Loading...
05/07/2007 - 00029056CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY MAY 7, 2007 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager PROCLAMATIONS: National Police Week May 13-19, 2007 Peace Officers Memorial Day. May 19, 2007 Public Works Week May 20-26, 2007 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization of Apri123, 2007 City Council Meeting of Apri123, 2007 APPROVED. SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENTER Siah St. Clair, Naturalist, gave a presentation regarding the Springbrook Nature Center Summer Camps. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 2 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 18, 2007. RECEIVED. 2. Resolution to Vacate Portions of Ely Street, Liberty Street, Longfellow Street, and the Alleys Located Between Ely Street and Liberty Street, Liberty Street and Longfellow Street, and Longfellow Street and 79t'' Avenue, Generally Located at 30 81st Avenue N.E. (Vacation Request, SAV #07-01, by Richard Carlson for Park Construction) (Ward 3). William Burns, City Manager, stated these vacations are located at 30 — 81st Avenue N.E. Staff recommends Council's concurrence with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of these vacations subject to the following stipulations: 1. Utility easements as required by the Metropolitan Council to be shown and dedicated on final plat; 2. All parking and drive areas to be paved per City Code requirements, except for the area for tracked vehicle parking that was approved with VAR #04-11; 3. If outdoor storage continues to be part of the use on Lot 2, landscaping shall be required along those property lines abutting public right-of-ways. Landscape plan to be submitted and approved by City staff prior to installation. 4. If the petitioner plans to utilize Lot 2 for their business through the use of outdoor storage and without a principal structure, the final plat should show one lot instead of two. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-24. 3. Resolution Receiving the Preliminary Plans, Specifications, and Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing on the Matter of Construction of Certain Improvements: Mill and Overlay Project No. ST. 2007-2. William Burns, City Manager, stated the streets to be included in this project are portions of 61st Avenue and Seventh Street. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 4. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of a$1,910,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2007A, Pledging for the Security Thereof Special Assessments and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 3 William Burns, City Manager, stated nine proposals were submitted on May 7. Staff and Sid Inman from Ehlers and Associates are recommending the sale of the bonds to United Bankers Bank The interest rate for the repayment of the bond is 3.8029 percent over 10 years amounting to the sum of $471,552.22 to be repaid by general levy dollars and special assessments. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 5. Resolution in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for St. Paul Firefighters Local 21 Benefit Association, at Fridley Grill, LLC, d/b/a Pickle Park, Located at 7820 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). William Burns, City Manager, stated staff has contacted the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Control Board who indicated there were no compliance problems with this organization and no reason to recommend denial. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-27. 6. Motion to Approve Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Fridley and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 119; and Motion to Approve Similar Increases to the Employer Contributions for All Other City Employee Groups. William Burns, City Manager, stated the 2007 general fund budget provided for a 10 percent reduction in the City's contribution to employee health insurance premiums. The reduction left all employees with a City contribution of 90 percent for single plan insurance costs and 70 percent for family plan insurance costs. At the same time, the contract for the police patrol provided for a contract reopening if there was a substantial change in health insurance premium cost for Fridley police officers. The City did not think that was a substantial change but the police officers did. As a result, the bargaining unit for the police patrol (the LELS) found that the 10 percent reduction in City contribution to health insurance premiums did constitute that substantial change in cost for the membership. Subsequently, the City went to mediation with LELS in March and April and arrived at the settlement that is before Council tonight. The settlement provides for a 93 percent City contribution to the single plan instead of a 90 percent contribution and a 73 percent contribution for family health insurance instead of a 70 percent contribution, beginning June 1. Dr. Burns stated for 2008, the City contribution for single health insurance coverage would rise to 95 percent for single coverage and be reduced to 70 percent for family coverage. The cost of the change in 2007 would be $3,700 for the patrol unit. Since Fridley has a long history of providing the same health insurance coverage for all employees, staff is recommending that the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 4 2007-2008 police settlement be e�tended to all other City employees. The tota12007 cost to the City for both groups is $15,000. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. 7. Appointment — City Employees William Burns stated staff recommends the appointment of Derek Griggs to replace Gregg Salo as a Fridley police officer. Staff also recommends the appointment of Reggie Revier to the Public Services Worker — Streets, position created by the departure of Angie Taylor. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPOINTED DERRICK GRIGGS AS PATROL OFFICER AND REGGIE REVIER AS PUBLIC SERVICES WORKER — STREETS. 8. Claims (131492 - 131703) APPROVED. 9. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. Councilmember Bolkcom asked that Items 3 and 4 be placed on the regular agenda. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda as presented with the removal of Items 3 and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the additions of Items 9A and 9B. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Resolution Receiving the Preliminary Plans, Specifications, and Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing on the Matter of Construction of Certain Improvements: Mill and Overlay Project No. ST. 2007-2. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the document was available if she wanted to read it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 5 Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated Council should have received it. It is a brief document laying out what the project is and identifying the streets involved. They will get into n more detail on that in the presentation at the public hearing. He could make copies for them. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for a copy. Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Haukaas whether the people who are affected by this have been notified because there are some costs involved. Mr. Haukaas replied by Council setting a public hearing, letters will go out to all of those properties involved letting them know of the public hearing, giving them a brief explanation of the project, and inviting them to the meeting in two weeks. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2007-25. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of a$1,910,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2007A, Pledging for the Security Thereof Special Assessments and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it was mentioned that last year the City was downgraded to an AA rating. She asked if this would put them in jeopardy of losing any more of the City's rating. Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, said they recently had their interview with Moody's and it lasted for approximately an hour. They did not see any change in the fiscal health of the City of Fridley since last year. One of the features that actually keeps the City strong is the unreserved, undesignated fund balance that the City has associated with the debt service fund. So as long as that remains intact, they still see the City as a fiscally sound municipality. Councilmember Bolkcom replied so in other words, the City has to be careful in how it keeps spending down its fund balances. Mr. Pribyl replied that is true and that is probably the single biggest issue the City has right now with maintaining the current rating. Mayor Lund stated the unreserved fund balances are very important for this rating. He asked at what level is the City using down its fund balances and how long before Moody's and its services are going to take issue with it. Mr. Pribyl replied, any change in the debt service unreserved undesignated fund balance will be viewed negatively. As far as the current annual use, the City is currently using approximately $500,000 per year of the utility fund balances, and those cash balances are a very large concern FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 6 to both Council and staff. Those kinds of issues are in discussion within the budgeting process. It is difficult to come up with an answer as far as how long they will last in the future, but they have made some projections of seven to eight years before the City really is in financial straits. William Burns, City Manager, pointed out the City is probably using about $1.5 million to $2 million a year right now in reserves to balance the general fund budget. Mr. Pribyl replied that is true. Actually the transfers that the City actually moves from some of these other funds into the general fund amounts to about $1.5 million per year. Dr. Burns stated not all of it is an exact reduction in general fund balance because there is some regeneration of revenues, such as from the liquor fund, that is transferred over but the General Fund falls shorter fulfilling its own needs by $1.5 to $2 million. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2007-26. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): No items presented. PUBLIC HEARING 10. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #07-01, by Barry Hoosline for Sam's Auto Parts, to Rezone the Properties Located at 7340 Central Avenue and 1240 — 73 1/2 Avenue From C-1, Local Business, to M-1, Light Industrial) (Ward 2). MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:02 P.M. Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated this is a very complicated issue, so she will be talking about the rezoning request and the special use permit. There are multiple steps in approving the rezoning because it requires adopting an ordinance which involves the first and second reading. As far as the rezoning, Council is just holding the public hearing and they will not be taking action on this item. Because the special use permit requires the rezoning in order to approve that, the Council will likewise need to table that item and act on it later. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 7 Ms. Jonas stated the petitioner is Barry Hoosline who is the owner of Sam's Auto Parts. Mr. Hoosline is seeking rezoning of his business to change the zoning of the parcel that is located on the corner of the four parcels involved at 7340 Central Avenue from G1, Local Business zoning, to M-1, Light Industrial zoning. He is also requesting a special use permit to allow his automobile recycling business to continue in an M-1 Light Industrial zoning district. It gets a bit confusing because the parcels are all addressed on different streets. She presented an aerial map of the site. She stated there is a building on the far east side which was formerly a gas station. There is a residential home close to 73rd which is now being used as storage on the site. There is another residential home building in the middle of the site that has been used for a number of years for the sales portion of the business. Ms. Jones stated the three parcels to the east are zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The corner piece that the rezoning is about is the 7330 Central Avenue lot. The petitioner must have this corner piece rezoned to M-1, Light Industrial, in order to qualify for the special use permit to continue his auto recycling business. G1, Local Business District, zoning does not have a special use permit to allow it to work in that zoning district. Ms. Jones said City records indicate that the Sam's Auto Parts business originated in the 1240 73 '/z parcel then expanded to the surrounding parcels. There were no applications to the City. Staff discovered the lack of the special use permit on that corner lot last year in reviewing records for the annual junkyard license renewal for the business. The City was looking into that because there were ongoing code enforcement cases with that site. Ms. Jones stated staff inet with the owner a couple of times, and the owner agreed to apply for the special use permit as well as the rezoning of the corner parcel. All four parcels are guided in the Comprehensive Plan or 2020 Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment. State statutes give the City authority to rezone in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The parcels involved in this business are double-frontage parcels. In this situation that causes these parcels to be better utilized. This is what was stated in the Comprehensive Plan, for a less intensive more building intensive development. The significant level of outdoor storage with auto recycling businesses were viewed as an inefficient land use and unsightly for such a busy intersection in the City. Allowing the continuance of this use is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Jones stated rezoning of the corner lot at 7340 Central Avenue, however, was not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff does recommend that maintaining a G1 local business buffer between the automotive recycling use and the residential properties across Central Avenue is most appropriate. If you look at what is allowed in the City's G1 zoning, there are very different usages than an automotive recycling use. Ms. Jones stated as far as the special use permit request, the petitioner is also seeking a special use permit to continue the auto recycling center use. The M-1 Light Industrial zoning allows this use with a special use permit provided the petitioner meets certain requirements pertaining to drainage, pollution control, parking, screening. They also have to meet certain license requirements for an annual junkyard license in the City Code. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 8 Ms. Jones stated the 1240 73 '/z Avenue parcel was granted a special use permit in 1975 to allow specifically the storage and sales of dismantled parts for antique and classic cars excluding any dismantling, operation, restoration, or baling on the premises. There was a lot of discussion on the Planning Commission level and City Council level about what would be allowed in the special use permit and very specific stipulations granted. In 1981 there is a memorandum in the City's file that states that it became void because the petitioner never came into compliance with the stipulations. However, she does not see any record of Council action for removing that special use permit. The corner parcel at 7340 Central Avenue was also granted a special use permit in 1987 for a landscaping business that was on the site that specifically allowed the e�terior storage of landscaping materials and equipment. Most special use permits go with the land and transfer from one business to the ne�t, but there was a stipulation on this one that stated it was not transferable to other businesses, and was only for this particular landscape business. Ms. Jones stated the petitioner plans to do some major redevelopment on the site, including installing curb and gutter to within five (5) feet of the property line on all sides and up to the buildings, so there would be a lot of paving on this site. They are also going to build a storm water pond in the southwest corner of the property. The site plans indicates they will remove three buildings west of the sales office and some of the fencing that is near those buildings. They are also supposed to install new landscaping around the pond on the site perimeter. Ms. Jones stated the site plan does not address several issues that staff is concerned about. One is the setback of some of the existing buildings on the site. The old gas station building is only 24.5 feet from the front property line, and setback requirements are 35 feet. The single-family house closest to 73rd Avenue is only 11 feet from the property line, and 35 feet is required. These discrepancies have occurred over time because of the taking of land for road widening. The existing parking area in the east side of the property is only 5 feet from the east property line. Code requires a setback of 20 feet, as well as all the other parking areas they are proposing on the 73rd Avenue side and the 73 '/z Avenue side. There is a rusted out metal shed ne�t to the house closest to the corner which needs to be removed. Also, there are issues with outside storage. They would need to situate their storage on the site so it is out of view when the gate is opened. The storage of junk vehicles outside the fence is chronically a problem. Other concerns that staff have include soil contamination at the site which needs to be investigated. It is a little unclear to the City whether they are meeting the landscaping requirements because their survey did not indicate where the existing trees are. There is also mention in their plan about correcting a long-standing water connection problem. As she understands it they have the water sewer lines to the house run through the garage and that is not acceptable according to current standards. Ms. Jones stated at the Planning Commission public hearing on April 18, legal counsel for the petitioner indicated the petitioner would like to pursue the special use permit on the remaining three parcels even if the City Council votes to deny the rezoning request. They have stated they are willing to revise their site plan to meet all of the City Code requirements staff has brought to their attention. They have also indicated they would move forward with their variance request on the fence height, to stay at the 10-feet height which is what most of the fencing is at currently. Ms. Jones stated the Planning Commission did recommend approval of both the rezoning and the special use permit application on a 4 to 3 vote. Staff, however, continues to recommend FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 9 denial of Rezoning Request, ZOA #07-01, to rezone 7340 Central Avenue from G1, Local Business, to M-1, Light Industrial, for the following reasons: (1) (2) (3) The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; The proposed rezoning would negatively impact residential properties across Central Avenue. Double frontage parcel does not allow adequate screening of an outdoor industrial use of this kind. Ms. Jones stated staff further recommends denial of Special Use Permit Request, ZOA #07-01, to allow an automobile recycling center in an M-1 zoning district, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed site plan does not meet code-required curbing, paving, or building setbacks on any of the four parcels involved. (2) The proposed site plan does not include plans to remove all substandard buildings on the site. (3) The proposed site plan does not include plans to remove fence height or setback nonconformities or a variance request. Ms. Jones said staff recommends that if either of these land use requests are granted, that the following seventeen stipulations be attached as conditions to such approval. Property owner conduct soil testing and provide City and other applicable government authorities proof of clean soils prior to installation of any new impervious surface on any of the parcels involved in the approved application. 2. Once Petitioner owns all of the property used for his business, owner shall file necessary documents with Anoka County to combine the parcels for tax purposes. The single family home, garage, and numerous accessory buildings in disrepair at 1240 73 '/z Avenue and 7340 Central Avenue be removed. 4. Petitioner to obtain approval of grading and drainage plan from the watershed district. 5. Petitioner to obtain any necessary approvals to operate an auto recycling center from the appropriate governmental authorities. 6. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 7. Site Plan needs to be adjusted to provide code required curbing/paving installation setbacks. 8. Petitioner to meet all building and fire code requirements. 9. City Engineering staff to review and approve final grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of permits. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 10 10. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of land alteration permit. 11. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide N URP ponding for entire site. 12. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of land alteration permit. 13. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 14. Property owner of record at time of land alteration to correct any deficiencies in the water and sewer connections to the buildings on site. 15. Secondary access curb cuts and gates in fence on Lot 16 and 17 on 73 '/z Avenue must be removed as part of redesigned site plan. 16. Any business signs that are not approved currently by a sign permit must be removed from the site until a permit is obtained. 17. Petitioner to reduce screening fence height to 8' or obtain variance. Because so much is involved in redeveloping this site, staff recommends that Council set a time limit schedule for key phases for the redevelopment to insure timely progress. Ms. Jones stated if Council decides to deny the petitioner's request for a rezoning and special use permit, the business must be removed. It would not be allowed as it is currently on this site and staff is recommending allowing the petitioner one year to vacate the site. Staff would further recommend that the following nine conditions for discontinuance be considered: Remove all business signage within one year of Council action. 2. Removal of all full and partial automobiles as well as parts outside of the building. Removal of all automotive fluids and hazardous materials from the premises. 4. Removal and sweeping of soil from the paved surfaces at each entrance to the site. 5. Removal of all fence sections and posts. 6. Removal of any buildings which do not meet State Building Code requirements or Fridley Zoning requirements. 7. Removal of any equipment or racking. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 11 8. Removal of all material and litter in the public right of way around the site. 9. All disturbed soil must be graded and landscaped (lay sod or seed) to assure soil is stabilized to resist wind and water erosion. Ms. Jones stated there is no action necessary tonight on the rezoning. This is simply a public hearing. There is an ordinance that needs to be heard for first and second reading. The first reading will be May 21, and the second reading is scheduled for June 11. Staff suggests they table the consideration of the special use permit request to June 11 so that it coincides with the rezoning request timeline. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the 60-day requirement. Ms. Jones said they do need to request an e�tension on the 60-day requirement. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Jones replied the area is specifically mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the traffic and other issues. Ms. Jones said this area has been an area where there are a lot of noise complaints. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City could make it part of the rezoning, limiting the hours of crushing? Ms. Jones replied the City does have pretty good restrictions in our noise code as it stands now. She thinks the City would be hard pressed to put restrictions on this particular automotive recycling business if they did not do it for others in the area. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, stated the City could put restrictions that do affect a specific parcel if there are peculiar things about the nature of this parcel that require additional kinds of things for health and safety. The double frontage for example might be a factor that would require some additional restrictions that might not otherwise be necessary. The City is allowed to individualize it to some e�tent. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the fence issues. Ms. Jones stated she would recommend a uniform fence. It is not one of the stipulations. The commercial code is 8 foot maximum. Where that becomes critical is the Code often states they cannot store anything any higher than two feet below that fence height. Going up an e�tra 2 feet is a very big impact to this business, so that means they can have storage up to 8 feet high on this site. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 12 Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether they have any other areas like this where they would have allowed this as far as the same setback issues. Ms. Jones replied she cannot think of anything at the moment. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is anything they could do rather than tear down some of the properties. Ms. Jones replied, no, in the case of the house having the 5-foot setback, she thinks that would be gone. It is not that big and the garage door is a concrete block building, it is not like you can just tear down part of the building and leave 10 feet. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she knows the number of the stipulations to be an issue but also the business has been there a long time. Councilmember Saefke asked how long this has been a recycling junkyard. Ms. Jones replied, the petitioner purchased the business 17 '/z years ago. In 1979 there is a record of it being referred to as a junked car storage area. Giddings was the person who started the business. This is where it got its name and he bought it in 1981. Councilmember Saefke stated he can recall it has been a recycle center junkyard since he can remember and before that he thought it was Nowick Motors which was a bus company. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what happened with the previous special use permit. Ms. Jones replied that was for the 1240 73 '/z Avenue parcel. There were several letters that went out after that trying to get them to comply with the stipulations of that special use permit. The owner was to apply for a new one but she could not locate a record showing he had done so. The special use permit was only for the sale of the parts, not dismantling there. Councilmember Saefke asked as part of the stipulations, soil contamination issues, he knows there is a municipal well close on 73 '/z and Highway 65. He asked if the property owner would have to clean up any contaminated soil. Ms. Jones replied, yes, that would be their responsibility. Mayor Lund asked how the residential property became M-1. Ms. Jones said it was rezoned in 1975. At the same time the special use permit was issued. So that had been G1 zoning. In fact when they originally met with Mr. Hoosline, it was shown still on the Zoning Map as being zoned G1. It was not until they got his application and dug into the records further they found out that it had not been properly reflected on the zoning map. It is interesting that Council rezoned it to M-1, Light Industrial, but yet at the same time with the special use permit application, it was very specific to its meaning of being a commercial use. As far as it only being allowed to sell parts, that is what occurred after 1975. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 13 Lawrence Morofsky, Attorney for Petitioner, stated his client became aware of this problem approximately one and one-half years ago. From the information he received today from staff, February 2006 was when staff found out there was a problem with the special use permit for the property. Staff had been out because of some problem with tires being above the fence line. At that point of time his client was in the process of removing them. Staff indicated that needed to be done even prior to their inspection. Attorney Morofsky stated Mr. Hoosline acquired this business in 1990. He was not aware of it then and he was not represented by counsel. He bought the business from Sam. He said with respect to the parcel they would like rezoned, it is across the street from a residential piece. That is also across from another M-1 piece and kitty corner from them, and directly across the residential piece is M-2. Not only that, from looking at the properties in the residential area, it appears they are newer and they were built knowing what was across the street. Attorney Morofsky stated he looked at the Comprehensive Plan for 2020. This area designed for redevelopment is not in the 2020 plan. While it is designed for redevelopment, it does not say to what use. It just says, "redevelopment." That could be industrial, could be commercial. This would not necessarily be adversarial to the 2020 plan. He received information from somebody that the fence was installed at the request of the City to hide what was going on behind there. He said at this point in time, Mr. Hoosline desires to make this site more compliant with the City. The City, looking at the agenda item cover sheet, indicates the option to deny rezoning of this particular piece. That would not take care of the City's non-conformance issues. The house, which is probably grandfathered, and the service station, would probably stay. So those problems would remain. Mr. Hoosline is still looking to keep the special use permit on the balance of the property if the City does not rezone this parcel. He is still willing to go ahead. Attorney Morofsky stated if they do not rezone that piece, it is going to be 453 square feet short no matter what they do or who goes in there and it is going to require a variance. With respect to Option No.2, which is to grant those, they understand the City's concern about what occurs there. He has talked with Mr. Hoosline about the timelines, and he is willing to commit to do what he can. He does not think there should be absolute timelines because natural events may occur which may prevent them from happening. However, if the City wants to adopt these guidelines, it should do so and direct staff to enforce it and if there were a problem, bring it to Council. Attorney Morofsky said with respect to Option No. 3, to deny both, his client would have to close his business. The City would still have non-compliance issues with respect to the setbacks. His client is proposing that the house be torn down. With respect to the gas station, they would like to use it but, if they do not want them to use it, he would probably either apply for a variance on the setback or discontinue using it. Attorney Morofsky stated regarding the screening with the 10-foot fence, Mr. Hoosline would comply with the existing City ordinance of an 8-foot fence around his property. If they wanted him to go with 10 feet, that would require a variance, and he would be obligated to make an application. The City would have the final decision on that. Otherwise, he would settle for the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 14 8-foot fence according to the ordinance. He notes that the ordinance, with respect to zoning on junkyards, requires an 8-foot or higher fence. Attorney Morofsky stated regarding the land use application, in the Summary of the Project, it indicates they are seeking a rezoning to M-2. Also, they have indicated that as far as landscaping and building they would take care of it, and would meet the parking requirements. Attorney Morofsky stated regarding "Site plan does not provide sufficient storm water runoff quality protections," staff's report indicates that the preliminary grading shows plans to install a storm water pond in the southwest corner of the most westerly lot. The pond design appears to be sufficient according to City staff. Code will require further review of the detailed plans. He would point out it appears to be somewhat contradictory to the concept that the site plan does not provide sufficient storm water runoff quality protections. With respect to the noise problem, he asked staff about that the other day; and they indicated to him that there was no indication as to which of the three auto recycling yards that problem was attributable to. Attorney Morofsky stated they have no problem in limiting crushing to Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. They do not crush all the time, and that is e�tremely limited and there has to be a large number of vehicles in order to justify crushing. He said there is a crusher on site, but they would limit that time and keep the noise at a minimum. With respect to ongoing code enforcement, there was a notation in the staff presentation about this. He asked the staff to send him the code enforcement since 1999 when he thinks it was available. Staff indicated high grass and weeds on property, eliminated after first notice and prior to second inspection. Regarding inoperable cars parked on outside of the fence and parked on the street overnight, people leave these vehicles out there on the street. Those are cars that are just abandoned. If they were not abandoned on this property, they would be abandoned somewhere else, possibly in the City. They have to be dealt with. They all know that they are not the most attractive things in the world and not every City wants them. However, they serve a purpose which is to provide those types of things to some of our citizens who need parts and cannot afford to go to an auto dealer to pay the high prices. They can usually get them here. They recycle the parts and also crush those vehicles and the metal is reused in new vehicles. Attorney Morofsky stated as far as the 17 stipulations, they have reviewed them and they will do what they need to in order to comply. As far as the water and sewer connections problem, if they tear down the house that eliminates that problem. The steel shed is already gone. They desire to work with the City to get it taken care of. Staff indicated this type of property is in high demand. He thinks being double frontage causes the problem and does not lead to a higher price. He asked where the buyers were. He said they would be happy if somebody came in and offered them a price for the land that met that type of criteria. It is not there at this point in time. He encourages Council to rezone the current G1 piece to M-1. Assuming that they are agreeable to doing that, they would of course agree to continue the special use permit request until the final reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if he knew when the houses across the street were built. Attorney Morofsky replied he did not know, but they looked like they were built post-1980. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 15 Mr. Hickok stated there is a house a little to the north that is 40's vintage home. Working the way down to the corner, they are 1970's vintage properties. Councilmember Bolkcom stated with respect to the comment Attorney Morofsky made regarding the pond, her understanding from reading the staff report is that there needs to be more because Watershed requires very detailed plans and actually usually defer to them. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Morofsky what he meant by saying his client would do what he can. Attorney Morofsky said they have looked at the 17 stipulations and are comfortable in doing the list. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the timeline that staff recommended. Attorney Morofsky stated he went through that with Mr. Hoosline and he is comfortable. That is a four-year vs. the five-year they gave Central. Ultimately, he does not want a letter from staff saying "you failed." He would like it to come to Council and have that decision made by Council which he thinks is appropriate. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks she heard from the City Attorney that they do have a little more latitude because this is a rezoning. Attorney Morofsky said his client is comfortable with the conditions and proceeding in accordance with the recommendations. They understand Councilmember Saefke's concern with respect to pollution. His client has been diligent in trying to drain everything before it goes out into the yard. He is putting down Class V everywhere to protect the groundwater. He has spent as much as he can and he is reasonably comfortable without doing a substantial amount of testing that there is no pollution. There may be pockets, but he still does not believe there is an expensive, e�tensive area to clear. If that comes up, they are going to be letting staff know and quite honestly, if it costs do get too high, they may just have to pull out. Councilmember Saefke stated his concern is that with the recycling being down there prior to 17 '/z years ago the soils may have been contaminated before Mr. Hoosline bought it. It is his understanding when you buy the property, you buy the headache. He just wanted to make sure that everybody is aware that it may not be a cheap thing. Attorney Morofsky stated he would put out that no matter what they do, whether they go ahead with this or whether they abandon that property, the headache is still there and would still come back to them. Councilmember Saefke replied he understands that except with this rezoning and special use permit, it is part of the stipulations now so they are being forced into it earlier than later. Councilmember Bolkcom asked the crushing hours in the ordinance are. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 16 Mr. Hickok replied they are 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the week. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would be a big deal to tear the gas station down. A lot of the headaches go away if the gas station is torn down because of the setbacks and the sewer and water connection and with the 8-foot fence. Attorney Morofsky stated staff indicates that having the station is a buffer to the residential. If they tear down that, then they do have the 8-foot fence there. If they do not tear it down, at least it looks like part of 8-foot to the building and then around the building. He asked Mr. Hoosline. Mr. Hoosline stated the corner building he does not have a problem with. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what it is used for. Mr. Hoosline said it is an office. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if his office was in the gas station. Mr. Hoosline said it was in the house on the corner. Attorney Morofsky stated the gas station is used for working on cars. That is the building they use to drain the cars. Mayor Lund referred to the stipulation that said Mr. Hoosline would agree to removing all the buildings. What he is hearing is they are agreeable to the stipulations but they would still like some latitude as far as leaving the garage and removing the house. Mr. Hoosline replied he is okay with removing the building, they just have to figure out where they are going to drain the cars. Mayor Lund asked if there are two houses, one on the corner and then one that he is operating the office out of. Attorney Morofsky replied the house on the corner is where the computers and the office are. The garage is where they do the dismantling, Mayor Lund asked what the structure just east of the house is. Mr. Hoosline replied that is just a garage they use for storage. He believed they used it for the house. Councilmember Bolkcom asked where the Police Department towed vehicles. William Burns, City Manager, said that Shorty's does the City's towing. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 17 Councilmember Bolkcom asked where Shorty's towed them. Attorney Morofsky replied from Shorty's they come to us. Mayor Lund stated or Central Auto Parts. Attorney Morofsky said if you remove all of these auto recyclers, which is what is in the Comprehensive Plan, where are the cars going to go? Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Morofsky about his comment regarding the 60-day rule. Attorney Morofsky replied if the City grants the rezoning, they would have no objection to the e�tension of the 60-day rule with respect to the special use permit so it could be heard at the same time. They would need petitioner's consent to the e�tension and, if the rezoning is granted, they would have no objection. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if that was true. Attorney Knaak replied he thinks since it would be a first renewal, the City can do that on its own initiative as long as it provides written notification and its reason for doing so and it has done that in the past. Attorney Morofsky replied they waive that and do that right now and the City would not have to provide the written notice. Attorney Knaak stated the written notice would have to be provided and after 120 days then they would make a decision or get a waiver. Mayor Lund stated they have done that in the past. A customer of Sam's spoke and said he had been a customer since they moved to Fridley. He commented on the setback of the gas station being caused by the widening of the street. Regarding the concern about the pollution factor, it was the City's fault in putting in a well near a place they know has pollution. Councilmember Saefke stated he has worked with the Water Department since about 1971, and that well was placed there about 1970, along with several others. When he first started in Water, pollution was not a big deal. At the time no one was too terribly concerned about water contamination, especially from the well because they figured that soils took care of everything. Through his career it went from simple testing for chlorine to bacteria testing and now they are doing the VOC's (volatile organic compounds) and that did not become a problem until someone was able to measure things from parts per million, to parts per billion, and now measuring parts per trillion. VOC's were not really recognized as a pollution problem until about 1982. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 18 Mayor Lund stated this was supposed to be an antique car parts business. Not crushing and draining of fluids. The business has expanded over the years. They are here to try and resolve problems that have developed over the years. Randy Hoffa, 7325 Central Avenue, stated his bedroom actually overlooks the site. A 16-foot fence would not help him from his window. The sound mentioned is completely bogus. He designs tiny models, he has arthritis, and when the weather is bad he has to take a nap. He has never been awakened from the sounds of Sam's operation even in the daytime. If they could do something about motorcycles and MTC buses he would love it. However, Sam's operation has not been a problem. The vehicles that are dumped there sometimes at night, they clean them up right away and they do not stay there. Frequently when they have the car crushing deals with the big trucks downtown or wherever, you will see those vehicles appear overnight - a bunch of crushed vehicles, and they clean them up immediately. In 18 months he has not seen any problem with their operation. He asked how deep the "1240" parcel was. Relative to the length of the half block, it does not appear it is very deep. He doubts very much you could put in any kind of G1 business into that space without more than a problem they are already having with the setback of the old station building. He ran a business in Fridley for 25 years, and he has been through all this kind of stuff. He was up in the industrial park on Main Street in the 79th area. Obviously this is a problem to find out a way to logically resolve it. To him it does not make sense that they do not allow the G 1 to change to conform with the rest of the property and go ahead and let him do what he needs to do to clean up and organize his business so it runs in an efficient fashion and, of course, resolves the problem. He asked the City to be careful and do due diligence on exactly what they have in front of them. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hoffa if he was sitting in his backyard if he would he be able to see anything. Mr. Hoffa replied, no, you would not see anything at all. He never recognized the crusher running and has never had a problem. Mayor Lund asked about the parking for customers. That was an issue with the other salvage yard. They basically have to park on the street. He does not know if that has been addressed too. He thinks that every business should have some parking for their customers as well. He also suggested the petitioner may want to talk with the Fridley HRA. They looked at these properties four or five years ago. Mayor Lund stated he is a little bit concerned about the parking for customers. He thinks the fence issue might be something they have to look at. The fence is not that old. He knows Mr. Hoosline has made a number of attempts to address a lot of code violations or issues. He does not know why a building permit was not required for installing the fence, but identifying where the fence should go and a considerable amount of that fence is on the easement, the right- of-way, and not really on the petitioner's property. He certainly does not want to make things harder on the petitioner than what is before him. A lot of these issues have been just growing for a number of years. He said he is not so concerned about the gas station remaining because it has been there for a very long time. He would like to see it just painted and fixed up. The setbacks are probably because of the widening of the road or the City increased the setbacks after FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 19 the garage was built. He thinks the timeline should prevail, whether four or five years, and it is important to establish. There is a considerable amount of time here, although a considerable amount of expense, but he would like to see things done in a timely fashion. He is not really sold on the rezoning because. Maybe that property should be used for parking because there really is not much parking to get to the office now. Attorney Morofsky replied if the gas station building is used for dismantling inside, obviously there would be room for parking outside. In redoing the site plan as staff has required and suggested, because there are problems with it, they could adjust the parking interior and in doing so they are going to have to put asphalt down. To put the asphalt down, they are going to have to move the existing interior fencing. They can provide for parking interior as well as the revised fencing inside which may provide screening. What is going on is the farther gates are open so that people can drive in, they can park, and at night they can basically double seal the area or at least any opening into the yard so that it will not be visible as you are walking or driving down the street. With respect to painting the gas station and putting up a fence against it so that it is consistent with the rest of the property, he is assuming eight feet all the way around, would give a nice appearance. Having the building there breaks up the fence. If you rezone or do not rezone that piece, neither of the buildings go away. The landscaping business did not take off, and there does not appear to be a high demand for the small grocery store or that type of use in the area. It could sit vacant for a number of years which may be more of an eyesore than the existing building. Mayor Lund stated he does not recall a landscaping business ever being there. There may have been rezoning for it but he does not ever remember it, and his business has been right down the street for 34 years. Even if they left it at G1, it is non-conforming because it is lacking about 453 square feet of minimal square feet. Mr. Hoosline is purchasing all of those properties and maybe from different landowners. He is wondering if that has been thought of as taking 453 feet away from the M-1 and putting towards the G1 so he has a conforming lot. It does minimize his space, and he does not think his space is overly big now, and it looks pretty crowded as it is. That property may sit for a while as a G1 for a particular use because it is relatively small. Attorney Morofsky stated he did not want to put words in Mr. Hoosline's mouth but in all probability if he did not get rezoning of that parcel, he would have no use for it. Therefore, he would just give it back to the owner who he is buying it from, let them take it back. Why should he take 453 feet of his M-1 property which has a higher use and maybe more valuable to give it to the G 1 owner without consideration. He thinks there are already problems with the setback. It really restricts your building pad. Councilmember Barnette asked what happened to the salvage yards that were located along Bunker Lake Boulevard in Andover. Mr. Hoosline stated they were bought. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the cause of the road expanding. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 20 Mr. Hickok stated as part of the landscaping business, previous staff had asked that the boulevard be landscaped because there was a lack of it. Sadly that landscaping disappeared when the roadway was widened. There was reduction in the amount of setback based on a widening of the county roadway. Ms. Jones stated they really only need not even a full three feet to make this a conforming lot. So it is not a lot of space they are short. Mayor Lund asked if she was talking about the three feet to the west. Attorney Morofsky stated that would take care of the 453 square foot problem, but it would not take care of the 24 '/z foot setback problem. Councilmember Bolkcom said, correct, and she is just saying to take it down. They would then have a little more latitude with the rezoning. Their goal is always having things within the setbacks and having conforming property. Mr. Hickok asked Mr. Hoosline whether he opens the garage door and puts vehicles in the garage on Old Central to drain them. Mr. Hoosline replied, yes. Mr. Hickok asked so he does use the overhead door on it. He has never seen the garage door open on it at all. He did not realize it functions as a garage on this site. He thought the access for that was from inside the fence. Attorney Morofsky stated the garage door opens from the yard side, not the Central side. Mr. Hoosline stated they never open the garage door on Central Avenue. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hoosline how long he is going to continue with the operation and if he is going to want to invest money into this. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:47 P.M. Mayor Lund called for a motion to e�tend the 60-day rule. Attorney Knaak stated the application that is referred to, the 1599, was the 60-day statute, talks about applications related to zoning. It is kind of a fine question whether the legislative enactment, the rezoning, is actually that sort of application. However, in the language of the statute, the best practice would be to include the rezoning application as part of that application. So both items would require an e�tension of the 60-day rule. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 21 NEW BUSINESS: 11. Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-01, by Barry Hoosline for Sam's Auto Parts, to Allow an Auto Recycling Center in an M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District, Generally Located at 7340 Central Avenue and 1240 — 73 �/z Avenue (Ward 2). MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to table the consideration of Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-01 by Barry Hoosline, in order to ascertain the necessary information to fully examine and study the request and to e�tend the period for City Council action an additiona160 days and to notify the petitioner in writing of the 60-day e�tension as soon as possible. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to e�tend the period for the consideration of the ordinance to amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by changing zoning districts (Rezoning Request ZOA #07-01, by Barry Hoosline for Sam's Auto Parts) and e�tending the period of time for the City Council action an additional 60 days and to notify the petitioner in writing of the 60-day e�tension as soon as possible. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when this will be coming back. Julie Jones, Planning Manager, replied the first reading of the ordinance will be on May 21. NEW BUSINESS: 12. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #07-03, by Richard Carlson for Park Construction, to Replat Multiple Parcels to Create Two Lots, Generally Located at 30 - 81st Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). Mr. Hickok stated this is a vacation request and a plat request. The petitioner is seeking to vacate portions of Ely Street, Liberty Street, and Longfellow. This pie-shaped area ne�t to the railroad tracks is made up of many small parcels. Over the years many of the lots have gone tax forfeit and the Carlson family has acquired them. As they were required to in 2004, Mr. Carlson received preliminary plat approval for the northern lot and formed them into one lot. This allowed Park Construction to develop the property by constructing an office warehouse building. In 2004 Mr. Carlson also received approval to vacate the streets and alleys that were encompassed in Lot 1. At that time Mr. Carlson formed the majority of the parcels, and they were in the process of obtaining the remaining parcels from the Metro Waste Commission and also a private party. The City Council approved the preliminary plat and vacation on August 23, 2004. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 22 Mr. Hickok stated in early 2005, Mr. Carlson informed staff they had purchased the remaining lots from the private party and Metro Waste Commission and all of the people were interested in selling their lots. Purchasing lots from Metro Waste Commission would, however, take some time and the Commission had to first get the lots appraised and then they would put them up for sale. Since Mr. Carlson was so close to obtaining the remaining lots within the pie-shaped area, staff advised Mr. Carlson just to hold off in pursuing the final plat for that northern portion lot until he had ownership of all the property and could take that entire pie-shape piece and plat it. At that time Mr. Carlson would then also be able to request a vacation for the remaining streets and alleys. Mr. Hickok stated at the end of 2006, Mr. Carlson contacted staff to say the transactions of the purchases of the lots were finally taken care of. As a result he was requesting that the current preliminary plat request for Lots 1 and 2 of Park Shop and the corresponding street and alley vacations take place. The streets or alleyways could not be connected through because of the railroad tracks to the west and the private property located to the east. Current Public Works staff has indicated there is no longer any reason to keep the right-of-ways since the neighboring properties are not involved. Mr. Hickok stated a public hearing was held for the Preliminary Plat Request, PS #07-03 and Vacation Request, SAV #07-01 on April 18, 2007. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of both requests with four stipulations. Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission and recommends approval of the proposed streets and alley vacations and preliminary plat with the following four stipulations: 1. Utility easements as required by the Metropolitan Council to be shown and dedicated on final plat. 2. All parking and drive areas to be paved per city Code requirements, except for the area for tracked vehicle parking that was approved with VAR #04-11. 3. If outdoor storage continues to be part of the use on Lot 2, landscaping shall be required along those property liens abutting public right-of-ways. Landscape plan to be submitted and approved by City staff prior to installation. 4. If the petitioner plans to utilize Lot 2 for their business through the use of outdoor storage and without a principal structure, the final plat should show one lot instead of two. Mr. Hickok stated if the Carlsons are choosing to use the southern portion of the site only for outdoor storage, then staff suggests that they combine Lots 1 and 2 and make it all one parcel so they have a principal use and then the ancillary or accessory use of outdoor storage can happen. If they plan to build another building on the southern lot, then they should keep the two lots. If they choose to use the southern portion as outdoor storage, then they would need to do the hard surface drive that they talked about in the stipulations and they would need to combine it so they have a principal use with the outdoor storage as well. Mayor Lund asked whether they are going to be making changes to the pie-shaped parcel. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 23 Richard Carlson, petitioner, stated he believed that they are going to be coming to the Planning Commission and ask them to put in an approximately 104' x 60' cold storage building to bring a lot of the unsightly material indoors. That would go on possibly part of Lot 2. It really makes no difference. The reason why he wanted to make two lots is they have access from the south end. If some time it got to where they can resolve it, he could split it and have two lots, a north lot for the shop building and the south lot for future use. They still want to put another cold storage building on the site. Mr. Hickok replied as long as it meets setbacks that is fine. Mr. Carlson stated it is an inexpensive building just for bringing in things from all over the property and keeping the site a little bit neater. Mayor Lund asked if staff would recommend one lot. Mr. Hickok replied as long as they keep the second building clear of the property line so it does not cross over, they could do it either way. Their only concern was if there was not another building going up and it was only outdoor storage on the southern lot, they want to make sure there is a principal use there. One lot does work better as long as it is all Park Construction. At some point they decide to divide it off and sell the southern half and the northern half, as long as they position the building right, and meet the minimum standards for subdivision, that is a pretty clean request. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Carlson if he understood if they stipulate for one lot only, where he places that building can kind of adversely affect it if he wants to split it in the future. Mr. Carlson replied the southern half is very limited because it comes at a very narrow angle and it has easements over almost the entire portion of the very southern lot. You cannot put anything in there. Metro Sewer, Northern States Power, and Xcel have easements through there. So it is only good for anybody for outdoor storage. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok if he suggests they leave Stipulation No. 4 as it is written. Mr. Hickok replied as long as they intend to do what Mr. Carlson recommends, that is fine. If they are going to leave it all as storage, they would suggest they go with it as one lot so that is the principal lot. It is really up to them at this point. They can decide between now and the final plat. Mayor Lund stated that is assuming there is no problem with the storage building. William Burns, City Manager, asked if staff had considered the gas line that will be built through there within ne�t year and if it complicates things at all. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 24 Mr. Hickok said he and Mr. Carlson had talked about it. He thinks the Carlsons have already planned on how they would use the site, allowing that pipeline. Mr. Carlson stated when they got approval to build that building on the north half, they had certain requirements to do landscaping. They did landscape along the railroad right away on the north half. However, in meeting with staff, he said it really does not make sense to spend a lot of money doing the south half because this 20-inch high pressure main is going to go right through there and disturb everything. When it is done, Park has a reputation with the City of Fridley, and it will do something that is appropriate and look good. He thinks their history has shown they have done that. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Carlson whether he has any problems with the stipulations as they are presented. Mr. Carlson said with respect to Stipulation No. 3, there is only one property line which is on the railroad track, and, as he said, there is a gas main coming through there. He said they will work with the City and put appropriate landscaping in there after the gas main is done. He thought that was going to be done last year. Dr. Burns stated some of it will be done this year but he believed Mr. Carlson's part of it will be done next year. Mr. Carlson stated the majority of the south half of Lot 2 can only be used for outdoor storage. It is all under an easement. In fact he presented a letter to staff from Xcel saying they cannot even store anything on the easement that is there because they want to be able to come in if there is a main break So they can put cars or trucks there and move them out immediately if that is the case. The letter stated they can store anything temporarily on that area. He wants to work with the City and he does not want to deprive Park the possibility of selling the south half later. If they can do one lot and divide it later they can do it later. Mayor Lund stated quite frankly he likes the idea of one lot. Mayor Lund said regarding Stipulation No. 3, he would like to add some verbiage stating the landscaping shall be done after the completion of the gas main that is going through. MOTION by Mayor Lund to approve Preliminary Plat Request, PS #07-03, by Richard Carlson for Park Construction, with the following four stipulations: 1. Utility easements as required by the Metropolitan Council to be shown and dedicated on final plat. 2. All parking and drive areas to be paved per city Code requirements, except for the area for tracked vehicle parking that was approved with VAR #04-11. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7, 2007 PAGE 25 3. If outdoor storage continues to be part of the use on Lot 2, landscaping shall be required along those property liens abutting public right-of-ways. Landscape plan to be submitted and approved by City staff prior to installation. 4. If the petitioner plans to utilize Lot 2 for their business through the use of outdoor storage and without a principal structure, the final plat should show one lot instead of two. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mayor Lund to amend the Stipulations to read as follows: 1. Utility easements as required by the Metropolitan Council to be shown and dedicated on final plat. 2. All parking and drive areas to be paved per city Code requirements, except for the area for tracked vehicle parking that was approved with VAR #04-11. 3. If outdoor storage continues to be part of the use on Lot 2, landscaping shall be required along those property liens abutting public right-of-ways. Landscape plan to be submitted and approved by City staff prior to installation. Landscaping to be completed 12 months after the installation of CenterPoint Energy's 20-inch high pressure gas main in cooperation with the City. 4. If the petitioner plans to utilize Lot 2 for their business through the use of outdoor storage and without a principal structure, the final plat shall be one lot. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURN. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott Lund Recording Secretary Mayor