Loading...
PL 05/07/1997 - 7052.� � � � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1997 7:30 P.M. � �1(� � U �I�l�� C�c�r�u� `f'� � �� Y""'J r���vl�' PUBLIC COPY (Please return to Community Development Dept.) 'Y r"'� CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 9997 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNIIdG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: April 2, 1997 ;�From 5/7197 Aaenda) PUBLIC HEARING� CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #97-03 BY TH4MAS AND LYNN LASSER: To allow a second accessory structure (workshop) over 240 square fieet on Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition; generally located at.5840 Tennison Drive N.E. � �From 5R/97 Agenda) PU�LIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE _ �Rnnir SP #A7-n2 BY HOME DEPOT USA INC • To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor sales and storage on Lot 1, Block 1, Home Depot Fridley Addition, generally loc:�a#ed at 5650 Main Street N:E. ,�From 5/7/97 Agenda�UBLIC HEARING• CONSiDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #97-01 BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY• To�rezone tfie following described propefies from M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial to M-4, Manufacturing Only: Lot 3, Block 1, .Northco Business Park 2"� Addition Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Development Replat Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78 Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, except the South 200 feet of the East 376. feet of said lot, except that taken for road purposes, subject.to easements of record. The Southerly 370 feet of the Northerly 1,120 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the � Northwest Quarter of Section 12, exc�pt the West 5 acres of the North 310 feet, except that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. .� Page 2- 5/21 /97 Planning Commission Agenda The unplatted City of Fridley described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying Easterly of the Westeriy 600 feet and lying Southerly of the Norther�y 1;120 feet of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24. Lot 2, Block 4, Commerce Park. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying VNesterly of the Westerly right of way line of the Burlington Northem Railroad, lying Easterly of Ashton Avenue northeast, lying Northerly of Amal Addition, and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue Northeast 415 feet Southerly with its intersection with the Souther�y right of way line of Ironton Street, then Easter�y parallel with said southerly right of way line to the intersection with said railroad right of way and said line there terminate, except for that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. � Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No.78, all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 30, Range 24, lying Easterly of the � Northem Pacific Railway Company right of way lying South of a line which is parallel with the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and 290.4 feet South of said north line as measured along the East line of said . Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and lying North of a line which is parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and 739.2 North of said South line as measured along said East line being Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78. That part of Lot 3, Block 4, Commerce Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of the South 54.70 feet of said Lot 3 and East of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 3, distant 205 feet east of the northwest comer of said Lot 3; thence southerly to a point on the south fine of said Lot 3, distant 125 feet east of the southwest comer of said Lot 3 and there terminating. (From 5R/97 Agenda) REVIEW PROPOSED CITIZEN SURVEY QUESTIONS (From 5/7/97 Agenda) TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE UPDATE (From 5/i/97 Agenda) RECEIVE THE MINUTES 0F THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3. 1997 n _ �-� Page 3- 5/21/97 Planning Commission Agenda � (From 5R/97 Agenda) RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF MARCH 13 1997 IFrom 5R/97 Aaenda) RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENER Y COMMISS�ON MEETINC OF MARC 18, 1997 1From 5/7/97 Aoenda) RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 9 1997 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 7. 1997 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY MEETING OF APRIL 10 9997 RECEIVE T E MINUTES OF THE ENVIRON ENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 15 1997 DJOURN n � � � CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1997 7:30 P.1VI. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: April 2, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #97-03. BY THOMAS AND LYNN LASSER: To allow a second accessory structure (workshop) over 240 square feet on Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition, generally located at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #97-02, BY HOME DEPOT USA. INC.: � To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor sales and storage on Lot 1, - Block 1, Home Depot Fridley Addition, generally located at 5650 Main Street N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING. ZOA #97-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To rezone the following described properties from M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial to M-4, Manufacturing Only: Lot 3, Block 1, Northco Business Park 2"d Addition Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Development Replat Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78 Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, except the South 200 feet of the East 376 feet of said lot, except that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. The Southerly 370 feet of the Northerly 1,120 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, except the West 5 acres of the North 310 feet, except that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. � The unplatted City of Fridley described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying Easterly of the Westerly 600 feet and _� � Page 2- 5/7/97 Planning Commission Agenda lying Southerly of the Northerly 1,120 feet of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24. Lot 2, Block 4, Commerce Park. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of the Burlington Northem Railroad, lying Easterly of Ashton Avenue northeast, lying Northerly of Amal Addition, and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue Northeast 415 feet Southerly with its intersection with the Southerly right of way line of Ironton Street, then Easterly parallel with said southerly right of way line to the intersection with said railroad right of way and said line there terminate, except for that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No.78, all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 30, Range 24, lying Easterly of the Northem Pacific Railway Company right of way lying South of a line which is parallel with the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and 290.4 feet South of said north line as measured along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and lying North of a line which is parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and 739.2 North of said South line as measured along said East line being Lot 7, ''� Auditor's Subdivision No. 78. � �"'-, That part of Lot 3, Block 4, Commerce Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of the South 54.70 feet of said Lot 3 and East of the following_ described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 3, distant 205 feet east of the northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence southerly to a point on the south line of said Lot 3, distant 125 feet east of the southwest comer of said Lot 3 and there terminating. REVIEW PROPOSED CITIZEN SURVEY QUESTIONS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE UPDATE F3ECEIVE TFiE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3. 1997 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF MARCH 13. 1997 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY �OMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1997 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 9} 1997 ADJOURN � � � CITY OE FRIDIaEY PLANNINC C�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the April 2, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff Others Pr.esent: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator. Jim Steilen, Popham, Haik and Lawton John Prichard, McGlynn Bakeries Dennis Zylla, Northco Tim Nelson, Everest Development George Ludcke, Kelly & Berens Paul Bakken, 8085 Wayzata Boulevard, #10�, Minneapolis, Minnesota ^ APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by�l�r. Oquist, ta approve the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING.AYE, CA�s}tPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOIISLY. � l. (Tabled 3/19/97)� PDBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYINC THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED"ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MOTION by Mr. I�uechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remove from the table and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C�Ii��'R50N SAVAGE DE�''T�LD THE MOTION CARRIID AND THE PIIBLIC �'aRTNG OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this item.is carried over from the last Planning Commission meeting and involves a moratorium on warehouse or distribution facilities. Mr. Hickok stated staff's recommendation is to recommend appr.oval of an amendment to the existing zoning districts to est�blish �"� stricter standards for corner lots and lots adjacent to residential district.s; to establish a new industrial district PLANNING CO1�Il��IISSI+ON MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 2 entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only; and to rezone the parcels as appropriate. Associated with the proposed amendments will be improved definitions for loading docks, overhead doors, parking in front of the distribution facilities. There will be another public hearing before the Planning Commission in May that will be specific to the sites that are selected for M-4. As you consider this, staff would like a recommendation for M-4 and modified language to the other industrial districts. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council established in January a moratorium for warehouse and distribution facilities with more than 10 docks in order to examine the industrial zoned properties within the City and to determine the compatibility of warehouse facilities and other allowable uses in the City, to review the number and location of existing warehouse and distribution facilities and to determine if the zoning on the remaining vacant parcels should be amended or changed to another zoning classification. Mr. Hickok stated, over the last 18 months, the City has experienced over 5.00,000 square feet of industrial warehouse growth in industrial districts. As a result, there have been complaints and concerns about truck tratfic, residential streets south of 53rd have been designated "no truck traffic" routes in response to the Murphy Warehouse facility.and other similar developments along Main Street. Residents complained about a large number of trucks traveling through their neighborhood causing additional noise. There are also several areas in the City where industrial districts are located directly across the street from residential areas. Warehouse distribution facilities can cause.adverse impacts because of the amount of truck traffic entering and exiting the site during the course of the day. Of the City's 1.,148 acres, there is only 89.79 acres left of industrial zoned property. The City felt it was the appropriate time to analyze the remaining parcels and to make.certain that those parcels are cleveloped and, if any modifications to the code were necessary, that they be made as a part of this process. Mr. Hickok stated the goals of the potential amendments include: 1. To reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties from truck traffic by first controlling the location in the City and by imglementing site design controls. 2. To encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities which require more complex building systems. Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher building valuation than warehouse construction. � � � � PLANNING COD�IiSSION �dEE�IiTG, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 3 � 3. To promote clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which may cause noise. 4. To eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage display. Mr. Hickok stated these are already permitted in other zoning districts; therefore, refined lanquage in that area has been suggested. The City went through a rather elaborate analysis which was discussed at the last meeting. The City was divided into three study areas. Those areas were evaluated for the number of existing warehouse/distribution facilities, amount of land dedicated to that use, impact of the facilities; etc. Staff determined there were seven sites that appeared to be primary candidates to be considered for the M-4 zoning. The other industrial districts - M-1, M-2, and M-3 - had special consideration given to the language within the text so that loading docks, outdoor storage, and those elements that are of . concern are properly addressed. Mr. Hickok stated the discussion at the last meeting lead to some � questions the Commission asked to be answered. Mr. Hickok reviewed the questions and staff's responses as provided in the staff report included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hickok stated also included in the agenda packet were the parcels of land that were considered. The industrial inventory. leaves few large parcels to be deneloped. Some parcels do not meet the 1.5 acre minimum size,-and those sites were eliminated from consideration. There were other small sites eliminated by size or by virtue of not meeting the criteria, as followso 1. Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a residential use? 2. Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M-4 zoning district? 3. Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility in excess of 10 loading docks? 4. Is there a distribution warehouse facility already in the area? Mr. Hickok stated a question came up at the last meeting about whether or not the Northco site was feasible and was it realistic to consider this site as an ap�ropriate site for a 10-dock facility. The site is a 2.2 acre parcel located south of 73rd in the Northco industrial district.� Staff did an analysis of a footprint in the area where a building could be located based on �� the .setbacks. It would be extremely difficult to put a warehouse PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 4 facility in excess of 10 bays on the site. Staff feels this site could be eliminated from the M-4 consideration. This site was considered because it does have over 1,000,000 square feet of warehouse to the immediate east and to the north is the Melody Manor residential area. Mr. Hickok stated, in summary, staff would like to see a recommendation regarding the M-1, M-2, and M-3 industrial zoning language modifications and a recommendation on the M-4, Manufacturing Only, language to be added. Also, staff would appreciate concerns or comments about the remaining six sites and whether the Commission feels they are appropriate candidates for rezoning. Staff will prepare a public hearing from that information on those particular sites if M-4-is a choice on which the Planning Commission and City Council agree. The moratorium ends in May. Staff would like to have a decision in a timely fashion so at the end of the moratorium staff have a good sense of where we are going. Ms. Savage asked if staff was recommending that the Northco site be eliminated from consideration. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Staff is recommending six sites but this site could be included if the Commission so chooses. Ms. Savage stated, as she understands, if the Planning Commission approved the ordinance �anguage, the next step would be another Planning Commission meeting in which the individual sites would be discussed. If there are sti11 concerns about the sites, there would be an opportunity at the next meeting to evaluate including a site, such as the McGlynn's_site. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Mr. Kuechle asked, if the sites are classified as M-4 and they want to build, for example, on the McGlynn's site and want to have a truck dock, is there something that can be done to still allow that such as with a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated the McGlynn site is an interesting site. It is staff's understanding from past discussion that it is McGlynn's interest to e�and or build to the north which would likely start as a warehouse and, in the future, become a manufacturing facility as their space needs change. One of the big factors is that there is a 60-inch sewer pipe between the McGlynn existing site and vacant site to the north. In the past, the public works director has indicated they have talked about the possibility of bridging the two buildings with some sort of an elevated walkway to allow enough room to get at the pipe should something happen. If the �"1 , ,—. �"1 m P?�ANNING CONIl�+lISSION MEETING, APRII. 2, 1997 PAGE 5 ,� McGlynn site were to be attached and this was an expansion with the warehouse as an ancillary use to the existing manufacturing facility, that would certainly be a different picture. The concern is that it would develop as its own independent warehouse facility and not be connected to the large building. We did have a lengthy discussion with the public works staff about moving that pipe so that it does not limit McGlynn's. The answer to that is that there are options. It is in a tax increment district area, and it is a site consideration that we would have to look at. Approving that site and allowing McGlynn's to expand to the north could be facilitated by the pipe being moved to the north and then back around to the alignment that ends up at the pond at the rear of the McGlynn's building. All that being considered, it would make more sense to have that part of the facility arid not free standing. Until then, M-4 is the most appropriate district as we see it. Mr. Oquist stated, as he understands, the Planning Commission can approve the ordinance but there will then be more public hearings to identify the parcels and to rezone.. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. From here, the Planning � Commission at its May 7 meeting, if they wish to consider all seven sites, staff could publish a notice for each of the seven sites and that notice would be specific and would have all of the notification standard for rezoning the sites. It would be before the City Council for the first reading of the ordinance on May 14. That would allow staff and landowners to have a good sense of where we are heading with this before the moratorium ends. The City Council would have a reading of the ordinance before the moratorium ends. Ms. Modig stated she got the impression that by doing it this way they were saying the M-4 was going to be all inclusive of the sites, but it is going to separated out. Mr. Hickok stated staff needs to have from the Commission a good sense of which sites are appropriate for M-4. In the notification, we may rezone fewer or more than the recommended sites. 0 Ms. Savage asked if staff wants an indication of which sites or an indication of whether we would recommend approval of the ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated, if staff could walk away this evening with a recommendation on the M-1, M-2,.and M-3 language and the add�tion of M-4 language, staff would feel. this was a succ.essful meeting. �"1 In addition, staff would like the number of sites in which you are PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 6 � interested and staff wili prepare notices based on that discussion. Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is the owner of a 10.6 acre parcel on the southwest corner of Main Street and blst Avenue. He was not present at the last meeting but did have correspondence from their attorney, Mr. Ludcke, who is at the meeting to address his letter and some responses staff gave to that letter and the overall context of their position on this proposed zoning change. Also present is Mr. Bakken, a professional appraiser, who was asked to take a look at an issue that was raised independently b� members of the Planning Commission regarding the question of value. If you are going to restrict the uses that the property can be put to, are you impairing the value and is that fair? Mr. Bakken has data from the marketplace that he deals with on a professional basis that we would like him to share with the Commission. Mr. Nelson stated he would like to provide Everest's history in this property with the under�standing that the Planning Commission has a meeting later. They have concerns both about the specific proposal to rezone their property and the restrictions. The property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. They also have � concerns about the way this has come up specifically relating to their property and a proposed project for the property. Mr. Hickok has addressed some of that but he has additional background on that.as well. They also have concerns about the possible impact on the value of the property. Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is a commercial industrial real estate developer based in Roseville and is active in most of the northern suburban communities, around the metro area and out of state on a project by project basis. They develop business parks, industrial and office facilities, and develop as contractors and property owners. Everest acquired this parcel in 1992. They purchased the parcel as an investment far future development of the property. They purchased the property in the depth of the real estate recession knowing it might be a number of years before they could develop the property. When they purchased the property, it was a good site and had potential. As part of the purchase process and at the same time, they also purchased another property which is now the site of Home Depot. They purchased both the parcels at the same time from Gl�cier Park, which was the real estate arm of the Burlington Northern Railroad who had owned the property since the early 1960's. As part of the purchase before acquiring the property, they did what is referred to as "due diligence" doing soil. tests, environmental assessment, survey, title examination, etc. Part of that was meeting with City staff to verify the existing zoning, permitted uses, design '� ,'""'� PLANNING CO1�H�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 7 criteria, so they knew what they were getting into. They had several meetings with City staff both in the economic development and planning areas about these issues and came from those meetings secure in the knowledge of what the property was zoned and what was permitted there, which was a variety of industrial uses. He also came away impressed with the sense that the City was interested in seeing developers come into town and appreciated the developer making an investment in the community, and looked forward to working with City staff as they developed the site. Mr. Nelson stated Everest started marketing the site as soon as they purchased the property and it has been on the market since. About one year after purchasing the site, they were met with an increase in the real estate tax valuation by the city assessor to the tune of about three times what they paid for the property. They thought that was inappropriate. They resisted and tax petitioned, and ultimately the Anoka County tax board significantly pared back the valuation. It might be coincidental, but it felt that the friendly reception was not across the board. Mr. Nelson stated a few years later they were fortunate enough to get interest from Home Depot on the 14.5-acre site across from � Holiday Plus. They entered into a contingent purchase agreement where they would need to apply to the City for the comprehensive plan change and a rezoning change. They were surprised when that • project came forward and staff recommended denial of both the rezoning and the comprehensive plan change. The rationale was in significant part that the City has few industrial sites and staff did not want to loose it in favor of a commercial project. The Planning Commission and the City Council recommended approval of the rezoning and comp�ehensive plan change. Mr. Nelson stated another thing that concerned them in that process was that, as a recommendation of approval, staff recommended that the existing billboard signs be removed as part of project. Staff persisted in this recommendation despite being advised that Home Depot had no legal rights or interests in the signs. It was ultimately not made a part of the approval but at no time was there any discussions or suggestions of compensation to the parties who owned those signs. Mr. Nelson stated about a year ago we starting coming out of the real estate recession into a significantly healthier market. The market especialiy for warehouse space is significantly improved. They are getting more interest in the property. They received interest from a large industrial warehouse tenant for a lease transaction on this property. They started site d�sign and retained an architect. Thus far, they have expended over $10,000 �'�i in the architectural design phase to get it to the point where it PLANNING C01�3ISSION MLETING, APRIL 2, 1997 pAGE $ - �"� is at. They started meeting with City staff on an informal basis to make sure before they submitted their building permit application that the plans met all the requirements. They had a series of ineetings and phone conversations. They have pieces of correspondence back and forth with staff. They thought they knew the requirements of the M-2 district. They sensed from the start, however, that staff was not pleased with the project going on this site despite the fact that it met the zoning requirements. The first indication of that was a letter after meeting with staff asking us to demonstrate why this project, which was clearly a large distribution warehouse, should not be viewed as a truck terminal. They know what truck terminals are, and they know what warehouses are. Staff knew what they were, but their main issue was to try to put the burden back on us to demonstrate why it was not a truck terminal. They did that in a lengthy letter and in phone conversations documenting the differences between a truck terminal and a warehouse property. This did not satisfy staff. They had answered the question and submitted three separate letters to staff asking for verification that they accepted that the project was not a truck terminal. Staff took the view that the information was too sketchy. They do not allow anyone to visit the tenant's operation because it is confidential, and the use was clearly set forth in the description of the building from ^ the plans. Mr. Nelson stated their initial meeting was in early August. They had a follow-up meeting in mid-September. They had phone conversations in mid-September and a meeting early in October, and a letter to the City on October 11 explaining why this project was not a truck terminal. Staff agreed that this project was very similar to the Murphy Warehouse project that recently had been built and that those projects were not truck terminals, but they would not accept this fact in looking at our plans. Mr. Nelson stated they sensed that this was occasion for some dETay and he would like to respond to"the real project in front of them. This sense was also borne out when the City Attorney got involved in the discussions. Mr. Ludcke will describe that process. Discussion dropped off to the point where they saw a legal notice in the paper that the City has adopted a zoning moratorium affecting their property with no prior notice to them whatsoever. They indicated in letters and in conversations with staff that they intended to obtain a building permit for that project and staff were holding up having us apply for the building permit application with this question about truck terminals, even though they did resolve it to their satisfaction. Mr. Nelson stated they have been embarrassed in this situation with their tenant's prospect. They have a site that is excellent � � PLANNING CONIl��IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 7 criteria, so they knew what they were getting into. They had several meetings with City staff both in the economic development and planning areas about these issues and came from those meetings secure in the knowledge of what the property was zoned and what was permitted there, which was a variety of indu�trial uses. He also came away impressed with the sense that the City was interested in seeing developers come into town and appreciated the developer making an investment in the community, and looked forward to working with City staff as they developed the site. Mr. Nelson stated Everest started marketing the site as soon as they purchased the property and it has been on the market since. About one year after purchasing the site, they were met with an increase in the real estate tax valuation by the city assessor to the tune of about three times what they paid for the property. They thought that was inappropriate. They resisted and tax petitioned, and ultimately the Anoka County tax board significantly pared back the valuation. It might be coincidental, but it felt that the friendly reception was not across the board. Mr. Nelson stated a few years later they were fortunate enough to get interest from Home Depot on the 14.5-acre site across from � Holiday Plus. They entered into a contingent purchase agreement where they would need to apply to the City for the comprehensive plan change and a rezoning change. They were surprised when that • project came forward and staff recommended denial of both the rezoning and the comprehensive plan change. The rationale was in significant part that the City has few industrial sites and staff did not want to loose it in favor of a commercial project. The Planning Commission and the City Council recommended approval of the rezoning and compreY�ensine plan change. Mr. Nelson stated another thing that concerned them in that process was that, as a recommendation of approval, staff recommended that the existing billboard signs be removed as part of project. Staff persisted in this recommendation despite being advised that Home Depot had no legal rights or interests in the signs. It was ultimately not made a part of the approval but at no time was there any discussions or suggestions of compensation to the parties who owned those signs. Mr. Nelson stated about a year ago we starting coming out of the real estate recession into a significantly healthier market. The market especially for warehouse space is significantiy improved. They are getting more interest in the property. They received interest from a large industriai warehouse tenant for a lease transaction on this property. They started site design and � retained an architect: Thus far, they have expended over $10,000 in the architectural design phase to get it to the point where it PI�ANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING APRII� 2 1997 PAGE 8 � is at. They started meeting with City staff on an informal basis to make sure before they submitted their building permit application that the plans met all the requirements. They had a series of ineetings and phone conversations. They have pieces of correspondence back and forth with staff. They thought they knew the requirements of the M-2 district. They sensed from the start, however, that staff was not pleased with the project going on this site despite the fact that it met the zoning requirements. The first indication of that was a letter after meeting with staff asking us to demonstrate why this project, which was clearly a large distribution warehouse, should not be viewed as a truck terminal. They know what truck terminals are, and they know what warehouses are. Staff knew what they were, but their main issue was to try to put the burden back on us to demonstrate why it was not a truck terminal. They did that in a lengthy letter and in phone conversations documenting the differences between a truck terminal and a warehouse property. This did not satisfy staff. They had answered the question and submitted three separate letters to staff asking for verification that they accepted that the project was not a truck terminal. Staff took the view that the information was too sketchy. They do not allow anyone to visit the tenant's operation because it is confidential, and the use was clearly set forth in the description of the building from � the plans. Mr. Nelson stated their initial meeting was in early August. They had a follow-up meeting in mid-September. They had phone conversations in mid-September and a meeting early in October, and� a letter to the City on October 11 explaining why this project was not a truck terminal. Staff agreed that this project was very similar to the Murphy Warehouse project that recently had been built and that those projects were not truck terminals, but they would not accept this fact in looking at our plans. Mr. Nelson stated they sensed that this was occasion for some delay and he would like to respond to"the real project in front of them. This sense was also borne out when the City Attorney got involved in the discussions. Mr. Ludcke will describe that process. Discussion dropped off to the point where they saw a legal notice in the paper that the City has adopted a zoning moratorium affecting their property with no prior notice to them whatsoever. They indicated in letters and in conversations with staff that they intended to obtain a building permit for that project and staff were holding up having us apply for the buiiding permit application with this question about �ruck terminals, even though they did resolve it to their satisfaction. Mr. Nelson stated they have been embarrassed in this situation � with their tenant's prospect. They have a site that is excellent ,� �"� � PLANNING COD�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 _ pA� 9 for this type of use. The features it offers gives proximity to a freeway, rail on the west side of the property, and is sizable for a project of 185,000 square feet. Mr. Nelson stated staff indicated the remaining industrial land is 7.8% of the overall industrial land inventory. Their 10.67 acres is 1.5% of the industrial land inventory, yet the sense of background is that we have big problems with trucking and will have lots of bad things happen if you don't hurry up and rezone some of these properties to this new zoning classification and adopt the other changes in wording. He would suggest that it is real late in the game and you may be able to do it and may be legally entitled to do it, but from a common sense standpoint and from an intact community standpoint, it is real late in the game to be adopting these kinds of changes now and selecting a few properties that are in dwindling supply to deal with a problem that has occurred over the past 30 years in the history of development in Fridley. Mr. Nelson stated he opposed the rezoning of their property to M- 4, and will be back for a future public hearing on that. They do not object to the City drafting a new zoning classification of the M-4. They think it should be a voluntary situation where the owner of a property could apply for that zoning. It does have a significant impact on their use of their property, the value, the marketabili.ty and attractiveness of the site. At this point, he did not know if they have lost the deal or not, even if they decided to keep the existing M-2 zoning in place. Their tenar�t is not happy with the situation on timing and had hoped to be started. They have waited five years thro�zgh a real estate reeession. They bought intq that recession hoping to and expecting to come out with development of the property. They are at a point where they woulcl like to be able to capitalize on an improved marlcet to develop the property and ultimately be able to sell the project and make a significant profit on a significant investment. Mr. Nelson stated they would like to proceed with their plans. They feel that they got torpedoed in this process when the moratorium came up. That, and as the City has indicated, Everest is not being singled out in this but we feel that some of these other property owners have been thrown into the mix. Staff is already saying that this site could be dropped and that site could be dropped. This is, in our view, in effect really about spot zoning of their property and they disagree. There is a comment from the last meeting that staff want to move this through the process expeditiously so that the property owners who have projects to do can proceed with their projects. The irony is that, if what is recommended is approved, it will have exactly the PLANNING COi�IlKISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 10 opposite effect on them. Mr. Nelson stated they also oppose the specific language changes in the M-1, M-2 and M-3 zoning criteria. They believe that, even on a corner lot, the screening requirements are significant and already in the existing ordinance and does not need to be duplicated. Mr. Nelson stated truck traffic for their property would utilize Main Street, 61st and 57th. He would submit that the neighborhood problems occurred in residential neighborhoods near the Murphy buildings. This is a different situation in that there are more outlets to University Avenue. The City resolved that with some residential traffic requirements on some of those streets. That is probably pushing truck traffic up here now between 57th and 61st to get out to University Avenue. This has always been an industrial area and will remain so. He did not see the point of restricting the development of that office warehouse project which will not have a drastic impact on that traffic flow and traffic pattern compared to what is already there. They do not have a manufacturing user for the site. They welcome the opportunity to work with one but they are few and far between. They would like to proceed with the project as proposed. Mr. Bakken stated he works in the Twin Cities as a commercial real estate appraiser. He owns a real estate firm and has been working in the field for 15 years. For the meeting presentation, he prepared a letter dated April l, 1997, to summarize his comments. He distributed copies of the letter. Mr. Bakken stated he was essentially asked to provide some evaluation, counseling and advise to Everest Development in light of the potential change in the zoning classifications. Since it appears that the change from M-2 to M-4 is one that restricts the overall number of uses to a single use, his first question was to figure out how active the manufacturing market is in the Twin Cities. On page 2 of his letter is a schedule which is a review of all of the industrial land sales that have occurred in the Twin Cities metro area since 1993. The manufacturing use is a very small portion of the overall industrial marketplace. He has heard discussion about the strength of the marketplace and all of the activity that is happening in Fridley. He would direct their thoughts to non-manufacturing uses primarily. From his perspective, it does appear that the manufacturing use is a very small portion of the market. Mr. Bakken stated, on the botto� of page 2, he finds that this is interesting for several reasons. We have seen an increase in the health of the market and have also seen a relaxing of the �1 �� �`1 � PLANNING COi�Il�lISSIOPT MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 11 � contamination rules as it pertains primarily to manufacturers. A few years ago, they had some fairly stiff rules on soil contamination and that was something that was geared to a number of manufacturers. Over the last three or four years, the rules have been lessened in severity and today manufacturers can get no action letters and other devices to insulate themselves from contamination. If anything, one would expect a renewed activity in the manufacturing sector but that has not occurred. Mr. Bakken stated, on page 3, he offers some of the reasons why the manufacturing sector in the Twin Cities has diminished. For a number of years, Minnesota has been known as a"net exodus" state for manufacturing. Because of the property tax, workmen's compensation, and other issues, they have found more manufacturers leaving the state than coming in. Second, every year, there is an annual study done by a local real estate group, CCIM. They have actually cataloged that in the last few years 70 manufacturing companies have vacated the Twin Cities for the Hudson River valley which is primarily due to cheap land, lower wor]Qrten's compen5ation, and other issues. Again, this is reinforcing why we are not seeing a lot of manufacturing sites purchased and built in the Twin Cities. Mr. Bakken stated another facto� that you see on tY�e manufacturing side is cities that are giving land away to pro�erty owners. Anoka and the port authority are giving land away for $1�00 per site for manufacturing when a number of jobs �re created with that. It is tough competition in light of the few manufacturers that are looking for sites. Mr. Bakken stated, on page 4, with restricting of the use to manufacturing, he indicated there are municipalities that do give land away. There a�e also municipali.ties and governmental agencies that will offer the land at reduced cost. As an example, in Chaska a number of manufacturers have relocated ther.e where the land was priced very, very reasonable. Mr. Bakken stated he had a few thoughts on the potential change on the zoning. It seems to him that if the restriction of uses is limited to manufacturing only that the number of potential buyers for any of these sites will drop off sharply because the demand is not there. Secondly, you will have reduced profits because it will lead tb increased marketing times. He will predict that the developer will hold the land longer before development would occur. Thirdly, ther� is competition with agencies that are giving sites away for manufacturing. Last, it is his opinion that most � of the manufacturers prefer to own their own sites and that a � great number of warehousing concerns are happy to lease property. � From a deal perspective, this would limit the potential of the PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 pp�� ],2 �,� site to a sale of the property only as opposed to a lease and develop parcel. If the change from M-2 to M-4 were adopted, it is his opinion that the value of the property would decline. Mr. Ludcke stated he apologized for not having been at the last Planning Commission meeting. It is better to be there at the time and take the flack that may follow. It is fair to say that we have a pretty vigorous difference of opinion about what went on in the fall of 1996. There was no claim that everyone involved did not do their job. Frankly, they feel like they were foxed into not filing a permit application. They came with a project and tried to force a decision on whether or not we met the zoning criteria. He believes they did and he believes the best proof of that is what the staff is proposing to be included in the M-4 district. The plan they had cleared and submitted did show the docks that Mr. Hickok addressed and, he thought in retrospect, prompted the concern and decision that something had to be done to hold them up. He thought Mr. Knaak would agree that it is a different situation if the property owner applies and complies with existing zoning as opposed to a situation where no application is in place and then a moratorium. They feel that, in effect legally, they are reduced to the same situation because what they are doing is trying to get information back from the � City of what they want to see from them. They did everything short of identifying their tenant and invited City staff and the City Attorney on a tour. He spoke with Mr. Knaak about starting in the fall and asking him about what is it that the City is really interested in. They got a strong message that the City was not interested in our use which we felt conformed. Mr. Knaak did not get back to him when he made these requests. Mr. Ludcke stated in the interim Everest received a call from Ms. Dacy suggesting that she might have a manufacturing user for a portion of the site which confirmed the concern that the City was not going to approve under any circumstances a warehouse use. This is where he takes issues with staff's characterization that they did not provide information. Everest was the party that was not provided with the information. They were not told that what was in the works was a change of zoning that would prevent them from having any kind of warehouse development in favor of nlanufacturing. He thought they went as far as they possibly could. They pointed to the Murphy warehouse type of use. They certainly knew this was not a truck terminal. They did delay, and they did not make the application. They did not want to step on staff's toes and wanted to get around that. When he did not get the last call from Mr. Knaak and then was told that the moratorium was in place, at a meeting in February Mr. Knaak apologized to him because he said, according to the circumstances, he was not at � liberty to comment. c � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997_ PAGE 13 Mr. Ludcke stated, if he were in Mr. Knaak's position, we would not have disclosed that either, but if the net effect is to keep them from moving forward and applying for a building permit when they did comply, that he thought takes it out of case law that justifies the moratorium. He was not there to talk about so much the legalities of case law philosophies, but they think it was their project that was in the spotlight and not the other folks. He did not know whether they were involved in similar discussions with City staff about projects. They were involved in these discussions on an on-going basis and they did delay in order to comply as best they could. They feel that this ordinance is aimed directly at them. He thought that, when there is a limited amount of property in the City available for industrial development, that they should not end up being the victims of a policy that should have been adopted long ago to prevent some wrongs that Mr. Hickok, he believes, described in lesser part. He thought they had developed expectations when they bought the site which were consistent based on discussions then and with the existing zoning that should be considered by the Commission when deciding whether or not to adopt the M-4 zoning at all and its impact on them. Mr. Nelson stated he would like to enter into the public record /"1 the series of correspondence relating to this issue to indicate that this is not a truck terminal. He would like to leave with the question that, if tY�is was your property and you had signifieant capital and ti�e invested in plans and this situation occurred, would you feel that it is fair. They feel it is unfair. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to enter into the public record the letter from Bakken & Leidl dated April 1, 1997, and correspondence between the City of Fridley and Everest Development as provided by Mr. Nelson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE�'-�'�i�tED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Nelson his definition of a warehouse versus a truck terminal. Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal typically has a very low ceiling height because no product is stored for a long period of time. Typically, it is a long, narrow building. A warehouse, especially a distribution warehouse, i� a big box - a large rectangle or square in shape. It has a high ceiling height for storage. Truck terminals often have cross docking - docks on both sides of the building - and a much higher ratio of docks to building square footage. A dist�ribution warehouse also can have a � significant number of docks but pales in comparison to a truck ' terminal as far as ratio. The product that is stored in a P?�ANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 14 warehouse is typically stored for a longer period of time versus products at a truck terminal that is unloaded from one truck then onto another truck sometimes the same day. It may stay in the facility for a few days. Frequently, a truck terminal also has a truck repair facility or garage on site for maintenance of the truck fleet. It is a very different situation. The Murphy warehouse buildings are examples of distribution warehouse facilities. Mr. Oquist asked how many docks were in the development as proposed. Mr. Nelson stated their building was proposed to have from 20 to 40 docks - 50 at the outside. Certainly not 50 on Main Street as indicated in the staff report. The exact number of docks had not been pinpointed because their tenant's needs varied with the contracts they had. The likelihood was that it was going to be in the range of 35 docks with some along the east side of the building along Main Street and some along the south side of the building. The front yard of a corner lot is defined as the shortest side on a public street so the side along 61st would be considered the front yard. Mr. Kuechle asked how many trucks would they expect to go in and out of there during the day. Mr. Nelson stated he did not know. It would vary with the tenant's business. There would be a significant amount of truck traffic, but there might also be with a manufacturing use. While the number of docks for manufacturing zoning is probably less than warehousing, the actual truck traffic may be just the same. From a design standpoint, they needed to reserve the entire west side of the building for potential rail access in the future. Possible rail access was another attractive feature of this site. Mr. Kuechle stated he was curious why, if they met all the requirements, they did not get a permit. Mr. Nelson stated they did not because staff told them that the matter of proving this was not a truck terminal had to be resolved before they would consider an application. Mr. Hickok stated at no time did staff say they could not apply for a building permit. Mr. Nelson stated, in hindsight, they wish they would have. They were told they needed to demonst�rate why that building could not be considered a truck terminal or warehouse and that issue had to be resolved before the project would be given further �1 /"`, � � � � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 15 consideration. Mr. Oquist asked if the ordinance controls truck terminals versus warehouse. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal requires an M-3, Heavy Industrial, zoning. Ms. Modig stated the minutes indicated that we were talking about getting some additional information from the assessor and the fact that some Commission members questioned that restricting the use may affect the value. Staff did not respond to that in the questions provided. Does staff have any information that would differ from the information Mr. Bakken is telling us? Mr. Hickok stated the assessor did not make a blanket statement regarding values. He said that the values would be determined on a site-by-site analysis. Ms. Savage stated, if we did proceed with another meeting�to discuss individual sites, would we have that information. Mr. Hickok stated 5taff could have some general information about uses and how the form�las work for industrial and manufacturing uses. Ms. Modig stated they w�re getting an indication from the City assessor that this does not diminish th� value and then we are getting information from Mr. Bakken that it will diminish the value. This is sending a mixed message. It has to be done on an individual basis. Mr. Kuechle stated, to summarize the situation, if you rezone, there are fewer people in the marketplace. On the other hand, there is less pressure on the land price from a manufacturing point of eiew because the land is a smaller portion of the total project. They would like to build and manage the property for more income over a longer period of time; whereas manufacturing interests wish to buy the iand, build and be done with it. The land purchase is not a big deal but it becomes more important with a warehouse.because the warehouse.costs are less. But there are fewer manufacturing potential buyers. Mr. Nelson stated he does some of the marketing of this site and 90% of the cails are not manufa�turing but warehouse or officel warehouse uses. From a study of the Anoka Enterprise Park, even companies who can afford expensive land flock to where there is no PLANNING COr�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 16 i� or low cost land because they can put that on the bottom line. They have deveioped over 2 million square feet of mostly manufacturing facilities in the last 24 months because they are giving the land away. He thought there was a comment at the last Planning Commission meeting that the assessor reported back that he would not necessarily reduce the assessed value for tax purposes if it had the new zoning. He would submit that this is a very different issue from the real marketplace. The owner may petition taxes. It does take longer and longer to get something going. It is not really a question of whether there is an effect on the market value for the assessor to say it would not affect the assessed value. That is a separate issue. Mr. Hickok stated it might be very easy to lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish by the legal discussion or the technical discussion. Staff does and always has looked to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community as they review a project. For the Commission's clarification, the planning of ihat particular project involved meetings of the developer saying "this is not a trucking terminal, we are right and you're wrong". Planning needs more than photos of trucking terminals and warehouse facilities that we know exist. The reality of it is, in order move a project, planning staff have to have a sense of how � that is going to work on the site, and the credibility of the project with adjacent properties is very important. When we are seeing a big box and are being told by the developer it meets the code and that is all we are seeing, it gives us very little to evaluate. Staff did not tell anyone they should not submit a permit application. If these folks felt they were right about the use on that property, they should have been in to the building department to submit an application. This is not directly related to their property, but instead it has to do with the industri.al property and the amount of property we have left in the City. It is our role, and our attorney will agree, to look out for the health, safety and welfare of the community and it is appropriate for us to ask all the vital questions before we get a project. We need a project first before we can evaluate that. In looking at Murphy, they were careful not to point any doors across the street. We were told this is appropriate and this is how we are going to lay it out. The point is not to be argumentative, but the Commission might have a dim view of how staff reviewed this and it may taint you view of the M-4 issue. Mr. Ludcke stated he would like to respond to the question of why they did not apply for a building permit. It is true that we were not told that we could not apply, but a sophisticated real estate developer does not wish to go against staff's wishes. We bent over backwards to try to accommodate those wishes. If you look at � what is in the handout, it is in part to show what happened and ^ PLANNING CONIl�IISSIOAT MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 17 why. In November, when he took Mr. Knaak on a tour, they indicated that Murphy Warehouse was a similar use to their proposal. He did not perceive that this was meeting the need of the request. He asked Mr. Knaak what is going on here and, ultimately, is it a tnanuiacturing use that stafi really wants here. The attorney never called him back until after the moratorium was placed on the property and the manufacturing use was recommended. Staff never did say no to applying but he would like to know what the staff wants. The only thing they did not do was give staff the identity of their tenant. They did not do that for a number of reasons. One of those was that the tenant did not want their identity known to the City. Other reasons were that we did not know that the City could protect the identity. They had a bad experience in another community. It did not seem that this was the interest. He thought the staff could have been up front and said they were interested in changing the zoning and that they did not want to see a warehouse use. Staff could have said that to us and we would have had accurate information to respond to. Mr. Prichard stated he would like to reiterate the concerns and opposition of McGlynn Bakeries to the proposed M-4 zoning. Their first and largest concern is the limitation this change would r"1 place on their future growth in the City. They expect to outgrow their current manufacturing facility in four to five years and possibly sooner. When that occurs, they anticipate they will first n�ed to b�ild a warehouse distribution facility on the vacant land. They would probably make use of that facility for manufacturing over tirne as they build their business. The truek traffic does not flow through residential nor any traffic from the facility on the land that they own. TY�ey do not feel that is an issue. The proposeci M-4 ciass wouid significantly limit their options in the City and take away the flexibility that they need. The flexibility they see is that they need to construct the type of facility that best supports future growth. He cannot at this time tell what that will be. The second concern is related to their need to have warehouse manufacturing distribution operations as close as possible to one another. This will give them the opportunity for maximum efficiencies, best communications and quality control. They are forced to be very competitive in the markets they serve and must keep costs as low as possible. They are looking at many new busines5 opportunities and to be successful they must lower costs and keep them low. He felt this would cost them more money and increase their costs ultimately. They would not be as compet�tive. Mr. Prichard stated their third concern relates to the market value of the property. From their point of view, it seems that if � you limit buyers, and they are not in the market to sell, but they wish to retain that as an option down the road. They may need at PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 18 �,.� some point to sell that land to create capitai. He wanted to make sure that it is clear that their land does not border any residential at all. To the west of them is railroad tracks, and immediately to the west of the railroad tracks is commercial property - Super America, A& W Restaurant, and the flower shop. The closest residential is across East River Road to the west. Visually, it would be limited in how the residential would see their facility at all. He did not envision many people would look across East River Road and worry about the railroad tracks and then their building. Mr. Prichard stated McGlynn's came to the City in 1992. They entered into a redevelopment agreement to revive the shut down Totino manufacturing facility. This was done in the spirit of cooperation and has been mutually beneficial. Today they employ 500 people in.the City generating $16 miilion in annual payroll. They pay nearly $170,000 in real estate taxes annually after tax increment assistance. They expect these figures to grow as they expand their business and their facility. The proposed rezoning works against their growth efforts. They respectfully request the Commission to leave their land out of the proposed M-4 zoning. They would like to spend their time and money growing their business and not on challenging this issue. �"'�, Ms. Savage asked if this would be a situation where, if McGlynn was included as one of the proposed M-4 sites and then in five years wanted to expand, what would be their recourse. Mr. Hickok stated, depending on the expansion, if it were to be attached, they may want to do what Tri-Star Insulation did where they proposed to build a building and attach it to a CR-1 office building. In that case, they amended the CR-1 to match so that the entire site was amended to industrial. If they were going to attach, it may be most appropriate to combine all the PIN numbers and make the property into one parcel and amend the zoning to make it all consistent. With the uncertainty about how the land will develop, the M-4 would allow the City to keep specific uses for that site. They can always request rezoning if it does not match. Mr. Steilen stated he would like to respond to some of those questions. That really does not work for them. They are not the problem the City is trying to solve. It is stretching it to say that there are residential problems associated with this site. There is commercial and industrial on all sides. It is not acceptable to have a nonconforming use because it creates problems. If you have a fire or destruction of property, most city codes do not give you the automatic right to rebuild or to expand. The problem with McGlynn is that they want to build a � business and invest more money into the site. They bought the r"`� /�'1 � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 19 property under a set of laws that allowed them the flexibility. They do not want to be in a situation where that flexibility is taken away. It creates too many questions about future flexibility. They do not want to be in the situation where they continue to make substantial investments in the property and, then maybe in five years, they may or may not be able to build a warehouse. This is a bad situation for them. Mr. Steilen stated they would hope that they would conclude tonight that this is not the problem that you are trying to solve. These hearings are necessary as a part of the process, but they become very expens�ve. The further this goes along the more they have to invest because they are very concerned about this. So far, they have taken a fairly low key approach. They have what they think is a very successful relationship with the City and they do not want anything to disturb that. Every meeting that goes forward, you get closer to the possibility that something is going to happen that you absolutely do not want to happen. So, they then need to invest money in the attorneys. It is a strain on their budget. They would hope that the Commission would take a good hard look at McGlynn and not require them to invest in further meetings and take that site off the list because it really is a stretch. Ms. Modig asked if McGlynn's had addressed the issue of the pipe before. Mr. Prichard stated the pipe is�ue is something that he personally had not discussed. Someone in the company has talked to the City as a possibility. The� do not see that as a good option xight now because they do not know the future use of that iand. It maybe an unnecessary exgenditure. Mr. Zylla stated he represents the Fridley Business Center Partnership and is an employee Northco. As he was preparing for the meeting, he was trying to think through the issues and do some research. There are a couple of things at work that are important not to lose site of. They are admittedly concerned about the M-4 zoning. There have been some discussions earlier by Mr. Hickok that suggested that the list would be pared and their 2.2 acre site in the Northco development would be eliminated. He wouid feel good about that because they do not feel it should be on the list, and he is sure that as they develop the property it would be an office warehouse use with two or three docks. T�ey have not done a site plan other than for a single user. They would like to have that property removed from the list. They agree with earlier comments that it would limit the possibilities to market the site. PLANNING CON.�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 20 �„�,� Mr. Zylla stated they don't want to lose site of the major issue with the language revisions that have to do with loading docks on a corner lot. On the parcel to the southwest of this site there are 4 acres which they are in the process of developing. They have a lot of money invested in soil borings, site plan, grading plan, and everything that they are getting ready to get into the wor_king drawings. There is a major issue in the code review with suggested language that relates to corner lots and that loading docks on corner lots shall not face the public right-of-way. On this lot, they have three sides of public right-of-way on the site plan. They are concerned that, if this language is adopted, this will kill that project. They also had some discussion at the last meeting about the reference to no truck or trailers parked and to be visible from the public right-of-way. He did not have a particular concern about this language if they did not have "on corner lots or across from residential". If it just said across from residential, they would not have a concern. If it includes corner lots, it will impact them in a very negative way. Mr. Zylla stated the M-4 impacts few properties. There is a marginal impact in total to the City, but there is a major impact to the sites. The question he has is not that this should not be ' created in the zoning but he cannot remember seeing a zoning code !"'� where there was a particular zoning classification that specifically called out a particular use. It seems to him that this is not only prohibitive but that this is impacting such few properties that everyone would be well served to be rethink this and perhaps kill it before it went any further than this. Mr. Zylla stated, regarding the language related to corner lots, his view has always been that Fridley has a pretty good reputation in the development community. When he met with staff and their client, his client was impressed with staff that he wrote a letter thanking staff for the professional approach that Fridley was taking. He spent seven years on the Plymouth Planning Commission and he can tell you that Fridley's current code even without the changes is more stringent than Plymouth relative to loading docks, and Plymouth does not have a very good reputation generally in the development community in how they are viewed regarding loading docks. If you look at what is already in the code relative to loading docks, for example, loading docks now have to be in the rear or side yard. Plymouth does not even require that. Loading docks can be in any yard. Fridley's code presently requires not only screening but it dictates six-foot high minimum solid screening fence, etc. Plymouth basically says to show them a plan that meets their approval relative to screening. Plymouth makes no reference to corner lots relative to loading docks. This has a major effect on them because their plan has only one loading dock ^ on that 4-acre site and it has to face 71st Avenue or their plan ^ PLANNING CONIl�iISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 pp�GE 21 does not work. Again, it is only one loading dock. It faces the ice arena and does not face any residential. If they had to turn the dock to face to the east, they would not be able to proceed at a significant financial cost to everyone. He thought the City should eliminate the reference to corner iots and eliminate them from the M-4 consideration on the 2.2 acre lot. Mr. Zylla stated, in their particular situation, whether it is the 2.2 or 4-acre lot, the trucks that are there, to his knowledge, travel on major arterials. Any truck traffic that exists near that industrial park is on a major arterial, and that is the reason to have major arterials. He would like to suggest that they rethink the whole thing. Someone suggested to stop it here. He would agree wholeheartedly that this should just be stopped here tonight. Ms. Savage stated she wished to make one comment. She was not that familiar with Plymouth. The problem that Fridiey has is that we have many residential areas near industrial areas, and we have to be concerned about those residential areas. She asked if staff had comments about the corner lots. /"�, Mr. Hickok stated before the Commission is a revised ordinance. Initially, the M-1 stated in paragraph C, "On corner lots or lots across from residential districts, no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way." It then went on to paragraph D to say, "On corner lots or lots across from residential user districts, no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner which is visible from the public right-of-way of residential use or district." The revised language removes paraqraph D, puts the essence of C and D into one paragraph, and gets at the heart of what staff was looking at in the recommended language and that is on corner lots across from residential. Mr. Zylla is correct as he reviews the ordinances and states that we already say that outside loading shall be located in the rear or side yards and properly screened. We do have protections in there. The exception was that residential lots near corner industrial lots are subject to some impacts that staff was hoping to screen. Paragraph C states, "On corner lots across from residential districts, no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way." How that relates to the project discussed in the Northco development with three streets surrounding it makes it more difficult. Normally the industrial lots if they are corner lots might have two streets but a third street does compound the site design problems. It does specifically talk about a corner lot across from residential district and then states that as long as the docks are in the rear and side yard, properly screened, you are okay. He thought that � successfully addressed that concern. PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 22 Mr. Oquist stated the proposed ordinance in front of them for the M-1, M-2 and M-3 says on corner lots across from residential areas. The language for M-4 states on corner lots across from residential districts. He thought this modified. which is lots or should be Mr. Hickok agreed that this should be consistent. On all of these, the consistent statement is, "... on corner lots across from residen�ial districts." As staff analyze the language in the code, they actually covered the other concern in paragraph A where they talk about outside loading docks which are to be located in the rear and side yards and properly screened. On corner lots, additional protection is necessary. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC IiEARING CLOSED AT 9:15 P.M. Ms. Savage stated, as she read the minutes, she got the sense that the Commission was in favor of the ordinance but had some concerns about some of the individual sites. She wanted to reiterate what staff said, and she thought it was important that they look at the big picture. A few months ago, they met with the Mayor and City Council and talked about goals for Fridley and how we can improve the quality of life in the City. That is truly the big picture to keep in mind. She got the sense that generally the Commission members were in favor of the ordinance. The Commission could possibly approve and not make any recommendations about the sites and have another hearing to consider the individual sites. Ms. Modig asked, if they excluded a site tonight, is it correct that it would not come up again unless it is put back on by the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Staff would notify the property owners if the City Council felt it was appropriate. At that point, staff would go back and reconsider action to rezone those properties. Staff wants to be certain the Commission is comfortable with every property that staff notifies. If the Commission feels compelled to add to the list or delete some properties, it is those properties staff will notify for the next public hearing. Mr. Kuechle asked the size of the Northco property. � � Mr. Hickok stated the site is 2.2 acres and is zoned M-2. � � � PLANNING COb�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 23 Mr. Oquist stated the Commission talked about the Northco property, but he also felt the McGlynn property does not fit into this category either. He can support the M-4 zoning and the ordinance change, but he felt there are two sites that should be �xcluded and th�y �hould review the other five. Three members o� the Planning Commission are not present at this meeting, and they had strong questions and/or opinions. Ms. Savage stated this is also her concern. Three members are not present so there is not full opportunity for everyone to be heard. Mr. Oquist stated there is no guarantee that they would be present at the next meeting. He thought the Commission needed to move forward on the proposed M-4. He strongly would like to see the two above mentioned sites excluded. Mr. Kuechle concurred. He was in favor of recommending approval of the M-4. He would suggest dropping the Northco site because it is small and does not amo�ant to very many loading docks. He had a different feeling about McGlynn site. He would like to exclude it as long as McGlynn owns the property. He can see the development, not so much as a warehouse, but as an adjunct to their current operations. On the other hand, if they decided to sell it, there is no handle on it. He is trying to figure out some way to do that but there is no smooth way. Ms. Modig stated she would support the M-4 zoning, but she would like to exclude the Alorthco and McGlynn sites. McGlynn cloes not meet the criteria as far as residential property. It is stretching it to try to include that. Mr. Hickok stated the Commission could send a recommendation regarding the ordinance language. The Commission sounds split as far as the sites. Staff could notify all seven property owners and those within 350 feet of the propert�es and bring them in for a discussion at the next public hearing. Ideally, it would be great if e�eryone agreed. �That would be lost is that staff would be notifying more properties, but at least we have given notification and allowed ourselves to make a decision regarding the sites at a later date. Mr. Kuechle asked if this would go before the City Council before the next Planning Conunission meeting. Mr. Hickok stated no. Staff will wait for a decision on the specific sites and move recommendations for the proposed language and the proposed 5ites at the same time. � Ms. Modig stated she did not understand. If the four members PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 24 present choose to make a recommendation on the sites and all cannot agree, that is not enough. Mr. Hickok stated, combined with the fact that the Commission does not have a full complement of Commissioners, he would feel best if staff contacted the property owners around all seven sites. The comments seem to indicate there is not a consensus among the group. They would be safest to contact all property owners. If it was clear that there was concurrence that a site or sites should be dropped, then staff would then notify the remaining property owners. At any point, the City Council can give staff the directive to include a site. Ms. Savage stated she felt uncomfortable about eliminating any sites because of the small group. She would rather, at this point, not eliminate any of the sites. MOTION by Mr. City Council M-2, and M-3 Only. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to the approval of the proposed language changes to the M-1, districts and the creation of M-4, Manufacturing UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Modig stated she would feel more comfortable acting on a motion regarding the sites to be included for consideration. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to exclude the McGlynn Bakeries site and the Northco site from the seven properties because they do not meet the criteria. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG AND MR. OQUIST VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND 1rII2. RIIECBLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR I,ACR OF A MAJORITY. Mr. Hickok stated staff would send notices to the affected property owners. 2. RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of this resolution is to comply with State law which requires the Planning Commission to review a modification to the City's redevelopment plan in order to insure consistency with the City's comprehensive plan. r n Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Linn of Linn Properties is proposing to add '� ,-�. PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 25 � � five parcels to the City's redevelopment area in order to refurbish the former Dick's Wheel and Tire and to develop an 8,000 square foot strip mall on the north side of 57th Avenue. The properties being considered are five properties starting at the northeast corner of Main Street and 5�th Avenue. �lso, as part of that project area, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider 57th Avenue N.E. in the project area. Mr. Hickok stated in the review process the Appeals Commission will evaluate a variance request on April 9 for the development that will be occurring on the northeast corner. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 18 to alert the neighborhood of a proposed development. The meeting was well attended, and the developer spoke about the development and the interest in taking the former Dick's Wheel and Tire, the former duplex site, and the single family home to the west and developing this into a commercial center. The reason for the variances is that the lots are relatively shallow sites at 140 deep and do not have the depth that you would typically see to develop a commercial strip mall. Therefore, there is consideration being given to the site dimensions as they relate to the proposal. n Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan identifies the subject property as commercial. The property is zoned C-2, General Business. In spite the fact that there was a duplex and a single family home, the parcels are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission is asked to consider a resolution for modifying the redevelopment plan to reflect the increased geographic area. The reason for the interest in including the expanded area of the 57th Avenue right-of-way is that there is a project that staff would li�e to discuss that would inaolve some potential improvements to 57th as well as lighting and landscaping. Mr: Oquist asked if the street was to be included so it can be done at the same time. It does not have to be a part of this resolution to allow the development per se. Mr. Hickok stated, in this development, there is tax increment being used for demolition of blighted properties, etc. According to the law, we can utilize funds in a project area to make other improvements and that is why this is being included. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adopt a resolution finding the modification to the redevelopment plan for redevelopment project No. 1 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRP�RSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE � MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 26 — � 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of February 26, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Scott reviewed the proposed improvements along the 57th Avenue corridor. Landscape plans and lighting will be considered at the time that the improvements are made. The City Council will consider this on Monday_ If approved, the planning drawings could be completed for 1998 or 1999. Mr. Kuechle stated he would like to express his support of the integrity and quality of staff's work. ADJOURNMENT �--. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the \ meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 2, 1997, PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary ,�-. � �, �� / 1 i 1 S I G N- IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMIBSIUN.MEETING� r�pril 2, 1997 Name AddressJBusiness � � 1l�'1 '�� � �' � � � �:-� � �,, ; � ) � �-�--. . I j � � _ �J/! /, �' �_. , _ _ ..-� _ � �Jo Y�� �\C.�i;.�.rC� Z35Ci �C:u'nm�� t� �-�'\ /d� � l:'� !1/1, CJU��Jf I�S t / j �� : :�r _`'-+ � +` , ^s ��� !Vf � Sc�— L-vt'�ve S� d 26 E L v p cKE `Ce;� 3e.�-e.�S 3 7 z �!� S C�,y� /9.l. . '���v�� U ��y�/ '/�✓ iJi '� � GL''� C�7 �� �I �.�� �- I i.� -�'!ti' _ (`-i.. ;� f�Y�, . a. n I CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY �� DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Tom and Lynn Lasser request that a special use permit be approved to allow construction of a 16' x 18' second accessory structure. The proposed accessory structure will be located in the rear yard and be used as a workshop and for the storage of lawn equipment and tools. � SUMMARY OF ISSUES Section 205.07.01.C.{1) requires a special use permit for all accessory buildings "other than the first accessory building over 240 sqW�re feeY'. The Lasser's proposed second accessory structure will be 288 square feet in area. They propos� that the stnicture be I�ated in the rear yard in conjunction with a new concr@te patio and driveway. There will not� however� be a driveway to the new accessory structure. The homeowners interest in cceating a second accessory buitding is to provide a workshop/storage ', area which will free up space in the home and garage. Siding similar to that on the front of the dwelling has been proposed for this accessory structure. The proposed structure will be screened from adjacent uses by existing vegetation located on the property, and will not adversely impact the allowable lot coverage. City code prohibits the use of acxessory structurss for a home occupation. � RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to cQnstn�ct a second accessory structure wi�h the #ollowing stipula#ions: 1. The accessory structure shall be architectura�ly compatible with the existing sfinicture. I 2. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be utilized #or a home occupation. � Project Summary SP #97-03, by Tom/Lynn Lasser Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS A special use permit to allow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet. 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition Sloping from front to rear. Typical suburban; many trees, sod, shrubs R-1, Single Family Dwelling; Parkview Heights Addition Connected Tennison Drive N/A N/A The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this I location. To be taken .- e , �`, �, � �"'� ...., � � Project Summary SP #97-03, by Tom/Lynn Lasser Page 3 ADJACENT SITES: WEST: Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling SOUT : Zonir�g: EAST: Zoning: NORTH: Zoning: Site Planning Issues: REQUEST R-� , 5ingle Famiiy DweHing R-1, Single Family Dwelling R-1, Single Family Dwelling Land Use: Residential tand Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Tom and Lynn Lasser request that a speaial use perrr�it be approved to aila�nr construction of a 16' x 18' (288 square feet) second accessory structure. The proposed accessory structure will be iocated in the rear yard and be used as a workshop and for the storage of lawn equipment and tools. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject property is located on Tennison C?rive south of Gardena Avenue ar�d east of Central Avenue. Locat�l on the properly is a single famly dwelling constructed in 1962. The dwelling measures 25.5' x 40' and has an attached garage of 20' x 24'. The site is sloped such that the lower level of the dwelling is a walk-out along the rear of the structure. ANALYSIS The Lasser's proposed str�cture is 288 square feet in area; 48 square feet greater than what is allowed with a building permit. The building is proposed to be constructed in the rear yard in conjunction with the addition of a new concrete patio and driveway. They propose to use the structure as a workshop and does not intend to store cars within the structure. No driveway will lead to the proposed accessory structure. They are proposing to use similar siding as what is on the face of the dwelling. The proposed structure does not adversely impact lot coverage, and will be screened from adjacent properties by existing vegeta#ion on the property. City code prohibits the use of accessory stnactures for home occupation. �'1 Project Summary SP #97-03, by Tom/Lynn Lasser Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to construct a second accessory structure with the following stipulation: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. 2. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be utilized for a home occupation. � n � ��;�,►�_. �_�%,,� "� - ♦ ` `� :••� ♦ ��:�� �� ♦ .:�-� ��� ►�� �,�. �,: � �, �� ��%i ��� �S �� / / . .. _ � ����������` �� � �'► ��liY������■��1��,1� ° �� 1��� 0■ �1� i��i,o���t��„ ■ 01,� � ■ .. �1 � �,� ��1 11111111iii111111� .���� i■ �� - . ;- : ^ . �i !�L'��I, ■1e���1 r� . V�i ■ ,� � �_ ��-� �- � - - ��� �� ■� �►ei �.�� � � �� � - �- �� ■�� ' , D}� �9 _ II � � �'� :� ,. .. � -� � ��� -� � � � v �� io■ � ��� � � :� �� �� � I e � o , � _ �� �� ■ ,.� �� �� - :- m� ro .o i � �� _ - - \�. � i� �_ �� � �7� : !a �� : �� �� -y� -y , .�� .� :., . . ...- ' :;���! .' :;' 1 - � ;� 0 � , P_ � ` {5 Awotic� �4�aa�[ �- _ 24-30-24 � � Phone: GReenwood 3-8352 • SP �97-03 � • • • Tom/Lynn Lasser � - AR�,EIGH C. SMITH � � , Regisiered Professional Eagineer and Land Surveyor 1&215 Wayza2a Baulevard .. . � ' �1{/ayaata, Minnesofa ' - ' PLAT� oF su�v�v OF PROPERTY OF_ I o i.�i S��GbC iJ E Q— S 81'7 TE N rttso w Oeiv� N � � l.az- :�3 " _ described as �ollows: ' . -, r '` � L O G.�C. 2 - - � P1� � K V 1 E t�/ H e= d%- t--� T S Scale: 1 in�h 30 fee� � � � ' . __. __ _ _ f.�d ___ __ _ (p�' � � � G � � : , "" ----._.____ ' � ��— - --- --t- --- . � � �� ' � L � . .�..` ' � � % � ! j � � �� � � F_-__- - -- �.�____--37. � 0,� '� .``' ._� — - 't � � j .±y � �-� � � 1 ,� � - � • ' � . , � { . i � 1_ d 1'6 ov«r wa..,v. Q , . � � ,, y �� ;!; '� �,r �! � /, � � � � T � � I �: ''. � ; i � � 4 . . . . � ,� � � '� /. �-� , , � �•. 1 a _ . �4 _ � . t+�i �- ;` � . `�. S i, . 'V . �� ' � � - � { . � , --- iZ9.84--- -" . - � ; � 1 - • 7/ - � CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING I hereby certify that on � lg_ I inade a survey of the proposed location of the building on the above described property and that the location of said building is correctl3• shown orr the above plat. _ __,____,------=�"—"�j .- ---'--'�—' `✓ �' S'�3 32 CERTIFICATE OF SUAV£Y � I hereby certify that o a�- ��" 19.�!21 sun;eyed the property described above and that the above plat is a correct represenLation of said survey. %�`�, �'j -----------._.i _� !'a , � . i � ; 3 .j�`"� � . � , - � 'r i1 � y �� � ----r` -�'w. t J G \ E':� P�� �� ;% r a \• t ao' d5' %�' � � � nL I v � 3p� �' � � � /.iu.1�1 c s i _.i " '� ' �% b \ y ��90 �' RPP �� �� � V �u �� ,� �� J �� d � � _ � �J � i i l d S `.. 0 O� �Cl�C�nOn�, �v/c. .Qw4h c s , `,- Q i � `�v{9C t� �CG �. G . �r wec�.,,s; w• r�p u, i� ' � . . , _ . - ,.. o a.�y: w �- ,p , �� I� 1 I � } � � I � � ' 'l�.' �; � �� �A { � ; ' . r.�s' - — - - .�, �' � � .� 1 n � ) �g� � ,w r � :f SP �1�97-03 Tom/Lynn Lasser .� �� c� , 1 ,� _T 3� � ss r,�4 _':� ,?;F ''yo e,r� v v�' v � j -1 ti j � � � r. � _. � a J- � e S ,/ � �, %� . � , ,� � � " .��. ai' � �, ! - C :i' .� � � � Q 3 ? u�'?� i� k ; � � ; = -. � ts � Ia . � P ; S ;' W �\ � � � ; .f� ;I t�' � � _ � ,; .. ; ���� � ih 3 � � _� �r--�--- �on7' o-F �iou s c. P� 6 /e.� - �jacK c�x./k ou7" 6�.s�c.�enT p�;uea1�/ ;s ��k.��T �uou /d f� c. To re�ov� a.e�f1 ieasT /( Ce.h tnT. U�t` i•� r a tief�'.+� r a ¢� v� � t�'""��, � �''T" �r t�i 1 0 p �� r 3 d � � /� `�,. �' � . _. �� .; , � � + I f � ( � ,� �, , .3 � � ,°`� �` . SP ��97-03 Tom/Lynn Lasser .� I� � for�r � .�)/r��t ,!_`a �t'�"" , ,� � �"'\ �"� � �� Thomas H. Lasser Lynn M. Lasser 5840 Tennison Drive Fridtey, MN 55432 Evaluation of buildin� and description of materials Frost footings, blocks to raise garage off of slab so it will not rust. 2. 2x4 construction, masonite sidir�g, fiberglass shingles, plyr�vood, trusses, garage door 9x7, sen+ice door, wi�dow. Na.r�ative and use af prouosed buildin� The main purpose of the building will be for a work area, to update our home. 1. Sta.ining and refinishing of molding or trim. 2. Wood working project. 3. A place to tinker with things outside of the home. The other purpose of the building will be to store lawn and garden tools and equipment. We would also like room in our garage to park our cars. By allowing us to !"'� build this garage and patio it would increase ottr pro�rty values. It will also improve the appearance of the property, and irnprove the appea.rance of our neighborhood. �, ,.�--�'� /-� �_SS� r- 4 �j�in n 1�'7 �--��-�" /`��� , -� -� ��o �'��;so-� ,o� _ � °���.��r'� �����- � �� a��� ^, .: `C:/ � `.� _ `', .� � . , � ` �`�`` ��'� _ � � �' � � -a _ � _ _ �`� �� �-Zf �f � � �� L�i�v 1�� , � -/` � ���/� ���-�-�d'��'w�'j �.1-_ � 'v�' �C2zi �:�� ��.,� ,�,,-� -- ;/ 1�)'_ � � � / �- ' �L� � s7.i ��"L,- 'G� `` >r j�- ( !� %L G li J...-/' C' G '_,-j� C . � `r'' 4'` , � -�` , .r` . .r� ��--7 i.rt' _ � :J 7 ;% �' /`�) ci < <_ �` '' _..__- r'' �'-`�L.- rZ��'C./ ,l� ,/.�2�•L� /(�/ L•_ �' � �/ J " ' •�ILI��` (�-� c.��?� ./�l�r.` � `v�l��%�!i�''Jv �`{�,.,� y t ,KC�i,�%� � ��,, ��- �% � ��`'�iL � �- � /�i?C-YU s1-�,`�'l. C''i- - 4��} �� �,,�— ./�^' � �z•z-� _ ` � ��-��� v� j � �/ � , � �t �1 + c G C� j/°Y _ �, t1 ���,. n �- � « �-`� / .� �� 1 e�,��..�-��U,� -�'% � - rl� r : , �%�� � S�'� .S� .c�-s �.�. � � s�y��'��-���,�1,���,� ,�� _ Nr . �, ' � `� � - - -��'�� ���� �sv�� D� �� . � ;� � }��� �� �, � , --- �_. _ ��-�.- `C"� _ __ _ - — - �--, 7�. _ _ � � ` � --- - - - A� . -. � -N�� � -" . __-. _--_ _- � ° '_ _ �� ��•�. - _ _ ___ __ 9��-_ _ - -- _, �; . � � � _...,.� ��-: + _J��_�1 f _ _ _ _ __ � :_ _ _ _ � _ � � � __ _ _ --- ib�� 1�u�'h�� �'.- ��' . __ __ _ .- __ -- --- _ __- --- -__ ! � /� '/ - li -- --- -- _ _ - . - — _�V �� --�'G'�G /'� i'�_�lnrl4l _�1 (�te 'v_�_�._ �) i i � �� � O`1s��� -- J �e�..� `�Qvn (��SOr �� _ _._ �*�� � ��?1(? �tclLrKQa� ��- �� � . . C�/ � ` ! ; •� �"ii � �� �` f�,` � c.� ,� � i�rf,�s !1 e�� 1,�0� �icav� Gc.�O/pi°b�i� � �`i � ��.�s e.�� �/'o�os�� .�7cc: /�%.o� . . //j ��/ �iali G �'flOc�%c^ � C�a /h -� 5� %C'C.0 3'if � G �/�"-n � Cc��A �'Xj���.: h�-G� -70 " �c� ��ic�..�` 7�i��/ u�rx� lr� / �� �e- �.�� . � , ,"s . i / � <� �i �� �C � : ,J �� �.� �- � i % � 5849 Tennison Drive N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 April 21, 1997 Scott Hickok Planning Coordinator 6431 University Ave N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Dear Mr. Hickok, I am in receipt of the information regarding the Lassers at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. relative to their interest in buiding a workshop in their rear yard. As I will be unable to attend the hearing meeting, I am writing to inform you that I have n� problem with ti�eir doing this. I trust this will not show from the front, and be completely housed in the rear. � Should you have any questions regarding this letter, I may be rea.ched during nor�al business hours at 52i 3581. Yours �ruly, Laura Wallach � ,.,.. �. ,, '. crnr oF Fwn��r G431 UNNERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTAAENT S�CIAL USE PERMlT APPLlCATION FOR: � Residentia� Second Accessory Others INFORMATION: - site plan re uired f b' Addre • q or su mittal, see attached SS. ��'S�O�.q a� i So,�_�!' Property Ident�fica#ion Idumber. ���� ... � gal Description: Lot �_ Block � Tr, Current Zoning: Square footage/acreage: Reason for Specia! Use: Have you operated a b siness in a city which required a busi�ess license? Yes No � If Yes, which cify? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes (�� FEE OWNER INFORMATION as'�t a J�'��` �,, . yr`, `"` .:.:` � PPears on the'Prof��Y title) .��.� . {Contract purchasers: Fee owners must'sign this foRn prior to processing) NAME. �, ADDRESS: DAYTiME PHONE .� � �� F ` � .��-�/�"� �� SIGNATUR , ��> ,-� � / }�fC�S'�.k9r :. 4 ��Y�. '.` tys;�ft :,:. ,�_ , ,k„ . _ . �� w, r_�..�� > � �,, � _ at � e � - � ,s�4 ..�� � � �j �` . .i^�.. - ., ..� -.; � : -� '"Y+� ,t€��.4 .-r4a 's�r� �-,� 3' � e t -`j .-t � w.`� i ..�.,...� . r . -R , v '1-r;z �. �_c t�t k� ' . � .. _. � PETITIONER�INFORMATION= ��``� .�r�?�:.�� � 7�3 � H ��; �� Y � + ' ,��'����, "'"�' . ¢, : _. ,,,, i�l�nE: _ . � �.� _, AL��RESS: DAYTIME PHONE: � SIGNATURE/DATE; - Section of Ci#y Code: ���� FEES — Fee: $100.00 Residential Second Accessory $4pp,pp Others ApPiication Number. ��Receipt #: ' Received B. .� Scheduled Planning Commission Date: � Scheduled City Council Date: . .. 10 Day Applicat�on Complete Notification Date. `�'F `�� ° _ P - � 60 Day Date: � !� . �s� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION r� �'� TO: All Properly OwnersiResidents within 350 Feet of Property Located at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. CASE NUMBER: Special Use Permit, SP #97-03 APPUCANT: Thomas & L��n Lasser PURPOSE: To allow a second accessory structure (workshop) over 240 square feei. LOCAT/ON OF 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. PROPERTYAAID Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition LEGAL DESCR/PTION: DATE AND TIME OF Planning Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, May 7,1997 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 35. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HE�IRING: fi431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 6431 Uni�rersity Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persmns plannir�g to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: interpreter or other persons writh disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later ifian April 30, 1997. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator at 572-3599 or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant at 572-3593. Publish: April 24, 1997 May 1, 1997 Special Use Permit, SP #97-03 Thomas and Lynn Lasser Thomas and Lynn I,asser 5840 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 James/Debra Wright or Current Resident 1088 Hackmann Circle NE Fridley, MN 55432 David/Theresa Fuhrmann or G�rrent Resident 5855 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 MichaeULinda Wiltfang or Current Resident 5885 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Bradley/I.eslie Geving or Current Resident 5880 Ma.tterhom Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Robert/Geraldine Schei or Current Resident 5812 Matterhom Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Cesaz Castillejos or C�rrent Resident 5776 Matterhom Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Laura Wallach or Current Resident 5849 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 MAILING LIST Gerald/Je�nan Schaaf or Current Resident 1072 Hacl�ann Circle NE Fridley, MN 55432 James/Thea Langseth or Current Resident 1096 Hackmann Circle NE Fridley, MN 55432 DuanelAnna McGonigle or Current Resident 5865 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Bruce/Ila Beierman or C�rrent Resident 5895 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Joyce Ande�son or (�trrent Resident 5860 Matt�rhorn Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 James McShane Jr. Or (:ture� Resident 5800 Matterhorn Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Gerald/Nora Scovil or Cunent Resident 5760 Matterhorn Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Eleanor Caputa or Current Resident 5841 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Mailed: 4/18/97 Lawrence/Geraldine Berg or G�urent Resident 1080 Hacl�ann Circle NE Fridley, MN 55432 Gordon/Lois Ova or Ctirrent Resident 1104 Hacl�ann Circle NE Fridley, MN 55432 James Soderberg or Cunent Resident 5875 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Roselen Halvorson or G�rrent Resident 1250 Gardena Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 William/Joyce Graffunder or Current Resident 5840 Matterhorn Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Vaughn/Mary Vesall or (�rrent Resident 5790 Matterhorn Drive NE Fridley, MN_ 55432 Hyun Sook Han or Ctiurent Resident 5748 Matterhom Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Arthur Jr./Helen Moore or Cunent Resident 5833 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE Noren/DR Schneider GarylMyrna Erickson Dale/Susan Kreitz or Current Resident or Current Resident or Current Resident 5825 Tennison Drive NE 5817 Tennison Drive NE 5809 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 . Fridley, MN 55432 Fridiey, MN 55432 AR� � �� /"�, /'� _ . ��„ John/Julianne Evers or Current Resident 5801 Tennison Drive NE �``dley, MN 55432 William/Yvonne Sexton or Current Resident 5816 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Dianne Swanson or Current Resident 5945 Hackmann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Douglas Audette or C�urrent Resident 5917 Hackmann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Vemon/Janet Roggenbuck or G�urent Resident 5889 Hackmann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 i'1� R PrahUC. Ness or G�trent Resident 5922 Hackmann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Regina/George Tony or G�urent Resident 5898 Hacl�ann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 G�u?/Myma Carlson or Current Resident 1100 Gardena Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Diane Savage, Chair Planning Commission 567 Rice Creek Terrace NE Fridley, MN 55432 �1 Shirley Crarber or Gtirrent Resident 58� Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Henry/Janet Legas or Ctiurent Resident 5824 Tennison Drive ATE Fridley, MN 55432 MichaeUKirsten Avraamides or G�rrent Resident 5933 Hackmann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Robert/Shirley White or Current Resident 5909 HaclQnann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Evelyn Hildebrandt or Ctnrent Resident 5946 Hacl�ann Avenue NE Fridiey, MN 55432 Carolyn Miller or Gtirrent Resident 5914 A�clanann Avenue NE Fridtey, AdI+T 5543� Jeanne Whitehill or Cuaent Resident 1080 Gardena Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Robert/Meuciati Gunville or Current Resident 1110 Gardena Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 City Counc�l City Manager Ra.ymondlDelores Sopcinski or Current Resident 5808 Tennison Drive NE Fridiey, MN 55432 Gary/Katherine Johns or Current Resident 5832 Tennison Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 William/Bazbara Tonco or Current Resident 5925 Hackmaan Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 John/Dorothy Oden or Current Resident 5899 Hackmann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Robert/Joyce Christie or G�rrent Resident 5930 Hacl�ann Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Gerald/Sandra Holles or G�rrent Resident 5906 Haclm�ann Avenue NE Friciley, I�+lN 554�� Richard/Anne Qtley or G�urrent Resident 1090 Gardena Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Diane Nielsen or G�rtent Resident 1120 Gardena Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 � n ClTY OF FRtDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Todd Mosher, representing Home Depot USA, has requested that a special use permit be granted to allow ternporary garden sales in the parking k>t �rom the 4"' week o# April until fihe 9� week of July of each year. The proposed sa�es area is to be located ir� the southeast comer of the site in an area 220' long x 100' wide, (22,000 square feet). The sales area will be enclosed by chain link fence and will contain live materials, bagged goods, and landscape materials. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Section 205.15.01.C.(11) of the Fr�dley City Code requires that a special use permit for garden centers or nurseries which require outdoor displa�+ or storage of rri�rchandise. When Home Depot was originally approved in Fridley, #he City approved #he �projeat with the original stip�tation that no plant safes were to occur oi�tside ofi the c�nfines of #he garden center. Home Depat agreed -to tMe stipuhation. Curren�y, the peti�oner �s indicating that °Horne Depot has seasonal, parkir�g lot sale�, in their stores e�rerywhere else in ihe Country. Home Depot sees this as an essential part of what they do". Hom� Depot curreratly has 27,972 �quare #eet of garden center. tf additional seasonal sales area is required, it should be incorporated into the building similar to what was required of Wal- Mart in 1994, and Menards in 1996. If outdoor sales is an essenfial part of what Home Depot does, the use should have been planned for initially as part of the original construction. The act of coming back to the City after the store is complete and after parking lot circulation routes are planned and installed, places both the City and the retailer in an awkward position of having to consider what appears to be a planning after-thought which carries a high, aesthetic and safety price tag. RECOMMENDATION The proposed garden center is contrary to the intent of the original special use permit, occupies a significant amount of the parking area, and creates traffic conflicts with pedestrians. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the special use permit request, SP #97-02, by Home Depot. Project Summary SP #97-02, by Home Depot USA Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS A special use permit to allow garden or nursery sales in the open. 5560 Main Street N.E. Lot 1, Block 1, Home Depot in Fridley Addition � 11.6 acres Flat Typical suburban; many trees, sod, shrubs C-3, General Shopping Center District; Home Depot in Fridley Addition, 1995 Connected Main Street N/A N/A The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this I location. To be taken 6 �, �� � �I �I Q Project Surr�mary SP #97-02o by Home Depot USA Page 3 �1 WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Zoning: Zoning: Zoning: Zoning: Site Planning Issues: REQUEST ,ADJACENT SITES: M-2, Heavy tndustrial M-2, Heavy industrial C-3, Genera! Shopping M-2, Heavy Industrial � Land Use: RR, industrial Land Use: Indu�trial Land Use: Retaii Land Use: Industrial, multi tenant Todd Mosher, representing Home Depot USA, has requested that a special use perr�tit be granted to allow temporary garden sales i.n the parking lot from the 4"' week o# April until ttie 1 St week of July of each year-at 565a Main Street N,E. �'SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject property is -located at the seuthwest comer of #he intersection of 5�' 1�venue and Main Street. The properly is approximately '11.6 acres in area and is zoned C-3, General Shopping Center. Located on the propecty is a 103,550 sqt�are foot Home Depot store, a 27,972 square foot garden center, and a 26,600 square foot:PetsMart store. The property was replatted in 1995 �nrher� Home [�epo# w�s constructed. ANALYSIS Section 205.15.01.C.(11) of the Fridtey Ciiy Code requires that a special use permit be issued for garden eertters or nurseries which require outdoor display or storage of inerchandise. The proposed garden sales area is located in the southeast comer of the Home Depot parking lot. The area is 100' x 220' and would eiiminate 88 parking stalls in two parking aisles for a period of about 10 weeks on an annual basis. The sale area is proposed to be surrounded by a six foot high temporary cyclone fence. Located within the sales area will be a combination of live materials, bagged goods, and landscape materials (timbers, retaining wall bbcks, etc.) � Project Summary SP #97_p2, by Home Depot USA Page 4 � Home Depot received a special use permit in 1995 in order to allow the existin area which is 27,972 square feet in area. This garden center includes hoop houses� house ter plant enclosures, and racking for other materials. The garden center area is enclosed by a masonry wa11 with a wrought iron fence at the front. At the time of the original Home Depot approval, a stipulation was placed on the store that there be no outdoor sales of plant material outside of the confines of #he garden center. Home Depot agreed to the stipulation, but, has now indicated that parking lot/seasonal sales are an, "essential part of what they do". If outdoor sales is an essential part of what Home Depot does, the use should have been planned for initialiy as part of the original construction. The act of coming back to the City after the store is complete and after the parking lot circulation routes are planned and installed, places both the City and the retailer in an awkward position of having to consider what appears to be a planning after-thought which carries a high, aesthetic and safety price tag. Photos have been included and a video will be made available at the Planning Commission illustrating stores where parking lot garden centers exist. The proposed sale area doubles the size of the garden center. If Home Depot desires additional garden center area, it should be incorporated into the existing garden center location as was required of Wal-Mart in 1994. This could be accomplished in a number of ways including but not limited to: 1. Expand the existin �' g garden center 148' to the east, reworking the traffic and circulation flow of tfie existing par�cing lot. 2. Expand the entire front or easteriy facade 445' x 49' of the Home Depot building itself through the use of an atrium type structure which would provide 22,000 square feet of additional retail area which could be dedicated to garden center sales. The difficulty is that the sale area takes up parking spaces that would have been convenient to the store or garden center. The circulation of vehicles in the parking lot remains largely the same, however, patrons will enter and exit the display area directly into traffic, crossing parking aisles and traffic lanes in unanticipated locations. Developments should be completed in a manner to separate pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Placing a garden center display where parking is supposed to be, blurs the distinction between vehicle and pedestrianways, creating a safety concem for pedestrians. Hoses for watering are also required to be dragged across the circulation areas causing another unanticipated interruption. From a security standpoint, anytime merchandise is left outside of the confines of a store, the risk of theft increases, adding unnecessary burden to the Police Department. . From an aesthetic standpoint, the City has been very careful to insist on quality buiiding � materials, landscape materials, lighting standards, and continued maintenance of the � Project Summary . SP �#97-02, by Home Depot I�SA Page 5 development aXea. Similar: re�uests for outdoor sforage �nd display `h�ve. either:been modified through 5tipu�l�tions placed on a special use permit, or denied entirely. � In further reviewing Home DepoYs reques#, staff contacted other communities with Home Depot stores. To follow is a listing of those c�mmunities and the res�nses regarding their existing and any outdoor sales by Home Depo� � Braoklyn Park In Brooklyn Park, no Rarking lot sales are permitted. Their garden center is 27,972 square feet in area. In March, Home Depot requested additional space in the parking lot for pallet storage of bagged materials and other items to be sold. The Planning Commission and City Council of Brooklyn Park denied tfi� request for additional s�les and storage �pace in the parking lot, and required Home Depot to confine all garden center sales items to within the existing garden center. They also required Hcnne Depo� #o remove other iterns dispiayed outdoors, such as yard sheds, tractors, trailers, etc., inc�uding ttae fence secfions which were attached to the front of the building. � Maplewood ln Maplewood, lim�ted c�tdoor sales �e. permitted. The eify of Maplewood`s Home [�epot has an existing garden center of 28,000 square feet. in �Jlarch, the City of Maplewood also approved a 50' x 50' extension of the garden. center which is enclosed by a ten foot high chain link fence. Also approved was a 78' x 108' area in �the parking lot which is also enclosed by chain lir�k v�hieh aHows ter�porary saies of bagged goods and o�iher items associated with the garden center. Plymouth The City of Plymouth's Home Depot wiA not open until July 4, 1997; however, the built garden center area is 17,955 square feet in area. They will be allowed outdoor sales if a special use permit is approved. Within their existing garden center area, they are not utilizing hoop structures; however, items are covered by greenhouse shade cloth. Coon Rapids Coon Rapids Code does not specify by code what is, or is not permitted related to parking lot sales. The Home Depot in the City of Coon Rapids includes a built garden center of 18,223 square feet surrounded by chain link fencing. Within the garden cen#er area are hoop '�structures and storage buildings are currently being displayed on the sidewalk in front of the building. While they are currently not displaying items in the parking lot, ihe Coon Rapids City Project Summary SP #97-02, by Home Depot USA Page 6 � Code is silent upon the regulation of outdoor sales; therefore, it is rnore than likely that they will occur. Bloomington A limited seasonal sales area was approved for the area outside of the garden center. The garden center is 17,995 square feet and is divided befinreen a glass enclosure and outdoor sales. An additional 3,000 square feet of seasonal sales area was approved for the front of the store. A permanent escrow account was established. If unauthorized sales occur, a 24 hour notice is given to clean up the parking lot. If sales occur again within a 3 month period, a $1,000 per day fine is paid to the City from the escrow account without further notice. Home Depot is then required to replenish that account so that the escrow balance remains at $20,000. St. Louis Park No sales in the St. Louis Park Home Depot parking lot have occurred. Their garden center is 18,000 square feet in area. The garden center is completely screened by a brick bollard and omamental metal fence such that only the top of the hoop structures can be seen from the parking lot or the adjacent public right-of-way. ,,� FRIDLEY COMMERCIAL AREA IMPROVEMENTS The City has recently seen an increase in commercial development in the 57"' Avenue corridor. This commercial development includes Home Depot constructed in 1995, the proposed reuse of the Dick's Tire and Wheel store at 251 - 57�' Avenue, and the proposed 8,000 square foot retail center proposed to be located in the northwest comer of 5�' Avenue and Main Street. If the proposed commercial developments occur along the north side of 57"' Avenue, the City intends to complete a 57"' Avenue street improvement project in 1998. This improvement project will include a widened 57"' Avenue medians, new street lighting, and new landscaping. Outdoor sales and display in a manner such as proposed by Home Depot could be considered contrary to the intent of the 57"' Avenue improvement project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION The proposed garden center is contrary to the intent of the original special use permit, occupies a significant amount of the parking area, and creates traffic conflicts with pedestrians. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the special use permit request, SP #97-02, by Home Depot. � C�l11�' 0�1��: ��l� : �i! ■- «..:x� .. rl� � '� � � � ��� �i- � anv�e .:._t L.,]v+.z+.".r•� r,.� k :� . :`f�'.-�S.'�::'y_'i �� Q Rri ' QlB �jl �715 � �z -Twor-�a�,un� � R.� - General n�►rape urds 0 Ft d- Mobile Fiotte Parks � PlA - Plamed lkit Oevelapirent s1 - Ft�de Padc tJeigr�bort�ood � S2 -1�ed�la�# 0'istrid � G1 - �d Business 0 G2 - �r'ai B�sin�ss G3 - Gen�`al Shoppug �GR1- General Ortioe 1 - �t ind�al C r2 -fieavy��ia� ,� nA3 - acdoor t�er�nne tieavy irxt p Rit - Ra�roeds � P -r�,bu�r-�� p wn�x 0 wc�{r� vu�Y N Special lJse Permit, SP #�.97-02 A 2i26197 e• � • �� - i-ee: • � :i 1! 4 " � I E ��' � `�i � � �� �� % � �:�� .� •• • o ': -flie ►naterials �nn11 be sold from the r�� io�. so o sotaasao�o r�c � � �i �,, (. . .. , CQt'�I178d �'1d �1 fI�OfTI O�K781 f800F�5 b35�d an Orr�rianoe No. 70 and 7�rtirg e.lfec�v�e �e 1R7156 tioget� wilh ad arri� andaf- artoes aciopted and dfectiv�e as aF ?!1 /97. vide � m� tras taicen e�y ef%rt fio pno- up to-date;�ormation avaiiable. 111e data p�ted t��e IS � b dr�ge, The City a� Fri�ey w�ll nd be responside fa' wfiorese� errors � usage a# th.s doarr�. � a - ��-. - J "- v 1 , „ � � S P �� 9 �- 2 r � � 's' . ' s --- — — � � '""' Home o t � - < ' ` . Q `D �, " c*' � o , � � { r� a -- • i - __... �-,r. . __ I�A�_.n Uao��v� � . .. J�-� .'i _. .[�- 9�I•--- ---- - -•-1!1!l� —;{�� - ' ._'- •___ -- '-��-- -.1�.aj''" "- . ' _' -, - ._ _.- _ . -_C- __-'_ - ---- - _,�� �"T" -' - �-� - .. . �_`.. ._- � _ ' ' ' ,_ � i�t�- �' _,�n- ---. .. __ _ ' - - --- ._ .--__- -__-_ _. . � - i•� � i � �-- • _ �.,nT _ .. _.- -- - ----- - - , - �9 � ..;�� 3 -- � . _ S' -� `I --i-_ _- --------- --------- ---- —�-- � ° --f { _ . �---�'`� _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ � t � ��*' ' � I __ _' � � � ' Rf�%� i � - - � � - 5/ ��_—. _�._. _ t � , . I ��: - . /�� �\ ` � , � q � �_.�� ,� _.. _ " _.�.- -- t_1 �--- -Z_Z J - - - -, - }_ �" - - -_ - --'� �' �'' — \';� ---- '`- `~�� ' -- - ` . _ __ -------- ----- ��� __-�- f � - `� ;+ � U - -- ---- _ �.� ` � I �Si� � �... �I_�?�.) { l� i = _.. . � �; W � --_ � � �--_, i �� j a,���la _� �_ �--j � n� � �r� J � z � ��'. � �j ' � �� T Q � � � � ��'-'�-.�� �_ � �_ ' in � w f=+ w __ � �? . , Y j! � `� 1 _ �= � � � � <L� � � , a- � � ' � .. M � Q � � , V � � � 7 Q � Q �� � � i.n i � � _ o � '�' r � Qo � � o � 1 p a � >�-- � �- E-- , W � � Y � Q W � � � �` n . w 3 �'' � `� �+. � w Q: � > > ' oe � o � � � -� -' ¢ � � � Q �- 1 Q � � v� : � : a W w � ~ ° a- ° ; � ; c.o � � � � �� ' ° ° � ; . ►�. =1 � LL � �: � � f/j , � ; N! � u 'r! 0` ___1 (U J � � " ; e `w � � Q Q � ,,,': u �, ►--� 3 T .� �,. � � W W � � � �„ `�,� — _ -- � � , �-- ' . ' � � :, , ` - . ;" C� ___'"__ . _... ' � . . _ _ _..._..'._"_"'_""_'_" '_... 1 • � ', v " � 4 � ' �� 1 } O N 1 " t t f � f � / '_ � U1 r� v i !"� 1 ! �� ^ � . �� � r_ � u, ¢ � 0 — o, t� � ro ; ,i_ OF. � „ _ � " , -I �i n K i.Lt � 'ji � _ V } � N ' V _ � i U _ i �, y 1 `. � N r�-��i� � � �. .l C 11 - (� � ' - �.I � � I . , E-�'�.'�� `����� � � ��� - I �`� '� .+� �.. ,, j r y' k .r.* r t �� , , � � , � � ., � ti . �. „ �-„ . � '�. �. ,*...,7, . r . r , s. - . . , „ ,i . � ��^^�� �.� ►« ►''9' 'if����'I�,:w g "�,�":�r' ; ^, � ����' � � .�.� r l.� y� ' �c �`% . � � , ;4: �., ,, �.--„ ) �:,p,,,,r., ..�. , i: . �. ��,,,� .,� -...�=-- � r � .� � • a ► � � ? , *� , ` "i � n...r�•..,,.,, rc r—y'a'� ��^ � ..�'','�` =a�° :� �� � � , i � ' -� � '� cl � � o .� � .r� . � _. � 4 , � - 1 ' � a�, - �• �.nri ^�is.. '2'' e' ,.l: ," . �aw� , . . � �l'.. ¢ t r ,za,-��Y_ "� �- ii�t� .` " * a ' �- � k . �.' . . '�c : . r.. . . . , . ,,.C'• i'n. Kw��'�r Z...:. u w S. . (_ v• �__ . -_-.-..-..�-.-ra-r'.', � . . . ., :,z s �,.���-__,�_�'.,s" .: � v",;': _ � t f �� s � , r`Y �� _ � f . 1��` . �' r f�\+ : .� ��� 4 Y� ? � `^ .., . . . . 1 .e,r�' � F'ry+c'h�'•� r ��' �i t tiq .,�� :\ � . � ' _�� 1, v \ _ . _•.+r� .�.c'.a .. . ' : .�� �,.: 1� � • 4 �' t Y ,,.,. r� � • . . '� . . 1} .y.� ������ µ� 4 �� �ri�+S.`<b+Jea��4�s� t � . . � � � � . � i � ' z �� : "e lY''�. � �y ..��� �.;- . � . ..�,. p � ,� �N- :'!. .� � • � . . ` ' �,�ay.,A, �'!'' F;r3 ,3"G��' �„ � � ' �'a�'"� 1��, � ' : i+ - n 1 � e,,�,� � ,3- �,"�' .. ♦ �. }..c � .'» $• � �; / .. i, '�£ \ ` '_'7 . 11 . 1L ��Y � . ' . �' '{ � � � R r �•. ... . . r �. ti�y 'a '� . . � � .-,� e.ry1 . .;. . . .. �.� � �� � �r .. -. !tz1` p - •' �t:��° �,...;' �, . P . ~�� - .. ,•. � � . .. y •� ''�am �u�,.�,�,,�_ .q...�•, �• �,,,,� -" ,.�, n r , _ a� �k7.=a. t eu +� ;�r������''� ^.�.a`� `3._,' �-�L7''� �� rt�' '� ifj`�Zr��'+y �� o`t � .�i.. � v w� w ,�, r a�'x �,,, • } . �.,, . � .�f,_ '' .�_� _�_.. .I�„�. .. �:F.'}, °... � . _ ��. �, t " . M: L' r . . �.':5��.'-a�C;?a',Pv^'a"s: T-++�.-,--. - . . � � —. — i�:�. �,a. .?*z�' 3 !" � �...������ _ . � '� a . .i }4 v t..• �.K 1` r i. � } �, � i , �?�` 7 `�.Y � /' ;'r " . \ 7 `�� f ' ' , r' . ;� t� ,r> "< f " ,� ,y ti �..� k ;:l /�, L �';� ¢ `, ; ` - _ � r' ..�� '�i � ,,t � i �'� Y`'. � y, ,� ��;{ 4. �,•- !'-_1ip�,,1rivi°e Ej�t'� F �`� N�"+.=.x�i� ��-�.-'�.�,_ . ��,..rc. � - L_..__ r`4'"' .�. � +., �rv�,�, �� i, ._. w••. .''��+*� � _. , ._. . . ._ � . �• � , . � + ► -`� � � - ,�, ,: �,,,: ._ ,.,._ n- `'ap!' �'� � ., �el '` A. 1 ''`' �_ , .. ;,.' / '��,� /, �, ,"�; �� � ,,,�" , �; • . �C" ;� � ^4 • ��� ♦ � � � i � 6 ` ' , ' y � I ' I � .'. ... .. +s _ - / , ,S �H `� ..� � * ��/ � � . .. r �k. t'' *7s^ '�� _ ,+y �- �� w� 5!".. •e,. � a , � . ��•-^�..z � �s � . � ..�. �`' � . r ..:i . �, � � > �'1 ' *���,: �.r � .__._ _ - ; y i ��� . , � , ,,� c. � } .- i `^� ,N�II���i�'r��a. �e • � . f* .�5-� q 7 : , _ � . � i t. � , -. : � 7 �° a. "' �=��a.zx'%, �'� �"�� � '`� ! _ ' �-' �t ��,,.�'F� � yi � , g ' � _ Y�� 4^�'�.�hL.� �`� �'`°` e . �� . � � ..: ' . . . . � - � `1""„�—�ra.•. ' _ � _ � \ � ` - �-d ._ L K � .,¢,.. . ; .. �. � � h...r� �M.. ... __ _. _, __ _ t ._ , �-� �, .. _., • . "' � , i � `� � � ` � _ . . � , , ��� . '-. •' . �..- .. �� . s+ . . � � �► r. .. d � � - � _ � _ .� . : -.:tiY .. . � . ' I . - - " _ C � -:'i,� ' _ S _ . - .�d� _ .s � � �� t �" ' -+� _ ' - .- , ,-�°� c�nr oF Fwo�Ev 6431 UNNERSITIf AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLtCATION FOR: Residential Second Accessory 4thers PROPERTY INFORMATION: - site plan required for submittal, see attached Address: 5650 MAIN STREET, NE FRIDT•FY, �T 55432 Property Ident�cation Num�r. _ 2�-3�-2�-41-aoo4 . ��i%_.� - y.....+i.'. ! T Legal Description: Lot 1 Block i Tract/Addition � A_- AIIDITORS SIJBDIVISIOl� �78 Current Zoning: �-� Square footage/aareage: 11.6 Ac Reason for Special Use: s�sor��. s�s r�T Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes � No If Yes, which city? coox �erzns, rn� - � � If Yes, what type of business? ��./co�cTAT• � Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No � ( FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) � (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: � n�'r, u: s..A. , nvc. ADDRESS: 2455 PACES FERRY BD. , Hp BLDG 2, llth GA 30339 9! DAYTIME PHONE: 8 � 4�3 6�ss SIGNATURE/DA� �_/� Q: PETITlO(dER INFORMATION . NAME: HO� DEPOT II. S.A. , IftC. ADDRESS: 2455 PACES FERRY RD. , 1� BLI1G 2, llth , GA 3033 -9 DAYTIME PHONE: 3 135 SIGNATURE/DAT • /`f y' Sec�ion of City Code: FEES Fee: $100.00 Residential Second Accessory $400.00 � Others Application Number. �°q?--o2 Receipt #: l 4�17 Received B Scheduled Planning Commission Date: _�/VI,Oc-�-� � ��`� Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: �"�, 60 Day Date: CITY OF FRlDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: CASE NUMB APPLICANT: PURPOSE: LOCATION OF PROPERTY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION; DATE AND TIME OF HEAR/NG: PLACE OF HEAR/NG: HOW TO PART/CIPATE: SPEC/AL ACCOMODATIONS: ANY All Property OwmerslResidents within 350 Feet of Property Located at 5650 Main Street N.E. Special Use Permit, SP #97-02 Home Depot USA, Inc. To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor sales and storaae_ 5650 Main Street N.E. Lot 1, Block 1, Home Depot Fridley Addition Planning Commission Meeting: Wednesday, May 7,1997 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 35. Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 1. You may attend heanngs and testify. 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 571-1287. 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 April 30, 1997. Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator at 572-3599 or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant at 572-3593. Pubfish: April 24, 1997 May 1, 1997 � ,� � � Special Use Permit, SP #97-02 Home Degot USA, Inc. � Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 2455 Paces Ferry Road NW Building 2, 11�` Floor Atlanta, GA 30339-9998 Great Northern Railway 176 East 5�' Street St. Paul, MN 55101 PauUJoyce Laduke or Current Resident 216 - 57te Place NE Fridley, MN 55432 Bernard Jeska or Current Resident 215 - 57�' Place NE Fridley, MN 55432 � C�rrent Resident 5400 Main Street NE Fridley, MN 55421 Diane Savage, Chair Planning Commission 567 Rice Creek Terrace NE Fridley, MN 55432 /"1 Mailing List Home Depot Manager 5650 Main Slreet NE Fridley, MN 55432 Lyndale Terminal or Current Resident 250 - 5'7'ti Avenue NE .� Fridley, MN 55432 PauUJoyce La�uke 6972 Lakeview Avenue Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Carmen Mack or Current Resident 131- 57'u Place NE Fridley, MN 55432 G`uiient Resident 5730 Main Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 City Councii City Manager Maiied: 4/18/97 Comm. Properly Investments 2685 Long Lake Road PO Box 130190 Roseville, MN 55113 Henry/Roselyn Berkholz or Current Resident 218 - 57`'' Place NE Fridley, MN 55432 Erickson Petroleum 4567 West 80�' Slreet Minneapolis, MN 55437 Richard Bistodeau or Current Resident 101 - 57"' Place NE Fridley, MN 55432 NorthpoindAMB Investment 505 Montgomery 5'� Fla�r San Francisco, CA 94111 � e�^ y: �\� DATE: May 2, 1997 TVIEMORANDUM P�AS�TNING DI��SION TO: Planning Commission biembers FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant RE: M-4, Manufacturing Oniy, Rezoning Recommendations a� a result of the eity's lndustrial Land Moratorium Anafysis ,r"1 INTRODUCTION The Plar�ning Commissinn recomrnended that a separ�te process be conducted to rezone eight sites to ihe newly creat�d �1A-4, Manu#a�turing On1�r dis�ract. �'F� City Council recently adopted �the M-4 district fc�r first reading as well as the changes to M-1, M-2, and M-3. Another impact from this type of development is the unsightliness of overhead doors/dock doors, trucks. and industrial implements facing residential properties. Comer lots are also problematic because, in some cases, the industrial site faces two residential areas. GOALS OF CODE CHANGES The intent of the recer�tly considered code changes were to: 1. Reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties by: � • Controlling their loc�tion in the City (rezone sites); and • Through irnplementation of site design controls (amend existing zoning language). �, M-4, Manufac#uring Only May 2, 1997 PAGE 2 2. Encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities and which require more complex building systems (buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher construction values and less loading docks than warehouse constru�tion). 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, display, or are already permitted in other z�ning districts (i.e. repair garages are permitted in commercial districts) The M-4 district accomplished goals #3 and #4. Which sites should be rezoned to M-4 is now the question in order to address goals #1 and #2. � � � ANALYSIS All vacant industrial parcels where evaluated using the following 4 criteria: • Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a residential use? � Would the property meet the 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 distribution warehouse facility already in the area? For this analysis the City was broken into 3 distinct industrial sectors. If the answer to any of these questions was "yes°, the land was proposed for M-4 consideration. Seven properties were discussed by the Planning Commission. An eighth property was erroneously omitted, but now has been included with the properties considered for M-4, "Manufacturing Only", zoning. The eighth property is owned by Coachman Companies and is located at 100 Osborne Road, NE. SPECIFIC PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED FOR REZONING TO M-4 1. Everest Properties - Main Street 2. Northco Properly - Northco Drive 3. Anderson Trucking - Osbome Road 4. McGlynn's - Commerce Lane 5. R.R.I. Inc. Property - Ashton Avenue 6. Friendly Chev�olet/ - Central Avenue � 4� � M-4, Manufacturing Only May 2, 1997 PAGE 3 7. Kurt Manufacturing - Central Avenue 8. Coachman Companies The intent of goals #1 and #2 is to accomplish finro different purposes, pro#ecting residential areas from excessive #ruck activity, and maximizing the remaining vacant land area for manufacturing uses. The Planning Commission needs to decide if all or some of the sites should be rezoned based on meeting one or both of these goals. The Northco site (#2) is recommended to be deleted from rezoning consideration. It is not large enough for a 10 dock distribution warehouse facility, and is not immediately adjacent #o residential area as compared to the Ashton, R.R.I., Inc. site, for example. Rezoning the remaining seven sites accomplishes both goals #1 and #2. F�ve of the seven sites are located in or across the street from residential areas. The remaining two sites are not near residential areas, but are located near �xisting �.,,\ distribution warehouse faciiities. The attached matrix shows how each site relates to goals 1 8� 2. ,� The McGlynn and Kurt iUtanufacturing sites present an additional issue. �ecause each of these sites are separately descRbed but proposed for expansion to existing facilities. The existing sites wvuld also have to be rezoned to M-4 in order to avoid two separate zoning districts app�ying to the same ownership. McGlynn's has submitted a letter objecting to the rezoning. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning sites: 1,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 to M-4, Manufacturing Only. The existing McGlynn's and Kurt Manufacturing sites are also proposed to be rezoned. The City Council will conduct the public hearing and first reading of the ordinance on May 19, 1997. The maratorium has been continued until July 26, 1997 in order to complete the rezoning process. #1 Everest Properties #3 Anderson Trucking � #5 Ashton Avenue #7 Kurt Manufacturing #6 Friendly Chevrolet All sites in Goal #1 plus: #8 Coachman Companies #4 McGlynn's PROPOSED SITES TO BE REZONED TO M-�4 � �S � � � o� � �`�C'. E. /J J9 .�qKER� � McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. 7350 Commerce Lane Minneapolis, MN 55432-3189 612-574-2222 FAX 612-574-2210 May 1, 1997 City of Fridley Planning Commission Diane Savage, Chairperson David Kondrick, Vice C,hairperson Corinie Madig Dean Saba LeRoy Oquist Brad Sielaff Larry Kuechle William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Community Develop�ent Directo.r �"1 Seott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55�32 Dear Planning Commission Members and City Staff: We appreciate the support shown of McGlynn Bakeries' position on the proposed rezoning of our vacant land to M-4. We would appreciate a decision to recommend el'uninating our site from M�F consideration at the May 7, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. The following points summarize our position: • Our site is not adjacent to residential and would not impact residential areas. Railroad Tracks, Overhead Power Lines, Commercial retail establishments and East River Road separate our site from the nearest residential area. In addition, this residential area doesn't face the McGlynn Site. • All truck traffic from this site flows through industrial properties to University Avenue. Not through residential. � •'The fact that new warehousing has been constructed near the McGiynn site shouldn't factor into future needs for our site. We purchased the 6.3 acres of vacant land in 1993 to accommodate future expansion which will need to be adjacent to our existing facility. City of Fridley Pianning Commission Messrs. William Burns, Barbara Dacy, and Scott Hickok May 1, 1997 Page 2 //""� • M-4 Zoning would severely limit McGlynn's growth in Fridley. We anticipate requiring a warehouse/distribution facility on this site to support our existing operations. M-4 takes away this opportunity from McGlynn's and would limit further capital investment and job growth by McGlynn's in Fridley and quite possibly McGlynn's ability to maintain a presence in Fridley, given our need to closely integrate our operations. • We need our warehousing, manufacturing and distribution operations as close as possible for maximum efficiencies, communication and quality control. W� need this to remain competitive in the markets we serve. In addition� we have several new business opportunities that we are pursuing. These would increase our production requirements in Fridley. It's important for us to continue growing the business knowing we can expand our Fridley operations to support this growth. • McGlynn's intends to retain ownership of this site for future expansion. We need the flexibility to construct the type of operation that best supports the business growth. We had such flexibility at our sites in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen where we expanded our facilities, created hundreds of new jobs, and provided increased tax revenues for these communities. We have a track record of growth, facility construction and expansion, job creation and propern'� ownership. • The City and McGlynn's have worked extremely well together and, in fact, entered into a redevelopment agreement in 1992. We have been forlunate, and have been able to keep our promises to Fridley and grow our business. We now have SQO Fridley-based employees earning Sixteen Million ($16,Qa0,000) Dollars annually. Currendy, we pay $241,031 in annuai real estate taxes which nets to $169,766 after subtracting tax-increment assistance. In our view, it has been a mutually beneficial relationship which illustrates what good municipal and corporate leadership can accomplish. • Changing the zoning on our site works against the spirit created with the redevelopment agreement and it punishes a good corporate citizen. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Ciry leave our zoning unchanged. A change to M-4 zoning would be seriously disadvantageous to our business and create no significant advantage to anyone else. We look forward to your decision in our favor on May 7`''. Very truiy yours, � � John R. Prichard Chief Operating Of�cer JRP/bb �"� o� � i/acant Cor�rnercial and Industrial Property In�entory Property lnformation 7� : Ownere Commercial Property Investmen� 2685 Long Lake Road Roseville, MN 55113 P! N: 22-30-24-11-0008,0007,0006 ,� ea: See Map Above Market Value: $146,200; 164,600; 150,000 (1995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy industria 18.13 , N 38� lfacant Commercial and Industriai Pro ert p y Invento PPOper�y Information �,,�,� .��,� Uwner: Northco Real Estate Services 4900 Viking Drive Edina, MN 55435 Dennis Zylla: 820-1650 P�N: 11=30-24-31-0010 '` �ea: 95,832 Sq. Ft./2.2 Ac. Market Value: $'! 43,700 (� 9g5) Zoning: M-2, Heavy industriai 18.07 __ N 2, •k _ � Vacant Cammercia� and Industrial Property Inventory � Property Information 'rk.. �,i�% Ownere Anderson Trucking Co. 203 Cooper Ave P.O. Box 137� � St. Cloud, MN 56301 P i N: 12-30-24 21-002 8 �rea: 166,089 Sq. Ft./3.81 Ac. iviarket Value: $211,800- (1995) Zoning: M-1, Light Industriai 18.12 N ?� e \/acant Commerc�ai anci Inc�ustrial Property Inventor-y� Property information � �'�'y Owner: McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. 7350 Commerce Lane Fridley, MN 55432 John Prichard: 574-2222 P 1 N: 10-30-24-14-0058 & 11-30-24-23-0025 " rea : 177, 790 Sq. F#./6.3 Ac. . � N IVlarket Value: $262,400 ('1995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy lndustriai 18,08 19 � � �/'acant Cor�r�ercial and Industria! Propert.y Inventory ,,�--� � Property info�-mation w��,l � - �� i Owner: RRI Inc. 820 38th Lane Anoka, MN 55303 42 � -6046 P i N : 3-30-24-13-0016 �rea: 71,000 Sq. Ft./1.63 Ac. ivlarket Value: $71,000 (1995) Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial 18,� 1 N Property has r � access. „ _.v ��car�t Commercial anc! Industrial Pro er-t Invent p Y or°Y Property Information ��d r����--� Owner: Fridley Cheverolet Geo 1578 �Jniversi#y Avenue St. Paul, MN �55104 � PlN: 12-30-24-21-0005 /' Mea: 139,400 Sq. Ft./3.2 Ac. Market Value: $124,400 ('! 99�� Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial yg,yp N Za � �i t?. rcr �i'acani Commercial and Industrial Proper�/ �nvent�ry � Properiy lnformation � •,,u.�:�_ '�� Owner: Kurt Manufacturing 5280 Main Street Fridley, MN 55432 St. Pau(, MN 55101 P I N : 12-30-24-21-0007 ,!`.�ea: 251,700 Sq. Ft./5.77 Ac. ,��arket Value: $224,100 {19a�` Zoning: 11�-1, Light lndus#rial 18.09 � 25 � DATE: May 2, 1997 N�EMORA.NDUM PLANNING DIVISION � TO: Plar�ning Commission Members FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator RE: 1997 Citizen Survey INTRODUCTION � City Manager, Bill Burns has begun to assemble his 'l997 Citize� S�tnrey. -Mr. Bums has asked for the assistarace of the Planning Commission. The information sought at this �ime is issue information. For exarr�ple, issues such as: �ompr�her�sive Planning, C�e €�#oFCe�e�t, and �Ueig�ibor�c�od Plannirig, etc. may be of interest to you and therefore, you may recommend that #he Ciiy Manager consider these as issue areas for this years survey. It is an#icipa#ed that the dra# survey will be rer�iewed by �the City Councc�ll at their July 24, conference meeting, with a final draft ready for the Aug�st 18, 1997, City Council conference meeting. The survey will be conducted in September, 1997, with results available for distribution in November, 1997. I have included the '1995 Citizen Sunrey to give you a sense of issues covered by that survey. Your review and input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. n DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Mn 55416 CITY OF FRIDLEY December, 1995 FINAL VERSION � � of Decision Resources, Ltd., a�olling Hello, I m firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the +City of Fridley to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the ca�►unity. This sur�rep is being conductefl because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and future city needs. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidentyal; o�1y s�unaries of the er3ti�e ��le will be reported. � I would like to begin by reading some statements about the pro- grams offered by the Fridley Recreation Department and �the Springbrook Nature Center. Based upon what you know or have heard, please teli me�whether you strongly agree, agree, dis- agree, or strongly disagree with each statement. If you don't know just say so__.. '� 1. The programs sponsored at tne Springbrook Nature Center are interesting and educational. 2. The City of Fridley offers a sufficient variety of programs for seniors_ 3. The summer piayground p�ograms offered in the�City are well rune 4. The adult spo�s 3eagues (i.�. softball and basketball) spon- sored by the City are weil-run. 5. The youth sports 3eagues spon- sored by vario�s youth sports associations are well ruri. 6. The City off�.rs a s�ffiEient variety of recr�ational progragns for all ages. 7. The fees for recreation progr�s and services in Fridley are reasonable. 8. The Fridley Recreation Department provides timely and complete in- formation about its programs and registration procedures. 9. Overall, I am satisfied with the recreation programs and activities that are available in Fridley. S`I'A AGR DIS STD DKR 18% 530 20 la 27a 90 420 3.3 % 42 0 10% 37% 12� 44� 18g 58% 13% 60% 18°s 60% i�s 67�5 30 �0 440 2�. l0 420 1% 3% �1% 2°s Os 41% 4% 1% 19� 4°s 1% 23 a &0 1% 16% 4% 1% 11% I would like you to consider the City water and sewer systems, streets, and parks. Based upon what you knaw or have heard, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or ^ strongly disagree_ If you don't have an opinion just say so... � r � '+ ' ' STA AGR DIS STD DKR 10. I have had no problem with the water pressure in the City of � Fridley during the past twelve months. 22� 63°s 9°s 4� 2s 11. Fridley�s drinking water is free from discoloration or sediment. lls 55% 23% 9� 2� 12. The City�s sewer system is free from problems that cause sewer backups. 13� 60% 9� 3g 15% 13. When there is a sewer backup in Fridley, City employees resolve the problem quickly. 6% 47% 4% 2°s 42s 14. Pavement markings on City streets ti.e. center iines, crosswalks, and turning arrows) are easy to see. 130 700 120 3s 3s 15. Stop signs, speed limit �igns, and other �raffic signs are well maintained and easy to see. 170 770 4a 1s 1°s 16. Street name signs are well main- tained and easy to see. 18a 77% 4a po lg 17. The City streets are in good condition. 130 &8% 140 40 1% 18. The Street Department crews do a good job of pothoie patching_ 13°s 64� 160 40 20 19. The Street Department crews do a good j ob of snow and ice removal ;^� on City streets. 190 690 l00 3s is 20. The City�s medians and boulevards are well maintained. 12% 78% 5% ls 40 21. The mowing of grass in City parks has been satisfactory. 13% 730 3% Oa lla 22. City parks are kept free of cans, glass, trash and litter. 14a 68% 7% 1% iis 23- There are enough pichic facilities in City parks . 12°s 67°s 7% is 13 0 24- There is sufficient amount of children�s play equipment i.ri city parks. 10% 63% 7% 1� 19% 25. There is enough parking ava.ilable for those using City parks. 10% 680 9% 2� 11% 25. The Springbrook Nature Center trails are in good condition. 9� 600 30 0% 28a 27. Athletic fields in City parks are in good playing condition, il°s 62s 3� 0% 240 28. The play equipment in City parics is kept in good operating condition. 8% 68°s 3°s 1� 21% I would like to continue your evaluation of• City services by reading severai other statements�about programs administered by the Fridley Community Development Department. � � STA AGR DiS �TD DKR �..� 29. If I have a problem with high weeds or trash in my neighborhood, I can count on the City to correct the problem. 9� 54� 7� 2� 29� 3�. If someone is using his/he� pro- perty for purposes not allowed by zoning laws, the City responds• effectiveiy to those who vaice complaints. 7� 46� S� �� 40� 31. The City's building inspectors perform capably and reliably in enforcing city and state building codes. 70 48% 5s l0 380 32. The City's recycling hauler has been reliable in picking up my recyclab�e mat�riais. 260 64% 3o Oo 60 33. The City's program broch�res and other advertising about the City's recycling program have helped keep me well infonned. 26 0 64 0 5 a 0 0 5 0 Next, I wouid like t:o read you some statements about Fridley's public safety issues. Based upon what you know or have heard, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each statements. � � STA �iGR DIS S�`D Di�R 34. Fridley police off�cers are courteous in their handli.ng of peo�le. 20g 61� 35e Fridley police respond in good time to requests for eneergency service. 22°s 53 0 36. I am satisfied. with the se�cvices of the Fridley PoliGe Department. 25�C 65% 37. The City's firefighters respond very quickly to emergencies. iB�C 50�5 38. Our firefighters are very effective in handling emergencies. 18� 48� 39. I am satisfied with the services of the Fridley Fire Deparrment. 21� 61% 5°s 1% ��°s 3% 3% 2� 1% 1% �°� �1% l� 6g 1°s 29� 1% 31% is 17% Moving on...... 40. Have you or other members of your YES ...................26% family called 911 during the past NO ....................72� twelve months? DOAT'T KNOW/REFUSED..._.2°s [t3 4�• Since you have lived in Fridley, INCREASED..._.._. do you feel that crime in your DECREASED....,,, :::::36� neighborhood has increased de- �a creased or remained about the O�T KNOW REFU�BED....52$ � same? 42. Do you feel the amount of police INCREASED .............35°s patrolling in your neighborhood DECREASED.......... should be increased, decreased, or REMAIN ABpUT SAME,___.��.°�� remain about the same? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3s 0 43. Do you think speed limit enforce- INCREASED .............19� ment in your neighborhood should DECREASED ..............50 be increased, decreased, or remain REMAIN ABOUT SAME.._..74s about the same? DON�T KNOW/REFUSED._...lo The Fridley Police Department has initiated a park safety program using bicycle patrol and community service officers. � 44. Have you or members of your house- YES ...................54% hold observed them in City parks? NO_...._.._.. •••-.....440 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....20 45. To what extent do you feel that GREAT DEAL.._......_._160 the use of these police personnel SOMEWHAT ..............460 has improved the safe�y of City VERY LITTLE..._... parks -- great deal, somewhat NOT AT ALL,._. "•--9� very little, or not at all? � DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....270 The City is also interested in how you feel about its responsive- ness to your inquiries and complaints. After I read you the following statements, please tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. If you don't know, just say so...... STA AGR DIS STD DKR 46. The City responds promptly to citizen inquiries and co�nplaints. 10� 58s 7� 2% 23� 47. If and when I want to, I feel as though I can have a say about the way our City officials are running things. 90 63a 14a 50 l00 48• How would you rate the spending of EXCELLENT .............100 your tax money by the City of GOOD. .64� Fridley excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR.. .140 fair or poor? POOR ...................6% DON'T IQVOW/REFUSED.....50 4 � � � � ,� IF "ONLY FAIR° OR "POOR,p ASK_ 49. How should taxpayer's money be spent differently? {N=1oo� � NO ANSWTsR, 23%; TAX I,ESS, 11�; LESS ON PARK & RBC, 9°s; 011iLY ESSENTI�Lv�', 2��; WATCH DEVELOPN�NT, 8%; IMPROVE ROADS, 7�5; MORE POLICE, 12%; MORE OIJ SCHOOLS, 5%; SCATTEitED RES PONSES , 3°a _ ' 50. Hpw has taxpayer's mone.y been u�ed �oorly? [�at=1��] NO ANSWER, 43°s; OVERTAX, 15s; STREETS, 12°s; REDEVELOPMENT, 14%; SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, 50; SOCIAL CONCERNS, 40; NOT ON POLICE, 40; OTHER, 3°s. In addition to asking about eity services, I would like to ask you some questions about your neighborhood. Please tell for each of the following items, wheth�r you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or no� at all satisfied. If you feel the statement do�s not apply to your neighborhood or you don�t know, just say so...._ 52. The condition and appearance of single family housing in your neighborhood. 53. The condition and appearance of duplexes in your neighborhood. 54. The condition and appearari�e of apartment buildings in your neighborhood. S5. The condition and appearance t�f your home. 56. The safety of your home_ 57. Your neighborhood is a safe place to live. 58. The availability of parks and recreational areas. 59. Your confidence in the future of your neighborhood as a good place to live. 60. Access and availability to bikeways and walkways. 61. Access to bus routes. 62. Neighborhood street lighting. VSAT SSAT NTOO NALL DKR 38°s 50% 3.00 3So 13% 43% S8°s �7% �2% 42% �2� 52°s 40� 54% 37°s 52°s 4% Oo 8% 6% 0 7 °� 3 •°s 4� 40 3% b °s 25a 57°s 9 0 27% 51% 5% 22� 5&°s 13% 3% 43% 4a 33% lo lo 1% lo 1s 1% l� 2% 3� 2% 3% 6% 3°s 15% 70 2% Consolidation of governmental serv:ices has been a topic in the State legislature for a couple of years. Some policy makers feel that several cities eould work together or cities and counties could combine certain departments, such as police, public works and fire, to create larger, more cost effective and efficient operations. Others argue that bigger is not necessarily better 3 � .� � , and may produce cost in terms of quality of services and lack of responsiveness. 63. Do you favor or oppose the con- FAVOR/STRONGLY...... ^ solidation of public services with FAVOR........_. •-10� neighboring cities? {WAIT FOR A OPPOSE...... � 22�5 RESPONSE) Do you feel stron 1 ������� "'27s that way? g �' ���SE/STRONGLY...._..30% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..._11°s There have also been discussions among policy makers about the desirability of neighboring cities combining into one legal entity and dividing senrices to residents within the combined area. 64. Would you favor or oppose the con- FAVOR/STRONGLY....._ solidation of Fridley with Colum- FAVOR........._ 9� bia Heights and Spring Lake Park? OPPOSE..._........ 24° {WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel OPPOSEJSTRONGLY_......280 strongly that way? � DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...._9a A number of area communities have adopted ordinances requiring comprehensive housing inspections prior to the sale of residen- tial property. In some instances, the city requires correction of code-related deficiencies before property is sold. 65. Should the City of Fridley require YES .................. point of sale housing i.nspections? NO ....................280 DON'T KNOW�REFUSED.....70 IF °YES," ASK: � 66. Should the City require that YES.. _ggo code-related deficiencies be NO.. � ��� � ����� � ,g� corrected prior to the sale DON'T.KNOW/REFUSED.....20 of residential property? [N=335] Over the last three years, Fridley has joined Columbia Heights, Hilltop, and Anoka County in supporting a comomunity values.pro- gram. 67• Are you familiar with the seven YES. .250 core values that this program has NO. �� ��� ��� ��.75a sought to promote? DON�T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% The City began holding evening hours in October of this year between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday nights. 68. Were you aware that City offices YES ...................28% were open during this time? Np.._..._..._. . �lo DON'T RNOW/REFUSED.....i% � � IF "YES,„ ASK: 69. Have you used City Hall ser- YES .................. 20� � vices during these hours? NO ....................50� [N=138] �ON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% TF "NO° IN #68, ASK: 70. Do you foresee that you wili YES ...................38% take advar�tage of these ex- NO ....................560 tended hours? [N=365] DON'T KNOW/RBFUSID.....5� The City of Fridley recently condueted a city-wide clean-up program. Please tell me if your household participated in any of the following clean-up week activities. 71. Placement of brush at th� curbside? 72. Placement of refuse at the curbside? 73. Transportation of materials to the city's central drop-off point at Columbia Arena? 74. Have appliances picked up? 75. Have used furniture picked up? 76. Dispose of junk cars? YBS NO DKR �l� 390 Oo 510 48% 1% 38a 190 170 8% 0 s2o 810 83 a 910 0% 0 0% 0 1% 0 i% a Financial constraints require that future clean-up week aetivi- � ties be scaied back. On a scale of 1 t� 3, with 1 being defi- nitely keep and 3 being definitely get ri.d of, please te11 me which of the foilowing elean-up wee:c activities you �aoulc�. keep_ ,�"'� 77. Curbside brush picit-up? 78. Curbside refuse pick-up? . 79. Availability of a central dxop-o�f point for lumber, concrete, tires, scrap metal, etc? 80. Curbside appliance pick-up? 81. Curbside furniture pick-up? 82. Disposal of junk cars? 97% 12% 7% 4% 75°s- 14% �� 4% 70% 39� 8% 4% 50°s 27g 19% 5% 46� 26% 23% 4% 32% 24� 37% b% 83. How would you �rove the City's clean-up week program? NO ANSWER, 42°s; NOTHING N$BDED, 21%; N!C?RE OF'�'SN, 6�5; DO A GREAT JOB, 12%; DID NOT PARTICIPATE, 20; LONGER HOURS - MORE ON WEEKEND, 2%; TAKE HAZARDOIIS WASTE, 2%; BETTPR ORGANIZED, 3%; BRUSH PICK-UP, 2�5; NEED MORE INFORMATION, 5%; TAKE MORE ITEMS, 2°s; SCATTERED, 20. 7 84. How much more in addi�ional pro- perty taxes would you be willing to pay a year to support the cost of clean-up week? (SELECT A R.AN- DOM STARTING POINT) Would you support $ per year. (DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) What about $ per year. NOTHING ...............23� $2.50 .................18g $5.00 .................20a $7.50 ..................&g $10.00 ................lOg $12.50 .................0-°s $15.00 .................8% DON'T KNOW...__....._.14a REFUSED ................l°s The City of Fridley has maintained a standard for street lighting that generally limits the placement of street lights to one every 1,200 feet. 85. Knowing that an additional street light costs about $400 per year to operate, would you favor the adoption of a new street lighting policy that reduces the c�°istance between street lights? FAVOR._....--•---•--..47°s OPPOSE.---------•.....47°s DON'T KNOWfREFUSED___..60 86. Do you feel that additional street YES ...................390 lighting is needed on your street? NO ....................600 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED._.._lo �7. Would you be willing to pay an YES ...................48a additionai $4 to $5 per year in NO ....................490 property taxes to support addi- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED._...20 tional street lighting? The City of Fridley has been spending about $500,�00 per year for an annual street reconstruction program, whereby residential . streets are systematically upgraded. As part of this program, asphalt curbs and gutters have been replaced wi.th concrete curbs and gutters. Only the cost of the curbs and gutters has been assessed to property owners. The remainder of the cost has been paid for from the city and state funds. - 88. Has the street in front of your YES ...:...............38°s property been upgraded in the last NO ......... .... .54% four years? DON'T IQJOW/REFIISED.....8% IF "YES," ASR: 89. Were you satisfied with the YES ...................910 quality of the work? NO .....................90 [N=191] DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "NO," ASK: 90. How could the quality of the work been improved? [N=17] NO ANSWER, 6$; BETTER MATERIALS, 65%; KEEP ON SCHEDULE, 6�5; SMOOTHER SURFACE, 23°s. : � � � .` 91. Do you think it is a good idea YES ...................77% that the City continues to spend NO_.._._. ..............15% about $500,000 to $&OO,D00 per DON�T RNOW/REFUSED.....8� � year of your tax dollars to up- grade residential streets? � �'�1 The City of Fridley is considering building a community activity center that meets the needs of seniors, teenagers, families and people of all ages. 92. Do you feel that Fridley needs a YES ......... .........62% community activity center that NO ....................29% meets the needs of all age groups? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...._90 IF "NO," ASK: 93. Do yau fazror or oppose the FAVOR .................350 construction of separate fac- OPPOSE ................77% ilities for seniors?-� DON' T I{NO�1/REFUSED _.... 8 0 [N=147] 94. How much wouid you be willing to pay in additional property tax a month to fund the construction and operation of a multi-purpose community activity center? (SELECT A RANDOM STARTING POINT) Would you support $ per year. tDEPENDING ON RESPONSE) What about $ per year. 95. How much wouid you be wiiling to pay �.n additional property taxes to fund the construction and oper- ation of a Fridley senior center? (SELECT A RANDOM STARTING POINT) would.you support $ per year. (DEPENDING ON RESPONSS) What about $ per year. NOTHING ...............390 $2.00..-•--•-•----....lSo �4-00-----------•-----100 $6_00 ..................80 $8.00------------------4% $10_00 ................12a DON'T KNOW._..........12a REFUSED ................lo �TOZ'HING ...............42� $2.00 .................14% $4.00..------..........11% $6.00 ..................9% $$.00 .................:2% $1U.00. .,.---......7� DON'T IINOW.._.........13% REFiJSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1°s I will now read you a list of facilities that could be included in a multi-purpose community center. Even if you do not feel a center is needed, for each one, please tell me whether it is very important, somewhat important, not too important or not at all i.mportant to be included in a community center. � FI� Additional youth and grams� An indoor Community gymnasium space for adult recreation pro- swimming pool? meeting rooms? � VIM SIM NTO NAL DKR 19% 43a 20% 14°s 5 0 13s 39% 26% 18% 3% 10°s 52% 18 0 16% 3% 99. Community facilities for banquets and receptions? 100. A drop-in teen center? 101. Congregate dining facilities for seniors? 102. Arts and crafts rooms for seniors? 103. An indoor running track? 104. Rooms for aerobics classes and dance instruction? 105. An equipped exercise area? 106. Weight lifting facilities? VIM SIM NTO NAL DKR 8% 43� 25� 20� 4� 24% 51% 10% 11$ 4% 17% 52°s 13�5 13% 6% 13s 54s 14s 14% 4% 8°s 35°s 28% 25�5 3% 9% 360 27� 23� 5a 9°s 38� 26% 23� 4� 7% 33°c 28% 28$ 4% The City of Fridley has operated municipal liquor stores since 1949. The theory behind the municipal operation of liquor stores is that it helps to better control the sale of liquor from the point of view of location and sales of product to minors. The liquor operations also provide a steady source of revenue that may be used as a source of funding for local government opera- tions. Currently, the City has two stores. One is on Highway 65 near East Moore Lake Drive, and the other at the Holly Center on Mississippi Street_ Aithough our stores have varied in degree of profitability from one year to the next, they have generally been profitable. 107. Should the City remain in the YES ...................690 liquor business? NO ....................24� DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....70 108. Have you or members of your house- YES ...................55% hold shopped at the Fridley Liquor NO ....................45% Stores this year? DON'T RNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASR: 109. Are there any improvements to our liquor operations that you feel would add to the convenience and attrac- tiveness of our stores? (IF "YES":) What would they be? jN=274] NO ANSWER, 9%;' NONB, 72a; 1�RE SELSCTION, 7%; BETTER LIGIiTING, 2�; TOO SMAI,L, 3%; TOO PRICEY, 2 •°s ; POOR LOCATION, 5 •°s . IF AN IMPROVEMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: 110. Why do you feel that way? [N=54) NO ANSWER, 2%; NIORE SELECTIOAT NEEDED, 35%; PLACE TOO SMALL FOR INVENTORY, 17%; PLACE HARD TO FIND, 19%; PRICES TOO HIGH, i8%; POOR LOCATION, 6%. The City of Fridley operates the Springbrook Nature Center seven days a week. 10 � � G� n .� � or members of your house- YES.---------•••-••-•-24� lil. Have you _.._,_76� hold participated �.n any Spring- NO .............. � brook Nature Center programs this DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O�S year? IF "YES, ° ASIC: 112. what programs did you attend? [N=120] NO ANSWER, 15�; HIKING - WALKING, 22s; HALLC)WEEN P�(��. 36°s ; SE�: �TIMAI�S ,�43s ; CHIi,D�EN' S PRQGR��+�15 . 14�5; TOUR, 11%: CLASSES, 5%; SCATTERED, 3%_ 113. Have you or members of your house- YES ...................39s hold used the Springbrook Nature NO ....................610 Center hiking trails this year? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..._.0% IF "YES," ASK: ¢ 114. How often have you used them this year -- daily, severai times a week, wee}cly, several times a month, monthly, quar- terly, or less often? [N=19&] DAILY ..................2% SEVSRAL TIMES A WEEK...5o WEERLY._.....__.__ � ...__So SEVER.AL TIMES A MONTH.22o MONTHLY ...............180 QUARTERLY .............27% LESS OFTEN._.._...._..170 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....lo �"'1 The Fridley Housing and Redev�lopme�t Authority t�) has spon- sored a variety of redev�lopment projects including the redevel- opment of �he area located in the southwest quadrant of the Una.versity AvenueJMissis�?.p�i S�reet intersection. We are also working toward the improve�r►ent of single family housing and apartment units in the Hyde Park area of Fridley. Additionally, we are providing three different types of rehabilitation loans for single family homeowners throughout Friday, and have acquired about a dozen �3.ighted pr�perti�s t'hrs��.gh a scatt�:red site acc�ui- sition program. � As we look toward future redevelopment, we would like to know your feelings about housing needs in Fridley. I will read you a list of possible developments; for each one, please tell me there is a ma.jor need, a minor need or no need at all for that type of development. 115. Singie family homes? 116. Owner-occupied townhomes? 1i7. Owner-occupied condominiums? 118. Two and three bed.room apartment buildings? 119. One and two bedrobm apart�ent build- ings for seniors? 11 MA�T 33% 25°s 22� 28°s 45% MIN NON DKR 44% 50°s 46% 350 36% 160 8� 0 19% 6s 250 7% 31% 7� 0 12 %0 7 0 120. One story, owner occupied townhomes for seniors? MA.T MIN NON � , DKR � 41� 38a 12�5 g� Under state law, the Fridley HRA may levy a small property tax to support its redevelopment program. 121. Would you be willing to pay an additional $4 to $5 per year in property taxes to support these programs? YES ...................55% NO....................38°s DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....7� 122. Are you or members of your house- YES...___._ hold considerin movin from " ��-----•-260 3 g your NO ....................73s current residence? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED._.._lo IF °YES," ASK: { 123. Would you consider buying YES ...................71°s newly constructed residential NO ....................280 property in Fridley if it met DON'T KNOW/REFUSED_....la your needs? [N=129] There has been some discussion about requiring all property owners that have gravel driveways in Fridley to construct hard surface driveways. 124. If property owners were given three or four years to improve their driveways, would you favor or oppose imposing this as a City requirement? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? FAVOR/STRONGLY........17°s FAVOR.. . .............380 OPPOSE ................16°s OPPOSE/STRONGLY..._...200 DOAT'T KNOW/REFUSED....l00 Currently, the City has to demonstrate that a vehicle is unli- censed or inoperable before it may be removed from residential property. The City is also required to give the owner up to 20 days to remove the vehicle before the City can remove it. By contrast, the City of Minneapolis will tag and remove vehicles from private property with only three days� notice. 125. Would you favor or oppose changing FAVOR .................62% our ordinance in a manner that OPPOSE ................35s allows the City Code enforcement DON�T KNOW/REFUSED.....30 officer or police to remove junk vehicles with three days� notice? IF "NO, " ASIC; 12 �"'� � ti� 126. Would you leave our ordinance LEAVE THE WAY IT-IS...76� the way it is or adopt a new ADOPT LESS SEVERE___..22� notice provision that is less DON'T KNOW/REFUSEfl_....2� � severe than the provisions in Minneapolis? iN=17b] The City of Fridley Police Department began °Project Safety Net" during the summer and fall of 1995. This program has two major elements, a"drop-off" center for curfew violators, and a weekend "drop-in" center for supervised but mainly unstructured teen socializing. 127. Do you believe that our poiice de- YES___________________900 partment should strictly enforce a NO ...................:.70 uniform curfew ordinance? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED_____3°s 128. Do you believe that the City YES ...................620 should dedicate the resources ne- NO ....................34% cessary to provide couns�lors and DON'T KNOW/REFUSED._...40 space for teenagers who have been picked up for curfew violations? 129. Do you believe it is a good idea YES ...................820 for the City to support a super- NO ....................15% vised teen drop-in center on at D�N'T KNOW/REFUSED.._..2% least one weekend night? A rec�nt study indicates that residents may save about $3.00 per � month on the cost o€ refuse collection if the City were to change from a free enterprise system, �vhere there are multiple ha�lers, to an organized collection system, where there i.s one hauler for the entire city. 130. If there are long-term savings from a single hauler system, would you support or oppose a change from our current system where res- idents may choose from a variety of haulers to a system where the city chooses one hauler for the whole city? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? IF "YES, " ASIC: � 13 SIIPPORT/STRONGLY......19% SIIPPORT ...............20� OPPOSE. ...a....------27% OPPOSg/STROPTGLY.......210 DON' T ICNOW/REFUSID . . . .13 % 131. About how much money per � month would you need to save before you would be willing to make this change? (SELECT A RANDOM STARTING POINT) How about $ per year? (DEPEND- ING ON RESPONSE) How about $ per year? [N=196] On another topic.._..__ NOTHING ADDITIONAL/ CHANGE FOR FREE..15% $2.00 .................17°s $4.00 .................31is $6.00 .................15� $8.00 ..................3% $10.00 .................7°s $12.00-----------------4% NO AMOUN'I'f NEVER CHANGE . 2°s DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8� 132. Do you receive and read the °Frid- YES ...................880 ley F'ocus" on a weekly basis? NO ....................12°s DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....lo 133. How often do you watch Fridley FREQUENTLY .............40 City Council meetings on �able OCCASIONALLY._.__..__.11o television -- frequently, occa- RARELY ................24% sionally, rarely or not at all? NOT AT ALL..........._600 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED._...lo 134. How often do you watch cable FREQUENTLY .............30 television programming found on OCCASIONALLY..._......130 the Public Access channel, ETC RARgLy .............. 200 Channel 33? NOT AT ALL..__....._..62s DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....20 A growing number�of local governments are using on-line computer services (the Internet) to establish a city "Home Page_" This "Home Page" serves as a community bulletin board and also provides citizens the opportunity to communicate directly with local officials through electronic mail. 135. Do you have a personal computer and mod.em that would allow you access to the Internet? YES ...................29s NO........ ..........71% DON'T KNOW/REFUSID.....Oo 136. If a Fridley "H�ne Page° were VERY LIRELY...........10% available on the Internet, how SON�WHAT LIRELY.......14% likely would you be to use it -- NOT T00 LIRELY.._.....19% very likely, somewhat likely, not NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....440 too likely, or not at all likely? DON�T KNOW/REFUSED....120 Now, for demographic purposes only...... 137. Approximately how many years have you lived in Fridley? 14 LESS TFiAN TWO YEAR.S ...14 0 THREE TO FIVE YEARS...17% SIX TO TEN YEARS......15°s ELEVEN TO TWENTY YEARSI7% 21 TO THIRTY YEARS....17°s OVER THIRTY YEARS.....20a DON'T KNOWfREFUSED.....0% .� � �"'� � ro � � �� 138. Do you own or rent your present residence? �� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % l.� RE1V`T ............. .....29% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED._.__0°s 139. Would you please tell me what your 18-24 ..................6�s age is? (READ THE FOE,LOWING CATE- 25-34 .................17� GORIES) 35-44_.--••-•----•--..22°s 45-54......-•---.._...20% 55-64._._..---•----...170 65 AND OVER........_._18% REFUSED ................0% 140. What is �our occupation and the occupation of your spouse or partner, if applicable? PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 17°s; OWNER-MANAGER, 19%; CLERICAL- SALES, 15%; BLUE COLLAR, Zlis; RETIRED, 2Qo; OTHER, 80. 141. How many peopl2 under the-ag� of NON� ...................550 18 live in your household? ONE ...................14a TWO ...................130 THREE t�R MOR�....____..So 142. How many people between the ages NONE ..................15% of 18-64 live in your household? ONE ...................230 ' I't�T 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 °s THREE OR M�R�_.._.._..13°s 143. How many people 65 years of age or older live in your household? 344. How often do you vote in local city or school elections -- al- ways, often, sometimes, rarely, or not at all? NONE ..................760 ONE ...................140 TWO ...................100 ALWAYS ................43% OFTEN .............. .280 SOMETINIES .............120 RAR.ELY .................7a NOT AT ALL.........._.11a DON'T RNOW/RBFLTSED.....Oo Now for the last question, please keep in mind�your answers are strictly confidential..... 145. Which of the following categories includes your annual pre-tax household income? Please stop me when I read the right one. 146. Gender (BY OBSERUATION) 15 UNDER $25,00..........130 $25,000-$35,000.......180 $35,001-$50,000.......24� $50,001-$75,000......_14•°s OVER $75,000..........100 DON'T KNOW .............30 REFIJSFsD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 % MALE ..................49% FEMALE ................51% 147. Area of City (FROM LIST) ,� � W�1RD 1 PRECINCT 1......9$ WAR1� 1 PRECINCT 2.....lOg i�1ARD 1 PRECINCT 3.,.,._g� WARD 1 PRECINCT 4......$$ WARD 2 PRfiCINCT 1......8� i�1ARD 2 PRECINCT 2......7-°s WARD 2 PRECINCT 3.....10� T�1ARD 2 PRECINCT 4....._9$ WARD 3 PRECINCT 1..,...gs k1ARD 3 PRECINCT 2.....10°s W�1RD 3 PRECINCT 3......6g WARD 3 PRECINCT 4. . . , „'7� A �"'1 � � ,� ,- � .r� � � � � DEVE�LOPMENT DIRECTOR DATEa May 2, 1997 TO: Planning Cort�mission MerCtibers FROM: Barbara Dacy, Commun'rty Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator M�chele McPherson, PJanning Assistant SUBJECT: Telecommunications Ordinance Update; Answers to Question� from March 19, 1996 Planni�g Corrami�sion ,...� Mee�ing To follow are r�spc�rt��s tQ #he C�mmi�,sion'� �t�uas :regardir-rg #ele�orr-�r-�u�ric:a�tion facilities. . C2UESTIONS & ANSWERS Questiono Might it be possible to have one pole cover #he entire City? Answer: No. The number of towers and antenna arrays are dependent on consumer demand plus its loc:ation in relation to providing adequate "coverage". .Eaah "cell site° or tower site can provide service up to a certain amount of demand. Further, the cell site must be located so that �t can pass off the frequency to another cell site within a°line of sight� radius. When demand increases (people using more phones or wireless fax or paging services), additional antennae are needed. The industry is defining `�uvireless developmen#" in three phases. TMe first phase started 12-15 years ago with the first cellular antennae on top of the tallest buildings (IDS Tower) or tallest natural features. A small number of towers were needed because demand was fow and the towers '� were tall and could "see" one another. The �econd phase began 7-8 years ago. The cellular tower near the Wickes Fum�ture store is an Telecommunications Update May 2, 1997 Page 2 example of the "capacity" stage. Demand has increased drastically and additional antennae are necessary to provide coverage. The current tower construction occurring in the metro area exemplifies the capacity stage which is expected to continue until 2005. At that point, demand is predicted to increase where 40% - 50% of customers will have wireiess services including phones at home! This is the "residential" phase. Another generation of towers will need to be located to accommodate this demand. These towers will be about as tall as telephone poles. , Question: What leverage do we have under site specific not to have six towers on every site? � �. a. � Answer: After Planning Commission review, staff recommended to the City Council that the City pursue a"site specific, municipa! facilities only" approach. In other words, only City owned sites are eligible. This affords the City the most control on number and location of tower or antennae. Two areas are proposed. The first area is the corridor of public land from � Community Park to Locke Park along 73`� Avenue. The second area is the well house site at East River Road and 51� Avenue and the water tower site on Matterhom Drive. The Parks & Recreation Commission will also be evaluating other larger park sites on May 5, 1997. Once sites are selected, it is proposed that neighborhood meetings around these sites will be conducted to "pre-approve" these sites thereby eliminating the possibility of these facilities being located in haphazard fashion across the City. Further, staff wants to maximize the use of water towers first prior to monopole construction. Question: Can the City restrict several providers to one brick building? Answer: Scott Hickok toured a manufacturer who constructs poles such as light poles, mono-poles, and traffic signal poles and arms. In visiting this facility, he leamed that unless the installation is cellular in nature, then the telecommunications infrastruc#ure is extremely small; no larger than an electrical junction box. Only the cellufar communication providers require large-base installations for their equipment. The City can, through its local ordinance require multiple providers to locate their equipment in one structure. Question: Is security an issue that we should be concemed about? � � Telecommunications Update May 2, 1997 Page 3 Answer: The structures which are used by the telecommunications providers are pre-fabricated at the factory and brought to #he site similar to a fish house or dropped trailer. They are therefore very secure and do not require additional fen�ing. The telecommunications consultant has recommended no fences in order to eliminate #he attractive nuisance impression. Question: Is it possible for different companies to use the same tower from a practical standpoini, and are they willing to do that? Answer: Co-locatior� is possible. Providers do not want to be "required" to co-locate with their competitors, but they will do it if incentives are offered such as shorter processing times, talier pole heights, more towers, etc. Under the approach now being contemplated, the City could solicit RFP's for providers to co-iocate on a monopole in advance and then the City would coordinate the tower construction and ieases. Question: What are the logistics of who is going to own the tower? i�1 Answer: At this time, the City is s#ill anvestigating the possibiliiy of municipally owned towers. This would elirr�inate #he competitive arJvantage of one provider over araother. Taking the example in the above answer section, the City could request one of the providers to construct the monopole in exchange for rent paymen#s, or the City could order and design the poles. NEXT STEPS Staff is currently preparing a revised schedule for adoption of a telecommunications ordinance. The issues of City ownership of towers and creating a telecommunications ufiliiy is currently being inves#igated by the City Attorney, the Charter Comrr�i�sion, the City Council, and the City Manager. Staff is in the process of drafting the Ciiy Code section and based on preliminary City Council discussion we will be scheduling neighborhood meetings regarding potential municipal sites. MM/dw M-97-216 � � Y' pLANNING COr�MISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 19 so much time to pick the sites. People are tryi to keep the regulations loose to develop and we want to c rol that, but people also pay taxes and we want to be car ul. Mr. Hickok stated, about the timing, o of the things we have to consider as we look at this is that quests that we get for industrial land have been unbeliev le. Right now it is an extremely hot market in the indu rial warehouse industry. It is quite possible with less than acres left that we could see industrial warehouse fill t remaining inventory in a very shor_t time. Mr. Saba asked how mar� requests the City was getting for manufacturing. /�� Mr. Hickok stat industrial as a whole has been a very hot market. Fri ey's industrial land has been a hotbed of activity and has be a real mix. They have seen from recent development activity at it has been warehouse, but there is some interest from f ks that are already here in expanding to other sites in manu cturing and others moving here from other areas. All of t is considered as we evaluate what is left and how we handle at is left. 3• INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TELECOMMIINICATIONS ORDINANCE Ms. McPherson stated the proposed telecommunications ordinance is a new chapter of the City code which would regulate telecommunications facilities. The Planning Commission's role is to give their opinion on the regulatory approach and to provide input into the proposed scope of the chapter. The Commission's role would also be to review special use permits related to these facilities once the City code chapter is adopted. Ms. McPherson stated, in 1996, the Federal government passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which eliminated previous regulatory "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 eliminated and we are seeing a convergence of those technologies. Telephone•companies are getting into cable, cable companies are getting into telephone, etc. The purpose of the Act was to increase competition, to reduce monopolistic opportunities and to remove as many regulatory barriers as possible. Ms. McPherson stated staff is proposing two regulatory approaches. The first is site specific. In this approacYi, the City would identify specific sites which are privately or municipally owned. � r"� n i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 1�, 1997 PAGE 20 � - Building mounted antenna arrays would be consi.dered accessory uses because they have little impact such as on the municipa� water tower. However, new towers would require a special use perm.it_ The second approach is in the limited open market approach where the sites are driven, by the mark�� and the providers. �'here 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 speci.al use permit. Ms. McPherson stated both options ha�re 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 t�e City for denial of specia3 use permits. The regulatory approach may coerce unwilling parties into expensive 3.ease 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 mi1e. On the site sp�c3fic op�ion, there is the advan�tage that t�e City ^ controls the location, number and impact of the towers. The City would acknowledge t�iat specific sites are aeceptable for tower constructian. This eould �ossibly elimi.nate the need for special �use permits if the standards we�e written sp�ei.fie�a31� enaugh. Hocaever, the providers may not like the sites the City has chosen and the land owners may not want to haee a tower constructed on their site, in which case the City would have to go back to the drawing board and pick new sites. Mr. Sielaff asked if the City would identify the sites beforehand. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the City would say these are the sites where we want towers_ The basis for determining the sites would be regulatory. We-would want-to avoid sites that were in residential districts, mini�nize sites that create large impacts to park facilities, encourage certain types of construction in commercial districts versus industrial districts. This would depend on what other types of towers were in that vicinity. Mr. Sielaff asked what �bout those things that have to do with service. We cannot determine the best location for the best service. Ms. McPherson stated they would hape that the number of sites that the City chose would provide enough choice for the provider so �they could pick one that would meet their particular needs. PLANNING CONII�lISSION MEETING MARC$ 19, 1997 PAGE 21 /"1 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 every block. ,'�1 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 disadvantageous competitive environment. We have to provide regulations that provide a level playing field for the various providers. Mr. Saba asked if the City would get into.the situation where they would have to provide utility easements. Ms. McPherson stated that is a separate but related issue. She was not sure providers would be looking for additional easements. They would probably work within the existing rights-of-way. There would be a separate and related ordinance, and probably legislation at the State level, which would regulate the cities' ability to charge utility companies for disruption of the public rights-of-way in order to maintain and repair the rights-of-way as the result of construction of these kinds of facilities. That is getting away from what the Commission feels is the best approach to recommend to the City Council in terms of how to regulate - let the open market dictate or we select sites where the towers can be built. We are talking about wireless communicatior�. The proposed City Code chapter would also include satellite dishes. There are /'�1 specific rules in the Telecommunications Act that tell the cities � PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH i9, 1997 PAGE 22 how to regulate direct broadcast services, satellite dish size, how to regulate sateliite dishes between one and two meters, and fiow to regulaie satellite dishes in excess of two meters. Those issues will be included in the proposed City Code c�apter. The Planning Commission will p�a}��bly not deai 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 anc digital antenna arrays. There are other things that are includea 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 heighL. That is also regulated somewhat by the Federal government. Mr. Kondrick stated the elevation may dictate how high the tower may have to be. Mr. Sielaff stated these are towers for a system. He has read about AT&T getting into the local phone �arket through an ar�tenna. Are we talking about that? � Ms. McPherson stated they were not talking about regulating specific proniders but talking �bout �eguiating specific facilities. They define facility as a tower, an antenna or a satellite dish. Typically, the antenna arrays on the towers are triangular in shape and have four separate antenna paneis on each side of the triangle and can be mounted on a lattice-worl� towe� or on a monopole. In.additio�, we couid have mi.crowave disi�es and other types of antenna also mounted on the same pole. We are talking�about the tower which provides su antennas or dishes and its su PPort for a variety of That whole system ties back in�ortheglandul nesuthatnalreaayture. exist. The providers like to.have duplication in case part of the system would fail or if calls that are being generated are from or to a land line telephone, so they do have to tie back into the existing land line system. That is where you get into the issue of easements and right-of-way disruption: Mr. Oquist stated, if he understands correctl to building the towers. if we identif� 17 sitesWanda e�geteZSrict requests and they do not want to share, do we then have to provide 8 more sites? Ms. McPherson stated no. The Fecleral government does allow the �hability to regulate where and how but we cannot prohibit outright. ere is a provision in the way the consultant is proposin th 9 � PLANNING CObIlKISSION MEETING MARCg 19 1997 PAGE 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 to 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 agree'ci. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the whole field is stiil 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 the City into a certain number of quadrants and pick sites in those quadrants that would then cover all portions of the City. 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 did 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 taik about this saine 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 commercial sites included as well as municipal sites such as water towers. The grid shows 3/4 mile spacing. The second map�also shows possible sites. The difference on this map is that these are all municipal properties. /�'� � � PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 �AGE 24 � Ms. McPherson stated the Cable Commission recommended to the City Council that they consider the site specific oQtion 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. T�ey w�re cc�ce�ed 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 iattice-work structures. They also rec�mznend that monopoles not be a�tached 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 o£ the facilities_ The lease �"'� area should not cause non-compliance with parking or lot coeerage of the primary use of the site. The boundary of the lease area is be located 10 feet fzom the side or rear lot line_ This 1D feet should accommodate the easements t�iat would be ioca�eci 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. TY�ey are also requiring a m:inimum of one parking stall for service vehicles_ Ms. McPherson stated she talked about the recommendation from the Cable Commission. They recommended the site specific approach and putting as many of these on munic.ipal sites as possible_ They would like to see a portion of the lease monies dedicated to their cable TV activities, if possible, and they wouid like to review the draf� of �he City code once it is written. Ms. McPherson stated the Parks and Recreation Comcnission 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 mainter�ance 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 discussions�at their meeting of March 31. The Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing regarding ^ the zoning amendment. We need to put in the zoning districts - pLANNING COMMISSION 1++�ETING MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 25 n 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 iater 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 patterns 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. r"'� 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 satellite dishes. Basically, the only thing the City code chapter will do is repeat the Federal regulations. They are very restrictive in terms of what the City can and cannot do. Ms. McPherson stated, based on the input of the providers at the Planning Commission meeting of April 16, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the City code amendment on May 5. What happens between May 5 and June 24 has not yet been determined. June 24 is the date the moratorium is currently set to expire. Mr. Kondrick stated the Cable Commission expressed interest in having the poles constructed on municipal land. How many of the 17 sites are there that are not park facilities? Ms. McPherson stated they have not specifically identified that. Municipal sites include the Commons well field which has the above ground reservoir; the Highway 65 reservoir which does not have co- location abilities; the expanded filter plant at the intersection of 73 1/2 and Highway 65; the 63rd Avenue booster station; the City garage facility; the wellhouse at Slst and East River Road; the Marian Hills water tower at Skywood Lane and Matterhorn Drive; and city hall. There is a small booster station at I-694_ In � 1 �s � PLANNING CONIrRISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 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 on the site. Mr. Kondrick stated they wouid 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 cellular instailations. 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 equi�ment because of technology going at break neck speed. What about �he 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 towaru line of site or a direct satellite approach_ The waves will be digital rather n than cellular and be different from the digital that we see .today. He sees much improvement in technology, b�t the towers should 7ast 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 could lease and create a source of revenue for the schools. Ms. McPherson 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 have to regulate that through �hat is permitted by the zoning districts. The Federal law recommends the exchange of services where a provider may provide, for example, fiber optic cable for a facility in excha�ge for leasing fees. The Federal government is encouraging other forms ot compensatio�. Mr. Sieiaff asked if the fire department would be a possible site. Ms. McPherson stated their garage may be a possible site. They do ,�have some public safety equipment there. PLANNING CON.Q�IISSION MEETING I�lARCH 19 1997 PAGE 2? ^ Mr. Kondrick stated there are three fire stat.ions and a fire training center. Ms. McPherson stated this expands 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 we 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 locations, 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-locating. If we thought it appropriate to have one or more structures, they could be in one location. We will 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 we 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 � s � PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 pAGE 2g tower is their personal decision. Mr. Kuechle stated he would dispute the heigY�t issue beeause they want to reuse frequencies. In cellular phones, too much power is as bad as to little power beca��e 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 equip�ent on the ground. r,t 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 agreeFnent 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 controi o� the buildings and could create a multi-tenant equipment spaEe. � Mr. Kondrick stated he is concerned that there could be multiple buildings or that they couid be large. Mr. Hickok stated t�ere wi�l be variab],es. �hep ��ed 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 �ave to prov.ic�e the �eight so they have the verticai separation and on the ground provide for the equipment for those three users. We can be in control of all of that. Mr. Kondrick stated, for 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 iike 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 staied 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 that_ If regulated, the provider can indicate how many square feet they wouid need_ /"1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING M�RCg 19 1997 PAGE 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 �s already an air of cooperation amongst the providers. Co-location is something 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 wi�h the fact that we may have four or five towers on each one? Ther� 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 stiil other issues that are not being discussed by the Commission tonight. Staff could come back in April, 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 that. Mr. Kondrick stated it is easy to be site specific if you are talking about municipal property. If it not municipal, there may be a greater hurdle. 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. �"1 ,''� Mr. Kuechle asked, if we have specific sites and the provider � wanted a park site, do we have to give it to them. � � PLANNING COrIl�SSION MEETING, MARCH 1g� lgg7 PAGE 30 � 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 gettinq here. �..1 Mr. Kuechle asked what are the iagistics 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 i� owned by a person who does not want to share is a difficult thing to do. We might see two other poles then. 8ut, if there is a site specific, it also has some of the questions answered like who is going to own it. Perhaps it will be a utility ownership that the providers come to and one.cannot say that the 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 given 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 can 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 . • �. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAItCg 19 1997 PAGE 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 shali 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. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend the site specific approach and that staff provide further information on concerns and provide answers to questions. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CgAlgpEggON KONDRICR DECLARED TgE MOTION CARRIED UNp�1�TIMpIISLY. 4• RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997 & ENERGY MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. S , to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality a Energy Commission meeting of February 1$, i997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING , VICE-CgAIRpERSON FCONDRICK DECLARED TgE MOTION CARRIED IMpU'SLY. 5- RECEIVE THE MEETING OF � THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORiTY 3, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Oquis , seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Housing & development Authority meeting of February 13, 1997. UPON A VOICE OTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, VICE-CgA;gpEgSON KONDRICR DECLARED T MOTION CARRIF.D UNANIMOIISLY. ADJOURN NT MOTI by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the me ing. � ,''� � � � � its residents will be able to receive satisfactory service from cellular towers located in a '� neighboring jurisdiction. So prohibiting the siting of the towers in the town may not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of the service to town residents. It is ihe "provision of the service" that inust be allowed, not the siting of the facility. � � What should the localiry cio? In addition �o exa�nining its current zoning and land use ordinances, a county or other local government should undertake the same kind of review — and revision if necessary — of the permitting and other processes that it uses to grant permission to construct cowers and similar � facilities in the community. Is there a standard, written procedure for processing siting pern�its and other approvals? Are similar services treated similarty? If there are differences in fees, processing time, bonding requirements or other regulations, are the differences reasomably related to the differences between facilities? The fallowing techniques have a[lowed variflus 1oca1 govemments to accommodate facilides and still maintain community atiracriveness and quality: Co-location Co-Iocation means that a num�r of different providers locate their transmitting facilities together in the same glace or on the same towers or mono-poles. Co-location also can indude the use of the same tower or pole for a nwnber of different kinds of telecommunications services. Although comperitors may balk, most communications towers can — and typically do — carry several transmitters of several different providers. The illustration at the right shows the range of services that can be accommodated at different heights on one tower. The television transmitring antenna, which serves ranges of 30 or more miles, needs a very tall tower — 750 to 1�0 feet is common — and is locaced on the top of that tower. Several paging service antennas occupy different locations, and FM radio, SMR and cellular transmitters occupy lower levels. A local governinent that wants to encourage co-location should keep in mind that it cannot "unreasonably discriminate" among pec�onal wireless communications service providers. To prorect a policy of co-locatian from charges of unreasonable discrimination, a local government might: • Enact the policy into an ordinance. Provide for incentives for co-location— such as a shorter processing time for applicants who want to locate on a tower that has already been approved, based on a reasonable conclusion that such a site requires less additional evaluation compared to the legitimate evaluation and review needed for a new site. • Set out in writing the application process o A COU/YTY AIYD LOCAL OfflCIALS GUIOf f0 /Hf TftfCOblbfUlYiCA!lOiYS ACT OF I996