PL 11/02/1994 - 30799�"1
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNIN(� CONIIrlISSION MEETINt3, NOVEMBTR 2� 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the November 2, 1994, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Diane Savage,
Dean Saba
Dave Newman, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Rick Moseman, Supreme Too.l Inc.
Bruce Moseman, Supreme Tool Inc.
Jeff Holle, Holle Construction Company,
1855 Melrose Avenue S., St. Louis Park, NIlJ
Gene Minea, Minea Realty, 2307 Wentworth,
Minneapolis, NIl�T
John Ryden, C. B. Commercial Real Estate,
4221 Abbott Avenue S., Minneapolis, NII�T
Steven Johnson, Ceres Environmental,
2504 Tal. County Road B, Roseville, NIN
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 19. 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the
October 21, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINGr AYE, VICE-CSAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DLCLARED THT MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING RE4UEST. 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.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CSAIRPLR80N RONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN�3 OPEN AT 7t33
P.M.
� Mr. Hickok stated the subject parcel is located on Osborne Road,
east of Highway #65. The parcel is north of Kurt Manufacturing.
Zoning on surrounding parcels includes M-1, Light Industrial, to
� PLANNIN(3 COMMI88ION MEETING, NOPEMHER 2, 1994 PA(3E 2
the south and east; C-2, General Business, to the north, east and
west; and there is M-1, Light Industrial, and M-4, Mobile Home
Park, to the west across Highway b5.
Mr. Hickok stated the proposal would allow rezoning to Light
Industrial to allow for manufacturing, warehousing and
wholesaling. The site as proposed would be used for the
construction of a 12,000 square foot building measuring 120 feet
x 100 feet. The development has been planned to have adequate
parking, landscape setbacks, building setback, and has taken into
consideration the permitted lot coverage.
Mr. Hickok stated staff uses three criteria in evaluating
rezoning requests:
• District compatibility with adjacent uses and zoning.
• District intent.
• Whether or not the use meets the district requirements.
Mr. Hickok stated the M-1 zoning and adjacent uses seem to be
compatible. The intent of the district is for light industrial.
This would an extension of that light industrial use in that area
and is consistent with that intent. The site plan has been
reviewed by staff to determine whether the site coverage,
parking, landscape setbacks, etc., are appropriate.
Mr. Hickok stated, because the rezoning request meets the
criteria, staff recommends approval 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.
Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Erickson has outlined the following:
1. A Storm Pond Maintenance Agreement will need to be recorded
with the property prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Install rip-rap with filter blanket at the outlet of the
storm water pipe.
3. Install a flared end section with grate on the end of the
storm pipe outlet.
�"^�
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING, NOVEMBER 2. 1994 PAGE 3
4. Provide a piped outlet to the pond with direct connection to
the existing storm pipe. Provide hydraulic calculations.
The outlet should be size to meter pre-developed flow rates.
5. A Hold Harnaless Agreement will be required for any
improvements constructed in easement areas (parking, storm
pond).
6. The driveway entrance should be constructed to retain all
drainage on-site.
7. Clearly note on the plans the size and type of all existing
utilities.
8. 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 pre-developed? The existing flow
rate calculations should be based on an unimproved grassed
area.
n 10. Rice Creek Watershed District approval is required. Provide
copies of approval when obtained.
11. All existing street 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.
15. All drainage from the site should be directed to the storm
poind. Sub-catchment 2 should be routed to the pond.
Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Hickok to explain #8 from the memo.
Mr. Hickok stated this road was known in the early plat as Viron
Road and is now known as the Hwy. 65 East Service Road. This is
a technicality in which staff are asking that road be referred to
as Hwy. 65 East Service Road.
� Mr. Oquist questioned #11 and asked why the street needed to be
swept daily.
�, PLANNING COMMISBION MEETINa, NOVSMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 4
� �
Mr. Hickok stated this is required only during the construction
process.
Mr. Oquist requested #11 be revised to include this is to be done
during construction.
Mr. Saba questioned the need for a Hold Harmless Agreement. He
understood this was a condition of an easement. If there was
construction over an easement, the owner is responsible.
Mr. Hickok stated the agreement is a protective document in which
the owner recognizes that, in the event there is a later
correction, the City is not responsible.
Mr. Saba asked if this is something the City t,�ill be doing for
every development.
Mr. Hickok stated this has been done on recent developments and
is consistent with what the Public Works staff has recommended in
the past.
Mr. Bruce Moseman stated they have been in business since 1969.
They have been in Fridley since 1981 in Rurt Manufacturing. They
� currently have 14 employees, and they are a family-owned
corporation. They do 600 of their work for Rurt Manufacturing
which is why this site is handy. It provides access to Rurt to
maintain a good working relationship. They build plastic
injection and die cast molds from steel blocks and machine the
blocks to conform to the customer prints. Some of their
customers include Kurt Manufacturing, Polaris Industries, John
Deere, Digital Computers, etc.
Mr. Kondrick asked if they generate waste or store chemicals on
the site or in the building.
Mr. Moseman stated no.
Ms. Savage asked if they had any problem with the stipulations.
Mr. Moseman stated no. Most of the stipulations in the memo were
known beforehand and many were included in the site plan.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
IIPOld A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR
DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRILD AND THE PIIBLIC HEARI1dC: CLOBED AT 7t48
P.M.
� Mr. Oquist stated he has been in Supreme Tool and has seen their
shop. They do need some room. He sees nothing wrong and the
� PLANNING� COMMIBBION MEETINa. NOVEMHER 2, 1994 PAaE 5
stipulations cover the concerns.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to the
City Council approval of Rezoning Request, 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,
generally located north of 7597 Highway #65, 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.
and, that requirement #11 as listed in Scott Erickson�s memo
dated October 17, 1994, be revised to read:
11. All existing street surfaces shall be kept free of dirt and
debris and shall be swept on a daily basis or as directed by
^ the City during the construction process.
IIPON A VOICE VOTT, AI,L VOTIN(� AYE, VICE-CHAIRPTR80N RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council will establish a public
hearing on November 21 and will hear the request on December 5,
1994.
2. PUBLIC HEARI1dG: 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 allow the construction of
corporate offices and to allow outdoor storage of materials
and equipment as a principal use on Lots 1& 2, Block 3,
Great Northern Industrial Center East. This property is
generally located east of 5101 Industrial Boulevard, north
of FMC, and adjacent to the Burlington Northern mainline.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINd AYF, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC BEARINa OPEN AT 7s46
P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the request is to rezone the subject parcel
from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-3, Heavy Industrial Outdoor
a
�� PLANNIN�3 COMMI88ION METsTIN�3. 1JOVEMSER 2. 1994 PAC,�L 6
Intensive. Both are heavy industrial districts; however, the M-3
is designed to accommodate heavy industry with outdoor intensive
activities. The subject parcel is located within the Great
Northern Industrial Center and the zoning in that center is M-2,
Heavy Industrial. The zoning to the east covers the properties
along Main Street which are M-2, Heavy Industrial.
Mr. Hickok stated the property is to the west of the rail line
and is a long narrow parcel. The request would allow rezoning
for Ceres Environmental. The site plan includes an affice
building which would be the location of their administrative and
office complex and the location for maintenance of their heavy
equipment. Ceres provided copies of photographs of the types of
equipment to be stored on this site. The office portion of the
building is two-story with 3840 square feet. There are 6,400
square feet in the maintenance complex located to the rear of the
building.
Mr. Hickok stated staff inet with the petitioner early in the
planning process and determined, because of the size of the
building and intensity of storage outdoors, an M-3 zoning would
be appropriate for this request. Initially, the petitioner
looked at the site and, based on the site dimensions, the size of
� the building required and the use, felt this was an adequate
site. It is the outdoor storage activities that have driven the
M-3 requirement.
Mr. Hickok stated, in May, 1992, the City Council debated the
creation of the M-3 district. At that time, there was much
discussion about what the M-3 district would be used for and what
impacts that would have on the existing M-1 and M-2 districts.
It was believed that creating the M-3 district would allow the
opportunity for those who wanted M-3 industrial uses that were
not covered under the M-2 and special use permit for outdoor
storage. Screening could be difficult because of the large
equipment or other activities related to outdoor storage.
Therefore, the M-3 district was deemed necessary. As part of
that discussion, the City determined that the sites appropriate
for M-3 zoning were in the northern portion of the City. This
area centers around Hickory Street north of 81st.
Mr. Hickok stated Ceres Environmental is an environmental
consultant with clients throughout the metropolitan area and
throughout the country. Their services include fuel tank removal
and replacement, construction/demolition, recycling of timber,
snow removal, and general tree service (trimming, dead tree
removal, etc.) Ceres has a number of locations. This would be
the site for office and maintenance uses. Ceres has a site in
^ Maple Grove for wood recycling. They are the.Hennepin County
contractor for this activity. They are also the City of
Minneapolis contractor for snow removal and much of the large
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETIN�3. 1JOVEMHLR 2. 1994 PAGE 7
equipment related to the snow removal would
site. Ceres felt the proximity of the site
Minneapolis is important and that this is a
other M-3 available in the community.
be stored on the
to downtown
preferred site to
Mr. Hickok stated there are three criteria used in determining
whether rezoning is appropriate. The first is the compatibility
with adjacent uses. To the north, there is M-2, Heavy
Industrial, (Minikahda Mini Storage) which is an industrial self-
storage facility with indoor storage and asphalt driving aisles
and parking surfaces. To the east, there is M-2, Heavy
Industrial, along Main Street. Closest to th�is site would be the
rear portion of those sites. To the south is also M-2, Heavy
Industrial, including Quebecor and FMC. These are large
buildings with incidental outdoor storage. To the west, is the
Perlman Rocque transfer facility for restaurants, including
McDonald's. There is outdoor truck/trailer activity which is
limited to incidental traffic related to the principal use on
site.
Mr. Hickok stated the second criteria is the district intent.
The intent of the M-3 is to allow heavy industrial uses and
outdoor storage. This proposal would be consistent with M-3
zoning and would be dependent on the outdoor storage.
Mr. Hickok stated the third criteria is the district regulations.
The proposed site plan meets the intent and meets the M-3 zoning
regulations. The building is centrally located. There is
landscaping to the north and to the south. There is a storage
yard with crushed gravel or compacted fill area. There is also
hard surface of concrete and asphalt. The petitioner has asked
for consideration of the crushed gravel because of the weight of
the equipment and materials to be stored outside.
Mr. Hickok stated the recommendation falls back to a policy
issue. Approval would allow an M-3 parcel that would be
surrounded by M-2 uses. The site has an elongated shape that
backs up to the railroad tracks. To the rear of the property
the rear areas of the industrial uses to the east. Staff
recommends, based on the evaluation of the criteria, that the
Commission recommend denial of the rezoning request due to the
incompatibility of the M-3 district with the other M-2 uses.
the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval,'�staff
recommends the following stipulations:
1.
is
If
Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Great Northern Industrial Center East
shall be consolidated as one tax parcel.
2. The parking area shall include signs and surface striping to
'� identify a one-way circulation pattern.
� PLANNING CONIIrII88ION MEETINa. NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 8
,
�
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 qravel 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.
Mr. Hickok referred to stipulation #7 in which Mr. Erickson's
memo lists the following Engineering Department requirements:
1. A Storm Pond Maintenance Agreement will need to be recorded
with the property prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. All drive areas shall be hard surfaced and have concrete
curb and gutter.
3. The driveway entrance shall be constructed to retain all
drainage on sitee
4. Grade the site to one ponding location.
5. Provide concrete blocking for all watermain piping bends.
Note on the plan the amount of blocking to be installed.
6. Install rip-rap with filter blanket at the storm pipe
outlet.
7. Install flared ends and trash guards on all storm pipe ends.
8. Clearly note all pipes sizes, types of material, and class
of materials being proposed.
9. A minimum of 7 feet of cover is required to the top of all
service lines. Is this achieved? Clearly note service
�
depths on the plan.
10. Provide a detail of the plans for the baffled weir outlet.
� PLANNINa CONIIalISSION M�SETIN(�. NOVEMBER 2. 1994 PAaE 9
11. Show all existing and proposed invert elevations.
12. Install a manhole at the bend of the 6-inch sanitary service
line.
13. Install a gate valve on the 6-inch service line.
14. Note on the plans that all street surfaces shall be kept
free of dirt and debris and shall be swept on a daily basis
or as directed by the City.
15. Provide a rocked entry point to the site. Show location and
detail on the plan.
16. Clearly identify locations of silt fence installation.
Provide a detail on the plan.
17. Provide hydrology, hydraulic, ponding calculations and all
related information and assumptions.
18. Additional information may be requested.
Mr. Saba stated the proposal is for a service and maintenance
r"`� facility. Will there also be junk or salvage vehicles on the
property?
Mr. Hickok stated his understanding is that vehicles will be
there for maintenance and that their typical vehicles for
operation will be stored there. He did not believe any salvage
vehicles would be on the property.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner was looking at the site.
Mr. Hickok stated they are looking at the site and have not
established that at their location.
Ms. Savage asked if there had been any discussion with staff
about this company locating in the M-3 zone.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. One of the items highlighted was the
proximity with Minneapolis with their snow removal activities.
Mr. Kondrick asked if fencing was discussed.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. Screening plans as indicated on the
elevations would include a chain link fence with privacy
screening slats to screen those elements to be stored outside.
There is also an undulating berm with landscaping to soften the
� impact of that screening fence.
Mr. Kondrick asked if this is speaking to fencing the entire
�'"�
��
�
PLANNING COP�lI88ION MEETINa. NOVEMBER 2. 1994 PAGE 10
property.
Mr. Hickok stated there would be screening for all areas where
storage of materials could be seen from adjacent properties or
the public right-of-way.
Mr. Steven Johnson, business manager for Ceres Environmental,
stated the company has been in business for 17 years. The size
of the company and gross revenues are currently about $5 million.
They employ 15-30 people. Some positions are seasonal. They are
looking at this property for their headquarters and maintenance
facility. The amount of equipment stored would be very limited
on this parcel. They have a 10-acre facility in Maple Grove
where they operate year-round recycling activities. That
particular operation has achieved national acclaim. As far as he
knows, the operation is looked at kindly and is a clean
operation. They do not intend to move these activities to this
site. There seems to be some misconception as to the amount of
storage to occur on the property. There is not going to be a
great amount due to the size of the property. About 80� of the
equipment is stored on the job locations, which could be metro,
regional or in other states. At the most, 20o would be at this
location and only at the time it is being serviced or if it is
for seasonal use.
Mr. Johnson stated, in reference to the question as to whether
another M-3 site would work, there are limitations. Concerns
include access and closeness to downtown. The type of snow
removal they do is for substantial commercial properties in
downtown locations where the snow is hauled off-site and disposed
of. This particular location would provide quick access to both
freeways. The time difference in mobility and travel time
compared to the other zones would be detrimental to their snow
removal operations. It does not seem like a long way but with
repeated trips it adds up significantly.
Mr. Johnson stated he would like to reinforce that the company
would be a good neighbor. The intent is to comply with the
recommendations of staff. He is concerned about the stipulation
to require a paved service for the entire storage area. A lot of
the equipment has tracks which is not compatible with paved or
concrete surfaces. It is very hard on those surfaces and the
investment put into that surface on a repeated basis would have a
significant impact. They have enough space to accommodate the
equipment that is there on a regular basis. The concrete surface
in the shop needs to be 10 inches thick. There is also a
substantial paved area in the front. They have every intention
to make the site attractive. They want to attract and maintain
good employees. Some of the limits of a contractor are the looks
of the yard. Part of their corporate image is to convey that
image with the property.
�\ PLANNINa COMMI�BION MEETINa. NOVEMHER 2. 1994 PAaB 11
Mr. Kondrick asked, in lieu of a concrete or asphalt storage
yard, what surface would they propose.
Mr. Johnson stated the surface would be an improved surface with
crushed rock. This would be within a fenced area and screened
from view. Maintenance is done annually or as needed.
Mr. Johnson stated, to provide an idea of their need and concern,
they are currently located on Hwy. 280. They have surfaces there
that are concrete and asphalt installed a number of ye�rs ago to
handle heavy equipment. Their use on that particular property
has deteriorated that surface in a few years. They want to make
the investment for an apron but it is not practical in the
storage yard where equipment is stored.
Mr. Kondrick asked if they would be changing oil or have any
contaminants that would seep into the soil in the storage yard.
Mr. Johnson stated maintenance would be done on the concrete
apron and in the shop itself. There would be no activities as
described on the gravel surfaces. Ceres is an environmental
contractor so they have that concern. Their main contractor is
the government to do clean up. They have a good track record and
/`� are a conscientious environmental contractor. He did not think
there would be any problems.
Mr. Oquist asked if they would be storing and maintaining the
equipment as shown in the provided materials except when it is on
the job site.
Mr. Johnson stated this building would be the main garage. For
major repairs, equipment would come here.
Mr. Kondrick stated the company specializes in the removal of
storage tanks. Would any of those removed items to be stored on
this site?
Mr. Johnson stated no. Those items are dealt with on the site or
hauled directly to a disposal facility. New installations are
normally sent to the site. They have had occasions where tanks
were delivered before they were ready to install and needed to be
stored in the yard.
Mr. Johnson stated their hours of operation are from 7:30 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. During snow removal, they are a 24-hour operation and
would be dispatching crews out of that area during snow falls.
That operation is a bit unique. The type of work requires heavy
equipment. That equipment would be interimly staged at this
^ facility.
Mr. Kondrick asked if welding would be done inside.
�� PLANNINa COMMI86ION MEETING. NOVEMB$R 2. 1994 PAGE 12
Mr. Johnson stated a welding bay would be in the shop. They want
to have four service bays. One of those would be a drive through
for tractor/trailer rigs. All of those maintenance activities
would be done indoors.
Mr. Rondrick stated one of the items that was of concern to staff
was the company comply with the memo dated October 28, 1994, from
Mr. Erickson regarding the drainage and grading review. Were
there any questions?
Mr. Johnson stated they have reviewed. They have no problems or
concerns in complying. They asked staff to come to another
location that would be very similar in type, use and construction
to what is being proposed. It was typical and indicative of the
facility they propose.
Mr. Hickok stated the facility is Bel Air Excavating in New
Brighton located northwest of the intersection of Hwy. 10 and 96.
Staff looked at the site and also had an opportunity to see the
crushed compacted or recycled surface. It gave staff a chance to
see a site like this in operation. It is a very nice site.
Mr. Rondrick stated staff has recommended denial of the request.
� If the Commission recommends approval of the request, staff
recommends eight stipulations. With the exception of stipulation
#8 regarding the surface in the storage area, are you in
agreement with the remaining stipulations as submitted?
Mr. Johnson stated they would be able to comply with all except
#8. They would request a gravel surface.
Mr. John Ryden provided photos of the site including aerial
photos. He felt this company was as good a use as one would see
on this property. He does not think one would see a use more in
line with the M-2 zoning. The use will be M-3 primarily because
of the location, dimensions and terrain. It is across the street
from where there are semi-trailers backed up to the street. The
other side is along the railroad tracks. The lot is very narrow
so it would be difficult to get a bigger building on the site.
The property lends itself to outdoor storage use. The typical
company looking to construct a building with no storage would not
want this site. They would want a different view. This is the
reason Ceres picked the site. It is somewhat hidden from the
main traffic lines.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the streets in that area can support the
weight of this equipment. Can they get back to the property with
this equipment?
� Mr. Johnson stated the streets are wide enough and are adequate.
That was a limitation on the how to develop the site. They had
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, NOVEMB�R 2. 1994 PAa� 13
to have the architect design it so they could get sufficient
turning radius for a tractor/trailer rig onto the property. They
accomplished that with a drive through bay within the building
and one way routing in and out of the site.
Mr. Hickok stated the streets in this industrial district are of
a heavier grade with this use in mind.
OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTIiJ(� AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR
DECLAR�D TH8 MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(�3 CLOSED AT 8:25
P.M.
Mr. Saba asked if they would need a variance for stipulation #8.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. The surface requirement could be brought
back for the appeals process.
Mr. Oquist stated, as he recalled, a similar.discussion came up
with Park Construction where they did not need the hard surface.
� Mr. Hickok stated this is a discretionary decision on the part of
staff to decide which items go through the appeals process.
Ultimately, all have to go through the City Council. There have
been items that the Council has acted on independent of the
Appeals Commission.
Ms. Savage asked if the City had received any objections to the
request.
Mr. Hickok stated staff has not received any negative calls
regarding this request.
Mr. Oquist stated this seems to be a good use of the property and
this is an environmental consulting company. He would like to
strike stipulation #8. He does not think this requirement would
work for this intended use.
Ms. Savage stated she had concern about establishing a precedent
for moving the M-3 zoning but she was persuaded that this company
would be an asset to the City. Because of the particular area,
she did not think it would be a detriment.
Mr. Kondrick agreed. This use would suit the area.
Mr. Saba stated there could be worse companies than this for M-3.
� He did not see a problem. He thought it would be handled well.
He would like to see stipulation #8 go through the appeals
process and then to the City Council. He has no problem with the
�� PLANNIN� CO1�IIrtI88ION METTINa� NOVEMHLR 2. 1994� PA(3L 14
curbs but the surface is not right for this type of operation.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval
of Rezoning Request, ZOA #94-94, by Dave McIntyre of Ceres
Environmental, to rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-3,
Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial, to allow the construction of
corporate offices and to allow outdoor storage of materials and
equipment as a principal use on Lots 1& 2, Block 3, Great
Northern Industrial Center East, generally located east of 5101
Industrial Boulevard, north of FMC, and adjacent to the
Burlington Northern mainline, with the following stipulations:
1. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Great Northern Industrial Center East
shall be consolidated as one tax parcel.
2. The parking area shall include signs and surface striping to
identify a one-way circulation pattern.
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.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIIBLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would on November set the date
for the public hearing. The public hearing would be held on
December 5, with the final decision made on December 19.
3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 25. 1994
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
Appeals Commission minutes of October 25, 1994.
^ IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. NOVEMBBR 2. 1994 PAGE 15
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to adjourn the
meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTL� ALL VOTIN(3 AYE� VICE-CHAIRPER80N RONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NOVEMBER 2� 1994� PLANNINa
COMMI88ION MEETINa ADJOIIRNED AT 8s33 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
! ,
�
'�'� " �' � �� ����
-, ;
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
�
�
��
i`,
�"1
8 I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMIBSION.MEETING, Wedn.esday, November 2, 1994
�