PLM 03/17/2021
FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAYMARCH 17, 2021
7:00 P.M.
VIA ZOOM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: David Kondrick, Mike Heintz, Ryan Evanson, Mark Hansen, Terry McClellan,
John Buyse II, and Ross Meisner.
OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager
Dan Tientner, Finance Director/City Treasurer/City Clerk
Cristian Chiesa, with B & D Mathews Investments LLC
Scott Hickok, Community Develop Director
Tom Robb, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation
Laura Westphall, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation
Deb Dahl, Community Services and Employee Resources Director
Alyssa Kruzel, Community Engagement Specialist
Jeff Jensen, Operation Manager of Streets, Parks, and Facilities
APPROVE MINUTES
January 20, 2021
Motion by Commissioner Meisner to approve the minutes. Seconded by Vice Chairperson
Hansen.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Consideration of a Lot split, LS #21-01, by B & D Matthews
th
Investments LLC, for a lot split to subdivide the lot at 351 74 Avenue
into 2 lots.
Motion by Commissioner Heintz to open the public hearing. Seconded by Vice
Chairperson Hansen.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT
7:02 P.M.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 2 of 40
2. Consideration of a Variance, VAR #21-03, by B & D Matthews
Investments LLC, in addition to the Lot Split Request, #21-01, the
petitioner is requesting that a variance be approved to reduce the lot
size of Tract A from 19,000 sq. ft. to 13,500 sq. ft. for the existing
8-unit apartment building.
Motion by Commissioner Meisner to open the public hearing. Seconded by
Commissioner Heintz.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT
7:03 P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, stated Cristian Chiesa, with B & D Mathews
th
Investments LLC, the owner of the property at 351 74Avenue is requesting a lot split to
subdivide the lot to create (2) lots, one for each apartment building.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is also requesting a variance to reduce the lot size
requirement for an 8-unit apartment building from 19,000 square feet to 13,500 square
feet in size.
Ms. Stromberg stated the property is located on the corner of the University Avenue
th
Service Drive and 74 Avenue. When the property was platted in 1961, it was platted as
Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Melody Manor. At that time, the land was zoned R-2, Two-Family
and that zoning district allowed multi-family as a permitted use. In 1962, the 8-unit
building on Lot 9 was constructed and in 1963, the 11-unit building on Lot 10 was
constructed.
Ms. Stromberg stated in 1955, the City Council adopted a zoning ordinance that added
the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district; however, it still allowed multi-family as a permitted
use in the R-2, Two-Family zoning district. When the City adopted a new zoning ordinance
in 1969, it revised the permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district, which stated multi-family
buildings were no longer allowed in the R-2 zoning district. As a result, the subject
properties were considered non-conforming. When a property has a non-conforming
status, the buildings can remain as they are, but no expansions or major renovations can
take place.
Ms. Stromberg stated in 2003 a neighboring multi-family property owner wanted to tear
down their existing garages and build new ones but, because the property was zoned R-
2, Two-Family, it was considered non-conforming. So major renovations were not allowed.
As a result, the entire block between the University Avenue Service Drive and Lyric Lane;
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 3 of 40
thth
and 74 Avenue and 75Avenue were petitioned to be rezoned to R-3, Multi-Family,
which was approved by the Council. The change in zoning would allow the use to be
conforming, and it also allowed the property owners to re-invest in their properties.
Ms. Stromberg stated in 2008 the petitioner purchased the 11-unit building addressed as
th
351 74 Avenue, and in 2011 they purchased the 8-unit building that was addressed as
th
361 74Avenue. The 11-unit building was licensed with the Minnesota Department of
Human Services to operate a Substance Use Disorder Treatment Center operated by
Transformation House. When the 8-unit building was purchased, the State had an issue
approving the license for the same use because the two buildings were located too close
to each other. Staff advised that if the lots are adjacent to each other and are owned by
the same party, they could be combined, but also cautioned that it may be more difficult
to separate them in the future. The petitioner went ahead and combined the lots with
Anoka County in 2011, which is a straightforward process that simply requires a form to
be filled out and filed at the Recorder’s office.
Ms. Stromberg stated from what staff understands, the partner of B & D Mathews
Investments, LLC who filed the paperwork to combine the lots in 2011 recently passed
away, and now the ownership group would like the option to sell one of the buildings. In
order to do that, the lot needed to be subdivided to what it was before the combination
in 2011. Which is the reason for the lot split request.
Ms. Stromberg stated prior to the lots being combined in 2011, each apartment building
existed on its own lot. The petitioner is simply asking to have them subdivided back to
the way they were when they were platted in 1961.
Ms. Stromberg stated when the apartment buildings were constructed in 1962 and 1963,
the properties were zoned R-2, Two-Family, and the 1955 zoning code allowed multi-
family uses by right. That code also required a minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet for
an 8-unit building and 20,500 square feet for an 11-unit building. Track A is only 13,500
square feet in size, which did not meet the minimum requirements established in the 1955
code. However, the building permit issued for the Tract A property, which was addressed
th
as 361 74 Avenue specifically states that it was for the construction of an 8-unit apartment
building. It is unclear to current City staff why the staff in 1962 would have been allowed
that size of building to be constructed when it did not meet the code requirements. It
leaves current staff and the City in a difficult situation of allowing a use that was permitted
through the issuance of a building permit in 1962 and did not meet code requirements to
continue to be used in the same manner. To legally recognize the non-conformity, staff
advised the petitioner to apply for a variance.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 4 of 40
Ms. Stromberg stated the current R-3, Multi-Family code requires 19,000 square feet for
an 8-unit building and 22,000 square feet for an 11-unit building, which is stricter than the
1955 code. Tract B is 23,855 square feet in size, so it meets the code requirements. Track
A is the parcel that requires the variance to recognize the lot size of 13,500 square feet.
We are using the current standards to request the variance from 19,000 square feet to
th
13,500 square feet for the Tract A (361 74 Avenue) parcel.
Ms. Stromberg stated variances may be granted if practical difficulties exist on the
property. Practical difficulties are met based on the following findings of fact:
Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance?
o When the property was developed in 1962, multi-family uses were a
permitted use on the subject property and the surrounding parcels.
Allowing multi-family uses is the intent of the ordinance, which is what is
occupied on-site, therefore meeting the intent.
Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
o The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guide this property for multi-family: so
consistent with the Plan.
Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
o The property will continue to be used as it has been since the 1962 and is
considered a reasonable use.
Are there unique circumstances to the property, not created by the landowner?
o Unique circumstances do exist on the property; an 8-unit building was
permitted to be constructed on the property, despite not meeting the
minimum lot size requirements in 1962. That circumstance was created
prior to the petitioner owning the property. There have been little to no
complaints or code violations on this property, so the property will
continue to function as it has for the last 59 years. All other code
requirements can be met, except for lot size.
o This circumstance is also unique because staff today would never
recommend granting a variance to lot size. Granting a variance to lot size
is essentially created a new minimum in a zoning district. This situation is
unique because it is pre-existing and staff would not it to be precedence
setting for new developments.
Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
o Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood and
it will allow the City to place stipulations on the variance to help mitigate
any negative impacts to the neighborhood.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this lot split request and of the
variance request with the following stipulations as practical difficulties exist – pre-existing
condition and permitted in 1962:
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 5 of 40
1. The petitioner and any future property owner shall monitor and maintain on-site
parking. There shall be no off-street parking by residents.
2. The petitioner and any future property owner shall comply with all code
requirements related to solid waste disposal and recycling collection.
Commissioner McClellan asked how does the City avoid creating this precedence that
they do not want to create for the next request that comes across staff’s desk?
Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a good question and is something staff went back and
forth about. Because it is a pre-existing condition and has functioned in the way that it is
going to continue to function for close to 60 years, staff felt like it would be appropriate
to approve the variance but keeping in mind that if somebody were to come in and
develop more 8-plexes they would need to meet the minimum standards. It is not
something staff is going to recommend approving again.
Commissioner McClellan stated he can just see the next petitioner playing that card.
Fundamentally it is a good idea. He just does not know what exposure the City might have
once it is granted. The other question is what if there is a fire, and that 8-unit has to be
either restored or reclaimed, would the City then end up with what would be a 6-unit the
next go around or do they have this variance for perpetuity?
Ms. Stromberg replied, they would be able to rebuild it as an 8-unit if this variance is
approved. She will say that if they had a lot of vacant land she would be concerned about
granting this variance to allow other 8-unit buildings on land that is smaller than what cod
allows. Sure, it could definitely happen where somebody could see the City is doing
something like this and ask the question; however, she does not see it as being a problem
for the City.
Commissioner Evanson asked Ms. Stromberg to briefly explain the rationale behind
having a certain lot size based on the number of units in the building. What purpose does
that serve?
Ms. Stromberg replied, it serves several different things. We want to make sure there is
enough land area for parking, greenspace, and stormwater. As they can see, these
buildings in this neighborhood were constructed prior to stormwater regulations so none
of them have any real stormwater mitigation.
Vice Chairperson Hansen asked Ms. Stromberg if there are any scenarios staff can think
of along 47or 65 that might be similar to this? Where somebody kind of went through a
lot combination and may in the future consider a lot split?
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 6 of 40
Ms. Stromberg replied she really cannot. There are other properties out there that are
zoned R-2 that have multi-family structures on them, and they have talked to the Council
about that because they wanted to get those rezoned, so they are no longer non-
conforming. It is pretty rare that a lot gets combined in a situation like this where there
are two apartment buildings that were separated by a property line and then all of a
sudden got combined because of same ownership. It is not something they would advise
in the future.
Commissioner Meisner stated the two buildings are technically on one lot now. Are they
conforming?
Ms. Stromberg replied, yes.
Commissioner Meisner stated if they do not allow the variance, does that prevent the
ability to split the lot?
Ms. Stromberg replied, approving the variance will make the use of the 8-unit building
conforming. They can still subdivide the lot, without the variance, the 8-unit building will
then just be considered non-conforming.
Commissioner Meisner stated if they split the lot but do not do the variance, then it is a
non-conforming.
Ms. Stromberg replied, yes.
Commissioner Meisner asked whether the parking on the 8-unit lot is sufficient now for
the 8 units?
Ms. Stromberg replied, from what she understands, based on this user, they do not have
a lot of parking needs. Potentially if they were to sell it, she could see that they may have
some parking issues. That is why they put the stipulation on the variance. Residents need
to park on site. It is expected that there may be guests parking on the street here and
there. However, they should make sure there is adequate room in the parking lot for their
tenants.
Commissioner Meisner stated these are currently being run as a single group of homes
for the service they provide. By splitting that are they going to sell the second lot
presumably so then this lot cannot be used for that same kind of purpose?
Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a good question for the petitioner.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 7 of 40
Cristian Chiesa, with B & D Mathews Investments LLC, to answer the question if the lot is
going to be split, they can continue to operate what they are operating right now.
Commissioner Meisner asked even though when they first bought the second lot, they
were not allowed to operate the two homes together?
Mr. Chiesa replied, his mother-in-law who recently passed is the person who bought the
two properties. When she bought the second one, the first one was already licensed with
the Department of Human Services. The application to put the two lots together has been
done to make the licensing for the second building faster. He believed that with a longer
process, also the second building could have been licensed at the time; but now she is not
here anymore to answer the question. His belief is that she did so to have the licensing
go faster with the Department of Human Services.
Commissioner Evanson stated so it seems like Mr. Chiesa is not concerned that licensing
would be revoked as a result of splitting the lot.
Mr. Chiesa replied, not at all.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Chiesa, they have a couple of stipulations, and does he
understand them and in agreement with them?
Mr. Chiesa replied, yes, they are. Ms. Stromberg submitted them to him earlier, and he
repeats now they are completely fine with the stipulations the City is proposing.
Commissioner Heintz asked Ms. Stromberg, if they do not grant the variance, will that
affect any sale or anything in the future?
Ms. Stromberg replied, potentially. She guessed it depended upon the lender and if they
were going to request zoning information.
Commissioner Heintz asked whether they were going to affect the petitioner’s potential
sale of the building?
Ms. Stromberg replied, it could potentially be an issue, which is why he is asking for the
variance.
Mr. Chiesa stated at this point he would like to say, if they do not approve the variance,
to not allow the lot split, because they do not want to have problems in the future selling
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 8 of 40
the property that does not conform. If they decide the variance is not going to be granted,
then he asked Ms. Stromberg if he could request leaving things the way they are?
Ms. Stromberg asked Mr. Chiesa, meaning he would not want the lot split approved
either?
Mr. Chiesa replied, correct. Because he does not want to have problems in the future in
case they want to sell that building.
Ms. Stromberg stated she will note the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the
City Council so they will make a recommendation to the City Council. She is not sure which
way the Commission is going at this point but, if they are going to recommend denial of
the variance, then the request will go to the Council, at that point you can decide if you
want to withdraw completely.
Commissioner McClellan asked whether the land has value in the future that might be
greater than what exists now? Meaning could that corner be redeveloped into a bigger,
broader, grander something or other. Or is it likely to stay pretty much the same for a
while?
Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a good question. It would take a developer or a property
owner who is interested in demolishing the existing structures to build new.
Commissioner McClellan stated they have seen it done before, not necessarily with the
same set of circumstances.
Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. It is hard to predict however, it is not in one of the City’s
redevelopment areas, and there is a new condo building to the north.
Scott Hickok, Community Develop Director, stated he would say the likelihood is not
great. Presuming what Commissioner McClellan is thinking, that is, with the HRA and what
has been before the Commission before from time to time is when the City is purchasing
properties, it is consolidating parcels. Doing this in an effort to gain more land area to do
a more aggressive project that provides more density and value in the housing area. In
this situation, there are independent owners with units that are well taken care of and full
in terms of their occupancy on a regular basis. The likelihood is not great when a building
is cash flowing well for their owners and the buildings are providing housing, possibly an
affordable housing opportunity in the City.
Mr. Hickok stated as to Commissioner’s Heintz’s point earlier, and he thinks it was well
answered, but there is one other piece he would like to add and that is he hears
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 9 of 40
Commissioner Heintz’s concern that not only will it be disclosed but could it be a problem
for sale in the future. It does take it back to what it was before, and the property is asking
for a variance which now helps in the sale situation. Someone in Ms. Stromberg’s office
will inevitably be getting a request for a zoning letter if and when this goes up for sale. In
that zoning letter it will say that a variance was granted to recognize the lot size as it exists
relative to an 8-unit building. By granting this, the Commission is helping that situation.
The concern they have is what about a problem in the future where it points back to it
being smaller. It does identify the fact that it is smaller but also identifies the fact that a
variance was granted to allow it by the City.
Commissioner Buyse stated it looks like Councilmember Eggert asked a question as part
of the Q&A section. He was asking if there are two separate ownerships, if the split
th
happens, are there any requirements or concerns for access to 74? In looking at the
pictures, it is kind of hard to tell but it looks like there is a driveway that goes along the
west side of the 8-plex. He asked if he was seeing that correctly?
Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, that is correct. They each have their own driveway and
th
parking area and access to 74 Avenue.
Commissioner Meisner stated given they are trying to squeeze a larger unit building into
a smaller property or enable that to be okay, he can see the 8 parking spots in the parking
lot. He asked whether these are all single units? Are these two-bedrooms, three-
bedrooms?
Mr. Chiesa replied one of the units have been modified for the purpose of the operation
that is going on in the building. They have one 1-bedroom apartment and six 2-bedroom
apartments, and then one unit has been opened to use as a dining area, kitchen, and so
forth.
Commissioner Meisner stated currently there are seven active units and six of them are
two bedroom.
Mr. Chiesa replied, correct.
Ms. Stromberg asked Mr. Chiesa what is the driving situation for the tenants who occupy
the building?
Mr. Chiesa replied their clients cannot bring cars. Only staff are driving into the parking
lots.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 10 of 40
Commissioner Meisner stated which is great but if this property is split and sold, then
the presumption would be they have authorized an 8-unit building with at least six 2-
bedroom units on this property that could be used as normal, a regular rental property,
right?
Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. Keep in mind that is how it functioned for 50 years before
this group purchased the property and started using it as they are.
Commissioner Buyse asked and how long have they been used in this current manner?
Obviously not everyone had cars a long time ago.
Ms. Stromberg replied, she believed ten years. She asked Mr. Chiesa to confirm.
Mr. Chiesa replied, the property has been used as a substance use disorder treatment
since the purchase. Since 2008, 2011, something like that.
Commissioner Heintz stated as part of the stipulations they have to keep the parking
within the property so if anything would change, that could affect the variance and use.
Ms. Stromberg replied, yes.
Commissioner Meisner asked how does the City enforce that? That would seem to be
difficult to enforce or monitor if this were to be a market rate apartment, and there are
two adults and some kids living in a bunch of units with two cars, how would the City
monitor that?
Ms. Stromberg replied, at the time this property was developed, the Code would have
required one stall per unit. Obviously, things have changed since then. The City has a lot
of old apartment buildings that do not meet the current minimum parking standards. They
would need to work with them and let them know they are only allowed one parking stall
per unit and, if they have more, they are going to have to find a different place to park
them because the City has that ban in the wintertime that does not allow you to even park
on the street. Hence the reason for the stipulations on the variance.
Commissioner Buyse stated he always likes to be a planner, thinking ahead. Are there
currently enough parking spots in the parking lot for that to be feasible, to even be an
option. Currently there are six parking stops or eight?
Ms. Stromberg replied, she would have to pull up the site plan.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 11 of 40
Commissioner Meisner stated he is looking at the site plan, and he sees eight parking
spots in the back. They seem rather narrow and squeezed in there, but there are eight.
Ms. Stromberg replied, she counts eight as well.
Commissioner Heintz stated they dealt with this on the property over off of Main Street
where they made sure they only had enough parking spots for one per each new
apartment, and that was part of the request they did over there. They could only have one
car.
Ms. Stromberg replied, yes.
Mr. Hickok stated he sees this, one, as a good series of questions and discussion they are
having and, two, as probably a bigger factor to a future buyer than the lot size itself. As
he mentioned the variance will recognize the lot size. It does take it back to a pre-
condition and, as Ms. Stromberg mentioned, it is very much like apartments Fridley has
throughout the City of this vintage that had a one-income household and one vehicle.
The thing they have really seen as a trend that has changed is that households are going
back, for one, to having transit opportunities, and less vehicles. Statistically if they are
along routes where they can take advantage of that.
Mr. Hickok stated also, it comes down to management. After all there is a stipulation that
also comes along with this that would become filed against the property and becomes a
management issue. As you are renting out units, if you can see you are renting out a two
bedroom with a family of three with one adult child and all three members of the
household have vehicles, there is a decision to be made about renting that unit to
somebody with three vehicles when there is only one stall per unit available to folks. It
really does become a management issue there, and the City expects that at some point,
to answer the question about the enforcement, they may have to deal with management
and say, look, you have eight stalls at your site and beyond that, parking on the street is
not accepted.
Commissioner Evanson stated the type of property they are talking about is not unique
here in Fridley. They probably have a decent amount of inventory that fits this profile.
Maybe Mr. Hickok could clarify do they see a lot of issues with landlords not adhering to
the Code, having parking issues with cars on the street where there should not be, or do
they generally find that Fridley landlords are managing their tenants and landlords in such
a way where these would not be concerns?
Mr. Hickok replied, some of those that pre-date the requirements and do not manage
them well, do have parking problems. There is no question about it. That is why the
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 12 of 40
stipulation here was so important is that this owner and the future owner needs to know
they are being regulated in a way that takes them beyond what this building was at the
time it was built. If they were parking on the street, and they have now two cars per
household and all of the units filled, now they have a stipulation, a reason to say, this is
not proper. Not just snow parking regulations, but you have a stipulation on a land use
approval here that says you cannot park on the street.
Commissioner Meisner asked how common is this situation? Are they exacerbating a
problem? They have a lot of old properties and they do not meet with current codes, etc.
Should they slow down the train on this kind of thing. He knows having a variance lets
the City enforce the parking on an otherwise currently non-conforming property, but are
they exacerbating a problem that is kind of widespread in Fridley or not too bad?
Ms. Stromberg replied, she does not see it as being an issue. They have not received any
complaints really related to this one although, like the petitioner said, the clients do not
drive. However, they do have a lot of other apartment buildings in this vintage and,
generally, they are not getting complaints or having issues with the landlords or the
apartment with people parking on the street. She does not think they are creating a
problem here.
Mr. Hickok stated their snow condition regulation here really changed circumstances for
buildings like this where management, whether they were going to do it on their own or
whether the snow conditions caused it, really have them talking about street parking.
Since then they have found that even though those units that were not designed to have
two cars per unit, and they do not have space to expand their parking to two cars per unit,
they are either not renting them or they are figuring out a way to occupy those units and
still meet the parking demands. That is not to say, in the Charles Anna neighborhood,
some of those parking lots are overflowing sometimes. Those are different managers for
each of the units and probably not a consistent theme as to how they are managing each
of those units.
Mr. Hickok stated it is not impossible to think there are problems out there. There are.
However, on units like this when they add a stipulation and they know it is a transit route,
it has good transportation opportunities here, that combination has caused them to say,
it was not a problem in the first 40-50 years they are talking about. They are looking at
taking it back to the exact condition it was then. Now there is more opportunity for the
transit, the biking, the trails, and all of that the City has created. Also, they have an owner
who knows they are stepping into this condition. He does not fear it, he does not think
Ms. Stromberg fears it, or they would not be seeing a staff recommendation for approval.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 13 of 40
Motion by Commissioner McClellan to close the public hearing. Seconded by Vice
Chairperson Hansen.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:47
P.M.
MOTION by Commissioner Heintz approving a Lot split, LS #21-01, by B&D Matthews
th
Investments LLC, for a lot split to subdivide the lot at 351 74 Avenue into 2 lots.
Seconded by Commissioner Buyse.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Commissioner Heintz approving Variance, VAR #21-03, by B&D Matthews
Investments LLC, in addition to the Lot Split Request, #21-01, the petitioner is requesting
that a variance be approved to reduce the lot size of Tract A from 19,000 sq. ft. to 13,500
sq. ft. for the existing 8-unit apartment building with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner and any future property owner shall monitor and maintain on-site
parking. There shall be no off-street parking by residents.
2. The petitioner and any future property owner shall comply with all code
requirements related to solid waste disposal and recycling collection.
Seconded by Commissioner Evanson.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3. Consideration of a Text Amendment #21-02, by Happy Tails Rescue
Foundation, to add new code language that would allow an Animal
Rescue Facility in the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district by a special
use permit, generally located at 7331 Baker Street NE.
Motion by Vice Chairperson Hansen to open the public hearing. Seconded by
Commissioner Buyse.
4. Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #21-02, by Happy Tails
Rescue Foundation, if new language allowing an Animal Rescue
Facility is added to the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district section of
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 14 of 40
code, the petitioner is seeking a special use permit to allow a pet
rescue center at the property located at 7331 Baker Street NE.
Motion by Vice Chairperson Hansen to open the public hearing. Seconded by
Commissioner Buyse.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT
7:49 P.M.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Laura Westphall, who is the Director of Happy Tails
Rescue Foundation (HTR) is requesting a text amendment to add the language “Animal
Rescue Facility” as a special use in the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district.
Ms. Stromberg stated if the text amendment is approved, the petitioner is also seeking a
special use permit to allow a “animal rescue facility”, which will be located at 7331 Baker
Street.
rd
Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located on Baker Street, just north of 73
Avenue. It is zoned M-1, Light Industrial as are the properties to the north and south. The
properties across Baker Street are zoned R-2, Two Family Units and the properties to the
east are zoned R-4, Manufactured Homes. The property was developed in 1962, with the
construction of an industrial building. In 1972, an addition was constructed and in 1984,
a special use permit was issued to allow outdoor storage.
Ms. Stromberg stated according to the petitioner’s narrative, Happy Tails Rescue
Foundation mission is to support animals in need. They focus on rescuing homeless and
abandoned animals from high kill shelters and Indian Reservations. Animals typically arrive
a few times a week. Once they arrive, they review their paperwork, add them to their
system, get their basic vetting up to date and coordinate with foster homes to have them
picked up for temporary care. Most dogs head to their foster homes within hours of arrival,
while the cats and small animals (bunnies, ferrets, guinea pigs, and birds) are kept on-site.
They also have an Emotional Support Animal Program for Veterans, called Cody’s Heroes.
This program allows military veterans to work with a trainer for 12 weeks and then they
provide an animal to the veteran at no cost. This program is headed by a Purple Heart
Veteran and is designed to support military veterans’ emotional needs, all while helping
their rescue dogs find a new, loving home.
Ms. Stromberg stated Ms. Westphall notes that they are a unique animal rescue as they
have a veterinary suite with a veterinarian on staff who cares for the medical needs of their
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 15 of 40
animals. They also provide training classes for their fosters, volunteers, and staff members
and to the general public on occasion.
Ms. Stromberg stated the 13,500 square foot building will be used for their office space,
which includes the veterinary suite, adoption center space, training space and boarding
and storage space. They also plan to fence in an outdoor play area for the dogs on the
grassy area south of the existing building, as shown in the cross-hatched area on the site
plan labeled as “animal pickup and drop-off area.”
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner currently operates their business from 7940
University Avenue, which is a multi-tenant building. They have been in this location since
2005 and have seen significant growth, which is the reason that they were looking for a
larger building and a property they could own.
Ms. Stromberg stated their business does not involve dog daycare or boarding for the
general public. The property and building will be used specifically for the petitioner’s
rescue business needs.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting a text amendment to add language to
the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district, which would allow a “501c3, non-profit, Animal
Rescue Facility” by a special use permit. The City code currently allows this use in our C-
2, General Business and C-3, General Shopping zoning districts, with a special use permit.
The C-2 and C-3 code doesn’t specify an Animal Rescue Facility, but generally fits into the
permitted uses of veterinary clinics, animal hospital, public kennels, and obedience school
and training services.
Ms. Stromberg stated the Future Land Use Map in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan
guides the subject property as industrial. Industrial uses typically involve wholesaling,
warehousing, manufacturing and/or production. While the proposed use is not as
intensive as many industrial uses in this zoning district, the proposed use would fit and not
have any adverse effects within an industrial district.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is seeking to locate the proposed business at 7331
Baker Street, which is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. Of particular importance when
considering a text amendment is determining if the proposed use would be consistent
with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it would become allowable, and
whether or not the proposed use would be compatible with other permitted or special
uses allowed within the district.
Ms. Stromberg stated the animal rescue facility use the petitioner is proposing would be
consistent with the purpose and intent of the M-1 zoning district, provided specific
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 16 of 40
concerns related to the use are addressed. The petitioner and staff have drafted an
ordinance that would allow a “501c3, non-profit, Animal Rescue Facility” contingent upon
approval of a special use permit provided the following conditions are met:
a) Animal Rescue’s shall be inspected and licensed by the Minnesota Board of
Animal Health on an annual basis.
b) An eight-foot solid fence must be constructed to enclose outdoor play area for
the safety of the animals and the general public.
c) All animals are kept inside overnight for the safety of the animals and the
general public.
d) Animal waste is picked up and properly disposed of daily for the safety of the
animals and the general public.
e) Animal Rescue use shall comply with and meet all code requirements for noise,
odor, and manure removal.
Ms. Stromberg stated staff has determined that if the above-mentioned conditions can
be met, the proposed use would meet the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan
and zoning ordinance, as it would not create any adverse effects beyond what a typically
industry may impose.
Ms. Stromberg stated contingent upon the approval of the text amendment to allow a
“501c3, non-profit, Animal Rescue Facility”” as a special use in the M-1, Light Industrial
zoning district; the petitioner is also seeking a special use permit to allow this use to be
located at 7331 Baker Street.
Ms. Stromberg stated the existing property is 65,340 square feet (1.5 acres) in size and
the existing building is approximately 13,500 square feet. The petitioner plans to renovate
the interior space to better meet their needs. They also plan to paint the exterior of the
building and update the landscaping. The current drive aisle and parking areas will be
sufficient for their operational needs. Sundays are their adoption days and will be the day
that sees the most traffic, an average of 25-30 people coming in search of a pet. There is
sufficient parking available for a weekly event. Staff will require the petitioner to stripe the
parking lot to clearly designate the parking stall locations. Training will take place between
6:00-7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturdays. They are also proposing to install
an 8-foot vinyl fence in the grass area south of the building. Installing the fence will help
manage noise while the dogs are outside.
Ms. Stromberg stated as part of the approval of the special use permit, the petitioner
needs to meet the conditions set forth in the proposed ordinance language above. Those
items will be reviewed through the building permit process and will be reviewed and
inspected by staff, and is something staff will be need to check in with them on annually.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 17 of 40
Ms. Stromberg stated City staff has heard from the neighboring property owner to the
south. They had general questions about the use, but no concerns after talking to staff.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this text amendment request
and the special use permit request, subject to stipulations.
Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the
following stipulations be attached:
1. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to interior modifications and
fencing.
2. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new signage.
3. The ventilation system needs to be designed so that no odors will spread to the
outside air.
4. The exterior of the existing building shall be re-painted within one year of issuance
of this special use permit.
Commissioner Evanson asked is it actually is the code what time animals are allowed to
be outside? He is just thinking about whether there are barking animals. They do not
want them outside too early in the morning or late in the evening barking.
Ms. Stromberg replied, she did not recall if they specified in their narrative the times of
days they typically take the animals outside but that definitely is something they can look
at. There is the stipulate they meet the noise ordinance. Fridley’s noise ordinance does
address barking dogs so they would be covered there, but they can certainly ask the
petitioner if they have a specific routine they typically use because they are surrounded by
residential.
Commissioner Heintz asked when people are dropping off or picking up pets, is there a
leash requirement or kennel type carrying requirement at all?
Ms. Stromberg replied she is going to make the assumption there is, but she will have
the petitioner answer that question as well.
Commissioner Heintz asked whether they should put that as part of the stipulation that
all animals being dropped off or taken out of the facility be on a leash and/or in their
kennel type of situation, whether be a bunny in a cage or whatever. They do not want an
animal getting loose and running away.
Ms. Stromberg replied if the Commission feels that is a worthy stipulation they can
certainly add it.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 18 of 40
Commissioner Meisner stated there is language to be added to the text amendment to
the light industrial zoning. Why not just use the language that is in the C-2 or C-3 language
that allows veterinarians and things like this if that would work for this. It seems they are
creating a very narrow case in the M-1 Light Industrial. He asked if there was a reason
they do not want to just use the same language in the C-2 or C-3?
Chairperson Kondrick replied it is because it is in the M-1 Light Industrial area that they
have to make it different to satisfy the necessary things they have to have in an M-1 district
with some modification.
Ms. Stromberg replied, correct and she would add that she did not know if they want to
see retail, pet sales, in their industrial districts that is why this specific use is being
considered. The existing Code related to animal use businesses is pretty outdated. They
are going to be doing a major overhaul of the City’s entire City Code including the Zoning
Code, so she would not want to copy the existing language. She would want to adopt
language that is more applicable to today.
Commissioner Buyse stated the ventilation system, as far as stipulations go, do they need
to be more specific with regards to no odors will spread to the outside air, like which odors
they are referencing? Because that could be taken many different ways.
Ms. Stromberg replied, that actually does come directly from the existing Code language.
She knows that the City’s Building Official works with the City’s new businesses in making
sure they have the correct ventilation system for their use. Generally, it’s known what odor
is being implied.
Commissioner Buyse stated as to the stipulations regarding the painting the exterior of
the building. He admittedly has never been to that part of town but based on Google
images it looks like there are actually two different buildings of two different heights. The
front portion, where he is guessing the offices would be, it looks like it’s all brick right now.
Are they going to have to repaint that? He is guessing it would be the east,
southeasternmost portion of the building, because it looks like it has been painted in the
past.
Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, correct. The southeast side is in really bad shape as the
petitioner is well aware of. They would not requiring them to paint the brick if it is in good
condition.
Chairperson Kondrick stated there is nothing wrong with the brick. It is the back of the
building that needs paint and renovation bad.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 19 of 40
Commissioner Buyse asked whether they need to get more granular with the stipulations
so there is no misunderstanding, or they have the ability to enforce later. Do they need to
have more detail?
Vice Chairperson Hansen stated Commissioner Heintz’s point about the leash
requirement and the potential stipulation there is a good one to contemplate, but he just
wanted to verify do they not already have a leash-type of ordinance requirement already?
He would also like to hear from the petitioner and how their method of conveyance of the
animals will flow before they make that an actual stipulation.
Commissioner McClellan stated being a 501C, non-profit, what bearing does that have
on the property tax information. He asked how those types of properties are handled?
Ms. Stromberg replied, she would make the assumption that because they are non-profit
they will not pay property taxes.
Commissioner McClellan stated so they would take a piece of property that might
generate, from his experience, would be about $10,000-20,000 of property tax and that
would take it to zero.
Ms. Stromberg replied, correct, that is how she understands that. Unless the petitioner
can tell her something else.
Tom Robb, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, stated he is the president of the foundation.
Yes, his understanding is a non-profit does not pay property tax. The second point is
painting. They plan on painting the building. It is in very rough shape. It is clearly
understood and they would do that whether it was a stipulation or not. That is clearly not
the image they want to project to the public. They want to enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Robb stated as to the leash law, the dogs are very well controlled when they are
outside. They have been in Fridley for five years, and he does not believe there has been
any complaints or any issues with the operation. He likes the location very much and it
works well for them. They looked very hard for properties within the City of Fridley. They
found one and hopefully will be able to expand their operation into that.
Commissioner Evanson asked Mr. Robb if they will be retaining ownership of the building
they currently own in Fridley?
Mr. Robb replied, it is a leased building. They have two locations in basically a shopping
mall.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 20 of 40
Chairperson Kondrick asked when customers come in and they want to drop off an
animal or if they want to leave with one, how do they handle that?
Laura Westphall, Happy Tails Rescue Foundation, replied most of the animals are with
them because they are stray animals so they, and she is assuming Fridley has a leash law,
are very strict on that with the animals. If you adopt an animal, you have to have a leash
or buy a leash. All animals do have to be in a carrier if they are not on a leash. You cannot
walk through the parking lot with a cat, and say a car beeps its horn, it is going to scratch
you and run away. The leashes are no issue at all. It is complete expectation that any
animal having to do with Happy Tails has to be controlled by the person with a leash or a
crate.
Ms. Westphall stated as to the barking thing, in that fenced area would be daytime hours.
She is guessing Fridley also has a noise ordinance that covers hours, from whatever time
in the morning to whatever time at night. They do sometimes get in late at night, but this
building does have a drive-in garage door so when animals come in, they will unload them
inside. They bring them out to potty one at a time on a leash so there are no dogs barking
outside.
Commissioner Heintz stated he appreciates them being on top of the situation with
animals possibly being frightened and running off.
Motion by Commissioner Meisner to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Commissioner Evanson.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:21
P.M.
MOTION by Commissioner Evanson Approving a Text Amendment #21-02, by Happy Tails
Rescue Foundation, to add new code language that would allow an Animal Rescue Facility
in the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district by a special use permit, generally located at 7331
Baker Street NE. Seconded by Commissioner Meisner.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK, VICE CHAIRPERSON
HANSEN, COMMISSIONER EVANSON, COMMISSIONER HEINTZ, COMMISSIONER
MEISNER, AND COMMISSIONER BUYSE ALL VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER
MCCLELLAN ABSTAINING, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 21 of 40
MOTION by Commissioner Heintz Approving a Special Use Permit, SP #21-02, by Happy
Tails Rescue Foundation, if new language allowing an Animal Rescue Facility is added to
the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district section of code, the petitioner is seeking a special
use permit to allow a pet rescue center at the property located at 7331 Baker Street NE
with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to interior modifications
and fencing.
2. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any new
signage.
3. The ventilation system needs to be designed so that no odors will spread to
the outside air.
4. The exterior of the existing building shall be re-painted within one year of
issuance of this special use permit.
Seconded by Commissioner Buyse.
Commissioner Buyse asked Ms. Stromberg if they confirmed they need to make the
stipulations more detailed or are they okay with them the way they are?
Ms. Stromberg stated that is something the Commissioner should advise her on, if they
feel they need to be amended.
Commissioner Buyse asked the other members what they think about changing the
stipulation on the painting to just what is currently painted and just refreshing it?
Commissioner Evanson said it is probably unnecessary. It seems to be understood by all
parties. His thought is they do not need to overly complicate it.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he drove by there and it needs paint bad. They want to
make it look nice for the neighbors.
Ms. Westphal replied, they agree.
Chairperson Kondrick stated to the petitioners, they do not have any reservations on the
stipulations?
Mr. Robb replied, correct.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK, VICE CHAIRPERSON
HANSEN, COMMISSIONER HEINTZ, COMMISSIONER MEISNER, AND
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 22 of 40
COMMISSIONER BUYSE ALL VOTING AYE, AND COMMISSIONER MCCLELLAN
ABSTAINING, COMMISSIONER EVANSON NOW BEING ABSENT, CHAIRPERSON
KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM OTHER COMMISSIONS – THROUGH ONE MOTION:
Motion to accept the minutes from the following Commission meetings:
1. January 7, 2021, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Commission
2. January 12, 2021, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission
3. January 5, 2021, Parks & Recreation Commission
4. February 1, 2021, Parks & Recreation Commission
Motion by Vice Chairperson Hansen to accept the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner
Buyse.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Parks Master Plan Presentation
Deb Dahl, Community Services and Employee Resources Director, stated they have a fair
amount to cover tonight and hopefully the Commission does not have to make any
decisions; but they would love to have the Commission’s feedback and wanted to get in
front of them the city’s Parks Master Plan process they are planning and now have
launched into the community. They want to give the Planning Commission the
opportunity to be part of second commission on board. It is certainly out in the public at
this stage, but there is more in-depth information they would benefit from. Staff would
appreciate any feedback or support the Commission has.
Ms. Dahl stated they talked about a Parks Master Plan and they really kind of sat down
and thought this sounds kind of technical and truly they want people to really find fun in
Fridley. This is a fun topic for a lot of folks. It is more than just projects. It is really about
finding people’s recreation and their needs through the entire City. They are excited to
bring this to the Commission. They have a lot of information about systems in general,
but they also have some more detailed information for them.
Ms. Dahl stated just to review the City’s parks history a little bit and the reason for the
plan, their process to date, and their concept design. It is always about the money, how
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 23 of 40
are we going to pay for this thing, so they are going to touch on that and then also share
with them a little bit about their communications and engagements so far.
Ms. Dahl stated they are intimately very familiar with this building and certainly take great
pride in all of the things the Planning Commission has done for the City. For that they
have led so much development in the City and helped them really redefine the City and
transform it from the housing and business retail development to the Civic Campus,
MnDOT project, as well as Springbrook Nature Center, and the Northstar rail site. There
are dozens and dozens of these projects each year, and she is going to touch on just a few
of them. They have had a lot of great press in the media and in the social media as well.
Their next big wave and next big process here is the Parks Master Plan or parks system
remodel.
Ms. Dahl stated the parks system, in terms of a formal parks system, was established more
than 50 years ago. There has been a very strong commitment from the leadership in the
City and the community through parks and trails and the environment in general. They
are proud of that. It is something that, for a City of Fridley’s size, it has a very large park
system. Fridley has 38 city parks and 5 community or county parks with 7 of the school
properties they have which also offer recreation amenities they will share and collaborate
with.
Ms. Dahl stated they have different park service areas over the years to address. There
are 15 miles of sidewalks and 12.5 miles of trails, 6.8 miles of paths, and 10.4 miles of
county trails. For a small town they really have a lot of opportunity and are really proud
of the open space Fridley has and the trails it has.
Ms. Dahl stated we all inherently know that parks bring great value to a city. There is an
organization out there that deals with urban parks, they have been able to quantify some
numbers which is important, but what does it really bring in terms of dollar or economic
value to the City. They were able to find some statistics that show houses that live near
parks and trails typically would create a 5 to 20 percent increase in the property values.
They hear a lot of feedback from the community that they really appreciate the value of
the park across the street or being able to look out and see park land.
Ms. Dahl stated they know that it increases revenue for the City overall, and they know
that it helps the City’s environment with water, air, trees, open spaces, and other things
they enjoy. They inherently know that to be true. They have also seen what parks can do
for a city, with actually attracting more businesses and residents. When people go through
a community, the parks set a tone and set an image for folks who are planning to move
here.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 24 of 40
Ms. Dahl stated ultimately, as they have seen with COVID this last year, people have been
outside and using the park system more and more; and the parks have been very well
used. The one thing people are truly appreciative of is being outside. They have been
able to identify their savings to health and wellness for an individual, about $1,500 per
year in health costs if you are outdoors and using Fridley’s parks system.
Ms. Dahl stated in 2015 there was kind of a call to action they would call that, particularly
in the Moore Lake area and the project there. There was a real strong interest from a
number of people including the Parks Commission, who wanted to see some plans and
redevelopment in there. They did a survey and they talked to residents, and the residents
in that survey commented about not just Moore Lake but also broader needs in the
community were some of the amenities that were valued and desired. That kind of got
people thinking, and the Council at the time said, well, if the cost for that project is about
$4.5 million, what would that do for the rest of the park system. Where would the monies
be prioritized if they put it all in one basket.
Ms. Dahl stated the Council tapped the brakes a little bit and said, let’s think about this
and talk about it. In 2018 they were charged as a staff to really kind of help prioritize parks
and increase their awareness about them, but also help them understand where some of
the priorities need to be from the community. They launched “Finding for Fun” which is
the Parks Master Plan which they launched in 2019. A number of the Commission
members have participated in the workshops they held and provided some feedback as
well as through some of the surveys.
Ms. Dahl stated just as a standard on how they line up to the metro area, the national
parks system suggests between 6.25 acres to 10.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The Met
Council encourages a little bit more, 7 to 14 acres per 1,000 residents. In Fridley it has
about 28,000 residents but it has over 21.5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Fridley
really has an abundance of park land which is wonderful. They are the envy of a lot of
other cities. They are also proud that 80 percent of the residents live within one-half mile
of a park.
Ms. Dahl stated while the proximity to a park is really important, what is in those parks or
how people use those parks in the different areas has not really been addressed. They
really feel with this Plan they want to look at the needs of those folks who are around the
parks and kind of what those needs might be, not only just for amenities, but for some of
the other emerging needs or trends that are out there. To line those up with the City’s
neighborhoods as well.
Commissioner Meisner asked regarding the acreage per resident, that includes
Springbrook?
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 25 of 40
Ms. Dahl replied, yes.
Commissioner Meisner asked Ms. Dahl if she knew how much it is without Springbrook?
Ms. Dahl replied, she would have to check on that. She asked Mr. Jensen if Springbrook
was 100 something acres?
Jeff Jensen, Operation Manager of Streets, Parks, and Facilities, replied 118 acres.
Substract that divided by 28,000. He does not have the answer to that either.
Ms. Dahl stated a lot of Fridley’s parks are beautiful, and it is really important to note that
what Fridley has they will tell a story about some of the things the City needs and the
current conditions of the parks system. Generally Fridley has really nice parks, and they
have a lot of nice amenities and there are some great playgrounds. What they felt they
needed to do is paint a picture of some of those that really need improvement. They will
see a lot of the playground amenities or the tennis court fences. Over at Moore Lake they
have seen that or the fading playgrounds. Those are the things they really have to address
and upgrade. They are putting this out there to drive the point home that they think it is
time to do something on a larger scale.
Ms. Dahl stated they asked staff early on, what do you think about the Parks system and
they are talking pretty much with the maintenance staff at this point. They went out and
did a very thorough assessment and looked at safety and a number of issues they felt that,
while they are very proud of the parks system, they do not have a systematic long-term
maintenance plan the City can speak to and say they can prevent some of the maintenance.
Also, how are they going to plan for things that need to be restored or replaced. They
want to build a plan to address those issues.
Ms. Dahl stated many of the City’s parks do not have ADA guidelines that meet all of the
guidelines that are out there. Then you have a few (?) in each park, but they do not fully
equip situations for all users. They want to adjust many of those guidelines as well. It is
important to note that the playgrounds were really revamped about 30 years ago. They
were all done right after the tornado, the City got a federal grant that allowed the City to
install a number of playgrounds, so they are all kind of coming due and their shelf life is
all kind of due about the same time. Several of them are having to be decommissioned
or taken out because of safety issues or parts are not available to replace.
Ms. Dahl stated they asked staff, how would you rate the parks system in general. They
spent a lot of time looking at each and every park and kind of graded what they thought
was an A through F grade. They felt like most of the parks were just average or even less.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 26 of 40
The maintenance staff who work on those playgrounds and amenities on a daily basis,
want to see an upgrade here as well.
Commissioner Heintz stated to Commissioner Meisner, you take off 4.25 acres.
Commissioner Meisner stated without Springbrook, they would be at about 17 or
something like that which is still very nice.
Ms. Dahl stated if they looked at a value of where the parks are, like if you had a house or
cars, they asked how much is the City’s land really worth with the amenities and the
structures they have in the parks system right now; and it is about $43 million in assets. A
lot to manage and to kind of be a guardian for. Right now the City receives a little over
$200,000 per year in funding from LGA or park dedication fees and grants. The City spends
$233,000 a year on its average CIP projects. (?) 2019 and 2020 in there because the Civic
Campus changes would have skewed those numbers as well; however, the City’s balance
it has for the CIP or just parks project is about $1 million. In essence there are a lot of
assets the City has that it is really only spending about $200,00 a year on to keep up.
Ms. Dahl stated the other thing that is worth noting is that with this fund balance of
$968,000 the City is not able to spend it on it. If the City were to make all the changes this
year, and throw that whole balance at it, it would not be able to because of the policy
which states the City needs to maintain a balance of 35 percent in that fund balance. They
would only have about $600,000 to work with.
Ms. Dahl stated they have had great successes. They are very proud of Springbrook. They
have seen some great changes in the last 7 to 10 years. They can vision something very
different. A lot of volunteers, the mayor, and a number of the City’s commissioners spend
a lot of energy and time fundraising to build this beautiful building. They just finished
changing the park shelter there which is now not just a picnic shelter but an activity center
that is built and is the size of a classroom with the ability to do concessions or a small
theater area inside. Mr. Jensen and his team did a wonderful job getting that constructed
over this last year, and it will be open for use this year. They want to replicate that and
build this image across the park system.
Ms. Dahl stated as to what they have done with this Parks Master Plan so far, they have
worked with City Council who wanted to be very bold and aggressive about this Plan. They
held four community workshops with an outside consultant they have used for the Civic
Campus as well as the MnDOT highway project studies, and they have also asked a lot of
the participants in youth who use the system and the amenities, what programs they
wanted. They compiled a lot of data early on in 2019. They also asked people who were
in the park to tell them what they think through an App called “Social Pinpoint” and they
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 27 of 40
got over 600 responses from that. They got quite a few responses from people who said,
fix the trail here, please add something here, or change some signage. They got some
really good feedback from people who were in the parks.
Ms. Dahl stated then they did a lot of research on demographics, and they pulled some
other data together from the Comprehensive Plan and other surveys that had been done
in the past. They compiled a lot of information, did inventory and assessments, worked
with a consultant called HKGI who helped them develop some concept designs for Moore
Lake Commons and Community. They also did some ballpark estimates for the
neighborhood parks and what the rest of the system would prove out. They did a lot of
work over the last year and one-half.
Ms. Dahl stated what they learned from that were kind of some general themes. People
wanted improved playgrounds and amenities. They wanted a place to come and gather.
They wanted to see more year around use and how the trails and systems connect to each
other. Also, they wanted to see some unique amenities and opportunities for some fun
experiences that were different or emerging trends. They also heard back in the feedback
the City needed to do more all abilities and ages; make the areas more ADA compliant.
They were told and feel very strongly the communication and signage needed to change.
They have had interest for technology upgrades to provide some Wi-Fi in perhaps some
of the areas or park buildings so people can access their internet while they are watching
the children at the playground and enjoy some of those amenities outdoors. Also, improve
the lighting so it would be more accessible and safe for everyone.
Ms. Dahl stated they heard very strongly that nature and year around use is a strong desire
and the idea of being environmentally friendly. They are hearing more and more this is
where the community desires for park and recreation. They also wanted places to gather
like they talked about in those unique experiences.
Ms. Dahl stated one thing that also came up was having some flexibility to meet the
changing needs. When you have, for instance, a roller rink or inline skating course, is that
going to be something you can adapt down the road or is it here permanently. Providing
some amenities that might be able to be flexible down the road as needs and demands
change.
Ms. Dahl stated what they did not hear was a large cry for golf courses, water parks, and
a major community center. It was pretty much upgrade what the City has and improve it.
Ms. Dahl stated it was really important for staff to identify a vision. This is what they as
staff really wanted to kind of gravitate towards. Not that they would see these are the
exact buildings or amenities they would propose, but what they envisioned with the Civic
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 28 of 40
Campus they wanted this grand vision of something that was very well done, attractive,
that looked nice, and was colorful or friendly and inviting and open. Those were kind of
the themes and ideas they wanted to strive for. They also wanted to just modernize,
upgrade, and really enhance what they have already. There were lots of ideas for
playgrounds, some of the services out there, and more do it yourself. They have heard
more for community gardens as a special interest, and then that “play for all” concept is
really important. Providing something to every age group, every ability and functionality
for a wide variety of needs.
Ms. Dahl stated they could not do all of this internally. They needed to get some help
and over this last summer and fall they started working with WSB which is a design firm,
and they have been very helpful to the City in helping them shape a plan a little bit more.
To provide the City with some great ideas for investments and development and how it
can improve its structures. Also, how it can strategically prioritize or plan this out for the
coming years; and then provide a nice process for the residents as well.
Ms. Dahl stated to kind of line up all of their information and data with the Comprehensive
Plan, they worked real hard with the City’s partners at the county and sports associations,
Three Rivers Parks, and the neighboring cities. They have that relationship and alliances
with other areas that have done this very well. Their expertise and knowledge have just
been in valuable for them.
Ms. Dahl stated WSB put together a very in-depth plan, and part of that process is really
to look at all the things they were able to collect so far; but they also went out to every
single park and did a very thorough assessment and did analysis from their perspective.
WSB looked at the City’s access and some of the barriers as well as the populations in the
communities, specifically that are underserved or may be some of those dense areas that
are maybe some of the newer apartment complexes that are in the plan as well. They
anticipated what they would be seeing here in the next 5 to 10 years with some of those
apartment communities. Also, things like language barriers with some of the community
populations that need some additional access. They had that expertise as well.
Ms. Dahl stated WSB initiated talks with some of the groups she talked about like with
Three Rivers, schools, etc. They developed plans and concept designs to help the City with
a strategy on how they are going to implement this. They prepared a cost analysis for the
City and estimates. Then they created a story map she will present. Also, they are helping
the City kind of channel and collect the feedback and will organize it and prepare what the
City hopes will be a really comprehensive report back to the Commission as well as the
public.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 29 of 40
Ms. Dahl stated with the general concept designs and the goals, what they wanted to
make sure on top of what the City wanted, is what they came up with was really to enhance
Fridley’s unique identity and its community parks. They wanted to sort of upgrade and
enhance like the City wanted to, but really to target it towards the needs of the community
and then match it up with some of these trends. They have great ideas and information
about what is happening nationally but also locally.
Ms. Dahl stated and then how are we going to treat how these parks connect to each
other. Not just by roads and trails, but even within the parks themselves, they did a lot of
work. (?) revise and analyze some of the needs within a park that we already have in place.
They have a very strong expertise in environmental initiatives and some of the stewardship
out there. They looked at the City’s stormwater and a number of the environmental
friendly pollinator gardens and how the tree management might work.
Ms. Dahl stated in terms of recreation WSB looked at like they talked about, some of the
diverse needs of the community and try to balance that, not just in certain areas but across
the whole community so that people could enjoy the parks in the neighborhood but what
is available to them within maybe more than just a half a mile. They wanted to look at
specifically the demographics that Fridley has, and that is something the City did 20 or 30
years ago but what can they do for those moving into the City even now and then looking
forward.
Ms. Dahl stated and, then as they talked about, access to some of those underserved
populations and then some of the trends they talked about. A big piece of this they are
talking about, too, is how are they going to build champions and people to help the City
in this effort. They are helping the City with that, not just for this plan, but for future
projects in the coming years for future commissions or relationships with Council.
Ms. Dahl stated and then how to prioritize. They want to do it all at once. If they are
going to do stuff, let’s do it all at once but they can’t, they have to plan for it. They have
to figure out how they are going to do it. They have to decide which parks or projects go
first and what is more important. They helped the City with that priority as well.
Ms. Dahl stated what WSB has done has been put it on the City’s website in what they
called, Finding Your Fun. You can find it on the website in a lot of ways. Staff will send
them this presentation and a link so they can get it more easily.
Ms. Dahl stated the story map looks exactly what the Community Development team
already had. This is specific to parks. What they will see is all of the parks listed out there,
and then they are tabbed at the top so they will see the neighborhood parks in alphabetical
order. They will see the larger parks which are identified as “community parks”, and then
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 30 of 40
they will see a section or a tab for anything that has been completed, such as this most
recent playground over at Locke Park and the Springbrook projects.
Ms. Dahl stated as they finish these they will have information on the website as well, and
anything else that is out there for scheduled projects. What they are hoping to do is have
the Planning Commission go out to these individual parks and then look at the designs
under each one, the proposed plans, and then a little bit more information about each
park out there. There will be some surveys out there the Commission members can click
on and provide their feedback. If they see something they would like to add or change or
suggest, this is what they would like them to do is provide as much feedback as they can.
They are keeping the comment period open until April 30 at this point.
Commissioner Buyse stated he certainly does not know what park he would put this
comment under. It is probably more of a community park thing, but he just noticed the
picture Ms. Dahl had for Maple Grove’s ice rink, their figure 8/track; and he has been to
Centennial Parks down in the Edina area a number of times. There are massive draws for
all young people and anyone. It does not matter what age you are. He cannot recommend
that enough for their community if they have any ability to do that at any of their
community parks. That would be a huge draw for the City and for the residents of Fridley.
Ms. Dahl replied, they did put their concept in there under the Commons Park. They have
an ice loop she believed it was called.
Mr. Jensen replied, it is just a skating area and there are a few of them around but, yes, it
is in their concept designs. They went to the Maple Grove one, it is impressive, and a lot
of people use it. He believed it is in one of the concept plans for Commons Park.
Commissioner Buyse stated awesome because that is certainly something that is a draw
from a long ways away for a community. For Fridley that should be a priority.
Ms. Dahl stated if they do not find a place to add comments, if they just want to reach
out and send them an e-mail they can do that. Send it to herself, Ms. Kruzel or Mr. Jensen;
and they would be happy to include all the feedback they get moving forward.
Alyssa Kruzel, Community Engagement Specialist, stated yesterday she worked with the
video production staff to put together a quick little 2-3 minute video where she explained
how to use the story map because it can be a little cumbersome for some folks. They are
working on that video and they will get that out on social media and the website as well.
It takes folks through how to navigate the story map as well as how to click on park designs
and review them, and then what the surveys look like as well.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 31 of 40
Ms. Dahl stated they know this is a big undertaking. It looks like they probably have
something for just all about the parks, not all of them. It does not include Springbrook
because that has pretty well been renovated and captured for a while. There may be a
couple of things to add to that at some point, but for right now this should include a lot
of the City’s parks. They want to do this in a ten-year plan. It is very aggressive to do that
but at the same time it feels like, in talking with staff, if they spread this out too far there
are quite a few things that really need to get done more in an urgent matter. However, if
they wait too long that means some of these parks are going to have to wait a very long
time to get renovated. They know the ball park kind of came in at about $50 million which
is very high, but they are just going to see where people are coming in at with some of
their interests and needs before they start to manage the money piece of it just yet.
Ms. Dahl stated this is a very early stage of a parks master plan system. They are looking
at concepts first. See what people want. Look at the data, and they will keep refining it as
they go along. Funding could come from a lot of different sources. The City has its own
capital projects they could use. They could do some more donations and grants and
development. They could do things like round up the water bills or do something at the
liquor store. Do some special events and fundraising specific to this, and those things
could happen and come in down the road as we finalize the plans. They could probably
do something with the park dedication fees but that is not a lot of money and is very
limited since the City is pretty much built out. They could even pursue legislative action
like the City did with the Nature Center or going to a statewide level. They can raise fees
for the City’s programs and services, too.
Ms. Dahl stated one of the bigger pieces they are going to have to really put some thought
and energy around is how they could possibly bond for this and do a possible referendum.
They know there are a lot of challenges with that and it takes a lot of time. They have to
be methodical and put some energy around, if it is the direction they go; and they will
have to spend a fair amount of time getting the word out about that.
Ms. Dahl stated they also know there will probably be businesses or schools that want to
do some joint projects. Maybe do some name recognition, for instance, a corporation
wants to take on a particular park and they want to have some name rights with that.
There are a lot of options here, and this is going to be a large undertaking just in and of
itself to get to that $50 million price tag.
Ms. Dahl stated right now they are in the very early stages and are just getting the word
out about getting people to the website to provide that feedback, those initial reactions
to some of these plan designs. They have a really impressive marketing team. Ms. Kruzel
is on board for the community engagement throughout the City, and it is is going to be a
large part of her job in the coming months. It is to get out in front of people and get it
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 32 of 40
out on the internet. They have lawn and park signs that are in all the parks now. With
these two apps people can download on their phone immediately, and it takes them right
to the parks Paster Plan information. They are trying to be as creative as they can.
Ms. Dahl stated they want to spend the next month and a half collecting information from
people and getting the word out to have some dialogue around this. Obviously they have
the City newsletter and they have the cable TV/community video connection as well which
has been very helpful in getting images and videos out there as well.
Ms. Dahl stated some of the promotional items they will see are the rack card they have
available at City Hall and if they wanted to have some of those staff can get those to the
Commission members and they can hand those out if they are handing out or attending
meetings or getting involved in groups. There is a copy of a lawn sign they have put in
the parks as well. They are also trying to target, which is a great idea from the HRA, some
of the neighborhoods that are making the most changes or have the most need in. They
have developed a little postcard they will be sending out to some of those 7-10
neighborhoods to help them understand what could be happening with specifically their
neighborhood as well. Try and customize it for these neighbors as well.
Ms. Kruzel stated they are also targeting some of their communities that have low
engagement as well as with those postcards, but they may not get normal responses to
from reading the City newsletter or other avenues of communication by really going
directly to them because of the under engagement.
Ms. Dahl stated as to the next few steps, they are taking a resident survey where 400
residents are being called on a variety of City topics and Parks Master Plan was one of
them. They will get some feedback from the public about what they really want to see in
the Parks system. That will be a scientifically-validated survey which will help them answer
that funding (?). They will be spending the next two months really hammering down as
far as exploring some of these funding options a little bit more carefully.
Ms. Dahl stated once they get all this data back by the end of April and the Commission’s
feedback, hopefully they are going to get all the results pulled together. WSB is going to
help staff analyze that and get it synthesized down to something that makes sense. Maybe
there will be some recommendations or changes, but they hope to get all that pulled
together so they are ready to address the public at the Town Hall meeting on June 5. They
are not sure how much they will be sharing at the meeting, and that report they talked
about might need some work. They are kind of tentative with some of these timeframes.
After that they will come back to groups like the Commission and stakeholders to share
those results as well because they know not everybody will be able to come to the Town
Hall meeting. If they do decide to vote for a referendum, they are looking at something
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 33 of 40
that will happen in November of 2022. They have a little over a year maybe before they
really have to hit their campaign of putting something on the ballot.
Ms. Dahl stated Mr. Jensen will be giving a quick update on some of the projects going
on right now.
Mr. Jensen stated when they started this Plan they figured out quite early on and with
direction from Council this would be a long process, kind of what Ms. Dahl mentioned.
They actually thought they would try and learn some things that would help push this
Parks Master Plan through and creating champions. They thought the best way to do this
was to redo a park. They have been having problems with Craig Park for quite a few years.
It floods all the time. That maintenance and use by the citizens is quite limited. They had
years where they could not mow it, and they have waterfowl and cattails and reeds growing
in it.
Mr. Jensen stated they felt this was an opportunity to do some things they learned. A lot
of them are like the outreach. They wanted to find out the best way to get a hold of
everybody so they went through some mailings in service areas, and they got great
responses which kind of fell in line with everything they already learned. They were able
to get a grant from the Watershed District. They also created some designs for it which
they can find on that story map as well. Those kind of fell in with the data they received
from their other outreach as well with the trails, the internal trail in the park, lighting,
security, updated amenities, so they can kind of meet all those and they have got great
response in it. They are going to be doing an in-person outreach early this summer to
finalize some of those design plans for that.
Mr. Jensen stated that goes into his next one which is Locke Park playground. They kind
of started their learning process if they are familiar with the new playground just east of
the Civic Campus. They did outreach on that to the new neighborhoods in the Lennar
Development and the Five (?) Home Development. Also the existing homes in the
development to the south of there. They had a very good response on that. They had an
in-person outreach campaign. People had a lot of great ideas and input. The City has
great connections with the trails and they created a trail system that connects it both to
the Rice Creek Trail network, the Civic Campus, they installed a parking lot, and people are
extremely happy with it. It is a good example with Craig Park and Locke Park to show what
they can do with this referendum. They are not painting it. They are 50 years old and the
amenities are 30 years old, and they definitely need to be fixed.
Commissioner Heintz stated with Locke Park it also is highly ADA accessible now, too.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 34 of 40
Mr. Jensen stated absolutely. That will be their new standard. They want to be an inviting,
friendly city and to not allow access for all individuals right now is not a good thing. That
is a great drive for replacing a lot of these amenities and upgrading them.
Mr. Jensen stated moving onto the Civic Campus. This is a great example. They installed
complete trails around the pond system. They have fountains in there, bridges over the
pond, new trail connectors, lighting. It is a really great benefit. It gets used and they
maintain it. One of the questions they had was maintaining it year around. They actually
sweep that trail, and people can walk on it with their dogs. All winter they did so on a bare
tar trail. It is unbelievable the amount of use it is getting and the amount of compliments
they have got on it. Projects like this will be great champions if they can pull people from
that and say, this is what they can create in the City of Fridley to make it a great place to
live.
Mr. Jensen stated they still have more work to do in the Civic Campus. There is quite a
bit of work to do in the playground. They have trees, amenities, benches, and they want
to put benches around the trails, doggie waste stations, and they also have the park lit
area designated out by the round about on the southwest corner on the other side of the
ponds. They are going to be doing some updates on there, but they are going to wait and
find out the needs of the Civic Campus and everything before they do more. They are
going to be finishing up the trails system and doing vegetation and trees and making it a
very nice parklike area. However, they are going to wait until they find out the needs of
the City when things open up from COVID and they finish the development around the
area. They will be working on most of those this summer.
Mr. Jensen stated the next thing is the JPA with Anoka County. Obviously, when they
replaced Locke Park playground, that was an agreement when they removed the existing
playground there. They wanted to wait until the development was in, they wanted to get
feedback from Lennar and the Pulte Home area residents, and have their input as well with
the existing neighborhood that was there. They need to join that onto the City’s Joint
Powers Agreement with Anoka County and Locke Park. They were nice enough to let the
City put that amenity on their managed property. Now with the connections with the Civic
Campus, the Rice Creek trail corridor and Locke Park which is Anoka County, they have
very nice pavilions and restrooms. They want to have a good working agreement with
them where they can utilize the whole area. Not only can the City of Fridley residents go
directly into that park and use those amenities connected to ours, but they can also come
into ours, and we suggest things like improving the trail system in the park, improving the
bridges. Around the park they have a request for grooming skiing trails and all of that,
but they cannot do that right now with the condition. They are also in the process of
working with Anoka County so that both entities can really benefit from the new
development that is going in all around that area.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 35 of 40
Mr. Jensen stated the last one is Craig Park where they are trying to find champions. They
did not want to just stop. Depending on funding options, if this does go into the 2022
general election for referendum, they do not want to just stop. They want to continue
moving and show people what they can do and create champions. Along with the other
things he mentioned such as doing updates at the Civic Campus, finishing Locke Park
playground, and doing a whole large project at Craig Park, they are also looking at doing
a small playground in an underserviced area to show what they can with the bigger scoped
projects.
Mr. Jensen stated If they look at the story map, they will see the concepts of Craig Park.
There are quite a few changes in there. It is a nice big park. The City also has a couple of
real small parks. They do not have room to expand and put in new tennis courts or
pickleball courts. The City just physically does not have the room; however, they still want
to service the residents in that area. They would like to take a real small park where they
can show how much improvements they can do in the small neighborhood parks as well
even when you do not have the ability to add all these extra things. You can be creative
and come up with new ideas and just make the neighborhood proud of the parks.
Mr. Jensen stated that is kind of in a nutshell what they are continuing to do to help
support the Parks Master Plan and hopefully what they have done and what is going to
happen in the next year with the Campus and how much these improvements do get
noticed and used. While he is looking out the window at those ponds and the new trails
and bridge they put in, it is amazing how many people are using the Civic Campus right
now; and he can just see a lot more of that happening.
Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Jensen they did a bang up job back there. The Locke
Park thing is just stupendous. If somebody was asking how they would make their park,
have them drive by and look at Locke Park and say, this is what we have done, what we
can do, and use your imagination and effort. You can make the thing look just like this.
This is the kind of work we do and we are proud of it. He asked what kind of small park
he is talking about for doing something special.
Mr. Jensen stated actually the two on the list because of area, would be Jubilee and Ed
Wilmes. They are two little small isolated parks. Great examples. He asked Chairperson
Kondrick to also look at Locke Park by the time they do the pollinator gardens, bike racks,
seating, swinging benches, security lights with cameras, and nice lawns.
Ms. Dahl stated they wanted to make these changes without doing anything real
aggressive or putting some money towards it and how long it would take. The finance
team did the numbers and said it looks like it would take 137 years to complete the things
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 36 of 40
they needed to complete on their kind of current schedule for what the City can afford
every year. That is way too far. However, it is kind of interesting how they have come to
this point where they have not made any renovations for a long time. If they do not do
something things will continue to deteriorate. They do not want to see health and safety
hazards create any potential claims. There is a real loss of image and pride, and people
do not feel so good if they are going to be around something that does not look nice or
that is not safe for sure. That will impact the home and business values as they know, and
there will probably be some loss of future revenue for programs the City would not be
able to capture for people who want to play tennis or want to be at the parks, programs
and rent shelters if they do not have it looking nice and attractive. There is kind of a loss
of public support and trust. If they do nothing, please are going to say, what are you doing
for us. These are our tax dollars and they expect the City to use them in a productive and
healthy way. There is an impact to the leadership here in the community. As they all know
if they put things off or kick the can down the road, those costs always go up.
Chairperson Kondrick stated to Ms. Dahl, as to the eight items she has listed there, those
are items they are going to be talking about a heck of a lot when it comes to money-
making time. Making people aware of all of these things so they will understand how long
should we wait, and the monies are necessary because of all of those reasons.
Ms. Dahl stated they know that if they are successful, all of these great things are going
to happen. They are trying to build for the next generations. They want to preserve the
City’s assets. They want people to feel like there is something in this for everybody. That
is the City’s goal here. They want people to be happier and healthier and safe and feel like
they are getting good value here. Lots of great reasons if they are successful and they do
it all right. They are going to see values of return on investment.
Ms. Dahl stated they want the Commission to go out and review these concept designs.
Give staff their feedback, complete those surveys, send staff those e-mails, on anything
they really feel compelled to tell them. They have been in front of the public on so many
things that the Commission’s expectations and what they think the community would want
is really what staff is really counting on and asking for. Feel free to spread the word to
people they know and ask them to go out and fill out information or comment. If they
know of ways to do fundraising, they will certainly consider everything and anything at
this point. Ms. Kruzel will also be sharing this idea of becoming what they are calling, a
parks champion for folks who are kind of in that inner ring who are going to also be the
ones who share the story for the City are going to be critical.
Ms. Dahl stated if they kind of entertain new businesses that come into the City or realtors
or some of these developers who are looking at ways to get involved with the City, these
are great suggestions for them to contact one of our staff to try and learn more about it.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 37 of 40
It may be something which would benefit the newer businesses coming in or those who
want to get more engaged in the community. Ms. Kruzel is going to be kind of their point
person along with Mr. Jensen on any feedback.
Commissioner Evanson stated his family was excited about the parks in Fridley. They
adopted a park last year. He asked whether the Park Board has considered selling some
of the park assets. It sounds like they have on an acre per 1,000 a very large park system.
Rather than trying to do a facelift for such a large park system, selling off some assets to
focus more heavily on maybe the more key park assets, have they thought about that as
a possibility?
Ms. Dahl replied, they did get a couple of questions around that. They did do kind of an
initial analysis of, if they could sell anything what could they sell. Much of what the City
has is earmarked or dedicated into perpetuities or once it is dedicated or provided to the
City it is really not allowed to do anything with it except for maintaining it as a park or sell
it. However, they have done what they thought was kind of a thorough analysis that the
City is not really able to do that; but they could still put that on the table for review on a
park-by-park basis.
Commissioner Evanson asked if that is something that could be codified in the City’s
Charter or what is it that prevents them.
Mr. Heintz replied, given to the City by a builder or a family and was donated to the City,
and that is the only use it can have in perpetuity. Plus, being on the Parks and Recreation
Commission as long as he has, he would have a hard time selling a piece of park because
who do they take it away from. Right now they have so many people within a one-half
mile or less of a park. He would not want to take that park away from somebody and say,
okay, now they are lowering the standard a little bit. That is why he would never vote for
selling a piece of property.
Ms. Dahl stated it is also worth knowing they spend a fair amount of time looking at how
the parks are used and, not that they want to overprogram all these parks, but they have
considered that. There are some parks that would probably just be better left naturally
and maybe could be used in a different way under this new concept design. It does not
mean they are going to take out all the tennis courts or playground, but there are some
things that are more sustainable for the longer term.
Ms. Jensen stated Ms. Dahl worded it perfectly and so did Commissioner Heintz that they
did quite a bit of research on this, and the ones the City purchased and kept as a City are
the real big community parks. The ones that were left by developers and stuff were chunks
of land they could not develop on like Craig Park because it was low land so then they
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 38 of 40
dedicated to a park where a little one like Ed Wilmes, but they actually serve large areas.
Those are actually some of the City’s most important parks. Even though it is a small little
park that is only going to have a swing set, a small little playground, and a picnic table,
some people because of the City’s restraints to the Mississippi River, University Avenue
road, and 694, that is their only option. They just looked at those and thought it just would
not be a good idea to get rid of some of the parks. The City does not have a whole lot
they can get rid of legally, and the ones they could they cannot.
Commissioner Buyse stated obviously it is an easy answer to sell off something and take
something that somebody has been used to away from them, but he is sure there are ways
they can track which parks are being used more vs. less. Ultimately that would be what
they fall back on is if the numbers were not there, financially, that is the only angle at what
Commissioner Evanson is getting at. He agrees with Commissioner Evanson and what he
is saying. They started to explore some of the other financial options, and he knows this
is just the beginning of the process, but making sure they are crossing their T’s and dotting
the I’s in that respect is definitely going to go a long way. However, he always goes back
to if they cannot afford what they have, well, there has to be other options. Rather than
just immediately raising the tax base if you will.
Commissioner Buyse stated is there a way they can mitigate some of that? Again, no one
ever wants to be the bad guy who takes a park away. However, if they cannot make it nice
enough to enjoy anyways why does it matter. Ultimately there are other options. They
have already shown in the presentation there are tons of options out there. If they have
to drive, walk, or bike a little bit further, that is part of being outside anyways.
Ms. Dahl stated those points should be included in their future presentations to the public,
and those would be actual questions to bring up.
Commissioner Meisner stated he is in the neighborhood of Craig Park. The postcards
that went out and the online survey, etc. was very good. He talked to his neighbors and
everybody remembers getting one, and many of them had responded or were about to
respond. The outreach, the design, the recognition of the problem was very refreshing,
well presented, and engaging.
Ms. Dahl stated that is going to be their motto, try and replicate as they roll out these
plans to the other parks as they go.
Commissioner Buyse asked Ms. Dahl what are the next steps for this plan?
Ms. Dahl replied, they are really kind of in this early engagement stage of getting
information out. They are taking a phone survey of residents right now through April.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 39 of 40
They are going to look at some funding options here. They will be analyzing all the
feedback they get back in May, rolling out some of that feedback and results by early June,
and then after that they will figure out kind of their next steps. If they did do a referendum,
they are probably still going to be a year out from that. They have some time to do some
tweaking and modification and meeting with different groups. If they cannot afford the
50 they have to get it down to a different level, and they will have to reprioritize with that
as well. The initial steps here are just how do people feel, what do they want, give them
any and all feedback and they will take it from there.
Ms. Kruzel stated in the statistically significant survey there are a lot of questions around
park amenity priorities. A lot of that information and a lot of the questions within the park
concept design survey questions are really going to help the WSB team really kind of
narrow down what some of the preferred park design options. Those design concepts are
going to go through another redesign phase, and those will be updated again. Those
things will kind of narrow down. If they get some comments around certain parks, that
people want this, they don’t want that, that will continue to be redefined and they will have
some more final sets of plans as well to help them sort through some of that funding,
lowering the cost potentially, because those designs will have everything in them. They
will kind of lower those designs down and those concepts.
Commissioner Buyse asked, so once the plan is ultimately finalized, what regulatory
bodies like this one, would this have to go through to take the next steps.
Ms. Dahl replied, she is not sure she understands all of the steps, but she would say initially
certainly the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission would be the
first two rounds. Then if it is a referendum it goes into kind of another level as well. They
will have a number of other engagement opportunities to get this information back out
long before they actually ask for those decisions. This group will be in the loop on any
and all updates as they go forward and recommendations and as those reports are
available or if there is key information will be in as well.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Stromberg stated that Dave Kondrick has announced his retirement from the
Planning Commission after 40+ years of service. Dave has been a dedicated public servant
that has been supportive of staff and a great leader of the Commission. Staff and other
Commissioners congratulated Dave and thanked him for his many years of service.
ADJOURN:
Motion by Commissioner Heintz to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner
McClellan.
Fridley Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 2021
Page 40 of 40
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise M. Johnson
Recording Secretary