10/08/2007 - 6139� . r - '"' -. �a
-
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers
Attendance Sheet
A[FAS'F AR/NT NAMF, AflURFSS ANt� /TFM NUMBFi? YOU ARF /NTFRFSTFD /M.
Print Name (Clearly) Address ` Item No.
� c o: �.... . e�..� (�i� ��3 j I Z S� �1-t E
C'h ��
,'''=�� �:�..� � sr�--_ w t 2d�'- �. � Ca
�
. �._ R
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
�
, ^ i.
CfiY OF
FRIDLEY
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or
employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability,
age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be
provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's senrices, programs, and activities. Hearing
impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact
Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/763-572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PROCLAMATIONS:
Domestic Violence Awareness Month: October, 2007
Fire Prevention Week: October 7- 13, 2007
PRESENTATION:
Citizen Survey Results
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2007
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of September 19,
2007 ................................... 1 — 12
00000
2. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-05, by
T-Mobile Central, to Allow the Construction of a
Communications Facility on an Existing Xcel
Energy Transmission Tower, Generally Located at
200 Commerce Circle (Ward 3) ........ 13 - 19
3. Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the
Special Municipal Election on November 20,
Zoo7................................... Zo - 22
�,?G� i -' ��
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
4. Resolution in Support of an Application for a
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit
for Fridley VFW, Post 363 (1040 Osborne
Road) (Ward 2) ..........................� .... 23 - 24
� �
�G� t ' �
5. Approve Change Order No. 1 for the
2007 Mill and Overlay Project No. ST.
2007 — 2 ................................... 25 - 27
6. Claims (133667 — 133867) ................ 28
7. Licenses ........, .......................... 29 - 30
8. Estimates
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
31
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items
not on Agenda —15 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING:
9. Consideration of a Rezoning Request,
ZOA #07-02, by Timothy Nelson, to Rezone
Property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to
M-2, Heavy Industrial, Generally Located at
the Southwest Corner of 61 � Avenue and
Main Street N.E. (VVard 3) ................. 32 — 41
.� ��� �
. -
,i� _.,,
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007 _ PAGE 2
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-06, by Global
Health Ministries, to Allow Limited Outdoor Storage
on the Property, Generally Located at 7831 Hickory
Street N.E. (Ward 3) .......................... 42 - 50
11. Informal Status Report ....................... 51
ADJOURN.
�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
{:fTY OF
FRIDLEI'
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or
access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of
race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual
orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will
be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services,
programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other
persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at
763-572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/763-572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PROCLAMATIONS:
Domestic Violence Awareness Month: October, 2007
Fire Prevention Week: October 7- 13, 2007
PRESENTATION:
Citizen Survey Results
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of September 24, 2007
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of September 19, 2007 ............................................... 1- 12
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
2. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-05, by
T-Mobile Central, to Allow the Construction of a
Communications Facility on an Existing Xcel
Energy Transmission Tower, Generally Located at
200 Commerce Circle (Ward 3) .................................................................... 13 - 19
3. Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the
Special Municipal Election on November 20, 2007 ....................................... 20 - 22
4. Resolution in Support of an Application for a
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit
for Fridley VFW, Post 363 (1040 Osborne
Road) (Ward 2) ............................................................................................. 23 - 24
5. Approve Change Order No. 1 for the 2007
Mill and Overlay Project No. ST. 2007 — 2 .................................................... 25 - 27
6. Claims (133667 — 133867) ............................................................................ 28
7. Licenses ................................................................................................... 29 - 30
8. Estimates ................................................................................................. 31
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007 PAGE 3
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items not on Agenda — 15 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING:
9. Consideration of a Rezoning Request,
ZOA #07-02, by Timothy Nelson, to Rezone
Property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to
M-2, Heavy Industrial, Generally Located at
the Southwest Corner of 61 St Avenue and
Main Street N. E. (Ward 3) ............................................................................. 32 - 41
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-06, by Global
Health Ministries, to Allow Limited Outdoor Storage
on the Property, Generally Located at 7831 Hickory
Street N. E. (Ward 3) ...................................................................................... 42 - 50
11. Informal Status Report .................................................................................. 51
ADJOURN.
�
_
G� I l/ / t
DOMESTIC YIOl.E1VCE
A WARENESS MONTH
OCTOBER, Zoo7
,.
WHEREAS, the community problem of domestic violence has become a critical public health and
welfare concern in Anoka County; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a crime, the commission of which will not be tolerated in Anoka
County, and perpetrators of said crime are subject to prosecution and conviction in accordance with the
law; and
WHEREAS, thousands of women and children have and will continue to access assistance from
Alexandra House, Inc., a domestic violence service provider; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence will be eliminated through community partnerships of concerned
individuals and organizations working together to prevent abuse while at the same time promoting social
and legal change; and
WHEREAS, October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month; and
WHEREAS, during National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, Anoka County organizations will
inform area residents about domestic violence, its prevalence, consequences, and what we, as a
concerned community, can do to eliminate its existence.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, do hereby
proclaim the month of October; 2007, to be:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
in the City ofFridley, Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and
caused the seal of the City ofFridley to be affixed this gth
day of October, 2007.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
�
_
G� I l/ / t
FIRE PREYE1VTl01V WEEK
October 7 - �3, �007
WHEREAS, the City ofFridley is committed to ensuring the safety and security ofall those living in and
visiting our city; and
WHEREAS, fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the
locations where people are at greatest risk from fzre; and
WHEREAS, the nonprofit National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has documented through its
research that home fires killed 3, 030 people in the U. S. in 200 roughly eight people every day; and
WHEREAS, Fridley's fzrst responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and home
fire injuries through prevention and protection education; and
WHEREAS, Fridley's residents are responsive to public education measures and are able to take
personal steps to increase their safety from fzre; and
WHEREAS, residents who have planned and practiced a home fzre escape plan are more prepared and
will therefore be more likely to survive a fire; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Fire Prevention Week theme, It's Fire Prevention Week — Practice Your Escape
Plan!" effectively serves to remind us all of the simple actions we can take to stay safer from fzre during
Fire Prevention Week and year-round.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of the City of Fridley, do hereby
proclaim the week of October 7-13, 2007, as
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
in the City of Fridley, and I urge all the people of Fridley to heed the important safety messages of Fire
Prevention Week and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of the Fridley Fire
Department.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand
and caused the seal of the City of Fridley to be
affzxed this 8th day of October, 2007.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:32 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-large Barnette
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director/Treasurer
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Tom Myhra, 6360 Able Street N.E.
PROCLAMATIONS:
Student Foreign Exchange Week: September 24 — 30, 2007
Ho Man Lui from Hong Kong
Giacomo Greco from Italy
A representative from the Fridley VFW presented the students with an American flag and
welcomed them to the community.
PRESENTATION
Jeff Jensen, Street Supervisor, shared photographs of equipment they use when they are
working on the streets. The City purchased an asphalt power paver in 2006 and since then, they
have used 3,100 tons of asphalt in the paver. The only other equipment that his department may
need in the future is a larger roller because the current small roller does not perform the desired
compaction.
Mr. Jensen said his department repairs a lot of water main breaks. So far this year they have
fixed 34. On average, they fix 25 to 35 per year. In the past, this was done by hand. With the
new equipment the quality of the work is much better and the patches look great.
Mr. Jensen said that they have completed in-house jobs that have saved the City some money.
Some of these jobs include overlay on basketball courts for the Park Department, work on City
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 PAGE 2
parking lots (i.e. Fridley Liquor Store and Senior Center) and work on an area near the salt shed.
The addition of the new power paver has allowed them to expand the jobs they can do. It saves
the City money in the long run and puts out a better quality of product.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how much is saved by using the new paver.
Mr. Jensen answered that the basketball court overlay would have cost $60,000 and their cost
was $32,000 which was a substantial savings.
Councilmember Saefke asked about doing patches in the winter and if there is problem with
materials, etc.
Mr. Jensen said there is a new material they use that costs more per ton but they do not have to
go back and fix the area in the spring.
Councilmember Saefke said that a lot of times the Public Works Department is overlooked and
that department is something everyone uses every day. The department has improved in
efficiency and excellent people work in that department.
Mayor Lund thanked Mr. Jensen for his update.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council meeting of September 10, 2007.
APPROVED.
1. Resolution Directing Preparation of the Assessment Roll for the 2007 Nuisance
Abatement.
William Burns, City Manager, stated that the roll includes thirty-one properties and costs of
$122,754.70. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-46.
2. Resolution Directing Publication of Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for the
2007 Nuisance Abatement.
William Burns, City Manager, stated that the hearing will occur at the October 22 City Council
meeting. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-47.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 PAGE 3
3. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed
Assessment for the Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007 — 1.
William Burns, City Manager, stated that the total estimated cost of the 2007 street
improvement project is $2,604,084.85. The portion of this cost to be assessed to benefiting
property owners is $647,116.75. The assessments will be charged over a period of ten years at
the rate of 6.5% interest. There are 327 benefiting property owners. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-48.
4. Resolution Directing Publication of the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the
Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007-1.
William Burns, City Manager, said that the Council hearing is set for October 22, 2007. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-49.
5. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed
Assessment for the Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007 — 2.
William Burns, City Manager, stated there are sixty-nine properties that will be included on the
assessment roll. These properties will be assessed for $123,270.37 of the costs associated with
the 2007 mill and overlay proj ect. Assuming that the pro-rated amounts for each property are
not paid up front, they will be assessed over ten years at a 6.5% interest rate. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTIION NO. 2007-50.
6. Resolution Directing Publication of the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the
Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007 — 2.
William Burns, City Manager, stated that the hearing will be held on October 22, 2007. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-51.
7. Resolution in Support of Fridley Independent School District #14 Grant Application for
Election Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities.
William Burns, City Manager, stated that the School District will be applying for $20,454 in
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) money for additional curb cuts, temporary disability parking
signs, automatic door openers, and tables. The improvements are for Hayes and Stevenson
Elementary Schools. Since the City benefits from this grant, we are being asked to provide a
resolution of support. Staff recommends Council's approval.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 PAGE 4
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-52.
8. Resolution designating time and number of Council meetings for 2008.
William Burns, City Manager, stated that the proposed calendar includes formal meetings,
conference meetings, and budget work sessions. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-53.
9. Claims (133471-133664).
APPROVED.
10. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Seconded
by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt tonight's agenda. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS)
Tom Myhra, 6360 Able Street N.E., stated his opinion regarding the water/sewer issue and that
citizens would vote favorably on the issue if they could gain the trust of the City Council. At a
recent Concerned Citizens meeting, the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. They think the
citizens should have an opinion on the Comprehensive Plan. By the time the Comprehensive
Plan was all decided, the citizens had no opportunity to voice their opinion.
Councilmember Bolkcom said there have been several public meetings offered to discuss the
Comprehensive Plan and the meeting dates have been listed on the website, mentioned at
meetings and advertised on cable television and in the City newsletter. The meetings were well
attended in some areas. There are also public hearings to be scheduled to discuss the draft
version of the Comprehensive Plan once all chapters are complete. Any input from citizens that
was gathered at the previous meetings is used for input in developing the chapters in the
Comprehensive Plan.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 PAGE 5
Mr. Myhra said that everyone else sees the Comprehensive Plan before the public does. He
asked how community input on housing forums would be used in the plan if people do not see
the plan before it is written. He shared a time line that he received from a previous meeting and
asked why the meetings were not held.
Mayor Lund said that the time line was from the Community Development Director and the
dates were not specific dates, but dates selected as goals to have certain things completed by. He
added that there will be public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan for citizens to attend.
Councilmember Bolkcom said that many of the scheduled meetings to discuss the plan had a
poor turnout. Only 18 people were in attendance at one meeting, and that included staff and
Council members. They have advertised the meetings, sent out invitations, etc. She asked what
it would take to get people to come to the meetings.
Mr. Myhra answered that people would show up if it was important to them. At the housing
forum meetings there were people there because it is an important issue to the community. He
did not think the Comprehensive Plan would include the concerns of the public.
Councilmember Barnette said that at a corridor study meeting, which included discussion on
housing, the attendance was very poor. He asked why people did not show up at these meetings
if it is so important to them.
Mayor Lund said Council is looking to the citizens for vision on the University Avenue
Corridor and have had four meetings. An advisory committee has offered services free of charge
to help come up with ideas on what to do with this area and all meetings were poorly attended.
Councilmember Varichak said Council and staff are trying to look at ways to generate more
income in Fridley and develop the land so it will be productive.
Mayor Lund said if people want to be involved in the early process of the Comprehensive Plan,
the opportunity is there. The public will get to read the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan
the same time Council does. He added that the comments were premature for distrust on the
Council as there are public hearings to come regarding the plan. This will give the public
adequate time to voice their wants and needs.
Mr. Myhra said that New Brighton has a way of working on their plan that better involves
public input.
Councilmember Bolkcom said that she works for a large company and the Comprehensive Plan
is created much like complex plans in her office. Staff inembers who are knowledgeable in
certain areas draft up policies and procedures, the draft plans are reviewed at meetings, and input
is taken under consideration before the plan is finalized. City staff will write up draft chapters
that relate to their departments. They will then submit them to Council/public for review and
opinion. Any input will be taken into consideration and the chapters will be edited and finalized.
The process is no different than other large companies.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 PAGE 6
Mr. Myhra said a housing maintenance section should be included in the plan.
Councilmember Bolkcom said they have already been working on getting a housing
maintenance code for the City. Council has given that direction to City staff.
Councilmember Saefke said that the City Council did authorize staff to have two interns hired
over the summer to perform surveys on housing maintenance and inspect homes that may be in
violation of city code. This was a proactive way to try and resolve some of the housing issues.
Mayor Lund added that the two summer interns built a case to start a maintenance code. It
would be great to have staff who could oversee the maintenance code on a full time basis but
currently this responsibility is shared between a number of staff. He agreed that the maintenance
code needs to be enforced but funding has not allowed this to happen.
Mr. Myhra said that there is no new development for the city. Council needs to provide staff
with a vision for the City.
Councilmember Bolkcom took offence by the comment that Council has no vision.
Mr. Myhra said that the City Council should direct staff rather than have staff direct Council.
William Burns, City Manager, said that there have been two vision meetings. The results are on
the web site and available to citizens. A lot of material has been collected. A citizen survey was
completed and the results will be drafted in the Plan. There will be public hearings at several
meetings for citizens to attend.
Mayor Lund said that Mr. Eisenzimmer had attended the last Council Meeting and had four
issues. He said that a letter in response to the questions was sent out to Mr. Eisenzimmer and
staff has been to his property to discuss the flooding issues in his back yard.
NEW BUSINESS:
11. Informal Status Report.
Councilmember Bolkcom thanked staff and others involved with the corridor study. It was a
good exchange of information and results will be available for review on the web site.
William Burns, City Manager, said that the citizens survey results will be compiled and
discussed at the October 8 City Council meeting. The results will also be posted on the web site.
The October newsletter will be out the first week in October to residents. He introduced the new
Public Works Director, Jim Kosluchar.
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said he has been in the office for about a week and is
getting to know staff and his way around the office. He is pleased with the operation of the City
and glad to work with a great staff.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 PAGE 7
Mayor Lund announced that this Friday is homecoming at Fridley High School and extra
activities are scheduled prior to the game. This is a fund raising event to benefit the Fridley
School Foundation.
Councilmember Saefke announced that on October 9 there will be a meeting at the Fridley
Community Center at 7:00 p.m. by the League of Women's Voters to answer questions regarding
the charter amendment.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35
P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Krista Monsrud Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30
pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Levin, David Kondrick, Diane Savage, Dean Saba, Leroy Oquist
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brad Dunham
OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Jerry McNurlin, 5936 2nd Street NE
Kari Brown, 8000 W. 78th Street, Edina
Tim Nelson, 7050 W. 120th Avenue, Bloomfield, CO
Scott Lein, 7831 Hickory Street
APPROVE OF MINUTES:
Approval of June 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting minutes
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07- 05, by T-Mobile, to allow the
construction of a communications facility on an existing Xcel transmission tower
(including wireless antennae and equipment), generally located at 200 Commerce
Circle South.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:32 P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, presented a request from Ms. Brown, with KTB Consulting Inc.,
who is representing T-Mobile Central, is requesting a special use permit to allow the
construction of a wireless communication facility on an existing Xcel transmission tower
(including wireless antennae and equipment), which is located on an industrial property owned
by Richard Schlener, located at 200 Commerce Circle South. The property owner has signed
off on the special use permit application and the City has received an e-mail confirmation from
Xcel Energy that allows T-Mobile to located wireless telecommunication equipment on their
tower.
Ms Stromberg stated that the proposed communications facility will consist of attaching
directional panel antennas on the top of the Xcel power tower at 155 ft. above ground and
constructing a group equipment shelter off the southwest corner leg of the tower. All lines will
run up the leg closest to the shelter, which is farthest away from the parking lot and building. T-
Mobile is proposing to install the equipment shelter next to the tower, in a 15 ft. by 20 ft. leased
space. Access to the equipment will be acquired though the existing parking lot.
Ms. Stromberg reviewed the telecommunications act history and in 1996, the federal
government passed a new Telecommunications Act. This act affected wired and wireless
operations of telecommunication services, cable television, open video systems, multi-channel
video distribution, telephone, long distance, data transmission, cellular phone, personal
communication services (PCS), and direct broadcast satellites.
Ms. Stromberg stated that over the past eleven years the number of 75 ft. to 250 ft. mono-pole
towers or lattice-type tower structures has been on the rise in both the metro and rural locations
across the state. The 1996 Telecommunications Act opened the door to a whole new wave of
technology. Communities have been required to recognize and accept the new technology.
Cities do have the ability to control the location of PCS towers, however, cities cannot take a
position of "not in my city."
Ms. Stromberg said that a typical PCS tower might have a 75 ft. to 125 ft. monopole structure.
Ample ground area is generally required to allow the electronic control devices to exist beside
the base of the tower. A fence of some type surrounding the tower and the equipment is
typically required. Some users require very little encroachment on the land, beyond the pole
itself. In this particular case, T-Mobile is proposing to locate on an already existing Xcel
transmission tower, therefore, not taking up additional land area for the pole itself. They will,
however, need a 15 ft. by 20 ft. area for the ground equipment.
Ms. Stromberg said that in December of 1996, the Fridley City Council established a
moratorium temporarily prohibiting the construction of new communication and antennae array.
The moratorium establishment allowed the City to take a comprehensive look at the impact of
the 1996 Telecommunications Act and establish acceptable antennae locations. Wth the
moratorium in place, staff worked with PCS consultants to get a clear understanding of the
technology, issues, and to determine how many antennae locations would likely be required to
service the community.
Ms. Stromberg said that as a result of the analysis, an approved site approach was approved.
The City of Fridley now has a series of approved sites for the installation of wireless
telecommunication facilities. To install a telecommunication tower in an industrially zoned area
not on the "approved site" list, a special use permit must first be obtained.
Ms. Stromberg reviewed the site location and the subject property has a split zoning of M-1,
Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial. The neighboring properties to the north and east are
also zoned Industrial. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks are located to the west
and Community Park is located directly south of the subject property. In 1979, Minncast Inc.,
the current owners of property, constructed a 27,000 square foot building. In 1984, an addition
was constructed to the building.
Ms. Stromberg said that the purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City with a
reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon
the general welfare, public health and safety of the area in which it is located. The special use
permit gives the City the ability to place stipulations on the proposed use to eliminate negative
impacts to surrounding properties. The City also has the right to deny the special use permit
request if impacts to surrounding properties cannot be eliminated through stipulations.
Ms. Stromberg said that as was stated earlier, the petitioner is requesting this special use
permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunications facility on an existing Xcel
transmission tower at 200 Commerce Circle South. The subject property is zoned M-1, Light
Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial. Telecommunication towers and the installation, operation,
and maintenance of Wreless Telecommunications Facilities are allowed in the industrial
districts, but only with a special use permit.
Ms. Stromberg said that the petitioner's Radio Frequency engineers have stated that when
selecting possible locations for wireless telecommunications, they attempt to select a location
that minimizes or limits any negative impacts. That is why; rooftops, existing towers, parks,
water towers, and light pole applications are favored and selected when they meet technical
requirements. When the engineers started their initial search for tower locations, they identified
the existing AT&T tower, which is located at the City Garage, at 400 71St Avenue. City Code
requires that the petitioner prove that a new site is necessary and that usable Approved Sites
are not located within a%2 mile radius of the proposed new site. The AT&T tower is located
approximately .70 miles from the proposed new site. The AT&T tower is also too close to one of
T-Mobile's existing sites, which is on the Fridley water tower on Hwy 65, north of Rice Creek,
and is to far east too the intended coverage area in Fridley. The available height for co-location
on the AT&T tower is below 90 ft., which is too short for the coverage needs of T-Mobile.
Ms. Strom berg said that T-Mobile's Radio Frequency engineers have determined that this
specific location has been selected to maximize coverage at an effective antenna height
requirement, which is 155 ft. Significant deviation from this location will result in reduced
effectiveness. While the City's telecommunication ordinance limits the height of
telecommunications towers to 125 ft., it doesn't reference how high equipment can be placed
upon an existing tower. Therefore, staff has determined that the height of the equipment at 155
ft. on an existing tower is acceptable.
Ms. Stromberg noted that Community Park, south of the subject property is on the list of
"approved telecommunication sites." Locating the telecommunication equipment in the
proposed location will not only preserves park land, but it also avoids the paving of park land to
access a tower and related group equipment that could be constructed within the park.
Ms. Stromberg said that City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as
telecommunication towers, and the installation, operation, and maintenance of Wreless
Telecommunications are a permitted special use in the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy
Industrial zoning districts, subject to the following stipulations.
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility
equipment on this site.
2. A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it
blends into the surrounding environment.
4. A 20' drive aisle around the building shall remain clear of debris and vehicles for fire
equipment access and circulation.
5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry.
6. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this
application.
Chairperson Savage asked if Staff had heard any objectives from neighbors.
Ms. Stromberg answered no.
Commissioner Kondrick asked who was responsible or liable if something happened to
someone when they were installing the equipment or fixing things on the tower.
Ms. Stromberg answered that it was private property so Fridley would not be liable.
Kari Brown, T-mobile, said that they have been working on set up and zoning for this tower for
seven years and she was here to answer any questions. They have been working diligently
with the City of Fridley to meet all zoning and site requirements including 911 service. With this
new site they will be able to provide increased quality and services to their customers. She
thanked the commission for the support of their application. She also clarified that all
maintenance on the tower would be completed by Xcel.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if Ms. Brown had any problems with the stipulations.
Ms. Brown answered no.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07-
05, by T-Mobile, to allow the construction of a communications facility on an existing Xcel
transmission tower (including wireless antennae and equipment), generally located at 200
Commerce Circle South with the stipulations listed below. Seconded by Commissioner
Kondrick.
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility
equipment on this site.
2. A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it
blends into the surrounding environment.
4. A 20' drive aisle around the building shall remain clear of debris and vehicles for fire
equipment access and circulation.
5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry.
6. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this
application.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07- 06, by Global Health Ministries, to
allow limited outdoor storage on the property, legally described as Block 3 Onaway,
subject to easement of record, generally located at 7831 Hickory Street NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:46 P.M.
Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated that the following presentation is different than the one
that was submitted with the mailing. The petitioner, Global Health Ministries, is seeking a
special use permit to allow limited outdoor storage at their non-profit business, which is located
at 7831 Hickory Street NE. The petitioner was originally requesting to store medical supplies
and equipment in five shipping containers located along the alley on their eastern property line,
but amended their request yesterday.
Ms. Jones stated that the building was constructed in 1979 as a warehouse. The original
building has been altered internally twice since the original construction, including in 1995, when
Global Health Ministries (GHM) moved into the building. The building is zoned S-3, Heavy
Industrial, Onaway District. GHM is located on the corner of 78th Avenue and Hickory Street.
Currently, the site contains a 16,600 square foot building. There are several driveways into the
site, in addition to their access off the alley. As of yesterday, GHM reduced their number of
storage containers to three (2-40 yards and 1-20 yard). These containers are located along the
alley on the eastern portion of their site.
Ms. Jones stated that City Code allows up to 50% of the principal buildings footprint of limited
outdoor storage in the industrial districts with a special use permit. The petitioner's principal
building is approximately 16,600 square feet, which would allow 8,300 square feet of outdoor
storage. The petitioner is proposing to store two containers (each 40 feet long) that would
consume approximately 1,400 square feet of space on the back side of the building. The
requirements for limited outdoor storage is as follows:
■ Height — Containers meet 12' height limit
■ Screening — Containers need to be screened from view of the alley
■ Parking — 22 required parking stalls will remain
■ Types of materials allowed to be stored appear to be acceptable but need to be
inspected
Ms. Jones said that City Staff recommends approval of SP# 07-06 with stipulations because
this provides the best possible screening from alley (public right-of-way) and containers are self
screening. The site plan also still provides for the required minimum number of parking stalls.
Ms. Jones said that if this special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached:
1. The shipping containers on site shall be screened form view of the street on both the
north and south side of the shipping containers.
2. No additional storage containers (no more than two 40' long) may be stored on the site.
3. No materials or equipments except that which is contained inside the shipping
containers shall be stored outside either within or outside of the designated outside
storage area on this site.
4. Outdoor storage containers to be inspected and contents approved for outside storage
by the Fire Marshall.
5. Existing storage containers on the site shall be maintained with a sound painted surface,
free of rust or corrosion and be removed at least once per year. Semi-trucks and trailers
shall not be permitted for storage purposes on the property.
6. No outdoor storage may occur other than the storage of items used specifically for the
mission of Global Health Ministries.
Commissioner Oquist asked how often the containers would need to be inspected because
the material content stored could change from time to time.
Ms. Jones said that the actual inspection by the Fire Marshall would be done now and she
suspects the Fire Marshall periodically does inspections on this site.
Commissioner Oquist asked for clarification on the number of containers on site that they
cannot exceed 2-40' containers but could be less than that.
Ms. Jones answered that is correct.
Commissioner Kondrick asked what type of manufactured goods will be stored in the
containers and if any of the product was flammable or hazardous material.
Ms. Jones answered that the application references medical supplies such as gloves, needles,
syringes; medical furniture, x-ray machines, hospital beds, mattresses, computers etc.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if any chemicals will be stored in the containers.
Ms. Jones answered no and that the containers would be locked.
Scott Lein, Director of Operations for Global Health Ministries, said that he worked with Ms.
Jones to revise the plan and try to articulate the needs of GHM. GHM is a non profit agency
trying to enhance healthcare programs with Lutheran Social Services overseas by collecting
medical supply donations and shipping them overseas. Volunteers from local churches sort, fix
and check items before they are shipped out. The outside storage is needed because
sometimes very large donations are received, such as hospital beds, and extra space is needed
to store the donation before it can be shipped out. The outside storage would offer a flexible
way to handle large donations. The contents in the containers would be nothing flammable.
Occasionally they get a disinfectant solution, iodine, donated but in limited quantities.
Chairperson Savage asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations.
Mr. Lein answered no, that two containers on site would be wonderful and provides a temporary
solution for large donations. He did have a concern with the screening and hoped the proposal
they presented would be accepted. The screening may impact the driver to work in such a tight
location when backing up the containers.
Chairperson Savage asked if the petitioner understood by granting this special use permit, he
would need to follow the stipulations.
Mr. Lein said he thought the revised stipulations would be okay. It will cost to install the fence
but they will abide. He was uncertain the parking requirement code of 22 stalls was necessary
when they only have six staff people. There are volunteers coming in to stop a few hours here
and there but he thought 22 stall was a lot for his business. They will abide by the stipulations.
Commissioner Kondrick asked the petitioner if he was in agreement to have a maximum of
two containers not three.
Mr. Lein said yes.
Commissioner Velin asked how often the containers were shipped out.
Mr. Lein answered about every three weeks.
Commissioner Velin was not concerned about screening the containers. He said they are not
stored in a residential area and did not think the screening was necessary because the product
would be inside the containers and not out in the open.
Jim Glaser, 16 NE Rice Creek Way, said he has been a volunteer with Global Health Ministries
and has witnessed staff bringing in the large hospital beds and equipment into the warehouse.
He said that with having to move the equipment around the warehouse, a lot of times it gets
damaged. All of these donations are valuable and are needed. Once the donations are re-
certified and able to be stored in the containers it would prevent damage from happening until
they are shipped out. This company is doing a good service. He was also concerned with the
screening fence. The drivers are volunteers and it could be difficult to back into the area when
the screening is installed. They will comply with the stipulations but the fence will make things
difficult.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M.
Commissioner Saba said that he didn't think the screening was necessary. This is a non-
residential neighborhood and a special situation. These people are doing something good by
recycling these items; these donated items could end up in a landfill.
Commissioner Savage said that she appreciated that they worked with staff to make changes
to the original plan but she did not agree to waive the screening. If we waived the screening, we
would create a dangerous precedence for outdoor storage and if they are willing to do a partial
screen, she is in favor of the proposal.
Commissioner Kondrick agreed with Commissioner Savage. The screening may be a
challenge but the screening would be more eye appealing. He was in favor with the screening.
Commissioner Oquist asked about the parking and if people parked in the driveways it would
be an issue for emergency vehicles.
Ms. Jones answered that the main driveway would remain open for access to the building, so
parking in the other areas would not be a problem.
Commissioner Saba said he again was in favor of no screening because the containers were
self-screening.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07-
06, by Global Health Ministries, to allow limited outdoor storage on the property, legally
described as Block 3 Onaway, subject to easement of record, generally located at 7831 Hickory
Street NE and waive stipulation number one, the screening requirement. Seconded by
Commissioner Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONER SABA AND COMMISSIONER VELIN VOTING AYE,
COMMISSIONER KONDRICK, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE AND COMMISSIONER OQUIST
VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION DENIED ON A 2/3
VOTE.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to approve the consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP
#07-06, by Global Health Ministries, to allow limited outdoor storage on the property, legally
described as Block 3 Onaway, subject to easement of record, generally located at 7831 Hickory
Street NE with the stipulations as listed below. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
1. The shipping containers on site shall be screened form view of the street on both the
north and south side of the shipping containers.
2. No additional storage containers (no more than two 40' long) may be stored on the site.
3. No materials or equipments except that which is contained inside the shipping
containers shall be stored outside either within or outside of the designated outside
storage area on this site.
4. Outdoor storage containers to be inspected and contents approved for outside storage
by the Fire Marshall.
5. Existing storage containers on the site shall be maintained with a sound painted surface,
free of rust or corrosion and be removed at least once per year. Semi-trucks and trailers
shall not be permitted for storage purposes on the property.
6. No outdoor storage may occur other than the storage of items used specifically for the
mission of Global Health Ministries.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONER KONDRICK, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE AND
COMMISSIONER OQUIST VOTING AYE, COMMISSIONER SABA AND COMMISSIONER
VELIN VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A
3/2 VOTE.
3. Consideration of a rezoning, ZOA 07- 02, by Timothy Nelson, to rezone the property
from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to M-2, Heavy Industrial, generally located at the SW
Corner of 61St Avenue and Main Street NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:23 P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated that Timothy Nelson, who is representing Main Street
Properties, LLC, is requesting to rezone the property on the southwest corner of 61St Avenue
and Main Street, from M-4, Manufacturing Only to M-2, Heavy Industrial. The petitioner has
submitted a site plan for the subject property which depicts two industrial buildings. The
building on the north section of the lots is proposed to be 47,653 square feet. The building on
the south section of the lots is proposed to be 102,907 square feet in size. The petitioner hasn't
identified to staff if the there is a user for the buildings or what the building will be used for;
however both of the buildings appear to be typed for warehouse.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the subject property actually consists of three separate parcels that
are adjacent to one another, totaling 11.52 acres. The property has never been developed,
and therefore has remained vacant. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of
61St Avenue and Main Street, west of University Avenue. Residential properties border the
property to the north and east, with the railroad bordering the property to the west and an
industrial use to the south.
Ms. Stromberg reviewed that in 1997, the City of Fridley changed the zoning of the subject
parcels from M-2, Heavy Industrial to M-4, Manufacturing Only. Part of the purpose of the
rezoning was to assure that the remaining industrial parcels in the City were preserved for
manufacturing, thereby protecting surrounding neighborhoods and roadways from heavy truck
traffic, which is common to industrial warehouse developments. They were also rezoned to help
assure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Stromberg said that at the time of the rezoning, the City had experienced over 500,000
square feet of industrial warehouse growth in the industrial districts within eighteen months. As
a result, there were many complaints and concerns about the truck traffic on residential streets
and the additional noise the trucks brought. There are several areas in the City where industrial
districts are located directly across the street from residential districts, this being the case with
the subject property. Warehouse distribution facilities can cause adverse impacts because of
the amount of truck traffic entering and exiting the site throughout the course of the day.
Ms. Stromberg said that of the City's 1,148 acres of industrially-zoned land in 1997, there was
only 89.79 acres which were vacant (7.8%). There had been about a 4.5% decline in the
amount of industrial land acreage since 1979. Examples of this loss were related to the
development of Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, and Home Depots parcels being rezoned from an
industrial use to a commercial use. As a result the City was being proactive and felt that is was
appropriate to analyze the remaining industrial parcels within the City to determine the best use.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the goals the City hoped to achieve as a result of the adoption of the
M-4, Manufacturing Only zoning district, included:
1. To reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties
and residential streets from truck traffic by first controlling the location of these facilities
in the City and by implementing site design controls.
2. To encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities which require
more complex building systems. Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher
building valuation than warehouse construction.
3. To promote clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside
operations, which may cause noise.
4. To eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage.
Ms. Stromberg said that the above goals emphasize why the subject property was rezoned in
1997, and those goals still apply today as it relates to the property. The City currently has
approximately 48 acres of undeveloped industrial land yet to be developed. Preserving those
remaining, M-4, Manufacturing Only, parcels is essential for the City to allow for economic
development. Warehouse/distribution facilities provide few opportunities to maximize job
creation and building valuation. The building construction is very simple (a "big box") and tends
to have a lower valuation than a manufacturing use which has a more complex building system
with office space, manufacturing and processing areas, services areas for employees and
storage areas.
Ms. Stromberg said the existing M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts
allow for warehouse buildings, which the City already has an abundance of. The petitioner is
proposing to construct two typical "big box" type office/warehouse buildings; which wouldn't
achieve the goals the City strived to reach in rezoning the property in 1997. Building height, the
number of dock doors for trucking and the overall building layout demonstrate a desire on the
petitioner's part to construct a multi-tenant warehouse facility. It is important for the City to find
a healthy balance between economic development and minimizing the impacts industrial
developments have on adjacent residential properties. Since, the subject property is adjacent to
residential to the north and east, it is vital to ensure that the new use is compatible with the
neighborhood and meets the needs of the City.
Ms. Stromberg said that City Staff recommends denial of this rezoning request because the
proposed rezoning goes against the goals the City established when rezoning the subject
properties to M-4, Manufacturing Only in 1997 and those goals still apply today.
Ms. Stromberg said that City staff recommends denial; however, if the rezoning is approved,
staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached.
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permits prior to the start of construction.
2. The petitioner shall pay for the plan review portion of the building permit fee at the time
of building permit application.
3. Petitioner to meet all Building and Fire Code and ADA requirements.
4. Petitioner shall submit plans to Anoka County Highway Department and receive their
approval on access and any work done within the county right-of-way.
5. The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan and receive City engineering staff approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. Petitioner shall ensure that ponding area meets size requirements for the proposed
development.
7. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and
management.
8. Petitioner shall ensure that the proposed development meets the Watershed District
regulations.
9. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
10. Petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building
permit.
11. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to
accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other
improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County or the City.
12. Petitioner shall combine the three parcels into one parcel prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Tim Nelson, Main Street Properties, said that the application speaks for itself. He opposed the
recommendation for denial. The traffic would be less of an impact than the M4 use and the
importance to save this site for a manufacturing site in Fridley is a false statement. The city had
extensive public support for a rail station, which will also create more traffic than industry traffic.
Jerry McNurdin, 5936 2nd St. NW said that he was happy with the denial of this request. He is
concerned with the heavy industrial traffic in the area. He thought that the rezoning in 1997 was
excellent and it allows properties to be developed that do not bother residential properties.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Kondrick.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:37 P.M.
Commissioner Oquist agreed with the denial of this item. The truck traffic vs. car traffic is a
big difference.
Commissioner Saba agreed and stated that it was too close to residential property.
Commissioner Velin said that with the 12 stipulations it would be hard to get this operation
started. This is an opportunity to employ people in Fridley, which would have a positive impact
on our economy. He said the property has been vacant for 43 years and this would create jobs
for people.
Commissioner Kondrick agreed that the property had not been built on in a long time, but it is
across the street from residential property. He said he would agree with staff and deny this
request.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to deny the consideration of a rezoning, ZOA 07-02, by
Timothy Nelson, to rezone the property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to M-2, Heavy Industrial,
generally located at the SW Corner of 61St Avenue and Main Street NE for the reasons
presented by staff. Seconded by Councilmember Kondrick.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COMMISSIONER SABA, COMMISSIONER KONDRICK,
CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE AND COMMISSIONER OQUIST VOTING AYE AND
COMMISSIONER VELIN VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED ON A 4/1 VOTE.
4. Receive the minutes of the May 8, 2007, Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Levin to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5. Receive the minutes of the April 5, 2007, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6. Receive the minutes of the June 7, 2007, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
7. Receive the minutes of the May 7, 2007, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
OTHER BUSINESS:
Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, said that the car wash remodel that was submitted a while
back is in the demolition process. Also staff is working to wrap up the chapters on the
Comprehensive Plan. The first meeting to discuss this is anticipated to be held on November 7,
2007.
Commissioner Kondrick asked how the meetings for the Comprehensive Plan are being
advertised.
Julie Jones, Planning Manager, said that it has been advertised on the cable channel and city
newsletters. The public hearing is anticipated to be held on November 7, 2007.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that the Quarterly Housing Initiative will
have their final meeting tomorrow night at the Community Center from 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. This
should be a good meeting and very productive. It will pull together all the ideas that were
suggested and make recommendations to the HRA for the future of University Avenue (between
57th and 61 St)
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Krista Monsrud
Recording Secretary
�
�
CR7 �F
FRIOLEY
Date
To:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
October 2, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-05, T-Mobile
M-07-26
INTRODUCTION
Ms. Brown, with KTB Consulting Inc., who is representing T-Mobile Central, is requesting a
special use permit to allow the construction of a wireless communication facility on an existing
Xcel transmission tower (including wireless antennae and equipment), which is located on an
industrial property owned by Richard Schlener, located at 200 Commerce Circle South. The
property owner has signed off on the special use permit application and the City has received
an e-mail confirmation from Xcel Energy that allows T-Mobile to located wireless
telecommunication equipment on their tower.
The proposed communications facility will consist of attaching directional panel antennas on the
top of the Xcel power tower at 155 ft. above ground and constructing a group equipment shelter
off the southwest corner leg of the tower. All lines will run up the leg closest to the shelter,
which is farthest away from the parking lot and building. T-Mobile is proposing to install the
equipment shelter next to the tower, in a 15 ft. by 20 ft. leased space. Access to the equipment
will be acquired though the existing parking lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the September 19, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP
#07-05. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP #07-
05, with the stipulations as presented.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
STIPULATIONS
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility
equipment on this site.
2. A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it
blends into the surrounding environment.
4. A 20' drive aisle around the building shall remain clear of debris and vehicles for fire
equipment access and circulation.
5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry.
6. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this
application.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
SP #07-05 September 19, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
T-Mobile Central
8000 W 78th Street, Suite 400
Edina MN 55439
Requested Action:
Special Use Permit to allow a
communications facility on an existing
Xcel transmission tower.
Existing Zoning:
M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy
Industrial
Location:
200 Commerce Circle South
Size:
3.1 acres 136,017 sq. ft.
Existing Land Use:
Minncast Inc. — Industrial tenant
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Industrial & M-1 and M-2
E: Industrial Bldg & M-1
S: Community Park & P
W: Railroad tracks & RR
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.18.01.C.(7) requires a special
use permit to allow telecommunication
towers and wireless
telecommunications.
Zoning History:
1979 — Lot is platted.
1979 — Building constructed.
1984 — Addition to buildina.
Legal Description of Property:
Lot 9 and 10, Block 1, Paco Industrial
Park
Public Utilities:
Property is connected.
Transportation:
Comcerce Circle West and South
provide access to the property.
Physical Characteristics:
Lot consists of the building, parking lot,
hardsurface areas with little
landscaping.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Ms. Brown, with KTB Consulting, Inc., who
represents T-Mobile Central, is requesting a
special use permit to allow the construction of a
wireless communication facility on an existing
Xcel transmission tower, which will include
wireless antennae and equipment, at the
industrial property located at 200 Commerce
Circle South.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this special
use permit.
City Staff recommends approval of this special
use permit request as telecommunications
facilities with the corresponding equipment are
a permitted special use in the M-1, Light
Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial District,
subject to stipulations.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE
City Council — October 8, 2007
60 Day — October 15, 2007
Existina Xcel Transmission Tower
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
SP #07-05
REQUEST
Ms. Brown, with KTB Consulting Inc., who is representing T-Mobile Central, is requesting a
special use permit to allow the construction of a wireless communication facility on an existing
Xcel transmission tower (including wireless antennae and equipment), which is located on an
industrial property owned by Richard Schlener, located at 200 Commerce Circle South. The
property owner has signed off on the special use permit application and the City has received
an e-mail confirmation from Xcel Energy that allows T-Mobile to located wireless
telecommunication equipment on their tower.
The proposed communications facility will consist of attaching directional panel antennas on the
top of the Xcel power tower at 155 ft. above ground and constructing a group equipment shelter
off the southwest corner leg of the tower. All lines will run up the leg closest to the shelter,
which is farthest away from the parking lot and building. T-Mobile is proposing to install the
equipment shelter next to the tower, in a 15 ft. by 20 ft. leased space. Access to the equipment
will be acquired though the existing parking lot.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT HISTORY
In 1996, the federal government passed a new Telecommunications Act. This act affected
wired and wireless operations of telecommunication services, cable television, open video
systems, multi-channel video distribution, telephone, long distance, data transmission, cellular
phone, personal communication services (PCS), and direct broadcast satellites.
Over the past eleven years the number of 75 ft. to 250 ft. mono-pole towers or lattice-type tower
structures has been on the rise in both the metro and rural locations across the state. The 1996
Telecommunications Act opened the door to a whole new wave of technology. Communities
have been required to recognize and accept the new technology. Cities do have the ability to
control the location of PCS towers, however, cities cannot take a position of "not in my city."
A typical PCS tower may have a 75 ft. to 125 ft. mono-pole structure. Ample ground area is
generally required to allow the electronic control devices to exist beside the base of the tower.
A fence of some type surrounding the tower and the equipment is typically required. Some
users require very little encroachment on the land, beyond the pole itself. In this particular case,
T-Mobile is proposing to locate on an already existing Xcel transmission tower, therefore, not
taking up additional land area for the pole itself. They will, however, need a 15 ft. by 20 ft. area
for the ground equipment.
TELECOMMUNICATION ACT'S IMPACT ON FRIDLEY
In December of 1996, the Fridley City Council established a moratorium temporarily prohibiting
the construction of new communication and antennae array. The moratorium establishment
allowed the City to take a comprehensive look at the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act and establish acceptable antennae locations. Wth the moratorium in place, staff worked
with PCS consultants to get a clear understanding of the technology, issues, and to determine
how many antennae locations would likely be required to service the community.
As a result of the analysis, an approved site approach was approved. The City of Fridley now
has a series of approved sites for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities. To
install a telecommunication tower in an industrially zoned area not on the "approved site" list, a
special use permit must first be obtained.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property has a split zoning of M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial. The
neighboring properties to the north and east are also zoned Industrial. The Burlington Northern
Santa Fe railroad tracks are located to the west and Community Park is located directly south of
the subject property. In 1979, Minncast � ' �
Inc., the current owners of property,
constructed a 27,000 square foot — �� ��!�rE
building. In 1984, an addition was �
constructed to the building. ����� ' � ����
SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS
The purpose of a special use permit is
to provide the City with a reasonable
degree of discretion in determining the
suitability of certain designated uses
upon the general welfare, public health
and safety of the area in which it is
located. The special use permit gives
the City the ability to place stipulations
on the proposed use to eliminate
negative impacts to surrounding
properties. The City also has the right
to deny the special use permit request if
impacts to surrounding properties
cannot be eliminated through stipulations.
.., ., r.., .. �.
..1'r». :{'...
�_ �y
`k. ��`� �.
As was stated earlier, the petitioner is requesting this special use permit to allow the
construction of a new telecommunications facility on an existing Xcel transmission tower at 200
Commerce Circle South. The subject property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy
Industrial. Telecommunication towers and the installation, operation, and maintenance of
Wreless Telecommunications Facilities are allowed in the industrial districts, but only with a
special use permit.
Site Selection – The petitioner's Radio Frequency engineers have stated that when selecting
possible locations for wireless telecommunications, they attempt to select a location that
minimizes or limits any negative impacts. That is why; rooftops, existing towers, parks, water
towers, and light pole applications are favored and selected when they meet technical
requirements. When the engineers started their initial search for tower locations, they identified
the existing AT&T tower, which is located at the City Garage, at 400 71St Avenue. City Code
requires that the petitioner prove that a new site is necessary and that usable Approved Sites
are not located within a%2 mile radius of the proposed new site. The AT&T tower is located
approximately .70 miles from the proposed new site. The AT&T tower is also too close to one of
T-Mobile's existing sites, which is on the Fridley water tower on Hwy 65, north of Rice Creek,
and is to far east too the intended coverage area in Fridley. The available height for co-location
on the AT&T tower is below 90 ft., which is too short for the coverage needs of T-Mobile.
T-Mobile's Radio Frequency engineers have determined that this specific location has been
selected to maximize coverage at an effective antenna height requirement, which is 155 ft.
Significant deviation from this location will result in reduced effectiveness. While the City's
telecommunication ordinance limits the height of telecommunications towers to 125 ft., it doesn't
reference how high equipment can be placed upon an existing tower. Therefore, staff has
determined that the height of the equipment at 155 ft. on an existing tower is acceptable.
It should also be noted that Community Park, south of the subject property is on the list of
"approved telecommunication sites." Locating the telecommunication equipment in the
proposed location will not only preserves park land, but it also avoids the paving of park land to
access a tower and related group equipment that could be constructed within the park.
Subject Propert
and Existing
Location of Xce
tower
Aerial of Subject Property
at
arage
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as telecommunication
towers, and the installation, operation, and maintenance of Wireless Telecommunications are a
permitted special use in the M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts,
subject to stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be
attached.
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of installation of any facility
equipment on this site.
2. A landscape and screening plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. The petitioner or successors shall install and maintain the proposed equipment so that it
blends into the surrounding environment.
4. A 20' drive aisle around the building shall remain clear of debris and vehicles for fire
equipment access and circulation.
5. The facility shall be designed to discourage unauthorized entry.
6. No signs other than warning or equipment information signs are permitted as part of this
application.
�
�
CfTY OF
FRIaLE'f
To:
From:
Subj ect:
Date:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
October 8, 2007
William B. Burns, City Manager
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the Special Municipal Election
November 20, 2007
October 4, 2007
The attached resolution appoints election judges for the 2007 special municipal election. The
election judges are being appointed without precinct assignments at this time to allow the city more
fle�bility in determining precinct assignments. Election judges received training in 2006 which
qualified them to serve a two year term as an election judge. The election judges being appointed
have been selected due to their 2006 training and from their previous work as election judges.
Staff recommends a motion adopting a resolution appointing election judges for the special
municipal election November 20, 2007
RESOLUTION NO. - 2007
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION NOVEMBER 20, 2007
NOW, TI�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County,
Minnesota, at a regular meeting on October 8, 2007:
SECTION 1
SECTION 2.
That on the 20"' day of November 2007, there shall be a Special Municipal Election:
That the polling place will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of voting:
SECTION 3: That the following people are hereby appointed to act as Judges for said election except that
the City Clerk is hereby authorized to appoint qualified substitutes as set forth in Chapter 4, Section 4.05 of
the City Charter:
Mary Ackerman
Jerold Bahls
Stanley Berquist
Rita Binkowski
Margaret Blasingame
Betty Bonine
Wilbert Bonine
Bernadette Bovy
Marilyn Brick
Barbara Brooks
Carol Bunnell
Casimir Burzynski
Kathleen Burzynski
Robert Bussey
JoAnn Cedarholm
Molly Christian
Jean Coyle
MaYine Daiiuiien
Julann Delaney
Patricia Dufresne
Jill Dutcher
Harold Dwire
Sharty Elias
Arlene Ewer
Donald Findell
Marguerite Gilbert
Delores Ginthner
Lana Joy Glaser
James Glaser
Lynne Grigor
Rosalie Halling
Gretchen Hanson
Suzanne Holm
William Holm
Carolyn Holmen
James Holmen
Robert Hosman
Teresa Hub
Bonita Johnson
Rosematy Johnson
David Johnson
Carol Kalan
Irma Kelly
Colleen Joy Kennedy
Mary Kirkwood
Esther Kisch
Dirk Klick
Arvilla Kobernusz
Ruby Koenen
Debbie Koenen
Marlys Kran�
Ted Kranz
Patrick Kugmeh
Thea Langseth
Jewel Larson
Judy Lennox
Joan Leonard
Karen Leske
Jeanette Lindquist
Dorothy Linse
Natalie Lohmer
Marian Luke
Giles McConville
JoAnne McConville
Christopher Menon
Connie Metcalf
Bruce Miller
Jeri Miller
Myrtle Morphew
Marie Nelsen
Richard Nelson
Donna Nordin
Donna Novak
Margaret Oelschlager
Shirley O'Neill
Marge Otten
Eugene Ouellette
Dorothy Pehl
Leslie Phiiiuiier
Peggy Price
Norma Rust
Noel Ryan
Beverly Sax
Carol Schaaf
Constance Schindel
Lois Scholzen
Marlene Schonebaum
Tom Schonebaum
Judy Schultz
Mary Ann Smerud
Richard Smith
Jon Soule
Kathy Svanda
Janet Swanson
Joanne Toews
Barbara Tollakson
Gerald Tollakson
Lois Tollefson
Eric Torkkola
Judith Veres
Jackie Walther
John Walther
Delores Weaver
Joe Westenfield
Marliss Westenfield
Ann Williams
Thomas Winn
Jane Wisniewski
Edward Wood
Maureen Zgutowicz
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 4. Compensation for said Judges will be paid at the rate of $8.75 per hour for regular
Judges and $925 for the Chairperson ofthe Election Board.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TI� CITY COUNCIL OF TI� CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 8� DAY
OF OCTOBER 2007.
SCOTT J. LUND, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN, CITY CLERK
�
�
CfTY OF
FRIaLE'f
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
October 8, 2007
William W. Burns, City Manager
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
September 26, 2007
Fridley VFW Post 363 - Charitable Gambling Premise Permit Renewal
Section 30 of the Fridley City Code allows Lawful Gambling by a licensed organization. The
Fridley VFW is currently conducting charitable gambling on their premises located at 1040
Osborne Road. Their Charitable Gambling Premise Permit will expire on February 28, 2006.
The renewal application requires a resolution from the City Council approving the renewal
If approved, the premise permit would become effective March 1, 2008 and expire February 28,
2010. Please find a resolution for the renewal premise permit. Staff recommends approval of the
premise permit renewal by adoption of the attached resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL
GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT FOR FRIDLEY VFW, POST 363
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been served with a copy of an Application for a Minnesota
Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for the Fridley VFW, Post 363, and
WHEREAS, the location of the Premise Permit is for their premises located at 1040 Osborne Road
and will be effective March 1, 2008 and expire to February 28, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has found no reason to restrict the location for the charitable
gambling operation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley approves the
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Application for the Fridley VFW Post 363 on their
premises located at 1040 Osborne Road.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS lOTx
DAY OF OCTOBER 2007.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
William W. Burns, City Manager
James P. Kosluchar, Director of Public Works
Layne R. Otteson, Assistant Public Works Director
October 8, 2007
2007 Mill and Overlay Proj ect - Change Order No. 1
Attached is Change Order No. 1 for the 2007 Mill and Overlay Proj ect No. ST. 2007-2.
PW07-O51
Items 1 - 2
The Contractor milled and overlayed additional pavement at two (2) intersections. The intersection of 61st
Avenue and 7th Street and the intersection of 53rd Avenue and 7th Street had approaches which were extremely
rough. This work had previously been discussed by the Council and was anticipated to be added as a change
order. This work resulted in an additional quantity of milling and asphalt paving. The additional cost for this
work is $2,967.70.
Item 3 - 4
Some pavement marking were not included with the construction plans. The Contractor installed the 24" wide
stop line at the intersections and the 3' x 6' crosswalk blocks at the pedestrian cross walk locations. The
additional cost for this work is $10,842.00.
Item 5
The Contractor found several gate valve risers needing adjustment. The additional cost for this work is $450.00.
Also, Water Department personnel replaced several damaged valve risers rather having the contractor perform
the work.
Item 6
The Contractor placed a total of 3579.53 tons of hot-mix asphalt, which is 720.47 tons less than the estimate.
Staff typically adds 15% to the calculated quantity for irregularities in the milled pavement surface to prevent
quantity overruns. The result is a cost reduction of $30,980.21 to reflect actual contract quantity.
There has been no change in contract time.
Recommend the City Council approve Change Order #1 to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of
$-16,720.51. The revised contract amount is now decreased to $271,125.29.
JPK
Attachments
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.
FRIDLEY, MN 55432
Northwest Asphalt, Inc.
145 Stagecoach Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 for the 2007 Mill and Overlay No. ST2007-2
Gentlemen:
October 8, 2007
You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the 2007 Mill and Overlay Project
No. ST2007-2 by adding the following work:
Item No. Item Description Cost
1 Milling additional area of 3 lane approaches (at intersections). $452.20
2 Pave additional area of 3 lane approaches (at intersections). $2,515.50
3 Install 212 lineal feet of white 24" stop line (poly preform) $3,498.00
4 Install 864 square feet of white crosswalk $7,344.00
5 Adjust gate valve risers. $450.00
6 Reduction in paving quantities. $(30,980.21)
Total $�16,720.51)
Submitted and approved by James Kosluchar, Director of Public Works, on the 8h day of October, 2007.
James P. Koslucher, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Page 2 of 2
Approved and accepted this day of , 2007_by
Northwest Asphalt, Inc.
Approved and accepted this day of , 2007 by
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
Wlliam W. Burns, City Manager
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
CfTY flF
FRIaLE'f
CLAIMS
133667 -133867
�
�
CfTY flF
FRIaLE'f
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
LICENSES
Type of License Applicant Approved By:
Message Therapy
Deanna Peterson Hawkins
Mona J. Wigen
Patio Endorsement
Shaddrick and Lebeau Fridley Madeline Saltness
American Legion Post #303
Police Department
City Clerk
Police Department
City Clerk
Inspections Department
Planning Department
Police Department
Fire Department
City Clerk
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
°'�°F LICENSES
FRIaLE'f
�
�
CfTY flF
FRIaLE'f
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
ESTI MATES
Northwest Asphalt
1451 Stagecoach Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
2007 Mill and Overlay Project No. ST. 2007-2
EstimateNo. 1 .......................................................................................
Forest Lake Contracting
14777 Lake Drive
Forest Lake, MN 55025
$ 254,810.87
2007 Street Improvement Proj ect No. ST. 2007-1
Estimate No. 6 ............................................................................................. $ 229,647.01
�
�
CR7 �F
FRIOLEY
Date
To:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
October 2, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Public Hearing for Rezoning Request, ZOA #07-02, by Timothy Nelson
INTRODUCTION
Timothy Nelson, who is representing Main Street
Properties, LLC, is requesting to rezone the property on
the southwest corner of 61St Avenue and Main Street, from
M-4, Manufacturing Only to M-2, Heavy Industrial.
The petitioner has submitted a site plan for the subject
property which depicts two industrial buildings. The
building on the north section of the lots is proposed to be
47,653 square feet. The building on the south section of
the lots is proposed to be 102,907 square feet in size.
The petitioner hasn't identified to staff if the there is a user
for the buildings or what the building will be used for;
however both of the buildings appear to be typed for
warehouse.
M-07-27
Cross-hatched area proposed to be
rezoned
In 1997, the City of Fridley changed the zoning of the subject parcels from M-2, Heavy Industrial
to M-4, Manufacturing Only. Part of the purpose of the rezoning was to assure that the
remaining industrial parcels in the City were preserved for manufacturing, thereby protecting
surrounding neighborhoods and roadways from heavy truck traffic, which is common to
industrial warehouse developments. They were also rezoned to help assure compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood.
The goals the City hoped to achieve as a result of the adoption of the M-4, Manufacturing Only
zoning district, included:
1. To reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties
and residential streets from truck traffic by first controlling the location of these
facilities in the City and by implementing site design controls.
2. To encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities which
require more complex building systems. Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to
have higher building valuation than warehouse construction.
3. To promote clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside
operations which may cause noise.
4. To eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage.
The above goals emphasize why the subject property was rezoned in 1997, and those goals still
apply today as it relates to the property. The City currently has approximately 48 acres of
undeveloped industrial land yet to be developed. Preserving those remaining, M-4,
Manufacturing Only, parcels is essential for the City to allow for economic development.
Warehouse/distribution facilities provide few opportunities to maximize job creation and building
valuation. The building construction is very simple (a "big box") and tends to have a lower
valuation than a manufacturing use which has a more complex building system with office
space, manufacturing and processing areas, services areas for employees and storage areas.
The existing M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts allow for warehouse
buildings, which the City already has an abundance of. The petitioner is proposing to
construct two typical "big box" type office/warehouse buildings; which wouldn't achieve the
goals the City strived to reach in rezoning the property in 1997. Building height, the number of
dock doors for trucking and the overall building layout demonstrate a desire on the petitioner's
part to construct a multi-tenant warehouse facility. It is important for the City to find a healthy
balance between economic development and minimizing the impacts industrial developments
have on adjacent residential properties. Since, the subject property is adjacent to residential to
the north and east, it is vital to ensure that the new use is compatible with the neighborhood and
meets the needs of the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the September 19, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for ZOA
#07-02. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended denial of rezoning
request, ZOA #07-02.
THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission and that the City Council
hold a public hearing for Rezoning Request, ZOA #07-02.
STIPULATIONS
City staff recommends denial; however, if the City Council elects to approve the rezoning, staff
recommends that the following stipulations be attached.
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permits prior to the start of construction.
2. The petitioner shall pay for the plan review portion of the building permit fee at the time
of building permit application.
3. Petitioner to meet all Building and Fire Code and ADA requirements.
4. Petitioner shall submit plans to Anoka County Highway Department and receive their
approval on access and any work done within the county right-of-way.
5. The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan and receive City engineering staff approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. Petitioner shall ensure that ponding area meets size requirements for the proposed
development.
7. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and
management.
8. Petitioner shall ensure that the proposed development meets the Watershed District
regulations.
9. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
10. Petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building
permit.
11. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to
accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other
improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County or the City.
12. Petitioner shall combine the three parcels into one parcel prior to issuance of a building
permit.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
ZOA #07-02 September 19, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Timothy J. Nelson
7050 W. 120th Ave, Suite 115
Broomfield CO 80020
Requested Action:
Rezone property from M-4 to M-2.
Existing Zoning:
M-4, Manufacturing Only
Location:
Southwest corner of 61St Avenue and
Main Street
Size:
11.521 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family & R-1
E: Single Family & Multi-Family & S-1
S: Community Park & M-2
W: Railroad tracks & RR
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Future Land Use Map - Designates it as
Redevelopment
Zoning History:
Lots are part of Auditor's Subdivision
#78 — which was recorded in 1941.
Legal Description of Property:
See attached.
Public Utilities:
Available in the street.
Transportation:
Lots can be accessed from 61St Avenue
and Main Street.
Physical Characteristics:
Lot has never been developed, covered
with trees and veaetation.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Timothy Nelson on behalf of the owners of Main
Street Fridley Properties, LLC, is seeking to
rezone the vacant parcels of land on the corner
of 61St Avenue and Main Street from M-4,
Manufacturing Only to M-2, Heavy Industrial.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends denial of this rezoning
request.
■ Proposed rezoning goes against the goals
the City established when rezoning the
subject properties to M-4, Manufacturing
Only in 1997.
Council Action / 60 Day Date:
October 8, 2007 / October 15, 2007
Subject Vacant Parcels
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
ZOA #07-02
REQUEST
Timothy Nelson, who is representing Main Street Properties, LLC, is requesting to rezone the
property on the southwest corner of 61St Avenue and Main Street, from M-4, Manufacturing Only
to M-2, Heavy Industrial.
The petitioner has submitted a site plan for the subject property which depicts two industrial
buildings. The building on the north section of the lots is proposed to be 47,653 square feet.
The building on the south section of the lots is proposed to be 102,907 square feet in size. The
petitioner hasn't identified to staff if the there is a user for the buildings or what the building will
be used for; however both of the buildings appear to be typed for warehouse.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The subject property actually consists of three separate parcels that are adjacent to one
another, totaling 11.52 acres. The property has never been developed, and therefore has
remained vacant. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of 61St Avenue and
Main Street, west of University Avenue. Residential properties border the property to the north
and east, with the railroad bordering the property to the west and an industrial use to the south.
Aerial of Property
Subject
Property
In 1997, the City of Fridley changed the zoning of the subject parcels from M-2, Heavy Industrial
to M-4, Manufacturing Only. Part of the purpose of the rezoning was to assure that the
remaining industrial parcels in the City were preserved for manufacturing, thereby protecting
surrounding neighborhoods and roadways from heavy truck traffic, which is common to
industrial warehouse developments. They were also rezoned to help assure compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood.
At the time of the rezoning, the City had experienced over 500,000 square feet of industrial
warehouse growth in the industrial districts within eighteen months. As a result, there were
many complaints and concerns about the truck traffic on residential streets and the additional
noise the trucks brought. There are several areas in the City where industrial districts are
located directly across the street from residential districts, this being the case with the subject
property. Warehouse distribution facilities can cause adverse impacts because of the amount of
truck traffic entering and exiting the site throughout the course of the day.
Of the City's 1,148 acres of industrially-zoned land in 1997, there was only 89.79 acres which
were vacant (7.8%). There had been about a 4.5% decline in the amount of industrial land
acreage since 1979. Examples of this loss were related to the development of Wal-Mart, Sam's
Club, and Home Depots parcels being rezoned from an industrial use to a commercial use. As
a result the City was being proactive and felt that is was appropriate to analyze the remaining
industrial parcels within the City to determine the best use.
The goals the City hoped to achieve as a result of the adoption of the M-4, Manufacturing Only
zoning district, included:
1. To reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties
and residential streets from truck traffic by first controlling the location of these
facilities in the City and by implementing site design controls.
2. To encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities which
require more complex building systems. Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to
have higher building valuation than warehouse construction.
3. To promote clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside
operations which may cause noise.
4. To eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage.
The above goals emphasize why the subject property was rezoned in 1997, and those goals still
apply today as it relates to the property. The City currently has approximately 48 acres of
undeveloped industrial land yet to be developed. Preserving those remaining, M-4,
Manufacturing Only, parcels is essential for the City to allow for economic development.
Warehouse/distribution facilities provide few opportunities to maximize job creation and building
valuation. The building construction is very simple (a "big box") and tends to have a lower
valuation than a manufacturing use which has a more complex building system with office
space, manufacturing and processing areas, services areas for employees and storage areas.
The existing M-1, Light Industrial and M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts allowforwarehouse
buildings, which the City already has an abundance of. The petitioner is proposing to construct
two typical "big box" type office/warehouse buildings; which wouldn't achieve the goals the City
strived to reach in rezoning the property in 1997. Building height, the number of dock doors for
trucking and the overall building layout demonstrate a desire on the petitioner's part to construct
a multi-tenant warehouse facility. It is important for the City to find a healthy balance between
economic development and minimizing the impacts industrial developments have on adjacent
residential properties. Since, the subject property is adjacent to residential to the north and
east, it is vital to ensure that the new use is compatible with the neighborhood and meets the
needs of the City.
STAFF RECOM M ENDATION
City Staff recommends denial of this rezoning request.
■ Proposed rezoning goes against the goals the City established when rezoning
the subject properties to M-4, Manufacturing Only in 1997 and those goals still
apply today.
STIPULATIONS
City staff recommends denial; however, if the City Council elects to approve the rezoning, staff
recommends that the following stipulations be attached.
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permits prior to the start of construction.
2. The petitioner shall pay for the plan review portion of the building permit fee at the time
of building permit application.
3. Petitioner to meet all Building and Fire Code and ADA requirements.
4. Petitioner shall submit plans to Anoka County Highway Department and receive their
approval on access and any work done within the county right-of-way.
5. The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan and receive City engineering staff approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. Petitioner shall ensure that ponding area meets size requirements for the proposed
development.
7. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and
management.
8. Petitioner shall ensure that the proposed development meets the Watershed District
regulations.
9. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
10. Petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building
permit.
11. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to
accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other
improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County or the City.
12. Petitioner shall combine the three parcels into one parcel prior to issuance of a building
permit.
. � ,_ _ ,�
RESOLUTION NO.
h
RESOLUTION DENYING REZONING, ZOA #07-02, BY TIMOTHY NELSON, TO
REZONE THREE SEPARATE PARCELS OF LAND FROM M-4, MANUFACTURING
ONLY TO M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 61ST AVENUE AND MAIN STREET NE.
WI�REAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 19, 2007, and
recommended denial of said rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 8, 2007 and;
WHEREAS, the City Council denied the rezoning at their October 8, 2007, meeting, based on
the following Findings of Fact:
Rezoning the property from an M-4, Manufacturing Only to M-2, Heavy Industrial will go
against the reasons for creation of the M-4, Manufacturing Only zoning district: The purpose of
creating the M-4, Manufacturing Only zoning were:
1. To reduce the irripact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties
and residential streets from truck traffic by first controlling the location of these
facilities in the City and by implementing site design controls.
2. To encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities which
require more complex building systems. Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to
have higher building valuation than warehouse construction.
3. To pro�note clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or rec�uire outside
operations which may cause noise.
4. To eliminate uses which rec�uire significant amounts of outdoor storage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the reasons listed in the Findings of
Fact, the City Council denies Rezoning Request, ZOA #07-02, by Timothy Nelson.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
8t'' DAY OF OCTOBER 2007.
SCOTT LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
/,,..,,__..,, ,..,�.,.
\ Wenck
October 8, 2007
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
(763) 479�200
Fax (763) 479-4242
E-mail: wenckmp�wenck.com
TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL TO REZONE PARCEL AT
MAIN STREET AND 61ST AVENUE N.E. FROM M-4 TO M-2
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEARBY ROADWAYS
TOTAL TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
RELATED TO M-4 DEVELOPMENT
TRUCK TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
RELATED TO M-4 DEVELOPMENT
MOST RECENT PLAN FOR NORTHSTAR COMMUTER RAIL FRIDLEY STATION
TOTAL TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PLAN FOR NORTHSTAR COMMUTER RAIL FRIDLEY STATION
TRUCK AND BUS TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN FOR NORTHSTAR COMMUTER RAIL FRIDLEY
STATI ON
CONCLUSIONS
� �
Characteristics of Nearby Roadways
a - —y .,qY �
c� 66th WAY
0 65%z
� � WAY �
. SSiPPi . WAY Q
�L � a n c
�PZ p`� Q� �°-
�{ A� N
I' . v�� J,
� N Q�
�1 •
? � 67th p
Q N V,t
` � _ "�
��
J~"
� U
S
\l
r� � ,,, ,� 3 � z _
�-
J "' � 67th AVE. � �
�
U
66th AVE. N.E. � a
�
MISSISSIPPI �' �
' cn C
�---1 r----� ,
� Z � r.-•..�. �v�v ".Jlltll `:11..__ ll $FNNFTT
�4 � 64th WAY a J N G`� Levels of Senrice - 61st and University
w 63�/2 WAY SATE L L I T E � L q.
63rd WpY � � SYLVqN �'URy
AL DEN W � a o c�
� '9 � ' � G
A.M. peak P.M. peak
hour hour
;� -� 62%2 WA Y 4 ?� ��A. 1999 g
� 62 hd p � CO '�--� 2020 no-build F
� WAY o� L � 2020 with commuter rail F
� RIVER 0 26
r '� a � �� '
' EDGE f 61/2 Q � � ,� � Q,
� waY �' � � � ��' .
waY U � Q
D N N J
61st WAY �
w ui w
Z Z Z
aRLES S�, 60 th
I Q 59%2 WAY z, '
3000 �
� � 59 �V E,
Q ;. . . ./ . .. _ ... ..' N � �
� City Collector�� � M
������� 58 th AV E
� �; a
57 th '
,/ 5 7 th :.t'"—� r- �
County B � =
Minor Arterial �
N
�
APPROXIMATE SCALE
���
0 800'
� 61st U�'
%
� w
a p � E_ �
�---, — —
��
�
�
N
�
W
>
�
LLiI� w
Z f�—
f AVE. N.E.
Z.
N.E. � �
�
� Z N
N ° w
F
F
Note: Volumes N.E.
represent 2005 IGOLD
average daily traffic
l._1 [,.,_) _ , _ I
N _----_ A VE.
P�' � NELENE Pl
A VE. N.E. 21.
. 7 �'h AVE, v~i
� N �
N 56 th AV, MEDTRONIC c
U
��Q KE POINTE DR, 6 0
�_ 94
�� u v � ---�--� �
�:�� � � � r,� � � 55 th AVE. wCHERI (,q, �
✓ENTURA ��� Q
� '1- U �
HORIZON C1R• '' S4th'` qV�.�' N.E. °
-� �� �� r nnn�r-��, -.-. --� q
T:1118831021Char of nearby roadways.cdr
TOTAL TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
RELATED TO M-4 DEVELOPMENT
Development Scenario and Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Dai1v
Trip Ends Trip Ends Trip Ends
1) Proposed warehouse 68� 71� 747�
(150,650 SF GFA)
2) M-4 Manufacturing 1102 lllZ 575Z
(150,650 SF GFA)
�"Trip Generation, 7`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003, Land Use
Category 150, Warehousing, Average Rates.
Z"Trip Generation, 7`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003, Land Use
Category 140, Manufacturing, Average Rates.
T:\ 1883\02\Total_Trip_Generation_M4.doc
TRUCK TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
RELATED TO M-4 DEVELOPMENT
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Da�lv
Development Scenario and Size Truck Tri Ends Truck Trip Ends Truck Trin
Ends
1) Proposed warehouse 4� 31 57�
(150,650 SF GFA)
2) Manufacturing 52 9Z 883
(150,650 SF GFA)
�"Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004,
warehouse results from Tables A.4, A.S, and A.6.
z Averages from two sources:
a) "Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, June
2004, industrial results from Tables A.4, A.S, and A.6.
b) Survey conducted in June 1997 at American Excelsior Company, a manufacturing
facility located at 140 81St Street in City of Fridley.
3"Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004,
industrial results from Tables A.4, A.S, and A.6.
T: \ 1883\02\Truck_Trip_Generation_M4. doc
�
� � �� � � � . � �.r. � � � w
, � # � �� ��� � �'� �v�„�'� a�
�,;ss «� ��` 3 �° .'� `g��
� �,� °",;� �, �� �.��_,�sa.,.�.s �
., �.� t x . � � � �� � P �f , .
�� '`� �$ '. � � � ; . � { • .
aa � � + �X �� � +i1�1F r .
»`�� : � r wa... F a � �����,. � �'�. �' � . ., .
n, � �
� � Mp $ 3 m j � � �4 � ,�,R, !
. a e` . t'z.� :yi .n�k'v'i"", _. �...... _
�. , .. ��� m t"_r"' �� ' Y '1�+�
� ` g ,S' �: . t... "��� � ,� � S �� A� _ .
..A.�.. '6 . �'.� � � {, � ��;.:, . �§
fi�,a +h , i�f. � �5��".. 6 , �' . � � ,Yp�`"�.
i �
� �3 r ° . C � �- 8 _ .. . . ,
S ���
� 3 � 'T X M ` � �. .a .
� . -. .M � M x � . . . . . -----`
s • � �
L
p-i. �i'i � r Y . �# f � �
m ��k
' aAV t1i09.. m CI. - i
�.� � y a i �� .. � �i, . i it
, .�S�uj �e.. : 4 � �s:.�
a � � ' �� � �,� � S ' � .�
R �
�: a � � � '� � � � ��,
-�� � �� � � � � �t
t
� �a. � +. Ct. ' � 2 , �
` � "� � � tA r � _ � �t s� �
i . � ` �g r^ . .' � � ".
R » + 90
� z � � . a � ��� � ro �y^� t11 ya", � - � � „.�- �.
d�i� �,i� � �i R��
� � i ��� �yk'� N ¢;.;
c ���' >�`'.;� y�74'• � . W 14
14 . , E � ,, �� : � � � r ''-�' � � `� � r"°'�
aa / � 1- �.re a� � t,
, � ; � � �;i�;.
� � �- � s � � _ � . �
�3N "�., � t � ! ,r�,p?. f �, o, � �r�_,� �# ..
�'�� ^"'"�" ` I � �,�w �'�` j ��.#4r�" � ° d �
a!
,p �.� 3` �'�' r v
a, ' ! �; � � , ' �.
� ��k �3,{ � , �i �' ��..
� �� ��� � �I ��. # � � � � ,� � ¢ � , t
w� � te,� d � � "�" �/.�� a� �
� rN � � .;� "� � ' ���` � , � � ' ' �. x
: � ` s� i� �, "� ��ry t� : : �#� ,. : .
` . � � . y,�� . ..� t '� : }'�.w,�lt ' � � � �. �p`� ^a r���-^9. ''�� �
! � � �" tl � s4 rC ,:�. � < < : � � ��,: i , �� . '`� �r
,� +�' ? �� � � fn :,,(�r., ,,O Q � � � `� �.+'� i ; a � � � £<;.
(n � � � 3� m", � • � A `� +r �
s � � � rC �:. � : I i 7 , ?' � tl � } a
:;a ` � d S2. .iC L^ �" � 3 � a`' N, rr) �,«a�g ��
; �. . v `U� ...L. � � . , a I o`;, ..tn�'�. ..
^-v° � � .� Y � .� ��p � � � , . �Ag U • , � $
'; . '��~ *,:. , n�� � �� .� ��� c .,����k... ,�, �+"1c.�?' °7k' �
i P � 'L" . > � . 4 � .\ .;i.a+ M
� 1�� 4 a � f �, � � � � � �i� '7�' � � . �� `'"'",��
�, �r .` ° � , 'a
.. '� � �� N . �t, y �� . �..
� � s .� � rn '/ �' I '� , ;i`"""�.«
� � $ � � r � :��
�^ � �H ..� ^ �€ � � v �� C � �^ '4j
1 � �. �0.'—, � tA •�sa ��
.ar j,�. . � � � "� + � ;'* �:�'.
� �� � , - �` �`� � � �� .�:� � �� p'�; _ , �
, � ` �� �� � ,� ��°— �� f� � �
„� ' ' � �'' �, � ' � °' -` . � ±-.�
k
,. �L' �� . . �� � � � � .
� ' � ��
� 4�, � � ; � � ' � 'i
�. :� ��, .,� , r . .. _� _ _. . e_. �_. �-�
. � � � �..�r
:; . ��i. �. �.^� ��� � 5 ' �f, , y . � �t ��y �7� � i . � _ � .
} ;
�, .. � 7 !R . . } . .. t
ib�° * ,�,4 '�` !� R ^ . . �
{�
♦ R i t � �.
f ` , . ,+N".3:, �4 � t `l� £. . �� i�� �� . :.,.,...�}, ,.�..�rt--n.., w�., �-#
TOTAL TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN FOR NORTHSTAR COMMUTER RAIL
FRIDLEY STATION
Development Scenario and Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Dailv
T� Ends Tri Ends Trip Ends
3a) Northstar station
Total 2025 daily Fridley 694 694 3593
ridershi of 490 �
M-4 Manufacturing 5
67,680 SF GFA 49 505 2595
Total for 3a) 118 119 618
3b) Northstar station
Total 2020 daily Fridley 2274 2274 11473
ridershi of 1857 Z
M-4 Manufacturing 495 505 2595
67,680 SF GFA
Total for 3b) 276 277 1406
For Comparison Purposes:
1)Proposed Warehouse
150,650 SF GFA 68 71 747
2)M-4 Manufacturing
150,650 SF GFA 110 111 575
�"Northstar Corridor Rail Project, Environmental Assessment/Draft 4( fl Evaluation," Minnesota Department
of Transportation, December 22, 2005, Table 3.7.
Z Northstar Corridor Rail Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(�/6( fl
Evaluation," Minnesota Department of Transportation, October 2000, Table 2.3-6.
' Calculated from daily ridership through application of following factors:
a) 76% of riders arrive by car — Table 2.3-6 in DEIS
b) Average car occupancy of 1.42 — Met Council year 2000 Travel Behavior Inventory for change of mode
trips
c) Two daily trip ends per car— one when arriving and one when exiting
d) Trip generation on east side of station is 54% of total — number of parking spaces on east side relative to
total parking spaces
e) 76 bus trips per transit operating plan presented on page 5-64 in DEIS
4 Same as 3, except
a) 13 bus trips — service provided on consistent frequency during total six hours of the day.
b) 20% of daily auto trips occur during each peak hour
5"Trip Generation, 7`h Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003, Land Use Category 140,
Manufacturing, Average Rates.
T:\ 1883\02\Total_Trip_Generation_Fridley_Station.doc
TRUCK AND BUS TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN FOR NORTHSTAR COMMUTER RAIL
FRIDLEY STATION
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Dai1v
Development Scenario and Size Truck and Bus Truck and Bus Truck and Bus
Trip Ends Trip Ends Trip Ends
3) Northstar station
13 1 13 � '7(, �
M-4 Manufacturing Z
(67,680 SF GFA) 2 32 403
Total for 3) 15 16 116
For comparison purposes:
Proposed Warehouse
(150,650 SF GFA) 4 3 5�
M-4 Manufacturing
150,650 SF GFA 5 9 $$
�Bus trips per operating plan presented on page 5-64 in Draft EIS. A.M. and P.M. peak hour
trips presume consistent frequency during total six hours of the day.
Z Averages from two sources:
a) "Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, June
2004, industrial results from Tables A.4, A.S, and A.6.
b) Survey conducted in June 1997 at American Excelsior Company, a manufacturing
facility located at 140 815t Street in City of Fridley.
3"Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004,
industrial results from Tables A.4, A.S, and A.6.
T:\ 1883\02\Truck_Bus_Generation_Fridley_Station.doc
CONCLUSIONS
a) 61 S` Avenue N.E. and Main Street N.E. near the subject site both have been
designated by the City as Collector routes.
b) Intersection of 61 S` Avenue N.E. and University Avenue presently operates with
satisfactory level of service, but analyses presented in the Northstar Commuter
Rail Draft EIS indicate the intersection will operate at level of service F(very
high levels of delay) in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours by 2020.
c) The Northstar Draft EIS suggests that a third lane in each direction should be
added to University Avenue to resolve the level of service F problem. In its
Comprehensive Plan, the City opposes such widening of University Avenue.
d) Regarding total trip generation, the proposed warehouse development would
generate slightly more trips than M-4 manufacturing on a daily basis, but slightly
fewer trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
e) Regarding truck trip generation, the proposed warehouse development would
generate fewer truck trips than M-4 manufacturing, especially on a daily basis.
� If constructed, the Fridley station for the Northstar Commuter Rail service likely
would generate considerably more trips on 61S` Avenue N.E. during the two peak
hours and on a daily basis than either the proposed development or development
per M-4 manufacturing.
g) If constructed, the Fridley station for the Northstar Commuter Rail service would
generate more total truck and bus trips on 615t Avenue N.E. during the two peak
hours and on a daily basis than truck trips generated either by the proposed
development or development per M-4 manufacturing.
h) The proposed warehouse development offers the following two traffc benefits for
the City:
• Lowest trip generation for trucks and buses, which will lessen impacts
for residents along 615` Avenue.
• Lowest total trip generation during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which
will lessen impacts on level of service at 615t Avenue N.E. and
University Avenue. This is highly important given the predicted level of
service F conditions at the intersection by 2020.
r
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 PAGE 9
15. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7.02 OF THE FRI�LEY
CITY CHARTER REGARDING POWER OF TAXATION:
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the p blic
hearing notice and open the public hearing. Secon d by
Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all votinq ay , Mayor
Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and t e public
hearing opened at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that Ordinance
in August, 1975 included restricting language to
the City Charter in that it provided ror a 16 m'
amount of taxes levied. The City Council was r c
public hearing for any levy in excess of 16 mill�.
�
1
�! 592 adopted
ction 7.02 of
limit on the
red to hold a
Mr. Pribyl stated that in 1988, the stat simplified the tax
system, and there were new formulas for dete mining the actual ta�.
This, however, resulted in changes in the language from mills to
terms such as tax capacity. Staf� and t e Charter Commission are
recommending that all references to he 1975 modification be
removed. The replacement language is tied_ with a Consumer Price
Index specific to the Minneapolis/St. aul metropolitan area.
Mr. Pribyl stated that the Chartep Commission agreed to expedite
the amendment process, but he wan�'ed the proposed changes reviewed
and approved by their attorney / Their attorney has reviewed the
amendment and recommended that rapproval be withheld until the 1997
Omnibus Tax Bill, recently �igned by Governor Carlson, can be
considered. He recommende�i, therefore, that this hearing be
continued to July 14, 1997. �
Councilman Billings statec� that Council has been conductinc} public
hearings on the mill l�vy even though there were changes by the
state, because it was n�ot known if the 16 mills would be exceeded.
Basically, what this �amendment would accomplish is to bring the
City Charter in comp�.�iance with,state statutes.
MOTION by Counci
July 14, 1997.
vote, all votinc�
unanimously. �'
16. PUBLIC
n�n Schneider to continue this public hearing to
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice
aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried
ON AN INTOXICATING LIQU�
;MERLY . MAPLE LANES ) (WARD
LICENSE FOR VALLEY
MOTION by ouncilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public
hearing n ice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman
Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson
declared� the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing
opened t 8:14 p.m.
Mr. ibyl, Finance Director, stated that this is a request for an
int ieating liquor license by Valley Creek, Inc. for the former
Map�le Lanes business. The Police Department has completed the
required background check and found no reason to deny this request.
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 PAGE 10
The applicant has acquired the Maple Lanes bowling facility at 6310
Highway 65.
Councilman Schneider asked if the applicant has run s' ilar
facilities.
Mr. Mike Anderson, representinq the new owner Har y Anderson,
stated that Mr. Anderson has been in the bowling siness for 25
years anci is not planning any significant change at Maple Lanes.
Some of the bowling centers he owns are South wn, Village North,
Valley Creek, Sundance Lanes, Heroes, and Sax n Lanes.
Councilman Billings stated that he was der the impression that
several of these locations were owned a construction company.
Mr. Anderson stated that. they ere owned by Carlson-Anderson
Construction at one time.
Councilinan Billings asked i they were operating Mingles in Little
Canada.
Mr. Anderson stated t t they have closed it, as they are really
not in the bar busin s. Bowling is their number one operat�on.
Councilman Schnei er stated that he assumes Mr. Anderson is aware
of the liquor license requirements which tYie City takes very
seriously. -
No.otlier rsons spoke regarding this intoxicating liquor license.
MOTIO by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing.
Seco ded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Ma r Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the
lic hearing closed at 8:17 p.m.
17. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #97-01, BY THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY, TO REZONE. EIGHT PROPERTIES FROM M-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL, AND M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL,,TO M-4, MANUFACTURING:
MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the.reading of the public
hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman
Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson
declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing
opened at 8:17 p.m.
Ms. McPherson, Planning Assistant, stated that this public hearing
is to consider rezoning of .eight properties from either M-1 Light
Industrial or M-2 Heavy Industrial to M-4 Manufacturing. Council
recently adopted a new ordinance which amends the existin�g
industrial districts by eliminating loading docks on corner lots
which face the public right-of-way across from residential
districts and creates an M-4, Manufacturing Only district.
Ms. McPherson stated that the intent of the newly created M-4
district is to reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution
0
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 PAGE 11
facilities on residential properties, encourage uses which provide
a significant amount of job opportunities, promote clean uses which
do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which
may cause noise, and eliminate uses which require significant
amounts of outdoor storaqe and display.
Ms. McPherson stated that eight properties have been recommended to.
the Planning Commission for rezoning. These are: Everest
Properties at 61st Avenue and Main Street; Anderson Trucking,
Osborne Road; Kurt Manufacturing, Central Avenue; Friendly
Chevrolet, Central Avenue; McGlynn's, Commerce Lane; Coachman
Companies, Osborne Road; R.R.I., Inc., Ashton Avenue; and Northco
Property, Northco Drive. After review by the Planning Commission,
they recommended five sites be rezoned to M-4.. They are the
Everest Properties, Anderson Trucking, R.R.I., Inc., Friendly
Chevrolet, and Kurt Manufacturing (both the occupied and vacant
parcel). The Commission weighed the intent of the ordinance with
the possible impact to existing owners and recommended that the
McGlynn, Coachman, and Northco sites not be rezoned. Staff
recommends that Council concur with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Councilman 5chneider asked if any of the property owners objected
to the rezoning.
Ms. McPherson stated that the owner of the Everest Properties at
61st Avenue and Main Street has strenuously objected to the
property being rezoned. The property owners of the other four
parcels recommended for rezoning have not objected throuqhout the
rezoning process. Kurt Manufacturing was contacted to fnake sure
they understood the rezonin_g. They had no objections.
Mr. John Pritchard, Chief Operations Officer for McGlynn's, stated
that he was prepared to share concerns on the rezoning of their
site. However, the Planning Commission has recommended their site
not be rezoned. They hope that Council concurs.
Mr. Richard Eskola, attorney representing Coachman Companies,
stated that he had the same agenda as Mr. Pritchard. His client is
actively marketing the property. He urged Council to adopt the
Planning Commission recommendation and not rezone the Coachman
property.
No other persons spoke regarding the proposed rezoning .of these
parcels.
MOTION by Councilman Barnette to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the inotion carried unanimously and
the public hearing closed at 8:29 p.m.
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1997 PAGE 12
OLD BUSINESS:
18. ORDINANCE
AND DECLi
PUBLIC N
AMENDING
110.07:
N0. 1098 OF THE CITY
ZING LTNPAVED, GRAVEI
ISANCE, DESCRIBING
ECTIONS 110.02 AND C
OF FRIDT,EY, MINNESOTA, I
, OR. DIRT DRIVEWAYS O
THE PENALTIES THE �ORE,
tEATING NEW SECTION 110.0
ING
. �
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated t at this is the
second reading of an ordinance which would declare unpaved, gravel,
or dirt driveways a public nuisance. At the ime of the first
reading of the ordinance on July 8, staff was aut�orized to hire
the Center for Energy and the Environment (C ) to work with the
households who are directly.affected by this rdinance to determine
the financial impact.
Ms. Dacy stated that as a result of
affected was notified. Of the 234 :
driveway, 111 either did not respond
unpublished telephone numbers. �
contacted, and 47 of those proceeded
who expressed an interest in an au '
in participatinq in the City's vo un
remaining 45 households of the 9�
interested or offered miscella eous
refusal to, comply with the ordi�iance
a decision. %
thi process every household
�ou holds, 31 did pave their
t telephone messages or had
ever, 92 households were
o request audits. Of the 47
_, 33 have expressed interest
e based paving program. The
contacted either were not
comments which ranged from
to not being prepared to make
Ms. Dacy stated that the jCEE staff advised that of these 33
households, eighty percent; have incomes which can assimilate. the
cost of the improvement ar}�Ei the remaining twenty percent have lower
incomes which may need a� deferral, a Federal grant, or the HRA's
"last resort" program. Since the initiation of the five percent
housing improvement 1 an program, 19 properties have used the
program to pave a iveway. The average household income was
approximately $41,55 , the median income was $29,957; the lowest
was $23,864; and th�highest was $50,000 plus.
Ms. Dacy stated t at if tYie ordinance is adopted staff is proposing
a five-year pe od with no prosecution. She systematic code
enforcement pro ram has been initiated so that staff will: remind
the owners th have up to five years to pa�re their driveways.
Another lette will be sent to the remaining lll households that
were not con acted.
Ms. Dacy s ted that under Section 110.02.1, Driveway Nuisance, the
following ords in the first paragraph "as provided under Chapter
205.07(6) (2)" should be eliminated. This applies simply to the
R-1 zone properties. There is one unpaved driveway located in a
C-2 zon .
Counci�man Barnette asked how they arrived at a figure of $1.25 a
square foot.'
ti
e
Y
CITY OF F'RIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the April 2, 1997, Plannin Commission
meeting to order at 7:29 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, LeRoy 0 ist, Connie Modig,
L�rry Kuechle �
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick_, ean Saba, Brad Sielaff
Others Present: Scott Hick , Planning Coordinator
Jim Stei n, Popham, Haik and Lawton
�chn P chard, McGlynn Bakeries
Denn' Zy11a, Northco
T� Nelson, Everest Development
eorge Ludcke, Kelly & Berens
:"Paul Bakken, 8085 Wayzata Bculevard, #105,
" P�linneapolis, Minnesota
APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the
March 19, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI�L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI�RED THE
MOTION GARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
l. (Tabled 3/19/97) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN
ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205,
ENTITLED"ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.05.D.(6),.
205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4
MANUFACTURING ONLY), AND RENUMBERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remove from the
table and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated this item is carried over from the last Planning
Commission meeting and involves a moratorium on warehouse or
distribution facilities.
Mr. Hickok stated staff's recommendation is to recommend approval
of an amendment to the existing zoning districts to establish
stricter standards for corner lots and lots adjacent to
residential districts; to establish a new industrial district
�.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 2
entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only; and to, rezone the parcels as
appropriate. Associated with the proposed amendments will be
improved definitions for loading docks, overhead doors, parking in
front of the distribution facilities. There will be another
public hearing before the Planning Commission in May that will be
specific to the sites that are selected for M-4. As you consider
this, staff would like a recommendation for M-4 and modified
language to the other industrial districts.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council established in January a
moratorium for warehouse and distribution facilit?es with more
than 10 docks in order to examine the industrial zoned properties
within the City and to determine the compatibili�y of �ear�house
facilities and other allowable uses in the City, to review the
number and location of existing warehouse and distributior
facilities and to determine if the zoning on the Yemaining `-acant
parcels should be amended or changed to another zoning
classification.
Mr. Hickok stated, over the last 18 months, the C?ty has
experienced over 500,000 square feet of industria� warehcus�
growth in industrial districts. As a result, there have been
complaints and concerns about truck traffic, residential streets
south of 53rd have been.designated "no truck traffic" routes in
response to the Murphy Warehouse facility and other similar
developments along Main Street. Residents complained about a
large number of trucks traveling through their neighborhood
causing additional noise. There are also several areas in the
City where industrial districts are located directly across the
street from residential areas. Warehouse distribution facilities
can cause adverse impacts because of the amount of truck traffic
entering and exiting the site during the course of the day. Of
the City's 1,148 acres, there is only 89.79 acres left of
industrial zoned property. The City felt it was the appropriate
time to analyze the remaining parcels and to make certain that
those parcels are developed and, if any modifications to the code
were necessary, that they be made as a part of this process.
Mr. Hickok stated the goals of the potential amendments include:
L. To reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities
on residential properties from truck traffic by first
controlling the location in the City and by implementing site
design controls.
2. To encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job
opportunities which require more complex building systems.
Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher building
valuation than warehouse construction.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 3
3. To promote clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or
require outside operations which may cause noise.
4. To eliminate uses which require significant amounts of
outdoor storage display.
Mr. Hickok stated these are already permitted in other zoning
districts; therefore, refined language in that area has been
suggested. The City,went through a rather elaborate analysis
which was discussed at the last meeting. The City was divided
into three study areas. Those areas ��ere evaluated for the number
of existing warehouse/distribution facilities, amount oi land
dedicated to that use, impact of the facilities, etc. Staff
determined there were seven sites that appeared to be primary
candidates to be considered for the i�-4 zoning. The other
industrial districts - M-1, M-2, and M-3 - had special
consideration given to the language within the text so that
loading docks, outdoor storage, and those elements that are of
concern are properly addressed.
Mr. Hickok stated the discussion at tne last meeting lead to some
questions the Commission asked to �e answered. Mr. Hickok
reviewed the questions and staff's responses as provided in the
staff report included in the agenda packet.
Mr. Hickok stated also included in the agenda packet were the
parcels of land that were considered. The industrial inventory
leaves few large parcels to be developed. Some parcels do not
meet the 1.5 acre minimum size, and those sites were eliminated
from consideration. There were other small sites eliminated by
size or by virtue of not meeting the criteria, as follows:
l. Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a
residential use?
2. Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the
proposed M-4 zoning district?
3. Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse
facility in excess of 10 loading docks?
4. Is there a distribution warehouse facility already in the
area?
Mr. Hickok stated a question came up at the last meeting about
whether or not the Northco site was feasible and was it realistic
to consider this site as an appropriate site for a 10-dock
facility. The site is a 2.2 acre parcel located south of 73rd in
the Northco industrial district. Staff did an analysis of a
footprint in the area where a building could be located based on
the setbacks. It would be extremely difficult to put a warehouse
PLANNING CON�iISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 4
facility in excess of 10 bays on the site. Staff feels this site
could be eliminated from the M-4 consideration. This site was
considered because it does have over 1,000,000 square feet of
warehouse to the immediate east and to the north is the Melody
Manor residential area.
Mr_ Hickok stated, in summary, staff would like to see a
rec�mmendation regarding the M-1, M-2, and M-3 industrial zoninQ
ianguage modifications and a recommendation on the M-4, J
Manufacturing Only, languaqe to be added. Also, staff would
appreciate concerns or comments about the remaining six sites and
whether the Commission feels they are appropriate candidates for
rezoning. Staff will prepare a public hearing irom that
information on those particular sites if�M-4 is a choice on which
the Planning Commission and City Council agree. The moratorium
ends in May. Staff would like to have a decision in a timely
fashion so at the end of the moratorium staff have a good sense of
where we are going.
Ms. Savage asked if staff was recommending that Lhe Northco sit�
be eliminated from consideration.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. Staff is recommending six sites but this
site could be included if the Commission so chooses.
Ms. Savage stated, as she understands, if the Pla�nning Commission
approved the ordinance language, the next step would be another
Planning Commission meeting in which the individual sites would be
discussed. If there are still concerns about the sites, there
would be an opportunity at the next meeting to evaluate including
a site, such as the McGlynn's site.
Mr. Hickok stated that was correct.
Mr. Kuechle asked, if the sites are classified as.M-4 and they
want to build, for example, on the McGlynn's site and want to have
a truck dock,- is there something that can be done to still allow
that such as with a special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated the McGlynn site is an interesting site. It is
staff's understanding from past discussion that it is McGlynn's
interest to expand or build to the north which would likely start
as a warehouse and, in the future, become a manufacturing facility
as their space needs change. One of the big factors is that there
is a 60-inch sewer pipe between the McGlynn existing site and
vacant site to the north. In the past, the public works director
has indicated they have talked about the possibility of bridging
the two buildings with some sort of an elevated walkway to allow
enough room to get at the pipe should something happen. If the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 5
McGlynn site were to be attached and this was an expansion with
the warehouse as an ancillary use to the existing manufacturing
facility, that would certainly be a different picture. The
concern is that it would develop as its own independent warehouse
facility and not be connected to the large building. We did have
a iengthy discussion with the public works staff about moving that
pipe so that it does not limit McGlynn's. The answer to that is
that there are options. It is in a tax increment district area,
and it is a site consideration that we would have to look at.
Approving that site and allowing McGlyn�n's to expand to the north
could be facilitated by the pipe being moved to the north and then
back around to the alignment that ends up at the pond at the rear
of the McGlynn's building. Al1 that being considered, it Tsaould
make more sense to have that part of the facility and not free
standing. Until then, M-4 is the most appropriate district as we
see it.
Mr. Oquist stated, as he understands, the Planning Commission can
approve the ordinance but there will then be more public hearings
to identify the parcels and to rezone.
Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. From here, the Planning
Commission at its May 7 meeting, if they wish to consider all
seven sites, staff could publish a notice for each of the seven
sites and that notice would be specific and would h�ave all of the
notification standard for rezoning the sites. It,would be before
the City Council for the first reading of the ordinance on May 14.
That would allow staff and landowners to have a good sense of
where we are heading with this before the moratorium ends. The
City Council would have a reading of the ordinance before the
moratoriu� ends.
Ms. Modig stated she got the impression that by doing it this way
they were saying the M-4 was going �o be all inclusive of the
sites, but it is going to separated out.
Mr. Hickok stated staff needs to have from the Commission a good
sense of which sites are appropriate for M-4. In the
notification, we may rezone fewer or more than the recommended
sites. .
Ms. Savage asked if staff wants an indication of which sites or an
indication of whether we would recommend approval of the
ordinance.
Mr. Hickok stated, if staff could walk away this evening with a
recommendation on the M-1, M-2, and M-3 language and the addition
of M-4 language, staff would feel this was a successful meeting.
In addition, staff would like the number of sites in which you are
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 6
interested and staff will prepare notices based on that
discussion.
Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is the owner of a 10.6 acre
parcel on the southwest corner of Main Street and 61st Avenue. He
was not present at the last meeting but did have correspondence
from their attorney, Mr. Ludcke, who is at the meeting to address
his letter and some responses staff gave to that letter and the
overall context of their position on this proposed zoning change.
Also present is Mr. Bakken, a professional appraiser, who was
asked to take a look at an issue that was raised independently by
members of the Planning Commission regarding the question of
value. If you are going to restrict the uses that the property
can be put to, are you impairing the value and is that fair? Mr.
Bakken has data from the marketplace that he deals with on a
professional basis that we would lik2 him to share with the
Commission .
Mr. Nelson stated he would like to provide Everest's history in
this property with the understanding that the Planning Commission
has a meeting later. They have concerns both about the specific
proposal to rezone their property and the restrictions. The
property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. They also have
concerns about the way this has come up specifically relating to
their property and a proposed project for the property. Mr.
Hickok has addressed some of that but he has additional background
on that.as well. They also have concerns about the possible
impact on the value of the property.
Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is a commercial industrial
real estate developer based in Roseville and is active in most of
the northern suburban communities, around the metro area and out
of state on a project by project basis. They develop business
parks, industrial and office facilities, and develop as
contractors and property owners. Everest acquired this parcel in
1992. They purchased the parcel as an investment for future
development of the property. They purchased the property in the
depth of the real estate recession knowing it might be a number of
years before they could develop the property. When they purchased
the property, it was a good site and had potential. As part of
the purchase process and at the same time, they also purchased
another property which is now the site of Home Depot. They
purchased both the parcels at the same time from Glacier P.ark,
which was the real estate arm of the Burlington Northern Railroad
who had owned the property since the early 1960's. As part of the
purchase before acquiring the property, they did what is referred
to as "due diligence" doing soil tests, environmental assessment,
survey, title examination, etc. Part of that was meeting with
City staff to verify the existing zoning, permitted uses, design
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 7
criteria, so they knew what they were getting into. They had
several meetings with City staff both in the economic development
and planning areas about these issues and came from those meetings
secure in the knowledge of what the property was zoned and what
was permitted there, which was a variety of industriai uses. He
also came away impressed with the sense that the City was
interested in seeing developers come into town and appreciated the
developer making an investment in the community, and looked
forward to working with City staff as they developed the site.
Mr. Nelson stated Everest started marketing the site as soon as
they purchased the pro�erty and it has been on the market since.
About one year after purchasing the site, they were met with an
increase in the real estate tax valuation by the city assessor to
the tune of about three times what they paid for the property.
They thought that was inappropriate. They resisted and taY
petitioned, and ultimately the Anoka County tax board
significantly pared back the valuation. It might be coincidental,
but it felt that the friendly reception was not across the board.
Mr. Nelscn stated a fe�� years later they were fortunate enough to
get interest from Home Depot on the 14.5-acre site across from
Holiday Plus. They entered into a contingent purchase agreement
where they would need to apply to the City for the comprehensive
plan change and a rezoning change. They were surprised when that
project came forward and staff recommended denial of both the
rezoning and the comprehensive plan change. The rationale was in
significant part that the City has few industrial sites and staff
did not want to loose it in favor of a commercial project. The
Planning Commission and the City Council recommended approval of
the rezoning and comprehensive plan change.
Mr. Nelson stated another thing that concerned them in that
process was that, as a recommendation of approval, staff
recommended that the existing billboard signs be removed as part
of project. Staff persisted in this recommendation despite being
advised that Home Depot had no legal rights or interests in the
signs. It was ultimately not made a part of the approval but at
no time was there any discussions or suggestions of compensation
to the parties who owned those signs.
Mr. Nelson stated about a year ago we starting coming out of the
real estate recession into a significantly healthier market. The
market especially for warehouse space is significantly improved.
They are getting more interest in the property. They received
interest from a large industrial warehouse tenant for a lease
transaction on this property. They started site design and
retained an architect. Thus far, they have expended over $10,000
in the architectural design phase to get it to the point where it
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 8
is at. They started meeting with City staff on an informal basis
to make sure before they submitted their building perm_t
application that the plans met all the requirements. =hey had a
series of ineetings and phone conversations. They have �ieces of
correspondence back and forth with staf.f. They thought they knew
the requirements of the M-2 district. They sensed frcM: the start,
however, that staff was not pleased with the project gcing on this
site despite the fact that it met the zoning requireme��s. The
first indication of that was a letter after meeting wi�z staff
asking us to demonstrate why this project, which was c�_early a
large distribution warehouse, should not be viewed as a truck
terminal. They know what truck terminals are, and the�.- know what
warehouses are. Staff knew what they were, but their :�:ain issue
was to try to put the burden back on us to demonstrate :�=hy it was
not a truck terminal. They did that in a lengthy lett�r and in
phone conversations documenting the differenc�s betwee- a truck
terminal and a warehouse property. This did not satis=_y staff.
They had answered the question and submitted �hree separate
letters to staff asking for verification that they acc��tecl that
the project was not a truck terminal. Staff �ook the -:_eca that
the information was too sketchy. They do noL allow ar�.��n� to
visit the tenant's operation because it is confidentia=, and the
use was clearly set forth in the description of the bu-lding from
the plans.
Mr. Nelson stated their initial meeting was in early August. They
had a follow-up meeting in mid-September. They had phone
conversations in mid-September and a meeting early in October, and
a letter to the City on October 11 explaining why this project was
not a truck terminal. Staff agreed that this project was very
similar to the Murphy Warehouse project that recently had been
built and that those projects were not truck terminals, but they
would not accept this fact in looking at our plans.
Mr. Nelson stated they sensed that this was occasion for some
delay and he would like to respond to the real project in front of
them. This sense was also borne out when the City Attorney got
involved in the discussions. Mr. Ludcke will describe that
process. Discussion dropped off to the point where they saw a
legal notice in the paper that the City has adopted a zoriing
moratoriurn affecting their property with no prior notice to them
whatsoever. They indicated in letters and in conversations with
staff that they intended to obtain a building permit for that
project and staff were holding up having us apply for the building
permit application with this question about truck terminals, even
though they did resolve it to their satisfaction.
Mr. Nelson stated they have been embarrassed in this situation
with their tenant's prospect. They have a site that is excellent
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 9
for this type of use. The features it offers gives proximity to a
freeway, rail on the west side of the property, and is sizable for
a project of 185,000 square feet.
Mr. Nelson stated staff indicated the remaining industrial land is
7.80 of the overall industrial land inventory. Their 10.67 acres
is 1.5% of the industrial land inventory, yet the sense of
background is that we have big problems with trucking and will
na�Te lots of bad things happen if you don't hurry up and rezone
some of these properties to this new zoning classification and
adopt the other changes in wording. He would suggest that it is
real late in the game and you may be a.ble to do it and may be
legally entitled to do it, but from a common sense s�andpoint and
from an intact community standpoint, it is real late in the game
to be adopting these kinds of changes now and selecting a few
properties that are in dwindling suppl_y to deal with � problem
that has occurred over the past 30 years in the historyo uf
development in Fridley.
Mr. Nelson stated he opposed the rezoning of their property to M-
4, a�d wili be back for a future public hearing on t�a�. They do
not object to the City drafting a new zoning classification of the
M-4. They think it should be a voluntary situation where the
owner of a property could apply for that zoning. It does have a
significant impact on their use of their property, the value, the
marketability and attractiveness of the site. At this point, he
did not know if they have lost the deal or not, even if they
decided to,keep the existing M-2 zoning in place.� Their tenant is
not happy with the situation on timing and had hoped to be
started. They have waited five years through a real estate
recession. They bought into that recession hoping to and
expecting to come out with development of the property. They are
at a point where they would like to be able to capitalize on an
improved market to develop the property and ultimately be able to
sell the project and make a significant profit on a significant
investment.
Mr. Nelson stated they would like to proceed with their plans.
They feel that they got torpedoed in this process when the
moratorium came up. That, and as the City has indicated, Everest
is not being singled out in this but we feel that some of these
other property owners have been thrown into the mix. Staff is
already saying that this site could be dropped and that site could
be dropped. This is, in our view, in effect really about spot
zoning of their property and they disagree. There is a comment
from the last meeting that staff want to move this through the
process expeditiously so that the property owners who have
projects to do can proceed with their projects. The irony is
that, if what is recommended is approved, it will have exactly the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997
opposite effect on them.
PAGE 10
Mr. Nelson stated they also oppose the specific language changes
in the M-1, M-2 and M-3 zoning criteria. They believe that, even
on a corner lot, the screening requirements are significant and
already in the existing ordinance and does not need to be
duplicated.
Mr. Nelson stated truck traffic for their property would utilize
Main Street, 61st and 57th. He would submit that the neighborhood
problems occurred in residential neighborhoods near the Murphy
buildings. This is a different situation in that there are more
outlets to University Avenue. The City resolved that with some
residential traffic requirements on some of thos.e streets. That
is probably pushing truck traffic up here now bet�aeen 57th and
61st to get out to University Avenue. This has always been an
industrial area and will remain so. He did not see the point of
restricting the development of that office warehouse project which
will not have a drastic impact on that �raffic flow and traffic
pattern compared to what is already there. They do not have a
manufacturing user for the site. They ;aelcome the opportunity�to
work with one but they are few and far between. They would like
to proceed with the project as proposed.
Mr. Bakken stated he works in the Twin Cities as a commercial real
estate appraiser. He owns a real estate firm and has been working
in the field for 15 years. For the meeting presentation, he
prepared a letter dated April l, 1997, to summarize his comments.
He distributed copies of the letter.
Mr. Bakken stated he was essentially asked to provide some
evaluation, counseling and advise to Everest Development in light
of the potential change in the zoning classifications. Since it
appears that the change from M-2 to M-4 is one that restricts the
overall number of uses to a single use, his first question was to
figure out how active the manufacturing market is in the Twin
Cities. On page 2 of his letter is a schedule which is a review
of all of the industrial land sales that have occurred in the Twin
Cities metro area since 1993. The manufacturing use is a very
small portion of the overall industrial marketplace. He has heard
discussion about the strength of the marketplace and all of the
activity that is happening in Fridley. He would direct their
thoughts to non-manufacturing uses primarily. From his
perspective, it does appear that the manufacturing use is a very
small portion of the market.
Mr. Bakken stated, on the bottom of page 2, he finds that this is
interesting for several reasons. We have seen an increase in the
health of the market and have also seen a relaxing of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 11
contamination rules as it pertains primarily to manufacturers. A
few years ago, they had some fairly stiff rules on soil
contamination and that was something that was geared to a number
of manufacturers. Over the last three or four years, the rules
have been lessened in severity and today manufacturers can get no
action letters and other devices to insulate themselves from
contamination. If anything, one would expect a renewed activity
in the manufacturing sector but that has not occurred.
Mr. Bakken stated, on page 3, he offers some of the reasons why
the manufacturing sector in the Twin Cities has diminished. For a
number of years, Minnesota has been known as a"net exodus" state
for manufacturing. Because of the property tax, wcrkmen's
compensation, and other issues, they have found more manufacturers
leaving the state than coming in. Second, ev2ry year, thare is an
annual study done by a local real estate group, CCIM. Tney nave
actually cataloged that in the last few years 70 manufacturing
companies have vacated the Twin Cities for the Hudson River valley
which is primarily due to cheap land, lower workmen's
compensation, and other issues. Again, this is reinforcing why we
are noL seeing a lot of manufactur?ng sites purchased and built in
the Twin Cities.
Mr. Bakken stated another factor that you see on the manufacturing
side is cities that are giving land away to property owners.
Anoka and the port authority are giving land away for $1.00 per
site for manufacturinq when a number of jobs are created with
that. It is tough competition in light of the few manufacturers
that are looking for sites.
Mr. Bakken stated, on page 4; with restricting of the use to
manufacturing, he indicated there are municipalities that do give
land away. There are also municipalities and governmental
agencies that will offer the land at reduced cost. As an example,
in Chaska a number of manufacturers ha.ve�relocated there where the
land was priced very, very reasonable.
Mr. Bakken stated he had a few thoughts on the potential change on
the zoning. It seems to him that if the restriction of uses is
limited to manufacturing only that the number of potential buyers
for any of these sites will drop off sharply because the demand is
not there. Secondly, you will have reduced profits because it
will lead to increased marketing times. He will predict that the
developer will hold the land longer before development would
occur. Thirdly, there is competition with agencies that are giving
sites away for manufacturing. Last, it is his opinion that most
of the manufacturers prefer to own their own sites and that a
great number of warehousing concerns are happy to lease property.
From a deal perspective, this would limit the potential of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 12
site to a sale of the property only as opposed to a lease and
develop parcel. If the change from M-2 to M-4 were adopted, i� is
his opinion that the value of the property would decl?ne.
Mr. Ludcke stated he apologized for not having been at the last
Planning Commission meeting. It is better to be there at the �ime
and take the flack that may follow. It is fair to sa�• that we
have a pretty vigorous difference of opinion about what went o^ in
the fall of 1996. There was no claim that evzryone ir:volved d_d
not do their job. Frankly, they feel like they were ioxed into
not filing a permit application. They came with a project and
tried to force a decision on whether or not wz met thz zoning
criteria. He believes they did and he believzs the b�st proof of
that is what the staff is proposing to be included in the M-4
district. The plan they had cleared and submitted dic show the
docks that Mr. Hickok addressed and, he thought in retrospect,
prompted the concern and decision that something had �o be done �o
hold them up. He thought Mr. Knaak would agree that =t is a
different situation if the property owner applies and complies
with existing zoning as opposed to a situation where ro
application is in place and then a moratorium. They =eel that, ir.
effect legally, they are reduced to the same situation because
what they are doing is trying to get information back from the
City of what they want to see from them. They did everything
short of identifying their tenant and invited City staff and the
City Attorney on a tour. He spoke with Mr. Knaak about starting
in the fall and asking him about�what is it that the City is
really interested in. They got a strong message that the City was
not interested in our use which we felt conformed. Mr. Knaak did
not get back to him when he made these requests.
Mr. Ludcke stated in the interim Everest received a call from Ms.
Dacy suggesting that she might have a manufacturing user for a
portion of the site which confirmed the concern that the City was
not going to approve under any circumstances a warehouse use.
This is where he takes issues with staff's characterization that
they did not provide information. Everest was the party that was
not provided with the information. They were not told that what
was in the works was a change of zoning that would prevent them
from having any kind of warehouse development in favor of
manufacturing. He thought they went as far as they possibly
could. They pointed to the Murphy warehouse type of use. They
certainly knew this was not a truck terminal. They did delay, and
they did not make the application. They did not want to step on
staff's toes and wanted to get around that. When he did not get
the last call from Mr. Knaak and then was told that the moratorium
was in place, at a meeting in February Mr. Knaak apologized to him
because he said, according to the circumstances, he was not at
liberty to comment.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 13
Mr. Ludcke stated, if he were in Mr. Knaak's position, we would
not have disclosed that either, but if the net effect is to keep
them from moving forward and applying for a building permit when
they.did comply, that he thought takes it out of case law that
justifies the moratorium. He was not there to talk about so much
the legalities of case law philosophies, but they think it was
their project that was in the spotlight and not the other folks.
He did not know whether they wer� involved in similar discussions
with City staff about projects. =hey were involved in these
discussions on an on-going basis and they did delay in order to
comply as best they could. They ieel that this ordinance is aimed
directly at them. He thought tha�, when there is a limited amount
of property in the City available rer industrial detre�opment, that
they should not end up being the victims of a policy that should
have been adopted long ago to pre�Tent some wrongs �hat Mr. Hi�}:o�,
he believes, described in lesser �art. He thought they had
developed expectations when they �ought the site which were
consistent based on discussions t��en and with the.existing zoning
that should be considered by the Commission when deciding whether
or not to adopt the M-4 zoning a� all and its impact on them.
Mr. Nelson stated he would like to enter into the public record
the series of correspondence rela�ing to this issue to indicate
that this is not a truck terminal. He would like to leave with
the question that, if this was your property and you had
significant capital and time invested in plans and this situation
occurred, would you feel that it is fair. They feel it is unfair.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to enter into the
public record the letter from Bakken & Leidl dated April 1, 1997,
and correspondence between the City of Fridley and Everest
Development as provided by Mr. Nelson.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSI,Y.
Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Nelson his definition of a warehouse versus a
truck terminal.
Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal typically has a very low
ceiling height because no product is stored for a long period of
time. Typically, it is a long, narrow building. A warehouse,
especially a distribution warehouse, is a big box - a large
rectangle or square in shape. It has a high ceiling height for
storage. Truck terminals often have cross docking - docks on both
sides of the building - and a much higher ratio of docks to
building square footage. A distribution warehouse also can have a
significant number of docks but pales in comparison to a truck
terminal as far as ratio. The product that is stored in a
P?�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 14
warehouse is typically stored for a longer period of time versus
products at a truck terminal that is unloaded from one truck then
onto another truck sometimes the same day. It may stay in the
facility for a few days. Frequently, a truck terminal also has a
truck repair facility or garage on site for maintenance of the
truck fleet. It is a very different situation. The Murphy
warehouse buildings are examples of distribution warehouse
facilities.
Mr. Oquist asked how many docks were in the development as
proposed.
Mr. Nelson stated their building was proposed to nave from 20 to
40 docks - 50 at the outside. Certainly not 50 on Main Stre2t as
indicated in ths staff report. The exact number of docks had not
been pinpointed because their tenant's needs varied with the
contracts they had. The likelihood was that it was going to be in
the range of 35 docks with some along the east side of the
building along Main Street and some along the south side of the
buildinq. The front yard of a corner lot is defined as the
shortest side on a public street so the side alon� 61st woulu be
considered the front yard.
Mr. Kuechle asked how many trucks would they expect to go in and
out of there during the day.
Mr. Nelson stated he did not know. It would vary with the
tenant's business. There would be a significant amount of truck
traffic, but there might also be with a manufacturing use. While
the number of docks for manufacturing zoning is probably less than
warehousing, the actual truck traffic may be just the same. From
a design standpoint, they needed to reserve the entire west side
of the building for potential rail access in the future. Possible
rail access was another attractive feature of this site.
Mr. Kuechle stated he was curious why, if they met all the
requirements, they did not get a permit.
Mr. Nelson stated they did not because staff told them that the
matter of provinq this was not a truck terminal had to be resolved
before they would consider an application.
Mr. Hickok stated at no time did staff say they could not apply
for a building permit.
Mr. Nelson stated, in hindsight, they wish they would have. They
were told they needed to demonstrate why that building could not
be considered a truck terminal or warehouse and that issue had to
be resolved before the project would be given further
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 15
consideration.
Mr. Oquist asked if the ordinance controls truck terminals versus
warehouse.
Mr. Hickok stated yes.
Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal requires an M-3, Heavy
Industrial, zoning.
Ms. Modig stated the minutes indicated that we were talking about
getting some additional information from the assessor and the fact
that some Commission members questioned that restricting the use
may affect the value. Staff did not respond to that in the
questions provided. Does staff have any information that would
differ from the information Mr. Bakken is telling us?
Mr. Hickok stated the assessor did not make a blanket statement
regarding values. He said that the values would be determined on
a site-by-site analysis.
Ms. Savage stated, if we did proceed with another meeting to
discuss individual-�ites, would we have that information.
Mr. Hickok stated staff could have some general information about
uses and how the formulas work for industrial and manufaeturing
uses.
Ms. Modig stated they were getting an indication from the City
assessor that this does not diminish the value an� then we are
getting information from Mr. Bakken that it will diminish the
value. This is sending a mixed message. It has to be done on an
individual basis.
Mr. Kuechle stated, to summarize the situation, if you rezone,
there are fewer people in the marketplace. On the other hand,
there is less pressure on the land price from a manufacturing
point of view because the land is a smaller portion of the total
project. They would like to build and manage the property for
more income over a longer period of time; whereas manufacturing
interests wish to buy the land, build and be done with it. The
land purchase is not a big deal but it becomes more important with
a warehouse because the warehouse costs are less. But there are
fewer manufacturing potential buyers.
Mr. Nelson stated he does some of the marketing of this site and
900 of the calls are not manufacturing but warehouse or office/
warehouse uses. From a study of the Anoka Enterprise Park, even
companies who can afford expensive land flock to where there is no
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 16
or low cost land because they can put that on the bottom line.
They have developed over 2 million square feet of mostly
manufacturing facilities in the last 24 months because they are
giving the land away. He thought there was a comment at the last
Planning Commission meeting that the assessor reported back that
he would not necessarily reduce the assessed value for tax
purposes if it had the new zoning. He would submit that this is a
very different issue from the real marketplace. The owner may
petition taxes. It does take longer and longer to get something
going. It is not really a question of whether there is an effect
on the market value for the assessor to say it would not affect
the assessed value. That is a separate issue.
Mr. Hickok stated it might be very easy to lose sight of what we
are trying to accomplish by the legal discussion or the technical
discussion. Staff does and always.has looked to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community as they review a
project. For the Commission's clarification, the planning of that
particular project involved meetings of the developer saying '�this
is not a trucking terminal, we are right and you're wrong".
Planning needs more than photos of truckinq terminals and
warehouse facilities that we know exist. The reality of it is, in
order move a project, planning staff have to have a sense of how
that i.s going to work on the site, and the credibility of the
project with adjacent properties is very important. When we are
seeing a big box and are being told by the developer it meets the
code and that is all we are seeinq, it gives us very little to
evaluate. Staff did not tell anyone they should not submit a
permit application. If these folks felt they were right about the
use on that property, they should have been in to the building
department to submit an application. This is not directly related
to their property; but instead it has to do with the industrial
property and the amount of property we have left in the City. It
is our role, and our attorney will agree, to look out for the
health, safety and welfare of the community and it is appropriate
for us to ask all the vital questions before we get a project. We
need a project first before we can evaluate that. In looking at
Murphy, they were careful not to point any doors across the
street. We were told this is appropriate and this is how we are
going to lay it out. The point is not to be argumentative, but
the Commission might have a dim view of how staff reviewed this
and it may taint you view of the M-4 issue.
Mr. Ludcke stated he would like to respond to the question of why
they did not apply for.a building permit. It.is true that we were
not told that we could not apply, but a sophisticated real estate
developer does not wish to go against staff's wishes. We bent
over backwards to try to accommodate those wishes. If you look at
what is in the handout, it is in part to show what happened and
PL�INNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 17
why- In November, when he took Mr. Knaak on a tour, they
indicated that Murphy Warehouse was a similar use to their
proposal. He did not perceive that this was meeting the need of
the request. He asked Mr. Knaak what is going on here and,
ultimately, is it a manufacturing use that staff really wants
here. The attorney never called him back until after the
moratorium was placed on the property and the manufacturing �use
was recommended. Staff never did say no to applying but he ::-ould
like to know what the staff wants. The only thing they did :ot do
was give staff the identity of their tenant. They did not do that
for a number of reasons. One of those was that the tenant d_d not
want their identity known to the City. Other reasons were t�at we
did not know that the City could prctect the identity. T��1; had a
bad experience in another community. It did not seem tha� t^is
was the interest. He thought the staff could have b�er. u� fYont
and said they were interested in changing the zoning and ����- they
did not want to see a warehouse use. Staff could hav'e said �nat
to us and we would have had accurate information to respond �o.
Mr. Prichard stated he would like to reiterate the concerns =nd
opposition of McGlynn Bakeries to the proposed M-4 zcning. =�eir
first and largest concern is the limitation this change would
place on their future growth in thz City. They expect to ou�grow
their current manufacturing facility in four to five years and
possibly sooner. When that occurs, they anticipate they will
first neEd to build a warehouse distribution facility on the
vacant land. They would probably make use of that facility for
manufacturing over time as they build their business. The truck
traffic does not flow through residential nor any traffic frorn the
facility on the land that they own. They do not feel that is an
issue. The proposed M-4 class would significantly limit their
options in the City and take away the flexibility that they need.
The flexibility they see is that they need to construct the type
of facility that best supports future growth. He cannot at this
time tell what that will be. The second concern is related to
their need to have warehouse manufacturing distribution operations
as close as possible to one another. This will give them the
opportunity for maximum efficiencies, best communications and
quality control. They are forced to be very competitive in the
markets they serve and must keep costs as low as possible. They
are looking at many new business opportunities and to be
successful they must lower costs and keep them low. He felt this
would cost them more money and increase their costs ultimately.
They would not be as competitive.
Mr. Prichard stated their third concern relates to the market
value of the property. From their point of view, it seems that if
you limit buyers, and they are not in the market to sell, but they
wish to retain that as an option down the road. They may need at
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 18
some point to sell that land to create capital. He wanted to make
sure that it is clear that their land does not border any
residential at all. To the west of them is railroad tracks, and
immediately to the west of the railroad tracks is commercial
property - Super America, A& W Restaurant, and the flower shop.
The closest residential is across East River Road to the west.
Visually, it would be limited in how the residential would see
their facility at all. He did not envision many people would look
across East River Road and worry about the railroad tracks and
then their building.
Mr. Prichard stated McGlynn's came to the City in 1992. They
entered into a redevelopment agreement to revive th� shut down
Totino manufacturing facility. This was done in the spirit of
cooperation and has been mutually beneficial. Today they employ
500 people in�the City generating $16 million in an�:ual pavroll.
They pay nearly $170,000 in real estate taxes annua-ly after tax
increment assistance. They expect these figures to grow as they
expand their business and their facility. The proposed rezoning
works against their growth efforts. They respectfu?ly req_uest the
Commission to leave their land out of the proposed _�:-4 zoning.
They would like to spend their time and money growir.g their
business and not on challenging this issue.
Ms. Savage asked if this would be a situation where, if McGlynn
was included as one of the proposed M-4 sites and then in five
years wanted to expand, what would be their recourse.
Mr. Hickok stated, depending on the expansion, if it were to be
attached, they may want to do what Tri-Star Insulation did where
they proposed to build a building and attach it to a CR-1 office
building. In that case, they amended the CR-1 to match so that
the entire site was amended to industrial. If they were going to
attach, it may be most appropriate to combine all the PIN numbers
and make the property into one parcel and amend the zoning to make
it all consistent. With the uncertainty about how the land will
develop, the M-4 would allow the City to keep specific uses for
that site. They can always request.rezoning if it does not match.
Mr. Steilen stated he would like to respond to some of those
questions. That really does not work for them. They are not the
problem the City is trying to solve. It is stretching it to say
that there are residential problems associated with this site.
There is commercial and industrial on all sides. It is not
acceptable to have a nonconforming use because it creates
problems. If you have a fire or destruction of property, most
ci�y codes do not give you the automatic right to rebuild or to
expand. The problem with McGlynn is that they want to build a
business and invest more money into the site. They bought the
PI�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 P�iGE 19
property under a set of laws that allowed them the flexibility.
They do not want to be in a situation where that flexibility is
taken away. It creates too many questions about future
flexibility. They do not want to be in the situation where they
continue to make substantial investments in the property and, then
maybe in five years, they may or may not be able to build a
warehouse. This is a bad situation for them.
Mr. Steilen stated they would hope that they would conclude
tonight that this is not the'problem that you are trying to solve.
These hearings are necessary as a part of the process; but they
become very expensive. The further this qoes alonq the more they
have to invest because they are very concerned about this. So
far, they have.taken a fairly low key approach. They have what
they think is a very successful relationship with the City and
they do not want anything to disturb tnat. Every meeting that
goes forward, you get closer to the possibility that something is
going to happen that you absolutely do not want to happen. So,
they then need to invest money in the attorneys. It is a strain
on their budget. They would hope that the Commission would take a
good hard iook at McGlynn and not require them to invest in
further meetings and take that site oii the list because it really
is a stretch.
Ms. Modig asked if McGlynn's had addressed the issue of the pipe
before.
Mr. Prichard stated the pipe issue is something that he personally
had not discussed. Someone in the company has talked to the City
as a possibility. They do not see that as a good option right now
because they do not know the future use of that land. It maybe an
unnecessary expenditure.
Mr. Zylla stated he represents the Fridley Business Center
Partnership and is an employee Northco. As he was preparing for
the meeting, he was trying to think through the issues and do some
research. There are a couple of things at work that are important
not to lose site of. They are admittedly concerned about the M-4
zoning. There have been some discussions earlier by Mr. Hickok
that suggested that the list would be pared and their 2.2 acre
site in the Northco development would be eliminated. He would
feel good about that because they do not feel it should be on the
list, and he is sure that as they develop the property it would be
an office warehouse use with two or three docks. They have not
done a site plan other than for a single user. They would like to
have that property removed from the list. They agree with earlier
comments that it would limit the possibilities to market the site.
m
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 20
Mr. Zylla stated they don't want to lose site of the major issue
with the language revisions that have to do with loading docks on
a corner lot. On the parcel to the southwest of this site there
are 4 acres which they are in the process of developir.g_ They
have a lot of money invested in soil borings, site plan, grading
plan, and everything that they are getting ready to get into th2
wor.king drawings. There is a major issue in the code review with
suggested language that relates to corner lots and that loading
docks on corner lots shall not face the public right-of-way. 0:-:
this lot, they have three sides of public right-of-way on the site
plan. They are concerned that, if this language is adopted, this
will kill that project. They also had some discussion at the last
meeting about the reference to no truck or trailers parked and t�
be visible from the public right-of-way. He did not have a
particular concern about this language if they did not have "on
corner lots or across from residential". If it just said across
from residential, they would not have a concern. If it includes
corner lots, it will impact them in a very negative way.
Mr. Zylla stated the M-4 impacts few properties. There is a
marginal impact in total to the City, but there is a major impac�
to the sites. The question he has is not that this should not be
created in the zoning but he cannot remember seeing a zoning code
where there was a particular zoning classification that
specifically called out a particular use. It seems to him that
this is not only prohibitive but that this is impacting such few
properties that everyone would be well served to be rethink this
and perhaps kill it before it went any further than this.
Mr. Zylla stated, regarding the language related to corner lots,
his view has always been that Fridley has a pretty good reputation
in the development community. When he met with staff and their
client, his client was impressed with staff that he wrote a letter
thanking staff for the professional approach that Fridley was
taking. He spent seven years on the Plymouth Planning Commission
and he can tell you that Fridley's current code even without the
changes is more stringent than Plymouth relative to loading docks,
and Plymouth does not have a very good reputation generally in the
development community in how they are viewed regarding loading
docks. If you look at what is already in the code relative to
loading docks, for example, loading docks now have to be in the
rear or side yard. Plymouth does not even require that. Loadinq
docks can be in any yard. Fridley's code presently requires not
only screening but it dictates six-foot high minimum solid
screening fence, etc.. Plymouth basically says to show them a plan
that meets their appraval relative to screening. Plymouth makes
no reference to corner lots relative to loading docks. This has a
major effect on them because their plan has only one loading dock
on that 4-acre site and it has to face 71st Avenue or their plan
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 21
does not work. Again, it is only one loading dock. It.faces the
ice arena and does not face any residential. If they had to turn
the dock to face to the east, they would not be able to proceed at
a significant financial cost to everyone. He thought the City
should eliminate the reference to corner lots and eliminate them
from the M-4 consideration on the 2.2 acre lot.
Mr. Zylla stated, in their particular situation, whether it is the
2.2 or 4-acre lot, the trucks that are there, to his knowledge,
travel on major arterials. Any truck traffic that exists near
that industrial park is on a major arterial, and that is the
reason to have major arterials. He would like to suggest that
they rethink the whole thing. Someone suggested to stop it here.
He would agree wholeheartedly that this should just be stopped
here tonight.
Ms. Savage stated she wished to make one comment. She was no�
that familiar with Plymouth. The problem that Fridley has is that
we have many residential areas near industrial areas, and we have
to be concerned about those residential areas. She asked if stafi
had comments about the corner lots.
Mr. Hickok stated before the Commission is a revised ordinancz.
Initially, the M-1 stated in paragraph C, "On corner lots or lots
across from residential districts, no loading docks shall face the
public right-of-way." It then went on to paragraph D to say, "On
corner lots or lots across from residential user districts, no
trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner which is visible
from the public right-of-way of residential use or district." The
revised language removes paragraph D, puts the essence of C and D
into one paragraph, and gets at the heart of what staff was
looking at in the recommended language and that is on corner lots
across from residential. Mr. Zylla is correct as he reviews the
ordinances and states that we already say that outside loading
shall be located in the rear or side yards and properly screened.
We do have protections in there. The exception was that
residential lots near corner industrial lots are subject to some
impacts that staff was hoping to screen.. Paragraph C states, "On
corner lots across from residential districts, no loading docks
shall face the public right-of-way." How that relates to the
project discussed in the Northco development with three streets
surrounding it makes it more difficult. Normally the industrial
lots if they are corner lots might have two streets but a third
street does compound the site design problems. It does
specifically talk about a corner lot across from residential
district and then states that as long as the docks are in the rear
and side yard, properly screened, you are okay. He thought tha�t
successfully addressed that concern.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 22
Mr. Oquist stated the proposed ordinance in front of them which is
for the M-1, M-2 and M-3 says on corner lots across from
residential areas. The language for M-4 states on corner lots or
lots across from residential districts. He thought this should be
modified.
Mr. Hickok agreed that this should be consistent. On all of
these, the consistent statement is, "... on corner lots across
from residential districts." As staff analyze the language in the
code, they actually covered the other concern in paragraph A where
they talk about outside loading docks which are to be located in
the rear and side yards and properly screened. On corner lots,
additional protection is necessary.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to c1os2 the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:15 P.M.
Ms. Savage stated, as she read the minutes, she got the sense that
the Commission was in favor of the ordinance but had some concerns
about some of the individual sites. She wanted to reiterate what
staff said, and she thought it was important that they look at the
big picture. A few months ago, they met with the Mayor and City
Council and talked about goals for Fridley and how we can improve
the quality of life in the City. That is truly the big picture to
keep in mind. She got the sense that generally the Commission
members were in favor of the ordinance. The Commission could
possibly approve and not make any recommendations about the sites
and have another hearing to consider the individual sites.
Ms. Modig asked, if they excluded a site tonight, is it correct
that it would not come up again unless it is put back on by the
City Council.
Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Staff would notify the
property owners if the City Council felt it was appropriate. At
that point, staff would go back and reconsider action to rezone
those properties. Staff wants to be certain the Commission is �
comfortable with every property that staff notifies. If the
Commission feels compelled to add to the list or delete some
properties, it is those properties staff will notify for the next
public hearing.
Mr. Kuechle asked the size of the Northco property.
Mr. Hickok stated the site is 2.2 acres and is zoned M-2.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 23
Mr. Oquist stated the Commission talked about the Northco
property, but he also felt the McGlynn property does not fit into
this category either. He can support the M-4 zoning and the
ordinance change, but he felt there are two sites that should be
excluded and they should review the other five. Three members of
the Planning Commission are not present at this meeting, and they
had strong questions and/or opinions.
Ms. Savage stated this is also hzr concern. Three members are not
present so there is not full opportunity for everyone to be heard_
Mr. Oquist stated there is no guarantee that they would be present
at the next meeting. He thought �he Commission ne2ded to move
forward on the proposed M-4. He strongly would like to see the
two above mentioned sites excluded.
Mr. Kuechle concurred. He was in favor of recommending approval
of the M-4. He would suggest dropping the Northco site because it
is small and does not amount to very many loading dacks. He had a
different feeling about McGlynn site. He would like to Exclude it
as long as McGlynn owns the property°. He can see the development,
not so much as a warehouse, but as an adjunct to their current
operations. On the other hand, if they decided to sell it, there
is no handle on it. He is trying to figure out some way to do
that but there is no smooth way.
Ms. Modig stated she would support the M-4 zoning, but she would
like to exclude the Northco and McGlynn sites. McGlynn does not
meet the criteria as far as residential property. It is
stretching it to try to include that.
Mr. Hickok stated the Commission could send a recommendation
regarding the ordinance language. The Commission sounds split as
far as the sites. Staff could notify all seven property owners
and those within 350 feet of the properties and bring them in for
a discussion at the next public hearing. Ideally, it would be
great if everyone agreed. What would be lost is that staff would
be notifying more properties, but at least we have given
notification and allowed ourselves to make a decision regarding
the sites at a later date.
Mr. Kuechle asked if this would go before the City Council before
the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Hickok stated no. Staff will wait for a decision on the
specific sites and move recommendations for the proposed language
and the proposed sites at the same time_
Ms. Modig stated she did not understand. If the four members
C
pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997
PAGE 24
present choose to make a recommendation on the sites and all
cannot agree, that is not enough.
Mr. Hickok stated, combined with the fact that the Commission does
not have a full complement of Commissioners, he would feel best if
staff contacted the property owners around all seven sites. The
comments seem to indicate there is not a consensus among the
group. They would be safest to contact all property owners. If
it was clear that there was concurrence that a site or sites
should be dropped, then staff would then notify the remaining
property owners. At any point, the City Council can give staff
the directive to include a site.
Ms. Savage stated she felt uncomfortable about eliminating any
sites because of the small group. She would rather, at this
point, not eliminate any of the sites.
MOTION by Mr.
City Council
M-2, and M-3
On1y.
Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to the
approval of the proposed language changes to the M-1,
districts and the creation of M-4, Manufacturing
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Modig stated she would feel more comfortable acting on a
motion regarding the sites to be included ior consideration.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to exclude the
McGlynn Bakeries site and the Northco site from the seven
properties because they do not meet the criteria.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG AI�TD MR. OQUIST VOTING AYE, AND
MS. SAVAGE AND MR.,KUECHLE VOTIN6 NAY, CHAIRPERSON DECI�ARED THE
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A MPuTORITY.
Mr. Hickok stated staff would send notices to the affected
property owners.
2. RESOLIITION
FOR REDEVE
COMPREHENS
FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO E REDEVELOPMENT
OPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO CONSISTENT WITH TH
VE PLAN OF THE CITY
PLAN
Mr. Hickok stated the purpose this resolution is to comply with
State law which requires t Planning Commission to review a
modification to the Cit s redevelopment plan in order to insure
consistency with th ity`s comp_rehensive plan.
Mr. Hickok st ed Mr. Linn of Linn Properties is proposing to add
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS
The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Appendix D of the Fridley City Code is amended hereinafter as indicated.
SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and
described as:
3 Vacant Parcels, qenerallv located on the southwest corner of 61St Avenue and
Main Street NE
All of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota,
excepting the South 200.0 feet of the East 363.0 feet thereof, as measured along the
East and South lines of said Lot 6; and excepting the West 13 feet of the East 376 feet
of the South 200 feet of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, as measured along the East
and South lines of Lot 6.
ALSO, that portion of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, City of Fridley, Anoka County,
Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the West right-of-way line of Main Street, according
to the recorded plat thereof, and the North line of said Lot 8; thence Southerly along
said West right-of-way line a distance of 30.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the
parcel to be described; thence continuing Southerly along said West right-of-way line to
the point of intersection with the South line of said Lot 8; thence Westerly along said
South line of Lot 8 to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 75.0
feet Easterly of, as measured at right angles to, Burlington Northern Railroad
Company's (formerly Great Northern Railway Company's) hereinafter described Main
Track centerline; thence Northerly parallel with said Main Track centerline to the point of
intersection with said North line of Lot 8; thence Easterly along said North line a
distance of 143.85 feet; thence Southerly parallel with said East line of Lot 8 a distance
of 30.0 feet; thence Easterly parallel with said North line of Lot 8 to the True Point of
Beginning;
ALSO, that portion described in Torrens Certificate No. 72528 as follows:
All that part of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of the Northeast quarter (NE1/4) of
Section 22, Township 30, Range 24, lying Easterly of the Northern Pacific Railway
Company's right-of-way, lying South of a line which is parallel with the North line of said
Northeast quarter (NE1/4) of the Northeast quarter (NE1/4), and 290.4 feet South of
said North line as measured along the East line of said Northeast quarter of Northeast
quarter (NE1/4); and lying North of a line which is parallel with the South line of said
Northeast quarter (NE1/4) of Northeast quarter (NE1/4) and 739.2 feet North of said
South line as measured along said East line.
Main Track Centerline Description
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 22, T30N, R24W of the 4t" P.M., Anoka
County, Minnesota; thence Westerly along the North line of said Section 22 a distance
of 633.5 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the Main Track centerline to be
described; thence Southerly, deflecting 86 35' to the left, to the point of intersection with
the South line of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 of said Section 22 and there terminating.
Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District M-2 (Heavy Industrial).
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map
to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District M-4
(Manufacturing Only) to M-2 (Heavy Industrial).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
_DAYOF ,_.
SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN — CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: October 8, 2007
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publication:
�.�...,..._.....-.... f _ Ntlld 3115 •:=Y Q s
I1JIS�Q �"' �` .
� i�', � T
7 i�1 � =1� � rlosanxe 'uiauu e , t c 1
��� ���1 EF w � �S�N• 173tl15 W'/� i 7'N ]IW3�Y lSt9 � U .
� w.� �y ��n•r� AlM1'J ONIYII�1t33Yf Y�M � ys� y�
v� 1�3f0ad 1332115 NIVW N35131N � E a� R
i �
0
a �
� y
$ a
YZL
u���
�.s��
Oyi�
��e�
a
„_�
Y �ee
. a^•
�
�,
a �
_ °=�
x ���
~ o �
Z �o�
� �� --
_'�5�-m' _' a0• " _-135 - 6 EO
i
i' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ '
I' ---------------
;TI' 0' I!' 14' IH••0•
Iw i r�-.�
i a - _ _ _
I I I r
'. °� I _I_
' w � � �
IZ � _�_ F� �
r � r � ��
° r � ' —I— �I—�
" w I pl
� � � —�3a� -
$ - a � 1� � —
a e
, _ —
o a '�_I
_����_�
W W ��mi
A"- — 19 ,� I— .
� " I �I /
� b�«+c < � 6
� - I- q I-
��I r' a 9. � �
u� ^ W . —�— —�—
' I I �
��I e �, —�— —�
�
��
°q�ea
���_.
�����
Y
���t�
`°_
; o:, nn
�- :
a;
Rfn
r §^�
r
� oS�
���
a�
��
»�
��
��
3�
�;
��
'sm
?
w
Z
7
a
N
W
d' W
U �
< U
Q
N M
u? n
��
�o
II �
Q II
w�
¢�
Na
��
�°z
�
�� ._,___ — --- �
�
� - --�--- ��r��
���--- - ----
�_ _ _
��� � .
, . � __
_ ___ ___������o�����t��C!/ir���
rta-
.15'-0' ;
I I
I
I
il
I
I
I�
1�' -
. � i _i _ i i _
�45' S EO 7 .I _ I - �- - �
I i
—J-—�——-— —
� � � �
— -+ — —I— —�— — L —
� � z
—-T ——�—� I— — i —
— I —IZ6r—t—
I I_
I I� � � _ � —
— � — _I� � I I
? I I
-1--iro-i--� -
-�--�� �--�--
I I � I I
—-1--�—a�*_-�——�—
� �
- � - -i-� r - r -
� � I I
——— � — �--�—
1 I
_# — -� — —� — — � — � —
k
�
9
c
ig
� ,°, 5
� I ° o
oa
I ��
€ ��a
I n�
0
_. � a e^
� ,�
Cp'Opi 3 G1 L405
, _ _ � �
a - i �i �
fi
� o i ��
n � � I B
�.. � I «
o � � I' #
w � II .�0,
� I
' �
I I
Q j— ----------J I�
_ - r 1 O. Ls'I[fi3.[S.Yf20N .___ , ' �..F-���� �-��-�.--�����_..-_��..I
�p�
.9/E II-.iii .CE D3 q • .p�.
+aa� �as .9iL
_ I _�_ � � ovoairoa N2i3H1bON NO1�NIla(18
?� —
�� — —
�y ae
�t q�
�„ �°
1
u� d°
�o °�<
�}' c c
+W ~� 41
�
�
CfTY OF
FRIaLE'f
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
October 4, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Special Use Permit for Outside Storage at 7831 Hickory Street NE
Introduction
The petitioner, Scott Lien of Global health
Ministries, is seeking a special use permit to allow
limited outdoor storage at 7831 Hickory Street NE.
The petitioner is requesting to store two 40' long
shipping containers along the alley, which borders
their east property line, for the purpose of storing
overflow medical supply donations.
Analysis
The property is zoned S-3, Heavy Industrial-
Onaway District, as is all surrounding property.
The subject property is located on the corner of
Hickory Street and 78th Avenue. Staff discovered
the use of the containers without a special use
permit during a routine code enforcement sweep
through the Onaway Zoning District this summer.
The petitioner desires to bring the property into
compliance and submitted a special use permit
application as requested by staff.
The original building was constructed in 1979 as a warehouse building. The interior of the
original building has altered twice since its original construction. The building is 16,600 square
feet in size.
Existing Building
Global Health Ministries (GHM) is a registered 501c3 non-profit organization. The organization
was founded in 1987 and moved into this site in 1995. GHM mission is to enhance health care
programs of Lutheran churches in other countries. They receive donations of inedical equipment
and supplies from hospitals in the area, which they ship out of the country where needed. GHM
has a limited staff and relies heavily on volunteers to accomplish their mission.
Properties in industrial districts are allowed by special use permit to have limited outdoor
storage as long as nine specific code requirements are met. Those specific requirements relate
to amount of space, height, screening, parking, and the types of materials allowed to be stored
outside.
Space Limitation
City Code allows up to 50% of the principal building's footprint square footage of limited outdoor
storage in the industrial districts with a special use permit. The petitioner's principal building is
approximately 16,600 square feet, which would allow 8,400 square feet of outside storage. The
petitioner is requesting to be allowed to keep two shipping containers they have placed along
the alley, which consume about 1,400 square feet of area on the east side of their building. Thw
containers are 40' long and 8.5' high. Global Health Ministries use these containers to store and
ship donated equipment and materials overseas.
View of Outdoor Storage — along alley, which is the east property line
Height
The storage of materials stored outside must be no higher than 12 ft. high. The petitioner's
enclosed containers are approximately 8.5' in height.
Screening
The shipping containers are required by code to be screened along an alley, which is legally a
public right-of-way. The petitioner initially proposed to leave the containers unscreened, which
caused staff and the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the request at the
September 19 public hearing. The petitioner then revised their application the day before the
public hearing to include a screening fence/gate/wall on both sides of the containers to screen
view of the containers from the side streets but not along the alley. The petitioner believes that
installation of a screening fence or wall along the alley would create problems for snow removal
and access to the containers. These shipping containers are different than most outdoor
storage requests the City has received in that the items stored require a large open area for
maneuverability along an alley as containers are removed and replaced. Installation of a
screening fence or wall along the east end of the containers along the alley would make
accessing the containers extremely difficult.
The City has required screening in other outside storage special use permit requests in the
area. An applicant was required to screen a storage container at 7786 Beech Street, which is in
the Onaway District.
Parking/Paving
An outside storage request cannot affect the required amount of parking for a business.
According to the interior use of this building (12,000 sq. ft. warehouse and 4,000 sq. ft. office),
22 parking stalls are required. The petitioner's initial application did not provide the minimum
number of parking stalls. However, their revised plan does provide the required 22 parking stalls
on their site plan.
Type of Material Stored
The petitioner has stated that the contents in the containers will typically include medical
supplies such as gloves, needles, syringes, medical furniture, x-ray machines, hospital beds,
mattresses, and computers. The petitioner has indicated that it is rare that they store any
chemicals in the containers. They use the containers more to store larger, sensitive pieces of
large equipment that they do not want to be accidentally damaged as things are often shuffled
around inside the warehouse by volunteers to make room for new donations.
City staff has not received any comments from neighboring property owners.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At the September 19, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP
#07-06. Following presentation and discussion of the revised plan for partial screening, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of special use permit request, SP #07-06 with six
stipulations.
THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 3 TO 2 VOTE.
Planning Staff Recommendation
City Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's approval of special use permit application SP
#07-06 for limited outdoor storage in the S-3, Heavy Industrial Onaway zoning district for the
following reasons:
• The revised, proposed site plan provides for screening of the storage area from the
street. Although it does not provide screening from the other public right-of-way (the
alley), the use of these containers in this location reasonably prohibits the full ability to
screen.
• The proposed site plan maintains the required minimum number of parking stalls (22).
Stipulations
Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following six stipulations be
attached. Considering that the outside storage is already in place, staff has added a deadline for
installation of the screening.
1. The storage containers on site shall be screened through a combination of eight foot high
masonry walls, fencing, berming, and/or landscaping, along the south and north side of the
containers by December 1, 2007.
2. No additional storage containers (no more than two 40' long) may be stored on the site.
3. No materials or equipment except that which is contained inside the shipping containers
shall be stored outside the building either within or outside of the designated outside storage
area on this site.
4. No hazardous materials or chemicals may be stored outside in the containers. Outdoor
storage containers to be inspected and contents approved for outside storage by the Fire
Marshall periodically upon request.
5. Existing storage containers on the site shall be maintained with a sound painted surface,
free of rust or corrosion and be removed at least once per year. Semi-trucks and trailers
shall not be permitted for storages purposes on the property.
6. No outdoor storage may occur other than the storage of items used specifically for the
mission of Global Health Ministries.
m
iVIAIN �TOOL � �
& M F�. Go., I Nc.
7850 BEEC►-► ST., NE • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432
763-571-1772 • FAX 763-571-3738
WWW.MAINTOOL.COM
October 8, 2007
To Whom it May Concern:
Global Health Ministries has asked us to draft a letter concerning fencing of the
north and south ends of two containers on their property.
Main Tool has no problem with the containers being there. They have not
interfered with our business.
Our major concern would be that having a fence there may interfere with the
City's snowplowing and snow removal efforts in the winter. If this would happen,
it may then create a problem for Main Tool's deliveries.
Duane Spani
General Manager
City of Fridley Land Use Application
SP #07-06 Oct. 4, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Scott Lien
Global Health Ministries
7831 Hickory St. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action:
Special Use Permit to allow exterior
storage of materials in the S-3, Heavy
Industrial Onaway zoning district.
Existing Zoning:
S-3 (Heavy Industrial, Onaway Addition)
Location:
7831 Hickory Street NE
Size:
40,001 sq. ft. .92 acres
Existing Land Use:
Industrial
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: S-3, Heavy Industrial, Onaway
E: S-3, Heavy Industrial, Onaway
S: S-3, Heavy Industrial, Onaway
W: S-3, Heavy Industrial, Onaway
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.25.04.C.12 requires a special
use permit to allow limited outdoor
storage.
Zoning History:
1911— Lot is platted
1979 — Warehouse is constructed
1990 — Building Interior Alteration
1995 — Building Interior Alteration
Legal Description of Property:
Lots 23 Thru 30 incl Block 3 Onaway
Public Utilities:
Building is connected.
Transportation:
The property can be accessed from
Hickory Street and the alley on 7gtn
Avenue
Physical Characteristics:
Principal warehouse building with office
space, hard surface driveways and
parking areas and a few landscaped
areas
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The petitioner, Mr. Lien of Global Health
Ministries, is seeking a special use permit to
allow exterior storage along the alley in the rear
yard of the property located at 7831 Hickory
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this special
use permit:
• Limited outdoor storage is a permitted
special use in the S-3, Heavy Industrial,
Onaway district, provided specific code
requirements are met.
• This application has been changed from
its original submittal to meet the
minimum parking and screening
requirements for outside storage
CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE
City Council — October 8, 2007
60 Day — October 15, 2007
Subject property
Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
President
Carol Berg, RN, MPH
Mimeapolis, MN
ViCC PI'CSJ[jCIK
Donna Wright,. RN, MS
sn�;s, sn
Secre�y
Bea Haagenson, RN, PhD,MFd
Minneapolis, MN
Ruth A. Ehrhardt, RN
Cedar Rapids, [A
Clayton Engelstad
Mentor, MN
Leola Dyrud Furman
PhD, MSW
Minneapolis, MN
James Hart, MD
Stillwater, MN
�
�2.�^ �� � -1 � `t;' �
Global Health Ministries
7831 Hickory Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55432-2500
763/586-9590 • 763/586-9591 (fax)
E-mail: ghmoff'ice@cs.com • Internet: www.ghm.org
Special Use Permit: Narrative of Proposed Use
Update to GHM's Application for Special Use Permit
Parking Stalls
As of September 18, 2007, GHM has removed three (3) of the outside storage containers (2x40' &
1ac20') alongside our building in order to create more parking stalls as required by City of Fridley
Code. See attached site plan. The original stalls of #7-11, and #16 have been removed and redrawn
allowing for enough room around the proposed screening of the two remaining containers and for
access to dumpsters and fire hydrant in the middle of the building as required by the stipulations of
the Planning Committee. Total number of parking stalls: 22.
Wilhelmina V. Holder Screening
MD CM,DTPH, MS GHM ro oses to screen the two remainin containers with chain-link fence with lastic reen
Plymoudi, MN P P g � P g
Randolph Hurtey, MD slates in-between) so as to reduce visibility for the containers from 79th & 78�' Streets. The screen
�s�•� behind the containers (south end and neaz the dumpsters and fire hydrant) will be no longer than 15'
Davifl w.lohnson, MD in length and 6' high, from sidewalk alongside building to edge of property line in alley. The screen
Eegan,MN � front of the containers (north end) will be on a sliding rail that will open and slide into the grass
David Stark � of our ro e allowin for a truck to deliver/remove future containers to this location 15' in
WMPL Repr., Richfield, MN P P P KY g �
Neil Mattson length and 6' high,). T'his type of screening will allow for removal of individual containers at least
Lino Lakea, MN once per yeaz as required by the stipulations of the Planning Committee.
Paul Matson, MD
Mankem, MN
)ohn A. Nilsen, MD
Minneapolis, MN
Karen Plager,DNSc,RNC,FNP
F7agstaff, AZ
John Prabhakar, MD
Rochelle, Q,
Rev. Jonathan Preus
St Paul, MN
Kathy Quanbeck, RN
Lakeville, MN
Ann Rabie, BSN, MEd,CNM
S� Paul, MN
Dorothea Tenney, RN, BSN
� Minneapolis, MN
Rev. David Lerseth
EL.CA Repr., Chicago, IL
Rev. Dr. James Thomas, PhD
Bronz, NY
Susan Vitalis, MD
Banle I.ake, MN
Bazbara Wang, RN, BSN
Stareview, MN
3TAFF:
Rev. Timon C. Iverson
Executive Director
Dee Inge�mansen
Office Manager
Scott Lien
Director of Operations
Waaen Westvig
Warehouse Manager
Lynn Butler, MT (ASCP)
Controller
Rev. Tom Duke
Assoc. for Strategic Irsitiatives
Landscape Plan
The stipulations of the Planning Committee call for additional landscaping on the west and southeast
end of the building to mitigate visual impact of the storage coritainers. On the west of the property
are two large evergreen trees (picture below left). Along with the building itself (given that the
containers are lined up with the building), this should be su�cient to screen the storage containers
from visual impact off Hickory Street. As for the southeast end of the building, a large evergreen
tree (pictured below right) screens the containers from visual impact off 78�' Street. In addition, a
chain-link fence with plastic green slates will be installed behind the containers and this will add to
the evergreen as sufficient screening.
West end of property (off Hickory Street)
i •
•
Please consider including Global Health Ministries in your estate planning and leave a legacy.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
President
Carol Berg, RN, MPH
Minneapolis, MN
Vice President
Donna Wright,_RN, MS
su,��s, s�
Secret
Bea Haagenson, RN, PhD,M�
- Minneapolis, MN
Ruth A. Ehrhardt, RN
Cedar Rapids, IA
Clayton Engelstad
Mentor, MN
Global Health Ministries
7831 Hickory Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55432-2500
763/586-9590 • 763/586-9591 (fax)
E-mail: ghmoffice@cs.com • Internet: www.ghm.org
Installation of Rain Garden
The stipulations of the Planning Committee call for the installation of a rain garden to help mitigate
storm water impact of the storage containers. Given that the containers are stored on asphalt, and
given that the asphalt in the alley is slo�ed in such a way that storm water drains into the middle of
the alley and eventually to 78�' and 79 Streets, GHM proposes that the installation of a rain garden
is not necessary. In fact, the installation of a rain garden would alter the pre-existing slope in the
alley as designed by the City of Fridley.
Leola Dyrud Furman
�� M MN Contents of storage containers (2x40'):
James Hart, ivtD The following items represent the current inventory of the two (2) remaining 40' containers
suuWew�, MN alongside our building:
Wilhelmina V. Holder
MD CM,DTPH, MS
P�ymouth. MN
Randolph Hurley, MD
Eageu, MN
David W. Johnson, MD
Eagan, MN
David Stark
WMPL Repr., Richfield, MN
Neil Mattson
Lino Lakes, MN
Paul Matson, MD
Maukato, MN
• Medical supplies, assorted in boxes (gloves, dressings, syringes, needles, drapes)
• Medical furniture (exam tables, stools, x-ray view boxes, metal carts, shelving units)
• Hospital beds and mattresses
• Computers, IBM Pentium (used) w/ monitors (15"-17" CRT)
The contents change as donations and containers changed (shipped out), but generally the items
stored inside the containers are medical or office (computers) related and are donated to GHM in
support of mission hospitals we serve overseas. The containers are certified to be sea worthy, sound
painted surface, free of rust or corrosion, and are always locked to prevent unauthorized access.
John A. Nilsen, MD
Minneapolis, MN
Respectively submitted,
Karen Plager,DNSc,RNC,FNP
r��s�rr, nz 7 �.....
John Prabhakar, MD ��
Rochelle, Q.,
Rev. Jonathan Preus SCOtt Llen
s` Pe"�, "'N Director of Operations
Kathy Quanbeck, RN
Lakeville, MN
Ann Rabie, BSN, MEd,CNM
� S� Paul, MN
Dorothea Tenney, RN, BSN
Mim�eapolis, MN
Rev. David Lerseth
ELCA Repr., Chicagq IL
Rev. Dr. James Thomas, PhD
Bronx, NY
Susan Vitalis, MD
Bettle Lake, MN
Barbara Wang, RN, BSN
Shoreview, MN
iTAFF:
• Rev. Timon C. Iverson
Executive Director
Dee Inge�mansen
Office7�lanager
. Scott Lien
Director of Operations
Watten Westvig
Warehouse Manager
Lynn Butler, MT (ASCP)
ConlroUer
Rev. Tom Duke
Assoc. for Strategic Initiutives
� •
Please consider including Clobal Health Ministries in your estate planning and leave a legacy.
w�� •�F �- t{y
O m C f- `LI � � i
N £�e�
w� u Y��"x� W �1L' �N � u �y @ �y
�°E��a�E �oJ� g'�' i �e�a�I � � �i 3 R's_
,�� o i�: � s c��� � ; �� �i��t� #, � � � e
w
�. �� �s � � �� �� —
r3 E���i �� � � 7g � �+@ �6
�$� ��� i����� �� � � �� � ��� �� �+ ,,�
���� ��R O�as� 0� 8 ��� 0-0 0� 0� �
I
i � �
�� �y6 I a-
y
�'�t �a��=�$ —"
p�
�+ g� ��,Be��� I � �I
�SyS �a9�.y4 � a-
�� � I Y N
a
�'d 3
��y��� ���� I d�
s�.'�� IN� 6 � I
i'&�e�� 3:`s t� � a W
t
�O U I s! .
g u a`
ia � _
y y��
1�& t�ydx3 u~i � a �
� q�6
S�3 t��� � I ����
��° � y I —
.�i E �b�� n i `�
�pg�a � �� �� �pg 1
fg i'g 6�iB �9 d� t�— I v�-�
��i{ �i � �H f4 ��� �' I
a I ��1 �"§ !AA I L '
y �
g I � _
3 ! 9 ! � � I
�� ��� � �¢ �� �� � —
�� �" �� � � � I
!� :!� �y� °g� �� � � �, �
�n�B��S� �3x[ �i�§ �� ; � I C
�
G m I ii.Q
R
� ��,� 6��ffiEg3 �� �������:�:�q � �
����f���` �g� #`� °� �l��tl �`�g'q 6' 6¢' —
�=8� � 4�� �g$E a�%�p( Ge .i ��
�9s�� i����iY 4Y4 �G�i�iee����� .�� E a rn
,�� �° � 6� j I ,� s
t������� ��i�g � i � —
� c� � �
��t��,�� a!�" �
�-
�
, _ -
os
�
r
i �
� ' I
�
� �
� �� �
r/! s `'
�3
�����
�,p��
�
m���
����� � +
�
r
�
0
�� +
�
a
�
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2007
CfTY flF
FRIaLE'f
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS