The URL can be used to link to this page

06/10/1996 - 4854' UTYOF fRlDi.fY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Manday, Juv�e 10, 1996 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER �: r q '�a �� r� � ��'� �� ? �� - �� = �� -'!� �� .�, f � � �°G �( �� C�a -G' 0 � � � � t' ��e � i�-��IG��YL� �� < �� !-��i �, ,� �' / ,�-L `� ,� S �`; .n �; �% ��;�c� � /'%,�,,�ci; �.� o� ; " �-'° / 1 /'�%�z� � k _ �%t'/ �' Gc� L��I,�C-� �.�°� ��e u l.� f �' , �� .. ,_ � �'iT/DL� C/TY CaUNC/L MFFi'JNG aF JUNF )0, �996 �� oF FRIDLEY Th� City of Fridlcy will aot discri�uinalc against or har<i:; anyc>nc in thc admi;siva c�r ti�cc:; tu, ur tr�atn�cnt, ui �nr�lo��m�nt in it, scn�iccs, pro� <u»s, or activities becauk: of race:, color, cr�i, �-cligion, nalional origin, sex, disability, ag�, marital siatu., sexual orientadon or status ��•iUi regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will he pro��ided to allo�v individt�als ��ith disabilitics to participaic in an}� ol Pridley's services, prog-ams, and activities. Hcanng impaired per.wns who need an inte��rctcr or other per��ns �rith disabilities �vho rcquirc auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one �veek in advance:. (T"fD/�72-3�34) I PLEDGE OF ALLEGtANCE• I . �� i APPROVAL OF MINUTES• �y�"�S Cauv�c.i.� Mee,ting, May 20, 1996 �� ' � C� � , _,. c :,_,�. j.��-�—�-=�C APPROVAI OF PROPOSEO CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 15, '1996 . . .�� . . . . 1.01 - 1.41 Special Use Permit, SP #96-10, by Glen Douglas, to Atlow an Accessory Building Other than the First Accessory Suilding, Over 240 Square Feet, Generall� �ocaYed at 871 - 66th Ave�ue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.12 �� - f .� �-�.�- - � ..�--�-��- / � Approve Easement Agreement between the City of Fridley and Trillium Co�po�ation, Generaily Located at 61 st Avenue and Ashton Avenue (Vllard 3) . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.10 Receive Bids and Award Contract for 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 -11 (Slurry Seal) ... 5.01 - 5.03 .�„ �,c. <. �_ _�_ c � �--.i-�_.--L.__ c_.�_-r. �-`.Z �:_ S�iw,�- � �- �t..,, __,,, � `ti^r`-� ��--.s��.. 33�7�.5�-- Approve Change Order No. 3 to Street lmprovement Project No. ST. 1995 1 & 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6_03 •. � _ f c�L' Yr� G/ :..-_c,,.v–.c Resolution Requss6ng Infltration a�d In-�low Funds from the Metropolitan Council for Sanitary Sewer Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.01 - 7.02 a� ��`.�'� �/�--�- Claims . . . . �: : _!� J,� _��..,,—_-�...._. . 8.01 �;.......--•- Licenses . . � �!^. :Y.'.�. . . . 9.01 - 9.05 �_ � Estimates . . . �ii�'�':�:' : . . . . . 10.01 - 10.02 ° ADOPTfON OF AGENDA: , � t ��t'.t.. f � -- �-� � , � , �� ,-�.�t� : �C� � �� t'� � �� -'�� '�� c�-�-�--C�� °`' ' �`�� OPEN FORUM. VISI70RS: Receive Bids and Award Contract for 1996 Street tmprovement Project No. 1996 - 10 (Sealcoat) . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.03 f2�� . C�:�� ,� �-S/C rrc� ,�_.Z, � 7 y� �i,S =.�G (Consideration of Items not on Agend��inut� ��'t :z��.�- �'`� — GM,c�11.c7�� a� PUBLIC HEAR1NG: ,,1� ��`-�'� �� Vacation of an Easement in the Soutfiwest Quadrant Project Area, SAV #95-02 (Wa�d 1) . �.' . .s�. .,; �11 _01 - 11.05 (_._. �". � ! c> �L NEW BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, SP #96-05, by Menard, Inc., to Ailow Agencies Selling or Displaying Recreational Vehicles, Boats and Marine Equipment, Machinery, Manufactured Homes, or Other Similar Enterprises Having Merchandise in the Open and not Within an Enclosed Structure, Generally Located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) and, Special Use Permit, SP #96-06, by Menard, Inc., to Allow Unscreened Exterior Storage of Materials a�d Equipment, Generaiiy Located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) and, Special Use Permit, SP #96-07, by Menard, Inc., to Allow Agencies Selling or Displaying Rec�eational Vehicles, Boats and Marine Equipment, Machinery, Manufactured Homes, or Other Similar Enterprises Having Merchandise in the Open and not Wthin an Enclosed Structu�e, Generatiy �ocated at 5207 Central Avenue N.E. (1lVard 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.D1 -1 Variance Request, VAR #96-10, by Menard, Inc., to lncrease the Maximum Height of an Accessory Structure to 24 Feet, which Exceeds the Height of the Principal Building, to Allow Construction of an Accessory St�ucture, Generally Located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . 13.01 -13.14 c�� lnformal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . 14.01 � ��7 .�.-.,.,� z ,�° C ///�� c.� f'v-- � -`�"� � �_ �-� r � ,� i,-=-� N � /�' ; ��. 6� L ,/, � s ; i�/"- � ,(, � , ; �� , � j S� J�,,�c,G� �,,.u�,-�, a��..�'� ,�'��`�� l �y- � �/_ E-�' a.,,``-�,� Cu�L;--� P'" `"—"` ' ADJOU� �' �; 3 `� � -��' . � � a ClTY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1996 The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexi orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon reyuest, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals w disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interprei or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 15, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.41 � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1996 Page 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Special Use Permit, SP #96-10, by Glen Douglas, to Allow an Accessory Building Other than the First Accessory Building, Over 240 Square Feet, Generally Located at 871 - 66th Avenue N. E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.12 Approve Easement Agreement between the City of Fridley and Trillium Corporation, Generally Located at 61 st Avenue and Ashton Avenue (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.10 Receive Bids and Award Contract for _. 1996 Street Improvement Project - No. 1996 - 10 (Sealcoat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.03 .'■ Receive Bids and Award Contract for 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 11 (Slurry Seal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.03 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1996 Page 3 AQPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED�: Approve Change Order No. 3 to Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 1 & 2 . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.03 Resolution Requesting Infiltration and In-Flow Funds from the Metropolitan Council for Sanitary Sewer Improvemen�s . . . . . . . . 7.01 - 7.02 Claims ..................••-............... 8.01 Licenses ................................. 9.01-9.Q5 Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.02 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) FRtDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1996 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation of an Easement in the Southwest Quadrant Project Area, SAV #95-02 (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.01 - 11.05 NEW BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, SP #96-05, by Menard, Inc., to Allow Agencies Seiling or Displaying Recreational Vehicles, Boa#s and Marine Equipment, Machinery, Manufactured Homes, or Other Similar Enterprises Having Merchandise in the Open and not Within an Enclosed Structure, Generally Located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) and, Special Use Permit, SP #96-06, by Menard, Inc., to Allow Unscreened Exterior Storage of Materials and Equipment, Generally Located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) and, Special Use Permit, SP #96-07, by Menard, Inc., to Allow Agencies Selling or Displaying Recreational Vehicles, Boats and Mat-ine Equipment, Machinery, Manufiactured Homes, or Other Similar Enterprises Having Merchandise in the Open and not Within an Enclosed Structure, Generally Located at 5207 Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01 - 12.27 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1996 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI• Variance Request, VAR #96-10, by Menard, lnc., to Increase the Maximum Height of an Accessory Structure to 24 Feet, which Exceeds the Height of the Principal Building, to Allow Construction of an Accessory Structure, Generally Located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N. E. {Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.01 - 13.14 lnformal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 ADJOURN: � f Rodger E. Carey � 159270 i��iiss� Blvci. ' � Coon Rapids Mn. Fridley P�fanager, I4ayor� and City Council, Greetings, I�ve been un�.b± � to Gttend a.1� of t'��a he.:aring/L�eetinos on tre hard s�ar�a.ce drive�,.ay issuc, n.o�;,ev�r, th.e le;;a].ity of' :�ay driv��:r�;y ,;�s es�L�bli,yh;;��: b,-�r �n ano�:a Cour_L�r Cour� cieezs-? on si�nnc? or�..I-iarch 2', 1 �c�z. The City is a��;�r� o° i,his �.nc; still zs trying to fore� r.1� into an ex_aense �hat is noi n�edeo.. lhis is bureauracy at its ��ro�^s�. In 19��, t'�e ��it� inc�� ca.i;�� tna.t 'idir� �ro:^ ;�� drive��a�; �,:�a.s tIGS�Z?T�j i�to stor:� drainst' - no� so - but a.� tr� sa::.� ti�:�� rri�.leti� hac� a di�i stre�t on th� F,ive-r bo�to�. Gnd A_��'r_�. Coant�; ��ras rebuilding Si10L1-C122'S OP ��.St RiJer ?oc.ci and du��ing tons 3: tons oz gravei on ui�es 3: :,�iles o' road s'ioulders. i�iis is an ongoin� -ar�.c �ice. I?erE 15 years la.�er y�r.��os°;� orc?inance �1 10 '� u�a? � c i�tuis�nce read� ";r�:.vel, dirt or un-�aveo. drive��r�.;-s er.��.n�er tr�e sa.fzty, hea.ltl�, cor�iort cr re_�ose of a eozsider�.b� c, nvmber os ::le�1bers o� the ?�ublic". �t�es �� cn, •r�ou? � tr� Cottr_ci? _�le2.se n�.rne tne�e -r:_ember�, o� tne oubl�c for the r��ord? '"iy tenan�S ��E�'�'?� 1:1 i� OZ1L of' th°1.I' �� age, � Y1�I':.3 S�.�T'�2.G° ;"� i� :lOi, c�e�ine �reir �'orderly ��.r'_:ing", �?�e�r eoul� ��ar�� on, half or_,or o�f,i' Zl�e�r c'r_oose. `�ale i?a.vz no "r1�,ts or c_ii,cizes and:don� � s�ray o?'2.V�� ,:;:i-r� or �us� on our neighborsrr. ' `.b'��re do vehicle =� L;� cis go ;�:r�en :_tl_ey �r� �+ on a h� d a� fc.ce? I•iy �uess � s ta�t they run oir to �he borae�^in�. di�t, ;:�here �:�a� c^.n "cause sig�iiic�n� environs?ental ne�.1t� r?s:�s to �t.r:, eo�Y:a.zity". !j' !'.rg 2�n� �ni;�- tC Cl.i-':i�;; C%7._� c.23k �?c:T'Li S?:tii�.C; 2.1_ Gi _'i.ii�_F�T� .;'11°Y''� C1G - V 1 ..� j{CU ?JY'O_,JOSe t0 C�.�C!? �'",.° 'JOZ.�Utv.71�S� 02^ Si:Oli7 Cl '.'-@ JUJL ��,t_:,� �=12.^_e 1."lt0 �liv 1'.`1SS1SS1DU1 �:LVBi c.S ;:^:OS� Ot;�°?" GO;�munities C?O: I � iVt O?1 i.:i� riv�-r an� I S2� 1.t� '"riis ord�r_ance is on� o�" co��;=oa�,:�ity, no� o; co-?non s�n�e �n� one t��:.t �ou snoula be asizaw ea to ��o�e ior. �Tery Sincerely, ��, �� -�� ; � � �� odge� �. G?,se;; cc: Jose��h ,'l. :�_i�'erson, :�±t�-. a� �,�;r I-.n. :_ulti uo�:sin` :�ssoc. THE MINUTES OF THE REGUI,p,R MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 20, 1996 The Regular Meeting of the`Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson at 7:33 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson led the City Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: NIEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson, Councilman Billings Councilman Schneider, and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Nee PROCLAMATIONS: STUDENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE WEEK, MAY�20-26, 1996: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson read a proclamation proclaiming the week of May 20-16, 1996 as Student Foreign Exchange Week in the City. She presented this proclamation to two foreign exchange students, Janek Schmidt from Germany and Robert Francek from Slovakia, who were made honorary students of the City during their stay. Mr. ScYunidt stated that he attends Fridley High School. He really likes Fridley and his host family. He thanked Council for this proclamation. Mr. Francek stated that he likes the community and his host family. He attends Totino-Grace High School. He thanked the president of the foreign exchange program and Council for this proclamation. Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Francek presented flags of their countries to the Council. PUBLIC WORKS WEEK, MAY 19-25, 1996: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson read a proclamation proclaiming the week of May 19-25, 1996 as Public Works Week in the City and called upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the problems in providing public works services and to recognize the contributions that public works employees make every day to the community. Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson presented this proclamation to Paul Lawrence, Superintendent of Public Works, who introduced public works supervisors, James Saefke (Water), James Brindley (Sewer), FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 2 David Lindquist (Parks), and Ken Holmstrom (Streets) who received this proclamation on behalf of the public works employees. PRESENTATION: DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD TO OFFICER SCOTT ROBINSON: Mr. Sallman, Robinson was presented by June 3, 1995, for taking a neighborhood. took action. Public Safety Director, stated that Officer Scott the recipient of the distinguished service award the Minnesota Association of Chiefs of Police. On Officer Robinson was one of the officers responsible person into custody who was firing a rifle in the When Officer Robinson responded he was shot at and The wounded subject was taken into custody. Officer Robinson stated that it was an honor to serve the City for the last fourteen years, and it is humbling to receive this award. He thanked Mr. Sallman for his commitment to training, as this incident took place just after he i'inished a street survival seminar. Officer Robinson thanked his wife and family for their support. He said that the award was an honor, and he was happy to receive it. He presented the distinguished service award plaque to the Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 6, 1996: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to Seconded by Councilman Billings. aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson unanimously. approve the minutes as presented. Upon a voice vote, all voting declared the motion carried APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: l. RESOLUTION N0. 39-1996 REQUESTING THE REDUCTION OF SPEED ON COUNTY HIGHWAY 132 (WARD 3) (TABLED APRIL 22, 1996): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this resolution establishes Council's opinion that the current 50 mph speed limit on 85th Avenue west of Springbrook Drive is excessive. The resolution requests that the speed on this portion of 85th Avenue be reduced to 40 mph and cites the safety of those using Springbrook Nature Center, and the inconsistency of high speed with the purposes of the Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Burns stated that a similar resolution has been submitted by the City of Coon Rapids. The City of Blaine has also THE MINUTES OF THE REGUI�AR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY 20, 1996 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson at 7:33 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson led the City Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson, Councilman Billings Councilman Schneider, and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Nee PROCLAMATIONS• STUDENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE WEEK, MAY�20-26, 1996: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson read a proclamation proclaiming the week of May 20-16, 1996 as Student Foreign Exchange Week in the City. She presented this proclamation to two foreign exchanqe students, Janek Schmidt from Germany and Robert Francek from Slovakia, who were made honorary students of the City during their stay. Mr. Schmidt stated that he attends Fridley High School. He really likes Fridley and his host family. He thanked Council for this proclamation. Mr. Francek stated that he likes the community and his host family. He attends Totino-Grace High School. He thar_ked the president of the foreign exchange program and Council for this proclamation. Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Francek presented flags of their countries to the Council. PUBLIC WORKS WEEK, MAY 19-25, 1996: Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson read a proclamation proclaiming the week of May 19-25, 1996 as Public Works Week in the City and called upon all ci�izens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the problems in providing public works services and to recognize the contributions that public works employees make every day to the community. Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson presented this proclamation to Paul Lawrence, Superintendent of Public Works, who introduced public works supervisors, James Saefke (Water), James Brindley (Sewer), FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 2 David Lindquist (Parks), and Ken Holmstrom (Streets} who received this proclamation on behalf of the public works employees. PRESENTATION: DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD TO OFFICER SCOTT ROBINSON: Mr. Sallman, Robinson was presented by June 3, 1995, for taking a neighborhood. took action. Public Safety Director, stated that Officer Scott the recipient of the distinguished service award the Minnesota Association of Chiefs of Police. On Officer Robinson was one of the officers responsible person into custody who was firing a rifle in the When Officer Robinson responded he was shot at and The wounded subject was taken into custody. Officer Robinson stated that it was an honor to serve the City for the last fourteen years, and it is humbling to receive this award. He thanked Mr. Sallman �or his commitment to training, as this incident took place just after he Pinished a street survival seminar. Officer Robinson thanked his wife and family for their support. He said thai the award was an honor, and he was happy to receive it. He presented the distinguished service award plaque to the Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COLTNCIL MEETING, MAY 6, 1996: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to Seconded by Councilman Billings. aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson unanimously. approve the minutes as presented. Upon a voice vote, all voting declared the motion carried APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 39-1996 REQUESTING THE REDUCTION OF SPEED ON COUNTY HIGHWAY 132 (WARD 3) (TABLED APRIL 22, 1996): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this resolution establishes Council's opinion that the current 50 mph speed limit on 85th Avenue west of Springbrook Drive is excessive. The resolution requests that the speed on this portion of 85th Avenue be reduced to 40 mph and cites the safety of those using Springbrook Nature Center, and the inconsistency of high speed with the purposes of the Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Burns stated that a similar resolution has been submitted by the City of Coon Rapids. The City of Blaine has also FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 3 submitted a letter in support of a speed limit study for 85th Avenue. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 39-1996. 2. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE (VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-01, BY IMPERIAI, HOMES, INC., GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1435 ROYAL OAK COURT N.E.) lin7TDTl 71 . Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that at the April 22 and May 6 Council meetings, Council heard considerable testimony regarding the vacation of a 140 square foot portion of a drainage easement at 1435 Royal Oak Court. The area had been designated as a buffer to protect an adjoining wetland. Mr. Burns stated that as a tradeoff, the petitioner has agreed to designate a 280 square foot�area to the rear of the property as a replacement drainaqe easement. This tradeoff is reflected in a revised copy of the ordinance. Mr. Burns said the City has received the replacement easement document from the petitioner, and the petitioner has stated that nine out of ten of the neighbors have no problem with the proposed vacation. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLP,CED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1068 AMENDING CHAPTER 114 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE REGARDING THE ABATEMENT OF JUNK OR UNSAFE VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that these ordinance amendments provide a more detailed definition of what constitutes a junk vehicle and references state statutes in defining unsafe motor vehicles. The ordinance provides a detailed five-day notification and abatement process that replaces the current twenty-day process. The ordinance also establishes an aggrieved owner hearing process and identifies a one-year "sunset date" to allow for re-examination of the ordinance one year from its adoption. The strengthened junk car ordinance was supported by 62 percent of those responding to a recently completed citizens survey. WAIVED THE SECOND READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1068 ON THE SECOND RE�DING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 4 4. ORDINANCE NO. 1069 AMENDING CHAPTER 128 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE REGARDING THE RELEASE OF ABATED PROPERTY AND THE ABATEMENT OF SAME OR SIMILAR VIOLATIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that these ordinance amendments require an agreement with the property owner prior to the return of abated materials to the site of the initial abatement and requires the property owner to pay any of the City's cost for removal or storage of abated materials. The ordinance also requires the property owner to agree not to return abated items to their original location and provides for an abbreviated notice for removal of illegally stored items that have previously been abated. WAIVED THE SECOND REP.DING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1069 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. NEW BUSINESS: 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANN3NG COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 1, 1996: RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 1, 1996. 6. APPROVE 1996 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND RECYCLE MINNESOTA RESOURCES, INC. FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY'S RECYCLING CENTER (WARD 1): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City sent out two requests for proposals seeking a recycling company that was willing to assist in the redevelopment of our recycling center in exchange for the privilege of operating this center. Most recently, a request for proposal has been sent out asking for an operator and equipment only. None of these requests have resulted in an acceptable response. Mr. Burns stated that since no proposals were received, staff has met with the current contractor, Recycle Minnesota Resources, Inc. to negotiate a new Iease agreement. The terms of this agreement are as follows: the effective date is June 1 to December 31, 1996; the City will pay $500 per month operating fee; the contractor shall operate Tuesday through Saturday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; the contractor will provide quarterly tonnage reports of all recycled materials; the City agrees to run water and sewer lines to the building no later than August l, 1996; and the contractor agrees to require its staff to meet quarterly to discuss customer service expectations and to complete customer service training. Staff recommends approval of the contract with the understanding that this seven-month contract period FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 5 will be used to study alternatives for the operatian of the site. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGUI�P,R AGENDA. 7. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 10, 1996 FOR VACATION OF AN EASEMENT IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT PROJECT AREA, SAVE #95-02 (WARD 1) : Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that at the closing with Rottlund Homes, Inc., it was discovered as a result of the title search that a utility easement had not been vacated. The easement was recorded after 64-1/2 Avenue was vacated in 1964. The easement is 30 feet by 200 feet and runs over the southern half of the vacated right-of-way with no municipal utilities in the easement. The easement is not needed for future municipal utilities and did not show up on earlier surveys that were used for the re�ent vacation and ordinance. Mr. Burns stated that additional Planning Commission review is not required, but the City Charter requires an ordinance to vacate this easement. The matter has been reviewed by the City Attorney who concurs with this approach. SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF THIS EASEMENT FOR JiJNE 10 , 1996 . 8. RESOLUTION NO. 40-1996 APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST 96-4 (WARD 1): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this project aligns ne4�ly constructed Third Street with a realigned west entrance to Holly Center. Plans for the project have been submitted to the City, County and State for review. This improvement will provide protected left turn lanes for east and west bound traffic on Mississippi Street and will involve widening Mississippi Street on the south side, with a majority of it being west of the newly constructed Third Street. Mr. Burns stated that bids are projected to be opened on June 20, 1996, with the award tentatively scheduled for the June 24, 1996 Council meeting. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 40-1996. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 41-1996 ORDERING FINAL PLANS AND ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST 1996-1 & 2 (ALDEN WAY) : Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the public hearing for this project was held March 18, 1996. At the May 6, 1996 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 6 Council meeting a second petition for inclusion of Alden Way was presented to Council. The City now has 29 signatures of property owners, representing 52 percent of the affected properties. This resolution would add Alden Way from Osborne Way north to 79th Way to this project. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 41-1996. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 42-1996 RECEIVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. ST 1996 - 1& 2: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this resolution authorizes the advertisement for bids for the reconstruction of Alden Way, a portion of 77th Way, and for street overlays in five locations. All of the work can be done within the $500,000 budgeted for 1996 street construction projects. The inclusion of Alden Way in this project will have the practical effect of continuing Alden Way as an MSA street. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 42-1996. 11. RECEIVE BIDS ON PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PROJECTS: Mr. Burns, City Manger, stated that the City has requested bids for playground equipment to be installed in six neighborhood parks: Jay, Logan, Harris Lake, Terrace, Summit Square, and Springbrook. Vendors were asked to design playground equipment for a specific dollar amount to meet the needs of two- to five-year-olds and five- to twelve-year-olds. Mr. Burns stated that bids were opened on April 30, 1996, but due to a technical error in the specifications, the vendors were asked to rebid based on the correction of the error. The revised bids were opened today. The original bids were used as a basis for neighborhood review and evaluation of the vendor proposals. They were also reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Burns stated that based on these reviews, it is recommended that the following bids be awarded: Jay Park, Harris Lake Park, and Springbrook Park to Flanagan Sales, Inc. each in the amount of $25,000; Terrace Park to Flanagan Sales, Inc. for $30,000; Logan Park for $15,000 and Summit Square Park for $30,000 both to Earl F. Andersen, Inc. Mr. Burns stated it is recommended that Council receive and reject the original bids of April 30, 1996, accept the bids of May 20, 1996 and award them as outlined above. If the bids are awarded this evening, installation is expected by the second week of June, and completed by August 15, 1996. E�,inds FRIDLEY CITY COUNGIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 7 for this equipment have been budgeted in the 1996 Capital Improvements Plan. RECEIVED AND REJECTED THE APRIL 30, 1996 BIDS AND RECEIVED THE MAY 20, 1996 BIDS AND AWARDED CONTRACTS AS FOLLOWS: CONTRP.CT FOR JAY PARK, HARRIS LAKE PARK AND SPRINGBROOK PARK TO FLANAGAN SALES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR EACH PARK; CONTRACT FOR TERRACE PARK TO FI,��1[ZAGAN SALES, INC. FOR $30,000; CONTRACT FOR LOC'�AN PARK TO EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000; AND CONTRACT FOR SIIMMIT SQUARE PARK TO EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000. 12. APPROVE CHi�NGE IN AUTHORIZED POSITION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF INCUMBENT: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Council approved the creation of a Youth Outreach Worker in late 1994. Since then, the Police Department and the ,position incumbent, Kevin Thomas, have created Project Safety Net and expanded it to include the cities of Blaine, Coon Rapids, and Columbia Heights. As the project has expanded the number of part-time outreach workers and the duties of the outreach worker has expanded. The Outreach Worker has now become a coordinator who interviews and makes recommendations regarding the hiring of staff and is also responsible for scheduling and evaluation of staff, as well as maintenance of statistics. Mr. Burns stated that as a result of these changes, it is recommended that the Outreach Worker position be re-authorized as an Outreach Coordinator position, and that the position be reclassified from pay Range 2 to pay Range 4. It is also recommended that these changes be made retroactive to January l, 1996. The costs for this program are largely covered by grant funding and outside contracts. APPROVED CHANGE IN AUTHORIZED PO5ITION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE INCUMBENT, KEVIN TAOMA.S, FROM OUTREACH WORKER TO OUTREACH COORDINATOR FROM PAY RANGE 2 TO PAY RANGE 4. 13. CLAIMS: AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 67995 THROUGH 68204. 14. LICENSES: APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. 15. ESTIMATES: APPROVED THE ESTIMP.TES, AS FOLIAWS: FRIDLEY CITX COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 8 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the month of March, 1996. ...$13,262.49 Richmar Construction, Inc. 7776 Alden Way, N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 53rd Avenue Booster Station Renovation Project No. 280 Estimate No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $72, 648.45 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda. . Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson requested that Item 2 be removed from the consent agenda. Councilwoman Bolkcom requested that Item 6 be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION by Gouncilwoman Bolkcom to approve the consent agenda items, with the exception of Items 2 and 6. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt the agenda with the addition of Items 2 and 6 from the consent agenda. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Mr. Henry Zimba, 7501 Alden Way, stated that he is a retired veteran on disability. With property taxes, the school referendum, and now the improvement of Alden Way, it becomes a burden. There is nothing wrong with this street, and he does not understand why they would want to improve it. � Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that this improvement was approved on the consent agenda; however, she asked the Public Works Director to explain the improvement. Mr. Flora, Public Work Director, stated that the improvement of Alden Way is to salvaqe and maintain the street that is presently in place. Assessments are payable at one time or assessed over a ten-year period. If a person is eligible, the assessment can be deferred until such time as the property is sold. There will be a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 9 hearing on the final assessment, and a letter could be sent requesting that the assessment be deferred. Mr. Burns stated that he believed the requests to defer the assessment are being received at this time through the Finance Department. PUBLIC HE�IRING: 16. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF THIRTY PERCENT (30$) OF THE CALCULATED FRONT YARD AREA FOR HARD SURFACE AREAS IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS (T�BLED APRIL 22, 1996): MOTION by Councilman Billings to continue the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously, and the public hearing opened at 8:01 p.m. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that it has been determined that this amendment which would permit no more than thirty percent maximum hard surface lot coverage be abandoned. The reasoning of the Planning Commission is that it is too restrictive, another permit process would be needed, tfiis issue would be self- policing because of the cost o� concrete or asphalt, and a majority of the residents have an appropriate balance between landscaping and hard surface areas in the front yard. . Mr. Hickok stated ttiat staff also recommends that Council not amend the ordinance because of the growing trend of two and three car additions which would require additional front yard pavement and a coverage limitation may deter residential home improvement projects. There is no permit requirement for pavement installation, and the City's enforcement for this requirement would, in all likelihood, take place after the driveway has been installed. It would also be difficult to determine the exact amount of coverage from the street while conducting typical systematic code enforcement inspections. Councilman Schneider pointed out that the hard surface driveway issue is separate from this issue. Mr. Hickok stated that on the issue of hard surface driveways, staff is preparing a survey that will be sent to residents involved in hard surface driveway improvement projects and is separate from what Council is now considering. Mr. Curtis Barsness, 6581 Central Avenue, stated that he thought the hard surface driveway issue was to be discussed. Mr. Hickok stated that Council determined that a survey should be done for those residents who would be required to pave their FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 10 driveways. The survey would analyze their concerns as Council moves forward with the ordinance. When the survey is completed, those persons who are interested and are on the mailing list will be notified when this item is on the Council's agenda. Mr. Burns stated that the survey would also include financial options that are available. No other persons spoke regarding this proposed ordinance amendment. MOTION by Councilman Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously, and the public hearing closed a� 8:13 p.m. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to direct staff to cease any further activity on this maximum lot coverage issue. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 2. ORDINANCE N0. 1067 UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE (VACATION REQUEST SAV #96-01, BY IMPERIAL HOMES, INC., GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1435 ROYAL OAK COURT N.E.) (WARD 2): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated the easement that will replace this vacated easement does match the description discussed at the last Council meeting. Staff felt that all necessary documents had been submitted to proceecl with this vacation request. Councilman Schneider asked how many affirmative votes were needed to adopt this ordinance. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that the City Charter requires four affirmative votes. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she has been opposed to the vacation; however, Mayor Nee has been in favor. At this point, she would vote in the affirmative in order for the petitioner to proceed with the home construction. MOTION by Councilman Schneider Ordinance No. 1067 on the second Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson unanimously. to waive the reading and adopt reading and order publication. Upon a voice vote, all voting declared the motion carried FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 11 6. APPROVE 1996 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND RECYCLE MINNESOTA RESOURCES, INC. FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY'S RECYCLING CENTER (WARD 1): Councilwoman Bolkcom asked the cost for adding the sewer system and if this was a budgeted item. Mr. Hickok stated that this cost would be $3,000 and could be recouped through SCORE funds. Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson asked the hours of operation for the recycling center. Mr. Hickok stated that it is open Tuesday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked about the neon sign to be provided by the City. Mr. Hickok stated that this would be a�very small neon sign at the recycling center main entry which would indicate the site is open. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the 1996 lease agreement between the City and Recycle Minnesota Resources, Inc. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Councilman Schneider stated that he was disappointed in the private sector, as it is not working as everyone intended. Ccuncilwoman Bolkcom stated that she did not know what motivates people to recycle. She wondered if they were not aware of what is accepted or the hours of operation. Mr. Hickok stated that recycling is, generally, well received and a center is a good service to provide. One of the uncertainties is the market for the materials that are collected which makes it somewhat difficult for the private sector to respond. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAIiEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 17. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-09, BY SIRNY ARCHITECTS, TO AI.,LOW A BANK OR OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN A C-1, LOCAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6303 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. ( WARD 2 ) : Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for a special use permit to allow a banking facility, with a drive- through, at 6303 Central Avenue N.E. A financial institution is allowed in this zoning district; however, the drive-through requires a special use permit. The size of the property is 80,640 square feet and is generally flat, but has some wetland area and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 12 vegetation along the east side. To the west is undeveloped commercial property; south is a multi-tenant commercial building; east is vacant and residential dwellings; and north is the fire station and single family dwellings. Mr. Hickok stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, the residents addressed screening and the hours of operation. The code requires a screening fence six to eight feet in height or a combination of landscaping materials. The petitioners were proposing a solid screening fence along the north property line. However, since the Planning Commission meeting, other alternatives have been discussed because of the concern about headlights. Other neighbors were interested in the open view into the natural area. The architect has proposed screening using a combination of fencing and landscaping to accommodate the residential property owners. Mr. Hickok stated that the County prefers to have one access point. Because of the wetland to the back of t�is site, the building would be constructed towards the front and, therefore, it would be difficult to have a loop for ingress and egress at one location. �e felt that keeping the ingress and egress points separated would be in the best interests of the City and the bank. Mr. Hickok s�ated that the Planning Commission reviewed the twelve stipulations submitted by staff a�d recommended some modifications. Councilman Schneider asked if the screening was to prevent the problem of headlights shining into residential homes. Mr. Hickok stated that there is approximately 370 feet from the drive-through area, where vehicles would be maneuvering, to the back of the nearest home. In analyzing the impact, there would be less than one foot candle in light which is equivalent to a dimly lit theater. The architect designed the angle to block the rigid beam of light. Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, stated that his property abuts the east side of this proposed bank. He has some concerns regarding the drainage and felt this project may contribute to the existing problems in the area. Another concern is the hours of operation and the impact of the drive-through. Mr. Schwartz stated that the screening is also a concern. He requested that the north and east property lines be screened and bermed. When commercial property is adjacent to residential property, a fence is required. Due to the design of the project, with traffic flow in one direction, residents have a right not to have headlights across their residential property. Mr. Schwartz stated that one of the major reasons for fencing on the north and east sides of the property is security. There will be an ATM located in the drive- through right near the woods. The fence� is not only for the residents' security but also for the customers using the ATM. All FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 13 properties in the City with drive-through facilities are located in C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. He felt this request was reasonable. Councilman Schneider stated that he is trying to differentiate why this project is any worse of an impact on the neighborhood than a 24-hour convenience store. Mr. Schwartz stated that a convenience store would not have the front door facing the back of the property. It is the drive- through that is really a concern, and he would like a fence around the property. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, submitted a petition to Council which requested that if the proposed credit union and drive through facility are constructed, the property be fenced where it adjoins all single family residential property with an eight foot wood fence, with berming, for both screening and security reasons. The petition was signed by 37 persons. Everyone felt it was common sense to install the fence, and the m�jority of the private home owners who were on the mailing list for this project have signed the petition. All of them expressed their desire for a fence along the north and east property lines for screening and security. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive Petition No. 9-1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Schneider asked the petitioner if he felt the ATM was a security issue. Mr. Perkowski, Pr�sident of U.S. Federal Credit Union, stated that there are always security issues; however, the one they have on 27th Avenue South has not been a problem. The ATM will be in a well-lit area and as secure as�possible. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if the ATM is accessible from a vehicle. Mr. Perkowski stated that�it would be accessible from a person's automobile. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there is an issue with the fence. Mr. Perkowski stated that they are proposing a screening fence. One resident did not want any fence; another was more concerned about the drainage; and the Schwartz's wanted a fence. The architect is working to make this as pleasing and attractive as possible. The bank does not oppose a fence, and they wanted to be good neighbors. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 14 Ms. Schwartz stated that, basically, neighbors would not be opposed if the property was fenced. They are really not in favor of the drive-through facility. The code would not be met if there was not a fence. Mr. Laurence Page, Sirny Architects, Inc., stated that they are trying to respond to everyone's concerns. The Schwartzs want a fence, and the other two persons indicated they did not want a solid fence. They would like to have it more open. He felt the screening they are proposing was a more aesthetic solution, as they would be using Mugho pines 15 to 20 feet in height. Ms. Schwartz stated that only the residents at 1356 64th Avenue did not want a fence. There are 37 other persons who want the fence. Councilman Schneider stated that some of those residents are on Rice Creek Road. Councilman Billings stated that some who signed the petition are several miles away from the site. � Ms. Schwartz stated that any person in Fridley can sign the petition, but ninety percent are in the immediate vicinity of this project. Ms. Schwartz stated that it is not the hours of operation they wish to restrict. If the bank were to be expanded, Council approval would be necessary. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked Mr. Perkowski to clarify the hours of operation as contained in his letter of May 15 to Council. Mr. Perkowski stated that the issue is one of flexibility and the need to serve their customers. They would recommend the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays; and 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Councilman Schneider asked if the City would have any jurisdiction over the hours of operation if a convenience store were located on this property. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that other than the nuisance regulations that would apply, there would be no jurisdiction over the hours of operation. Councilman Schneider stated that the fact the petitioner is willing to live with some regulation would be more than what possibly would be required from other developments. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 15 Mr. Perkowski stated that the concern of the neighbors appears to be the hours of operation of the drive-through. For clarification, the hour restrictions would be the drive-through hours. Councilman Schneider felt this proposed use of the property was one of the best. He asked the petitioner if he would be willing to come back to Council to work out any issues or problems if they should arise. Mr. Perkowski stated that they want to be good neighbors. They are a$240,000,000 financial cooperative owned by their members. Councilman Schneider stated that he felt the only issue was the fencing. Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson stated that she would not visit an ATM in this location without a fence. Mr. Perkowski stated that he does not have a problem with the fence, but he was trying to make it as aesthetically attractive as possible. Ms. Schwartz stated that most of the residents were not opposed to this project if it was screened. A lot of persons were concerned with security since the woods are in close proximity. Councilman Billings stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, there were presentations which referred to the City's codes, and these persons were looking at the wrong portion of the code. In regard to screening, there can be a fence or, if the site has natural vegetation, this can serve as the screening. In his view, the screening proposed is not contrary to the code. Councilman Billings stated that as far as the petition, he has a difficult time understanding the adverse effects of an ATM that would create tremendous risk to the neighborhood. There are ATM's located at gas stations all over the Twin City area immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods, and he fails to see the significance of this petition. It appears to be a petition that is a reaction to scare tactics that do not exist. Councilman Billings felt that the proposed project was good for this site. There are people in that neighborhood who will object to anything that goes on that site. He is in favor of the project, and the screening can be as proposed or changed to fencing. He felt that either option would be satisfactory and safe for the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to grant Special Use Permit, SP #96-09, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner shall provide an additional thirteen trees to the landscape plan, thirty percent of which shall be evergreen; (2) the petitioner shall FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 16 submit the specifications for staff review on prairie plant varieties; (3) the petitioner shall provide maintenance of the prairie plants for a minimum of three years to insure proper growth; (4) the entry and exit signs shall be reduced to four square feet in area; (5) the petitioner shall submit hydrologic calculations to the Public Works Engineering Department in order to review the grading and drainage plan; (6} the petitioner shall submit an acceptable form of assurance in the amount of three percent of the construction costs to insure completion of the outdoor improvements; (7) the landscape plan shal� indicate inclusion of underground sprinkling; (8) the noise level from any intercom system shall not exceed the decibel level set forth in the Fridley City Code; {9) the petitioner shall install an eight foot screening fence along the north and east lot lines, abutting the R-1 zoning, starting at the southeast corner of the fire station; (10) any expansion of the facility or extension of hours of operation over one hour before and after the proposed hours must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council; and (11) garbage hauling from the site,shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Councilman Billings. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to amend stipulation No. 9 by inserting the words "and security" after the word "screening." Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to amend stipulation No. 10 to read as follows: "Any expansion of the facility or extension of hours of operation over 7:00 a.m. to 9:OG p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. � UPON A VOICE VOTE TAI�N ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 18. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #96-08, BY ROGER MOODY OF FRIENDLY CHEVROLET, TO REDI7CE THE HI�RD SURFACE SETBACK FROM THE RIGHT- OF-WAY FROM 20 FEET TO 13 FEET AND 7 FEET; TO REDUCE THE H1�RD SURFACE SETBACK FROM THE SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET; AND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR CURB AND GUTTER AROUND THE PARKING LOT PERIMETER, ALL TO ALLOW AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PARKING LOT TO REMAIN AT 7501 HIGHWAY 65 N.E. ( WARD 2 ) : Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator stated that this variance request includes three different variances. The first variance is to reduce the hard surface setback along the right-of-way from tuienty feet to thirteen feet (East Highway 65 Service Road) and seven feet (Fireside Drive). The second variance is to reduce the hard FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 17 surface setback on the north and east lot lines from five feet to zero feet. The third variance is to waive t.he requirement for curb and gutter along the parking lot in certain areas. Mr. Hickok stated that staff analyzed the parking setback deficiencies on the site and determined there were a number of areas where the previous owners had hard surface drives out to the perimeter of the lot. It is the intent of the current owner to update the facility to meet all standards for lighting, building, and landscaping. Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner is negotiating for the acquisition of property to the east and hopes to expand the building and parking area. The petitioner is requesting that the curb in that area be waived to allow for future expansion. At the time of this expansion, curb and gutter would be installed. Mr . Hickok stated that the reduction of the setbacks on the north relates to conditions at the Kurt Ma}zufacturing facility. The petitioner has an agreement with Kurt Manufacturing to allow storage of vehicles, and they share a common hard surface area with a chain link fence separating the two parcels. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances with a number of stipulations. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if these variances would help the parking situation for the neighborhood. Mr. Kline, architect for Friendly Chevrolet, stated that this immediate plan should help improve parking, as it will define the parking areas. The future proposed expansion, which involves additional land to the east, will add parking to the site. Mr. Moody, the petitioner, stated that parking conditions would improve when they begin the next expansion. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance Request, VAR #96-08, to reduce the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way from twenty feet to thirteen feet (East Highway 65 Service Road) and seven feet (Fireside Drive); to reduce the hard surface setback from the north property line from five feet to zero feet; and to waive the curb and gutter requirement along the north property line. Further, to deny the variance to reduce the hard surface setback from five feet to zero feet along the east property line, but to allow the petitioner three years to comply with the five foot hard surface setback along the east property line; and to deny the variance to waive curb and gutter along the south and east property lines, but to allow the petitioner three years to install curb and gutter along the south and east property lines. Seconded FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 18 by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 19. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated it is recommended that Diane Savage be appointed as Chairperson of the Planning Commission; Rosalie Landt and Peter Panchyshyn be appointed to the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission; and Satveer Chaudhary be appointed to the Human Resources Commission. There remains an opening on the Appeals Commission and Human Resources Commission. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to appoint the following persons to the various commissions: Planning Commission; Diane Savage as Chairperson to the term,expiring April l, 1997. Human Resources Commission: � Satveer Chaudhary to the term expiring April 1, 1998. Env.ironmental Quality and Energy Commission: Rosalie Landt to the term expiring April l, 1998. Peter Panchyshyn to the term expiring April 1, 1999. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Schneider, and Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings abstained from voting on the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried by a three to one vote. 20. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: POT BELLIED PIGS: Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that Cindy Langendorfer, 15 63rd Way, requested that Council amend the code to permit pot bellied pigs as domestic pets. Staff has researched this issue and contacted other cities, the State Veterinarian's office, and the Humane Society of Minnesota, and Anoka and Hennepin counties. Based on this information, staff would recommend against an ordinance amendment to permit pot bellied pigs as domestic pets. Some of the reasons are that pigs are territorial, aggressive, extremely protective, cannot be vaccinated against rabies, susceptible to Brucellosis which is a human health risk, and special htunane society-type shelters have been developed to keep unwanted pot bellied pigs. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 19 Mr. Hickok stated that there would be a land use impact regardless of the size of the pig. Accessory structures in rear yards of single family areas will be constructed to house the animals and complaints could be filed regarding noise, odor, maintenance, and appearance of properties. Staff has met with the petitioner and requested compliance with the City's ordinance within ninety days. Mr. Hickok stated that from information obtained from the PIGS Sanctuary in Charles Town, West Virginia, they hoped the City did not amend the ordinance. At the time the sanctuary was started, they had one pig. They now have 200 pigs; the smallest is about 100 pounds, and it is not unusual for them to reach 200 pounds. They have provided pros and cons if someone is considering a pot bellied pig as a pet. The cons far outweigh the pros. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that a meeting was held with Cindy Langendorfer, and she has all this information. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that i� the conference session, he would like to discuss the financial proposal for funding rehabilitation of residential property. Also, Brad Seilaff of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission would like to discuss the Six Cities Watershed District storm management plan and a grant that would address the problems a� Springbrook Nature Center. Councilwoman Bolkco signs. If a block City staff liaison, ADJOURNMENT: m stated that there are now permanent recycling captain would like one, they can contact the Lisa Campbell. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 20, 1996 adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Nancy J. Jorgenson Secretary to the City Council Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the May 15, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Connie Modig Brad Sielaff Barbara Dacy, Commu�}i.ty Development Director . Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Micheie McPherson, Planning Assistant Jim Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates, 7301 Ohms Lane, Edina, Minnesota Ed Farr, Edward Farr Architects, 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., BloomingtQn, Jerry Cassidy, Focus News John Wa11, 80 S. 8th Street, Minneapolis, Martin Waibel, 1584 Oak, Arden Hills, MN Don Deiich, 5284 Taylor Street NE Elden & LaVerna Thompson, 5661-6th St NE Mary Matthews, 1259 Skywood Lane NE Tom Arth, 5241 Fillmore Street NE Sara Overby, 4229 Quincy Street NE, Columbia Heights, MN MN MN Dean Bliss, 5212 Fillmore Street NE ._ David Jellison, MEPC American Properties_Inc. Lesiie Jowett, MEPC American Properties Inc. S. A. Mortenson, 1389 Skywood Lane NE Glen Douglas, 871 - 66th Avenue NE Steve Soltau, Skywood Mall Gary Colby, Menards Bruce Malkerson, Attorney at Law Bob Farrier Judy Engebretson, 5216 Taylor Street NE APPROVAL OF MAY 1 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the May l, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON`A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED TIiE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1.01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 2 1. ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF THIRTY PERCENT (30%i OF THE CALCULATED FRONT YARD AREA FOR HARDSURFACE AREAS iN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Mr. Hickok stated, at the March 6th Planning Commission meeting, there was a discussion about lot coverage. At that time, the lot coverage issue was centered around driveways and hard surface driveways. This relates to discussion of the other requirements for hard surface drives and also some of the property conditions and property maintenance ordinances that the City is working towards for the beautification of the City. In the discussion, staff inentioned that, based on an analysis of the study done by the Planning Commission in 1993, staff further researched to determine what the final ordinances would look like relating to the issues of hard surface drives and, in this case, 30� lot coverage as a maximum for hard surface drives in residential areas. ' Mr. Hickok stated included in the agenda packet is a summary of the Performance Standards modifications. Both the R-1, Single Family, and R-2, Two Family, sections would have identical language stating that, "No more than thirty percent (30�) of the front yard area of a lot shall be surfaced with blacktop, concrete or other hard surface material approved�by the City for driveway or parking stall purposes." Mr. Hickok stated, at the time the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal, they asked staff to evaluate some questions and the answers to those questions. The first question was if staff could evaluate the total lot coverage and impervious surface vs. the front lot coverage. Staff can do that. Staff reviewed residential lot coverages with general business district and provided a comparison of their findings. One example provided at the Planning Commission was that of a limousine business wh�re a resident may have hard surface in the rear yard to park these vehicles. In reviewing this.particular situation, staff found there are some administrative problems in terms of enforcement. When doing inspections without a complaint, it is quite often the case that staff cannot see the rear yard. There is no permit required for installation of driveway or patio hard surface on a residential lot. Staff made the observation that, in the residential and commercial comparisons, the City code has a detailed process for hard surface on commercial properties. By comparison, there is little or no control over hard surface on a residential property with minor exceptions to setbacks, curb cuts, etc. Ms. Hickok stated the second question was, instead of restricting lot coverage in the front yard, should we restrict parking to the 1.02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 3 hard surface or driveway areas? The City code does require property owners to park all motor vehicles on a hard surface. The City Council is now considering the second reading to a hard surface requirement saying that residential sites should have a driveway of either concrete or asph;alt. This will control where the vehicles are parked. It does n��t necessarily get at situations where a vehicle is parked on a basketball court or development of the front yard. Thi:s however is not a common occurrence. Mr. Hickok stated the third question asked to increase the percentage from 30� to 35%. At the meeting, a resident stated they had a 40-foot lot. She felt the 30% requirement might be difficult to stay within on such a narrow lot. Staff provided a comparison of driveways and the resulting lot coverage. As staff looked at existing conditions in the: community, they found a number of examples that would be conitra�,to the 35$ coverage. Or►e example is a single family home with a three car garage. The drive for that garage represents 39� iot coverage. They found other examples over 39� coverage. T'his finding brought staff to the conclusion that 30� to 35$ was a standard throughout the metro area when three-car garages were not as prevaient. Staff feels 35� may be punitive as a maximtun. Mr. Hickok stated the fourth questio:n asked if the language of an ordinance amendment could be structu:red where a person could be assured of a driveway of minimum spe�cified width. Even at 30�� coverage on a 40-foot lot, that wou1�3 assure a 12-foot driveway for 35 feet. This would be a single car drive back to the garage. At 35% coverage, a 14-foot driveway would be allowed. Mr. Hickok stated the last question �isked if the percentage should be tied to the total width of a lot. This benefits those property owners with wide lots. StaiFf believes there should be a minimum drive width allowed regardle;as of lot width. Mr. Hickok stated the first option wc�uld be to incorporate the following statement into the drivewa�� performance standards section of the City Code considering that 30� to 35g may be a dated percentage. The statement readls, "Hard surface areas shall not however cover the full length andl wi.dth of the front yard between the principal structure and t.he public right-of-way. Front yard areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping requirements specified in this section." This would go into the landscape section of the code which states that, for any other surface other than driveway, these shall be landscaped with sod and/or vegetation. One concern with this option is that a large tree in a base may be enough to satisfy this requirement. 1.03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Hickok stated the second option is to elect not to amend the ordinance. In evaluating the proposal, several concerns continue to surface. There is a growing trend of two and three-car garage additions which require additional front yard pavement. A coverage limitation may deter residential home improvement. Having no permit requirement for pavement installation, enforcement of this requirement would in alI Iikelihood take place after the driveway has been installed or during the process of installation. This is a very difficult time for homeowners to find out they are in violation of the code. Determining the exact coverage percentage while conducting a visual inspection could prove to be extremely difficult. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends the second option, not to amend the ordinance, due to the changing nature of residential properties, the beautiful examples of alternative landscape/drive solutions in front yards, and the diffi�ulty of enforcement posed by not requiring permits for drives. Ms. Savage asked what the ordinance is as it is now written. Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance as written requires vehicles be parked on a hard surface. It does not now limit the percentage of lot coverage. It is conceivable that someone could pave their entire front yard. Ms. Savage stated with the second option, if someone wanted to pave their front yard, they would be able to do so. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Staff has not seen this to be a problem. Residents do not do this from a cost and aesthetic standpoint. The City would have to rely on a good sense approach. Ms. Savage stated, if someone wanted to do so, the City has no control. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct in the front yard. The City has some control over work in the public right-of-way. Ms. Modig stated, when talking about requiring greenery, would that exclude landscape rock also. Mr. Hickok stated this reads that it would be sod and/or vegetation. We have some examples of primarily landscaping with rock. Again, that is atypical. Generally, we see a combination of sod and plants or all sod. Mr. Oquist asked if this could be approached requiring a certain percentage of green in the front yard. This could help contzol 1.04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY l�i 1996 PAGE S the complete surfacing of a front y-ard. Mr. Hickok stated staff debated thi.s at length_ The problem continues to be enforcement. This comes back to the hard surface and not requiring a permit fo:r hardl surface. If we stated 50� hard surface/50% green space, at th.e point an owner violates that green space, they are putting down hard surface and that is a difficult time to approach th<3t pro�perty owner. Short of having a building permit requirement,, we do not have a warning that people are doing this. Ms. Modig asked what would be the problem or logistics of requiring a building permit fc�r improvements on a driveway. Mr. Hickok stated it a.s outsic�e of the building code. Staff would have to rely on the inspectors. Inspection coverage may be the issue. It is outside of what inspe��ors look at on the site. Mr. 5aba stated he has seen m�ny instances of landscaping with landscape rock but he thought it wouid be difficult to get a building permit. we see a lot: of t:hree-car garages and parking pads. He thought it was s�lf--policing. Part of this is due to the cost which is prohibitive. Mr. Saba stated he supported t.he se�cond option to not amend the ordinance. His reasons include the three-car garage situations and the fact it is kind of sel.f-poi:icing. Trying to en�orce coverage would be difficult. Also, we�do not have a definition of what is and what is not har•d sur:Eace and what is and what is not vegetation. He thought this wa:s trying to create an amendment to an ordinance to Folice exceptions, and he did not know that this is something tYaey sh��uld do. Ms. Savage stated she did not see a problem with this option. She asked if this was separate from the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated staff wanted to kEaep the items close, but they are two separate issues. Mr. Oquist stated he has a problem �in that it does not give the City any control and that is what an ordinance is for. An ordinance is to enforce something when it becomes a nuisance. This leaves it wide open and he has a problem with that. They have talked about concrete. Asphalt- could be an alternative to concrete. He could go with it but he has reservations. He thought there should be a percentagE� of green area required. Ms. Modig stated she could go with t:he second option. She would like to have something because the t:ity now has nothing for enforcement. After discussing the c:ost and the three-car 1.O�i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 6 garages, she did not know what other option they really have. How does this affect those who have no hard surface at alI? Mr. Hickok stated the action by the Planning Commission in March included a recommendation for a different section of the code where the interpretation of a non-hard surface driveway wouid be considered a nuisance and also to state that all drives should be concrete, asphalt, or other hard surface. Mr. Oquist stated we have talked about the trend to two and three car garages. The City of Fridley is 90o to 95� built. There are few lots left where one could build a home with a three-car garage. Some have an opportunity to expand. Few will build a new home with a three-car garage. Few can expand an existing garage to a three-car garage. Therefore, part of the argument is soft. Ms. Savage stated this was a good point, but what is the alternative. Mr. Oquist asked what happens if someone wants to concrete their front yard. Ms. Modig stated the City has no control. Owners can do whatever they want. Mr. Saba asked rahat percentage of the residents would want to concrete or asphalt all of their front gard. It is cost prohibitive for one thing. He did not think there was a need for an ordinance for something that a very small percentage of residents might consider doing. Mr. Hickok stated, with the amount of development that we have in the community, those that exceeded 30� to 35� would be considered pre-existing non-conforming lots. From an enforcement - perspective, it does become very difficult if that homeowner decides to do a driveway expansion. Would we be able to determine if that was a pre-existing condition? He rather doubted it. While there may be an ordinance, it may be difficult to enforce it. On new homes, owners want to enhance their property with landscaping in proportion to the quality of the home. Of the two options, he tends toward the second option because of the enforcement issue. Mr. Douglas stated he felt an ordinance such as this would take away rights from the property owners. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend option #2 electing not to amend the ordinance. 1.46 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 1'S, 1996 __ PAGE 7 Ms. Savage asked if the violation of an ordinance was a misdemeanor. Mr. Hickok stated yes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMCfUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATIONf OF MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR LAKE POINTE OFFICE PARK ]3Y MEF!C AMERICAN PROPERTIES. INC : The S-2, Redevelopment D:istric:t requires review and approval of a development plan in areas when redeveloptnent is proposed. The petitionez- is p�roposing to construct 582,000 square feet of multi-stor.y corporate office space and 90,313 square feet of supportinq commercial uses, including a one- story restaurant, a four--story hotel, and 20,000 square feet for a bank/office. The �:ite is lo,c�ted in the northwest corner of I-694 and Highkray 65. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, i^HAIRPERSOM DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THg pIIBLIC HEARI7KG OP$N AT 8:04 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the Lake:Pointe pro��erty is located in the ' northwest corner of I-694 and Highw<�y. 65. The site is approximately 41 acres and 32.77 ac�^es without the outlots and ponds. The site is served by :Highw<�y 65 and the West Moore Lake and Central Avenue intersectio:n. I,ake Pointe Drive rings the site along the south and links the ��ite to 7th Street on the west. Bridgewater Drive is to the north. There is a zoned area of R-1, Single Family, along t�e noi-th of the site. The purpose for the zoning was for a buffe:r strip. The remainder is zoned S- 2, Redevelopment District. Th�� pur�>ose of the Planning Commission review is to review the �►roposed development plan for this property which is required by t:he zoning. A redevelopment district gives the City a maximum amiount of control and � flexibility in how to evaluate what goes on at the property. It gives the City a say in what u:aes ar�e or are not appropriate and gives the Planning Commission, the C'ity Council and the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRAj t:he ability to approve or disapprove each project, building and/or use in this area. The master plan approval is the fiz-st step in the development process for this property. Ms. Dacy stated the project may� take 8 to l0 MEPC is the petitioner for this: site. They contract for exclusive negotiat.ions �with the the contract states MEPC has th.e autlhority o 1.07' years to complete. have entered into a HRA. Essentially, n the HRA's behalf to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 8. try to bring development to the property. That contract also requires MEPC to submit a master plan. Ms. Dacy stated the plan is similar in terms of concept and vision as the plan established by the City 10 years ago. The City and HRA have seen this site historically as an office park with supporting uses. The proposed plan is similar in vision and use but less intense than the original plan. What is being proposed on the site is a 582,000 square foot of office space in four buildings and 90,313 square feet of commercial use in three buildings. Starting at the west portion of the site, the first two office buildings are proposed to be five-stories, the third building with six stories, and the fourth building having eight stories. A parking ramp is proposed to be located to the north of the office buildings. The first parking level would be below grade, the second level at grade, and the third level one story above grade. The types of uses proposed are office and corporate uses. The commercial uses include a restaurant, a four-story 130-room hotel, and a bank or other smaller type of office use. Ms. Dacy stated a technical detail is that the property is not platted at this time. Prior to the developer coming in and receivzng permission to construct a building, the �etitioner must have a plat for every building or group of buildings they intend to construct. Ms. Dacy stated architecture is•something the Planning Commission may want to discuss with MEPC. MEPC has submitted a written summary of the types of materials being evaluated. Open areas are being proposed. There is also a plan for consistent landscaping, signage and lighting. Most of the signs proposed are already consistent with the ordinance. MEPC is proposing to construct two fairly large signs which are bigger than what_we have seen in Fridley. This will be discussed at a later time. Ms. Dacy stated another issue is traffic. This is probably the most important issue pertaining to this development. The traffic consultant for the HRA is at the meeting. He has completed an updated analysis. The major findings were that the intersection at Highway 65, West Moore Lake Drive, and Centrai Avenue needs to be improved. Additional turn lanes need to be provided into the development as well as alignment shifts to align West Moore Lake Drive and the development. The City is committed to complating the improvements. The City has applied for Federal funds to help fund these improvements. It could take two to three years to get all the approvals required for this project. Traffic is also a concern of the neighborhood. Another thing to evaluate is a transportation demand management strategy. We would be trying to encourage transit into and out of the site (i.e. car pools, van pools, buses, etc.) to discourage single occupancy vehicles and 1.08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAy 15, 1996 PAGE 9 to encourage high occupancy vehicles. With less cars on the roadway, there is less congestion. Ms. Dacy stated staff worked with the developer on the lighting. They have agreed to reduce the lighting to �2 to 15 feet on Bridgewater Drive to minimize the i;mpact to the residential area. Ms. Dacy stated the developer is pr��posing substantial landscaping on the north side. The site now has 393 trees. The plan proposes an additional 405 tre��s which is in excess of the requirement of 672 trees. Staff is working with the developer to install larger piant sizes north of the parking decks as well to establish a buffer from the resideni�ial area. Ms. Dacy stated the developer wants a nine-foot wide parking space which will require a special use permit. If that is proposed, they will have to come th�-ough the process. . Ms. Dacy stated the Parks and Recreation Com�nission iooked at this request. The Commission recomnsended that the park fees be paid up front at the time prior to t:he first building permit. Ms. Dacy stated the developer is addting five ponds to the five already on the site for storm porid a�anagement. One pond is in the northeast corner of the site. A,bout 40� of the site runs into Moore Lake and is under the jur�isdiction of Rice Creek Watershed. A permit from the waters�hed district is required. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends app�roval of the proposed master plan. The proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment objectives of the City. As a next step, the proposed plan will go to the HRA on June 13 for their recommendation. The plan will then go to the City Council on June 24. Then, if approved and MEPC is successful in bringing development to the site, they will then be back for the plat and special use permit. If approved, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. Appropriate plat applications s:hall be submitted and approved prior to development of the property. 2. All uses in the development sha:11 comply with the following list of permitted_uses: office uses typically associated with corporate/Class A office d��velopments; hotel and conference facilities; banks/financial institutions; Class III restaurants as defined in S<�ction 205.03.59 of the zoning code; daycare facilities,; and other uses as specifically approved by the Cii�y. Uses allowed in each individual building after corist�:uction will be the same or similar to those uses identifieci in this application. The City shall review and approve e�ich use prior to occupancy. 1.0!� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 10 3. Detailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the City. 4. A comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of the first building permit based on the plan dated March 29, 1996 and addressing the following issues: A. Wall signs (building identification and tenant signage) shall meet the wall sign requirements of the sign code. B. No free-standing pylon signs are permitted. C. Height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified. D. Two free-standing project identifier (D) signs are permitted; the size and height to be approved by the City Council. E. Al1 free-standing signs shall be set back ten feet from property lines. F. The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation. 5. The petitioner shall work with the City in preparing transportation demand strategies to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property. 6. 12 to 15-foot light standards shall be instailed shall be installed along Bridgewater Drive adjacent to the residential area. Sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot lights and street lights. 7. If the parking decks or parking areas ar within the R-1, Single Family Dwelling zone, a special use permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. If nine-foot wide parking spaces are to be proposed within the development, a special use permit as required by the S- 2, Redevelopment District, must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed Management Organization, and the 1.10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 1!i, 1996 PAGE 11 Minnesota Pollution Control Ac�ency for storm water management and grading shall Y>e obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. Detailed engineering plans and calculations shall be subniitted in conjunction with plat applications and building pern�it applications for review and approval by the City. 10. When appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the Indirect Source Permit from the HRA. 11. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building permit applications. 10 to 12-foot evergreens shall be installed along the north wall of the parking deck. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at tim�e of building permit issuance. ,.. 12. Park fees shall be paid prior �to the initiation of construction of the first deve:lopment on the site. Easements shall be dedicated a,t the time of pian approval over the existing bikeway/walk�aay areas. Mr. Saba asked Ms. Dacy to clarify lthe wetland mitigatian required and the classification of ithe wetland on the site. Ms. Dacy stated the consultant indic:ated there are no wetland areas within the project.on the sitE�. One pond constructed 10 years ago was constructed in a wetl�ind.area at that time. The wetland issues are going to be the z-esponsibility of the City when the City evaluates the reconsti-uction of the Highway 65 intersection. Part of the reconstri:�ction is to add a southbound right turn lane on Highway 65 into �ihat will be Lake Pointe Drive. There is a small amount of t:he wetland areas that is_ adjacent to Moore Lake. Ten years a�go, the City applied for and received a permit, but that permit h�as expired. The requirements since then have changed. We must cc�mply with the current requirements. Mr. Farr stated he is an architect w�ith Ed Farr and Associates. They have designed a master plan for� a.high quality, Class A commercial development with mid-rise and low-rise office buildings on a 24.5-acre westerly portion of the site and low- rise commercial and hospitality uses on an 8.2-acre easterly parcel. The office buildings would have a freeway exposure. Commons areas were created for enjoyment of a park-like area. In addition to the walking paths proposed, an enclosed walkway between the office buildings is prop�osed to enhance the sense of community and to share services. 7.11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 12 Mr. Farr stated support services to the east include a restaurant, a hotel, and a bank near the entrance. These services are appropriately located near the entry to Lake Pointe. Mr. Farr stated the exterior materials were chosen to convey warmth, sensibility, and texture. Brick will be incorporated. Architectural precast concrete wall panels will be used as well. They do not intend to make all the buildings look alike. The glass used will be energy efficient, reflective, insulating glass in subdued shades. The architectural trim and detail will be incorporated in a human scale. Rooftop units will be architecturally concealed. The commercial buildings would have their own architecture but they still have control over the design. Mr. Farr stated the paved path would continue to serve the community. A climate-controlled walkwa�� is proposed along the south side of the parking ramps for year around pedestrian access. The Lake Pointe commons areas will be a public space amenity. The central plaza would have a water feature and plants. They envision this area to be a lively experience with public concerts, etc. Mr. Farr stated the landscaping is in keeping with the previous developer's concept. Similar plants are being proposed using deciduous and coniferous trees. Shade trees will be used in and around the parking lot. Coniferous trees will be used for screening with under story flowering trees for interest. Coniferous trees and a berm along the parking ramp will be used to screen and provide a buffer strip. Trees in good condition will be transplanted on site to where they are needed. Trees in the buffer strip a.long the north will not be disturbed. The area will be sodded or seeded and an irrigation system instalied. Mr. Farr stated they are trying to achieve a minimal impact-to the residential neighborhood. The parking takes a setback of 140-feet from the lot lines. The tall office buildings have been placed as far away as possible. No buildings are taller than what was previously approved. The buffer zone has been established and is also a sound barrier. A berm will be provided to screen the parking decks as much as possible. Shared pathway systems are in place for circulation around the building area. The Lake Pointe commons is intended to provide an area for the community. New businesses will provide services to the community as well. Mr. Oquist asked if they had started to discuss this proposal with the neighbors. 1.12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 13 Mr. Farr stated two neighborhood me�etings have been held. Two items that resulted were the lower :lights to minimize glare and to minimize the impact of the parki�ng decks they are supplementing berms with plantings <�n top of the berms to buffer. Mr. Oquist asked if the property to the north of the walkway will be as it is. Mr. Farr stated this was correct. 7"here will be no grading outside of the loop. Mr. Oquist asked if they would be re�sponsible for all seven buildings. With one project managez- involved, you get consistency of construction which is: what he wants to see. Mr. Farr stated he would defer that question to MEPC. MEPC is controlling the development of the i.nitial construction. ., . Mr. Jellison, MEpC, stated they have two office parks in the cities toda�. In the southwest corner of I-394, they have the Minneapolis West Business Center. They are planning something similar here. They will put money into the office building and they alsc� want all of the project to fit together. Mr. Oquist asked if MEPC would also :be managing the four office buildings. Mr.�Jellison stated MEPC would const:ruct, manage, lease, etc. Mr. Oquist stated this project is sm��ller than the original one. How much different is this proposai? Ms. Dacy stated the original plan had a total of nine buildings with a total of 749,000 square feet. This is a total of 672,000 square feet so it is approximately 8t),000 square feet less. " Woodbridge also proposed alignment oi: the buildings east/west as opposed to this plan with the.buildings north/south. Mr. Oquist stated it is nice to thinl+: in terms of van pools, etc. What has been done about the traffic patterns through the neighborhoods and out on Highway 65? Ms. Dacy stated there was a set of pr�eliminary drawings 10 years ago that were evaluated by MnDOT. We: are relooking at those plans, updating them according to the: current standards, and looking at improvements to the ramps coming off I-694 as well. Anoka County has the Central Avenue link at the intersection. Ms. Dacy stated the City is speaking with MnDOT about a similar proposal for the ramps off University due to the construction of Home Depot. Home Depot also is looking at additional 1.13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 14 improvements to the west on 57th. Ms. Modig stated two houses were removed. Will this require removal of any additional homes? Ms. Dacy stated two houses were acquired and those are the only homes required to be removed. Mr. Kondrick stated a walkway had been discussed to connect the buildings. At what level would this walkway be constructed? Mr. Farr reviewed the elevation drawings showing a cross section of the site. The walkway wouTd extend along the front of the parking deck, would be completed enclosed, and be climate controlled. While the buildings are office, there may be some supporting services included in the office buildings as well. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a timetable. Mr. Jellison stated they anticipate 8 to 12 years. Much will be dependent on the market and how quickly they can find users for the facility. They now have a request for proposal for one user looking for a corporate headquarters. They have also had other users looking at the site. They are not prepared to build without tenants. Mr. Jellison provided a history of the company. Their company has offices and holdings throughout the world and have a regional office in the metropolitan area. Ms. Leslie Jowett is the leasing coordinator for this project. Their company builds, leases, manages, and maintains their buildings. Mr. Jim Shunt, project manager, will overse� construction. Mr. Oquist stated 8 to 10 years seems like a long time far a project to continue. What guarantee do we have that MEPC will stay with the project for that time? Mr. Jellison stated MEPC has a two-year window with the City to get something to happen or the City can ask MEPC to leave. MEPC's goal is to build and to have parks. It does not work weli to have one building by itself. With additional buildings and as companies grow, we can take them into one of our buildings and they can grow with us. Our goal is to grow with our tenants. Much of what happens is based upon the market. Even during difficult times, MEPC has never lost a project. Mr. Oquist stated they had mentioned a common area by the buildings for entertainment. He did not want loud music. 1.14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 15 Ms. Dacy stated the same concern ca,me from the neighborhood. Staff will evaluate that along with. the developer. The HRA's intent in developing the site is to� maintain as much control as possible. The contract states MEPC' can market the site on behalf of the HRA. If MEPC gets a user, the HRA will negotiate with MEPC for the land to get a building up and parking in. There is an incentive in a second building. It will be a partnership type of approach. Mr. Douglas stated at this time there is traffic in the morning that builds up on the entrance ramp to I-694 west. Will reconstruction alleviate that probl�em? Ms. Dacy stated they are adding cap�acity to the intersection so that should help somewhat. Staff h;as talked to MnDOT about the eastbound ramp onto Highway 65. It may help because there will be additional lane capacity. •. . Mr. Benshoof •stated they did a traf:Eic study on the City's behalf. Intersection improvements �aill add capacity for the southbound traffic. We have no conitrol over the ramp meter or the rate at which it works which is iinder the control of the State. Mr. Oquist stated, if we do construcstion on the intersection, we need to take into consideration thai.-it does not adversely impact the current traffic flow which is now bad at best. Ms. Dacy stated this was a good poirit and she will bring that up with the State staff. Nok• that we iiave a plan that is up to date and recent, they can start to evalu��te it for what they need to do for the intersection. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner•, after reading the recommendation by staff and reviewin�g the 12 stipulations, had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Farr stated they generally agree. with the 12 recommendations. On #8, they will be asked for the 9-foot wide parking stall which is consistent with most communities in the area and consistent with the low turnaround rate of this type of business. Mr. Saba asked if they had any ideas of what they can do in that space to reduce traffic. Ms. Dacy stated the developer and she have not had an opportunity to delve into that area. Cities along I-494 have developed a coalition to find out where employee;s are coming from, where they are going, and developing a program :around that. MTCO has a good program on car pooling. That would lhelp on peak hour traffic. 1.1�> PLANNING COMMISSION_MEETING, MAY 1S, 1996 PAGE 16 Mr. Oquist asked if consideration has been given to have a bus route on the west side. They had also talked about a walkway over Highway 65 at the time of the original proposal. Ms. Dacy stated she has not seen anything about a walkway. It is a challenge across Highway 65 and University to make intersections safe for pedestrians. They have talked with MTCO staff and discussed what we can do to promote transit use to this site. Mr. Farrier asked how the interim maintenance was being addressed. Ms. Dacy stated the HRA is responsible for taking care of the lawn. Mr. Farrier asked if that would continua. . Ms. Dacy stated this would continue as long as we own the property. When the property is sold, MEPC will be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Farrier asked if a fence has been or should be considered to the north side of the development. Ms. Dacy stated there are.some properties who have chain link fences and some do not. They have not at this point discussed a typical screening fence. The intent has been to provide for as much vegetation and trees as possible. Mr. Kondrick asked the distance between the residential property lines and the parking ramp. Ms. Dacy stated from the property line to the street is about 40 feet, then the street itself, and then another 50 to 60 feet to the edge of the parking deck. Ms. Modig asked if the property owners will be impacted mostly by the parking areas. Ms. Dacy stated, if you go west to east, the elevation increases. Some of the homes are below the buffer strip. There is a buffer there and there will be a berm in front of the parking ramp with trees on top of the berm. Mr. Farrier stated he thought a fence should be considered along the north side and also along Kerry Lane. Mr. Farrier asked if they had considered the effect on Moore Lake. Is an environmental impact study underway? 1.y6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 17 Ms. Dacy stated they have addressed the environmental impact on Moore Lake. Ten years ago, five po:nds were constructed to handle run off from the parking lots and b�uildings_ MEPC is proposing five additional ponds to contain wa�ter. The watershed district is to evaluate the impact. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, �7ICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:17 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mi-. oquist, to recommend approval of the master plan for LakE. Pointe Office Park by MEPC American Properties, Inc., with the following stipulations: l. Appropriate plat applications �:halY`be submitted and approved prior to development c>f the property. 2. Al1 uses in the development sha�ll comply with the following Zist of permitted uses: office: uses typically associated with carporate/Class A office dlevelopments; hotel and conference facilities; banks/fi.nancial institutions; Class III. restaurants as defined in S'�ection 205.03.59 of the zoning code; daycare facilities�; and other uses as specifically approved by the City. Uses allowed in each individual building after construction wili be the same or similar to those uses identified in this application. �The City shall review and approve each use prior to occupancy. 3. Detailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of materials used on t:he exterior walls shall be approved by the City. 4. A comprehensive signage plan sh;all be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to is:suance of the first building permit based on the plan dated lKarch 29, 1996 and addressing the following issues: A. � C. Wall signs (building ident:ification and tenant signage) shall meet the wail sign rc�quirements of the sign code. No free-standing pylon signs are permitted. Height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified. � 1.17 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 18 D. Two free-standing project identifier (D) signs are permitted; the size and height to be approved by the City Council. E. All free-standing signs shall be set back ten feet from property lines. F. The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation. 5. The petitioner shall work with the City in preparing transportation demand strategies to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property. 6. 12 to 15-foot light standards shall be installed shall be installed along Bridgewater Drive adjacent to the residential area. Sodium high pre�,sure Iights shall be used for the parking lot lights and street lights. 7. If the parking decks or parking areas ar within the R-1, 8ingle Family Dwelling zone, a special use permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. If nine-foot wide parking spaces are to be proposed within the development, a special use permit as required by the S- 2, Redevelopment District, must be obtained prior to 'issuance of a building permit. 9. Appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed Management Organization, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for storm water management and grading shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. Detailed engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with plat applications and building permit applications for review and approval by the City. 10. When appropriate, MEpC shall accept the transfer of the Indirect Source Permit fro� the HRA. 11. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building permit applications. 10 to 12-foot evergreens shall be installed along the north wail of the parking deck. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at time of building permit issuance. 12. Park fees shall be paid prior to the initiation of construc�ion of the first development on the site. 1.18 PLANNING_COMMZSSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 19 Easements shall be dedicated at the time of plan approval over the existing bikeway/walkway areas. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED TIiE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Dacy stated the HRA would consider this item on June 13 and the City Council will consider the request on June 24. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �96-10, BY GLEN DOUGLAS: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow an accessory buiiding other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 2, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition, generally located at 871 - 66th Avenue NE .. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTING AiLS, VICS-CHAIRPLRSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MQTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBI�IC BEARING OPEI�T AT 9:20 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this speciai use permit request i$ to allow a second accessory structure in excess of 240 square feet. The subject parcei is located on 66th Avenue north of Mississippi Street and east of Jackson Street. The property abuts Meadowlands Park. Located on the subject parcel is a single family dwelling unit with an attached garage. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 20 foot x 24 foot accessory structure in the rear yard. The rear yard does slope from the street level down toward the back of the property and towards Meadowlands Park. The lower level of the dwelling is a walk-out. - Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted plans for a metal accessory structure. The front would be wood. The request does not exceed the maximum structural coverage of 25% permitted by code and meets the setback requirements for accessory structures in a rear yard. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's request for a metal accessory structure is somewhat unusual when compared to similar cases the Planning Commission has reviewed in the past. In similar cases, the City has typically granted a special use permit with the stipulation that states the accessory structure is to be architecturally compatible with the primary structure on the property. The property to the east-�of the petitioner has a� structure of similar construction and materials. The City did 1.19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 20 permit construction of a metal building at 7738 Elm Street but stipulated that either the residential structure or the metal structure be removed within 10 years of construction of the accessory structure. Elm Street is located in the Onaway Industrial District. In that district, homes are a legal, non- conforming use. Since the permit was issued, the residential structure has been removed and the property is now an industrial use. Also typical with these types of requests is a stipulation that no home occupation take place within the structure. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, and shail be constructed of similar materials. 2. The structure shall at no time be utilized for a home occupation. Mr. Douglas stated he would appreciate approval for a steel building. He realizes it is an unusual request in that area. The building proposed is a steel Master.building. He chose it because it is very substantial and can stand up to wind. He would like the Commission to consider the steel building with a stipulation that, if the property is sold, the building would be removed. He could build a woa� structure but the metal structure best fits his needs. It has full capacity for storing projects and does not restrict the inside use. Mr. Kondrick asked if the building would be the same color as his home. Mr. Douglas stated the building would be a metal color. It is galvanized on the outside. - Ms. Modig asked what he would be using this structure for. Mr. Douglas stated it would be for a hobby shop. He now has a shop in his basement but he does not have room for his tools. Mr. Kondrick asked what type of tools he would use. Mr. Douglas stated his tools include a lathe, saws, etc. Mr. Kondrick asked if he thought there would be a problem with noise from the tools. Mr. Douglas.stated he has not yet had a complaint. This building would be insulated. y.2� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 21 Ms. Savage asked, if he did not get approval for the metal building, what would he then do_ Mr. Douglas stated he would have to decide whether to go with the wood or forget it. He wants a shop. He will not be visible from the front yard. It would be visible from the park. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated they have not received any comments. Mr. Douglas stated he contacted some neighbors across the park. One stated they had not received a notice. Mr. Oquist stated there is a problem with the notice in that it does not say the construction is metal. The notice does not tell ,,. the whole story. Mr. Douglas stated the building is not to rust for 25 years. Mr. Oquist asked if the report should have been required to say this is a metal building. Ms. McPherson stated the metal building is out of the norm but the code does not stipulate the material type. It stipulates accessory structure in excess of 240 square feet. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by 2✓r. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:3C P.M. - - Mr. Oquist stated he liked the stipulations. There is nothing wrong with nice construction for a workshop but he could not go along with a metal building. Ms. Savage agreed. She thought it a dangerous precedent since the City has required the accessory structures be compatible with the main structure. Ms. Modig agreed. Mr. Saba agreed. He has seen some good metal buildings but this does violate the intent to have structurally compatible accessory structures. 1.21 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, i996 PAGE 22 Mr. Kondrick agreed. It should be compatible with the current structure. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-10, by Glen Douglas, to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 2, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition, generally located at 871 - 66th Avenue NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, and shail be constructed of similar materials. 2. The structure shall at no time be utilized for a home occupation. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this item on June 10. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF FOUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS PERTAINING TO MENARDS' PROPOSAL FOR EXPANSION: Special Use Permit, SP #96-02, by Menard Inc., to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment,. generally located at 5207 Central Avenue NE (presently the Skywood Mall property). Special Use Permit, SP #96-05, by Menard Inc., to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles,..boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes,. o� other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generaily located at 965 - 53rd Avenue NE (the Menards property). Special Use Permit, SP �96-06, by Menard Inc., to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally iocated at 965 - 53rd Avenue NE (the Menards property). Special Use Permit, SP #96-07, by Menard Inc., to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles, boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other simiiar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 5207 Central Avenue NE (presently the Skywood Mall property). 1.22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 23 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE POBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:40. P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the proposal is to have Menards purchase the Skywood Mall. In reworking the area, Menards would eliminate the existing office structure and also a fence along the east boundary line starting behind the mall and continuing north behind the existing Menards storage area. On April 3, the Planning Commission heard the staff report and comments from the public. The Commission chose to continue discussion and directed the petitioner to work with staff and the neighborhood to address a number of issues. Issues regarding the Skywood Mall property include: .. Topography �Lack of ability to successfu3ly screen view materials from adjacent properties: I-694, residential properties to the east Lack of ability to successfully screen view merchandise from adjacent properties: I-69� residential properties to the east Requires removal of existing office complex to be replaced with outdoor storage No opportunity for rear inventory receiving for remaining tenants Increased noise in the rear retail area Increased noise to travel upward out of the bowl created by the building and hillside Limited information regarding use of rear yard storage area Limited information regarding rear building elevation and customer circulation. - of outdoor Cheri Lane, of outdoor , Cheri Lane, Mr. Hickok stated issues regarding the Menards property include: - Topography - Lack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor materials from adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri Lane, residential properties to the east Lack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor merchandise from adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri Lane, residential properties to the east Increased noise in the rear retail area Increased noise to travel upward out of the bowl created by the building and hillside � Limited information regarding use of rear yard storage area Limited information regarding rear building elevation and 1.23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 24 customer circulation - Required gates around a petroleum pipeline - Traffic control (signs) at Menards access points Mr. Hickok stated Menards held two neighborhood meetings - one on April 25 and another on May 13. Many of the issues have been addressed as a result of these discussions. One of the issues related to the topography, increased noise, and the view from adjacent properties and centered around the topography and the standard wall's ability to cut off that site line. Menards had originally proposed a 14-foot storage fence with lighting facing inward toward the subject property. The petitioner had also proposed going back into the existing slope. In response to the neighborhood, the petitioner is now proposing to use the existing curb line behind the mall area and follow the current fence line behind Menards. The fence proposed is now 20 feet in height. Mr. Hickok stated, at the April 25 meeting, there was concern from the neighborhood about the wall. There was discussion about the 1991 sound study and discussion at that time of a concrete wall 20 feet in height 19 feet from the property line. At that meeting, the petitioner indicated they would look at a 20-foot sound wall. Shortly after, the petitioner contacted the City indicated they would work on a 2U-foot wall. Staff indicated this would require a variance because the current maximwn height is 14 feet. Menards did apply for a variance for the additional height. The petitioner also hirEd a sound consultant to do a sound analysis. _ Mr. Hickok stated there is a question as to whether this should be a 20-foot or 28-foot wall. Reports indicate that the Kelso comments were related to a 20-foot concrete wall located 19 feet from the rear property lin�. In the 1991 letter from Mr. Flora to the neighborhood regarding the design of the wall, he states it is the 20-foot wall that has the gradient effect that drops down to more of a standard fence height as it wraps around to the front of the building. The conclusion in the sound study is that construction of a 28-foot high, 2 x 8 tongue in groove plank wall without openings will have a similar effect as concrete and will have some effect in reducing the noise level. The roof at the top of the wall would have the effect of at least another foot in height. Mr. Hickok stated other concerns were related to the storage in the front and the display of inerchandise. The petitioner has addressed a number of those issues by indicating they would be redesigning the front of the Menards store to eliminate the existing patio shop at the front. They do plan to keep the fence display on the front elevation of the store. The accessory buildings now stored in the front are proposed to be set back in 1.24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 25 a recessed area along the north side of the building. There is a fence indicated behind the display. The fence exists in the drawing and has a gate for customers to come in at the north side of the building. Menards is proposing to close that gate and to have a controlled entrance and exit between the two buildings. The gate will be setback to allow the stacking of several vehicles. Mr. Hickok stated, regarding special use permit request, SP #96- 02, staff recommends denial based on the reworking of the front of the Skywood Mall would leave little or no space for merchandise in front of the mall. The petitioner expressed t3iey_ would not be storing or displaying materials in this area. Mr. Hickok stated, regarding special use permit request, SP #96- 05, staff recommended denial. Staff was waiting for information on the wall and on the sound mitigation,resulting from this wall. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval, staff recommends the following minimum stipulations: 1. Approval of VAR #96-10, allowing a 20-foot high (rather than 14-foot high) accessory structure in a C-3, Shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be required surrounding the ba�e of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials far this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point outside of the fenced area. 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. All emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will clock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 1.25 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 26 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. Mr. Hickok stated staff recoYnmends denial of special use permit request, SP #96-07, to allow Menards to sell or display merchandise. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval staff recommends the following minimum��tipulations: 1. Approval of VAR #96-10, allowing a 20-foot high (rather than 14-foot high) accessory structure in a C-3, Shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be requi±ed surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point outside of the fenced area. 5. The fence enclosure sha�l be properly maintained and kept in good repair. - 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. Al1 emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will clock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. Al1 intercom devices shail be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. y.26 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAy 15 1996 PAGE 27 10. Al1 building modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal buiiding. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of special use penait request, SP #96-06, to allow unscreened storage of exterior materials on the Menards site with the following stipulations: 1. All outdoor storage and display of��erchandise (except yard barn/accessory buildingsj on the north, west and south building faces shall be removed so not to be visible from the public right-of-way. 2. No future outdoor dispiay of inerchandise shall be permitted without a review and approval of a special use permit by the City of Fridley. 3. All yard barns and accessory buildings shall be moved to an area north of the existing Menards storefront. �. No yard barn or accessory building shall extend further west than the front corner of the existing building. 5. Al1 modification to fence and gate to accommodate the yard barn/accessory structure display shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to - construction. 6- Any architecturai detail of the display or modification shall be consistent with the architectural detail of the primary structure. 7. The yard barn/accessory building display shall be kept free of debris. Mr. Hickok stated a neighbor had asked for an additional stipulation, in the event the use changes for outdoor display of merchandise, that the petitioner be requested to come back before the Planning Commission. -� 1.27 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 28 Mr. Oquist asked, if we approve the special use permit as written, based on what it says, we have approved everything mentioned in the code. He thought this should be rewritten so they know what they are approving. Mr.'Hickok agreed. The language provided is taken verbatim from the code. The stipulation suggested by the neighbor would be appropriate and would safeguard against unwanted items being displayed. Ms. Savage stated asked if could be rewritten to eliminate those items because it does not pertain here. Mr. Hickok stated that is the language fro� the code. Any portion of that list of items can be eliminated by use of a stipulation. Mr. Oquist asked what the Commission was allowing by approving this special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated they are approving lawn machinery and merchandise. He suggested a stipulation stating that they cannot display recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and/or manufactured homes. Mr. Saba stated he would like to add to stipulation #12 that, All exterior building surfaces be finished and maintained in an attractive manner . . .�� Mr. Soltau stated he would like to thank staff for their involvement in this process. He has talked to many of the neighbors. Through the process, there have been a number of revisions to the plans. Mr. Soltau stated he would characterize this as an opportunity to rehab and redevelopment the Skywood Mall. The mall has had some challenges to its abiiity to.redevelop. There are limitations in parking. The tremendous depth to the building makes it difficult to develop. The opportunity with Menards seemed the perfect fit. It allows Menards to use the depth of the mall, reposition and restructure the retail to the front of the mall, and be more likely to keep the mall viable as well. This is also an opportunity to encourage the redevelopment of the Menards facility and to enhance their presentation to the community and to the City. Mr. Soltau stated this is also an opportunity with a limited window. They have been under contract for an extended period of time and we also have leases that have expired. They continue to loose tenants as a result. In the interest of the remaining 1.28 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 29 tenants, they would be better off to move this forward as well. Mr. Soltau stated, with the material submitted, the sound expert stated tongue and groove is a change from the original proposal. He would like to introduce into the record the opinion of the independent appraiser that they had hired. There was concern about potential diminution of value. The appraiser's report addresses that concern. He would also like to note the letter of support from the Relly Inn. The owners and operators of the Kelly Inn are concerned about the continued decline in the mall and are encouraged by this proposal. They have also submitted a letter of support from Mr. and Mrs. Delich who live behind the mall. They live at the highest point of elevation behind the mall. They have a buffer of trees and a fence, but they are most affected. They see the mall as continuing to decline and believe this is an opportunity. To demonstrate the fence height, he provided photos of a 20-foot 2 x 4 taken from different points. .. Mr. Soltau stated, regarding SP �96-02, as pointed.out in the discussion, we have had conti.nued discussion. It is the petitioner's intent not to display materials in front of the mall. This request could be withdrawn at this time. Mr. Colby stated Menards had originally proposed a 14-foot fence. The fence is important to them. It acts as a sound barrier, a screening measure, stores materiais off the ground and keeps it more organized. Through conversation with the neighbors and staff, the consensus was that a 14-foct fence is not high enough so they are proposing a 20-foot fence around the perimeter. They will be working with staff to provide new landscaping along the north facing the freeway and the southeast portion of the fence to soften the lines. He thought one could see what kind of impact that fence would have on the rear portion of the mall. He provided a site line sketch of the site. "- Mr. Colby stated they are proposing to raise one section of the fence to 24 feet to more effectively provide a sound barrier for that area. That section would be about 100 feet to 120 feet long behind the existing Menards facility. They will work with staff to see where that would be best placed. Mr. Colby stated he differs with staff on a couple of items. The first under SP #96-06 and is the fence display and the yard barn display. Menards will be removing the vast majority of the outdoor display along the front of the building. They would still like to maintain the area to the north of the existing entrance against the building for display of fences and to the north of that the display of yard barns. They will be opening up the sidewalk in front of the entire store. 1.29 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 30 Mr. Colby stated they will remove the chain link fence area but they would Zike to sell Christmas trees on the front sidewalk. Stipulations 3 and 4 reference the yard barns and the fence displays. If this read, "All yard barns and accessory buildings shall be moved to an area north of the existing Menards entrance", this would be acceptable. Otherwise, they are in agreement and are willing to comply. Some of the confusion has come over the wording. They are not asking to display anything other than what is on the plan and that is part of this overall project. Ms. Modig asked if Mr. Colby had any problem with rewriting a stipulation not allowing boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Mr. Colby stated no, as long as they are allowed to keep the yard barn and fence displays. Mr. Oquist asked if there was a physicar separation between the Skywood Mall and Menards. Mr. Soltau stated there is an existing demising wall they are following. There is a hallway that would remain, and there is a fire wall. � Ms. Engebretson stated her praperty is adjacent to the Skywood Mall property. In a letter she has written, she states that, once again, the residents of Taylor Street and nearby property owners to the Skywood Mall are asked to become the sacrificial lambs in the save our investment campaign led by the current investors and owners of the Skywood Mall. Over the past 32 years, the names of the investors and owners have changed. Their requests for deviation to the present facility have varied slightly, but the reasoning or justification to the neighborhood for such deviations from the present zoning ordinances have- always remained the same. This will save the mall from dyi�g. This will help the City gain control of a deteriorating and bad situation. This will only improve the property for the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Engebretson continued, during the same time, she has watched the mall erected with no plans for landscaping or screening for the surrounding residential area. She has watched a manmade steep hill take years to stop eroding. She has witnessed hundreds of seedlings planted and never watered. She has seen makeshift drains of sheet metal installed to help prevent soil erosion. She has watched her neighbor's fencing and hers slide down the hill not to mention the numerous phone calls made by neighbors and herself to the City to request the pick up of debris on the mall property and the cutting of weeds. Because there were no previous provisions in the original plans to 1.30 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 31 provide a screened buffer zone, her neighbors and she have had to endure the expense of a erecting their own privacy fencing and landscaping to help filter the sound and the lights from the adjoining commercial groperty. Also, in the same 32 years, she and her neighbors have watched a beautiful skyline become cluttered with electrical wires, advertising signs, and bright lights. The quiet of the neighborhood gives way to car doors and truck lids slamming, people talking and yelling, air conditioning units flicking on and off all night, and the sound of forklifts and semi trucks beeping when backing up. And here we are again. Different investors. Slightly dif�erent request. But the same bill of goods for justification is being offered. Ms. Engebretson states, if she has learned one thing over the years, it is that there is very little to be gained for the neighborhood in the business expansion of this property. She does not. want to become an unwilling investor in the Skywood Mall property�. It is unfortunate that the ma71 is dying and that it diff•icult to market, but she does not believe that out of desperation or the urgent need to make a quick profit, we should allow the further expansion of a seven-day a week lwnber business that has already got a history of being difficult or indifferent to the community's needs. If it is orderly containment you are seeking, you do not attain that by making the problem larger. She feels that the City truly believes you will be able to enforce the restrictions that will be tied to the granting of these outdoor use permits. But from her own personal experience in similar situations, good intentions are not enough. It is difficult to enforce City guidelines on a non-cooperative business. If they do not conform and the business is operational, you will find it difficult to shut them down or to get them to conforta, especially when you weigh the large expense of pursuing legal proceedings. You truly cannot control their means of operation once you have granted the necessary permits. You can only hope they will abide by the rules. She does not want altered her quality of life for the financial investment she has made in her home on Taylor Street and become the sacrificial lamb for a business who are between two strong competitors - Menards and Home Depot - to determine who the survivor will be in gaining the largest portion of the market share in the home construction marketplace in the northern suburbs. She and her neighbors have been committed to making Fridley their home and want to continue to do so. They did not come to this City to make a quick buck and leave nor did we want to join in a market share war between two competitors. If you grant this permit, who will be the sacrificial lamb for the residents on Taylor Street when they go to sell thei.r homes and find out that the investment they made so many years ago is not what it should be? Will the City make up the financial loss to our homeowners? Will Menards offer to make up the difference or will the investors in the 1.31 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 32 Skywood property? Ms. Engebretson stated some questions have not been addressed. Where will the entrance and exit points on the back portion of the mall be located? What will happen if the exhaust fumes spill out over into the hotel and businesses? Getting rid of those fumes means some kind of fan. There is noise from those fans that will go into the neighborhood. Has anyone addressed these issues? She knows that a special use permit does not give the City any authority to what happens under the roof. Mr. Kondrick asked how Ms. Engebretson felt about the 20-foot f ence . • Ms. Engebretson stated she would not be as impacted by the site as by the noise. While things may look good on paper, in reality they do not always really work. . Mr. Kondrick asked if the fence as a noise barrier would help. Ms. Engebretson stated she did not know how much more noise this will generate. She can now hear normal conversations in the parking lot. Ms. Matthews stated the draft of the letter regarding the sound barrier states the height should be 28 feet. She has been in this battle for 22 years. She was advised to address the concerns. The purpose of a noise wall is to shield the adjacent neighborhood to the east. The height of the wall was intended to interrupt the site line along the mid-elevation. The height of 20-feet meets this condition for much of the area. When they met tonight, they were taking pictures using the 20-foot piece of lumber. The height can cut the decibel level. When they held up the pole, it still did not shield the valley area. She thought they could handle this with an additional four feet. She has always been angry about the noise issue. This has gone on for a long time. If we can negotiate four-feet to cover that hole, she would be more willing to cooperate. Mr. Kondrick asked if Ms. Matthews wanted the fence height raised from 20. feet to 24 feet. Mr. Matthews stated the height should be 28 feet but it is not possible to go that high. She thought four additional feet would give more alleviation for the noise. The letter discussed consistent noise but it does not discuss impact noise of which we have a great deal. The additional sound barriers will reduce that impact noise. 1.32 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 33 Mr. Job stated his concern is the hours of operation for the open storage. It will be on the weekends. He purchased the property because it is in a quiet neighborhood. There will be more noise as Menards moves south. Will there be some restrictions as to when they start and stop? He would especially like to see weekend hours restricted. Mr. Kondrick asked what type of hours he would like to see. Mr. Job stated he would prefer to see the hours after 9:00 a.m. and not after 2:00 p.m. If they have guests, they cannot talk. If they could restrict the outside hours, it would keep the neighborhood quiet. Mr. Arth stated he is not so much affected by the sound. He thought Menards was a very poor neighbor. For 27 years, they have had a bent tin fence with barbed wire across the front, the grass is not mowed on the outside of the�fence, and there is trash. On weekends, you take your life into your hands to go home past the Skywood Apartments because of the traffic that does not stop for the lights. To increase traffic would be a mistake. He does not think Menards has represented much responsibility to be a good neighbor in the past. You have talked about maintaining the fence but what rule to you have for maintaininq the rest of the building. In his opinion, it looks shabby. Mr. Delich stated he was in trouble with his neighbors because they think he supports the expansion. He is not for or against it. He is a businessman and he realizes you must grow or go out business. When he e�ressed his views on this expansion and any objections, his objection was not to the noise. They have screening which blocks some of the noise. The noise from the freeway is greater than anything else. When he is in the yard working, that is all he can hear so he does not hear the noise from Menards. He does not experience fumes. He doesn't heaY things at night that they do. He is not saying that they are not disturbed, but for him this is not a problem. Mr. Delich stated he is not supporting Menards move. He has not changed his views except that he has expressed them more clearly. One is the unsightliness and the second is to keep the promises they have made. One solution is the wall which will help with the sound. He feels in good conscience he cannot criticize the operation for the sake of criticism or because it may devalue his home. He knew that was commercial when he bought the property. He did not think it would change the value of his home. He thought it would be a plus for him to have the three-story building go down. He selected his lot because of the beautiful view. 1.33 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 34 Mr. Kondrick stated Mr. Delich had mentioned that Menards is not a good neighbor and had not kept their promises. To what was he referring? Mr. Delich stated the area is not kept clean. He did not know how much was their r�sponsibility and how much was litter. Sometimes that is something we have to put up with. He has not had the problems that other neighbors have had. Ms. Matthews stated she would like to believe they can compromise and she wants to believe that this will happen. Menards has not been a good neighbor in the past. She has come to the conclusion that they will be there and she hoped they could reach a compromise. She wants a time line. She also hoped this will be a cleaner area. Mr. Oquist stated he would like to have Menards address the issue of not being a good neighbor. Mr. Colby stated he did not have an euplanation. There has been a past history. From what has happened recently, there have been improvements. There is a new manager there who was brought in to improve the situation. Because it is a complex operation, it cannot happen overnight. This project does give Menards an opportunity for a fresh start. Mr. Oquist stated he hoped this was true, but Menards can understand the perception. When dealing with this type of environment, it is important to keep the neighbors happy. Mr. Oquist stated there is the issue of the fumes. Is the Skywood Mall area going to be an indoor saies use? Mr. Colby stated that area wiil be a drive-through, unheated warehouse that cars can access. - Mr. Kondrick asked what their hours of operation were on weekends. Mr. Colby stated the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. During the week, they are open at 7:00 a.m. Ms. Matthews stated she recommended the forklift hours in the yard be restricted. If the sound wall makes a difference, this may not be an issue. The forklifts start early and run late. The trucks can come at any time. Mr. Colby stated they can only control their own trucks. 1.34 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 35 Ms. Savage stated, since this must go before the Appeals Commission, the hours of operation could be incorporated into the stipulations before the Appeals Commission or City Council reviews. Mr. Bliss stated he was far enough away so he was not impacted by the sound. It is good to see compromise. His concern is the maintenance of the fence. The current fence looks poor. Would that be covered by the current maintenance code? He does not want the same situation in the future. Mr. Hickok stated, as far as the current fence goes, fences are to be maintained in an appropriate manner. This is covered in one of the stipulations. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. ,� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PQBLIC �SARING CLOSED AT 10:12 P.M. Mr..�:ondrick stated SP �96-02 has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Mr. Oquist stated he would like to delete some of the language from #96-07 so that it only includes machinery and merchandise. Mr. Hickok stated, because the wording shown is taken precisely from the code, he felt ?t,should remain as such so that everyone is aware of the code requirements. He suggested to accomplish the same by adding a stipulation �14 on �96-07 and �8 on #96-06 which states: ��Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by City staff, the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council." Mr. Oquist asked if this would allow the Christmas tree sales. Ms. McPherson stated the City has a separate license process for Christmas tree sales lots. Typically, this is not governed under the zoning ordinance. � Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with allowing the fence display on the building under SP #96-06, stipulation 1. In SP #96-05 and SP #96-07, they had requested a change in stipulation 6. Mr. Hickok stated these standards are for all-garden sales to make sure products are not rained on and result in pollution. 1.35 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 36 Mr. Saba and Ms. Savage agreed that all others are required to comply and felt that Menards should comply also. Ms, Modig referred to SP #96-05 and SP #96-07, stipuiation 4. They talked about materials being viewed from a vantage point outside of the fenced area. Is this vantage point considered to be at eye level and not above? Ms. Hickok stated there will be difficulty in the analysis of that. There is the topographic advantage to the east. On the north, west and south sides from an elevation of six feet above the property, you would not see any materials. Along the east, it would be protected by the wall as best possible. He would add wording to indicate it is from north, west and south. Mr. Saba stated some issues still need to be addressed including the ventilation; the hours of operation and restricting outside hours; and something to maintain the outside vegetation. Mr. Hickok stated they could require a performance bond to make sure the work is done and maintained for one year. As far as the exhaust, the special use permit addresses what is happening outside of the building. The stipulation about the building inspector approving modifications will address the issue of exhaust and vehicles travelling within a building. Ms. Savage asked if there was anything they could do about the hours of operation. • Mr. Hickok stated the City does not restrict hours. This is an issue between the neighbors and Menards. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-05, to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally loca�ed at 5207 Central Avenue NE (presently the Skywood Mall property) with the following stipulations: l. Approval of VAR #96-10, allowing a 20 to 24-foot high (rather than 14-foot high) accessory structure in a C-3, Shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall nat create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional of the new structure plan shall landscape shall be required surrounding the base wall to soften the visual impact of the large on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 1.36 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETTNG, MAY 15, 1995 PAGE 37 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point from the north, west or south outside of the fenced area. 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. Al1 emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will ciock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed for building and code compliance and approved by the City Building Official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12. Al•1 exterior building surfaces sha11 be finished and maintained in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. MoTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-06, by Menard Inc., to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue NE (the Menards property), with the following stipulations: l. All outdoor storage and display of inerchandise (except yard barn/accessory buildings and fence display) on the north, west and south building faces shall be removed so not to be visible from the public right-of-way. 2. No future outdoor display of inerchandise shall be permitted without a review and approval of a special use permit by the City of Fridley. 1.37 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15 1996 PAGE 38 3. All yard barns and accessory buildings shall be moved to an area north of the existing Menards entrance. 4. No yard barn or accessory building shall extend further west than the front corner of the existing building. 5. All modification to fence and gate to accommodate the yard barn/accessory structure display shall be reviewed for building and code compliance and approved by the City Building Official prior to construction. 6. Any architectural detail of the display or modification shall be consistent with the architectural detail of the primary structure. 7. The yard barn/accessory building display shall be kept free of debris. . . 8. Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by City staff, the Planning Commission and approval by the City �ouncil. UPON A VOICE VOTE, �LL VOTING AYE, VICE-C$AIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED QNANiMOIISLY. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by'Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special Use Per�it, SP #96-07, by Menard Inc., to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicies, boats, marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 5207 Central Avenue NE (presently the Skywood Mall propertyj, with the following stipulations: _ 1. Approval of VAR #96-10, allowing a 20 to 24-foot high (rather than 14-foot highj accessory structure in a C-3, Shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be required surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point from the north, west or south outside of the fenced area. 1.38 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 39 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. Al1 emergency access routes shall be kept free from materia?s, display and clutter that will clock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 10. All building modifications shall be,reviewed for building and code compiiance and approved b'� the City Building Official•prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity_ 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished and maintained in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shail be kept free of all debris. 14. Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by City staff, the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED tJNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Saba stated he thought Menards has done a good job in working with the neighborhood. He hopes they can keep up that dialogue with the neighbors. Mr. Hickok stated the•City Council wouid review this item at their meeting on June 10. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVEIAPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF APRIL 11 1996 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of April 11, 1996. �.39 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 40 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED T�E MOTION CARRIED tJNANIMOOSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 15, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 11:38 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper �� Recording Secretary 1.40 S I G N- IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMIggIpN .MEETING, M�Y 15 , 1996 1.41 </� � TY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner requests that a special use permit be granted to allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feet. If approved, the petitioner would construct a 20' x 24' detached metal accessory structure in the rear yard. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: . Section 205.07.01.C.(i) of the Fridley City Code requires a special use permit to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet. Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with an attached 1 1/2 car garage. The petitioner is proposing to constxuct the accessory structure in the rear yard. The proposal meets the setback requirements and does not exceed the maximum 25% lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zoning districts. The petitioner's request for a metal structure is unusual. In granting similar special use permit requests, the City has typically required the accessory structure to be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit and adjacent dwelling units. The petitioner's dwelling is framed construction with horizontai vinyl or metal siding and a partial brick front. The design of the accessory stn.rcture is not similar to the existing single family dwelling. Staff would recommend that the petitioner be permitted to construct a second accessory structure of similar size; however, limit the choice of building materials to typical frame construction and require the design to be architecturally compatible with the dwelling. - The structure, per Section 205.03.34, prohibits the use of the structure for a home occupation. PLANNING COMMISSlON ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to construct a second accessory building measuring 20' x 24' with the following stipulation: 1. The accessory structural shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, and shall be constructed of similar materials. 2. The structure shall at no time be utilized for a home occupation. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. Staff Report SP #96-10, by Glen Dougias Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering lssues: Site Planning Issues: PROJECT DETAILS A speciaf use permit to aAow construction o# a 20' x 24' detached accessory structure. 871 - 66th Avenue N.E. Lot 2, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition 12,589 square feet; .28 acres Flat � Typical suburban; sod, trees, shrubs, etc. R-1, Single Family Dwelling; Meadowlands Addition Connected 66th Avenue N/A N/A 2.oz Staff Report SP #96-10, by Glen Douglas Page 3 ADJACENT SITES WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Comprehensive Planning tssues: Public Hearing Comments: REQUEST Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwe4ling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: P, Public Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residentia! Land Use: Residential Land Use: Park The zoning and comprehensive plan are consistent in this tocation. , No comments were received. The petitioner requests that a special use permit be granted to allow a second accessory building in excess of 240 square feei If approved, the petitioner would constrt�et a 20' x 24' detached metal accessory structure in �e re�ar yard. PARCEL DESCRIPTION AIVD HISTORY The subject p�rcel is located on 66tl� Avenue east of Jackson Street and north of Mississippi Street. Located to the north of the subject property is Meadowlands Park. The building permit history of the subject parcel is as follows: __ 1960 1970 1986 ANALYSIS Construction of a 25' x 42' dwelling, and a 19 1/2' x 23' attached garage Construction of a 10' x 20' addition to the dwelling Construction of a 12' x 16' deck The accessory structure proposed by the petitioner meets the setback requirements for structures in the rear yard. The addition of the accessory structure will not increase the lot coverage over 25% as required by code. The petitioner has proposed to construct a metal ac;cessory structure with a wood front. In similar 2.03 Staff Report SP #96-10, by Gien Dougias Page 4 requests previously approved, the City has typically required a stipulation which reads, "The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure." From the petitioner's detail drawings, it can be seen that the structure does not resemble a typicai residential detached accessory structure. The petitioner's dwelling is constructed with vinyl or metai horizontal siding and a partial brick front. The parcel to the east received a special use perrnit an 1987 to construct a 22' x 24' second accessory structure. Whiie not the same color as the dwelling, it has similar roof iines, siding, and is of frame construction. . The City has granted permission in one instance to a residential owner to construct a metal accessory building. That request occurred at 7738 Elm Street N.E. which is located in the Onaway industrial distriet. The residential property is a legal nonconforming use in the district. The City Council allowed construetion of a metal accessory structure with the stipulation that within teii years, the structure be removed, or the house sold and removed by the petitioner. The residential dwelling at 7738 Elm Street was sold and removed in 1992. A typica! stipulation for ihese requests is that no home occupation occUr within the structure. It is unclear from the petitioner's written submission what the future intent of the structure is (see Page 2). Section 205.03.34 (attached) clearly prohibits the use of an accessory strvcture for home occupations. PLANNING COMMiSSION ACTION The Pianning Commission recemmended approval of the request to construct a second accessory building measuring 20' x 24' with the following stipulation: 1. The accessory structural shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, and shall be constructed of similar materials. 2. The structure shall at no time be utilized for a home occupation. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. 2.04 Glen Doug(as Special Use Request Checitlist General: 1. Name and Address: 4l2l96 Glen Douglas Woodshop 871 - 56th Ave N E Fritlley, Mn 55432 2. Lega1 Description Meadowlands Addition Lot 2 Block 1 PIN Number = R14 30 24 14 0063 3. Name, Address and Telephone Number of Applicant: Gien Dauglas 87I - 66th Ave N E Fridley, Mn 55432 Phone H. 571-2074 Work 635-7029 (Owner ofProperry). 4. Date Proposed, North Arrow, Scale, Number of she�ts, Name of Drawer: Proposed building start date is about 8/20/96. Draft sketch is supplied with request. Sc�led drawing will be provided prior to Plannin� Commission meeting. 5. Description of intended use of building, type of occupancy, and estimated occupancy weight load: The proposed building wilt be used as a woodworking stwp and storage area.. I now do my woodworking in an area that is 10 X 19. The area is way too small for the number of tools that are in there to the extent that it preseuts a safeetyy hazard to work in the area. The new buiiding will provide me with enough uea that I wont be afraid of falling over the legs of the toal stands. This will be a one man shop for some time to come. The load weight of my present tool complement is estimated to be about 1,000 Lbs plus the storage of lumber and miscellaneous items are estimated at about 500 Lbs. _ 6. Existing Zoning and land use: The 871 property is cuneiYtly Zoned Rl. The propased building plot is now part of my back yard and is covered with grass. 7. Tabulation Box indieating: Size of Parcel: 12,589 Sq Ft Gross floor area of buildings: 1836 Sq Ft Currently Percent of site covered by building: 14.5 Curre�ntly 18.4 Proposed Percent of site covered by green area: 77.3 Cwrently 73.4 Proposed Projected number of emplayees: N/A Number of seats: N/A Number of parking spaces: N/A Number of Handicaped Parking Spaces: N/A 2.05 Page 2 Height of buildings and structures and number of stories: Single family dwelling is 2 stories with the basement (walkout). The height is about 23 feet from the lower level of the back yard and about 14 feet to the top of the hip roaf on the front of the house. The proposed buitding will be 12 feet high to the top of the gable. Site Plan: l. See submitteed sketch Property site is 77 feet wide. The east property line is 16722 feet and the west property iine is 159.77 feet. The e�sting building is 26 X 42 with attached garage 19 X 24. The house is 5 feet from east line and 9 feet from west line. The proposed structure will be 5 feet from east line a.nd 10 tol2 feet from the the existing structure on the lower ground level_ 2. Grading and draina.�e plan: This item does not apply as there wili be no grading and therefore the drainage is not a.ffected. 3. Egress and Ingress: Not affected. 4. Vehiculaz circulation: Not Applicable. 5. Lanscaping Plan. Not applicable. 6. Trash disposal: Not applicable. �. Rooftop Equipment: Not Applicable. 8. Building from all directions: The elevation is the same in all directions as the site is gradually sloped from front to back of the proposed building. 9_ Water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, distance from hydrant: Water and sewer lines are not applicable for this building. Distance form fire hydrant is approximatly i 80 ft. This information is supplied by Glen Douglas, the property awner and applicant for the Special Use Permit. 2f O �/ LVJ.V>.�0. 34. Home Occupation. Any occupation or profession engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit and carried on within the unit and not in an accessory building. Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the �'<'� principal use of the premises and shall not change the residential character. The foilowing are criteria of home occupations: A. Professional offices, minor repair services, photo or art studios, dressmaking, teaching and similar uses. B. No stock in trade is stored outside the dwelling unit. C. No over the counter retail sales are involved. D. Entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. E. Teaching is to be limited to six (6) or less students at any given time. F. Licensed home based Family Day Care that serve twelve (12) or fewer children when one (1) care giver is provided and licensed home based Group Family Day Gare that serve fourteen (14) or fewer children when two (2) care givers are provided� as defined by the Minnesota Rule, Parts 9502,0300 to 9502.0445. (Ref. 864) G. In addition to spaces required by the occupant (family). there is no need for more than two (2) additional parking.spaces at any given time. ' . H. Employees shall consist of inembers of the immediate family only. � 35. Hospital. An institution open to the public� in which sick or injured sons receive medical, surgical or psychiatric treatment. 36. Hotel. A building consisting of six (6) or more gues ooms and designed for occupancy as a temporary lodging place of dividuals. 37. Integral Part Of A Principal S�xticture. Constructed in general confo y to the principal structure in terms i, of framing, finishing and erall use. � 38. Junk Yard. (Automobile cycling Center) An open area where waste and used • materials e bought, sold, exchanged� stored, packed� disassembled or han d as a principal use� including scrap iron and other metals, pap , rags, rubber, wire and bottles._ A junk yard includes an tomobile wrecking or salvage yard� but does not include uses that ' are entirely within enclosed buildings or city Council approved� recycling centers. , 10/90 A.O� 205 - 6 L Sr jFyb-IU Glen Dou�las N � 871 66th Avenue SP 96-10 CAT1 O N MAP � �2Z'Lil .�— / '7' D�'�vec.v�t `� g3?� � ��1�1+'l� J� � Z��A � �Q�. �S� Fr Z. �9' ,LL � . �, : ��r i r=,�r sp; SP ��96-10 Glen Douglas z � y. � � � ; /�� l 1h�Iu��'s t7 � / q 7_�'' �z. �. � � �Z ��T� o ,�Z�Z L L �jZk16 /ox �`l l�xt� ..1X 3Z s�dec��( l� � �o-iz �,.e� ( � Zoxz`f n�� fT�" � ��t�� -.,� � , • �� ,� v'.' � ; .�-�-� ' �'.`� --t�i ��S S�e(c� �,,�4��• � Va �n` To �� d Dfa�v'h �� . ��9/�s �/�w ��Z/9 � ,LG 0 L "bSl / , _ _ ._ _ SP ��96-10 Glen Douglas , Z _ _. . _ , _ ___ .____. __ __ _ _ _ _ �-- . . . 3'do � �- 3 d o �: � - : _ � _ _ _ ; - - _ f _� __ _ _ -_ _ __. . . �; _ �o « f v� e-�cl . : . __ � _ __ _ __ : . � _ __ _. _ _ .. :_ �� -:�l�J ;� ��,,.� �� - .- � . � ., � . /� � �ti� �,t; � � s ,��e � � y�'a.:w� � �� p �� ' - _ ��-_:��a� : _ _ : _ �%Z/� � _ _ __ _ __ _ ,_ - : .2.-10 - _ __ _ _ _ SP �196-]0 Glen Douglas 20'-2" FRONT ELEVAT ION 2.11 SP ��96-30 Gler, Dougla� REAR ELEVATION 2.12 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 6, 1996 TO: William Burns, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Easement Agreement Between the City of Fr'idley and Trillium Corporation � Trillium Corporation, the real esta#e arm of Burlington Northem Railroad, is selling the parcel indicated on the attached map to Tri-Star Insulation of north Minneapolis. The subject parcel, while having access to East River Road, does not provide direct south- bound travel due to the median in East River Road. In order to gain access to 61st Avenue and the signaled intersection, Trillium is granting an access easement on its property adjacent to the easterly property line of the subject parcel. Trillium has asked the City for permission to use a portion of the 61 st Avenue right-of-way east of Ashton Avenue to obtain access to the signaled intersection. Attached is the easement agreement which indemnifies the City from all clair�s arising from use of the right-of-way, and also requires Trillium to construct and maintain the proposed access road for Tri-Star Insulation. The City Attomey reviewed the attached document which includes his suggested changes RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached easement agreement with Trillium Corporation. MM/dw M-96-263 3.01 � OCATION MAP I--_.-____ . _. . _. ._._ . - � . , . � i �,��v —--—— c r", � � � 8" B I T. PAT:? ��.�.I+l�E�IENT' � � +. � � IST ADDITION ,37�� : !0 W MEAS. M EAS. a£MENT PER )ITION � i ; . ._ _ ---- ` �� . ! i _ '' � '� i3� 00=•�;` �` • , � ^ � �, �� —4---f >_ ' � ', .' ; d -ri ; .,� " � � I r ��, , . // '/� �\� �% /�� '�t ��i' � ( i � - �. � �/� ,:� �t� /� � � _ i ' :} ' �. ' _ � . l { . -. ! / � , , . --1 .C.. . {,: . � . / � � � i -;;' < : �.i , � �. F` r i � � � , / i� � � i . � �. � %/ . � / .' ,� ��/ � 1 %i �' � � �i � / �i Y� � j`�� 1 /� � / . '�; ,'�. /� �/ /.: �j .Y � � �� / 1 ''} � � � � � \ � � � � :�:N � I �o 1.,. � �_ a (T� � � � ]'I � � '.�� . � � -{ i . � . � I . �� O � � .� �.-'_ � (_ ♦ ^ Z� O� / . � O � o— � � �� , � , _ (� �' nj (�l Z � � � .: { I D -D-i a �� r� cr, �' cn A .+.� --.� ,, � o �� _� ; .� ��.. � :�� Z � _ � D . ..A. � • . � .�� Z p � � r�'1 N :: l+i � ' _: . � .:: � D D : . a-.;:. �:� , � �o o cn � �� `'� : -:;` ::. :.: tr� .--.:.:: � � • �:: , b � n 2 .' O ..�� , s�..:_ :: . � ..::.; ;�:�:�.:;.:: Z � ::.�:�: �� :.:�.�......`- � c _ . - � r� `� �� , � _ � � � O• �..� . ..� D Z :� d, � D fTy�T . � Z � Z. . 1 — � �, � ; --� � �' � . -.,Q� !.•::._..�..;'.,�� . I ,f � , � �, - �c . . _ . � � } �4, �`..i;�''�� '�'�•� � �� i � cr . _`��f, c3'� ;",. , , . .. � , � ' :�:m:.. , � , .�:': •�::'::.;�:'�'�;:;•.� , � , ��:�;.::• :r:: �•T•. :• . � , � ` .,-'•: .�,:4:•.': .. ..:- , � I � '.%�". :; `-'�1 : .;...'-:--�� .. _J � , � � . _ � I 10 � � Z � i Z � . . �� O N —' C _ ? _ � Z � l � , � �o � � D x i � � ♦ � A � , �m I � r�" Or � ' � � A 1 �D � �� - � �— . I � ° I . ..� 00 .,. 3.03 I -� � - - � �� ; �, , _ , � . JUN H6 '96 09�54 BARNA GUZY & STEFFENGER EABEMENT ACiREFb1E�1'I' P.2 TI�IS EASEMENT AGRE�IENT is made and eivtered into on , 1996, by and betwaen The City ot Frialey, a publ�.c body corporate and politic under the.:laws of the State of Minnesata (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), Trillium Corporation, a Was,hington corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Trilliwa'�), and Burlington Nortbern Railroad, a (hereinafter referred to as "Burlington"), (together Tr�llium and Burlington are hereinafter referred to as ��Grantee'�) . W I T N E S S E T Ii- WHEREAS, said Grantor is the owner oP that tract oP land in �he County of Anaka, State of Minnesota, de�scribe.d on the attached 8ythibit A{hereinafter referred to . as ��Burdened Parcel"j ; WHEREAS, Trillium is the owner of that.tract of land in the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, descri�hed on the attached gxhibit B, and Burlington is the ow�ner of that tract of la.nd in the County of An4ka, State oP Minnesota, de►scribed on the attached Exhibit C(the land described in �xhibits B and C are hereinafter referred to as "8enefitted Paroels"); WHEREAS, Grantor hereby desires to grant a non--exclusive easement o�rer the BurdeMed Parcel for the b�nefit of the Senefitted Parcels for driveway and walkway purposes. IN CONSIDERATION of the recitals above and other qood and valuable consideration received by Grantor;. the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree a� follows: I. Grant of Easeanent. Grantor Por itself, its successors and assigns, hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, tenants, customers, employees and:invitees af such parties, and all subsequent owners oP the �enefitted Parcel.s, for the be.nefit of said Beneiitted Parcels, a gerpetual, non- exclusive easement for the construction and�maintenance of a driveway and walkway for ingress and egress::over and across that portion of the Burdened Parcel legally desc�ibed on the attached S�hibit D(hereinafter referred to as the °'�asement Parce7.��) . 2. �,,'n �na c�. Trilli road improvements on the Easem Trillium. 3.04 sha.11 cause the - - - — -- -- ---._ __ _....� ., Parcel shall be born by the JUN 06 '96 09=55 BARNA GUZY & STE�FENGER P. � Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, Burlington shall be liable for those maintenance and repair expenses caused ar occasioned by the act or omission of 8urlington, its aqents, employees, lessees or invitees who cause or create any extraordinary repair ar maintenance expenses. 3. Indemni�y, Trillium agrees ta i�demnify, defend and hold Grantor and Buriington free and harmless from and against all claims, lawsuits, liabilities and costs arising out of or in any way connected with or incident to the use of the Easement Parcel b�� Tri3lium, its aqents, invitees, e�ployees, and lessees. Sur]�ington agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Grantor and Trillium free and harmless from and against all claims, lawsuits, iiab�,iit:�es and costs arising out of or in any way connected with or 1hC1C�E�nt tv the use of the Easement Parcel by Burlinqton, its agents, :invitees, emplayees, and lessees. 3. Succ�sSG�S and A�signs. The term�, easement and provisions hereof shall inure to the benefi� of and be binding upon the heirs, �egal represen�atives,,successors and assigns of the parties hereto and the covenants, agree�nents and easements contained l�erein, shall be deemed to run with and burden the Burdened Parcel and benefit the Benefitted Parcels. 4. Restrictions. a) other than the rvadway, curbs and lighting, if any, no other improvements,:structures, signs, fences barriers, etc., shal]: be built or placed on the Easement Parcel. b) There shall be no parking o�n the Easement Parcel. cj There shal� be no storage oP any type on the Easement Parcel. 7. This Agreement is not intended to, and should not bE construed to, dedicate the said Easement Pazcel to the ger�eral public, not shall this Aqreement be constr�ed to restrict the use -2- 3.05 JUN 06 '96 09�56 HAR�A GUZY & STEFFENGER P.4 and de�elopment of the land described herein, except as stat�d herein. IN WITNESS W�iEREOF, the parties heretQ have executed this Agreement on the day of �. , 1996. G��Nl'OR : GRA�ITEE s STATE OF MINNESOTI�) � SS COUNTY OF ) The City of �idl�y By William Nee Its--Mayor By William Burns Its Citv Man�cter Trillium Cor�ration B yPaula urtx� Its Vice Preesdent Bwrliaqton I�ib+rthern Rail=oad By Its The PoregoiMg instrument was acknowle�ed before me. this day of , 1s96, by WiYli�a. Nee and Wiiliam Burns, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, af the City of Frid].ey, a public bady corporate and politi�c under the laws ot the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Ci:ty. -3- 3.os FRON CB CON(� AE G�OUP l��Dl 06. 05' 96 I 7: 07/ST. i 7: 05/N0. 3�8 ! 520955 P? EXHIBIT A 61st Way Right of Way locatefl in the Southeast Quarter oE the Sout,heast Quarter af Section 15, To�,rnship 30, Range 24, and in the. 1Qoxtheast ¢u2trter of the Northeast Quarter of 9ection 22, Township 30, za,nqe 24� Anvka County, Minnesota. 3.07 FRON CB COb�4 RE GAOUP (4t'FD) 06. 05' 96 17:07/ST. i�:05/N0, 3561520955 P 8 ERSZHIT B Lvt 1, Blocac 1, Lon,gview 1st ABdition, ar.ao�rding to the recoz�ded plat thereof, city of �ridle�, �inv}�a Eaunty, Minnesota, together with an appuz*ert�nt easement for driveway ai'id walkway purposes, over and adross the fol�owing descri�ed property: All that part of the Burlington Nozthern Ra3�lroad Company rigl�t of way in the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 30, Range 24 and the Noztheast Quarter of the Northeast Quazter of Section 22, Township 30, Range 2�4, Anoka County, Minnesota, which l�,es within a strip of land 35.00 feet wide, the centerline of gaid strip being described as fo7.lows: Colnmencing at the northeast corner of I,OT 1, BLOCK 1, LONGVIEW 1ST ADDITION, accozding to the recorded plat thereof, said northeast corner also being a point on the westerly line of said Burlington Northern Railroad'Company right of way; thence on an assumed,bearxng of South 02 degrees 53 minutes 45 seconds west along the easterly line of said Lot 1 and sa�i�d westerlx right of way line for 27.55 feet; thence south 87 degrees 06 minutes 15 seconds east for 17.50 feet to the actual point of beginning of the centerline te be described; thence north o2 degrees 53 ntinutes 45 seconds east for 183_96 feet to the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northea6t Quarter of said Section 22; thence continue north 02 degrees 53 minutes 45 seconds east for 30.00 feet to the no�rtherly Right of Way line of 61st Way and there terminating. The sidelines of sai,d strip are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate on said northerly right o� way line of 61st Way. 3.08 FA0�4 CB C01�N[ AE GAOUP (41'ED) 06. 05 96 i 7: 08/ST. ; r: C �� '��. 35�; ��0955 °�a EXBIBIT C All that part of the Burlington Northern Railroad Company right of way in the Southeast Quax-ter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, To�ship 30, Range 24 and the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section zz, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Mfnnesvta, �hich lies within a strip of land 35_00 feet wide, the centerl�{ne of safd strip being described as follows: Commencinq at the northeast corner of LOT 1, BLOCK 1, L�NGVIEW 1ST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat theseof, said nattheast carner also being a point on the wester�y line of said Burlington Narthern Railroad Company right of way; thence on an assumed bearing of south 42 degrees 53 minutes 45 seconds i,►est aZong the easterly �ine of said Lot 1 and said westerly right of way line �or 27.65 feet; thence south 87 degrees 06 minutes 15 seconds east for 17.50 feet to the actual point of beginning of the centerizne to be described; thence north OZ degrees 53 minutes 45 seconds east for 183.96,ieet to the north line of said Northeast Quarter vf the Northeast Quarter vf said Section 22; thence conti.nue north 02 degrees 53 minutes 45 seconds east for 30.00 Peet to the northerly Right of Way Iine of 61st Way and there terminating. The s�,delines of said str?�p are to be prolonged or shortened to termina.te on said northerly right of way line of 61st Way. 3.09 FACM CB COMM RE GAOUP (4�'ED? Ofi. C5' �6 ; 7: 0�/ST. ;%: 051NC, 35� i 520955 ?? � EXHZBIT D A11 tk�at part of the Right of Way of 61s� Wap in the Sautheast Quarter of the 6au�heast Quazter of Section 15, Township 30, Range 24, and in the No=theast Quarter of the Nvztheast Quarter of Section 22, Township 30, zange 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, w�'1fEh lies withi,n a strip of land 6a.00 �eet wide, the centerline vf strip being described as follows: Commencing at the intersectivn af the north line of the Nartheast Quarter of Section 22 and the westerly line of the Buzlingtan Norther� �Zailraad Company �tight of �ay; thence e$��r'lY a�.vtig said north line far 35.00 feet ta the actual poiat of beginning of the centerline descrfbed; tkxence westezly along said north line for 95.00 feet and there terminating. The sidelines o�E strip are to be prolonged or shortened to begin on said westerly line of the Burlington Northern Railroad Company Right of ioay and to terminate on a line,which bears North 10 degz�ees 14 mxnutes 22 seconds East and passes through the terminus of said centerli.ne. 3.10 Cxty of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager,��j� PW96-120 r FROM: John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director Jon Wilczek, �sst Public Works Director DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: 1996 Sealcoat Project No. ST. 1996 - 10 On Friday, May 31, 1996, at 11:00 arn bids were opened for the 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 10. We had six plan holders, four of which submitted bids for the project. The engineer's estimate for the project was $197,000. Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. (ASTECH) was low bidder in the amount of $174,315.86. The bid is approximately $23,000 less than the engineers estimate. The bid is well within our budget. In 1996 there is a total of 327,578 square yards of sealcoating that have been prepared Included in this is approximately 160,000 square yards that was originally to be done in 1995. The large size of the project has helped get the low price. Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the 1996 Street Im}�rovement Pxoject No. 1996 - 10 (Sealcoat) to Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. Of St.-Cloud, MN, in the amount of $174,315.86. Jw/JGF:cz Attachment 4.01 BID FOR PROPOSALS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1996 - 10 (SEALCOAT) FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1996, 11:00 A.M. �'LAN'�TOLIJ��R ;; BY� ��ND.... : BIL} �QM1tilEN�'S: ; Astech Corporation 5% Employer $174,315.86 P O Box 1025 Mutual St Cloud MN 56302 Allied Blacktop 5% CNA Ins. $178,885.17 10503 89th Ave Maple Grove MN �5369 Bituminous Roadways 5% United Fire $191,363.00 2825 Cedar Ave So Casualty Minneapolis MN 55407 Caldwell Asphalt 5% United Fire $217,101.82 24060 175th St NE Casualty Hawick MN 56246 Bituminous Paving Inc NO BID POBox6 Ortonville MN 5�428 Pearson Bros NO BID 240 St Johns Street Loretto MN 55357 4.02 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT AREA STREETS Y�R; 1996 Aprii 10, 1996 E. RIVER RD. UPGRADE-PH III STREET FUND (94 -$110,000)(ENCUMB) 275,000.00 E. RIVER RD UPGRADE PH N STREET FUND (ENCUMS) (1995) 5,000.00 CENTRAL AVE BIKE PATH (HWY 65 TO 69TH) STREET FUND (MSAS FUNDS) (1995) 265,000.00 i995 SEALCOAT PROGRAM STREET FUND (ENCUMB) (1995) 89,949.00 , 1996 OVERLAY PROJECT STREET FUND 100,000.00 1996 SEALCOAT PROGRAM STREET FUp,ID 146,000.00 , 1996 STREET RECONSTRUCT PROGRAM STREET FUND 500,000.00 RIVERVIEW TERRACE STUDY STREET FUND 30,000.00 Al.DEN WAY IMPROVEMENT STREET FUND - 250,000.00 SIGNAL (EVP) IMPROVEMENTS STREET FUND 40.000.00 . ��'"' 1997 E. RIVER RD - PHASE V . SIGNAL (EVP) IMPROVEMENTS 1997 SEALCOAT PROGRAM 1997 STREET RECONSTRUCT PROG Y�R: : 1998 1998 SEALCOAT PROGRAM 1998 STREET RECONSTRUCT PROG * NEW PROJECTS TOTAL PROJECT FOR STREET FUND STREET FUND STREET FUND STREET FUND TOTAL PROJECT FOR STREET FUND STREET FUND TOTAL PROJECT FOR 4.03 $1.700.949.00 250,000.00 35,000.00 160,000.00 500,000.00 $945.000.00 160,000.00 500.000.00 �V VOj000.00 City of FridCey � TO: William W. Bums, City Manager�,� � FROM: John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director Jon Wilczek, Asst Public Works Director DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: 1996 Slurry Coat Project No. ST. 1996 - 11 PW96-121 On Friday, May 31, 1996, at lO:OC? am bids were opened for the 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 11(Slurry). We had three plan holders, two of which submitted bids far the project. The engineers estimate for the project was $33,000. Struck and Irwin Paving, Inc. was the low bidder in the amount of $33,278. S2. Noting this is only slightly higher than the engineers estimate and that the sealcoat project came in under the enginee�s estimate by a substantial amount, we consider this to be an acceptable bid. The bid is well within our budget. Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the 1996 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1996 - 11 (Slurry) to Struck and Izwin Paving, Inc. of Madison, WI, in the amount of $33,278.52. Jw/JGF:cz Attachment 5.01 BID FOR PROPOSALS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1996 - 11 (SLURR� FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1996, 10:00 A.M. PIfANH4LDER : BID BOND BYD COMIVIEi�TS. < Struck & Erwin Paving Inc �% Capital Ins. $33,278.52 812 Williamson St Madison WI 55703 Bituminous Roadways 5% United Fire $35 497.09 � 2825 Cedar Ave So Minneapolis MN 55407 � Allied Blacktop NO BID 10�03 89th Ave 112ap1e Grove MN 55369 5.02 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT AREA PROJECT AREA; STREETS April 10, 1996 �Y�AR;::: ; 1996 E. RIVER RD. UPGRADE-PH ill STREET �UND (94 -$110,000)(ENCUMB) 275,000.00 E. RNER RD UPGRADE PH N STREET FUND (ENCUMB) (1995) 5,000.00 CENTRAL AVE BIKE PATH (HWY 65 TO 69TH) STREET FUND (MSAS FUNDS) (1995) 265,000.00 1995 SEALCOAT PROGRAM STREET FUND (ENCUMB) (1995) 89,949.00 1996 OVERLAY PROJECT STREET FUND 100,000.00 1996 SEALCOAT PROGRAM STREET FUND 146,000.00 1996 STREET RECONSTRUCT PROGRAM STREET FUND 500,000.00. RIVERVfEW TERRACE STUDY STREET FUND 30,000.00 ALDEN WAY IMPROVEMENT STREET FUND 250,000.00: SlGNAL (EVP) IMPROVEMENTS STREET FUND 40.000.00 ��;``:�': 1997 E. RNER RD - PHASE V SIGNAL (EVP) IMPROVEMENTS 1997 SEALCOAT PROGRAM 1997 STREET RECONSTRUCT PROG �Y�AR;»;: 1998 1998 SEALCOAT PROGRAM 1998 STREET RECONSTRUCT PROG " NEW PROJECTS TOTAL PROJECT FOR STREET FUND STREET FUND STREETFUND STREET FUND TOTAL PROJECT FOR STREET FUND STREET FUND TOTAL PROJECT FOR 5.03 .949.00 250,000.00 35,000.00 160,000.00 500.000.00 $945.000.00 160,000.00 500.000.00 $660,000.00 , \1 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager � �� FROM: John G. Flora,`VPublic Works Director Jon Wilczek, Asst Public Works Director DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 1&2 PW96-124 In the original submittal of the street project to the Stat� Aid office, we requested the State participation in funding the University Avenue/60th slip off portion of the project. Last fal1, the State had agreed to fund that portion cf the praject but until such time that an agreement between the City and State had been executed they felt that it should be removed from the project, so last fall by Change Order No. 1 we removed that part of the project which involved the slip off from the ST 1995 - 1&2 project. At this time, since the State has been preparing the agreement between the City and the State to complete the project, we would like to reinstate that portion of the project and those quantities that were involved in the slip off to the original council. The quantities removed last fall amounted to $15,227.1 S. We have reviewed those quantities and by the State's request some quantities have been removed. TY�e updated cost for the change will be $11,477.1 S. - Recommend that the City Council approve Change Order No. 3 to Hardrives, Inc. for the 1995 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 1&2 in the amount of $11,477.15 for a total contract in the amount of $581,074.80. Jw/JGF:cz Attachment 6.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 5b432 June 10, 1996 Hardrives, Inc. 9724 lOth Ave N Plymouth MN 55441 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 3, 1995 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 1&2 Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the 1995 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1995 - 1&2 by adding the following work: .Addition: . .. ' , ;:....:::;; ::.......:... :::::: .;;: ; .: LJnit vP.x�s . ; > Uru � �Ave .�lt ff . �o :. iteix� `Tt�in ��ser�p�vn �1�Lt _ _ _ ,> Gost � � .. ... -.: 1 2104.501 Remove Curb and Gutter LF $1.50 470 $?05.00 2 2104.501 Remove Bituminous Curb LF $0.30 400 $120.U0 3 2104.513 Sawin Bituminous Pavement LF $2.50 450 $1 125.00 10 2105.525 To soil Borrow CY $10.50 30 $315.00 12 2211.501 A e ate Base Class 5 TON $7.45 7 $52.15 13 2232.501 Mill Bituminous Surface SY $4.00 8 $32.00 15 2331.510 e 31 Base Course Mixture TON $23.00 8 $184.00 32 2506.516 Furnish Catch Basin Castin Assembl EA $300.00 1 $300.00 36 506.602 Relocate Catch Basin EA �600_00 1 $600.00 36 2531.501 Concrete Curb and Gutter Desi B618 LF $9.30 580 $5 394.00 43 2557.501 Wire Fence Desi 72-9322 LF $15.00 100 $1,500.00 2506.516 Furnish Manhole Castin EA �300_00 1 $300.00 53 2575.505 Sod, Type Lawn with 4° Topsoil SY $1.70 500 $850.00 TOTAL ADDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11,477.15 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS• Original Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $573,2$2.80 Contract Addition/Deduction - Change Order No. 1 (Deduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,677.1�) No. 2 (Deduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.00) No. 3 (Addition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,477.15 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT ��$1074.80 6.�2 Hardrives, Inc. Change Order No. 3 June 10, 1996 Page 2 Submitted and approved by John lora, Public Works Director, on the lOth day of June, 1996. C3�'1 " P pare y _ / Checke by �%'�..'-.T /-�_ .i o . Flora, P.E. ' ector of Public Works '. Approved and accepted this 3 day of c�wtcl/ , 19°6 by HARDRIVES, INC. i � � �!.. . "�1 � � `�I/ / i�%/ .: � ' ��• �� • Approved and accepted this day of , 1996 by CITY OF FRIDLEY Wiiliam J. Nee, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager Approved and accepted this day of , 1996 by Metro Division Assistant State Aid Engineer 6.03 City of Fridtey , TO: William W. Burns, City Manage� PW96-127 FROM: John G. Flora,�ublic Works Director DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Grant The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division is offering infiltration and in- flow (I/I) funds to reduce the amount of flow into the metropolitan sewer system. They are offering matching loans for projects which will reduce flow but allow for a refund if the project results in reduced flows for a S-year period. They are also offering matching grants for infiltration/in-flow studies. As there has been a number of discussions about the amount of flow in the Fridley sewer system, I recommend that we apply for an infiltration and in-flow study grant to determine whether or not there is any excessive problems in our sanitary sewer system There are funds available within our Sewer Enterprise Fund of $12,500. According we are requesting the City Council to authorize the City to apply far a matching grant for an i/I study within the City. Recommend Council adopt the attachec�resolution. JGF:cz Attachment 7.01 RESOLUTION NO. — 1996 • • • a• �. � � � � � i� � r �� .., �a� 1 •.• '• V• �• I M� �• y• V• ' yl• � 1",� � I�i Wf�S, the MetYx�olitan Cauncil EY�vironmental Services is offering matching loans for projects and grant money for studies to crnmrnmities for infiltration/in-flaw control pirograms, and W�, Fridley being a oamunity with an older sewer system and has sarne areas where studies anc�/or projects oould benefit the City and result in a reduction of flaw to the Metro�olitan sewer, and �1Ii�REAS, monies are available in the amount of $12, 500 to matrh ftuids for infiltration projects from the Metropolitan Environmental Senrices, and T�ft�REAS, an infiltration and in-flaw study of the City's sewer system is an appropriate grant application. NO�W, TI�REFORE, HE IT RE.9oLVED TI�,T, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka Cburity, Minnesat,a, will provide $12, 500 matc�i.ng funds for an infiltration and in-flaw study within the City of Fridley. A1�ID BE IT FU�R RE.SOI�ED T�,T, the Public Works Director shall preparn an applicati� for a matfihing fiuxl grant f�an the MetY�olitan c�aancil Sexvice.s Division to present to the Metropolitan Council for acceptance. PASSID AI�ID ADOPTED BY TI� CITY OOUNCIL OF TI� CITY OF FRTDLEY TfIIS lOTH �iY OF JUNE, 1996. � WILLSAM A. C�iAMPA - CITY CLERK WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR 7.�2 � t CffY OF FRIOLEY TvAe of License: By: LICENSES June 10, 1996 � Approved By: Fees• CARNIVAL Gold Star Amusements Fridley 49er Days Dave Sallman Exempt 7883 E River Rd Public Safety Fridley, MN 55432 Director CIGARETTE Golden Pipe � K. Abuhaik�l , 1081 E Moore Lake Dr Fridley, MN 55432 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Perkins Family Rest. Same 7520 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 K's Lunch Wagon Verla Nelson 3874 Olson Rd NW Cambridge, MN 55008 Richard Taulehene Fridley 49er Days 5339 NE 4th St Fridley, MN 55432 ON SALE BEER fTEMPORARY, Fridley Wrestling Boosters T. Christenson 1337 Gardena Ave Fridley, MN 55432 OFF-SALE BEER East River Rd Texaco Kisch Oil Co 8100 East River Rd Fridley, MN 55432 9.01 m m m m � m " $30.00 " $45,00 " $45.00 " Exempt " $60.00 " $60.00 � � CfiY OF FRIDLEY LICENSES June 10, 1996 RETAIL GASOLINE SALES Sinclair Retail �22005 Sinclair Marketing Dave Sallman $60.00 6290 Hwy 65 NE Public Safety Fridley, MN 55432 Director PEDDLERS�SOLICITOR/TRANSIENT MERCHANTS CW Marketing Serv.,Znc Stan Kowalski 2010 East Hennepin Ave Ste 08-121 Mpls, MN 55414 MPIRG J. Guzzo ' 2414 University Ave SE Mpls, MN 55414 North Central Hudson Jason Jordan North Star Studebaker Car Clubs 2534 11th Ave So Mpls, MN 55404 Twin Cities Chicago Aids Ride S. Welke P.O. Box 75156 � St. Paul, MN 55175 USED MOTOR VEHICLE Fridley Chevrolet Geo R. Moody 7501 Highway 65 NE Fridley, MN 55432 MOTOR VEHICLE BODY REPAIR R& M Auto Body R. Pilegaard 17 77th Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 � 9.02 m m � m m � " $240.00 " Exempt " $60.00 "Exempt "$150.00 "$150.00 / � C(TY OF fRIDLEY LICENSES JUNE 10, 1996 ELECTRICAL Mid Electric Inc 17251 Armstrong Blvd Ramsey MN 55303 Jim Kuhlmey EXCAVATING Roto-Rooter Services 14530 27 Ave N Plymouth MN 55447 David Lohmann GENERAI, CONTRACTOR-COMII�RCIAL Tech Builders Inc � Box 317 Fairmont MN 56031 Dave Greischar GENERAL CONTRACTOR-ItESIDE1�ITIAL Advance Home Products(2332) 3770 West Broadway Robbinsdale 1'vIN 55422 Mark Silverstein Advanced Home Improvement (20017269) 4301 Shari Ann Ln Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Advent Construction Co Inc (1U25) 350 Little Canada Rd St Paul MN 55117 Bauer Dale Construction (20023198) 8674 Greene Ave S Cottage Grove MN 55016 Diversified Construction (3641) 7010 Hwy 7 St Louis Park MN 55426 Gutter King (20038822) 2425 4 St NE Minneapolis MN 55418-2424 Jeff Tator George Rossez Dale Bauer Ken Riedel Shawn Lund 9.03 STATE OF MINN RON JULKOWSKI Chief Bldg Ofcl RON NLKOWSKI Chief Bldg Ofcl STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same Same LICENSES - JIINE 10, 1996 Integrity Construction LLC (20006605) 19015 Co Rd 44 Clearwater MN 55320 Northwest Exteriors (2577) 4530 Excelsior Blvd St Louis Park MN 55416 Suburban Exteriors (4289) 2425 W Industrial Blvd #7 Long Lake MN 5535b Sunrise Remodelers (20051518) 6609 18 Ave S Richfield MN 55417 Sussel (1934) 1852 Como Ave St Paul MN 55108 Victor/Gold Remodelers Inc 9918 Filimore St NE Blaine MN 55434 Viking Home Improvement (4772) 4832 2 1/2 Street NE Minneapolis MN 55421 Whitetail Construction (20040626) 7435 Oakley St NE Fridley MN 55432 HEATING Midland Heating & Air Cond Inc 6442 Penn Ave S Richfield MN 55423 MOVING Bahl Movers Inc 141 90 NE Blaine MN 55434 PLUMBING JLB Plumbing 2407 Washington St NE Minneapolis MN 55418 Brian Nickolauson Scott Dupre John Entrikin Craig Doty Alf Wiik � Lane Wiggs Margaret Menell Floyd Mohawk Russell Gregg Jim Bahl Jim Bjorlin 9.04 Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Chief Bldg Ofcl STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN Olson Plumbing 931 44 Ave NE Columbia Heights MN 55421 ROOFING Berwald Roofing Co Inc 2440 N Charles St N St Paul MN 55109 Rainville Carlson Inc 2929 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis MN 55408 SIGN ERECTOR Redwood Signs 108 West Broadway Osseo MN 55369 LICENSES - JUNE 10, 1996 Doug Olson Collin Prochnow Cory Olson Paul Beckey 9.05 Same RON JULKOWSKI Chief Bldg Ofcl Same RON JULKOWSKI Chief Bldg Ofcl � a Cf1Y OF FRIDLEY Frederic W. Knaak, Esq. Holstad and Larson, P.L.C. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 ESTIMATES JUNE 10, 1996 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of May, 1996 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,250.00 Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard Coon Rapids, MN 55435-5489 Legal Services Rendered for the Month of May, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . $ .� $7.50 Hardrives, Inc. 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers, MN 55374-9461 1995 Street Improvement Project� No. ST. 1995 - 1& 2 Estimate No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24,472.00 10.01 MEMOI�.ANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: .lune 6, 1996 TO: William Burns, City Manager �iJ� � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Vacatiqn of an Easement in the _ Southwest CZuadrant Project Area, SAV #95-02 At the closing with Rottlund Homes, Inc., it was determined that an easement had not been vacated as part of the receni ordinance approved on April 22, 1996. The easement was recorded after 64 1/2 Avenue was vacated in 1964. A 30' x 220' utility easement exists over the south half of the vacated right-of-way. This easement did not appear on the early surveys which were used as the basis for the recent vacation ordinance. The surveyors did not have the benefit of the title commitment when the vacation process was initiated with the rezoning process in February of 1995. The easement is in the title commitment; however, it was overlooked for inclusion in the vacation ordinance since it was based on the original survey. Because the easement is part of the originaf vacation request, Planning Commission review of this item is not required. Because the Charter requires an ordinance to vacate an easement, and because the recent ordinance was finalized on April 22, 1996, a new public hearing and an ordinance needs to be completed (the City Attorney concurs with the proposed process). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council conduct the public hearing. First reading of the ordinance to vacate the easement will be scheduled for the June 24, 1996 meeting as a consent item. . BD/dw M-96-262 11.01 �\�' �G� U ` OF �� O�p.`��, P`� 155.22 , S 00°13'20" W � 33.00 _ N 89°46'00" W � -- - - - - - - _�sst_ � T . �r UT 1 L . � 33 ' ROAD EASEMENT , -� // � �` 'L� I�i T EASEMENT i DOCUMENT NO. t82060 n � �1 1J 1 DoC . NO . � � � a12952 , o o � � � � STREET dt UTlL I TY ESM' T. � °p .' � j� STREET DOCUMEN'f N0. 363225 EASEMENT p A R � o .�n � DOCUMENT • � � ~' _ N0.969625—) �ry HlGHWAY EASEMENT DOC. N0.71 ► g �� i N � . N 89•!8'00' W � 260.9Z � � P A R C E I� e°ocK ��_� P A R C E L W`; �' ao `�� I SYLVAN � �� ' _' z�� -,o�t0 x -. E. 75. ] ' I H1LLS � �° J� 1 ;�o� � - O •-� .�, l� . 3 PL A T �<Z °• v, -�' p . -� - b � 5 a- � . . . . . . . B . �� w'' ae ll.l I PLAT � _ � �� I o Z : , . '_ I O �'' LINE PARALLEI VITH 1JORTH LINE. . �:- � �``��" �•:i ��-'-� w � � � � __ — NV ti� Of THE SN 1�� = ... . . l\ : - ;ti� �su >�: . d• e6'75'70' — ISSt � R• )O.A� _. �� SWTH IINE. PARCEL /�0.7 30. OO ��OE L1NE � � � . -��V LTH CEfJTERI I NE � - r VACATED J N es•4 •oo• w , :x,. i» _ CENTERLINE 64 1�2 AVENUE —� ^ O " O � � ' ' UTILITY EASFMENT OVER S Ii? OF-VAC_ATED 64 li2 AVE. p DUCUMENT N0. 271 %01 -------------�� 30----�-- •-----._ �ti � � ( p CRlPTION LlNE (800K 905 PAGE 42%! - T � � PARCEL 2 N W ` � a- sa•�.•30 _ � O z � 1 . R• �0.00 . : z � � - C• 6i.�2 0 S�S > .. I � • � � �; .._. . � � � O �. , EASEMENT TO BE VACATED � o -� _�-� ( � �- x �� w � � I � Z � � W � � �. 0 T 1 � � � I w z �, cK �� o -� B L 0 � � � � � W S Y L :V �i l�l , .� `� � � � w � _ . � �� - �; H H � � � ; L � � �� 3/96 SURVEY !; � �� : � �` 11.02 ; . , p � � T . T1 � � � 3' 0 0 co �r � o � O � »OZ, £Io00 N p � n � IO'Oi�6 � � I S 00 ' 96 Z"'� 4 V 0 2J �— — — — — — — — — — I I w � N Z 1 °'• i W i � -- o > N i e i � , _ � ry I � � \ � � — _ — — � � I � Li �> a _ � i I � �Y« I I {-- �1 -J v>��- � O J J � 0 �j JT.� J I o �mN=a� o L1 -J %- __ _ � _ � ._-.�_._ _ _—. .�__-__..__� u, � .._ - I — - � _ _ � --_ J _. Q� ( J� I ° � i � I �� o� W�We °p � � I I . � HW�p � "_` � ` � � °g w�min � � �- - - - - L - -� - - - - - -- - - � W + I' . � W � W Z � I� _ � �' � � - - �� _ . � ,� _ o - i I � " � <. � _ �� g V 4 i � % � � i i Q Cr1 A w � < � � W - �, :� _� �_ , � _ � � W � � F- �1 _� _ _� c ;j i � z I � �-1 _� �- _� r. I~ -J Q� � Z �L � 0 Z � � � � j a � �, 1995 SURVEY ' ~ 11.03 _ . � - .� �. -� ��: Notice is hereby given Fridley City Council at University Avenue N.E. the purpose of: PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL that there will be a public hearing of the the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 on Monday, June 10, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. for Consideration of a vacation request, SAV #95-02, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. and the City of Fridley. A public utility easement located along the vacated right-of-way of 64 1/2 Avenue needs to be vacated. The easement is 30 feet by 260 feet and is, generally located immediately south of the former University Avenue frontage road location near the southwest corner of University Avenue. The easement is legally described as: South one-half (1/2) of vacated F4 1/2 Avenue N.E. lying north of Lot One, Block One, Sylvan Hills Plat Five, Section 14, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Community Development Department at 572-3590. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend w interpreter or other persons with disabilities auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins later than June 3, 1996. Publish: May 30, 1996 June 6, 1996 11.04 ho need an who require at 572-3500 no WILLIAM J. NEE MAYOR ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEY3 AND TO AMEND APPENDIX C OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION l. To vacate public easements described as follows: South one-half (1/2) of vacated 64 1/2 Avenue N.E. lying north of Lot One, Block One, Sylvan Hills Plat Five, Section 14, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. Be and is hereby vacated. SECTION 2. The said vacation has been made in conformance with Minnesota Statutes and pursuant to Section 12.07 of the City Charter and Appendix C of the City Code shall be so amended. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1996. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERK Public Hearing: June 10, 1996 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 11.05 MEMOI�:ANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 6, 1996 TO: William W. Bums, City Manager_� �� l' FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Developmerrt Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator . SUBJECT: Menards/Skywood Mall Special Use Pennit Requests PROPOSAL Menards is proposing to purchase the Skywood Mall, demolish the two-story office portion, remodel the retail area in front of the office, and create a new outdoor storage area. The remaining Skywood retail tenants would be relocated in a new strip mall configuration in the existing Skywood footprint. Each ret�il tenant would thereby have direct access, west, to the customer parking area. All former interior mall spaces would be remodelled to accommodate much of Menard's bulk retail merchandise. Demolition of the office portion will also allow a service access from the rear of the building to the interior areas of the former mall. The remaining outdoor area-gained by demolition of the office complex would be utilized for additional screened outdoor storage. APPROVALS NEEDED Three special use permits and a variance are required for the Menards/Skywood Mall request. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for each of these three special use permits on April 3, 1996 and tabled the items so that the developer could meet with the neighborhood and develop solutions to issues discussed during the April meeting. Upon revisiting the items on May 15, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended approval on all three requests. The Appeals Commission, on May 29, 1996, also recommended approval of th� variance request. 12.01 Menards SUP Requests June 6, 1996 Page 2 Instead of three separate staff reports on the special uses, this memo will serve to summarize the request. The typical staff report for the variance is included as the next item in the agenda. PURPOSE OF SPECIA� USE PERMIT PROCESS The Special Use Permit Section of the Fridley City Code provides the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability and impact of uses upon the "general welfare, public health, and safety". The ordinance states, "In making this determination the City may consider the nature of the land upon which the uses are to be located, the nature of the adjoining land and buildings, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises or on any adjoining roads, and all such other �actors as the City shall reasonably deem a requisite of consideration in determining the effect of such use". DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Upon application it vvas determined that 2 special use permit sections of Code applied to the activities proposed by Menards. These Code Sections are: 1. Code Section 205.15.01.C.8, states, "Unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment", shall require a special use permit. 2. Code Section 205.15.01.C.3, states, uAgencies selfing or displaying recreational vehicles, boats an� marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an . enclosed structure" shall require a special use permit. ,_ The important part of the second permit is "similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure". Three permits are required because two pertain #o the existing Menards property and one pertains to the Skywood Mall site. Menards site: Both special use permits pertain to the outdoor storage of materials behind and in front of the building. 12.02 Menards SUP Requests June 6, 1996 Page 3 Skywood Mall Site: The special use request for unscreened storage pertains to future storage at the rear of the building where the office building is now located. STAFF ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION Prior to Planning Commission consideration at its April 3, 1996 meeting, staff recommended denial on all of the requests because of the opportunity for increased impacts on the adjacent neighbofiood. Other issues which were identified by staff and the Planning Commission ir�clude: - Because the residential area is higher than the commercial uses, there is less opportunity to screen noise and site lines. � - Lack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor materials from adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri Lane, residential properties to the east, - Requires removal of existing office complex to be replaced with outdoor storage (Skywood iVlal�, - No opportunity for rear inverrtory receiving for remaining tenants (Skywood Mall), - Increased noise in the rear. retail area, - Increased noise to travel upwar+d out of the "bowl" created by the building and hillside, - - History of lack of compliance to Code issues - Limited information regarding use of rear yard storage area, - Limited information regarding rear buiiding elevation and customer circulation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE The Planning Commission tabled the discussion of this item after much public testimony on April 3, 1996 so that a neighbofiood meeting could be held. Menards/Skywood representatives held a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, April 25, 1996. Nine residents attended #he meeting. The neighborhood expressed interest in resurrecting an earlier plan for a 20' sound wall east of Menards. After reviewing the matter further, Menards agreed to reconsider their east storage yard enclosure and have now agreed to propose a 20' wall/accessory structure. A variance application was filed for the height of the structure and is aiso scheduled for City Council action. �12.03 Menards SUP Requests June fi, 1996 Page 4 A second neighborhood meeting was held on May 13, 1996 to update neighbors on changes that had been made since the first neighbofiood meeting. Menards representatives took additional comments and suggestions from five neighbors in attendance. Additional sound wall information and the need for additional wall height were topics of that discussion. PLAN PROPOSAL CHANGES In response to neighborhood comments the following changes have been made (see also "Developer Response" attachment): - Menards contracted with a sound expert to gain additional knowledge and design information (see letter attached). Dr. Sraslau indicated that a wall constructed at a height of 20' with 2" X 8" plank, tongue and groove construction will serve two purposes. A wall of this design will decrease Menard's yard noise to the neighboring properties, and improve site lines into the yard, further minimizing impact to adjacerrt properties. - Menards representatives visited the neighboring property owners, viewed their site from neighboring properties and increased the height of their wall to 24' over a 200' section at the base of a gully that exists between Skywood Court and Menard's rear yard area. Menards representative and the neighbor directfy east of the existing store agreed that this height would further minimize impact . and counter the lack of natural buffering caused by the gully. - Additional modifications to Menards outside display area have been proposed. According to Menard's representatives, the majority of outside display facing Menard's parking area would be removed if the new plan were approved. - AI1 access to and from the rear storage display area would be through an in- out gate between Menards and the Skywood Mall. The existing northem access to Menard's yard would be eliminated. - Menards has also redesigned their loading and unloading operations corridor so not to block store front access. - Emergency equipment access has been provided for at the south end of the outside storage area, behind the Kelly Inn. - Access to the rear yard has been redesigned so the stacking distance and sight lines are improved to address staff concems. 12.04 Menards SUP Requests June 6, 1996 Page 5 Once modifications to the plan were made, store representatives asked to have this item reappear on the May 15, 1996, Planning Commission agenda. A hearing before the Appeals Commission was required to consider a variance to allow a 20' wall/accessory structure with a 200' long portion raised to 24' (rather than the Code maximum of a height no greater than the height of the building). On May 29, 1996, the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance (see next item on agenda). COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission recommended appro�al of SP #96-05 to allow Menards to sell or display machinery or merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure on the Menards property subject to the foUowing stipulations: 1. Prior approval of VAR #96-10, allowing a 20' & 24' high (rather than maximum not to exceed building height) accessory structure in a C-3, Shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additio��al fandscape shali be required surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to instalfation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be view from a vantage point outside of the fenced area. -- 5. The fence enclosure shall be proper�y maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. All emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will block or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a vofume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 12.05 Menards SUP Requests June 6, 1996 Page 6 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. 14. Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by City st�ff, the Planning Commission and approval by the City CounciL The Commission recommended approval of SP #96-06 to allow unscreened storage of exterior materials (yard bam/accessory buildings) on the Menards property with the following stipulations: 1. All outdoor storage and display of inerchandise (except yard bam/accessory buildings) on the north, west and south building faces shall be removed so not to be visible from the public right-of-way. 2. No future outdoor display of inerchandise shall be permitted without a review and approval of a special use permit by the City of Fridley. 3. All yard barns and accessory buildings shall be moved to an area north of the existing Menards storefront. 4. No yard bam or accessory building shall extend further west than the front comer of the existing building. 5. All modification to fence and gate to accommodate the yard bamJaccessory structure display shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Oificial prior to construction. 6. Any architectural detail of the display are modification shall be consistent with the architectural detail of the primary structure. 7. The yard barn/accessory building display shall be kept free of debris. 12.06 Menards SUP Requests June 6, 1996 Page 7 8. Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shali require official review by City staff, the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The Commission recommended approval of SP #96-07 to allow Menards to sell or display machinery or merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure on the Skywood Mall property subject to the following stipulations: 1. Prior approval of VAR #9G-10, allowing a 20' & 24' high (rather than maximum not to exceed building height) accessory structure in a C-3, Shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be required surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the_ rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. All emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will block or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12.07 Menards SUP Requests June 6, 1996 Page 8 12. All exterior building surfaces shail be finished in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal buiiding. 13. The property shail be kept free of all debris. 14. Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by City staff, the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. STAFF RECOM M ENDAT{ON Staff recommends Council concurrence with the Planning Commission recommendation. . � 2.�8 DEVELOPER RESPONSE TO ISSUES SKYWOOD MALL — ISSUE: Topography RESPONSE: At the neighbofiood meeting it became clear early in the discussion that at least a third of the group did not want to discuss other etements of the proposal if a sound barrier wa!! was not constructed to mitigate noise primarily, but also address sight line issues related to the topographic conditions in the area. During the meeting, a 20' wall was discussed and Gary Kolby, Menard's representative indicated that the wall may not be economically feasible for the company. Subsequent to the meeting, Menards agreed to evaluate the 20' wall. Menard's engineers designed the 20' wall/accessory structure for submittal to the City. , Menards hired a sound consultant to evaluate the noise impacts of the use and to help evaluate impact/mitigation solutions. That consultant concluded that a wall constructed of 2' x 8" tongue and groove planks will mitigate noise impacfis in much the same way as the concrete sou�d wall designed for this site in 1991. -- ISSUE: Lack of ability to succ�sfi�l(y screen view of outdoor materials from adjacent prope�ies: I-694, Cheri Lane, residerrtial properties to the east RESPONSE: A new 20' screening wall/accessory structure has been proposed to surround the outdoor storage area on the northwest, north, east, and south perimeters of the storage yard. All materials stored in front of the west elevation (front of the store), except the storage bams have been proposed to be removed. — ISSUE: Requires removat of existing office complex to be replaced with outdoor storage RESPONSE: Menards/Skywood representatives opposed the City's view that the value of removing the office building would not be recauped by the expansion of Menards as proposed. Staff asked City Assessor, Ed Hervin to evaluate the pre-post development tax values. Ed Hervin's response has been attached for your convenience. According to Mr. Hervin's analysis, this Menards proposal will increase the tax generation ability of the site. If the office building was generating a typical cash flow expected of this size office complex, this would not be the case. The office 12.09 Developer Response to issues Page 2 building was recently was devalued from 2 million dollars to 1.25 million dollars due to the lack of space aetually generating income. — ISSUE: No opportunity for rear inventory receiving for remaining tenants RESPONSE: Menards design staff has redesigned the retail portion of the remaining mix of Skywood retail shops. The new design will a11ow access to the retail shops from a corridor behind the retail shops. The City Building Official will evaluate all building elements related to the corridor, however the solution does appear to free up the storefronts from large vehicle delivery conflicts. — ISSUE: Increased noise in the rear retail area RESPONSE: A sound consultant was hired bjr Menards to evaluate mitigative measures necessary to assure compatibility of uses. — ISSUE: Increased noise to travel upward out of the bowl created by the building and hillside RESPONSE: A sound consultant was hired by Menards to evaluate mitigative measures necessary to assure compatibility of uses. — ISSUE: Limited information regarding use of rear yard storage area RESPONSE: Much is still unknown about the rear yard storage areas final material configuration. Gary Kolby indicated that Menards will know much more about this issue, once the ultimate yard configuration has been determined. - — ISSUE: Limited information regarding rear building elevation and customer circulation RESPONSE: Much is still unknown about the rear building elevations at the Skywood Mall. Gary Kolby indicated that Menards will also know much more about this issue, once the ultimate yard configuration has been determined. MENARDS — ISSUE: Topography 12.10 Developer Response to Issues Page 3 RESPONSE: At the neighborhood meeting it became clear early in the discussion that at least a third of the group did not want to discuss other elements of the proposal if a sound barrier wall was not constructed to mitigate noise primarily, but also address sight line issues related to the topographic conditions in the area. During the meeting, a 20' wall was discussed and Gary Kolby, Menard's representative indicated that the wall may not be economically feasible for the company. Subsequent to the meeting, Menards agreed to evaluate the 20' wall. Menard's engineers designed the 20' wall/accessory structure for submittal to the City. It is staff's understanding that Menards hired a sound consultant to evaluate the noise impacts of the use and to help evaluate impact mitigation solutions. Subsequent to the completion of the 20' wall design, Menards met with a neighbor directly to the east of their existing store. Because a vafley that exists between that neighbor's home and Menard's rear yard, Menard's representatives agresd to a 24' wall section, 200' across. Menards representatives and the neighbor agree this is the best solution they can hope for considering grade differences. - ISSUE: Lack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor materials irom adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri Lane, residential properties to the east RESPONSE: A new 20' screening wall/accessory structure has been proposed to surround the outdoor storage area on the northwest, north, east, and south perimeters of the storage yard. All materials stored in front of the w�st elevation (front of the store), except the storage bams have been proposed to be removed. - ISSUE: Increased noise in the rear retail area RESPONSE: Menards latest proposa! eliminates the customer gate on the 1-694 (northwest) comer of the storage yard. The have also indicated that the new paflet stacking capabilities of the wall/accessory structures will allow a more organized rear yard shopping experience. - ISSUE: Increased noise to travel upward out of the bowl created by the building and hillside 12.11 Developer Response to Issues Page 4 RESPONSE: A sound consultant has been hired by Menards to evaluate mitigative measures necessary to assure compatibility of uses. — ISSUE: Limited information regarding use of rear yard storage area RESPONSE: Much is still unknown about the rear yard storage areas final material configuration. Gary Kolby indicated that Menards will know much more about this issue, once the ultimate yard configuration has been determined — ISSUE: Limited information regarding rear building elevation and customer circulation RESPONSE: Much is still unknown about the rear building elevations at the Skywood Mall. Gary Kolby indicated that Menards will also know much more about this issue, ance the ultimate yard configuration has been deterrnined — ISSUE: Requires gates around a petroleum pipeline RESPONSE: Legal Counsel For Menards have indicated that they do not have restrictions related to the pipeline easement to negatively impact this proposal. — ISSUE: Traffic control (signs) at Menards access points RESPONSE: Stop sign and other traffic control/circulation features are being evaluated. 12.y2 � �— —' By Menards, I nc. 965 53rd 5207 Central 5351 Central LOCATI O N MAP 1[ S N A& D S 8 U P P R O J E C T D E T A I L 8 Petition For: Menards, Inc. has requested consideration of a special use permit to allow merchandise to be stored outside, not within the structure on the property located at 965 - 53rd Avenue NE. Menards store current3y exists on this property. Location of Property: Leqal Description of Property: Size: Topoqraphy: Existinq Veqetation: Existinq Zoninq/Plattinq: Availability of M'unicipal IItilities: vehicular Access: Pedestriaa Access: 8ite Planninq Issues: 965 53rd Avenue NE Attached 9.46 acres Generally ievel, with an incline at the east and northeast property boundaries_ Urban landscape on level portion, mixed native vegetation with very few trees on,the sloped areas. C-3, General Commnercial, Auditor's Subdivision 94 with metes and bounds exceptions. Available Via 53rd Avenue NE and Cheri L�ne From parking to Menards entrance, no gedestrian links exist from outside of the project area. DEVEIAP�IIIVT SITE SITS ffiSTORY 1961 - Spartan Department Stores begin plans for a department store on this site 1961 - 1962 - 1967 - A permit is issued for the 78,900 s.f Spartan Department Store A Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Spartan Store Unsanitary restroom conditions addressed by the Fridley Board of Health 1969 - Debris, trash and garbage along the north property line. Spartan representatives were notified regarding clean-up. 12.14 1970 - 1970 - 1972 - 1973 - 1973 - 1974 - Spartan was contacted regarding the improper maintenance of their sign along Central Avenue. Spartan received notification of both interior and exterior debris, sanitary conditions. Spartan reoeived severaZ notices regarding exterior debris and restroom conditions Spartan closes its doors Spartan Atlantic is contacted regarriing poor site conditions (Mayj City Staff is notified that a new retail sales operation will be occupyi.ng the fornaer Spartan Store. 1974 - Macon Inc. is notified by the City's Deputy Fire Q�.ief that they are blocking access to the Skywood Apartments . 1974 - (August) Fridley City Council approved the rec�etld,ation of the Design Gontrol Comraittee. 197s - A buildi.ng perm?t is issued ta� construct a mar�.sard roof and open shed 1974 - American Sign Company applied for a variance to allo� a 35'-8" high sign, rather that a 25' high sign and 147 s.f., rather than a 100 s.f. sign 1975 - The City of Fridley contacted Menards regarding the distraction potential of their changeable message center sign. The City denies a variance request for the operation of the sign. 197� - Menards is contacted regarding the neighborhood disturbance caused by their intercom system. 1977 - Menards received notice from the City regarding refuse along the north edge of their property. 1977 - The City of Fridley received a petition from an adjoining neighborhood regarding concerns related to the Menards store. These concerns included: -- The perception of a fire hazard due to lack of access to wooded "high- hazard areas" -- The illegal expanded use of a C-1 zone from Retail Coxcnnercial to Distributive Industrial 3 12.15 1977 - -- The illegal noise pollution and devaluation of property of adjacent landowner's real estate -- The traffic hazard created by the illogical routing from 53rd Ave NE to the service road to Fillmore NE (dangerous to pedestrians, especially children, cyclists, autos and trucks) A determination was made by the City that Menards would require parking lot repair and weed removal 1977 - Public Works Director, Sobiech, contacts City attorney Herrick regarding Menards "reluctance" to respond to their public nuisance complaints for the City Council and neighbors (memos and_ letters attached) 1977 - The City contacts Mr. Menard regarding the stacking of mat�rial above the fence height and the lack of repair of the fence surrounding the rear of Menards. Menard corrected matter within 2 weeks. 1977 - Neighborhood surrounding Menards submit a petition requesting information about Menards disregard for the law and resident concerns 1978 - (March) Menards is contacted regar�ding the materiais piled abave the fence line in the view of the public. - 19T8 - (Mayj Neighbors contact the City requesting that the City contact the MPCA regarding the noise froYa Menards 1978 - The MF�CA is contacted by City sent the laws regarding the considered acceptable. Testin staff) not listed Staff the ML�CA noise levels g results (by 1978 - Menax�+ds is contacted by the Minnesota Department of Health regarding their lack of Minnesota Clean Air Act designating smoking and non-smoking areas. 1979 - (May 10, 1979) Meeting held with residents and Menards representatives and residents regarding concerns. The resolution from that meeti.ng was that: 4 12.16 1981 - 1982 - 1982 - 1983 - 1983 - 1984 - 1984 - 1985 - 1985 - 1985 - 1985 - 1985 - -- The P.A_ system would only be used for emergencies -- The saw shed would be insulated to reduce sound by March 1, 1979 -- Truck delivery hours: 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. (Saturdays) 8:00 a.m - 5:00 p.m. (Mon. - Fri.) no deliveries (Sunday) City contacts Menards regarding their need do the following items: repair their fence, provide additional landscape screening along the south and west boulevard areas, provide required parking lot plantings, remove all storage that exceeds the screening fence height. Noble Nursery/Menards receive a short-term special use permit for a temporary garden center in the parking lot. An expiration date of Navember 30, 1984 was established. City staff recontact Menards representatives reqarding failure to comply with code issues from 5 months before. Menards contacted due to a sign (banner) violation of the City Code. City approves an automatic bank teller for 1'senards par'king area . 5tipulations ac:campanied the appraval. Menards were issued a Ietter regarding a siqn banner violation. City contacted Menards regardi.ng a debris complaint on their property. Menards is contacted regarding the frequency of change of their changeable message center sign. The City of Fridley received a complaint regarding Menards property. The residents complairit involved 4 separate concerns. Those concerns are: ~ The outdoor storage of materials above the fence height. -- Fork lift operating at 10:00p.m. -- Has special use permit been issued -- Sunciay loading and unloadi.ng City receives complaint regarding noise at Menards, contacts MPCA. Noise origin thought to be trucks loading and unloadi.ng, fork lifts, engine noise from vehicles. Mayor Nee receives a petition regarding noise at the Menards store in Fridiey. City assessor responds to a resident issue of lower property values based on the proximity to Menards. The assessor listed specific 12.17 1985 - 1985 - 1985 - 1985 - 1985 - 1986 - 1986 - 1986 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988 ProPe�ies who have been valued lower due to their proximity to a C-3, zoning district. M� responds to noise issue. Precise measurements were difficult to achieve because of ambient noise including I-694, however, the MP("_A representative did say that the Menards noise was more noticeable due to the businesses proximity to 1259 Skywood Lane, a residence east of Menards. (September) A letter is sent to Menards regarding (reminding) them of the agreemerit on May 10, 1979 designed to control nuisance factors for adjacent residential properties. City notifies Menards about dead trees on their property due to lack of irrigation. City receives complaints regarding the noise at Menards• Staff contacts the Menards representatives regarding hours of operation and the possi.bility of a sound wall. Menards responds to the City's noise complaint/inqui� Letter attached. Due to continued' noise complaints, City Council requests a joint meeting. (February 20j City holds a joint meeting between the residents ar�d Menards representatives. -- Menards is contacted their property. - Resident contacts Cit� to whether a speci gz'anted to allow out< - An adjacent resident Attorney exchange Menards existence a; location. regarding dead trees on � regarding Menards and as il use permit was ever loor storage. 's Attorney and the City correspondence regarding � a land use in this - A resident request inforniation as to alleviation of noise from forklifts. - Northern Sound took noise Menards noise readings from adjacent residential properties. The conclusion was that it would be difficult to predetermine the impact of constructing a sound barrier between the neighborhood and Menards. - Menards removed their east fence enclosure to �ommence excavation (without a permit)and enlarge their rear storage area. Menards work was stopped pending a variance and special use permit. - Menards alleges that the City staff person that they talked to told them they could proceed without permits or City approval. 12.18 1988 - The Community Development Director responded. No pex�nission had been given by the individual named. 1988 - Letter from neighbors Attorney regarding case against City regarding Menards approval in this location and City response to violations. 1988 - (July 25, 1988j City approves a special use permit for an expanded outside storage area. 8 stipulations were attached controlling hours, new fences to be approved by the engineering staff, sound deadening, formal review by City Council every two years, etc. No work on the 1988 1988 1988 1989 st�pulated items took place. - Menards representatives contested stipulations are placing thean at a disadvantage with their competitors. - Menards proposed a building as a solution to the storage/noise probiems in lieu of restrictions on hours of operation. - (July 25, 1988) City approves variance to increase the ]�eight of fence from 8' to 10'; to reduce the building setback adjacent to an R-1 district from 50' to 40'; to reduce the setback from an R-2 district from 50' to 10', . to allow construction of a storage shed/district buffer and improved screerning fence. - Menards contacted a the City regarding construction of a building and the requirement for a 60' separation between the building and 1989 - property 1i.nes is required. Menards representative indicated that he would be interested in working with the neighbors to obtain the necessary approvals for a building restriction. Six variances would also be required. Councilman Billings met with the neighborhood regarding the proposed enclosure. They express 4 concerns to Mr. Billi.ngs. These concerns included: ~ The safety of the root strttctures of Oak trees on the Hill -- The proposed lack of protection from 24 hour operations -- The possible i.mpact of view of a structure of this size -- The ability of the structure to block sound 1989 - Menaxds petitioned to have their 1988 variances reaPproved allowi.ng additional tiYae for construction. 7 y2.19 1989 - Menards withdrew their variance request. 1989 - Menards proposed restrictive covenants to allow a clear 60' around their proposed building. The resolution of this issue is unclear at this 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1992 1993 point of the research. - A neighbor complained of continued noise. - Staff notified Menards - Menards asks to have a tropical plant sale outside. - Staff informed Menards a special use permit would be required. - No application was made. No sale was held - Menards was approached regarding the possibility of an easement to allow a iooped waterline. - The City entertained a number of options which included berms, sound walls and fill in the gully area. - Staff suggested construction of a 20' sound wall 19' west of the residential neighbor's property. � - Menards indicated an interest in cooperating with the easement, sound wall idea. - Neighbor directly adjacent to sound wall endorses proposal. - Menards propose a reconstructed fence along their property line. - (Julyj Neighbors attorney contacts City regarding the sound wall and a desire to have hours of operation attached to the agreement. The client desires that i.f Menards does not comply, the City will require a special use permit. Without this the client will not endorse the easement agreement. - Menards attorney advises that the installation of such storm sewer is a breach of lease terms between Mortenson and Menards. - City's rights to enter property are relinquished by Mortenson/Menards. - (July) City receives a noise complaint regarding Menards - (August) Menards discussions continue regarding installation of a watermain - Menards proposed an easement agreement offer. - City responds (upset) not in agreement with terms offered. - (September) Menards agrees to� installation. - City receives complaint that Menards has expanded their hours. Staff contacts Menards. - Outdoor improvements to Central Avenue are completed. 12.20 1993 - Complaint regarding Menards flashing sign. Staff responded_ 1993 - City contact Menards regarding noise complaints as early as 4;30 a.m. Menards wrote to staff to assure that the allegations were not true. 1994 - Menards applied for a building permit for an 1,800 s.f. structure at the south-east corner of the Menards rear yard. 199� - A Zetter of opinion from the City Attorney confirn�ed that if the building meets all Code requirements, does not cause Menards to exceed 40� coverage on their property, it could be constructed without requiring any speciai consideration other than building permit consideration. 1994 - Neighbor requests information about structure. 1994 - Meriaz'ds receives fire damaqe and requires repair. 1994 - (October) Menards proposes a new fence surrounding the rear of their facility. 1994 - Staff verified the rights of the Me.n�ards to reconstruct/r�build the fence in accordance with all code�requirements. 199S - Staff received a complaint regarding a potentially dangerous fence situation at the south-east corner of Menards yard. Menards � staff was contacted. 1996 - The City received a request to process a special use permit applicationjs) to allow expansion of Menards storac�e area into the Skywood Mall (south of Menards current Faciiity) � 12.21 $ K Y i1 O O D 1( ]► L L / 1[ E N A& D 8 8 II P P R O J E C T D E T A I L 8 Petition For: Location o� Propertp: Leqal Description of Property: Size: Topoqraphy: Ssistinq veqetation: Existinq . Zoninq/Plattinq: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: site Planninq Issues: A special use permit to all�a outside, unscreened display and storage of materials on the property located at 5207 Central Avenue NE. 5207 Central Avenue NE Lot 1, Block l, Skywood Mall 5.85 acres Generally level, with a severe incline (approximately 1:2.2 incline) at the easternmost 110' of the property urban landscape on level portion, mixed native vegetation with very few trees on the slo�e. C-3, General Commercial,'i�o't 1, Block 1, Skywood Mall Available via 53rd Avenue NE and Cheri Lane FY'om parking to mall entranoe, no pedestrian links exist from outside of the� project area. DEVEIAPT�IT SITE The Special Use Permit Section of the Fridley City Code has been included to providee the City with a reasonable degree of discretion. in de�termining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In makirr3 this determination the City may consider the nature of the land upon which the uses are to be located, the natvre of the adjoining land and buildings, the effect upon traffic anto and from the premises or on any adjoinirr3 roads, and all such other factors as the City shall reasonably deem a requisite of consideration in determinir� the effect of such use. M.S.A. 462.3595 BITE ffiSTORY 196� - A pe�tlt was issu�i to remove a house from the Skywood Mall sit,e_ 12.22 196� - 1966 - 1966 - 1971 - 1972 - 1973 - 1977 - 1981 - 1983 - 1983 ' - 1983 - 1984 - 1984 - 1984 - 1985 - 19�5 - 1988 - 1991 - A permit was issued to construct a 240' x 404' (96,960 s.f.) mall Move temporary building fram Shakopee for a mini-,qolf course (5275 1/2 Central) City approved a car wash at this location A Piggly Wiggiy food store began its operations Complaint regarding hillside maintenance A sign variance was requested Special IIse Permit, SP �77-05, to allow outside display of mobile homes, denied. Special Use Permit. SP�81-03, to allow bumper boats, denied Resolution 86-1983, to undertake and finance a coannercial development project Public Hearing for the issuance of Comomercial Development Revenue Bonds Resolution 99-1983, preliminary approval of a project under the municipaZ development act Building permi.t for the 187,012� s.f motel adclition Building permit for 10,000 s.f. of office addition '� Building permi.t issued for a restaurant in the motel addition Sprinkler system and roof reinforcement of the old mall Variances requested for signs Foreclosure of property Plat approved_ to split mall and hotel into separate parcels. 12.23 EXHII3IT B david braslau associates, incorpo�ated 1313 5th street s.e. • suite 322 • minneapotis, mn 55414 telephone:612-331,4579 • fax:612-331,4572 30 April 1996 Bruce D. Malkerson Malkerson Gilliland Martin Suite 1500 AT&T Tower 901 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis MN 55402-3205 RE: Menazds (Fridley) Sound Wall Dear Mr. Malkerson: ., The observations and conclusions contained in this letter are based upon the following information: • Visit on Monday Apri129, 1996, to the site including Menazds indoor and outdoor storage azeas and the adjacent residential neighbmrhood; • Spot noise readings taken at selected locations in the adjacent residential neighborhood and in the proposed expansion azea; • Review of previous correspondence from John Fiora, Director of Public Works, City of Fridley, dated January 14, 1991, supporting a proposed 20-foot high sound wall; • Review of previous correspondence from David A. Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated September 11, 1985, describing noise measurements and results; Mr. Kelso stated that i-694 and Central Avenue are tlie dominant noise sources and that noise levels from Menards were not found to be in excess of the MPCA or Fridley L10 or L50 criteria; - • Review of previous correspondence and attachments from David A. Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated July 7, 1988, recommending construction of a wa11 to shield noise from the Menazds storage area; • Review of a USGS topographic map including the Menazds site; • Telephone discussion with David Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on Monday, Apri129, 1996, regazding his previous correspondence. Mr. Kelso reiterated the proposed wall as a reasonable method of reducing noise from the Menards site. • Telephone discussion with Brian Timerson, current Noise Control staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, concerning the problem and proposed solution_ While Mr. Timerson was not involved with the Menards issue, he felt that a 20 foot height is close to a practical limit for effectiveness in shielding noise by a wall. 12.24 Bruce Malkerson 30 April 1996 Page 2 The spot sound level readings taken on April 29 generally agreed with readings taken eazlier by the MPCA staff that identified tr�c noise from I-694 and Central Avenue as the dominant noise sources. During the period of the site visit, any yaxd noises from Menards were generally masked by noise from the adjacent roadways and did not result in any higher decibel readings, which substantiates the conclusions by David Kelso. The purpose of the noise wall suggested by MPCA staff was to shield the adjacent residential neighborhood to the east from noise-producing activities in the storage yard between the existing Menards building and the Menards easterly properry line. The height of the wall as suggested by David Kelso was intended to interrupt the sight line between the mid-elevation of the opening along the east side of the e�sting Menards building and the 2nd story of the neazest residence to the east. The height of 20 feet meets this condition for much of the area behind the sound wall within Menards existing and proposed storage areas. As noted in the letter from David Keiso of July 7, 1988, no specific sound reduction from the wall was analyzed. I�bwever, since levels from Menards appear to be in compliance with the MPCA noise standards no specific reduction in sound level can be specified or required. The purpose of the noise wall is to provide some reduction in noise leveis for the residet�tiai azea. to the east. With most of the open azea between the Menards building and the property shielded by a wall height of 20 feet, a reduction of several dBA or greater should be expected. Construction of a 20 foot high wall from 2" by 8" tongue and grove planking (without any openings) or concrete will have the same or similar effect in reducing noise levzl. The cantilevered shed to be constructed on top of the watl wi11 add at Ieast anot��er foot of effective height to the wall. For the proposed expansion of the Menards facility, the same conditions described above should hold for the proposed wall to provide shielding of noise from yazd activities:= Please let me know if you have any qnestions concerning these observations. Thanks for the opportunity to provide you with our review of this information. A statement of our qualifications in acoustics and noise control is attached for your information. Sincerely, '� � David Braslau President Attachment ma1k0430.1et 96034 12.25 1 '' - � . ��S i c v� �� r L��'�'_ � � Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - - .., . _ . -, 520 Lafoyette Road, St. Poul, Ali�nesota 55155 _? - _T„_ �U�y �.�i9ae " Mr. Jack Robertson City of F�idley 6431 University Ave. Firdley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Robertson: �' -- a As you requested, I have looked at the plans submitted by Menards for a buitding/noise barrier p�oposed for their Fridley store. It appears that what they are proposing could have some noise reduction va3ue. As I understand the situation. noise sources objectionable to the resideats on the biuff include customer traffic i� the yard area. lift truck noise. noise associated with banging and clanging of 'yard mate�ials and some occasiona] shouting. Al1 of these cont�ibute to the overall noise generated by Menards. Trad�tionally. in order to reduce noise you need to control the source. interrupt the path of travel or tr-eat the �eceiver. Mena�ds is proposing to inte�rupt the path of travel. The most effective way to do this is to place a barrier so the line of sight is broken be'tween the noise soarce and the receiver. Construction of the barrier is important if you intend to absorb any noise. the diagrams supplied by Menards show that tfie barrier will contain yard activ�ty and should offe� some noticeable noise reduction to the residents. I cannot predict exactly how many decibels of reduction this proposal will provide as I am not desian�-ng th�,structure. I hope I have given you some useable i�formation and if I can answer any additional questions, �lease feel free to cantact me at 296-7372. Yours truly, �� David A_ Kelso Program Development/Noise (612) 296-7372 12�� . _ ** .Z00'�9dd �til0i W* ?$ i. � � _ � ��a �� i ,, � ;� i ' � r � �. ; �-- . _-- A � �� 'v R � 5 i p :3 � � � .e z0iz0'd � � � ' . . - i ? �c` ��i ii � 1 I ; �j� i _ i • NL a---- � � -; I ��` �, : :� -' � ! t' r ey�i �� 1$ � � .�:� �� '� * � � �, 1 ��/,r: :i � ; � ��y �p � a �o ' �� ' � • � s j . � __` "'1' ';�� - ` � l , r�..�_._ ��' � �� i ; �� I 1 Y; ;► � ;, � �, ; ii � � 1 � , 1 ! I I � ' �M (i I � � ;{ :: 1 h u z�� ` �_I . i �IJI � � IFyI y =� 1 ,�I �� x -�; . _��_ �_i:� n F� _. . . ;y, il V ; • � �i¢'� WIJ) � - I OL.'L4 � � /1i� �•I�3 S � � S��. «} a�; � I� J��i ,�.: t�U � `�� ''•v� '+ , � �_��' Q I I I. I7 J � —� I: � � — V � a �-�� . � s; �. Y � � gr i i i I - :� � i 3 i m � g � , �3 � � i L . ,---� .i. 1 � � i �--�— J�� J ��-, I � i l l �I S�� j� iK�.i �� t,�i } I I M - 1I I Ii,� +i i, t .:� � , r-f--� ii-t ,,. , , � ,1 � � , ; `� � ��; _�i;>> � i; � i `� i ll!I, ,�i I �� I .`' i i � �� ..`au"�0s.�,.�•� - - �� I 4 �1 �1 .(�, I� �r� � � � � �� ; � � � � � I �s I .��., � ��! I ��i I I i � � 3• i lY� �!i� t � � I � , f� ti _ 3� 3� t i � i�� I� � of_ � . f _i '. � �.wi.L.t.j. ; � � � 1 : � � '� i ; 's i i I i . �. ! ' , � � � ; � � — �—= j I � ? � '�� 'g'n innenr OeM.5 :I�f � � ` � ' � � � � T � � � . I �.+M•> •YV � • X � � � ` �" �' � �M�lq� �` r--- ----- `-- - --- -.. ' y.��, � �.. ~7 �� ' � � I I�� I ip ` I �� • . � y - � `�� ? � � � � 3 � '��I �i419�iwf � .� �� : � 4M J ► � 12.2� yd' � i � . _ .. _...�. _ °,.":�,� ;:,:U:�:� _ .. .._ .. i L8Z I I LSZ I 9 I 6 Ol SSSZ 9L8 S T L fiC.�ti SQ21dN3W 21� �E � 1 I 96 . 9 Nflf ' CITY OF FRiDLEY PRO.JECT SUM1�iARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to increase the height of an accessory stn�cture to 24 feet which exceeds the height of the principal building. If approved, the petitioner would construct an screening wall accessory building with pallet storage capability: The variance, as requested, is related to a series of special use permits which will allow Menard to expand onto the Skywood Mall property. I:I: : 1 . 1� David Braslau Associates, Inc., performed a noise wall analysis based on a noise wall suggested by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Braslau stated: "The height of the wall as suggested by David Kelso was intended to irrtemipt the sigtrt line be±ween the mid-etevation of the opening atong the east side of the e�cisting Menard building and the 2nd story of the nearest residence to the east. The height of 20 feet meets this condition for much of the area behind the sound wall within Menard's existing and proposed storage areas." For those areas where 20 feet is not sufficient because of topography, a 24 faot high wall has been proposed. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Section 205.04.OS.B.(5) requires that a.11 accessory buildings sha11 not exceed the height of the principal I building. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain accessory structures at a scale appropriate to commercial developments. The subject parcel has a long history of outdoor storage and screening issues. The design of the structure is to provide storage, screening, and act as a sound barrier to trap sound and reduce the impact to the residential properties to the east. The accessory structure is similar in height to the e�cisting Menard's building. Similar variance rec�uests have not been processed for accessory buildings in commercial districts. 13.01 Staff Report VAR #96-10, by Menard, Inc. Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: As the accessory structure is located in a commercial district and is proposed to provide mitigation for commercial impacts on adjacent residential properties„ staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: The screening wall shall be constructed within one year of approval of the variance. 2. The petitioner shall provide a perfomiance bond in the amount of 50% of the value of the wall to ensure construction of the structure. The petitioner shall comply with stipulations of SP 96-05, 96-06, & 96-07. Failure to construct the accessory stnicture will be grounds for immediate revocation of these special use pernuts. APPEALS COMIVIISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the stipulations recommended by staff. . CITY COUNCIL RECOMI��NDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Commission's action PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: Variance to increase the height of an accessory structure to be greater than the height of the principal building Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Ve�etation: Existing Zoning/Platting: 5207 Central Avenue N.E. 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. Lot 1, Block 1, Skywood Mall See attached. 5.85 acres 9.46 acres Mostly level, with an incline along the east and north property lines Typical suburban with native vegetation on incline C-3, General Shopping Center District; Lot 1, Block 1, Skywood Mall C-3, General Shopping Center District; Audito�'s Subdivision #94 13.02 Staff Report VAR #96-10 by Menard, Inc. Page 3 Availability of Municipal Utitities: Connected Vehicular Access: Via 53rd Avenue & Cheri Lane Pedestrian Access: N/A Engineering Issues: None Site Planning Issues: DEVELOPMENT $ITE Re uest The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to increase the height of an accessory structure to be greater than the height of the principal bu�ding. ff approved, the petitioner would construct a screening wall accessory building with pallet storage ability. Menard is proposing to purchase the Skywood Mall. The existing tenants would be relocated along the front of the ma11, and the rear of the urtemal space would be used by Menard for storage. The exterior storage area will be expanded to the south of the Menard's Store. The office located behind the mall will be removed. Menard's Parcel Description/Historv The Menard's parcel is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of I-694 and Central Avenue. Located on the parcel is a 124,200 square foot retail building and outdoor storage. 1961 - Spartan Department Stores begin plans for a department store on this site. 1973 - Spartan closes its doors. 1974 - (May) City staff is notified that a new retail sales operation will be occupying the former Spartan Store. 1974 - American Sign Company applied.for a variance to allow a 35'-8" high sign, rather than a 25' high sign, and 147 sq. ft., rather than a 100 sq. ft. sign. 13,03 Staf� Report VAR #96-10 by Menard, Inc. Page 4 1975 - The City of Fridley contacted Menard regarding the distraction potential of their changeable message center sign. The City denies a variance request for the operation of the sign. 1977 - The City contacts Mr. Menard regarding the stacking of material above the fence height and the lack of repair of the fence surrounding the rear of Menard. Menard cotrected matter within 2 weeks. 1981 - City contacts Menard regarding their need to do the following items: repair their fence, provide additional landscape screening along the south and west boutevard areas, provide requireci parking lot plantings, remove all storage that exc,eeds the screening fence height. 1982 - Noble Nursery/Menard receive a short-term special use pernut for a temporary garden center in the parking lot. An expiration date of November 30, 1984, was established. 1983 - City approves an automatic bank teller for Menard's parking area. Stipulations accomparued the approval. 1985 - MPCA responds to noise issue. Precise measurements were diffia.�t to achieve because of ambient noise including I-694; however, the MPCA representative did say that the Menard's noise was more noticeable due to the business' proximity to 1259 Skywood Lane, a residence east of Menard. 1988 - City approves variance to increase the height of fence from 8' to 10', to reduce the building setback adjacent to an R 1 district from 50' to 40', to reduce the setback from an R-2 district from 50' to 10', to a11ow construction of a storage shed/district buffer and improved screening fence. 1989 - Menard contacted the City regarding construction of a building and the requirement for a 60' sepazation between the building and property lines is required. Menard's representative indicated that he would be interested in working with the neighbors to obtain the necessary approvals for a building restriction. Six variances would also be required. 1990 - Staff suggested construction of a 20' sound wall 19' west of the residential neighbor's property. 1991 - Menard propose a reconstructed fence along their property line. 1994 - Menard applied for a building permit for an 1,800 sq. ft. structure at the southeast corner of the Menard's rear yard. 13.04 Staf� Report V �,R #96-10 by Menard, Inc• Pa e � �d that if the building meets a11 1994 - A letter of opinion from the City Attorney confir� 4�/0 �Ve�e an �eu code requirements, does not cause Menard to exceed ��ld�tion other property, it could be constructed `'�thout requiring �Y � than building pernut consideration. ecial use pernut application(s) to allow 1996 - The City received a re�uest to Pr°cess a Sp ood �(�u� of Menard's r.urrent e�ansion of Menard s storage area into Skyw facility). S ood Mall Parcel Descri tion/H�sto The Skywood Mal1 is located at the southeast comer of 53rd and Central Avenues and behind the Crround Round Restaurant• 1 964 - A permit was issued to consttuct a 240' by 404' (96,960 sq. ft.) �- 1973 - A sign variance was requested. . : • Sp #77-05, to allow outside display of mobile homes denisd• 1977 - Special Use Pernut, 1981 - Special Use Permit, S� �1-03, to allow bumper boats denied 1984 - Building pemut for the 18.7,012 sq. ft. motel addition 1984 - Building permit for 10,000 sq• ft• oP5ce addit�on 1985 - Variancss requeste�l for signs 1991 - Plat approved to split ma11 and hotel into separate Pa�'c�ls. _ Anal sis 5.04.OS.B. 5) requires that all accesSO�' bti"��'gs s� not exce�d the height of the Section 20 � principal building.. served b this requirement is to maintain accessory strucriues at a scale aPprOPriate Pubhc purpose Y to commercial developments. ro sed is for an accessory structt're in a commercial district. The The variance request as p l� structures in commercial purpose and intent of the code section is to limit the height of accessorY�� d p�cipal districts in order to maintain aPPropriate proportlons bet`"��n access°ry ' s. The height of the acxessorY strud�e � as Proposed is proportional to the existu�g building ro sed to be 24 feet in height adjacent to a principal structw°e. A Portion of the stiuctu�'e is p p° e�� block residential s�ght lines wooded bluff. In addition to pro��g �O�e, �e �� e over not increase the lot coverag into the yard and act as a sound bame�• T�e �'�''d b nd 35%. 40%, nor will it inc�'ease tt►e �°verage of the rear Yar eY 13.05 Staff Report VAR #96-10 by Menard, Inc. Page 6 It should also be noted that the highest portion of the requested variance is adjacent to a unique topographic feature, thereby reducing its visual impact on adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION/STIPULATIONS: As the accessory structure is located in a commercial district and is proposed to provide mitigation for commercial impacts, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: l. The screening wall shall be constructed within one year of approval of the variance. 2. The petitioner shall provide a performance bond in the amount of 50% of the Building Official's valuation of the accessory structures's cost to ensure construction of the structure. 3. The petitioner shall comply with stipulations of SP 96-05, 96-06, 96-07. Failure to construct the accessory structure will be grounds for immediate revocatibn of these special use permits. APPEALS CONIlVIISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the stipulations recommended by staff. CITI' COUNCIL RECOMIVIENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Cauncil concur with the Commission's action. ADJACENT SITES WEST: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Land Use: Retail SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: I-694 R-2, Two Family Dwelling R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling � 3.os Land Use: Hotel Land Use: Residential Land Use: H'ighway Townhomes & Condominiums Staff Report VAR #96-10 by Menard, Inc. Page 7 Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Corriments: Current zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designations. A resident spoke in favor of the proposal. 13.07 N VAR #96-10 5207 Central Avenue 965 53rd Avenue by Menards CAT i O N MA P I f I �� I ;a ' =S � � I � � � p �i i � �„ � �� I� �� I �� I ° �.� C== � _ —I_ r_� L j�I= ¢ � I_ Y: Y� �,.,` �'��- a i ��' �� i i 1 ! I � I I �� _� � W i— W LJ OL Ca U ✓) W � _ � L'1 F— U =�i �-' ; oH� N(�= n I 5 I � 'z I �` I ` m I t I I I R I �__ _—_'—"__l-= I �� 8 I . ..Yk.�w� � - C I I I I I�- I ' ai � I � �{-I-I-f-E-E-I-}�--II-� Y I -� �� = a N � l� � � �M« �a 1[r.rG.WS _� N , V �-�__ � x�� o � � � �77 hI I v; ay �_�� E � � j o � � ( al � � � H�-H-��-H--I� �� , o � �� 6! � �, � � �1I = , �, s � �_ .m.sac� _c�_ �rs.d�_+i. _+ �" - _ '�a "3"N 3fiN3/�V O2itS J,� �---='�' -- ' 1�' �..�w.3,��u�„m�s ---r-- o-----�--- � � x �sK � R �aw n�,a.�� 5'�31 I I I I I i i.�.�i � �--,-- .— --'------- , � � �, 13.09 b69 �ON AVMN`J1H 31f1S2B2N1 �� j — i � LJF— W W �Q ;il� �� LJ � W L�_ '.- S � � �� - — ^ J � �-lf_' !iJ U y _ �e —LY w Li '- �� Q~7 (U t/i = CU� _ - Y Z g� _ �� ki �i � ss � �< �� Orc ��n �$�__�� WoWW ��,, , �; ; i�; �m N O > 3 2 c> x Y Z � ¢ w a � Q ¢ a a a ^ 'a � V p � � � Q � � M� � � � � � �15�I�� Z � H y _ \ \ 1 \ - \ \ D�° p f _ �f = � � _ • i°.a,'t � � " i� �4�}_ rr' \ } K �l W^'y � �'* � �' � � g ! � .� l � � K ��Y T KA�}�� i'` K r o � g � �.�1. l�a ��,,,�, .r• t�..l +'°w" :t z )z r,�,"k` y� t�a _I Y � �r ." � Y -�z «�` �y � �,i � v U Z �t � � z ¢ r +s`�� ,.l � W � 0 � w–` • c O �` W ~ .�" qi'+ � Y�� _ � � � - � ��, �a U - � � = tu W _ `x�� _ o � (� R — cu 3 � � � � � � ii - � O _ � � � U w _ \ J \ Q - � � in \ q \ � \ � `�Z ` — `i' � W Q � � � ; Q ` — � � - w � � � � � � 13.10 � 0 � 13.11 Y (,�/ � a �--.� � U ' W � � (/) ) � J � � �I M � � O Ii � �--' U W J � a a� 0 3 >= - � � y � � � i---- Q �--- �. � W � z .. �� E' / P1FlC 1�EER_I�.ES-�' s 9!-�` O�C. - -'I .%-' �'. +� �� 4'-4'_YIDE X !4'-0' lQGH :.r1 � � • 'va `t '- 1 � li : JV-..__ � ,��V tT� � �'1� 1 ; o---- --- :�-� w_ ... ... NO'42'S7"E 54.18' . � i N � tr1 QO r :il � �� <�� :��; I . � � �� • � {� � ' -� �� \ i �'^'`'�i _ �: � - � � �! _ ( 1 � '1 . �r• . � tl i_.� - . . . t� .l . � -�1 ' ~ � p � �2�-6 � s -r , �,i�-a.,� i� �CiYP-�9 FdtiZJ �� '�E ��fiG � = � � R�� Y�`� � �:�:: D� �"� - � i - � Y;;��..-0. . - �. � ��C� ST��1 �, �.�1°� ��,��'1 �1�.- A , i ir.r��e��rrri�r�+i irr.�w��i�rq.n.r� �.�ri �:��r�oa.o :: ��.� ��-�;� . . .. ... � . � . . I MA�I �i��/�11� � i �� 1 . . � . . . . . . .. � � • - �� . �. .. � . . � .. - �.. � � . ' . . . . . . .. �. . . . . .. : . -' � - ' - . � : �F, CHi�iES� ELM . - �, �' - DECtDIC�,iS- : : � . -, : . . : � ,,. . : ;.. . .. - _ � `�' : HONEY IOCUST � � A$H ' _ , � �� 2 i ;� sf+RUe � �� i�i�� $ _ r�a� 05/13/1996 09:36 612--832--0609 � dav�d braotau � STEVEN D SOLTAU sesocl�tsa. incorporetnd PAGE 01 C�( LT �� c. � c.. �— '1393 9ch sa-eet a,e. • euite 322 • m��eepol�s. mn S5d9 4 teiephonA:612-33��7� • f�x:6�2-331-a�72 Bruce D. lv�alkerson Ma(kozson Ciilliland Martin Suita 1500 AT&T Tower 901 Mazquette Avenue Niitu�eapolis MN 55402-3205 RB: Mezas�rds (Fzidtey) Sound Wall l�ear Mr. Malkerson: 30 Apri� 1,996 Post-IY" brand fax transrrllttat memo 7671 ++o+ve9�' The observations and conclusions contained icx this ]ctter. are based upon the followiag infonmation: ' • Visit on Monday Apri129,1996, to the site includLng Me.nards indoor and outdoor starage ateas and the adja�ccnt xesidential neighbozk�ood; • Spot noisc readings taken at selectzd locations in the adjaceat residential neighbozhood aud iun th� praposed e�cpansioa area; • Rrview of pzevious correspondence frozn 1otu� Floca, Director of Public Works, Cit� of Pridley, dated Jaauary 14,1991, sup�ort�ng a proposed 20-foot high sound wall; � Review of pzevi,ous cotrespondencc from David A. Kelso o� the Minnesota Pollutior� Control Agoncy datod September 11,1985, describing noise measurements and reszalts; Mr. Kclso stated that I-694 and Ccntral Avonue azc the dom.ir�ant noise sources and that noise l�vels from Metiards were not found to be in ex.cess of the MPCA or Fridlcy L10 or L50 criteria; � Review of previous wrrespondence and attachments from David A. Kelso of the Minnesota Pallution Co�ol Agency dated Ju.ly 7, 1988, recommending construction of a wa11 to sllield noise firom the Menards storage area; • Reviow of a USGS topographic,map including the Menards site; • Telephone disoussion with David Kelso of the Nlinnesota Poilution Control Agency ot� Monday, Apri129, 1996, regarding his previous correspondence. Mr. Kelso zeiterated the proposod wall as a reasonable method of reducing noise from the Menards site. • Telephone discussion with Bria� Time�san, curreat Noise Control sta:Ff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, canoerniag the pxobiem and proposed solution. While Mr. Timerson was not imolved wit11 the Menards issue, he felt tktat a 20 �oot beight is close to a praefical limit for e#%etiveness in shieldi.ng noise by a wall. QNY'II"TZIJ NU52I�$ZV�I 13.13 �trtocc�rs �cr� sc:ur Q�,� as�so��o 65;13/1996 09:36 612--832--6609 Brvce Malkerson 30 April I996 Page 2 STEVEN D SOLTAU The spot sound level zeadings �elcen on Apri129 generally agreed with readings taken earlier by the MPCA staffttwt identi�ed tzaftic nolse from 1-594 and Cen�al Ave�us as Che doma�ant noise sources. Dwing the period of the site visit, any yazd noises from Menards were gener811y masked by noise from thc adja,cent roadways and dad not result in tiny higher decibel xeadi.ngs, whiolt substantiates the c�nclusions by David Kel�o. PAGE 02 The purpose of the noise wall suggested by ?�1PCA scaf£ was to shield �h.e adjacent r.csidcntial neighborhood to the east from noise-producing activities in the storage yazd between che existing Mznazds bui[ding and the Menards eastezty properry line. T�ie height of the wall as suggested by David Kelso was intended to interrupt the sig$t line bctween the mid-e�evation of the opening along the east side of the existing Menazds bwilding and the 2nd siorY of tho neazest residence to the east. The he�ghc o£ 20 feet meets this condition for much of the axea behind the sawid wall within Menards existing at�d �roposed storage areas. As noted in che letter �fYOm David Ketso o£ July 7� 1988, no specific sound reducrifln from the wall was analyzed. How�ver, since levels fromi Menazds appear to be i,n complianc� with the MPCA noise standards no specific teduction in sound level c�n be specified oz rzquired. The purpose of the noise wall xs tu provide some reduction in noise levels for the residential azea ta tl�e east. With n�ost of the �pen ar�a between tite Menuds building and tl�e property shieldcd by a wall heisht of 20 �eet, a reduction of several dBA or greater should be expected. . Constxuction of a 20 foot high wall from 2" by 8" tongue aqd grove planlang (without any openings) or concretc� will have the satne or sinnilaz ef�'ect in reducing noise Ievel. 'Ihe cantilevtred shed to be eonstructed on top of the wall wilt add at Least anottaer foot o� effective height to the wall. For the proposed expansxoa of tl�e Menaxds facility, the saate conditions described above should hold for the proposod wall to provide shieldir�g af noise from yard aGtivities. Pleas� let n�e know if you have any questions conceming these observ$tions. Thank.s for the opportunity to provide you with our revicw of this infozrnatifln. A statement of our qualifications in acoustics and noise control is attachcd for your information. Sincerely, �� 1 David Bxaslau President Attachment tna1k0430.1et 96U34 5 T 0� Qt�Y'I I't'1 I9 :�0�21�3T'I�� t T 6 T b D C i. T 9 1'a3 9 C: n T Q3,i� o fi� 5'i�iSU