Loading...
PL 04/02/1997 - 7051� �: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1997 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC COPY (Please return to Community Development Dept.) !'1 ,r�, !"'� CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1997 7:30 P.M. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: March 19, 1997 �Tabled 3/19J97) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE. CHAPTER 205. ENTlTLED "ZONINGn. BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.05.D.�. 205.18.05.D.(6). 205.19.05.D.(6�. ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MANUFACTURING ONLY). AND RENUMBERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS � _ 2. RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY . 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1997 4. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN r"� � ,� � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CO�SSION MEETING, 1�iRCH 19 , 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Larry Kuechle Diane Savage, Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Associate Mark Paltoch, 401 Rice Creek Boulevard Kevin Olson, Anderson Trucking Service Darwin "Butch" Voigt, Fridley Bus Service Curt Carlson, Lease Management Group Jim Steilen, Popham, Haik, 3300 Piper Tower John Prichard, McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Dennis Zylla, Fridley Business Center Partnership , APPROVAL OF MARCH 5, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the March 5, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. vporl A voicE vo�, n�,� varn�G �, vieE-ca�,�x�r�xsoN Rormx�cx DECLARED TAE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97- O1, BY LEASE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.: To allow agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles, recreational vehicles, or boats, on that part of the southeast�l/4 of the.southwest 1/4 lying southerly of the northerly 50 feet thereof, lying northerly of the southezly 400 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 600 feet thereof, excluding that part taken for road, and subject to easements of record, generally located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. MOT�ON by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VO�CE VOTE, ALL VOTING A7C�', VICE-CBAIRPERSON KONDRICK DE�'T.nR�'n THE MOTION rARRIID AND THE PDBLIC �AR'�G OPEN AT 7- 33 P.M. � PLANNING CONalISSION MEETING, N�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the subject property for the request is Columbia Arena, otherwise addressed as 7011 University Avenue. The purpose of the special use permit request is to allow the sale of used vehicles on May 1& and 17, 1997. The Commission has reviewed similar requests in 1993 and 1994 for Friendly Chevrolet which occurred in May and September of those years. She spoke with the County, and they indicated that last year Friendly Chevrolet chose not to pursue use of their special use permit. This special tlse permit is requested by a new petitioner, hence the review by the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated this request is similar to previous requests by Friendly Chevrolet in that approximately 200-300 vehicles are intended to be displayed in the north parking lot. They propose a food tent adjacent to the north side of the arena and portable restrooms along the east part of the site. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission in its review of similar requests required 11 stipulations. Staff did not receive any verbal complaints regarding the sale; however, today staff received a letter from Kathleen Gagnon, 561 Rice Creek Boulevard, indicating her dissatisfaction with previous sales. In speaking with the police department, they did not indicate any complaints; however, they do recommend a traffic control person to keep traffic out of the residential neighborhood known as Holiday Hills which is located south of 69th Avenue and south of Locke Park. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The vehicle sales will occur no more than once per year. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 3. 4. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. The petitioner shall obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. 5. Portable toilets shall be handicapped accessible. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on-site and to prevent probiems occurring on 69th Avenue at the University Avenue frontage road, and to direct unnecessary traffic away from the residential neighborhood. , � � i"� s � �.,} PLANNING CONalISSION MEETING, N�iRC�..19, 1997 � PAGE 3 7. The participating dealerships shall apply for and receive the appropriate City licenses. 8. There shall be no test driving of cars in the residential neighborhood located south of 69th Avenue and in Locke Park. 9. Barricades shall be placed at the entrance to the neighborhood on 69th Avenue and on 71st Avenue. The barricade at 69th Avenue shall include a sign with the language "residential area - no exit". 10. The cars for the sale shall be street operable and shall not. be leaking fluid. 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the next sale. 12. A second sale will not be held for at least 90 days after commencement of the first sale to eliminate the.appearance and impacts of a perpetual auto sale in this location. � Mr. Sielaff asked why is the stipulation regarding the 90 days necessary if there is only one sale. Ms. McPherson st,ated, after writing the report, she spoke with the petitioner to let him know what the stipulations would be. While only one date is on their application, the petitioner i.ndicated verbally an interest in a second sale in 1997 pending the level of success of the first sale. Ms. Sielaff asked if the second sale would have to occur in 1997. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. Saba asked if it was a totally different organization conducting this sale. Ms. McPherson stated that the original special use permits, SP #93-13 and SP #94-02, were issued to Friendly Chevrolet. She spoke with Anoka County who is the property owner and lessor of the site. They indicated that Friendly Chevrolet has not exercised their option or requested a sale in the last two years since the 1994 approval. If Friendly Chevrolet wanted to have a sale this year, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Lease.Management Group is a separate organization from Friendly Chevrolet. Mr. Sielaff asked who was responsible for the trash. �� Ms. McPherson stated the organization conducting the sale would be _ responsible for the trash generated by the sale. ! PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 4 /"� Mr. Sielaff asked if staff were aware of any problems with the trash. Ms. McPherson stated this is the first that staff has been made aware of a problem with trash as a result of these sales. Mr. Kondrick stated the clean up of the site once the sale is over is not addressed in the stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated this is not included in this list of stipulations; however, the Planning Commission could add that as a 13th stipulation. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive into the public record a letter from Kathleen Gagnon dated March 18, 1997, regarding this proposed event. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON ECONDRICK DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSI�Y. � Mr. Carlson stated he is a representative of Lease Management Group. Many of the facts about the sale were reviewed by Ms. � McPherson. They are an auto sales and leasing company. They operate a retail sales facility at 9901 Central Avenue N.E. They applied for a special use permit to allow the two-day used car sale. They have held several sales at the Immanuel�Christian Center on University Avenue, and they.thought they would have more success at Columbia Arena. On May 16, the sale would operate from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. and on May 17 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. They will have security to watch the site overnight to be sure tY�ere is no vandalism. The site will be under guard at all times. Mr. Kondrick asked how many cars they expected to bring in. Mr. Carlson stated they would have approximately 250 cars. That seems to be a good number for the area where they will be parked. The cars will be displayed in the north area of the parking lot. If there is still room for more parking, they would display some toward the front. There will be no pennants, no streamers, no flags on the vehicles. They have an application for a permit for a temporary sign. They would like to provide a sign which will be within the ordinance of the City. They have contracted with ten area credit unions to provide the sale for the membership. The sale is being marketed to the members of the credit unions. They will have a free standing tent, approximately 40 feet x 60 feet, with an administration area. Also in that area wili be a caterer to provide hot dogs, pop, coffee�, donuts, etc., for the people attending the sale. There will be no charge for the refresYunents. �"-` The caterer will get their own permit. They have the required L ] ,.� PLANNING CONIl+�ISSION MEETING, 1�iRCE 19, 1997 PAGE 5 number of fire extinguishers on hand. Electrical and phone lines will be made available to them by Columbia Arena. Handicap accessible portable toilets are going to be placed. Trash cans will be placed generousiy around the area. Mr. Carlson stated they would like to have, if approved, a second sale in September. They expect this sale to be successful. By Saturday evening, all evidence of the sale will be removed from the property. The sale is a Friday evening and Saturday event. Mr. Sielaff stated it sounded as if they would not be using the parking area to the south. Mr. Carlson stated this was correct. There are activities inside the arena which wi11 need that parking area. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Carlson stated no. They had the list of the stipulations and have no problem with them. If the Commission would like to add another regarding the trash, that is okay. �; Mr. Kuechle stated the first stipulation states a sale is not occur more than once per year while the last stipulation stated another sale cannot be held for 90 days. This is not clear. Ms. McPherson stated, if the Commission chooses to allow a second sale, it would be appropriate to amend the first stipulation to say twice per year. Mr. Kuechle asked why they would need the last stipulation. Ms. McPherson stated that stipulation clarifies that ther.e must be a 90-day separation between sales. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. iJPON A VOICE VOTE., AI�L VOTING AYE, VICE-CAAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE pUgLIC �'nRr�G CLOSED AT 7-48 P.M. . Mr. Kondrick s�ated he has attended previous sales and saw na problem. Mr. Saba stated he would amend stipulation #.l to read twice per ,r� year and leave stipulation #12 as is. • r PLANNING CONII�lISSION MEETING, N�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 6 '"`� Mr. Oquist stated he would like to add stipulation #13 to read, "The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and removal." MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-01, by Lease Management Group, Inc., to allow agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles, recreational vehicles, or boats, on that part of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 lying southerly of the northerly 50 feet thereof, lying northerly of the southerly 400 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 600�feet thereof, excluding that part taken for road, and subject to easements of record, generally located at 7011 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The vehicie sales will occur no more than twice per year. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 3. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. n 4. The petitioner shall obtain a tempor.ary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. 5. Portable toilets shall be handi.capped accessible. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on-site and to prevent problems occurring on 69th P,venue at the University A�enue frontage road, and to direct unnecessary traffic away from the residential neighborhood. 7. The participat.ing dealerships shall apply for and receive the appropriate City licenses. 8. There shall be no test driving of cars 3n the residential neighborhood located south of 69th Avenue and in Locke Park. 9. Barricades shall be placed at the entrance to the neighborhood on 69th Avenue and on 71st Avenue. The barricade at 69th Avenue shall include a sign with the language "residential area - no exit". 10. The cars for the sale shall be street operable and shall not be leaking fluid.. 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning '�'� Commission prior to the next sale. i"',� � � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, NIl�RCH 19 , 1997 PAGE 7 12. A second sale will not be.held for at least 90 days after commencement of the first sale to eliminate the appearance and impacts of a perpetual auto sale in this location. 13. The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and removal. UPON A VOICE�VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of April 14. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D...(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MANUFACTURING ONLY}, AND RENUMBERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE., ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIJBLIC AEnR'�G OP�T AT 7- 53 P.M. . Ms. McPherson stated the public hearing is regarding M-4, Manufacturing Only, which .is an amendment to the industrial zoning di.strict regarding distribution and warehouse facilities. Ms.. McPherson.stated recent developments include the construction of approximately 500,000 square feet of distribution and warehouse space in 1995 and 1996. With this construction came an increase in residential complaints regarding truck traffic, noise and odors. The City Council established a"no truck traffic" zone south of 53rd Avenue. Staff has received complaints regarding the Northco Development on 73rd Avenue with the parking of trucks in the front yard adjacent to 73rd Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated, with the moratorium, staff divided the City into �hree study areas. The first is south of 61st Avenue to the southern border of the City and between East River Road and University Avenue. The second is east of University Avenue toward the easterly City border north to Osborne Road. The third is north of 73rd Avenue to 83rd between East River and University Avenue. When staff looked at the industrial land analysis, they determined that there are 17 existing distribution and warehouse facilities in the City with over 2:7 million square feet or about PLANNING CONIl4IISSION MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 8 ^, 63 acres. Some of these facilities have expansion opportunities. The City has approximately 1,148 acres of industrially zoned land in total; however, there are only 89.79 acres which remain vacant or approximately 7.80 of this total. The goals of the ordinance amendment would be to reduce the truck traffic impact on residential properties; to increase job opportunities and economic value to increase the city°s tax base; to promote clean uses which do not include fumes, odors, or noise; and to eliminate outdoor storage. s Ms. McPherson stated staff looked at several alternatives before bringing this recommendation before the Commission. Those op�ions include - do nothing; amend only the performance standards in the existing industrial districts; require special use permits in the M-1 and M-2 districts for distribution/warehouse facilities; to eliminate distribution uses entirely in the M-1 district; and. create M-4, Manufacturing Only. All of these options have various pros and cons, and staff is recom�ending a combination of amending the performance standards and creating an M-4 district. Ms. McPherson stated staff's r�commended option is to amend the performance standards in the existing industrial districts which ^ would require on corner lots no loadi�g docks face the public right-of-way and lots which face a residential district would have no loading docks or truck parking in that portion of the property. The second part is to create the new district entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only. Ms. McPherson stated the components of the ordinance would include no loading docks.to face the public right-of-way on corner lots or lots across the street from a residential zoning or use; no truck or trailer parking would be visible from the public right-of-way or residential zoning or uses; and the new zoning district would not allow warehouse or distribution facilities as a principle use in the district. It could be incidental or accessory uses to a manufacturing use. Ms. McPherson stated, once staff determined the ordinance option, they looked at the properties that could be.affected out of the 89.79 acres which are left in the City and asked four basic questions: , l. Is the property adjaeent to or acro.�s the street from a residential use? 2. Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M-4 zoning district? � �� � PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 9 3. 4. Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility is excess of 10 loading docks? Is there an adjacent distribution or warehouse facility already in the area? Ms. McPherson stated, given those questions, staff identified seven possible properties which could be rezoned to the M-4 zoning classification if it is approved. The sites are scattered throughout the City. As a parallel project, Ms. Dacy is suggesting to the Housing & Redevelopment Authority that these properties be included in an economic development district which would allow them to receive tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage development of manufacturing uses. Those p.roperties include 2-acres south of 73rd Avenue and east of University; 1.6- acres between Ashton Avenue and the Burlington-Northern railroad tracks; 6.3-acres north of the McGlynn's Bakery facility; 3.2- acres to the rear of Friendly Chevrolet and adjacent to Central Avenue; 5.77-acres east of Kurt Manufacturing and adjacent to Central Avenue; 3.81 acres at the intersection of Osborne Road and Central Avenue; and a total of 11 acres located at the intersection of 61st Avenue and Main Street. Mr. Oquist asked why the.second piece was included. Ms. McPherson stated it was included because it is across the street from Ruth Park. JTI Powder Coating is located north of this parcel and Lindstrom Metric, which is a distribution facility, is located south of that parcel. Mr. Sielaff asked why the parcel by McGlynn's Bakery was included. Ms. McPherson stated this parcel met three of the four questions asked, excluding the adjacent residential district. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment changing the performance standards in the existing industrial district as well as establishing a new district entitled "Manufacturing Oniy". If the Commission chooses to concur with staff's recommendation, the next steps in the process are for the City Council to conduct a public hearing at the April 14, 1997, meeting at which time the ordinance's first reading would occur; the second reading would be April 28; the ordinance would become effective i+�ay 23; and the moratorium which currently exists would expire on May 27. Ms. McPherson stated, at the meeting of February 19, the Planning � Commission preliminarily discussed this ordinance amendment and requested that staff ineet with the affected property owners. P?�ANNING COD�IISSION MEETING, 1�1RCH 19, 1997 PAGE 10 � Staff did that on March 12, 1997. The owners expressed concern about their marketing opportunities as well as their market value. Ms. McPherson spoke with Mr. Ed Hervin, the City Assessor, regarding the market value issue, and he indicated that, in terms of how he assesses property, he would not diminish the assessment on the property because of the change in the industrial classification. The only way this would occur is if the City chose to adopt an ordinance that was so restrictive that they could not do anything on the property. In this case, we are eliminating a particular purchaser of the property, but the owner would still have the opportunity to market the property to potential industrial users. In addition, Mr. Hervin did not feel the market would reflect a diminished value for the land because of the change in the zoning requirements. Mr. Kondrick stated the City had received a letter from McGlynn Bakeries, Inc., stating this would adversely affect their company. Ms. McPherson stated their discussion regards being able to build a stand-alone warehouse. The change in the ordinance would prevent construction of a warehouse only on that site. However, the Commission or the City Council could choose not to include the � McGlynn site as a candi:date under M-4 or it could be rezoned to M- 4 with the option for McGlynn to come back requesting the site be re-zoned to M-Z. Staff have had some discussions with them re.garding their proposed warehouse expansion, and they are looki.ng at many alternatives as to how that can be accomplished on their si�e. The site is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. , MOTION.by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the letter from McGl�nn Bakeries, Inc., dated March 18, 1997, and the letter from Kelly & Berens, P.A., dated March 19, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI� VOTING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Saba asked if there were any comments about the letter from Kelly and Berens and the proposed use by Everest development. Mr. Hickok stated the letter just arrived and staff had just today an opportunity to peruse the statements in the letter. There has been some discussion of development of one of the sites being reviewed for the Manufacturing Only classification. One of those sites did have a proposal that would have in excess of 10 doors, in this case nearly 50 doors, potentially facing Main Street. As far as some of the other details of the discussion and how it applies to the proposed changes,�staff have not had a opportunity � to speak with the developer about their understanding o.f those � issues. Staff does recognize they were interested in a facility r,..� PLANNING COD�IISSION MEETING., MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 11 � whose details were very sketchy. Little was known in terms of what the actual use or user would be. Staff was interested in working through the planning and development aspects of the site and minimizing impacts, etc. Those interests were not shared. The developer felt 50+ bays and the use would be appropriate. Mr. Saba stated, in light of the letter from McGlynn and the concern expressed regarding Everest Development, it would seem premature to go ahead with this ordinance until the issues are resolved. Mr. Hickok stated the moratorium was for 120 days with the idea that we want to make sure we are through the moratorium and have a decision for the City so that, if someone has a development they want to move ahead with, this does not keep them from doing so. For that reason, staff wants to keep the steps moving along and come to a conclusion on the ordinance. As far as it being premature, he thought it was the right time. We do have a very limited inventory of industrial land ieft in the City, and we do need to ask these critical questions and make some decisions about ordinances as we move forward. � Mr. Sielaff asked if it was correct that the proposal is to create an M-4 district and at the sazne time we are also identifying sites that will become M-4 so we are creating another category and then rezoning the proposed areas. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. In the existing M-1, M-2, and M-3., we are also strengthening the language of those existing districts, and selecting sites where the land use desi.gnation on the zoning map would change and all the associated ordinance language that would apply to those sites. Mr. Sielaff. asked if this public hearing was to create a category. Ms. McPherson stated the public hearing is being conducted regarding the ordinance amendment. Staff is letting the Commission know what sites they are recommending for change. Mr. Sielaf� stated the Commission can make a recommendation regarding the ordinance change. What about the sites? Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending sites. Staff has not written the ordinance language to actually change those sites at this time. Mr. Sielaff asked if it designates in the� ordinance what areas are . � M-4. PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, N�+,RCH 19, 1997. PAGE 12 Ms. McPherson stated no, that is a separate issue. Mr. Oquist asked if that issue would come before the Planning Commission.. , Ms. McPherson stated, to put this in perspective, this is very similar to other development proposals. Staff has made a recommendation of the language and sites. The Planning Commission will hear comments and make a recommendation based on that information. Mr. Oquist stated the Commission is looking at an ordinance change. Once that is approved, then we come back and identify the sites and make it formal. Is that to be done at this meeting or at a later date? Mr. Hickok stated this public hearing will talk about both.the specific sites and the proposed language. Mr. Oquist stated, if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance, are we also making a recommendation to approve the sites. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The role of the Planning Commission.is to concur with the.language or to suggest alternative language and also to•concur with thE sites or to eliminate and include sites. Mr. Saba stated he was concerned about the potential of impacting development that is in some kind of stage right now by changing zoning and.also coneerned about McGlynn's planning a potential development and impacting that. Ms. McPherson stated, if the Commission feels more comfortable, there is room in the schedule that if you would prefer to give staff further di•rection, it can be brought back to the April 2 meeting for further information and discussion. Mr. Si:elatf stated he has no objection to the ordinance itself, but he does have some concerns about the sites included. Mr. Kondrick stated he understands that staff is doing this to prevent Fridley from becoming a warehouse city and along with that the problems of trucks and truck traffic occurring in residential areas. However, McGlynn is not by a residential area. Mr. Zylla stated he represents the Fridley Business Center Partnership which owns land in the Northco Park and actually devel�oped the park. He would like to.clarify one statement. Ms. McPherson made a statement that the new building on 73rd Avenue which was recently constructed has generated.some of the concern /"'� � r"`� ,.-� PLANNING COI��lISSION MEETING, M�RCH 19, 1997 PAGE 13 for the ordinance was Northco Development. That is not true. Northco sold the land but did not develop that property. This is the only parcel in the park that staff is suggesting to be rezoned to M-4. If he understands correctly, they are suggesting this be M-4 because this could be potentially have 10 load•ing docks. Ms. McPherson stated staff chose the site because staff was unsure as to the total number of loading docks; however, more so because the �arcel to the east already has a distribution/warehouse facility located nearby. Mr. Zylla stated, if 10 docks comes into play on this parcel, he would be very surprised if anyone could de�elop 2.2 acres with 10 loading docks and still have a viable development. They object tc the proposed rezoning to M-4. They believe it diminishes their use, diminishes the marketability of the property, and diminishes the value. The laws of supply and demand being what they are, if you diminish the marketability, you also diminish the value. He is not an attorney, but he is suggesting that they get a lot of • calls.from potential buyers and at least 50% of the calls come in from Fridley companies or from companies in this general area that � are office/warehouse type companies rather than pure manufacturing, and they would like to be able to sell that property to someone that may have an office/warehouse function as well as to someone who may have a manufacturing function.. Mr. Zylla stated the other issue for them relative to the code relates to the amended language for M-1, M-2 and M-3 which deals with the potential change where on corner lots or lots across from residential no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way. � They have also the two lots and have filed an application witYi the City for tax increment and have taken soil borings there. They are interested in developing a 59,000 square�foot building on that site and have one loading dock which faces east. It does not face any of the public streets but it is on a corner lot. Even though the lot is internal, the dock faces south toward 71st Avenue. It is not across from a residential district, but across f�om a P district. Even though we are currently in compliance by locating the dock on the interior rather than on the street, we are now in technical violation. This development will die if we have to shift the building further to re-locate the dock so it is not visible from the public street. Mr. Zylla stated the other point of the code to which he would speak is the provisions about corner lots or lots acrc�ss from residential areas and that no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner that is visible. That seems to him to be extremely � restrictive. He is not sure what that means. Does that mean parked overnight or par.ked for five minutes? If you potentially PLANNING COirIlKISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 14 park by a corner lot or across from a residential area, you are in technical violation of this code. He thought that was restrictive. Mr. Zylla stated the last point is that the whole Northco Business Park has been approved under a development agreement that goes back a number of years. In that development agreement, they are allowed to come in and pull permits as long as they comply with the M-2 zoning for that land. He does not know to what extent their development agreement may supersede this change in code. If their development agreement governs, his personal concern from the point of view is that their land value would be diminished. As a developer, he thought this was a mistake to the extent that their development agreement controls and this does not affect them. They have not had that question answered, and they have not gone to anyone to get that question answered. Ms. McPherson stated staff had not had the opportunity to consult with the City Attorney on that question but they will do so. Mr. Prichard thanked the Commission for hearing their concerns. He appreciated the Commission receiving his letter into the record and stated he would follow some of the points in his letter.. One of the first questions he had was why this parcel. As they see it, there is no affected residential. Their understanding was that this issue was brought about to a large degree by residenti,al complaints. On this particular site when they develop it and they plan to develop it, the traffic would flow through industrial parks and out onto University. They do not see an impact to residential. He thought that staff had mentioned that as one of the criteria for this site. Also, they are concerned about future expansion opportunities for that site. In the past, they purchased the old Totino's site which is south of that vacant land and refurbished and restored that facility bringing 400 jobs to the City. McGlynn's has a history of growth, outgrew the site, and needed the land adjacent for growth in their warehouse and distribution operations. As they grow and expand their business, they feel they are going to need the opportunity to potentially have some warehouse on that facility. Their past history has been to put warehouses up first to handle the manufacturing once the manufacturing needs grow to that point. Mr. Prichard stated, as you may or may not know, they entered into a redevelopment agreement with the City when they acquired the former Totino's facility. They look at the spirit of that agreement as one of growth and expansion, job creation, and tax revenues for the City. Today they have 500 jobs generating over $16 million in payroll. In addition, they pay over $17O,OOa in real estate taxes after the tax increment assistance. That is /"�, � ,�, � PLANNING CQNa�IISSION rREETIN6, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 15 nearly $800,Ofl0 since they moved to this site. They look at that and see the proposed zoning as working against them as a business who is trying to be a good corporate citizen.and trying to accomplish growth and job creation in the City. They feel they need the flexibility to keep the current zoning, M-2, intact so they can as they grow build the type of facility on that property that they will need. Mr. Prichard stated, as a business, they are forced to be competitive in the marketplace. One of the issues facing them is, in order to be competitive, they need to have their operations as close as they can. If they are restricted to build on this land, they will not be as efficient. They will not be as close to their warehouse and distribution as they would like. This puts them in a position of not being competitive and makes them look at other options. They believe the market value will decline on the land. He did not see how the City could take some�hing away and say the value will be at the same Ievel. That they intend to develop the land is a concern in that�they would suffer an economic loss because, if they cannot build the kind of facility they would like on that property, they may end up selling it. They are opposed to � the proposed change. Mr. Steilen stated he was the counsel to McGlynn Bakeries. He was not sure what was going to be considered at the meeting. He would like to make some comments on the suggested changes to the M-2. Mr. Prichard comment�ed about McGlynn Bakeries' position to hauing the property rezoned to M-4, but they are also objecting to changing the M-2 classification by making a warehouse use a special use. As they understand t�he proposal, it would render the warehouse a nonconforming use and, if that is the case, it would be a real problem for McGlynn Bakeries. Typically, to have a nonconforming use and if it burns down, they may or may not be able to rebuild it and, in most communities, you cannot expand it. He would request that they not change to the M-4 and also that they not change the M-2 restrictiori and make the warehouse use a special use and create the nonconforming use problem for them. Ms. McPherson stated that was one of the options they looked at, but that is not what is being proposed. The only change in the M-2 is the performance standards with where loading docks can be faced or located on corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts. They are not recommending the special use permit option in M-2. Mr. Olson stated he represented Anderson Trucking Service which � � owns the property at Osborne Road and Central Avenue and the property i� zoned M-l. In 1992, they had this property replatted. PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, 1�1RCH 19, 1997 PAGE 16 � There are actually three pieces on that corner, and only one portion is left. In order to sell that, they had to split it so now they are left with 3.1 acres. They have a buyer who wants to develop that. They may have been in contact with the Planning Commission. They feel this will scare them off. The parcel has been on the market since it was replatted, and it has been on the market ever since they have owned the property. They have never gotten a call from manufacturing. He feels it will adversely affect the sale of this property. Anderson Trucking has no desire to develop this further for the trucking company. Anderson Trucking is currently leasing a portion of the property to the south so it would not increase truck traffic. No one likes a trucking company, but they are necessary. They have no desire to create any conflicts that way. They oppose the M-4 designation and also adding.too many restrictions. The people interested in buying this property..understand the loading dock i:ssue. They are only looking at putting in three or four loading docks and they would not face directly onto Central or Osborne; however, it is difficult to develop right back to the-corner where there is no visibility. They would oppose this. Mr. Voigt stated they have the property next to Anderson Trucking. The property is zoned M-l. When they had site plans approved in � 1994, they had a phase II plan which was approved at that time. In 1995, when they changed their holding pond, it was approved . again to put on a 17,000 square foot addition to the existing building. He is wondering if the change in the ordinance would affect that part of their phase. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed expansion is to the.south. This ordinance amendment does not impact this property. The bus facility has overhead doors which.face west and east on the site. They are not a corner lot and there is property separating Mr. Voigt's property from other uses so there is no impact to the proposed expansion. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. iTPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE pIIBLIC �aR'�'NG CLOSED AT 8•40 P.M. � Mr. Oquist stated, from what he has heard, he can understand and appreciate what the City is attempting to do but he thought there were some things they needed to think out. A good point was made. regarding the Northco property that is next to Columbia Arena. That is in an area where it does not affect anything. It is a � corner lot, but he did not know if one could define it as a corner �...� PLANNZIJG CONIl�lISSIOld MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAC=E 17 lot based on the way this ordinance amendment reads as far as where you can put a loading dock. He did not know why the McGlynn Bakeries property was included. It is in a commercial area and does not fit the criteria. These people have also talked about future expansion. Regarding Anderson Trucking, that lot is a corner lot but there not a lot of residential in that area. There are businesses across the street and across the intersection, and nearby is a towing service. He did not know where that fits the criteria. He was not willing to move on this tonight because there are some things that needed to be thought out. Mr. Saba agreed. He was not opposed to the ordinance, but he is concerned about the properties selected. He is concerned about impacting proposed developments that are already in place. Rather than prohibiting some of those through an ordinance, he would rather se.e some type of incentives to promote other types of development and not penalize through devaluation of real estate by restricting development. He did not want to see the City turning into a warehouse or trucking terminal type of city either. He did not think t.hey should have trucks parked facing residential property. He would like to see that limited, but he cannot accept the proposed list of properties. � Mr. Oquist stated it was pointed out that we talk about truck parking but we do not define the size of the trucks. Is a pick-up considered a truck? Does this mean overnight parking or parking for business? He thought that needed to b� identified as weil. Mr. Kuechle stated to him a iruck is a truck if it has a truck license so he did not think it was particularly confusing. He thought they needed to spell out more clearly what constitutes being visible from the right-of-way or residential area. He thought saying not visible was too restrictive. He thought they also need to be aware that anyone who has land and wants to develop and/or sell it also want to keep the regulations as loose as possible because that gives the widest berth possible to develop o"r sell. It is their job to say where do we need to be. Mr. Sielaff stated his biggest issue is what sort of agreements are in place right now such as development agreements: He thought it was only fair that this ordinance would not apply to those agreements made before this was considered.. He agreed that there is some value in this ordinance change. He would not mind voting for it tonight, but again what applies to the majarity. � Mr. Kondrick stated he did not think they were ready to vote this � evening in light of the properties affe�ted. He thought tl�ey should define trucks because there are differences. He suggested PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 18 tabling this item to the April 2 meeting to provide an opportunity to explore the minu�es and to get various points of view. so they can understand the issues and rediscuss at a later date. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the Commission should give staff some input as to what parts we are not sure of and what information we want. Otherwise, we are starting where we are now. He would like a better definition on visibi_lity. He is fairly comfortable about the restrictions on corner lots, about the trucks and loading docks if it is more clearly defined. There is a difference between parked with the loading docks being next� to a residential area, for example, on Main Street versus around the back. He would like to see some clarification of that issue. He did not know how to answer clarification of changing to Manufacturing Only. The conflict is between wanting to develop the land and us wanting to� restrict to a denser use. Mr. Kondrick stated he would like some clarification from the assessor in understanding how he feels that denying certain types of use does not diminish value: He has a hard time understanding that. The taxes may be the same, but it does affect the use or the ability to sell. Mr. Oquist stated, if we can get a better definition, perhaps that will answer some of.the questions. He would still need to.be convinced of including the McGlynn and ATorthco properties where - there is no residential nearby. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff took ail the properties that were available and these are the ones that msght be::affected. �=1 � Ms:- McPherson stated, staff'�looked<.:a� �, :. -- tried to' `make . some _,qualitative�,judg ;-would be <best 'suited �for==�M 4 �Eti'� St`af ' additional'informat'ion�about proper �r�.ng `>the , Commis . __ �ey.=did.;n�ot� sele _ .: - - ; ; ;; perhaps the Commission woul`d�'like�`to�`choose other sites.� � ''" . .. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle; seconded,by;Mr '=Sielaff,�to table� consideration of an ordinance'recodifying the Fridley City Code,- Cha ter 205 entitled:"Zonin " to the<A ril.2 '1997,.meetin P % _ J: ;. . P . . °` g. ,:. UPON A VOICE : VOTE, ALL -,VOTING.:'AYE,.-;;�ViCE ['A�_IRPLRSON ,RONDRICR ` � .; _ . DECLARED THE MOTION: CARRIED �:.DI�TAI+TIMOII$LY. �,. _ .; . . :" { x . ;: a , , ;_; . . ,:: , � : Mr. Oquist stated he thought they"should-have separated the. ordinance from the sites... He.;could,have voted::for the ordinance; and then over <a period of,,: timeAi they � could:-: deal�; with,��the-'= site`s `,� �° �`� ��' . They . would have more :.time :;to .�choose� �sites : �,;.. The ordinance ; is ;' good %"'^. and they should have voted'on"the�ordinance and`said now'you have /'_'� i'"� � �"1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19; 1997 PAGE 19 so much time to pick the sites. People are trying �to keep the regulations loose to develop and we want to control that, but people also pay taxes and we want to be careful. •Mr. Hickok stated, about the timing, one of the things we have to consider as we look at this is that requests that we get for industrial land have been unbelievable. Right now it is an extremely hot market in the industrial warehouse industry. It is quite possible with 3ess than 90 acres left that we could see industrial warehouse fill the remaining inventory in a very short time. Mr. Saba asked how many requests the City was getting for manufacturing. Mr. Hickok stated industrial as a whole has been a very hot market. Fridley's industrial land has been a hotbed of activity and has been a real mix. They have seen from recent deveit�pment activity that it has been warehouse, but there.is some interest from folk� that are aiready here in expanding to other sites in. manufacturing and others moving here from other�areas. All of that is considered as we evaluate what is left and how we handle what is left. ' 3. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE Ms. McPherson stated the proposed telecommunications ordinance is a new chapter of the City code which wouid regulate telecommunications facilities 4-:f:� The Planning Commission's .role is to gine their opinion on`the::regulatory`approach and to provide,' input , into the ;°proposed ; scope- ot ;the .'chapter. .: The';` Commission' s'; � ` .`role wou3d also: be .to reva.ew`':spe'cial„use ��ermits. related to`'�these � facilities once the "; City :`code`��chapter :a.�� ;adopted ` ` � � i °� - � �i � . � . � �, � _, . , . , ;. , .. . - � ;.,. . �" : . . - �.' • � r .. \,.�_ F � .- "'_. ' _�. ' . � t �. Ms: McPherson stated; in�1996;���the Federal�government passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act wliieh eliminated�previous.reg�latory . "boxes" - Title VI regulated cable television; Title II-regulated _-:' '� broadcast .television and telephones; and Title III regulated . - radio, broadcasts and:cellular��phones.':�Basically,`.:those boxes. = have been elimi.nated and we are'seeing a'convergence of those �� technoiogies. Telephone�.companies,.are-getting into cable,,calile �; companies are getting into: telephone, �- etc: ,`- The purpose of; tlie Act was to increase competition,<to?reduce-monopolistic opportunities � and to remove as iriany regtilatory barriers as possible. � Ms: McPherson�stated:�staff� is:;'propos'ing�two regulatory approach.es.�'- y,-� ` The first is site specific: .; :In: this'� approach, �he City would �: identify specific sites which-are privately or municipally owned. ' PLANNING CO1�Il��lISSION 1�ETING, 1�iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 20 � Building mounted antenna arrays would be considered accessory uses because they have little impact such as on the municipal water tower. However, new towers would require a special use permit. The second approach is in the limited open market approach where the sites are driven by the market and the providers. There would be a hierarchy of zoning classes which would prohibit tower installations in residential districts or in areas that may be adversely impacted such as a municipal park facility. Building mounted antennas would still be considered an accessory use and would require a special use permit. Ms.. McPhersor� stated both options have their pros and cons. The limited open market approach is an advantage to the providers in that they have more flexibility. There is no convincing of owners by the City to accept this particular use on their site. The disadvantage is that the burden of proof would lie with the City for denial of special use permits. The regulatory approach may coerce unwill,ing parties into expensive lease arrangements. The intent of these two options is that we would require co-location or require buyers to locate their facilities on a single tower, and limit the distance between towers to approximately 3/4 mile. On the site specific option, there is.the advantage that.the City ^ controls the location, number and impact of the towers. The City would acknowledge that specific sites are acceptable for tower construction. This could possibly elitninate the..need for special use permits if the standards were written specifically enough. : However, the providers may not like the sites the City has chosen and the land owners may not want to have a tower constructed on their site, in which case the City would have to go back to the drawing board and pick new sites. � . � , asked if�the City would identify the sites beforehand Mr. Sielaff � ' `: �. .: ,,, � -: , `.N c: t , � ;� r ,� ± �. � „ : �, , � , "` � .� • a a 7 Ms �McPherson stated yes,.� the �'City,. wouid.Fsay .tliese� are �the ;sites • � � � " ;�;� .., , . where..we': raant. towers �;:.;` The..ba'sis�:for��.determi.ning the sites, would ; :; �� be regulat�ory: ` We���iould'want:.to`. avoid sites that.�:were in '` residential districts, minimize sites that creatE large impacts to . -park facilities, encourage certain types of construction in' commerGial:;;districts versus industrial .districts.�::This"would depend on what other types of towers were in that vicinity. ' Mr. S.ielaff . asked what .about � those,.things .that have-;to ;do .with ":' � service'. We Cannot'>`determine the best`location for the` best .`.-' � service.. � � �. � Ms::� McPherson � sta�ed` they.;;would�:hopea�that�:.the :number.� of:,sites �,that `'"' - �` E: the� Cit.y:, chose would provide enough• choice : for the provider.; so -' '%"`ti ,; they couid pick one that.would meet their particular needs:` � _ � PLANNING CONJMISSION i+�"t'TNG, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 21 Mr. Sielaff asked if you could provide enough diversity of sites to satisfy their needs. Ms. McPherson stated yes. She had maps put together by the . consultant which talks about specific sites. Mr.�Saba asked how many of these applications did staff expect. Ms. McPherson stated the consultant.anticipates, with the number of licenses currently issued by the Federal government that there will be a need in the City of Fridley for 17 sites. Three are specifically for cellular installations and the remaining 14 would be for personal communication services, a new digital technology for which the licenses have been recently auctioned. With co- location, the consultant anticipates that will drop the 14 sites to 4- 6 sites in the near term. With the way that digital communication is handled, we will need more towers in the future as more people use digital pagers, faxes, phones, etc. Mr. Saba stated we cannot prohibit the number. We could have one � on evexy block. � Ms. McPherson stated the Telecommunications Act states expressly that cities cannot prohibit these facilities from being constructed within`their city boundaries. It is possible that � there could be a tower on every block but that is not likely. The Act also states that,.the.city cannot create barriers to entering the market for different providers or:create a disad�antageous competitive.environment > We:�have:to provide regulations=.that� provide a level �;= playi�g ' fie3d for;° the °,various, proniders � - a t t rn �*' a^ ' .:..� - - � _ Mr: 'Saba .asked if ,tlie��itynwould .`get into �the ':situation where they ` � . , , , , ?�; ,� , � ,, _ f =�7 would'have':to.provrde�utilit �easements �� r ���;�� ' . . -- . . �Y , _�� , - - � , , . ..,, . _ , , _ .. , ¢, _ � � � -�� < ; >� � , - . .,... ;: . , , .... . � ,_. . , ;_ . ,. ; . .. Ms : McPherson stated �that is ��a� separate�` but reiated� issue. She �,- �� ` was not sure providers:;:would be;.lookinc�-for_ ad�litiona.l easements. They would probably:work;.withiri�:the�-existing-=rights-of=way. ,There � w.ould be a separate''and �elated�ordinance, and:probably' �� . legislation at<the_State?�level, which:'would:regulate'the cities!� : ability to charge'utility•.companies �for:disruption of the public ri hts-of,-wa •order ,,to maintain and-. repair the,� rights-of-way: as ;.: ., . 5. •_ , : �,,. , Y.1n ' the: result. of constriiction''of ;�these;� kind�:: of.:.facilities. ;�That:;:'is _' . getting away from what: the ;>Comiriission '�feels is the `best��approach .- to recommend to , t�e `City Council.;in� terms af how to� regulate. -. let the open market ' dictate ,, or ,;we se�ect � sites where. �the towers;; can be - . . .. ; _ , � �: ; built: .- We :are,:�talking.�;about�;,wireless;::communi�ation�,°.The'.proposed.:' . � , ,�'�` City Code : chapter would ;also;;.�nclude _ satellite : dishes < � There; `are -. .: . specific rules in the`,✓TeTecommunications Act that tell�the`cities' . PLANNING COr�Il�LISSION MEETING, 1�ARCH 19 , 1997 PAGE 22 how to regulate direct broadcast services, satellite dish size, how to regulate satellite dishes between one and two meters, and how to regulate satellite dishes in excess of two meters. Those issues will be inciuded in the proposed City Code chapter. The Planning Commission will probably not deal with these issues on a regular basis. The Federal regulations are very specific about how those types of facilities are going to be regulated. At this time, staff is talking about tower installations for cellular and digital antenna arrays. There are other things that are included in the City co-chapter, but they are more concerned about the towers. Mr. Saba asked if the tower height could be restricted. Ms. McPherson stated they are looking at restricting the height. That is also regulated somew�at by the Federal government. I�r. Kondrick stated the elevation may dictate how high the tower may have to be. Mr. S�elaff stated these are towers for a system. He has read about AT&T getting into the local phone market through an antenna. Are we talking about that? Ms. McPherson stated they were not talking about regulating specific providers but talking a.bout regulating specific facilities. They define faciiity as a tower, an antenna or a sateliite dish. Typically, the antenna arrays on the towers are triangular in.shape and have four separate antenna panels on each side of the triangle;`and_can be:mountedE�on a�lattice-work tower:or _ on a monopole : in.�,:;addition; :., we :'=could'��have � microwave ::: dishes `and �' �"� /'_'� other;types.of antenna also'mounted on'the same;pole We are �3; ` talking about .the tower which ��pro�ides �support �for,� aM�var�.ety.� of M°; ` fi 3 , ;. ; -_ , antenrias . or dishes� and its �supporting }�ground �equipment� �structure:' �� .:= '�� Y That_ whole � system � ties back into �;the y land�lines;' that�:,already:;, � a :,. . , µ. exist. The providers�like�to`have'�:duplication'in.case`part.�of the . ` � system wou3d fail or if calls.that are being generated are from.or to a land line telephone, , so they� do l�ave= to-; tie back into' the . existing land,line system.�.That:is where you get into the,issue - of easements and-right-of-way di`sruption �_ . . .. . . . . . ... � . _ . '.:,�, . � . . . . . . . Mr. Oquist stated,�.ort i.f he . understands,: correctly, _ we `cannot�: restrict -_ to building the towers. Sf:_we` .identify .,17;, s'ites �and we.:get.: 25 requests and they do : not : want .<to : share;" "= do �; we;, then have ` to provide ` 8 more sites? ' Ms . McPherson :, stated� `no � :=She,.�=Federal .:government - does allow,< the � : � ability to regulate where and�'how.'but�we�,;cannot�prohibit outright. There is a provision in the.way'_the consultant is`proposing the �"`,, � ,� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, N�iRCH 19, 1997 P�IGE 23 City code chapter wHere the provider must prove that there is no other site within 3/4 mile of what they are proposing. Unless the 17 sites are maxed out with providers, a provider would be hard pressed tb prove that there is no way they can co-locate. It may come to the point where the City may have to mediate between two providers to agree on a lease price. Mr. Oquist stated, if a provider constructs and owns a tower, they can lease space on that tower for other providers. With that in mind, it seems logical to restrict the sites as in the site specific approach. Mr. Saba and Mr. Kondrick agreed. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the whole field is still undeveloped. If you look at the way the sites have to be spread out in a cellular fashion, they would have to be able to provide all areas for this service. The City cannot say they will not provide service to an area of the City. He did not know that this is developed well enough that we can regulate the tower sites to the degree that will answer the letter of the�law that the City will have full coverage. Mr. Oquist asked if they could divide number of quadrants and pick sites in then cover all portions nf the City. the City into a certain those quadrants that would Mr. Kuechle stated he would favor the limited open market approach because it keeps the hassle away from the City. Mr. Saba stated, in doing that, the City would have to defend. If . - .,. the City makes : the selection::.and has ' sites� set: up, �: the ; City,, does ";; ., ' not have to';defend it He dic� not.want the.parks,to be used for `. . ,. � � � �' antenna� �- sites .'� � ��: . ;. . ..: . , = � � - . Mr. Sielaff stated in the open market approach the City has to '� show the burden of proof. Ms: McPherson reviewed two maps indicating proposed sites as indicated by the consultant.-.The report.talks'about�what;the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Cable Commission talked about. She went to;the Cable Commission on March lOth to talk�- about this same issue and:to �get..their::input.::-,.The::first .map.shows the consultant's 42:sites.° There'are four sites that already have an installation of some type. There are co�nercial sites included as well as municipal sites,such-as water towers.. The grid shows 3/4 mile spacing. `: The ` secorid map :'also �'shows possible,'+ sites":' . The ,� difference on this map is.that these are all municipal-properties. PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, NARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 24 Ms. McPherson stated the Cable Commission recommended to the City Council that they consider the site specific option so the City could be in control, that they be located on municipal sites and that we write some type of standard to determine which parks are acceptable. They were concerned about facilities being located in parks; however, they did not want to see parks excluded as potential options. They want the City to raise as much lease revenue as possible from these types of opportunities and have control. If the City is the owner, we just have to negotiate with ourselves to determine what sites are appropriate. Ms. McPherson stated she would talk about the code components and then the Commission can formally make a recommendation to the City Council about what you would like to see. � Ms. McPherson stated in the City code components they are recommending that monopoles have priority over lattice-work structures. They also recommend that monopoles not be attached to buildings, not be painted, and that there be brick on the equipment buildings. Specific performance standards include no glare by light and no lights on the towers.. They are to be located in the side.or rear yard of the facilities. The lease ^ area should not cause non-.compliance with parking or lot coverage. of the primary use of the site. The boundary of the lease area is be located 10 feet from the side or rear lot line. This 10 feet should accommodate the easements that would be located on the site, provide access and separation for maintenance and separation from the property line. This.setback is similar to what is required for signs. They are also requiring a minimum of one parking stall for service vehicles. -. Ms .:: McPherson stated�;,she talked �.about ;� the recommendation from�.:the.: =. _ Cable�Commission:if�_They recommended.the:site.specific approach-.and'� � > putting:' as �many` of ���these� -on �Ynunicipal .� sites as possibl� °'� ='.They .� : �` would.like to see a portion.of�.".the:lease-monies�dedicated to-.their cable TV'activities,�-if possible; and�;:they would iike to review• the draft of the City code once; it is written. Ms. McPherson stated the Parks and Recreation Commission also reviewed the possibility of.having'these-'facilities'in parks. They indicated that it would be possible if properly mitigated and would also like to receive:a-portion of the lease:monies for park maintenance and development.� . . Ms. McPherson stated, once the Planning Commission has made.a recommendation to,;the City Council, the.City Council will.review � - all�°of ;the commission: discus'sions:;at:�.their �meeting of March :31. :- The Planning Commission,would-`:conduct a publie.hearing regarding the zoning amendment. We need to put in the zoning districts • . �� �'�'` � `�� PLANNING CONIlKiSSION MEETING, 1�iItCH 19, 1997 PAGE 25 these specific facilities as either accessory or special uses in specific zoning districts. On April 16, the Planning Commission would conduct an informational meeting to discuss with the providers our proposed City code amendment as well as the regulatory approach that the City is proposing. She did not � anticipate at that meeting that they would have specific sites actually identified. That would come later in the process. Mr. Sielaff asked who the providers are. Ms. McPherson stated the consultant met with them early in the process. Providers would include AT&T, Sprint, U.S. West, plus two or three others. They were pleased to be included in the early discussions. We have asked them for information, but they are reluctant to disclose information because their cell patter.ns are considered highly confidential. They have been giving input and are working with the consultant. We have not discussed with them the regulatory approaches at this point. Staff is working with the commissions �and the City Council first to get direction and then will be talking with the providers. Mr. Sielaff asked if this includes satellite dishes. Ms. McPherson stated no, because there are very specific regulations for satellite dishes. The City's hands are pretty much tied when it comes to sa'tellite dishes. Basically, the only thing the City code chapter will do is repeat the Federal regulations. They are ver� restrictive in terms of what the City can and cannot do. Ms. McPherson stated,_,: -. Planning. Commission�;�ine� conduct_a'publ:ic heari; ' What happens � between`=� M� determined. June 24_i`; to ex ire . : of_��the� prou�.ders.'at::the. - � , � the . City :Council will ' �� ...-.,.,,.:.;�.»...:,� �, ,..., . iur.,.....-c �_, . �, � '- � t�` '��y:�rvv�� . ., . . ,� . .. :- �:.�� .;-: . . . �. he date _the::mo�atorium �s s.currently set P - ��� Mr. Kondrick stated:,the Cable Coinmission�'expressed-interest in having the poles constructed`on municipal-`land. How many:of the ' 17 sites are there that�`.'are .riot�:park facilities? � Ms. McPherson stated they,have not-:specifically identified.>that:'-:� Municipal sites.-.include,:the;,.:Commonsf�We11;�:field-,.which has.;the`above . � . ground reservoir;:the Highway 65�:�'resereoir:which does`�not have co- � location abilities;';the�espanded.�filter plant at-the intersection of 73 1/2 and Highway,.65;, the' 63rd Avenue booste.r station; the '-: City garage facility;k- the we'131�ouse a�,:-51`st and 'East. River�-`Road,; .. the Ma'rian Hills water- tower ,;at ; Skywood,:Lane ,and� Nlatterhorn�� Drive; <� and city hall. There is a sma1l�=:booster stati.on at I-694. Ix� PLANNING CONIl+�IISSION 1HEETING, MARCH 19, 199'� PAGE 26 ^ addition, the consultant also suggested.a community park in the northwest corner adjacent to the power lines and also Cherry Lane park which does not have park facilities per se but does have a hockey storage facility ori the site. Mr. Kondrick stated they would need six more sites assuming 17 is the target number and assuming these areas are conducive to the systems. � Ms. McPherson stated 17 sites includes 3 ceilular installations. The 17 sites would preclude any City requirement for co-location. The number of 17 could drop if providers are required to co- locate. Mr. Kondrick stated, with technology being what it is today, the cell.phones we have today could be throw away equipment because of technology going at break neck speed. What about the ability to transmit and receive signals? Might it be possible to have one pole to cover the entire City. The number of 17 seems arbitrary. Mr. Saba stated he saw most of this as going toward line of.site or a direct satellite approach. The waves will be digital rather ^ than cellular and be different from the digital that we see today. � He sees much improvement in technology, but the towers should last for a while. Mr. Kondrick stated it is true that everything that is constructed must have a mechanical structure at its base. Are you suggesting the buildings be a brick structure? Ms: McPherson stated.yes. - . _ , Mr.,�::Sielaff asked if school property could: be designated` as �' : . � • � = possible` sites: The "scHools �'c.ould'; lease and: create �a source of ` = � � . , . . , , _ �, r: :. _ ; revenue for' the : schools . . � ` . . .- : , _ , Ms. McPhe�son stated there are several.school sites on the consultants list as possible sites. We would have to evaluate that. If we went to the limited open market approach, we would ha�ze to-regulate that'through what-is permitted by the zoning districts.' The Federal.law recommends the exchange of services � w�er� a p�ovider may provide, for example,-fiber optic cable for a facility in exehange for leasing fees.>._The Federal:government is encouraging other forms of compensation. Mr.. Sielaff asked.if�.the fire department wo�ld be a possible site. Ms. McPherson stated;their garage may�be.sa possible site. They.da� � have some pul�lic �safety e.c�aipment there . �,.� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, N�iItCH 19, 1997 PAGE 27 Mr. Kondrick stated there are three fire stations and a fire training center. Ms. McPherson stated this e�ands the scope of non-park facilities. � Ms. McPherson stated staff would like a motion indicating the Planning Commission's preference on the regulatory approach whether it be site specific or limited open market. If the Commission wants to be specific about the sites, they can do so. Staff would also like concurrence on the various components being proposed on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report in terms of what the City code chapter would cover. Mr. Kuechle stated the only way he would prefer site specific is if we know what the providers will say about using the same tower. Then he felt with the City owning the towers there would be leverage for them to use the same tower rather than each building their own. What leverage do ws have under site specific not to have six towers on every site? Mr. Hickok stated the Federal regulations require that cities /� recognize that they cannot say "not in my backyard" but can point to locations and not have the industry competing in control. For example, if we picked seven sites and provided a reasonable approach to those locatioris, we can say we have been reasonable and that is where the leverage is. Mr. Kuechle asked if this was referring to the same tower or individual towers. . - Mr.:Hickok stated quite°likely they would be locating on a}: �: monopole; or��other . structure >: The �providers` ,would be co locatirig `�.<� . ,. . ;� y If we thought: it appropriate �-to:-have ``one--or °�more - s�ructures;,�^tHey. - �� could be in one location:'�4:We:wi11 be;held to>a reasonable test, _ ...,. ,. and we have brought°;in.expertise to be.sure`that we`are being '� reasonable. Mr. Oquist asked if Mr. Hickok was saying that tae can be reasonable•by restricting one tower per site with multiple uses on that tower. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Kuechle asked if it was feasible that three users would use one tower. ' . , ,� . .,,_ � . ^ Mr. Saba stated the,providers.are after the height which-is:an,. � advantage. Whether they put one, two or three providers on a PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING I�iRCH 19 1997 pp�� 28 tower is their personal decision. Mr. Kuechle stated he would dispute the height issue because they want to reuse frequencies. In cellular phones, too much power is as bad as to little power because they want to reuse cells. Mr. Kondrick asked if you can restrict several providers to one brick building. Mr. Hickok stated we have to recognize that, if we are site specific, that we provide sufficient space for the equipment on the ground. Mr. Sielaff stated he thought they would have more control with site specific as to what we provide on the site. Wouldn't we just approve someone to build on that site? If they switch, they would have to have an agreement with the other companies. Mr. Hickok stated, when we are in control of the number of users and the design elements of that site, we would be in control of the buildings and could create a multi-tenant equipment space. Mr. Kondrick stated he is concerned that there could be multiple buildings or that they could be large. i� � Mr. Hickok stated there will be variables. They need vertical separation, for example, and we could expect that we could put up a 90-foot pole and say three providers will use that. We have to � recognize that the technology requires that they separate themselves vertically on the tower: -If'we expect a three-vendor-< location,`we have to;provide:the�height:so;they hav.e=the.vertical separation= and on the: ground provide `.for:..the `eqtaipment for � those �: ,. . . three users.- t; We ' can be �in control� of �all.'°of: that ,�': - ,� �;; - Mr. Kondrick stated, -;forp,example, :_`if, a tower was on�, the northwest � corner of a- park and' if we • build 'a� tower'-and building, that would have to be.of some size., He,would like to be able to say where he would like to have the building and to be able to say because of the site we have chosen we can have only one user. Mr. Kuechle stated we then would have to provide'additional users with a site . , . . : > _ � Mr. Kondrick stated the building issue could be a very important thing. _ `Mr: Saba�stated we:can°regulate�'�hat.;,3f xeguiated; the provider ` can indicate how many;square feet they:would need. � ^� �"`� �� PLANNING CONIlMIISSION MEETING, NIl�iRCH 19, 1997 PAG£ 29 Ms. McPherson stated co-location is not foreign to the providers. U.S. West manages and maintains the bulk of the existing land line system in the City. But yet someone living in the City of Fridley can have long distance service via AT&T because U.S, West allows AT&T to access those existing land lines to provide service to that customer. There are fees associated with this, but there is already an air of cooperation amongst the providers. Co-location is somethin.g. that is happening all over the country. Mr. Kondrick asked why the buildings are not protected. Is security an issue that we should be concerned about? Ms. McPherson stated the consultant is recommending no fences because fences create the impression of an attractive nuisance. Mr. Kuechle asked why make a motion tonight. He would like to know what the possibilities are of co-location. Is it possible for different companies to use the same tower from a practical standpoint and are they willing to do that? Or are we faced with the fact that we may have four or five towers on each one? There must be some knowledge out there. Ms. McPherson stated they can go back to the providers and ask. Staff is�looking for direction for the City Council to see how the commissions feel. They are looking at the whole issue of whether or not they want to own the towers, a tower utility, if leasing . municipal land is a viable option under Minnesota statutes, etc. There are still other issues that are not being discussed by the Commission tonight. Staff could come back in Aprii, but we may recommend something else. They will still need to factor in Mr: Kuechle's comments about co-location. • Mr: Saba asked if these companies can;use'each:others equipment.:� . . :� _ . Mr. Kuechle stated he.would be>,much more in favor of the site,.:. . specific�option if he felt that were a practical program and could: provide �leverage. He did.not know if companies are willing to do that and we cannot force them to . do tfiat . , � Mr. Kondrick stated it is easy to be site�specific•if �ou are talking about municipal property. If it not municipal, there.may be a greater hurdl.e. It is very..easy to.pick a park, and that . - bothers him. - Mr. Oquist stated a provider could come in and pick a park if we did not go site specific. �„ Mr. Kuechle asked, if we have specific sites and the provider: wanted a park site, do we have�to give it to them. . � PLANNING CONIl+RISSION 1�ETING MARCH ],g 1997 ppaGE 30 /"1 Ms. McPherson stated the City would still have control. The provider would have to negotiate with the City as the property owner. It is still up to the City Council to authorize a lease agreement with a company. If the City Council says no, they can refuse to lease to someone. Mr. Hickok stated the concerns expressed are valid concerns. That is where staff was which led to hiring a consultant. At the staff level, we had a sense that we would like to investigate selecting sites. Staff needed someone with the technical know-how to say whether this was or was not possible. Also, that person got together with the industry. The tenor of those discussions and our staff discussions with providers is that they are interested in the coverage. If it means co-location, what they need to do is cover the City. They need to have that blanket. If it means that they are on with three other providers, they do it elsewhere. We have to be reasonable and provide space for that. We had to come to some sort of conclusions about what was the right number and the right height. Once that is provided, the co-location issue is one that, from our discussions, the providers are okay with doing that. The big thing is getting here. r-�� Mr. Kuechle asked what are the logistics of who is going to own the tower. It is an advantage to a provider to charge fees which can limit competition. Mr. Hickok stated, if we want to limit the number of towers, that then points to site specific and raises some questions about ownership and leasing. Three people on a tower if owned by a person who does not want to_share is a difficult thing to do. We might see'two other poles then� �'But,'if there is a site specific, it also has some of th� questions;answere.d::lik� who.is going,to :�. ; own it. ;- Perhaps,:: it will -be a:;utility 'ownership_'that the proViders " .$.. come to' and one , cannot- sa� • that �rthe � other.- cannot_�, be °on that�: tower. ` If that is the .answer,, he_:thought <.they .would; find that ,the industry is going to respond�`that:we have gieen them a chance and enough overlap that if this;site does not work, another site nearby would provide coverage:" Mr. Sielaff stated he,`was not,worried:about co-location at this point. He would rather that the providers figure it out. Mr. Kuechle stated to him the issue.is how.many buildings and towers will be at each site. � He was not sure we can restrict. Mr. McPherson stated these types of issues cari be given.to the - > telecommunications expert.,;;-�- His�intent.was to have another meeting with the providers. We can have him,'pose�those questions to.the. � �, providers and get responses.back'about what is the maximum number 0 PI,ANNING CONJMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 P�+,�GE 31 �"`\ of providers. The vertical separation between antenna arrays is the driving factor in terms of how many you can get on a particular size pole. If we say the maximum size pole in the City is 175 feet and they say you can have two providers, we can write into the code to get away from the issue of multiple buildings that on sites with multiple providers they shall share one building. That may mean in the case of multiple users expanding the building that exists or bringing in a totally different building. Mr. Oquist stated, because this is preliminary, he still prefers the site specific approach. He thought they can have a motion for site specific but, before final resolution, we must answer some of Mr. Kuechle's questions. Before we get to the final point, we must understand what the users will be doing, are they willing to share and yet be site specific. We need to understand all of the ramifications. MOTION by Mr. O.quist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend the site specific approach and that staff provide further information on concerns and provide answers to questions. i'1 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting of February 18, 1997. _ . . , , IIPOld A VOICE VOTE, ;: ALL :VOTING;�<AYE, VICE SCHAIRPERSON � ROI�IDRICK �„,�. , ._ DECLARED THE MOTION -. CARRIID :�UNANIMOIISI�Y :1 : ;' , , ., z:�. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES"OF THE HOUSING & REDEVEI,OPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1997 � MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting.`of February 13, 1997. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING.°.AYE",;VICErCBAIRPERSON.KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOIISI�Y. ADJOURNMENT ^ MOTION.by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr Oquist, to adjourn the �� meeti'ng. PLANNING CONIl�lISSIQN MEETING MARCH 19 1997 PAGE 32 ^ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED A1QD TgE 1�iRCE 19, 1997, P�ING COI�IlrlISSION MEETING ADJODRNED AT 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � ,� Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary r-� , �_ , ,; � . : n a E. 0 S I G N- IN S H E E T /� PLANNING COMMISSIUN.MEETING� 'March 19, 1997 �� �� _ Name Address/Business � � D / iG� �Qt F.� . /3�- �'•D TS - Os�QRiu� ot-o c�:.ur�.kt. ' , c ' 7 � � s �.�� � /�t� � S�e��, P � /�' � 3�U p Cbti��'�. � f'�-k.G '����.� ; . � i'�� DATE: March 28, 1997 ��-� , � � t . ; PLA,NNING DIVISION TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Commission Questions Regarding Modifications to the °M - Industrial" Districts � Why was the Site on Ashton �►venue includec!? Answer. The Ashton site is across the street from Ruth Park and an adjacent residential area Why was the McGlynn's bakery site included? Answer: All vacant industrial parcels where evaluat� using the following:4 : standard criter.ia: ,. , _ . •� Is fhe property adjacent to or across the street from a:residenti�al use? .� � • Would the property meet #he minimum requirements of the proposed M- '° 4 zoning district? " • Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility in excess of 10 loading docks? . • Is there a dis�-ibution warehouse facility already in the area? If any of the 4 criteria were met with an affirmative response; the site was included as an M=4� candidate. � The McGlynn Bakeries site could arguably fail the "across the street from a.:: r e s i d e n ti a l u s e" t e s t. H o w e y e r, s t a ff c�nsider e d im p acts to the nei ghborttood, to �. , .�. the.west, which. are technically across the'radroad tracics, catherthan across the �. �� street, as equally detrimental to neight�orhood environment. M-4, Industrial Zoning March 28, 1997 PAGE 4 Answer. Across Central Avenue is a mix of C-9 ; Local Business and R-1, Single Family Residential. It is true that the Local Business district is not single family residential, it is however a commercial land designation that was intended to provide convenient goods and services whiie maintaining a greater level of compatibility with residential than other more intense commercial land designation. The C-1 district is surrounded by single family residential. A small G1 district containing 3 parcels is not believed to be a sufficient transition between the R-1, Single Family, residential use and the potenfial impacts of a warehouse/distribution facility. � Rather than prohibiting a use through an ordinance, what about offe�ing an incentive to get the type of development desired in those locations? Answer: Staff will recommend that those sites affected by the M-4 rezoning be considered for eligibility to receive tax increment project area assistance for their projects. Trucks parking is discussed in the ordinance, however, the ty� and size of truck is not defined. What type of trucks are being restricted from storage on certain portions of these properties? � Answer. The current ocdinance is clear regarding permitted storage in industrial districts. No addi#ional truck size language was deemed necessary based on that current language. - What does not visible from the public right-o#�nray mean? : _ a � ,. � - �i� .f � i ,1 .-'r ' 1-; � ��� Answer. I�ndustrial��� properly owrners �are cu�rrently required to� keep� �all incidental � � storage in the rear yard and screened from #he public right-of-way. A tr�ack when not loading or unloading mus# be kept in the rear yard. The code clearly defines what screening is and how a land owner.can accomplish the screening that is necessary either through the use.of fence materials, plantings, or a combination of both. To evaluate fully what is required, a site analysis is' performed on each site as the building permit for that building �s, reviewed: � , . Does the 1984 Northco Development agreement preclude this ordinance '� and allow for the dismissal of the p�operly on Northco Drive from ` consideration as a site for. M,4 zoning? ,.�:. � �� . . _ �; , . _ . Answer No, the developmen#� ag�eement S'set expectations between the Developer �' and the City (i.e. utilities were to be installed, roads completed , etc.). The ul�imate �! i"`'\ ;� � M-4, Industrial Zoning March 28, 1997 PAGE 5 use of each of the parcels created in the development was left to be determined by the applicable zoning orclinance. There is no section in the development agreement that prohibits c�onsideration o# a rezoning of these parcels. r � �"� MEMO To: Barb Dacy Michele McPherson Y�-; From: Edward Hervin }1 � � City Assessor i�~ �� Date: Mar. 25, 1997 Re: M-4, Land values and zoning We recently had a discussion regarding the possible impact on land values of adding a new zoning class. The new class would be known as M-4, which is to be a manufacturing use. The land to be re-zoned is currently zoned for warehouse and offce/warehouse use. I would not e�cpect to see a change in market value due to the new zoning. The values in ,—�, areas zoned for these usage's does not seem to be different for warehouse or manufacturing. Generally, the more restrictive the zoning the less market there is for a properiy and this may result in a de�rease in market value. The smaller market does not � necessarily equate to lower value. Marketing time does not necessarily relate to the � � property value. Sales price has a dire.ct and strong relation to market time. While the M-4 zone is more resirictive than the cun-em zoning �ecause it eliminates some common usage's it st�l has a substautiai market for the pz�operty: Many manufa:cturers ma.y actually ha.Ve trouble finding a site that permits their achvity.;All land is mned for some particuIar use and this does not r�uce its'._market �value ��omng`a+ctually increases Iand values by pi�tting like users together with maximum advaa�age.c to `each type of user. The factors that go nrto site selection for a poteirtial user are much the same whether the intended. use is wazehouse or manufacturing. They are concerned with adequ$te size, good access, close highways, adequate utilities, etc. We normally expect to see the prices for industrial land to be about the saxne regardiess of their particuiar use. I-i'igher vaiues would be expected for office and retail locations but they are normally not in consideration when looking for an industrial site of any type. �taii availability may � a consideraxion for some businesses. . r"'� � MAR-19-97 WED 15��8 �"'� KELL.Y & BERENS, P.A_ Arroati�rs Ar Lnw 3720 IDS CEwrEa 90 SouiH E�GNNTH SriaEEr I�AtNNEnf'Ot1S, MtMnfESOrA 55402 � ,� i1M07HY D. KELLY MIGHAEl. BERENS R1�HARn A. fCApuw Mioo�E S. T►�oRS� GEORGE O. LltDCKE w� a s�„►o�► QEFiALD �i, fi0811VSON Tx�as W. Pnru. Mu►aEr R. MoR�arto Ariaa�a CaaaurH�►s JENNIFEA L FRISCH Via Facsimile 571-1287 Mr. William Burns City Manager City of Fridley 6431 Univeraity Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Re. Dear Mr. Burns: March 19, 1997 �IY TELEP„ONE �si2� .3as-s�%i Fax (612) 349-6416 Everest Development Limited, Ltd_ Property at Main Street and 61st Avenue NE; Proposed Zoning Changes This.law firm represents Eve�es� Development Limited, ("Everest"). One of Everest's affiliates owns a 10.67-acre site located at the southwest corner of Ma�n Stxeet and 61st Ayenue NE in the City of Fridley. Everest also has under option a 17 acre site located at 81st Avenue and Hickory: This letter.-addresses issues-pertaining to proposed zoning changes :on Everest�s �property � The�,,City Council's ;;_ decision�`regarding proposed<:�zoning;changes=:will�affect Everest's disposition of each of these';properties..;>I request that. you provide copies of this letter to:all covncil members and planning commission membera as well as all City staff involved in the planning proceas. When Everest acquired>the parcel'located at Main Street and 61st�Avenue NE, Evexest.representatives had extensive discus.sions with City staff:regarding,peratitted;uses,within the� City's M-2 (heavy induatrial): zoning�class'lficatiori_ The:City staff never suggeated that';.a'distribution:warehouse project would not qualify as a permitted.use under-.:.thaL-.elassification. Everest relied; upon the;;,� City: staff � s, information in seeking tenants : Izi the summer �.of �::i996, Bverest found a. teriarit interested i� leasing a new';distribtition'.warehouse`facility at " MAR-19-97 WED 15,�� KELLY $ BERENS, P.A_ ATT�s Ar Lnw Mr, william Burns March 19 , 19 9'7 Page 2 P.03 , �, the site. Everest proceeded with plans for a 185,00o square foot warehous� facility to accommodate this tenant. In August of 1996, Everest representatives met with City staff and presented plans for the project. Michele McPherson, the City's Planning Assistant questioned whether the proposed warehouse was.a trucking terminal, a use not pex�mitted by the M-2 classificati:on, Because the proposed project did not have the characteristics of a trucking terminal, Evexest became concerned that the City was opposed to its project for som� reason, On September 19, 1996, Scott H�ickok, the City�� Planning Coordinator, contacted Everest's Tim Nelson regarding the project. Mr. Hickok indzcated that he was concerned that the proposed warehouse project was a truck terminal. Mr. Nelson explained that progosed Everest project was like the Murphy Warehouse buiidings on Main Street south of I-694, which Mr. �""� Hickok conceded were not truck terminals_ Mr. Nelson further explained that a truck terminal is typically a shallow building with cross docking used primarily for pick-up, delivery and transfer of items between�trucks, with'less emphasis on longer term product storage. A distribution warehouse, on �he other hand, has as its primary function the wa�ehousing and storage of product, with.truck deliverie� being incidental to the warehousing function.� Mr.:Nelson'agreed to provide" the Cit.y with a written explanation of why Everest's proposed u.se�'was not a truck.;terminal_ �- . On October� 8,., 1996,-: Mr Nelson- met =witH Mr. Hickok`` and ` � - -' ,: Ms. McPherson and explained in detail why the_propased Everest project was not like a trucking terminal.� Mr. Nelson referenced criteria applied by Barb Dacy, the City's Community Development DiY'ector, in a letter_dated June I6,,1994 which Ms_ Dacy,:s.ent to Murphy Warehouse company.� Mr:'Nelson'sent a follow-up letter dated:October 11, 1936��in which-he:described.in detail the features of a truck terminal:`�that: made''it very different from Everest�s proposed project._,.When the.City.did not�irespond for almost�three weeks, Mr:'Nelsonrtagain�wrote on:.October 31,'1996 to inquire as to the City's position:' The;,city finally:responded in a letter dated November 5,.i996, suggesting,�hat Everest-�take the Fridley City Attoruey;Fxitz Knaak on a.tvur'"of the prospectzve tenant � s existing_ facility, in: order.� to,;identify .the differenees' between a warehouse and a tru`ck terminal facility. �At t.his � point, it was apparent that the Ci:ty `opppsed a wareliouse proj ect . � ' MAR-1°-97 ��ED ?5�49 �. �� KELLY & BERENS, P_A_ ATro�rs Ar ir�w Mr, william Burns Mazch 19, 1997 Page 3 °. 04 being built on the Everest site and was using the t-ruck terminal issue to prevent Everest from proceeding with its project. I contacted Mr. Knaak and expr�ssed to him Everest's concern about "identifying its tenant to the City. I informed Mr. xnaak that Everest had an experience with another city in which a competing developer had appropriated Evet'est's plans for a commercial office building that had been presented to that city. I also asked Nir. Knaak whether the City had a different type of use in mind for the Everest site. Mr. Knaak indicated he would discuss the matter with City staff and g�t back to me. Subsequently, Everest received a ca11 from Ms. Dacy indicating that she knew of a company that might be intere9ted in ],easing a portion of a manufacturing facility on th� Everest site_ I again contacted Mr. Knaak and asked him to determine whether the City was committed to a manufacturing use on the � site. Again, Mr. Knaak indicated that he would consult with City staff and get back to me. Mr. Knaak did not call me bac}c, however, and I subsequently learned that the City Council had establ.ished a moratorium on the developm�nt of warehouse and distribution facilities at its January 27, 1997 meeting. Everest had delayed applying for a building permit for its warehouse project while attempting to address the issues raised by the City staff. Needless to say, Everest and i felt the City had been less than candid with us in expressing the basis for its opposition to Everest's project. Recently, the_City,demonstratec� that its true intentions were to restrict>the development of the Evereat site to a manufacturing use; The proposed rer_lassification of the property to "M-4 manufacturing only 2oning" will prevent Everest from proceeding with the warehouse project, for which it had a tenant and eeverely la.mi.t Everest's development optipns. The proposed change in the industrial parking requirements that "on corner lots, or lots across from a residential district, no � loading dock shall face the public right-of-way" demonstrates that the City staff�s objections to the project in-August 1996 were n.ot legitimate under the existing zoning code. For the record, Everest strongly opposes the proposed zoning changes affecting its property. The City of Fridley is placi�g Everest in a position,where.it has limited alternatives_ Everest does not have manufacturing`t�nants committed to lease a �, manufacturing facility. The sequence°of events makes i� apparent that the City of Fridley is not interest�d in promoting viable -, r�AK'- � �-� r ��Lll : � ; �� KELLY & BEi�ENS, P.A_ ATTORntFVS AT Law Mr. William Burns March 19, 1997 .Page 4 P. 0� developments on the re2atively few sites which remain in the City. Everest intends to pratect its interests as best it can if the City imposes the zoning changes, including making alternate dispositions of both properties by year Pnd_ Very truly yours, � George O. Ludcke GOL:nam . �"� , ,r"� � DATE: February 24, 1997 I�IEMORA,NDUM PLAS�TNING DIVISION TO: William Bums, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator c�l�ilichele McPherson, Pianning Assistant SUB.IECT: Results of Meeting with Everest Group regarding.61� Avenue & Main Street Site � %� On February 1�, 1997, Tim iVelson firom the Everest Group and his attorney, George Ludtke; met with Fritz Knaak, Scott Hickok, Michele McPherson� and me. Nelson requested the meeting to discxiss his options for the deveiopment �f the 61 � Avenue and Main Street site, as well as to find out #he City's progress on the industrial land moratorium. - Nelson stated tha# the President:of EYerest Gcoup;:'Je#f Neilsen; is frying to dispose of a � . number of.his properties across the metro.a�ea .:Netson indicated that it.is necessary, �. not only to discus's the 11 acre site; at 61 � Avenue &°Main Street; but also the i 7 acre �. , site which:Everest owns immediately ad}acerrt'�o Hickory Street just south of the' -� � Springbrook NatUre Center. Nelson�stated-there are four options regarding the 61�- Avenue & Main Street site: 9. Leave the zoning code as it�is and issue a perm'rt for the 185,000 square foot distr�bution warehouse; � 2. The City or HRA would buy the site at $4 per.square foot; __� 3. The City or HRA would provide an assistance package of $'I .50 per square foot to another developer or user who would buy the site from Everest; and ;.� 4. Everest would "gift" both sites which would make them unavailable for � . development. _ . `O ` Results of Everest Group Meeting February 24, 1997 Page 2 Fritz Knaak reviewed the purpose of tfie moratorium and em are not being singled out. Barbara reviewed the siaff recommendation t the Planning Commission and provided each of them with a copy of the staff report. Staff's recommendation was #o amend the industrial districts (M-1 tt�rough M-3) to prohibit loading docks facing the public right-of-way when a lot is across the street from a residential area and is considered a comer lot (at an intersection of two streets). The second part of the staff �ecommendation was to create a"manufacturing only" industrial district to be known as M-4. The staff recommendation does not affect fhe '17 acre site near the Nature Center. Neison can proceed to develop the site. It is proposed that the 91 acre site, as well as 6 other sites in the Ci�y, be rezoned to M-4, °manufacturing oN�'. Loading docks at this site could not be located adjacent to the public right-of way, � Nelson stated that the recommendation is adverse to the development of the 61 � Avenue & Main Street site: The tenant #hat they had attracted for the distribution warehouse would probably not want to locate in a building on the '17 acre site in northern Fridley. Barbara stressed that the City would seriously evaluate a TIF package for a manufacturing user (their option #3). Barbara stated that she could not commit to a square foofage cost at this point, but assured them that the City is interested in development of the property; however, the development has to be sensitive to the residential areas that surround it. Nelson stated that "they are not interested in waiting for a manufacturing use". Nelson and the attomey made it clear that. they are seriflusly evaluafing the °gift" option which wou(d enable.them=to donate it to an environmental lar�d trust; a church :organization,. or." another no�-pro�t.organization in ;order,#o prov�de #hem with a substanfial fax cred�.'' They also made it clear fhat they would seriously evaluate "grfting" both sifes�$arid r�o# jusf the Main�Street site. J � � :, , , ,- �f , <, .,. . . -.._� r � . . . Barbara reviewed the process and. advised them that if the Planning Commission was to agree with the staff recommendation (which they ul#imately did), a meeting with the. affected industrial lot owners:would have to be. conducted and then public hearings inifia#ed with the Planning Commission and Council in March and April. Because the moratorium ends in May, Barbara made it clea� #hai it was the City's intent to conclude the process as.quickly as po�sible: : _ .. BD:Is . _ cc: Fritz Knaak, Gity Attorney ' s, M-97-98 ,, , t . � � :z- -� �;:� =x�; :�';, C�TY OF FRIDtEY FRIDI_G1' NiUNIC1P/�LCENTER-6-'!31 UNIVERSiTYA�1F t�.E.FRIDLEY �9I�`;�-�;'--(l►1?��71-34?0-F11X((,!?1571-I'_;+; Novembe� S, 1996 Tim Nelson Everest Development Ltd_ 2685 Long Lake Road P. O. Box 130190 Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Nelson: This is to respond to your letters of October 1� and October 31 , 1996_ Your correspondence and the si#e pians were reviewed with Fri#z Knaak, the City Attorney_ We fiave also compared #he information provided in your correspondence with the � analysis that was ccmpleted for Murphy Warehouse in 1994. The City understands the need to keep the name of the prospective tenant confiden#iaL In order to protect that confideniiality, we would like you to provide the name ofthe tenant to our City Attorney_ The City Attorne�i can ther� schedule a tour of #he exis#ing facility to determine v�hether or no# the proposed use is a permitted use in the M-2, Heavy lndust�ial Distric�. !n the case of the Murphy Warehouse analysis; Barbara Dacy and Virgil Hemick, former City Attomey, fiad the benefit of tour�r�g the exisfing Murphy Warehouse facility. It.was very,hetpful in ide�tifying the issues �a�d:differences �� between a warehouse and a transfer or.truck terminal facility The prospective tenant; however, wiii be otxupying a very small portion of the buiiding, � leaving the use of the remainder of the building in ques#ion. Your estimate of 30-50 loading dqcks, while seemingly iower than the terminal fiacility that you identified in your correspondence, is highe� than the ratio of docks to square footage in ihe Murphy Warehouse building. At this point; the information that the Ciiy has to date:is that the proposed buildi�g is a 30 foot tall structure with a large number of loading docks. We do not have any more information regarding the actual use of the premises, other #han that there will be truck ac#ivity af the site. How:can the City be assured that future tenants are not trucking corripanies and indeed warehouse users?: Additional information will enable us to provide you a letter regarding the City's position. ,,..� _ . Tim Nelson November 5, t 996 Paqe 2 We do intend to be as responsive as possible. (Si�ce Octobe� 91, 19�, we have had to prepare for four Council meetings, a Pianning Commission agenda, and an Appeats Commission agenda.) The location of this site nex# to an adjacet�t residential area wili be an issue for both you as a developer and fot the City. You are weFl aware ofi the City's policy and history regarding truck terminals. It is important for us to have all the information and to be able to properly document the City's dete�mination on the use. Should you have further questions, please contact me at 572-3599. !n the meantime, p(ease forward the requested information directly to City Attorney, Fritz Knaak, at 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, Suite 930, Vadnais Heights, MN 55190 (490-9078). Sincerely, Scott Hickok Planning Coocdinator ;�x :Is G96-246 � ;4., . � }{' . �, . I � �: �`�C E /99 � /"'� '�q-� y McGlyn� Bakeries, Inc. 7350 Commerce Lane Minneapolis, MN 55432-3189 612-5742222 FAX 612-5742210 March 18, 1997 City of Fridley Planning Commission Diane Savage, Chairperson David Kondrick, Vice Chairperson Connie Madig Dean Saba LeRoy Oquist Brad Sielaff Larry i�uechle f""1 William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Fridley Municipal Center - 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Planning Commission Members and City Staff: � Recently our company received notice from the City of Fridley that the City was considering rezoning a portion of our: Property to M-4. = The notice contained an invita.tion to respond and to participate in the decision-making process. Because we believe strongly thaf the potential zoning would have significant negative consequences to our company, we will avail ourselves of the oppo�tunity to participate. Briefly stated, McGlynn Bakeries owns two side-by-side real estate parcels. One pazcel contains our manufacturing faciiity and corporate headquarters. The second parcel, currently vacant, was acquired for expansion purposes. The primary nature of the expansion building is likely to be warehouse. Our operations aze much more manageable and efficient if the wazehouse. operation is adjacent to the: manufacturing operation The : route from our manufacturing ,�—� location and the eacpansion, lot. to ; University Avenue is only three blocks and is not near any residential neighborhood: Accordingly, we . ask that the City leave the zoni,ng of our parcel unchanged. A more detailed explanation of our situation follows. � � City of Fridley Planning Commission Messrs. William Burns and Scott Hickok March 18, 1997 Page 2 � McGlynn Bakeries moved to Fridley in 1992 after selling a major portion of its operations to Pillsbury. Our previous headquarters was in Chanhassen, and many of our executives and employees lived in the south and west suburbs of Minneapolis. We chose to move our operations to Fridley because of the City's willingness to assist us in converting the Totino's plant to a regionai bakery operation. The Totino plant had been vacant for two years prior to the move. � �� We have enjoyed an excellent relationship with the City. The City entered into a redevelopment agreement with our company to provide financial assistance in upgrading the plant. The State also assisted our company with a State Economic Recovery Fund grant. The purpose of the City and State assisting our business was to attract a business that could prosger and contribute jobs and taxes to the community and state. Growth and expansion are �n important but sometimes unfiulfilled part of that equation. We have been fortunate, and have been able to keep our promises. to Fridley and grow our business well. We now have 500 Fridley-based employees earning an � annual .payroll of Sixteen Million ($16,�,000) Dollars. Currently, we pay $241,031 in annual real estate taxes which nets to $169,766 after subtracting the tax-increment assistance. In our view, it has been a mutually beneficial relationship which illustrates what good municipal and corparate leadership can accomplish. Our intent has been to maintain . our headquarters and principal manufacturing and warehouse facilities at our location in Fridley for so long as that location can adequateiy and e�cienfly service the business n�ds of the company. Accordingly, we purchased approximately 6.3 acres of vacant <; land . adjacent_ to our plant for purposes of accommodating elcpansion. We are not ready to expand today but will probably expand in the next five (5) years. That expansion could be for many puzposes, but undoubtedly wili have a major warehouse component or possibly be all warehouse. We have been told by City Staff that both of these possibilities are prolubited by M-4 zoning. The bakery business has become extremeiy com�titive and extremely dqnamic. We spend significaat amounts of money in researching new products (croissants in the past, specialty Europeans bread now),' and in developing new market niches. While it is difficult to predict the future, we have a growing need to be a able to transport our products overnight by iruck to retail l�ations in the five-state Upper. Midwe�t. In ,--� order for our company to be . abie to meet the price and seiv�ce demands of our superstore customers, we have to be very efficient in cost and time. Vr t. 1 1 City of Fridley Pianning Commission Messrs. William Burns and Scott Hickok March 18, 1997 Page 3 As soon as we have enough business to justify our own warehouse operation in one e�cient construction project, we intend to accomplish that task. It needs to be located adjacent to our manufacturing facility for reasons of efficiency, communication and quality control. We believe that any other location is disadvantageous to our ability to compete on the basis of quality and cost. The disadvantages are so significant that if our property is rezoned, we would have to seriously examine altemative locations for all of our operations. We loathe even discussing the possibility because we have considered the long-term location issues as settled and do not wish to spend additional money or executive tirne on that issue. We certainly do not have any expert land-use planners on our staff. However, a review of our location and the route our trucks would take to University (map attached) seems to indicate that no residences would be affected. Our trucks would proceed through the !`1 industrial park that surrounds both sides of Commerce Lane . and 73`d Avenue to Universiry Avenue. There seems : to be very little, if any, adverse impact on any residential area. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City leave our zoning unchanged. A change to M-4 zoning would be seriously disadvantageous to our business and create no significant advantage to any residentiai citizens. Thank you for considering our viewpoint and concerns. � Very truly yours, 1 � . John R. Prichard Chief Operating Officer .. �� enclosure � i � � � � -� � n Q ' N l.�' i �' I • ��/' . �. �� i "R/OL EY I � EAST RANCH I I � EST,4T S ESTAT��CH 21 V U I { � F0l1RT ADD. N� o,� 22 F/RST ADD. �" ° - -„'. . . ._ -av�a�t�—,�_���..� _ .� ,.••`°�• ..m .�. . _ �,_. _ ff p +• _ ` , �-r �_ , __ p„ � — �� .;„„�. , f�. i . � �. � 4, . a � ,�1 ti, `� EAST, CH = . °°k; ; d..., ; � ��,, ~ � ��� �o_ ��E ES M' ...��__ ": - ,��.• , _ � j �h -: ' _ Si.J � , __d"'"J� °�, ' J < '�'1 ' ` h . �� � �e° °'� �' ��;-, • TH/R AD� � � . � �, ' � . , _ _ � � � t� °' � - • ._ . . .-s ��- . • _. �,�. __ t � �., '° y:,,,..��' -"- � 1 _ � s�c ''� J.. : = �:— _� � � � ` <, �� N � � � � `. • . , ? _ : i�_ .�- �,' " :1- � n ,x M , C'� � � '� ' � `•� , r �e'. j , � �_ � ,�� '�• J ., h, _ `` � li� sr` _ �"' — ' ''''' } =��"f_ •�' �: 7 � ` � \ . � � .� " �> � � L---r-� (ta i .- r" 76TH �- 8 �'� ;� S ,� �,..- � '° ' }� .a_ ` � � � ' �` ' s(*� l�'}s`�.i '�O �l�l � �,/; i / � , .. - ' ,r. � = i� ��� _ 9 � <i�j4 - \ � �%' rr �� '. " --� `.f+ :e 1> s�v� l�eie a t�: '` .'a'` (") \1 � s 1v15�ON 1` � zf � y"' `--•' �� mlP� �s� �',s .t l� � �'- 10 � S�}69 ti , ,..A 1 -.- � — ��..� �- � �i:a �y� `\ � � i �� t.r: s . . ; : i �i iv�t' t�')'/ i _ �) OR �,� \E1` , f ' .+2G`' ; ' " ' i : � a� z�, Y N�ie � Jl"� � 1't �i 1 � � ..F� ' L9 �� � ' . _ i ' •. ' � �! • '�a, �'''; 12 d�� � F,�� _i� '� ' : � �.i nsi (�s s(r� F :�� '�_ 'r 13 !..) ,1, '': ��� �oT� 2_��-r � 5; • ' 1 <°'N � titp L`'�t r _ � � 1� (�r') � � : . (9 I . ♦ x � a � ' .� p 1, �Y � 4 > �p .e�' f'� i zE i�rt ��, 'a I i, tal'� �ie e e- :Y � z ' sA' �' inJ � ♦ :t ` L t`� a@� V�., C9�ot eEn � � .. � "- . ^' � /. h •�' � j4 S �j y� y b z � p '�" :�J e � ' � O� E�1l� /l�t ��, . '�� _ �- ' � 9 � . • � : ' � � � .. �A� 31;, ', --�-- —�` - - '``' _ _ , � J � �: � . '= t. ,;,_;' .. . ; . . � ,!.% l.'` y, . P I � � � , .na.�..�..�'.�%� �- � � i i'•�l � 4� �a �' 51;� � � h - _ ' � B` ��i � • � � � � �i � � � �L ��� 1- �C Q �' s i a � ��a -i ,�t�' ; Q � � ; p � : , = S . � . �,� � �� � , , 1. l l J� 3 � i �. � : � fb - N� � . }*' a� �° � •; 2icy y ,� � 1�; , l+� � i , • �' � �� � E .�r s 1� � ��'' P � m � . s err�s=— � �` 3 i , � --- � 1 � ,:, * , ,�, TH iva�! W.E d'� L,e. • ` - - 1 1' 1 L ,' • -----,i-- _ •° Q � � � � � � , U0,�3 z ;$_, _� , fi;, �! r � '"- . a � � , ....,.�,__ ` � ; >. ,� 1����1 � , � „ � _ � � �,� , ti , „� � , - � Im � 1 � , 1 � � 4 ;� � e, dh ,� �v C' 1 1 � 1�� I j ... � z,6n iG� s� i+�99 �'. .r' i.; :1 ? � l�j 3 2; a1 5 r 1 �°,((� ° � {�' a +. _ 't � � �.,r_ + �.q '. i � �u� � :� • � � 1 + (� , ' v a,, • � �s',a� � �a ! � ; �. :, w ,��; . j, � � �� a � �° CR E s �' 1 i ; i' . _ t p .S a Q �bB S =� bsl � � ,�: . (J �.r: � .a J � � _GLEM CREEICi RQ. -r • � ' � �-� v zO `� ° *r1� � BC� ' a � jt r ' r � . (yl �'' .' ` � o ��f�l+ • ' P- . z s O .� , •,� a � . , � � � � �o ' ;a ,. ; � , w ra '� �� ` A�"'' .� a c ;� � �� . 1 �, . � ��' ; I.� ,� � `�'� �'� . �Q � � � AO� .a..� �.h q� � �'iE"^w� . �G �) •.; . . �. r �r � Y l � • a , '� .. 2 i ,ti , . . ' . :: ��� . .. s..�sA = � - � t � �� � � i3. � � �w �r� �`.. w� , . . ��-, . �. SEC q p . . . . ' . � ANOKA COIMTY ANOKAyCOUNTT ' . �� � .. /----1. l~-. HIGHMIAY WW HIGHWAY H/W � � � � � PLAT NO. 4� PL4T NQ.28 � � � ` a .`�. � � � � r� � POSSIBLE S1TES FOR REZONING TO M-4, MANUFACTURING ONLY � �� , � �� . � - � �. , 14�. ......... .. .. ... , ..,. ...,..�... .w�..�.) >�.. .�.)�:.. ,........ , . . , i. . , h.. 21 . . ... . ..�.� . ... . . � .. .. . .. .....a .... ... ...�.�)� i.�. . . . .. ... . �. .. . . ..� �. ��_: . .�': : '. � ; - ,�i � .�,. - . .:,. :. -,�. : . .y; ��� �' �� :�; � � � ' ' ;•.- .. ;� � � � • ' ..- °�' ;` ;� �wner: Park Constr�ction 7900 Beech Street �!� . M�nneapoiis, N!N ' S5�3 Dick Carlson 786-9800 _ P l IV : 2-3Q-24-32-0003 � � ` � . ' Area: 107; � 7� Sq: Ft.l2 46 Ac. �` `� Market Value: ��E�@ �o-�.'�D �1�,�� Zo •M2 � n�ng. - , He�vy ,lndustr.�a! �::: :Located �n TiF #3 � ., .i .; �: ., � . � . '. y' 3! � . . != �. `. .:°. . � ; -�, !i ' � .- : ;�- .. �rope�y 1nf�rm�t�on �Wne�. . � �f r , �20 38th Lan� r Anoka, M� 55303 �42i -�604� P 1 N: 3-30-24-13-00 i 6 . �rea: 73 ,004 Sq. Ft./1.63 Ac� �/iarket Vaiue: $7� ,OOQ ('! 995} �oning: M-� , Ligh� industr'ia! � N Pro e has railroad P �Y ac�ess. � ,, � .,' ,,: : � ' � • ; - . � ',,; ;,,�;i: .�,� <�,. .: � :�• " � ;i _� • �' , i.�, ;:.� . � :, Ov�rner: Wi!liam Penk � 22 Havvthorne � Hopkins, MN �53�3 �46-17 � 7 P 1 N:;.�-30=24= � 4-0�45 ��:= Area: 237;375 Sq: Ft./5:45 Ac. _. IUlarket Value: $2 � 5,0�0 ('! 995) - 1�etlands on Si#e Zonin9- M-3, Qutdoor l�tens�ve�lndustrial,: Loca.ted, in Tl� #3 -. �2 � 9a ��--�V��ant ��r�mercia! �n� 1nd�a��r�a1 �r����� 1���n�o� r.. P'rop�� ���'orrnat��� `� 4wner: 7 T's Nlanagemen# . . �� t�;�� ���- � ; St. Paul, 1Uil� 55164 '�l� ,�� ��� SSItZ ; N i� Richard Tysor� ' a ; �i ;� �' i N : �-30-24=13-00'I 4 ' � - - , � `�rea: 493,740 �q. Ft:/1 � .33 Ac. � _. . ' Nlarket Vafue: ��1;99�9�-t'! 995j �( l� �u� Prop�rt}r h�s railroad , . Zonin !VI-3, Outdoor 1n#ens;vey ln�ustria� � ' g= access � _ ,3� � '1�� ,�!i .. •, 7 ; - .z ti. ' f. , .`_5 �. .• ; - 'F � : ,`. '`' � - � . :, ��:� .:� :�: , �, ;, ,• , �, :: �. ; . .. : ? Ovvner: 7 T's �Nfanagement P.�. Box 64�019 ��,�s u�� G�- � St. Paui, lUiN 559 f4 �� ►� ��"'� ���" F�ichard Tyson P ! IV : 3-30-24-13-�0 � 5 Area: 27'1,25� Sq.' Ft./6.22 Ac: :"; ,, IVl�rket V i - $fi8{' � a ue. �� (1995} ��� ��o . �qailroad access Zo�ir�g;- M-3, Outdoor lntens9ve ,1�ndustrial, Loca#ed in T1F -#�� - - -,4 N 0 r"` , ;. ' �' ' �. :S: .. . . � .; .: f- � .. .� !; � - �� '� - .i 'f ' : ' � �r ' � ; Owner: 11�cGlynn Bakeries; Inc. : 7350 Commerce l.ane _ Frid�ey, �N �5432 . Johr� Prichard:- 574=2222 P I N : 'I �-30-24-14-�U58 & �� '1� , .;,` . � .; � .' 1. �!' .r. �`' ,r. ,�. . � �. ;� � • .. ' . � ; : . ., i= ; � �v�ne�: Northco Real Estafe Services �soo v�k��g ��;V� Edin�, �/l�! 55435 � Dennis �y11a: �20-'I 650 . . : - i' 1�1: ' 1-30-2�-� 1-�010. �� �.. :, Area: 9�;832 Sq. F#J2.2 Ac .- �ar�Cet �/alue: �� 43,700 �� 99�►� : Zoning: NI-2, H�avy Indus#rial .� R � � z, � 1f�cant C��rn�rcial an�! Indc�str�al �r����,j/ tr��►eni�� � Proper� Hr��or���i�� Owner: Northco Real Estate Services :� 4900 Veking Drive . Edina, N�i� 55�435 � Denni� Zyl1a: 820-165� _ . P 1 N : 'I � -30=24-31-001 � '�rea: 87;120 Sq. F#./2 Ac. � l�Iarket Value: $174,200 t1995) �oning: M-2, I�eavy Industr�al : ..� ,_ ��� � ; 22 � ; ,,,; ,. i � � .. i:: �: ;.::: . �` •• "t • • � , � •. ;� ' ' ° �, ;. � �: �. ; ,, Owner: Northco Rea1 E-state Services � 4900 V�king Drive Edina, �fil �5435 Dennis Zylia: 820-' 650 N P I N: 1�-30-24-31-0012 v: .. . t..= :, : � Area: 87,120 Sq: Ft./2�Ac:�� . � � . Market Vafue: �130,700 �1 �95) Zoning: 1Vi-2, Heavy lndus#rial . . . � � ' � �; - i ., ., . ' .. ; !` ; i: .s , s. ; ;� ;� ,.. . : f. ;. � �'�.• . �:,' .,`>� •?s Ouvner: Fridley Cheverolet Geo 1 �7� �J�iversity Avenu� �t. �'aul, �lIN 55104 P 1 N : � 2-30-2�-2'1-0005 � . �ea: 139,4�0 Sq. Ft.�3.2 Ac�' lViarket 1/�1ue: �12�4,400 {1995) Zoning: N1-1, Ligh# lndus#rial � 24 <. ..; i:, . . - ' _i� �'. - - .° �` �. _ i 's: ' .�: : � ! :� r . ,:.� ,_,' �,' Owner: Kur� IVlanufacturing 5280 Main Stree# ��idley, NIN 55432 �#. �`at�l, MN 5510� P I N: 12-30-24-2 i-fl007' . Area: 251;7�0 Sq. Ft:/5.77 Ac: Market Va�ue: $224,100 �1995) Zoning; IVI-� , Light indust�ai. ,: � � '� �� I' � � t _ ;�� � ,+ � :.: ., � ;. . � .: •: '�; .. ' . � ?� � �' Owner: Anderson Trucking Co. �' 203 Cooper Ave � ,� P.O. �ox 1377 � St. Cloud, i�N �6301 :: P 1 N: 12-30-24-21-0�2 8� .� . � �ea: 'f 66,089 Sq. Ft./3:81 Ac. -` : ' Markef Value: �211,800� {'1995j Zoning: M-1, Light lndustrial ��. � .�,� ,,' �,; : � �.., � lfacant �omr�����al and Industriai �rope�y tnventory Pr�per�y ir�fo�mati�n � - .- ... . , ,. �.�� "� t � -s - ; ►� � `j ' � �r ! : �.` ,. ! t' , i ' .i P i N: 12-34-2�-22-00 � 7« -. Area: 36,700' Sq: F#.I0.84 Ac: + Mark�t Value: �28,900 �1 �95} Zoning: �l1-1, L�ght Industrial.- l ` , � K . � 2$ . r � . .� ..; .. '. �' f.. .`; _,�, �_.. ,.. ' :•/ �..�_, '� .�: % �r�aper�y 6nfc�rrnation Qwner: Foursome Company !I ` 7331 Baker Street Minne�polis, 1VI�1 55432 P 1 N: 1 Z-30-24-23-0009 �ea: 32,700 Sq. Ft./0.75 Ac..�� :, , 1Vlar�ket Value: $46,fl00 {� 995j Zoning: !V!-1, Light lndus#rial _ ; ; , 291 ,i� �(. �.� '� �.. .+ �� �� � � , - �� ��. ' ..y.� t. �� ,�., .�. .•�. .� ; .;•�, -,. ; :��. �: �� '� : ainrner: Ashland Oi1 P.Q. Box 'i4000 Lexing#on, KY 4Q5'I 2 P 1 N : 12-30=24-3 � -Q�53 ' ; . : : . . , . Area: 45,191 Sq. Ft./1:03 Ac:_ ` , Market Value: �94,900 (� 995} Zoning: M-'1, Ligh#.:lr�dustrial .- � �i d � � ;; ;` � :. .. . �: �: .° i: �! ;i •. - .. �. Pro�a�rty snf�rr�ati�n � CJw�er: Leonard Keill�r {� � Greenvill� C�Ilege �� 315 East ��li�ge Avenue ° Greenvilie, 1� 62�46 , P 1 N � '13-3�-24-31-0035 � � ��r�a: �6,312 Sq. �t.10:83 Ac.. . # It�arket �alu�: ��3,700 t� 995) Z�ning: �-1, Ligh� industri�� .. ;` l��. 36� � -' . ", .. .s'. . `,,. �, , �.i. :' 3. .. .. _ .s , � - ��" .� a � .1. � , :•� , : , ; � �-, : . ��' t�1 � ' .-.`: . .. : . � ?� ., • ., � . ' • i, +, , � s Owner: C�m�ner�ia! �'roper#y investment �6�5 Lo�g La�� Road Ros�vil{e, �N 55113 P 1�! : 22-30-24- � 1-0�!08, Q007; 0006 ;. � Area: See �ii�p �bov� ,/ � �j `� ���`�av �N�arket �/alue: �146,2�0; 164,fi00; , {19�95) ��ning: �-2, H�avy lndust��ai : � � e .; ;� { � . .,.. .. ` � i. . , ` '. . , �' �' � .I=. ,f:� :t� :,�• '�'. ',•'. �^„ � �' ;�. : �. Proper#� inf�rr�a�i�� �wner: WXF Acquisition Corp. 351 West Dundee Road � 1�Uh�eling, I� ��090 P 1 i� : 22-30-24-�3-4009 . ° - �ea: 98,375 Sq: Ft./2.2f Ac:: �iar#c�t �falue: $167,200 �1995) �onir�g: 1V1-2, Heavy industria� 49 ���at�t ����n�rcial a�tc! irt�ust�ial Prop►erty lnve�#�r� Property �nf�rrnation Owner: Aramark Corpora#ion i� 5 N First Street �urban4�, CA �1502 P 1 �! : 22--3t�-24-�3-001 � Area: 65,400 Sq. Ft:/1.50 Ac. ` M�rket �/alue: �130,800 �'( 995) Zor�ing: �VI-2, Heavy lndustrial 42 f � � '.1 I� � �� • :I.i $ �,. J ' r�� � ��; ..e a� sy �I,', � � ` ,`. � �� r: �� UWtiei: �9,����.,��f.�� � '�c,e_ �t4�--3f-d� �� � 2� �- � . � J�I �s i t�,� ��I� � __ � �' I N : � 7-30-24= � 4-0004:: 2 . : � - . �ea: 31 �,�s4 Sq. Ft.17.1'! � Ac �� . �/larket Value: $387,�00 ('! 995) �oning: 11�-2, Heavy Indus#riai .. . .. � � � -- _ -= � � _.. , . ... , . ... 4l ,.,.,. . . t ` y -ri � � ' .j . . � � .. si . L� r :• �:i ��� �•� �f t�'� :a r: �.�, * �r����y Informat�o� Owner: n ` ��r�1-�- D� � eet � �� � �� ��- � , w�-� ��� � P�1: 27-30-24-11-00� 2� & 27 30 24�-1 �` �07 3: - . . ea: 117,834 Sq: Ft.12:7 Ac. =�} � . �i � � �o Nlarke# Va1ue: �105,100 �1995) ���' �oning: M-2, �ieavy lndus#�ial ;. - : � n DATE: TO: i 1 �_�� 1 � DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR March 14, 1997 Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Recommendations Regarding Ordinance Changes for Warehouse and Distribution Facilities The City Council at its March 3, 1997 meeting directed staff to pursue the actions recommended by the Planning Commission. The recommendation of the Planning Commission was to pursue the following actions: A �� � , 1. Amend the exBsting industrial zoning di�tricts to establish stric�er standards for r��� ,_ . . comer lots and lots adjacent to residentiaf`districts: ° f t� .�� �� _ ; �. � � � _> r � ..' c, :. ._.- �<- _<, 3;�' ls+ !s, :� _r 5 ; G �_ � �. . �=� :;. 2. Establish a new industnal distr�ct entitled'`M-4! Manufacturing O�ly", and.r'ezone t��� t � �� a� S T �`��' � ¢:� parcels as appropnate s „ � ` � r ` � ' � � - Staff drafted the attached ordinance amendment in response to the City Council direction. The ordinance amendment�prohibits loading docks and vehicle�(truck) .•.� ���7 -- . _ :, parking adjacent to the public,right-of way on, industnal comer lots or mdustnai lots ��; f�.� -` . . .. . - . . .... F .�.. . . .., .:., } . . , across the .street from residen�al : zonin g oc`use. l The �ordinance establishes a new `: �-- ��� } zoning district entitled "M-4,, Manufactu�ng Onl�y" and staff is rec.omr`nending seven , 7 , t � : - _� Fr� properties be rezoned to this new zornng disfi�c�. o ''�-. k �,� ' : t�� ;}�� '� '� - . ... .:. - ,.y fi ' . . . � .. . _ ' - j, ' b v i� �f ,., . ._. . _. _ . �. _ � ,. _- . . . . . , �.. .. . . . .. . r _ . . . . . �'�N . > -...., .. . �� AFFECTED OWIVERS MEETING ,-:.� k r ��. , �� -`�.�.._. �: � . . . � - ` �� � �-' _: �_` d1 � '2 ,f �t��� �l x�t � .. . . . . .. :�� . - .: : _--��� -- �.� Staff met �with affected property#owners on March 1�2,19� concem with the ordinance amendment; stating'that'it wc the land and their market opportunities:' .. - reduce: - ,� � : i � , i ,r'�. � � rv � L� .:u � ��' : f � �,� ners expressed j ` ` j � � -��'"� = the market`value�of , d � Warehouse and Distribution Facilities March 14, 1997 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the pubfic hearing and recommend approval of the attached ordinance to the City Council. MM/dw M-97-93 � f�1 � � �. f,. DATE: March 13, 1997 �,% � `� '' ► : � ;�' ��' PL G DIVISION TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Pianning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Recommendations for the Industrial Land Moratorium ,� Moratorium on Warehouses. or Distribution Facilities Pur ose ^ The City Council established the moratorium on warehouse and distribution facilities witfi more than ten (10) docks at its January 27, 1997 meeting. The purpose of tNe moratorium is finro-fold: � 1. To examine the industrially zoned properties within the City and de#ermine the compatibility of warehouse facilities with ather allowable uses in the vicinity. 2. . Review the number and location of existing warehouse and distribution faciGties and determine:.if thezoning on remaining vacant land sho.uld be amended or changed to another zoning classification. . Problem Prompting fhe need for the moratorium�was the recent development of approximately 500,000 square feet of warehouse facili#ies within the last eighteen months. As a result, the number of resident complaints regarding truck traffic and the parking of trucks and � traile�s near residential properties have.increased i, � ln � 996, the City Council -. es#ablished several residential streets south of 53"� Avenue as "no truck traffic" routes in response to the Murphy Wacehouse fac�l�ties'and o#her similar developmen#s along = Main Street. Residents complained about.the large numbers of trucks traVeling through the neighborhood, which caused-additional noise and fumes.. � There are several areas in �the City where industrial districts are located directly across the street from residential neighborhoods:'� Cumulatively, warehouse distribution w Industrial Land Recommendation Planning Commission ,.—� March 13, 1997 � Page 2 � #acilities can cause adverse impacts because of the amount of truck traffic entering and leaving the area. Of the City's 1,148 acres of industrially zoned land, there are only 89.79 acres which are vacant (7.8). The 1,148 acres represents about 17% of the City's land area. There has been about a 4.5% decline in the amount of industrial land acreage since � 979 (Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, and Home Depot.are examples of these industrial land Iosses). The small amount of remaining industrial land raises an economic development concern. There are few opportunities to maximize job creation and building valuation: Warehouse/distribution facilities do not generate a significant amount of job opportunities. Further, the building construction is very simple (a �big box") and tends to have a lower valuation than a manufacturing use which has a more complex buiiding system with office areas, manufacturing or processing areas, service areas for employees, and storage areas. The existing M-1 and M-2 districts also permit a number of "commercial" uses which would not create the value or job creation opportunities more typical of the manufaciuring uses. � The City needs to balance the economic development concems versus minimizing the impacts to adjacent residential areas. Goals of Potential Amendments Any proposed ordinance change should meet the following goals: 1. Reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution fiacilities on residential properties from truck traffic by: a controlling their location in the City; and, _. , -: _: b.` by implementing site design controls. - 2. Encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities and which require more complex building systems (buildings with a inocture of uses tend to have higher building valuations than warehouse construcdion): 3. Promote "cleann uses which do not produce iumes, odors, or require outside operations which may cause noise: 4. Eliminate uses which require signficant amounts of outdoor storage, display, or are afready permitted in other zoning districts (i.e. repair garages are permitted in commercial distriets ��` `` � � industriai Land Recommendation Planning Commission March 13, 1997 Page 3 Analysis Existing Develo�ments and Remaining Vacant Land . For the purposes of this moratorium the City was divided into three industrial areas: Area One: The area of the City bounded by 61 � Avenue on the north, Main Street on the east, East River Road on the west, and the City Limits on the south. This industrial area straddles the railroad tracks. Area Two: The area of the City bounded by 73`� Avenue on the north, the City Limits on the east, Locke Park on the south, and the railroad tracks on the west. This area also includes the industrial properties straddling Highway 65 north to. #he City Limits. Area Three: The area of the City bounded by 73'� Avenue on the south, University Avenue on the east, the City Limits on the north, and East River Road on the west. This area straddles the railroad tracks. The following charts describe the amount of existing warehouse and distribution facilities in each area, the acreage of remaining vacant land, the potential for the expansion of existing facilities, and whether the site is near a residential area. ..r. :�._ _. . - � . n �, � 1 1 � � � 'r"�. Industrial Land Recommendation Planning Commission March 13, 1997 Page 4 Area One EXISTING WAREHOUSE OR DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Murphy Warehouses 1 &2 177,950 & 266,000 square feet Tri-Star Insulation 40,000 square feet (proposed) API Supply 140,238 square fee# All-Temp 344,000 square feet Perlman-Rocque 104,000 square feet Quebecor 175,800 square feet POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF EXPANSION VACANT LAND OPPORTUNITI( ON ADJACENT TO SITE FACILITY No 7.11 acres north of facility. No No Minor No Minor None None None None Idone WHO IS iMPACTED BY THE F�►CILITY? Residential properties across the street. No docks face street. Residential pr.operty across the street. No docks face street. Residential property across the street. Residential property across the street. None None Barole Trucking Currently under 2.7 acres None 26,280 square feet expansion to stated � square feet. Bunzl No - None None 100,SOO square feet . .. ,, . - ., , : ;e _ ��. There are 27.61� acres of vacant industrial land remaining in Area One. ` . Industrial Land Recommendation Planning Commission March 13, 1997 Page 5 Area Two EXISTING POSSiBLE AMOUNT OF WHO IS WAREHOUSE OR EXPANSION VACANT LAND IMPACTED BY DISTRIBUTION OPPORTUNITY ON ADJACENT TO THE FACILITY? FACILITIES SITE FACILITY Target No None Residential property 1,065,094 square across the street. feet ATS Yes 3.81 acres to the Residential property 5,600 square feet north. across the street. Keuther No None Locke Park 54,731 square feet PenZoil No None None 42,186 square feet Fridley Bus Minor 3.81 acres to the None 22,625 square feet east. There are 21.6 acres of vacant industriai land remaining in Area Two. Area Three EXISTING POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF WHO IS WAREHOUSE OR EXPAN$ION -.- VACANT LAND ' IMPACTED BY � DISTRIBUTION OPPORTUNITY,ON ADJACENT_TO �,�. 7HE FACIUTY? ` FACILITIES' SITE.. F.. .;;'` =�� u FACILITY =� .: , , f�:. ANR/CCC ; ,. No ��� �;: � .�_�,b;�� ,6'acres;to �the ndrthj.;, : None � : ' £�p r> =��f 64,560 square feet Joseph Land Yes, substantial. � 6"acres to the east: " None ' 16,140 square feet Lindstrom Met�c No ` 1.63 acres to the �'' Residential and ' 35,000 square feet nortl�. park properly;, across the street. Gazda No �� ' -' 3.67 acres to the ° None. 103,000 square feet � west. '`� . � . , a �, i"'� There are 34.6 acres of vacant industnal,4land remairnng m Area Three. . . n f Industrial Land Recommendation Planning Commission ,,-_, March 13, 1997 Page 6 In addition to reviewing"the number. of warehouse and distribution facilities in each area and their size, s#a .ff also reviewed the ratio of docks to floor area when compared to manufacturing facilities. The average ratio of docks to floor area in a warehouse/distribution facility is 1:5,339 square feet. In a manufacturing facility this ratio increases to 1:14,293 square feet, atmost three times as much floor area per dock. This supporEs the theory that manufacturing facilities have less truck traffic than warehouse/distribution facilities. Ordinance Amendment Options . Five ordinance amendment options with their advantages and disadvantages were identified: . � }�+ �B+� : rJ"",� 1. Do nothing 2. Amend district requirements for existing industrial zoning districts. This amendment would establish more stringent devefopment requirements for comer lofs and /ofs near adjacent residential districts. No loading docks would.be allowed to face fhe right of way. 3. Amend the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial districts to altow warehouses and distribution facilities as special uses only. 4. Amend the M-1; Light lndustrial district to eliminate warehouses and distribution facilities as permitted uses. 5. Create a new district entitled "M-4, Ma�ufacturing Only°. � A new district would establish manufacturing as the primary use; warehouse and distribufion facilities woUld be incidental. iment Opfions Advantages and D�sadyantages . . . . :. . ...,- . . , . 1 . „4 ' ' " . . r.���� . .� t , ...- _., .+, . F. . .. . . 4. . <. � _...�. i , ._ ..ti � . ? None . . $ � : - ;; More..stnngi developmer would reduc , .�; �, � ._I_.':'�" � � ;�:� , Industrial Land Recommendation Planning Commission March 13, 9 997 m oraer to ettectivery accomplish both the reduction of .impacts by wacehouse and -: - distribution facilities and the. econom�c devetopment goafs, both Option 2 and Option 5`. need to be pursued.,- This will ailow #he creafion .of.:more stringent development ;: �,., � standards for the remaining vacant land�`as well as for those properfies that wiA redevelop in the future. ; i � ,� �;; : _ , _ _, ; r_ :; � , ; , Af�ected Pro erties � �� r.� � Once the amendmen# options were iden�fiPCl, staff�analyzecl the remaining vacant land to determine which parcels shouldrbe rezoned to encourage manu�acturing , development. The �follo�nnng`cr�tena were used to eYaluate the properties: : � �-�; �,.�. � :, � - , �� � � Industrial Land Recommendation Planning Commission � March 13, 1997 . Page 8 a Whether the property was adjacent to residential property. a Whether the property would meet the minimum requirements of a proposed M-4 District. a Whether a proposed development would have more than 10 loading docks. a Whether there is an adjacent warehouse/distribution facilit�r. A total of seven sites totaling 33.47 acres are recommended to be rezoned to the M-4 designation. This is approximately 37% of the remaining available industrial land. Prior to ordinance adoption, staff would conduct an informational meeting with the affected property owners. A recommendation will also be made to the City Council and the HRA that these sites be included in the city's redevelopment project area for possible TIF assistance (the project must meet State Statute requirements). Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council pursue the following actions: 1. Amend the existing industrial zoning districts to establish stricter standards for � corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts. 2. Establish a new industrial district entitled "M�, Manufacturing Only°, and rezone parcels as appropriate. Associated with the proposed amendments will be improved definitions for loading docks, overhead doors, trucking terminals, and distribution facilities: \/acant Commercial and Industria! Property Inv�nto Property Information w�� 1�f«- Owner: Northco Real Estate Services 4900 Viking Drive Edina, MN 55435 Dennis Zylla: 820-1650 - P I N : '! 1=30-24-31-0010 ' � - . '' ~ea: 95,832 Sq. Ft./2:2 Ac: �:`� Market Value: $143,700 ('1995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial a N , , Vacant Commercial and Industrial 6�roperty lnventor� Prope�y Information ��. �f�v Owner: McGlynn Bakeries; �lnc. 7350 Commerce Lane - Fridley, MN 55432 - . John Prichard: 574-2222 � P I N: 10-30-24-14-0058 &' 11=30=24-23-0025 � rea: 177, 790 Sq. Ft./6:3 Ac. ` fViarket Value: $262,400 (1995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial � , 4 11■ N 19 V�cant Cornmercia� and Inclustr�al Property lnver�tor-y, Property Information Owner: Anderson Trucking Co. 203 Cooper Ave �P.O. 8ox 1377� . St. Cioud, MN 5630'1 P I N: 12-30-24-21-002 8- �` rea: 166,089 Sq. Ft./3.81 �Ac: �v�arket Value: $21 '1,8�0� 1995 i ) Zoning: M-1, Light lndustrial � N_ 27 � ! Vacani C��rnercial anc! lndustri�i Property lnventor� Property Information w�(�-�v Owner: RRI Inc. 820 38th Lane � Anoka, MN 55303 ; .�; ��i ..� , : 421-6046 � N PlN: 3-30-24-� 3-0016 - x . t. . 4-, � , . :, .. .� . ,�ea: 71,000 .Sq. Ft./1:63 Ac ° � �_ � �. : , ; Prope�rty has railroad � ���viarket Value: $71,000 (1995} access. Zon�ng: M-1, Light Industrial , . „e 0 1�'acant Cor�rnercaa! and Inclustrial Prope�y Inven�ory Property In�ormation ��. ����- 4wner: Fridley Cheverolet Geo � � � '1578 Universi Avenue �!:, St. Paul, MN � 55'104 P ! N : 12-30-24=21-0005 . ��ea: 139,400 Sq. Ft./3.2 Ac = Market Value: $124,400 {'! 995) � Zoning: M-'i , Light Indust�ial - .� ry C 24 e� Va�ant Cor�mercial anc! Inciusfrial Prope� 6nv�r�tory � Pro�e�y lnformation -,-�,,�,��� .,j�� Owner: Kurt Manufacturing ' S280 Main Street , �� � �9 Fridley, MN 55432 � � ;� St. Paui, MN 55'10'I �,� P ! N : 12-30-24-21-0007 i� �~ea: 251;700 Sq. Ft./5.77 Ac. � Market Value: $224,100 (1995) fi � Zoning: IVI-1, Light Industrial 25 e �/aCar�t Cornmercial and Industrial Properiy Inventory Property lnformation Owner: �ommercial Prope�ty-lnvestment -: 2685 Long Lake Road ... . . �- � , Roseville, . MN ,� 551 �13' � , PlN: : 22=30--24-11-0�08;0007;0006 � � . ` , '' �ea: See Map Above ..` � :_. � � Market Va1ue: $146,200; 164,600; 150,000 ('! 995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy lndustriai , . , ; 3 f �`,s� / N �_:1 I m � PLANNING COMMIS.SION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 19, 1997 PAGE 12 Ms. Savage asked if there would be another public hea ' g at that time. Ms. Dacy stated staff would be happy to �rei�ify the public. Mr. VanWormer stated.a public he ng is not required, but the public has the opportunity t omment. If there are controversial issues, then another mee ' g would be held to provide information_ Ms. Dacy stated, arding some of the individual lot owners comments, she ld be happy to contact them directly. Mr. Van mer stated they now have the comments. When going into the ' al design stage, they can take those into account. He reciated the comments and questions. 2. INFORMAL DISCUSSI0�1 ON RECONII�lENDATIONS REGARDING ZONING CONTROLS FOR MULTI-BAY WAREHOUSE OR SIMILAR TRUCKING-BASED PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Ms. McPherson stated her presentation will include a brief review of the memo included in the agenda packet; a discussion of the � purpose, the problem, and describe the study areas; review a video; and present their recommendation to the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council established at its January 27 meeting a moratorium on the construction of warehouse and distribution facilities with more than 10 docks. The purpose of the.moratorium_was to-�provide time for staff to: � l. Examine the industriaily:zoned properties in the City and determine the_compatibility of-war.ehouse facilities with other aliowable uses';�.n��'the`=eicinity; " and - 2. Review the number`and�Iocation-of the existing warehouse. and distribution facilities and determine if the zoning on remaining vacant land should be amended or changed to another zoning classificatiori':` ' Ms. McPherson stated the�problem-is that the City has recently seen the development of approximately 500,000 square'feet of warehouse and distribution faciTities in the last 18 months. Along with that developme�t has�come.:�the 'increase of resident complaints regarding truck=traffic,''<-parking of trucks parallel to adjacent streets and the public right-of-way, and noise and odor problems. � . , � Ms. McPherson stated, in 1996,�the City established the � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, E'EBRUA,Ry 1g� lgg7 PAGE 13 �� neighborhood south of 53rd Avenue as no truck through traffic routes. In addition to the physical impacts of these facilities, there are only about 90 acres of vacant industrially zoned iand left in the City. There is about 1,040 acres of industrially zoned land which is about 170 of the City's land area_ Looking at the remaining vacant land and determining what is the best use for these properties is also the goal of looking at�the City in terms of what types of industrial uses the City wants to encourage. Manufacturing uses tend to increase job creation as well as valuation on the sites thereby increasing the tax base for the City. Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of what staff looked a�, the City was divided into three planning areas. The first area is south of blst Avenue, straddling the railroad tracks stretcning from East River Road to Main Street and south to the City border_ The second area is the northeast part of the City from University to the easterly City borders and north to Osborne along the Highway 65 corridor north of Locke Park. The third area is north of 73rd Avenue from University Avenue to East River Road and north to 83rd. It includes some light industrial properties along the railroad tracks. It picks up the Onaway district and areas next to the Springbrook Nature Center. /"�i Ms_ NIcPherson showed a video which shows some of the warehousing facilities ir� the City. Ms. McPherson stated the goals of any potential ordinance amendment would be as follocas: 1- Reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residentiai properties from truck traffic by: a. controlling their: location� iri the City; and, b. by implementing site;design�controls: - 2. Encourage uses which�provide a'significant amount of job opportunities and whic� require more complex building systems (buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher building valuations than warehouse construction). 3. Promote "clean" uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which may..cause noise�. 4. Eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage, dispiay, or are aiready permitted in other zoning districts {i.e. repair garages are permitted in commercial di:strict's) . Ms_ McPhe.rson stated staff looked at the three stL^�l ����;G, ;-�� ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 14 �� � number of existing warehouse or distribution facilities, whether they would have possible expansion opportunities on site, the amount of vacant land adjacent to the facility, and who would be affected by the facility {i.e. if there was residential property across the street or nearby). Staff also looked at the average flaor area ratio. The average ratio of docks to floor area which is approximately 1:5,000 in a warehouse distribution facility versus 1:14,000 in a manufacturing facility. Ms. McPherson stated, once staff completed this analysis, they identified five ordinance a�:endment options: 1. Do nothing. 2. Amend district requirements for existing industrial zoning districts. 3. Amend the M-i, Light Ir:dustrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, to allow warehouses and distribution facilities as special uses only. 4. Amend the M-1, Light Industrial, district to eliminate warehouses and distribu�ion faciiities as permitted uses. S. Create a new district entitled "M-4, Manufacturing Only". Ms. McPherson stated each option has its advantages and disadvantages which are outlined in the staff report. The first option has no advantages while there are a number of disadvantages. The City does not have any control over the physical impacts of warehousing and:distribution facilities on residential properties. Any remaining vacant land would then be subject to,the existing_standards of the current ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated the.�second option has,the advantage of - reducing or eliminating the physical impacts on the remaining vacant properties as well as any future redevelopment opportunities the City may realize as properties become blighted and the City needs to encourage,other industrial development. Ms. McPherson stated options 3 and 4 have really no advantages to the City and have disadvantages in the fact that a number of existing facilities would become nonconforming and, with the special use permit option, the burden of proof is on the City to deny the special use permit., The amendments do not address the• aesthetic or physical impacts of warehouse and distribution facilities. �„1 Ms. McPherson stated option S has several advantages and with no disadvan.tages identified. The advantages`are that it limits the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEgiZIIARy ].g � 1997 PAGE 15 locations of warehouse and distribution facilities to those existing, promotes uses which have less truck traffic, promotes uses which have higher job generation and building valuation, and establishes standards to limit outdoor activity or noise, fumes, and odors. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the remaining vacant land inventory of approximately 90 acres of industrially zoned land. Staff selected seven sites which they felt would meet the need to be rezoned M-4. This totals about 33.5 acres or about 370 of the remaining inventory_ Ms_ McPherson stated staff's recommendation is to recor.�mend �o the City Council pursuing the following actions: 1• Amend the existing industrial zoning districts to es�cablisn stricter standards for corner lots and iots adjacent io residential districts. 2. Establish a new industrial district entitled "M-4, Manufacturing Only", and rezone parcels as appropriate. Ms. Savage asked if staff were recommending both of these actions. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Staff determined that the best approach is a two-prong approach - one, to amend the existing standards in the current districts to encourage stronger standards for corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts, and two, to establish tYie M-4 district to create a manufacturing only district, and place some properties within that district to encourage the development o# manufacturing facilities. Ms. I�odig asked, if you did the".M 4; i�lanufacturing Only, distzict, does that then allow or`have a chance-of being spotty all over and among other types of zoning:;in the�area:' ` Ms. McPherson stated it is�possible. The sites selected out of the vacant land inventory are with�n existing M-1 and M-2 districts. The parcels are not contiguous parcels so there could be "spot" zoning. Mr. Kuechle asked what kind of manufacturing staff envisioned coming into the City_ Mr. McPherson stated they envisioned-uses similar to what is currently here. Just down the road from the site at blst Aven�:e is Sheet Metal Connectors, a manufacturer, tool and die compani�s, smali furniture companies,�etc. Mr. Kuechle as?�ed i.i M-9 al? ows heavy ,manufactur; n;; . ���•� �, ,. g �� � � � /� � � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 16 envision saying making them strictiy.manufacturing and end up with something worse than a warehouse? Ms. Dacy stated staff discussed that at Iength. On Main Street is Kurt Manufacturing and a timber finishing use have from time to time an odor and the City receives complaints from the residential area. While the language is not yet developed for the district and because of the location across from a residential area in some of the cases, staff wants to be ve�y careful about the exterior impacts. They would encourage uses that have no outdoor fumes and a small amount of outdoor storage. The types of impacts that will not cause problems. Staff will ne�d to take a look at the uses and perhaps make some exceptions c= prohibitions. Mr. Kuechle stated he also though� the idea of restricting existing ones would be helpful. �- you look at the ones on Niain Street, you can identify those thG� are problems. Mr. Oquist stated he is concerned about the present owners of these properties. If you rezone and put on further restricti�ns, that makes it more difficult to .develop. Also, if this is changed to M-4, the City wi:ll probably within the first year have a request for rezoning: There may need to be controls on that to prevent that option. Ms. Dacy stated this gives.the City the greater amount of control and forces evaluation of the proposed use. While it sounds as if this is manufacturing only, when looking at the uses in the other districts, some of the special uses are really not industrial. With 90 acres left, she thought the Planning Commission and the City Council have to look at what they want to see there. Mr. Oquist statecl he has a tendency,to.look for businesses and aliow rezoning. It_could be putting'the burden ori the present owners, and the'City=�should consider�`�that as it`��goes-'through'this. . ..._ .... , _ . __ ._ ,. _ Ms . Dacy stated th�y =`do need "to si ��down ° with tfie owners of the �'� ' properties that are:affected:' ' Ms. Savage stated this sounds as i_ this is very much in the preliminary stage. ` Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. Staff_are convinced the owners will.come back.and provide specific informatiori':about'how the language should be worded.. The City o�jectives'are clear�'�that it ' wants to control exterior impacts and the volume of traffic. The owner's experience can help to'"write the'ordinance. Ms. Savage stated she agr.eed i�ith ��e'goals. She felt the• proposal was going in the rigfit d_rection. She was in favor of � , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRU.ARy lg� lgg-7 PAGE 17 %� adopting the recommendation. Mr. Wedgewood stated, when the City alters zoning and possibly impairs the value of that property, what liability does the City have to compensate the owner for that decreased value. Does-this amount to taking? Ms. Dacy stated the City has authority ta change zoning on property. A taking technically occurs when there is no reasonable use of the property_ You would hear that in the case of an industrially zoned property being rezoned as residential. There are questions of value there but there has been a �nistory of case law which says that, as long as there is a legitimate public purpose behind the rezoning action and there is some reasonable use of the property, the courts nave tended to find favor with the municipality. It is the same uses, same zoning. The only properties affected are those across irom a residen�ial areas. There is a�ublic purpose estabiished to protect �he residential areas. In her opinion in this case she did not believe that this was a taking. Mr. Kuechle stated, in most cases, the property would be of highe� value as a manufacturing facility than as a warehouse. There are perhaps fewer potential customers for it because c?= the limited � uses. Mr. Oquist asked how long the moratorium would be. Mr. McPherson stated the moratorium is for 120 days. It expires at the end of May. Mr. Oquist asked how long it would take to get this proposed amendment in place. Ms. McPherson stated staff-is proposing that, assuming the Planning Commission concurs and the City Council concurs, staff would come back at�the end of March with the proposed ordinance language for the M-4 and also the amended language for the M-1 and M-2 and complete the process by the time the moratorium expires_ Mr. Kuechle asked if the Keller proposal would be affected by the moratorium. Ms. McPherson stated it is a distribution activity but it is�under the 10 dock limit so it is not affected. Mx. Oquist stated, other than being concerned about the present property, etc., he liked what this is` attempting t� do_ . MC�T ION ��y M,- _ Oqu i s t, seconded . by r�� .��a��h i� a � -- � • -" -. cn,:,-,,.�� � � �,.� pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 18 /"�, � � City Council pursue the following actions: l. Amend the existing industrial zoning districts to establish stricter standards for corner iots and lots adjacent to residential districts. 2. Establish a new industrial district entitled "M-4, Manufacturing Only", and rezone parcels as appropriate. UPON A VOICE VOT�, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAYAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. 3. REVIEW 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALSs�ND OBJECTIVES � Ms. Dacy stated, in response to the previous mee.�'ing, staff has provided the Planning Commission with a copy o�the 1997 goals and objectives for the Community Development Dep rtment. Aiso attached is a copy of the survey taken of e City Council members and the HRA and the results of that surv The comment from the Commission to the City Council is that ou want to get involved in some of the bigger things and look at he big picture for the communi�y and participate in that d ision-making process. Each department is now working comments received at this process to recommend that on their 1998 goals and objectives. Any meetin will be incorporated into the to t City Council. Ms. Dacy statecl she gave th Commission the 1997 goals and objectives because Counci ember Bolkcom has talked about the exercise that staff put e City Council through last February. Staff asked them to ima ine,drivinc� down_University Avenue and Highway 65 in the yea 2000 and asked.what .they wanted,to see. They identified 12 0 13 items they�wanted to see accomplished by the year 2000. In rder to accompl'ish some of those�objectives, staff backed thos into current years to see what staff needed to do in order to a complish that. Ms. Dacy stat d, in general, their priorities from the City Council hav been Lake Pointe, the southwest quadrant, and housing. aff have accomplished a significant portion of those prioritie . At Lake Pointe, MEPC is under contract, they have the indirec source permit, and they are moving on the intersection. On the southwest quadrant, half of the units are under const uction and they hope that next year will be better. In the hou ng area, the City has a very.successful revolving loan pr gram. The Center for Energy and Environ�ent (CEE� is providing o e-stop service for home owners,wanting;to improve their homes. he City has also started a'duai t`rack`�process where the HRA`has allocated funds for a foct�s neigfiborhood_� The Hyde Park area was � PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE P7�ANNING COiNMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridiey Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on ilednesday, March 19, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: ORDII�Il9NCE NO. � D��N�NCS RECODZEYINt3 T� FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205 � ENTITLED "7,Q1iTINGn � BY AMENDIN(i SECTION3 205.17.05.D.(6�, 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MANUFACTURINa ONyy), AI�ID F��NU�RIDTG CONSECUTIVE SECTION3 205.17 M-1, Light Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements (6) Loading Docks: , � (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear 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. (c) On corner lots, or lots across from a residential district, no loadin docks shall face the ublic ri ht of wav (d) On corner lots, or lots across from a residential use vr district, no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner •..�r�' v1�1LyC -1LVIf1 zne- uA11C ri nt or wav � or residential use or district. 205.18 M-2, Heavy Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements ( 6) Loading Docks : (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear 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. (c) On corner lots, or lots across from a residential ' �.-� district, no load�.ng docks shall face the public riQht of wav. c �-� (d) On corner lots, or lots across from a residential use or district, no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner which is visible from the publ.ic right of way or the residential use or district. 205.19 M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements {6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear 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. (c) On corner lots, or lots across from a residential district, no loading docks shall face the public right of way. (dj On corner lots, or lots across from a residential district, no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner which is visible from the public right of way or the residential use or district. � 205.20 M-4, 1�iNUFACTURING ONLY DISTRICT REGULATION3 1. IISES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in M-4 Districts: Manufacturing uses which will not be dangeraus or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in tihe vicinity, and will not impair the use or value of any property, but not including any uses excluded hereinafter. _ B. Accessory Uses.: The follow�ng are accessory uses in M-1'Districts: (1) Off-street parking facilities. (2) Off-street loadinq facilities. (3) Business signs for uses perntitted. (4) Retail sales or servicing of products manufactured. (5) Offices associated with the principal use. (6} Warehousing or distribution.activities associated with a principal use.• • � (7) Solar energy devices �s an integral part of the principal structure. __ C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. The following are uses permitted with a Special Use Permit in M 4 Districts. (1� Radio transmitters and microwave towers. (_2) Stora e of materials to the princitial �nP,-ar; ons: , or motor vehicles, incidental t (a) Motor vehicle stora e is conducted as rovided in Section 205.20.07.D.(5).; (bj Materials, motor vehicles, and equipment are kept in a builda.ng or are fullv screenPC� s� a� .,,,r *., �.e ...�:�.,.. F____ (1) a residential use or district ad'acent to the use, or (ii) a residential use or district across a ublic ri ht- of way from the use, or (iii)a public park adjacent to the use, or (iv) a public ri ht-of-way ad'acent to the use (c) Materials, motor vehicles, and equipment stored outside do not exceed fifteen {15) feet in hei ht; (d) Screening materials are provided as in Section 205.17.06.G.(1).(a). (3) Sexually oriented businesses as defined and re lated in Chapter 127 of the Fridley City Code. Sexually oriented businesses in multi-tenant buildin s shall meet tlie standards required for couQnercial uses as stated in Section 205.17.01.C.(3). (Ref. Ord. 966) D. Additional Restrictions.: For uses other than rincipal uses,- requirements as, setbacks, building, parking, landscapina, screening, etc., shall be at least coraparable to similar uses in other districts, but also sub'ect to additional prova.sions as provided bv the Citv. 2. IISES EXCLUDED A. Any use allowed or M-4 B. Uses which cluded in anv r Uses Permit other district uniess ed of this district are ..�. �LL����S__ _\_�__• C. Trucking Terminals " rsons u t �� %\ � e �� �� �� D. Uses whose materials, mot 3. IAT REQUIREL+�NT3 AND SETBACRS A. Lot Area. A lot area of not less than one and one half (1-1/2� acres is required for one (1) main building. B. Lot Width. A lot width of 100 feet is required at the required front setback. C. Lot Coverage. (1) The maximum ercent of the area of a lot allowed to be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings is as follows: (a) One (1} Story - forty percent (40�) maximum; fifty percent (50�) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (b) Two (2) Story - thirty-five percent (35$) maximum; forty- five percent (45$) with a special use permit as provided in (41 below. {c) Three (3) Story - thirty percent (30$} maximum; forty percent (40$) with a special use permit as provided in (4} below. Eour (4) Story - twenty-five 0 25£S) maximum; 4 (e) Five (5)-Story - twenty percent (20'&)-maximum; thirty �ercent (30$)- with a special> use pezmi.t as provided in (4) below. _ <, . .. _ - - - «. - (f) Six�(6) Story fifteen.�percent (S5�)'a�aximum;"twenty=five : percent (25$) with a special:use permit'i� (4) below. - w . :-�:_ (2) The above lot coverage�will bersubject to"other considerations includinq parking and open space xequirements, use of facilities, and roximity to other districts,_ the maximum lot coverage: (3) The lot coveraqe`may be reduced by the Ci decrease if and when structure provided that the lot'`coverage sha11 not be more than forty percent (40i�).: (4) The lot coverage as stated in (1):abave may be increased up to a maximwn of ten percent (104s) 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;xequests;' the City shall consider � ) the followinq factors in determinin the effect of the increase r'^, a.n lot covera e. (a) The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met, includinq but not limited to, arkinQ, storm water mana ement, and landsca inQ Setbacks. (1) Front Yard: A front yard depth of not less than thirty-five (35) feet is required for all e=mitted buildings and uses. (2j Side Yard: Two (2) side yards are required, each with a width of not less than fifteen (15j feet except: (a) Where a driveway is to be provided in the side yard, the minimum rec�uired side yard increases to thirty 130} feet. b) Where a side � ard requirement 35} feet. (c) No side vard is between two (2) bui the Buildincr Code _ (3) Rear Yard: A rear vard de four rd abuts a str creases to a of a corner lot, the side um of thirtv-five where a coiaraon wall is th of not less than twentv-five (25 an additional one (1) foot of rear et of building heiqht over thirtv-f of feet is ard depth for ve (35) feet. (4) Additional Setback Restrictions: Whenever any industrial district is ad'acent to or adjoins any other d�.strict, permitted buildin s>.and--uses,t<�eacept.�automabile parkinQ , and loadin spaces,;.drivewavs;=essential services,-raalks and :-�� planting spaces shall not`be: - z" (a) Closer.to a street ri ht-of-way line,�abuttinq a residentiai cU.strict, than 100 feet. (b) Closer to the allev xiQht-of-wav iine than fortv (40� feet. (c) Closer to the boundarv line of any other district than thirty-five (35) feet. - - {d) Closer to the boundarv line of a;residential`,use or district . than fiftv (SOj feet. 4. BUILDINd REQUIREI�NTS , A. Height. , i ',.. ; ;... . . Building height shall be a maximum of''six {5) stories not exceedinQ ,�"', ��, I 0 � ,.-..� sixty-five (65� feet height exceeding for R-1 or R-2 residenti setback can be provi � � ovided that no b five (45) feet w use or district for each one (1 na fortv-five t4 ng shall be erected to a fifty (50) feet of any s one (1) additional foot of t nf huildina heiQht�ol' B, Exterior Materials. The type of building materials used on exterior walls shall be face brick, natural stone, specifically designed precast concrete, factory fabricated and finished metal frame paneling, glass or other materials approved by the City. 5. PARRING REQUZREMENT3 A. Reduction Of Parking. Reduction of parking stalls may be allowed when the provisiom of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall 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. (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 use, at least one (1) off-street parking space shali 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 pro�v3.ded for each 2,000 square feet of such space use. (5) For speculative building use, at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 500 square feet of floor area on lots of more than one'and one-half (1-1/2) acres. area on lots of less than one'one-half (1-1/z7 acres. (7) The speculative parking ratio will be used for ail mi.xed uses unless the.owner agrees ta enter into a written agreement, in. recordable form, with the City, in which the owner represents to the City what the:satio of�`'all�uses in the building:wa.11 be:. Upon this happening, the parkinq ratio for the building will be determined on a Aro-rata basis by the parking ratio per the number of square feet for represents will be locate� a special use permit from the (8) At least one (1) handicao D. Design Requirements: (1) Draina e: All driveways and pa vehicles shall be g= been a proveo {2) Li htinq: � i type of use which the owner the buildin . After executio� � the specified uses will rern C�ty• off-street paces or f of re shall be areas, except those for less than four (4 Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parkin area shall be shaded or diffused to reflect the li ht awav from the ad'oininq property and traffic. (3) Curbin : The entire perimeter of all arkin areas in excess of four (4j stalls, access dra.vewavs, truck loadin spaces or other hard surface areas that handle motor vehicle traffic shall be curbed with a poured six (6) inch hi h concrete curb and qutter. (aj Curbing shall be required around safety isiands. {b) Curb cuts and r s for the handicap ed shall be installed as required bv State law.. (c) Construction shall be in accordance with curbing specifications on file at the City. (d) The City may ex t curbinq: ((1)) Where the parkin lot directiv abuts a sidewalk which is sufficientiv hi her than�the qrade of the- parking-:.lot and satisfies the curb3nQ requirements ((2)i Where1the Citv has approved future eupansion (4) Driveway Requirements: (aj A maximum drivewav width of thirty-two (32) feet at the curb openinQ, excludinQ the entrance radii, can be constructecl. {b) The parkina aisle'shall be a minimi: feet in width for two-wav�traffic and e width for one-way traffic. (c) The edge of the curb o enin sha11 nearest portiom of a stree�s:ri ht-of-w seventy-five (75):feet or:two-thirds ( whichever is smaller.. of twenty-five (25 not be closer to the av`intersection than-. 2/3) of the lot width f � � /"\ � � � ,� (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) deqrees. (5) All parking and hard surface areas shall be: (a) No closer than twenty (20) feet from any street right-of-way. (b) No closer than five (5) feet from for a conanon drive approved by the ad owners and the City. side lot line (c) No closer than five (5) 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 (5) feet from the main building. (e) Curbed with minimum driveway access radii of ten (10) feet to match the existing street curb. (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shali be located in the rear or side vard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed adequate to handle t without obstructing for the loading docks must be e loadinq and unloading needs the (c) On corner lots, or lots across from a residential use or district, no loading docks shall face the public right of way. (d) On corner lots, or lots across from a residential use or district, no trucks or�trailers shall be parked in a manner which is visible from the public right of way or the residential district. (7) Off-street parking shall be'provided for all vehicles concerned with any use on the lot. (8) Parkiflg lots with more than four {4) parking stalls shall be str3ped. � (9) Sufficient concrete area may be required for motorcycle parking in addition to the required vehicle parking stalls. 10)Bike racks mav be or v the City in an area that i.s g entrance and will not disru or fire lanes. (11)Safety signs, anarkings and tzaffic control devices may be required to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. (12)Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for manufacturing uses, warehouse and storage uses, speculative industrial buildings, and parking lots for long term employee parking. (Ref. Ord. 952, 960) 6. I+AND3CAPE REQt7IREN�TT3 A. Scope. Al1 open areas of any site driveways, or stora e shal landscape plan. lj All new developments requiz rith the requirements of this s 2) Existin developments shall his section if one or more f for areas used for parking, scaped and inco orated in ing a buildin permit shall �ction. comply with the reciuiremen o �he followin a lies: (a) At the time of a buildin e ansion or alteration which dictates the necessity for additional parkin or hardsurface areas in excess of four (4) stalls. {b) Buildin alterations which dictate a chan e in use such that the parka.n area must be ex anded in excess of four {4) stalls. (c� Construction of additional loadin docks. (d) Construction of new parkin areas in excess of four (4} stalls. (3) If full compliance cannot be achieved due to site constraints parta.al compliance as deternuned 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 ortions of the site. B. Bondin Rectuirement _ . The City shall retain a erforatance bond;-cash�-or-letter of credit, as required in Sectian 205.05.06.A:{3}=of the:zonitt �code._for one��� growing season after.the installation=of:��<landscape�materials is completed. . , . ;.< .:: ., , , . C. Plan Submission and prova3.. (1) A landscape lan shall be submitted to and ap roved ' City prior to issuance of a.buildin ermit or rior to of outside rovements not,reTated'tb`buildin improvem� a ts of the ts. A plan shall not be recxuired for routine replacement of ex� materials or the installation.of new materials when not associated with a buildin pro'ect t2) The followin items'shall ap ear on the landscape plan: (a) General � ((lj) Name and address:of owner/developer f r � � � h � ((2)) Name and address of architect/designer {(3)) Date of plan preparation ((41) Dates and description of all revisions ((5)) Naaee of project or development ((6)) Scale of plan (engineerinq scale only) at no smaller than 1 inch equals 50 feet ((7)) North point indication (b) Landscape Data ((1)) Planting schedule (table) containinq: ((a)) Symbols ({b)) Quantities ( (c) ) Co�non names i(d)) Botanical names j(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, couQnon names and approximate size ((3)) Planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crown diameter, or spread for local harcliness zone) ((4)j Typical-.sections in detail of fences, tie walls, planter boxes:,.,�tot�':.lots, picnic areas,=berms, and ; _ other similar�features.:. ((5)) -Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. ((6)) Details of pianting beds and foundation plantings. 7j) Note indicating how disturbed soil areas will be or UGi �.G•_••'• • YYG� • . 8)j Delineation af both sodded and seeded areas th total areas provided in square feet, and siope information. ((9)) Coverage'plan for underground irrigation system, n if any. � _ t(10)) Statement�or symbois, to describe exterior � lightinq plan concept. {c) Special Conditions: Where landscape or man-made materials are used to provide required screeninq from ad'acent and nei hborin �roperties, a cross-section shall be provided throu h the site and ad'acent pro erties to show property elevation, existin buildin s and screenintr in scale. r D. Landscapin Materials; Definitions. All plant materials shall be livin 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 ap earance and reasonably complete covera e within twelve (12) months after plantin , with proper erosion control durin plant establishment eriod. Exception to this is undisturbed areas containing natural vegetation which can be maintained free of forei and noxious materials. (b) Accepted round covers are sod, seed, or other or anic matera.al. The use of rock and bark mulch shall be limited to areas around other ve etation {i e shrubsj and shall be contained bv ed inQ. _ �"� (2) Trees. (a) Over-storv Deciduous. ((1)) A woodv plant, which at maturitv is thirtv (30) feet or more a.n hei ht, with a sin le trunk un-branched for several feet above the round, havinq a defined crown which looses leaves annuallv. ((2)) Such trees shall have a 2 1I2 inch cali er minimum at.plantin . (b) Ornamental ((1)) R woodv lant, which at maturity is less than thirty (30) feet in height, with a sinc�le trunk un- branched for several feet above the round, having a defined crown which looses leaves i(2)) Such trees shall have a 1 1/2 inch caliper Au.nimum at plantinq. (c) Coniferous. {{1)) A woody plant, which a maturitv is at least thirty (30) feet or mo�e in hei ht, with a single trunk fullv branched to the Qround, �--� having fols.age on the outermost,portion of the branches year-round. � ,�� 0 � 2 Such trees shall be six (6) feet in hei� � at (3) Shrubs. (a) Deciduous or evergreen plant material, which at maturii is fiftesn (15) feet in height or less. Such materials ma� be used for the formation of hedges. Such materials shall meet the fallowing 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 tali, except as in Section D below. ((3)) Evergreen shrubs shall be of the eighteen (18) inch classification. (4) Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12 are generally used in conjunction (5) Slopes and Berms. (a) Final slope c without special a retaining walls. (b) Earth berm sc shall not have s] f t b hes high at planting, and walls or fences. rades steep�r than 3:1 will not be permitted pproval or treatment such as terracing or g lots and other open areas 3:T. A minimum three (3) 0o erm is reqi.���... E. Peri.meter Landscaping; Standards. (1) In order to achieve landscaping which is with the size of a building and site, the mi 9 in scale (a) One {1) tree for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of total building floor area or one (1) tree for every fifty (50) feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the trees required will be coniferous. {b) Two (2) ornamental trees can be substituted for every one (1) over-story deciduous shade tree. In no case shall ornamental trees exceed fifty CSU) percent of the required number of trees. (c� Parking and driving areas between the building and frontage street shall be screened in the following manner: ((1)) A continuous mass of plant materials; tainimum of three (3) feet in height at time of planting; or ({2)) A continuous earth iierm with sloges no greater than 3:1 and a minimum of three (3) feet in � � � E T ��_L:__`____ � '� t materials F. Interior Parkin Lot Landsca in Standards (1) All parkinQ areas containin over one hundred (100) stalis shall include unpaved, landscaped islands that are reasonably distributed throu hout the arkin area to break up the expanses of paved areas. Landscaped islands shall be provided everv two hundred fifty (250) feet or more of uninterrupted parkinq stalls (2) All landscaped islands shall contaia a minimum of one hundred ei hty {180) square feet with a minimum width of five (5) feet and shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, or ornamental, or evergreen trees, plus qround cover, mulch, and/or shrubberv, in adda.tion to the minimum landsca e requirements of this ordinance ParkinQ area landscapin shall be contained in lantin beds bordered by a six (6) inch raa.sed concrete curb. (3) Trees shall be at the rate of one tree for each fifteen ���� sur=ace parkin spaces provided or a fract G. Screening and Bufferin Standards (1) Where the parcel abuts park or residentiall there shall be rovided a landscaped buffer whi {a) A screenin fence or wall shall be constructed within a five {5) foot stri alon the property line{s) abuttin the park or residentially zoned pro ertv Said fence or wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished materials, co atible with those used in the rinci al structure, and shall be a minimum of-sis (6) feet hi h and a maximum of ei ht (8j feet hi h. Chain link fences shall have non-wooden slats.when used for'screenin purposes; or;; (b) A plantia `screen shall be constriicted in a fifteen (15) foot strip and;shall consist=of healthv,-`fullv hardv plant. materials and shall� be designed to provide a minimum year-round opaciueness of eiQhty (80) percent at the time of maturit_y. The plant material shall be of sufficient heiQht to achieve the required screening` Planting screens shall be maintained in a neat and healthful condition. Dead vegezation sha31 be romptly replaced �(c) If the existin topogra hy, natural ctrowth of ve etation, permanent buildin s or other barriers meet the standards for screening as a roved bv the Citv, thev mav be substituted for all or part of the screenin fence or planting screen. (2)_All loading docks must be located in the rear or side yards and be screened with a six (6j foot high minimum solid screeninQ fence if visible from a public ri ht-of-way or if within thirty (30) n ��, /� � d � � feet of a residential use or districts. ( 3 ) All external shall be complete contiguous reside at access points. H. Credit for Large Trees and service areas accessory to The total number of required over-story one-half {1/2) tree for each new decidu� inches or more in diameter, or each new (8� feet or more in height. In no even greater than twenty-five (25) percent o required. I. Credit for Existing Trees d adjacent streets, except trees may be reduced by us tree measuring three (3) coniferous tree measurinq eight , however, shall the reduction be the trees The total number of reguired new over-story trees may be reduced by the retention of existing over-story trees provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Such trees are four (4j inches or greater in caliper measured six t6) 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 �"1, 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. t1) The following standaids shall be met when-instal. the - required landscaping:; {a) Plant materials shall be located to provide reasonable � access to all utilities.. (b) Al1 required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structures to be screened.-> No screening or buffering shall be located on anv public riqht-of-way. (c) Sodded areas on slopes shall be staked. {d) 5eeded areas shall be mulched with straw to prevent erosion. Hydro mulching is acceptable. (e) Oak trees shall be surtounded by snow fence or other . means at their drip line to prevent co�action of their root systems. � L. tf) Plantin s shall not be si ht at street corners an drivewa No plant materials reachi or more shall be planted al path of the centerline � a mature hei ht of twenty (20 thin a twenty-five (25) foot an overhead power line. 2) The applicant shall install all landscape materials within one ear, but shall have three (3) vears within which to install the met: the are (a) First vear ((1)) All gradinq is co leted, includin installation of berms. (i2)) The required irriqation system is installed. f(3)) Areas to be seeded and/or sodded are installed. ({4)) Screenin for ad'acent residential areas is installed, if required. ((5)) Twenty-five (25) percent of the required over- story trees are installed. ((6)) Twentv-five (25) ercent of the perimeter landscapin is installed. (b) Second vear ((1)� The remainder of the erimeter landsca ing is installed. (i2)) Interior landsca ing is installed ((3)) Fifty (50) percent of the remainin required over- story trees are installed. (c) Third vear Any remaininQ landsca ing shall be installed. Maintenance. � il) The property owaer shall be responsible for replacement of a� dead trees, shrubs, round covers, and soddincr If anv �lant matera.als are not maintaa.ned or replaced, the ro erty owner shall have_ unnn �..ritten tifi n season to re 1 or replace sa for the costs mate no cation from the City, one ° said materials before the Citv shall �lant materials and assess the zereof. Plant materials need not be �e; however, in no case shall the s be reduced from the minimum that is LCquirea ny tna.s section when replacing dead piant materials. (2) Screen fences and walls which are in disre air shall be repaired. � � �"'� n � m � � �1 � (3) All vacant lots, tracts, or parce. in an orderlv manner free of litter a� s shall be properly maintained d j unk. (Ref. Ord. 960) 7. PERFORI�Il4NCE 3TANDARD3 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. The exterior storage of materials, motor vehicles, and equipment shall comvlv with Section 205.i7.O1.C.{11). (Ref. Ord. 995) C. Refuse. All waste materials, refuse or garbage shall be contained in closed d d the cha ter entitled "Waste Disposal^ of containers as require un er p the Fridley City Code. D. Screening. (1� Screening of off-street parking shall be required for: (a) Any off-street parkinq 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 use or district, the followinq 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 it will be ---,._, , _..s ,... tructed when the City requires the There shall be a fifteen (15) foot nd the reauired sidewalk, that is create a 3) All trash or garbage he rear or side yards, ny public right-of-way. creening from vehicle c indus Provis acre . located ah to n :ptacles must be located in .y screened from view from must be taken to protect (4) All raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment, not including motor vehicles, shall be stored within an enclosed buildinq 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 heiQht of the fence not to exceed eight (8) feet except where materials and e i ment are bein used for construction on the premi.ses. (5� Motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the may be stored without screeninq only in the permitte yard area if thev are not readily visible from a pub way, ad�acent residential use or district, a residen disti'iCt acr_c�ss a n„i,l , .. ,-, ..1... ..r .__._ _ _ _ ___,_ , � _ (6) All roof screened from as an inteura �nt, e view of th g, as rincipat use, rear c right of al use or k. (Ref. Ord. t alternate ener y devices, must be ess the ecxuipment is desi ed ilding and is co atible with the ezznined by the City. (Ref. Ord. E. Draina e And Grade Recruirements A finished ground Qrade shall be established such that natural draina away from all buildin s is provided The followinq minimum criteria shall appl� (1) The minimum elevation of finished rade shall not be less than one fourth (1/4) inch rise er horizontal foot of setback measured from curb grade. (2) The City may specify a minimum finished round ctrade for any structures 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 anv buildin or structure shall be reasonablv watertic�ht, weathertight and rodentproof and shall be ke t in a ood state of maintenance 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 neQlect. (2) The protective surface`on exterior walls af a buildin shall be maintained in ood repair and provide a sufficient covt?rinrT dri L _ ection of ation. Wi ve surface f: s a its of this Section, a to be out of a) More than twentv-five percent (25$) of the area of an lane or wall on which the rotective surface is paint is listered, cracked, flaked,' scaied or chalked awav_ or (b) More than twenty-five percent (25$) of the poi,ntin of any brick or stone wall is loose or has fallen out. F.,e.-., .,,..a .._� _„ -�----�_ . -- - - 'o n � '""� � �. .. � (4) The boulevard area of a premises shall be proper� maintained, groomed and cared for by the abutting property owner. G. Essential Services. (1) Connection is required on each lot served by City sanitary sewer. {2) Connection is required on each lot served by a City water line. (Ref. Ord. 96U) 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 Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator at 572-3599 or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant 572-3593. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than March 12, 1997. Publish: ;Vlarch 6, 1997 March 13, 1997 � � DIANE SAVAGE CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION ,'�'1 � , , � � - DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: March 28, 1997 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: . Consider Resolution Finding the Modification to the Redeuelopment Pian for Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City � Purpose of Resolution State law .requires the Planning Commission to review a modification to the City's redevelopment plan in order to assure consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Steve Linn �f Linn Properly Holdings, Inc. is proposing to add five parcels to the City's redevelopment project area in order to refurbish the former Dick's Wheel and Tire Center and to develop an 8,000 square foot strip mall on the north side of 57�' Avenue. Review Process The Appeals Commission will be evaluating a variance request at its April 9, 1997 meeting. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 18, 1997 to alert the neighborhood to the proposed develapment. The request to establish a TIF district will be heard by.the Housing & Redevelopment Authority on April 10, 1997, and a public hearing conducted by the City Council on April 14, 1997. � The City Council will then consider the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and the resolution to create a TIF district at its meeting on April 28, 1997: � � � � Modiflcation to the Redevelopment Plan March 28, 1997 Page 2 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan identiTies the subject property as commercial. The property is zoned C-2, General Business, despite the fact that there was a duplex on one of the five parcels and a single family home on the other. Two of the five parcels are only 40 feet in width. The last parcel is the former site of Dick's INheel and Tire which has been vacant since August 1996. The developer is acquiring the Dick's Tire and Wheel building from Holiday Plus, who also owns the two 40 foot wide parcels. The developer has entered into purchase agreements with the owner of the single family home, and #he owner of the property which used to contain #he duplex. The developer is acting like the HRA in acquiring the parcels, demolishing the structures, and constructing a new building. � � The Dick's Wheel and Tire building will be remodeled for a Goodyear Service Center. The proposed remodeling includes a new roof, new HVAC systems, reworking the interior office area, installation of new windows along #he front of the building, installation of new overhead doors, a screened trash enclosure, and a blue canopy over ,--� the new windows. The strip mall is proposed to be rock faced block with �a peaked metal roof at the center of the building facing 57"" Avenue and at the rear of the building facing 57�' Place. At the neighborhood mee#ing on March 18, 1997, much discussion occurred about the type of fencing that should be installed along the rear of the property alo�g 57t'' Place. A"fence survey" is now underway to poll the neighbors as to their preference. General comments ftom the neighborhood meeting were positive. The owners wanted to make sure that�the devetoper would maintain the property in good condition. The proposed project is consistent witFi the zoning and land use as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the project represents initiative from the private market to redevelop a substandard part of the neighborhood. '- • � - •. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission pass a motion to adopt the attached resolution. " BD/dw . " n M-97-151 . � �.1 RESOLIITION OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNIN'G COMMISSION ` FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE RIDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVL�LOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY � WHEREAS, the City of Fridley's Housing and Redeueiopment Authority is proposing that the City modify its Redevelopment Plan. for Redevelopment Project No. 1 to reflect increased geographic area, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.074, inclusive, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and has determined its consisteri�y to the Comprehensive Plan of the City: NOW THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED BY THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION that the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is consistent with the Fridley Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed modification. Adopted this ATTEST: day of � , � Chairman , 199 . ������ ���� anaa�y ��ts.ta��u� �� � �� � •�•� �aa.z�.S p�E ��� � " ���� �� �_ ���� �� - � � � �^ ��. �� � ��. �� �� �� �' , ^ �'� �aaa�.S �/I Z ` `; :: � �"! � � . , �,l ;'�� � �� �s �_" �= � z �� �� ' z 3 �' � �� �' ��' � � .. � V � � � �;` � ��-.' 9t� �� � + • r ' N - � � ..�� � � �� ° ��•-• � P �.� �u x � •.�� � � � � �� ' �� � '- .i- .. ..ty ..,R ,_ �.s � �r '.�ti� �_ .� �� � .....r ; ��: t�i - y� :.�?�1� ,� �f� � �ti \ . � .. � �. ,��. � � °o c , �'� �.aaa�s puz ' � ' ;. ,r � `� � � �j �!� �* t� � , �� ;�� �. }i'� �_ �� �g . �* �� , � �. �� } � � � A� . . � � �;:,: �t� � _ ';.. h �� �\�. �� a �w �s � ��� �_ �. �? "'�� � � . . ��, �« � Ilt�yy . s. �« W � Z W Q � � /� �� _ � � �,� .t`.y .. �F :��` e:I .' ��� f Y� . ' � t P � r f ��t . ... ..;,,,,L � . .. ° Zh,�f�; �j'F I �7 ��z » �—�'� ��� a� �ak+.s q � � r � ell ' � �`� }� 3 ?: _ � .�.?k t Sk:l .. . O � i�� '� `. '� �' � , f ,,g�� ..r:� � .�,; ,� �`� � � }�1�Q1 S x : .t�:' y�r�F,.� � - ,� � r+ �� r �'' , ��,..� � - � � ~ r yI Y Jl I �� �� -,. 1 7 � a � . �. '� - �; k i +.k . . ~ ' ! \ � x �� �, � . . _ ;,. � � � �� � � � #��! � g��� 3II71 �j�¢� d =. : :_ti : ° Y � i� �� s• � a; � S: � e� � � ` "�< � ';� - . �p° �'� �� �� � ° �� . � ' I I QI �I � � H8�11131aikii � � 3N'3/1VHiL8 E 4 s !lv3Aao0D'Q t�11�:11Y19kl3WY1oJ M�ld 311S � � � � �m.�.� � t �� �� � � ' 4 I ra == r �s.=ra�m. MT's 9RI�OARO ��'¢ � � � ; �� ��� � �•� i � �����.� Z������� s ; ; ������� � � 1 � �_..... I F � ' L q � � ' � � � � � ° � � � } ���� � a � � � p � ��� 1 � 668 I @ � 8 = � ..-���YYM • � � � . � � ��� ; $� � � �. � a � i i a � . . r -: � � ��� � ,, ��� � � �� , °��" � =�� � � - :� � � � , . ;�,: �. �� �i �� �'; � . ,�. �� i� ,,� � �, � ��$���� �� � ��� ���� �� o� 1 � :� �������� ; �; ��o� a� , r , . �, ' ��a 6 s � �� � � i � � � \\\��\�\�\\\\�' � >,�� \ � � i ��\\\;������� � �j : \O\O�� ���\��,����;,� , .. .-- - -- _ ;�� ]Y '- '� w���'� .�-� �,:� ..�� -- �,������. �,� ��.� � �, � �� �`� 1 ��� \\\�\\ �\; '� ��`��`,�\ �� \\\�\\\\ \ ; �: , �; � �, ; � ; ;. -{ \� �� ��� � fJ' 1 \ � `� i� � � ���. ... , � �� �..y, , 0 �.���i��� �:� ■1 �.���,����__ �r �- r�: . � � � a : k �� $ i �. � 1! �b�.��� � i . � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � ------------�----�- � � l i � !e � � �� ii! �a � � ���� �,� � j _ � -- � ��-_��._„'�a"' �•,�� T � I I I I la I�■ 8 � 1 I I I � � I i I � � � � �i � � i S � I � �r J �� f '�'e � � � I ,1 �� � �� � ; . �.' �"` ,. R "�°� � '� .. 1 I : . � f ��� � � .''i, 1. . j I. .; � ��, ��� . � . ��: �----�-i �� ----- ; : �a �T �= ,� _- ; �l u�,', P , � :l I � � � �=i'• ��. ' �' ��'� i a >�` (� � fg... � roasa+u c�v+«a I ,q��'t 101� � �---,�.�. � ��;�`� �-i '� - _� ���^r�' 4` ��f r.�xa•i:�,°- ,,,,.°�° ' .a..a, ?• :.: �lJ.� ♦ ,''r^ ` � �— �� �����^� J �' ,�..�' �,,,�-� ��---]I,I � ' � ��� � � ��, � � � �-.-� �' - ' _�� ` = " ��. _ _�_ ; -- -�� - . _, - , . , _:. : .�.• c�L, ' '1990 LANO USE� ,; �: f�1jC! , � � � PAFtKB 6 OPEN SPACE i: i. �i' � PUBLIC S QUASI-PU6LIC �'�r� ❑ L01N OENSITY qES10ENT1AL � ' � ,;i, . e� ' r,�i� .�BI MEO.OENSiTY RE810ENTlAL }J�� COMMEQCIAL � �J' .i � `� Fi1 'INOUSTRIAL ; � AEOEVELOPMENT 013TqICT �T , �� "....r . � . . � .. !�'yy-{ , - r+C' �, �Y � � � � . . ...- . ���i ��G•����� NORTH'. pq«*o�a �nv...,v... . ,, �, _..,,.. . u.; :::^. . .. .. � CITY OF FRIOLEY � PLANNiNG O-9 � �, 1 s � �1 / \ • � ��, �.�;�-� .s