11/05/2007 - 6142:. � � ..
� �- ..
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers
Attendance Sheet
PLFASF AR/NT NAMF, ADDRFSS AND /TFM NUMBFR YOU ARF /NTFRFSTFD /N.
Print Name (Clearly) Address Item; No. '
�1 G. �� -; � .� S o S Vt ( S
�-'�'�2 �� ' l�L,v � i 7-o i�. %"Lo l 3/� U� /Z-
,I )C�vi C� �eti.� � �(Y1 l�Z ° n o;��- Q�...�� N
�- -
/ � c
�
;/'�l �c��G�-� � �� _�bo
� S��r%�f �Jr
�� 1 fc- .��'� � a�3 � l�n�,> > rlL� i
1 1����r �( � � (� � � � �_
r�
srA�A C<
/� 4 S C
1rti1. 1� - � i✓I. �'YL i� V � � �� _ i,,f�ff'
r- ,
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
<. �
QfY OF
FR�LEY
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.
�'I � Z �
PRESENTATION:
Sanitary and Storm Sewer Emergencies
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � �� v����
City Council Meeting of October 22, 2007
OLD BUSINESS:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 11, General Provisions and Fees,
Pertaining to Pawn Shop Transaction
Fees................................... 1 - 2
� a � �-
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of October 17,
2007 .................................. 3 -15
3. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-08, by
Identi-Graphics, to Allow a Changeable
Electronic Gas Pricing Sign in a C-2, General
Business District, Generally Located at 6501
Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) ........... 16 - 20
4. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-10, by
Mark Pope for Golden Living Center — Lynwood,
to Allow a Nursing Home to Continue to Exist, and
to Allow an Expansion of the of the Nursing Home
in an R-3, Multi-Family Zoning District, Generally
Located at 5700 East River Road
(Ward 3) ................................... 21 - 26
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI:
5. Variance Request, VAR #07-04, by Mark Pope
for Golden Living Center — Lynwood, to Reduce
the Front Yard Setback from 35 Feet to 13.1 Feet
to Recognize an Existing Non-Conforming
Setback, which will Allow for the Construction of
a 510 Square Foot Addition to the Existing Building,
Generally Located at 5700 East River Road
(Ward 3) .................................. 27 - 35
6. Resolution Enabling Elected Officials of the City of
Fridley to be Covered by the Minnesota Workers'
Compensation Law as Employees of the City of
Fridley ................................. 36 - 37
o��"D7 � c�'.
7. Resolution in Support of an Application for a
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit
Renewal Application for the Lions Club of
Fridley at Billiard Street Caf�, Inc., d/b/a Two
Stooges Bar and Grill, Located at 7178
University Avenue N.E. and at Bam, Inc.,
d/b/a Shortstop Fridley, Located at 1298
East Moore Lake Drive ...................... 38 - 39
��
8. Resolution in Support of an Application for a
Minnesota Lawful Gambting Premise Permit
Application for DeLaSalle High School at
Broadway Bar & Pizza, Located at 8298
University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) ....... 40 - 41
� I
9. Claims (134057 — 134239)
10. Licenses
11. Estimates
42
43 - 44
45
�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
CffY OF
FRIaLEi'
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.
PRESENTATION:
Sanitary and Storm Sewer Emergencies
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of October 22, 2007
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 11, General Provisions and Fees,
Pertaining to Pawn Shop Transaction Fees .................................................. 1- 2
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of October 17, 2007 .................................................... 3- 15
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
3. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-08, by
Identi-Graphics, to Allow a Changeable
Electronic Gas Pricing Sign in a C-2, General
Business District, Generally Located at 6501
Central Avenue N. E. (Ward 2) ....................................................................... 16 - 20
4. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-10, by
Mark Pope for Golden Living Center — Lynwood,
to Allow a Nursing Home to Continue to Exist, and
to Allow an Expansion of the of the Nursing Home
in an R-3, Multi-Family Zoning District, Generally
Located at 5700 East River Road (Ward 3) ................................................... 21 - 26
5. Variance Request, VAR #07-04, by Mark Pope
for Golden Living Center — Lynwood, to Reduce
the Front Yard Setback from 35 Feet to 13.1 Feet
to Recognize an Existing Non-Conforming
Setback, which will Allow for the Construction of
a 510 Square Foot Addition to the Existing Building,
Generally Located at 5700 East River Road (Ward 3) .................................. 27 - 35
6. Resolution Enabling Elected Officials of the City of
Fridley to be Covered by the Minnesota Workers'
Compensation Law as Employees of the City of
Fridley................................................................................................... 36 - 37
7. Resolution in Support of an Application for a
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit
Renewal Application for the Lions Club of
Fridley at Billiard Street Cafe, Inc., d/b/a Two
Stooges Bar and Grill, Located at 7178
University Avenue N. E. and at Bam, Inc.,
d/b/a Shortstop Fridley, Located at 1298
East Moore Lake Drive .................................................................................. 38 - 39
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 3
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
8. Resolution in Support of an Application for a
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit
Application for DeLaSalle High School at
Broadway Bar & Pizza, Located at 8298
University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3) .................................................................. 40 - 41
9. Claims (1 34057 — 1 34239) ........................................................................... 42
10. Licenses ................................................................................................... 43 - 44
11. Estimates ................................................................................................... 45
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items not on Agenda — 15 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. Consider Special Use Permit, SP #06-11, for
Central Auto Parts, to Operate a Salvage Yard,
Generally Located at 1201 — 73'/ Avenue N. E.
(Ward 2) (Continued June 25, 2007) ............................................................ 46 - 47
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED):
13. 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) (Continued
October 8, 2007) ........................................................................................... 48 - 68
OLD BUSINESS:
14. Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit,
SP #06-11, for Central Auto Parts to Operate a
Junkyard in an M-1 Zoning District, Generally
Located at 1201 — 73'/ Avenue N. E.
(Ward 2) (Tabled June 25, 2007) .................................................................. 69 - 71
NEW BUSINESS:
15. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-09, by
Sikh Society of Minnesota, to Allow the
Construction of a Worship Facility in an
R-1, Single Family District, Generally
Located at 5350 Monroe Street (Ward 1) ...................................................... 72 - 89
16. Informal Status Reports ................................................................................. 90
ADJOURN.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
OCTOBER 22, 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 Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
APPRECIATION PLAQUE:
Presented to Larry Kuechle, former Appeals Commission and Planning Commission member, by
Mayor Lund.
PRESENTATION:
City Water and Sewer Repairs
William Burns, City Manager, stated that the presentation has been cancelled and will be
presented at a later date.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of October 8, 2007.
APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 2
OLD BUSINESS:
L Motion Approving the Second Half of the AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., d/b/a Maple
Lanes 2007-2008 Intoxicating Liquor License and Requiring AMF to Continue Sending
their Profit and Loss Statements through April, 2008;
and
Remove Resolution Denying the Renewal of the 2007-2008 Intoxicating Liquor License
from the Table and Direct it Back to Staff for no Further Action (Ward 2).
William Burns, City Manager, stated that earlier this year, Council approved the Maple Lanes
liquor license with the understanding that it would revisit the issue in October. Since then, Maple
Lanes has increased the food portion of its food to liquor ratio well above the 30% level required
by code. Staff recommends that Council approve the liquor license for Maple Lanes for the
second half of the 2007-2008 licensing year. Staff also recommends that Council remove the
resolution denying their liquor license from the table and direct it back to staff for no further
action by the City Council.
APPROVE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AMF BOWLING CENTER, INC., DB/A MAPLE
LANES FOR THE SECOND HALE OF THE 2007-2008 LICENSING YEAR.
REMOVE RESOLUTION DENYING THE RENEWAL OF THE 2007-2008
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC., DB/A
MAPLE LANES FROM THE TABLE AND DIRECT IT BACK TO STAFF FOR NO
FURTHER ACTION.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 3, 2007.
RECEIVED.
3. Resolution Certifying Certain Delinquent Utility Services to Anoka County for
Collection with the 2008 Property Taxes.
William Burns, City Manager, stated there are 460 Fridley utility accounts, or 5.4% of all
accounts on the 2007 delinquency. The value of the delinquencies is currently at $266,467.53.
Mr. Pribyl indicates that the final count and the final value of delinquencies certified to the
County will not be known until mid-November. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-56.
4. Resolution in Support an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise
Permit for the Fridley American Legion, Post 303, Generally Located at 7365 Central
Avenue NE (Ward 2).
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 3
William Burns, City Manager, stated this is a renewal for the period from March 1, 2008 to
February 28, 2010. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-57.
5. Resolution Receiving Report and Calling for Hearing on Improvement for Street
Improvement Project No. ST. 2008 — 1.
William Burns, City Manager, said the 2008 project is the final project in the series of
accelerated street improvement proj ects. It covers 4.28 miles of City streets and the proj ected
cost of the project is $3,583,000. Of this amount, an estimated $600,000 will be assessed to
benefiting property owners. Another $2,311,000 will be funded through General Obligation
Bonds. Other sources of funding include the following:
MSAS Funds $325,000
Sanitary Sewer Fund $30,000
Water Fund $100,000
Storm Water Fund $217,000
Dr. Burns stated the resolution also sets November 19, 2007 as the public hearing date for this
project. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-58.
6. Approval of Change Order No. 1 for the 2007 Sewer Lining Project No. 371.
William Burns, City Manager, stated staff is recommending that the sewer lining contract with
Veit & Company, Inc., be increased by $18,387.48 to cover the cost of additional work not
included in their original contract. Of this amount, $13,966.56 is for additional sewer lining not
included in the original contract. The change order brings the total cost for the 2007 sewer lining
project to $73,308.95. This is well within the $80,000 that was budgeted for sewer lining in the
2007 Capital Improvements Plan. Staff recommends Council's approval..
7. Claims (133870-134054).
APPROVED.
8. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked with respect to Item 1 she asked if there was a typo or if in
March, Maple Lanes' number was only 3%.
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, said it was typo and the number should be 30%. He would
have this corrected.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 4
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Dr. Burns why the delinquencies in Item 3 were not known and
if it was because they had between now and certification to pay.
Dr. Burns said that is correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a feasibility study should be included with Item 5.
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, said that is correct.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to move into record the draft report dated October 18,
2007, for Street Improvement Proj ect No. ST 2008 - 1. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
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.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember
Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
NO ONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPOKE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. Consideration of the Assessment for the 2007 Nuisance Abatement
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to open the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, presented the annual assessment for those properties the City
has expended resources for cleanup in accordance with the City Code. There are 28 properties
involved in this assessment for a total amount of $122,173.90. The assessment will be for one
year at 6'/z% interest.
Mr. Pribyl said that staff would be presenting the assessment resolution later in the meeting for
Council's consideration. Once the resolutions have been approved, the property owners have a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 5
30-day window in which to prepay. The resolution must be approved tonight to achieve the 30-
day window.
Michael Maloy, representing his parents John and Kathy Maloy at 8051 Broad Avenue, said that
the initial document that was presented to his parents was very vague. The Maloys have
attempted to get information from the City to affirm the status of their property and the City has
yet to respond. The Maloys are in disagreement of the assessment and if it does go to court, they
want to be clear on what will be needed.
Mr. Maloy said they removed fallen trees from their property and the City charged $7,000 or
$9,000 with interest. The Maloy's stated that no information was received prior to the removal
of the trees. He said they presented information to City staff a year ago and asked for
clarification and received nothing until October 4.
Mayor Lund said when trees fall down, if they fall on your property it is your responsibility to
remove the tree. If the tree was on the City's property and fell on your property, it would still be
your responsibility for removal.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the parents lived at this property.
Mr. Maloy answered yes.
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, said this case started in July of 2006. Staff did try several
times to contact the property owners. Letter were sent to the St. Croix Falls address twice in July
of 2006 alerting them that a storm damaged tree had fallen on the house and would need to be
removed. This was from the September 2005 storm and as of July 2006, the tree still remained
on the home. There was another letter sent on August 21, 2006.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how staff became aware of the tree on the house.
Ms. Jones said that Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, did an inspection on the
property. There is also a note with the file stating staff did try to contact the Maloys at their
Wisconsin home via telephone more than once. Messages were left asking them what their plans
for removal of the tree were. They received no response from Mr. and Mrs. Maloy.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if registered letters were sent out.
Ms. Jones said no.
Mayor Lund said there was a certified mail receipt in the file, but it was from a letter sent to
Julie Beberg on September 25. No year is listed so he assumed it was a year ago. There was also
a letter sent to John Maloy on August 21, 2006, so there is evidence that there has been
correspondence occurring with the Maloys. The City did abate this and remove the tree but the
Maloys said they removed the tree themselves.
Ms. Jones said she was not aware that the Maloys removed any part of the tree. The date of the
removal was October 6, 2006. Staff does give people one year to resolve the problem.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 6
Mayor Lund asked if there was roof damage to the home.
Ms. Jones said she did not recall.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that the tree landed on the home but there
were enough branches to distribute the load and not damage the home.
Councilmember Bolkcom clarified that the tree was removed on October 6, 2006, and asked if a
letter was sent to homeowner.
Ms. Jones said there was a letter sent to the homeowner and an invoice sent on October 10,
2006, stating they had 30 days to pay the bill for the tree removal.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if anything was heard from the Maloys after the invoice was
sent out.
Ms. Jones said no, there was no letter in the file.
Mr. Maloy asked to address the objections that were sent to Ms. Beberg on September 25, 2006,
before the City removed the tree. The objection that was pertinent to the issue is the tree that fell
was on City property.
Mayor Lund said that if your tree falls in the neighbor's yard, the neighbor now owns the tree
and bears the expense to remove it. So regardless of whose tree fell on the house, it was on the
Maloys' property so they need to pay for the removal.
Mr. Maloy said there was a violation because the City drove on their property to remove the
tree. He asked if this can be done legally without a court order. He would like to get the issue
resolved, as his parents cannot be financially responsible for this incident.
Mayor Lund said the owner had a year to remove the tree but it was never totally removed.
There was an opportunity to remove the tree and it was not done. The City offered a lot of help
to property owners in removing trees and even allowed owners to bring the trees to the Columbia
Ice Arena parking lot.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the correspondence that was sent in July and whether the
Maloys responded.
Mr. Maloy said he was not aware that his parents responded.
Councilmember Bolkcom said they were living on this property. She asked when the property
owner removed a portion of the tree.
Mr. Maloy did not have a record of when it was removed.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was before or after October 6.
Mr. Maloy said they removed part of the tree before the City did any work.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 7
Councilmember Bolkcom said four letters were sent and she asked if there was any ownership
on the parents' part knowing there would be an abatement if the tree was not removed. Staff
even allowed extra time but if there is no response, the City takes action.
Mr. Maloy said the City ignored the response that was sent to Ms. Beberg at the City.
Councilmember Bolkcom said other residents had to remove trees that were hazardous.
Mr. Maloy said the tree was removed to the point that it was not a hazard to the public. There
should not have been other costs for the City to remove the tree.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City had not removed the tree, if the tree would it still be
there today.
Mr. Maloy said probably not.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they ever contacted the City saying they would remove the
tree.
Mr. Maloy said they sent a letter with a series of questions to Ms. Beberg and it was ignored.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what they thought would happen after staff did not respond to
the letter the Maloys sent.
Mr. Maloy said that after 30 days and the City did not respond, they did not dare do anything.
Mr. Hickok said that even when a tree is lying on a house and the roots are out of the ground, a
forester has to come to the house to verify that the tree is dead. The code enforcement staff did
take care of that with the Maloys' tree.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked who the forester was that went to the Maloy's.
Mr. Hickok said it was Dave Lindquist.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney in this case if the City did not receive any
correspondence from the property owner if they had the right to take care of the tree.
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, said he has not seen the letter but has reviewed the case. The
property owner was given notice and opportunity to respond plus four letters were sent. To his
knowledge staff followed the procedure meticulously. The Maloys have the statutory right to
appeal to District Court, but there is nothing in this case that states the City did anything wrong.
Mayor Lund said that Mr. Maloy said the City had no legal right to enter his property to remove
the tree.
Attorney Knaak said the law states that if you have a notice of abatement of nuisance the City
can enter. If a notice is provided and the owner had opportunity to respond and did not, the City
has the right to enter.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 8
Councilmember Bolkcom asked for a copy of the letter from Mr. Maloy.
Mayor Lund asked how the Maloys thought this was fraud and the information was insufficient
and vague. The document states that the property had improper outdoor storage and storm
damage tree and brush. He asked how much more clarity was needed.
Mr. Maloy said the documentation on the work on the property.
Mayor Lund said that the assessment would not be waived because of technicalities. In reality,
if they had taken care of the tree that had fallen on their home, the abatement would not have
happened.
Mr. Maloy said they would have taken care of the tree if the City had responded to the letter that
was sent.
Mayor Lund said they had 13 months to take care of the tree.
Dr. Burns asked for clarification as to when staff abated the fallen tree and what was done with
the correspondence from the petitioner.
Mr. Hickok drew a sketch of the tree on the house. He said the base of the tree was just a few
feet beside the house, the tree roots were out of the ground and the tree was lying on the house.
If you were to take any part of the tree on the hill down it would have damaged the house. No
part of the tree could have been removed without a crane to lift the tree. The surveyor worked on
this because there was an un-vacated right-of-way and they were confident this was on the
Maloy's property. There was no evidence that any tree removal was done prior to the City taking
care of the tree. The tree had to be removed very carefully so as not to further damage the house.
He asked who signed for the letter.
Councilmember Bolkcom said S. Robinson.
Councilmember Saefke said he had a large pine tree fall on his home and the only way to
remove the tree was to lift the tree off and then cut the tree. He can see how this removal can be
an expensive process.
Mr. Maloy said he helped remove part of the tree from his father's roof and it fell into another
tree. He says the City removed only lengthy tree stumps.
Mayor Lund said it is typically cheaper for owners to hire their own tree removal.
Mr. Maloy does not know where the $7,000 came from.
Mayor Lund said Fridley is an older community with older trees. A crane was needed to
remove the tree and it can be very expensive.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to move into record two letters from the Maloys dated
October 18, 2007, and September 25, 2006. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 9
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Attorney Knaak wanted to make it clear that no appeal can be taken on the assessment amount
until a written objection is received. He said the letter they received would be an objection.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30
P.M.
10. Consideration of the Assessment for Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007-1
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:31
P.M.
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, stated this project assessment pertains to the concrete curb
and gutter portion of the 2007-1 project. The total number of properties is 333, with a total
assessed cost of $440,557.08. The assessed cost of the street project is at $17.02 per front foot as
compared to the original estimate of $25.00. The assessment is for 10 years and the interest rate
is 6'/z percent. As of 5:00 p.m. there were no verbal or written objections to the assessment.
Mr. Pribyl stated that staff will be presenting the assessment resolution later in this meeting for
Council's consideration. Final courtesy assessment letters will be mailed to all affected owners
after consideration and approval of the assessment resolution.
Cliff Jacobson, 6240 6th Street NE, asked if the letter he received in the mail is what he has to
pay.
Mayor Lund said that is correct; but a final letter will be sent out after tonight's meeting.
Mr. Pribyl said that property owners do have a 30-day window to prepay this assessment. The
final number will be ready tomorrow.
Jim Gliadon resides in the Melody Manner Area and wanted to praise the City engineering
department and those associated with project. Forest Lake construction did a wonderful job and
he is very pleased with the results.
Julian Jensen, 5946 Fourth Street NE, said during National Night out in 2006, a Council
member said the State and County would be paying for the street improvement proj ect. He asked
how much they were paying.
t
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 10
Mayor Lund said it is a City street and the State and County do not pay.
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said that because they are local streets there are limited
funds. The amount of $325,000 was being applied to this project, which is about 10% of the
project costs. The other 90% is distributed through utility funds, special assessments and annual
bonds paid under the general levy.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, said that a large percent of the street construction is done through the
bonding of money that will be paid back over a period of time.
Mr. Jensen just wanted to clarify if what the Councilmember was saying was correct. He also
commented that the sewer connections in his yard were not fixed.
Mayor Lund said City staff could look at the problem. If the problem is in his own personal
line, he will be responsible for the cost.
Mary Milliken, 6140 Sixth Street NE, said she did not receive any information, but it may have
been sent to the previous property owner. They have lived at that address since December.
Mr. Pribyl said since they are newer owners, it would have been mailed to whoever was on
record with the County three weeks ago.
Ms. Milliken asked where they would go to get the information.
Mayor Lund said to contact Mr. Pribyl.
Councilmember Barnette asked if they were alerted about this assessment when they bought
the home.
Ms. Milliken answered no and the previous owners may be getting this information.
Dorothy Wicklund, 7461 Lyric Lane, has been talking with Layne Otteson, and she has
synthetic grass and no sod or black dirt was needed but she was assessed the same amount as
everyone else.
Mayor Lund said she was only assessed for concrete curb and gutter on the address side of the
street.
Ms. Wicklund said the shut off valve in driveway needs work and she has contacted Forest Lake
Construction Company but has not received a call back from them.
Mr. Kosluchar said he would have Forest Lake Construction contact her.
Councilmember Barnette said that money was set aside for these street proj ects so the property
owners are only assessed for the curb and gutter. Many cities charge properties for the street as
well as the curb and gutters which can cost three times as much.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 11
Hong Nguyen, 6074 Fourth Street, is representing her sister and several years ago her property
taxes went up a lot and now the property is being assessed for $1,341. She asked what this
charge is for and how it is calculated.
Mayor Lund said the $1,341 charge is for the front address side for the concrete curb and gutter
that was installed in front of the home.
Mr. Kosluchar said that the charge is $17.02 per foot and the measurement of her property is
78.79 feet, which totals $1,341.
Ms. Nguyen asked if the figure could be negotiated or reduced. She also had a question about a
tree that had a branch needing trimming. She was pretty sure it was a City tree.
Mayor Lund said staff would check to see if it is a City tree. If it is the property owner's tree,
she will need to take care of it.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the total proj ect cost was to the City.
Mr. Kosluchar said the entire proj ect total was $2.0 million plus and $440,000 was assessed.
Councilmember Bolkcom said that what is being paid through assessments is a lot less than
what would be charged in other cities.
Councilmember Barnette said that to the best of his knowledge the City has never planted any
trees in the City's right-of-way. If the tree is in the City right-of-way, it is the City's
responsibility. If not, it's the owner's responsibility. A lot of developers planted trees in the
right-of-way that are now the City's responsibility.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:00
P.M.
11. Consideration of the Assessment for Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007-2.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:01
P.M.
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this project assessment pertains to the street
milling and overlay on the 2007-2 project. This project assessment involves 69 property owners.
The total assessed cost is $111,823,11. The assessment is for 10 years at 6'/z percent interest.
Staff will be presenting the assessment resolution later.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 12
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to move into record updated Figure E, 7th Street
Assessment Roll (Residential). Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Ms. Mohamed, 6956 Seventh Street, asked why she was charged for this.
Mayor Lund said it was for the new street.
Ms. Mohamed said the street improvement is worse than what it was before it was fixed. She
asked why this needed to be paid for when she also pays her property taxes.
Mayor Lund said the property taxes doe not have anything to do with the street assessment.
Property taxes pay for administrative staff, plowing, mowing parks, etc. Every homeowner in the
City pays property taxes. When new streets are done, the property owners are charged. There
was a public hearing about the need for this street to be done. The arguments were that the street
did need to be done and the time for the arguments to not have the street done was at the previous
public hearing, which was held a while ago. The maj ority vote of the Council was that the street
did need to be done. When your street is repaired, you have to pay your share.
Ms. Mohamed said that if a person cannot afford this, they are charged 6'/z% interest and that is
not fair. She said Council does not adhere to what the people want. Maybe the money that is
being spent is not being spent wisely because not everyone can afford this.
Mayor Lund agreed that this is a hardship to any property owner but the arguments from the
public hearing were taken into consideration. If the project is delayed, it will only increase the
cost in the future.
Ms. Mohamed said she never complains or comes to these meetings but she thought it was
unfair and that it puts stress on people. This needs to be paid or interest will be charged.
Mayor Lund said this procedure has been in place in the City for many years. The owner has 30
days to pay or interest will be assessed.
Councilmember Bolkcom said that people do not have to pay the 6'/z% interest and can borrow
from somewhere else.
Ms. Mohamed said it is getting very expensive to live in Minnesota.
Councilmember Bolkcom said that a survey is done every year to decide which streets need to
be fixed. If we do not maintain the streets it will cost double or triple in future. The City needs
to keep up the roads and part of this road was in very bad shape. There was a lot of discussion on
what should be done, and it was decided to do the project right the first time rather than patch the
road. No one is disputing that $900 is a lot of money, but the City needs to maintain the streets.
The community helps to pay for the streets people drive on.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 13
Mayor Lund said he was sorry she was not happy with the decision. Keep in mind that
whatever happens to the citizens of Fridley happens to the Council as well, because they are also
taxpayers and citizens of the city.
Ms. Mohamed asked why the 6'/z% interest was charged.
Mayor Lund said it also costs the City to borrow money for the project.
Dr. Burns said that only 22.5% of property taxes are City taxes. This doesn't make taxes any
easier to pay, but the City just gets a small share of the property taxes.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:25
P.M.
NEW BUSINESS:
12. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, General Provisions and Fees,
Pertaining to Pawn Shop Transaction Fees.
Don Abbott, Public Safety Director, stated Council passed an ordinance revising the City Code
to increase pawn transaction fees from $1.50 per transaction to $3.00 effective January 1, 2006.
This legislation incorporated a"sunset provision," wherein the fees would automatically revert to
$1.50 per transaction January 1, 2008, unless action was taken to continue it. This ordinance
removes the sunset provision and continues the $3.00 fee without further expiration.
Mr. Abbott said the first pawnshop opened in Fridley in 1994. Pawnbrokers are regulated by
Minnesota Law and by City Code. The City of Fridley presently licenses two pawnbrokers:
Pawn America at 789 53rd Avenue NE and Cash-n-Pawn at 201 57th Avenue NE. Chapter 31
requires the Police Department to regulate Fridley pawnbrokers by monitoring operations and
hours of operation, requiring pawnbrokers to provide transaction records to the Automated Pawn
System (APS) daily, requiring pawnbrokers to allow inspection of premises and inventory by the
Police Department at any time and insure persons have a legal interest (ownership) in the item
being presented to a pawnbroker.
Mr. Abbott stated that APS is a statewide pawn database that is used by municipalities to
regulate pawnbrokers. This efficiently and economically shares information, and it helps
detectives identify criminal activity, solve crimes and recover stolen property. It also automates
checks of some pawned items against the national database of stolen property (NCIC). Only
about 1/3 of pawned articles have serial numbers allowing NCIC checks. The database depends
upon accurate and complete item description and entry by pawnbrokers and also depends on
accurate and complete information being provided by crime victims.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 14
Mr. Abbott shared the billable transactions by licensee. Year to date there are $24,899 in
transaction fees. Fridley is number two in transactions by city. St. Paul is number one.
Mr. Abbott stated the pawn detective's duties include regulating pawn shops by conducting
frequent audits and compliance checks of pawn shops, insure that the point-of-sale software in
use by the pawn shops meets State requirements, responds to inquiries from APS staff
concerning data entry issues and is the point of contact between the City and the pawnbrokers.
The detective is assigned all cases involving property confiscations at the pawnshops, assigned
all incoming property crime (burglary and theft) cases involving incomplete property
descriptions with no suspect information, to perform manual searches of APS records.
Mr. Abbott reviewed the 2006 costs and APS charges of $1.00 per transaction, which totaled
$30,158. A total absorbed expense was $23,859 by the City. In 2006, we started the transaction
fee which resulted in a much more aggressive action. Calls for service increased from 99 in 2005
to 211 year to date in 2007. They are seeing an increase in confiscations, possession of stolen
property and pawning property of another person.
Mr. Abbott stated that maintaining a pawn detective to regulate the pawn shops is necessary to
insure that accurate information is entered into APS to identify and recover stolen property. This
leads to improved ability to identify suspects resulting in additional criminal prosecutions,
thereby deterring theft which reduces victimization of Fridley residents, businesses and the pawn
shops themselves, ultimately enhancing public safety and quality of life in the City of Fridley.
Councilmember Barnette commented that it was interesting to see that Fridley has only two
pawn shops and they are the second largest ranked among the cities.
Detective Pankonin said it is probably because of the size of Pawn America, which is the mega
store in the entire state.
Mr. Abbott said that both pawnshops are also conveniently located in the City as well.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification of the transaction fees.
Chief Abbott said the $3.00 transaction would include all items that are on that transaction and
the investigation fee relates to the new manager's license.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they anticipated the APS fee going up in the future.
Chief Abbott said they expect the fee to remain the same as it is today.
Councilmember Bolkcom said the Police Department does a good j ob of maintaining and
informing Council on what goes on in the department. She asked if retail shops were seeing any
difference in their stores regarding thefts.
Detective Pankonin said he has not heard anything regarding thefts, but the pawnshops have
said they are happy with the relationship they have with the City.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 15
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if people that pawn other people's property are ever arrested
and wanted for other violations.
Detective Pankonin said that on numerous occasions narcotics are found on them as well.
Dr. Burns recalled that at one point there was not full cooperation of all retailers and asked if
this was still a problem.
Detective Pankonin said if the merchandise is pawn-related the retailers are willing to prosecute.
Mayor Lund said the costs are still exceeded by the fee currently charged and asked if the fee
should be raised to $4.00. This is costing us $23,000 a year so if the fee were raised another
dollar, we may break even. Clearly this regulation is necessary and we may want to consider
raising the rates again.
Councilmember Saefke agreed that the rate should be raised to $4.00. He did not think a$4.00
fee would be a lot to the owners. The City should recover all costs associated with pawnshops.
Councilmember Bolkcom did not think it was a good idea to raise the fees right now. A fee
study will be done and it could be raised later.
Councilmember Barnette agreed.
Mayor Lund said since we were doing a fee study of all fees, it would be appropriate to raise the
rate at a later date should it be necessary. This would give the businesses a chance to respond to
a new fee rate.
Detective Pankonin said they would also like Council to check on the fees that are charged to
the criminals as well.
Mr. Abbott said the fee was set at the $3.00 because some of the work the detective does
becomes a general law enforcement practice. Rather than hand the case to someone else, it
makes sense for the detective to finish the case.
Mayor Lund said there are other businesses in Fridley that have cases with stolen property and
they are not charged for the police time so it would not be fair to single out the pawnshops.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the
ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
13. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-07, by Todd Regnier for Rixmann Fridley, LLC, to
Allow an Electronic Changeable Sign (Digital Video Screen) as Part of a New Free-
Standing Sign to be Installed at the LivInn Hotels, Generally Located at 5201 Central
Avenue NE (Ward 1)
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 16
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that the petitioner, who is representing
Rixmann Fridley LLC, owners of the LivInn Hotels, located at 5201 Central Avenue, is
requesting a special use permit to allow an electronic changeable sign (digital video screen) as
part of the construction of a new monument sign to be installed at the LivInn Hotels.
Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner is proposing to construct a new monument sign. The
working "LivInn Hotels" sign is proposed to be 15.4 square feet and the electronic message sign
is proposed to be 44.3 square feet. Total square footage of the sign is 59.7 square feet.
Mr. Hickok reviewed that the subject property is located in the southeast corner of Central
Avenue and 52"d Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, General Shopping. The subject property
was originally developed as a car wash/gas station in 1966. In 1982, the car wash was
demolished. A hotel was constructed in 1984 as an addition to the exiting Skywood Mall. In
1991, a plat and variance were approved by the City Council for the subj ect property and the
Skywood Mall property. At the time, the hotel was being sold to a new company, and they were
only interested in purchasing the hotel portion of the complex. The plat created a lot line
between the hotel and the Skywood Mall, which is separated by a firewall.
Mr. Hickok stated that a variance was granted to allow for a zero lot line between the two
buildings. Since 1991, the subject property has continued to exist as a hotel, as a Best Western,
Kelly Inn and most recently the LivInn Suites.
Mr. Hickok stated that electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any zoning
district except residential, provided the message does not change more often than once every 45
seconds. The sign also needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the zoning
district, in which the property is located. The subject property is zoned C-3, General Shopping,
which requires that all free-standing signage per development combined, cannot exceed 80
square feet in size.
Mr. Hickok said there is a free-standing monument sign that already exists on the property,
which is located just west of the existing building. The petitioner plans to remove that existing
sign and construct the new monument sign to be located along Central Avenue. The proposed
sign will be 59.7 square feet, of which 44.3 square feet will be the electronic portion of the sign.
The hotel also shares a freestanding sign with the Skywood Mall property, which is now
Menards. However, that sign is located on the Menards property and since the hotel is a separate
parcel from Menards, they are entitled to have their own freestanding, 80 square-foot sign.
Mr. Hickok said the petitioner is proposing to include a digital video screen as part of the sign.
This type of screen is the latest technology in the sign industry and is something that we have not
seen in Fridley. We are starting to see this type of technology on billboards along the interstates
in the Twin Cities area.
Mr. Hickok said that over the years, the City Council has approved several special use permits to
allow electronic message centers; however, this type of sign will look more similar to a flat
screen television. Staff has spoken with the petitioner and they understand that the message on
this screen can only change once every 45 seconds, per City Code requirements and that there
can not be any flashing or moving parts, including the illusion of movement on the screen.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 17
Mr. Hickok said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 3, 2007, and
recommended approval unanimously with seven stipulations. City staff concurs with the
Planning Commission's recommendations. Electronic changeable signs are an approved special
use in the commercial zoning district, provided the sign complies with Sign Code requirements.
Rick Gliszinski, Burnsville, said it is a beautiful sign and it welcomes the people to the city.
Councilmember Saefke asked if announcements could be on the sign listing events that are
being held in the City.
Mr. Gliszinski answered yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom said that there is nothing in the stipulations that says the old sign is
going away.
Mr. Hickok said they are reworking their site plan and the old sign would fall into their new
parking lot so he is sure the old sign would be removed.
Councilmember Varichak asked if there is a similar sign close by.
Mr. Hickok said there is a larger but very similar sign by the Xcel Energy Center in downtown
St. Paul on the corner of 7th and Kellogg.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve the Special Use Permit request, SP #07-07, by
Todd Regnier for Rixmann Fridley, LLC, with the following seven stipulations:
1. Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing any
signage on site.
2. Message on L.E.D sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of
the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on the L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
4. The proposed freestanding sign shall be 10 feet from any property line or driveway.
5. Petitioner shall adhere to city code requirements for temporary signs.
6. All trees to be removed for the installation of the new sign shall be marked and approved by
City staff prior to issuance of a sign permit.
7. Existing monument sign to be removed upon completion of the proposed sign.
Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 18
14. Resolution Adopting Assessment for the 2007 Nuisance Abatements.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2007-59. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that between the time of the public
hearing and the resolution he was able to find some information to respond to some of the
comments from the public hearing. He shared a few of the photographs that were taken the day
of the abatement. A total of 54 photographs were taken. The photographs showed that the tree
removal required heavy equipment for safe removal. In response to the statement from the
petitioner about the letter that was sent certified, the City did receive it. The "S. Robinson"
signature was Shelly Robinson who was working at the front desk at that time. The letter did not
respond to any of the three items on the statute that relates to the abatement process so no
response from staff was needed. The three items the homeowner can respond to in the abatement
process are to give the timeline in which they would remove the tree, state if they are okay with
the schedule of staff moving forward with the tree removal or request a hearing. The letter that
was received responded to none of those things. The second page of the letter that was missing
included a threat to staff if they were to trespass on the property. Because of this threat, the letter
was forwarded to the Police Department and two officers were present when the tree was
removed. It is important for Council to know the letter received from the property owner was not
a letter to elicit an information response from staff. Staff does a good job at responding to
appropriate letters but in this case this letter was quite a different letter.
Mr. Maloy clarified that the threat was for legal action and did not think it was necessary to
bring in the police.
15. Resolution Adopting Assessment for the Street Improvement Project No. ST 2007-1.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt Resolution No. 2007-60. Seconded by
Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Resolution Adopting Assessment for Street Improvement Project No. ST 2007-2.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2007-61, replacing pages that
were moved into record at the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2007 PAGE 19
17. Informal Status Reports.
Councilmember Bolkcom said there is a leaf drop off at the Public Works facility on October 25
from 4 to 7 p.m. This is a free service, but the leaves must be in bags.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was an update on the quiet zone.
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said they are in a working pattern and looking at three
different options. With the contracts that are necessary to get the work done, he does not see this
happening this fall.
Councilmember Varichak asked how the recycling event went.
Dr. Burns said that there were 430 drop offs and a large number of items were collected. The
average wait was 30 minutes.
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 10:17
P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Krista Monsrud Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
To:
From
Date:
Re:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
William W. Burns, City Manager
Don Abbott, Public Safety Director
November 1, 2007
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the
Fridley City Code Pertaining to Pawn Shops.
The Police Department recommends an ordinance continuing the current pawn shop transaction
fees by amending the existing City Code to remove the SunsetProvision expiration date of
December 31, 2007. The City increased pawn shop transaction fees to cover the costs of an
additional police detective effective January 1, 2006.
This ordinance maintains transaction fees at $3.00, which is necessary to continue the current
level of pawn shop oversight and regulation. Absent legislative action, the transaction fee will
automatically revert to $1.50 per transaction as of January 1, 2008. The reduction in revenue
would result in the discontinuation of the dedicated pawn detective position and seriously
decrease pawn shop regulation and enforcement.
The attachment to this memo includes the recommended changes to the City Code.
The first reading of this ordinance was held October 22, 2007.
Staff recommends the second reading.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES
PERTAINING TO PAWN SHOP TRANSACTION FEES
The Fridley City Council hereby finds after review, examination and recommendation of staff that
Chapter 11 pertaining to pawn shop transaction fees be amended and ordains as follows:
CHAPTER 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES
11.10. FEES
31 Pawn Shops
Annual License fee $3,000
Monthly Transacrion Fee �T°� ,^��� n�� �, ^���• $3.00 per transaction
ra,.,,.i,i� rr,-.,,,�.,,..;,.,, �oo .,�.o,- r.,,, i �nn4
ROpOT�111gF'�UT0P011�� �r,... i �nnc r�.. �i �nn�� �'i4.00 p0I'tT'a11S1Ct1011
no,.,.,-�;,,,. �.,;i,,,-o no,,.,i,� .,�.o,- r.,,, i �nn4 e� cn ,. ,-.,-.,,,�.,,..;,.,,
Investi ation Fee $400
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF 2007.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
First Reading: October 22, 2007
Second Reading:
Publication:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 17, 2007
Chairperson Savage called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSET
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brad Dunham, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, David Kondrick, Brad
Sieloff, Jack Velin
Leroy Oquist
Stacy Stromberg, City Planner
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2007
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
1. Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07-08, by Identi-Graphics, to allow a
changeable electronic gas pricing sign in a C-2, General Business District, generally
located at 6501 Central Avenue, 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 UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:32 P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, presented a request from the petitioner, Identi-Graphics, who is
representing the property owner of the gas station located at 6501 Central Avenue. The
petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow a free-standing automatic changeable LED
gas pricing sign.
Ms. Stromberg stated that a free-standing sign already exists on the subject property, which is
located on the corner of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. The petitioner is proposing to
re-face the existing sign with a British Petroleum logo sign, a LED gas pricing section, and a
manual reader board. The LED section of the sign is proposed to be approximately 10 square
feet, and the total square footage of the sign is 79.2 square feet.
Ms. Stromberg reviewed that the subject property is located at the northeast corner of Central
Avenue and Mississippi Street. The property is zoned C-2, General Business. According the
building permit records, a building existed on the site prior to 1949, however, that structure
burned down. In 1968, the City Council reviewed plans for a convenience/grocery store and
they separately reviewed plans to allow for the construction of gasoline pumps in conjunction
with the store. While modern code standards require a special use permit to be obtained for
motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing services, the 1963 zoning code allowed gasoline service
stations as a permitted use. The existing building and gasoline pumps were then constructed in
1969. The original free-standing sign was also constructed in 1969. There have been several
changes and modifications to that sign since it was constructed.
Ms. Stromberg stated that electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any
zoning district, except residential, provided the message doesn't change more often than once
every 45 seconds. The sign also needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the
zoning district in which the property is located. The subject property is zoned C-2 General
Business, which requires that free-standing signage can not exceed 80 square feet in size. The
existing sign meets that size requirement as will the re-face of the existing sign. The new sign
will be approximately 79.2 square feet, with the electronic portion being approximately 10 square
feet. It should also be noted that the sign location is 50 feet from any residential property.
Ms. Stromberg stated that City Staff recommends approval of the special use permit as
electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in the commercial zoning district,
provided the sign complies with Code requirements, subject to stipulations. City Staff
recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached:
1. Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing
any signage on site.
2. Message on LED sign shall not change more often that authorized under Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on LED sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
4. The petitioner shall ensure that the existing free-standing sign is 10 feet from any
property line or driveway.
Chairperson Savage asked if staff had had any calls about the sign from neighbors in the area.
Ms. Stromberg answered said staff received one call and they just had general questions.
Jim Nelson, Identi-Graphics, said that this would be a safer sign because when the current sign
needs to be changed with the plastic numbers the numbers can fall and people could get hurt.
This sign will allow employees to change the sign electronically from inside.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations.
Mr. Nelson answered no.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:37 P.M.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07-
08, by Identi-Graphics, to allow a changeable electronic gas pricing sign in a C-2, General
Business District, generally located at 6501 Central Avenue, NE with the following stipulations:
1. Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing
any signage on site.
2. Message on LED sign shall not change more often that authorized under Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on LED sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
4. The petitioner shall ensure that the existing free-standing sign is 10 feet from any
property line or driveway.
Seconded by Commissioner Sieloff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07-10, by Mark Pope, for Lynwood, to
allow a nursing home to continue to exist and to allow an expansion of the nursing
home in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 5700 East River
Road.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:39 P.M.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated that the petitioner, Mr. Pope of RLP
Architects Inc., is representing Golden Living Center-Lynwood, in their petition to seek a special
use permit to allow a nursing home to continue to exist and to allow an expansion of the nursing
home in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. The nursing home is located at 5700 East River
Road.
Mr. Hickok said that the Golden Living Center — Lynwood is proposing to construct a 510
square foot addition to their building that will be constructed on an existing paved area. The
addition proposal is to be used for therapy.
Mr. Hickok stated that the subject property is located on the west side of East River Road and is
surrounded on three sides by Georgetown Apartments. It is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are the
properties to the north, west and south. The properties across East River Road are zoned M-2,
Heavy Industrial. The existing nursing home facility was constructed in 1963, and an addition
was constructed in 1987. In 1988, a storage building was constructed on the southwest side of
the property.
Mr. Hickok said that when the property was developed in 1963, nursing homes were a permitted
use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. In 1969, the City Council adopted a new zoning
code, which required a special use permit for nursing homes in a residential district. The
petitioner is proposing to construct a 510 square foot addition to the existing building, which
requires the petitioner to apply for the requested special use permit to meet current code
requirements.
Mr. Hickok said that the property is deficient in meeting front and side yard setback
requirements. City Code requires a side yard setback of 35 feet for all buildings in an R-3, Multi-
Family zoning district. The existing building is located 13.1 feet form the property line, which is
deficient in meeting the front yard setback requirements. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a
variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 13.1 feet. It should also be noted, that
the concrete patio in front of the building is a roofed structure and is also located within the front
yard setback and 17 feet from the property line. Several years ago, Anoka County acquired land
along East River Road to expand the roadway; this may have resulted in the deficient front yard
setback for this property.
Mr. Hickok stated that City Code requires a side yard setback of 15 feet in an R-3, Multi-family
zoning district. Staff noted during the review of the petitioner's variance request that both the
north and south side yard setbacks are non-conforming. The side yard setback on the north
side is 9.6 feet at its closest point, and the side yard setback on the south side is 12.8 feet at its
closest point. Staff recommends that these non-conformities be recognized and become part of
the petitioner's variance request. The above referenced variance request were approved by the
Appeals Commission at their October 10, 2007 meeting.
Mr. Hickok said that all other code requirements for this property, such as rear yard setback, lot
coverage, and parking are being met for this property. Nursing Homes in an R-3, Multi-Family
zoning district are required to have one parking stall for every four beds, and three stalls for
every four employees on the largest shift. The nursing home is a 50-bed facility, which requires
13 stalls and there are 16 employees on the largest shift, which requires 12 parking stalls. Total
required parking stalls for this property is 25 stalls. The proposed addition will not increase the
number of beds or employees, so the 33 stalls that currently exist on the site are sufficient.
Mr. Hickok stated that City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request, as
nursing homes are a permitted special use in the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, subject to
stipulations. Staff recommends that if the special use permit is grated, the following stipulations
be attached:
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the
facility warrant it.
5. Landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan to be approved by City
engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if there were any plans to widen East River Road because if
there were, it would be a problem.
Mr. Hickok said that he was not aware of any plans to widen the road in the future.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if this should have been brought to the Appeals Commission
fi rst.
Mr. Hickok answered that the Appeals Commission already approved the variances on October
10, 2007.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if additional parking is needed in the future there would be
enough room.
Mr. Hickok said it would take some engineering to rework the existing stalls but a few more
parking spots could be found.
Commissioner Dunham asked if they were currently short any parking stalls.
Mr. Hickok answered no.
Chairperson Savage asked if any response has been heard from the neighbors.
Mr. Hickok answered no.
Mark Pope, RPL Architects, said they had no problems with the report or any of the stipulations.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Sieloff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:47 P.M.
MOTION by Commissioner Sieloff approve the Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #07-
10, by Mark Pope, for Lynwood, to allow a nursing home to continue to exist and to allow an
expansion of the nursing home in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 5700
East River Road with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the
facility warrant it.
5. Landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan to be approved by City
engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
Seconded by Commissioner Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. Consideration of a Special User Permit, SP #07-09, by Sikh Society of MN, to allow the
construction of a worship facility in an R-1, Single Family Zoning District, generally
located at 5350 Monroe Street.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Dunham.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:49 P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, presented that the petitioner, the Sikh Society of Minnesota, is
seeking a special use permit to allow the construction of a worship facility at 5350 Monroe
Street, which is currently a vacant parcel.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the subject property is located off of 53�d Avenue and Monroe Street
and is heavily wooded and undeveloped. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are the
properties to the west and south. Super Target occupies the property to the north and east. The
property has remained undeveloped, with wetlands bordering the west and south sides of the
property. The property currently has 19 feet of access from Monroe Street, which is six feet
short of the code required 25 feet width needed for right-of-way access. Therefore, the
petitioner has applied for a variance to reduce this code requirement. The petitioner is also
pursuing access to the adjacent private service road just east of the property, which would allow
the property to be accessed from a 25 feet wide easement running perpendicular of the service
road. This is a safer, more visible entry and is one staff recommended and feels would work
best for this site. The petitioner has been working with Target and Petco to obtain an access
agreement. To staff's knowledge one hasn't been received yet, however, staff will stipulate that
one be obtained before issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the Sikh Society of Minnesota purchased the property at 5831
University Avenue in Fridley in the early 1990's and has continued to operate their worship
facility from this address. Over the years they have considered constructing an addition to this
building but have instead decided to build a new worship facility at 5350 Monroe Street.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the subject property is 96,525 square feet (2.22 acres). The
petitioner is proposing to construct an 8,640 square foot building. The building will be a split
entry type building with a lower and upper level. The floor plan consists of a foyer area; with the
sanctuary located in the upper level and the lower level will have a kitchen, dining area, a library
and a living area for the pastor.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City with a
reasonable degree and 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 stated that churches or worship facilities are a permitted special use permit in
the R-1, Single Family zoning district, provided they meet the necessary requirements related to
building and site requirements and parking, subject to the stipulations suggested by staff. The
code requires the use of the CR-1, General Office code standards for churches in an R-1, Single
Family district. When using those code standards or the standards in the R-1, Single Family
zoning district, all of these requirements are being met with the proposal for the new building.
Ms. Stromberg stated that all setback and lot coverage requirements are being met with the
proposed building design. Fridley City Code requires that the minimum amount of parking stalls
for this site is 107 stalls. The petitioner is proposing to install 108 parking stalls, therefore
meeting City Code requirements.
Ms. Stromberg said that Fridley City Code also requires any proposed lighting on the site to be
shielded and downcast and not to extend over the property line. The proposed building is being
designed in a manner that matches the scale of the residential character and structures of the
daycare facility located south of the subject property and the residential homes located west of
the subject property.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner has articulated to staff that they plan to save as many
of the large trees that exist on the site as possible. Staff will stipulate that all trees to be marked
and approved by staff prior to removal. While City staff typically recommends the use of a
landscaped hedge or screening device between single-family residential properties and an
entity, such as the proposed worship facility, staff feels that due to the change in elevation
between the subject property and the residential properties to the west, an 8-foot screening
fence or a landscape hedge wouldn't be warranted. The grade change is such that an 8-foot
fence or hedge wouldn't screen the new building or parking area from the neighborhood above,
therefore; staff would recommend a significant amount of landscaping materials to include a
mixture of new tree plantings and shrubbery along with any existing trees that may be saved to
create a better screening application along the western border of the property.
Ms. Stromberg said that Fridley City Code does have a wetland overlay district that stated that
significant wetlands would be maintained in their natural condition or improved to provide more
benefits for water quality management. It also states that the City will preserve and enhance
wetlands within the community through implementation of development regulations that will
ensure the design and construction of adequate on-site storm water measures. In 1993, the City
hired Westwood Engineering to perform a Wetland Delineation and Evaluation Study for the
entire City. At that time wetlands were identified on site. Historically, the subject property has
been a marshy, wet parcel, however over the years fill has been added to the site, which has
caused the character of the soil to change. It is not clear when the fill was placed on the site;
however it appears that it was sometime ago, due to the vegetation that has since grown.
Ms. Stromberg stated that in order to act upon this special use permit request, staff required the
petitioner to have the existing wetlands on the site be delineated and the boundaries identified.
The petitioner hired Westwood Professional Services to delineate the wetlands and they
determined that two wetlands do exist on the site, covering a total area of approximately 8,517
square feet (0.20 acres). Wetland A borders the property on the south and west sides and
Wetland B is located on the east side of the property.
Ms. Stromberg said that City Code does not restrict how close a building or parking lot can be
located to a wetland and the DNR doesn't consider these particular wetlands to be a"protected
wetland". Therefore, the DNR doesn't have restrictions on how close you can build to a non-
protected wetland. As a result, staff is requiring that all building and parking areas remain out of
the wetlands. City staff is also requiring that any pond for storm water run-off be designed to be
separate from the wetlands so as to not detrimentally impact the integrity of the wetland.
Ms. Stromberg stated that on July 27, 2007, City staff received a petition from the neighborhood
west of the subject property with 58 signatures (37 households) in opposition of the proposed
Sikh Society development. No reasons were identified; it just stated that they are opposed to
the development. Staff also received a letter from the property owner at 589 53 %2 Avenue in
opposition of the request. He expresses in his letter that the residential neighborhood is already
being encroached on all sides by roadways and commercial uses, which makes is hard for
people to want to remain in this neighborhood. He also stated that noise would become a bigger
issue for the neighborhood with the removal of the trees on the subject property. Since the
Planning Commission packets were delivered to, two additional letters have also been received
my neighboring property owners and those are in front of the Planning Commission tonight and
should also be receipted into the record.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the neighborhood west of the subject property was platted in four
separate plats between the years 1947-1959. The neighborhood has been zoned residential
since the first zoning map dated in 1958. Interstate 694, which was previously Highway 100,
has always bordered the neighborhood to the north, and the Target property and the Medtronic
World Headquarters property located north of Interstate 694 has also been zoned commercial
use since the 1958 zoning map. It is true that a roadway to the north and commercial property
to the east border this neighborhood; however it has been that way since the late 1940's. While
the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family, it also allows uses such as schools, churches,
hospitals, medical clinics, and other uses with a special use permit. A special use permit gives
the City Council the authority to place stipulations on the permit to help mitigate any negative
impacts that might be placed on neighboring properties.
Ms. Stromberg stated that City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, as
worship facilities are an approved special use in the R-1, Single Family zoning district, with
stipulations. Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations
be attached:
1. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA code requirements.
3. Proposed building to be sprinkled per MN Rules Chapter 1306.
4. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding
properties.
5. Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. Petitioner shall meet any requirements identified by Six Cities Watershed District.
7. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
8. A protective railing to be installed on top of the proposed retaining wall around the
storm pond.
9. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the construction of the new building shall be marked and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits,
10. All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed
three-foot candles at the property line.
11. Access agreement from Petco/Target to be submitted to City staff prior to issuance of
a building permit.
12. The petitioner shall be responsible for the installation of sewer and water service
connections from property line to existing City utilities. Plan to be approved by City's
engineering department.
13. If petitioner is unable to obtain an access agreement from Petco/Target, the petitioner
shall apply for and have approved a Wetland replacement plan from the City before a
building permit shall be issued.
Commissioner Kondrick asked how tall the building would be.
Ms. Stromberg answered that she did not have that information available but it would be 1%2
stories or about 16 feet. The maximum height allowed in this zoning district is 35 feet.
Commissioner Sieloff asked how the number of parking stalls is determined.
Ms. Stromberg answered that it is based on the building layout and broken down into office,
assembly and storage areas to determine how many parking stalls are required.
Commissioner Kondrick said he drove by the area and it seemed with the setback
requirements, wetland area, parking, building size etc. that the building would not be able to
expand should they need it.
Ms. Stromberg said that is correct, the building would be at capacity with the parking,
landscape, ponding requirements etc.
Chairperson Savage asked if a stipulation needed to be added regarding the Appeals
Commission.
Ms. Stromberg said this would be heard by the Appeals Commission next Wednesday.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said that stipulation number 13 would cover
the issue if the Appeals Commission did not grant the variance.
Commissioner Sieloff asked if the site plan would allow too narrow of an access.
Mr. Hickok answered no, that the design access was at an angle to achieve 25' and this would
encroach the wetland. Whatever amount of wetland that is lost would need to be replaced in
another area. If the variance does not pass with the Appeals Commission the petitioner would
need to comply, if the Appeals Commission passes the variance, stipulation 13 will not apply.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if they have heard anything from Petco in granting access to
the area.
Ms. Stromberg answered yes; they are new owners and have called with questions regarding
access to the site. The owners are in California and are planning to come tour the site.
Commissioner Dunham asked about screening the building with trees on the west side and
which part of the building cannot be screened.
Ms. Stromberg answered that screening would be done with existing trees or new landscaping.
Mr. Hickok said that a landscaping plan would be submitted to maximize the landscaping plan.
Some of the current trees will be kept and some trees will be removed and supplemented in the
landscaping plan.
Commissioner Dunham said that there doesn't look like there will be many trees left on the
west side.
Mr. Hickok said that the wetland exists in a wooded area and the petitioner cannot mess with
the wetland at all. The wetland area around the building must be left alone. Any trees that are
removed will be supplemented with new plantings.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to receive two letters from neighbors, both in opposition of
the construction proposed for this site. Seconded by Commissioner Velin.
Commissioner Sieloff asked what provides the water for the wetlands.
Ms. Stromberg answered that there is a very high water table in this area.
Commissioner Kondrick commented that the run off from Target does not drain into this area.
Mr. Hickok said that is correct.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if this building would have a basement.
Ms. Stromberg answered no; there would be no basement. The proposed building would be a
split entry design.
Jeff McElmory, Designer for Sikh Society, said he accepted all of the stipulations. The Sikh
Society had looked into expanding the current building but the Committee decided to build a new
building that would last them a long time as their organization grows. The current building has
about 2,500 square feet of worship space and when after worship the Sikh Society shares a
meal. Currently the same space is used to worship and share the meal so everything needs to
be cleared out before they can share the meal. The new building would allow the worship to be
held on one level and the lowest level would be an area for sharing the meal and other auxiliary
uses. The Sikh Society started in 1996 with 50 families and has grown to 75 families. Looking
into the future, they want to build a space that is large enough so they don't grow out of the
space anytime soon.
Commissioner Sieloff asked who is designing the storm water area.
Mr. McElmory said they are working with Westwood Engineering to create the design.
Commissioner Velin asked about the height of the building and how many stories the building
would have.
Mr. McElmory answered that the building would be 1%2 stories high. The overall height will be
17.5 feet.
Commissioner Velin asked when looking out of the windows from the neighborhood homes,
what would they see.
Mr. McElmory said that they are going to try to leave as many trees as possible and will
supplement with new trees for those that need to be taken down. The parking will be adjusted to
avoid the wetlands. Depending where they are looking from, they will see the building on the
high end of the site.
Commissioner Dunham asked about the fence screening and if it was not recommended
because of the trees.
Ms. Stromberg said there is a grade difference between the west residential properties and the
subject property so a fence would not screen the area well.
Chairperson Savage asked if the petitioner has had any conversations with the neighbors and
tried to address any of their concerns.
Mr. McElmory answered that the members have spoken with the neighbors and sent them a
letter.
DJ Sikka, Member of Sikh Society, said that he has spoken with Ms. Stromberg and Mr. Hickok
regarding the neighborhood issues.
Chairperson Savage asked if there was any response from neighbors.
Mr. Sikka answered no.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the letter that was sent to the neighbors. Seconded
by Commissioner Kondrick.
Mr. Sikka said that the Sikh Society has been on the current site since 1990, 16 years, and half
of the people in the area don't even know they are there. Fridley is a good location for their
society and they would like to stay in Fridley.
Chairperson Savage asked if there were any plans for schooling on site.
Mr. Sikka said that their community is very small and there is room downstairs for small children
but they will not have classes because the children are all different ages.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if there has been any recent communication with the Petco
owner regarding the right to access.
Mr. Sikka answered that he spoke with the owner 4-5 days ago and he will not make a decision
until he is able to tour the property. Mr. Sikka does not think it will be an issue.
Ryan Edstrom, Westwood Engineering, said that he would like the variance request taken off
because recent documents found an additional 15 feet of right-of-way so the variance will not be
needed.
Mr. Hickok said that late in the day the City surveyor spoke with Westwood Engineering and it
appears there is additional footage not shown on the earlier map. All maps showed the variance
was needed but staff couldn't say a variance was not required until further confirmation was
made. This does not change the variance request because the wetland will still be affected and
if it is encroached, it will need to be replaced.
Marian Billington, 5361 Madison Street, was concerned that if a fence was not installed that
foot traffic would come from the Target lot to the new building and through the neighborhood. A
fence would stop that traffic. She also had concerns about the heavy equipment on the roads
and construction creating vibrations on the ground possibly creating structural damage to
neighboring properties.
Mr. McElmory said they would be glad to put up a fence and would be removing some soil but
did not plan to put pilings in. There is good ground and the construction will not be deep so the
ground will be higher and dryer to build on.
Commissioner Velin asked for clarification that the society prefers to build a new building
verses remodeling the current building.
Mr. McElmory said that the current site is very limited. If they were to build on to the site the
space that is needed, they would lose parking spaces and not have enough stalls to meet City
Code requirements. They would like to build just once and to build new is the best option.
Commissioner Velin commented that with all the stipulations, he felt that this should have gone
before the Appeals Commission first and also had Petco's okay for the access. If
Petco says no, what will happen to this request?
Mr. Sikka said that he did talk to Petco four months ago and they are now the new owners.
Once they come and look at the site he is pretty sure they will not have a problem granting
access.
Mr. Hickok said that the stipulations are not unusual from other requests. The issue with Petco
is that if a variance is not granted, it could delay the project. Staff needs to anticipate all aspects
and unfinished business but if Petco does grant the easement, everything else will fall into place.
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 UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:44 P.M.
Chairperson Savage commended staff for the thorough report and research on this project.
She would vote to approve this item with the stipulations as it does follow City Code.
Commissioner Saba agreed and commented that a lot of other buildings could be noisier and
bring in more traffic on a daily basis than this one.
Commissioner Dunham asked for a stipulation to be added to include the construction of a
fence.
Commissioner Sieloff said that although the residents would like to see no development at all,
other businesses could build in there that would be far worse than what is being proposed.
Commissioner Velin said he did feel for the neighboring households but he would go along with
the staff recommendations and it will be a while before the building will be completed.
Commissioner Kondrick agreed with adding the fence stipulation. He asked if the type of
fence should be specified in the stipulation or worked out between the parties involved.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick to approve the consideration of a Special User Permit, SP
#07-09, by Sikh Society of MN, to allow the construction of a worship facility in an R-1, Single
Family Zoning District, generally located at 5350 Monroe Street with the following stipulations:
1. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA code requirements.
3. Proposed building to be sprinkled per MN Rules Chapter 1306.
4. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding
properties.
5. Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6. Petitioner shall meet any requirements identified by Six Cities Watershed District.
7. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
8. A protective railing to be installed on top of the proposed retaining wall around the storm
pond.
9. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the construction of the new building shall be marked and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits,
10. All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed three
foot candles at the property line.
11. Access agreement from Petco/Target to be submitted to City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
12. The petitioner shall be responsible for the installation of sewer and water service
connections from property line to existing City utilities. Plan to be approved by City's
engineering department.
13. If petitioner is unable to obtain an access agreement from Petco/Target, the petitioner
shall apply for and have approved a Wetland replacement plan from the City before a
building permit shall be issued.
14. Petitioner shall install a fence between the subject property and the residential properties
to the west.
Seconded by Commissioner Dunham.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4. Receive the minutes of the September 10, 2007, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
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
5. Receive the minutes of the June 13, 2007, Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Dunham to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Kondrick.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6. Receive the minutes of the September 11, 2007, Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Hickok thanked those who attended the Corridor Housing Initiative. A final report will be
available on the web site and staff looks forward to future development. He also encouraged
people to watch the upcoming HRA and Council Meetings as it relates to the North Star Corridor.
A decision needs to be made if the City would like BNSF to dig out a box culvert. BNSF would
like to dig the culvert so they can work the construction of the culvert so it won't disrupt their
busy season next year. Fridley wants a stop in their city and staff will continue to seek Federal
Funding for the construction of a rail station in our City.
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 8:54 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Krista Monsrud
Recording Secretary
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
October 31, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-08, Identi-Graphics
INTRODUCTION
The petitioner, Identi-Graphics, who is representing the property
owner of the gas station located at 6501 Central Avenue, is
requesting a special use permit to allow a free-standing automatic
changeable LED gas pricing sign.
A free-standing sign already exists on the subject property, which
is located on the corner of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue.
The petitioner is proposing to re-face the existing sign, with a
British Petroleum logo sign, a LED gas pricing section, and a
manual readerboard. The LED section of the sign is proposed to
be approximately 10 sq. ft., and the total square footage of the
sign is 79.2 sq. ft.
M-07-30
���
�
x � ... .
�
,
x �::
Electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any ',
zoning district, except residential, provided the message doesn't
change more often than once every 45 seconds. The sign also ,
needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the i '
zoning district, in which the property is located. The subject
property is zoned, G2 General Business, which requires that free � vv, ��:x.
standing signage can not exceed 80 square feet in size. The ��
existing sign meets that size requirement as will the re-face of the existing sign. It should also
be noted that the sign location is 50 feet from any residential property.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the October 17, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP #07-
08. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP #07-08,
with the stipulations as presented.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing any
signage on site.
2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
4. The petitioner shall ensure that the existing free standing sign is 10 feet from any
property line or driveway.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
SP #07-08 October 17, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Identi-Graphics
Jim Nelson
8660 Hwy 7
St. Bonifacius MN 55375
Requested Action:
Special Use Permit for an automatic
changeable sign
Existing Zoning:
C-2, General Business
Location:
6501 Central Avenue
Size:
23,970 sq. ft. .55 acres
Existing Land Use:
Gasoline Station Store
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Gary's Automotive/Northeast Towing
& C-2
E: Single Family & R-1
S: Small commercial bldg. & Single
Family & S-2
W: Commercial Building & C-2
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning/Permit History:
Property has never been platted.
1969 — Current bldg. constructed.
1969 — Original pylon sign constructed.
There have been several face changes
and alterations to the pylon sign since it
was constructed.
Legal Description of Property:
Tract 1, Registered Land Survey No. 27,
subject to easement of record.
Public Utilities:
Building is connected
Transportation:
The property receives access from
Mississippi Street and Central Avenue.
Physical Characteristics:
Lot is flat and is contained by the
building, parking areas, gasoline pumps
and a few landscaped areas.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The petitioner, Identi-Graphics, who is
representing the property owner of the gas
station located at 6501 Central Avenue, is
requesting a special use permit to allow a free-
standing automatic changeable LED gas pricing
sign.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this special
use permit request.
Electronic changeable signs are an approved
special use in the commercial zoning district,
provided the sign complies with Code
Aerial of Subject Property
CITY COUNCIL ACTION / 60 DAY DATE
City Council — November 5, 2007
60 Day Date — November 12, 2007
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
SP #07-08
REQUEST
The petitioner, Identi-Graphics, who is representing the
property owner of the gas station located at 6501 Central
Avenue, is requesting a special use permit to allow a free-
standing automatic changeable LED gas pricing sign.
A free-standing sign already exists on the subject property,
which is located on the corner of Mississippi Street and Central
Avenue. The petitioner is proposing to re-face the existing
sign, with a British Petroleum logo sign, a LED gas pricing
section, and a manual readerboard. The LED section of the
sign is proposed to be approximately 10 sq. ft., and the total
square footage of the sign is 79.2 sq. ft.
� ��
,�
HISTORY AND ANALYSIS
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of
Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The property is zoned ;
G2, General Business. According to building permit records, a
building existed on the site prior to 1949, however; that
structure burned down. In 1968, the City Council reviewed
plans for a convenience/grocery store and they separately ;�.:. �� �:xx
x:
reviewed plans to allow for the construction of gasoline pumps °
in conjunction with the store. While modern code standards
' � L'--�� require a special use permit to be obtained for motor vehicle
:�
fuel and oil dispensing services, the 1963 zoning code
' allowed gasoline service stations as a permitted use. The
' existing building and gasoline pumps were then constructed
in 1969. The original free-standing sign was also
constructed in 1969. There have been several changes and
modification to that sign since it was constructed.
� � CODE REQUIREMENTS
' Electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in
any zoning district, except residential, provided the message
' doesn't change more often than once every 45 seconds. The
sign also needs to be in conformance with the sign
requirements for the zoning district, in which the property is
located. The subject property is zoned, C-2 General Business, which requires that free standing
signage can not exceed 80 square feet in size. The existing sign meets that size requirement
as will the re-face of the existing sign. The new sign will be approximately 79.2 square feet, with
the electronic portion being approximately 10 square feet. It should also be noted that the sign
location is 50 feet from any residential property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends approval of the special use permit as electronic changeable signs are an
approved special use in the commercial zoning district, provided the sign complies with Code
requirements, subject to stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
City Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be
attached.
1. Petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing any
signage on site.
2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
4. The petitioner shall ensure that the existing free standing sign is 10 feet from any
property line or driveway.
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
October 31, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-10, by Mark Pope for Golden Living Center —
Lynwood
M-07-32
INTRODUCTION
The petitioner, Mr. Pope, of RLP Architects Inc., is representing Golden Living Center —
Lynwood, in their petition to seek a special use permit to allow a nursing home to continue to
exist and to allow an expansion of the nursing home in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. The
nursing home is located at 5700 East River Road.
Golden Living Center — Lynwood is proposing to construct a 510 square foot addition to their
building, which will be constructed on an existing paved area. The addition is proposed to be
used for therapy.
The petitioner is also applying for variances to reduce the front and side yard setback
requirements. Recognition of these deficiencies is required prior to issuance of a building
permit for the proposed addition.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the October 17, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP #07-
10. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP #07-10,
with the stipulations as presented.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
STIPULATIONS
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the facility
warrant it.
5. Landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan to be approved by City
engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
SP #07-10 October 17, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Mark Pope
RLP Architects, Inc.
2443 Farrington Circle
Roseville MN 55113
Requested Action:
Special Use Permit to allow a nursing
home
Existing Zoning:
R-3 (Multi-Family)
Location:
5700 East River Road
Size:
72,966 sq. ft. 1.68 acres
Existing Land Use:
Golden Living Center - Lynwood
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Georgetown Apts. & R-3
E: East River Road & ROW
S: Georgetown Apts. & R-3
W: Georgetown Apts. & R-3
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Use of property is consistent with plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Section 205.09.1.C.(7) requires a
special use permit for nursing homes.
Zoning History:
■ Property has never been platted.
■ Nursing Home was constructed in
1963.
Legal Description of Property:
See attached survev.
Public Utilities:
The building is connected.
Transportation:
East River Road provides access to the
property.
Physical Characteristics:
Lot consists of the nursing home
building, parking area and landscaped
areas.
SU M MARY OF PROJECT
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Mr. Pope, of RLP Architects Inc., who is
representing Golden Living Center — Lynwood,
is requesting a special use permit to allow a
nursing home to continue to exist and to allow
an expansion of the nursing home in an R-3,
Multi-Family zoning district, which is located at
5700 East River Road.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this special
use permit, with stipulations.
City staff recommends approval of this special
use permit as nursing homes, convalescent
homes, and homes for the elderly are a
permitted special use in the R-3, Multi-Family
zoning district, subject to stipulations.
Existina Buildina
CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE
City Council — November 5, 2007
60 Day — November 12, 2007
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
SP #07-10
REQUEST
The petitioner, Mr. Pope, of RLP Architects Inc., is representing Golden Living Center —
Lynwood, in their petition to seek a special use permit to allow a nursing home to continue to
exist and to allow an expansion of the nursing home in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. The
nursing home is located at 5700 East River Road.
Golden Living Center — Lynwood is proposing to construct a 510 square foot addition to their
building, which will be constructed on an existing paved area. The addition is proposed to be
used for therapy.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The subject property is located on the west
side of East River Road and is surrounded
on three sides by Georgetown Apartments.
It is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are the
properties to the north, west and south.
The properties across East River Road are
zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. The existing
nursery home facility was constructed in
1963, and an addition was constructed in
1987. In 1988, a storage building was
constructed on the southwest side of the
property.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Hospital, clinics, nursing homes,
convalescent homes, and homes for the
elderly are a permitted special use in the R-
3 zoning district. A special use permit may
be granted, provided they meet the
necessary requirements, related to building
and site requirements and parking, subject
to the stipulations suggested by staff.
When the property was developed in 1963, nursing homes were a permitted use in an R-3,
Multi-Family zoning district. In 1969, the City Council adopted a new zoning code, which
required a special use permit for nursing homes in a residential district. The petitioner is
proposing to construct a 510 sq. ft. addition to the existing building, which requires the petitioner
to apply for the requested special use permit to meet current code requirements.
The property is deficient in meeting front yard setback and side yard setback requirements. City
Code requires a side yard setback of 35 ft. for all buildings in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning
district. The existing building is located 13.1 ft. from the property line, which is deficient in
meeting the front yard setback requirements. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variance to
reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 13.1 ft. It should also be noted, that the concrete
patio in front of the building is a roofed structure and is also located within the front yard setback
at 17 ft. from the property line. Several years ago, Anoka County acquired land along East
River Road to expand the roadway; this may have resulted in the deficient front yard setback for
this property.
Aerial of Property
City Code also requires a side yard setback of 15 ft. in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. Staff
noted during the review of the petitioner's variance request, that both the north and south side
yard setbacks are non-conforming. The side yard setback on the north side is 9.6 ft. at its
closest point, and the side yard setback on the south side is 12.8 ft. at its closest point. Staff
recommends that these non-conformities be recognized and become part of the petitioner's
variance request. The above referenced variance request were approved by the Appeals
Commission at their October 10, 2007, meeting.
All other code requirements for this property, such as rear yard setback, lot coverage and
parking are being met for this property. Nursing Homes in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district
are required to have 1 parking stall for every 4 beds, and 3 stalls for every 4 employees on the
largest shift. The nursing home is a 50 bed facility, which requires 13 stalls and there are 16
employees on the largest shift, which requires 12 parking stalls. Total required parking stalls for
this property is 25 stalls. The proposed addition will not increase the number of beds or
employees, so the 33 stalls that currently exist on the site are sufficient.
RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request, as nursing homes are a
permitted special use in the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, subject to stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be
attached.
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the facility
warrant it.
5. Landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan to be approved by City
engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
October 31, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Variance Request, VAR #07-04, Mark Pope, RLP Architects, Inc., for Golden Living
Center - Lynwood
M-07-31
INTRODUCTION
Mark Pope, of RLK Architects Inc., who is representing Golden Living Center — Lynwood, is
requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 13.1 ft. to recognize an
existing non-conforming setback, which will allow for the construction of a 510 sq. ft. addition to
the existing nursing home, which is located at 5700 East River Road.
While staff was reviewing the petitioner's request, it came to our attention that the property is
also deficient in meeting the side yard setback requirements on both the north and south sides.
Therefore, is would be staff's recommendation that these non-conformities are identified and
part of the petitioner's request.
Recognition of non-conformities is required prior to issuance of any building permits for this
property.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
City Code requires a front yard setback of 35 ft. for all building in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning
district. The existing building is located 13.1 ft. from the property line, which is deficient in
meeting the front yard setback requirements. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variance to
reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 13.1 ft. It should also be noted that the concrete
patio in front of the building is a roofed structure and is also located within the front yard setback
at 17 ft. from the property line. Several years ago, Anoka County acquired land along East
River Road to expand the roadway; this may have resulted in the deficient front yard setback for
this property.
City Code requires a side yard setback of 15 ft. in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. As stated
above, staff noted during their review of this request, that both the north and south side yard
setbacks are non-conforming. The side yard setback on the north side is 9.6 ft. at its closest
point, and the side yard setback on the south side is 12.8 ft. at its closest point. Staff
recommends that these non-conformities be recognized and become part of the petitioner's
variance request.
APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the October 10, 2007, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #07-
04. After a brief discussion, the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the front yard
and side yard setback variance requests, with the stipulations presented by staff.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission.
STIPULATIONS
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the facility
warrant it.
5. Landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR #07-04 October 10, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Mark Pope
RLP Architects, Inc.
2443 Farrington Circle
Roseville MN 55113
Requested Action:
Variance reducing the front yard setback
Existing Zoning:
R-3 (Multi-Family)
Location:
5700 East River Road
Size:
72,966 sq. ft. 1.68 acres
Existing Land Use:
Golden Living Center - Lynwood
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Georgetown Apts. & R-3
E: East River Road & ROW
S: Georgetown Apts. & R-3
W: Georgetown Apts. & R-3
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Use of property is consistent with plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Section 205.09.3.D.(1) requires a front
yard setback of thirty-five (35) feet.
Zoning History:
■ Property has never been platted.
■ Nursing Home was constructed in
1963.
Legal Description of Property:
See attached.
Public Utilities:
The building is connected.
Transportation:
East River Road provides access to the
property.
Physical Characteristics:
Lot consists of the nursing home
building, parking area and landscaped
areas.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
SU M MARY OF PROJECT
Mr. Pope, of RLP Architects Inc., who is
representing Golden Living Center — Lynwood,
is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard
setback from 35 ft. to 13.1 ft. to recognize an
existing non-conforming setback, which will
allow for the construction of a 510 sq. ft.
addition to the existing building, which is
located at 5700 East River Road.
SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP
"Golden Living Center— Lynwood is requesting
permission to construct a one story 510 sq. ft.
therapy addition. The reason for the variance
request is that the existing building does not
conform to the City's current set back
requirements. The new addition; however, will
conform to all setback requirements."
- Mark Pope
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of the front
yard setback variance request and the two side
yard setback variance requests.
■ Recognizes an existing non-conformity.
■ Should not set a precedent for existing or
future properties.
Existina Buildina
CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE
City Council — November 5, 2007
60 Day — November 5, 2007
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
VAR #07-04
REQUEST
Mark Pope, of RLK Architects Inc., who is representing Golden Living Center —
Lynwood, is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 13.1 ft.
to recognize an existing non-conforming setback, which will allow for the construction of
a 510 sq. ft. addition to the existing nursing home, which is located at 5700 East River
Road.
While staff was reviewing the petitioner's request, it came to our attention that the
property is also deficient in meeting the side yard setback requirements on both the
north and south sides. Therefore, is would be staff's recommendation that these non-
conformities are identified and part of the petitioner's request.
Recognition of non-conformities is required prior to issuance of any building permits for
this property.
SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY
The subject property is located on the west
side of East River Road and is surrounded
on three sides by Georgetown Apartments.
It is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as are the
properties to the north, west and south. The
properties across East River Road are
zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. The existing
nursery home facility was constructed in
1963, and an addition was constructed in
1987. In 1988 a storage building was
constructed on the southwest side of the
property.
When the property was constructed in 1963,
nursing homes were a permitted use in an
R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. In 1969,
the City Council adopted a new zoning
code, which required a special use permit
for nursing homes in a residential district.
The petitioner is proposing to construct a
510 sq. ft. addition to the existing building,
which will require the petitioner to request a
special use permit from the City Council to
bring them into compliance with current code requirements. That request has been
submitted and will go before the Planning Commission on October 17, 2007, and the
City Council on November 5, 2007.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
City Code requires a front yard setback of 35 ft. for all building in an R-3, Multi-Family
zoning district. The existing building is located 13.1 ft. from the property line, which is
deficient in meeting the front yard setback requirements. Therefore, the petitioner is
seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 ft. to 13.1 ft. It should also
be noted that the concrete patio in front of the building is a roofed structure and is also
located within the front yard setback at 17 ft. from the property line. Several years ago,
Anoka County acquired land along East River Road to expand the roadway; this may
have resulted in the deficient front yard setback for this property.
City Code requires a side yard setback of 15 ft. in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district.
As stated above, staff noted during their review of this request, that both the north and
south side yard setbacks are non-conforming. The side yard setback on the north side
is 9.6 ft. at its closest point, and the side yard setback on the south side is 12.8 ft. at its
closest point. Staff recommends that these non-conformities be recognized and become
part of the petitioner's variance request.
Aerial of property
All other code requirements for this property, such as rear yard setback, lot coverage
and parking are being met for this property. Nursing Homes in an R-3, Multi-Family
zoning district are required to have 1 parking stall for every 4 beds and 3 stalls for every
4 employees on the largest shift. The nursing home is a 50 bed facility, which requires
13 stalls and there are 16 employees on the largest shift, which requires 12 parking
stalls. Total required parking stalls for this property is 25 stalls. The proposed addition
will not increase the number of beds or employees, so the 33 stalls that currently exist
on the site are sufficient.
SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP
"Golden Living Center— Lynwood is requesting permission to construct a one story 510
sq. ft. therapy addition. The reason for the variance request is that the existing building
does not conform to the City's current set back requirements. The new addition
however; will conform to all setback requirements."
- Mark Pope
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance request and the two
side yard setback variance requests.
■ Recognizes an existing non-conformity.
■ Should not set a precedent for existing or future properties.
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends if the variance is approved, the following stipulations be attached.
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and
finished with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the
facility warrant it.
5. Landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of
a building permit.
1. Public Hearing: Variance request, VAR #07-04, by Mark Pope, RLP Architects, Inc. -
Lynwood for a consideration of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet
to 13.1 feet to recognize an existing non-conforming setback, which will allow the
petitioner to construct a 510 square feet addition to the existing building, generally
located at 5700 East River Road NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Brown to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Vos.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
AT 7:32 P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, presented a request from Mark Pope, of RLK Architects Inc.,
who is representing Golden Living Center-Lynwood, is requesting a variance to reduce the front
yard setback from 35 feet to 13.1 feet to recognize an existing non-conforming setback, which
will allow for the construction of a 510 square feet addition to the existing nursing home, which
is located at 5700 East River Road.
Ms. Stromberg stated that while staff was reviewing the petitioner's request, it came to our
attention that the property is also deficient in meeting the side yard setback requirements on both
the north and south sides. Therefore, it would be staff's recommendation that these non-
conformities are identified and part of the petitioner's request. Recognition of these non-
conformities is required prior to issuance of any building permits for this property.
Ms. Stromberg read the summary of hardship for the Golden Living Center — Lynwood. "They
are requesting permission to construct a one-story 510 square feet therapy addition. The reason
for the variance request is that the existing building does not conform to the City's current set
back requirements. The new addition however, will conform to all setback requirements."
Ms. Stromberg reviewed that the subj ect property is located on the west side of East River Road
and is surrounded on three sides by Georgetown Apartments. It is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, as
are the properties to the north, west and south. The properties across East River Road are zoned
M-2, Heavy Industrial. The existing nursing home facility was constructed in 1963, and an
addition was constructed in 1987. In 1988 a storage building was constructed on the southwest
side of the property.
Ms. Stromberg stated that when the property was constructed in 1963, nursing homes were a
permitted use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. In 1969, the City Council adopted a new
zoning code, which required as special use for nursing homes in a residential district. The
petitioner is proposing to construct a 510 square feet addition to the existing building, which will
require the petitioner to request a special use permit from the City Council to bring them into
compliance with current code requirements. That request has been submitted and will go before
the Planning Commission on October 17, 2007, and the City Council on November 5, 2007.
Ms. Stromberg stated that City Code requires a front yard setback of 35 feet for all building in
an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. The existing building is located 13.1 feet from the property
line, which is deficient in meeting the front yard setback requirements. Therefore, the petitioner
is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 13.1 feet. It should also be
noted that the concrete patio in front of the building is a roofed structure and is also located
within the front yard setback for this property.
Ms. Stromberg said that City Code requires a side yard setback of 15 feet in an R-3, Multi-
Family zoning district. As stated above, staff noted during their review of this request that both
the north and south side yard setbacks are non-conforming. The side yard setback on the north
side is 9.6 feet at its closet point, and the side yard setback on the south side is 12.8 feet at its
closest point. Staff recommends that these non-conformities be recognized and become part of
the petitioner's variance request.
Ms. Stromberg stated that all other requirements for this property, such as rear yard setback, lot
coverage and parking are being met for this property. Nursing Homes in an R-3, Multi-Family
zoning district are required to have one parking stall for every four beds and three stalls for every
four employees on the largest shift. The nursing home is a 50-bed facility, which requires 13
parking stalls and there are 16 employees on the largest shift, which requires 12 parking stalls.
Total required parking stalls for this property is 25 stalls. The proposed addition will not
increase the number of beds or employees, so the 33 stalls that currently exist on the site are
sufficient.
Ms. Stromberg said that City Staff recommends approval of the front year setback variance
request and the two side yard setback variance requests because it recognizes an existing non-
conformity and should not set a precedent for existing or future properties. Staff recommends if
the variances are approved, the following stipulations be attached.
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the facility
warrant it.
5. Landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Mark Pope, RLP Architects Inc., said that he would appreciate approval of the request.
Commissioner Vos asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations.
Mr. Pope answered no.
Commissioner Vos asked if the petitioner thought they would need additional parking.
Mr. Pope answered no because they already had 10% more parking spaces than what is
required.
Commissioner Vos said it was obvious there were problems with the variances on both sides
and he was surprised it wasn't caught earlier. He asked why they were only requesting to build
510 square feet.
Mr. Pope said that is all that was needed. It is an interior remodel to expand the therapy room.
Presently there is an existing patio and they will be able to utilize that foundation.
MOTION by Commissioner Jones to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Vos.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
AT 7:42 P.M.
Commissioner Vos said that the property would be legal on file with Anoka County and it
would be advantageous to get this done.
MOTION by Commissioner Jones to approve the variance request, VAR #07-04, by Mark Pope,
RLP Architects, Inc.-Lynwood for a consideration of a variance to reduce the front yard setback
from 35 feet to 13.1 feet and to reduce the side yard setback on the north side from 15 ft. to 9.6
ft. and the south side from 15 ft. 12.8 ft. to recognize an existing non-conforming setback, which
will allow the petitioner to construct a 510 square feet addition to the existing building, generally
located at 5700 East River Road NE with the following stipulations.
1. The petitioner shall obtain any required permit prior to the start of construction.
2. The subject property shall be maintained free of any and all construction debris.
3. The addition shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished
with complementary siding and color scheme.
4. The City reserves the right to require additional parking should the demand of the facility
warrant it.
5. Landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Seconded by Commissioner Brown.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SIELAFF DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER
RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
DATE: November 1, 2007
Attached is a resolution that would cover the City Council under our workers'
compensation coverage. Staff reviewed the pricing on this coverage and found that
the rate has dropped and is now very affordable. It seems that in the current
environment elected officials become subjected to a variety of risk exposures and
should be covered similar to city employees. The League requires that in order to
extend coverage to elected officials, the attached resolution must be approved.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -
A RESOLUTION ENABLING ELECTED OFFICALS OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TO
BE COVERED BY THE MINNESOTA WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW AS
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
WHEREAS, the law enables elected or appointed officials of the City to be covered under
workers' compensation; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Fridley that the Mayor and City Councilmembers be
included as employees of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Councilmembers of the City
of Fridley be hereby covered by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS STx
DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN, CITY CLERK
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
To:
From:
Date:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
November 5, 2007
William W. Burns, City Manager
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
October 25, 2007
Re: Lions Club of Fridley Application for Premise Permit Renewal for its two
locations at Billiard Street Cafe Inc dba Two Stooges Bar and Grill, 7178
University Avenue NE and BAM Inc dba Shortstop Fridley, 1298 E Moore
Lake Drive
Section 30 of the Fridley City Code allows Lawful Gambling by a licensed organization and
limits each organization to two premises within the City. The Lions Club of Fridley has been
conducting lawful gambling at Billiard Street Cafe Inc dba Two Stooges Bar and Grill located at
7178 University Avenue NE and at BAM Inc dba Shortstop Fridley located at 1298 E Moore
Lake Drive.
The premise permit 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. Staff recommends approval of the premise permit application by adoption of
the attached resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL
GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE LIONS CLUB
OF FRIDLEY AT BILLIARD STREET CAFE INC DBA TWO STOOGES BAR AND
GRILL LOCATED AT 7178 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE AND AT BAM INC DBA
SHORTSTOP FRIDLEY LOCATED AT 1298 E MOORE LAKE DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been served with a copy of an Application for a Minnesota
Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Renewal for the Lions Club of Fridley; and
WHEREAS, the locations of the Premise Permits are for Billiard Street Cafe Inc dba Two Stooges
Bar and Grill located at 7178 University Avenue NE and BAM Inc dba Shortstop Fridley located at
1298 E Moore Lake Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Lions Club of Fridley., currently holds a state lawful gambling license and
conducts lawful gambling at the Shortstop Fridley which will expire February 29, 2008; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 30 of the Fridley City Code allows a lawful gambling organization to conduct
business at two premises within the city; 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 Renewal Application for the Lions Club of Fridley at
Billiard Street Cafe Inc. dba Two Stooges Bar and Grill located at 7178 University Avenue NE and
at BAM Inc dba Shortstop Fridley located at 1298 E Moore Lake Drive for a period to commence
March 1, 2008 and expire February 28, 2010.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS STx
DAY OF NOVENIBER 2007.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
�
�T'f �F
FRIOLEY
To:
From:
Date:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
November 5, 2007
William W. Burns, City Manager
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
October 25, 2007
Re: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA
LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
FOR DELASALLE HIGH SCHOOL BROADWAY BAR & PIZZA, 8298
UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE
Section 30 of the Fridley City Code allows lawful gambling by a licensed organization.
DeLaSalle High School has been conducting lawful gambling at Broadway Pizza located at 8298
University Avenue NE since February of 2004. They are now applying for a premise permit
renewal at Broadway Bar & Pizza. The City of Fridley has found no reason to restrict the location
or the organization for the lawful gambling operation.
The premise permit application requires a resolution from the City Council approving the permit
renewal. If approved, the premise permit would become effective February 1, 2008, and expire
January 31, 2010. Please find a resolution for the premise permit application attached. Staff
recommends approval of the premise permit application by adoption of the attached resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR
A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
DELASALLE HIGH SCHOOL
BROADWAY BAR & PIZZA, 8298 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has received a copy of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful
Gambling Premise Permit Renewal for DeLaSalle High School; and
WHEREAS, the location of the Premise Permit is for Broadway Bar &Pizza, 8298 University
Avenue NE, and
WHEREAS, their current lawful gambling license is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has found no reason to restrict the location or the organization for
the lawful gambling operation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley approves the
Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit Renewal Application for DeLaSalle High School
located at Broadway Bar & Pizza, 8298 University Avenue NE for a period to commence February
1, 2008 and expire January 31, 2010.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS STx
DAY OF NOVENIBER 2007.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
C�AI MS
134057 -134239
�
�
CfTY �F
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
LICENSES
Type of License Applicant Approved By:
Pawn Shop Managerial for Cash
and Pawn
Nathan D. Halvorsen
Jonathan A Spurgeon
Police Department
Christmas Tree Lot
Bob's Produce Ranch Police Department
Menards, Inc. Community Development
Fire Department
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
��F LICENSES
FRIDLEY
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
� �F ESTI MATES
FRIDLEY
Forest Lake Contracting
14777 Lake Drive
Forest Lake, MN 55025
2007 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007-1
EstimateNo. 7 .....................................................
Northwest Asphalt
1451 Stagecoach Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
.................................. $ 235,995.10
2007 Mill and Overlay Project No. ST. 2007-2
FINAL ESTIMATE ...........................................................................
Standard Sidewalk
10841 Mankato Street N.E.
Blaine, NIN 55434
.. $ 16,103.10
2006 Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs ProjectNo. 370
EstimateNo. 4 ............................................................................................. $ 6,955.90
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOV. 5, 2007
October 29, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Review of Special Use Permit SP #06-11 for Central Auto Parts to Operate a
Junkyard in an M-1 Zoning District, Generally Located at 1201-73 %2 Avenue NE
Background
On October 9, 2006, the Fridley City Council approved a new special use permit for Central Auto Parts,
located at 1201-73 '/2 Avenue NE, to operate a junkyard. Seven stipulations were attached to the special use
permit. When Central Auto Parts failed to meet the stipulations for that new special use permit, staff initiated
a new public hearing to be held on June 25, 2007. The evening of the public hearing, Jerry Haluptzok, owner
of the Central Auto Parts business, presented staff with a site plan that had just been approved by Rice Creek
Watershed District that day. Due to the business' history of not meeting deadlines, the City Council
continued the public hearing to November 5, 2007, for the purpose of evaluating their progress on the
stipulations.
The seven stipulations were:
1. Submit a complete a site plan, including parking/storage areas and screening, for staff review and
approval prior to issuance of land alteration permit
2. Submit a complete landscaping plan, including irrigation plan, for staff review and approval prior to
issuance of land alteration permit
3. Install first phase of grading and drainage plan (south hal fl by June 1, 2007
4. Install screening fence on south side of property by July 1, 2007
5. Install second phase of grading and drainage plan (north hal fl and any other required screening fence
by October 1, 2007
6. Install landscaping and irrigation by June 1, 2008
7. Comply with all City Codes associated with the business, including but not limited to outside
storage, parking, screening, and drainage
Though much progress has obviously been made, Central Auto Parts has only completed stipulation 3,
installation of the first phase of their grading and drainage plan. They are in the progress of completing the
second phase of their grading and drainage plan (stipulation 5). Staff has not been provided a site plan or a
landscaping and irrigation plan. These items cannot be completed until all of the heavy equipment is out of
the site, but staff does need to review their plans.
The business owner reports that the e�tensive amount of rain that occurred in October significantly delayed
completion of storm water management ponds and paving. There are still two smaller infiltration basins that
need to be installed in front of the main building, which is why that area is not leveled or landscaped. Mr.
Haluptzok is hopeful that his contractor will still be able to finish the curb and gutter in the west side of the
property and then plans to have class 5 gravel installed until the second phase paving can be installed on the
west end of the yard.
Staff had pointed out in the June 2007 staff report that we needed a site plan and a landscape plan in addition
to the grading and drainage plan in order to ensure the business was providing adequate parking and
landscaping. On-street customer/employee parking continues to be a concern at this site, so staff wants to
ensure this problem gets corrected. We also desire to see plans for the screening fence, which currently e�sts
in a location outside the property line on the south side of the property. Staff is confident, however, that the
financial investment the business owner has made to date indicates that he is serious about completing the
project and keeping his special use permit for a junkyard in an M-1 district.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council remove the public hearing regarding SUP #06-11 from the table,
receive comment on the present situation, and then table the public hearing again until June 9, 2008. The
intent of this action is to provide the business owner one last extension on meeting the stipulations of his
special use permit. If he fails to have completed all of the stipulations by June 1, 2008, then the City Council
could revoke SP #06-1 lby resolution at the same meeting.
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
November 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.
COUNCIL REVIEW
At their October 8, 2007 meeting Council held its public hearing item, but held the hearing open
until November 5, 2007 for staff to review the new materials (including a Benshoof traffic study,
value assertions, and zoning map questions). From their analysis staff determined the following:
Traffic Analysis Review
Benshoof Assertion a) 61St Avenue N.E. and Main Street N.E. near the subject site both have
been designated by the City as Collector routes.
Response: True
Benshoof Assertion b) Intersection of 61St 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.
Response: True, though this application is not about Northstar, it is fair to use the data from
their traffic analysts for purposes of discussing University Avenue Traffic at 61 st.
Benshoof Assertion 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.
Response: True
Benshoof Assertion 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.
Response: True based on stated findings in ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition. Note in the
report that there is a difference in 172 number of daily trip ends by a warehouse use, rather than
a Manufacturing use.
Benshoof Assertion e) regarding truck trip generation, the proposed warehouse development
would generate fewer truck trips than M-4 manufacturing, especially on a daily basis.
Response: Questionable. On the first table of the Wenck report we see that warehouse
generates 172 more daily trip ends than with an M-4 Manufacturing use.
The second table however, uses foot notes regarding a 1997 Survey done of the American
Excelsior Traffic (data not included) and somehow uses that 1997 trip information to prove that
the proposed use on this site will have less daily trips than a manufacturing use. Interestingly,
American Excelsior was built in 1996 and was just being occupied in 1997; a study of this
building's trips is still puzzling. Beside that fact, there is no indication of what assumptions were
made or methodology was used by the traffic analyst to determine that there is a parallel
between American Excelsior at that time and the proposed project for 61St and Main Street. This
is truly a departure from Jim Benshoof's normal good work. It proves nothing to help support
the contention that the M-4 use on this site will be more traffic intensive than if it were to be
rezoned for warehouse. In fact, the opposite is true. Beyond the impacts at University Avenue
and 61St intersection, this study shows no credible data to combat staff's assertion that a
warehouse use will have more daily trip ends and more impact to the surrounding neighborhood
than an M-4, Manufacturing use.
Benshoof Assertion � If constructed, the Fridley station for the Northstar Commuter Rail service
likely would generate considerably more trips on 61St Avenue N.E. during two peak hours and
on a daily basis than either the proposed development or development per M-4 manufacturing.
Response: We are talking about M-4; Manufacturing only verses M-2 for warehouse purposes.
Benshoof assertion f is superfluous.
Benshoof Assertion g) If constructed, the Fridley station for the Northstar Commuter Rail service
would generate more total truck and bus trips on 61St 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.
Response: We are talking about M-4; Manufacturing only verses M-2 for warehouse purposes.
Benshoof Assertion g) Is superfluous.
Ben hoof Assertion h) the proposed warehouse development offers the following two traffic
benefits for the City:
• Lowest trip generation for trucks and buses, which will lessen impacts for
residents along 61St Avenue.
Response: False. True only if you consider the table in the traffic report that refers to America
Excelsior, a report that is unavailable and as a result not credible.
• Lowest total trip generation during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which will
lessen impacts on level of service at 61St Avenue N.E. and University Avenue.
This is highly important given the predicted level of service F conditions at the
intersection by 2020.
Response: Compared against the additional trips warehousing generates during the day
overall, though this intersection is a consideration, the trade-off beyond a.m. and p.m. peak
hours is not worth a trade to warehousing. An additional 172 daily trip ends overall make
warehouse uses an inappropriate use for this site.
Value Comparisons
Petitioner Allegation: Warehouse buildings in Fridley have higher building values per square
foot than manufacturing buildings.
Response: Ironically, Mr. Nelson and his legal counsel chose to use this building as an
example of a"warehouse" with a high value. The building is listed in the assessor's information
as a flex industrial building, not a warehouse, therefore its value is much higher and it supports
what the petitioner (Gonyea) had said in this rezoning request. He built a flex building to
accommodate manufacturing, not a warehouse.
Beyond that fact, the petitioner and his legal counsel chose to use buildings built between 1941
and 1994 primarily to prove their point about building value for manufacturing, While, they chose
a newer selection of warehouse buildings dating from 1994 to 2000. Even with their flawed
methodology of comparison, you can see that old manufacturing buildings have a similar value
per square foot to newer warehouse buildings. It helps to prove our point that generally
manufacturing buildings have a higher value than warehouse buildings. Compare the value of
Parsons Electric built in 1961 (from their examples) $45.86/ s.f. to AMB Warehouse built in
1984, which has a value of $38.04/s.f.
The City's position remains that manufacturing results in a higher valued building overall.
Map Inaccuracy, lack of other M-4, Manufacturing Sites
Allegation: June 1997 — Council creates M-4 zone, but limits to 5 properties (3 of 8 dropped at
request of owners).
Response: False, there were 7 properties rezoned to M-4, one was rezoned back to M-2.
However, properties like McGlynn's parcel adjacent to their manufacturing/baking facility asked
to be left M-2, to allow for their own future manufacturing/baking or even warehousing needs to
facilitate their existing manufacturing operation. This was done because it made perfect sense
to allow an existing industrial user to expand, which was their purpose for buying the land.
Allegation November 1997 -1 of remaining M-4 properties rezoned, 4 remain.
Response: False, 6 remained. An owner of one of the M-4 Manufacturing sites that had been
rezoned approached the City with a request to develop a building that he had been
contemplating at the time of the rezoning. His building would be: multi-tenant, would not have
doors facing the surrounding neighborhoods, would be designed in a tech-flex manufacturing
manner to allow industrial users flexibility within the shell for expansion, The clear heights would
indicate the desire to have manufacturing, not warehouse users, and the developer had
indicated that he was interested in approaching smaller medical industries in the area. Vendors
who do manufacturing work with Medtronic and other medical instrument providers in the region
to see if they would be interested in this location.
Due to the building design and the owner/developer's desire to attract smaller manufacturing
uses in a multi-tenant layout, his allowing staff to visit his buildings already constructed that
were of like design and purpose, and his allaying fears of pure warehouse uses, his rezoning
request was approved.
Ironically, Mr. Nelson and his legal counsel chose to use this building as an example of a
"warehouse" with a high value. The building is listed in the assessor's information as a flex
industrial building, not a warehouse, therefore its value is much higher and it supports what the
petitioner (Gonyea) had said in this rezoning request. He built a flex building to accommodate
manufacturing, not a warehouse.
Allegation: September 1999 — Another M-4 property rezoned; 3 remain in theory (however
City's current zoning map reveals only 2).
Response: This is not entirely true. The September 1999 rezoning is related to a land swap
between Brenk Brothers, and Industrial Manufacturing entity and Friendly Chevrolet. Brenk
Brothers owned a parcel that was more conducive to a Car lot expansion and Friendly Chevrolet
owned a parcel that was more conducive to a manufacturing expansion to the Brenk Brother's
industry. They traded properties, and the part that became Friendly Chevrolet also was rezoned
Commercial. Meanwhile the piece that was Friendly Chevrolet became Brenk's and facilitated a
doubling in size of their manufacturing facility. The Brenk expansion is exactly what the City
would have hoped for in preserving its remaining industrial land for manufacturing purposes.
Zoning Map Error
The City's Zoning Map was found to be incorrect upon research of petitioner's allegation. Map
corrections have been ordered to correctly reflect M-4 parcels in Fridley. The 1998 map
correctly illustrated the parcels with an M-4 designation. Later iterations of the map were
erroneously modified, based on a staff comment made by a staff member not familiar with the
M-4 rezoning in 1997. Map corrections have now been ordered by the planning staff to assure
accurate illustration of all remaining M-4, Manufacturing Only sites.
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.
Note: Though Council typically does not act on an item the night of its public hearing, options
are available. In the event that Council chooses to act to approve the rezoning Monday evening
an ordinance has been attached for Council's consideration. A/so, if Council chooses to deny
the item on Monday evening a resolution with suggested language for the finding of facts has
been attached for their consideration.
111��r���
November 5, 2007
Wenck Associates, inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Fax(763)479-4242
E-mail: wenckmp@wenck.com
PRESENTATION BY JAMES A. BENSHOOF TO FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING TRAFFIC REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO REZONE PROPERTY IN
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 61ST AVENUE AND MAIN STREET SUBMITTED BY
MAIN STREET PROPERTIES, LLC
a) Traffic counts conducted in 1997 at American Excelsior Company, 140 81St Street in
City of Fridley
b) Survey of a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for industrial sites on Main Street in
City of Fridley
c) Truck trip generation projections for proposed development related to M-4 development
d) Total trip generation projections for proposed development related to M-4 development
e) Conclusions
BENSHOOF & ASSOClATES, INC. ,
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
� ?301 OHMS lANE, SUlT� 500 / EDINA, MN 55439 /(6? 2; 832-9858 / FAX (612) 832-9564
June 5, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Johnson, Ceres Environmental Services, Inc.
��1$
FROM: James A. Benshoo and Derek A. Sunstrom
REFER TO FILE: 9•�-42
RE: Trip Generation Survey for a Sample of Light and Heavy Industrial Sites
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to _present the results of a survey we performed to
record the number of vehicle trips generated by several different light industrial and heavy
industrial developments. This survey has been performed to provide a strang data base to
. estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the McIntyre property in the City
of Blaine, comparing the generation of trips and type of traffic (e.g. trucks) between light
industrial and heavy industrial land uses. An important objective is to estimate the
potential truck trip generation for development on the McIntyre site, as well as total trip
generation. To assist in accomplishing this objective, the trip generation survey that has
been performed at several light industrial and heavy industrial sites involved recording the
trips by four different categories of vehicles: passenger cars, small commercial vehicles,
large single unit frucks, and semi-trucks.
INFORMATION ON LIGHT AND HEAVY INDUSTRIA,L SITES USED FOR
TRAFFIC SURVEY
We have made a concerted effort to select Iight and heavy industrial developments that
correlate with potential uses that could occur on the McIntyre site, under the City's
current Zoning Ordinance and following a rezoning to I-1 if the Zoning Ordinance is
amended. To that end, we have spoken with City Planners for several communities, have
made observations at several prospective light industrial and heavy industrial
developments, and have gained information about the type of business performed at the
candidate survey sites. Two of the sites selected are light industrial, and the other three
are heavy industrial. The five developments surveyed are listed �on the next page.
.
,
Mr. Steve Johnson -2- June 5, 1997
Light Industrial
Name and Address of Com an Descri tion of Business Pro e Size
Nasco
2100 Old Highway 8 Distribute Welding Supplies 3,00 acres
New Bri hton, MN
Nott Company Distribute hydrologic, industriai,
4480 Round Lake Rd Wesi and rubber fabrication supplies 2.14 acres
Arden Hills, MN
Heavy Industrial
Name and Address of Com an Descri tion of Bvsiness Pro e Size
American Excelsior Company Manufacture and Ship Out
140 81 s` Street Packaging and Erosion Control 6.26 acres
Fridie , NIN Devices
Olson General Contractors
5010 Hillsboro Ave. North General contracting 1.98 acres
New Ho e, MN
Park Construction They deal with heavy commercial
7900 Beech Street equipment for use in highway and 7.00 acres
Fridle , MN dam construction
The two light industrial sites constitute uses that are allowed in the I-1 zone under the City
of Biaine's Zoning Ordinance. The three heavy industrial uses are compatibie with the
City of Blaine's I-2 zoning district. The principal characteristic that distinguishes the
heavy industrial uses from the light industrial uses is that the three heavy industriai sites
have outdoor storage of semi-trailers or equipment.
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC SURVEY
At each of the five existing developments referenced in the preceding section, we recorded
the total traffic in and out of the development during the a.m. peak p�eriod (7-9 a.m.} and
p.m. peak period (4-6 p.m.) on a typical weekday. The data were collected on weekdays
during the period of May 30 - June 4, 1997. The trips in and' out of each development
were recorded according to four categories of vehicles: passenger vehicles, small
commercial vehicles (small trucks with logos or equipment indicating business use), large
single unit trucks (UPS, mail trucks, dump trucks), and semi trucks,
Trip Generation Data for American Excelsior Company, 140 81st Street, in City of Fridley
Note: Traffic volumes recorded on Monday, June 2, 1997
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Type of Vehicle Total Trip Ends Trip Ends/Acre Total Trip Ends Trip Ends/Acre
Passenger 5 0.8 4 0.6
Small Commercial 0 0 2 0.3
Large Single Unit 0 0 5 0.8
Semi Truck 3 0.5 2 0.3
Totals 8 1.3 13 2.1
Wenck Associates, Inc. 11/5/2007
Wenck
November 5, 2007
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Fax (763) 479-4242
E-mail: wenckmp@wenck.com
SURVEY OF A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION FOR INDUSTRIAL
SITES ON MAIN STREET IN CITY OF FRIDLEY
Note: Traffic counts were conducted by type of vehicle for all trips entering and exiting sites
during the periods of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on one of the following typical
weekdays: October 17, 18, or 23, 2007.
a) Murphy Warehouse Company at 4700 and 4850 Main Street — two buildings with total
size of 455,888 square feet GFA; principal use is warehouse
b) AMB Northpoint Industrial at 5730, 5750, and 5780 Main Street — three buildings with
total size of 207,309 square feet GFA; uses are allocated approximately 10% for office,
58% for warehouse, and 32% for manufacturing
c) Sheet Metal Connectors at 5850 and 5900 Main Street and Parsons Electric at 5960
Main Street — these two uses have been considered together due to shared use of
driveways; total size of all three buildings is 233,810 square feet GFA; uses are
allocated approximately 76°10 for manufacturing and 24% for office, shop, and
warehouse
a��� � y � z.;;, � .
, � �.. >,
� e �� �, .
�
�'
�
�����
4850
� �. ��, ,�
�,
4700
��
� �
�=
�F.
�� �" . �„"°". �
_ � � Y,`t t �
�_ Y � ,
X A
. . _ a+1�4 1R 1 -
y�' �' � '�` � �' `
°$
� � � � �. y ,,� � ,
� =� � �y
��` � .;� _�
� � �;.. �: :��
� �: �. � : �
��: �, � �
� � �
� 49TH AVENUE
3 �;� - �� �
� �� �
� ° �n �" � �
� � �' �X�� , ? �
� �` � .�?'� 9r'.
� � �, �
X�- �' ,.�a �`� �
� � � � fr�
� � ." ,,�' . i� � �
� � � .";" �'.
��� ,�: � � � I
X � � � -�
.� � �. -�
.-: ��� � �
- ���
� ;� ��
�i-, �' , � ¢ � �'� -
�, � �V^ . ,� � � :�: �
�''� • : �
48TH AV E N U E
�. �
�
u � � � �;� � _
� �
� �� �
H � �� ��`��� ���� � ` �
t/� s �; • � ` �
Z � '� ,�. ,� � �' t
Q �{ � �
� -�_� � � N
�
�� � ,,��
���� ��i�
Xh
� �' � � NO SCALE
� � �
� TRAFFIC STUDY FOR AERIAL OF MURPHY WAREHOUSE
�` W� n�. ,�� FRIDLEY PROPERTY PROPERTY IN FRIDLEY, MN
��
��
�:: � �
` � �:. ,, ��.`, ��� �.-.. .M ,,,�,
�. � �
� � � � � � �, �
� � �
Parsons� � �� ���
� / Q�
�� `, ,� � �k
Electric Lt�
� ���.
# � . � �. � � � � �: {
� �.�.:����` <� �� � �, �� � �:
� ..�,,.'.,Y '�:
�::�� �
��
�� � _
���� , � �
�� �- ��,: �
� :ti
�� �� �
?� �� -�
� ._
t� � � - � �� � �; �
�� � � �
. v�Mf ;....:,;?ew� `i'�'.. ak�!A+�wr�+�;..�;;�+54.i�t;.,� . �'� ..r x� �
'�F..
5 9 0 0 . ��. � � ��:� i� �� ����
�;..
� �
�� �
� � � 59TH AVENt�E �..� �:
Sheet 4 .� .: �: � ,�.�,
. „ _ ��
, . - r�z= �
Meta I � �
�� ; �_ ,� �
Connectors ��� V4��� �
� ��
00 � �,a: . �
_ ,�� � �
� . �� � � � �.
���. � �__ �
�: � _���; �� � �.
-� � � 3 �� .
� � '�' ,..i,-t wY�. `47' � � � 3 -.
1� �. � y.� � � �N� _
� 2 � � � �
� � � AMB Q _A� � � � � � �
:� �
Northpoint � � �
Industrial � �: 58Th� AVENUE , _
� � � � �— �`� � '� �
` - W � �
�
� �m O `� W � ,� �� "`�
� �C �� � ��.
t j M :� :� .� � �� �
, � N .., � � � �
o � � � �� � �
`� � � �a �� � N
� � � �4� �=� ���
� � . � k ,� �
� ��
�, : � � 5 7TH P LAC E
' � � NO SCALE
-. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR AERIAL OF PROPERTIES BETWEEN
'�'�` �� ���. �� FRIDLEY PROPERTY 57TH AVENUE AND 61ST AVENUE
IN FRIDLEY, MN
Trip Generation for Murphy Warehouse (4700 and 4850 Main Street)
A.M. Peak Hour
(7:45-8:45 a.m.)
Total
Cateq0l'L/ , (455.888 SF)
Trips' Rate 2
1)Passenger Vehicles and Pick-up 6 -
Trucks
2)Small Commercial Vehicles (small 0 -
trucks with logos or equipment indicating
business use)
3)Large single unit trucks (UPS, mail trucks, 0 -
dump trucks)
4 Semi-Trucks 16 -
Trip Sum of 3) and 4) 16 -
Trip Gen Rate for Sum of 3) and 4) 0.035
Trip Sum for all four 22 -
Tri Gen Rate for sum of all four - 0.048
i
uun� v� wia� cnic�n�y a��v c.�iu��y u�Na �v� uvin unvCways
2#rips per 1, 000 sq. ft.
P.M. Peak Hour
(4:00-5:00 p.m.)
Total
Cateqory (455.888 SF)
TrjqS � Rate 2
i)Passenger Vehicles and Pick-up 3 -
Trucks
2)Small Commercial Vehicles (small 1 -
trucks with logos or equipment indicating
business use)
3)Large single unit trucks (UPS, mail trucks, 0 -
dump trucks)
4)Semi-Trucks 2 -
Sum of 3) and 4) 2 -
Trip Gen Rate for Sum of 3) and 4) 0.004
Total for al1 four 6 -
Trip Gen Rate for sum of all four - 0.013
� _�.
o..,.. �.� �v�c�� �inc�u�y a��v cnnmy wNa iv� uvur unvCwaya
Z trips per 1,000 sq.ft.
Wenck Associates, Inc. 11/5/2007
Trip Generation for AMB Northpoint (5730, 5750, and 5780 Main Street)
A.M. Peak Hour
(7:45-8:45 a.m.�
Total
Category (207.309 SF�
Trips' Rate 2
1)Passenger Vehicles and Pick-up 47 -
Trucks
2)Small Commercial Vehicles (small 0 -
trucks with logos or equipment indicating
business use)
3)Large single unit trucks (UPS, mail trucks, 0 -
dump trucks)
4)Semi-Trucks 5 -
Trip Sum of 3) and 4) 5 -
Trip Gen Rate for Sum of 3) and 4) - 0.024
Trip Sum for al1 four 52 -
Tri Gen Rate for sum of alI four - 0.251
' sum ofentering and exiting trips at both driveways serving the three b/dgs
2 trips per 1, 000 sq. it.
P.M. Peak Hour
(4:15-5:15 p.m.�
Total
Categor� (207.309 SFl
Trips ' Rate 2
1)Passenger Vehicles and Pick-up 66 -
Trucks
2)Small Commercial Vehicles (small 1 -
t�ucks with logos or equipment indicating
business use)
3)Large single unit trucks (UPS, mail trucks, 5 -
dump trucks)
4)Semi-Trucks 0 -
Sum of 3) and 4) 5 -
Trip Gen Rate for Sum of 3) and 4) - 0.024
Total for a/l four 72 -
Trip Gen Rate for sum of all four - 0.347
' sum of entering and exiting trips at both driveways serving the three b/dgs
2 trips per 1, 000 sq. ft
Wenck Associates, Inc. 11/5/2007
Trip Generation for Sheet Metal Connectors and Parsons Electric
(5850, 5900 and 5960 Main Street)
A.M. Peak Hour
(7:30-8:30 a.m.�
Total
Categor�r (2ss.810 SF)
Trips , Rate 2
1)Passenger Vehicles and Pick-up 48 -
Trucks
2)Small Commercial Vehicles (small 11 -
trucks with logos or equipment indicating
business use)
3)Large single unit trucks (UPS, mail trucks, 3 -
dump trucks)
4)Semi-Trucks 1 -
Trip Sum of 3) and 4) 4 -
Trip Gen Rate for Sum of 3) and 4) - 0.017
Trip Sum for all four 63 -
Tri Gen Rate for sum of a!I four - 0.269
� - - . _ . . . ... . ... . .. . . .
�uu� vi cu�cnny auv c.��uny ua�nc �vr an �wi wrvew�rys
2 trips per 1,000 sq.ft
P.M. Peak Hour
(4:15-5:15 q.m.�
Total
CategorLr (233.810 SF)
Tri s' Rate 2
1)Passenger Vehicles and Pick-up 46 -
Trucks
2)Small Commercial Vehicles (small 5 -
trucks with logos or equipment indicating
business use)
3)Large single unit trucks (UPS, mail trucks, 2 -
dump trucks)
4)Semi-Trucks 6 -
Sum of 3) and 4) $ -
Trip Gen Rate for Sum of 3) and 4) - 0.034
Tota/ for alI four 59 -
Trip Gen Rate for sum of all four - 0.252
� sum of entering and exiting traflic for all four driveways
2 trips per 1, 000 sq. ft
Wenck Associates, inc. 11/5/2007
TRUCK TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
RELATED TO M-4 DEVELOPMENT
Development A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily
Approach Scenario Hour Truck Hour Truck Truck Trip
and Size Trip Ends Trip Ends Ends
a) Just using Institute of 1) Proposed warehouse 4 3 57
Transportation Engineers Data (150,650 SF GFA)
2) Manufacturing 5 5 88
(150,650 SF GFA)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) October 8,2007 handout using 1) Proposed warehouse 4 3 57
average of Institute of Transportation (150,650 SF GFA)
Engineers Data and American 2) Manufacturing 5 9 88
Excelsior data (150,650 SF GFA)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Using counts at properties on 1) Proposed warehouse 51 2� NA
Main Street (150,650 SF GFA)
2) Manufacturing 3 2 5 2 NA
(150,650 SF GFA)
' .._:__ _.._____ ._:- ------•�-- ---- �-- •� —�- , ..,.. ., .. .
....,..y ....,...y., �,.r., y...,.,,u.,..,, ,a« �.., ,.,�,p.,�y anv �rvw �vviurNvirn
2 using trip generation rate for Sheet Metal / Parsons
Wenck Associates, Inc. 11/5/2007
TOTALTRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
RELATED TO M-4 DEVELOPMENT
Development A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily
Approach Scenario Hour Hour Trip
and Size Trip Ends Tri Ends Ends
a) October 8,2007 handout just 1) Proposed warehouse 68 71 747
using lnstitute of Transportation (150,650 SF GFA)
Engineers Data 2) Manufacturing 110 111 575
(150,650 SF GFA)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) Using average of Institute of 1) Proposed warehouse 68 71 747
Transportation Engineers and (150,650 SF GFA)
American Excelsior data 2) Manufacturing 62 68 575
(150,650 SF GFA)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) Using counts at properties on 1) Proposed warehouse 23 , 27 � NA
Main Streeet (150,650 SF GFA)
2) Manufacturing 2 2
(150,650 SF GFA) 40 38 NA
�..�:��. �..����.� a..l� �.���..�aL�.� ..�a� L�..1/..'.�L." �_J w�in w�_.1�__:_. .
�,,,y u..,,�y., �,�F, y�,,.,,u..�,,.u.,. �.., ,..�.r,.,y u.,,.,�,.�...,.���„N..,,��
2 using trip generation rate for Sheet Metal / Parsons
Wenck Associates, Inc. 11/5/2007
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO M-4 DEVELOPMENT ON
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
The proposed development will have slightly less impact on the surrounding
neighborhood than an M-4 development of the same size. The basis for this conclusion is
that the proposed development likely will have lesser traffic implications relative to two
criteria of particular importance regarding neighborhood impacts:
• Slightly fewer truck trips during the p.m. peak hour and on a daily basis
• Slightly lower total volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
From our experience, these two criteria are more important relative to neighborhood
impacts than is the total daily trip generation, for which the proposed development likely
will be slightly greater.
Wenck Associates, Inc. 11/5/2007
EXHIBITS 1-5
IN SUPPORT OF REZONING REQUEST 20A #07-02
(November 5, 2007 Fridley City Council Meeting)
�.
�
____ � •; City of Fridley Lend �Tse Application
,
CENTRAL IIYFORMATION
Applicant:
:,r.�.�_, „�;,.•,•..,��c:..... . ,,::
Tom and Dave Gonyea
50 Groveland Tetrace, Ste 8
Minneapalis, MN 55403
Requested Acaon:
�. . .. Rcmrting
� Pucpose;
.�..� � To allow constructiva of a 39,406 squaro
foot indus�ial ofi�ce warehptyu,
Fxiating Zoning
Residential • M�� Maaufsct�,uiae OnIY
Locabao: � • •
I290 Osbortie R�oad �
Size;
146,250 sq, ft.
Lxititing Land Use: ,
Undevelopcd - .��V J '
Surmuading Land Use & Zoning,
N: City of Sprir,g I.ake park
E: Commetcial, Gl �
Sir�gle F4mily, R-1
S; M-i, Lighr
W: M-1, Light Induspri�l
Comprehensive P1an Conformance:
Consistrnt with Plaa
Zoaing �Ordinance Confoia�ance;
Secoion 205,ZO.O1.A11ows for
manufacd.uing uses onty.
Zoa�ng Histoiy;
Ande�on Development lot platud in
__ 1969� Reptatted in 1993
Legal Descriptzon of Propecty;
Lot 2, Block 1, Ande�on Development
Replat
Council Acdon; -
August 23� 1999
Public Ualities:
_ Available in public rigbtqf-way Central
July 29,1999
SPECL4L INFp12MqTION
Ti�lfLSPOrtBQOtt:
Devetopment is acccssed via Osbome
Road
Physical C'harecberisdcs;
'mis pmpeKy is undeveloped relatively
level and located on the corncr of Osborne ��.=- p��
Road and Cenhal Aveaue. �
SUNIl1�l�1RY OF pROJECT
Tt�e pelitioners
onder to build an indus�ia! .
Warclwusel0ii�ce building, . .
7�t 1997, the City of Fridley rezoned the property
fivm M-1, Light Industrial to M-4, Manufact�ui�ag
only. T7�e intet�t of the reaoning was to pz+eserve
indus�ialland fo� manufact�nrin& Prot�
neigtaborhoods and roadways &om beavy avck
ttaffic common ta � w���
developments, and to assure compahbility with
surrvunding development.
�e cument requesc would revert the land co it*,
pnwious desi�adon, '[he cieveloper h�s indicated
that the building design was c�u W
providc �° ,
an o,ce ullding s�eet appearance, and
s assure that the
buildir�g will attiaact tenents whose impacts would
coineide with the vision the City bad for the site as
an M-4 development.
STAFF RECONIl�IENDATION
Staff rocommends approval of rezoning ZOA 99-
03, with sbpul8tions (attached exhibit A)
PLANN"IlYG CONIlVIISSION
RECONIl1�Npp,TION
Concur with staff
Staff Repoct Prepared by; 5cott J Hickok
Main Street Fridlev Properties LLC Rezoning Application
FRIDLEY WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDINGS BUILT SINCE 1997
Warehouse* Manufacturin� EMV/SF
Anderson Trucking / Gonyea
Development
1290 Osborne Road
Year Built: 2000
Sheet Metal Connectors (N. Bldg.)
5900 Main Street
Year Built: 2002
CSM Corporation Building
452 Northco Drive
Year Built: 2000
Industrial Equities / John Allen
Building
5110 Main Street
Year Built: Under construction in 2007
(Permit Valuation / Submitted 5/8/07)
Streamfeeder
101 Osborne Road
Year Built: 1997
Coachman Property
100 Osborne Road
Year Built: 1998
$67.49/SF
$64.99/SF
$58.03/SF
$48.89/SF
$47.08/SF
$37.38/SF
" Warehouses listed are taken from previous sampling, which concentrated on properties originally
designated M-4 and warehouses in the vicinity of the subject property.
MEMO
To: Barb Dacy
Michele McPherson
. I ��
From: Edward Hervin
City Assessor �, �J '
��
Date: Mar. 25, 1997
Re: M-4, Land values and zoning
We recently had a discussion regarding the possibte impact on land values of adding a new
zoning class. The new class would be known as M-4, which is to be a manufacturing use.
The land to be re-zoned is currently zoned for warehouse and office/warehouse use. I
would not expect to see a change in market value due to the new zoning. The values in
areas zoned for these usage's does not seem to be different for warehouse or
manufacturing. Generally, the more restrictive the zoning the less market there is for a
property and this ma.y result in a decrease in market value. The smaller market does not
necessarily equate to lower value. Marketing time does not necessarily relate to the
property value. Sales price has a direct and strong relation to market time. While the M=4
zone is more restrictive than the current zoning because it eliminates some common
usage's it still has a substantial market for the property. Ma.ny manufacturers may actually
have trouble finding a site that permits their activity. All land is zoned for some particular
use and this does not reduce its' market value. Zoning actually increases land values by
putting like users together with maximum advantages to each type of user.
The factors that go into site selection for a potential user are much the same whether the
intended use is warehouse or manufacturing. They are concerned with adequate size, good
access, close highways, adequate utilities, etc. We normally expect to see. the prices for
industrial land to be about the same regardless of their particular use. I-iigher values would
be expected for office and retail locations but they are normally not in consideration when
looking for an industrial site of any type. Rail availability may be a consideration for some
businesses.
18.38
Hickok, Scott
From: Burns, Biil
nt: Thursday, May 17, 2001 4:23 PM
,,; Hickok, Scott
Cc: City Council; 'knaakQminn.net'
Subject: RE: Industrial site at 61st and Main Street
Thanks Scott. I'm assuming that you are keeping in touch with Fritz on this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hlckok, Scott
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 20014:15 PM
To: Burns, BiII •
Subject: Industrial site at 61st and Main Street
BIII:
Staff continues to receive correspondence from George Ludcke of the law firm of Kelly 8� Berens, P.A., regarding the
development of the industrial site at 61 st and Main Street. As you may recall, a permit was requested for finro buildings
in this location. The early plan showed a 109,000 and a 50,000 s.f. building, parking, and a pond. The plan did not
include adequate storm capacity calculations and site drainage/flow information. The plan was also drawn in a
manne� that would require that a parking setback variance be granted prior to issuance of a building permit. Since the
original submittal the storm calculations have arrived, but the variance requirement still applies.
Mr. Ludcke indicated that it is hi� expectation that his permit information, submitted Friday, May 11, should be
reviewed by our staff and a permit issued by this Friday (May 18).
Yesterday, MnDot (Mike Schoneway) indicated that he is aware of this proposal and has discussed it with the NCDA
folks and has indicated that without a station site endorsement site by the Fridley City Council, their hands are tied and
they cannot procede with negotiations for the site. He also indicated that he felt the City (if it chose to do so) could
issue a moritorium on development of the site until a determination is made.
The plans have now been reviewed by Planning, Building and Engineering departments. We are awaiting the Fire
Department comments and anticipate that we will receive those comments within the next couple of days. With the
issues that have been identifed being successfully addressed and if all modifications to the site plan are made so that
the need for a variance is eliminated, a building permit for two industrial buildings will be issued. .
Scott �
�.4..,�.
. ;,/!� i
./' �
�%'
.,: �����:�����:���
�
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPINENT DIRECTOR
Memorandum
May 5, 2Q03
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Scott J. Hickok, Cot�munity Development Director
Jon !�laulcaas, P�biic �ll/orks Director
Main Street Fridley Properties, LLC
�
INTRODUCTION
To iollow up on the matter outlined in the Donald C. Wiileke letter, dated November 22, 2002, we have
prepared thls response, The respo�se is broken basical(y into two broad category areas. These are Park
Dedication Fees and The Special Assessment for Sewer and Water.
PARK DEDICATlON FEES
Mr, Willeke is correct in his assessment of how park dedication fees work and how they are to be
assigned to p�operties, Upon researching the history of these parcels, our staff has determined that the
properties in question wil! not be required to pay park dedlcation fees. This is due to the fact that the park
dedication requirement came into existence after the creation of these parcels and no further platting has
commenced.
Of coorse, At such point as the property is further platted, fees wili be required fo� the entire square foot
dimension of that plat. If the parcel is used in its current configuration, without further platting, no park
dedication will be required.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER AND WATER
The City has always had a policy of deferring the special assessments for the cost to instail the sanitary
sewer and water mains unti! a building permit is taken out for the property. (n 1960 when the sewer and
water was installed for the properties on Main St, the policy was to charge actual costs back to the
properties. This was done on a basis of $x.�oc per foot width of the lot for the mains in the street and a set
charge for each individuaf service. These amounts were set and increased annually for deferred
assessments to reflect the inc�eased cost for these installations. The last increase was made in the early
80s because we had very few new Installations to compare cost to.
The current rate for deferred sp�cial assessments is $27.61 per foot of frontage. We have assessed this
cost to many other developments over the years including residential lot splits. For the lot on the comer
of 61 st and Main with a lot frontage of 260.4 feet, the assessment should be $7189.64
Looking at the special assessment history for parcels along Main St shows that all pa�cels except the one
on the southwest corner of 61st and Maln St paid a sewer and water main assessment in 1960. Based
on those recorded costs, the assessment for this corner lot would have been approximately $2890. The
Interest rate at the time was 5%. Using this interest rafe over the last 43 years would have made the
deferred assessment grow to over $23,500.
� .,
� �
,
SUMMARY
No park dedication fees will be required at this time. At such time that further platting of the p�operty
commences, park dedication fees will then be required. As for sewer and water assessments, a current
fee of $7189.64 would be required to be paid today with a building permit request for a building on the
parcel at the southwest corner of 61'' and Main Street. !f a permit (s not requested and an updated rate is
applied, the new rate would then be required to be paid at the time prior to buiiding permit issuance. At
this time there are no pending bui(ding permits to be issued on these parcels.
We hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have additional questions.
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 Block 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 distant
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. 84003 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 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:
RESOLUTION NO.
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.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 19, 2007, and
recommended denial of said rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held open the public hearing on October 8, 2007 and;
WEHERAS, the City Council continued the public hearing on November 5, 2007 and;
WHEREAS, the City Council denied the rezoning at their November 5, 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 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.
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
5t'' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
SCOTT LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
AssertiOn L' May 1992 - After City Manager Confirms M-2 zoning and City support
for development, Everest/MS purchases both a property of 14. 45 acres on Main Street
Adjacent to I-694 ("Southern Parcel ") and the Subject Property, 11.52 acres
Response: This is false. It is very unusual that the City Manager would be called upon
to confirm a zoning designation and to endorse a development for which there was
apparently no plan at the time. Community Development staff confirmed with City
Manager that this endorsement did not happen.
AssertiOn 2: Fall 1992 - City Assessor proposes to roughly treble tcrx valuation on one
property. Everest substantially prevails on tcrx protest.
Response: After petitioning value, the property owner proved through his sale to Home
Depot that the value was much higher than they were being taxed. Treble the value was
not only correct, but possibly was still too low. Nonetheless, the tax value was reduced
through that petition from $1,113,400 to $786,900, for the years 91, 92, & 93. In 1994 the
value increased to $945,000 and in subsequent years the value has been increased to
reflect the increased value of the Home Depot and PetSmart on the site.
Council undoubtedly will be interested to know that Everest purchased this property on
May 18, 1992 for .72/square foot, or $459,900. Three years later, the Property was sold to
Home Depot for $4.32/square foot, or $2,721,600. This value represents a difference of
$2,261,700. While no one faults a business for making money, it is interesting at this
same time, the value of the property was being debated and Mr. Nelson and his company
was contesting the value and asking for serious reductions. Our appraisers would have
been absolutely within their rights to treble the tax value on this property, according to
the property owner's arms length sale to Home Depot in 1995.
Interesting also is the fact that James P. Benson, SIOR, of Chase Real Estate Brokerage
and Consulting, who represented Everest Group/Main Street Fridley Property, stated the
following in his October 14, 1994 Letter to City Assessor Leon Madsen: "I also noted in
your October S`h letter to Bruce [MalkersonJ that you are reluctant to change the current
1. 75 s.f. valuation for the site bordering on I-694 because part of the property is
currently zoned commercial. Leon, I honestly cannot perceive of any commercial value
for that property. I can remember when the zoning for the site was changed from
industrial to commercial based on the possibility that a developer would build a hotel on
the site. However, as I recall the primary purpose of the hotel was to serve employees of
the BN railroad. Based on the struggle the retailers have had along 57`h Street between
University Avenue and Main over the years, I simply cannot envision a commercial
development for the site. I see the site as a pure industrial with no more value than the
other north sites.
Four and a half months later, Mr. Nelson signed an agreement to sell the site to Home
Depot for a profit of over 2 million dollars.
AssertiOn 3: June-July 1993 - Everest/MS sends open letter to City Council and staff
critical of treatment as a developer. City Manager declares that, if letter shared with
Council, Everest/MS will be denied development Support.
RespOnse: Bill Burn's response: "I do not remember either of these [allegation #1 or
allegation #3J. As a practice, however, I have never withheld any correspondence
directed to Council from Council. Nor have I ever threatened anyone with denial of
development support based on their criticism of staff. "
AssertiOn 4: Late 1994 to Early 1995 - Home Depot purchases southern parcel
contingent upon rezoning. Staff initially favors rezoning.
Response: This is not true. Staff recommended denial of the Home Depot rezoning due
to this being the largest single remaining industrial parcel, and for having poor access for
commercial due to a then unimproved 57th Avenue. Staff stayed consistent in their denial
of the Home Depot recommendation, but offered the Planning Commission and Council
direction if they chose to approve the rezoning.
Remember also ... James P. Benson, SIOR, of Chase Real Estate Brokerage and
Consulting, who represented Everest Group/Main Street Fridley Property, stated the
following in his October 14, 1994 Letter to City Assessor Leon Madsen:
I honestly cannotperceive of any commercial value for thatproperty. I can remember when the zoning for
the site was changed from industrial to commercial based on the possibility that a developer would build a
hotel on the site. However, as I recall the primary purpose of the hotel was to serve employees of the BN
railroad. Based on the struggle the retailers have had along 57t�` Street between UniversityAvenue and
Main over the years, I simply cannot envision a commercial development for the site. I see the site as a
pure industrial with no more value than the other north sites. "
When Everest/MS resists City pressure to relinquish billboard rights, staff changes
position; recommends denial, asserting need to retain open industrial — zoned land.
Incorrectly states that this is the largest undeveloped, industrial-zoned property in
Fridley
Response: This is not true. Staff recommended denial of the Home Depot rezoning due
to this being the largest single remaining industrial parcel, having poor access for
commercial due to a then unimproved 57th Avenue.
As for the billboards, staff discussed with the developer a quandary. The billboards were
not on a separate parcel and the industrial district did not clearly provide for billboards as
a principle or an accessory use on an industrial or commercial site. Simply put, this
would be the first site to develop after the construction of billboards and exactly how the
details would be worked out was yet to be seen.
Staff discussed solutions including subdividing and creating a parcel for the billboards.
That would have required 2'/z acres for the billboards, which was the minimum lot size
for the district if it remained M-2, Heavy Industrial, or 35,000 s.f. if the site were to be
rezoned commercial.
From that discussion and rather than further discussing solutions with the City, Mr.
Nelson entered into a perpetual easement agreement between Commercial Property
Investments and Michael Investments (both the grantee and grantor in this easement were
addressed at 2685 Long Lake Road, Roseville, MN) This agreement was enter into on
November 28, 1994 and filed with Anoka County on January 9, 1995. There apparently
would be no further discussion of billboard solutions, Mr. Nelson locked himself and the
City into his easement solution like it or not.
On March 1, 1995, Nelson entered into a purchase agreement with Home Depot. Home
depot would be required to recognize the easement on their property. On August 29, 1995
the land transferred ownership to Home Depot.
Council approves rezoning.
Response: In spite of a less than cooperative solution on the billboard matter, the
Council approved the rezoning request to change the M-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning to C-
3, Shopping Center zoning to allow the development of Home Depot
Property owner requests identity of staff preparing report with false information. Request
denied.
Response: Peculiar evidence that somehow the developer continued to want to take on
an individual staff inember in spite of a favorable rezoning request.
AssertiOn 5: August 9, 1996 to September 19, 1996 - Everest/MS presents proposed
warehouse%ffzce building to staff before filing for building permit.
Staff demands that Everest /MS demonstrate proposed building not a truck terminal.
Response: The building Mr. Nelson proposed had 50 dock (large overhead industrial)
doors facing Main Street. The building also had numerous dock doors on the rear of the
building, facing away from Main Street.
In 1993, the City created the M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive zoning district.
The M-3 Zoning would allow truck intensive transshipment and other dock intensive uses
to exist in Fridley. The M-3 district was purposely created away from residential
neighbors and in a location that with screening, the impact of truck activity on-site could
be mitigated. In that M-3 district, trucking industries found their place and they were
welcomed. One such business was CCX Trucking. The building Mr. Nelson proposed
looked very much like the CCX complex with its dock door filled fa�ade and trucking
intensive site design. Staff review requires extreme caution to assure uses are not
improperly placed on sites where they would not be permitted. Mr. Nelson initially made
no effort to cooperate and allay the fears that this might be a truck terminal. His legal
counsel later sent the definitions of trucking terminal and warehouse facilities, but did
very little again to eliminate the City's fears that his clients building would be
inappropriate for the district.
AssertiOn 6: September 19, 1996- In oral communication with Scott Hickok,
Everest/MS explains proposed building is in material respects equivalent to
acknowledged `ivarehouses ". Staff won't acknowledge building is a warehouse.
Response: Mr. Nelson still made no effort to provide enough information to allay the
fears that this might be a truck terminal. The City's fears were obvious, if he was sincere
and truly wanted to develop his site, he like other successful developers, would work with
the City to build the comfort level necessary to gain city Support.
AssertiOn 7: October 11, 1996 - Everest/MS send letter to staff detailing distinctions
between terminal and warehouse.
Response: His legal counsel later sent the definitions of trucking terminal and
warehouse facilities, but did very little again to eliminate the City's fears that his clients
building would be inappropriate for the district.
AssertiOn 8: October 11, 1996 - to December 1996 — Staff and attorney demand
identity of tenant and right to tour that tenant's current facility before the City will
acknowledge that the proposed building is a conforming use. Staff and City Attorney are
sources of repeated delay in communications regarding these demands.
Response: Mr. Nelson still made no effort to provide enough information to allay the
fears that this might be a truck terminal. The City's fears were obvious, if he was sincere
and truly wanted to develop his site, he like other successful developers would work with
the City to build the comfort level necessary to gain city Support.
AssertiOn 9: .Ianuary 2, 1997 — Without prior notice, 120-Day moratorium is
announced.
Response: The City had 500,000 s.f. of warehouse built within the 18 month prior to
the moratorium. With very little industrially zoned land left, the City entered into a
moratorium to evaluate what steps would be necessary to protect the remaining industrial
property and to assure that not all industrial land would be consumed by warehouse uses,
which have heavy trucking demands, offer lower salary employment to fewer employees
typically.
AssertiOn 10: June 1997 — Council creates M-4 zone, but limits to S properties (3 of 8
dropped at request of owners).
Response: False, properties like McGlynn's parcel adjacent to their
manufacturing/baking facility asked to be left M-2, to allow for their own future
manufacturing/baking or even warehousing needs to facilitate their existing
manufacturing operation. This was done because it made perfect since to allow an
existing industrial user to expand, which was their purpose for buying the land.
AssertiOn 11: November 1997 -1 of remaining M-4 properties rezoned, 4 remain.
Response: An owner of one of the M-4 Manufacturing sites that had been rezoned
approached the City with a request to develop a building that he had been contemplating
at the time of the rezoning. His building would be: multi-tenant, would not have doors
facing the surrounding neighborhoods, would be designed in a tech-flex manufacturing
manner to allow industrial users flexibility within the shell for expansion, The clear
heights would indicate the desire to have manufacturing, not warehouse users, and the
developer had indicated that he was interested in approaching smaller medical industries
in the area. Vendors who do manufacturing work with Medtronic and other medical
instrument providers in the region to see if they would be interested in this location.
Due to the building design and the owner/developer's desire to attract smaller
manufacturing uses in a multi-tenant layout, his allowing staff to visit his buildings
already constructed that were of like design and purpose, and his allaying fears of pure
warehouse uses, his rezoning request was approved.
Ironically, Mr. Nelson and his legal counsel chose to use this building as an example of a
"warehouse" with a high value. The building is listed in the assessor's information as a
flex industrial building, not a warehouse, therefore its value is much higher and it
supports what the petitioner (Gonyea) had said in this rezoning request. He built a flex
building to accommodate manufacturing, not a warehouse.
AssertiOn 12: September 1999 — Another M-4 property rezoned; 3 remain in theory
(however City's current zoning map reveals only 2).
Response: This is not entirely true. The September 1999 rezoning is related to a land
swap between Brenk Brothers, and Industrial Manufacturing entity and Friendly
Chevrolet. Brenk Brothers owned a parcel that was more conducive to a Car lot
expansion and Friendly Chevrolet owned a parcel that was more conducive to a
manufacturing expansion to the Brenk Brother's industry. They traded properties, and the
part that became Friendly Chevrolet also was rezoned CommerciaL Meanwhile the piece
that was Friendly Chevrolet became Brenk's and facilitated a doubling in size of their
manufacturing facility. The Brenk expansion is exactly what the City would have hoped
for in preserving its remaining industrial land for manufacturing purposes.
Map was found to be incorrect upon research of petitioner's allegation. Map corrections
have been ordered to correctly reflect M-4 parcels in Fridley. The 1998 map correctly
illustrated the parcels with an M-4 designation. Later iterations of the map were
erroneously modified, based on a staff comment made by a staff inember not familiar
with the M-4 rezoning in 1997.
AssertiOn 13: May 10, 2001 - Main Street Properties applies for building permit for 2
buildings.
Response: Yes, and by May 21, 2001, City staff had expended thousands of dollars in
staff time through plan review and consultation and Mr. Nelson's plans and permit were
at the front counter ready to be picked up. Though Mr. Nelson's application was
reviewed and his building approved, he never picked up his plans and never, therefore
paid for the staff time already invested in his plan review and permit servicing.
AssertiOn 14: Between May 10 —16, 2001— Staff says it needs drainage calculation
before permit can be gr�anted.
Response: Yes, this is not a requirement that was unique to this application. Every
proj ect is required to do the same.
Staff says development review committee will consider application on May 1 S, 2001, and
staff will immediately advise Everest/MS whether application complete.
Response: Staff likely did review his item at their May 15, 2001 DRC meeting. His
statement the staff would "immediately" advise Everest is likely exaggerated. It often
takes a day or so to follow-up with staff who are seeing a proposal for the first time at
DRC and may need time to do research on the proposal in their particular area of
endeavor.
Staff does not advise Everest/MS of results of committee 's review on the 1 S`h or 16`h
Response: Like so many developments, this one likely had components that various
staff inembers would need to research further. It is not unusual to take more than a day
from the time of DRC review to know whether everything is complete or more would be
needed. As a result we never promise that "immediately" after the meeting we will let
you know if the application is complete. Also, not every plan that comes in for building
permit needs to go to the Development Review Committee. I do not recall this item
requiring DRC review.
AssertiOn 15: May 16, 2001—Main Street's Counsel writes letter reciting
backgr�ound; requests explanation of delay and explanation as to issues which indicate
Main Street is a subject of discrimination.
Response: Peculiar as it sounds, the legal counsel for Main Street may have sent a
letter. Typically, an attorney would not be involved in a simple permit application that is
moving along as smoothly as this was. And typically if a letter is sent it would be sent to
our legal counsel. Other legal counsel typically understand the protocol of not dealing
with staff if the matter is contentious and the staff has its own legal counsel with which
they can confer. I have followed up with our legal counsel for information on this
particular allegation; I personally do not recall such letter being sent to staff.
Main Street submits drainage calculation staff requested.
Response: yes
AssertiOn 16: May 17, 2001— While unknown to Everest? MS at the time, Staff was
communicating with MnDOT regardingMnDOT's potential acquisition of site to support
a Northstar Rail Station; however, City action was required before MnDOT could
proceed.
Scott Hickok issues a letter to Main Street stating Everest/MS permit applications are
incomplete for 7 reasons.
Response: This is not true as it relates to "staffl' and the MnDOT allegation. Unless,
Mr. Nelson is referring to some other staff than Fridley's staff, this statement is false.
While MnDOT may have been dealing with Mr. Nelson separate from the City, the City
of Fridley had made no official commitment to this or any site, instead the City of Fridley
awaited the results of an Environmental Impact Statement and committed to considering
other possible solutions that may be revealed through the EIS process. That EIS was not
complete until March of 2002.
AssertiOn 17: May 18, 2001 - Main Street addresses all issues raised in Hickok letter.
RespOnse: Staff does not possess enough information about this to confirm or deny.
AssertiOn 18: May 21—May 29, 2001— Staff asserts thatMain Street has not
adequately addressed a variance requirement. Main Street responds. After a series of
communications, staff decides variance is not required.
Response: Likely true. Typically overhead doors are not permitted to face the public
right of way unless mitigating features exist.
AssertiOn 19: May 30, 2001— City takes the position thatMain Street mustpay over
$11, 000 in Park Dedication fees and over $20, 000 of "Special assessments " In order to
obtain permit.
Response: Park dedication is typically required on platted property and is due at the
time of the issuance of a building permit. Research revealed that this plat was approved
prior to the requirement of park dedication fees. Once this information was known to
staff, Mr. Nelson was notified. As for the $20, 000 of special assessments, Mr. Nelson
has long contended that he should not have to pay his proportionate share of the costs for
the infrastructure adjacent to and serving his site. That is false. He like any other
developer is required to pay these fees in accordance with City ordinance. These fees too
would be due and payable at the time of the issuance of the building permit.
AssertiOn 20: May 2001 + Main Street tenant prospects each lose interest after
communicating with City Staff. Main Street asks again for responses to questions bearing
discriminatory treatment. Requests ignored.
RespOnse: Staff does not possess enough information about this to confirm or deny.
AssertiOn 21: Summer 2001 to Late 2002 — Main Street makes Data Practices Act
request and investigates City's Claimed justification for parkfees and "assessments" as
to one of three parcels, notwithstanding that City records reveal no applicable and
unpaid assessments.
RespOnse: Staff does not possess enough information about this to confirm or deny.
Nov. 2002 — May 2003 Counsel for Main Street and City Attorney regarding fees/
"assessments ". Again City Attorney repeatedly late in responding to communications.
Response: Staff does not possess enough information about this to confirm or deny.
May S, 2003 — City finally acknowledges that park dedication fees cannot apply where,
as here, there is no replatting, but continues to insist on "assessments " as to one of three
parcels, not withstanding that the City records reveal no applicable unpaid assessments.
Response: This information was provided back at the time that the building permit was
ready to be picked up at the building counter. Park dedication is typically required on
platted property and is due at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Research
revealed that this plat was approved prior to the requirement of park dedication fees.
Once this information was known to staff, Mr. Nelson was notified. As for the $20, 000
of special assessments, Mr. Nelson has long contended that he should not have to pay his
proportionate share of the costs for the infrastructure adj acent to and serving his site. That
is false. He like any other developer is required to pay these fees in accordance with City
ordinance. These fees too would be due and payable at the time of the issuance of the
building permit.
Mary Smith [assessor] said, "There are three properties in that area that are owned by
Mr. Nelson, and miscellaneous fees on the three properties total $20,500.43, so it sounds
like these must be the correct properties based on the allegation. All fees owed on these
three properties are for water and sewer laterals. As you can see the water and sewer
mains were paid on these properties back in the sixties, but they have never paid for the
laterals, which any property getting hooked into our water and sewer systems should pay
for at the time a building permit is taken out. I believe Sharon probably did the research
on this back in 2001 and then put them into our special assessment system. I have not
found any notes on this other than what I have wrote in on the searches, that being the
number of feet and the price per foot for the laterals ".
AssertiOn 22: June 2003 - Anoka County Highway Official informs Main Street that
subject property would be acquired for Northstar Rail Station.
RespOnse: City Staff does not possess enough information about this to confirm or
deny.
AssertiOn 23: July 2, 2007 —MnDOT informs Main Street that the property "is no
longer needed for Northstar Rail. "
RespOnse: City Staff does not possess enough information about this to confirm or
deny.
AssertiOn 24: August 16, 2007- Main Street applies for a rezoning to M-2.
Response: True
AssertiOn 25: September 13, 2007 — Staff recommends denial ofMain Street's
application.
Also recommends that if rezoning is gr�anted, the Council require:
That the 3 parcels be combined (appears to be an effort to resurrect withdrawn demand
for park dedication fee); and
Response: True staff recommends denial. False, that the combination of 3 parcels is
being required as a way to resurrect the park dedication fee issue. This is a stipulation
that is required oftentimes when several parcels are being used to construct a single
proj ect. This does not require platting, simply a combination for tax purposes, which can
be done by completing a simple form given by the assessor and then filing at Anoka
County.
To require Main Street to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of
building permit (appears to be an effort to resurrect "special assessment" demands).
Response: Mr. Nelson has long contended that he should not have to pay his
proportionate share of the costs for the infrastructure adj acent to and serving his site. That
is false. He like any other developer is required to pay these fees in accordance with City
ordinance. These fees too would be due and payable at the time of the issuance of the
building permit.
AssertiOn 26: September 19, 2007 — Planning Commission votes 4 to 1 to deny
application
Response: True
Traffc Analysis Allegations
Assertion a) 61st Avenue N.E. and Main Street N.E. near the subject site both have
been designated by the City as Collector routes.
Response: True
Assertion b) Intersection of 61st 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.
Response: True, though this application is not about northstar, it is fair to use the data
from their traffic analysts for purposes of discussing University Avenue Traffic at 61st.
Assertion 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.
Response: True
Assertion 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.
Response: True based on stated findings in ITE Trip Generation Manual7th Edition.
Note in the report that there is a difference in 172 number of daily trip ends by a
warehouse use, rather than a Manufacturing use.
Assertion e) regarding truck trip generation, the proposed warehouse development
would generate fewer truck trips than M-4 manufacturing, especially on a daily basis.
Response: Questionable. On the first table of the Wenck report we see that warehouse
generates 172 more daily trip ends than with an M-4 Manufacturing use.
The second table however, uses foot notes regarding a 1997 Survey done of the American
Excelsior Traffic (data not included) and somehow uses that 1997 trip information to
prove that the proposed use on this site will have less daily trips than a manufacturing
use. Interestingly, American Excelsior was built in 1996 and was just being occupied in
1997; a study of this buildings trips is still puzzling. Beside that fact, there is no
indication of what assumptions were made or methodology was used by the traffic
analyst to determine that there is a parallel between American Excelsior at that time and
the proposed project for 61st and Main Street. This is truly a departure from Jim
Benshoof's normal good work It proves nothing to help support the contention that the
M-4 use on this site will be more traffic intensive than if it were to be rezoned for
warehouse. Infact, the corollary is true. Beyond the impacts at University Avenue and
61st intersection, this study shows no credible data to combat staff's assertion that a
warehouse use will have more daily trip ends and more impact to the surrounding
neighborhood than an M-4, Manufacturing use.
Assertion f) If constructed, the Fridley station for the Northstar Commuter Rail service
likely would generate considerably more trips on 61st Avenue N.E. during two peak hours
and on a daily basis than either the proposed development or development per M-4
manufacturing.
Response: We are talking about M-4; Manufacturing only verses M-2 for warehouse
purposes. Allegation f is superfluous.
Assertion g) If constructed, the Fridley station for the Northstar Commuter Rail service
would generate more total truck and bus trips on 61st 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.
Response: We are talking about M-4; Manufacturing only verses M-2 for warehouse
purposes. Allegation g is superfluous.
Assertion h.) The proposed warehouse development offers the following two traffic
benefits for the City:
• Lowest trip generation for trucks and buses, which will lessen impacts for
residents along 61st Avenue.
Response: False. True only if you consider the table in the traffic report that refers to
America Excelsior, a report that is unavailable and as a result not credible.
• Lowest total trip generation during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which
will lessen impacts on level of service at 61st Avenue N.E. and University
Avenue. This is highly important given the predicted level of service F
conditions at the intersection by 2020.
Response: Compared against the additional trips warehousing generates during the day
overall, though this intersection is a consideration, the trade-off beyond a.m. and p.m.
peak hours is not worth a trade to warehousing. An additional 172 daily trip ends overall
make warehouse uses an inappropriate use for this site.
Value Comparisons
Assertion: Warehouse buildings in Fridley have higher building values per square foot
than manufacturing buildings.
Response: Ironically, Mr. Nelson and his legal counsel chose to use this building as an
example of a"warehouse" with a high value. The building is listed in the assessor's
information as a flex industrial building, not a warehouse, therefore its value is much
higher and it supports what the petitioner (Gonyea) had said in this rezoning request. He
built a flex building to accommodate manufacturing, not a warehouse.
Beyond that fact, the petitioner and his legal counsel chose to use buildings built between
1941 and 1994 primarily to prove their point about building value for manufacturing,
While, they chose a newer selection of warehouse buildings dating from 1994 to 2000.
Even with their flawed methodology of comparison, you can see that old manufacturing
buildings have a similar value per square foot to newer warehouse buildings. It helps to
prove our point that generally manufacturing buildings have a higher value than
warehouse buildings. Compare the value of Parsons Electric built in 1961 (from their
examples) $45.86/ s.f. to AMB Warehouse built in 1984, which has a value of $38.04/s.f.
The City's position remains that manufacturing results in a higher valued building
overall.
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
Date
To
From
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOV. 5, 2007
October 30, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Subject: Resolution Revoking Special Use Permit SP #06-11 for Central Auto Parts,
Generally Located at 1201-73 %2 Avenue NE, Approving Operation a Junkyard in an
M-1 Zoning District
Background
At a public hearing held on June 25 of this year, the City Council tabled a resolution regarding revocation of
SP #06-11 to November 5, 2007, for the purpose of evaluating the Central Auto Parts owner's progress on
the stipulations attached to this special use permit.
Although the business owner has not met the deadlines of all of the stipulations, staff believes the financial
investment the business owner has made to date poses a strong incentive to complete the project as soon as
possible in the spring in order to keep his special use permit for a junkyard in an M-1 district.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council remove the resolution regarding SUP #06-11 from the table, discuss
the matter as needed, and then table the resolution again until June 9, 2008. This is the date that staff
recommends for continuance of the public hearing for the same issue. Usually, Council does not take action
the same night as a public hearing, but staff believes that Council will want to act on this item the same night
due to the lengthy discussions that have occurred over the past four years on the case.
RESOLUTION NO. -2007
A RESOLUTION REVOKING SPECIAL USE PERMIT #06-11 FOR CENTRAL AUTO
PARTS TO OPERATE A JUNKYARD IN AN M-1 ZONING DISTRICT, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1201 73'/2 AVENUE NE
WHEREAS, Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City of Fridley to create
zoning ordinances that regulate the use of land in order to protect the public's health,
safety, morals, and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, City Zoning Code Section 205.05.5.G requires the City Council to revoke a
special use permit, following a public hearing, when there is failure to comply with any
and all conditions and stipulation of the issued permit; and
WHEREAS, the Fridley City Council held a public hearing on June 25, 2007, regarding
the special use permit SP #06-11, allowing a junkyard in an M-1 zoning district at
Central Auto Parts, generally located at 1201 73'/ Avenue NE; and
WHEREAS, an October 9, 2006 approval of SP #06-11 included seven stipulations,
which were required to be met over a two-year time frame in order to maintain the
special use permit; and
WHEREAS, City staff conducted an inspection of the site on June 1, 2007 and June 13,
2007 to determine compliance with the stipulations of SP #06-11; and
WHEREAS, City staff found that the June 1, 2007 deadline for the completion of the
first phase of the grading and drainage plan had not been met; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Fridley tabled the June 25, 2007 public
hearing to November 5, 2007, offering Central Auto Parts an extension on meeting their
seven stipulations, which included certain benchmarks by certain dates; and
WHEREAS, City staff conducted another inspection of the site on October 29, 2007 and
found that only one of the six benchmark stipulations, which should have been
completed to date, is complete; and
WHEREAS, Inactivity on the City's part, in light of this violation could arguably
constitute a waiver of the SUP stipulations;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, after
listening to all the facts presented at the public hearing, makes the following FINDINGS
OF FACT:
That the City of Fridley and its staff have acted within the Fridley Zoning Code;
and
2. That the City of Fridley staff accurately represented the condition of the property
when they inspected it, finding several items of noncompliance of the stipulations
of the special use perm it; and
3. That the City of Fridley staff communicated the points of noncompliance verbally
to the business owner in writing prior to the public hearing; and
4. The business owner and property owner were notified by mail of the June 25,
2007 public hearing; and
5. That a public hearing was held on June 25, 2007, tabled, and continued on
November 5, 2007, allowing the City Council to take testimony on this property;
and
6. That as of October 29, 2007, the property continues to be in violation of the
special use permit action taken by the City Council on October 9, 2006.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council, having heard and reviewed the
evidence before it, expressly finds that the foregoing recitation is true and correct and
incorporates it as part of its Findings of Fact.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, based on these findings, the City Council of the
City of Fridley hereby revokes the special use permit SP #06-11 to operate a junkyard in
an M-1 district at Central Auto Parts, generally located at 1201 73'/ Avenue NE.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 2007.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
November 1, 2007
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-09, Sikh Society of Minnesota
M-07-33
INTRODUCTION
The petitioner, the Sikh Society of Minnesota, is seeking a special use permit to allow the
construction of a worship facility at 5350 Monroe Street, which is currently a vacant parcel.
ANALYSIS
The subject property is 96,525 square feet (2.22 acres). The petitioner is proposing to construct
an 8,640 square foot building. The building will be a split entry type building with a lower and
upper level. The floor plan consists of a foyer area; with the sanctuary located in the upper level
and the lower level will have a kitchen, dining area, a library and a living area for the pastor.
Churches or worship facilities are a permitted special use in the R-1, Single Family zoning
district, provided they meet the necessary requirements, related to building and site
requirements and parking, subject to the stipulations suggested by staff. The code requires the
use of the CR-1, General Office code standards for churches in an R-1, Single Family district.
When using those code standards or the standards in the R-1, Single Family zoning district, all
of these requirements are being met with the proposal for the new building.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
The petitioner had also originally applied for a variance to reduce the amount of required right-
of-way access for a buildable lot from 25 ft. to 19 ft. At the time of variance submittal it was
believed by the petitioner that they only had 19 ft. of right-of-way along Monroe Street, and the
code requires 25 ft. During staffs research of the variance request, the City's Surveyor and
Planning staff determined that there is an additional 15 ft. of right-of-way just east of where
Monroe Street sits, next to the daycare facility. Once that was discovered, staff contacted the
petitioner to have their surveyor's verify the existence of this right-of-way. The petitioner's
surveyors have since verified that there is 15 ft. of additional right-of-way, which gives that
petitioner a total of 34 ft. of right-of-way access, therefore, meeting the 25 ft. requirement.
While this discovery eliminates the petitioner's need for a variance, staff would still urge the
petitioner to pursue an access easement from Petco/Target to access the site. This would
involve seeking access to the subject property from an adjacent private service road east of the
property. The site would then be accessed from a 25 ft. wide easement running perpendicular
to the service road. This is a safer, more visible entry and is one staff recommends and feels
would work best for the site. It is not only the safer option it also is the preferred option as it
doesn't impact any wetlands on the site. The petitioner has hired Westwood Professional
Services to delineate the wetlands on the site and they determined that two wetlands do exist,
covering a total area of approximately 8,517 square feet (0.20 acres). A map of the delineated
wetlands has been attached. Wetland A borders the property on the south and west sides and
Wetland B is located on the east side of the property. If the petitioner is unable to get the
access easement from Petco/Target, they would be forced to access the site from Monroe
Street, which would impact the wetlands on the site. While the City can't deny a platted lot
access, this option would require the petitioner to replace any wetland impacted by restoring or
creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value. The replacement would
either have to be on the petitioner's site or a site the City deemed appropriate. At which point,
the petitioner determines that access to this site can only be gained through disruption to the
wetland; the petitioner shall apply for a wetland replacement plan application. This will require
Planning Commission and City Council approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the October 17, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP #07-
09. The Planning Commission accepted a petition that was submitted in opposition of the
petitioner's request into the record as well as 3 letters in opposition. They also put into the
record a letter the Sikh Society sent to the neighborhood. After a brief discussion, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP #07-09, with the stipulations as presented and an
additional stipulation requiring the petitioner to install a fence between the subject property and
the residential properties to the west.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA code requirements.
3. Proposed building to be sprinkled per MN Rules Chapter 1306.
4. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding
properties.
5. Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6. Petitioner shall meet any requirements identified by Six Cities Watershed District.
7. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
8. A protective railing to be installed on top of the proposed retaining wall around the storm
pond.
9. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the construction of the new building shall be marked and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits,
10. All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed three
foot candles at the property line.
11. Access agreement from Petco/Target to be submitted to City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
12. The petitioner shall be responsible for the installation of sewer and water service
connections from property line to existing City utilities. Plan to be approved by City's
engineering department.
13. If petitioner is unable to obtain an access agreement from Petco/Target, the petitioner
shall apply for and have approved a Wetland replacement plan from the City before a
building permit shall be issued.
14. Petitioner shall install a fence between the subject property and the residential
properties to the west.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
SP #07-09 October 17, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Sikh Society of Minnesota
5831 University Avenue NE
Fridley MN 55432
Requested Action:
Special Use Permit to allow the
construction of a worship facility in an R-
1 Single Family Zoning District.
Existing Zoning:
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Location:
5350 Monroe Street
Size:
96,860 sq. ft. 2.22 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant Lot
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Target and Public land & C-3 and P
E: Target & C-3
S: Kindercare Childcare Center & R-1
W: Single Family Homes & R-1
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.07.1.C.(1) requires a special
use permit for churches.
Zoning History:
Auditor's Subdivision #155 platted in
1953.
Vacant lot, which hasn't been
developed.
Legal Description of Property:
Part of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision
#155.
Public Utilities:
Property will need to be connected.
Transportation:
Monroe Street could provide access to
the property or through an access
agreement with Target and Petco.
Physical Characteristics:
Wetlands. trees. and veaetation.
SU M MARY OF PROJECT
SPECIAL INFORMATION
The petitioner, the Sikh Society of Minnesota, is
seeking a special use permit to allow the
construction of a worship facility at 5350
Monroe Street, which is currently a vacant
parcel.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this special
use permit, with stipulations.
Churches (Religious facilities) are a permitted
special use in the R-1, Single Family zoning
district.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE
City Council — November 5, 2007
(Subject Property)
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
SP #07-09
REQUEST
The petitioner, the Sikh Society of Minnesota, is seeking a special use permit to allow the
construction of a worship facility at 5350 Monroe Street, which is currently a vacant parcel.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located off of 53�d Avenue
and Monroe Street and is heavily wooded and
undeveloped. The property is zoned R-1, Single
Family as are the properties to the west and south.
Super Target occupies the property to the north
and east. The property has remained
undeveloped, with wetlands bordering the west and
south sides of the property. The property currently
has 19 ft. of access from Monroe Street which is 6
ft. short of the code required 25 ft. width needed for
right-of-way access. Therefore, the petitioner has
applied for a variance to reduce this code
requirement. The petitioner is also pursuing
access to the adjacent private service road just
east of the property, which would allow the
property to be accessed from a 25 ft. wide
easement running perpendicular to the service
road. This is a safer, more visible entry and is one
staff recommended and feels would work best for
this site. The petitioner has been working with
Target and Petco to obtain an access agreement.
To staff's knowledge one hasn't been received yet,
however, staff will stipulate that one be obtained
before issuance of a building permit.
ANALYSIS
The Sikh Society of Minnesota purchased the property at 5831 University Avenue in Fridley in
the early 1990's and have continued to operate their worship facility from this address. Over the
years they have considered constructing an addition to this building but have instead decided to
build a new worship facility at 5350 Monroe Street.
The subject property is 96,525 square feet (2.22 acres). The petitioner is proposing to construct
an 8,640 square foot building. The building will be a split entry type building with a lower and
upper level. The floor plan consists of a foyer area; with the sanctuary located in the upper level
and the lower level will have a kitchen, dining area, a library and a living area for the pastor.
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.
n
Churches or worship facilities are a permitted special use in the R-1, Single Family zoning
district, provided they meet the necessary requirements, related to building and site
requirements and parking, subject to the stipulations suggested by staff. The code requires the
use of the CR-1, General Office code standards for churches in an R-1, Single Family district.
When using those code standards or the standards in the R-1, Single Family zoning district, all
of these requirements are being met with the proposal for the new building.
All setback and lot coverage requirements are being met with the proposed building design.
Fridley City code requires that the minimum amount of parking stalls for this site is 107 stalls.
The petitioner is proposing to install 108 parking stalls, therefore meeting City code
requirements.
Fridley City Code also requires any proposed lighting on the site to be shielded and downcast
and to not extend over the property line. The proposed building is being designed in a manner
that matches the scale of the residential character and structures of the daycare facility located
south of the subject property and the residential homes located west of the subject property.
The petitioner has articulated to staff that they plan to save as many of the large trees that exist
on the site as possible. Staff will stipulate that all trees to be marked and approved by staff prior
to removal. While City staff typically recommends the use of a landscaped hedge or screening
device between single family residential properties and an entity, such as the proposed worship
facility, staff feels that due to the change in elevation between the subject property and the
residential properties to the west, an 8 ft. screening fence or a landscape hedge wouldn't be
warranted. The grade change is such that an 8 ft. fence or hedge wouldn't screen the new
building or parking area from the neighborhood above, therefore; staff would recommend a
significant amount of landscaping materials to include a mixture of new tree plantings and
shrubbery along with any existing trees that may be saved to create a better screening
application along the western border of the property.
WETLAND AND RUN OFF ANALYSIS
Fridley City Code does have a wetland overlay district that states that significant wetlands will
be maintained in their natural condition or improved to provide more benefits for water quality
management. It also states that the City will preserve and enhance wetlands within the
community through implementation of development regulations that will ensure the design and
construction of adequate on-site storm water measures. In 1993, the City hired Westwood
Engineering to perform a Wetland Delineation and Evaluation Study for the entire City. At that
time wetlands were identified on the site. Historically, the subject property has been a marshy,
wet parcel, however over the years fill has been added to the site, which has caused the
character of the soil to change. It is not clear when the fill was placed on the site; however it
appears that it was sometime ago, due to the vegetation that has since grown.
In order to act upon this special use permit request, staff required the petitioner to have the
existing wetlands on the site be delineated and the boundaries identified. The petitioner hired
Westwood Professional Services to delineate the wetlands and they determined that two
wetlands do exist on the site, covering a total area of approximately 8,517 square feet (0.20
acres). A map of the delineated wetlands has been attached. Wetland A borders the property
on the south and west sides and Wetland B is located on the east side of the property.
City Code does not restrict how close a building or parking lot can be located to a wetland and
the DNR doesn't consider these particular wetlands to be a"protected wetland." Therefore, the
DNR doesn't have restrictions on how close you can build to a non-protected wetland. As a
2
result, staff is requiring that all building and parking areas remain out of wetlands. City staff is
also requiring that any pond for storm water run-off be designed to be separate from the
wetlands so as to not detrimentally impact the integrity of the wetland.
Fridley City Code requires that no land shall be altered in a way that would result in water run-
off that would cause flooding, erosion or deposits of minerals on adjacent properties. The
petitioner will need to ensure that storm ponds proposed to be located on the site will collect the
run-off created by the development of this site. The petitioner has hired Westwood Engineering
to design the subsequent storm pond for the subject property and they are proposing to locate
on the south side on the property, next to the wetland, however, separate from the wetland.
Fridley Engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary storm pond location and drainage plans
and has been working with the petitioner's engineers. The design on the proposed storm pond
and the overall drainage on the site meets code requirements. City engineering staff will further
review the project to ensure that the engineering calculations of the proposed development
protects the integrity of the state's run-off requirement and to ensure neighboring property
owners aren't affected by this addition.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
On July 27, 2007, City staff �•�
received a petition from the
neighborhood west of the
subject property with 58
signatures (37 households) in � `r��`4 ?�� ���
opposition of the proposed Sikh �
Society development. No
reasons were identified, it just
states that they are opposed to t�
�,
the development. Staff also = � � ' ��- =�
��
received a letter from the �� �
property owner at 589 53 %2 �
Avenue in opposition of the ��3
request. His letter is attached for r�; ; =� f t���� -�
your review. He expresses in �
his letter that the residential �}
�
neighborhood is already being _ �
encroached on all sides by 'a'�� �]�5�'�
roadways and commercial uses, which makes is hard for people to want to remain in this
neighborhood. He also states that noise will become a bigger issue for the neighborhood with
the removal of the trees on the subject property.
The neighborhood west of the subject property was platted in four separate plats between the
years 1947-1959. The neighborhood has been zoned residential since the first zoning map
dated in 1958. Interstate 694 which was previously Hwy 100 has always bordered the
neighborhood to the north, and the Target property and the Medtronic World Headquarters
property located north of Interstate 694 has also been zoned commercial since the 1958 zoning
map. It is true that this neighborhood is bordered by a roadway to the north and commercial
property to the east; however it has been that way since the late 1940's. While the subject
property is zoned R-1, Single Family, it also allows uses, such as schools, churches, hospitals,
medical clinics, and others uses with a special use permit. A special use permit gives the City
Council the authority to place stipulations on the permit to help mitigate any negative impacts
that might be placed on neighboring properties.
�
RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, as worship facilities are an approved
special use in the R-1, Single Family zoning district, with stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that if the special use permi� is granted, the following stipulations be
attached.
1. Petitioner fo obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA code requirements.
3. Proposed building to be sprinkled per MN Ru/es Chapter 1306.
4. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding
properties.
� 5. Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement prior to issuance of a building
r permit.
• 6. Petitioner shall meet any requirements identified by Six Cities Watershed District.
7. Landscape plan to 6e reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
8. A profective railing to be installed on top of the proposed retaining wall around the storm
pond.
9. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mafure trees to the extenf possible. All trees
required to be removed for the construction of the new building shall be marked and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
10. All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot
candles af the property line.
11. Access agreement from Petco/Target to be submitted to City staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
12. The petitioner shall be responsible for the installation of sewer and water service
connections from property line to exist�ng City utilities. Plan fo be approved by Cify's
engineering department.
79 4
�,�C�� ��'�;�;� � � �� � � �
PETITION OF OPPO S ITION
The undersigned oppose the Sikh Society of Minnesota proposal to construct a Church on the property
located at 5350 Monroe street NE (Lot 11, Block l, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155) and request that the
City of Fridley Community Development Department, Planning Commission and City Council deny the
Sikh Society of Minnesota request for a Special Use Permit (SP #07-04).
:1
�
PETITION OF OPPOSITION.
The undersigned oppose the Sikh Society of Minnesota. proposal to construct a Church on
the property located at 5350 Monroe street NE (Lot 1 l, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 155} and request that the City of Fridley Community Development Department,
Pla.nning Commission and City Council deny the Sikh Society of Minnesota. request for a
Special Use Permit (SP #07-04).
:
. ,„
�
i �
��"� ��;��t; j(; �
f
�
Deaz Mrs. Jones
I am writing you this letter to let you icnow my opposition to the plan for the new
construction behind the new Target store in Fridley just south of 694 and west of Central
Ave. My reasoning is quite simple, for years this neighborhood has strived and strived to
remain just that, a neighborhood. We have been encroached on three of out four sides by
Med Tronics (both north and south}, Target, Pet Co and 694. There is not much room left
to give and still maintain a neighborhood where people would want to move and raise a
family. The noise from 694 and Central area was noticeably louder after the rebuild of the
Tazget stote and with the proposed removal of the trees I can only imagine it getting
worse. While I understand it would raise new tax dallars I do not think it is in the best
interest of our community. I am sorry I am una.ble to personally attend the hearings on the
evening of July 18�' but my work hours will not a11ow it. Please make sure this letter is
read at the meeting in my absence.
Thank you.
Daniel Craig
589 53 '/2 AVE. NE.
Fridley MN. 55421
�
�,ce�'� r � � � � � �1 �
Mrs. Stromberg -
I am writing in opposition of the proposed variance (VAR# 07-OS) on the site just west of .
the Target store. There aze a few reasons that I would explain to you for this opposition.
Since the change in elevation with the new Target store and surrounding areas the noise
level has increased dramatically in our neighbor�iood lowering our standards of livability.
This neighborhood has been squeezed in on 3 of its 4 sides making it a less attractive area
to raise a family. By clearing the area and allowing the variance just west of Target the
noise issue is sure to go from bad to worse thus lowering properly values and the tax
base. Speaking of taxes, a not for prafit will not be contributing to Fridley's coffers as the
Iand, as it sits currently does. Destroying a wet land and animal habitat is not in the best
interest of our city, if you go back (well before my time) that entire area was all wet land,
now there is but a sma11 strip that is home to deer, turkey and all other type of creature.
Please use great discretion in renderirig a decision, take the advice of those who reside in
the neighborhood, and most importantly strive to keep the features and quality of living .
in Fridley in high standing.
�
Daniel Craig
►� �;�'� Gi �!,��, b"t,t��i � N �✓
.,
X
:
:
: ���':;B �-°2�'�, �Ztix
Z0 ' c 1 1dl�l
�
� � (�`�j�"'�L 1
;
Dear �VIs. Strcymberg,
;
We are vrtiting in o��position of the Varia�rc�., �`AR #Q7�05 to altaw a woxsktip facility to
be built �tn thta site v��est of the Super Targ.r,t. Our hanyc is nn prte o�the lots; on the border
of thelpr��pose:d site_ Since the const�nicti4n of the ne�v Super T��rg�t the nai�e 1eve1 in
aur neigl�borh��ood h�;s incre�.sed significantl;,�, �Vlre fear that this wi1l only go irom bad ta
worse;wiih an.other building being squeezf:d info that 3rea_ Our pcoperty value and that of
our n�igl�bors is surE: to drop with the des��uctic�n of t��e wetland and anim�l�habitt�t that
sit� practicaIl,r in ou�� backyards. T.his a�e��� is h�me ta many tree�s and anim.als tt�at give
our n�i�ti�orli.aod a:u�e "Up North" sc�rt c:�f f�eling in the middl� of a busy'; �ity. ,
Furth� ��re, having a non-profit �rganizariun ��urcha�e this site and build r�ould not
contripuie: ta ]?ridley's� tax basP whatsoeve..-. ; '' !
P l e a s ' u.�E; g reat discretioza wk�ez� rende�in g �. deGision. �'lease ta�:e into cans'sderation the
opir�i n5 caf a;yroup uf peaple who are tryiai�; to keep the quality af Iiving i�h �ur
neigh ort.00d �t � high standaxd. � � '
�1hC8 1�',
Sara d'JVill Stacy
5�6 S� 'f ; Av� NE '
��
I
; � ; �
I;�
� � � �
,
Z0�'Z0 ' d �
,
:
,;
,
;i
,
��
i�
;�
,,
�
YZ:60, L00Z—Sti-1�0
The Neighbors of
5530 Monroe St. N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota
RE: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We, the members of the Sikh 5ociety of Minnesota, are cognizant of the fact that
some members of the neighborhood community are concerned about the effects of the
new development in the area. To allay their concerns, we would like to introduce
ourselves tl�rough this letter as a means to alleviate some of their apprehensions. ~
The Sikh Society of Minnesota. has been a member of the Fridley community for
the past sixteen years. During those years, we have never had any problems, nor have we
received any complaints from our neighbors. The members of the society, in general, are
highly educated individuals; most of them being acclaimed doctors, engineers, lawyers,
and professors. These individuals are extremely respectful of other people's feelings and
their concerns. You are more than welcome to verify the above fact by either ta:lking to.
our current rieighbors, the Fridley Police Department, or by attending one of our regular
services which are held every Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Our present address is 5831
University Ave N.E., Fridley. The reason for our move from is solely because we have
outgrown our present facility.
As we mentioned, our services are held every Sunday morning and are held
indoors in a quiet atmosphere, with soft music and meals are served after that. Everyone,
regardless of their religious beliefs are welcome. There are no ritualistic events making
loud noises, calls, etc., which could disturb the neighbors. Since the services are held
during the day, the car headlights will not inconvenience the neighbors either.
The development plan as submitted, shows that we are going to leave, selectively,
a tree line alc�ng the west and south side of our property to maintain privacy. If needed,::_,
we will al'so plant additional trees or bushes to enhance the privacy. This way, our
neighbors will have, so to speak, the best of both worlds; quiet, clean land while giving
them peace of mind that no high density development such as an apartment building, will
be put in the lot area. As for the traffic, everyone will be coming from Central Ave. to
Monroe St entrance, therefore allowing the neighborhood minimal disturbance from the
other direction. -
I hope this letter addresses some of your concerns. For any additional questions or
comments, please see us on October 17, 2007. We will be glad to answer any further
questions you might have. Sometimes, we are all apprehensive about the unknown, but
the best way to feel comfortable is to get to know us. We are looking forward to meeting
you a1 and getting to know you better. We are sure, once you come to know us, you will
feel more comfortable about the adjustment. We look forward to being your new
neighbors!
egards,
%' ��
Daljit S'
Vice President
:.
�
s
a
2
3
�
W 133a1S 3021NOW
W
�
Q
U
,Zi�'S6l
gi�
, a6� i
�'� � ���i!
� b � �
I �
, $� � �
�
I
��
� c e
� � � i
�� �
< . ..
i
�
w
F
i �
w.
a
0
_ �
� a
� J
�. Q
F
Z
w
_ �_
N
w
�
�i �
�'
�
• i�
�
I° I
I�----
I'
fo
o I
i
/ o—�---
� ��
Data SaucNs): Aaiels Ezprtu (2006� Weslwood (20071.
. Westwood Professional Servzes, Inc
7699 Anagrom Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
PMONE 952-937-5150
FAX 952-937-5822
j TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150
Westwood �'���'eSiWOOdPS•�om
S
Sikh Society of Minnesota
�� Fridley, Minnesota
N Wetland Boundaries
A� ' � Feet
0 50 � EXHIBIT 5
�
0
G
■
s
0
0
d
0
a
°o
�
3
n
n
0
J
U e
� W °o�
4' Z e v�i
vOaN
o � � g
a �1O�i
� � v ^
a4'o a.
= W �
� _ �F
U (7 r�
� �
V � � m W
Q d r F o Z � � ¢
� � a
� w 0 Q � Z m o O � 1/i � O
� � Z Z • w O Z V U K w � a
�� w w a aw $ o
o sa i �m 4 ° o ?u a Q � Q
oz �`w i "�N � u G mw � a � o
Q- mZ � �j 2' � ~ �Q U Z � �'
� W ° `a c�i •�'- = k' � vi ��'' N � � . x �
�5 � Z am W mV � Z= O LL Ji 1-
z� �VO a� � Up � Fw O 2 O jZ
UN y���, m W� � WY O WO � O �
=J 2y1- 2a m U NW UI Q U F O
a= F<Z s o� � �� �° w � �^
(� � o 0
O1�/l p�W � UN O N2 � Z~ a W � Y O
'� Q4 OQ T ��O Q4 Q U� _J �� < < O
O >
p� K 4-�=0 � 0 � Q dVl V1 I�i �2 m d U
N ao ��? � uN 4o QQ mo aF Z aQ o �
� �n o�v o� �� ok' a� az ° a
�" �${� aZ�Z9 0 �ov�-i a'�' k'X <v�'i �� �u c°�� Z m N
i+ OT p 0= 2 OQ Z yZK � pK a� �N �= N Z�
� U � O W � Q W a W � F � V)
�.,,� �p �UW ON O"Q iy� O� �y� 22 Q� �`-3 V � p Z
OW �F �W �� � Yr � 2a
�iy ma v1rw rca ��U Q� �� �� �� °uo' �� au 0) a
-�7 _ ' ..�i �
v a m V ❑ W LL () Z y �
-
Ii �� - I � Q
_ � I � � � I
_ __..�'�� �yb"S � I I I
� � � � , � I ,_1 _ — -- __ � . _ . J __._.._ ._-..- , — — - --- - - -
� � — �
�, , . _ _ _
� -- --- - . .
� �n I I I I I . ' '. ' T _ . .— .� — '. � �, , '-.'.-. .-.-� �
_ _
j ' -- � . . �'
� o i i �, i �=�__ : _�_-_ . , . :�;. . .T_,,n-_.,
�_ �� I in ( I Z U - -�`, . _ . . . . . . . . .
� =I� � � � °°� \ .' ' `*'T'.','.., � k
' �
' m N ' ��� '
z�I I � � a ,-. . \ '�`�
� I � � \ � � / � `�,•
__ � s � �I � � � � ., .
X � I
z �
b O
� O
U "
o � �
N � N
�
o � s
N �
X o $
O W }I
� 8
0 �
z
�,! � w II � �,� x �
� T�— NVS c� � H I .
II ��. °I I � o o�o m° i` \
� > ��= I \
,, �
k:� �
�� i ¢ ., _ � �
- _ ..____1VM_____—. � ' 4 ,.
�� -- — - �-� �o �
�I \
�� � � o <_
- ' ois ------ — — oi T ? �
I— I..---- � � I I i o�
I
�
z
�
J
�
m
F'-
W
C�
�
Q
�
V
Z
�
�
X
W
--__ iI 3I I �I �J
' I y __
-- i �- �- I- I- o ---
� � I � �' -- � � I � � ---
� � I i � � --- i � � -- �.
�
i � I i i' _ IF i - - - o i �
� , I I a � `� o� ��
i � ; �J �
� I I I � -- a a -°�— - -----_.
0
��
� � � � �1 1
� � I I �
I I I I V
I � � � �•� -
� � I I * z
� � I � � ..� <
� � I'I �
-- � � � � •, °
� � I I I }_,,'
I � � � �
� � I I :�
� � � � ¢
I � � � �
� I I I O
� � f I
� � I I � ---
� � I I I
� � I I ---
� I � , � � —
I I I "' I --
I � � � �x �
I I l I o� a
I �_Jm
I I I I I
I I � � I --
I I � ( a _
I I I N I
I I I I
� � � � _-
�����
I I � � I --
I I � , �
I I � ; � �
� I � �
I I I I ---_...--- I
I I ( �
� I I � I —
_]� I � � �
� I � � �_�
� ; I I
� I I i �
� � � � i I
� � � � � � �
I ��I I I I
0
� _
u
z
00
�m
N
��
�'
I.-
h.
�
O �;
U Y 1 .. • . • ..
oo¢ _
m '
m�w ''�"
m�n � .•}
I'.:.
r.:=:=
!',','_I
I*'�-�
.'./
/-�/
� T � • i
'� ' � � �
0
a
�_ ---` ------
h
k
x
k
x
k
ok
. � y �
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS