Loading...
PL 07/13/1994 - 30792�, ^ CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETIN(3, JOLY 13, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the July 13, 1994, Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Members Absent: Diane Savage, Dean Saba Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Tom Wacholz, Opus Corporation Michele Foster, Opus Corporation APPROVAL OF JUNE 29. 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the June 29, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #94-02, BY MURPHY WAREHOUSE COMPANY: To split property into two separate parcels generally located at 48th Avenue and Main Street. The legal descriptions for the two lots are as follows: Parcel A: The south 1025.22 feet of Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 79, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the south line of said Lot 2 and which lies easterly of a line parallel with and distant 511.00 feet easterly of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (formerly Northern Pacific Railway Company) main track centerline, except the east 33.00 feet of said Lot 2. Parcel B: That part of Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 79, which lies north of the south 1025.22 feet of said Lot 2, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the south line of said Lot 2 and which lies easterly of a line parallel with and distant 511.00 feet easterly of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (formerly Northern Pacific Railway Company) ;� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, JIILY 13, 1994 PAG$ 2 main track centerline, except the east 33.00 feet of said Lot 2. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner for the request is Murphy Warehouse Company. Burlington Northern Railroad (BNR) is the owner. The petitioner is represented by Opus Corporation. The lot split request is for the property generally located between 47th and 49th Avenues and between Main Street and the BNR yards. The property is vacant and is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. The property to the east is all single family residential. Ms. McPherson stated the total parcel measures 19.72 acres. The petitioner is proposed to purchase 15.5 acres with the intent to construct a 265,000 square foot warehouse. The lot split as proposed would create two parcels. One is the 15.5 acre parcel to the south, and the remnant piece is 4.2 acres. The lot widths are 1318.93 and 293.7 feet respectively., Both lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement of 1.5 acres and the minimum requirement of 150 feet. There is an active Amoco fuel line along the southerly property line and there is an MWCC sanitary sewer interceptor along the west property line. Ms. McPherson stated Anoka County has reviewed the proposed plans !"'� as the property abuts Main Street which is a County road. Anoka County has requested a 67-foot drainage and utility easement be dedicated along the west right-of-way line or east property line of the subject parcel to be used for stormwater ponding purposes in conjunction with the reconstruction of Main Street. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is intendiMg to construct a 265,000 square foot warehouse on the property. The building measures 602 feet by 442 feet and will be 33 feet tall. It is to be constructed of precast concrete panels. There will be a railroad spur line along the west wall of the building. There will be loading docks on both the north and south sides of the building. There will also be entry drives on the north and south ends of the building. The spur line, as proposed, crosses the 4.22 acre parcel to the north. An access easement should be recorded over the spur line to allow access to the Murphy property. Ms. McPherson stated approximately 30 trucks per day are anticipated by the petitioner. Hours of operation are to be from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a possibility of a second shift. There are a total of 28 docks, 14 on each the north and south sides. As proposed, the building meets the minimum distance requirements for setbacks and lot coverage of the M-2 district, including the 100 foot setback from the easterly property line � which is across from the R-1 di"strict. �•. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEBTING, JIILY 13, 1994 PAGB 3 Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner requires only 33 parking spaces for the employees proposed to be at the warehouse. The plan provides an additional 106 spaces as proof of parking. The building is designed to be sub-divided in the future into smaller spaces should the petitioner choose to relocate to another facility. The petitioner did provide two re-use scenarios to allow for increased manufacturing and warehouse space and office space and estimated the possible number of parking on the site. Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of drainage, stormwater drainage currently flows from northeast to southwest toward the BNR yards. The grading plan submitted by the petitioner reverses this flow from the northwest to the southeast discharging the water into the upgraded storm sewer system in Main Street. The petitioner will be allowed to release storm water either at the predeveloped flow rate or 5 cubic feet per second, whichever is less. Anoka County is installing a stormwater pipe because the existing system is not adequate to handle the existing flows along main street. Should the plan proposed by Anoka County fail to be realized, there two options for the petitioner to discharge the stormwater to the west: 1. Stormwater would be piped to the existing BNR stormwater system located within the railyard. 2. The petitioner would install a new pipe along the west property line south to a municipal interceptor which then flows west to the Mississippi River. Ms. McPherson stated the parcel to north will also be allowed to discharge water into Main Street at 5 cubic feet per second or at the predeveloped rate, whichever is less. The petitioner submitted the calculations with the proposed grading and drainage plan. Scott Erickson has put together a two-page letter to Opus Corporation outlining 14 items which are required as part of his review of the grading and drainage plan. The stipulation should be added to the recommendation that the petitioner is to comply with the items in this letter dated July 13, 1994. Ms. McPherson stated the park dedication fee is required at the commercial rate of $.023 cents per square foot. The petitioner also submitted a landscape plan. The petitioner proposes to place the majority of the landscape materials along Main Street to buffer the residential property to the east and also to break up the mass of the building. The ordinance requires 265 trees (265,000 square feet divided by 1,000). The petitioner at this time is proposing to plant 165 trees so, therefore, they are 100 trees short. The petitioner could increase the size of the trees provided which would reduce the number of trees required by 25%. '� In that instance, only an additional 35 trees would then be � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JIILY 13, 1994 PAGE 4 required. Staff has stipulated that the petitioner is to revise the plan to either comply with the landscape ordinance or apply for a variance for relief from the landscape requirements. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request by the Planning Commission to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall dedicate a 67-foot drainage and utility easement along the east property line. 2. An access easement shall be recorded over the spur line on the vacant parcel. 3. The owner shall notify the Community Development Department if use of the building changes from a warehouse to a manufacturing facility causing the need for additional parking. 4. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $15,529.14 at the time of building permit issuance. 5. The petitioner shall submit a revised plan in !'� compliance with the landscape ordinance requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The petitioner shall comply with the items in Mr. Erickson's letter dated July 13, 1994. Mr. Newman asked which parcel would be Parcel B. Ms. McPherson stated Parcel B would be the 4.22 acre parcel that is the remnant as a result of the lot split. This is the parcel to the north. Mr. Newman asked if these parcels would be separate. Ms. McPherson stated she thought this was BNR's intent. Mr. Sielaff asked, if deliveries and products are going to be leaving by rail, what is the need for the trucks. Ms. Dacy stated there is a variety of clients in the building. Some will be receiving and/or shipping by truck. Not all material will be using rails. Mr. Kondrick referred to the letter from Scott Erickson and asked if the representatives for the petitioner from Opus had also �, received a copy of this letter. �'� !''1 PLANNINa COMMIBSION MEETINa. JIILY 13, 1994 PAG$ 5 Ms. McPherson stated they had received a copy this evening. Staff just received the letter in late afternoon. The points outlined in the letter are points which have been previously discussed with the petitioner. Ms. Foster, Director of Real Estate for Opus Corporation, stated she and Mr. Wacholz, Project Manager for the Construction Division of Opus Corporation, have been working with Murphy on this project. She has been working with them on the land acquisition and land planning for the site. They are in general agreement with the staff report with the exception of the landscape requirement. With respect to that requirement, she provided background on how they approached the City's landscaping ordinance. As they understand it, there are two alternative � computations that can be used within the landscape ordinance - one according to the perimeter of the site and the other, and the greater requirement, is according to the square footage of the building. By using the perimeter calculation, they would be required to provide 68 trees. In looking at the magnitude of the site and project and the importance of the Main Street frontage, it was pretty apparent that this would not be adequate landscaping for the site. On this particular site, they are dealing with a very large building, a large amount of paved area, a rail track along the west property line where clearly landscaping would serve no benefit. In addition, they also have to incorporate a large ponding area on the site in order retain water before it goes into the County system. The alternative requirement of 265 trees they felt was not a reasonable requirement. They asked their landscape architect to prepare what they felt to be the best landsc�ping plan for the site given those constraints keeping in mind the most important was the Main Street frontage. She felt they have provided a very adequate landscape plan for the site. They have provided a number of evergreen trees to provide screening of the truck dock areas as well as to provide screening to neighbors across the street to help break up the length of the building. While they could provide 100 additional trees on the site, she is not convinced that this is a reasonable requirement given this particular project and the scale of the project. They are between the two standards. The square foot calculation is 265, the perimeter calculation is 68, and they are proposing 165. The plan proposed provides an improvement compared to other projects along Main Street and will provide a very well landscaped project to the neighbors across the street. That is the only issue they have to discuss. They just received the engineer's letter and, based on a quick review, she thought they were okay with those items at this point. After they have a chance to review these items in more, there may need to be further discussions. Ms. Foster stated, with respect to the operation of the building, not all of the materials that go into the warehouse�will be � PLANNINa COMMI3SION MEETING, JIILY 13, 1994 PAGB 6 coming by rail. Some will come in by rail and go out by truck, some will come in by truck and go out by truck. It will depend on the particular mix of product in the building. Given the type of business, this will vary. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were plans to berm on the Main Street side of the building. Mr. Wacholz stated there are berms at the corners to screen the dock areas. With the ponding in the front to retain the water, there was not enough room to berm the front of the building. Ms. Foster stated they tried to develop a good landscape statement with the front. They plan to plant 165 trees so technically they are 100 short of the maximum interpretation of the ordinance but 100 over the minimum interpretation. With a building of this size, the number can get out of sync with what is expected for a smaller building. Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problem with the landscape plan as provided. Perhaps using larger trees would seem like a good compromise. � Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a minimum requirement for trees in the code. Ms. McPherson stated the minimum size is 1.5 inches for ornamental trees, 2.5 inches for street trees, and 6 feet for conifers. The trees proposed are the minimum required by code. Mr. Newman asked if this required a variance. Ms. Dacy stated this is part of the code. A variance request would go to the Appeals Commission. She would suggest staff speak with petitioner about a larger tree standard. The petitioner is correct that the formula for a large building will require a lot of trees. This issue can be worked out with staff. Mr. Oquist asked staff to speak to the different interpretations and how they are applied. Ms. Dacy stated the intent of the ordinance is basically the bigger the building then there should then be a large number of trees to soften the impact. This is a very large building. While she agrees with the petitioners intent to put most of the landscaping on the north, east and west sides, there is additional room for additional trees. n Ms. McPherson stated the calculation is that there shall be one tree for every 50 feet of lot line perimeter or one tree for 1,000 square feet of building area, whichever is greater. ;� PLANNINa COMMIBSION MEETING� JIILY 13. 1994 PAGE 7 Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a difference in the number required when using larger trees as compared to smaller trees. Ms. Dacy stated yes. The total number of required overstory trees may be reduced by 1/2 tree for each deciduous tree measuring 3 inches or more in diameter or each coniferous tree measuring 8 feet or over. Mr. Kondrick stated he would like to see more big trees which could be put in the landscape plan. Ms. Foster stated they would be open to that if there are areas where the trees should be larger. They do not want to provide an excessive amount of landscaping which doesn't serve a real benefit for the project and is an expense for Murphy Warehouse Company. Ms. Dacy stated it is up to the petitioner as to whether they want to apply for a variance. Staff is comfortable with the lot split request. Staff would like to resolve the landscaping issue. If they want to proceed with the lot split request, they can proceed with a variance at a later time. r"\ Mr. Oquist stated they can indicate in their recommendation for the lot split to work out the landscape plan. Mr. Newman asked if the parcel to the south was occupied. Ms. McPherson stated she believed so. Mr. Oquist asked if the railroad spur went through the building. Ms. Foster stated yes. Mr. Sielaff asked who is the owner of the property. Ms. Foster stated BNR is the current owner. Murphy Warehouse Company will purchase the site from BPTR and Murphy will own the building. Murphy Warehouse Company is a public warehousing company and provides warehouse space for other companies. They will not subdivide the space. Companies that contract with them are provided a space in the building and need to know they can move their product in and out of the building when they require. It is not like a multi-tenant building with separate spaces. Murphy's headquarters and main facility is in Minneapolis. They have a facility in Roseville and lease space in Fridley. This will allow them to own and have product in their own building. ^ Mr. Oquist asked how many people would work there. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JIILY 13, 1994 PAGE 8 Ms. Foster stated approximately 20-25 employees would be at the site. They do have some seasonal tenants so there are times when there are more people in the building. At this time they have one shift, but there could potentially be two shifts. Ms. Dacy stated staff have worked with Murphy over the last few months. They have done a lot of work to meet the ordinance requirements, especially in regards to the loading docks. Mr. Kondrick asked what specific plans does Anoka County have for the upgrading of Main Street. Ms. Dacy stated the County is in the planning process right now. Drainage is one issue and the bikeway/walkway is another issue. It is mostly for the storm sewer but she was not sure if it was to be widened. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of the lot split request, L.S. #94-02, by Murphy Warehouse Company to split property into two separate parcels generally located at 48th Avenue and Main Street. The legal descriptions for the two lots are as follows: Parcel A: The south 1025.22 feet of Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 79, as �'1 measured at a right angle to and parallel with the south line of said Lot 2 and which lies easterly of a line parallel with and distant 511.00 feet easterly of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (formerly Northern Pacific Railway Company) main track centerline, except the east 33.00 feet of said Lot 2; and Parcel B: That part of Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 79, which lies north of the south 1025.22 feet of said Lot 2, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the south line of said Lot 2 and which lies easterly of a line parallel with and distant 511.00 feet easterly of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (formerly Northern Pacific Railway Company) main track centerline, except the east 33.00 feet of said Lot 2; with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall dedicate a 67-foot drainage and utility easement along the east property line. 2. An access easement shall be recorded over the spur line on the vacant parcel. 3. The owner shall notify the Community Development Department if use of the building changes from a warehouse to a manufacturing facility causing the need for additional parking. n 4. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $15,529.14 at the time of building permit issuance. ^ PLANNIN� CO1dIIKI88ION MEETINa JIILY 13, 1994 PAGE 9 5. The petitioner shall submit a revised plan in compliance with the landscape ordinance requirements prior to issuance of a building permit or obtain a variance. 6. The petitioner shall comply with the items in Mr. Erickson's letter dated July 13, 1994. Mr. Newman stated, in the landscape plan, they tried to do a nice job but six-foot trees in front of a 33-foot building does not screen. Going to a larger tree would add to the screening and reduce the number of trees required. He encouraged them to work with staff to see if they could work something out. He felt the unique hardship would be the rail line to the rear of the property. This does appear to be a very well thought out plan. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item would be before the City Council on July 25. 2. RECEIVE THE MINLTTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION �1 MEETING OF JUNE 6. 1994 Mr. Kondrick stated of particular interest is the request to name a City park in honor of Mr. John Gargaro. Mr. Gargaro was not only a member of the Commission but also very active in the community. The Lions Club has also submitted a proposal to rename a park and have expressed a wish to place a memorial at their expense. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of June 6, 1994. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 3. RECEIVE THE MINLTTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF JUNE 22. 1994 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr.�Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of June 22, 1994. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEBTING. JIILY 13. 1994 PAGE 10 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JULY 13, 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:16 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , `�'Ll 11�Zi.�� � , ; � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � �^� 8 I G N— IN S H E E T Wednesday, July 13, 1994 " PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Name Address/Business � ,-/ �' '��fS G��"�n��'1i ; l90O �3r2c:-h/ � c-.": —1 �/d� //I//�7�/�G � ri..✓i✓���✓� rvr.J �; .� +�' 3 , �� � � /�`�