PL 06/04/1997 - 7053.-..
\�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
(Please return to Community Development Dept.)
�
:�
%'1
- �.�.-.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997 7:30 f'.M.
LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES• May 21, 1997
�Tabled from 5/21/97 meeting) 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 SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #97-04 BY
- JIM RANDERS:
To allow construction of a 3,000 square foot addition, which would bring the total lot
cove�-age of the property to approximately 50°/a, on Lots 24 - 28, Block 1, Onava+ay,
generally located at 7839 Elm Street N.E.
INFORMATIONAL HEARING REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATION SITES
1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APP�ALS COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 23
1997
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMfSSION MEETING
OF MAY 5. 1997
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURN
�
�,
�
i��
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING Ct�SSION MEETTNG, 1�1Y 21, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
° Chairperson Savage calied the May 21, 1997, Planning Cor[�mission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle
LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff,
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Pla�ning Associate
Dan McGlynn, McGlynn Ba.keries, Inc.
�im Steilen, Popham, Haik and Lawton
Lynn Lasser, 5840 Tennison Drive N.E.
Richard Eskola, 7260 University Avenue N.E.
Dennis Zylla, Northco
APPROVAL OF APRIL 2, 1997,.PLANNTNG COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the
April 2, 1997, Fla�ning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A.VOICE VOTS, ALL VOT�TG AYE, CHAIRPERS�N SAVAGE DECL�IRED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE P�RMIT, SF
#97-03, BY THOMAS AND LYNN LASSEF2:
To allow a second accessory structure.(workshop) over.24U
square feet on Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition,
generally located at 5840 Tennison Dr'ive.N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by l+gs. Modig, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI� VOTING AYE, CIIAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE��tED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND T� PiJBLIC HEA'RING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the request is to allow a second accessory �
structure which is over 240 square feet. The proposed structure
is 16 feet x 18 feet or 288 square feet. The subject parcel is
located at 5840 Tennison Drive which is located east of Moore Lake
and south of Gardena on Tennison. The p.roperty as well as the
surrounding parcels is zoned.R-I, Single Family.
a
t •
PLANNING CON��ISSION MEETING, I�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 2
`"1
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed structure will be in the rear
yard of the subject property. Located on the subject property is
a single family rambler with a walkout to the rear yard. In
addition to the proposed accessory structure, the petitioner is
proposing to reconstruct and install a concrete patio and a new
cement driveway. The structure is proposed to be used by the
petitioner for a workshop and for additional storage of lawn
equipment and other items to give more room in the existing
garage.
Ms.�McPherson stated the structure is proposed to have siding
which is.similar to that on the dwelling. The City Code, however,
would prohibit use of this structure for.a home occupation. Staff
recommends the.Planning Commission recommend approval.of this
request with the foll.owing stipulations:
1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible
with the.existing structure.
2. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be ntilized for.a
home occupation.
Ms..Savage. asked if staff had received any calls regarding this
requests.
Ms. McPh�rson stated�no. �:The petitioner did submit a series of
signatures from adjacent property.owners. He spoke with all of
them to determine if they had any concerns. The property itself
is surrounded by a.variety of landscape matexials so it should be
well screened from the adjacent properties.
Ms. Lasser stated they have run out of room in the existing
dwelling and need room for some of the lawn eguipment.and a.lso
room for her husband to-work.other than in the garage.
Ms. Savage asked if :the petitioner had any problem with the
stipulations.
Ms. Lasser stated no.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYF, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE FUBLIC �'nRTNG CLOSID AT 7:38 P.M.
Ms. Modig stated she had no prob.�em with the request.
Mr. Kondrick agreed. He had driven by the site which has �`
�,
�
`��
PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 3
landscaping and trees. The proposed structure is a modest sized
building. As long as it is architecturally compatible, he has.no
problem with the request. �
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval
of 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., with the following stipulations:
1.
2.
The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible
with the existing structure.
The accessory structure sfiall, at no time, be utilized for a
home occupation.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request
on June 9.
2.. 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..
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig,.to waive the •
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE �OTE, ALL VOTING AYF:, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND TEE PDBLIC FlE�R'�G OPEN AT 7:40 P.M.�
Ms. McPherson stated staff received a letter faxed today from tYie
petitioner, Greenberg Farrow Architecture, on behalf of Home Depot
requesting a two-week continuance of the public hearing to allo.w
for additional new information to be gathered and to b:e made
available to the Planning Commission for presentation. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission table the p�blic hearing until.
June 4. �
MOTION by�Mr•. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table ��
consideration of Special Use Permit, SP�#9Z-02, to the meeting.of�
June 4, 1997. '
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE��iRF'n THE .
� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING CONIl��IISSION MEETING, N�iY 21, 1997 PAGE. 4 �
/"'1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZON.ING, 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 2nd 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 af 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 unplatt�d.City of Fridl.ey described as follows:..
That part.ot the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest�-
Quarter lying Easterl.y of the Westerly 600 feet and
lying Sout�erly of the Northerly 1,120 feet of�Section
12, Township 30, Range 24.
Lot 2, Block 4, Commerce Park. �.
That part of the Ss�uthwest Quarter of the Northeast�
Quarter of Section 3; Township 30, Range 24, lying
Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of the
Burlington Northern Railroad, lying Easterly of Ashton
Avenue Northeast, lying Northerly of Arnal 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 it.s
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 ^
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 5
n,
Section 22, Township 3Q, Range 24, lying Easterly of
the Northern 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 feet 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,
iying 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 corner of said
Lot 3 and there terminating.
� MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the
reading.of the public.hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION. CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC �aR'*'*�G OPEN AT 7:42 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated in recent months the Planning Commission has
reviewed and recommended �for approval, which was ultimatel•y
approved by the City Council,�language in the M-4, Manufacturing
Only, zonirig district and-also a modification to the industrial
distric�s M-1, M-2, and M-3. The intent of the M-4, Manufacturing
Only, district is to reduce.the impact.of distribution and.
warehouse facilities on residential.neighbo�hoods by control�i�g
their location. It is also to encourage clean uses, less outdoor
storage, more job opportunities, and more tax base: The following
properties are being considered for the M-4 zoning:
1. A parcel owned by Everest Properties.(a.k.a; Commercial
Properties, Inc.) is located at 61st Avenue and Main Street.
It is located across from.residential, The site would be
able to support a development with xnore than 10 docks.
2. Northco Property is located on Northco Drive which is east of �
University Avenue and south of 73rd Avenue.
� 3. Anderson Trucking is located at Osborne and Central and is
PLANNING CODIMMISSION rIl:ETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 6
lo.cated across from residentially owned property.
4. McGlynn's is a vacant site located on Commerce Lane north of
the existing McGlynn Bakeries. The site is located near
other distribution facilities. The idea is to encourage
manufacturing in an area.that already has a number of
distribution facilities.
5. R.R.I. Inc. Property is located between Ashton Avenue and the
railroad north of 79th Avenue. This property is located
� across from a public park and a residential area in near
proximity.
6. Friendly Chevrolet is located at Osborne and Central Avenue
and is located across from a residential area.
7. Kurt Manufacturing is located at Osborne and Central and is
located across from residential. The existing Kurt
Manufacturing site would.also be zoned M-4. There is an
existing and a future development site for Kurt Manufacturing
and both would be rezoned to M-4.
�
8. Coachman Com�anies is located at Osborne Road near Commeree ,�
Lane and is..located near other distribution facilities. This .
site became vacant�,in 1996 after storm damage. -
Mr. Hickok stated it is the task of�the Planning Commission to
recommend those properties they would like to see.rezoned M-4.
Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission has received
cQrrespondence from McGlynn Bakeries, Commercial�Properties Inc.�,.
and Coachman Properties. In that correspondence there.is.use of
the terms "taking" and "spot zoning".
Ms, Hickok stated taking i.s defined as: to take, to expropriate,
to acquire or to seize property without compensation. Spot zoning.
is tYie rezoning of a lot or parcel of land to benefit an owner :for
a use incompatible with the surrounding land uses and which does
not further the compre�ensive zoning plan.
Mr. Hickok stated in terms of a taking the�M-4 zoning does provide
for a wide range of industrial uses but it does not provide for
distribution warehouse. It does provide a spectrum of other�uses
that would have been allowed in the M-2 district. In terms of.the
spot zoning, this has been carefully analyzed and it has been
determined that the comprehensive plan is being.furtherec� by this
considexation for rezoning to M-4.and the eompatibility with the
surrounding land use is the essence of what the City is looking at
here and why staff determined they need to recommend that these
�,
�
�,
:�,
�
PLANNING COI�SISSION MEETING, 1+�1Y 21, 1997 PAGE 7
parcels be more coanpatible with what exists. Therefor.e, staff
feels it is appropriate. Staff recommends approva�. of the
selected sites for rezoning to M-4.
Mr. Hickok stated eight sites are being considered. Of those,
staff's recommendation is to approve seven sites. The site staff
recommends deleting from the list is the Northco site on Northco
Drive. �fter much analysis, staff determined that this site has a
street that wraps around a majority of the site. The combination
of building positioning, parking and�truck ci•rculation would cause
that to be an impossible site to accommodate a large distribution
facility with over,l0 doors. Therefore, it is recommended to
remove that site from consideration.
Ms. Savage asked, of the seven remaining sites, which are.not
adjacent to residential areas.
Mr. Hickok reviewed the properties as follows:
l. Everest Properties is located on Main Street and i,s.across
from Hyde Park residential.
2. Northcc� Property was.,initially considered because it is.in
the heart of an industrial district. It is not directl�
across the str.eet from residenti.al but in relatively near
proximity to residential. and there.are.la�ge.wareho.use
distribution facilities, including�Target, in close
proximity. It is not directly across.fro�n residential and
staff is recommending.this property be excluded.
3. Anderson Trucking has residential ta its east. There is a.
small strip of�commercial between the Anderson Tru.cking site
and the neighborhood. The primary zoning in that area on the
east side is residential; therefore, this site wa's
recammended.
4. 1�cGlynn's is across the railroad from�residential. It is not
directly across the street as some of the others. Its
consideration had to do with its proximity to other lar.ge
developed distribution and warehouse facilities in that area
and the impact of more trucks which could be.felt by that
�residential area. Osborne Road and East River �toad ar.e
obvious routes for truck traffic. East River Road is
characterized by primary residential development..
5. R.R.I. Inc. Propert
zoning. The street
industrial traffic;
opportunity between
y is across from a park and residential
design is one that is capable of handling
however, there.is very little buffer
the industrial district and the
PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, I�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 8
neighborhood to the west.
6. Friendly Chevrolet is across from re�idential on Central.
7. Kurt Manufacturing is across from residential on Central.
8. Coachman Properties is on Osborne Road in the midst of other
industrial development. Much like the McGlynn property, it
is in relatively close proximity to residential•(across the
railroad tracks). Additional truck traffic on East River
Road and Osborne Road may be ari impact felt by those
residents.
Ms. Savage stated, as she understands, Mr. Hiekok mentioned two
goals. One w'as t.he impact on residential areas and the other was �
to maximize the other �emaining•vacant land for manufacturing
uses. She asked staff to further explain that.
Mr. Hickok stated staff has a good history of what has.happened in
terms of the types of development that have occurred. Within the
last 18 to 24 months, the City has experienced a great deal of
distribution warehouse development. The impaCt to residential has
been fel�. Staff has seen an�increase in complaints about trucks
travelling through neighborhoods. On.e area of the City has had
truck traffic prohibited because of the large trucks moving
through residential streets where the.y had not been before. The
s�cond objective.is based on the fact that the remaining
industrially zoned land is relatively small. Industrial parcels
are scattered about. The City has approximately 90 acres of
industrial land left.. Staff looked at what the best potential for
that land would b� and t�he impacts. The greatest potential��for
jobs and building value is manufacturing entities om these si�es.
The City has 17 clistribution warehouse facilitie.s with 63..91 acres
under roof. Some of those have expansion opportunities. The City
has 1,148 acres of industrially zoned land with 89.79 acres .
vacant. It was at this point that the City determi.ned that it
must decide what it wants to accomplish here and, if the City �,
wants something other than what it has been seeing as a trend �n
development, it was time to analyze that and recmmmend the. M-4
zoning as the outcome.
Ms. Savage stated the properties that have objected to the
rezoning are McGTynn's, Coachman and Everest Properties. She
asked Mr. Hickok to give a response as to the reason for
recommending the McG].ynn and Coachman properties. .
Mr. Hickok stated.the McGlynn site is adjac�nt to their existing
facility. It has great potential for them for expansion
development. It has a feature that makes it diffieult to
��
n
n
PLANNING . CONIL��IISSION 1�D:ETING MAY 21 1997 pA� 9
n,
automatically assume there would be a building that is •joined with
the existing McGlynn industrial building. The feature is a large
utility pipe that runs down the property line between these two
properties. This storm pipe causes the properties to be
disjointed. There has been discussion about how this could be
developed and how a new facility could be joined with their
facility. It has been stated by McGlynn's that it is in McGlynn's
interest to keep them separate in order to keep their options
broad. If markets should change, they then would be able to offer
that as a separate industrial piece of property. That piece of
property tlien has al� the attractiveness of other sites for
warehousing and could become a warehouse.facility separate from
McGlynn's.
Mr. Hic3cok stated the Coachman site. on Osbor.ne Road is located
just north of the McGlynn site. It is similar in size and has the
potential for an industrial building in excess of 10 doors. There
is that feature of other industrial warehouses developed in close
proximity. As this property develops if it were to go to office
warehouse, it could compound the issue of trucks from the
industrial development to the north. With the building gone, this
site is viewed as a new development site.
� Ms. Savage stated it would appear that for the Anderson Trucking,
R.R.I. Inc., Friendly Chevrolet and Kurt Manufacturing.sites there
is no objective to the rezoning to M-4, Manufacturing.Only....
Mr.�Hickok stated he has had a discussion with Friendly Chevrolet
who had a representative. speak to this issue but there has been.no
�ollow-up on their part. Staff did meet with all of the property
owners early in the process to explain where the Cit�► was at and
where it wished to go. In those discussians, more folks we�e
involved. Anderson Trucking has been very quiet, Staff has not
heard a lot of:discussiori.. The same is true of R.R.I. Inc. Staff
met last week with Kurt Manufacturing with. a gentleman who is
working out building details for a manufacturing facility on that
site which would meet the M-4 zoning. That m�y be why there has
not.been any opposition. .
Mr. Saba stated he knows how this could impact planning �or
existing industrial manufacturing sites and the property owners
that plan to do a.development for a site. Has staff considered
inciuding this type of facility in the M-4 with a limit of 10
doors or not to exceed 10 doors so..you do not have any large
warehouse facilities? That way, McGTynn could have sorne -
�warehousing just sa it is not large. This could also restrict.
trucks . ' .
� Mr. Hickok stated the number of doors is only a small part of it.
PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 10
It is possible that a warehouse facility whose number of doors are
limited �0 10 or less could still have all of the impacts•of
trucks waiting on the street. Impacts may be compounded by the
fact that the City Code limited them to 10 or less doors. That
was considered and staff felt, if 10 doors was the only issue,
there might be a workable solution. The other issues make this
analysis far more complex.
Mr. Saba asked if there could be a mixture. He is trying to find
a way around this. It could have a significant impact to these
people, and he has a hard time accepting this himself with the
planning that goes on in corpo�ations and how this. could impact
that planning. It could impact facilities here versus having.them
move out of the City.
Mr.. Hickok asked, other than the number of doors,. had Mr. Saba
also mentioned a restriction in size.
Mr. Saba stated he had talked about limiting the.square footage
~and/or the�number of doors. He is tr�ing to find a.happy medium.
He would like to do something that is compatible with the M-4.
without having a mega-facility.
Mr. Hickok stated he thought that in all of the correspondence
they had it was the limitation of the option for distribution
warehou�e that causes a problem with owners. Limiting the size
does not get at the �.ssue. Through the analysis, it was
determined that.the i.mpacts of distribution warehouse are great
enough that it is being recommended that.they be removed from the
mix of uses on these sites. It is at the discretion of the �
eommission if you have a recommendation other than that of .staff.
Staff does not have a solution that would strike a compromise of
less than 10 doors or of a specified size.
Mr. Saba asked how other com�unities are dealing with this.
Mr. Hickok stated Fridley has probably a greater propo�tion of
land dedicated to industry. The City has a mature industrial
growth pattern that has evoleed. The City has reached a maturity
where it has very few site.s left, and staff has to make: these
critical decisions. There are not many communi.ties with the mix
of circumstances in Fridley, because of this evolution.
Therefore, a review of other communities was not utilized. -
Mr. Saba stated the City also ha��an infrastructure that makes it
difficult to expand to residential and manufacturing. The. City
has the railroad traffic that makes it ideal for warehouse
facilities. He can understand concern and he does not want a
warehouse city but, on the other hand, the City has the railroad.
�"�
�
�
�
�,
�� -
PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, B�i7C 21, 1997 PAGE 11
tracks here with Target along the tracks and aiso in the Main
Street area. If the City wants to restrict something, that is a
natural�feature and a natural planning mode for industry.
Mr. Hickok stated, while he agreed with the street patterns
related to�r�sidential and'the fact that the City does have major
rail lines that run through the community, he would disagree that
manufacturing would have problems with the rail here. They find
that the manufacturing uses benefit from having rail as well, and
some benefit from having their own slip from the rail line into
their own facility.
Mr. Saba stated he has been involved in relocating manufacturing
but not all want to be next to the railroad.
Mr. Kuechle asked what opposition McGlynn had to expand.on that
site. If tYiey want to expand, are there possibilities to combine
those lots? How tightiy is the City locking them out from using
that lot to the best of their abilit� fox their own manufacturing
versus their selling the lot and having that constraint?
Mr. Hickok stated.it has been an issue of wanting to preserve�the
� maximum number of options. Staff has discus5ed the.possibility of
combini�g �ax parcels and moving the pipe that.exists. The City �
�has also expressed an interest in exgloring financiai options for
`. making that happen. One.thing.they have expressed is a concern
� about tying themselves into a denelopment that now is different
from being able to sell a piec�e of land if the market'war.�ants.
If McGlynn's decides at some point.they want.�o sell the land,
they would prefer not to move the pipe. They would prefer to
retain the current zoning, expand i� they can do that, or keep ,
their options open for selling.it if.necessary.. Staff has even �
talked about a walkway between the facilities, and there has not
been a group planning.effort between the.City and McGlynn's to
come up with those kinds of solutions. .At this point there is a
resistance ta do anything different with the land other than what
exists there now. The option to move the pipe exists. Staff
would explore that with them and with the engineering staff.
Mr. Kuechle asked what would happen with the M-4 zoning.
Mr. Hickok stated the M-4 zoning would fit with the existing
manufacturing. The site would best fit an M-4 zoning. If what
they build is ancillary.warehous.e diStribution for'the existing
manufacturing, that is quite different from another freestanding
warehouse distribution development coming in on the site. Staff's
understanding is that McGlynn's plan is to evolve into the space.
� Mr. Kuechle stated, as far as the use.of this parcel for
PLANNING COI�IlIISSION N�'�ETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 12
�
McGlynn's,.if they used it for part of their current
manufacturing, the 1�I-4 would have minimal in3pact .
Mr. Hickok stated yes, staff believes so.
Ms. Modig stated your idea of what is going on and how she feels
about it is quite opposite. She would like to hear from them to
find out why. .
Mr. Zylla stated he was representing the Fridley Business Center
Partnership. This is the first meeting where he can say he
supports staff's recommendation to remove the Northco si�e from
the�M-4 zoning. The issue of their property has gotten more
complicated because they are.now under purchase agreement so they
do not need the complication of a rezoning. He supports the staff
recommendation, and he h�ped the Commission could also support the
recommendation to remove the Northco site from the M-4 zoning.
Mr. Eskola stated he represented Coachman Companies.. His clients
have been in Fridley for some time: They have always had a very •
good relationship working with the City. They have the utmost �
respect for City personnel. They have worked with staff in .the
past regarding development and.want.to maintain that relationship. ��
H�s client feels this proposal is ill conceived as it applies to
them because they are located in or adjacent to the industrial.. . .•
park area that has been..promoted�for many years as an�industrial .
area. The�r are•surrounded by the same type of development.� �There
is a building across the street. The Target facility is in close
proximity. They feel�it would not be proper to restrict their
little parcel when there are parcels all around them.
F�rthermore, he believes as staf� has indicated his client's .. -
property is not adjacent to a residential area. It is in
proximity, but so is everything else in the area. At this time,
to change the zoning would do little to alleviate the City's
concern. There is already truck traffic. As he understands, the
concern.is with traffic on East.River Road, Osborne Road and
University Avenue. He would point out that this industrial area . �
was promoted for many years and that the traffic is a natural
consequence of that area. That area has been promoted as an
industrial area to attract business. The truck traffic has been
there for some time. To rezone this piece of property would not �
have an effect of the overall traffic.
Mr. Esko:la stated his client is also concerned that this change
wil� limit the marketability of the lot. Staft has indicated that
there has been an increase recently in distribution warehous.e
facilities. This is true. The reason is that this is a trend
that is happehing in the economy�. In fact, that type of facility
is becoming more and more in demand ar�d therefore increases the /�'�
r�
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING 1�iY 21 1997 PAGE 13
,� �
marketability of the pro�erty. To restrict and.limit that �aould
result in a decrease in value at this time given the nature of the
surrounding area in comparison to this property to riot give them
that option. He would agree that this particular area is
conducive to this type of facility. The infrastructure is in
place. It is a natural facility for that area given what is there
already. He indicated in his letter the concerns. He is against
the proposal and asks the Planning Commission rej�ct the proposal
of staff as.it pertains to this property.
Mr. McGlynn stated he would like to present his views regarding
their property. First, he belieues in the separation of .
residentiai areas from business areas. They have been good
citizens in Eden Prairie and Chanharisen, and now FridleyF and they
believe that is� important to any area in which they do business.
They pride themsel�res on being good citizens and in keeping their
property in good shape. He provided photos to show that thei.r
properties are�welT kept. They see themselves as the type of.
citizen that does not cause static in the area. They have a lot
of investment in the City of Fridley and had choices to go other.
places. They chose Fridley because of the cooperation of the
City. They now have three locations in Fridley,.and they pride
� tYiemselves in being here to stay and growing �n this area.
Mr. McGlynn stated the property they purchased to the north of
their�facility is there so they have the oppo�rtunity to expand in
whatever way they would like to as they proceed down the road.
TYiey are a different business and have differer�t needs.. They
don't know exactly how they.will use the land and want to options
open to use it for manufacturing or warehouse. It is important
for them to have their warehouse close to thei� manufacturing..,
� They do not manufacture products, warehouse them and then sell .
them. They manufacture products and get those products to their.
customers as quickly as possible. Their warehouse is an incoming
raw materials site. There are fewer trucks involved in that type
of warehousing. Their products go out.on their truck. The
existing warehouse across University from.them probably gets 15 to
20 trucks a day. Their main factory on the other hand has 18
trucks on location and are in and out 36 times a day. By changing
this to manufacturing only, they would have the potential of
running more trucks there than they would for a war.ehouse
facility. That goes against what the City is after. As far as a
residential area being close to their facility, they. back up to
th.e railroad tracks on one side and have industrial on the other
side. Across the railroad is more industrial land. You must. go
further south of their current facility to actually see the. •
residential area. If the City.is rezoning their property based on
truck traffic, it is really the opposite for �hem ir� manufacturing
�� versus warehouse. They would like to look at possibly connecting
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 14
the two facilities. They would like �o look at them perhaps being
separate. They would like to look at a warehouse facility arzd
moving it toward manufacturing. They may stay with manufacturing.
If things change dramatically, they would like to have the option
to seil the land if that is the best decision for the company.
Their experience in the past is rapid growth. They came to �
Fridley with 380 jobs and now have over 480 jobs, and they plan to
expand that..� They don't want to sell the land. They want to keep
it in nice shape for their expansion in the future.
Mr. McGlynn.stated the other poin�.he would like to. make is that
he really thinks their truck traffic is generally pretty light i.n
nature compared to a warehouse facility. Even if they used it for
their own wareYiouse, it is not like other warehouses where there
are many� many trucks on location going back and forth. Their
trucks deliver the raw mater�ials they use and leaves. They are
located on Commerce Lane, they believe strongly in commerce, and
they want to expand on that lot.
�
Mr. Kuechle stated he �ras curious to know how Mr. McGlynn felt
about the earlier discussion. As he understands the situation,
the only restriction is McGlynn's ability to sell the land
separate from the current operation. There is a possibility of ,�
impacting that. If you want to expand the manufacturing:and
expand warehousing as a part of that manufacturing, the M-4 does
not particularly effect that. �
Mr. McGlynn stated this was not his understanding. His
understanding was that they could not warehouse in that:location. .
They need warehousing very close to their manufacturing because
that is very efficient �'o-r them. If connected, that is the best
scenario. They will have to aim for that in the future but they
are not in the posit'ion for that right now. If.they can.warehouse
there, that. is terrific. He still does not see the reason to
rezone this property.
Mr. Kuechle stated, as he understood, it is because it is part of
your own manufacturing and is not a stand.alone warehouse. He
would not want to deny that possibility.
Mr. McGlynn asked if that would only be in the situation where
they would be connected.
Mr. Hickok stated the way staff would s.ee this ciearly is as an
ar�cillary use to the manufacturing facility with the pipe removed
and joined with the manufacturing facility. If they warehouse in
that as part of their McGlynn's bakery, that is appropriate St:aff .
sees that as a good solution on this site. The pipe question
would have to be answered. The pipe would probably have to be �"�,
�
�
P7�ANNING CONIl�l.tSSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 15
moved. It is a fear that the City will have a freestanding
warehouse that could start as a McGlynn.'s entity and become a
freestanding warehouse for another company.
Mr. McGlynn stated that makes the assumption that they remove
existing line.and attach to the building. If it is a cheaper
alternative to build a warehouse there for their own use, it
be dependent on that. ,
the
would
Mr. Hickok stated that is the fear. It could be a warehouse for
them or for someone else. A compelling piece of this is that, if
warehouse is going to be.built ancillary to and connected.to
McGlynn's, some of the earlier discussion mentioned warehouse now
and then manufacturing later, then M-4 would be appropriate.for
the site. A freestanding warehouse built today for McGlynn's and
then sold to someone tomorrow could be a problem. Therefore, M-4
would be appropriate for this and the existing site could remain
M-2. �
Mr. McGlynn stated they see that as li.miting to their future
plans. As they grow, they must make decisions about where to �
expand and how th.ey are going to expand. Uncertainty about how
they are going to expand in the futu�e makes it difficult for them.
to op�rate.today. Their purchase of that land was done.in the �
interest for them to move into that as a warehouse and if th:ey
went on to use it for.manufacturing wbuld depend.on their business
needs. If there.are going to be limits p�aced on further
development of that land, they wo�ld hane a�ked that. Someone
else could�own it�and there could.already be a warehouse. Their
feeling is that they would like to be open.to whatever they need
for their expar�sion in Fridley. This is.their-home. This is
where they have built thei�c business. They want their fnture to •
be certain. That is why.he was.there. His recommendation is to
remove McGlynn from the list and to have their options open to be
able to expand and provide more jobs. There is a certain amount
of warehousi�g that happens in their facility.now �hat they.have
�o do because they are not connected; S�iould they be connected,
that leaves more room for manufacturing in their existing.facility �
which provides more jobs. They see it as a combined thing. They
a.re not certain how it is going to go yet, but they.are optimistic :
about the future. �
Mr. Steilen s�ated listening�to the:discus�ion tonight reminds him
of.an oid saying, "Don't throw out the bab� with the �ath water:"
He thought it was fair to say that McGlynn's Bakeries.have been
an ideal user of property in the City of Fridley.: They.have
created many jobs and a good tax base. These are all the things•
that Mr. Hickok has indicated he�want.s to promote those things.
McGlynn's has done all of that and in the probab�e future will
�"'
�
;
k"
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION I�ETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 16
�
continue tb do so. Why punish them? Why restrict their options?
Why base your policy on the 100. possibility that they will fail
and the property will be sold to some�one for a distribution
warehouse rather than base your policy on the fact that this is an
ideal corporate citizen. They have been successful. They have
been expanding. Why not enhance and promote their efforts and
make it easier for them to be successful in the City rather than
harder? He thought that sometimes without thinking about it
policy can get turned on its head. Applying this particular
ordinance to this property does just that.
Mr. Steilen stated McGlynn has to invest a tremendous amount of
money in their business. The,bakery business is tremendously
competitive, and the margins are razor thin. Everything is at
risk. Everything is close margin. They.need flexibility. He
would sug�est that it is better not to.base policy decision on
what ifs which.are the small po.ssibility rather than trying to .
enhance what they have which is the greater probability. As he
looks at the reasons for this ordinance as it is prepared and
explained by staff, he does not see that they apply to the
McGlynn's property in any substantive sense. It does not affect
residential property. In the photos shown, you cannot see
residential from.this property. He thought this was stretching ^
it. To get to this property on the basis of complaints of
residents about truck traffic, this is in the middle of an
.industrial zone and traffic goes out an indust�ial street. It
does not meet the criteria in all fairness. As far as the
creation of job�opportun�.ties and tax base, givirig them the
flexibility to grow their entire business enhances the tax base
and creates job opportunity. Restricting them does the opposite.
That is why he says a�weil �eaning_statute or or.dinance which
might accomplish those goals in other�situations, in this
situation it gets turned on its head and accomplishes the opposite
of what it is intended to do.
Mr. Steilen stated Mr. McGlynn noted that their manufacturing use
generates twice the truck traffic their warehouse does. Promotion
of clean�uses is not achieved by this rezoning. He understands
they could sell to someone else and it.could be different. Th.e
probability is that they wiil stay ther� and grow there. That is
why he says to not base the decision on the what ifs but rather on
what will likely occur. As far as.significant amounts of outdoor
storage, im looking at the photographs one can see how nice they
keep.their property. They are proud of their property. They keep
it.up•and keep it attractive. One of the things that ticks them
off is that others in the area do not keep.up their property. He
did not thin.k from a strict factual standpoint that the goals and
criteria that were used to develop this ordinance are achieved by
putting this property on the M-4 zoning. From a policy �"'�
i�
�
PLANNING CON1D�lISSION N�ETiNG., 1�1Y 21, 1997 _ PAGE 17
standpoint, he would hope the Commission would think about what
they could do to help a good corporate citizen to expand and
create more jobs and cr.eate a better tax base by giving�them some
flexibility in what they are doing and thinking about what is the
probable result.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI� VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBI+IC �ARING CLOSED AT 8:34 P.M.
Mr. Koridrick asked if there was such a thing as conditional
zoning. The attorney said �omething that the City should not be
concerned with the what ifs. He did not agree.. McGlynn Bakeri'es
are good people and the City is lucky to have them here. He hopes
they do expand. The problem is that, if they do not and the
property is sold, there could be a facility built with many doors
which would not be good. Fie hoped that McGlynn's did expand, but
he thought they could see the problem they were trying to avoid of
many trucks in there and creating a problem. He �greed that they
are not near residential areas. To return to the original
question, is there such a thing as conditional zoning whereby they
say that McGlynn's property can remain as it is if they will go
along with the current zoning program for exparision but, if they
do not do that, then it will.become M-4? Is tl�at possible?
Mr. Hickok stated no. The zoning is either M-2 or M-4. He would.
coneur with wanting McGlynn's to stay and grow, but that leaves
the.City in a precarious position. It could be rezoned as its own
indinidual entity and therefore has been included in the
discussion.
Ms. Savage suggested moving on those items without problems. That
would include deleting the Northco Property from the list.
Anderson Trucking, R.R.I. Inc., Friendly Chevrolet, and Kurt
Manufacturing appear to haue no strong opposition. She asked
about the Everest Properties site on Main Street.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would not have a problem including that
property in the M-4 zoning.
Ms. Savage stated there is a controversy about McGlynn's and the
Coachman properties.
Mr. Saba stated he has a problem with that. He likes the idea of
limiting warehousing but he would�likE to allow in the M-4
district warehouses limiting the�size so you do not have mega-
�i warehouses. He has a problem limiting compari-ies like McGlynn`.s
PLANNING COD�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 18
�
who have purchased property with the idea that they could build a
warehouse. The City is throwing a monkey wrench into their
planning and he has a problem in doing that.
Ms. Savage asked if his concerns were with McGlynn's and Coachman
only.
Mr. Saba stated for those properties where the owners say it is
okay then that is different. Then the City may have four or five
properties that are M-4. He did not know if that is considered
spot zoning. He could support that. If.the City went before
those people and said this is what it is going to do and they have
no objections, that is fine. But for those organizations that
have objections, that are not really by residential areas, that
are by the railroad tracks, .he has a problem in imposing the M-4
as presented. He cannot support that.
Mr. Kuechle stated he thought McGlynn's is an exception in that
the property is owned and the owner is interested.in developing
for their own. The others purchased the sites with the intent of
developing it into some income-producing venture. They are in a
little different position. McGlynn bought the property with the
idea of expanding. The only restriction is if they.want to build
a warehouse and then sell the warehouse at a later date. That is
the only place the City is placing.some res�triction on that. If
they want a warehouse to hold product there, that is fine... The
City�is reducing their potential sale value a bit. That is not
their.intenfi so he did not see that as a big factor.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the salabiT�ty was a big factor. Is the
City sugg��ting that a change in zoning makes the properties worth
less?
Mr. Hickok stated that goes back to the definition of a taking.
He would go back to the reliance of staff's rationale that leaves
them with reasonable use and therefore it is not a'factor for us
to say that imposing.M-4 zoning takes away some of the
marketability of their site. There is a manufacturing market .out
there. Any time there is a zoning amendment, it could be argued
it has that kind of an impact. The question has to be asked if
there is reasonable use of the property after the rezoning.
Staff's answer is yes. �
Mr. Kuechle stated he believed every answer is based on fin,ancial
except perhaps McGlynn's.
Ms. Modig asked what other argument would there be.
Mr. Kuechle stated it does say something about the value of the �
�,
PI�ANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 ' PAGE 19
site. It is economical. It is not the fact they cannot
manufacture there and/or sell the property if they want.
Mr. Saba stated it is financial. You are not in the business to
lose money. On the othe� hand, does one do short term planning or
long term planning. This throws a monkey wrench into the long
term planning. They have mentioned the loss of plans. He can
understand that. Being in business and trying to do long term
planning and not knowing what the use of your land is can be a big
issue. If they are planning an expansion or selling, that is part
of their business.
Mr. Kondrick asked their opinion about the Coachman property.
Mr. Saba stated he felt the same way aYaout all of the properties.
Mr. Kuechle stated he had reservations only about the McGlynn
property.
Mr. Kondrick stated he felt the same way about the.McGlynn
property. He cannot see restricting�their use of that.land to the
best of their ability. This would give us a chance to encourage
� them to stay and expand in our community. He thought that is the.
only site that was of concern to him. He does not have .the same
concern about the Coachman site.
Ms. Modig stated she had concerns about McGlynn's. In her
opinion, the site does not fit the criteria. They are at the
meeting. They are good �nembers.of.the community. She could not
support it. She also has a problem with the Coachman p�operty and
its location because it is not;a�ound a residential area and there .
are trucks in and out of there for other businesses:now. Trucks
will be there whether that property is developed o� not. She has
a p.roblem wi�h including properties that are valid meinbers of the
community and are not just�in the market to sell. She thought
they were misleading people when the City says it has an M-2
di.str�.ct and then changes it and now don't fiave it. She did not
have any problem with the other properties other than those two.
Ms. Savage stated, on one hand, she agplauds staff for what they
are doing because they are concerned about the big picture for the
future. We all want a more livable place. It has not always been
and still •is not the•most livable suburb. She understands the
problems that have been voiced. :She suggested they.act:on the
sites individually.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by.Mr. Kondrick, to recommend the M-
4 zoning for Everest Properties, Anderson Trucking, R.R.I. Inc.,
� Friendly Chevrolet, and Kurt.Manufacturing; and to delete the
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 20
� �
Northco property, McGlyr�n's and Coachman sites.
Mr. Saba asked why they were including the Everest Property.
Ms. Modig stated, when they appeared last time, they seemed to be
unwilling from past history to cooperate in other things the City
has tried to do. As she recalled, they had a disagreement with
the City regarding their development. They are close to
residential with houses across the street. She thought they
should be included.
Mr. Kuechle stated there is not a very good truck access to that
property.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG AND LrIlt. RONDRICR VOTING AYE, AND
MS. SAVAGE, Ng2. SABA, AND 1�IIt. KUI,CHLE VOTING NAY, CAAIRPERSON
SAVAGE DECLARED T8E MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A MPkTORITY.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend the M-4
zoning for the following sites: Anderson Trucking, R.R.I. Inc.,
Friendly Chevrolet, and Kurt Manufacturing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI�ARED THE ^
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMpIISLY.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend the M-4
zoning for the Everest Properties site. •
Mr. Kuechle stated he would include this site because it is the
most critically proximate to a residential.area and has the least
capable features for trucks. 61st Avenue and Main.S�reet have
access for trucks. The truck traffic woulcY have the most impact.
It is also has the capability of the largest warehouse.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG, MS. SAVAGE, 1�9.t. RONDRICK AND
I�t. KLJECHLE VOTING AYE, AND I�t. SABA VOTING NAY, .CEAIRPERSON
SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED WITH A I�iJORITY VOTE.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to delete the
McGlynn property from consideration for M-4..
Mr. Kuechle stated, as far as McGlynn's expanding in the City, M-9
has a minimal impact. If they want to sell the property, it is
different. He thought their expansion in the �ity has minimal
impact. If they want to expand, they can do it without a problem.
UPOl�i A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS . MODIG, I�9.2. KOI�IDRICK, AND NIlt. SABA.
VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND 1�9.t, RUECgLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A 1�TORITY VOTE. ^
�
,�
�
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 pAGE 21
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to delete.the Coachman
property from consideration for M-4.
Ms. Modig stated Yier reason for doing so is the same as for
McGlynn. The other site on Osborne near Central is M-2 and
industrial now so she saw.no reason to change that.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS . MODIG, NIlZ. KONDRICR, AND 1�Ilt. SABA
VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND NIlt. RLJECBLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON
SAVAGE DE��LD THE MOTION CARRIED BY A NIl�i�70RITY VOTE .
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to delete the Northco
property from consideration for M-4.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DLCLARED THE
MOTION CP,RRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated this item would go beft�re the City Council on
June 9.
4. REVIEW PROPOSED CITIZEN SURVEY QUESTIONS
Mr. Hickok stated this is being.offered as an opportunity for the.
Planning Commission to participate in the manag�rs assembly of the
new citizens survey for 1997. More t�an focusing on questions,
are there category a�eas that you feel strongly about that were
missed or that you wish to enhance? The category areas loak like
paragraphs in the surney and then there are questions related to
those. As you look at the survey, there .is a DKR response. That
is a"Don't Know Response". This.response t�lls staff that there
are areas where the City needs to edu�ate folks because they do
not know how staff is handling those items. There is an
information piece on education.
Ms. Savage stated there is an area not covered which she calls a
livability area which has to do with art and music. It.has to do
with coffee shops and places that are not here and something for
which residents would have to g.o to Minneapolis or St. Paul.
Places wliere people can gather in the summer to have a drink or
coffee to get a neighborhood fe�ling. That is one of the things
missir�g in Fridley. Otherwise, she felt the survey was very.
thorough. �
Ms. Modig stated she thought they had to pay attention to those
areas where people say they don't know because it is amazing, when
you talk to people about what Fr�dley does have, that they don't
know what you are talking about.
PI�ANNING CONIl�+lISSION MEETING, NIl�Y 21, 1997 pp�GE 22
r"'�
Mr. Saba asked if the department heads re,criew the survey and have
input for what they want to include.
Mr. Hickok stated yes, the department heads have input. The
ultimate design of the survey comes from the manager's office.
The manager is soliciting their help at this time.
Ms. Modig stated in reading the don't know response they ask
questions about the City offering significant programs for
seniors. 44o said they did not know. If you read the community
calendar, it has three or four pages of things for seniors. That
means they are not reading it or it's not getting their attention.
Mr. Saba stated he thought there are also people who just don't
care. It might be interesting to have a response that they in
fact do not care.
Ms. Modig thought that was true regardless of the area they are
talking. There are people who live here and do not wish to
participate in anything. She suggested a category "Not
Interested". You will get some indication about people that do
not care by those that do not respond.
Mr. Kondrick stated being able to eat.and drink outdoors or on the
sidewalk is,all over Europe.and popular on the east and west
eoasts. It is�catching on in Minneapolis and�St. Paul. He
thought it should be considered.
Ms. Modig stated Sandee's Restaurant and the Shorewood have
outside eating areas. There is also a coffee shop by the health
club and an Internet Cafe has reCently opened. A bookstore in �
Fridley would be nice.
Mr. Hickok stated it sounds like a retail category and/or a
cultural category. He will forward these suggestions.
5. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Ms. McPherson stated the information in the agenda is a follow up
on the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. Most of the
questions that the Commission had appeared to be answered during �
the discussion. There were a few questions that needed further
clarification: This item does not require the Planning Commission
to take any action. This is for your information.
�
Ms. McPherson sta�ed this .was a good time to talk about what is
planned for the June 4 meeting. .Staff would like the Planning
Commission to be the vehicle for a neighborhood meeting on
telecommunieations. They have selected 9 municipal sites for '"�
�
i�
�
�
PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING 1�iY 21 1997 pAGE 23
placement of telecommunications facilities. Staff is intending to
use this for.um to provide information to the residents around
those particular sites. Staff is working on a video which will
provide some actual site footage of existing installations with
graphics to explain the technology, how it works, what its affects
are, and the analysis that the City is currently going through.
Staff would like to do this after the two items scheduled for the
June 4 meeting. This will provide an opportunity for the Planning
Commission to hear neighborhood input and incorporate that into
the City code section that staff will be writing as well as the
zoning code changes that will also need to occur as a part of this
ordinance change.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1997
& RECREATION COMMISSI
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the
minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of March 3,
1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLAI2ED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSI�Y.
7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING OF MARCH 13, 1997 .
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the
minutes.of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of
March 13, 1997.
IIPON A VOICE�VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE��LD THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISI.Y.
8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY
CONIMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the
minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting
of March 18, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CRAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE�'T•nRFn TgE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE� APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
APRIL 9, 1997
MOTION�by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick,.to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of April 9,.1997.
PLANNING COl�+lISSION B�LTING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 24
�
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AL,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAYAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMpIISLY.
10. RECEIVE THE MINOTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 7, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of April 7,
1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE�'T•nRT�*� TAE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISI�Y.
11. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1997
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of
April 10, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIl�IpIISLY.
12. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY �
COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1997 � �
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes
of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of
April 15, 1997.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, A'[.L VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED I��1�TANIIKOIISI.Y .
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the
meeting.
ZJPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE I�iy 21, 1997, PLANNING COI�Il�lISSION MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M,
Respectfully submitted,
° �-L�i'I d1" �C"1�G�%
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
�
�
�
�
CiTY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST�
The petitioner, Jim Randers, owner of Display Arts, requests that a speciai use permit be
granted to allow an increase in lot coverage from 40% to 50%. If approved, Mr. Randers
proposes to construct a 50' x 60' (3,000 square foot) addition to the building located at 7839
Elm Street N.E. The purpose of the proposed addition is to provide additional space for the
assembly of commercial displays.
In addition to the special use permit request, the petitioner is also processing variance requests
pertaining to building setback, lot area, parking, and parking setback requirements.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Section 205.18.03.C.(4).(a) &(b) establishes finro factors which are to be considered in
determining the.impact of an increase in lot coverage. Those factors are the net impact on the
total amount of hardsurface area and whether or not all other ordinance requirements c�n be
met.
The petitioner's proposal increases the amount of hardsurface area on the property. The
petitioner has requested several variances to the M-2 district requirements, therefore, they
cannot be met. There are altematives the petitioner could pursue to reduce the number of
variances �requested.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COh�lMISSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to the City
Council. This recommendation is based on the fact that the proposal does not reduce the
amount of existing hardsurface on the property, and the petitioner cannot meet the setback and
parking requirements of the M-2 district.
� "
Project Summary
SP #97-04, by James Randers
Page 2
Petition For:
Location of
Property:
Legal Description
of Properly:
Size:
Topography:
Existing
Vegetation:
Existing
Zoning/Platting:
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestr�ian
Access:
Engineering
Issues:
Comprehensive
Planning Issues:
Public Hearing
Comments:
PROJECT DETAl.LS
A specia� use permit to increase the lot coverage from 40%
to 50%.
7839 Elm Street N.E.
Lots 24 - 28, Block 1, Onaway
27,000 square feet
Flat
Typical suburban; trees and sod
M-2, Heavy Industrial; Onaway District� 1911
Connected
Elm Street
N/A
N/A
The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are consistent in this
location.
To be taken
�
n
i--�
�^,
�
�"�
Project Summary
SP #97-04, by James Randers
Page 3
ADJACENT SITES:
WEST: Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial
SOUTH: Zoning:
EAST: Zoning:
NORTH: Zoning:
Site Planning
Issues:
REQUEST
M-2, Heavy Industrial
M-2, Heavy Industrial
M-2, Heavy Industrial
Land Use: Industrial
Land Use: Industrial
Land Use: Industrial
Land Use: Industrial
The petitioner, Jim Randers, owner of Display Arts, requests that a special use permit be
granted to allow an increase in lot coverage from 40°10 to 50%. If approved, Mr. Randers
proposes to construct a 50' x 60' (3.000 square foot) addition to the building located at 7839
Elm Street N.E. The purpose of the proposed addition is to provide additional space for the
assembly of commercial displays.
In addition to the special use permit request, the petitioner is also processing variance requests
pertaining to building sel�ack. !ot area, parking, and parking setback requirements.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The subject parcel is located one parcel north of 78�' Avenue on Elm Street The
building was constructed in 1974 and is 75' x 940' ('t0,500 square feet). In 1973, tt�e
Ciiy granted two varianc�s; to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 24.5 feet,
and to reduce the side yard setback on the south side of the building from 20 feet to 0
feet. A thicd variance request to reduce the rear yard parking setback from five feet to 0
feet was denied by the City Council. Variances to reduce the lot area and to reduce the
setback from the alley were not considered. The alley adjacent to the parcel has not
been vacated.
ANALYSIS
In addition to the special use permit request, tMe petitioner has also requested several
variances
1. To reduce the lot area from 1%2 acres to 27,000 square feet.
2. To reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.
Project Summary
SP #97-04, by James Randers
Page 4
n
3. To reduce the building setback from an alley right-of-way from 40 feet to 39 feet.
4. To reduce the number of parking stalls from 31 spaces to 15 spaces.
5. To reduce the parking setback from the side lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet, and from
an alley right-of-way from 15 feet to 0 feet.
On Wednesday, May 28, 1997, the Appeals Commission recommended approval of all
variances to the City Council, with the stipulation that the special use permit request to
increase the lot coverage from 40°/a to 50% be approved.
Section 205.18.03.C.(4).(a) &(b) requires the City to consider the following two
factors in determining the effect of the increase in lot coverage:
A. For existing developed properties, the total amount of existing hardsurface areas
shall be evaluated to determine whether a reduction in the total building and parking
coverage can be achieved. In ott�er words, to justify 10% additional lot coverage the
building area may increase, however as a trade-off, the hardsurFace area (parking,
etc.) should decrease. �
n
B. The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met, including
but not limited to parking, storm water management, and landscaping.
HardsurFace
The petitioner is proposing to construct a 50' x 60' addition. This addition would occur
in an area that is currentJy green space. This creates a 3,000 square foot increase in
hardsurface. In addition to the proposed building, a sidewalk along the front of the
building and a driveway to an overhead door in the rear are also proposed. This
creates an additional increase of 477 square feet, for a total increase in hardsurFace
area of 3,477 square feet. To offset some of the proposed increase, the petitioner
could remove a portion of the sidewalk which exists in the ftont of the building;
however, this would only provide a 676 square foot reduction in the proposed increase
of hardsurface (2,801 square feet).
Other Ordinance Requirements
The petitioner has submitted a request for several variances. The variances for lot area
and parking setback reduction are #or existing conditions. The petitioner could reduce
the width of the addition to 40 feet which would eliminate the side yard setback variance
and would further reduce the increase in hard surface. The variance request for the �
setback from the alley right-of-way could also be eliminated by reducing the addition's
length by one foot. Required parking was calculated based on the identified uses within
�
Project Summary
SP #97-04, by James Randers
Page 5
thE building as submitted by the petitioner. Using the speculatnre ratio of one space per
700 square feet of building area, 19 spaces as opposed to 31 spaces are �required. The
site, however, only provides 15 spaces. Display Arts employs 13 people. For reuse of
the property, it will be important to insure that a new use would not create a parking
demand greater than the supply.
A grading and drainage plan was submitted by the petitioner. Jon Haukaas, Assistant
City Engineer, reviewed this information and has no pending requirements for the
petitioner (see memo dated May 30, 1997).
The petitioner submitted a landscape plan showing existing and proposed materials.
The proposed materials meet the code requirements, however, to mitigate fhe total
impact of the addition, additional materials could.be required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The proposal does not reduce the amount of existing hardsurface on the property, and the
petitioner cannot meet setback and parking requirements of the M-2 district. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. If the
� Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the following
stipulations:
1. The landscape plan shall be amended as follows:
a. Substitute a rubrum maple for the proposed Marshall's Ash.
b. Add� six flowering crabapples or plums; four in front and finro in the green area in the
rear. .
c. Add two additional Black Hills Spruce at the front (northwest comer of the building).
2. The green area on the east side ofi the addition shall not be converted to hardsurface.
3. The sidewalk in front of the building shall be removed as indicated in the drawing "site
modifications".
4. The petitioner acknowledges that the site is deficient in parking and future reuse of the
building will require a tenant with similar or less parking space demands or processing a
.special use permit for off-site parking.
� 5. Va�iance request, VAR #97-05, shall be approved.
�
�
��
swnn
pMf! OA[E MME �.
4.. �L �'Y �r��.�,�gr ����3'�F��K �F � � 4� � 4 �-:
� y���'�'�Zi��. �'�°�. ,�t��,.. $ ���k 9 �-.
� � ;. �`- a �-i . `�'` - � � �� ��
� �"� �" s '�-�
- g �",� a �Z'� -}� `� � 75 ic � ..,
� "�
. 4.- � x�`�� __� �-� i _ ! � .
z�,�t z�, � � . � � . � i � �,�y«',.. �Y ._ r y . _
� -
_ �� -�:. � �����: �3��� �a-,z��.: -
� � �� �
� � _ i � f � �� � ,� �'1=. � . �
� M1� = �� ~ _ ;' �
� � : �7i �`t� i t 3?� �
@
�� : ;,a � k.'� +. � _
� _ � � ,� ;x.' 4 : �
� F
�3� - � 6 � ���T -^ � A� �� � ' � t� _ L�.� �
� "`":- � - ..�'� ._-. �..-.-. �. ..� .L� �. �e_ f� . �,.,, ...�.
'�'��3°-.\?.
�
� k }
__>
I �'
AA61fl
� �
�J �
� 0 1
I � j
I
�
�
a�ea
��Y s '�
m 5`�i�-
4 `
�._
` ` �� � �
p/Ke � A�l1!
, . � ��� � �- � - � � 4 � �
, �
. .-. . , _ �� -
�
��� ` - �'� �} _
.: : - � =
�� � _ _ y _
_ �_
� - r � :. '�,.
. , _ � - - �° �- �
�� ; � ���� - �� �,, �` e
_ �= ' '�.''rer�
, - � � � ���� �=:-`� �� :
� � }
� $ p
p ta � � ` E '�.
�"; ���v -'� �� -
�� . � . - . - - -- - _ ..K.,
- " - - - .. _ _. . .., �. _- _.
m
� �QS
� �, - �"e �', "� SP #97-04, 783.9 Elm Street
Q 1�2 - Two FaNy U►rts
0 R3 - Generdl Altitiple Urrts
� Rd - Aflobil�e F�lorrie Paks
- PlA - Planed Utit De�eloprr�ard
� S1 - � �Ic Neighrybatbod
t�4�,',- � � � M�
p a, - � eu�r�s
� G2 -General Business
�. cs - c� sno�,s
� c.rr� - ce�rai o�oe
p nM1 - � �ndust;al
� N4�2 -Fie'avytndi�Lial
nn,9 -atdoor �ntensnee tieavy �nd.
� RR - I�lroads
0 p - P�c Fxt7i�es
p wA�
� �ac�ir-oF wAY
�� �vs r��t, by �m �r,d� o� as��y
Arts, would allow oor�str�tion of a
3,000 square foo� add'fion. A speaal
llS� � t0 Ifl�'P.aS@ � �Ot t�OV2�2
OV
t0 �J�°�o IS f�U��.
�
�
. III
,
/ t��
�
�
��
� � �I,�
N
A
?l�197 '
F�k=
. . ._ � �.-`' _ q'L.. . �.�,k
���Y�,�����- .
an Orrirenoe Na� 70 and Z,onirg . e(fecGve =
dabe 127/56 tiogether w�h a0 art� a�3o- ..
arKaes adopbed ar�d effec�iti�e � af?J1 19T- .� ,
ThB (Sty Of FridBy has hdiCen e�ay elfaR ti0
aa
vide ihe most �a infont�ion a�rai e.
�IF1B da�a p� hae is Sll7jed b c�ang@.
The (Sly af F�idey va71 not be r�espor�ble for
irdoreseen erta�s ar us�qe afi tlis doc�rr�nt.
- SP ��97-04
' , ��� �-r � y James Randers �
-" � ��t .�i �� ��
� I :=1� ��E�� P � ��„�, •,�,�
=i .si 6�"j�"� �� S121V JldldSld a �,� � e�-
� �� ��E��. � �o� uo�1�Pd pasodo�d Q
,''� �
�, �
h
�
�
pa"1
�
1--�1
A
�
,
o O
� a
:� � _
� o.. � �
— :: `8
Z M'�+�
O
Y q �
rn�
� a���
..� ��
u s q�
� Y � �
� L � t � h
S `yaeo
V ✓/.�
a �. E
� ��ia
�
s �
o=�$
� ¢S:
..us:�
~►sEw
aa ��i
2Oe
or��
u
.
>..
..�
., s
<
. ��
�+
.
�� �0
=" k ��a; �
ue �`g;��� '
o�
�o ���r�;��
V► �1��f��r-�++.�.o.�le J
a
�.
i
t � 3 t
�:� � ���� �
1 !
�� ��, s �i::�;; � • . � � ��
� �d9l. �r�'! �3 � ' � � � � �
r Y'%• � � �' _ � r�
� � 9
st �1 �j �iii q �� ��� � ��,�1 �%t
�f �;�" �111, y � �� �► �
� ��� �� ����
i N . s t � + r . . . . + .
_� -
�
:��, ��II
��� '
�
�' �
'I�,�� � •'�
�; � ��
� ��
� -
�
�
�
�_._._._._
C�
i .���'�'��.�„
�
�
�� � �
�, �
-�-.-.�.--_
��
�
�
�
�
� �
-- -- __._._�►
■
<
��
� ��
�
�
�a
�' �; a ea
�.�i ,�
'�s �rs
� � ��t1 ���
�,` ���t��l�
� il# ��s3.;...
r :
.� �.. .
�
SP ��97-04
'y ' � �� � ,� S ,
�.
� :. �� �iE�' �' '�� �nw � �� N
,_ �; ��•.��' ��� Slbd AdldSla d �
I� I ;: ��$ � �� �o� uo���Pd pasodo�d � Q
< s� �_���.
d
�
�
��
�
�
�i
,
C�
..
..
C3
� � �F
" � � .���
a����������
������a���i
- C�C�S�����I
� ���„�„�
� ����������
� ����������I
= 6�@�������1
�
�o
�C �
�
a. o
�� �
�� �
�
�� �
�
�"�j e
U�
�
�3 i
��
�
�i � � l �p� �
�r �� 1
" i 3 ° r�d � �►i
� RR �
�
� �� ' �
•
�'i �
� t
0
�,
��
,� .:
.�}.
-1
'��_
� . .
= �j Yi
i
1
1'
C�
�
r
� ,.-.� , - .
— SP �97-04
' • � ki� �it�iga �� y�� J m �
� "4 �
.= M'� �i�� . g� � *�°s�w�yW '�d �
I I I ;� :' � j`�� �� S121d Ad7dSla < < � �;
� i� �����. � �o� ufll�Pd pasodo�d � Q
�
�
e
�
i�
�
�
�
i
G
�
!
CQ
�
a
Cr�
s
�
�
f
�
1
e � p�
6 i
I I
s
,
�
�
.'
.j
u
LVSl�nO y'� J .. ..
CAR�ARELLE ' _
�' - ' ' ,
Latfd SuTV@yiif5 - • C =" a.;.�� � � �
� 941-3031 Eden Pralrie, MN 55344 � � : •. , • �`• �.Y' , x• � '
.� � '
. . . , ., .
� ��r�iti��% �� �urv�� SP ��9a-04 •. � �
rs �
SUrvBy Fof Jamee Ftanders & Jenice Storebo 800k 344 P2tge� Fle '
7839 Elm Street Nortfieaat
.j
i
�
Frldley, NN - , .
Scele: 1'�30'
� Denotea iron won.founA
� �
. �
�
N
V)
1
�
��
' ::4� .
� � . . , , �i
; �,�, � _ ;... �
. �
, ' r
�. � �'.
� . .. . .. ' ••t.+'
. '• .7 _1'/'
: ��x ' .� . .: ., .?.. .. `•; �, .
�'��, • . ;' ° ,
• ' 1 . . ; . •t .
.. . , ,�:
I• � , ' , ,' ' ' � . , • j • •
: . . /�
�f/ � • . . . •,_ 1 ' -
2 i •' �
X • : � ;`�'�
a I • � .. ; � :• :,
: �. ,, � • �t- ;.
� � • •,� ., .
p I :. . . . .::
vT . '
� . . .
� � . -
J ': ' _ .
Q. � � ; ', . �
� / •�:
., •.
� � �: ;
. �• �= a.
� . .F .
� i, 1
I lw�reby c.rtify to Jamee H. R�nQers enA Janice S. Storebo, huabend eind r►ife, TC! Henk .. .: ,
Sevinqa feb end, Old Republic Title Inaarance Coa�peny thet thie !s e true and eorrect ,
repraeentatloo of e aurvey of .'
Lote Tvnnty-four to Zl+enty-eiqht (24 to 28) inclu�ive. Block one lll. Onawny, '
accordlnq to the pint thereof o� file ++nd of record in the offlce of the Reglater '.
of Deeda in and for eaid Anoka C�nty, l�inneaotl. �.
and correctly ehowa the location of nll building, structurea, and improvcuMnte on aaid deacribed�
propertyt thet there nre no vieible encroachmente onto ad�oininq propertiee, etreeta, or elleya bp
rny of said buildinaa, etructvrea, or improvementa, that there are no vieible riqht-of-weye or
easementi on aaid de�cribed property other than ahown thereon� that there are no pnrty wall� or
vleiblR ancroechmente on erid deacrib��f property by bulldirge, atructures, or other improvements
eltueted on ed�oining propPrty except ra ehown on �ald plat of aurvey. Deted thia zr "" dey
of Di�' , 1993. ,
� , ��
Frank . G dare Stnto Req. No. 6508 �
i`
. . .' •
/"�
0
�
� p� � j�� �� y � SP ��97-04 �
��." �i;i �' J R
I I I �=1� ����_ �� ��� ��,�,r„ •���
.
<„ ,�i �i' �*;f � S121d AV1dSia e �� � e—
J= i�� ����t�. � �o� uoia!PPd pasodo�d �
- � Q
,'"'`� v�
H
�
�
a
�
�---�1
A
1
n �_
-a �
.a =� _
u e� � �
_ �tw s •
o �'=og�
1. M� '�T�i �
0
Y rn�
..-
� '°_�=
� �� �
������
�
_._�;=
_ _= o
u t��i.g�
°` -� gE
� <�}ic
r
_ `� o
ozes°
� • o�
��s:�
o:�`^
�°
.... ose
u ny "
_ '° e4
o.V�i
.
>..
...0
�� T
.
�
��
`
a 5
o i
�u '
V� � �a3g'�
Wo �
u �i��i
°: ���!°���� �
a
�i .
�
� � 3 �
�i�, � �� �� � ��� � . � , (
assa !-- ! r a�
�ai�� �l4�ji � � i �� � ! y ,+ i
�1 1�� b ;'a� q �� � �: ;� � �� ��
r in
�� i
�F ���" �Iji; A; ��� �� F�� }.�,,:� ��,�
t .� � e r � II.'......
r
�IIII_
�
���I��
�
��:
—
��
I'
'IC \'I
i��.
�;;;.
�
�' '°' ��
' � �
� —
i
�
�
�--.-.---.-
i
u
—._�.._.a� _�-
�Fi�i
�
�
�;x;;.:
�j �
�� i
—•---�� ---�
�{ �
�
�
e �.
•— -- ;•---•--1
_;
��
��
��
a
C�
�` �, ,
���! A 4
�r+�� ���
t��i `�i
�i`� �i�t!!9�!
���# �a.���lt
y =
�
/
�
w�,
W
�
W
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
Kk�'fuf?
. tr: ��
E���Y ;,
�
�
�
�
v
=
�
O
�
�
�
�
En9�n r ny
cn S�wel v
� Y W:tIC�
2
cO f'ai.s
O'+' srteccs
U U Ma�inlenince
w �
¢ m
O ?
MEMO DUM
TO: 1Vrchele McPherson, Planning Assistant PW97-152
FROM: Jon H. Haukaas�Assistant Director Public Works
DATE: May 30, 1997
SUBJECT: Display Arts
I have reviewed the plans and drainage calculations for proposed addition for Display Arts and have
found the additional runoff created to be within an acceptable. range. No additional storm runoff storage
will be required.
�
!'"�
�
�'t
�
z�, ����;
�
< �.
� ,_ �
�s�r� 3� ��. "~-��:,+9�;
,y� '.
� µ. .
Y�'�
�
'r= �� ��� �
� '�
,� t '¢
9.;;
� .,
f�"t�,.ti+R;a i..;:.r..;.�"N Y.�.�:�
,�, �` � s �' 'Y' i ""�� . a't'��` �. �� c .
� � l �.:`�'�� �} ��,c �i. �:' A��� �r' r�'>
rxF S �,� �_ � ! w 3' },+i � :5` ., ,�, � ,r{ �� , � t:.,, �, � .
C'~� • � s«�''Y' winora�,z� ,�*.� .,K� £ _,,,, �
r� , � #'° f � � � tl` ��� �,��. � ,.. .
� r. A S.�, , t F�YC.:
��.7�,�
?. ' y 'a # �:... . ��„
H 1 �� � � �
���: �� ���� � � �5��.
?- '�..sn�.�`� .�,,;� � `
� � � - � � �.�>�
g ��� � � � � ' ��`�'`� � �`����� �„�. :
��`�;� p��-��{ �r��5¢t� ��'� s�� :��% � ���� �
'y, f� Sc' '3.Y�m y .� �7 ��`'+�,y C�yG1 i�' �-.
� '� ' }� �°TM� �, " * 7? S2' <v.
�.� � +i�'.'�th�i.�'P'/m�4a � 1£ ."rw �'Tw
"� ?�... ._ . . ,> . . =.x. . .� _ .
jr..'r§ . . �.
n�� .
�
�^�
x� � �'�
.*K� �'r, "�` `�°""' 'm :� ' �
�.' �_ �;�`�'�'�'���k `
���#����-� ���`£���� ���� � �
;
� � �� � ����
��,.�� ���� ? ��� t.
t_ r ' '��` `�`'�_..�
� ;"r� � _ ,�z - �
� CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�
�
TO: All Property Owners/Residents within 350 Feet of Property
Located at 7839 Elm Street N.E.
CASE NUMBER: Special Use Permit, SP #97-04
APPLICANT: Jim Randers
PURPOSE: To allow construction of a 3,000 square foot addition, which
would bring the total lot coverage of the properly to
approximately 50%.
LOCATION OF 7839 Elm Street N.E.
PROPERTYAND Lots 24 - 28, Block 1, Onaway
LEGAL
DESCRlPTION:
DATE AND TIME OF Planning Commission Meeting:
HEARING: Wednesday, June 4,1997 at 7:30 p.m.
The Planning Commission Meetings are telev�sed live the night
of the meeting on Channel 35.
PL�4CE OF Fridley Munieipal Center, City Counci! Chambers
HEARING: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN
HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify.
PARTIC/PATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Scott Hickok,
Planning Coordinator or Michele McPherson, Planning .
Assistarrt, at 6439 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432
or FAX at 571-1287.
SPEC/AL Hearing impaired persons planning 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 than May 28, 1997.
ANY QUESTIONS: Contact either Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator at 572-3599
or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant at 572-3593.
Publish: May 22, 1997
May 29, 1997
cinr oF Fwo��r
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
(612) 571-3450
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FQR:
Residential Second Accessory Others
PROPERTY INFORMATIOIV: - site plan required for submittal, see attached
Address: ��yl� S �
Property Identification Number: _ 63 .�D Z�� ODjd �Oo(,s"� - d0l�
Legal Description: Lot,�Z� B�ock �_ TractlAddition �,��.w,�y
�
� /�
Current Zoning: �� e Square footage/acr ge: z00 j
Reason for Speci Use: _:p�. .�� f ��p t r��E _ w��,�c ,�/,p��-� �,� ,
Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license?
Yes No � If Yes, which city?
If Yes, what type of business?
Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No
�
- '' �;, ""^:�s�n�.a''- s ,�,.`�a�? aL :�;�� qz �y`'es �q��* .-.r_;.= y: ` � .� �£ } � 14 Y..;f �k�_�v : �� .
♦ , FEE OWNER��INFORMATION {as,�iapp' ears on the�property�titie)' '°. °� � �;:. � ���� �� �' �,;.j
' - , ,.
- (Contract purchasecs: F ovmers must si n this foRn ,_ -.
NAME: T c� � ,,,� 9 Pnor to processing)
A �s �J 5��,��Gb . ._ - � ;
ADDRESS: �iic � : : t� ;; M�� �� � �.�: : ;
.DAYTIMEPHONE °;�7/ :�Z6� ����.���.SIGNATURE/DATE.°�M: �°� :��'. . _
.. .. . �� i � � �:, :xi Frt�i�, z:' f .�..� �.' t -�. „t, .. . ._ .
. .. x t . K e .,�Y;da"' � n+ s"� _ e' $' r ,�k b,'�,r r `r� �. y�t �S�-'� � :i�r3+t�. t a � .r a ` .�� .! .. t
: r -f:,r.� �,�� � �� .
PETITIONER INF MA ON _� .. . '�" h'����p '�� '�`�� `�� � ��� ��'� "'
�`a&- r.�t°��,?'-��,,,, r �. �.,.:C�" ,�.c� s J'r �✓-^,� y f �`� � �� : .r.r �� �1�-�-:;
.. _s...n�-.,h �- � �� 2 'a, i �,..:^' t�-
NIa�iE � `�`�1:
ADDRESS: �
DAYT
, �, °„
iME PHONE: _ S 7/-az6o � SIGNATURE/DATE: 2S 7'
.........� _
Section of Ci#y Code:
FEES
Fee: $�00.00 Resi er�tial Second Acc�sso `
lication Number ��� i'Y $400.00 ✓ Others .
� Rece�pt #: �� � Received By ,�G- j =
Scheduied Planning Commission Date. � .
Scheduled City Counal Date: �' ` ��� � .
y-
10 Da r �x.
Y APPlication Complete Notifical�o Date •�:� -t Z"���q� .�.�� .:
so Day Date: - �l�lc� l , i 1�� ., t � � ,: �.� . . : .
, .
n
. L
SP #97-04
7839 Elm Street N.E.
� Randers
Jim Randers
7839 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Davie Boie
or G�rrent Resident
7880 Main SUreet NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Elm Street Properties
or Current Resident
7893 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Frank Preiner
or Gtiurent Resident
7840 Elm Sireet NE
Fridley, MN 55432
�
Jack & Janis Woods
or Ctiutent Resident
7830 Beech Street 1V�
Fridley, MN 55432
Karl & Lynda Rasmussen
9816 Bluebird Slreet NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Harold & Linila Clark
3138 - 136"' Lane NW
Andover, MN 55304
TGR Properties Inc.
or G�urent Resident
70 - 79`� Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Mailing List
Jim Randers
3106 Pierce Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55418
David Boie
or Gtirrent Resident
7860 Main Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Stephen & Dawn Smith
8750 Baltimore Street NE
Blaine, MN 55434
Jack Lindahl
14956 East Vermillion Circle
Ham Lake, MN 55304
(�urent Resident
7875 Be,ech Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Gtiaent R�ident
7845 Beech Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Current Resident
7864 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
LNB Properties
or (�irent Resident
7830 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Mailed: 5/16/97
PaulStone
Stone Construction
2181 - 107te Lane NE
Blaine, MN 55449
Russell & Emma Bendickson
or G'�urent Resident
7840 Main Stteet NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Cuaent Resident
7801 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
G�urent Resident
7800 Elm Stirreet NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Clarence Mittelsteadt
or Cturent Resident
7855 Be�h Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
M.W. Jackson & G.L. Peterson
or Curreat Resident
7865 Beech Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Ctiurent Resident
7872 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Thomas Marr
4325 Goldenrod I,ane
Plymouth, MN 55441
�cent Resident Delman & Carol Hogen Current Resident
._ �5 Beech Street NE or Ctiurent Resident 7891 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432 7813 Madison Street NE Fridley,lVIl�T 55432
Fridley, MN 55432
Current Resident
7847 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Joseph Semmler Jr.
29501 Potassium
Isanti, NiN 55005
Resident
7795 Beech Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Richard Harris
or G`�urent Resident
6200 Riverview Terrace NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Paco Inc.
or Current Resident
7791 Elm Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Current.Resident
7715 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
City Council
City Manager
Talco Inc.
or Current Resident
7835 Main Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Paco Inc.
or Curren� Resident
7790 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
R & F Acquisitions Inc.
or Current Resident
7779 Beech Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Current Resident
7710 Main Sireet NE
Fridley, MN 55432
G�rrent Resident
7763 Elm Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dennis Olson
or Current Resident
7760 Elm Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
L,awrence Properties Inc.
or Current Resident
7765 Main Street NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Jae & Ruth Blowers
2841 - 115"' Lane NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Resident
7775 Beech 5treet NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Carl & Shirley Peterson
1641 - 29�' Avenue NW
St Paul, MN 55112
David & Karen Asplund
8464 Greenwood Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
Diane Savage, Chair
Planning Commission
567 Rice Creek Terrace NE
Fridley, MN 55432
i''�
�
,�