The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 04/17/1996 - 7068� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 1996 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC COPY (Please return to Community Development Dept.) ,-. �- �� ` �, , �' � � � �� CITY OF FRIDLEY . AGENDA PLANNINC COMMISSION MEETIIdG WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 1996 7:� P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipa! Cerrter, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNIIVG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: April 3, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #96-08. BY RED AND GOLD ENTERPRISES. INC.: Per Section 205.15.01.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles on that part of Outlot 2, Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 4#h Addition, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Outlot 2; thence North along the West line of said Outlot 2, a distance of 236.02 feet; thence East parallel with the South li�e of said Ou�ot 2, a �� distance of 234.3 feet; thence Sou#h in a straight line a distance of 236 feet, more or less, to a point on the Soutti line of said Outlot 2, distant 232 feet East from the Southwest comer of said Outlot 2; thence West along the South line of said Outlot 2, a distance of 232 feet to the point of beginning. This property is generally located at 6;iO4 Highway 65 N.E. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 7. 1996 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETINC, OF MARCH 19. 1996 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT � ;C � � ,� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNINm C01�IIrII88I0� ME�TING, APRIL 3� 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the April 3, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Newman, Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Dave Rondrick Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michelle McPherson,-Planning Assistant Lori & Dick Rempe, 5235 Taylor Street Jackie & Jerry Sypnieski, 5251 Taylor Street Bill Job, 5250 Taylor Street Rwin Zemke, 5299 Taylor Street Ji.m Rosemeyer, 5285 Taylor Street John Egelkrout, 5234 Taylor Street James Cook, 1338 - 53rd Avenue N.E. Deari Bliss, 5212 Fillmore Street Ronald Parizek, 5258 Fillmore Street James Petron, 5300 Fillmore Street Mary Matthews, 1259 Skywood Lane - Ron Stelter, Friendly Chevrolet Michael R1ein, Phillips R1ein� Co., Inc. _ John & June Linder,:-1350 Skywood Lane N.E. Nancy Jark,�5201 Central Avenue N.E. Wayne Dahl, 7699 Hiqhway 65 � Charlotte Nessman, 8019 - 6th Street N.E., Spring Lake Park, Minnesota Marvin Nunemaker, 5060 Topper Lane N.E. Sheldon Mortenson, 1289 Skywood Lane N.E. Gary Colby, Menards Steve Soltau, Skywood Mall � Brian Malkerson, Esq., 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota Pat Conlin, Milestone Hotel Investments, 681 E. Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota Donald Delich, 5284 Taylor Street N.E. Judy Engebretson, 52i6 Taylor Street N.E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA• OM TION by Ms. Modig, seconded by.Ms. Savage, to.approve the agenda. �` PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETINa� APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 2 IIPON A VOIC]3 VOTL � ALL VOTINt3 AYE, T8E MOTION CARRIED IINA�TIMOQBLY. NEWMAN DECLARED ,APPROVAL OF MARCH 20, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the March 20, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL _ VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAI+T DEC?�ARED THB MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA #96-01. BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: In accordance with State Statute 462.355, Subdivision 2, _ procedure for plan adoption and amendment. The p�oposal would add policy �4 to Page 6-5, Chapter 6, Water, Sewer and Solid Waste: 4. The City will apply National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for the design of new stormwater ponds and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency�s (MPCA) urban best management practices titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas to the review of any proposed development occurring in the.City of Fridley to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff. The City will incorporate these standards and requirements in its.stormwater management plan and land use controls to implement this policy. � MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to.waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL 90TING AYB� CHA�RPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T8E PIIBLIC BEARING OPEN AT 7s38 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment is being � proposed by the City of Fridley. The amendment would add policy #4 to Chapter 6, �'Water, Sewer and Solid Waste", and�addresses the City's stormwater runoff and water quality policies. The amendment is actually related to a Comprehensive Plan change associated with the Home Depot request. In�1995,_:the City changed the land use designation for the Home Depot site located at Main Street and I-694 from industrial to commercial. The site consists of 14.5 acres. The Metropolitan Council.is reviewing that Comprehensive Plan amendment,indicated the City would also amend its water, sewer and solid waste chapter to�include best management practices and National Urban`Runoff Program requirements. ' _ . . � � � .� r-ti PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGL 3 Ms. McPherson stated the City has already adopted an erosion control ordinance and adopted the MPCA's best management practices by reference so the cities have been incorporating tizese-water quality standards-for a number of years prior to this amendment. This amenclment is a housekeeping item to comply with the Metropolitan Council directive. The only action for the Planning Commission is to take public comment and to approve the language included in the agenda packet. The Planning Commission had no questions of staff. No public comment was received. OM TION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, CHAIRPSRBON r�EWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING.CLOSED AT 7t42 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #96-01, by the City of � Fridley, in accordance with State Statute 362.355, Subdivision 2,_ procedure for plan adoption and amendment, to add policy #4 to Chapter 6, Water, Sewer and Solid Waste, as follows: �, 4. The City will apply National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for the design of new stormwater ponds and the Minnesata Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) urban best management practices titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas to the review of any p�oposed development occurring in the City of Fridley to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff. The City will incorporate these standards and requirements in its stormwater management plan and land use controls to implement this policy. IIPON A VOICE VOTF� ALL VOTINa AYS, CHAIRPSRSON NEWMAl�T DECLAR$D T8E MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISI.Y. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this item at their meeting on April 22. 2. PTTBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #96- 03. BY WAYNE DAHL: _.... Per Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code, to allow an automatic changeable sign, generally located at 7699 Highway 65 N.E. OM TION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice:and to open the public hearing. � . �� PLANNIN(,� CO1MIlrlISSION MEETIN(�, APRIL 3. 1996 PAGB 4 � IIPON A VOICF VOTE� ALL VOTINa AYE� CHAIRPBRSON NEWM2�1N DECLARBD THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPBN AT 7s44 P.M. � Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit request is for 7699 ��,`� • Highway 65, which is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 65 and Osborne Road. The special use -� permit is in relation to Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Sign Code which requires that a special use permit be issued prior to the installation of any automatic changeable sign. Mr. Dahl is proposinq to install a new sign advertising his chiropractic clinic located on the subject parcel. Ms. McPherson stated the sign in question is a 4.8 s-quare foot sign located on the sign which will display the time and temperature. The sign area with the two portions of the sign is less than the 80 square feet allowed by code. There are two other time and temperature signs in the City - one at Home Value along I-694 and the second at TCF Bank at 52nd and Central. Menards also has an automatic changeable sign; however, the conditions of the Menards sign are such that the message may change only once every 15 minutes. In the case of Mr. Dahl's sign, the message may change more often as it is a time and temperature sign. � Ms. McPherson stated, as the sign meets the criteria of the sign code, staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulation:. . 1. If the use of this sign becomes more than time and temperature, the,message shall change no more than once every 15 minutes. . The Planning Commission had no questions of staff. Mr. Dahl stated he had no additional information. Mr. Newman asked if the petitioner was comfortable with the stipulation. � Mr. Dahl stated yes. No comment was received from the public. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by•Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTINti AYS, CHAIRPBRSON �1EW1�II�iN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THL PIIBLIC.HEARINa CL08ED AT 7s46 P.M.; . ofTS�ecialMUseSPrmitecspdedfil�y: Ms. > Savage, �:to recommend approval ;�'� Y , _.. . p , -03, by Wayne Dahl, to allow an ;' � n �� PLANNINd COMMI88ION MEETINa, �PRIL 3. 1996 PAGE 5 automatic changeable sign, generally located at 7699 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulation: 1. If the use of-this sign becomes more than time and temperature, the message shall change no more than once every 15 minutes. IIPON A VOICR VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYB, CSAIRP$RSON �iEWM�I�i DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED UDII�INIMOIIBLY. - Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of April 22. 3. PIIBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL IISE PERMIT, &P #96-04 BY ROGER MOODY OF FRIENDLY CHEVROLET: Per Section 205.15.01.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles in order for a showroom/office e�ansion, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE �OTL, ALL VOTING AYF, CBAIRPLRSAN NEWMAN DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OP� AT 7:d8 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special�:use permit xequest is for property located at 7501 Highway 65°: The subject parcel is located on Highway 65 and Fireside Drive in the northeast corner of the intersection. Directly to the north is Rurt Manufacturing and to the south is the trailer court. The petitioner's request is to expand the showroom area of the facility. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a two-story office and showroom�addition along the north side of the facility. The footprint of the addition is 3,904 square feet. In addition, the petitioner is also proposing to install some new curb and gutter along the frontage road along Highway 65 and install some additional landscapinq along this same frontage. Ms. McPherson stated staff,>:in reviewing the request, determined there are a number of outstanding issues with this particular property in terms of code requirements specifically dealing with the curb and gutter around the perimeter: The 1971 building permit issued for the original dealership required that curbing was to be installed around all blacktop parking and driveway areas which were to be located in front.of;the building and also th�t additional curbing�was°:to �e installed along':the`perimeter along-Fireside Drive. Unfortunately,`-a date was never -� - ,a�. , � PLANNINt3 COMMIBBION MEETING, APRIL 3. 1996 PAGL�6�� established between the original developer and the City for installation of the curbing along Fireside Drive. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the request in terms of all �, setback and lot coverage requirements. All buiiding setback requirements are met by the proposed addition. There are three areas in which the parking area does not meet the setback requirements. Those are along the frontaqe road along Highway 65, along Fireside Drive, and along the rear property line which is adjacent to a vacant parcel. Ms. McPherson stated the parking requirements are met by the petitioner. As calculated by the code, the use requires 76 parking spaces. However, there are 586 parking spaces available on the site as striped on the site plan. If the City anticipates. a change in the building use, the potential parking spaces required is based on the speculative parking ratio of 1:200 square feet. Using that ratio, the buildinq would require 196 spaces. There is more than adequate parking available on the site to meet this parking requirement. - Ms. McPherson stated there is potentially an issue with the building code requirement. The State of Minnesota recently passed a hand�icap code which would require that handicap access ^ be provided to the second floor offices. The City has indicated that_there may be an elevator required as a stipulation of approval; however, in speaking with the building official and the architect, that stipulation is still up for�debate'and the City. is looking to the State of Minnesota for guidance on that issue. Ms. McPherson stated, regarding grading and drainage, the petitioner will be replacing existing green area along the north side of the building plus along the front side with a concrete display area for cars. The engineering department has indicated that, if additional green space is provided along the Highway 65 frontage as indicated in the stipulations, the engineering department will not require a grading and drainage plan. The petitioner also submitted a landscape plan specifically dealing with the Highway 65 frontage. The petitioner has indicated a hedge of junipers directly in front of the building. One.of the areas for screening not currently provided is adjacent to_the Fireside Drive frontage. Staff has i.ndicated° that additional ___.. , screening and landscapinq should be provided along Fireside Drive. � Ms. McPherson stated staff reconunends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1.. The boulevard area along the��:front-:of the property (facing Highway 65) shall be -expanded -to,;meet the 20 foot �� hardsurface area. 'r �, PLANNIN(3 COI�IIKI88ION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGE 7 2. 3. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the entire perimeter of the parking area. The petitioner shall install additional street trees along the center part of the baulevard area. 4. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along Fireside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berm or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent residential property . 5. No cars shall be displayed on the boulevard. Mr. Sielaff stated staff indicated that part of the problem previously was that the improvements were bit made because no time frame was stipulated. What is�the assurance that this will not be a problem in this case? Ms. McPherson stated the City requires for all building construction a performance bond that would be the City's compliance tool. Ms. Savage asked if they needed a ti.me frame to complete the stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated it would be an added assurance the - improvements would be completed in a timely fashion. Staff is workinq with a different property owner than.the person who originally developed the property. Mr. Newman stated the issue is instailing the elevator is a building code issue rather than a zoning code issue. Ms. McPherson stated yes. This is not a stipulation. It is just a note of interest in the staff report. Mr. Sielaff stated the site.is required to have 196 parking spaces. Does this prevent the petitioner from pt�tting vehicles in those.l96 spaces? Ms. McPherson stated no. The purpose of making the calculation was to determine if the number of spaces is adequate should the use change from a car dealership with an office and showroom to a mora intensive manufacturing use. Staff wanted to make sure there would be adequate parking spaces should the use change in the future. The code has no parking calculations for car dealerships. . � Mr. Sielaff asked if there were required parking spaces for retail customerse � ;� � PLANNING COMMIBBION MELTIN(�, APAIL 3. 1996 PAaB 8 Ms. McPherson stated the parking stalls are all put together. The original calculation indicated 76 spaces are required by the existing use. 20 epaces are directly in front and would be used for customers who are coming to view cars. Mr. Stelter, controller for Friendly Chevrolet, stated Mr. Moody was unable to attend the meeting. He and Mr. Klein were present to answer any questions. Mr. Klein stated he would like to review some items on the staff report and to ask to reconsider based on plans the owner has for future development of the property. Mr. Klein presented a site plan for the property. Mr. Rlein stated, regardinq the first stipulation, the petitioner is proposing they retain the existing setback line as prev�.ously established but that they provide curbing along that line. In front of the building, they are in compliance with a 20-foot setback. They would retain that and re-curb with concrete curb and gutter. Just to the north and south, they are deficient with the setback by 8-10 feet. They are proposing they be allowed to retain that deficiency that curb that front line. The reason for that request is that the front line is already established with some landscaping. There is a security fencing which exists along that front setback. The owner recently replaced the entire parking lot lighting and was replaced with respect to the existing setback. _ Mr. Klein stated they are asking that stipulation �1 be changed or revised to read that the boulevard area be expanded to meet the hardsurface setback area or the applicant obtain the necessary variances. That has to do with what is already is place. Historically, the oriqinal property line was out an additional 30 feet. Over the history of the property, the land- --� for the frontage road was taken out of this original progerty as a road access easement. That is how it became not in compliance. /"1 n Mr. Klein stated the owner has purchased some additional property behind the site. That land measures approximately 200 feet x 700 � feet going all the way back to old Central Avenue. He_is also negotiating with Brick Brothers building owners to swap some of that land so that he ends up with a parcei of equal size;running along the back property line. If this can be done, he would then develop that piece af property. If th�y are required to put concrete curb alonq the back property line today,.�that might have to be changed in one or two years when.the property is expanded. ;� As part of a phased construction, the second phase is expected to be done in a year or two. The owner wants to set;up an inside � service write up area which:they�=anticipate-would:require.°�a ,w ;. � second addition of ' 3, 000 to 5�, 000 square', feet: � There : would: �'then � ��'"'`� �'� � be reconstruction of the curb line and relocation_of the curb.` : 'I � � PLANNING COMMI88ION ��.�'INa. APRIL 3. 1�96 PAG$ 9 cuts along Fireside Drive. They would like additional time to plan thie second addition and the reconstruction of the back parking lot. The owner would like the staff report to be amended to allow him additional time to either meet the present setback along Fireside Drive and to meet the curb requirements along the west and east property lines with respect to how the rest of the property may develop. The owner has requested three to five years to plan this out. Mr. Rlein stated the north property line has changed from the origina3.. Six additional feet were purchased along the north side of the property. There is a fence line between Rurt Manufacturing and Friendly Chevrolet and that fence line is on the property line. They ask that they be given an opportunity to seed a variance with respect to the setback and the curbing along the north property line. They are proposing to curb the entire west property line from corner to corner but they would like to have the opportunity to request a variance for the setback. Mr. Klein stated, regarding stipulation �3, they would be happy to re-submit a landscape plan to show additional plantings along the frontage road. Mr. Newman stated stipulation �4 raises the issue of curb cuts and the fact that the petitioner does not know what�the future plans will be. Mr. Rlein stated this was correct. Alonq Fireside Drive, he realizes there are deficiencies. They would like an opportunity to sit�down with staff to work out a plan where they can accomplish curbing and landscaping and also look at the nature of the property, how they think the property will develop over time, and work out a plan that works for all. IIsing the 20 foot setback as recommended would result in a net loss of 90 cars from the property. They would virtually lose one row of cars along Fireside Drive if the 20-foot setback were enforced. They would like an opportunity to work with staff in developing this service write up addition, finding where the curb cuts go, and try to come up with a compromise plan to mini.mize the loss of the cars but still address the City's concerns with respect to the _ landscape boulevard line. Mr. Klein stated they have no problem with stipulation #5. Mr. Sielaff asl�ed if it was correct that the petitioner was proposing delaying curb and gutter on the entire east side and on the entire south side. Mr. Klein stated this was correct. � �, � �: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� APRIL 3, 1996 PAQL 10 � Mr. Sielaff asked what the petitioner was proposing for the north side. Mr. Rlein stated they would like to delay that or be provided.the opportunity as part of approval to request a variance on that side. The reason they are requesting this is that neither they nor Rurt Manufacturing utilizes that qreen space. Ms. Savage asked on which stipulation would the petitioner need a variance before the Appeals Commission. Ms. McPherson stated this would include s�ipulations #1 and #4. Curb and gutter requirement is in the zoning code. Theoretically, they could come before the Appeals Commission and asked that this requirement be waived. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner planned to appeal in the near future. Mr. Klein stated they were prepared to curb the front this year. If no variance is granted on the north, they would also do that this year. Any work along the south and east property lines would come at a later date with the proposed future addition. Mr. Sielaff stated the petitioner had requested three to five � years. Why does it take so long? Mr. Stelter stated it takes time to generate profits in order��to justify the addition. . � Mr. Rlein stated, if they ask for a year, they may be back next year for an extension. The owner has owned the property in back for about one year. It may take another year to resolve the issues associated with the proposed swap. Mr. Stelter stated the reason for the addition is to get rid of the trailer house, which was something the City had asked them to do. No comment was received from the public. Mr. Newman stated, as he understands, stipulations�3 and 5 are okay. The petitioner is asking, under.stipulation �i, the alternative of obtaining a variance from having to provide the 20 foot setback area. The petitioner would also like to have a variance from having to comply with stipulation �4 which is the � setback area along Fireside Drive. The issue is that the --� petitioner wants to have the option of,asking for a variance from providing curb and�, gutter, �along',�the;'n;north�' property<<line- :and - three to f ive �years to be - able to .� provide curb and gutter along-=�,the � ;:=-� south and east property lines.- � � � PLANNIN(� CONII►�lI88ION MELTINa, APRIL 3. 1996 PAGE 11 Mr. Rlein stated this was correct. Mr. Newman stated he would assume that, if the petitioner fails in getting a variance for the west property line, you will be �-�- prepared to complete that work in a more timely fashion. Mr. Rlein stated this was correct. They would proceed with this along with the showroom and office addition. Mr. Sielaff stated he was bothered by the fact that the City has had problems at this location already. Is three to five years a commitment to do this? Mr. Klein stated he thought the owners commitment would be that in five years, if they had not proceeded with the addition or the development of that back lot, they would then put in the curb and gutter along the south and east property line or attempt to obtaih a variance. Ms. Savage stated she thought the problem of a lack of compliance was with a previous owner. There has been a history of lack of compliance so this is a concern. '� Mr. Newman stated he thought the Commission would be more comfortable if there was some sort of security to look to in order to insure compliance. There is a history on this site of delayed compliance. There is a problem if, for whatever reason, the petitioner or'a successive owner of that property does not comply with these conditions, the alternative is to brinq criminal charges or attempt to have the certificate of occupancy revoked or end up pleading with a successor to perform. Mr. Newman stated he would feel more comfortable approving the additional time if they knew there was something they could go to in the event compliance was not forthcoming. Mr. Rlein stated the discrepancies have been on the books for 25 years. They bought the property in 1991 and they asked the City what these discrepancies were. They were told only about the sprinklers. The City never discussed the setback discrepancies. He would have to get the owner's permission to get a letter of credit. Mr. Newman stated he fully recognizes the petitioner is a recent owner. These problems are from the previous owners. Staff has as a goal to brinq nonconformi.nq property up to compliance. Staff would like this to work for the petitioner, but they also need assurance that this will happen. _.. ^ MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public � hearing. 0 PLANNIN(3 COMMI88ION MEETIN(;, APRIL 3. 1996 PA(�E 12 IIPON A VOICB VO't'E� ALL VOTINti AYE� CBAIRPERSON NEWMAI�T DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THS PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSSD AT SSZ4 P.M. Ms. Modig asked, when the petitioner received the permit for the lighting, why was the setback not brought to their attention then. Ms. McPherson stated typically when someone pulls electrical permits to change the lights, it is not required to submit a site plan, etc. They work with the electrical contractor. Staff did not have an opportunity to comment on that change. - Mr. Saba asked if it was true that the setbacks were caused by the service road and Fireside Drive expansion. Ms. McPherson stated she could not speak to that. There was no discussion in the address file regarding any taking by the City in terms of the frontage road or F�reside Drive. Staff would need to do further research. She did indicate she would be willing to look at that as an issue prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Sielaff stated he is leaninq toward tabling this until staff can get assurances. The people who can do that are not here. If the petitioner seeks variances, this could continue on. Ms. McP�erson stated she believed the commission could move this request forward by amending the stipulations. Stipulation #1. could say, ". .. to meet the 20 foot hard surface setback or apply for and receive a variance to maintain the existing setbacks." Assuming if they did not receive a variance, they would then be required to improve the boulevard area to the 20 foot setback. Mr. Sielaff asked what about the curb and gutter issues and the three to five year time frame.. Mr. Newman asked the histcry�of compliance with the current owner of this property. Ms. McPherson stated the current owner has been very compliant to work with. He has gone through the process for the trailer permit. There was an extension to the trailer permit license to have additional time for this proposed expansion plan and he is coming in within the time frame that he stated-before the City Council. The City has not had any complaints. She received no phone calls regarding the request this evening. Mr. Moody have been ve coo ti ith th it � � � ry pera ve w e C y. Mr. Newman stated he was not comfortable with a: five-year : time � ,`: �- �"�` V: frame but he could go with three years. Before going�to the City �,�-1 gLANNINa CO�lIBSION MEETINQ. APRIL 3, 1996 PAaE 13 Council, perhaps the petitioner could work with staff to develop assurances that this will be done within three years. That would move the request forward. The Planning Commission can address the issue of security and make the Council aware of it. - Mr. Saba stated he was comfortable with that as well as working with staff on the time period for curb and gutter prior to the Council meeting. Ms. McPherson stated the Comm�ission could add a stipulation �6 that would require some type of performance bond or security. Staff could then work with the petitioner to come up with some type of accommodating in that regard. Mr. Newman stated he preferred the work assurances. Although there is a 25 year history of non-compliance, that is not the case with this owner. Staff may feel comfortable with other assurances. Mr. Newman suggested the following stipulations: 1. The boulevard area along the front of the property (facing Highway 65) shall be expanded to meet the 20 foot � hardsurface setback area ur�less the applicant obtains a variance for the same. 2. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the west perimeter and the north perimeter of the parking area except - where they may obtain a variance therefrom. 3. The petitioner shall install additional street trees along the center part of the boulevard area. 4. No cars shall be displayed in the boulevard. 5. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the east and south perimeter of the parking area within years of the issuance of the special�use permit. 6. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along _. Fireside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface seti�ack and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berm or hedge, to provide screening for the adjacent -residential property; which work shall be completed in three years unless the petitioner obtains a variance therefrom. 7. All items, except for those that have a three year grace period, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. � . ,�, _ �LANNINa CO�IIriI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 3, 1996 PAaE 14 � 8. Prior to going to the City Council, the petitioner shall work with staff to come up with reasonable assurances that those items not completed at the time of the issuance of:the-�� . certificate of occupancy will be completed within the time.��x >.�:�<: .;�. period as provided. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP.#96-04, by Roger Moody of Friendly Chevrolet, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles in order for a showroom/office expansion, generally located at 7501 Highway �65. N.E., with the following stipulationsz l. The boulevard area along the front of the property (facing Highway 65) shall be expanded to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback area unless the applicant obtains a variance for the same. 2. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the west I� perimeter and the north perimeter of the parking area except where they may obtain a variance therefrom. 3. The petitioner shall install additional street trees along the center part of the boulevard area. � 4. No cars shall be displayed in the boulevard. 5. The petitioner shall provide curb and gutter along the east and south perimeter of the parking area within years of the issuance of the special use pei�tit. 6. The petitioner shall expand the boulevard area along Fireside Drive to meet the 20 foot hardsurface setback and provide the required landscaping, a three foot berm or hedge, to provide screening far the adjacent residential ,�� property; which work shall be completed in three years unless the petitioner obtains a variance therefrom. :� 7. All items, except for those that have a three year grace period, shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8. Prior to going to the City-Council, the petitioner shall work with staff to come up.with reasonable assurances that those items not completed at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy will be completed within the time period as provided. _ _ �=+ IIPON A VOICL VOTE�''ALL.VOTINGi:AYL�`�::CHAIRPER80N NSWMAM DECLARED TSE MOTION � CARRIED �:�t.tJNAI�TIMOIIBLY. �H . �� =��,_ 1 .. � ; :` : , . � , � � PLANNINa CO�IIrII88ION MEBTINa APRIL 3 1996 PAaB 15 Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of April 22. 4. PIIBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A'SPECIAL IISE PERMIT,.SP: � �96-Q5 BY MENARD. INC.: Per Section 205.15.O1.C.(3j of the Fridley City Code, to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles, boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (the Menards property). Mr. Hickok stated the four special use permit requests are related to Menards interest in purchasing the Skywood Mall. The Skywood Mall is adjacent to and south of Menards as it exists in the southeast quadrant of I-694 and Highway 65. Two special use permits are for Skywood Mall and two are for the existing Menards facility. Mr. Hickok stated Special IIse Permit, SP #96-05, deals with the outdoor display of inerchandise on the Menards property. Special Use Permit, SP �96-02, deals with the outdoor unscreened storage of materials and equipment at the Skywood•Mall property. Special ^ IIse Permit, SP #96-07, deals with the outdoor display of merchandise at the Skywood Mall property. Special Use Permit, SP #96-06. deals with unscreened outdoor storage of materials and equipment on the Menards property. � MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYI��; CSAIItPER80N NSWMAl�T DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC'`HEARING OPLN AT 8:37 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this special use permit is re�ated to the Menards site located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. and would allow the outdoor display of inerchandise not within an enclosed structure. He showed photos.of the site. In the southwest corner of tha site is an existing screening fence. Above that fence is material that is stored and is visible. Along the front, merchandise is stored in the open. Along the northwest corner of the building is displayed yard barn structures which are displayed in the open. Menards i�as a fenced enclosure which has outside storage of materials. The materials visible above that fence is considered outdoor storage of materials. Mr. Newman stated, to clarify, that the merchandise displayed in front this public hearing is for of the building. ,� Mr. Hickok stated this was correct•and'.also includes any �-- -. merchandise behind the building that can be seen from adjacent � ., ��'. }; - ,,� s #� PLANNIN� COMMIBSIO� MBETINd� �PRIL 3. 1996 PAdE 16 properties or the public riqht-of-way. This would include items stored above the fence. Mr. Newman stated the second permit deals with what is stored behind the fence. Mr. Hickok stated yes. That deals with items stored outside which could include pallets, equipment, etc. Mr. Sielaff asked if the pallets is a large part of the outside - storage. Mr. Hickok stated it is fairly large. There are pallet racks which are�which are considered outdoor storage. These are not merchandise but meant to facilitate the merchandise. Along the north wall, there are materials stored above the screening fence. Mr. Hickok stated this is an existing facility with existing conditions. At the time a modification is made to an existing facility, it causes the entire site to go.through an evaluation to review the compatibility of the proposal. This case is related to Menards' interest in purchasing the Skywood Mall and modify the rear storage aiea between the two buildings to open contiguous storage behind Menards and behind the mall.structure. Mr. iiickok stated the City has a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses on the public health, safety and general wel�are.� The City may �onsider the nature of the land upon which the uses are to be located, the nature of adjoining land and buildings, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises and on adjoining roads, and such other facilities that the City shall reasonably be affected by such - use. Mr. Hickok stated the current site is zoned C-3. Menards has been in that location since 1974. At the time they located on the site, the zoninq was C-2S. The zoning has changed and now causes the site to be reviewed as a result of the proposed modification. Zoning is defined as a,municipalities ability to control the compatibility of land uses through land use regulation. _ � Mr. Hickok stated, as staff analyzed the site, they looked at surroundinq natural features and considered the impacts of the outside storage of inerchahdise. One of the natural features considered was the natural elevation of the storage area at the base of the hill. As you move to the east, there is a drastic increase in elevation toward:the single family residential;area. x The natural features ��-include . a i :severe °'.grade --r.hange �:and-. waodland . - .; � :� v.egetation that helps separate � the: existing use from the ,,._ � f� � .�� . r-.� �� : residential area to the east.- ' � �"`\ �, � pLANNINd COIKMI88IOH M�STINa. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGE 17 Mr. Hickok stated the significant difference in elevation causes a distinct difficulty in the ability to fully screen merchandise outside or items being stored outside in the rear storage area. With the difference in elevation and the fact that outdoor_ storage can cause additional noise to the surrounding area, can create impacts of light and glare, can cause unsightlinese from merchandise and materials being stored outdoors, cause conflicts with physically challenged individuals, can compromise the safety of the materials themselves, can compromise enjoyment of the surrounding property, and a potential aesthetic decline associated with outdoor unscreened storage and display. Mr. Hickok stated staff is recommending denial of the request. In the event that this project does not move forward, the existing conditions on the site would remain. Any modification would cause the current standards to prevail. Mr. Newman stated, if this permit were denied and expansion did not occur, this would not necessarily prohibit the petitioner from conduating business as they do today. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Mr. Newman asked, when dealing with outside display, does this include items that are in front of the store as well. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Newman asked if there was a natural screen of the building itself in front. Mr. Hickok stated, if the only area of concern was the residential area to the east, the building as a screen would be good argument. But, if looking at all perspectives including that as you drive by the site, those views would be considered well. :� as Mr. Newman asked if other retailers have wanted outside display. What has been the City�s practice? � Mr. Hickok stated other retailers have requested outside display. The City has a standard policy of stipulation.that no outdoor storage happen outside of the structures such as garden centers. In previous requests by Home Depot and Wal-Mart for their garden centers, sales and display is to be confined within the garden center. other "big box" commercial properties who have expressed outdoor displ�ay have not been allowed. One small commercial property that sells snowmobile trailers has been permitted to have those outdoors. Their situation is-quite different.�;�They � have an area back from the'pedestrian way. � -•- r� PLANNINa COMMI88ION-MEETINa, ApRIL 3. 1996 PAa$ 18 � Mr. Soltau, an owner from Skywood Mall, stated they are currently under contract with Menards. He has some degree,of difficulty in addressing these issues four separate times. He asked if the Commission would be voting on the requests separately. - Mr. Newman stated he thought they needed to vote on the requests separately. He thouqht they would conduct all the public hearings, discuss th� requests, but vote on them separately. He is comfortable with the petitioner giving one presentation, and those comments can be reflected.in the following public hearings. Mr. Soltau introduced Mr. Malkerson, Mr. Colby, and Mr. Conlin. They would like to provide an appreciation of the evolution of this property Both historically and today, why they are here with Menards, why they think this is proper utilization of the property, and the benefits that will be derived. Mr. Malkerson, attorney for Mr. Soltau of the Skywood Mall, stated he thought it would be beneficial to expedite the hearinqs and to ge�t clarification of some of the legal aspects. He thought the applicant was somewhat surprised when he received the staff report. Based upon private meetings, he thought that it would get a positive recommendation from staff. At this time, they are trying to figure out what they can do to get the support � of the staff, the Planning Commission, and the neighborhood. Mr. Malkerson stated, as he understands it, there are two parcels. To the north is the�existing Menards buildinq and in the back is a fence:;with-some,storaqe. As he understands the presentation of staff, the storage that is outside the building and outside the fence is`"the subject of the first hearing. Mr. Hickok stated this hearing includes�merchandise stored outdoors whether inside or outside the fence. Mr. Malkerson stated, if he assumes that no materials could be viewed above the fence, that behind the building where there is a fence all materials were below the top of the fence,.they �rould not need a special use permit for future use. Mr. Newman stated they would not need a special use permit for �-� the issue of storaqe according to the original C-2S zoning on the property. For the question of expanding outside display, they would still need a special use permit for exterior storage.. Mr. Malkerson stated anytime material is outside, even thouqh it is fully screened by a fence, it still needs a special use permit. ° Mr. Newman stated this �'� was`' correct: .��- � pLANNINa CO�II88IOH MESTINa. APRIL 3, 1996 PAa$ 19 ,''�, Mr. Malkerson stated he did not agree. As he understands it, there is the Menards buildinq and the rear storage area. Menards is proposing to purchase the property next door and have an operation there with fencing and outside storaqe in the back. ,It is his understanding that Menards is asking that, if they expand, that they can put some materials outside here as they have on the existing site. Mr. Hickok stated the outdoor storage would pertain to anything they would have outdoors. If staff were recommending approval, he would talk about and stipulate what would be on the sidewalk out front, any merchandise that can be seen from the right-of-way or adjacent properties that is outside on the Skywood property as well as Menards. Mr. Malkerson stated he did not think, if Menards acquires the second parcel, that this is an expansion of a nonconforming use. _ He believes it is stand alone. They happen to be side-by-side but, if they get a permit for the second, he thought they were unrelated as it relates to an expansion of a nonconforminq use as to an existing building on a separate site. Mr. Malkerson stated, on the conditional use standards, as he ^ understands the law, when a use is allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, that although there are some pretty general standards, it really is not the their duty to prove that they comply with the.use. Unless there are specific standards tliat call out decibel levels, etc., it is not their burden to°meet;;�� - It is the City's burden to show that they don't meet the standards. They are here to do whatever they can to try to bring about a change to existing Menards atructure and use to make a better situation for everyone. That is the attitude they bring forward. They need to get some direction before they proceed. Mr. Newman stated, if the applicant ie desirous to continue this hearing based on the statement that the recommendation in the staff report came as a surprise, if you need additional time to address these connnents or to.work with the neighbors, that is something the Planning Commission is willing to consider. _ Mr. Malkerson stated they were there to find out what it will take to make the City feel comfortable with however this should be done and.to make the neighborhood feel comfortable too. Otherwise, Menards will continue to do what is has been doing. Frankly, if Menards does not expand, you will see continuation of the second building area as being one with vacant stores-and vacant office space which is not good for the City or the neighborhood. ^ Mr. Colby, Menards, stated he was there�to explain their::: '��. intentions and answer any questions. They are hoping'to purchase PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 3. 1996 PAG$ 20 /'� the Skywood Mall to enable them to expand their operations. Currently, Menards is bulging at the seams. This is one opportunity to get more room to spread out and get the piles down � by bringing indoors some materials currently outside. The, ,;:. Skywood Mall area is approximately 70,000 square feet. Their - intention is to make about 40,00o square feet into a drive through warehouse for their building materials and to remodel the front portion to allow for 30,000 square feet of retail space other than Menards. The area would not likely lose all the retail that is there. They would move the tenants that are there to the front to give them visibility and to give them some traffic and success. Mr. Colby stated the requests go hand-in-hand. There are things they would like to do with the existing facility to upgrade it and make it more functional. Their track record has not been the best and they are here to rectify that. He understands some changes need to take place. He did not think it was possible for them to do everything to satisfy everyone's needs, but they would like to take steps in the proper direction. Mr. Colby stated, along the north side of the existing facility, they.would like to replace the existing fence with a wooden fence along the north and east sides of the existing Menards building, ^ along the back of the Skywood Mall and bring it back up to the building. The fenae is 14 feet high storage and screening fence. The backside is pressure treated iumber. The inside has racks.:_._._.. for storage. The fence will hav� a roof so materialx=cannot be stored any higher than the roof. By putting this`around basically three sides of the facility, it helps curb some of��the concerns of the visibility of materials. The.fence is mechanically fastened to a concrete slab so it stays straight. � Mr. Colby stated for the expansion into the Skywood Mall, they would be taking down the fence that currently exists between the • Menards store and the mall, open the area between the two �. facilities, demolish the existing two-story office area, and upgrade the front of the existing Skywood Mall area to be more presentable for the new retail spaces. Mr. Colby stated he understands this will not solve.all the _ problems. He did not think it was possible,to solve all the ';I� problems. Menards will continue to operate there. �.Their-. business in Fridley is quite good and they appreciate the residents of Fridley. What they are proposing is a step in the I direction of what you are looking to see. This is an improvement = r over what is currently there and it will Menards,to operate their: j facility in a much better fashion and to.serve their cuatomers : . � - better. - He asked the Planning Commission ° to : consider : the � � � � ;; � request.- They would be happy : to° }consider� any�, suggestions:� I=r :This `�� ,^ °,.�:� is not a final but this is what they would like to do. . pLANNING COI�iI88ION MEBTINt� APRIL 3 1996 PAa$ 21 Ms. Savage stated, as she understands it, they would not need a special use permit to purchase the Skywood Mall if they were not goinq to store prcducts outside. The proposal is to consider all of the outdoor storage that would be within the fence as described. Mr. Colby stated there would still be outdoor storage. The new fence would allow more material in the fenced, screened area and materials in the 40,000 square foot Skywood Mall area, but there would still be material outside. � Mr. Saba asked if everything would be in the back and not visible- because of the fence. Mr. Colby stated the materials would not be visible from ground level, but unfortunately it would still be visible because of the elevation to the east. Ms. Modig stated she had seen this type of fence installed at a Menards in Waite Park. The change in appearance was phenomenal. She was very impressed by the change. Mr. Colby stated this would be the same type of fence. � Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner was planning to tear down a portion of the mall. Mr. Colby stated the current two-story office`area is planned-to be demolished. Mr. Sielaff stated the plan is then to take out-the office area and the additional space would be used for storage and there - would be outdoor storage behind the existing mall. Mr. Colby stated yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if the space in the mall would then be retail space. Mr. Colby stated this would be a drive through warehouse space. For example, plywood would be stored in that building. If you wanted 20 sheets of plywood,.you would pull up to the display, load what you wanted, and drive away. It is almost identical to what is being done on the existing site. Ms. Savage asked, if the special use permits were denied, what effect would this have on your plans. Mr. Colby stated they would not'purchase:the mall. � � ��'� � , PLANNINt3 COMMI88ION MEETINa. ,ApRIL 3. 1996 PAaR 22 Ms. Modig asked if that was true if the denial was only for the front storage and the storage in the back could be maintained in the manner talked about. Mr. Colby stated they have yard barns in front and a fence along the buildinq. The only thing this store has is a chain link fence which is different from the store in question. Mr. Sielaff asked how car exhaust was_handled in the proposed area. Mr. Colby stated the area will be unheated. The sprinkler system will be changed to a dry`system. There will be a series of openings placed in the exterior walls without doors. It will be open but not as open as the existing structures. In this case of handling car exhaust, they will have to examine that and the architect will have to determine if additional ventilation will be required. Mr. Sielaff asked if it was a problem to surrounding areas to ventilate that exhaust. He is concerned that this will affect the residents. Mr. Colby stated it is vented out the roof. He did not think it would be any different than traffic on I-694. Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Colby knew the heiqht of the buildinq. Mr. Colby stated he did not know. Mr. Newman stated he assumed Menards would have storage in the yard area as well. How high will that be? Mr. Colby stated most of the material is not stored in a rack so it is then limited to how high a forklift can go. If it is felt there is a need to limit that, they will consider it. Mr. Newman stated, in reading the staff repart and in reading the letters and comments from�the neighbors over the years, there is a concern about noise from the activity in the yard. Is there any way to reduce the impact of noise to the neighborhood? __... Mr. Colby stated one of�the things this will act as is somewhat of a sound wall. The existing fence is eight to ten feet high. Most of the fence is in a somewhat run down condition. -The proposed fence is 14 feet high and acts as a better sound barrier than what currently exists. This could only be an improvement. � � Mr. Mortenson stated;he built';the mall which has ended up�to be. zmore trouble than what it:issworth. Through the years, they have � had quite a few different developments there which did not work r,. P-� �-� � pLANNIN(3 COMMIBBION MEETINQ APRIL 3 1996 PAaL 23 out. For some reason, the center has never done well. Now they have Menards which is a stronq store and has a good business. He� lives above there on the hill about a block away, and he has a vested interested in the property. In living in that close proximity, he has not really noticed noise problems from Menards. In the past, he used to hear some of the trains in the railroad yard about five miles away. Then the freeway came along. They now have the freeway noise. Menards is an insignificant noise. He does not hear the railroad now. He only hears the semis and traffic on I-694. Mr. Mortenson stated, as far as addressing the noise of Menards, he did not know if that would be siqnificant in that area any . more because of the traffic of the freeway. He is in support of the proposal and thought it would be good for the community. He showed photos of the existing view from the parking lot of the hill. Residents have a screen so they cannot see the existing site. He thought the expansion would benefit Menards and the community. He thought they would be strong tenants that could keep the center up and keep it nice. Mr. Newman stated he realized this was a particularly tricky site because of the difference of elevation between residential and commercial. - Mr. Mortenson stated, when he first moved to that area, there was nothing but farmland below the hill. The trees were not quite as thick around his house. At that time, therev�•'was a'lot of junk so it was not that pretty. - Mr. Newman asked if there was any way to landscape the side of ' that hill to block the impact of Menards but without obstructing the view the residents currently have. Mr. Hickok stated there may be some possibilities there. At one time, Mr. Mortenson indicated he had planted as many as 1,000 everqreen trees of which some remain. It is a difficult slope with a severe grade. only certain vegetation will adhere to the slope in this location. Mr. Mortenson stated, when he finished the cente=, the hill was a problem. He asked City staff to walk the hill and�they agreed that planting trees was probably the best-.they could do. That was the.�ear of the drought. Ti�ere is some natural growth and he put in some drainage sleuths. There is no drainage problem. When on a hill, one will see and hear stuff. -�� Mr. Newman asked if the property line ran up the hill. Mr. Mortenson stated yes. .,- ;' ' , �°'`, PLANNINa__COMMI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 3, 1996 ' P�d$ 24 -t� �r .r Mr. Soltau stated he will explain how they came to the project, their enthusiasm for the location, and their frustrations with some of the site limitations caused by the site characteristics. He thought the proposed combination of uses is the site�s highest and best use. Mr. Soltau stated they bought the property is late 1994. This property has had a troubled history. It has had limited occupancy both in the origi.nal facility and limited success in the expanded facility, with the exception of the hotel. Mr. Soltau stated they are excited about Skywood Mall. When making leasing calls or talking to retailers, he gets excited about it. There is tremendous density and commercial recoqnition along Central Avenue. The area is zoned commercial and should be zoned commercial. It is at a major interchange. The traffic counts are phenomenal. There is potential.for retail here. The site is currently under-utilized. Mr. Soltau stated, when they acquired the property, they felt it was an opportunity for redevelopment. The interior mall configuration has not succeeded. It is an unanchored situation and has had limited success. They see the evolution of this property as a combination retaining the retail, retaining the existing frontage, utilizing the depth of the building and trying to brinq in "big box" tenants. The mall is very deep. If they pursue a large retailer, they want the front,a�d then there is no opportunity to occupy the back. Retailers laok•�for frontage-: compared to the depth. Their objective was to find�that,.,first big user. That big user has one thing that comes with it"= demand for parking. That is a challenge for this site. They have tried fio be creative in ways to redevelop this site, but they are against the wall. They cannot provide the parking for the site if it has retail uses. He does not have a solution for that. The Ground Round restaurant doss not have enough parking for its current needs. They have 70,000 square feet of buildinq, area, not including the offiae tower. Other limitations are the adjacencies. They need the major anchor to get the small tenants. Menards is a fantastic operation as is the Kel�y Inn� but they do nothing to attract the fashion retail tenants. The adjacencies that are there have created some concern on the part of the tenants. They cannot do anything abou� the,adjacencies, the depth or the parking. What can they do with this°property? They have aonsidered tearing it down, razing part of it, and shifting it back to gain more parking. - �, �,. ;; ,:.:, . , ;�;.� Mr. Soltau stated they have a unique situation to work with Menards, alleviate the parkinq for what would otherwise be 70,000 square feet of retail; reconfigure<°:the!�:existing:retail to__a°�°; •� product that is marketable that`:�will : work, �;: and . reconfigure. the ,�,= ;� � � PLANNIN(,� COMMI88ION MSSTINt�. APItIL 3. 1996 PAGL 25 mix and type of tenants. This has been a degenerating situation for some time, and they want to turn it around. Mr. Soltau stated another limitation is visibility. There is limited visibility to attract the "big box° user. He did not think they would be able to get one. When coming back to the Menards proposal, they tear down the existing office structure which has a good portion that is not occupied. Tenants that are occupying that space do so because of very favorable economics and the adjacencies to other retail operations. They do not want to lose those tenants and can provide space for them. Mr. Soltau stated one of the conclusions and findings in the staff report is that there would be a reduction in the tax base. There has already been a reduction in the tax base. This property has income producing potentials showing it is somewhat limited. Revitaiization of the site is an opportunity to increase that base. The other findings that he disagrees with is that there is opportunity to mitigate because of the elevation difference. He thought something could be done. They are all receptive to suggestions in that area. The fence itself is screening. There are other conditions that could be worked with. They thought this was the best mix and the best use. ^ Mr. Soltau stated this is a window of opportunity but they cannot wait long or they will lose tenants. The tenants want stability and a new lease. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the overall impact on this project is what is best;and appropriate. There is an opportunity-to mitigate the problems because of concerns with the neighbors and this is also an opportunity to work with the neighbors in the azea. Mr. Newman stated Mr. Soltau had talked about a_,"big box" user. Is it feasible that there might be a single tenant that would take the entire mall. .. Mr. Soltau stated he hoped that would happen and has worked on it. He has a backqround in this area and has extensive retail contacts. There are not that many "biq box" players out there and they have contacted them all. Mr. Newman asked, if you had a tenant such as Best Buy, how many parking stalls would be needed. _ Mr. Soltau stated many of these retailers have needs which are reflective of the city codes. Most cities have a ratio of 5:1,000. Ariy retailer will need parking. Mr. Newman stated he can see that certain big users wouid need �� a,. ,� more parking than others. � `''� PLANNIiJa COMMI88ION MESTINa. APRIL 3. 1996 p�ag 6 Mr. Soltau stated Central Avenue is its own commercial area. The mall is un-anchored. The location is an "in-betweenern. The area is in-between Rosedale, Brookdale and Northtown. There are trade areas and "big box" users locate in these areas. -.., Mr. Conlin stated his company is a partner in the Kelly Inn. They share a co�on wall with the mall. They purchased the Kelly Inn about four years ago. At that time, the hotel had also failed. It was taken back by the lender, and thay purchased it- - from lender. They have invested a significant amount of money in this property. In the meantime, they have turned the property around. They continue to invest in the property each year to keep it in first class condition. One of their concerns is that over the years the mall has become more distressed. They look at that as potentially threatening the viability and the continuing success of the hotel as well as the value of the property. As a neighbor, they are directly impacted by the use of that property. He spent some time with Mr. Soltau and Mr. Colby discussing their proposal and think their plan is very favorable to the situation. The plans for shrinking the retail and moving it to the front of building and enhancing the facade would create a better image for the property overall. They feel it is an excellent proposal. Their fear is that, if nothing is done, the mall will continue to deteriorate and will then have an impact of their property. Mr. Sielaff asked if the hotel had rooms adjacent to the common wall with the proposed drive through area for Menards. .._ Mr. Conlin stated no. There is some separation between the � areas. Ms. Engebretson stated theiY property is adjacent to the Skywood Mall. They have been residents for 32 years. She has seen changes. When the mall was built, she came home to find that bulldozers had been in her yard. She was told the mall would be close to Central Avenue and a 40-foot buffer was the grade of tha hill. She does have problems with the fact. She cannot say she had been as directly impacted by Menards but she would be impacted if Menards moved behind the mall. It is hard to believe but they can hear conversations that take place in the parking lot. These are normal conversations that take place outside which will hit hill and the sound carries right up. She does not know how one could screen that. That is just the way-the landscape is. /'1 � +S �' I Ms. Engebretson stated �he has concerns about the impact of the lighting. How are you goinq to control the light from goinq up? She is already dealing with the lights from the motel which are at eye level . She has invested �.in her<�home by adding :an > > ,: �d ;. � : . addition. She does not- need=- to turn �the lights -on `because:�of :�the ,, 5�C4� >' . light from the motel.� She has invested in her property thinkinq � ,� n /� pyANNlliia COMMIBSION MEETINa. APRIL 3. 1996 pA�-3�- that what they have down there is now contained under a roof. Now they are talking about outside storage that will bring traffic to the back of the mall. She is concerned about exhaust fumes and the impact that will have on them. Ms. Enqebretson submitted a petition signed by the members of the neighborhood. The objections listed included the lighting. Rear lighting of buildings illuminates the surrounding area and the residential homes above. The noise is a concern. Menards is a 12-hour a day, seven day a week operation. There is no rest. After coming home after work, they can open their windows and listen to the rooftop air conditioning units, the backup beepers of fork- lifts and semis, vehicles with doors and tailgates slamming. Now, they are invading even more her right to come home to her castle. Ms. Engebretson stated the issue of fire has not been addressed. There will be a partition dividing the area. She presumed there would be one way in so emergency vehicles can only enter on each - side and not be able to complete drive through. This needs to be addressed. Menards has had a fire which was contained. Menards will be dealing with flammable materials. Cinders tend to rise. The hill in the fall is dry. Ms. Engebretson stated debris and spillage of wrappers concern. She was not sure, if more is stored outside, could promise them. You talk about a,distressed area. about the value of the homes? They now.not only have distressed shopping center but will this now start on neighborhood? is a what you What a the Ms. Engebretson stated, in the past,-there have been requests for outdoor special use permits, requests for trailer sales, and a request for a bumper car business that were denied. She thought this was,a piece of property that is overdeveloped. It cannot manage what is presently there. The side roads were not designed to carry the current level of traffic. She is concerned about water flow. When the motel went in, she asked what would happen to all that rain. She was told the roof pitch would handle the water. There is no water on the roof but now there is drainage on 52nd which cannot contain the water. The water overflows into- the street. In the winter, it ices up and creates a very slippery intersection. Now they are proposinq more outdoor storage with more blacktop and more runoff. Ms. Engebretson stated she felt bad that the shopping center has not taken off. People do not want to enter because there is already a traffic situation. She feels bad for Menards. She understands why they want to expand-$ut she"also wonders if it would be easier to go elsewhere where`there are not-so many obstacles. She also understood that they are proposinq to cut PLANNINa COMMIBSION MEETINa. APRIL 3. 1996 PAa� 28 _ � into the hill 20 feet. It has taken them 32 years to get the hill under control to prevent erosion. Their fence went down in the first ten years due to erosion. Sumac was p�anted on the hill.and she now has sumac in her yard. They do not have a very good feeling for what they have been promised in the past and what they have gotten. She hoped the neighborhood would be considered and the request be denied. Mr. Newman stated he got a sense from the comments that Ms. Engebretson might be more willing to accept this project if more of the issues were addressed. Ms. Engebretson stated addressing the problems is one thing; making them work is another. They have always been told it is workable. The neighbors have given up a lot. They have wo�ked out some things. It has made an impact on their lives. A motel is not a business where�it is constantly going. Menards busy time is summer when residents want their windaws open. You can address the issues and come up with workable solutions, but to guarantee that you can enforce those is another thing. Companies can agree but do not do. Mr. Newman asked Mr. Hickok if the hill would be cut back 20 feet . ,,,� Mr. Hickok stated the hill is proposed to be cut back 20 feet at the back of the mall where it meets the Re11y Inn from the point �where the curb currently exist¢. Moving to the north of the mall; this wili be reduced to approximately 5 feet. A retaining structure and fence combination is proposed. Mr. Newman asked the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Hickok stated the height would vary depending on the slope between two feet and eight feet. The storage fence structure will be no more than 14 feet. The screening wall will not be more than six feet above that. Mr. Petron stated he occupied the residence whose property abuts ., Menards directly to the east and to the south. He has lived in- -� the neighborhood for 26 years. He would like to comment on the � noise. He can honestly say that any noise that Menards has made has been no more disturbing than his neighbor mowing the lawn or doing any other outside work. He was at one time concerned about fire. There was a fire at Menards, but it was handled well. He has confidence in the fire department. There is no more noise, as far as he is concerned, from Menards yard than there is.from I-694 that he has to deal with. It is difficult to sit on the deck and carry on a conversation.: -:In' 26 .years, they have used ":' `� their deck probably a dozen times:° ��- He •is conce�ned about==the � °�: mall being vacant. He did not think an y t hing is more ugly in the � � pLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINd, APRIL 3. 1996 pAa� ?-� neighborhood than seeing empty buildings. When driving by and seeing empty building, people say the neighborhood is getting run down. He is part of the neigiiborhood and is concerned about that. He would support the application. -�� Mr. Delich stated he lives behind the mall and has lived there for 30 years. He was the first renter in the mall when it was built. His problem is that he is at the highest point on the hill and would be looking down into their yard. He wondered just how junky it will be. The map sent out was very poor. He would liked to have seen where the storage would be and what would be covered and not covered. Behind iais lot is a buffer strip of 75 feet which comes to his lot line where there should be nothing. He is concerned about the noise. He felt the noise could be limited. They come in on niqhts and Sundays and unload merchandise. He thought there should be a limit on emptying _. trucks at night. They are adjacent to a residential area and this should be limited. The big concern for him is looking down and seeing what is in that area. Will this be a conglomeration of all kinds of stuff without a system? He stated he can live with almost anything, but they must keep our neighborhoods. If they have to sell their home, he would like to get a good price and not have it devalued. ^ Mr. Newman asked Mr. Delich is he thought the proposed 14 foot fence would be an improvement over what is there now. Mr. Delich stated it would be an improvement over what��>�ow exists. There is nothing now behind Skywood Mall except garbage which is a problem. He also has'a hedge that�blocks.some of the view. The fence will not make much difference to me. He can see the top of the building which is.horrible looking with the air conditioning units, but it is necessary for commercial so he can live with it. Mr. Saba stated it sounded as though Mr. Delich was seeking order. Mr. Delich stated that and noise are the factors for him. The - lights are not a problem because they do not shine on his property. Ms. Engebretson is at a lower elevation so it is a problem for her. Ms. Matthews handed out copies of letters which represents a 22 year history of promises. It is difficult for her not to be emotional about this because it has been 22 years to try to get a noise barrier in. She lives right above Menards and the noise travels up the hill. She can hear voices and the forklifts. The issue is the outside operation;and-the noise:.- The problem is , . �^, worse with extended hours. :;='�Menards' is .:now. requesting more of the `° � same only moving down the block. The�neighborho� needs � P7�ANNINa COMMIBBIO� ME$TIN�, APRIL 3. 1996 PAa� 30 � aooperation from Menards - not just words. They need a written, legally bindinq agreement signed by Menards, the City and the neighbors for a sound wall. In 1988, the noise issue was ;s reviewed and a sound barrier xecommended. She had plans from. • Menards to reduce the noise and plans for storage sheds with roofs. A sound barrier would have to be 28 feet tall in order to reduce the decibel level. None of this happened. It has been a long battle. They have tried to cooperate and have not had very good living above Menards. Ms. Modig asked if the sound wall was installed. Ms. Matthews stated no. Some of the other neighbors who did not object to the noise live further away. They do not live right there. Mr. Job stated he is concerned about cutting 20 feet into the� hill. Only 40 feet separates them now so that is half the distance. The few trees at the base of the hill will be gone. With a 14-foot wall cut 20 feet into the hill, what will they be looking at? This will not block out noise. He can hear voices from the parking lot and he lives behind the mall. He works for a realtor and he knows what will happen to the property values on Taylor Street. Trees will help block some of the noise. As you go down the hill, there are trees but, if cutting into the hill, it will be a disaster for the people on Taylor Street. Mr. Newman stated he wanted to foot distance being reduced to indicate where that is located. address the concerns about the 40- 20 feet. He asked staff to Mr. Hickok stated the illustration shows 100 feet from the curb line to the rear property line.of the Skywood Mall. 20 feet would be into the slope. Mr. Sielaff asked the reason for cutting 20 feet into the slopee Mr. Hickok stated doing so would square off the proposed area behind the mall. Mr. Job stated 20 feet will be a big difference. What assurances to the neighborhood will they have to not want another 20 feet in the future? This is a conaern. People purchasing property in this area will be concerned as well. � Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner may be able to address that. The fence line as it is proposed follows the contour at the base of the slope which brings them close to lininq up with the existing Menards corner. There�is a cut in the curb.line-to the south and this then follows a- contour �:to match up with the -; �.,�: ;:_ . existing fence at Menards. pLANNINa COI�iI88ION MSBTI�Q �PRIL 3 1996 PAdB 31 /� Mr. Sielaff asked if it could be closer to the building. Mr. Hickok stated it could be closer to the building. The maneuverability of vehicles may then be a concern. Ms. Modig asked, if someone owns property that abuts the Menards or Skywood Mall property, is there anything that says they cannot build up to the hill to within a few feet of the property line. Mr. Hickok stated, if the building could be supported structurally, tlaey could do so. The code would allow that. Ms. Modig asked if they would need a special use permit to do that. Mr. Hickok stated, if this special use permit were granted, the modification as suggested would require them to ga back through the process. There is a way to prevent that from happening. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive into the public record a Petition to Request Denial in the Granting of Special Use Permits, SP �96-02, 05, 06 and 07 to the Said Property known as the Menards Pr�perty and Skywood Mall Property � as described in the legal notices. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINt� AYE, CSAIRgERBON NI3WMADT DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. oM TION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the public record the packet of information as provided by Ms. Mary Matthews, which included a letter from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated 7/7/88, drawinqs, and letters from City staff. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTIlTt3 AYl� � CHAIRPE1t80N NEWMAN DECLARED THS MOTION CARRIED TINANIMOIIBLY. Mr. Zemke stated he lives on.the edge of one of the ravines that Ms. Matthews talked about. In the summertime, he wakes up on weekends to the stacking of lumber and the conversations that are goinq on at Menards. In the winter, he can see into the Menards lot. An additional six feet of fence will not do anything. They will still be able to look directly down into the lot. The height of the fence would have to be phenomenal to block out the view and the sound. If you allow the proposal to go through, it will be the same all the way down the block. Everyone will be looking into the lumber yard. There will be noise that will go right up the hill. r-� Mr. Nunemaker stated he is not adjacent to the properties. He is asking about the position he would be in as a tenant of the PLANNIN� COMMI8BI0� MEETINa. �PRIL 3. 1996 PAGB 32 Skywood Mall affice complex. They have maintained an office in that building since 1984 and have operated without a lease for - the past three or four years. ,He represents the Midland Co-op Credit Union. This issue came up last month:at their meetinq when they learned of the proposal for Menards to purchase the property and demolish the office complex. Without a lease, where do they stand as tenants? If everything is qranted, how much � time would the tenants have to look for other office space or what are the plans to provide something for them? They have been told a space would be provided. They don'.t know what it would be like to have an office in the front of the Skywood Mall and traffic and lumber loading to the rear. Mr. Newman stated this is a question the Planning Commission cannot answer. This would best be answered by the owner of the building. The request is scheduled to go to the City Council on May 6. If they take final action that niqht, that would conclude the City's involvement. The City would need to review the applications for building permits, etc. It then becomes a function of how quickly the owner wishes to proceed. It could move rather quickly. Mr. Bliss asked how far south the proposed fence would go. Mr. Hickok stated the new fence would extend to the corner of the Skywood Mall where it meets the Relly Znn and extend toward the hillside. The fence would no't be behind the Relly Inn. Mr, Bliss asked if semis would be unloading that far south. Mr. Colby stated yes. Mr. Bliss stated he drives by there to go to work. He of trash blowing around. They clear it a couple times Has this issue been addressed in the past? Mr. Hickok stated yes, this issue has been addressed. sees a lot. a year. Mr. ICempe stated he can hear the noise from Menards and he is on the east side of the street. They can also hear the signals on the forklifts when they are backing up. In the summer, this goes on until 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. He does not want to hear any more of it. It appears to him that, if�they are piling things on top of the fences that they have now, they are not a good neighbor now. They are not taking care of the fence now. Mr. Parizek stated he has been listening to all of the problems that have come up from Menards. One of the things that concerns him is the traffic f1ow. He has lived there for 31 years. He has nearly gotten run over.a-number of-times at;the stoplight area where they turn in and out of Menards. There are stop signs � ,� � � pLANNINa COMMISSION ME$TINa. APRIL 3. 1996 p�d$ �3 and people don't see them. Also, the new exit on the west side where the old ATM machine was located is another area where cuetomers do not want to stop. In the wintertime, it ie danqerous. He is not aqainst the proposal per se, but he would like to have some these concerns addressed. He did not know who would take care of the traffic problems. Ms. Matthews stated, in the aqreement drawn up with the City 22 years ago, they agreed to the construction of a sound wall, lights that would shine down, and aqreed that Menards would not extend their hours. If the hours were expanded or naise _ intensified, it was to be reviewed. This did not happen. She feels that the residents did not get a fair shake. Mr. Delich stated, when they built their house, he understood there would be a 75 foot buffer between the house and the mall builciing. They have talked about cutting into the bank, building a wall and expanding the property. Ms. Engebretson stated she has lived here for 32 years. If Menards were to take over the mall, what is to say in a few years, if the Lake Pointe property is developed and the Relly Inn moved there, that the neighborhood could be looking at a lumber �, yard expanding across the whole area. She never thought she would live above a lumber yard. She did not think anyone could look 10 years out. There is no guarantee that the.Relly Inn will stay if they have an opportunity to,_move to a more viable situation. Granting these special use permits could create further expansion and further deterioration. - Mr. Malkerson thanked the Planning Commission and the public. The meeting was a good discussion of the issues. He tried to take verbatim notes to address some of the issues.raised. He could talk about noise standards. There are State noise -� standards. The MPCA has been out and their report showed there was compliance with the guidelines of the State and City. There was a question that, if the project is approved and there is cutting into the hill, could�they cut into th� hill further. The answer is no, they cannot because that would part of the approved . conditions of the plans. Perhaps staff would give residents an open space easement or some other sort of conservation easement over the balance to assure that this could not happen. There are other things they could address but, instead of doing that, he asked that they have an opportunity to come back to see where they are and answer any questions. He has not seen all of the information that was submitted at the meeting. If the Planning Commission's inclination is to deny the request, they will not ask for a continuance. They do not want to go through this again. If there is dialcx3ue ttiat- they can help with or �: � � ^ conditions discussed that they can'respond to, that is the . ' direction they would like to take. PLANNIN� COMMI88I08 MB$TINa. APRIL 3. 1996 PAGB 34 � Mr. Newman stated he was concerned that, if he is given a chance to respond, then others will also want to do so. Within some limitation, he will provide a chance to respond if necessary and he asks that the remarka be very brief. He will also qive the neighbors the same amount of time collectively to respond. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICS VO'1'Ts � AI.L VOTINa AYIS � CSAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARTD T8E MOTION CARRIED A�TD THE PIIBLIC HEARINa CL08ED AT 10:45 P.M. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #96-02. BY MENARD, INC.: Per Section 205.15.01.C.(8) of the Fridley City Code, to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 5207 Central Avenue N.E. (presently the Skywood Mall property). 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP �96-07. BY MENARD, INC.: Per Section 205.15.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles, boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other si.milar enterprises having merchandise in the open !� and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 5207 Central Avenue N.E. (presently the Skywood Mall propertYj: - _ 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 96- 06. BY MENARD. INC.: • Per Section 205.15.01.C.(8) of the Fridley City Code, to allow unscreened exterior storaqe of materials and equipment, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (the Menards property). MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notices, to conduct the three public hearings simultaneously, and to open the public hearing to consider Special Use Permit requests, SP �96-02, #96-07, and �96- 06. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIBt� AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THB PDBLIC HEARINa OPEN AT lO2�L7 P.M. Mr. Newman stated he would like to have the record reflect that all of the comments and documents submitted, and all of the record that was made as part of the public hearing for Special Use Permit, #9G-05, be incorporated by reference into these other - three public hearings. If anyone has an objection to this, -., � please indicate so. ,,.,,, pLANNING COMMISSION MEETINt� APRIL 3 1996 PAGiL 35 �-� , No one present at the meeting expressed an objection. Mr. Hickok showed photos of the Skywood Mall site. The proposal is to have the tenants moved to the front of buildinqs. Staff�: anticipates the front face will be modified for those tenants who will be located to the front of the center. Behind the mall is a severe slope between the property and the =esidential area. The slope is quite open and would require additional vegetation for screening purposes. Mr. Hickok stated Special IIse Permit, SP #96-02, deals with the unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment at the Skywood Mall. As a proposal comes in, staff ineets with the developers and recommends what the petitioner must do to move the process forward and point out what steps are involved. It does take a full analysis by staff to come to a determination and provide a recommendation. In the existing Menards building there is a portion along the southern edge of the building that is now interior storage space. He believed it was Menards intent to modify some of the internal space by moving that internal storage_ to the mall. The space gained inside the Skywood Mall is not necessarily to house what had been stored in the rear yard. It is Menards intent to modify the existing internal print of the ,...� building into a retail space. Mr. Hickok stated topography is an issue. There is a slope of 1 to 2.2 feet for every one foot of vertical di.mension. In other words, there is about 50 feet of elevation in about 110 feet. �� There is a lack of ability to successfully screen the�view of � outdoor materials.and outdoor merchandise from adjacent properties. The petitioner is proposing the removal of an existing office compiex to be used for outdoor storage. A � similar request had come to the assessor�s attention some years ago. The assessor did respond that there is a�significant difference in tax generation from outdoor storage to office/internal retail space. There is no opportunity for rear inventory receiving for the remaini.ng tenants. The plan is to put tenants toward the front. Staff is concerned that receiving for those tenants would be in the�front of the facility in the circulation route also used by customers. Another concern is increased noise in terms of the rear retail use. Staff has limited information regarding the use of the outdoor storage _ area. The plan is a concept at this time. Staff has limited information about the new buildinq elevation including customer circulation for the area behind the mall. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of special use permit, SP #96-02, due to the findings that the request will cause an increase in noise, light and glare, unsiqhtliness�of materials ;� from the public right-of-way and adjacent;properties, conflicts with physically challenged individuals on the site, compromised PLANNIN� CO1rIlKI88ION MBETINa. APRIL 3. 1996 PAa$ 36 ^ safety of individuals and materials, compromised enjoyment of surrounding property, aesthetic decline associated with outdoor unscreened storage/display and the decreased tax base as a result of removing the office space and replacing it with outdoor _ � storage. � Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of special use permit, SP #96-07, due to the findinqs that the request will cause an increase in noise, light and glare, unsightliness of materials from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, conflicts with physically challenged individuals on the site, compromised safety of individuals and materials, compromised enjoyment of surrounding property, aesthetic decline associated with outdoor unscreened storage/display and the decreased tax base as a result of removing the office space and replacing it with outdoor storage. Mr. Hickok stated special use permit, SP �96-06, deals with unscreened storage of materials and equipment that can be seen - from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. The issues with the Menards are much like those of the Skywood Mall property including topography and the lack of ability to screen the view from adjacent properties, increased noise in the rear, limited information about the use of the rear yard storage area, and � limited information regarding the rear building elevation and customer circulation. Also, there is a requirement for a gate around a petroleum pipeline that.exists between the properties. In our discussions, staff-asked for.;information about building. over a gasoline pipeline. Our experience has:been that pipeline companies do aerial inspections and they do not like landscape ,>= materials or anything of the,:like over 18 inches high because of. the shadows that are cast. Staff is concerned about surroundimg a pipeline with a gate, any potential hazards that may be caused by interruption and the ability to get in to that pipeline. The attorney for Menards responded that they are comfortable with the stipulations in their easement agreement and feel that what they are doing would not be in conflict with what they are doing between the two properties. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of special use permit, SP �96-06, due to the potential of limiting access to physically _ challenqed individuals a potential for compromised safety of individuals and the materials stored/displayed, and the potential of aesthetic decline caused by the outside displays. The petitioner does have the alternative of integrating the sales items into their operation in a manner that is consistent with the other retailers. Ms. Modig stated staff is recominending denial for the same reasons. -. � 0 � � PLANNING COMMT88ION MEBTINt3, APRIL 3. 1996 p�� 37 Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of any or all of the special use permits, they may want to table the issue in order to staff to lay out mitigating stipulations to address the issues outlined - and discussed. Mr. Saba asked how they could do that with the existing track record. Is there any way to enforce? Mr. Newman stated he thought the answer is that you have those options be it financial arrangements to secure performance as well as a host of other options. Staff does not know why they did not execute the original agreement. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to summarize. As he sees it, there are those items that are existing and those proposed. SP #96-02 is dealing with what is proposed. Mr. Hickok stated SP #96-02 deals with the Skywood Mall and anything that is not screened and cannot be viewed from the adjacent properties. This is only outside. SP #96-07 also deals with merchandise that is outside at the Skywood Mall property. Mr. Sielaff stated that SP �96-05 deals with outside merchandise at the current Menards and SP �96-06 deals with outside storage at the current Menards. Ms. Modig asked if there was some way to separate the items stored inside the fence from those items stored outside the fence. It seems to be two different issues. Mr. Hickok stated they can do so through stipulations to identify what standards would be applied to what materials. Mr. Newman stated, if the Planning Commission were inclined to recommend approval, staff could have time to come up with stipulations. Staff could have one set of stipulations that would apply to all four requests. Mr. Newman stated the public testimony received as part of the previous public hearing will be incorporated into this public hearing by reference. He asked if anyone frdm the public had any additional comments or any additional information to provide. No additional comments were received from the public. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the three public hearings. - - - i`` IIPON A VOICL VOTE� ALL VOTINa AYS�'CHAIRPER80N NTWMAN DECI+ARFD THE MOTION.CARRIED AND THE BIIBLIC HEARINa CL08ED AT 11:10 P.M. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, APRIL 3. 199b PAGB 38 � Ms. Savage stated her initial reaction is to recommend denial of the requests for a number of reasons. First, there is simply an incompatible use with a lumber yard and a residential area. There were problems earlier. In the late 1980�s, this was in � front of the Appeals Commission when the sound barrier issue was brought up. There have been problems since the 1960�s. At this point, she sees the problems as being compounded by qranting the special use permits. Second, she has a lot of concern about the precedent for outdoor display. The pbig box" retail operations have all expressed an interest in having outdoor display and the City has declined. If this is qranted, the City will have other requests. This is not gaod for the City. Mr. Saba stated he would be inclined to vote the same way for those same reasons as well as others. He is concerned about Menards' past performance or lack of same in dealing with the City as well as the neighbors. There has been a battle to enforce past agreements, stipulations, and neiqhborhood concerns. While he likes Menards and shops there, he is reluctant to go behind the store. He would hope any improvements they make would address that situation. He cannot help but feel there could be a meeting with the neighbors and staff regarding the issues and come back with a revised plan. He agrees that the intended use does not seem compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. They could come up with another plan with the storage closer to I-694 area. He did not know what the prime layout of that area would be but he does not agree that the proposal fits into a mall area. Regarding an agreement, he would like to see that in any - additional proposal brought before the Planning�Commission. He would be inclined to vote against the proposals. n :��_ Ms. Modig stated, having seen what Menards did with their store in St. Cloud and the difference it made in the area, she would be inclined not to do anything that would eliminate the possibility i; that this could happen here. For those of us living in the City, � we have seen how that area is deteriorating and, she thought, � they were losing a lot of potential people because of what is happening there. She would like to see a separation of what is outside the fence area from inside the fence area. The City has told others what we expect them to do. The.City did not say they could not store material outside in a fenced area. The City told them how high they could store stuff in the-fenced area and allowed one business to have a special use permit until they constructed a garden area. She did not think they could do that much less for Menards. It is unfortunate that.any of this was ever built there but the fact is that it is there and, if there is anything the City can do to enhance it to make it better, we should do that. You cannot hide a lumber yard from the neighbors. She would be inclined-to.table the requests, have the petitioners meet with staff and`the neighbor-hood, and see if -�`� s` some of these issues can be resolved. It would.be a positive � 1��, pLANNINa COM1dIB8ION MBSTIN6 L 3 1996 PAGT 39 thing for the area and for the City. It is not everyone's idea to have a lumber yard in their backyard, but it is there and somethinq needs to be done to make it a better area. She ie concerned about the previous lack of response to the sound wall. She would like to table these items and have staff work with the petitioners and representation from the neighborhood to come up with something that would be positive for all. Mr. Sielaff stated, regarding the issue of storing merchandise outside, historically the City has not allowed. He does not want to diverge from that. This is something the City should not encourage. Another issue is the autside storage of unscreened material. They need to h�ve it screened. He is inclined to recommend denial of the special use permits. Another issue is the noise and nuisance conditions in that storage area. He did - not think they could do anything about the existing storage area, but it should be screened. In the proposed area behind the mall, he is inclined to think there should be no storage at all. He does not like the idea that the wall is being placed 20 feet back and that it could potentially go back another 20 feet. He is inclined to say no storage should be allowed outside the mall, only inside. As the requests are laid out now, he would be inclined to recommend denial. � Mr. Newman stated, in reading the staff report, he thought this might be an opportunity. The uses are incompatible. If the City Council had to do it over, the zoning would probably be different. But, there is outside storage and outside merchandising and an area that does not provide the kind of appearance the City wants for the area. In driving down Central Avenue, he was surprised by the number of vacant buildings. He is aware of some of the financial concerns of the owners of the Skywood Mall. There is a history of tension between the neighbors and Menards, but there is an opportunity from which the City can benefit. He is inclined to table these requests if the. parties could work together. The petitioner seems willing to work and the neighbors are willing to work to make it better. _ Mr. Newman stated some of his concerns include the issue of lighting. Downcast lighting can be installed so that the glare does not impact the neighbors. They cannat control the Kelly Inn because that is outside this request, but this could be an improvement at the Skywood Mall and Menards properties. Another issue is noise. Shrubbery may dampen sound. Other alternatives including restricting the hours of operation of delivery trucks and forklifts. He would like to limit the height of yard storage. Mr. Colby stated�storage is to the height of a forklift. Mr. Newman did not know how high that was, but he does not want storage any higher than the fence. He would limit the %'`� outside merchandise display. He thought it was ugly out there. The City has a concern about precedent in retail areas and, he � PLANNINO COMMI88ION MBETINa APRIL 3 1996 PAQE 40 � thought the distinction staff can make is that now they have a lot of nonconforming use that permits them to do outside storage without restriction. If staff allows them to expand, we can restrict this outside storage. That miqht distinguish this from some of the other retailers. There was a concern about drainage that needs to be addressed. On the issue of enforcement, unfortunately Mr. Colby's predecessors have not set a good track record. He suspected that an aqreement could be reached that could be enforceable and the City A�torney could give assurances to the City Council that the City could enforce. 8e is concerned about where they are proposing to cut into the hill and also that what was a 14-foot fence no longer becomes a 14-foot fence and perhaps there are some areas where they may need to raise the height of that fence so that the neighbors can have the same kind- of benefit. There is concern about expansion. Mr. Malkerson proposed the possibility of a conservation easement. Mr. Newman was first inclined to restrict expansion by requiring an additional special use permit. If it is done by easement, they cannot expand even if the City wanted to give them a special use permit. That may be an attractive way to accomplish this. There is concern about trash and traffic. Traffic is not Menards problem but he can appreciate the concerns the neighbors have if people are not stopping for stop signs. He thought the City could do something through enforcement. Staff raised a very good � concern about pipelines. This is a private contractual arranqement with the property owner and the holder of the pipeline. To a large degree, if the holder is not concerned about it, he was not sure they should be concerned. The City should verify the fact that they are comfortable with what is being proposed. . Mr. Newman stated there is a whole host of issues there. If the neighbors and Menards got together with the help of staff, they could come up with some reasonable compromises recognizing there • will be some instances where people will not be totally happy. He thought they could improve on the situation. He agrees with, _... Ms. Modig that this would merit tabling these requests to give everyone an opportunity.to see if they can work together. Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Newman if there may not be a need for special use permits. Mr. Newman stated special use permits are needed, but they ceuld write out conditions to address a number of the concerns. Mr. Sielaff stated two requests are for unscreened outside storage so they could screen it but not need the permit. Mr. Newman stated this is something they have now. He would have• difficulty if the City continues to allow unscreened outside � storage in front of the Skywood Mall. He did not think they need � �"1 ,� pLANNING CONIIiI88ION MEETINa. APRT_L 3. 1996 PAt�L 41 to expand it. Menards is not going to be using that as a store front for their facility. He did not know if the other users would be using that for part of their retail. Perhaps the.City can go so far as to get Menards to curtail some of the outside storage from their present level. � Mr. Sielaff asked, if they put a 14-foot wall on the existing facility in the back, would that constitute screened storage. Mr. Newman stated it would be screened storage. But there would still be the display of outdaor merchandise. Mr. Sielaff stated his view is that they already have storage in back. His feeling is that he does not want to improve on what they have but then the City doesn't want to make it worse by adding additional storage behind the mall facility. Mr. Newman stated his guess is that Menards is saying they need additional space in order to compete. Ms. Savage stated, if the requests are tabled, it would mean that- some of these issues and concerns are addressed and that could improve the current situation. Mr. Newman asked if Mr. Malkerson would iike to address the subject of tabling action on the requests. Mr. Malkerson stated he thought there was an opportunity to work._Y They need to know the concerns in order to address those concerns. They are willing to work with staff and the neiqhborhood. He would also prefer the request be tabled because there was much information provided that was not available before. There is much to be worked out. Ms. Matthews stated she would go along with tabling because they worked it out once before. Mr. Newman suggested consideration of these items be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Colby suggested delaying for one month to be sure the petitioners are ready. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of Special Use Permit requests SP �96-05, SP �96-02, SP #96-07, and SP #96-08, subject to the call of the chair. IIPON A VOICB VOTB� ALL VOTINa AYB, CHAIRPLRSON NSWMAN DBCLARSD THE MOTION CARRIED O�II�iNIMOIIBI+Y. � � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa APRIL 3 1996 PAGB 42 � 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARRS & RECRF,ATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 4 1996 OTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of March 4, 1996. _ OPON A VOICB VOTB, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPBRSON liTEWMAM DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIIBLY. 9. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APpEAIS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 13. 1996 MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of March 13, 1996. IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTINt� AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meeting. ,� IIPON A VOICE VOTB, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRpER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE ApRIy 3� 1996� PI�ANNING COMMI88ION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 11:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , : , � �C% Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � Q � r-� � � ' S I G N— IN S H E E T . . PL�I�iNING COMMISSION.MEETING� - Wednesday, April .3, 1996 , � x r.. � is�G� � �-� ;�� z��,�e ��,� as`�FyE�� -��!.J� �G�/,..��OU� 5��5 �� a�n .�_ � �i ss ��A�� i1.=� L . %r' %/� �ii/ . �0�9 ��e. �,��a . ' ��1�� `� � � St��o�� (�'��- co n l; � . � �rZ� 3` � a�t �� / ' f Z �� L/.c� f'T ��r�v�.� �2�� "� �� l � sz�� i ��-- '' 5zb's �� 2 ' � .sz3 � �.� y� sC � f . � /./.j O �3 k'(� /��L_r . . �52 l 2 � �� aYe Sf�✓F- � , � SZ �d� ��t�D�f �%`r • t t � ' S''3o I�� o € S� !� �� . � ( Z. S�( �� cv o o r�. L� tll% . �'h: � �,��► �.�.e�v�o e� �Sa� .. � (,S A7 E ��Y� .1��%�1�1 �- i � � ._. � _ /3 S�?J � o�2�j � � ! '� s—a S; 7� , �'- �'ao � c�-�lt ,4�e N� F►-� cU�► , wr�V � � �o�q /� �S . i ' -- 3'O6o T��e ��/v� -�,ezp�try�%%iV 3'SY�-�' �.�; . � � � .� .� �- � � � � A � � � � � S �s��.�� g6� °� ��`�'�1�,� �� ( �. ��I�.. a � S�F 't� Y2 ��-� rn (� "` (�'�� %lYln t %"�d�.A X --i�1� � w C.1 . � _ �� ' R � DESCRIPTION OF REG�UEST _ The petitioner requests that a special use perrnit be issued to allow an automobile dealeiship selling and displaying used v�icles. The permit would also allow °for sale by owner° operations. The subject property is addressed as 6304 Highway 65 N.E. SUMMARY OF ISSUES• Section 205.15.01.C.(2) of the Fridley Ciiy C.ode requir� a special use permit for automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles. Th�e are a number of oulsianding issues which, through the special use permit process� the City has an opportuniiy to correct These issues irx:lude: 1. Shortage of green space and dear separation of parking and driving areas betw�n the� subject parcel and the bowling aliey to the �rth. 2. The absence of curb arx! gutter around the entire property. 3. . Assurance of polluaon protection �emer�s for the drainage ditch located on the west e,clge of the site. 4. A necessity to r�ocate an off-site, free-standing sign. Staff has recommended a number of stipulations to correct these outst�nding �te cfeficiena�. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff r�ommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #9fi-08, by Red � C�Id Errterpri�s with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall create a green area along the east �nd north sid� of the building. 2 The petitioner shall work with staff to' develop a landscape plan ior planting in the green erea The tandscape plan shall be appro�ced by s�aff. Staff Report SP #96-08, by Red & Gold Errt�pris�, Ir�c. Page 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The petition� shall provide underground irrigation in the new greer� area The petitioner shall provide concrete curb and gutt� around the errtire perimeter of the parking area The fre.�standing sign located off-site shaii be removed and relocated orrto the subject property. The petitioner shall mairrtain the drainage ditch located adjacent to the west property line of the subject property. No vehicl�s shall be parked on the bowling alley parking lot, or within its drive aisl�. S. AII vehicles shall be parked on the hardsurFace indicated on the aerial photograph. Any expansion of the indir.ated hard surFace will require a special use permit The hardsurFace shall be striped and no parldng shall occur outside of d�ignated statls. 9. The petitioner shall install appropriate lighting to insure security of inverrtory. PROJECT' DETAILS Petition For: Location of Property: Legal De,scription of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: A special use permit to allow the display/sale of used vehicles. 6304 Highway 65 N.E. Outlot 2, Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 4th Addition. 55,�0 square fee� 1 1/4 acr� Flat Very little; vegetation located along drairrage ditch on west property line. a M � n �`1 i � � Sraff Report SP #96-08, by Red & Gold Etrterprises, Inc. Page 3 Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal lJtilities: Vehicular Access: Ped�trian Access: Engineering Issues: Site Planning Issues: REQUEST Moore Lake Highlands 4� Addition, 1955; G3, G�eral S'hoppi�g Center Distnict Connected Highway 65 N/A �I� � The petitioner r�uests t1�t a special use perrr�it be issued to allow an automobile dealership selling and displaying used vehicles. The special use permit would also permit a ufor sale by owner° type of operation. This would allow individual car owners an opportunity to display vehicles for sale. The subject property is addressed as 6304 Highway 65 N.E. - PROPERTY DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: The subject property is locat� beiween Maple Lanes Bowling Alley and the Moore Lake Office Complex, and behind the Sinclair Station, all located on Highway 65. Located on the property is a 42 ft. by 51 ft retail facility with a basement. The property was originally constructed as a restaur�nt and has since been used as a computer sales and a video rerrt�l facility. The building permit history is as follows: 1956 - 1961 - 1962 - 1970 - 1990 - construction of a cafe (no building permit found, original dimensions unknown) addition to original c�fe addition to the entryway remodel #or a p'�a sl�p (dimensions r�ted on building permit indicate 42 ft by 51 ft.) new own�ship of the property by Red & Gold Errterpris�s Staff Report SP #96-08, by Red & C,old Errterprises, Inc. Page 4 ANALYSIS Setbacks The subject parcel is °�ndlocked°. A private acxe�s easement beiween the original owner of the properly and the owner of the bowling alley is recorded against the bowling alley property. The property is zoned G3, General Shopping Center District The building is nor�or�forming in r�ards to its frorrt yard setback The frorrt yard setback is 35 fe� v�sus the required 80 feet. The side ertd rear yar�d building setbacks, however, are met Parkinq � The subject parce� shar� a driving aisle (via easemerrt) with the Maple Lan� Bowling Alley lor.ated north and east of the subject building. The paridng spaces and driving aisl� between the two uses are r�t cleariy defined or separated. There are five par�dng spaces located directly in frorrt of the subject building. There are no hard surface setbacks from the rrorttieast and south pro� lines. In order to __ � correct this situation, staff would re,commend that the petitioner cxeate a green area in irorrt of and along the north side of the building. This would eliminate the five parking spaces la�ted directtyy in frorrt of the building; � however, there is adequate room on the subject parc� to replace those five�� paridng spac,es. By dearly separating the finro parcets with a green bu�er,. there is no oor�fusion on the part of the petifioner or other car owners r�ar+ding where c�rs should be parked on the site. This will eliminate conflic�s with parldng for bowling participants. In addi�on to the parldng setbacks, the petition�r will be required to ir�stall concrete curb and gutter around the perimet� of the parking area. Landscaping Th�e is little or no tandscaping on the property. Th�e is a plarrting strip located west of the subject prop�ty tt�t is heavily vegel�ted and which also corrta�ns a drainage ditch that leads south to Moore l.ake. A grassy area is located on the west half of the subject parc:el. Nc�ghborhood concem has been expr� regarding the possibil'ity of fluids lealdng from used cars parked on the site. The addition of curb and gutter will provide a m�ns of cor�taining fluid such as oil arul arrtifi�eeze from draining off site irrto the grassy ar� and further into the ditch. The addition of green _.. area in frorrt of and along the �rth side o# the subject building will provide an opportunity to incre�ase the amount of landscaping on� the site. : The pe�4tioner shouid work to develoP � ePP�'+�Priate lendscepe :plan �:far. this area Und�ground irrigation shouid also be provided to er�ure viability of the new plarrt` mat�ials. . �` e 9 �-.� Sraff Report SP #96-08, by Red & Goid Errterprises, Inc. Page 5 Environmer�tal As indic�ted in an e�arlier P�9�Ph� there is the concem with contamirrates le�aving the site from vehicl� which are lealang. It is also the r�ponsibil+ty of the petitioner to mair�ain the adjacent drainage ditcch for d�ris and trash tt�t may accumulate as a r�ult of the activitias on site. Signa4e A free-star�ing sign is located off-site for adv�tising the prop�ty. As the building is currently vacant and the use has ceased, the existing pylon sign located adjacent to the west�iy frorrt�age road of Highway 65 should be r�oc�ted onto the subject par�cel for any future use. � The petitioner has not indicated additional lighting for the site. Due to the distance of � the site from the frorrtage road, appropriate, shielded, dovm-cast lighting to provide drive-by surveillar�e of irnentory should be installed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommer�s that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Special Use Permi� SP #9fr08, by Red & Gold Enterpris� with the fiollowing stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall cre�ate a green are�a along the east and north sides of the building. 2. The petition� shall v�rk with staff to dev�op a landscape plan for plarrting in � the gre� area The lar�dscape plan shall be approved by staff. 3. The petitioner shall previde und�ground irrigation in the new green area 4. The petifion� shall provide concrete curb and gutter around the errtire perimeter of the parking area ' 5. The free-standing sign located off:site shall be removed a� relocated orrto the subj�t prop�ty. � 6. The petition� shall mair�tain the drairrage ditch located adjacent to the west� property line of the subject prop�ty. f Staff Report SP #9C�08, by Red & Gold Ertterprises, lnc. Page 6 , � �: 7. No vehicl� shall be parked on the bowling alley parldng lot, or within its drive � aisles. 8. All vehicles shall be parked on the hardsurface indir.ated on the aerial P�o9�P� �Y expansion of the indicxited hard surFace wili require a special use p�mit The hardsurfac:e shali be striped and no paridng shali occur outside of designated staiis. 9. The petition� sl�ll ir�stall appropriate lighting to insure security of irnerrtory. ADJACENT SITES WEST: Zoning: R-1, Singie Family Dwelling Land Use: R�iderrtial SOUTH: Zoning: G3, Gen�al Shopping Crrtr. Land Use: Office Condos EAST: Zoning: C�, General Shopping Cr�tr. Land Use: Retail mail/gas station NORTH: Zoning: C,3, Gen�al Shopping Cr�tr. Land Use: Bowling alley �''� � Comprehensive The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are cor�sisterrt in this . Planning Issues: IoCation. Public Hearing To be taken. Comments: � � � ,�. �r 7f7V-VO Ra� � rnl� Rnt Tnr SP #96-08 6304 H ig hway 65 Red & Gold Enterprises LOCATION MAP ;' , � SP �96-08 � -=�T�1r.'r'? Dk'l3� tJ t��t.�; �'W,�,��7 �Y TN� C'i7'r p�..Redt&�C�o�d��t�, Inc. '3 -� - �__ � 3�� . � Gaera I`rRrA -/�re�n CIr� � Nbwea _ ptfl�i�c F�RC /�nad S�[�IAG¢ 6Y�NSic�✓ ' 0 � . � . ` ' �. � � ,�,�. �� .aa„�. � - - . ,r . v ( � . 1 { ` 1�¢�n�a ,c s,�.[ CGA'� P�,ck d s`tJ A,��R �� _ f L 1 ��r� SfJ�.1Cda�, t�L 5�r:p nAviC��^�1 `oT ,� 1 Nr S�R/Ps - ipRf ARRAn�.d ptc�adin,g '�d �aq�„��, �i3 �t�o�« r- 6npley.r �,►eki,vs� 5/�c'1S ' ( ' • _ � �' s � : "� ` o � �- ..�s� %D Ga� l7�riNr�� INe�I;.Nd �r+a.�'�,;.� G+vat�z � � s, m - — . — • � s ; ,�� w . � � .. � � 0 Z � �c � � � � ,�"� 4-' ' , SP ��96-08 '� Red & Go1d Ent., Inc. � �> � w ��a,► ., . � ' ' � i � � . � � �. . ' � /� - �� . -�•. i i � � �,, , / l/ � � � �� l � • � ; ♦ � i � / / J � � / 7 i � � , , + / ' / � � � i / � i � Ig � / / 1 ' / 1 ;• . �.► / � � li , . � , ;l • . i ` ` ' �- . ' // ' ' ' � i j �� - � • � � / ! � � �/ i � � � � r1 . r /�I � � 1 ► i /r 1 . � s � � .� � '- � i �, � 7 � ,1 / l�• �I' lI � , � i ' � j� � . .,�r � � � , � i i � � !�!� � ;• � '� � , , i �.� i � . , r / / ♦ sl ,_. � .l I J � � � I"' r � �- � :. � � � , �� s � . ,�•� �� r i s � �� • ♦ �� . .. � i f ! / •l I �• y�, � � .I �/ �, �`, , l / ,/�' ,, i 1 ' 1 i � ,i, : � . , , •, � , , , � / , / (�' ' � . ,/ .• � . , ., � , / � �� / � � ' I ` � � �� , � �.� , � , � , .� ,�., - . , . . .I , , �,' � /` .� , ,1 ,�. . , , ; , �/ / � �� ' r � t ' /,+ f /� / ' / • ` ,; // ` ,, � ' '•� / ' � � / .,� / .�� . � �i/� I �/ � � • � I � � /�, � • IR� �' i �_ 11, � � � . �� .it � `� �� / / ' � i�i � � /� � �� i �/ / � / " / � �..e.�► � i. , ` / I t' i I� � � / � , / �/ � � f' � SF' �96-08 � � �'�� Red & Gold Ent., Inc.� , , ii; i� ; I;� i'� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 , _ _ - '�c �� -�� .tp��.� ,� � � , � -/��i'L(/'�j ��'�� ' ' � �� __._ !,; /)'Y�Q"�tiQs .�j _o�i�� 'v"/ L��i��1G : .,. ,, , _--_ __ __:� _:,-- ��-- - Yr_m��.L� � c�- -i�G� ---%��-- Gta.� ..��-v� _ __ _ �; i . G�`u' �� r� � ;a- .G�t��.fi�� /�rt,� -✓m�2 . G�-.� -�'v� , G�1�Lk�eY .� ..e�� V ; � ; c�Q L� � a, •� .� � 1 G��2 _ L�h;�:� , � � a� �a � ,�.o. ..��'%...�. �� /� ��., a �� . �'�� . . �� ,TG� . . �� ._ _ �.�, �l �� . , � � ��. �� ,�.�, � , � �' ��. � � . �v� �� '��- ,��(,� `'�� QJ � �;��t�!/1, r� G �%� , I � �.._.,-�.�:_ _,.. �,. ��.__�_ .. .. '.'.:", '_.,��II��E�-- " - u,� o/��L�':.Q.�/�'�`�'i�j � t ' ".` . 'ti , _ _. � . _ - ,. _ , . _ �� _ - :- .;�- _ - _.� _� : ao a,,�.�1 r,� , _ , , , . �� _ �._�_� .�: . � � :c�.�,�1? �� .� __ -� .�� _ .� �,� . .- � � ��` _ . _ _ _ .- -- � � _ ____ .___ -_ �i�_ _ _ - - _- _ _ - . ,� —�-- � � � ; _ - -- � c�'ew`' _ r�`�^% �' _ ._ _ .__. �_ _ __.�___ ..__ - ; �i_ __.._ ._ _�_-- � J i" ,, - _ _ _--�___ . _____._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - , ,,; , � _. __ . :; __ __ i�i _._____ ___�___ ' � ._ _.__ �t�� - �,l __ --- ,�;-- ii ,.,. p _�_�__._ -_ --� -� � March 28, 1996 Mr. David Newman, Chair Planning Commission City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: SP #96-08 6304 Highway 65 Red & Gold Enterprises Dear Mr. Newman: Thank you for sending the notice of a public hearing regarding the above request for special use permit. I have some concerns regarding the above and wonder if you have considered: � 1. When the bowling alley has leagues, all of the parking spaces are taken except for a few in front of the property and a few on the side. Would the o,verfiow then be reduced to parking on the non-paved portion ne� to the creek? , . 2. This portion of the property is located near environmentally fragile land which drains into the creek and then into the lake. Fluids feaking from old/used vehicles would � wash, through rain, off the tarmac and eventually into the lake. Because of the above, I would recommend that this use variance not be permitted. Thank you. Sincerely, � � Judith Blanchard 6220 Baker Avenue Fridley, Minnesota 55432 n jb I� }. �.. �- 1-I.y� .� � • . j!,. ... a �fn fi ' i' �. l 1 _ - 1 :�{ ��'i_.�. f -,i. � . .. � . . . � � .. . . . ' � J 1 , � CITY OF FRIDLEY ;d� ' � - , ;� 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E �� r s � �'� "� n. �:. > - , �, � �.� � FRIDLEY MN 55432 _ F ` ' . � , ` Y � :�: , �� (612)571-3450 COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT� �, �x , ,„ � ; . . .. . �. .. .... . � . .. � � - . - . . .. . . ,. ... �� '1''� '�� . .. � ..� ;.�. ; ,'z !. . k � 7 �Sv r )i3�� _�1�' f7��{ r{ } ��_ SPECIAL U�E PERMIT APPLICATION FORM ��,�� `, ° � . '. �° ;� PROPERTY IN ORMATION;-,site plan requiredfor�submittai; see attached ;,,: � Address: _ ��O'� �i ��✓,�y" (S i`iIF . � rcl iey /y�3 ssSl3� i � , ' n _ , ��. Property Identification Number (PIN) Q �� 3o a�' - oo a y� � pe g�� s�j � Legal description: S c e r�--�is, c�.� �_�,x�� +/� I-ot _ � Block _ i TracdAddition ��_� j,1�� j.yh�,� Current zoning: C-3 Square foota.gelacreage 55 LY�p SF t!��e � Reason for special use permit �cr� %�a� �,� Se!% % �/src� C'aa %-f- Section of City Code: Z� 'rJ �%J'`^.�/ . C.. C Z} Have you opera.ted a business in a ciry which required a business license? � Yes �_ No If yes, which city? �, c11 G., If yes, what iype of business?' iQu s s� ��se�c�s ;;S,,,ali Fiva��,e`` %rc�.,u �`s'Iie� .``` '' Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes ��' No A" �` �=�' .�. . , � : , - . ,� u j . . . �. .� . , . ., . � . t{ � ,. �!R Y �EE OWNER_INFnRMATTn�v�:ra�,�r'.a,,:,a".�.;:r;�f�,n�.,.:,;::a..,..,.�;....,..�::� �r,��,;.�Fx��. t.��R�,:�,�� ,. K� }�R (Cflntrac ,: NAME'-` t Purchasers. � Fee,, � �� _`,'r, . � .. , . /—lLLl\l.i�)�7!,'N_. G' / . :t �� - SIGNATiJRE PETITION �� . �.. D�I�E �o� �.,,�� %�v �U� :'�'��%la � � V�� if , r.�. ��14fi'.,,� y�'��; � �_ ,....1 �� ;. ,.,,,:.if �;:._.�.. j �D �ri►7r�ris,r •m,r��T`i`"r""��.�``" '�n F`� ��(�000 �pl'G r1/� �`f ��ttd%'�a l+� � r � YTIl� PHONE � � � =5'�9 n"4��T � t*� " 3�,��t e� � t� s�,� �' � ��' �}.� S. �`�� .,1 �,��, ��1�-• ,° ,r��i� a��a�-:... r .�,�q, � .�"/� •.',"�i ��r.:i , 4� ; �r� ,'�.i�1�F'�� <. , �,`�.�i4r �,.�.,t��Fi..�r7r.iE::�: �, r�,� NAME�, ,� t,, : ADDRESS 3,r l � ; � ; u ,ki�� '� ' ` SIGNATURE ; . �•FPp , .�dtut nn . i,. � atu< �% �� '� `r"3r�' '� f- �` {. "�. ��sH� > , J {Afi - y,C�f k' ��F -�4hi�iy � t� �, �}��'`�' ,�� ,� . ��' .�..�� , a � � � `� °�� x,� # -�;��, ��; 5 : s k�s,� �..+�j�� } �,� "' y7�'.{J. . ':I{ �n, . . � ��s�.s+we�w+:� t,} ��1 t �� ,� , �,� � : �.y, ��4 �y. { t -z � `"� :'� iV �1� r�11a. Ry k. � � " � � �� , n ,•'?�( E�r ,v� `� (�� a�` 4'��ik �. E � ��,�.� ��P ��j � � �7tr i ��W ry �� s��,�_.,��,a�� xr;� „'r� �?. �,� cx� �f . a� �^� fyy�:� x� 4, �,� s 4 >y W ! { ,�� 1 5 i4 �<' �, b�i .• �( i' { ��1xi�r i .�,;�.�_ . e.,r.�� i�,.�-i, �r n:-�§ :".:�'. .�.:', N..;;y' ,'�� 9��;,�. v; .. :�..... f �v�[h.,..' ..F;'{�7`°.. tr�y�pS�7utia}� :. �p,�:�F%' kkE�..��'n`"� % :(�i3;�.�t S�ati�if�: fppr, �5(p--.-�v �?� :�;Y' !� :�a g.-.� �� ,ti , �, 1. �.i y,� ,.I i �� ,,�y�a;�,�.�,f �� p..�' is��, �s�� i`V�^.t� �i..�c�i 1 1� T �. i.thd `�,'a��.�i�. b'1'�i w.��;r�`"'��I,ti'p-.;�� ?X :t� T't.: � �., dE3 � � ,,:J iu � ��,i�,. i 1 s�'-',t�i�'A�h�'q �. �: { t , �?;:tA �:�:{a, t�+t1: �i4� �3�iJ,r;�..4i �Y+h�,��.�. %t�w� Fst��}a � '� ,,ta�i�;b�'r "�•� yl.dwh�2��a 3,,y,�,.�,�r��. , v� ,�•Sf��,� ,'�y,"� ��;�,��, A�*� ; � ��`��a��,�s�rn'� ��.� �t�r'� ��r� �� 3�> ��"�,� :k. s � , 8e � � d �' �„� �i Ss,. �",,f��l � r ay,� �1 �' � ''-� _ � i � _ < e. .. '� _ � . �'� . �� ,�-�� ' ' �.., ( . ',., ..."..,,,.. . . ..h, ,;G.'1 . .: ,i. �`i.s. _.:.. , �:.: .�.. ..4-'�: . .-�.'E' .,, .-.. ., . :i, •' ' , • ' � �p #96-08 Mailing List Red &'Gold Enterprises, Inc. I� & Gold Enterprises 1710 Hansack Avenue NE St. Michael, 1�IIiT 55376 Brickner Builders 6260 Hiqhway 65 NE �308 Fridley, IyIId 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Highway 65 NE #203 Fridley, NIIJ 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Highway 65 NE �206 Fridley, I�T 55432 Current Tenant 6� Highway 65 NE #101 F_ .�ley, 1�1 55432 Current Tenant 6230 Highway 65 NE #104 Fridley, IyIIJ 55432 Current Tenant 6280 Highway 65 NE �401 Fridley, 14II�T 55432 Doraine Peterson 480 Rice Creek Blvd. NE Fridley, I�T 55432 Red & Go1d Enterprises or Current Resident 6304 Highway 65 NE Fridley, 1�IId 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Hiqhway 65 NE �201 Fridley, IyIId 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Hiqhway 65 NE �204 Fridley, 1�IIJ 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Highway 65 NE #207 Fridley, 1�II+T 55432 Current Tenant 6230 8ighway 65 NE �102 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Tenant 6230 Hiqhway 65 NE.�105 Friai�y, MN 55432 Currelit Tenant 6280 Highway 65 NE �402 Fridley, I�T 55432 Albert/Donna Loushin. 1565 -- 20th '.Avenue New Brighton, I�T 55112 Mailed: March 29, 1996 W. Henley/C. Boyer or Current Resident 6300 Baker Street NE r�rialey, I�T 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Hiqhway 65 NE �202 Fridley, l�T 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Highway 65 NE �205 Fridley, 1�Il�T 55432 Current Tenant 6240 Highway 65 NE #208 Fridley, I�IliT 55432 Current Tenant 6230 Highway 65 NE #103 Fridley, IIl�T 55432 Current Tenant 6230 Highway 65 NE �106 Fridley, T�Il+T 55432 Miller Funeral Home Rim J. Miller 6210 Highway 65 NE Fridley, 1�T 55432 Sinclair or Current Resident 6290 Hi+ghway 65 NE Fridley, AII+T 55432 Sinclair Marketing Fridley Recreation David/Anne Shannon PO Box 30825 or Current..Resident or.Current Resident Salt Lake City, tIT 84130 .6310 �Highway.:�65,,�NE � 6209 Baker��Street NE � Fridley, I�IlJ 55432 Fridley, iII�T 55432 Stan/Pauline Carlson Terrance/Carol Ahmann Robert Guelker or Current Resident or Current Resident or Current Resident 6219 Baker Street NE 6229 Baker Street NE 6239 Baker Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, 1�T 55432 Fridley, I�T 55432 Keith/Pamela Caneva or Current Resident 6259 Baker Street NE Fridley, 1�T 55432 Timothy/Cheryl Ecklund or Current Resident 6250 Baker Street NE Fridley, I� 55432 Melvin/Bonnie Eells or Current Resident 6389 Baker Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Clarence/Edith Beard or Current Resident 6315 Baker Street NE F'ridley, MN 55432 Laurie Herkenhoff or Current Resident 1012 - 64th Avenue NE Fridley, NII�T 55432 Lori Wirth or Current Resident 1054 - 64th Avenue NE Fridley, I�T 55432 Gerald/Helen Machowicz or Current Resident 6314 Baker Street NE Fridley, P�II�T 55432 City Council Members Rose Jasper or Current Resident 6279 Baker Street NE Fridley, 1�T 55432 Douglas/Betty Blase or Current Resident 6264 Baker Street NE Fridley, 1rII+T 55432 Current Resident 6301 Baker Street NE Fridley, NIlJ 55432 Robert/Evelyn Bard or Current Resident 6347 Baker Street ATE Fridley, A�T 55432 Eugene/Madelonn Lawson or Current Resident 1026 - 64th Avenue NE Fridley, l�i 55432 Resident Manaqer 1060 - 64th Avenue NE Fridley, 1MIl�T 55432 Francis/Mary Van Dan or Current Resident 6342 Baker Street NE Fridley, 1�T 55432 David Newman Planning Comm. Chair 7635 Alden Way NE Fridley, 1rII►T 55432 Judith Blanchard i� or Current Resident 6220 Baker Street NE Fridley, rIIJ 55432 Patricia Levoir or Current Resident 6278 Baker Strest NE Fridley, NIlJ 55432 Federal Home Loan 1410 Springhill Roacl PO Box 50122 McLean, VA 22102 Stephen Yurick or Current Resident 6359 Baker Street NE Fridley, NIld 55432 Harwood/Grace Walton or Current Resident 1040 - 64th Avenue NE n Fridley, MN 55432 Arnold Elmquist 5976 Ridge Creek Road Shoreview, NIl�i 55126 James/Ann Youngquist or Current Resident 6362 Baker Street NE Fridley, PIl�T 55432 � /"� � PIIBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesdap, April 17, 1996 at 7s30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a special use per.mit, SP �96-08, by Red and Gold Enterprises, Inc., per Section 205.15.O1.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles on that part of Outlot 2, Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 4th Addition, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Outlot 2; thence North along the West line of said Outlot 2, a distance of 236.02 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Outlot 2, a distance of 234.3 feet; thence South in a straight line a distance of 236 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Outlot 2, distant 232 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Outlot 2; thence West along the South line of said Outlot 2, a distance ° of 232 feet to the point of beginninq. Ti�,is property is generaliy located at 6304 Highway 65 N. E. Any and all persons desirinq to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item m,ay be referred to the Community Development Department at 572-3593. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than April 10, 1996. Publish: April 4, 1996 April 11, 1996 DAVID NEWMAN CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION T �: .�:,.�:: :, >�� ' � .. . Y �' � �a�f$ . �° � � � � � ..•'x�.'�� z� ��J f 'y �r a . �u�� 4,.'�a N' '�,�, k �... �r ��V�� b ` � �+jA'+�� : k. �� ' A� �� .��*i� J*� .. G �^�;.;� �RJ.^s' � ��; i„� � ��r � -. ^ � � �� :: , �`=,�a�� f �� `,.,i- ' � � .?,-� � � "� ` � � �:� �:� �� . �"''�� /�� ,N�: �� ,� m� � �' "� ,:�� „�,� � "`�r' � }�.- �� -� �� ,'y � �c�,� � � � y1, '°'� lo P` � a`".. �� `�� .�'. ��1 1 � � � �;� # $� = � � � �tY=� /� � � Y` �..k0. ` ��y� e E'�� : $.. � ;�y ' � ��` � � � yc ��l''�`Y',x?'3 'g • ' �a�•+^,•e` �5 . ,. Ty. � �. . . `�... _.�-t � '';� � . id �` � � ! tL�� , x,�.h :�C R �� , �.:� .��9 e � , b°w m:� '2"� $ary$�4�, r'kiwde'�c. �'� kSF(� �5, � �� i� i'� �t,"�'�N ��.; GZ �G ir - rs �J. �. , "� "� � � . � .Yt �i f V ., � l �