PL 06/18/1997 - 7054�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1997
7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC COPY
(Please return to Community Development Dept.)
�
�
,�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1997 7:30 P.M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: June 4, 1997
(Tabled from 6/4/97 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.
�..� D��USSION OF 1997-1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS
� • -: ► _ •� • ••: •� : •:
V��1�L��.,�:;►,:�.�, . • ; • : - ��5�1�� _ • '
1 � . ; ..
E�ECEIVE THE� MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSION.MEETING OF MAY 20. 1997
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 28.
1997 .
ADJOURN
�
�
�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLlANNING C�IiSSION MEETING, JONE 4, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the June 4, 1997, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad
Sielaff, Larry Kuechle
Diane Savage, Connie Modig
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator -
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Jim Randers, Display Arts
Paul Stone, Stone Construction
Wes & Jeanine Grandstrand, 5431 Madison St NE
Linda Oslund, 5412 Madison Street N.E:
Pauline Charchenko, 589 Cheri Lane N.E.
• Bob Dietrick, 572 Cheri Lane N.E.
Steve Britven, 572,- 63rd Avenue N.E.
A1 NoutsbX, 5421 Madison Street:N.E.
Norma Amundson, New Brighton
APPROVAL OF MAY 21, 1997,.PL1�l�iNING COMMISSION MINUTES: -
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuec.hle, to approve the�May
21, 1997, Plarining Commission minutes.as writter�. -
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AI�I, VOTING AYI;, . VICE- �RONDRICR
DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. (Tabled from 5/21/97 meeting).FUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION
OF 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 l, Block 1, Home Depot Fridley
Addition, generally located at 5650 Main Street N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated this,item was tabled a� the May 21st meeting.
Staff today received communication that Home Depot wishes this
item to remain tabled until�the June 18th meeting.
2. 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 cqverage of the prop+erty to �
approximately 50a, on Lots 24 - 28, Block 1, Onaway District,
generally located at 7839 Elm Street N.E. •
PLANNING CONa+IISSION M�'�'�TNG, JONE 4, 1997 PAGE 3
'"-�
addition to the special use permit, the petitioner is also
processing a variance request consisting of several variances
including:
l. Reducing the lot area from 1.5 acres to 27,000 square feet.
2. Reducing the side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.
3. Reducing the building setback from an alley right-of-way from
40 feet to 39 feet.
4. Reducing the number of parking stalls from 31 spaces to 15
spaces.
5. Reducing 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 fl feet .
Ms. McPherson stated, on May 28, the Appeals Commission reviewed
the variances requested and recommended appraval to the City
Council of all variances with the stipulation that the special use
permit request also be approved.
�
Ms. McPherson stated, regarding the storm�rater drainage, the`
engineering department has no items required of the petitioner.
The ;impact is relatively smaYl and the engineering department.is �
� not reguesting any ponding or change on the site for stormwater
drainage purposes. �
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends denial.of the request as it .
cannot meet the two standards set forth in the code. However, if
the.Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval�of this
request to the City Council, staff recommends the.following .
stipulations: � '
1. The landscape plan shall be amended as follows:�
a. Substitute a rubrum maple for the proposed l�iarshall's
ash.
b. Add six flowering crabapples or plums; four in frorit
and two in the green area in the rear.
c. Add two additionaT Black Hills Spruce at the front
(northwest corner of the building). � '
2. The green area on the east side of the additiori shall not be
converted to hard surface.
�,
PLANNING COIrIl�+lISSION MEETING JUNE 4 1997 PAGE 4
n
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 de�icient 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. Variance request, VAR #97-05, shall be approved.
Mr. Oquist asked what two factors they were concerned about in
Section 205.18.03.C.(4).(a) and (bj.
Ms. McPherson stated the first is the total amount or impact of
hard surface whether it is a net increase or a net decrease. The
code would like it to be a net decrease. The second is whether or�
not the other.ordinance requirements can be met. The code talks
about drainage, landscaping, setback requirements, etc.
Mr. Oquist stated.the drainage and landscape requirements can be �
met. The setbacks were recommended for approval by Appeals. If
ybu eliminate the sidewalk in the front, how do they get to the
other doors? Is the�e not going,to be an extension of the ^
sidewalk to the entrance.in the new addition?
Ms. McPherson stated the.portion recommended to be:re�noved is the
triangular segments extending.out from the�front. The sidewalk �
along the building would remain.
Mr. Kuechle stated.parking is a problem there.
Mr.�Kondrick asked how much increase in Y�ard surface is there.
Ms. McPherson stated the.increase is a full 10�a. The petitioner
when first proposing this project wanted an addition of 60 feet x
75 feet. That would have pushed the lot coverage over 50�. The
pet,itioner reduced the size of the project one time in order not.
to exceed the 50% maximum.
Mr. Randers stated his company makes trade.show displays. The
problem they run into is that they have grown over the years and
need more space. As they are constructing the displays, the
clients want to see them up. The displays are then packed and
shipped. The more displays they get the more space they need. �
When they put up displays in the existing section of the building,
they have to stop production on everything else. If they have
assembly work on a job, they need to rent space because they do
not have enough room. As far as parking, he is not looking to add
employees. They have three sales people who come and go and who �'
,�
�
�
PLANNING COr�Il�lISSION MELTING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 5
park in the front. They.use only one entrance, It is okay with
him to take out the sidewalk because they use only one entrance..
They have five extra parking spaces and the neighbors park in
their spaces now. They do not need more people. They just need
more space for what they are now doing.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there would be off street parking.
Mr. Randers stated the sales representatives park on the street
but they come and go during the day.
Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Randers if he owned the building or if he
leased the building. �
Mr. Randers stated he owns the property. He purchased.it for
extra space.and have been there since.1990. He owned a building
earlier on 77th and Beech. They sold.that and moved two blpcks to
their present locat.ion in.1990. Space is now a problem again.
Mr. Sielaff asked if he anticipated growing even more.
Mr. Randers stated he didn't want to. He wanted to remain�this
size. He did.not anticipate expandin.g on this site. � �
Mr. Kuechle as.ked if the petitioner had any problems with the
stipulations. -�
Mr. Randers stated no.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there was any problem with the landscape
requirements.
Mr. Randers stated no. There are no trees there now so it would
probably look better.
Mr. Oquist asked what the door to the�south used for.
Mr. Randers stated they purchased the building from ICA. They
have an office there but never use that door.
Mr. Oquist asked, if they say remove a11 the sidewalk with just a
sidewalk along the building and from the door to the street, that
would eliminate some of the hard surface.
Mr. Randers stated that would probably be easier for them. He
thought the doors were there because of the fire marshall.
Mr. Saba asked how much more green space this would add.
e
PLANNING COl►Il�lISSION MEETING, JONE 4, 1997 PAGE 6
Ms. McPherson stated this would reduced the hard surface by
perhaps a few hundred square feet. It is not substantial compared
to the size of the addition.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICK
DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T8E PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50
P.M.
Mr: Kuechle stated he would be inclined to recommend approval to
the City Council af this request with the five stipulations as
outlined. .
Mr. Oquist stated a recommendation should also include the
rearrangement of the sidewalk.
Mr. Kuechle stated he thought this was covered by stipulation #3.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist to recommend
approval of Special Use permit, SP #.97-04,. by Jim Randers�, to
allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor sales and /'1
sto.rage on Lot l, Block 1, Home -Depot Fridley Addition,. generally
located at 5650 Main Street N.E., with the following stipulafi�ons:
1. The landscape plan shal�l be amended as follows:
a. Substitute a rubrum maple for the proposed Marshal�.'s.
ash.
b. Add six flowering crabapples or plums; four in front
and two in the green area in the rear.
c. Add two additional Black Hills Spruce at the front
(northwest corner of the building).
2. The green area on the east side of the addition shall not be
converted to hard surface.
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. Variance request, VAR #97-05, shall be approved. �
PLANNING CONIl�RISSION MEETING, JONE 4, 1997 PAGE 7
�
,�
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this item on
June 23.
3. INFORMATIONAL HEARING REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITES
Mr. Hickok stated this is an issue talked about before, and they
welcome the opportunity to have audience participation to get a
better understanding of what the issues are and ask questions they
may have. The telecommunications issue relates to cell phones,
digital pagers, satellite dishes, etc. Mr. Hickok showed a video
tape which explained the'telecommunications issues. The City
Council has passed a moratorium on the construction of towers
until December, 1997. �
Mr. Hickok stated in 1996 the Federal government passed a
telecommunications act which eliminated the previous regulatory
boxes, increased compe�ition and removed other regulatory
barriers. Towers have been constructed�around the nation whether
they be monopoles or lattice-work towers. Cities a�e required to
allow towers in their communities. There are two approaches as�to
where.these towers.may be located. One i�iethod is.mar�ket driven .
where telecommunications companie� can choose where to locate a
tower whether it be on public or private property. Another method
is site specific where the sites are identified and parameters set
for construction of these towers.
Mr. Hickok stated staff prefers the site specific approach ancl-has
determined nine possible locations for towers as follows: 1) WeTl
Site #1 on Cheri Lane; 2) a vacant parcel at the end of Cheri
Lane; 3) water reservoir site at Lincoln and 53.st; 4) We11 Site
#13 on East River Road; 5) Commons Park near the other utility
structures; 6) Community Park adjacent to the industrial district
and railroad track; 7) City garage and recycling center complex,
8) the existing water tower on Highway 65; and 9) Edgewater Park
north of Mississippi Street.
Mr. Oquist stated tYie video i�dicates there are some towers
located on private buildings. Are.they owned by the
telecommunications companies and do they rent the space?
Mr. Hickok sta�ted yes to both questions.
Mr. Kuechle asked what would happen to those in the City with the
� new ordinance plan.
PLANNING CONIllISSION MEETING, JONE 4, 1997 PAGE 8
/'1
Mr. Hickok stated the first choice would be to put them on high
topographic locations and on high structures in the community.
This would eliminate the need for higher tower structures. We do
have provisions currently in the industrial ordinance that says by
special use permit these could exist in industrial districts. If
on top of a building, though, they would be an accessory to a
principle use and�would be accepted. That is why the McGlynn's
tower was approved without a special use permit. The St. Paul
water tower was approved in the same way. The Highway 65 water
tower where they have a cellular array was approved by a lease
agreement with the City and the City receives an annual fee for
that. The one at Great Northern Industrial Park is the U.S, West
Cellular line and was constructed in 1992 with a special use
permit.
Mr. Oquist asked if there were strategic places these towers
needed to be and if eight sites would be enough.
Mr. Hickok stated the way staff evaluated from a site specific
standpoint is that the consultant has indicated we might see 17
requests for towers: Of those 17 vendors looking for a site, we
could see co-location as a very strong possibility which would �
eliminate.the need for 17 towers and drop the number back
considerably. We woulc� allow.a number of users to go on one
location.� Staff i:s looking at.eight site�. Conceivably on-those
eight.sites there could be. room for.two or three vendors on each �
monopole.
Mr. Sielaff asked what the ordinance would cover. Would it. cover
site�locations or would it indicate wh�t sort of site
characteristics would need to exist?
Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance would assure that towers are only
constructed in the locations that have been selected. Initially, �
staff would identify a set ot sites:to.be approved. It could be
expanded in the future depending on the technology. Initially, it
would be the sites that.were selected and then set parameters much
like the industrial buildings. There would be landscape
standards, site location features, etc. Staff would probably on a
site-by-site basis determine where the least visible site.would be
and most sensitive to residential areas. The ordinance would
assure that we have the control necessary to say what we want on a
specific site. The ordinance has not yet been drafted. The
Planning Commission will have an opportunity to see that language
when it is put together.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the lattice construction would be allowed.
�
PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING JIJNE 4, 1997 PAGE 9
�
Mr. Hickok stated the lattice construction would not be allowed.
Mr. Kondrick stated the telecommunications area is one where we
have no choice. They want to get coverage in every community
across the country. The City has a moratorium in order to provide
time to make studies and make sure the towers are located in the
right place.
Mr. Hickok stated, as staff evaluated the market driven approach,
they looked at it and determined this approach is still up for
grabs,�although staff prefers the site specific approach. The
market driven approach would be one of vendors coming in and
saying they have selected a site and then going througY� the
required processes. It goes back to an earlier question of what
needs to be done in terms of placement. The City has to make a.
reasonable and realistic effort to accommodate the t�echnology. We
have contro]. of where it is located as long as we are reasonable
in our approach. We have hired a consultant to determine what
kind of demand we will have which is based on the Federal licenses
that have been granted. Based on the demand, we can make a
reasonable effort to place poles. Each tower has a certain
radius. There may be a tower across the river, for example, that
is directed toward the surge tower site on Alden Way. Then
another tower in Edgewate� Park or Community Park would have to
direct their equipment in such a wa�r to make the�system work.
Hickok stated he believes.:they have set a.good pattern with-these
eight�locations to make it work and we can determine the
locations.
Mx. Kondrick stated, with the advances in technology, what about
the future whereby they are about to make these more powerful.
What is the possibility of a downsize? If we granted ten sites
today, what.are the.chances of there being a need for five sites
tomorrow?
Mr. Hickok stated this was a concern initially about getting �
g.ear.ed up too big and finding out they would need something
smaller. The technology has been on the horizon for a long time..
In talking to the vendors and our consultant, there is not another
similar technology on the horizon at this time. Folks are
entering into 20 year leases with the expectation that the need
for these towers is not going to go away: The technology is very
different. Many uses are digital and work best under low power,
so the poles being located close together don't need a lot of
power to project from one to the next. That also gives the
clearest signal. Now we are seeing the large towers or T-1
towers. What we will probably see are T-2 towers which are � �
smaller but ther�e would b.e more di them. Receive�s may get
/"1 smaller yet to the point where they may piggyback on existing
PLANNING CODIlrlISSION MELTING, JONE 4, 1997 PAGE 10
/"1
features.
Mr. Kondrick asked, of the sites selected, what do the consultants
feel will be the tallest tower necessary in this community.
Mr. Hickok stated the City is fortunate enough to have several
topographic shifts. The height depends on the site line. If you
have one tower on a hill and another in the valley, the lower one
will have to be much taller. We are expecting pole heights to be
75 feet at higher levels to 150 feet in lower locations.
Mr. Saba asked if there were construction codes for these towers
in terms of safety issues.
Mr. Hickok stated yes, that is one of the beauties of the monopole
technology as staff sees it. Staff toured a factory. The mono-
poles with the equipment attached are designed for wind loads of
120 miles per hour (mph). They ha�re been tested in Hurricane •
Andrew and have not had a failure to date. In Minnesota, the wind
load expectations are 80 mph at the high end. The monopole
technology observed meets the expectations of our Building staff.
Po1es will be required to have structural engineering data and
certification to assure integri.ty. ,-�
Mr. Kondrick stated, because parks are being considered as
possible locations, there.may be a building constructed at tY�e �
base of the towers to house electrical, etc. Are we going to be
able to insi.st that the building be of a certain size, of a �
certain construetion material, etc.?
Mr. Hickok stated yes.
Mr. Sielaff asked if other cities are doir�g ordinances.-
Mr. Hickok stated there are some ordinances out there. There is a
spectrum of responses to this technology. Bloomington has an
ordinarice that they are utilizing. White Bear Lake has taken the
approach that the towers will be on public land. Thase�ordinances
are available for review.
Mr. Kondrick stated Edina is also meeting about this issue.
Mr. Sielaff asked if we need to c.00rdinate this with other cities
in the area.
Mr. Hickok stated their early discussion pointed to a regional
approach. It seems that a regiona:l/metro approach would have been
the way to do this. We need to malce a reasonable accommodation
for the technology. Which tbwer selected in Fridley would '�
�
PLANNING COrIl�lISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 : PAGS 11
probably be determined by how close a vendor's towers are in a
bordering community.
Mr. Kondrick stated, for example, if Columbia Heights wants to
have a pole in this location and ours is there but it is too far
away, do you then have to move your pole?
Mr. Saba asked, in conjunction with that, if Columbia Heights has
a pole and another company wants put in a pole in Fridley, how can
we coordinate with Columbia Heights, Blaine, etc.
Mr. Hickok stated we have to be reasonable in the number. That is
determined based on not having knowledge of where they are going
to be in other communities. .
Mr. Kuechle stated he was not clear as to whether there still
would be antenna allowed on private buildings by special use
permit.
Mr. Hi�kok stated the ordinance would probably repeal the existing
language. Right now, that is frozen by the moratorium. He
thought the City had used up their high sites. Short of the water.
� tower, McGlynn's, and the surge tower, there is not a.lot there
. that has the'height necessary. �
Mr. Oquist asked if staff.kne�a the status of what surrou�ding
�communities were doing. Are they in the same situation? Perhaps
we should be showing neighboring communities where are sites will
be so we don't have a"farm" of antennas.
Mr. Hickok stated Columbia Heights and.Hilltop have been
experiencing construction of towers. In the other communities,
there are a number of moratoriums.
Ms: McPherson stated,.to her knowledge, Coon Rapids enacted a
moratorium about the same time as Fridley. However, Coon .Rapids
has installed a number of antenna sites. One is to the west of
the Northtown Finaneial Plaza. She thought the moratorium there
was for 18 months. Coon Rapids has been realizing they have been
issuing permits. They have two towers within 10 or 15 feet of
each other which happened because they did not have a coordinated
approach. They are now finding out they have multiple tower
sites.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the moratoriums would all come due at the
end of the year or if the moratoriums were different for different
cities. How is the government allowing that?
^� Mr. Hickok stated the.Federal gove�nment is allowing.that and sees
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING JUNE 4 1997 PAGE 12
that as reasonable for cities to have .time to establish where it
th
is ey want and need the technology to go.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a deadline.
Mr. Hickok stated this falls back to what is reasonable. At the
point where a City is using this to avoid getting structures, the
vendors will probably challenge and the courts will decide.
Mr. Grandstrand stated he thought Mr. Hickok had done a pretty
good job of illustrating the locations that are appropriate for
towers and antennas for telecommunications sites. As he watched
the v.ideo, everything seemed to be commercial and industrial
sites. However, out of the eight sites proposed, two of �hem are
in the heart of.residential distric�s = the Cheri Lane well house
and the vacant parcel at the end of Cheri Lane which is a City
park. The sites are relatively small sites and are both City
properties, but he would guess the sites are 100 feet square.
They are located adjacent to fiomes. If you consider the fact that
putting in a 75 foot to 150 foot high tower 50 to lOQ feet from
his back door he feels a bit concerned about having that kind of a
structure that close and located within a residential area. He is
curious that two of the sites are located in residential areas.
Perhaps the commission could respond to those issues.
Mr. Kond�ick asked how to.get the coverage needed.in the ar�a
where needed.
Mr, Hickok.stated, in all cases, these are City owned properties.
. We believe we have the best control over the maintenance of the
towers and wh�t happens to the towers on our property. Staff had
. a GIS map made that showed every piece of public proper�ty
throughout the.City. Staff went through.ever� one of those.pieces
and asked if the site was big enough, its proximity to other
things, etc. These two sites are in an area where we don't have'a
lot of land area bt�t need coverage. There�ar.e some small parks.
If they contain a playground or activity area, it may not be
appropriate as a site. The land area on the site`behind Target is
wooded and contains a park. It contains a small building for
hockey storage. It is a wooded site and has the possibility of
putting that base in the wooded area which would mitigate eye
level site from the ground and still fill a void in that area. It
is not in the midst of a playground and has some natural cover.
The well site is in the same area. It is an open site that does
not have another activity besides the well. It coizld accommodate
a combination weli building and equipment building for the tower.
It does have land area and it does not have a contradictory uses.
�
i"�
Mr. Kondrick asked if there was commercial property in that area. �
�'"°�
PLANNING CO1��lISSION MEETING, JONE 4, 1997 PAGE 13
Mr. Hickak stated the site is along I-694 and the commercial area
is further to the east. This site is surrounded by residential,
but it is not unusual to see that. This i�s a technology that has
been determined to be safe by all Federal standards. It is so
safe that the Federal government has said that cities will not be
responsible for and should not be involved in trying to regulate
health concerns. In many�cases, the wattage is equivalent to a
100 watt light bulb for each user. The signal is clear because of
the low power. Cellular is about three times that. Technology
runs in different bands. That is another thing the Federal
gov�rnment insures.
Mr. Kondrick stated they had talked about the equipment b�ilding
that needs to be at the base of the tower to house the
electronics. We need to have.a vehicle access to get to the
building for work and/or maintenance. That is another
consideration. Putting a tower in a park is a major concern.
They do not want to upset the nature of activities in parks. He
did not know how that would be arrived at. He did not think there
were any harmful effects.
� Mr. Oquist asked if staff had given consideration to.putting a
tower across I-694 at the Lake Pointe site.
Mr. HYCkok stated there is great potential thafi once a building is
there that would work. There is a master plan approved for Lake
Pointe. It could work on top of a building but a free stariding
structure is contrary to the master plan.
Mr. Oquist stated it could be incorporated into the master plan.
He thought that should be given consideration because it is not i.n
a park or residential area. It is an open area.. It may be a good
alternative to these two sites.
Mr. Grandstrand stated he understood 3,ake Pointe was a large area
ancl the development for that a.rea was a large commercial buildin.g.
It is surrounded by public.roadways. There is an area to the east
of the immediate site for the building between Lake Pointe Drive
and the ramp to I-694 that is a prime site. It is a smaller area.
It is not an aesthetic issue and may be appropriate for
consideration.
Mr. Saba stated he thought this would be preferable to
residential.
Mr. Noutsby stated he was a lifetime resident on Madison Street.
He and his family moved there before Target. The City Council
n minutes from back then indicate tl�e City Council made a verbal
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING� JtJNE 4, 1997 PAGE 14
�
commi�ment to the property owners there that they would dedicate
the area behind Target as a park to be a buffer zone for Target.
He does not want trees taken down or damage done to the wildlife
or the buffer. He asked if staff had taken that into
consideration. This is a park and the City has the right to build
what they want on a public park. He does not want the City to
build a commercial building.
Mr. Saba stated it is not something we want to build. The problem
is that the telecommunication act as passed by Congress took away
the right from the city to say no. We have two choices. We can
either let the telecommunications companies decide where they want
to go or we can preselect sites. The Planning Commission and
staff feel that preselection of sites is in the b�st inte�est so
we can get input and take that input in deciding the final
locations. This is excellent input. He would prefer to stay away
from residential area.
Mr. Noutsby stated in their neighborhood they don't need a tower.
As far as no health risk, he has heard that too many times in his
lifetime. At the time of the Korean War, they were sprayed with
DDT and told it was perfectly safe. When the major power lines
were installed, they said it would not hurt anyone but they found ^
out later it was harmful. This may be the same. He hopes they
are right and that people will feel no.effects in 20 years. He
felt it should be kept away from the neighborhoods. --.
Ms. Charchenko stated she lived next to the well site on Cheri
Lane. She would just as soon not.have it there. This is a
residential area. The Lake Pointe site would be perfect. She
lives right next door to this site and does not think it i.s a good
idea.
Mr. Britven stated he lives near Commons Park. Is the
installation going to go on the water tower in that location?
Mr. Hickok stated it is possible and that is something they would
consider. Water tower applications are very common. It is not
certain. The City would go back to the Park.& Recreation
Commission before doing anything in a park.
Mr. Britven asked if these ar.e strictly rel�ay systems or are these
bases.
Mr. Hickok stated their understanding is that these would be
relays and not bases. The closest example of a base is the Arden
Hills site that has buildings at.the base.which serves as a base
that sends out signals to the secondary towers. If he understands
the question correctly, it is whether or not we will have a ''�
�
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, �TONE 4, 1997 PAGE 15
similar impact on
base station is a
here. Only those
building.
the land. He thought what they would see on a
large building(s). They are looking a.t towers
tower sites that have cellular will have a
Mr. Britven stated, when these are constructed, he thought they
need to consider the maximum wattage. These emit radiation. It
would be interesting to see if you could regulate the power per
unit area in milliwatts by the different vendors throughout the
poles. He does not have cable TV. Would this interfere with the
regular TV channels?
Mr. Hickok stated their understanding is that.it runs on different
bands completely and will not interfere with the other bands. Mr.
Britven's previous points are clearly spelled out in the Federal
regulations that cities cannot control power and interference.
That is controlled by the Federal government.
Mr. Oquist stated he would expect that, if there is interference,
they are going to have to put some filters out there.
Mr. Britven stated, with�these poles and multiple vendors, he
r.-1 thought the city should Mave some sort of regulation •on maximum
wattage if you get multiple vendors on a particular pole. He
asked staff to explain more about the wattage.
Mr. Hic�kok stated•there are a number of pieces of literature that
are available either from the industry itself or from third
parties that have done separate analysis of this issue.. This
particular piece of information is from the Personal
Communications Industry Association which talks about structural
components of the towers, the frequency or EMF, etc. Under the •
EMF, it states that: many wireless services operate at a low power
level. For instance, cellular and PCS transmitters operate at 100
watts or less. Paging transmitters and two-way radio antenr�a
seldotn operate at power levels higher thari 100 watts. On multi-
use towers, the systems that operate at higher power levels are
usually located towards the top of the structure and the lower
powered cellular and PCS transmitters are located toward the
bottom. With three vendors on a tower, we might see a wattage
that would be approximat�ly 1500 watts. Likely, we would see a
mix of cellular at 30.0 watts, pagers �t 500 watts, and PCS
applications�at 100 watts. With a height of 150 feet, it would be
reasonable to expect three vendors on a pole.
Mr. Grandstrand stated his first concern was aesthetics. With the
latest discussion he is having another concern which is �he
introduction of commercial traffic into a residential area. If we
�"'1 have one or two towers and have vendors that have to access those
PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING� JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE i6
_ �'`�
areas with some frequency, he thought that would introduce into
the picture commercial traffic on residential streets. They have
a unique neighborhood with children playing in the yards so that
brings in another issue to consider. For those that are not
familiar with the neighborhood, this is a rather isolated area.
It is bound on the west by 7th, Madison on the east, and three
cross streets - 53rd, 54th, and Cheri Lane. There is one way in
and one way out. �The infrastructure is there for residential
traffic, but if you start adding to it he did not know how much
commercial traffic could be supported.
Mr. Kondrick stated he thought the service vehicle would be a van.
He did not think they are talking about a lot of trucks back and
forth. :
Mr. Grandstrand stated, as far.as frequency, that may be more of
an zssue. He did not know who made the decision to construct the
sports storage facility. That building in itself has introduced
so much more traffic in that area. They wi11 see people there
once a month, and they will see vehicles come in there by the
dozen. Everyone that has children in a sports program is serviced
by that facility and will come in one car after another for a
period of an hour.to an h.our and a half. People will tur.n around ^
in the dri�veways. The children have come in, swung on trees and
broken limbs. These are things that are out of place with the
neighborhood. It is just.another item to bring in traffic �hat
does not have business in the neighborhood. � �
Ms. Amundson stated her question was about safety concerns. When
she goes into the ban�, there is a sign asking people no to use
cell phones.
Mr.. Hickok stated the same is true on.airplanes. Where there is
any chance that this would interfere with a security system or
flight/safety systems, you will be asked to turn it.off. On this
technology, you have more power in you� hands than on the pole
itself. This is an issue that is very clear in.the FCC
regulations about how the tower is structured and what kind of
impacts this power will have on the surrounding area. It is
negligible.
Mr. Saba stated he works in the network industry. The big problem
is getting osc�.11ator chips which generate the signals. That
signal may interfere with the security systems in a bank or on an
airline.
Ms. McPherson stated it may not be a case of the actual electronic
technology although she has noticed more and more places are
asking people to turn off their phones. It may be just a �`1
�
�
PLANNING COI�IlSISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 17
situation of the bank trying to create a quiet space to work with
clients. It may not be a health risk but it may be an issue of
consideration.
Ms. Amundson asked what is happening with New Brighton and other
cities. Is anyone challenging this?
Ms. McPherson stated she did not know what New Brighton was doing.
She will check. �
Mr. Hickok stated they were seeing a broad spectrum of responses.
Roseville is getting a number of towers and they seem to be doing
a good job of regulating where they are going. Shoreview and some
of the other communities have taken a closer look. They �ave had
some experience with radio towers of a different type that is
causing them to slow down and take a look. A moratorium is a
popular response to the FCC regulations. At the time staff asked
the City Council to consider a moratorium, Washington County was
about the only other moratorium staff was aware of. Since then
Coon Rapids and some other communities also have a moratorium.
Ms. Amundson stated she thought they shauld look at other cities
and what they are doing. '
Ms. Grandstrand stated, if these forums continue, more. of the
people in the areas where these�are planned should be notified.
Persons within 350 feet are noti�ied. She thought the whol.e area
should be notified rather than just those within 350 feet.
Mr. Saba stated a notice is placed in the newspaper.
Ms. Grandstrand stated it is diff�rent if the noti.ce is received
at your home. Like an advertisement, if you put.it i� different
forms, more people will see it.
Mr. Noutsby stated from the comments from the people we don't want
this in our neighborhood. What can we do to stop it? He thought
it should be going into a commercial area. He does not care if it
needs to be higher. They don't need anything more in their
neighborhood. That small area is their buffer from Target and
commercial. There in not much left for them.
Mr. Kondrick stated these comments will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration.
Mr. Hickok stated they are cognizant of putting �owers in
residential areas. As an example, there are three points south of
I-694 that have.been chosen. All of this has been done in a way
�� that it takes the City, lays out the geographic area, and tries to
PI.ANNIN'G CONIl�lISSION MEETING, JUNE A, 1997 PAGE 18
_ /'�
find locations that match the technology and match the
reasonableness test we have to pass. Folks from the area of
Lincoln and 51st probably would also say they did not want this in
a residential area. We cannot avoid residential areas. While
this is information gathering, he did want to point out that we
are at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to being reasonable
in our coverage expectations so we are considering areas we may
not have considered before but that have location features that
are necessary. It is not a contradictory use as they see it. The
screening would have to be taken into consideration. If it
determined that a park is an appropriate location, the Park &
Recreation Commission has asked that it come back to them and that
they take a specific look at it. It will be an elaborate review
process before a tower is placed in a park. We may not be able to
assure people we can keep them out of residential areas.
Mr. Gra�ndstrand thanked the staff and Planning Commission for the
opportunity to express their opinions and share their thoughts.
Ms. McPherson stated she checked to see what other communities are
doing. Staff have talked with Mounds View, Richfield, Brooklyn
Center, New Brighton, Cr�ZStal, and Brooklyn Park. New Brighton
has adopted a zoning ordinance amendment. It appears they have �
gone through the process. Based on their matrix, towers are
allowed in commercial and industrial districts, in park areas, and
it appears that single family districts are considered. It-does
not appear that they are processing special use permits, but they
do have some strict standards on height, setbacks, support .
buildings, etc. �
Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to see some close scrutiny by us
on what other cities are doing. We have control over what we do
here. He is concerned about what other cities are doing. If
other cities put towers in commercial areas close to our
boundaries, it could be close to our residential areas. He
thought that could impact Fridley.
Mr. Oquist stated, if another community does that, we cannot stop
it or do anything about it. He thought we needed to be aware of
it. He thought the communities in this area need to form a
committee to say this is what we are doing and coordinate those
efforts. He thought they could have some control through
coordination.
4. 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Ms. McPherson stated this item i� the presentation by Ms: Dacy as
made before the City Council. That was to have been a video taped ^
presentation. Unfortunately, the videotape is on loan to one of
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1997 PAGE 19
/y1
the Councilmembers. This item will be presenied at the June 18
meeting.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
APRIL 23, 1997
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of April 23, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CIIAIRPERSON KONDRICiC
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION CON�IISSION
MEETING OF MAY 5, 1997 -
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the
minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of May 5,
1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
r-1 ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn.the
meeting. � --
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID A1�ID THE JiJNE 4, 1997 , PLANNING
CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING ADJOURNID AT 9:08 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
S I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMIgBIaN,MEg•j•ING� 'Wednesday, June 4., 1997 .
i'"�
i"�
��
i
CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY
�
Todd Mosher, representing Home Depot USA, has requested that a special use permit be
granted to allow temporary garden sales in the pa�icing lot from the 4�' vueek of April until the 1�
week of July of each year. The proposed sales area is to be located in the southeast comer of
the site in an area 220' long x 100' wide; (22.000 square feet). The sales area will be en�losed
by chain link fence and will contain live materials, bagged goods, �nd landscape materials.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Section 205.15.01.C.(11) of the Fridley City Code requires that a special use permit for garden
centers or nurseries which require outdoor disptay or storage of inerchandise.
' When Home Qepot was originally approved in Fridley. the Cify approved the project with the
originai stipulation that no plant sales were to occur outside of the cortfines o�-the garden
center. Home .Depot agreed to the .stipulation. CurrenUy, the petitioner is indicating that °Home
D�pot has seasonal, pa.rking lot sales, in their stores everywhere else in the Country. � Home
Depot sees this as an essential part of what they do�.
Home Depot currently has 27,972 square feet of garden center. lf addfional seasonal s�tes
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 essential part of what Wome Depot does, the use should have been
planned for initially as part of the original construction. The act of coming back to the Cifiy after
the store is complete and after parking lot circulation routes are planned and installed, places
both the Ciiy and the retailer.in an. awkward posfion 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
,n.,,,+
r �
Project Summary
SP #97-02, by Home Depot USA
Page 2
Petition For:
Location of
Property:
Legal Description
of Properly:
Size:
Topography:
Existing
Vegetation:
Existing
Zoning/Platting:
Availability
of Municipal
Utilities:
Vehicular
Access:
Pedestrian
Access:
Engineering
Issues:
Comprehensive
Planning Issues:
Public Hearing
Comments:.
�
PROJECT D�TAILS
A special use permit to allow garden or nursery sales in the
open.
5560 Main Street N.E.
Lot 1, Biock 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
,--�
Project Summary
SP #97-02, by Home Depot USA
Page 3
�"�
WEST:
SOUTH:
EAST:
NORTH:
Zoning:
Zoning:
Zoning:
Zoning:
Site Planning
Issues:
REQUEST
�1DJACENT SITES:
M-2, Heavy Industrial
M-2, Heavy Industrial
C-3, General Shopping
M-2, Heavy Industrial
Land Use: RR, industrial
Land Use: Industrial
Land Use: Retail
Land Use: Industrial, multi
tenant
Todd Mosher, representing Home Depot USA, has requested that a special use permit be
granted to allow temporary garden sales in the parking lot from the 4�' week of April until the 1 St
week of July of each year at 5650 Main Street N.E.
'� SITE DESCRIP ION/HISTORY
The subject property is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of 5'lt'' Avenue and
Main Stree� The property is approximately 11.6 acres in area and is zoned G3, General
Shopping Center. Located on the properly is a 103,550 square foot Home Depot store, a
27,972 square foot garden center, and a 26,600 square foot PetsMart store. The p�operty was
replatted in 1995 when Home Depot was constructed.
ANALYSIS
Section 205.15.01.C.(11) of the Fridley Cit�r Code requires fhat a special use permit be issued
for garden centers 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 eliminate 88 parking stalls in finro 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 blocks, etc.)
�
Project Summary
SP #97-02, by Home Depot USA
Page 4
�
Home Depot received a special use permit in 1995 in order to allow the existing garden center
area which is 27,��72 square.feet in area. This garden center includes hoop houses, house
plant enclosures, and racking for other materials. The garden center area is enclosed �
by a masonry wall 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 the 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 essen#ial 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 the parking lot circulation routes ate planned arrd installed,
places both the City and the retailer in an awkward position of having to consider what appears
to be�a planning.aiter-thought which carries a higFr, 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 th� garden center. If Hom� Depot desires �ddition�l garden cen#er area; it sfiould 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: �
�
9.�Expand the existing garden center 148' to the east, rewrorking the traffic and
circulation flow of the existing parking lot. . ;� __
2. � Expand the entire fror�t or easterly facade 445' x 49' �of the Home Depot building
itself through the use of an atrium type strueture. which would provide 22,000 square
feet of additional retail area which could be dedicated to garden center sales. �
The difficulty is th�t the sale. area tal�es up parking spaces that would have been convenient to ��
the store:or garden center. The circula#ion of vehicles in the parking lot remains (argely the
same, however, patrons wil� enter and.�exit the display afea directly into traffic, crossing parking
aisles and traffic lanes �in unanticipated (ocations.. 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 distinc�ior� between vehicle and. pedestrianways; creating a
safety concem for pedestrians. �
Hoses for watering are also required to.be dragged across the circulation areas causing anofher
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 ta the Police Depa�tment. .
�--�
From an aesthetic standpoint, the City has been very careful to insist on quality building
materials, landscape materials, lighting standards, and continued maintenance of the
Project Summary � � � .
SP #97-02, by Home Depot IJSA .
Page 5
development. area. Similar requests for outdoor storage and display have either been modified ,
through stipulations placed on a special use permit, or �denied entirel�r.
In further reviewing Home Depot's request, staff contacted other communities with Home Depot
stores.
To follow is a listing of those communities and the responses regarding their existing and any
outdoor sales by Home Depot.
Brooklyn Park
In Brooklyn Park, no parking lot sales are permitted. Their garden center is 27,972 sq�are feet
in area. In March, Nome Depot requested additional space in the parking lot for pallet storage
of bagged materials and other items to be sold. The Planning Commission and Ciiy Council of
Brooklyn Park denied the request for additional sales and storage space in the parking lot; and
... required Home Depot to confne all garden center �ales items:to within the existing .garden �
center. They also required. Home Depot #o remove other items displayed outdoors, such as
yard sheds, tractors, trailers, etc.; including the fence sections which were attached to the front
of.the building. : .
� �
Maplewaod . .
In Maplewood; limited outdoor sales.are permitt�. The City. of Maplewood's Home Depat has :. .
... an �xisting ,garden center of 28,000 square feet. In March, the City of IVlaplewooct aiso
a.pproved a 50' x.50' extension .of the g�rden cenfer 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.b�
� chain link which allows temporary sates of bagged goods and other�items associated vvith tlie
garc��n center. � � _ .
�� Pl�mouth
��he City of Plymouth's Mome Depo# will not oper� until July 4, 1997; however, the built ga�den
� center area is 17,955 square feet in area. They will be allowed outdoor sales if a special use
permit is approved. Wathin th.eir existing garden center area,.tMey are not utilizing hoop
structures; however,..items are.covered by green_house shade cloth.
Coon Rapids �
Coon Rapids Code does not specify by c,ode what is, or is not permitteri related to parking lot
sates. The Home Depot in the City of Coon .Rapids includes a builf garden center of 18,223
�square feet surrounded by chain link fencing. Within the garden center area are hoop
stru�tures and storage buildings are currently being displayed on the sidewalk in frdnt of the
building. While they are currently not displaying items in the parking lot, the Coon Rapids City
Project Summary
SP #97-02, by Home �epot IJ�A
Page 6
�,
Code is silen# upon the regulation of outdoor sales; therefore, it is more than likely that they wili
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,OOb 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 th.e St. Louis Park Horne 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. n
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 259 - 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 pro�sed by Home Depot could be considered contrary
to the intent of the 57t'' 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.
�
��„���
�-Tr�
��
�:.a:,?u:' _rua: _ L Lr.e'`ri.x.
�' �.9 �� _
0 Fi-1 - One Fatrt'ly U�tits
0 �z -rwor-�,7yu►�
j� t�3 - General M/dpie l�r!!s
��j R� - Nbtx7e Flortie Perls
� P1A - Platned (hit Davelopm�t
S�1 - HNde Park Neighbort�ood
� S�2 - Red�mart Oistr�t
0 G1 -Laxl Business
� G3 -Gerieral ��
�GR1- �+'al OffioB
1 - Light IndusUi�
[, 2 - F�leary Indtatriai
� M,3 - Qtdoor Intcr�sive Fie�avy Ind
-� -�
� P -�r��a�
Q wA�
I� RIC�FiT-0F WAY
Special l�se P�� SP #97-02 - A
�� :-.`! • •: - �-���
• -� : 1t �'
•
� � • �- . - ' : •'• •,.I • :=
.
: � •; • • _ ;r.�} �:
The mat�ialS will be s�d from the
jJdt"iCltlg �Ot.
�197
5D o�� �
■
a
.....
_ �'1
r.... ..
1
Camp�led and draHUt fnOril affiaad 1e0afdS based
O�I Q'C��7108 NOi. 70 8�1d 7.Onl�1g �1AB
�f@ ii2%/$� �D�1EX' 1AA1�1 �
a'aes adopted and e.ffec�iv�e as af ?J1 �
�IidB tl1e n106t upfio� lr�forrr�Or1 avalabi�
liie data preseMed F�ere is subjed to
lhe CitY � FrimeY vall �ot be responsi�le�for �
Lf�IDi�I ef10f5 Of US�@ � Ulis dOClY1'IE'�.
_ _ f1"' � n- � , . , � � �J P �! 9 �' 2. r r a t ,
,--'--� . -`�".' � � • : - � , � .
--- Home o t ^ � � �
'� . �n N , T � N e,., �
�� a � �t
__. j..�; -- ,� ------- .. _ ��,, _ .c,_ _
_ <�':;.,��,QO.,.u.., � _ � . �n-- - - - -•-t�n - {�`✓
: _. _._ � _. -..—__ =.1�.�_-. ._ -_—__- _-_ - - -- - -- -- - --
-. _ _. ._._
- - -- - _ -- --- - ._ _ .._.. , - _ ° � -: - __- --_ - - -- ------ -- --- - - -- =t� —� -- �
.._.�__.. _
_ _ _ _ _.._�. - - - -�= -
i���- - - � -- �an-- _. ...._..__.;. _ _--=- -
' � --- -- -- _ . _ 1 <� . _ . _ _ L � -. ' ' _ `s
- 1`.il1-___ _ .__._._- --- _ __ i�'�o
' :�
.�l,s�'j . . � � r
��
-�--� :--T- -- ---____- _------ ,� ��_ _ _ � _. - _ __ � . �. �
.. ; � � - � - -- ,
�..a,G.: , , , . _ _ . . �- - �
-- _ _:�:— - , �
? I ' ,;.:
� ---,,` -- .�-�! •
,r
__-�.--___- _ = � ' - - - --
•. � a
_� L1 _i,_ _`.�._S 7 - . , r,_ ` i_ � r
[ 1 i
�`�- � f�� �' — \�,?`i---- / _ \=� -'.r -- _
._ _ _ -------. --- Y�il _1 � � � � � ! �=-�
_ _ -- _ �:� .._�: �-� �'��_��_��;�11� {-;_� _ ? c n,
.. . _ _ _ .� w }— , � , , �.,�:�1� �_ (� i "
_ � z� , ��!�:. � --�� % _ � i �r�
� Q � w � � i;�ll ( � . ! �n ; �,
U • - � . ��
(� _! Z - � � r; .' a . ...
1.1J H �..1� � �
O
J� L� � , a � � _ � � �
�
QQ J � � • �
( � � � Q � : Q �l� r � � � �
I Q �__ p � i � � � +� a
Z U � � � . .
� Y � � � �� �
� W � � � � �. ,
w 3 -'`
� . `° W- � w- :'¢. �_ -
> > �oC � ,
o vt-- � � . -l: ! � ¢ . � .
¢ �- 1
a �, v� ; � W :
A � � W �
� � Q �- (�, , p. ; � ; �' � ; !
� �C �, µ-.
t� I.,L W A' o (� ; N, - •: i:
F— � � � J 'Q � � ° 'l �
� Q Q ' 'a
• H � Z � � r� •��` L
� � � g J H � . . '���
— - - � � �- ( � i,��. ;� � _ . �e- � '
� �__J
! __ - ' - -- ---- — W � W � � 'v' �
-- � � � ,l � u
"--- H ! �� r � �
_--- - ----- �-_�. _ � Z F--� � � f ,,
_�.__ - - J_ __ W --"�- o��' ' � ,
_ ._ '. . '�.. _�, �
- ��
- — � a .
W � m o_
_. _ _. _._ � �y u:
. . . � � __ Q '1
a tt
_ _ ._,T. _J . 1
� � ` � � f1
� OF ;� �
U �n
a
��ti � -
u-- . �-�': �
. r�� � `^ " -
I v �
—._ —_ _ -- . _ _ ,---- � 1 " v _
_ -�--_..-- -- -- - �-- �r---- ------- �� �_t
- � N
� '_
y.
� ._ . . - � , .. .
- - i"�- c ,.� J . .
' - -- ..__ - -'---- �`�- /
_ -•---- -_ _ __ ! 1�� i. � ' (\)
'�' �' �� -
r.?t n.;
�;',F; _
A � �
~� � �� �� � � ��.. . ..
,s�' �,;�yS i � s .,� r ` rr� , .a
C- , ��-
- - , � � �,., �. . .. • .'� �f j � ^ J • � : 9.,i ` n. .^� , �.
. E� �,. ...� .
1 `,`{� ' ' , � ti. � �' ' 3 �+' !'�9" f7� �"i( 3'*"„" 1
,. rT t l. _�r ,� � �,.�y�� . w. . ..� , r'
�1, "' � ! � .� � � t `� � �`' r �- y' � .�,�..�, ``,C' �..�..v.�. . �� ;i
��` ' , l�y� F *� ��, i1��Vi " P'�.� ��,.�'_ ���'��'f'` b���. �\
�L �
r Y� \, ` _ . ' '�.q'F'w±+'< .�' L' �0�Q '7 t� .f - � � �` •
`..
� y � � ' � � ... -��'r+c. :�'�Y/ ' " ^ - .n s� �,�y1 F r ', '� :
" � �!:'a .. .°"r.wi��w�-�.+�-�r'Y.'�r.�i��o-�� � •.i: �� "�* � .. �` •.i
' � . - ' .a.a�#��.�s.,,,2+�' . ... r ��.�i
_ _
.
.. . ��� y�� . �
.,� � ...,:- .... . _ r i ��►. '' „ ' �
� F L � � � -+�
� r: s , �� � . ��� � ��� � 1 ��x ?E-.... .} �� 4 _ y1� � . .
s� � ^'� �� �,� ���x:�"�.��_ � � `S "s �
t� �� � ..6� s � �, . _ . -�',� h ,r...G .
� �� aN^� "� . r t -'s�. � T'�.^^x��-R� � � � .
� �!b . 4 � s"5d^' a. 'C4a.t+"x' ..s .� � .
- � �af� c.,t+ y �'^� '°,� �!°3r :� . . - �
. ..,
ri+' 6 , : ,. . �
, ., • .��J0.��'?' ���..r y,�ts4 �. `8+.rp�R,s..��.. ." \ • ' , .
�r< .1 t 'n" .*.g� �v a. � -� � �."J ' L '� � .. .- '
��r ` �:� � '.`, 2^�.; *�.�- . _ � ;jir,x� �, -� , � �
ikk ''.j'.2 2 Epy.tt' - , =t} y �.,,� •r�a��e•rrtf-d_=�"��t: . q h � . ._ ' �� �s.y „� .� ' ° � .
�'°4� i i i Z i'� y.y � �...e� . � ?�?���! � �!V�.a � . qt .
t 2 ,i} b b-.j a ��''6'.�'i, � ��1ip �c �z7a. � �.. r"j L
-°K S 2 h' .v. y {��.'�4'' - w.,• i�r�,,,"'•r �'��'�� � i 3 �, � . � , r . .
�S f i . `:.+,y„ �'�� s. �',� . =T .r f'�_ `satr�w.tar i... �..:
,.�f ?_ +.,�. ff• �,v,t t . �a.� �-.;' ;,.;'ri' ° - . f. � . . f ,z.��: +� , s.. .,o; F! . ;�, � ,
�� ~ . -4 ;, ` f -
Ml��,:, c .. �' ,a.,,;• �,^--T
�,u,l�j�,r•o �. ��' � a � � �'�s, r ,
b `i;3������;�^_^"�- ` { �4�'� �i..� �, �
< ^ � -s i , � ,,e :�
''�'' 'rR„��".' ' D:
l�� � - � �4 JR�
f ��, : � .�
•u � !:;f �;_I:t
� - +� � - = Y . `,c1'.
l aM1
�F � 1 i 't A r f{ ' : �., :.
�`+Ft'` � _ ; _ �
: i'r `/"!� ,.r `
`_,,�:tkT ���� _ _ z
F .� ` ' � E �' �+ ;r. '.
�'. ! �"\ l % �
rF' �,�' � � s ���� f , ..:
� w +�' �, f�' � � ---'. z -'
F ;
i�,ti,�ii h-`' �� '{`�S . �,
1k�.+�o e. ��1.� _.l, � . � .,�X._.-vt� _
-�"�`.
I • w _; . • �'.
: � � .... ...� f . 1 � .
x �,.
� .,dt'� � � . �.� _� ' + .
, !
7 � �
� , � i".��� . .
� ,�^'j� K �`7�,� 1 f�^..,.;:
, �
r f` �,,,����
#.:-��' ......� 1 � ,.��.�
��� R� } i
* � ,'� w • •
�f • _ .
�-��`£� ,. �
� �' 1r ��.. . , � .
�t
� `'�4°" -� e� £ .
� F.F: �Y': . ,. !'%:x ' .
i
,„„_ �
� ��� -!*�r-- � f� �;:T.ttr'..,._.." y •.i' r -..i�. .+......
i ,.�.,.� � �,�.�,+� � 3 � . �• -
.
ti'.;-:�.:";..�wi ' `y� F : � .. r "; `-.��„7� .L`,i-.�� . _.,,�, , _`1
�f�"'"'a' �r . .. . � .. _ _ _.. . � . . _ _ . �� � � �`�� i -,�„ �-.... . • �...
� � � � � � ' ' . .��.
�� - .. �. . . �.... .
. .. . .r: - � ::�_. ; � .. ' =' ..
. . . _. . i � - � � � . . .
r `X�
. . _ ,
, __ • ' .
; � , .. . • ��r-���. �.._
� : � � ' ` r i . � .. .. ..
4 ' .. � '� ` �.
i ' :: . ,°� ; , s, �� '� y`_. r. _ . .::. , �..�•. - ; _ _
. . � ; , � �'
� � �`£ _ y �
_ ..
_ . . �
, , �.. .
_
� ...::� ,. ;: : =�; .. .: ��; . �. � �
` ;F = .�
r '
B
�, cinr oF Fwu��r
6431 UNNERSITY AVEWUE
FRIDLEY, MN 55432. . .
(612) 571-3450 �
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLtCATION FOR:
_ Residential Second Accessory Others
PROPERTY INFORMAT{ON: - site plan required for submittal, see attached
Address: 5650 MAIN STREET, 11TE FRIDLEy MN 554
Property identification Number. __,Z?-3Q-24-41--�0(?4 . _
i�� ae+
Legal Description: Lot �: Blodc i Tract/Addition � A.
AIIDITORS SIIBDIVISIOH #78
Current Zoning: �-� Square footagelacreage: 1�.. 6 nc
Reason for Special Use: s�soxAt s�s r�T
Have you operated a business in a city.which required a business license?
Yes � No If Yes, which city? coox xArzns, rn�r � �
� !f Yes, what type of business? ��zL/cor�xcTAT•
� Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No �
FEE OWNER INFORMATION as�it a
� PP�rs on.the property fitle)- , - _. _ _ _ _ _
{Corrtract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing)
NAME: HOME DEPOT, ff: S.:A. , IHC.
ADDRESS: 2455 PACES FEBBY RD. , NW BLDG 2, llth GA 3033 9 9
DAYTIME PHONE: 8 7 413 6�..55 ,.:: ' SIGNATURE/DA • q
. ,,,,;,�
PETITIONER INFORMATION � -
i��UiE: HOME DEPOT II. S.A. , INC.
ADDRESS: 2455 PACES FEBgY gD.; NW BLDG 2,llth FLU , GA 3033 -9
DAYTIME PHONE: 155 SIGNATURE/DATC� _ %5� �;
Section of City Code:
FEES
Fee: $100.00 Residential Second Accessory $400.00 �_ Others
ApPlication Number. ��7-� Receipt #: 1_ 4�jZ Received B.
Sdieduled Planning Commission Date: _�/VLOc.� � E ���
Scheduled City Council Date:
10 Day Application Complete Notification Date:
�"1 6U Day Date:
CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BEFORE THE PLANNlNG COMMISSION
TO: � All Propecty Owners/Residents within 350 Feet of Property
Located at 5fi50 Main Street N.E.
CA3E' NUMBER: � Special Use Permit, SP #97-02
APPLICANT: � Home Depot USA, inc.
PURPOSE: To allow nurseries or garden centers which require outdoor
sales and storage.
LOCAT/ON OF 5650 Main Street N.E.
PROPERTYAND Lot 1, Block 1, Home Depot Fridley Addition
LEGAL
DE'SCR/PT/ON:
DATE AND TIME OF Planning Commission Meeting:
HEAR/NG: 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
HEARING: 6431 Universi#y 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 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432
or FAX at 571-1287.
SP�ECIAt �� Hearing impaired persons planning to at�end who need an
ACCQMODAT/ONS: � in�erpreter or other .persons with disabilities who require
. auxiliary aids should contact Roberfa Collins at 572-3500
no later than 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
n
n
�
,, r
��
. une ,
� � 1 �/ 1 ► : \11 �l/
PLArTNING DIVISION
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Process and Revision
. As you are aware, the City is required to revise its Comprehensive Plan by Dec;ember 31, 9997.
The City Council, at its June 2, 1997 Goals and Objectives meeting, endorsed a process which '
would co.[nbine the neighborhood and strategic planning approaches with the traditional
approach to create a plan which addresses the whole while allowing a certain level of specifiaty
n (see attached matrix for approach descriptions).
To accomplish the above goai, staff has developed a process to encourage citizen and _-
Commission involvement as the plan is revised. The process will combine a s.unrey ins#rument
with Planning Area (see attached map) meetings conducted before the Planning Commission.
In order to complete the revision by the deadline, the Planning Area meetings will begin with the
July 16, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. The remaining schedule is as follows (subject to
change if needed, based on caseload):
Area 2 August 20, 9997
Area 3 September 17, 1997
Area 4 October 15, 1997
Area 5 November 19, 1997
Area 6 November 19, 1997
Area 7 December 17, 1997
At the June 18, 1997 meeting, staff would like to discuss the process in more detail, get the
Commission's feedback regarding the process and how the meetings would be handled� and
any concems the. Commission ma� have. If there are scheduling conflicts with any of the above
dates, please let us know, it will be important to have quorums for these meetings.
�
s �
~ o� o 0
W rn� � ` �
,..I .r � � -� � �
Z= W � m o� � m m c`o � m fl-
O�Q ��� �m� v�i s �n � °� � `�
Q- ` `' c°�a o � � o � � 3 0
� O Z � � '� �+ c .� � N � � cv .
W�Q X�a' cca m � � o Xp a�m �U
�C��i�E� OE � a u� � 'nz ����
U �. �
Z(' � � N O `� t� � L +� �C
Z �
_ !A II. "'' ` N �, y O ?= � � �' -Nr
�Z +-� u�o��o °?rn� �, � � 3>,Q
O �� m�•� �.� �� c"- o � � c� �•�
Q (/i C N � � C � �� ,fl � ,� � N M C .� .� O � 'C
O N � t0 >>��� p , O � V� O U N
C.i � C.) .o � �.� n m� d a> > U) r �- U �> i-- t0 Q
U L � C � = O
� � '= V � -,�,�- � � C � � .�
WZ � `���c� � � � � �v v�i>
1—Z c�n cc�ccu�� '� co � °O �>
� .Z Q- ° � ° � � N '� � >, � -�' `'� o ,�
�„�, � �� � N E Q N O� � � �? O N� p�
V� Q. _I N U C�� U U N fn M r- U � C F— �
� � C O
�I% UJ � N � •>+ N � =
W �N � p � y � ` � � � � � U
V � � Q V � �. �C � U U C�`.�_ tA
O U � O C � C V j `G = >+ iC C .fl = � .0 � �
� �. O Q- cC � N � 'c ,� V p �i? O= �. O p tU N N
o. a. E�.� � Q. a o cn .� � � z a a. -a �.� N
a � �
�
Z � rn o Q.
m ,° � -� �'
O .� '� c� � .�... >. �
+r .i c� m � c �
� � � •� �� V V � � 7 = N
LL � ` O � .N � N � � � -
� C
'"' Vi (� � � � L � � O i� V �—' �
,: � a a cn r-
0
O �� �° °-
O Q- s c`o -� �
'''' U - -�
= tA '" � O N � �
� � O y V Q (�
� , �
C ±�
mO O ,� � 7 >. � � �� C
O Q' ` E Q U O N L � � '� O
= p� � �� � _ �+L.. � � C ��
(7 `�- ,� m N L� V t6 C O � � • V U�
W c�a•� o�-� m m o � � � o x o � a� cu
Z a c E 3 z�� t/� a� � cn �- c� z a a. �
� c � � m .°c_'
o �
Q °- '� °' c�
o -�
� � c �. � � o
V � � � = �° a� N rn°Qa c' �
Q a�'i � o � �a�o � �m� �
�L� Q � � �QF-=m�Z� �
�
/�
.� `.
Neighborhood I3oundaries