9 O S-2 - NEDEV£IOPMENT OISTNICT 0 /�
i �
` t: : �r� ��:� Q C-1 lpCql BUSINESS O O-t CPEEK 8 RIVER iHESEFVATION Q
� ,�� �+�- � C-2 GENEqAL BUSINESS � 0-1 CNITIC4L ANEA �
�~ P�� �� r�j• � � C-3 GENERAI SNOPPING �
��� ^J ti�W , � / ^'. C'N1 GENEHAL OFFICE ❑ Y1ICATEO STREETS �,�
_ �i � _
�
.i—
ZONiNG MAP
r '�.
�
TO:
FR.OM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
��
�"`� 2.
3.
John Palacio, Chief Building Inspector
Scott Erickson, Assistant Public Works Director
October 17, 1994
Drainage and Grading Review for Supreme Tool Inc.
PW94-339
A Storm Pond Maintenance Agreement will. need to be recorded with the property
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Install rip-rap with filter blanket at the outlet of the storm water pipe..
Install a flared end section with grate on the end of the storm pipe,,outl�t. �
,,
4. Provide a piped outlet to .the pond with direct connection to the existing storm
pipe. Provide hydraulic calculations. The outlet should be sized to meter
predeveloped flow rates.
�.
6.
7.
8.
A Hold Harmless Agreement will be required for any improvements'conetructed
in easement areas (parking, storm pond). � ,
The driveway entrance should be constructed to retain all drainage on-site.
Clearly note on the plans the' size and type of all e�sting utilities.
Viron Road has been redesignated as Hwy 65 East Service Road.
9. Provide Detailed information for the hydrology and ponding calculations (time of
concentration, etc.). How is existing flow rate greater than the predeveloped? The
existing flow rate calculations should be based on an unimproved grassed area.
^ 10. Rice Creek Watershed District approval is required. Provide .copies of approval
when obtained.
'__r
.,� .
�� �
�:
;
�� �
October 18, 1994
Page 2
.�
11. All existing rtreet surfaces shall be kept free of dirt and debris and shall be swept
on a daily basis or as directed by the City.
12. The building should not be located within any easement areas. �
13. Mountable curb and gutter shall not be used.
14. Provide a rocked entry point to the site during construction. Show location and
detail on the plan.
1�. All drainage from the site should be directed to the storm pond. Sub-catchment
2 should be routed to the pond.
SE:cz
cc: Michele McPherson
Paul Cherney, Pioneer Engineeririg �
- _ ���e;
,
<i
r"1
� \9
�`�9�$ s5 ��3 ��3
,
� 9� " �d ��
� � �
� �
� �� � � ��}
� ��� ����
m ����� #�� �������
r�
�
_ �
z
O
�
>
w
�
W
a�i p
�' 's
n
� �up�
_$
=
��
��
E �
m� �
- - ...�.. ,�.a...s.q
Q
< �� ,
� �i!; `
� ,.:,
� �� �il�� �
tov�+ r�oauv avom �vu.�y �y � •o��w,-��
�9 'ON .l�'(T1H�11-f >lNnJl �l"d1S
�
�d
J
� b
w�
�
��
� � '�
.
�'':�� ° � � � z � � �
�;• �o �o
� •w
a
� �.. r �
t
�
�
I
i
��
�
�
�
� ��
��
�� �y.
° ���
� � � �
-- � �,j �.
- ,� " � ;! .
� ��
g � ���e� ,
. � .
ZOA #94-05
Supreme Tool
� � �. �
� �
� s 1 �
� � � � � ��
IEY � .
_ 9C �
� _ �
� � � � :
_ � �
T � � � � �.�
r _ -:�
s � , �� �a
�, ,-
� � � '_-.�
�� + ,
(avoa namN c
� � �
� t � �9 �°N
� ���
. .;q �
� g��
� ���. ��
i ���
�F �
� �- ''1
a
� �
� • � y �
�
�
t! ° � �
��
� �o �
��� �
��
�� I �
�J/
$
:� �
� ��
� ��
�� �$
. �
��
:
�&
, , � ��
��� - -_
� � =.
................. � � i
��� �
� _ ��� � i
r -
.,. P _
_ l� � ��_:
�
� 3tdts �
� �
—� �s � i
� �
i.,
l�i
��
� r
�
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the
Fridley City Council at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431
University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, November 2, 1994 at 7:30
p.m. for the purpose of:
Consideration of a Rezoning request, ZOA �94-
05, by Bruce Moseman of Supreme Tool, to
rezone from C-2, General Business to M-1,
Light Industrial, to allow construction of a
manufacturing facility on Lot 3, Block 1, A&
R Second Addition. This property is generally
located north of 7597 Highway #65.
�� Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an
interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require
a�ixiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no.
later than October 26, 1994. -
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 572-3592.
Publish: October 18, 1994
October 25, 1994
/"1
DAVID NEWMAN
CHAIR
PLANNING CONIlKISSION
�
�oule�ard Manaaement 6127382801
b1GlJOtorJ�
� 8out•vwrd Matla9emanti si2't'382801
CT�'Y OF FR�DiEY � • .
fi�4�� UNY'Y�i7SiTX A'Y��IU� N.E. , . �
FRiDLEY, Ml�i 55432 , . '
(6i2) 571-3450 • �OMMUNIT7t 3�EvELOPM�NT �EPAR?MENT '-
P. 07 a°� - -�
P.07
�za�r�� ��L�c�1a� �a� �
PROPE'R,'�Y���MATIOL�i ; site plar� requ.ired for submiti�I;,see.atta�hed
Address: '
Property Identification Numher {PII� / � 30 � �f / O D �,� �
Le�al descriptiori: � � •
X.ot �loCk _�,.. TracdAddidon , d � i�o
Cuzrent zoning: C— 2. $quare footag�lacreage %%04 .
Requesting zonirig: � : �• � ' —
R�ason for rezoning: ' � • • � �
Have you apetated�� business is� a ciry which reQuireci a busintss license? ' �
Yas No If yes, which city? �
�f yes, wbai typo of business?
Was tbat lice�se ever denied or revoked? Ycs' No �
.F�,�.Q N.� IN�`O$�'xlOfi�' (as it appears o� the property title} �
�ContraCt purchasers: l�ee Qwners nau t sign cbis farm prior to pracessin$)
NANi� ��v�1DR��e_ `�e�� �'nC� �6Z���e. uv�0g-emv1�A�
�6� '�u} � ir�S Il, � � �
, , � . DAYT�vi�F3�ONE '7 �� � ��/y�
5'XGNATUR� � . DATE :: � :
NANi� s F�SSio
ADDI2FSS
. •
�✓ G/
SYGNA,TiJZ�� �_��
J � vc
n .
DA'YTTMEPH�N� �%"' 9Z
- —DA� S� �
. . j . ••
Fee: �500.00 � • � � '
Potmit 7AA # - � Re�ipz #, � �
Appl�cacion rec.�ived by: �
' Sci�duled Plaz�ning Commissian date: � � `� . . ,
Scheduled City Counci� datc:
��
�.
u
�^�
�.
�
S TAFF REP 0 RT
(—� Community Development Department
Appeals Commission Date
Planning Commission Date : November 2, 1994
City Council Date
APPLICATION NQMBER:
Rezoning request, ZOA �94-04
David McIntyre for Ceres Environmental, Inc.
LOCATION•
Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Great Northern Industrial Center.
Generally located on Ashton Avenue east of Pearlman Rocque
Company.
REOIIBST:
To rezone two industrial lots from M-2, Heavy Industrial to M-3,
Heavy Industrial Outdoor Intensive. The M-3 zoning district
would permit the petitioners to have an outdoor storage area.for
their large equipment and materials, and to construct a�•corporate
office and service building.
BACRGROIIND:
Bite
In 1969, the Fridley City Council approved a plat request for the
Great Northern Industrial Center plat on the southeast corner of
I-694 and East River Road. The 106.72 acre parcel had previously
been utilized as an airplane runway and trap-shooting range.
Once platted, the land became occupied by industrial complexes
including GTE Sylvania, Pearlman Rocque, and Midwest Printing.
In 1985, Minikahda Mini Storage approached Alfred Nelson with an
interest in a portion of the 12.4 acre parcel that lies between
Ashton Avenue and the rail lines. The 12.4 acres had not
previously been a part of the Great Northern Industrial Center
plat. The request to plat the land into four lots as the Great
Northern Industrial Center East was reviewed and approved.
Subsequent to that approval, Minikahda Mini Storage developed
7.73 acres, leaving 2.79 acres of developable land and 0utlots A
and B, which served as rail access for the internal sites in the
�R
Staff Report �
ZOA #94-04, by Ceres Environmental
Page 2
industrial park.
Great Northern's covenants on the plat require a minimum two acre
site for industrial development. The City of Fridley requires
1.5 acres as a minimum lot size in the M-3 district. The
petitioner has a site with sufficient size to develop, but not to
further subdivide. Lots 1 and 2 must be consolidated as one site
to meet the minimum standards defined by the development
covenants.
**Stipulation** Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Great Northern
Industrial Center East shall be consolidated
as one tas parcel.
M-3 Zoninq District
In May of 1992, the City Council approved a modification in the
zoning ordinance to include an M-3 zoning district. The intent
of the district is to create a district which permits M-1 and M-2
uses and those uses which require intensive outdQOr storage.
Outdoor intensive uses are contractor yards, truckinq terminals,
rock crushing yards, and other uses which require outdoor storage '�
as a principal activity. The thought was that this zoning -.
district would limit the amount of outdoor intensive uses within
the City and preserve the remaining vacant land for manufacturing
and other basic industries.
In Fridley, the M-3 zoned property is located in the northern
industrial area of the City. Trucking terminals were located
north of 83rd Avenue and west of Main Street. Park Construction,
is a large M-3 construction/demolition contractor, has much
outdoor storage and is located near the trucking firms in the
northwest portion of the City.
The City Council also approved modifications to the M-1 and M-2
zoning districts, limiting the amount of outdoor storage and
requiring a special use permit in certain circumstances.
ANALYSIB•
Ceres Environmental is as an environmental consultant for clients
in the metropolitan area and the nation. Their services include
fuel tank removal and replacement, construction demolition and
recycling, timber recycling, snow removal, and general tree
service (trimming, dead tree removal, etc.).
Steve Johnson of Ceres Environmental has indicated that the �
primary items to be stored on the Fridley site are their heavy
equipment and occasionally sand and salt related to snow removal
Staff Report
ZOA #94-04, by Ceres Environmental
Page 3
or products that allow the maintenance staff to repair equipment
properly. As an example, if a wood chipper gs in the Ceres yard
to be repaired, a pile of wood may accompany the chipper so that
the machine can be tested.
Ceres has other locations in the metropolitan area to handle
their specific needs. A Maple Grove site serves as their
wood/timber recycling location. Ceres is a contractor for
Hennepin County's timber recycling. When asked if those
activities would be moved to the Fridley site, Johnson reiterated
that this site will serve their company's administrative office
and equipment maintenance needs only.
Although Ceres does offer tank removal and replacement, no tanks
new or used will be stored on-site according to the applicant.
The subject parcel is relatively narrow, and Ceres believes the
site is well-suited for their company becaus� their office
building is relatively small.
The Ceres Environmental representatives were attracted to the
subject parcel because of its location and its suitability for
^, their needs based on its size and their expandability potential.
After reviewing their preliminary plans, staff did not believe
that the outdoor storage provisions of the M-2 zoning district
would be met considering the size of the equipment, the:amount of
outdoor storage required, and the nature of materials related to
their business. Consequently, staff required a rezoning request
to M-3. As you recall, the M-3 district was adopted as a
district which allows outdoor intensive uses.
Criteria for Conaiderinq a Rezoninq Reqneat
1. Compatibility with adjacent uses:
North - zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial (Minikahda Mini
Storage), which is an industrial self-storage
facility with indoor storage and asphalt
driving aisles and parking surfaces. The
site contains a series of.many buildings.
East - zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, which is an
industrial area adjacent to Main Street and
includes industries such as HB Fuller. These
sites contain large buildings and related
parking.
�
Staff Report
ZOA #94-04, by Ceres Environmental
Page 4
South - zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, which includes
FMC and the Quebecor building. These
facilities have some outdoor storage which
incidental to their principal use. These
buildings are larger with parking related
that larger principal use.
is
to
West - zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, which is
Pearlman Rocque, a transfer facility for
restaurants including McDonalds. Outdoor
truck-trailer activity is limited to
incidental traffic related to the principal
use. This site contains two larger buildings
and parking that is incidental to the primary
use.
As the site was further reviewed, the strong points of this
proposal were its location against the railroad tracks and the
narrow dimension of this site seems well-suited for the proposed
use. °
The issues against an M-3 modification include the fact that
there are available M-3 zoned sites within the community which
have been deemed appropriate for this type of-use, thereby
preserving surrounding typical industrial development land. The
Ceres building is relatively small and its outdoor intensity of
use is greater than the outdoor uses in the surrounding area.
Based on this fact, staff recommends that the use is incompatible
with the surrounding area.
2. District i.ntent:
The intent of the M-3 district is to allow heavy industrial
uses that depend on outdoor storage. The proposal is
consistent with the M-3 zoning district intent.
3. District regulations:
Staff has reviewed the plan submitted by the petitioner.
The proposed site could meet the district regulations with
modifications to berming, landscaping, irrigation, and
parking surface requirements. Attached please find the site
data as reviewed by staff and the stipulations that resulted
from that review.
�
,�,
/'�
0
�"'�
�.
,�
Staff Report
ZOA #94-04, by Ceres Environmental
Page 5
Site Plan Review and Recommended etipulations
Lot Size
Current Zoning
Proposed Zoning
Setbacks:
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Driving Aisle
**8tipulation**
Parking:
Stalls
Handicapped
stalls)
Gravel Spaces
Green Space
Setback
2.79 acres�,
M-2, Heavy Industrial
M-3, Heavy Industrial Outdoor Intensive
63 feet (code requires 35 feet)
100+ feet (code requires 20 feet)
25 feet (code requires 25�feet)
One-way circulation
The parkinq area shall include �iqns and
surface str3pinq to identify a one-way
circulation pattern.
21 stalls proposed (code requires 19 stalls)
One stall proposed (code requires one per 50
Not permitted by code
All setbacks meet code except five foot
setback from pr.operty line on the eastern
boundary of the site.
**Stipu�ation** A five foot setbaak for landscaped area must
be established alonq the eastern property
line, runninq from the north to the south
property lines.
Irrigation of
Landscaped Areas
**Btipulation**
Site Coverage
Building Height
Driving Width
Landscaping
Not included
irriqation ahall be installed in the front
an8 side yarda.
70 (code allows 35� for a two story building.
25 feet (code allows 65 feet)
26 feet (c�e allows 30 feet)
Staff has determined t,hat the landscaping is
insufficient to serve the screening
requirements as outlined in the M-3 district.
**Stipulation** The landsaape plan shall be modified to
inolude addi.tional plantinqs for seasonal
color affid soreeninq. This plan ahall be
reviewed and approved bg City staff.
Staff Report
ZOA #94-04, by
Page 6
Screening
Ceres Environmental
Outside storage will require additional
landscaping from the northern edge of the
storage area. A berm will also be required.
**stipulation** Additional berms and landscapinq shail be
added to the site plan north of the qravel
parkinq area indicated on the plat (south of
the storm water pond).
The Engineering Department staff has reviewed this proposal and a
verbal update will be presented at the Planning Commission
meeting.
**Stipulation** The petitioner shall aomply with the
Enqineerinq Department requirements speaified
in Bcott $rickson•s memo dated October 28,
1994.
**Btipulation** All surfaces intended for drives or parkinq/
storaqe of equipment shall be surfaoed with
concrete or asphalt.
RECOMMENDATION/STIPIILATIONB:
The policy issue to be decided is whether another M-3 district
should be created in the City. The proposed location is on the
"edge" of the Great Northern Industrial Park and is not easily
seen by residential neighborhoods. However, the site could be
developed with a typical industrial building, and the site would
be an "island" of outdoor activity in a predominantly industrial
park setting.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the rezoning
request to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Great Northern
Industrial Center East due to the incompatibility of the M-3
district with the M-2 uses that surround the site.
If the Planning Commission chooses to recoimne�d approval of this
request, the following stipulations are recommended:
1.
2.
Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Great Northern Industrial Center East
shall be consolidated as one tax parcel.
The parking area shall include signs and surface striping to
identify a one-way circulation pattern.
�
�
�,
�""1 Staff Report
ZOA #94-04, by Ceres Environmental
Page 7
3. A five foot setback for landscaped area must be established
along the eastern property line, running from the north to
the south property lines.
4. Irrigation shall be installed in the front and side yards.
5. The landscape plan shall be modified to include additional
plantings for seasonal color and screening. This plan shall
be reviewed and approved by City staff.
6. Additional berms and landscaping shall be added to the site
plan north of the gravel parking area indicated on the plat
(south of the storm water pond).
7. The petitioner shall comply with the Engineering Department
requirements specified in Scott Erickson's memo dated
October 28, 1994.
8. All surfaces intended for drives or parking/ storage of
equipment shall be surfaced with concrete or asphalt.
^
,�
� � . _ . ..
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
'�
(612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REZONIlVG APPLICATION FORM
PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittal; see attached
Address: Has not been assigned _
Property Idendfication Number (PIl� 2 �- 3 0- 2 4-1 1= 0 01 2 and 2 7- 3 0-1 1- 0 01� 3
Legal description• `� �� �� 2��°� 3, c�eat N�ti�n Tr�sstria? �� F�st, � , NN
Lot �� 2 Block 3 TracdAddition �t ��1 Tr�_�rial �,�
Current zoning: �"2 Square foota�elacreage 1�7,630 sq. .ft./2.93 arr�s
Requesting zoning: j"'�'s
Reason for rezoning: � °0�� °�?°�' � fl�'�'�� �• �� � �. �
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? ��
Yes X� No � If yes, which city? ���
If yes, what type of business? '� � a� � .
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes Nq X
FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title)
(Contract urchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME i � . �illiun �
� � � � �.,. .� � - ., ,. ;r,r.�.
� 1 I ' • �/. ': 1.1
!��•`'�' � � • ♦
�i....�•' " ./! �! �a �
�a
NAME �� ���1� Ir�c• - David Mclntyre
ADDRESS � � �y � B
SIGNA'
lme�vi].le, NN 55113
YTIMEPHONE ��4
DATE 9����
Fee: $500.00
Permit ZOA # -D Receipt # ��� ��- �
Application received by:
Scheduled Planning Commission date: _ ✓c�. br.✓ ?�
Scheduled City Council date: �
_.�._
�
�� -
�� �
��
I �`'� �,� : %
�� � ti
��� : �
�
�:.�
�- ,
�
� ��
,
�t� �
� �
'k;�'� � � ` /
i :�? :1 �
, , , _.
, �::��;.�=-
4� �'�;'v i ~ � . '
�
i�
���'iJ. �-
� •
� �����
� J
r af✓////�_+.'.� !
.
� `���,
, �
�� �
. �//
. �
�� i; :;;-;
��
:/,/���
u, �/`�
��/� �;
_. �.��--�
i
r �. i
P;�
�. ,
,/ r
'r�i �
.,� � �
,"//�/
� 1 i
�,�
, �'
�� /
,,/
.;. �
�
�
�
�
y�
i'
�
, ::
,� ,
ZOA ��94-04 ,
Ceres Environmental
N//2 SEC. 27, T. 30, R 2 4
C/TY OF FR/OLEY
21 ;
= r �..
��
, ;�
e ra (2J
. � . . N /N CQNNEN � � . �
, .
.
W
� Q
a �,
d i�°E���
-... J
I
(rA
.t� •.rsM
�
. . �
a.
ti
3
�
.
:
m
�
�
.
3
� ('
�;
1�
I�
,�
,_
,
:,
�—
�1
T
��
LOCATION MAP
norlh
n �'
m �
� a
a
°� no
��
o �
n
I�
�
R
�
�
�
�
�
�
rn
ZOA ��94-04
Ceres Environmental
# �����'�:n
a
_ :�
iid f"i Ef ;�� ti: q` e A
°¢� '�i �;-: 1 c a� � rn
"� ��e '-� £a = ; s
fli� Y�� �# i i� f., CrJ
- 7 i ; i a� �: � �
s� s�- �. i i a� <
aa� 4 � j�l � e$ �'
�� ?�a � ' a7 7 E � '�i
El a:i : .� � . � �
ie �,. i + > >
ji s�� j is = a i
�z��� 'o:�� �
i b' ` = �
3 ; ; �� �'' -»
_ � a�}i° �
s�
: O
_�
=m
� N
00
'd
0
>
ro
0
A
-. '0.j1
m
� c i
i� � �
( � i
� i
3 i
i
i �
i �
; ;
; ,�
; ;,
�
� � i .��j� �
} y��� °w � � =�
I ��;3i F�€� � e
t ii;� ��� � �
I T a
B
� ;�t�; ��� ;
f • , :� �. c
J � _ � Y N
0
T
N
SITE PLAN
I � � <'�
� s ��
�
� Q �a�
a � �9��
g > >
a ��a
�� � ��n
�
T.
CC
.�
�
� �
v �+
'� O
w ` �
, e ...
� y �
�
0 �'
Q �
�
t.
a ,�
a�
t,
a�
U
3g
d a E '� 1J
� '
��l�d �
�
�� g�
��=s I
t�;�
a �� �; _ �
��' {�
�_�� ! � I
a
2
a
a
�
Q�
,a
d•
0 �
� e
� �
y Y
ZOA �94-04 =
Ceres Environmental
E
9
�s�
fl�
�i
�
�
rr
N
>
�
L'r
O
.-.
.1."'
y
Q
� O
S7 '�
O �i
.�
c3 �
a �
� ..
—� „
W n
u
Q �
O
w
w
0
Z
�
�
Q
�
W
�
W�
�
�
0
!1:����1��►�I�����i��I��iL'�'
m�
�
0
:�..
xi v +:� ` �:/ `'j)
wr�►r �s�,u+o � s
� z:l `�' � e
o �
�� � �
� �� �� � �
����� ���
. �����r���
�� � � � f3� :
��� �
.; � � � .�.�.�
� _ � ♦ �►
,.. ��� I
` � �
�,
• ��
, �.
��
�
U
/
�
�>
`
�
�
`
�r
�9 U
_� �:
�
� `
� �� i
� d�vfr tt 6[ �/� �
,_i�.�a � �-,��-+-,
. r..� �-. � -. . -y � �
.:.«+.+� � f-�
�--.--
� .a��; Zo � � , ,
,_s�av�MSO��i�� �-�
, �c«ooa F �- . -� � 1 J
._:-1 L� . �-.. F- � +,
_,.. -..•�t �. ..
. �.. • . r�.-.•
.NV:`��1�� `�
_�,.�.
N6�M0 ^• � A� M.
l� �
� •� =� _ _
L _���
� G ��
l%'� ^,� ^\ M,'�/
� ::�`V / `_ ' ' /
t v
.� •
:�7 �"�`'�'��= ..T .
��'��`�,
I � �
t��� 7 �
����
GZJ'i' (1_ _ _ ��
1_� .J � • �
;;�/j`�� � �'�=� ��
)�', D
. , .,�
: ',� Nc
�� �I � ���/n �
� � � �E R.K
t BUS.
� CENT_
�� o
c� a o
�� � ¢ .
� n �53'a.
s o F a.k. w�� a
PERLMAN ROCQUE � �
1/ r��€� ����� � � ,. s=.P ...
MIDWEST PRINTING �-�
U
�
J
�
�
,
J'J�
�
�
:�
�'� � �_
. 4;•r � I �
� �
�::� :I
i' I.
_��� .�� _
,. yi
�� 1�
� � :�
/ j jl
i ! •-
� � � ��
i�
�� i
� � � l,
�, ; :
� � � j�
1 ' I '�
� ��
1 ( ';
' ' f '�
I I I �.
' ' I I�
: !
I � � ::
� � � jl
! 1 �
' f i ''
� I ' .
� � � �I
� ' ' I
� � � �I
I:
' I ' �
1 � ' ''
, I ' '
�
,1 ! ' �
� � I
� � � I
1. . .
ZOA
Cere
5800
sKrua[
��iR �
•vt�o[
y iM �v[NUE
37 TN
sTOO � �q�
!/ TN �V[.
��ouonr nus
�Y�
� � : �JU
� : , ssoo
i�
i�.
� I , .�T�.. �i7
� � . ' q�lt : ,
1 : � ��. �
� WALL BO�►RD, INC.
^�{� 1 � ' 1 i - �i.�w' ♦ ♦ \
.._ i
�� PROPOSED 100,OOOs.f.
� �� FFICE / WAREHOUSE
�� , -- __-
� SITE�� _ �
_ , ,.
I c�nTO� aww�r � �
��', � ,��..� ; � > >
��_ ,
—�� VACANT� ' � � !i
�
�-,� . . , � ; �
�
� �
�' QUEBECOR , `� ! �
. , ,
, , �-� , 4
i ` ^ '1
I , � I�
1 �
' tV[NY[ I�Ij
' �� �11MO��Y1 � �
�
i ' '
� �. —
! ��r
� � 205.19.02.
�
205.19 M-3 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. OUTDOOR INTENSIVE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
(Ref. Ord. 995)
1. PIIRPOSE
The purpose of this district is to:
A. Allow for heavy industrial and outdoor intensive uses within
the City.
B. Control the location of outdoor intensive uses to areas where
such uses would be more compatible with adjacent uses and zoning_
C. Al1ow for the proper screeni.ng .and buffering -for outdoor
iritensive uses.
2. IISES PERHITTED
A. Principal Uses.
The following are principal uses in M-3 Districts:
(1) All uses allowed under M-1 Principa� Uses and
M-� Principal Uses of this Chapter.
(2) Trucking Terminals
� (3) IIses whose principal use requires the�outdoor storage of
. materials, motor vehicles, or equipment, including the outdoor
. manipulation of said matarials, motor vehicles, or equipment_
.
B. Accessory Uses. "
_ The following are accessory uses in M-3 Districts;
(1) Retail sales or servicing of products manufactured or
� warehoused.
��
6/92.
�2) Offices associated with.the principal use.
(3) A dwelling for a.�watch person subject to the following
conditions:
(a) Any dwelling unit located in an industrial structure
shall not occupy the front half -of a ground floor or
basement.
(b) Any dwelling unit in an industrial building shall not
contain more than one (1) bedroom.
(c) No detached dwelling unit shall be permitted in this
district.
(d) A dvelling unit shall be a part of the. principal
building and shall be provided with an outside entrance.
M-3 DISTRICT
REGIIIATIONS
PURPOSE
IISES
PERfi�IITTED
205.M3-1
�
(4) Off-street parking facilities. '
(S) Off-street loading facilities.
(6) Solar energy devices as an integral part of the principal
structure.
(7) Business signs for uses permitted.
C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit.
The following are uses permitted with a Special Use Permit in M-3
Districts:
(1) Cement� li.me, gypst� or plaster of paris manufacture.
(2) Stone quarry, gravel pit� rock crushiiig and cutting,
gravel and sand washing and grading.
(3) Recycling-faciTity.
(4) Exterio� storage of� materials� equipment� and motor
vehicles incidental to ttie operation of the principal use,
except under the following conditions: �
(a) Motor vehicle storage is conducted as provided in
Section 205.19.08.D.(5).; .
(b) Materials, motor�vehicles, and equipment are kept in
� a building or are fully screened so as not to�be visible
from:
(i) a residential district adjacent to the use, or�
(ii) a residential district across a public right-of-
way from the use, or '
(iii) a public park adjacent to the use, or
(iv) a public right-of-way adj acent to the use.
(d) Materials, motor vehicles, and equipment stored
outside do not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height;
(e) Screening materials are provided as in Section
205.19.06.G.(1).(a). "
3. IISES ERCLUDED
6/92
A. Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless
specifically allowed under Uses Permitted.of this district are
excluded in M-3 Districts_
B. Uses which may be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to
persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the general
welfare and which may impair the use, enjoyment or value of any
property_
205.19.03. �
^
�.
��
USES
EXCLUDED
{ �
205.M3-2
C. Manufacture of acetylene� acid or any other type explosive.
�••1 D. Stock yards or slaughter houses, except of-poultry or rabbits.
�
E. Nuclear or hazardous waste processing or storage facilities.
F. Gas fired foundries. .
G. Asbestos manufacturing facilities.
H. Junkyards
4. LOT REQIIIREMENTS AND SETBACKS
A. Lot Area.
A lot area of not less than one and one-half (1-1/2) acre is
required for one (1) main building. �
=� . .
B. Lot Width. . .
A lot width of 150 feet is required at the required front setback.
C. Lot Coverage. (Ref. Ord. 951)
(1) The maximum percent of the area of a lot allowed to be
covered by the main building and all accessory buildings is.
as follows : - - � �
205.19.04.
LOT
REQIIIREMENTS
AND SETBACKS
- (a) One� (1) Story - forty percent (40�) maximum; fifty �
percent (S0�) with a special use permit as provided in (4)
below. �
(b) �Two (2) Story - thirty-five percent (35�) maximum;
forty-five percent (/+5$) with a special use permit as�
provided in (4) below. � • ,
(c) Three (3) Story - thirty percent (30$).maximum; forty
percent (40�) with a special use permit as provided in (4)
below�.
(d) Four (4) Story - twenty-five percent (25$)�maximum;
thirty-five percent (35�) with a special use permit in (4)
below.
(e) Five (S) Story = twenty percent•(20�) maximwn; thirty
percent (30�) with a special use permit as provided in (4)
below_ -
(f) Six (6) Story - fifteen percent (15$) maximum; twenty-
five percent (25�) with a special use permit in (4) below.
(2) The above lot coverage will be subject to other
� considerations including parking and open space requirements,
use of facilities, and proximity to other districts, which may
decrease the maximum lot coverage.
6/92
205.M3-3
6/92
(3) The lot coverage may be reduced by the City if and when
there is provision for underground parking within. the main
structure provided that the lot coverage shall not be more
than forty percent (40$).
(4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above may be.increased
up to a maximum of ten percent (10�) of the lot area upon
obtaining a special use permit. In addition to the
requirements of this Section and the factors identified in
Section 205.05.04 to evaluate special use permit requests, the
City shall consider the following factors in determining the
effect of the increase in lot coverage:
(a) For existing developed properties, the total amoeuit
of. existing_ hardsurface areas shall be evaluated to
determine.whether a reduction in.the total building and
parking coverage can be achieved.
(b) The'petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance
requirements are met, including but not limited to,
parking� storm water.•management� and landscaping..
D. Setbacks.
(1) Front.Yard:
A front yard_depth of not less than thirty-five..(35) feet is
reqttired for all, permitted buildings� and uses.
(2) Side�Yard: : - . .
Two (2) side yards are required, each.with a width of not less
than twenty (20) feet except: .
(a) Where a driveway is to be provided in the side yard
the minimum required side yard increases tb thirty (30)
feet. -
(b) Where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot, the
side yard requirement increases to a minimum of
thirty-five (35) feet.
(c) No side yard is required whe.re a common wall is
provided between two (2) buildings which meet the
requirements of the Building Code. �
(3) Rear Yard:
A rear yard depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet is
required, with an additional foot of rear yard depth for each
four (4) feet or portion of.'building height over thirty-five
(35) feet.
(4) Additional Setback Restrictions:
Whenever any industrial district is•adjacent to or adjoins on
any other district� permitted buildings and uses, except
205.19.0.4.
205.M3-4
�
�
^�
C
r ��
.
automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways� essential
services, walks and planting spaces shall not be:
� (a) Closer to a street right-of-way line, abutting a
residential district� than 100 feet.
(b) Closer to the alley right-of-way line than forty (40)
feet.
(c) Closer to the boundary line of any commercial district
than thirty-five (35) feet.
(d) Closer to the boundary line of a residential district
than fifty (SO) feet.
(e) Where dense, natural vegetation, trees and-screening
exist, the fifty (50) foot residential buffer will be
retained and maintained as established by the City.
5. BIIILDING REQIIIREMENTS
A. Height.
Building height sha3,1 be a maxi:mum o£ six (6) staries not
exceeding sixty-five (65) feet provided that no building shall ba
erected to a height exceeding for-ty-five (45) feet within fifty
(SO) feettiof any R-1 or R-2 residential district unless one (1)
addi.tionaL: foot of setback can be provi.ded -for each one (1) foot
,^ of building height. or_ portion. thereof exceeding- forty-five (45)
feet. _
•, B. Exterior Materials.
205.19.06.
�
BIIILDING .
REQIIIREMENTS
The type of building materials used on exterior walls shall be
face brick, na,tural stone, specifically designed precast concrete,
factory fabricated and finished metal frame paneling, glass or � �
other materials approved by the City.
6. PARRING REQIITR�rrrs
A. Reduction Of Parking.
Reduction of parking stalls may be allowed when the provision of
space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nat�re
of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an
unnecessary hardship. Adequate open spac� shal2 be provided to
satisfy the total number of required parking stalls.
B. Additional Parking.
When the provisions for parking space required for specific
district uses is inadequate, the City may require that additional
off-street parking be provided.
� C_ Parking Ratio_
6/92
PARKING
REQIIIREMENTS
205.M3-5
►�
�
(1) For office use at least one (1) off-street parking space
shall be provided for each 250 square feet of office space
use.
(2) For retail use at least one (1) off-street parking space
shall be provided for each 150 square feet of retail space
use. "
(3) For manufacturing uses at least one (1) off-street parking
space shall be provided for each 400 square feet of
manufacturing space use.
(4) For warehouse and storage use at least one (1) off-street
parking space shall be provided for each 2,000 square feet of
space use.
(S) For speculative bu�lding use at least.one (1) off-street
parking space shall.be provi.ded-for eacfi 500 square feet of
floor area on lots of more than one� and one-half (1-1/2)
acres. �
(6) For speculative building use, at least one (1) off-street
parking space shall.be provided for each 700 square feet of
floor area on lots of less than� one and one-half (1-1/2)
acres.
(7) The speculative parking ra�io wi.11 be used for all mixed
uses �: unless _.: the owner agrees � to �< enter '� into a written
agreement� in recordable.. form,= with -the City;� � in which the
owner represents to the City what the ratio of all uses in tt�e
building will be. Upon this happening, the parking ratio for..
the building wi.11 be determined on a pro-�rata basis by - the
parking ratio per�the number of square feet for each type of
use which the owner represents will be located in the
building. After execution�of this agreement, any changes to
the specified uses will require a special use pe'rmit from the
City_
(8) At least one (1) handicap off-street parking space shall
be provided for each fifty (50) spaces or fraction thereof.
Design Requirements:
(1) Drainage:
All driveways and parking areas, except those for less than
four (4) vehicles, shall be graded according to a drainage
plan which has been approved by the City.
(2) Lighting: .
Any lighting used to illwninate an off-street parking area
shall be shaded or diffused to reflect the light.away from the
adjoining property and traffic.
(3) Curbing: .
2os.i9.e6.
�
�
. �
�
6�g2 205.M3-b
/'"�,
t
205.19.Ob.
The entire perimeter of all parking areas in excess of four�
(4) stalls, access driveways� truck loading spaces or other
� hard surface areas that handle motor vehicle traffic shall be '
curbed with a poured six (6) inch high concrete curb and
gutter.
�(a) Curbing shall be required around safety islands.
(b) Curb cuts and ramps for the handicapped shall be
installed as required by State law.
(c) Construction �shall be in accordance with curbing
specifications on file at the City.
(d) The City may exempt curbing:
((1)) Where the parking lot directly abuts a sidewalk
which is sufficiently higher. than� the grade of the
parking lot and satisfies the.curbing requirements. �
'�((2)) Where the City has approved future e�cpansion.
(4) Driveway Requirements:
�(a) A maximum-driveway width of thirty-two (32) feet at
the curb- opening, excluding the entrance radii can be'� �
constructed.- . '
��, • . . . _
'� ib) ,The : Pax'king aisle shall be a mini.mum of twenty-five
(25.) feet in, w i d t h f o r t wo-way tra f fic and eighteen (18) �
� feet in width for one-way:traffic.�
(c) The edge of the curb opening shall not be closer to
the nearest portion of a street right-of-way intersection
than sevenLy-five (75) feet or two-thirds (2/3) of the lot
width, whichever is smaller. ' •
(d) Where a"T" intersection exists, a drive may be
located opposite the end of the intercepted street: .
(e) The minimum driveway angle to the street shall be
sixty (60) degrees_
(S) All parking and hard surface areas shall be:
(a) No closer than twenty (20) rfeet fron any street
right-of-way.
(b) No closer than five (S) feet from any side lot line,
except for a common �drive approved by the adjoining
property owners and the City,
(c) No cioser than five (S) feet from any rear lot line
� unless adjacent� to an alley� then the setback shall be
increased to fifteen (15) feet.
(d) No closer than five (S) feet from the main building.
6/92
205.M3-7
�
(e) Curbed with minimum driveway access radii of ten (10)
feet to match the existing street curb.
(6) Loading Docks:
(a) Outside loading docks are to be located in the rear
yard or side yard and be properly screened.
(b) The space needed for the loading docks must be
adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs,
without obstructing the public right-of-way_
(7) Off-street parking shall be provided for all vehicles
concerned with any use on the lot. �
(8) Parkiag lots with more than four (4) parking spaces shall
be striped. � "
(9) Sufficient concrete area may be required for motorcycle
parking in addition to the.required vehicle.parking stalls.
, . .
(10) Bike racks may be required by the City in an area that
is convenient to each maj or building entrance and wi.11 not
disrupt pedestrian or vehicular traffic or fire lanes.
(11) Safety signs, markings and traffic control devices may
be required to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. �
(12) Parking -stalls may be nine� (9) feet_ in�'width for
manufactur�ng uses, warehouse and storage uses, speculative '
industrial buildings,� and parking lots for long term employee
parking. (Ref. Ord. 952, 960) . �. �
7. IANDSCAPE REQ�R�NTS
A. Scope.
All open areas of any site, except for areas used for parking,
driveways, or storage shall be landscaped and incorporated in a
landscape plan.
(1) All new developments requiring a building permit shall
comply with the requirements of this section.
(2) Existing developments shall comply with the'requirements
of this section if one or more of the'following applies:
(a) At the time of a building expansion or alteration
which dictates the necessity for additional parking or
hardsurface areas in excess of four (4)'stalls.
(b) Building alterations which dictate a.change in use
such that the parking area must be expanded in excess of
four (/s) stalls.
(c) Construction of additiocial loading docks.
205.19.Q7.
!"'�
l
'"'�
C.
LANDSCAPE
REQIIIREMENTS
6�92 205.M3-8
. �1
r
205.19.07.
(d) Construction of new parking areas in excess of four
(4) stalls. -
�
, (3) If full compliance cannot be achieved due to site
constraints, partial compliance as determined by the City
shall be enforced.
(4) The requirements of this section shall not be required for
building alterations which do not affect the exterior portions
of the site.
B. Bonding Requirement
The City shall retain a performance bond� cash or letter of
credit, as required in Section 205.05.06.A.(3) of the zoning code
for one gro.wing. season after the_ installation �of landscape
materials �s completed: .
C. Plan Submission and Approval.
(1) A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
City prior to issuance� of a.buildi�ng permit or prior to .
approval of outside improvements not related to building
i�ngrovements. A plan shall not be required for routine
replacement of existing materials or the
installation of new materials when not associated wi.th a �
building project. � �. � �
� C2) The following items shall appear on the landscape plan. _
(a) General
((1)) Name and address of owner/developer
((2)) Name and address of architect/designer
((3))�Date of plan preparation
((4)) Dates and description of all revisions
((S)) Name of project or development
((6)) Scale of plan (engineering scale only) at no
smaller than 1 inch equals. SO feet . �
((7)) North point indication " '
(b) Landscape Data
((1)) Planting schedule (table) containing:
((a)) Symbols
�'� ((b)) Quantities
((c)) Common names
((d)) Botanical names
6/92
205.M3-9
((e)) Sizes of plant material at time.of planting
((f)) Root specification (B.R., B� B, potted,
etc.) '
((g)) Special planting instructions
((2)) Existing tree and shrubbery, locations, common
names and approximate size
((3)) Planting detail (show all species to scale at
normai mature crown diameter. or -spread for local
hardiness zone)
((4)) Typical sections in detail of fences, tie walls,
planter boxes, tot lots, picnic areas,.berms, and
other similar features.
�,l ((5)) Typical sections of landscape islands and �
planter beds with identification of materials used.
((6)) Details of planting beds and foundation
plantings. �
((7)) Note indicating how disturbed soil areas will
be restored through the use of�sodd.ing� seeding, or
other techniques. ' . �
((8)) Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with
total areas provided in square feet, and slope-.
information. �
((9)) Coverage plan for underground irrigation system,
if any. ,
{(14)) Statement or symbols, to describe exterior
lighting plan concept.
(c) Special Conditions:
Where landscape or man-made materials are used to provide
required screening from adjacent and neighboring
properties, a cross-section shall be provided through the
site and adjacent properties to show property elevation,
existing buildings and screening in scale.
D. Landscaping Materials; Definitions.
Al1 plant materials shall be living plants. Artificial plants are
prohibited.
(1) Grass and ground cover.
(a) Ground cover shall be planted in such a manner as to
present a finished appearance and reasonably complete
coverage within twelve (12) months after planting. with
proper erosion control during plant establishment period.
205.19.07.
9
�
!"�
c.
C�
205.M3-10
6/92
�
� ^
205.19.07.
Exception to this is undisturbed areas containing natural
vegetation which can be maintained free of foreign and
� noxious materials.
�
(b) Accepted ground covers are sod, seed, or other organic
material. The use of rock and bark mulch shall be limited
to areas around other vegetation (i.�e. shrubs) and shall
be contained by edging.
(2) Trees.
(a) Over-story Deciduous.
((1)) A woody plant, which at maturity is thirty (30)
feet or more in height, with a single trunk un-
branched for several feet above the ground, having a
defined crown which looses leaves annually.
((2))� Such trees shall have a•2 1/2 inch caliper
minimum at planting.
(b) Ornamental.
. ((1)) A woody plant, which at maturity is less.than
thirty (30) feet in height� with a single trunk�un-.
branched for several feet above the ground, having a
defined crown which looses leaves annually.
'� ((2)) Such trees .shall.have a 1 1/2 inch.caliper
`� minimum at planting.
(c) Coniferous.
((1)) A woody plant, which a maturity is at least
thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a single
trunk fully branched to the ground, having foliage on '
the outermost portion of the branches year-round.
((2)) Such trees shall be six (6) feet in height at
planting.
(3) Shrubs.
(a) Deciduous or evergreen plant material, which at
maturity is fifteen (15) feet in height or�less. Such
materials may be used for the fornfation of hedges. Such
materials shall meet the following minimum standards at
time of planting:
((1)) Dwarf deciduous shrubs�shall be eighteen (18)
inches tall.
((2)) Deciduous shrubs shall be twenty-four (24)
� inches tall, except as in Section D below.
((3)) Evergreen shrubs shall be of the eighteen (18)
inch classification.
6/92
205.M3-11
E.
(4) Vines.
Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high.at planting,
and are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences.
(5) Slopes and Berms.
(a) Final slope grades steeper than 3:1 will not be
permitted without special approval or treatment such as
terracing or retaining walls_
(b) Earth berm screening parking lots and other open areas
shall not have slopes exceeding 3:1. A minimum three (3)
foot berm is required.
Perimeter Landscaping; Standards.
(1) In order to achieye landscaping which is appropriate in
scale with �the size of a building and site, the minimum
standards apply:
(a) One (1) tree _for eve.ry one thousand (1,000) square
feet of total building floor area or one (1) tree for
every f�.fty (SO) feet of site perimeter, whichever is
greater.. A minimum of�thirty (30) percent of the trees
required will be coniferous.
(b) T�ao (2) ornamental trees can be substituted for every �
one (1) over-story deciduous shade tree. In no case shall
' ornamental trees exceed fifty (50) percent of the required
number of trees.
(c) Except for outdoor intensive uses, parking and driving
areas between the building and frontage street shall be
screened in the following manner:
((1)) A continuous mass of plant materials; minimwa
of three (3) feet in height at time of planting; or
((2)) A continuous earth berm with slopes no greater
than 3:1 and a minimum of three (3) feet in height;
or �
((3) ) A combination of earth berms and plant materials
such that a minimum of three (3) feet of continuous
screening is achieved. � '
F. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Standards
(1) All parking areas contain'ing over one hundred (100) stalls
shall include unpaved, landscaped islands that are reasonably
distributed throughout the parking area to break up the
expanses of paved areas. Landscaped islands shall be provided
every two hundred fifty (250) feet or more of uninterrupted
parking stalls_ �
(2) All landscaped islands shall contain a minimwn of one
hundred eighty (180) square feet with a minimum width of five
6/92
205.19.07.
205.M3-12
''1
c
,�
C
� � 205.19.07.
(5) feet and shall be provided with deciduous shade trees� or
ornamental� or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch,
� and/or shrubbery, in addition to the minimum landscape
requirements of this ordinance. Parking area landscaping
shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a six (6) inch
raised concrete curb.
(3) Trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each
fifteen (15) surface parking spaces provided or a fraction
thereof.
G. Screening and Buffering Standards
(1) Where the parcel abuts park or residentially zoned
property, there shall be provided a landscaped buffer which
shall be constructed in the following manner:_
(a) A screening fence or wall shall be constructed within
a five (S)'foot strip along the property line(s) abutting -
the park or residentially zoned property. Said fence or
wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanent
finished materials, compatible with those used in 'the
principal structure, and shall be a minimum of six (6)
feet high _and a maximum of eight (8) feet high. Chain
link fences shall have -non-wooden slats when used for
screening purposes; or
(b) A plaati.ng screen shall be constructed. in a fifteen
� � (15) foot strip and shall consist of healthy, fully hardy
, plant materials and shall be.designed to provide a minimum
- year-round opaqueness of eighty (80) percent at the,time.
, of maturity. The plant material shall be of suf€icient
height to achieve the required screeni.ng. Planting
screens shall be mainta.ined 'in a neat and healthful
condition. Dead vegetation shall•be promptly replaced.
(c) If the existing topography, natural growth of
vegetation, permanent buildings or other barriers.meet the
standards for screening as approved by the_City, they may
be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or
planting screen.
(2) All loading docks must be located in the rear or side
yards and be screened with a six (6) foot high minimum .solid
screening fence if visible from a public right-of-way or if
within thirty (30) feet of a residential districts_
(3) All external loading and service areas accessory to
buildings shall be completely screened from the ground level
view from contiguous residential properties and adjacent
streets, except at access points.
(4) Outdoor intensive uses or areas for e�:terior storage of
materials and equipment related to outdoor intensive uses
�'�1 shall screen storage yards in the following manner:
6/92
205.M3-13
205.19.07.
(a) A continuous earth berm shall be installed along
public rights-of-way with slopes no greater than 3:1 and
a minimum of three (3) feet in height; and
(b) An eight foot high chain link fence with non-metallic
slats shall be installed on the berm and around the
perimeter of the property; and
(c) A combination of deciduous and evergreen plant
materials shall be installed along the fence such that a
minimum fifty (50) percent opacity year round is achieved.
H. Credit for Large Trees
The total number of required over-story trees may be reduced by
one-half (1/2) tree for each new deciduous tree measuring three
(3) incl�es or more in diameter, or each new coniferous tres
measuring eight (8) feet or more in height: In no event, however,
shall the reduction be greater than twenty-five�(25) percent of
the total number of trees.required.
I. Credit for Existing Trees
The total number of required new over=story trees may be reduced
by the. retention of existing over-story trees proyided that the
following conditions are satisfied:
(1)�`Such trees are four (4) inches or greater in caliper
measured six (6) inches from soil level. �.
(2) For each existing tree meeting the requirement, two trees
as required in section D above may be deleted.
(3) Proper precautions to protect trees during development
shall be indicated on grading plans submitted for plan review.
Such precautions are outlined in section J. These precautions
shall be included in the landscape surety. .
J. Irrigation.
Underground irrigation shall be required to maintain all
landscaped, boulevard, front and side yard areas.
K. Installation.
(1) The following standards shall be ifiet when installing the
required landscaping:
(a) Plant materials shall be located to provide reasonable
access to all utilities. �
(b) Al1 required screening or buff�ring shall be �ocated
on Ghe lot occupied by the use� building, facility or
structures to be screened. No .screening or buffering
shall be located on any public right-of-way.
(c) Sodded areas on slopes shall be staked.
6/92 205.M3-14
,-"'�
�
C�
�1,
;
205.19.07.
(d) Seeded areas shail be mulched with straw to prevent
erosion. Hydro mulching is acceptable.
� (e) Oak trees shall be surrounded by snow fence or other
means at their drip line to prevent�compaction of their
root systems.
(f) Plantings shall not be placed so as to obstruct lines
of sight at street corners and driveways.
(g) No plant materials reaching a mature height of twenty
(20) feet or more shall be planted within a twenty-five
(25) foot lineal path of the centerline of an overhead
power line_
. (2) The applicant shall install all landscape materials within
one year; but shall have three (3) years within which to
install the required landscaping if the following minimum
standards are met: -
(a) First year
((1)) All grading is completed� including installation
of berms.
((2)) The required irrigation system is. installed.
' Ci3))�Areas to be seeded and/or sodded are installed.
,�
� -((4)) Screening for adjacent residential areas is
installed, if required.
((S)) Twenty-five (25) percent of the required over-
story trees are installed.
�i6)) TwenLy-five (25) percent of rhe perimeter
landscaping is insta.11ed.
(b) Second year
iil)) The remainder of the perimeter landscaping is
instal�ed.
((2)) Interior landscaping is installed_
((3)) Fifty (SO) percent of �he remaining required
over-story trees are installed.
(c) Third year
Any remaining landscaping shall be installed.
L. Maintenance.
�� (1� The property owner shall be responsible for replacement
of any dead trees, shrubs� ground covers, and sodding. If any
plant materYals are not maintained or replaced, the property
owner shall have, upon written.
6/92
205.M3-15
notification from the City, one growing season to replace said
materials before the City shall maintain or replace said plant
materials_ and assess the property for the costs thereof.
Plant materials need not be replaced specie for specie;
however� in no case shall the number of plant materials be
reduced from the minimum that is required by this section when
replacing dead plant materials.
(2) Screen fences.and walls which are in disrepair shall be
repaired. • .
(3) All vacant lots, tracts, or parcels shall be properly
maintained in an orderly manner -free of litter and junk.
(Ref. Ord 960)
8. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Parking Facilities.
All driveways, parking areas and loading docks shall be surfaced
with blacktop; concrete or other hard surface material approved
by the City.
B. Exterior Storage.
(1) The exterior storage of materials, motor vehicles, and
equipment incidental to the principal use shall comply with
Section 205.19.O1.A.(4).
(2) The exterior storage of materials, motor vehicles, and
equipment related to outdoor intensive uses shall comply with
Section 205.19.06.G.(4). ' .
C. Refuse.
All waste materials, refuse or garbage shall be 'contained in
closed containers as required under the Chapter entitled "Waste
Disposal" of the Fridley City Code. .
D. Screening.
(1) Screening of off-street parking shall be required for:
(a) Any off-street parking area visible from a public
right-of-way.
(b) Any driveway to a parking area adjoining a public
right-of-way.
(2) Where any industrial district is adjacent to a public
right-of-way or across .from any residential district, the
following requirements must be met:
(a) There shall be a five (5) foot sidewalk easement
provided along the property line.
Council may allow the applicant to delay the installation
of the sidewalk, if the applicant signs an agreement that
'
205.19.08.
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
6/92 205.M3-16
,�
�.
;�
C
�1
�
y9 +
205.19.08.
it will be constructed when the City requires the
installation.
� (b) There shall be a fifteen (15) foot planting strip
located behind the required sidewalk� that is substantial
enough to create a physical separation between the public
right-of-way and the industrial property.
(3) Al1 trash or garbage storage receptacles must be located
in the rear or side yard and be totally screened from view
from any public right-of-way. Provisions must be taken to
protect screening from vehicle damage.
(4) Al1 raw materials, supplies� finished or semi-finished
products and equipment, not-including motor vehicles, shall
be stored within an enclosed building or be screened on all
sides from view from a public right-of-way or an adjoining
property of a different district by a fence or other approved
screen which extends two (2) feet above the highest item to
be stored with the height not to exceed eight (8) feet except
where materials and equipment are being used for construction
on premises. - �
(5) Motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principai
use, may be stored without screening only within the permitted
rear yard area.if they are not readily visible from a public
right-of-way. Motor vehicles related to outdoor intensive
uses shall be stored within the required screened storage
/� yard. � .
(6) All roof equipment, except alternate energy devices, must
be screened from public view unless the equipment is designed
as an integral part of the building and is compatible with the
lines of the building, as determined by the City. (Ref. Ord.
960)
E; Drainage And Grade Requirements.
A finished ground grade shall be established such that natural
drainage away from all buildings is provided. The following
minimum criteria shall apply.
(1) The minimum elevation of finished grade shall not be less
than one-fourth (1/4) inch rise per horizontal foot of setback
measured from curb grade.
(2) The City may specify a minimum finished ground grade for
any structure in order to allow proper drainage and connection
to City utilities.
F. Maintenance.
It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure
� that:
�
(1) Every exterior wall, foundation and roof of any building
or"structure shall be reasonably watertight, weather-tight and
rodent-proof and shall be kept in a good state of maintenance
6/92
205.M3-17
, -
205.19.08_
and repair. Exterior walls shall be maintained free from
extensive dilapidation due to cracks� tears or breaks of
deteriorated plaster, stucco, brick, wood or other material �
that gives evidence of long neglect.
. t
(2) The protective surface on exterior walls of a building
shall be maintained in good repair and provide a sufficient
covering and protection of the structural surface against its .
deterioration. Without limiting the generality of this
section, a protective surface�of a building shall be deemed
to be out of repair if:
(a) More than twenty-five percent (25�) of the area of any
plane or wall on which the protective surface is paint is
blistered, cracked, flakecl, scaled or chalked away. or
(b) More than twenty-five percent (25%) of the pointing
of any brick or stone wall is loose or has fallen out.
(3) Every yard and all structures, walls, fences, walks,
steps, driveways, landscaping and other exterior development
shall be maintained in an attractive, well kept condition.
(4) The boulevard area of a premises .shali be properly
maintained, groomed and cared for by.the abutting property
owner. •
G. Essential Services. " • �
(1) Connection is required on each lot served by City sanitary t_
sewer.
(2) Connection is required on each lot served by a City water
line. (Ref. Ord. 960) �
0
\
6/92 205.M3-18
��
�� - -
'�`\
��
�,
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMI88ION MEETING, OCTOBER 25� 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage �called the October 25, 1994, Appeals
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Ruechle, Carol Beaulieu
Members Absent: Ken Vos, Cathy Smith
Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Percy Taylor, Talco, Inc.
Art Seger, 1401 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Margaret Seger, 1401 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 11 1994 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to approve the
October 11, 1994, Appeals Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE QOTE, ALL VOTII�G AYE, C�IRPER80N BAPAGL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. "
1. :VARIANCE RE UEST `VAR 94-27 BY`PERCY TAYLOR FOR TALCO INC.:
Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.D.(3) af the Fridley City Code,.
to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet in
order to allow the construction of an addition on Lot 7, Block
3, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, the same being 7835 Main
Street N.E.
MoTION by Mr. Ruechle, �seconded by. Ms. Beaulieu,�to'waive the
reading of the public .hearing notice and to open the public
hearing. . _
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING A7CE, CHAIRpgggON BAVAGL DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED AND THE pUgLIC HEARING OPEN AT ?:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Percy Taylor is the owner of Talco, Inc.
The property is located at 7835 Main Street, which is south of 79th
Avenue on Main Street. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy
Industrial, as are all the surrounding parcels. The request is to
reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to allow the
construction of a 10 foot x 20 foot addition. The purpose of the
addition is to enclose generators which are used as part of the
petitioner's manufacturing business. The petitioner was unable to
locate them inside the building. �
APPEALB COIyII�iI88ION MEETINa, OCTOBER 25. 1994 PAGE 2
Ms. McPherson stated adjacent to the property to the east is Bizal
Manufacturing. There are no shared driveways along the rear lot
line. To the rear of the subject parcel is a fenced storage area
so the proposed addition does not adversely impact the property
owner to the east. In addition, the size of the proposed addition
would not adversely impact the drainage and utility easement. The
petitioner has indicated the addition will be roofed and weather
proofed to protect the generators located inside the addition.
Staff recommends the following stipulation is the Commission
chooses to recommend approval:
1. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the
existing building.
The Commission had no questions of staff.
Ms. Savage stated the petiti,oner had indicated.the reason.for the
variance request.is.that the hardship is the compressor noise needs
' to be away from the employees in a separate room.
Mr. Taylor stated yes. When he started the business, there were�
fewer employees. It is now more crowded. The noise is
objectionalile ta the employees. That.is the only problem.
Ms.:Beaulieu:stated, to clarify, that the generators are�now on the
inside of the building and will b� put outside and enclosed.�
� . . . . _ _ ,. .
, Mr. Taylor stated the generators will be moved outside and enclosed �
� in order to reduce the noise. .
Mr. Ruechle stated he understood the.equipment to be housed were
. air compressors.. He asked the horsepower of the compressors.
. ,
Mr. Taylor stated;the.air �ompressors were about 50shorsepower.
Ms."Savage asked if the proposed space would�be•large enough.
Mr. Taylor stated.yes.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the
stipulations.
Mr. Taylor stated no. The compressors are inside now. One would
have to be around them to know they are objectionable to �the
employees. �
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Ruechle, to close the
public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTB� ALL VOTINa AYF, CSAIRPFR80N SAVAGL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBI,IC BEARIN�3 CL08ED AT 7s38 P.M.
�
/"`�
�
�"'�
4 -
,,�.� �iPPEALB COMMI88ION MELTIN�3. OCTOBER 25. 1994 PAaE 3
Mr. Ruechle stated he would recommend approval. This would improve
the workplace. Th�re are air compressors where he works and they
are very noisy. Anything that can be done to qet them out of the
workplace proper certainly makes for a better work environment. He
applauds anyone who has the respect for their employees to make the
working environment better. The visual impact will not be much
especially if architecturally compatible. For these reasons, he
would recommend approval.
Ms. Beaulieu agreed for the same reasons. There is no adverse
impact. The City has. granted variances before with similar
proposals. She would recommend approval.
Ms. Savage agreed. After looking at the.site, she could not see
that there would be any adverse affect to the surrounding area.
oTION by Mr. Ruechle, seconded by Ms. Beau-lieu, to approve
Variance Request, VAR �94-27, by Percy Taylor•for Talco, Inc., to
reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet in order to
allow the construction of an addition on Lot 7, Block 3, East Ranch
Estates 2nd Addition, the same being 7835 Main Street N.E., with
the following stipulation: .
� 1. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the
existing building. ,.
_ IIPON A' VOICS VOTE,: � ALL. VOTINa AYE; ` CHAII�P�ON BAVAGL' DECLARED: :T8$ ;'-.. .= .:' .
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISI,Y. � �',
Ms. McPherson stated this request would be considered by the City
Council on November 7, 1994.
2. VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #94-28, BY MARGARET SEGER:
Pursuant to Section 205. 09. 03. D. �(ij of _ the� Fridley' City Code,
ta reduce the front:�yard setback�from.35:feet� to•29.6_feet, on
- the south half <of Lot .21,� '�Auditor's � Subdivision- No. 129,• - -•
generally lflcated at 1401 -.73rd Avenue N.E. .
OTION by , seconded by , to-:.waive. the _reading�� of the public -.
hearing notice and to open the_public hearing. _ -
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, � CHAIRPERBON BAPAt3E DECLARED THE .
MOTION CARRIED AND THE ppBLIC HEARING OPLN AT 7:41 P.M.
� Ms. McPherson stated the request is for.1401 - 73rd Avenue which is
located at the intersection of Hayes Street and 73rd Avenue. The
property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, as are the
adjacent properties. There is R-1,.Single Family.Dwelling,�and R-
2, Two Family Dwelling, also in this neighborhood.
n
m`
APPEALB COMMI88ION MEETING. OCTOBBR 25. 1994 PAGE 4
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a variance to
correct an existing encroachment to reduce the front yard setback
from 35� feet to 29.6 feet. The variance would allow the
construction of an addition between the existing dwelling and_the
existing garage. The petitioner is proposinq to construction a
three-season porch between the two existing structures. Located on
the subject parcel is a single family dwelling unit set at the 29.6
foot setback. Also on the site is a detached garage located at the
35 foot setback. It is unclear from the building permit file as to
when the dwelling was constructed. All the permits in the file
were issued for accessory structures. The earliest permit found
was dated 1955.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed addition measured 15 feet x 19.5
feet and would be located at the 35 foot setback. The variance,
therefore, is to correct the existing encroachment. Granting the
variance would not adversely impact site lines from adjacent
properties as there is 36 feet from the dwelling unit to Hayes
Street. Also the garage is_located at the required front and side
yard setbacks so there is no impact to the property to the east.
This is also within previously granted variances.
�
�
Ms. McPherson stated, as part of staff�s review, there were.
numerous incomplete items that staff observed from previous �
building activities as follows: • �-
1. West wa1l=.of detached building is uncovered shea�hing.-with •'
several holes in it. ` "
2. South roof of detached building is in poor condition
(coverings only).
3. Shed-type addition on the northeast corner has_roofing and
siding missing. Also has rotted lumber at'.valley�$etween two
buildings. No flashing was provided at valley. -
4. Stucco is not completed on walls of detached building.
5. Wall between buildings is constructed of sheathing.
Ms. McPherson stated, if the variance is approved, staff recommends
that these items be stipulated to be completed as part of the.
building permit application for the proposed addition. Other than
that, staff has no recommendation regarding this request.
Ms. Beaulieu asked if the variance is only for the existing
structure. -
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. The variance is to bring
the existing structure into conformance.
�
� -
;� APP�ALB COI�lI88ION MEETING. OCTOBER 25. 1994 PAGE 5
Mr. Seger stated his mother, Margaret Sege�, owns the property and
he is now living there. Finishing the other projects is agreeable.
He would like to finish and do this all at one time.
Ms. Savage asked if he understood that it would be with
stipulations and they would be required to do that. She asked if
they had any problems with that.
Mr. Seger stated he had no problems with that.
Mr. Kuechle asked if Mr. Seger was planning to do the work himself.
Ms. Seger stated yes. This is what he does for a living.
Ms. Beaulieu asked Mr. Seger if he had seen the list of the five
uncompleted items.
Mr. Seger stated he had not seen that list.
Ms. McPherson provided Mr. Seger with a list for his review.
Ms. McPherson stated she was sure: the building inspection
department could work with the petitioner to accomplish a time line
n for completion of the items. �
Mr. Seger stated everything listed except the shed had been done by
his father uritil he passed away and was not completed. He is
, working-on-the shed as he can. He sees no problem with finishing
the items as listed as a stipulation to the permit.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Ruechle, to close the
public hearing. .
iTPON A VOICE VOTS, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BAPAGL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THg pUgLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7s45 P.M.
Ms. Beaulieu stated she would be in favor of granting the variance.
This is an existing condition, but especially since they are
willing to improve the property. She would reconnnend approval with
the five conditions. _
Ms. Savage agreed. It seems that it wouid be an improvement on the
property for them to do this and for the Commission to grant the
variance.
Mr. Kuechle concurred.
MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Ruechle, to recommend
/� approval of Variance Request, VAR #94-28, by Margaret Seger, to
reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 29.6 feet, on the
south half of Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, generally
APPEALB COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBLR 25, 1994 PAQE 6
located at 1401 - 73rd Avenue N.E., with the following conditions
required to be corrected as part of the building permit for the
proposed addition:
l. West wall of detached building is uncovered sheathing with
several holes in it. �
2. South roof of detached building is in poor condition
(coverings only).
3. Shed-type addition�on the northeast corner has roofing and
siding missing. Also has rotted lumber at valley between two
buildings. No flashing was provided at valley.
4. Stucco is not completed on walls of detached building.
5. Wall between buildings is constructed of�sheathing.
IIPON A VOICF VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BAPAGS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
3. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND COIJNCIL ACTIONS
Ms..McPherson provided.an update on Planning Commission_and City
Council. actions.
ADJOURNMENT _ � • �� ; -
.> :
' MOTION by Mr. Ruechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to adjourn the
meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALI+°VOTING AYl3� CSAIRPERSON BAPAGB DLCLARED T88
MOTION CARRILD AND THE OCTOBSR 25, 1994, APPEALS CO�IBSION MEBTING
ADJOIIRNED AT 7:50 P.M. �� ��
Respectfully submitted, _
��G�/
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
(
i ` ,11
�
,�
��
n
�
'iI
' �� � " .
� . _
�
. . . s=ax-rx: s$E$� : . ..
I � APPEALB t�1�dISSION, Tuesday, October 25;�` i994�
. Name � � >;Address/Bus3ness
. .� � j � = �1 �-� �S f� . . .
�- � - - � �
. o l � ��.- �,�, _
.,c.�S.� . . ,, . n y
�. _
. � '
� - . �
.
. f 1 . _ -
_ .. . .. . . i { P : j8i� � - r�l,'i. ' _
. . . . . . . .. - . _ . . - . . � _ .. " .�f
• .. - � � � � s2 ` ��; Y
5
p - _
!. ..� l ._ ! '
- ' S .a �" 9 F ,, .1�
. _ . � _ . - t !� : �w - _ �.
1 _ _ � �Gc. _ -
. . � ., . _ ,. ' l.r-.
f h .. .P 1_' "
� . .. . . .. - ! � liT _
��
... ' -_. _- ' '_�,� .,,- ��_ . .- _- _ �
�. � . . . . -. . - . � . . � . . . . . . ' . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .
I� . -... .. � . � ... � _.. . ... .. .
' � _ _ . �� - _ . . . . . � � �i.. ' , .' .�I
.. . . . ' _ . . �.�'I
__ � _ �� . ' I .r'�
V. i�fI
. , . .. � �i'i'J�Y'i