The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 05/07/2003 - 30905n CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the May 7, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, LeRoy Oquist, Larry Kuechle, Brad Dunham, Barb Johns Members Absent: None Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Frank Frattalone, Frattalone Excavating, 3066 Spruce Street, Little Canada Malcolm Mitchell, Springbrook Nature Center Board Marv Makie, 8181 Ruth Circle Virginia Bauer, 251 Ely Street NE Bruce Carlson, 500 - 73rd Avenue NE Ron Zalzkowski, 314 Hugo Street NE Kevin McGinnity, 124 Longfellow Street NE � Terry Canady, 131 — 79`" Way NE John Lodato, 8151 Ruth Circle NE Jim Mitchell, 8920 Ruth Circle NE Michael Malone, 635 Ely Street NE Michael Wojcik, 109 — 76�' Way NE See Attached Lists APPROVE THE APRIL 16 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the April 16, 2003, Planning Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #03-07, by RJ Ryan Construction Inc., for the purpose of a rock crushing operation on the north side of the property, generally located at 8170 Hickory Street NE. (Tabled from the 4-16-03, Planning Commission meeting.) MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to remove this item from the table and reopen the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 2 Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow a rock crushing and recycling facility on the northem 325 feet of the property located at 8170 Hickory Street. Dahlke Trailer Sales Company will occupy the southem portion of the property. City Code allows the operation of a rock crushing property with a special use permit in the M-3, Outdoor Intensive Heavy Industrial zoning district. A rock crushing and recycling operation involves taking used concrete and asphalt materials and recycling it into high-quality Class V or Class VI gravel-based product. Ms. Stromberg stated that at the April 16, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, this special use permit was tabled to allow staff additional time to review and analyze the stipulations presented by Malcolm Mitchell, the president of the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation. Upon review and meeting with Frank Frattalone, CEO of Frattalone Excavating, the changes and responses to those suggested stipulation changes are as follows: Sti�ulation #2: Ms. Stromberg stated the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation recommended changing this stipulation to read: °Crushing shall occur no more than 60 days a year with not more than 20 days being during the months of May through September. Staff changed the stipulation to read: "Crushing shall occur no more than 72 days a year with not more than 36 days being through the months of May through September." The crushing operation will be allowed Monday through Saturday which is the six-day week. Thus, the 72 days and the 36 days. This stipulation was changed to reflect days versus weeks as was requested by the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation; however, the petitioner has stressed the necessity of additional time during the months of May through September and has requested an additional 12 days. After thoroughly reviewing the request and understanding that summer months are when most construction takes place, staff agreed to change the stipulation. Stipulation No. 4: Ms. Stromberg stated the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation recommended changing this stipulation to read: "The maximum height of any stockpile shall never exceed 15 feet." Staff s response to that request is to add the word unever." When City staff words stipulations, they look at them from an enforcement perspective. Staff is aware that occasionally the pile, or a portion of it, may exceed the 15-feet requirement; however, the petitioner will be required to ensure the pile doesn't exceed 15 feet at the end of a shift or end of a crushing day. They have to be reasonable in their enforcement and the wording of the existing stipulation is sufficient. Stipulation No. 10: Ms. Stromberg stated the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation recommended changing this stipulation by adding a clause that stipulates the minimum total gallons per minute of water flow required to settle the dust during operation. � n Staff s response is there isn't a magic number to determine the minimal total gallons of water required to settle dust during the crushing operation. The amount of water used to settle the dust is dependent upon the type and moisture of the material being crushed as well as the weather. Frattalone, Inc., has indicated that their experience has proven that different days with different atmospheric conditions will require different watering techniques and volumes. They have committed to controlling dust and understand the � danger to their special use permit and existence on the site if they do not do so. Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 3 ,,,.� recommends that they leave the volume of water and watering techniques to them and ' simply monitor it to ensure dust control success. Stipulation No. 11: Ms. Stromberg stated Springbrook Nature Center Foundation recommended changing this stipulation to read: °The Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals that are required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. This may include, but not be limited to, an NPDES permit, a certification of a condition of no exposure, a storm water Phase I or Phase II permit, an air emissions permit regarding particulates and environmental assessment worksheet, etc. Staff's response is they had contacted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to the report the Commission received before the April 16, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. An environmental assessment worksheet is not required as it doesn't meet the criteria. Frattalone Excavating and Grading has an air emissions permit from the MPCA which authorizes the cflnstruction, modification, and operation of non-metallic mineral processing. A storm water Phase II permit is incorporated with an NPDES permit for construction and industrial activities if the MPCA deems that the project requires one. Staff recommends leaving the stipulation as it is as it puts the responsibility on the petitioner to work with the MPCA to get an NPDES permit or certification of any condition prior to commencement of operation. Stipulation No. 13: Ms. Stromberg stated Springbrook Nature Center Foundation recommended changing this stipulation to read: °Noise levels shall comply totally with the Fridley noise ordinance, including the decibel measurements and the location at � which the measurements are to be taken provided that the noise level shall not exceed ' 66 decibels at the north boundary.° Staff s response is the City Code requires that noise in the industrial districts cannot exceed 80 decibels at the property line. In response to the Foundation's concem, the petitioner intends to move the crushing equipment an additional 80 feet from the northem property line. Mr. Hickok explained a matrix showing the measurement of the decibels. One of the columns showed actual measurements taken on one of their field visits to the existing crushing operation for the Frattalone Company. It indicated that at a distance of 50 feet from the crushing equipment, there was a 76-decibel reading. When they backed up to 100 feet, that measurement dropped slightly to 75 decibels. At 200 feet it dropped again to 70 decibels. In analyzing the mathematical digression of the decibels as you move out away from the crushing operation, they studied a number of different things. A study done in Califomia on a similar rock crushing operation used a methodology that is known as the "doubling" methodology. What it indicates is as you double your distance from the site, you drop by 6 decibels. At a measurement of 400 feet from the crushing operation, you would expect 57 decibels and befinreen that 400 and 800 measurement is where the closest trail at the Nature Center is. At 800 feet, you would expect 51 decibels. This is important information to remember, because as they talk about places like residential districts and nature centers, State law would deem that a Category I or the quietest category for accepting sound, and that range should be between 60 and 65 decibels. Using a measurement of, for example, 450 feet to the closest pathway, you are going to be at something less than 57 decibels at that point, based on this doubling methodology. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 4 Ms. Stromberg stated the equipment will be placed 180 feet from the northem property line. � The petitioner has stated he will move it an additional 80 feet from the northem property line, which is 569 feet from the nearest trail in the Springbrook Nature Center. Stipulation No. 17: Ms. Stromberg stated the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation asked what does "ensure compatibility" mean. Compatibility with what? Staff s response was the purpose of staff s broad wording is to ensure that the stipulations are being adhered to and that the neighboring properly owners are not negatively impacted as a result of granting this special use permit. Stipulation No. 18: Ms. Stromberg stated the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation recommended adding this stipulation: �The petitioner shall determine and document the pH of the creek/streams into which runoff water from the properly will enter. This shall include any cyclical variations in pH that may occur on a daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal or other basis. The runoff and/or discharge from the petitioner's property shall be maintained with a pH range of 6.5 — 8.5, as measured 20 feet downstream of the discharge point." Staff s response was from Jon Haukaas, the Public Works Director, who submitted the following response: "I don't believe there is any basis to support the stipulation requiring monitoring the pH associated with the storm water nanoff from a rock and concrete crushing facility. I cannot find anything from the MPCA relating ^ to this issue. While I can understand the concems in this area, without sound reasoning and information to benchmark against or technical data showing what the limits should be, I don't see how we can justify a requirement like that. "The second issue is the enforcement. Again, without some kind of limits to measure against, what do we enforce? Also, who does the monitoring, testing, reporting, etc.? What is the penalty? Without answers to these questions and hard evidence to back it up, we do not have any business trying to impose these requirements on any facility." Ms. Stromberg stated that staff would not recommend adding Stipulation No. 18. Stipulation No. 19: Ms. Stromberg stated the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation also recommended this stipulation: �The petitioner shall fumish sound measuring equipment to the Springbrook Nature Center as follows: 1 portable battery-operated decibel meter with a capacity to document sound level readings over at least a 24-hour period and sufficiently accurate and sensitive to determine compliance with the City of Fridley ordinance that specifies sound levels. If and when either portable device has operational difficulties that would render it unable to meet the above requirements at any time in the future, the petitioner shall provide a fully operational device of equal or greater functionality within a short period of time, meaning days, not weeks." Ms. Stromberg stated staff's response is that the intent of the Foundation's request is clear. However, it is inappropriate to request money or goods from a petitioner as a condition of approval of a land use request. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 5 Ms. Stromberg stated City Planning staff met with City Park and Recreation and ^ Springbrook staff the aftemoon before the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the planning responses to the Foundation inquiries. � /"'�, Ms. Stromberg stated that with the recommended stipulations, there is now staff consensus that adequate safety measures exist to ensure land use compatibility are in place. Ms. Stromberg stated that City staff recommends approval of the special use permit with stipulations, as the stipulations on this request should reduce any adverse effects experienced by neighboring property owners. If the special use permit is granted, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 The hours and days of the rock crushing operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Crushing shall occur 72 days a year, with not more than 36 days being during the months of May through September. Each year the petitioner shall provide the City with a tentative calendar in which the weeks of crushing will occur. A one-week notification is required to modify the calendar. The maximum height of all stockpiles shall not exceed 15 feet. The final landscape and screening plan shall meet code requirements and be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to commencement of operation. An 8-foot screening fence shall be installed on the west, north and east perimeters of the site and shall be properly maintained. A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to commencement of operation. Drive aisle to be paved and concrete curbing installed as indicated on site plan. Crushing of limestone shall be prohibited. Water service and use shall be through a permanently installed water meter. The petitioner shall obtain an NPDES industrial discharge permit or certify a condition of no exposure from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. All State and City regulations shall be met for noise, dust and air quality. Noise levels shall not exceed 80 decibels at the property line. Truck tra�c shall be routed on 81 S` Avenue to and from University Avenue. Site to be watered as needed to keep dust down. All loads to be watered when leaving the site and streets to be cleaned daily if necessary. Special use permit shall be reviewed in one year to ensure compatibility. Ms. Savage asked what staff will be doing to monitor the noise levels (Stipulation No. 13). Ms. Stromberg stated staff will monitor the noise levels as frequently as needed and as frequently as they should be. They will be keeping an eye on this operation. Mr. Kuechle asked if the City does have a noise level meter. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, they do. Also, police officers have noise meters in their vehicles. Mr. Saba asked about the doubling methodology whether other factors such as wind direction and humidity, have a bearing on the decibel levels. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 6 Mr. Hickok replied, yes, atmospheric conditions do have an impact on the decibel readings. The way the law reads on this is, the human activity area on a different classified property, the measurement needs to be between 60 and 65. The closest human activity area they would use outside of the Class III classification, that is the Industrial District, would be a Class I, the Springbrook Nature Center, there is 569 feet between this new location, 80 feet south and the trail, that measurement needs to be befinreen 60 and 65 regardless of the wind conditions and so forth. That is what the stipulation about meeting all the state and local requirements is about. Mr. Kuechle explained the doubling methodology and stated the methodology is correct. Mr. Oquist asked about Stipulation No. 4, about the stockpiles not exceeding 15 feet. Should that not say they are not to exceed 15 feet at the end of the day? He believed in the other stipulation, it said the piles may be somewhat higher but, at the end of the shift, it should be 15 feet. Mr. Hickok stated staff is more comfortable with this wording. From an enforcement perspective, staff would like to have the message be that the piles cannot exceed 15 feet. They always put their enforcement to the reasonableness test. Understanding their enforcement technique is to educate first, if they go out and see there is a problem, they notify the petitioner, let them know there is a problem, and they correct the problem. If it is persistent, a citation could be issued or at any point they could pull this special use permit back. Without specifying a time of day or how much more than 15 feet they would accept, they want to stay with the general language. Mr. Frank Frattalone, Frattalone Excavating, 3066 Spruce Street, Little Canada, stated they met with staff after the last meeting and tried to address all the things they could for the Springbrook Nature Center. One of the things he would like to add is the decibel readings were taken on a flat surFace with no piles or anything in between. To control the dust, they have a pump and they run pressure from lines and the pump and they spread the nozzles out on all the dust points. They control the dust really well and they would make sure there is no dust at all. There is water also where the loader runs. The loader often makes dust running around the site. They water the site also where the traffic is running to keep the dust down. Mr. Frattalone stated they are now in Little Canada, 400 feet, he believed, from a mobile home park with 300 residents in there. There is a complaint once in a while but not very much. They try to be the best neighbor they can, and they very seldom have any complaints. If there is anything they can do for them, they will do it. Ms. Savage asked if Mr. Frattalone was in agreement with the final 17 stipulations that were presented? Mr. Frattalone stated he can agree with them. He doesn't like the idea of watering the trucks when they leave, and he and Mr. Hickok have talked about that. They have never been required to this before. It really makes a mess of things and that is why they don't like to do it. Mr. Kuechle asked Mr. Frattalone how long did he think the material will be stockpiled, in particular, the crushed material? Would there be a problem with dust blowing off those piles on days when they are not actually working? Mr. Frattalone stated he doesn't believe there is any dust that comes off that crushed pile. It's pretty heavy gravel, there are rocks mixed with it, and there is a little oil content from the !"1 � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 7 � asphalt. Recycled gravel is much less dusty on a gravel road than on a regular gravel road with mineral gravel. Mr. Bruce Carlson, President of Park Construction, stated they own the property directly south of where this will be happening. They crushed last year using Frattalone and there were no negative impacts. Park Construction has been a resident of Fridley for 25 years, has been crushing for the last 20 themselves, hiring it out on their property; and they would also like to continue crushing, following the same criteria. Mr. Malcolm Mitchell, Chairman of the Board of Springbrook Nature Center Foundation, stated the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board is still deeply concemed about the proposed installation of a rock crushing operation. On land it really is about 300 feet from their southem boundary. They recognize there is a trail, but still the boundary is only 300 feet from this operation. Even if moving it another 80 feet, it still is not that far from the boundary. They still believe it is truly unfortunate that this area to the south is zoned as it is. They are disappointed that staff regarded their stipulations with little merit and didn't adopt them more than they did. He believed the noise was the most important area, in addition to the pH. They looked up the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules and did find there is the requirement the noise level be no more than 60 for 50 percent and no more than 65 for 10 percent of the time during an hour of operation. This is a 12-hour operation, as they understand it, and that is not a 50 percent use of that site. They are still concemed that the noise level, even if you use the doubling method, will not be intermittent, that it will be constant and will make it very difficult for people to enjoy the Springbrook Nature Center. He is still encouraging the Planning Commission that at the Nature Center, it needs to be 60 or 65 decibels as required by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules, and it needs to be specified that is 50 percent of the � time or less. Mr. Mitchell stated that regarding the dust, the State requires that every precaution be taken to prevent visible dust beyond the property line. They will be observing that very closely and they do believe there will be dust from the piled stock of cement and concrete. They had testimony at the first public hearing that with a south wind when Park Construction was crushing, there was dust flying in the direction of Springbrook Nature Center primarily off the piles that were left. Mr. Mitchell stated they are still very concemed about the pH. They urge that the Commission think about reinstating the recommended stipulation. As they looked at the rules, it says if the standards in this part are exceeded, it is considered indicative of a polluted condition which is actually or potentially danger, deleterious, harmful, detrimental, or injurious with respect to the waters of the State. The rules go on to list, among other things, the pH ranges for different use classes since the creek that the water from this site flows into is not a state-listed water, this probably falls under Class II.B. The acceptable ranges for pH under Class II.B. are 6.5 to 9.0. They had recommended that the pH be monitored to be befinreen 6.5 and 8.5. They think that is not an unreasonable request that be placed on this applicant. They really are interested in protecting the value of the Springbrook Nature Center and they will monitor this and will bring it to the attention of the City officials and State officials if the standards proposed here are not met. Mr. Kuechle asked if he knew what the pH range of the creek is now. Mr. Mitchell replied, no, he did not. n Mr. Kuechle stated it would really be difficult to ask the petitioner to keep that in the range. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 8 Mr. Mitchell replied that is the State standard, it is the rule for unnamed waterways in the State. �� It is not a standard to compare it with what is there. It is a standard that says that is what needs to be there. Mr. Oquist stated that since they don't know what the pH range is now, it could be exceeding that limit right now. Mr. Mitchell replied it could be and that is a problem. Mr. Oquist stated that with runoff from the surrounding shopping areas, it could already be exceeding the pH level; therefore, if this proposed stipulation was in force, and they found out the pH level was too high, they wouldn't know when it happened. Mr. Mitchell replied that he would suspect there would be a process of monitoring it over time. Mr. Oquist stated they should be monitoring it right now. Mr. Mitchell agreed that is the case and maybe they should ask that it be monitored. He thinks that water pollution is one of the biggest concems in their state and in their area here. Ms. Marv Makie, 8181 Ruth Circle, stated there has been no discussion about the residents that live on the west side of the railroad tracks. There are residents who are a lot closer than Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Hickok stated that at the last Commission meeting, there was some discussion and they � used the map to demonstrate the distances from the Nature Center and the residential areas. Mr. Makie pointed out on the aerial photograph that moving the operation 80 feet to the south will make it less than 797 feet. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, moving it 80 feet south will put it 717 feet from the area that is now indicated 797. There is an industrial band of property on the west of the rail and then they would take measurements to the nearest residential beyond that. They tried to scope out the area including the Nature Center, not forgetting the residential, going to the north, south, etc. The area probably most affected by the equipment being moved 80 feet south is Ruth Park. Mr. Makie asked how much of an impact will the dust have on the kids in the park. Mr. Frattalone replied there will be no dust. Mr. Makie stated Mr. Mitchell had just stated that when Park Construction was crushing, they had dust if there was a south wind. If there is an east wind, it's going to blow right into the park and kids are going to be affected. Mr. Hickok stated there are some things to be considered here about the special use permit that Park Construction had and the special use permit before them tonight. The Park Construction permit from years ago had six stipulations on it and, as they can see from their current analysis, they now have 17 stipulations that are quite specific about watering airbome particulate and so forth. They would like to think they have become more sophisticated and, although he will � respect the comment about Park Construction, the piles were taller than 15 feet in height, the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 9 � watering standards were different, and the MPCA has gotten more sophisticated. The current operation is required to have a storm pond for treatment of water that wasn't a requirement of the special use permit on the Park Construction properly. This has become far more sophisticated. Mr. Frattalone replied that at the last meeting Mr. Carlson answered that comment about the dust coming off the piles. Mr. Carlson stated the dust was coming off the yard and not off the piles. They have a yard now and they crush all over the metropolitan area. When there is dust, it is from the parking lot or from the area where there are trucks running on it and so forth. The piles actually get a coating on them, once it rains they get what is like a little shell on there, and it's a heavy gravel, and there is no dust that comes off them. As they are crushing, they are going to keep the dust down, the traffic down, they will not have dust leaving their site. They will be making every effort to make it as livable a site as possible. Ron Zalzkowski, 314 Hugo Street NE, asked if the crusher is in a building or is it out in the open air? Mr. Frattalone replied it is out in the open air because it's portable. Mr. Zalzkowski stated he was also concemed about what could be going to the west in the area they live in. Also, he asked how the neighbors will know when the special use permit is renewed. Will they be notified? After a year, he was sure the neighbors would have some comments. Mr. Hickok stated there will be an annual review, but not a public hearing. Residents are ^ certainly welcome to attend. Typically special use permits have an annual review automatically built into them. When a special use permit is granted by the Commission, ultimately by the City Council, there is an annual review process where staff goes out and follows up on all of them. In this special use permit, they have stipulated they plan on bringing it back to the City Council in one year so they have an opportunity to understand the performance and to hear if there were any some complaints, etc. It is going to be an information item to the City. In terms of public notification, since it is not a public hearing notice, he is anticipating there won't be a mailing on it but certainly that is something they can contemplate. He is not certain at this point. Typically, for a public hearing, they notify residents within 350 feet of the subject property about 10 days before the hearing. Staff will have to give some thought to any notification. Ms. Virginia Bauer, 251 Ely Street NE, asked about how the dust from the trucks or loader is going to affect the environment and habitat of the Springbrook Nature Center and the residents near the site. Mr. Frattalone stated that dust would come from the trucks and the loader only if no was watering done. They water with a water truck that is on site all the time. They water the site daily so there is no dust created by the trucks or the loader. Even when they are not crushing and they are hauling in and out, they will be watering roads other than the blacktop road. They do have a blacktop road proposed to go all the way onto the site right into the middle of the pile. They will be controlling dust of all kinds. To make it clear, Mr. Carlson said the dust from his facility was not coming from the pile, it was coming from his normal construction yard which he was not watering daily. Mr. Kuechle asked if they periodically spray the piles. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 10 Mr. Frattalone stated they will some times shoot the pile to prepare it for crushing if it is a real � dry pile so no dust is created. As far as the pile that he has processed or is sitting, he has never had to water for a dust problem. °-- Terry Canady, 131 — 79�' Way NE, asked Mr. Frattalone to explain what each piece of equipment does. Mr. Frattalone explained the rock crushing process. Mr. Jim Mitchell, 8920 Ruth Circle, stated he lives in a home west of the rock crushing operation. He asked if they are going to have a double rock operation, the proposed one together with the Park outfit. What kind of aggregate noise level would both of those operations have? Also, he asked what is the existing law or restrictions on Park Construction? What is the effect on Springbrook and the neighborhoods. Mr. Hickok stated that right now there is no second special use application from Park Construction. Park Construction has indicated they are interested in applying for a rock crushing permit. They will be under the same stipulations that this operation has, and there may be some factors unique to that site. In the area of noise, there is what is called an ambient noise level that basically takes a base reading of the noise as it exists. One might believe then that if you have two operations, the noise would be finrice as much, but that is not true. The ambient noise from one rock crushing operation may almost mask the second operation or there may be some effect that is a multiplier. There will be some increase, but the reality is if it is believed that there are twice the impacts, instead of having 60 decibels, they would have 120 decibels, that is not true. � Ms. Savage asked Mr. Hickok if he was saying that Park Construction does not have a permit to — crush right now Mr. Hickok replied that is correct. Ms. Savage stated that in the past Park Construction must have had a special use permit. When was that in effect? Mr. Hickok replied he believed that special use permit was in effect in the early 1980s. Park Construction has been crushing on its site for over 20 years. What changed is that Park Construction had a 20-acre site which they have now sold. Bruce Carlson's new location is to the west of this 20-acre location, and that site does not have a special use permit. So, a new rock crushing operation would have to go through this very same process and then appropriate stipulations would be attached. Mr. Kevin McGinnity, 124 Longfellow Street NE, stated Park Construction has never been a good neighbor. He lives right across from them. When the train passes, the ground shakes at his residence. When Park Construction has heavy equipment moving on its property which is further away than what some of these residents are going to experience from this rock crusher, the ground shakes. So there is going to be a vibration problem for anybody that is a day sleeper. A day sleeper will be walking around in his/her house feeling things are very quiet until he/she lays down and the very springs of the bed will transmit the sound from the basement through the house. Previous comparisons were to a mobile home court. A mobile home court is basically established on blocks; there is substructure, but there is no basement. There is nothing to transmit that sound from the ground. What happens with a residence, is the sound PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 11 ^ comes in from undemeath and it tends to resonate just like it would in stereo speaker. So, there is going to be direct residual transmission through the ground the residents are going to get and they are going to have more than one complaint within the first few days of operation. Mr. McGinnity asked why they can't crush limestone. Mr. Kuechle replied the runoff from the limestone would change the pH. Mr. McGinnity asked if they realized that one of the basic constituents in particulate matter of concrete is limestone. Mr. Kuechle replied that is true, but it is chemically reacted. Mr. McGinnity asked if they also realize when they are crushing rock, there are heavy metals such as lead and mercury that occur naturally in the soils that will be refined to the point of where they can now become hazardous material. Asbestos is also highly present in the soil, especially in the rock in Minnesota. You have a playground and children play at the playground and they put their hands in their mouth. So when we would normally wash our hands before we eat something, these children would be eating. It's right next to a park. When you have a wind from the east, it's always a high wind because it's a storm wind or its residual wind. Is there any consideration for source control of this material coming into this site? Could it be coming from a nuclear power plant that has been disassembled. Could it be material that has been brought in from an area of the state or an area of the city that has high radon levels in the ground? Are they going to have any control in any manner. shape, or form of this type of material? One of n the things that has been addressed is how much noise the rock crusher makes. The backup alarms are very high decibel rated and they are a constant irritant. Mr. McGinnity asked if they knew how many jobs this site will provide for the state? He wants to see if there is enough jobs that would justify people giving up their quiet enjoyment of their property because this is a tough job market right now. The quiet enjoyment extends to the residents also and they have not even been contacted and that is one of the reasons that some of the residents are very irritated. Mr. McGinnity stated the decibel level is a measure that is used to determine at what point harm starts to the human hearing. It is not necessarily a measure that is used to determine what the comfort zone is. Another residual problem with a rock crushing operation is silica sand, and that is very detrimental to small children. One of the things that seems to be in contest is whether the loads are going to be watered before they leave the yard. The operator has already indicated that he doesn't believe this is necessary or desirable. If he does and he has residual diesel fuel and oil byproducts and things like that, he is going to be sharing his product with every community around here. He is going to put it on the highways which is going to leak back into the river which is going into the St. Paul water system intake. Mr. McGinnity stated they have an environmental hazard problem here. They have no control over the oil content that he is going to be bringing in and crushing. There is no stipulation on what percentage they are going to have on hazardous material versus inert material. And there will be hazardous material, if they have petro chemical byproducts, they have hazardous material. They have another residual problem just from the railroad tracks alone. Because of the predominant northwesterly winds, the ground where this rock crushing location is located is ,.� very likely a depository for dioxin. This is a substance that was used by Burlington Northem and by most of the railroad industry to control weeds along the railroad right-of-way. This is the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 12 same thing that contaminated Vietnam veterans They are going to be disturbing ground and �,,,\ they are going to be putting it back into the air and scooping it around and moving it around and that is going to be shared by children as well. Due to the impact of this in the community, he - highly recommended that they add having a public hearing in one year as a stipulation. This would give the adjacent residents time to determine whether this operation is, in fact, is a good neighbor. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Frattalone if he could answer the question about the number of jobs. Mr. Frattalone replied in their present facility they have eight or nine people when they are not crushing and when they are crushing they add four people to that. So a total of 13. But the crushing again is only a maximum of 72 days a year. Mr. John Lodato, 8151 Ruth Circle NE, stated he has five children so he is concemed about the rock crushing. If there isn't a stipulation to have a pubic hearing in one year, is it possible for the petitioner to increase the number of days to crush rock? Ms. Savage replied the petitioner is bound by the stipulation which limits the days he can crush rock, so the petitioner would be in violation if he does not adhere to the stipulations. Mr. Lodato stated there are a lot of children in the area. He takes his children to the parks. The gentlemen who talked about the dust on the swings and the slides is so correct. If dust does exist, children do not wash their hands and it could be a serious thing. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. �, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:47 P.M. Ms. Savage stated it sounds like the neighbors would like a public hearing in one year. That might be very appropriate. She asked if they could do that by stipulation. Mr. Saba commented that he is concemed about the pH. What is the pH of the water now and how are they going to control the pH? Could staff address that issue? Mr. Hickok replied they have analyzed that at the staff level, and the rules in the State of Minnesota govem the creation of concrete, not the refurbishing or recycling of concrete. So, it's essentially talking about stockpiles of lime and other materials that go into the concrete in the construction on the front end as opposed to the reclamation or recycling on the back end. So, those stipulations that talk about pH do not apply, as staff understands it. to the MPCA rules. Certainly, staff is not saying there isn't a valid pH question being raised; but the staff response is that, without a base line and without backing criteria from the State, essentially the City of Fridley would be taking on its own mechanism for deciding what is and what is not appropriate for pH in the water. At this point, unless additional compelling information can be provided that this and this alone can be blamed for future pH issues, a stipulation hasn't been suggested. It has not been recommended by staff and his only note is a cautionary one that enforcement is always on the other side of creating a stipulation, and unless you have a very strong ability to tie a change to a specific use, it would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Hickok stated there are many changes. He thinks there was a concem from the Foundation about a fish kill years back, no historic documentation on file about that but from PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 13 some discussion about whether it came from Park Construction's rock crushing. At that time � Stonybrook Creek was not in a pipe, it was open. Again, there was no real data to validate the origin of dead fish in a creek, but there were also no holding/storm treatment ponds on site for controlling that. State laws today are very different. A runoff on a site in its developed state cannot be greater than the runoff before it was developed and, in this case, it means that Dahlke Trucking and the rock crushing operation will share a storm treatment pond, the water will go into that storm treatment pond first, it will stay for a period of time as the particulates are filtered out, and then the water itself moves downstream. The reality of it is that at this point, there is not a good enforcement ability if a stipulation is made for staff to go out and validate that there has been any sort of error. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the real problem here is not the fact that they can't measure the pH but the fact that they have no baseline. The pH is an excellent indicator of point source pollution. It would certainly be a valid measure here. Ms. Jones asked whether the City has any standard or any documentation of any of the pH levels of the creeks, whether known or unknown? Mr. Hickok replied the City does not monitor the pH in the creeks. Mr. Kondrick asked regarding Stipulation No. 11 (The petitioner shall obtain an NPDES industrial discharge permit to certify a condition of no exposure from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.), what is the NPDES and what do they do, what do they know, how do they protect us? Mr. Hickok replied the MPCA is a state agency, and a NPDES permit is a permit issued through r'� them. The permit is a requirement on any operation where you are moving and altering soil on land, when you are potentially having an effect on the environment through the use of your property when a NPDES permit is necessary. It's really important to know that there are very specific standards that go with that. In the discussion from the Foundation, there were talks of Phase I and Phase II analysis, there were talks of a letter of no impact from the MPCA. Much of this stuff, as they have mentioned, is handled already. The safety net is already in place because, in order to do a rock crushing operation like this, Mr. Frattalone has to go through that. One of their employees is a safety person who deals with the typical type of safety stuff you might think about, but also deals directly with the State on their NPDES permit. Mr. Oquist asked if this regulatory commission would be the one that would take care of the issues Mr. McGinnity brought up earlier? Mr. Hickok replied the MPCA is really the umbrella operation over NPDES and other pollution- related issues. Mr. McGinnity made a very good point about contamination and dangerous materials that might come from a site. But, in a situation where a building is being demolished and there are dangerous/hazardous materials within the building, demolition is also a very, very sophisticated art. Tearing down a building today is not what it used to be, and a building needs to be analyzed first to know that the hazardous materials have been pulled out. It needs to be to a certain level before the demolition can happen. When a building is being tom down in the City of Fridley, a demolition permit must be granted; and that demolition permit includes an analysis of things that might be contaminating components of that building that need to be treated in a manner before the building can be removed from the site. n Mr. Saba asked if the officials in Little Canada have been contacted to find out if there are any issues they have had to address. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 14 Ms. Stromberg stated she has spoken with the city manager of Little Canada, and he had �"� nothing but good things to say about Frattalone's operation. Rarely do they receive complaints and, if they have, Frattalone has been good to work with in resolving the complaints. He didn't have much to say about them because he said they run a very good business and have for a long time. Mr. Kondrick asked if there are houses/business/parks close by in Little Canada? Ms. Stromberg replied the nearest residential properly is the mobile home park, and there are many industrial type businesses located around the perimeter of the site. She is not sure of any parks. Mr. Frattalone stated there are no parks. Mr. Kuechle stated this clearly is an issue that concems a lot of people, but he also does believe they are in an industrial area that is zoned for this particulate kind of operation. It also requires a special use permit which allows the City to have some control over it. It seems as though they have attempted to address all the issues as best they can. It does seem that the Frattalone operation has a good reputation, certainly from Little Canada, and it seems to indicate they are good neighbors and attempt to stay that way. Especially since they do have the ability to check up on them at least once a year, if they tum out to be not what they seem to be, they can do something about it. So he would be in favor of recommending approval of this special use permit with the recommended stipulations to the City Council. Mr. Kuechle stated he is not in favor of having another public hearing. He feels they have �''� already put the petitioner through several public hearings and to ask them to come in again for another round of public hearings is more than we ask most people. If the complaints are numerous and require evaluation, the mechanism is there for a review, and he would not be in favor of adding any others. Mr. Saba stated that since this special use permit has to be reviewed in one year any way, he would strongly favor adding a stipulation for a public hearing, because he believed these conditions are of serious enough concem to the neighborhood, Springbrook Nature Center, and everyone. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed. But this is such an unusual operation and affects a lot of homes and the nature center and the pH thing they just don't know a lot about. Mr. Oquist stated he would also agree. However, he also agreed with Mr. Kuechle in that he wasn't sure if it was necessary to have another actual public hearing. It's going to be reviewed in one year by staff, and it's going to be covered by Council. He is still concemed about the pH and thinks somebody should check the pH today. It may be that the pH is being exceeded right now. Ms. Savage stated she would vote to recommend approval of the special use permit. It is a permitted use and allowed by the City. She thinks that a lot of work has gone into this, and she thinks the petitioner has certainly made an effort to work with the concems, at least that he knew about at the time with the Springbrook Nature Center. It appears he will be sensitive to the concems of the neighborhood also. As to the public hearing, she believed it would probably be � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 15 ' a good idea to have a public hearing in a year; however, if they are going to do it for this � business, they should probably do it for others. . Mr. Saba stated the reason he is so strongly in favor of a public hearing on this issue is because of the serious health issues, contamination issues, and detrimental issues to not only the Springbrook Nature Center but the surrounding homes. He doesn't think they are setting a precedent at all because this is a special situation, and they don't have a lot of data on this in the City. He couldn't vote in favor of approval unless they can add a stipulation for the public hearing. Ms. Johns stated that because of the zoning of the property, she feels that they owe the petitioner a chance although she also has some definite concems. She lives a little further away from this, and she didn't know if she was going to feel the ground pounding and the noise from it, but she lives about 1,200 feet from the railroad track and she can hear the train go by at any time, windows closed or open. She certainly doesn't envy anybody living in the neighborhood, but she would suggest to the people in the neighborhood that if they do have any concems, they need to call the City. As far as the public hearing, she thinks it is a good idea to have it if are some concems from the neighborhood. She does agree with the pH levels in the creek and she thinks that should be considered and checked into prior to this operation starting. She is concemed about the proximity to the Nature Center and the park on the other side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Dunham stated he agreed with Mr. Kuechle. There are mechanisms there now, staff has recommended this and looked at a lot, listened to Springbrook, and he would vote in favor of the special use permit. � Mr. Hickok stated the Commission could send the recommendation to Council with stipulations as is with a recommendation that the Council also consider a public hearing, or they could alter a stipulation that requires that it comes back in a year that they would like that to be a public hearing. Mr. Kondrick stated the Council will get a copy of these minutes and know that he and Mr. Saba are in favor of a public hearing. Mr. Kuechle stated it was also important for the Council to know that it wasn't unanimous to add the stipulation for the public hearing. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #03-07, by R. J. Construction with the following stipulations: 1. The hours and days of the rock crushing operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 2. Crushing shall occur 72 days a year, with not more than 36 days being during the months of May through September. 3. Each year the petitioner shall provide the City with a tentative calendar in which the weeks of crushing will occur. A one-week notification is required to modify the calendar. 4. The maximum height of all stockpiles shall not exceed 15 feet. 5. The final landscape and screening plan shall meet code requirements and be � reviewed and approved by City staff prior to commencement of operation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 16 6. An 8-foot screening fence shall be installed on the west, north and east perimeters of the site and shall be properly maintained. 7. A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to commencement of operation. 8. Drive aisle to be paved and concrete curbing installed as indicated on site plan. 9. Crushing of limestone shall be prohibited. 10. Water service and use shall be through a permanently installed water meter. 11. The petitioner shall obtain an NPDES industrial discharge permit or certify a condition of no exposure from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 12. All State and City regulations shall be met for noise, dust and air quality. 13. Noise levels shall not exceed 80 decibels at the property line. 14. Truck traffic shall be routed on 81� Avenue to and from University Avenue. 15. Site to be watered as needed to keep dust down. 16. All loads to be watered when leaving the site and streets to be cleaned daily if necessary. 17. Special use permit shall be reviewed in one year to ensure compatibility. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SAVAGE, JOHNS, KUECHLE, AND DUNHAM VOTING AYE, SABA AND KONDRICK VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. ,� 0 Mr. Hickok stated the public hearing notification process involves notifying people within 350 feet of the boundary of the property. If anyone feels he or she has been somehow erroneously forgotten, it is because they were outside that boundary of 350 feet. The City also publishes the public hearing notice in the Focus News, the official paper for the City of Fridley. So, if there is another public hearing, it will be published in the Focus News. '�� 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, Sp #03-08, by Michael Malone, to construct a second accessory structure (attached garage), generally located at 635 Ely Street NE MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:10 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner's home is located in the CRP-2 Flood Fringe District, and no structures or buildings can be constructed in that district without a special use permit. The property is zoned R-1 Single Family as are all surrounding properties. The existing home and garage were constructed prior to 1949. The petitioner received a special use permit in 1984 to allow for the construction of a 16 x 22 foot addition to this home. The existing home is 1,028 square feet. The existing garage is 250 square feet. The proposed garage is 761 square feet and will replace the existing garage. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed structure must be designed and certified by a registered engineer or architect as being in compliance with applicable building codes, including federal standards for flooding. The petitioner has submitted all the necessary information needed to meet these requirements, including a certificate of survey and elevations and structural notes on the proposed structure. On this particular property, there can be no living area below 824.27 feet in elevation. The proposed garage slab will be located at 822.9 feet in elevation. A garage � is allowed to be below the required elevation for living area because it is uninhabitable space PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 17 which is non-living space. The foundation, footing, and garage slab have all been engineered to ^, meet FEMA requirements. The garage floor is also designed to drain. The garage slab will be located at 822.9 feet in elevation, the top of the block elevation will be located at 824.3 feet elevation, and the wood garage structure will start above the 824.3-foot elevation. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed garage meets all setback and lot coverage requirements. The existing garage slab is also located at 822.9 feet in elevation so there shouldn't be any adverse affects to neighboring property owners. City staff recommends approval of the special use permit with stipulations as structures that are not elevated on fill are a permitted special use in the flood fringe district provided that all Federal and State flood proofing regulations and standards are met. Staff recommends that if a special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 3. The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. 4. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. 5. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum garage for elevation at 822.9 feet. 6. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with cuRent Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. �"\ Mr. Kondrick asked if the City has heard from any of the neighbors. Ms. Stromberg replied, no, they have not heard from any of the neighbors. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Malone if he had any problem with any of the stipulations. Mr. Michael Malone, the petitioner, stated he did not. He just had a question regarding Stipulation No. 5. He asked if that meant he needed to get another elevation survey done. Mr. Hickok stated, yes, what this does is verify that the floor is exactly where it is supposed to be elevation-wise on the site. The current survey shows existing elevations and gives benchmarks. Mr. Malone stated his plan was to take the existing siding off the house and redo the siding, since it is going to be attached to the garage, so the whole garage and the house would all match. Mr. Kondrick asked how long that would take. Mr. Malone stated he will re-side as soon as the garage is done. Everything will be done at the same time. He is still waiting for the cement guy and the excavation crew. Ms. Johns asked if his house was stucco. r `� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 18 Mr. Malone replied, no, the front is stucco and the back is all redwood siding. They are going to replace it all with a vinyl siding that matches the stucco color so the whole house looks to be as � one. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:20 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #03-08, by Michael Malone with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 3. The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. 4. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. 5. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum garage for elevation at 822.9 feet. 6. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE '—'�. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. _ 3. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #03-09, by Michael Wojcik, to construct a second accessory structure (garage), generally located at 109 — 76th way NE MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:21 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 600 square foot second accessory structure in the southeast comer of his double frontage property which is located at 109 — 76�' Way. The building will be used to store recreational vehicles and equipment such as 4-wheelers, snowmobiles, and lawn equipment. Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all surrounding properties. It is located at the end of 76�' Way on a cul-de-sac. East River Road borders the property on the eastem side; therefore, it is a double frontage property and properties with double frontages on both sides need to meet front yard setback requirements for garages and accessory structures located in their rear yards. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has applied for a variance to locate the accessory structure 12 feet from the eastem property line instead of the required 25 feet, and this variance will be � heard by the Appeals Commission on May 14. City Code requires a special use permit to allow PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 19 accessory structures other than the first accessory structure over 240 square feet. It also � requires that the total square footage of accessory structures not exceed 1,400 square feet. The total square footage of the existing garage and the proposed accessory structure is 1,304 square feet. The proposed garage would meet lot coverage requirements. The petitioner is requesting that the hard surFace driveway requirement be waived for the proposed second accessory structure since the primary use of the structure is going to be for storage. City staff is in support of the petitioner's request. However, if at any time evidence of use of the yard as a driveway is observed, a hard surface driveway will be required. Ms. Stromberg stated the property is full of large, mature trees and this is why the petitioner has signified this area as the proposed location of the structure. It may appear that the owner has finro lots, and that is true as he has just purchased the other lot that has been vacant for many years. He has combined both lots into one and this is his entire property now. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of this special use permit with stipulations as second accessory structures over 240 square feet are a permitted special use in the R-1 zoned district. If the special use permit is granted, staff recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1. Staff shall conduct regular inspections of the site. If, at any time, a trail simulating a driveway is present, a hard surface driveway as approved by the City will need to be installed within 90 days. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 4. Total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square � feet. 5. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. 6. Special use permit approval is dependent upon approval of the petitioner's variance request. Mr. Kondrick asked if any neighbors have voiced opposition or approval of this project. Ms. Stromberg stated she has not heard from any neighbors. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Wojcik if he had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Michael Wojcik stated he had no problems whatsoever. There is only one way to get in and out of the garage because of the way the trees are situated. He will be rolling 4-wheelers and trailers in and out of there. It is very sandy back there. There is a 26-inch tree about 15 feet in front of the door and it would be pretty tough to get a car back there. He is wondering what they mean by the need for a driveway. Ms. Stromberg stated it is a standard stipulation they put on special use permit requests for accessory structures when the petitioner isn't going to install a driveway. At some time in the future when Mr. Wojcik doesn't own the property, a new owner may want to use that as a parking garage for vehicles, and then a hard surface driveway would be required. Mr. Wojcik stated he is going to use vinyl siding which is a little bit different in texture than the � steel siding he has, but it will be same color scheme. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 2003 PAGE 20 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:30 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #03-09, by Michael Wojcik with the following stipulations: 1. Staff shall conduct regular inspections of the site. If, at any time, a trail simulating a driveway is present, a hard surtace driveway as approved by the City will need to be installed within 90 days. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 4. Total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. 5. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with complementary siding and color scheme. 6. Special use permit approval is dependent upon approval of the petitioner's variance request. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 2003. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the Minutes of the April 15, 2003, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission Meeting. n UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 2003, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the Minutes of the March 6, 2003, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 7, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:31 P.M. RespectFully submitted, 1�� -��cP�..e. Denise M. Letendre � Recording Secretary � CITY OF FRIDLEY � SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ma y % �003 � Name Address/Business . `a �� ,�� s % �� 7".%�,� i� � � � � i� �� ./� /, Y�s�i��aA .� %j _� c�, �� -�'��'r�� --`!�`�:�-�� / ! U � � � �iVes6��1%�� 3 v �'` �_ .� � �d� .�/�; � � .e��? e f�' - ? ! ° --�.-��--c �' " r l,- � � 6� � � �`� > � b"`, � � � � � � C�%- l� L � G� =-} a� � � %� I A� � s - �'\ `) � , ,,�'�'��% �IG' �,�� a ��7�� ZG� �`v'.�, ��` �� i��I � .�� Z— ,• � L l �,'� ��,/,/v�-s<,:�r �� J� �5,�. �'� ��'�� , ��sri �.s'i�.3� � 7 , -� � T N� ' �G- , � >3y3 J� �� I��L s�� .� � .� �,� � �-� , � � _ «: � z ' '� � � ,-,� �-1 �s7— �'� ��, �l-� � �s � �� s�� 1 /,,n r �°'j �. � � �',�,�.� � �.� � J� �� J�'�� r , ` ��-��. ��✓/ �� °�- �� . . �; %% ��'�� . , �c ��,�+) �� I��,.�" � ` ( ` � � � U GCG'l�tL �' � rEJ'lLt �� i � `"� �.�f�r��l, .'Z��/ �L°c �� G��G'��7.-�� 0 j� (�� I� '�l �1 t l t l �V � � l', ��✓! � '� W � f . � ,ii � -7 1 � /G ,\ ' � 7 3�C `'/� ��Jr2eti-�1%lG ^ � � / �L � f 1 �✓ :� `L ��,�� ' �� l � �. ,� J 1 �� 5i =�.�, � �� , �� . ,��,�� d� c(� f, L��`�� `� ('fiC i�r � 1? a' � � ,�C �%� vr�� /��°% n � CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Name Address/Business �l d�� l �1��< i� �( �l �a 7'/-� �. c/� � ��' � f �°�G� % /�1 �sI ��9��'�� __ � o �G .S'��c � S /� �� /j%' /� r�/,� �� .Sc�- 3 � � f.� � � �� '� � � � � �G 1�, ��... '1 I�s _ � � �.�,� � - �- , �-� �a�1 � t r�� c� �,a��!� �� r��ti ��-� � � � �� ' �� ,�,� - / �o `�°�-� ��,.. � � � . � Q_ A�1_ r �, �� r�,��,� � r��' v �'�°�� ., � � �� .'� �� `� )� � G��' �c � L�C��- ;� � �� e� �-'6� fi�� .�' si�� 9/ � ?/�� . » �� 1 � � � �;a�� "r . �� u�a �° �� - � � / N6� /� � / �� 7J�-r�� ' �j�/e,,�/'� �' ��24�'k��,• �� '�.-�'l► �,`�-.�� . ��s�., �� _ � � � - 7 �: �. �� (_ �- � �1 � � �� - �� : �