Loading...
PL 05/21/1997 - 30841� � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, NAY 21, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the May 21, 1997, Planning Commission 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, Planning Associate Dan McGlynn, McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Jim 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, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the April 2, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID UNANIIKOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-03, BY THOMAS AND LYNN LASSER: To allow a second accessory structure (workshop) over 240 square feet on Lot 13, Block 2, Parkview Heights Addition, generally located at 5840 Tennison Drive N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC AEARING 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 property as well as the surrounding parcels is zoned R-1, Single Family. � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, N�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 2 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 following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. 2. The accessory structure shall, at no time, be utilized for a home occupation. ^ Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any calls regarding this requests. Ms. McPherson 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 materials 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 equipment and also 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 AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE�'T�LD TIIE MOTION CARRIF�D AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSID AT 7:38 P.M. Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with the request. � Mr. Kondrick agreed. He had driven by the site which has � PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, Nl�iiY 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 sliall, at no time, be utilized for a home occupation. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIID 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. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND T� PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated staff received a letter faxed today from the petitioner, Greenberg Farrow Architecture, on behalf of Home Depot requesting a two-week continuance of the public hearing to allow for additional new information to be gathered and to be made available to the Planning Commission for presentation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the public hearing until June 4. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #97-02, to the meeting of June 4, 1997. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. n PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 4 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #97-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To rezone the following described properties from M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, to M-4, Manufacturing Only: Lot 3, Block l, 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 of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, except the West 5 acres of the North 310 feet, except that taken for road purposes, subject to � easements of record. The unplatted City of Fridley described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying Easterly of the Westerly 600 feet and lying Southerly of the Northerly 1,120 feet of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24. Lot 2, Block 4, Commerce Park. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30, Range 24, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of the Burlington 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 its intersection with the Southerly right of way line of Ironton Street, then Easterly parallel with said southerly right of way line to the intersection with said railroad right of way and said line there terminate, except for that taken for road purposes, subject to easements of record. � Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of � PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, 1�Y 21, 1997 PAGE 5 Section 22, Township 30, 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, lying North of the South 54.70 feet of said Lot 3 and east of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 3, distant 205 feet east of the northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence southerly to a point on the south line of said Lot 3, distant 125 feet east of the southwest 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. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIID AND TflE PUBLIC HEARING OPEl�i AT 7:42 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated in recent months the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended for approval, which was ultimately approved by the City Council, language in the M-4, Manufacturing Only, zoning district and also a modification to the industrial districts 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 neighborhoods by controlling 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: l. 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 more 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 COI�IISSION MEETING, N�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 6 located 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 Companies is located at Osborne Road near Commerce 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 correspondence 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 is defined as: to take, to expropriate, to acquire or to seize property without compensation. Spot zoning is the 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 comprehensive 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 d�.strict. In terms of the spot zoning, this has been carefully analyzed and it has been determined that the comprehensive plan is being furthered by this consideration for rezoning to M-4 and the compatibility 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�lISSION MEETING, NIl�Y 21, 1997 PAGE 7 parcels be more compatible with what exists. Therefore, staff feels it is appropriate. Staff recommends approval 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. After 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 circulation would cause that to be an impossible site to accommodate a large distribution facility with over 10 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: 1. Everest Properties is located on Main Street and is across from Hyde Park residential. 2. Northco Property was initially considered because it is in the heart of an industrial district. It is not directly across the street from residential but in relatively near proximity to residential and there are large warehouse distribution facilities, including Target, in close proximity. It is not directly across from residential and staff is recommending this property be excluded. 3. Anderson Trucking has residential to its east. There is a small strip of commercial between the Anderson Trucking site and the neighborhood. The primary zoning in that area on the east side is residential; therefore, this site was recommended. 4. McGlynn'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 large 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 Road are 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 � � %�i PLANNING CON�ISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 8 neighborhood to the west. 6. Friendly Chevrolet is across from residential 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 an impact felt by those residents. Ms. Savage stated, as she understands, Mr. Hickok mentioned two goals. One was the impact on residential areas and the other was to maximize the other remaining 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 felt. Staff has seen an increase in complaints about trucks travelling through neighborhoods. One area of the City has had truck traffic prohibited because of the large trucks moving through residential streets where they had not been before. The second 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 be and the impacts. The greatest potential for jobs and building value is manufacturing entities on these sites. The City has 17 distribution warehouse facilities 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 determined 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 in development, it was time to analyze that and recommend the M-4 zoning as the outcome. Ms. Savage stated the properties that have objected to the rezoning are McGlynn's, Coachman and Everest Properties. She asked Mr. Hickok to give a response as to the reason for recommending the McGlynn and Coachman properties. Mr. Hickok stated the McGlynn site is adjacent to their existing facility. It has great potential for them for expansion development. It has a feature that makes it difficult to ^ PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 9 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 then has all the attractiveness of other sites for warehousing and could become a warehouse facility separate from McGlynn's. Mr. Hickok stated the Coachman site on Osborne 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 follow-up on their part. Staff did meet with all of the property owners early in the process to explain where the City was at and where it wished to go. In those discussions, more folks were involved. Anderson Trucking has been very quiet. Staff has not heard a lot of discussion. 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 may be why there has not been any opposition. Mr. Saba stated he knows how this could impact planning for existing industrial manufacturing sites and the property owners that plan to do a development for a site. Has staff considered including 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, McGlynn could have some warehousing just so it is not large. This could also restrict trucks. �"'� Mr. Hickok stated the number of doors is only a small part of it. � PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 10 It is possible that a warehouse facility whose number of doors are limited to 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 corporations 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 trying 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 warehouse that causes a problem with owners. Limiting the size does not get at the issue. Through the analysis, it was determined that the impacts 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 commission 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 communities are dealing with this. Mr. Hickok stated Fridley has probably a greater proportion of land dedicated to industry. The City has a mature industrial growth pattern that has evolved. The City has reached a maturity where it has very few sites left, and staff has to make these critical decisions. There are not many communities 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 has 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 CON�lISSION N�ETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 11 tracks here with Target along the tracks and also 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•residential 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 they want to expand, are there possibilities to combine those lots? How tightly is the City locking them out from using that lot to the best of their ability for 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 discussed the possibility of combining tax parcels and moving the pipe that exists. The City has also expressed an interest in exploring financial options for making that happen. One thing they have expressed is a concern about tying themselves into a development that now is different from being able to sell a piece of land if the market warrants. If McGlynn's decides at some point they want to sell the land, they would prefer not to move the pipe. They would prefer to retain the current zoning, expand if 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 to 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. i�'1 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 warehouse 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 CONIl�lISSION MEETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 12 McGlynn's, if they used it for part of their current manufacturing, the M-4 would have minimal impact. 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 site 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 hoped 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. His 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. They 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. Furthermore, he believes as staff 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. Eskola stated his client is also concerned that this change will limit the marketability of the lot. Staff has indicated that there has been an increase recently in distribution warehouse facilities. This is true. The reason is that this is a trend � that is happening in the economy. In fact, that type of facility is becoming more and more in demand and therefore increases the � PLANNING CON.�lISSION MEETING, NAY 21, 1997 PAGE 13 marketability of the property. To restrict and limit that would result in a decrease in value at this time given the nature of the surrounding area in comparison to this property to not 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 reject 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 believes in the separation of residential areas from business areas. They have been good citizens in Eden Prairie and Chanhansen, and now Fridley, and they believe that is important to any area in which they do business. They pride themselves on being good citizens and in keeping their property in good shape. He provided photos to show that their properties are well 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 �� themselves in being here to stay and growing in this area. Mr. McGlynn stated the property they purchased to the north of their facility is there so they have the opportunity to expand in whatever way they would like to as they proceed down the road. They are a different business and have different 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 their 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 warehouse facility. That goes against what the City is after. As far as a residential area being close to their facility, they back up to the 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 n truck traffic, it is really the opposite for them in manufacturing versus warehouse. They would like to look at possibly connecting �.,,� PLANNING COI�lISSION N�ETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 14 the two facilities. They would like to look at them perhaps being separate. They would like to look at a warehouse facility and moving it toward manufacturing. They may stay with manufacturing. If things change dramatically, they would like to have the option to sell 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 point he would like to make is that he really thinks their truck traffic is generally pretty light in nature compared to a warehouse facility. Even if they used it for their own warehouse, it is not like other warehouses where there are many, many trucks on location going back and forth. Their trucks deliver the raw materials 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 was 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 for them. If connected, that is the best scenario. They will have to aim for that in the future but they are not in the position 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 see this clearly is as an ancillary 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 Staff ,�"1 sees that as a good solution on this site. The pipe question would have to be answered. The pipe would probably have to be PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, L�iY 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 the existing line and attach to the building. If it is a cheaper alternative to build a warehouse there for their own use, it would be dependent on that. 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 limiting to their future plans. As they grow, they must make decisions about where to expand and how they are going to expand. Uncertainty about how �i they are going to expand in the future makes it difficult for them to operate today. Their purchase of that land was done in the interest for them to move into that as a warehouse and if they went on to use it for manufacturing would depend on their business needs. If there are going to be limits placed on further development of that land, they would have asked 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 expansion in Fridley. This is their home. This is where they have built their business. They want their future 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 warehousing that happens in their facility now that they have to do because they are not connected. Should 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 are not certain how it is going to go yet, but they are optimistic about the future. Mr. Steilen stated listening to the discussion tonight reminds him of an old saying, "Don't throw out the baby with the bath 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 wants to promote those things. McGlynn's has done all of that and in the probable future will PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, 1�iY 21, 1997 PAGE 16 '"�, - continue to do so. Why punish them? Why restrict their options? Why base your policy on the l0o possibility that they will fail and the property will be sold to someone 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 suggest that it is better not to base policy decision on what ifs which are the small possibility 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 industrial street. It does not meet the criteria in all fairness. As far as the creation of job opportunities and tax base, giving 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 well meaning statute or ordinance 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. The probability is that they will stay there 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, in 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 think 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 '"� � PLANNING COl�lISSION N�ETING, I�Y 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 create 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. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE�_AFtED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T� PUBLIC �'n�T*TG CLOSED AT 8•34 P.M. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was such a thing as conditional zoning. The attorney said something that the City should not be concerned with the what ifs. He did not agree. McGlynn Bakeries 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. He 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 agreed 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 expansion but, if they do not do that, then it will become M-4? Is that possible? Mr. Hickok stated no. The zoning is either M-2 or M-4. He would concur with wanting McGlynn's to stay and grow, but that leaves the City in a precarious position. It could be rezoned as its own individual 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 have 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 nronertiP�_ 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- warehouses. He has a problem limiting companies like McGlynn's %"`�� � � PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, N�,Y 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 otYiers 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 restriction 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 intent so he did not see that as a big factor. Mr. Kondrick asked if the salability was a big factor. Is the City suggesting 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 financial 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 � PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, 1�Y 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 other 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 about 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 n 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 members of the community. She could not support it. She also has a problem with the Coachman property and its location because it is not around 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 or not. She has a problem with including properties that are valid members 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 district and then changes it and now don't have it. She did not have any problem with the other properties other than those two. Ms. Savage stated, on one hand, she applauds 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 n PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 20 Northco property, McGlynn'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 NIIi. KONDRICK VOTING AYE, AND MS •$AVAGE � l�t• SABA, A1�TD l�t. KiJECHLE VOTING NAY, CSAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACR OF A MAJORITY. 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, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIED UNAWIMOUSLY. 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 Street have access for trucks. The truck traffic would have the most impact. It is also has the capability of the largest warehouse. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG, MS. SAVAGE, NIlt. KONDRICR AND IrIlt. RUECHLE VOTING AYE, AND l�t. SABA VOTING NAY, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED WITH A 1�JORITY 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-4 has a minimal impact. If they want to sell the property, it is different. He thought their expansion in the City has minimal impact. If they want to expand, they can do it without a problem. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS . MODIG, 1rIl2. RONDRICR, AND 1�Ilt, gAgp� ^ VOTING AYE, AND MS , SAVAGE lAND NIlt. RiTECSLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON DE�''T•n��'-*� THE MOTION CARRIED By A MAJORITY VOTE . � i-�, PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, 1�iY 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, I�Il2. RONDRICK, AND L�9.t, gp�BA VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND NIIt, RLTECHLE VOTING NAY, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A NlAJORITY 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 DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED U1�TANIIKOUSLY . Ms. McPherson stated this item would go before 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 managers assembly of the new citizens survey for 1997. More than focusing on questions, are there category areas that you feel strongly about that were missed or that you wish to enhance? The category areas look like paragraphs in the survey 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 tells staff that there are areas where the City needs to educate 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 go to Minneapolis or St. Paul. Places where people can gather in the summer to have a drink or coffee to get a neighborhood feeling. That is one of the things missing in Fridley. Otherwise, she felt the survey was very thorough. Ms. Modig stated she thought they had areas where people say they don't know you talk to people about what Fridley �"1 know what you are talking about. to pay attention to those because it is amazing, when does have, that they don't „�.1 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MAY 21, 1997 PAGE 22 , - Mr. Saba asked if the department heads review 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 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 not care by those that do not respond. r'� are .. 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 coasts. 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 stated this was a good time to talk about what is planned for the June 4 meeting. Staff would like the Planning �"1 Commission to be the vehicle for a neighborhood meeting on telecommunications. They have selected 9 municipal sites for ^ PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, 1rIlsiY 21, 1997 PAGE 23 placement of telecommunications facilities. Staff is intending to use this forum 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 PARKS & RECREATION CONIlvlISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of March 3, 1997. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLA'RED TSE � MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DErT.�►��'n THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION 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, CSAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIID 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 CONIl�IISSION I�ETING, 1��iY 21, 1997 PAGE 24 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIID UNANIIrIOIISLY. 10. RECEIVE THE MINUTES 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, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIED UNANIlrIOUSLY. 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, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE � MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TAE MOTION CARRIED AND THE 1�iY 21, 1997, PLANNING COIIl�IISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � ���i'1 �T� � 1C1�G�-i � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � � ti S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, _'Wednesday, May 21., 1997 , s�ir! �, �/ 7 �� v2c�ne7 k� L��/