Loading...
11/05/2007 - 29205CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY NOVEMBER 5, 2007 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:28 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 James Kosluchar, Public Works Director APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of October 22, 2007 APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, General Provisions and Fees, Pertaining to Pawn Shop Transaction Fees. William Burns, City Manager, stated when Council raised the pawnshop transaction fee from $1.50 to $3.00 in 2005, they provided for a December 31, 2007 expiration date. The legislation before them tonight removes the sunset and allows the program to continue. Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on October 22, 2007. Staff recommends Council's approval. WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 2 NEW BUSINESS: 2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 17, 2007. RECEIVED. 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). William Burns, City Manager, stated the petitioner is proposing to replace the existing sign at this location with a BP logo sign. A LED gas pricing section and a manual reader board are part of this sign. The LED section of the sign is to be 10 square feet. The total square footage of the sign is 79.2 square feet. The sign is within the detached sign area limit for uses in a C-2 District. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this petition at their October 17 meeting and approved the special use permit after brief discussion. Staff recommends Council's approval subj ect to the following four 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. APPROVED. 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 and Expansion of the Nursing Home in an R-3, Multi-Family Zoning District, Generally Located at 5700 East River Road (Ward 3). William Burns, City Manager, stated when the petitioner applied for a special use permit to allow a 510 square foot addition to the existing facility at 5700 East River Road and to eliminate a non-conforming front yard setback, staff discovered that the existing building also needed a variance to reduce side yard setbacks. The proposed addition is to be used for physical therapy. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for the SUP along with the variance requests for the existing building at their October 17 meeting. After brief discussion they recommended approval. Staff recommends Council's approval subject to the following six stipulations: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 3 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 complimentary 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. APPROVED. 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). William Burns, City Manager, stated in addition to the front yard variance, the petitioner asks for the approval of side yard variances for the existing structure. The required side yard in an R-3 District is 15 feet. The existing building is within 9.6 feet of the property line on the north side of the building and 12.8 feet of the property line on the south side of the building. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of both the front yard and side yard variances at their October 10 meeting. Staff recommends Council's approval, subject to the following five 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 complimentary 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. APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 4 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. William Burns, City Manager, stated due to cost, City Council Members have not received Workers' Compensation coverage. Since rates for the coverage have dropped markedly, staff is recommending that Council add the coverage. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-62. 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. William Burns, City Manager, stated this is a renewal that extends the existing permit from March 1, 2008, to February 28, 2010. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-63. 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). William Burns, City Manager, stated this is a renewal that would become effective February 1, 2008 and end on January 31, 2010. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2007-64. 9. Claims (134057-134239). APPROVED. 10. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 11. Estimates: Forest Lake Contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 2007 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2007-1 Estimate No. 7 .......................................$ 235,995.10 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 5 Northwest Asphalt 1451 Stagecoach Road Shakopee, MN 55379 2007 Mill and Overlay project No. ST. 2007-2 FINAL ESTIMATE ............................ $ 16,103.10 Standard Sidewalk 10841 Mankato Street N.E. Blaine, NIN 55434 2006 Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs ProjectNo. 370 Estimate No. 4 .......................................$ 6,955.90 APPROVED. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM: PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12. Consider Special Use Permit, SP #06-01, for Central Auto Parts, to Operate a Salvage Yard, Generally Located at 1201 — 73 �/z Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) (Continued June 25, 2007). MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to open and continue the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:37 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 6 Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the business owner has made great progress. He has installed a storm water management feature that has been approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. One large pond and one small pond now sit inside the fenced area where vehicles had been. There are also two infiltration basins in the front yard of the office. About half the curb and gutter and paving have been completed. The area around the main pond has been paved to prevent erosion. Class 5(and it appears to be almost Class 6) asphalt e�sts on the remaining areas of the site. They had set out to finish the entire paving project, but the contractor was unable to finish the remaining work due to rain which made it extremely difficult for a site like this to be completed. Staff recommends the City Council continue the public hearing until June 9, 2008, to allow the business owner to complete the site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and fence plan. The remaining curb and gutter, paving, and landscaping would need be completed by June 1, 2008, to avoid a resolution for revocation. The five-year timeframe was originally put in place to make this project happen in 2003. It would have ended June 1, 2008. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Haluptzok if he was okay with the timeframe with the extension and if he felt he could have all those issues resolved. Jerry Haluptzok, 1201 — 73 '/z Avenue N.E., replied he was hoping to have them resolved by now but unfortunately there was a lot of rain. He feels confident that they will have it all done. Mayor Lund asked whether his contractor will do any more this fall. Mr. Haluptzok replied he only works so far into the season and that time is coming up. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City still needed a site plan. Mr. Hickok replied that is correct. They have had a plan approved for grading and drainage purposes by Rice Creek Watershed District, but a site plan would also show some of the other features the City has been asking for, including the fence being located on the private property. A landscape plan would accompany the site plan. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haluptzok if he had any problem with making sure this is all available as soon as possible? Mr. Haluptzok replied, no problem. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to continue the public hearing to June 9, 2008. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED AT 7:43 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 7 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 61st Avenue and Main Street N.E. (Ward 3) (Continued October 8, 2007). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove the item from the table and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:43 P.M. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner has submitted a site plan for the subject property which depicts two industrial buildings, a northern building that is 47,653 square feet and a southern building that is 102,907 square feet. The petitioner has not identified to City staff if there is user for the buildings or what the buildings will be used for. However, both buildings appear to be typed for warehouse. The subject property consists of three separate parcels that are adjacent to one another and total 11.52 acres. Residential properties border the subject property to the north and the east. The railroad borders to the west and industrial property borders to the south. At their meeting of October 8, the City Council was presented with new information from the petitioner and his legal counsel. Council extended the statutory timeframe to allow staff to review this new information. Mr. Hickok stated the new information includes 26 assertions on the part of the petitioner and his legal counsel and staff has provided a response. A traffic study done by Wenck Associates, Inc., a building valuation comparison of warehouse vs. manufacturing buildings was also included in the information submitted on October 8. In the traffic analysis, conclusions show that a.m. and p.m. peak levels are higher for manufacturing. The degradation of performance levels at the intersection of University Avenue and 61st Avenue will happen regardless of reuse on the petitioner's site. Another point from the study demonstrated that 172 additional warehouse trip ends over and above the expected traffic for a manufacturing use should be expected. A"trip" is destination to destination, and a"round trip" is two trips. The traffic analysis did nothing to help the argument that this would be an appropriate rezoning. The petitioner chose to compare old industrial manufacturing facilities that dated from 1941 to 1994 to compare those building values with newer industrial buildings built from 1994 to and present. Even so, the higher value of manufacturing facilities was evident in their materials. Manufacturing facilities typically have higher values. Mr. Hickok stated the City zoning map is precisely as the legal counsel for the petitioner indicated. Upon research of that allegation, map corrections have been ordered to correctly reflect M-4 parcels in Fridley. A 1998 map correctly illustrated the parcels with an M-4 designation. Later iterations of that map were erroneously modified. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 19 on this matter. It recommended denial of this rezoning request, and the motion carried on a 4 to 1 vote. City staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission. If the City Council elects to approve the rezoning, staff would recommend 12 stipulations. If Council chooses to deny, there FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 8 is also a resolution from staff with some recommended language. Staff would recommend having a resolution of denial with the findings of fact. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a warehouse would add an additional 172 trip ends. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, on a daily basis. That may be a bit confusing because, as the analyst has pointed out, in a.m. and p.m. you are going to get more traffic from more warehouse use. Councilmember Bolkcom said in a warehouse situation there would be more truck traffic and it could be coming and going at all times of the day. Mr. Hickok replied that would be fair to say. It would accurately represent our experience with the industrial warehouse facilities presently in Fridley. Councilmember Bolkcom stated even before Northstar, they knew there were some issues related to this intersection at University and 61st Avenue, correct? Mr. Hickok stated it is inevitable that they would be at an Operational Level F by 2010 at 61st and University regardless of what the end use of the site will be. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there was some comment by petitioner's legal counsel that there are no other M-4's in Anoka County and maybe even in the state. She asked if there were any others in Fridley. Mr. Hickok stated there were 7 properties as petitioner mentioned and one of those properties was rezoned. Mr. Hickok stated Friendly Chevrolet was the second that was rezoned and actually not entirely rezoned. It had owned a piece that took them out to Old Central. That was zoned manufacturing only. Brenk Brothers owned a manufacturing industry to the south of the vacant parcel. Between Brenk Brothers and Friendly Chevrolet they decided that Brenk Brothers would much rather have the site north of them so they could double the size of their manufacturing facility. Friendly Chevrolet on the other hand would much rather have a regular-shaped site, and they had had just about equal land, so they swapped. Mr. Hickok said that one other site mentioned was the McGlynn's site. They had requested during the rezoning process to be taken out of the rezoning in the 1977 moratorium on manufacturing development. They asked if they could be exempt from the M-4 because they were going to expand their manufacturing use adjacent to them. It might include a mix of manufacturing and warehouse, and they simply did not want to have the inability to not have warehousing for the manufacturing that already exists. Council ultimately decided not to include them in the M-4. The map from 1998 did reflect all of those sites. Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney since the zoning map was incorrect, should that enter into Council's decision. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 9 Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, stated it is an understandable error, but it is the underlying zoning that is controlling and is in the language. He believes that has not changed since 1999 or 1998. James Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates, Inc., stated he was responsible for the traffic work that was presented to the City Council at last meeting. He has some additional points he would like to share based on follow-up work they did and upon review staff's report. There were two principal comments he discerned from the staff report, one had to do with reference in their October 8 handout to use of some data collected at the American Excelsior Company in Fridley. Staff has not seen the data. He would like to follow up on that. In response to whether a proposed warehouse use creates greater traffic impact than would the M-4 zoning presently applied to the property, he turned to some supplemental survey work that they have performed. Mr. Benshoof said with respect to the American Excelsior information, this is based on work they performed just over ten years ago. American Excelsior was a manufacturing facility at the time the survey was conducted. He said they have done some supplemental work recently in order to more effectively address the difference in trip generation for warehouse use relative to manufacturing. They have conducted counts in the morning and afternoon peak periods for other industrial properties along Main Street, including the Murphy Warehouse Company, A& B Northpoint Industrial and Sheet Metal Connectors and Parsons Electric which they combined. Mr. Benshoof stated there are three possible approaches that can be taken for heavy commercial truck trip generation. One is using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) data. The second is the approach averaging the ITE data with the American Excelsior data. The third approach is based on this most recent data they collected which would involve applying the results from the counts at Murphy, A& B Northpoint, and Sheet Metal/Parsons to this investigation. Specifically for the warehouse use, it can average a generation by Murphy and A & B Northpoint yielding 5 truck trips in the morning peak For manufacturing under this approach, taking the results from Sheet Metal/Parsons and applying them to the size of manufacturing results in 3 and 5 trips. Mr. Benshoof said using similar steps to examine the total trip generation for smaller, personal vehicles as well as the trucks, they did have three approaches that can be taken. First, using the ITE data which indicated the total generation in the peak hours by manufacturing and that 172- vehicle difference the Planner has referenced as being greater for warehouse, which is correct. Second, using American Excelsior data with the ITE data on an average basis, the a.m. and p.m. trips for manufacturing and in terms of total traffic, was quite low. Trip generation for manufacturing total that is quite similar. Third, conducting counts at the industrial properties on Main Street. The total generation of that data showed the warehouse had a little bit less than manufacturing based. Mr. Benshoof stated he concludes in his best professional judgment and based on the data and numerous related experiences, the proposed warehouse use would have a slightly less impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the M-4 developed into the same size. There would be slightly fewer truck trips by warehouse during the peak hour and on a daily basis. Secondly, regarding the total volume in the peak hours, particularly on 61st and University, and the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 10 difference of 172, if they look at that on an hourly basis during the course of the day, it is probably the difference of 1 vehicle every 3 to 4 minutes. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to move into the record a letter from Wenck Associates, Inc., dated November 5, 2007. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom said with respect to the 172 more vehicles a day, they are still talking about more vehicles down the street. Even though the peak times might be the same or a little higher for trucks, they are still talking about more vehicles in this residential area. Mr. Benshoof replied that is correct. It is his impression that of greater importance to the neighbors would be truck volume and that would be lower with warehouse. Also, the volume during the peak hours is likely to be lower with warehouse. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what that information was based on. Mr. Benshoof said whenever they are asked to do traffic studies, the general period of primary interest to the community involved is what will be the affect during peak hours. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if he could compare one warehouse to another warehouse. Mr. Benshoof stated in 1997 his file indicates they were seeking a representative sample of land of heavier industrial purpose. As to why they selected the properties on Main Street, they are either nearby and they know them well. They thought it would be beneficial to determine what those properties generated in relationship to this property. Mayor Lund said they show lighter amounts and are during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. That only gives them one hour. He does not know if the hours used are the peak hours. He is concerned about the traffic and also the pollution, including noise. Mr. Benshoof inentioned their survey for the properties along Main Street indicate that perhaps with either warehouse or manufacturing, a trip generation likely will be lower than what is presented using the ITE data. If you look at the relationships of the properties along Main Street, traffic generates at a lower rate. One cannot predict precisely what this property will generate. He feels that based on all this data, it is not correct to assume that warehousing would have a greater impact than manufacturing. If anything, he believes the various sources of information suggest the opposite. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if staff had any response to the information. Mr. Hickok replied the standard in traffic planning analysis is ITE, and one important thing to know about ITE is that it takes sample sizes and considers the data invalid if the sample is too small. He said staff does not disagree with Mr. Benshoof that a.m. and p.m. peak hours are FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 11 higher with manufacturing. Overall, his presentation did not disprove that an additional 172 trips will happen based on warehousing. He said they are hearing 172 trips for warehouse and something less in manufacturing, but in the a.m. and p.m. peak, the traffic is higher for manufacturing. It is important they know that. Bob DeMay, Attorney for Petitioner, said staff's recommendation to deny the zoning application was based on an argument that there were four specific goals set at the time the M-4 zoning was made, and those goals are still applicable today. Those goals do not have a rational relationship to the M-4 zoning on this property. He said there is a history and a background which strongly suggests there is animosity between at least staff, if not the City of Fridley, that led to retaliation against this property owner for exercising his free speech and rights to petition. Attorney DeMay said they are asking Council to be open-minded and take into account all the facts and circumstances. He said there were eight properties proposed for M-4 zoning. There was no dispute on that, and they have accurately described the eight properties. McGlynn's was dropped and he believed it was because they preferred to remain M-2 zoning so they would not be restricted in any expansion. That left Northco and Coachman, and it is their understanding those two were also dropped. Staff says that is not the case. They have gone back and looked at the zoning ordinance, marked D185, Ordinance 1099, adopted June 23, 1997. Their review of that ordinance indicates there is no property description that coincides with either property. So there were only five that were zoned M-4. It is their understanding that a decision was made at the request of Northco to drop it from the M-4 zoning. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what this had to do with the rezoning. Attorney DeMay stated it is an effort to help clear the record. They believe the record still shows that the property before them is being selected for individualized discriminatory treatment. What they need to do is look at the other M-4 properties and how they have been treated. There are essentially two types of properties selected for M-4. There were some properties that were totally undeveloped and not really associated with another developed pieces of property. Those are Northco, Coachman, Everett's Main Street property, and Anderson Trucking. There were roughly four other properties that appear clearly to have been selected because they were pieces of property that were next to and owned under the same common ownership as the existing manufacturing facilities. Petitioner's presumption is that staff is saying the natural development of those properties would be to expand their manufacturing facilities. In fact that is likely what these pieces of property either were purchased for or maintained by their manufacturers for. Over time, every single property, like the Main Street property, asked to either be removed from M-4 zoning before it was adopted or be rezoned. Every single one besides the existing property has been approved. The reason those properties that are natural expansion for manufacturing facilities have not been rezoned or dropped out of zoning is that they have not made a request. Attorney DeMay said staff claims that the traffic is a maj or issue and that led to M-4 zoning, but they have made no empirical study. That was his major point last time. As to traffic concerns in general, because it is the intersection of 61st and University projected to develop a poor situation, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 12 peak hours should be the most important. Staff says it is not. The empirical study shows that peak hours will be worse with having a manufacturing facility rather than a warehouse study. Attorney DeMay stated as to truck traffic, the stated goals have nothing to do with total traffic. If they look at the stated goals for M-4 zoning, they will see the staff report where they initially recommended denial of the rezoning. They will see no mention of total traffic, only truck traffic. Truck traffic will be worse with manufacturing rather than the proposed warehouse. There is no evidence that it will. Attorney DeMay said based on what he pointed out to them before, this is the only project property that is not already affiliated next to the only legitimate and expected use being an expansion of a warehouse that has been saddled with manufacturing only zoning. Attorney DeMay stated as to the design controls issue. Fridley's design controls apply whether M-2 or M-4 zoning, and there is no denial. So that goal makes no sense. Attorney DeMay stated the next goal encourages uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities which requires more complex building systems. Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher building valuation than warehouse construction. First, he said there is dearth of manufacturing uses in the City. He pointed out that they had identified at least 137. There is no denial that number is accurate. Under M-2 zoning, if a manufacturing user comes along there is no reason this developer would not utilize it. It is not going to make it more likely that a manufacturer is going to come along if you make it more restrictive zoning. In fact, the record makes it clear the only way you can attract manufacturing uses to a site like this is to have the cooperation of the City in providing incentives. Attorney DeMay stated it said there is no rational connection between the perceived problem and solution. Perceived problem as it says in the staff's report arose from City's rezoning of M-1 and M-2 properties to commercial. There is no response to that in the staff's report. He believes this Council is well aware the City is not ceasing to rezone commercial property. That would be the most logical solution. As to the assumption manufacturing uses would create more jobs and higher building valuation that is an area where the information has been misused. First of all, with respect to the Anderson site, that was a tech flex building and is not a warehouse use. Strangely when it came before rezoning he asked them to look at Exhibit 1, which is the July 29, 1999, zoning application with respect to the rezoning application for that property. The purpose: to allow construction of a 39,406 square foot industrial office warehouse. There was nothing about any special tech flex, nothing about a special requirement on their rezoning permit, the rezoning which said they have to build a specific type of warehouse or specific building or that they need a tech flex building. The tech flex comes out as a convenient statement, but it has no reality. There is no such thing as tech flex which is a special category either in the zoning or in the tax category. Attorney DeMay stated that this was done on July 29, 1999. Staff incorrectly states this rezoning happened in 1997. The reason this rezoning came about was that this owner was considering the building at the time the 1997 ordinance went into effect and they did not want to FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 13 disadvantage this owner who had this already in plan. The answer is it occurred in 1999, and it is inconceivable that the owner sat on this plan for over three years. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney DeMay, how he knew that. She asked what he had to gain by being adversarial. She said she was frustrated with him knocking staff and their report. Attorney DeMay replied he understands. Councilmember Bolkcom said he does not understand as he continues to do it. It is really frustrating to hear him say the staff is making stuff up and everything coming out of his mouth is gospel. This has gone on for ten years. She does not think he knows that they had in mind in 1997 and for him to say that is very frustrating. Attorney DeMay replied he is saying that because the staff report tells about this request in 1997, shortly after rezoning went into effect, and it was with respect to a property where the landowner had specific development in mind. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but he did not really know that. Attorney DeMay stated the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is staff is simply wrong about what had happened. Councilmember Bolkcom asked him if he could say it in a nicer way. Mayor Lund stated they are trying to listen to the different sides. Attorney DeMay stated last time there was no support for the assumption of manufacturing use creating a higher building value of the warehouse. Staff says that is wrong and he believes that is true. They have not done an analysis, but they were looking at older manufacturing uses and new warehouse uses and that is unfair. They say Anderson Trucking should not be used as a warehouse because that is classified as a warehouse office building. He just gathered those from within the past decade. The only two manufacturing buildings they could locate within the last decade are interspersed within the warehouses that have been built. He is not saying that warehouse is going to be a higher value. On the other hand it is not going to be a lower value either. There is just no evidence that where there is warehouse office or manufacturing that is going to affect the valuation. He looked a little deeper into the City's documents and he finds it is not only him that says that. It is the City's assessor. Looking at Exhibit 3, the second paragraph, the second sentence. The assessor says the values in the area zoned for these usages does not seem to be different for warehouse or manufacturing. Attorney DeMay stated there is no evidence that M-4 zoning has itself aided or assisted in any way in there being a manufacturing facility built. The only usage is where M-4 has affected one way or the other is building a very new construction causing new tax base, new jobs. It is those instances where M-4 zoning was either removed before it was even attached to a property or if it was rezoned. In other words, M-4 zoning has only turned out to be a hindrance to creating jobs and developing tax breaks. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 14 Attorney DeMay stated as to the other two goals, to promote clean uses which do not promote fumes, the assumption that manufacturing is cleaner and quieter than office warehouse is contrary to the evidence if you go down the street. He does not see anything in staff's report that denies that. Attorney DeMay stated regarding the last goal, to eliminate usage which requires significant amounts of outdoor storage, outdoor storage needs a permit. That is really not something where the M-2 or M-4 zoning makes a difference. As to issues that arose between the City with the tax protest of his client, there was a dispute there. There was also a dispute regarding the billboards on the Home Depot site. Attorney DeMay stated there was a serious delay of an application. His client made an effort to work with staff shortly before the moratorium started. He said there were questions about whether this building was a warehouse or a truck terminal. They think the record will make it clear that it was a warehouse. In any event, it could not have been used as a truck terminal. Attorney DeMay stated after the moratorium and after the M-4 zoning, his client submitted another building permit in May of 2001. He thinks the record will show that there was dispute after dispute, and a delayed process. One of the most major points of contention is on Assertion No. 16. They were served on May 17, 2001, unknown to Everest and Main Street at the time. Staff was communicating with MnDOT regarding MnDOT's potential acquisition of the site to support the Northstar rail station. However, City action was required before MnDOT could proceed. Scott Hickok issued a letter to Main Street stating now there are seven reasons you need to work on to complete your application. Staff denies this. They say there were no discussions with MnDOT at that time. He referred Council to Exhibit 4, the third paragraph of an e-mail from Mr. Hickok to Dr. Burns dated Thursday, May 17, 2001: "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 proceed with negotiations for the site. He also indicated he felt the City (if it so chose to do so) could issue a moratorium on development of the site until a determination is made." Dr. Burns wrote back another e-mail to Mr. Hickok, copying Mr. Knaak, and saying "Thanks, Scott. I am assuming that you are keeping in touch with Fritz on this." Mayor Lund asked if this was after the moratorium. Attorney DeMay stated it was after the moratorium. It appears to him the City desires to maintain this property as undeveloped for some eventual use. This weekend he was informed that at meetings of the HRA, a decision has been made that the City will now take over the process of the land acquisition to support the Northstar Rail. They assume this means the subject property is up for consideration which they fear is another background consideration, rather than the legitimate consideration that should be weighing into this. Attorney DeMay said they addressed all the issues, even the park dedication fee, and they were all resolved in May 2001. He directed them to Exhibit 5, a 2003 memorandum from Mr. Hickok and the Public Works Director in which staff finally acknowledged the park dedication fees were FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 15 not applicable to this property and that special assessments did not belong to two of the three lots. They waited until 2003. Then a representative of Anoka County approaches the owner of Main Street properties and says, well, this land is under consideration for the Northstar Rail. Attorney DeMay stated if they look at the evidence fairly, the stated reasons for this zoning do not apply. There is not a rational connection. This property stands alone in its treatment under the M-4 zoning. The M-4 zoning should basically be removed from this property. In summary, he has looked at a few other instances of land use decisions. They would have expected that these kinds of goals be discussed, and they were never discussed in any context that appears other than M-4 zoning. The history as it relates to this property shows that M-4 zoning was directed at this property. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney DeMay if his client also mentioned that he was going to donate the property to a church and it would come off the tax rolls. Mr. Nelson stated they were contacted by a church and looked at that possibility a number of years ago. He believed it was in the 1997 timeframe. Councilmember Bolkcom said so it did happen, and he said maybe I will just give it away to the church and take it off the tax rolls. Mr. Nelson replied, no, they would not have taken it off the tax rolls, that would be the assessor's role. Councilmember Barnette stated Attorney DeMay alluded to this whole situation with the Northstar Commuter Rail. That should not be a surprise. He certainly had been contacted by the Northstar Commuter Rail or the Anoka County Railroad Authority about the possibility. Mr. Nelson replied, yes, and as Attorney DeMay mentioned in his presentation a month ago, he detailed when they were contacted and when they were informed by MnDOT that they no longer had any interest in the property. Councilmember Barnette asked if he had been contacted since that time? Mr. Nelson replied, no, they had not. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when he was contacted last. Attorney DeMay replied it is on the charts from the last time. Actually about a month or so before the application for rezoning was made. Mayor Lund said they had the same arguments ten years ago and they did not prevail. Attorney DeMay stated back at that time he was not counsel but, indeed, the individual who was counsel did make a presentation and made the same points at the various meetings, just as FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 16 McGlynn's and Northco did--that this should not be M-4. They were removed, and this property was not, and they made a few additional points. Mayor Lund stated it is his understanding the park dedication fee was not required because that came into play after the platting of those parcels and there are three parcels there now. However, there would be a park dedication fee required if they replatted it to one parcel. Attorney DeMay replied that is what his understanding is. Mayor Lund asked and that is why his client is against having it replatted to one property. Attorney DeMay replied, that is correct, but it also comes up just in the context of saying what happened with a building permit they applied for in 2001. Mayor Lund stated that was not the first time Mr. Nelson contends that the City has purposely tried to delay this matter. Attorney DeMay is saying there is an adversarial relationship. He got the impression that this is not Mr. Nelson's first time around as far as a development or purchasing commercial industrial properties. He cannot imagine that those things are always very easy. It sounded like there were at least two other times Mr. Nelson was trying to get some type of development there and he made applications and never followed through. Mr. Nelson said that never in his almost 30 years of involvement in commercial real estate development has it taken two years to get the right answer to whether a park dedication fee is owing on a project or not, or to determine whether "deferred special assessments are legitimate or not." It took two years to get that answer out of staff on this project. That gives him great pause as to going forward to get that building permit not knowing what other things are going to be around the corner. Mayor Lund stated he questions whether it was the staff delaying this for two years or if there were delays on Mr. Nelson's part. Mr. Nelson stated staff has documentation as Mr. Hickok claims in the staff report that these matters were resolved on the front end of the building permit application process. He would invite him to request those documents of staff, and he would be happy to review them. Mayor Lund stated he developed a piece of property, it took him three years to get an easement with the next door property owner so he could run a sewer line on the property line which could never be built on. Mr. Nelson got the issue resolved with the park dedication fee, but it took two years, so he moved on to other things. Mr. Nelson said by that time, they were aware of the Northstar Rail interest in the site and were cautious about proceeding with the project. Attorney DeMay stated the point is that one of the goals stated for maintaining M-4 zoning on this property is manufacturing uses generate a higher tax break than higher taxed properties. The reason he brought it up is to say there is no empirical evidence to support the relationship FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 17 between that alleged goal of higher tax base and the M-4 zoning, and there is no record of evidence of a higher value associated with manufacturing than there is a warehouse. As he said, it is not just their own study, but that is what the City's tax assessor says. Mayor Lund stated he does like the idea of job opportunities. All they can do is strive for their best shot at doing the right thing for the community. There are no compelling arguments that make it very clear-cut to him. He wished they were being a little bit more specific as to what was actually going in there. It would make his comfort level a lot better. Councilmember Bolkcom said in 2001 and 2003, the plans they had before City staff, would they have gone into this M-4 zoning? Mr. Nelson replied, yes. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why they made the change. Mr. Nelson replied, because it provides more flexibility of users. Councilmember Bolkcom said after 2003 there was talk about the Northstar Rail. He knows it has resurfaced, so why wouldn't he think twice about doing it now considering that there might be a potential eminent domain. Mr. Nelson stated they would consider that potential going forward. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why it is different now. Mr. Nelson stated now they are another six years down the pike without getting any economic returns from the property and maybe no end in sight. They have no idea if the Northstar Rail thing is going to happen. Nothing has happened yet. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if he is concerned that there might be the same issues he thought were evident six years ago. Mr. Nelson said he was concerned. Those would all be factored in and considered. They cannot wait forever. Mr. Hickok stated regarding the chart before them this evening by Attorney DeMay and the seven parcels, three of those were owned by Mr. Nelson, one was owned by Friendly-Brenk, one was owned by Anderson, one was owned by Ashton Properties, and one was owned by Kurt Manufacturing. Coachman was a building that existed in the City of Fridley, and it was a multi- tenant industrial building. It was not a warehouse building. It blew down in straight-line winds pre-1997. It was a vacant site and had an unusual situation. It was being rebuilt through insurance. There are mitigating factors that went into that. Mr. Hickok stated in response to Attorney DeMay stating there is no empirical study of traffic, he would make it sound as if staff said by their own admission, additional truck traffic is going to FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 18 result from that. Staff did not say that. Nor could they say that they had an empirical study that proved one way or another. They heard their traffic expert speak tonight, and he could not speak to that. We are talking about trip totals. Just so they are clear, he is not saying evidence one way or another about truck traffic. He certainly was not saying there would be more truck traffic for manufacturing. Mr. Hickok said regarding this being the only site expected to be M-4, this is not true. There is a site which still exists on Ashton that could be a manufacturing site, and they hope it becomes a manufacturing site. Attorney DeMay indicated that the assessor called this a warehouse building. He had a discussion with the City Assessor to be certain. It is a higher valuation than a warehouse building and it is a tech flex building in her notes. Mr. Hickok stated as for a building permit, the petitioner's application came in on May 10. His permit was ready to be picked up at the front desk by May 21. There were thousands of dollars of staff review time and plan review for the plan that never was picked up. There was no discussion from Mr. Nelson. His attorney may have been talking to the City's attorney, but the reality was there was no direct discussion. Mr. Nelson contends that he should not have to pay assessments for his portion of the utilities that served his site. When his application came in for this most recent rezoning, he has over $20,000 once he develops this site that he is going to have to pay for the piece of the infrastructure that is already in place surrounding this site. Mr. Nelson will contend that is not his pay and he should not be responsible for that. Mr. Hickok stated, as for park dedication fees, it is not as though in 2001 and 2003, there was no answer on that. The park dedication fee item was evaluated and they had a discussion on it. Mr. Nelson certainly could have called him if he had other questions on it while his permit was sitting waiting to be picked up. It was only when his attorney asked for further clarification on a number of early issues that the memorandum came. A 2003 memo was not the only answer that was offered. There was discussion and there could have been discussion after his permit was available and ready for him to pick up. Mr. Hickok stated regarding the statement of a truck terminal that led to a moratorium. There was a statement by Attorney DeMay that his client was cooperative and was helpful at the time his client had a building that had 50 overhead doors facing Main Street. There was no effort on petitioner's part at all to talk to the City about what would be going into that building. There were overhead doors from north to south on the east elevation of that building facing residential. There was no effort on his part to try and explain what that building was going to be used for. There was a sea of asphalt in front of the original building that was proposed, and no effort on the part of the petitioner to try and explain. Staff was struggling and trying to figure out whether that was a trucking industry or some other use. He thinks they would have a difficult time trying to demonstrate that you could even build office with all the overhead doors. Mr. Hickok stated regarding any foot dragging that occurred, communication would be a key and would have been a good thing. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive into the record Exhibits 1 through 5 dated November 5, 2007, received by Petitioner. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 19 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Nelson said there is a document in front of them that shows what Mr. Hickok is saying is not true. Mr. Hickok mentions that they owe $20,000 in claimed special assessments. His memorandum acknowledges that after two years of trying to get an answer from staff and the City Attorney, those were not appropriate charges other than a claimed $7,000. Now another five years later he is trying to reinsert the $20,000 acting like he never decided they were inappropriate in the first place. Mr. Hickok replied it is not his role to decide assessments and what is applicable. If they were to check with the Finance Department, they would find that each of three parcels has approximately $7,000 due. Mr. Nelson replied, that is absolutely untrue. Mayor Lund stated Mr. Nelson contends that in about 2001 he made an application for a building permit. Mr. Nelson replied, correct. Mayor Lund stated there is a memorandum that came in May, 2003. What he is hearing from staff is that Mr. Nelson did not respond but he says he did. Mr. Nelson replied, there were numerous letters from them and counsel requesting clarification of these exact issues and it took until May 2003 to get an answer. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if there were any other questions they should have answered before they close the public hearing. Attorney Knaak replied, ultimately it is for them to decide if they feel there has been adequate information. He thinks there has been a fair amount of testimony, and the applicant has been given substantial time to present evidence to them and to make the record. Ultimately they are going to have to decide whether that is enough to persuade them to take action. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom 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 WAS CLOSED AT 9:43 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 20 OLD BUSINESS: 13. 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 �/z Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) (Tabled June 25, 2007). MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to removing the resolution from the table and table it to June 9, 2008. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 14. 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). Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the property is located at 53rd Avenue and Monroe Street. The property is zoned R-1, single-family residential, as are the properties to the west. Super Target occupies the property to the east and north, and a daycare facility occupies the property to the south. The property has remained undeveloped with wetlands bordering its west and south sides. Mr. Hickok stated the Sikh Society purchased the property at 5831 University Avenue in the early 1990s and has continued to operate their worship facility at this address. Over the years they have considered constructing an addition to this building but have decided instead to build a new worship facility at 5350 Monroe Street. Mr. Hickok stated the subject property is 96,525 square feet (2.22 acres), and the petitioner is proposing 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 a sanctuary located on the upper level. The lower area will have a kitchen, dining area, library and a living area for the pastor. Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of the 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 an area in which it is located. The special use permit gives the City the ability to place stipulations on the proposed use and to eliminate negative impact to surrounding properties. The City also has the right to deny a special use permit if the surrounding properties cannot be eliminated through stipulations. Churches or worship facilities are a permitted use in an R-1 district. Single-family is also permitted. Worship facilities can be there provided they meet necessary requirements related building site requirements, parking, subj ect to stipulations proposed by staff and ultimately approved by Council. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 21 Mr. Hickok stated the City Code directs them to use CR-1 general office standards for such a facility. The new building meets all the requirements. The proposed building is being designed in a manner that matches the scale of the residential character and structures of the adj acent neighborhood and daycare facility. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has indicated that they are trying to save as many large trees as possible on the site. Staff will stipulate that all trees to be removed be marked and approved by staff prior to removal. While staff typically recommends the use of a landscaped hedge for a screening device between a single-family residential properties and entities such as this, it feels that due to the change in elevation between the subject property and the residential properties to the west, that an 8-foot screening fence or landscaped hedge would not be warranted as a screening device. Mr. Hickok stated the City Code does have a wetland overland district. It states that significant wetlands will be maintained in their natural condition or improved to provide more benefits for water quality management. It also states the City will preserve wetlands in the community through implementation of development regulations to ensure the design and construction of adequate site storm water measures. Historically the property has been a marshy wet site. However, in years past, fill had been added to the site which 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 some time ago due to the vegetation that has grown since. It is not a protected wetland by the DNR. Mr. Hickok stated in order to act upon this special use permit, staff required the petitioner to have the existing wetlands on the site delineated further and the boundaries defined. The petitioner hired Westwood to delineate those wetlands, and they determined that two wetlands do exist on the site covering a total area of approximately 8,517 square feet. On the west side it is marked 7,903 square feet and on the east side, it is about 614 square feet. City Code does not restrict how close a building or parking lot can be located to a wetland when the DNR does not protect that wetland. Therefore, their setbacks would meet the City's watershed district requirement. Mr. Hickok stated City staff is also requiring that any pond for storm water runoff be designed to separate the runoff from wetlands on the site to protect the integrity of the wetland. Further City Code requires that no land shall be altered in a way that would result in water runoff that would cause flooding, erosion, or deposits of minerals on adjacent properties. The petitioner will need to ensure that storm water ponds proposed to be located on site will collect the runoff by the development on this site. The petitioner's engineers have designed a storm pond for the property, and they are proposing to locate that on the south side of the property next to and separate from the wetland. Fridley engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary storm pond location and drainage design and has been working with the petitioner's engineer. Mr. Hickok stated the design of the proposed storm pond and the overall drainage on the site meet City Code requirements. Engineering staff will further review the proj ect to ensure that engineering calculations of the proposed development protect the integrity of the State's runoff requirement and to ensure neighborhood property owners are not in any way affected by runoff. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 22 Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner had also applied for a variance to reduce the amount of required right-of-way for a buildable lot from 25 feet to 19 feet. This is important for Council to know because City Code says a minimum of 25 feet is needed for frontage. It appeared as though this site only had 19 feet. During staff's research of the variance request, the City's surveyor and planning staff determined there was an additional 15 feet of right-of-way just east of where Monroe Street sits, next to the daycare facility. It is disguised a bit and actually serves as the entrance and exit to the parking lot of the daycare with a nice planting aisle the daycare has done in between. That 15 feet, however, is dedicated for street purposes if need be. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner does have a better plan that would preserve the wetland and not disturb the daycare's landscape and entrance and exit. When that was discovered, staff contacted the petitioner's surveyor to verify the existence of the right-of-way and it has been determined that they have all they need to eliminate the need for a variance to access their site. Mr. Hickok stated while the discovery eliminates petitioner's need for a variance, staff would still urge the petitioner to pursue an access easement from Petco/Target to access the site. You would actually have cars exiting directly across from Petco into what is a service drive behind the Target Superstore. The site would then be accessed from a 25-foot wide easement running perpendicular from the service road. While the City cannot deny a platted lot access, this option would require the petitioner to replace any wetlands. Mr. Hickok stated on July 27 staff received a petition in opposition to this proposed development from the neighborhood west of the subject property with 58 signatures of which 37 households were represented. No reason was identified. They are just opposed to the development. Staff also received three letters in opposition of the request. A public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting on October 17. The petition and letters in opposition were put into the record and also sent to the Sikh Society. Petitioner submitted letters on their own to the neighborhood surrounding the development prior to the Planning Commission meeting to invite the residents to come and speak to them directly about their plans and how their site would be developed. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request 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 fence is not for screening purposes. A neighborhood spokesperson who was present at the meeting earlier asked him to pass along her message in the event she was unable to make it to this late hour. Her name is Marian Billington and she had asked at the Planning Commission for a fence to separate the residential area simply to block cut-through traffic which she anticipated now that the trees would be cleared. There would be a shortcut made possibly from her neighborhood to the Target store and across the site. The Planning Commission agreed with that, and staff has recommended that as an additional stipulation. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the special use permit including the stipulations. Staff recommends Council's approval. Commissioner Saefke stated he noticed on the plans that the property does not extend all the way to Cheri Lane. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 23 Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct. Commissioner Saefke stated so there will still be a buffer of trees between Target and the neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated, yes, on the north end. Target chose to leave that. Actually because of its marshy conditions they left that in its natural state and have no plans that he knows of to do anything with it. Commissioner Saefke stated Mrs. Billington had called him earlier to voice her concern. He asked whether the height of this building would possibly diminish some of the noise coming from the Target area. Mr. Hickok said it might help create kind of a buffer. Councilmember Saefke stated he does notice on the plans that there is a good number of tree plantings and other plantings around the whole facility. Mr. Hickok stated he should point out that the Sikh Society has agreed that a fence would be appropriate and it is agreed they will put in a fence along the western boundary. There is no contention on that issue. Councilmember Barnette stated he was a little concerned when they got the petition because there is no reason why they signed the petition. The City of Fridley is a city with a lot of churches. Every single one of those churches is in a residential area. The entrance of the church will only be on Monroe Street so there is no access or anything else up into the neighborhood. The height of the church as he understands is a story and a hal£ He went over and looked at the property. It looks to him like the people living on Madison would look almost over the roof of the church. The services will be held on the upper level and any other social activities would be in the lower level which he thinks would diminish any noise, etc. It is his understanding and, it has been stated by the Sikh Society, that there is no school. So, there will be no traffic during the week or during the school day. There would be Sunday service like there is in all the other churches in Fridley. He does not know how they could possibly consider denying this request. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the change in elevation was. Mr. Hickok replied, though they have not have survey validation of this, he can tell them that there is about 8 feet of difference between the western property line and the foundation level of houses to the west. The building as represented at the Planning Commission meeting and in the plans is 17-feet tall at its highest point. So if you figure a grade difference of 8 feet, they are looking at a 9-foot building or the equivalent of. Some of the grades are a bit different. You might have a bit higher and a bit lower, depending on where you sit on Madison. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the access agreement with Petco and Target at. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 24 Mr. Hickok replied as he understands it, there was a delay because Petco had not taken over ownership from Target until very recently. The owner now of Petco lives in California, and they have had much communication back and forth between Daljit Sikka representing the Sikh Society and the owner of the property in California. At the time of the Planning Commission, the gentleman from California was hoping to come to Minnesota and look at the site. That has not happened yet, but Mr. Sikka is optimistic from their discussions that he will be able to secure an easement for this purpose. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what would happen if that was not the case. Mr. Hickok stated that is why the discussions about the variance were so important and about access to the south. It would not be ideal but they would need to redesign their site plan to take access from the end of Monroe in some other fashion. Considering that the entrance into the daycare is perpendicular to what serves as Monroe Street, likely what would happen is they would need to come straight down and then take that 90-degree turn out onto Monroe and possibly even share an access point with the daycare. Right now the access is being treated like it is the daycare's own property but the reality is 15 feet were meant to serve the property to the north as well. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they should feel uncomfortable about the site plan possibly changing. Mr. Hickok replied, no, this is included in the language of their recommended approval. If they need to come in from the south as opposed to coming in from the east, they will be responsible for the land replacement on a 1 to 1 ratio. Whether it is on-site or whether they are improving a wetland elsewhere, they would make certain they do not minimize the City's wetlands by taking and putting a driveway through this one. Councilmember Bolkcom asked so they can actually mitigate the wetlands to a different area. Mr. Hickok replied it is not a favorite solution, but they might have a marginal wetland area that could use help. They did do that replacement activity on Noah's Ark which was very similar. Councilmember Bolkcom stated so they feel that if they do not get the Petco easement it will not impact the neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated they will rely heavily on the engineers and Public Works staff to help them. Mayor Lund stated he was concerned about where the Sikh Society would get the tradeoff. Mr. Hickok said a concern staff has talked to petitioner about is that it would really be a poor second solution to come out to the south. What they want to do is come out perpendicular to the flow of traffic as best they can. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 25 Mayor Lund asked if they had to go with the secondary option, it looks like a north-south hinge or probably a curve with some shrubbery in it right? He sees one vehicle pulled up in one of the parking spots there. Is that additional footage that would then get removed? Mr. Hickok stated there is a 15-foot band running north and south that runs parallel with Monroe and just immediately adjacent to it. It would take out that hedge that they are seeing and make that all street. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the fence. Mr. Hickok stated there is a chain link fence to the north separating the neighborhood from Target. If they put a chain link fence to separate them from the neighborhood, it would be the equivalent of what they have required of Target. They could survive with a chain link fence, and he thinks that is probably their best most maintenance-free solution. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the new Target is any closer to the neighborhood. It seemed like some of the comments were there is so much more impact to the neighborhood. There is less parking lot and more green space. Mr. Hickok replied the neighborhood believes that because the grade elevation was raised for about six feet for the new Target, the new hard surface is now rebounding noise higher than when it was six feet lower. Something like that could happen. They are going to do their very best to save every tree that can be saved. Also, one of the things he is always concerned about is when you take trees from a forest that is packed together, the remaining trees can have kind of a peculiar shape and you may not like what you see when they are taken down. They will replace the trees with new ones. There is a minimum tree requirement in our ordinance. Councilmember Saefke stated because of new information on the site itself, they do not need a variance. Mr. Hickok replied they do not need a variance. They do still need a special permit. Mayor Lund stated as he sees the layout and looks at the aerial it looks like virtually all the trees have to go. He asked if the fence was going to be on the lower elevation. Mr. Hickok replied, yes. They will get no height benefit from that fence at all. Mayor Lund stated it does concern him when a number of people have signed a petition, even though it does not say what their specific reason is. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is a nice area. Councilmember Varichak said when you take trees out, what was a nice wooded area, is no longer a nice wooded area. She asked about the scheduled events that happen at this site, are they mostly on Sundays? What kind of traffic is going to happen at this particular site? She FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 26 looked at the parking as well, and asked if any of the lights will shine into the houses that face the site. Mr. Hickok stated he believed 4 to 5 hours total on the weekend except for the pastor who will stay at the facility. During the week it is too small a congregation to have classes there or anything else. The lights will be downcast and shielded. There can be no horizontal glare from this or any new development and there can be no more than 3-foot candles at the property line. Councilmember Varichak asked about car lights for parking. When they pull into the facility, will they be shining in the direction of any of the residents. Mr. Hickok replied that could be a problem, although from what he understands there is really not a lot of evening activity here. The trees will help. If the worse thing that happens is young trees have to be planted. The minimum is a 2-'/z inch caliper tree and the umbrella from that tree will actually probably be at a more preferred eye level when it is first planted to kind of create a screening for the parking lot. As it gets older and grows, you may see more of the parking lot. Councilmember Barnette asked if there was a buildable lot to the north. Mr. Hickok said there is triangular shaped piece that belongs to Target and that was counted as part of their open space. It is really not practical. Mayor Lund asked about all the marked trees and if the City requires that amount of trees on this size facility. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, they do. It is based on the square foot dimension of the building or one tree for every 50 feet of site perimeter, whichever is greatest. They do get credit for leaving an existing tree. So they can eliminate two trees if they have one of significant size. Mayor Lund asked if any of the people who signed the petition were present at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hickok replied, Ms. Billington was the only person who spoke from the neighborhood. They did get a few telephone calls early on in the process. Daljit Sikka, Sikh Society of Minnesota, he did talk to Mr. Miller who just bought the building. His closing was done sometime in October. His conversation with him last Friday was that he was probably going to come over here and look at the site and see what the impact might have and then he said something about them sending pictures to him. He has also spoken to Ms. Stromberg at the City and got the feedback to what he was looking for. His only concern was if they use any of the land he will compensate them for any use. He told them they would be glad to work with them. It did not seem like he was in opposition to it, but he did want to know what they were going to do to the property. Councilmember Bolkcom asked him whether he understands that if this does not work that he will have to do some reworking of this site? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 27 Mr. Sikka replied, correct. Councilmember Bolkcom asked him if he understands the stipulations that are with the special use permit. Mr. Sikka replied the other possibility would be to put a bridge over the wetlands. They have looked at the possibilities but the best way to do it is if they get an easement. They are not looking to build until spring anyway so they have plenty of time to talk to Petco and Target. Councilmember Bolkcom asked him what kind of feedback he received from the neighborhood after sending out the letter to them. Mr. Sikka replied, he did not receive any telephone calls. They did send the letter to everybody on a list provided by the City. Councilmember Saefke asked Mr. Sikka about the congregation growing and if he saw in the possibility of expansion in the future. Mr. Sikka replied when they first built in Fridley they had 40 families and they bought the McDonald's building. Now they probably have 150 families. If it grows, then they will have another church in the south or west. Councilmember Saefke asked so they will start a new congregation somewhere. Mr. Sikka replied, yes. Councilmember Saefke stated he thinks that might be a concern, too, that some day they will want to expand. It is kind of reassuring Mr. Sikka will be keeping his congregation to a workable level. Mr. Sikka replied, they will try their best. Mayor Lund asked if there was any hurry to approve this. He is still a little concerned about the delineation of the wetlands if they have to go that way. He understands the petitioner has enough room to do a driveway if they cannot get the easement. However, if he then had to delineate, he is wondering where they are going to get the tradeoff. Mr. Hickok replied, rest assured for the amount of square feet they will be glad to find a wetland that could use some enhancement. Mayor Lund asked does that have to be in Fridley or can they do it someplace else? Mr. Hickok replied it certainly could be, especially if they go back to the classification of this wetland and the fact it is not DNR protected, they have pretty broad discretion as to how they do that. What is good for the region would be good for us. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 28 Councilmember Saefke pointed out today is the 60-day action. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok regarding Stipulation No. 11 related to Petco, if that easement does come about, should something else go in there? Mr. Hickok replied, he thinks they have adequate protections in there and a commitment on petitioner's part to design a solution. They really have been committed to doing what is good for the environment and what is good for their congregation as well. He thinks they have fair protections in there. Mayor Lund asked if because of the low elevation if there should be a requirement for some enhancements so that the residents are not just looking on top of the building. Mr. Hickok replied for many of the residents, it will be like looking across a one-level building straight across. He hesitates to become involved in the architecture. Jeff McElmury, Architect for Sikh Society, stated the height of the building is somewhere around 22 or 22.5 feet. It is about 10 feet floor to floor from the lower level to the main worship level and then a 3 or 4or foot structure. That is not totally carved in stone because they have not engineered it yet. What his drawing shows is 22.9 grade to the top. Mayor Lund asked what the residents abutting the property would see. Mr. McElmury replied there is a 5-foot setback for parking. They have actually moved that over to the east side of the property 5 feet so they have a 10-foot buffer. Also, to accommodate the wetland on the west side. They tried to leave as many of those trees along there. If they were to plant new trees they should probably use something more of a decorative tree. The trees there now are really large, mature, 50 to 60 foot trees, so they would actually be looking under those. For any new trees in there, it would be better almost to use a decorative tree so it keeps it low and they would stay at that 25-30 foot level. They could also put some evergreens there to give more of a year around screen. Mr. McElmury said they are about 99.9 percent sure that they are going to get the access into the easement. He thinks that once they see it and they have an agreement about repairs that need to be made to that street or who plows it and that they would share in those maintenance and operating costs, he does not see any reason they would object to it. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve Special Use Permit Request, SP #07-09, with the following fourteen 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. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 2007 PAGE 29 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 s 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 Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. Informal Status Reports. Mayor Lund reminded the citizens of the school board elections. Also, a reminder to citizens of a citywide special election on November 20. ADJOURN. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Varichak, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor