The URL can be used to link to this page

04/14/1997 - 4781OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING P.PRIL 14 , 1997 '� FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING �a ATTENDENCE SHEET Mvnday, Ap� 1�, 1997 7:30 P.M. ?LEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN :NT NAME (CLEARLY) � ( l �� JF� �� 11 �'C:,T /� 4 �` � I ��L1�=, � �� \_� '' 1��'�..Y� �'lc:-.�n.V •� / � ��"%��;�2 � � �� .% - ; .r,� � � ' �� '� . � c�� %� � Z. _ �� r� � ��r r��- � � l Ll^\C� � i�C�i , Ct �;'c; �-i- �'�-� � � �-; -� � Y�1,r� ADDRESS �C�:� �� t lc`�, ',,.Gc ; �G=i�k��)L',v — �S�i r7�,a �.�! � 1!v �C� � � a 5�d' �.rl.% % - , n_./�� 1 i , �' � � 1 �L.J � "('�%�"' � i_.� r ��!`� '� {a �/y�!i % ..� �7��U� �l1G�,J"� �j� r-'� � � � � l �' �t�;, s`�� /��! ,c � G �-��. �c ��v� �� Y �~2� � (,' / �h�, �� f. r �i�� 1� �.�. � � � ; �y.� ��.� � (� �l0 � o ,,;� � ,. S -t- . �.�u ^ ,� � � � �I ',��f�� r-i� �-��` p� , � �i � �f"'mi�j''N ITEM NUMBER i� r�ll r �."��c�..'�� . � � � �� FR� FBIDLEY CITY COUNCII. MEETiNG OF AP8II.14,1997 The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admtssion or access to, or treahnent, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to altow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATION: Fridley Fiood Control Appreciation Week April 20 - 26, 1997 BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING: Board of Review : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 - 1.02 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 94_ 1997 o�.,e � �.t-- - �ITY COUNCIL MEET/NG- APPROVA� OF MINUTES• City Council Meeting of March 31, 1997 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 1997 ....................................2.01-2.33 Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.01 - 3.27 Special Use Permit, ST #97-01, by Lease Management Group, inc., to Allow Agencies Selling or Displaying New and/or Used Vehicles, Recreational Vehicles, or Boats, Subject to Easements of Record, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. (Ward �1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.09 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG OF APRIL 14, 1997 Page 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for Osborne Commerce Center, 223 Osborne Road N. E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.03 Resolution Approving and Authorizing Signing an Agreement with the Minr�esota Pollution Control Agency to Proceed with the Springbrook Subwatershed Resource Investigation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.03 Receive Bids and Award Contracts for Playground Equipment Upgrades, Proje�t Nos. 306a, 306b, 306c, and 306d ....................................7.01-7.02 Establish a Public Hearing for April 28, 1997, for an Off-Sale Beer License to Kwik Stop-n-Shop Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.01 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCiL MEETING OF APRIL 14. 1997 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA• NEW BUSINESS- Pann d :, Resolution Designating Official Depositories for the City of Fridley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.01 - 9.03 Resolution Designating a Secondary City of Fridley Checking Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.03 Resolution of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Approving the Abatement of Certain Non-Improvement Special Assessments for a Residence Loca#ed at 4680 Second Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.01 - 11.05 Appointment: City Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01 Claims Licenses Estimates: ....................................13.01 ....................................'14.09-14.04 ...................................15.01 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCiL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1997 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items no# on Agenda - 15 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARINGS: Page 5 Modify Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and Create Tax Increment Financing District No. 15 (Minnesota Commercial Railway Company) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 - 16.13 Modify Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 And Create Tax Increment Financing District No. 16 (Linn Property Holdings, L.L.C.) (Ward3) ....................................97.01-17.14 Ordinance Recodifying the Fridfey City Code, Chapter 205, Enti#led "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), Adding Section 205.20 (M-4 Manufacturing Only), and Renumbering Consecutive Sections ................. 18.01 -18.53 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1997 OLD BUSINESS- Paae 6 Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Adopting the Prevailing Hours of Labor and Prevailing Wage Rate on Certain Projects for or Within the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.01 - 19.04 NEW BUSINESS: Resolution of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, for the Adoption of a Policy and Contract Language Implementing the Provisions of Ordinance No. , Providing for the Payment of Prevailing Wages on Certain Projects and Contracts Within the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.01 - 20.04 Approve Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Northstar Corridor Development Authority; and, Appoint Representative and Alternate to Serve on the Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informal Status Reports ADJOURN• ............... 21.01 -21.17 .............................22.01 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1997 . G��' � t The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, se� disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regazd to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impa;red persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Coilins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) P�EDGE Of ALI.EGiANCE PROCLAMATION: Fridley Flood Control Appreciation Week April 20 - 26, 1997 ��-�-�-_-�� BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING: Board of Review: 1.01 - 1.02 .� ,,,�-��.�,��C �` y CITYCOUNC/L MEET//VG• APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • • • . . . - _- -��-�.,riz�_,s:L�l-�,iJ:� NEW BUSINESS: Special Use Permit, ST #97-01, by Lease Management Group, Inc., to ANow Agencies Selling or Displaying New and/or Used Vehicles, Recreational Vehicles, or Boats, Subject to Easements of Record, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.01 - 4.09 C`��..-,,--�-d f' �...� �`i��`�C'� ,� �/Z / Approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for �� Osbome Commerce Center, 223 Osborne Road N.E. (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.03 /��° , ..r�-°'t� iLtiti�'_-�✓,ti `�: // � C c��`-�-' P" �.�t�. t�-�..r � �� City Council Meeting of March 31, 1997 `y.,,��,N_..�_.,�i G=2_ d"�-:� �� - APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA NEW BUSINESS- Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 1997 � .� . �. . . . . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.33 .U�� -c-� Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 1997 : ..,�......... 3.Oi -3.27 , �c_� ��.( , Resolution Approving and Authorizing Signing an Agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to Proceed with the Springbrook Subwatershed Resource Investigafion Project . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.03 c�___� �., �,��C- ✓��_. Receive Bids and Award Contracts for Play�round Equipment Upgrades, Project Nos. 306a, 306b, 306c, and 306d . . . . : . . . . . . . . 7.01 - 7.02 ;�LZ_� 2ti-�-c.g� • �',�tn/'e�-�. �:��..�-,-�� 3d 6 4.� �'�� 4 �,Ct�`-Y' �` ��'� �""' -�'�`-' �"-' � �Y, d�� ,3 U � `G� �l- [G �"'.�'z".-� � �%'�. �% %2�+.�L/�-�-' • .s- vi-�.e.�.. � 7.1 ; ,-.,,i r 3 ,- �+ ,�- Establish a� Pub%c Hearirig for Apri12g, 3G `d � � 997, for an Off-Sale Beer License �"�� to Kwik Stop-n-Shop Inc. 8.01 �'�' s� S.�-�-�, . �- �/�� .�- �'" . APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Designating Official Depositories for the City of Fridl��,/. ��.�. .C, g.p� 9.03 .��„�� Resolution Designating a Secondary City of Fridley Checking Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.03 �iC.-�C l/� �`-'�'""1 ��`�''''L-�.J Resolution of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Approving the Abatement of Certain Non-Improvement Special Assessments for a Residence Located at 4680 Second Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . 11.01 - 91.05 ��-�-��G %�r , Appointment: City Employee . . . 12.01 � �— Ctaims Licenses Estimates: ��:^''f"�- 13.01 ��i�".'.`:":�-14.01 -1�.04 °�J6. ',�i�`'.",..�`/� . 15.01 ,/ ADOPTION OF AGENDA: �� //�-�(��/i,�� G%� ,�'*�L OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) �i'i� �� z�w�— � �' ° �•�-.�' ,Gd`� �T� ,� ,( t"'-�""� � _��6''�-�"`_" �/ ,,r -�-c e ��'�,r.�.P�- ��x— ��..c_ , �� -��'� QUBLIC HEARINGS: Modify Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and Create Tax Increment Financing District No. 15 (Minnesota Commercial Railway Company) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 -16.13 �.- j,� �„ � �� i � � PUBLIC HEARINGS /CONTINUED►• Modify Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 And Create Tax Increment Financing District No. 16 (Linn Property Hoidings, L.L.C.) (NVard 3) � _�,., . �,d . . . . . 17.01 -17.14 �' - � .- j � Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," by Amending Sections 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05_D.(6), Adding Section 205.20 (M-4 Manufacturing Only), and Renumbering Consecutive Sections 18.01 - 18.53 l� , �,, 3� _ � _ ��,. ,� OlD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Adopting the Prevailing Hours of Labor and Prevailing Wage Rate on Certain Projects for or Wthin the City . . . . . . . . . 19.01 - '! 9.04 �� NEW BUSINESS: Resolution o# the City of Fridley, Minnesota, for the Adoption of a Policy and Contract Language Implementing the Provisions of Ordinance No. , Providing for the Payment of Prevailing Wages on Certain Projects and Contracts Within the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.01 - 20.04 � �� Approve Joint Powers Agreement � Establishing the Northsta� Corrido �/�� Development Authority; and, Appoint Representative and Alternate to Serve on the Authority . . . . . . . ... . . . 21.01 - 21. 7 , i' ' ,� ��,z�.--` %x��'�''rR= �-�,.`�� '� � � Informal Status Repo�ts . , . . . . . . 22 1�, ,� �/��–��C �So._.-2'�. ��`-� �-- ��.� ,�-- .�` . ..��z�� , �� , � ADJOURN: �� ,�z/�f�Z ♦ r� c �� FRIDLEY FLOOD COI�ITROL APPRECIAT1011[ 1/1�EEK APRIL 40 TO APRIL 46, 1997 WHEREAS, the Riverview Heights section of Fridley was threatened by flooding of the Mississippi River during the week of Apri! 6 through 92, 1997; and WHEREAS, many organizations, individuals, businesses and other cities provided food, flood cont�ol materials, and many hours of labor filling sandbags and providing assistance with the building of a dike along 79th Way and Riverview Terrace; and WHEREAS, these efforts have provided security from flooding as well as a reneweai sense of community; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Fridley that the week of April 20 through April 26, 1997, be declared a week of appreciation for all of those individuals, groups, and businesses, who gave unse�shiy of their time and resources to support the City's flood control efforts during the week of April 6 though 12, 9997; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, thaf the Mayor and City Counci! of the City of Fridley pubiicly commend: the , Public Works, Police and Fire Department employees of.the City of F�dley for_ their. many: hours of hard work; inciuding cold, all night vigiis, and for the effectiveness of staff and volunteers in fighting the Spring floods of 1997. ` > : , . : IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set our hands and caused the sea/ of fhe City of Fiid/ey to be affixed this 94th day of Apri1, 1997. Nancy J. Jorgenson Robert L. Bamette Mayor ' Councilmember-at-Large Steven E. Billings Dennis L. Schneider ; Councilmember, Ward 1 ` Councilmember, Ward 2 Ann R.' Bolkcom _ . . : ; Councilmember,. Ward 3 . CITY OF FRIDLEY OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ASSESSMENT NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Review of the City of Fridley in Anoka County, Minnesota, will meet at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue Northeast, in said City on Monday the 14th of April, 1997 at 7:30 P.M., for the p�arpose of reviewing and correcting the assessments of said City of Fridley for the year of 1997. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who wish to.complain that the proparty of another is assessed too low are hereby notified to appear at the said meeting and show cause for having suc� assessme�ts corrected. No complaint t�at another person is assessed too low wili be acted upon untii the person so assessed, or his agent, shal� have been notified of such complaint. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other person� with disabiiities ;who require:`auxiliary'aids< should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than April li, 1997. William A. Champa City Clerk Published: April 3, 1997 Focus News April 10, 1997 Focus News 1.01 i orm No. A. F. 4— Notice t6 Clerk of Meeting of Board of Review —`Equalization. 0 • � Poucher, Mpls. _ _. _ _ ._ __ _ --�1 �� ,i OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR �' ; � � TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY pF FRIDLEY ! i I ANOKA � —_ COUNTY, MINNESOTA: NOTICE IS HEREBY GiVEN, That the 14 th day of APRIL , 199 7 i at 7: 30 o'clock P M., has been fixed as the date for the meeting of the Board of Review— � (Strike out one) �I, � 'Equalization—in your CITY for said year. This meeting shouid be heid in your office as provided by law. Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 274.03, you are required ;o give notice of said meeting by publication and posting, not later than ten days .prior to the date of said meeting. Given under my hand this 7 th day of 97 � :1 , � County Assessor �0� County, Minnesota t `Applies only to Cities whose charter provides for a Soard ot Equalization instead of a Board of Review. I , �' �.+ =�1;02 � �� THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MARCH 31, 1997 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jorgenson led the Councii and audience in .the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Billings and Councilwoman Bolkcom MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Schneider APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, MARCH 3, 1997: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: l. ORDINANCE N0. 1093 RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 114, ENTITLED "ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLES," BY AMENDING SECTION 114.01, "POLICY:" Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this ordinance amendment removes the date of March 30, 1997 as the expiration date of the City's revised junk vehicle ordinance. Council adopted this revision in June, 1996, which shortens the notification period for removal of abandoned or junk vehicles from twenty to five days. In view of the success of this new approach to junk vehicles, staff recommends Council's approval of the second reading of this ordinance. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1093 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION.� NEW BUSINESS: 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PI,ANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 1997: RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CONflKISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 1997. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31 1997 PAGE 2 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1997: RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CON]NIISSION N�ETING OF MARCH 5, 1997. 4. PLAT RE (WARD 3 ) : ST, P.S. #97-01, BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, TO REPLAT .�ENERALLY LOCATED AT 193-223 OSBORNE ROAD AT.E. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this plat establishes a second industrial lot to the west of Gazda Moving and Storage on property located near the intersection of Osborne Road and Commerce Lane. This newly crated parcel will accommodate a 50,000 square foot office/warehouse building that is to be constructed this spring and summer. Mr. Burns stated that cross parking and access easements will be recorded between this new parcel and the Gazda parcel, giving users of both parcels access to Osborne Road via a common driveway. Both parcels exceed the area requirements specified in the M-2 zoning requirements. APPROVED PLAT REQUEST, P.S. #97-01, BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, TO REPLAT PROPERTY GENEFtALLY LOCATED AT 193-223 OSBORNE ROAD, WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT (1j CROSS PARKING AND ACCES$ EASE- MENTS SHALL BE RECORDED AT ANOKA COUNTY; AND (2) THE PETI- TIONER SHP.LL INSTALL THE TRIANGUI,AR I2p,ISED ISLAND IN THE DRIVEWAYS REQUESTED BY ANOKA COUNTY. 5. RESOLUTION N0. 26-1997 APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA #97-01, TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1155 73-1 2 AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3): Mr . Burns, proposing to facility. approve this City Manager, stated that the petitioner is construct a 30,000 square foot self storage The Planning Commission voted unanimously to change at their March 5, 199? meeting. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 26-1997. 6. APPROVE APPOINTMENT TO THE NORTH SUBURBAN CONSUMER ADVOCATES FOR THE HANDICAPPED (NSCAH): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that James Bauer has been recommended for appointment as the City's representative to the North Suburban Consumer Advocates for the Handicapped. APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF JAI�S BAUER AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE NORTH SUBURB,AN CONSLJMER ADVOC'.ATES FOR THE HANDICAPpED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 3 7. RESOLUTION N0..27-1997 APFROPRIATING MUNICIPAL STATE �ID FUNDS FOR THE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN OF A JOINT CITY OF FRIDLEY AND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERSECTION IMPROVE- MENT PROJECT: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City has been working with MnDOT and Anoka County to identify improvements for the intersection of Highway 65 with I-694. The City has also successfully solicited Federal ISTEA funding for this project which is scheduled to be constructed next year. This resolution requests $719,800 in MSA (State) off-system funding for the design, engineering, and construction of this project. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 27-1997. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR MISCELL�iNEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK, PROJECT NO. 305: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the low bidder for this project was S.M. Hentges in the amount of $41, 933, and staff recommends the bid be awarded to them. RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING BIDS FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK, PROJECT NO. 305: S. M. HENTGES, $41,933.00; LANDMARK CONCRETE, $46,187.10; INDEPENDENT CURB, $47,273.25; SCHMIDT CURB COMPANY, $51,535.00; GUNDERSON BROTHERS, INC., $52,667.50; RON KA.SSA CONSTRUCTION, $55,451.25; HP.LVORSON CONSTRUCTION COI�ANY, $57,510.00; STANDARD SIDEWALK, $62,480.00; AND GURB MASTER, INC..,. $65,385.00. AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO THE LAW BIDDER, S. M. HENTGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,933.00 FOR PROJECT NO. 305. 9. RECEIVE RECONIl�IENDATIONS FROM SPRINGSTED REGARDING THE SALE OF $9,575,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997A; AND $1,175,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997B: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the Council's approval of these bond sales will allow staff to call the bonds for both of these issues on their upcoming call dates. The issues would then be resold at a new interest rate. The 'City`s financial advisor, Springsted, Inc., calculates a net savings of $1,447,420.92 and $79,679.4b on the two issues. Mr. Burns stated that staff recommends that Council receive the recommendations from Springsted. The proposed sale date for both issues is April 28, 1997 with awards for the sale projected for the same date. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31 1997 PAGE 4 10 RECEIVED RECON�SENDATIONS FROM SPRINGSTED REGARDING THE S�ALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY'S REFUNDING BON� 28-1997 INITIATING 9, 575, 000 GENERAL �, SERIES 1997A: THE PROCESS FOR THE SALE OF OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this relates to Item 9 on the agenda. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 28-1997. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 29-1997 INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE SALE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997B: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this relates to Item 9 on the agenda. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 29-1997. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 30-1997 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING AN AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORKING CONDITIONS, WAGES AND HOURS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEARS, 1996, 1997 AND 1998: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this agreement relating to wages and benefits is essentially the same as those included in the most recent contract with Public Works employees. Wages are to increase by two percent for 1996, three percent for 1997, and three percent for 1998. The health insurance benefit will remain at $345 per month for family coverage and $210 per month for single coverage through 1997. The contract provides that health coverage for 1998 will be the same as those established for non-union employees. ADQPTED RESOLUTION NO. 30-1997. 13. APPOINTMENTS: CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated it is recommended that Peter Gunderson be appointed to the position of Public Services Worker and Jean Krelic be appointed to the position of Account/Data Processing Clerk. Both positions are replacements for employees who have left or were promoted. Mr. Burns reviewed Mr. Gunderson's and Ms. Krelic's work history. CONCURRED WITH THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 5 Starting Starting Name Position Salary Date Replaces Peter Public Services $11.86 April 14, Joseph Gunderson Worker, Streets per hour 1997 Gonsior Non-exempt Jean Acctg/Data $11.07 March 31, Carol Krelic Processinq per hour 1997 Meyer Clerk Non-exempt 14. CLAIMS: AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NO. 73270 THROUGH 73530_ 15. ESTIMATES: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to add the estimate for services rendered by the City �ttorney, Frederic Knaak, in the amount of $5,097.50. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED THE ESTIMATES, AS FOLLOWS: Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of January, 1997. ..$ 15,802.50 Richmar Construction, Inc. 7776 Alden Way N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Water Treatment Plant No. 3 � Project No. 293 Estimate No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $151, 828.05 Frederic Knaak, Esq. Holstad & Larson, P.L.C. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN.55110 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of March, 1997 . . . . . . . . $ 5,097.50 No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 6 MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve the consent agenda items. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared.the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: TRAFFIC ON MAIN STREET BETWEEN 44TH AVENUE AND 61ST STREET: Mr. Tom Rafferty, 148 Horizon Circle, stated that the traffic on Main Street between 44th Avenue and 61st Avenue moves very fast, and motorists ignore the stop signs. His concern is that, with the warmer weather, children will be on their bicycles and people will be walking, and safety will be ar� issue. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked Mr. Rafferty if he had any ideas what could be done to alleviate this situation. Mr. Rafferty stated it does not seem that the traffic from Home Depot is a concern, but it is the motorists durin� the rush hour. There have been several accidents at 49th and 53= Avenues, but he did not have an answer to solve this problem. There have been patrol cars in the area, but he felt they could not be there every day. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that possibly the Public Safety Director, Dave Sallman, could suggest what could be done. PUBLIC HEARING: 16. PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF A BEER LICENSE TO SIDCO FOOD. COMPANY, L.L.C. (DBA: HOLIDAY FOOD COMPANY), LOCATED AT 250 57TH AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3): MOTION by Councilman Barnette to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Council- woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the Applebaum family has purchased the food operations of the Holiday Stores in the Twin Cities area. As the ownership changes, the new owner is required to obtain a license to sell 3.2 beer. The Police Department. conducted the required background investigation of Sidco Food Company and found no reason to deny this request for a license. Unless the public hearing is continued, the issuance of a license FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 7 will be incorporated in the licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 14. Mr. Gary Miron stated that he would like the license granted as soon as possible. The store is undergoing changes, and he hopes to improve its position in the community and the market place . Some capital improvements are being completed, and cleaning and refurbishing are also being done. Mayor Jorgenson stated there is a statute requirement that the public hearing must be held for this license. The action to deny cr approve this request must be taken at the next meeting. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if improvements are planned for the outside parkirig lot. Mr. Miron stated that the landlord has been contacted and increased 1i�h�ing has been requ2sted, as we11 as same painting and ;eneral clean-up. He would be actively involved to make this store more attractive. Mr. Applebaum is a very good retailer, and the=e will be some improvements completed. No other persons spoke regarding the issuance of :nis beer '!icense to Sidco Food Company. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson deelared the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 17. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, ADOPTING THE PREVAILING HOURS OF LABOR AND PREVAILING WAGE RATE ON CERTAIN PROJECTS FOR OR WITHIN THE CITY: Councilman Billings stated that this ordinance is a replacement for a resolution that was in effect for about six years. This ordinance requires contractors meet the requirements of the Minnesota Prevailing Wage Act on certain City funded projects. He analyzed Public Works projects done from 1986 to 1990 and found that almost all the contractors were paying the prevailing wage. He found that if the City had a prevailing wage policy in force during that time frame, the cost to the City would have increased only about one percent. He stated that the economists indicate that by paying prevailing wages and providing the health coverage that goes with prevailing wages, the social costs are much less. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that Councilman Billings did a good job of working on this and providing background information. After conversations with business owners in the City that pay prevailing wages, she would have voted for prevailing waqes when this first FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 8 came before the Council. There are some differences, however, in this ordinance from the previous resolution. Councilman Billings stated that the resolution passed in 1990 indicated prevailing wages had to be paid on all projects. In June, 1996, the City Council reversed their position on prevailing wages because of a single family housing project where it was f.elt it may be difficult to find a contractor for single family homes that was paying prevailing wages. On a three to two vote, prevailing wages were not in effect for about a year. Since this time, Council has done more research. This proposed ordinance does exclude one to four family dwelling units from the prevailing wage requirements. For these smaller units people may hire � contractor to do some of the work and then do some finishing work themselves. I� was felt that for five or more units, an owner would general_ly hire a contractor to complete all the work. Courcilman Barnette stated that he strongly supports this ordinance and appreciates Councilman Billings' work on this issue. He felt that the City should exercise control to keep up the working people's wages whenever possible. Mayor Jorgenson asked if this ordinance would apply `to ali agreements between the City and those with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that the ordinance applies to all work performed on projects using City funds. He has not discussed this language with the attorney for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The City can enact an ordinance that governs or controls the HRA activities. If funds are derived from the City this ordinance would control the HRA projects. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Billings to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to draft languaqe to be used in all City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority contracts over $25,000, loan agreements, grant agreements, and development agreements that will provide the necessary procedure for enforcement of the prevailing wage ordinance and provide for liquidated damages of five percent (50) of the contract amount. Further, said language shall be presented to the City Council at the time of the second reading of this ordinance. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 9 18. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #97-02, BY DAVE RYAN, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 18 FEET, AND TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD, ALL iN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUGTION OF A TWO-CAR GARAGE GENERALLY LOCATED AT 119 HARTMAN CIRCLE N.E. (WARD 3}: Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 18 feet and to allow an accessory structure in the front yard. There are several options, which have been presented, in order to canstruct a garage on this parcel. If Option A is used, the variance would be to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 32 feet. Mr. Hickok stated that Mr. Ryan is a real estate agent who is assisting the owner of this property, Ms. Belgum, in marketing her home. In order to sell this property, a garage is required. In reviewing the options, a garage could be constructed on the property. However, without a variance it would involve remodeling the inside of the home. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission considered the request to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to l8 feet (Option B). A motion to approve this cariance failed on a tie vote, and a buyer interested in the property withdrew this request after the Appeals Commission meeting. The request before Council this evening is a variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard and a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 32 feet. Councilman Billings stated that if the garage is moved closer to the home, in addition to construction of a fire wall, the driueway is then closer eliminating potential spots for snow storage and a possible drainage problem. Aesthetically, it would not be as pleasing because persons would be looking at a garage door rather than the side of a garage. He asked if there are any assurances the garage would be positioned so the front of the garage is not visible from the street. Mr. Ryan, the petitioner, stated that with the attached garage the logical driveway would be straight out to the street and would be more aesthetically pleasing. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR #97-02, to allow an accessory structure in the front yard and to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 32 feet, with the following stipulations: (1) the garage door opening is to face east; and {2) the garage is to be architecturally compatible with the home. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 10 19. APPROVE fT FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING SERVICES BETWEEN THE AND WASTE MANAGIIMENT, INC.: Ms. Julie Jones, Recycling Coordinator, stated that this agreement is based on the RFP the Council reviewed several weeks ago. The agreement would be in effect from April 1, 1997 through March 31, 1999. She reviewed the changes from the previous agreement. One change is how the City will modify the count on certified dwelling units due to the Christenson Crossing development. The requirement of service to Fridley schools was also eliminated since they have their own contracted recycling program. Added language allows the contractor to request a price adjustment in the event certain costs beyond their control change significantly; to provide service to the door for handicapped households; and to provide container delivery to new residents and to replace lost, damaged or stolen recycling containers. Language was also modified to match the new recycling route days. Ms. Jones stated that there were a lot of questions raised by residents. Most items were covered in the brochure that was mailed to residents of single family homes. A brochure will be sent to the multi-tenant owners with information for them to distribute to their tenants. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she �aas asked by a resident, who has difficulty grasping the recycling containers, if she could get a small garbage can with wheels to use for her recycling. Ms. Jones stated that, most likely, this would not be a problem. There are restrictions, however, on how much the driver can lift. This would not be a problem if the container was not over forty pounds. Ms. Jones reviewed some of the questions she received from the residents that were addressed. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if the garbage haulers were aware of this recycling program. Ms. Jones stated that they were mailed a copy of the map outlining the various recycling days in the City. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that residents still have the option of taking their recyclables to the recycling center. She understood there were some questions about the cost. Ms. Jones stated that this weekly service is about 35 percent more than it would have cost to stay with the existing program. The majority of the residents were in favor of a weekly service. There is no additional costs for 1997; however, the costs for 1998 will have to be reviewed. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the video on the recycling program was well done. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 1997 PAGE 11 MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the agreement for curbside recycling services between the City and Waste Management, Inc. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 20. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the items to be discussed during the conference session are the PCS telecommunications antenna issue and the proposal for upgrading 57th Avenue between University Avenue and Main Street. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the �ome Remodeling Fair will be held this Saturday, April 5 at the Fridley High School from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. There was a tremendous response from vendors, and they are expecting over 1,000 persons to attend. The City's new remodeling advisor, Margaret Metsdorff, wi11 be in present to answer questions. Ms. Dacy stated that Barb Warren of the Chamber of Commerce was very helpful in recruiting volunteers and organizing the workshops. This event is co- sponsored by Home Depot, and the City appreciates their participation. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that there would be a meeting of the Riverview Heights neighborhood this Wednesday, April 2 downstairs in the Municipal Center. The purpose of the meeting is to address flooding issues. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of March 31, 1997 adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Nancy J. Jorgenson Secretary to the City Council Mayor CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CONIl��iSSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Larry Kuechle Diane Savage, Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Associate Mark Paltoch, 401 Rice Creek Boulevard Kevin Olson, Anderson Trucking Service Darwin "Butch" Voigt, Fridley Bus Service Curt Carlson, Lease Management Group Jim Steilen, Popham, Haik, 3300 Piper Tower John Prichard, McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Dennis Zy11a, Fridley Business Center Partnership APPROVAL OF MARCH 5, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the Mc�rch 5, 1997, Planning Con�mission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE,.ALL.VOTING;AYE,;:�?,VIGE-CEAIRPERSON>iCONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED' UNANII�lOUSI�Y. : 1. PUBLIC'::HEARING:''CONSIDERATION OF`SPECIAL USE'PERMIT, SP #97- al, BY LEASE>MANAGEMENT GROUP,,INC.: ' , ` TQ allow agencies:selling or-displaying new3and/or'used vehicles, recreational vehicles, or:boats,:on that part of the southeast 1/4 of the.southwest 1/4 lying southerly of the northerly 50 feet thereof, lying northerly of the southerly 400 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 600 feet thereof, excluding that part taken for road, and subject to easements of record, generally located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by'Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. . �: UPON A;VOICE.VaTE, ALL=;VOTING,:AYE;�nVICE-CHATRPERSON'�RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED;;AND, :TBEt' PIIBLIC BEARI�TG OPEN AT : 7:33 � P'M' . f �.� � � ;. 'r� _. _ � PLANNING CONIl�TISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the subject property for the request is Columbia Arena, otherwise addressed as 7011 University Avenue. The purpose of the special use permit request is to allow the sale of used vehicles on May 16 and 17, 1997. The Commission has reviewed similar requests in 1993 and 1994 for Friendly Chevrolet which occurred in May and September of those years. She spoke with the County, and they indicated that last year Friendly Chevrolet chose not to pursue use of their special use permit. This special use permit is requested by a new petitioner, hence the review by the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated this request is similar to previous requests by Friendly Chevrolet in that approximately 200-300 vehicles are intended to be displayed in the north parking lot. They propose a food tent adjacent to the north side of the arena and portable restrooms along the east part of the site. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission in its review of similar requests required 11 stipulations. Staff did not receive any verbal complaints regarding the sale; however, today staff received a letter from Kathleen Gagnon, 561 Rice Creek Boulevard, indicating her dissatisfaction with previous sales. In speaking with the police department, they did not indicate any complaints; however, they do recommend a traffic control person to keep traffic out of the residential neighborhood known as Holiday Hills which is located south of 69th Avenue and south of Locke Park. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: l. The vehicle sales will occur no more than once per year. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 3. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. 4. The petitioner shall obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. 5. Portable toilets shall be handicapped accessible. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on-site and to prevent problems occurring on 69th Avenue at the University Avenue frontage road, and to direct unnecessary traffic away from the : residential neighborhood: Z.�L'� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 3 7. The participating dealerships shall apply for and receive the appropriate City licenses. 8. There shall be no test driving of cars in the residential neighborhood located south of 69th Avenue and in Locke Park. 9. Barricades shall be placed at the entrance to the neighborhood on 69th Avenue and on 71st Avenue. The barricade at 69th Avenue shall include a sign with the language "residential area - no exit". 10. The cars for the sale shall be street operable and shall not be leaking fluid. 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the next sale. 12. A second sale will not be held for at least 90 days after commencement of the first sale to eliminate the appearance and impacts of a perpetual auto sale in this location. Mr. Sielaff asked why is the stipulation regarding the 90 days necessary if there is only one sale. Ms. McPherson stated, after writing the xeport, she spoke with the petitioner �o let him know what the stipulations would be. While only one date is on their application, the petitioner indicated verbaliy an interest in a second sale in 1997 pending the level of success of the first sale. Ms. Sielaff asked if the second sale would have to occur in 1997. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. Saba asked if it was a totally different organization conducting this sale. Ms. McPherson stated that the original special use permits, SP #93-13 and SP #94-02, were issued to Friendly Chevrolet. She spoke with Anoka County who is the property owner and lessor of the site. They indicated that Friendly Chevrolet has not exercised their option or requested a sale in the last two years since the 1994 approval. If Friendly Chevrolet wanted to have a sale this year, they would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Lease Management Group is a separate organization from Friendiy Chevrolet. Mr. Sielaff asked who was responsible for the trash.. Ms. McPherson stated the organization conducting the sale would be responsible for the trash generated by the sale. . 2:03 � ■ PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 4 Mr. Sielaff asked if staff were aware of any problems with the trash. Ms. McPherson stated this is the first that staff has been made aware of a problem with trash as a result of these sales. Mr. Kondrick stated the clean up of the site once the sale is over is not addressed in the stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated this is not included in this list of stipulations; however, the Planning Commission could add that as a 13th stipulation. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive into the public record a letter from Kathleen Gagnon dated March 18, 1997, regarding this proposed event. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Carlson stated he is a representative of Lease Management Group. Many of the facts about the sale were reviewed by Ms. McPherson. They are an auto sales and leasing company. They operate a retail sales facility at 9901 Central Avenue N.E. They applied for a special use permit to allow the two-day used car sale. They have held several sales at the Immanuel Christian Center on University Avenue, and they thought they wouid have more success at Columbia Arena. On May 16, the sale wo�ld operate from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. and on May 17 from 8 a.m, to 5 p.m.. They will have security to watch the<site overnight to be-sure there is no� vandalism. TYie site will be `under- guard 'at" all times. . ,, . .... ,.. , . , . _: f : ., ,' ' � Mr. Kondrick'asked how many�cars�they"expected to bring in.'' < . Mr. Carlson stated they would;have approximately 250 cars. That seems to be a good number for`:the.'area where'they will be parked. The cars will be displayed:in the north area of the parking lot. If there is still room for more parking, they would display some toward the front. There will be no pennants, no streamers, no flags on the vehicles. They have an appTication for a permit for a temporary sign. They would like to provide a sign which will be within the_ordinance of the City., They:,have contracted with ten 4. area credit unions to provide,:;..the. sale..,for the membership. The � sale is being marketed to the'�members of the`credit unions. They will have a free standing tent;;approximately 40 feet x 60 feet,` with an administration area �.:Also.in!that area will be a caterer �; to provide- hot dogs, pop;l.;Acof:'fee;,r:�;donuts,� :"etc.';° for the` people,. �' attending the sale. There�will,,be no charge for the refreshments. The caterer will get their own?permit.`'They have the required � �2:0,4', , :�� PI,ANNING CONIlriISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 5 number of fire extinguishers on hand. Electrical and phone lines will be made available to them by Columbia Arena. Handicap accessible portable toilets are going to be placed. Trash cans will be placed generously around the area. Mr. Carlson stated they would like to have, if approved, a second sale in September. They expect this sale to be successful. By Saturday evening, all evidence of the sale will be removed from the property. The sale is a Friday evening and Saturday event. Mr. Sielaff stated it sounded as if they would not be using the parking area to the south. Mr. Carlson stated this was correct. There are activities inside the arena which will need that parking area. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Carlson stated no. They had the list of the stipulations and have no problem with them. If the Commission would like to add another regarding the trash, that is okay. Mr. Kuechle stated the first stipulation states a sale is not occur more than once per year while the last stipulation stated another sale cannot be held for 90 days. This is not clear. Ms. McPherson stated, if the Commission chaoses to allow a second sale, it would be appropriate to amend the first stipulation to say twice per year. Mr. Kuechle asked why they would need.the;last stipulation.,. Ms. McPherson stated that stipulation'clarifies that there must be a 90-day separation,.between sales. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M. � .:. � ,, Mr. Kondrick stated he has attended previous sales`and saw no problem. Mr. Saba stated he' would amend `sti�pulat�on'�#1 to. read twice "per . year and leave stipulation #12�,as is. � �'� zrF�.�';c.�'� � � ��.2:05 �� . . ','&a ki...Xk".`�n�s:%. � . . ;: ; � � �' � � ', I PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 6 Mr. Oquist stated he would like to add stipulation #13 to read, "The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and removal." MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-01, by Lease Management Group, Inc., to allow agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles, recreational vehicles, or boats, on that part of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 lying southerly of the northerly 50 feet thereof, lying northerly of the southerly 400 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 600 feet thereof, excluding that part taken for road, and subject to easements of record, generally located at 7011 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: l. The vehicle sales will occur no more than twice per year. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 3. � � The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property. The petitioner shall obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. Portable toilets shall be handicapped accessible. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on-site and to prevent problems occurring on 69th Avenue at the University Avenue frontage road, and to direct unnecessary traffic away from the residential neighborhood. 7. The participating dealerships shall apply for and receive the appropriate City licenses. � � 10. ll. There shall be no test driving of cars in the residential neighborhood located south of 69th Avenue and in Locke Park. Barricades shall be placed at the entrance to the neighborhood on 69th Avenue and on 71st Avenue. The barricade at 69th Avenue shall include a sign with the language "residential area - no exit" The cars for the sale shall be street operable and shall not be leaking fluid. ,. • ,. , � . The special use permit'shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the next sale. `;� _ �2.06� : .Y<� . � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 7 12 13. A second sale will not be held for at least 90 days after commencement of the first sale to eliminate the appearance and impacts of a perpetual auto sale in this location. The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and removal. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of April 14. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATI'ON OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MANUFACTURING ONLY), AND RENUMBERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINC AYE, VICE-CAAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC iiEARING OPEN AT 7:53 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the public hearing is regarding M-4, Manufacturing Only, which is an amendment_to the industrial zoning district regarding distribution and warehouse facilities. Ms. McPherson stated recent developments include the construction of approximately 500,000 square feet of distribution and warehouse space in 1995 and 1996. Tnlith this construction came an increase in residential complaints regarding truck traffic, noise and odors. The City Council established a"no truck traffic" zone south of 53rd Avenue. Staff has received complaints regarding the Northco Development on 73rd Avenue with the parking of trucks in the front yard adjacent to 73rd Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated, with the moratorium, staff divided the City into three study areas. The first is south of 61st Avenue to the southern border of the City and between East River Road and University Avenue. The second is east of University Avenue toward the easterly City border north to Osborne Road. ' The third is north of 73rd Avenue to 83rd between East River and University Avenue. When staff looked at the industrial land analysis,'they determined that there are 17 existing distribution and warehouse facilities in the City with over 2.7 million square feet or about 2.�7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 8 63 acres. Some of these facilities have expansion opportunities. The City has approximately 1,148 acres of industrially zoned land in total; however, there are only 89.79 acres which remain vacant or approximately 7.80 of this total. The goals of the ordinance amendment would be to reduce the iruck traffic impact on residential properties; to increase job opportunities and economic value to increase the city's tax base; to promote clean uses which do not include fumes, odors, or noise; and to eliminate outdoor storage. Ms. McPherson stated staff looked at several alternatives before bringing this recommendation before the Commission. Those options include - do nothing; amend only the performance standards in the existing industrial districts; require special use permits in the M-1 and M-2 districts for distribution/warehouse facilities; to eliminate distribution uses entirely in the M-1 district; and create M-4, Manufacturing Only. All of these options have various pros and cons, and staff is recommending a combination of amending the performance standards and creating an M-4 district. Ms. McPherson stated staff's recommended option is to amend the performance standards in the existing industrial districts which would require on corner lots no loading docks face the public right-of-way and lots which face a residential district would have no loading docks or truck parking in that portion of the property. The second part is to create the new district entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only. Ms. McPherson stated the components of the ordinance would include no loading docks to face the;public-right-of-way on corner lots`or lots across the street from a residentiai'zoning"or use; no truck or trailer parking would be visible from the public'right-of-way : or residential zoning or:u`ses;�`and the riew"zoriing district would not allow warehouse or distribution facilities` as<a principle"use` ` in the district. It could be incidental or accessory uses to a manufacturing use. Ms. McPherson stated, once staff determined the ordinance option, they looked at the properties that could be affected out of the 89.79 acres which are left in the City and asked four basic questions: � ' 2. . Is the property adjacent;to or.across the-street from a residential use? ' Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M-4 zoning distric�? , �'�. . �., ta i ' . . . .. . .��0� .. . . . . . . . .. . . ..��Y. � �',2{`..� � � �1 PLANNING CONIlriISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 9 3. 4. Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility is excess of 10 loading docks? Is there an adjacent distribution or warehouse facility already in the area? Ms. McPherson stated, given those questions, staff identified seven possible properties which could be rezoned to the M-4 zoning classification if it is approved. The sites are scattered throughout the City. As a parallel project, Ms. Dacy is suggesting to the Housing & Redevelopment Authority that these properties be included in an economic development district which would allow them to receive tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage development of manufacturing uses. Those properties include 2-acres south of 73rd Avenue and east of University; 1.6- acres between Ashton Avenue and the Burlington-Northern railroad tracks; 6.3-acres north of the McGlynn's Bakery facility; 3.2- acres to the rear of Friendly Chevrolet and adjacent to Central Avenue; 5.77-acres east of Kurt Manufacturing and adjacent to Central Avenue; 3.81 acres at the intersection of Osborne Road and Central Avenue; and a total of 11 acres located at the intersection of 61st Avenue and Main�Street. Mr. Oquist asked why the second pieee was included. Ms. MePher�on stated it was included because it is across t�e street from Ruth Par-k. JTI Powder Coating is located north of this parcel and Lindstrom Metric, which is a distribution facility, is located south of that parcel. Mr. Sielaff asked why the parcel by McGlynn's Bakery was included. Ms. McPherson stated this`'parcel met tfiree;of the four questions asked, excluding the adjacent>residential°district: Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment changing the performance standards in the existing industrial district as well as establishing a new district entitled "Manufacturing Only". If the Commission chooses to concur with staff's recommendation, the next steps in the process are for the City Council to conduct a public hearing at the April 14, 1997, meeting at.which time the ordinance'� first reading would occur; the second reading would be April:28; the ordinance would become effective`May 23;'and the moratorium which currently exists would expire on'May'27. M"s . McPherson stated,` at :the-: mee�ing� �of��< February :19," the � Planning Commission preliminarily discus�ed;this ordinance amendment and requested that staff ineet with`the'affected property owners. r- 1`rx�'� '.: �'a ,:.2.09 . .� . . r.. . .... 7,x ... . ... . . � ..- . . . _ _. __ P7�ANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, 1�fRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 10 Staff did that on March 12, 1997. The owners expressed concern about their marketing opportunities as well as their market value. Ms. McPherson spoke with Mr. Ed Hervin, the City Assessor, regarding the market value issue, and he indicated that, in terms of how he assesses property, he would not diminish the assessment on the property because of the change in the industrial classification. The only way this would occur is if the City chose to adopt an ordinance that was so restrictive that they could not do anything on the property. In this case, we are eliminating a particular purchaser of the property, but the owner would still have the opportun'ity to market the property to potential industrial users'. In addition, Mr. Hervin did not feel the market would reflect a diminished value for the land because of the change in the zoning requirements. Mr. Kondrick stated the City had received a letter from McGlynn Bakeries, Inc., stating this would adversely affect their company. Ms. McPherson stated their discussion regards being able to build a stand-alone warehouse. The chanqe in the ordinance would prevent construction of a warehouse only on that site. However, the Commission or the City Council could choose not to include the McGlynn site as a candidate under M-4 or it could be rezoned to M- 4 with the option for McGlynn to come back requesting the site be re-zoned to M-2. Staff have had some discussions with them regarding their proposed warehouse expansion, and they are looking at many alternatives as to how that can be accomplished on their site. The site is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the letter from McGlynn Bakeries, Inc., dated March 18, 1997, and the letter from Kelly & Berens, P.A., dated March 19; 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIl�USI�Y . Mr. Saba asked if there were any comments about the letter from Kelly and Berens and the proposed-use by.Everest development. Mr. Hickok stated the letter just arrived and staff had just today an opportunity to peruse the statements in the letter. There has been some discussion of development of one of the sites being reviewed for the Manufacturing.Only,classification. One of those sites did have a proposal that would have in excess of 10 doors, in this case nearly 50 doors, potentially facing Main Street. As far as some of the other details of the discussion and how it applies to the`�proposed'changes,��staff'have not-had a opportunity to speak with the developer:;:,about their understanding of those issues. Staff does recognize they were interested in a facility : 2.1'0:: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 11 whose details were very sketchy. Little was known in terms of what the actual use or user would be. Staff was interested in working through the planning and development aspects of the site and minimizing impacts, etc. Those interests were not shared. The developer felt S0+ bays and the use would be appropriate. Mr. Saba stated, in light of the letter from McGlynn and the concern expressed regarding Everest Development, it would seem premature to go ahead with this ordinance until the issues are resolved. Mr. Hickok stated the moratorium was for 120 days with the idea that we want to make sure we are through the moratorium and have a decision for the City so that, if someone has a development they want to move ahead with, this does not keep them from doing so. For that reason, staff wants to keep the steps moving along and come to a conclusion on the ordinance. As far as it being premature, he thought it was the right time. We do have a very limited inventory of industrial land left in the City, and we do need to ask these critical questions and make some decisions about ordinances as we move forward. Mr. Sielaff asked if it was correct that the proposal is to create an M-4 district and at the same time we are also identifying sites that will become M-4 so we are creating another category and then rezoning the proposed areas. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. In the existing M-1, M-2, and M-3, we are also strengthening the language of those existing districts, and selecting sites where the land use designation on the zoning map would change and all the associated ordinance language that would apply to those sites. Mr. Sielaff asked if this public hearing was to create a category. Ms. McPherson stated the public hearing is being conducted regarding the ordinance amendment. Staff is letting the Commission know what sites they are recommending for change. Mr. Sielaff stated the Commission can make a recommendation regarding the ordinance change. What about the sites? Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending sites. Staff has not written the ordinance language to actually change those sites at this time. Mr. Sielaff asked if it designates'in the ordinance what areas are M-4. 2.11 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 12 Ms. McPherson stated no, that is a separate issue. Mr. Oquist asked if that issue would come before the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated, to put this in perspective, this is very similar to other development proposals. Staff has made a recommendation of the language and sites. The Planning Commission will hear comments and make a recommendation based on that information. Mr. Oquist stated the Commission is looking at an ordinance change. Once that is approved, then we come back and identify the sites and make it formal. Is that to be done at this meeting or at a later date? Mr. Hickok stated this public hearing will talk about both the specific sites and the proposed language. Mr. Oquist stated, if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance, are we also making a recommendation to approve the sites. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The role of the Planning Commission is to concur with the language or to suggest alternative language and also to concur with the sites or to eliminate and include sites. Mr. Saba stated he was concerned about the potential of impacting development that is in some kind of stage.right now by changing zoning and also concerned about McGlynn's planning a potential development and impacting'that. ' Ms. McPherson stated," if'the 'Commissi:on feels more 'comfortable;', there is room`in the schedule'that if you would prefer to give staff further direction,;it can>be brought back to the April 2 meeting for further information and discussion. Mr. Sielaff stated he has no objection to the ordinance itself, but he does have some concerns about the sites included. Mr. Kondrick stated he understands that staff is doing this to y prevent Fridley from becoming a warehouse city and along with that the problems of trucks and truck traffic occurring in residential areas. However, McGlynn is not by a residential area. Mr. Zylla stated he represents the'Fridley Business Center - '" Partnership which owns iand"in the Northco'Park and actually developed the park. !Het�"wouldt��like -to";clarify 'one `statement: � Ms; McPherson made a statement:that,the riew building on 73rd Avenue which was recentiy constructed has generated some of the concern �� a �r ,� ,,,. .-; ; � �� s � �2 f12 ��-.,�� .. PLANNING CO1�IlrlISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 13 for the ordinance was Northco Development. That is not true. Northco sold the land but did not develop that property. This is �he only parcel in the park that staff is suggesting to be rezoned to M-4. If he understands correctly, they are suggesting this be M-4 because this could be potentially haue 10 loading docks. Ms. McPherson stated staff chose the site because staff was unsure as to the total number of loading docks; however, more so because the parcel to the east already has a distribution/warehouse facility located nearby. Mr. Zylla stated, if 10 docks comes into play on this parcel, he would be very surprised if anyone could develop 2.2 acres with 10 loading docks and still have a viable development. They object to the proposed rezoning to M-4. They believe it diminishes their use, diminishes the marketability of the property, and diminishes the value. The laws of supply and demand being what they are, if you diminish the marketability, you also diminis.h the �alue.` He is not an attorney, but he is suggesting that they get a lot of calls fro:^� potential buyers and at l.east SOo of the calls come in from Fridley companies or from companies in this general area that are office/warehouse type companies rather than pure manufacturing, and they would like to be able to sell that property to someone that may have an office/warehouse function as we11 as to someone who may have a manufacturing function. Mr. Zyila stated the other issue for them relative to the code relates to the.amended language for M-1, M 2 and M-3 which deals with the potential change where on corner-lots or lots across from residential no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way: They have also the two lots and have filed'an application with the City for tax incremerit and have taken,soil borings there. They °-:; . are interested in developing'a 59,000 square�foot building ori .that site and have one loading dock`which faces east. It does not face any of the public streets but it is:on�:a corner lot. Even�though the lot is internal, the dock faces south toward 71st Avenue. It is not across from a residential district, but across from a P district. Even though we are currently in compliance by locating the dock on the interior rather than on the street, we are now in technical violation. This development will die if we have to shift the building further to re-locate the dock so,it is not visible from the public street-. Mr. Zylla stated the other point of the code to which he would speak is the provisions about;corner lots or lots:across from �esidential areas and that no,trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner'that'ris visib'le �That'seems to him'to be extremely� � restrictive. He is not:sure;what•:�that means. Does that mean - parked overnight or parked for'-five minutes? If you potentially i: S ' ; .. .. �� .• 'e�.., •. �. . .. �.2:13 . , �:� ._y.... _ � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 14 park by a corner lot or across from a residential area, you are in technical violation of this code. He thought that was restrictive. Mr. Zylla stated the last point is that the whole No.rthco Business Park has been approved under a development agreement that goes back a number of years. In that development agreement, they are allowed to come in and pull permits as long as they comply with the M-2 zoning for that land. He does not know to what extent their development agreement may supersede this change in code. If their development agreement governs, his personal concern from the point of view is that their land value would be diminished. As a developer, he thought this was a mistake to the extent that their development agreement controls and this does not affect them. They have not had that question answered, and they have not gone to anyone to get that question answered. Ms. McPherson stated staff had not had the opportunity to consult with the City Attorney on that question but they will do so. Mr. Prichard thanked the Commission for hearing their concerns. He appreciated the Commission receiving his letter into the record and stated he would follow some of the points in his letter. One of the first questions he had was why this parcel. As they see it, there is no affected residential. Their understanding was that this issue was brought about to a large degree by residential complaints. On this particular site when they develop it and they plan to develop it, the traffic would flow through industrial parks and out onto University. They do not see an impact to residential. He thought that staff had mentioned that as one of the criteria for this site. Also, they ar� concerned about future expansion opportunities for that"site. In the past, they purchased the old Totino's'site which is south of that vacant land and refurbished and restored that'facility bringing 400 jobs to the City. McGlynn's has a history of growth, outgrew the site, and needed the land adjacent for growth in their warehouse and distribution operations. As they grow and expand their business, they feel they are going to need the opportunity to potentially have some warehouse on that facility. Their past history has been to put warehouses up first to handle the manufacturing once the manufacturing needs grow to that point. Mr. Prichard stated, as you may or may not know, they entered into a redevelopment agreement with the City when they acquired the former Totino's facility. They look at the spirit of that agreement as one of growth and expansion, job creation, and tax revenues for the'City. 'Today``they have'S00 jobs generating over $16 million in payroll. In addition, they pay over $170,000 in real estate taxes after the tax increment assistance. That is `2.14 PI�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19 1997 PAGE 15 nearly $800,000 since they moved to this site. They look at that and see the proposed zoning as working against them as a business who is trying to be a good corporate citizen and trying to accomplish growth and job creation in the City. They feel they need the flexibility to keep the current zoning, M-2, intact so they can as they grow build the type of facility on that property that they will need. Mr. Prichard stated, as a business, they are forced to be competitive in the marketplace. One of the issues facing them is, in order to be competitive, they need to have their operations as close as they can. If they are restricted to build on this land, they will not be as efficient. They will not be as close to their warehouse and distribution as they would like. This puts them in a position of not being competitive and makes them look at other options. They believe the market value will decline on the land. He did not see how the City could take something away and say the value will be at the same level. That they intend to develop the land is a concern in that they would suffer an economic loss because, if they cannot build the kind of facility they would like on that property, they may end up selling it. They are opposed to the proposed change. Mr. Steilen stated he was the counsel to McGlynn Bakeries. He was not sure what was going to be considered at the meeting. He would like to make some comments on the suggested changes to the M-2. Mr. Prichard commented about McGlynn Bakeries' position to having the property rezoned to M-4, but they are also objecting to changing the M-2 classification by making a warehouse use a special use. As they understand the proposal, it would render the warehouse a nonconforming use and, if that is the case, it would be a real problem for McGlynn Bakeries. Typically, to have a nonconforming use and if it burns down, they may or may not be able to rebuild it and, in most communities, you cannot expand it. He would request that they not change to the M-4 and also that they not change the M-2 restrictiori and make the warehouse use a special use and create the nonconforming use problem for them. Ms. McPherson stated that was one of the options they looked at, but that is not what is being proposed. The only change in the M-2 is the performance standards with where loading docks can be faced or located on corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts. They are not recommending the special use permit option in.M-2. Mr. Olson stated he represented Anderson Trucking Service which owns the property at Osborne Road and Central Avenue and the property is zoned M-1. In 1992, they had this property replatted. 2.15 PLANNING COIrIl�iiSSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 16 There are actually three pieces on that corner, and only one portion is left. In order to sell that, they had to split it so now they are left with 3.1 acres. They have a buyer who wants to develop that. They may have been in contact with the Planning Commission. They feel this will scare them off. The parcel has been on the market since it was replatted, and it has been on the market ever since they have owned the property. They have never gotten a call from manufacturing. He feels it will adversely affect the sale of this property. Anderson Trucking has no desire to develop this further for the trucking company. Anderson Trucking is currently leasing a portion of the property to the south so it would not increase truck traffic. No one likes a trucking company, but they are necessary. They have no desire to create any conflicts that way. They oppose the M-4 designation and also adding too many restrictions. The people interested in buying this property understand the loading dock issue. They are only looking at putting �n three or four loading docks and they would not face directly onto Central or Osborne; however, it is difficult to develop right back to the corner where there is no visibility. They would oppose this. Mr. Voigt stated they have the proper.ty. next to Anderson Trucking. The property is zoned M-l. When they had site plans approved in 1994, they had a phase II plan. which was approved at that time. In 1995, when they changed their holding pond, it was approved again to put on a 17,000 square foot addition to the existing building. He is wondering if the change in the ordinance would affect that part of their phase. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed expansion is to the south. : This' ordinance amendment does not impaet- this property.'-The bus . facility has overhead doors which face west and east on the-site.. T.hey are not a corner lot�and,there-is property separating,`Mr: " Voigt's property from other uses so there i's no impact to the proposed expansion. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND`'THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated, from what he has heard, he can understand and appreciate what the City is attempting-,to do but he thought there were some things they needed to think"out: A`good point was made regarding. the Northco property,;that �is:��next � to Colu�bia Arena: � That is in an area where it does not affect-anything. It is a corner�lot, but he did not know if one could'define it as a corner � - . � .� ' .. ... � � , .; .. ,. . :. ,'.:'. R�i�� .� _. , � . - . . � ..,:; . , . . . � . . . . ��,� . . . - . . . . . .. �. .. . . _ . . PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, MARCB 19, 1997 p� 1� lot based on the way this ordinance.amendment reads as far as where you can put a loading dock. He did not know why the McGlynn Bakeries property was included. It is in a commercial area and does not fit the criteria. These people have also talked about future expansion., Regarding Anderson Trucking, that lot is a corner lot but there not a lot of residential in that area. There are businesses across the street and across the intersection, and nearby is a towing service. He did not know where that fits the criteria. He was not willing to move on this tonight because there are some things that needed to be thought out. Mr. Saba agreed. He was not opposed to the ordinance, but he is concerned about the properties selected. He is concerned about impacting proposed developments that are already in place. Rather than prohibiting some of those through an ordinance, he would rather see some type of incentives to promote other types of development and not penalize thro�gh devaluation of real estate by restricting development. He did not want to see the City turning into a warehouse or trucking terminal type of city either. He did not think they should have trucks parked facing.residential property. He would like to see that limited, but he cannot accept the proposed list of properties. Mr. Oquist stated it was pointed out that we talk about truck parking but we do not define the size of the trucks. Is a pick-up. considered a t�uck? Does this �ean overnight parking or parking for business? He thought that needed to be identified as well. Mr. Kuechle stated to him a truck is a truck if it has a truck license so he_did not think it was particu.�arly confusing. He thought they needed to spell out inore clearly-what"constitutes beirig visible>from t_he right-of-way or xesideritial area: He thought saying not visible was too restrictive. He;thought they also need to be aware that:anyone who has land and'wants to deselop and/or sell it also want to keep the regulations as loose as possible because that gives the widest berth possible to develop or sell. It is their job to say where do we need to be. Mr. Sielaff stated his biggest issue is what sort of agreements are in place right now such as development agreemen.ts. He thought � it was only fair that this ordinance would not apply to those I agreements made before this was.considered.- He agreed that there � is some value in this ordiriance change: He would not mind voting for it tonight, but again what applies to the majority. + Mr. Kondrick stated he did�not':think'they�were ready:to vote this evening in light of the groperties affected. He thought.they should define trucks because'there are'differences. He suggested � yj ��2:17. . �,. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 1��iRCH 19, 1997 PAGE 18 tabling this item to the April 2 meeting to provide an opportunity to explore the minutes and to get various points of view so they can understand the issues and rediscuss at a later date. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the Commission should give staff some input as to what parts we are not sure of and what information we want. Otherwise, we are starting where we are now. He would like a better definition on visibility. He is fairly comfortable about the restrictions on corner lots, about the trucks and loading docks if it is more clearly defined. There is a difference between parked with the loading docks being next to a residential area, for example, on Main Street versus around the back. He would like to see some clarification of that issue. He did not know how to answer clarification of changing to Manufacturing Only. The conflict is between wanting to develop the land and us wanting to restrict to a denser use. Mr. Kondrick stated he would li�kE assessor in understanding how he of use does not diminish value. that. The taxes may be the same, the ability to sell. some clarification from the feels that denying certairi types He has a hard time understanding but it does affect the use or Mr. Oquist stated, if we can get a better definition, perhaps that will answer some of the questions. He would still need to be convinced of including the McGlynn and Northco properties where there is no residential nearby. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff took all the properties that were available and these are the ones that might be affect.ed. Ms. McPherson stated staff Tooked at the vacant land inventory and tried to make some qualitative.judgments about what properties would be best suited for M-4:` Staff can bring the Commission additional information about properties they did not select and perhaps the Commission would like to choose other sites. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to table consideration of an ordinance recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning", to the April 2, 1997, meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICiC DECLP,RED THE MOTION CARRIED,UNANIMOUSLY.- Mr. Oquist stated he thought they'should have separated the ordinance from the sites. He could have voted for the ordinance and then over a period`of time they could deal with the sites. They would have more time to choose sites. The ordinance is good and they should have voted on the ordinanee and said naw you have ' 2.18 ` PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARC$ 19, 1997 PAGE 19 so much time to pick the sites. People are trying to keep the regulations loose to develop and we want to control that, but people also pay taxes and we want to be careful. Mr. Hickok stated, about the timing, one of the things we have to consider as we look at this is that requests that we get for industrial land have been unbelievable. Right now it is an extremely hot market in the industrial warehouse industry. It is quite possible with less than 90 acres left that we could see industrial warehouse fill the remaining inventory in a very shor_t time. Mr. Saba asked how many requests the City was getting for manufacturing. Mr. Hickok stated industrial as a whole has been a very hot market. Fridley's industrial land has been a hotbed of activity and has been a real mix. They have seen from recent development activity that it has been warehouse, but there is some interest from folks that are already here in expanding to ot.her sites in manufacturing and others moving here from other areas. All of. that is considered as we evaluate what is left and how we handle what is left. 3. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TELECOPM�IUNICATIONS ORDINANCE Ms. McPherson stated the proposed telecommunications ordinance is a new chapter of the City code which would regulate telecommunications facilities. The Planning Commission's role is to give their opinion on the regulatory approach and to, provide input into the proposed scope of the chapter. The Commission's role would also be to review special use permits related to these facilities once the City code chapter is adopted. Ms. McPherson stated, in 1996, the Federal government passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which eliminated previous regulatory "boxes" - Title VI regulated cable television; Title II regulated broadcast television and telephones; and Title III regulated radio, broadcasts and cellular phones. Basically, those boxes have been eliminated and we are seeing a convergence of those technologies. Telephone companies are getting into cable, cable companies are getting into telephone, etc. The purpose of the Act was to increase competition, to reduce monopolistic opportunities and to remove as many regulatory barriers as possible. Ms. McPherson stated staff is pro.posing two regulatory approaches. The first is site specific. In this approach, the City would identify specific sites which are privately or municipally owned. 2.19: PLANNING CON�iISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 20 Building mounted antenna arrays would be considered accessory uses because they have little impact such as on the municipal water tower. However, new towers would require a special use permit. The second approach is in the limited open market approach where the sites are driven by the market and the providers. There would be a hierarchy of zoning classes which would prohibit tower installations in residential districts or in areas that may be adversely impacted such as a municipal park facility. Building mounted antennas would still be considered an accessory u�e and would require a special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated both options have their pros and cons. The limited open market approach is an advantage to the providers in that they have more flexibility. There is no convincing of owners by the City to accept this particular use on their site. The disadvantage is t.hat the burden of proof would lie with the City for denial of special use permits. The regulatory approach rnay coerce unwilling parties into expensive lease arrangements. The intent of thes.e two options is that we would require co-location or require buyers to locate their facilities on�a single tower-, and limit the distance between towers to approximately 3/4 mile. On the site specific option, there is the advantage that the City. controls the location, number and impact of the towers. The City would acknowledge that specific sites are acceptable for tower construction. This could possibly eliminate the.need for spe�ial use permits if the_standards were written specifically enough. However, the providers may not like the sites the City has chosEn and the land owners may not want to have a tower constructed on their site, in which case the City would have to go back to the drawing board and pick new sites. Mr. Sielaff asked if the City would identify�the sites beforehand. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the City would say these`are:the sites where we want towers. The basis for determining the sites would. be regulatory. We would want,to avoid sites that were in residential districts, minimize sites that create large impacts to park facilities, encourage aertain types of construction in commercial districts versus industrial districts. This would depend on what other types of towers were in that vicinity. Mr. Sielaff asked what about those things that have to do with service. We cannot determine the best location for the best service. Ms . McPherson stated they would��hope -: that the number of;� sites 'that . the Cit.y chose would provide enough_choice for the provider so they couid pick one that would�meet their particular needs. , : < . ' . ' 2.2� - . PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 21 Mr. Sielaff asked if you could provide enough diversity of sites to satisfy their needs. Ms. McPherson stated yes. She had maps put together by the consultant which talks about specific sites. Mr. Saba asked how many of these applications did staff expect. Ms. McPherson stated the consultant anticipates, with the numbe_r_ of licenses currently issued by the Federal government that there will be a need in the City of Fridley for 17 sites. Three are specifically for cellular installations and the remaining 14 would be for personal communication services, a new digital technology for which the licenses have been recently auctioned. With co- location, the consultant anticipates that will drop the-14 sites to 4- 6 sites in the near term. With the way that digital communication is handled, we will need more towers in the future as more people use digital pagers, faxes, phones, etc. Mr. Saba stated we cannot prohibit the number. We could have one on every block. Ms. McPherson stated the Telecommunications Act states expressly that cities cannot prohibit these facilities from being constructed within their city boundaries. It is possible that there could be a tower on every block but that is not likely. The Act also states that the city cannot create barriers to entering the market for different provi�ders or create a disadvantageous competitive environment. We have to provide regulations that provide a level playing field for the various providers. Mr. Saba asked if the City would get into the situation where they would have to provide utility easements. Ms. McPherson stated that is a separate but related issue. She was not sure providers would be looking for additional easements. They would probably work within the existing rights-of-way. There would be a separate and related ordinance, and probably Tegislation at the State level, which would regulate the cities' ability to charge utility companies for disruption.of the public rights-of-way in order to maintain and repair the rights-of-way as the result of construction of-these kinds of:facilities. That is getting away from what.the Commission feels is the best approach to recommend to the City Council in terms of how to regulate - let the open market dictate or we_select sites.where the towers can,be built. We are talking about wireless�communication. The proposed. City Code chapter would also:include satellite dishes.. There are specific rules in the Telecommunications Act that tell �he cities �, . ...,2.21 . . . .. . .. . . . . . �.. .. . . N... . , . .,. .,.�. . . .. . �ti . ,_ . � I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 19 1997 pAGE 22 how to regulate direct broadcast services, satellite dish size, how to regulate satellite dishes between one and two meters, and how to regulate satellite dishes in excess of two meters. Those issues will be included in the proposed City Code chapter. The Planning Commission will probably not deal with these issues on a regular basis. The Federal regulations are very specific about how those types of facilities are going to be regulated. At this time, staff is talking about tower installations for cellular and digital antenna arrays. There are other things that are included in the City co-chapter, but they are more concerned about the towers. Mr. Saba asked if the tower height could be restricted. Ms. McPherson stated they are looking at restricting the height. That is also regulated somewhat by the Federal government. Mr. Kondrick stated the elevation rnay dictate how high the tower may have to be. Mr. Sielaff stated these are towers for a system. He has read about AT&T getting into the local phone market through an antenna. Are we talking about that? Ms. McPherson stated they were not talking about regulating specific providers but talking about regulating specific facilities. They define facility as a tower, an antenna or a satellite dish. Typically, the antenna arrays on the towers are � triangular in shape and have four separate antenna panels on each side of the triangle and-can be mounted on a lattice=work tower or on a monopole. In addition, we could have microwave dishes and other types of antenna also,mounted on the same pole. We are talking about the tower which provides support for`a'variety of antennas or dishes and its supporting'ground equipment structure. That whole system ties back into:the'land lines that already exist. The providers like to have duplication in case part of the system would fail or if calls that are being generated are from or to a land line telephone, so they do have to tie back into the existing land line system. That is where you get into the issue of easements and right-of-way disruption. Mr. Oquist stated, if he understands correctly, we cannot restrict to building the towers. If we identify l7 sites and.we get 25 requests and they do not want to share, do we then have to provide 8 more sites? ,. .. _ Ms.' McPherson stated no. The Fede`ral"government does allow the ability to regulate where and how=but;we:.cannot prohibit outright. There is a provision in the way the consultant is proposing the �� = r : _� 2.22 � � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 pAGE 23 City code chapter where the provider must prove that there is no other site within 3/4 mile of what they are proposing. Unless the 17 sites are maxed out with providers, a provider would be hard pressed to prove that there is no way they can co-locate. It may come to the point where the City may have to mediate between two providers to agree on a lease price. Mr. Oquist stated, if a provider constructs and owns a tower, they can lease space on that tower for other providers. With that in mind, it seems logical to restrict the sites as in the site specific approach. Mr. Saba and Mr. Kondrick agreed. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought the whole field is still undeveloped. If you look at the way the sites have.to be spread out in a cellular fashion, they would have to be able to provide all areas for this service. The City.cannot say they will not provide service to an area of the City. He did not know that this is developed well enough that we can regulate the tower sites to the degree that will answer the letter of the law that the City will have full coverage. Mr. Oquist asked if they could divide the City into a certain number of quadrants and pick sites in those quadrants that would then cover all portions of the City. Mr. Kuechle stated he would favor the limited open market approach because it keeps the hassle away from the City. Mr. Saba stated, in doing that, the City would have to defend. If the City makes the selection and has sites set up, the City does not have to defend it. He did not want the parks to be used for antenna sites. Mr. Sielaff stated in the open market approach the City has to show the burden of proof. Ms. McPherson reviewed two maps indicating proposed sites as indicated by the consuTtant. The report talks about what the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Cable Commission talked about. She went to the Cable Commission on March lOth to talk about this same issue and to get_their input. The first map shows the consultant's 42 sites. There are four sites that already have an installation of some type. There are commercial sites included as well as municipal sites such,as water towers. The grid shows 3/4 mile spacing. The second map also_�'shows possible sites. The difference on this map is that these are all municipal properties. �2.23, ,� � _ � PI�ANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING MARCS 19, 1997 PAGE 24 Ms. McPherson stated the Cable Commission recommended to the City Council that they consider the site specific option so the City could be in control, that they be located on municipal sites and that we write some type of standard to determine which parks are acceptable. They were concerned about facilities being located in parks; however, they did not want to see parks excluded as potential options. They want the City to raise as much lease revenue as possible from these types of opportunities and have control. If the City is the owner, we just have to negotiate with ourselves to determine what sites are appropriate. � Ms. McPherson stated she would talk about the code components and then the Commission can formally make a recommendation to the City Council about what you would like to See. Ms. McPherson stated in the City code components they are recommending that monopoles have priority over lattice-work structures. They also recommend that monopoles not be attached to buildings, not be painted, and that there be brick on the equipment buildings. Specific performance standards include no glare by light and no lights on the towers. They are to be located in the side or rear yard of the facilities. The lease area should not cause non-compliance with parking or lot coverage of the primary use of the site. The boundary of the lease area is be located 10 feet from the side or rear lot line. This 10 feet should accommodate the easements that would be located on the site, provide access and separation for mairitenan�ce and separati.on from the property line. This.setback is similar to what is required for signs. They are also requiring a minimum of one parking stall for service vehicles. Ms. McPherson stated she talked about the recommendation from the Cab1e Commission. They recommended the site specific approacYi and putting as many of these on municipal sites as possible. They would like to see a portion of the lease monies dedicated to their cable TV activities, if possible, and they would like to review the draft of the City code once it is written. Ms. McPherson stated the Parks and Recreation Commission also reviewed the possibility of"having these facilities in parks. They indicated that it would be possible if properly mitigated and would also like to receive a portion of the lease monies for park maintenance and development. Ms. McPherson stated, once the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council, the City Council will review all of the commission discussions at their meeting of March 31. The Planning Commission would,conduct a,public hearing regarding the zoning amendment. We need to put in the zoning districts • � 2.24 � PLANNING CO1�Il�iISSION MEETING MARCH 19 1997 pAGE 25 these specific facilities as either accessory or special uses in specific zoning districts. On April 16, the Planning Commission would conduct an informational meeting to discuss with the providers our proposed City code amendment as well as the regulatory approach that the City is proposing. She did not anticipate at that meeting that they would have specific sites actually identified. That would come later in the process. Mr. Sielaff asked who the providers are. Ms. McPherson stated the consultant met with them early in the process. Providers would include AT&T, Sprint, U.S. West, plus two or three others. They were pleased to be included in the early discussions. We have asked them for information, but they are reluctant to disclose information because their cell. patterns are considered highly confidential. They have been giving input and are working with the consultant. We have not discussed with them the regulatory approaches at this point. Staff is working with,the commissions and the City Council first to get direction and then will be talking with the providers. Mr. Sielaff asked if this includes satellite dishes. Ms. McPherson stated no, because there are very specific regulations for satellite dishes. The City's hands are pretty much tied when it comes to satellite dishes. Basically, the only thing the City code chapter will do is repeat the Federal regulations. They are very restrictive in terms of what the City can and cannot do. Ms. McPherson stated, based on the input of the providers at the Planning Commission meeting of April 16, the City.Council will conduct a public hearing on the City code amendment on May 5. What happens between May 5 and June 24 has'not yet been determined. June 24 is the date the moratorium is currentiy set to expire. Mr. Kondrick stated the Cable Commission expressed interest in having the poles constructed on municipal land. How many of the 17 sites are there that are not park facilities? Ms. McPherson stated they have not specifically identified that. Municipal sites include the Commons-well field.which:has-the above ground reservoir; the Highway 65'reservoir which does not have co- location abilities; the expanded fiTter plant at the intersection of 73 1/2 and Highway 65; the 63rd Avenue booster station; the City garage facility; the'wellhouse'at:`51st and East River Road;� the Marian Hills water tower at Skywood Lane-and Matterhorn`.'Drive; and city hall. There is a small booster station at I-694. In 2.25`: : : :�: .:.. ,:>:>: :. :;; . ■ I'LANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING MARCH 19 1997 PAGE 26 addition, the consultant also suggested a community park in the northwest corner adjacent to the power lines and also Cherry Lane park which does not have park facilities per se but does have a hockey storage facility on the site. Mr. Kondrick stated they would need six more sites assuming 17 is the target number and assuming these areas are conducive to the systems. Ms. McPherson stated 17 sites includes 3 cellular installations. The 17 sites would preclude any City requirement for co-location. The number of 17 could drop if providers are required to co- locate. Mr. Kondrick stated, with technology being what it is today, the cell phones we have today could be throw away equipment because of technology going at break neck speed. What about the ability to transmit and receive signals? Might it be possible to have one pole to cover the entire City. The number of 17 seems arbitrary. Mr. Saba stated.he saw most of this as going toward line of site or a direct satellite approach. The waves will be digital rather than cellular and be different from the digital that we see today. He sees much improvement in technology, but the towers should last for a while. Mr. Kondrick stated it is true that everything that is construeted ' mu5t have a mechanical structure at its base. Are you suggesting � the buildings be a brick structure? _ Ms. McPherson stated yes: Mr. Sielaff asked if�school property could be designated as:_. � possible sites. The schools`�could'lease and create a source of revenue for the schools. Ms. McPherson stated there are several school sites on the consultants list as possible sites. We would have to evaluate that. If we went to the limited open market approach, we would have to regulate that through'what is permitted by the zoning districts. The Federal law recommends the exchange of services where a provider may provide,; for example, fiber optic cable for a facility in exchange for leasing.fees:. The Federal government is ' encouraging other forms of compensation. Mr. Sielaff asked if the fire department would be a possibTe site. , .. , .. j � .�. . ._. .. Ms. McPherson stated their.gara,ge may be a possible site. They do have some public safety equipment'there. � � ��;�.� ;:�r � � � � �� 2.26 � � �. ?�_..� � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 pAGE 27 Mr. Kondrick stated there are three fire stations and a fire training center. Ms. McPherson stated this expands the scope of non-park facilities. Ms. McPherson stated staff would like a motion indicating the Planning Commission's preference on the regulatory approach whether it be site specific or limited open market. If the Commission wants to be specific about the sites, they can do so. Staff would also like concurrence on the various components being proposed on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report in terms of what the City code chapter would cover. Mr. Kuechle stated the only way he would prefer site specific is if we know what the providers will say about using the same tower. Then he felt with the City owning the towers there would be leverage for them to use the same tower rather than each building their own. What leverage do we have under site specific not to have six towers on every site? Mr. Hickok stated the Federal regulations require that cities recognize that they cannot say "not in my backyard" but can point to locations and not have the industry competing in control. For example, if we picked seven sites and provided a reasonable approach to those locations, we can say we have been reasonable and that is where the leverage is. Mr. Kuechle asked if this was referring to the same tower or individual towers. � Mr. Hickok stated quite likely they would be locating on a monopole or other structure. The providers would be co-locating. If we thought it appropriate to have one or more structures, they could be in one location. We will be held�to a reasonable test, and we have brought in expertise to be sure that we are being reasonable. Mr. Oquist asked if Mr. Hickok was saying that we can be reasonable by restricting one tower per site with multiple uses on that tower. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Kuechle asked if it was feasible that three users would use one tower. Mr. Saba stated the providers are after the height which is an advantage. Whether they put.one, two or three providers on a � �'2.27 � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 19 1997 pp�GE 2$ tower is their personal decision. Mr. Kuechle stated he would dispute the height issue because they want to reuse frequencies. In cellular phones, too much power is as bad as to little power because they want to reuse cells. Mr. Kondrick asked if you can restrict several providers to one brick building. Mr. Hickok stated we have to recognize that, if we are site specific, that we provide sufficient space for the equipment on the ground. Mr. Sielaff stated he thought they would have more control with site specific as to what we provide on the site. Wouldn't we just approve someone to build on that site? If they switch, they would have to have an agreement with the other companies. Mr. Hickok stated, when we are in control of the nuinber of users and the design elements of that site, we would be in control of the buildings and could create a multi-tenant equipment space. Mr. Kondrick stated he is concerned that there could be multiple buildings or that they could be large. Mr. Hickok stated there will be variables. They need vertical separation, for example, and we could expect that we couTd put up a 90-foot pole and say three providers will use that. We have to � recognize that the technology requires that they separate themselves vertically on the tower. If we expect a three-vendor location, we have to provide the height so they have the vertical separation and on the ground provide_for the equipment for,those three users. We can be in control of all of that. Mr. Kondrick stated, for example, if a tower was on the northwest corner of a park and if we build a tower and building, that would have to be of some size. He would like to be able to say where he would like to have the building and to be able to say because of the site we have chosen we can have only one user. Mr. Kuechle stated we then would have to provide additional users with a site. Mr. Kondrick stated the building issue could be a very important thing. Mr. Saba stated we ean regulate'that. If regulated, the provider can indicate how many square feet.they would need. ; 2.z8� : ,��.�. . _ u f PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 29 Ms. McPherson stated co-location is not foreign to the providers. U.S. West manages and maintains the bulk of the existing land line system in the City. But yet someone living in the City of Fridley can have long distance service via AT&T because U.S. West allows AT&T to access those existing land lines to provide service to that customer. There are fees associated with this, but there is already an air of cooperation amongst the providers. Co-location is something that is happening all over the country. Mr. Kondrick asked why the buildings are not protected. Is security an issue that we should be concerned about? Ms. McPherson stated the consultant is recommending no fences because fences create the impression of an attractive nuisance. Mr. Kuechle asked why make a motion tonight. He would like to know what the possibilities are of co-location. Is it possible for different companies to use the same tower from a practical standpoint and are they willing to do that? Or are we faced with the fact that we may have four or five towers on each one? There must be some knowledge out there. Ms. McPherson stated they can go back to t�e providers and ask. Staff is looking for direction for the City Council to see how the commissions feel. They are looking at the whole issue of whether or not they want to own the towers, a tower utility, if leasing municipal land is a viable option under Minnesota statutes, etc. There are still other issues that are not being discussed by the Commission tonight. Staff could come back in April, but we may recommend something else. They will still need to factor in Mr. Kuechle's comments about co-location. Mr. Saba asked if these companies'can use each others equipment. Mr. Kuechle stated he would be much more in favor of the site specific option if he felt that were a practical program and could provide leverage. He did not know if companies are willing to do that and we cannot force them to do that. Mr. Kondrick stated it is easy to be site specific if you are talking about municipal property. If it not municipal, there may be a greater hurdle. It is very easy to pick a park, and that bothers him. Mr. Oquist stated a provider could come in and pick a park if we did not go site specific. - Mr. Kuechle asked, if wanted a park site, do we have specific we` have to give � 2.29 sites and the provider it to them. PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 30 Ms. McPherson stated the City would still have control. The provider would have to negotiate with the City as the property owner. It is still up to the City Council to authorize a lease agreement with a company. If the City Council says no, they can refuse to lease to someone. Mr. Hickok stated the concerns expressed are valid concerns. That is where staff was which led to hiring a consultant. At the staff level, we had a sense that we would like to investigate selecting sites. Staff needed someone with the technical know-how to say whether this was or was not possible. Also, that person got together with the industry. The tenor of those discussions and our staff discussions w.ith providers is that they are interested in the coverage. If it means co-location, what they need to do is cover the City. They need to have that blanket. If it means that they are on with three other providers, they do it elsewhere. We have to be reasonable and provide space for that. We had to come to some sort of conclusions about what was the right number and the right height. Once that is provicied, the co-location issue is one that, from our discussions, the providers are okay with doing that. The big thing is getting here. Mr. Kuechle asked what are the logistics of who is going to own the tower. It is an advantage to a provider to charge fees which can limit competition. Mr. Hickok stated, if we want to limit the number of towers, that then points to site specific and raises some questions about ownership and leasing. Three people on a tower if owned by a person who does not want to share is a difficult thing to do. We might:see two other poles then. But, if there is a site specific, it also has some of the questions answered like who is going to own it. Perhaps it will be a utility ownership that the providers come to and one cannot say'.that;the other cannot be'on that tower. If that is the answer, he thought they would find that the industry is going to respond that we have given them a chance and enough overlap that if this site does not work, another site nearby would provide coverage. Mr. Sielaff stated he was not worried about co-location at this point. He would rather that the providers figure it out. Mr. Kuechle stated to him the issue is how many buildings and towers will be at each site. He was not sure we can restrict. Mr. McPherson stated these types of issues can be given to the telecommunications-expert. ,His'-intent..was to have ano�her-meeting with the providers. We can have him pose those questions to the providers and get responses back'about what is the maximum number 2:30 ` . PLANNING CON�iISSION MEETING MARCH 19 1997 PAGE 31 of providers. The vertical separation between antenna arrays is the driving factor in terms of how many you can get on a partic.ular size pole. If we say the maximum size pole in the City is 175 feet and they say you can have two providers, we can write into the code to get away from the issue of multiple buildings that on sites with multiple providers they shall share one building. That may mean in the case of multiple users expanding the building that exists or bringing in a totally different building. Mr. Oquist stated, because this is preliminary, he still prefers the site specific approach. He thought they can have a motion for site specific but, before final resolution, we must answer some of Mr. Kuechle's questions. Before we get to the final point, we must understand what the users will be doing, are they willing to share and yet be site specific. We need to understand all of the ramifications. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, secon.ded by Mr. Saba, to recommend the site specific approach and that staff provide further information on concerns and provide answers to questions. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting of February 18, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VQTING AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON iCONDRICK: DECLARED THE MOTION:CARRIED UNANII�IpUSLY. ' 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF'THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of February 13, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE,. ALL VOTING.AYE, VICE-CEAIRPERSON RONDRI.CK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIIKOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. meeting. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the �� ':f ,_{ � � � ' 2.31 t ,; . . � �. PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1997 PAGE 32 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CAAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MARCH 19, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, > > ' 7 __ ,� ' �'!ti ) % � 7 � � � , � , ,� Lavonn Cooper Y Recording Secretary � , 0 � 2:32 ` �� ,� � � �. S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION .MEETING, � March 19 , 1997 �2:33 CITY OF E'R�DI,E,ry PLANNING CO1rIlrlISSION MLgTING, ApRIL 2, 1gg7 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the April 2, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: APPROVAL OF MARCH 19 Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Jim Steilen, Popham, Haik and Lawton John Prichard, McGlynn Bakeries Dennis Zy11a, Northco Tim Nelson, Everest Development George Ludcke, Kelly & Berens Paul Bakken, 8085 Wayzata Boulevard, #105, Minneapolis, Minnesota 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION.MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the Ma 19, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, AL1, VOTING AYE, Cgp�IRpERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNp��OUSLY. 1• (Tabled 3/19/97) PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLE ENTITLED"ZONING", BY AMENDING SE 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.t6) . - MT�Tr1r��n.-...,...-.___— .. CONSIDERATION OF AN CITY.CODE, CHAPTER 205 .05.D. .20 (M-4 ri0— NS MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remove from the tab el and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, AT•T. VOTING AYE, CBAIRpERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED p�I�iD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32.P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this item is carried over from the last Planning Commission meeting and involves a moratorium on warehouse or distribution facilities. Mr. Hickok stated staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of an amendment to the existing zoning districts to establish stricter standards for corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts; to establish a new industrial district � 3.01' _ �, PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 pp�� 2 entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only; and to rezone the parcels as appropriate. Associated with the proposed amendments will be improved definitions for loading docks, overhead doors, parking in front of the distribution facilities. There will be another public hearing before the Planning Commission in May that will be specific to the sites that are selected for M-4. As you consider this, staff would like a recommendation for M-4 and modified language to the other industrial districts. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council established in January a moratorium for warehouse and distribution facilities with more than 10 docks in order to examine the industrial zoned properties within the City and to determine the compatibility of warehouse facilities and other allowable uses in the C'ity, to review the number and location of existing warehouse and distribution facilities and to determine if the zoning on the remaining vacant parcels should be amended or changed to another zoning classification. Mr. Hickok stated, over the last 18 months, the City has experienced over 500,000 square feet of industrial warehouse growth in industrial districts. As a result, there have been complaints and concerns about truck traffic, xesidential streets south of 53rd have been designated "no truck traffic" routes in response to the Murphy Warehouse facility and other similar developments along Main Street. Residents complained about a large number of trucks traveling through their neighborhood causing additional noise. There are also several areas in the City where industrial districts are located directly across the street from residential areas. Warehouse distribution facilities can cause adverse impacts because of the amount of truck traffic entering and exiting the site during the course`of the day: Of the City's 1,148 acres, there is only 89.79 acres left of industrial zoned property. The City felt it was the appropriate time to analyze the remaining parcels and to make.certain that those parcels are developed and, if any modifications to the code were necessary, that they be made as a part of this process. Mr. Hickok stated the goals of the potential amendments include: l. To reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties from truck traffic by first controlling the location in the City and by implementing site design controls. 2. To encourage uses which prov,ide a.significant,amount;of job opportunities which require'more complex building systems. Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher building valuation than warehouse construction. 3.02� �� _ .� � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 p�g 3 � 4. To promote clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which may cause noise. To eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage display. Mr. Hickok stated these are already permitted in other zoning districts; therefore, refined language in that area has been suggested. The City went through a rather elaborate analysis which was discussed at the last meeting. The City was divided into three study areas. Those areas were evaluated for the number of existing warehouse/distribution facilities,.amount of land dedicated to that use, impact of the facilities, etc. Staff determined there were seven sites that appeared to be primary candidates to be considered for the M-4 zoning. The other industrial districts - M-1, M-2, and M-3 - had special consideration given to the language within the text so that loading docks, outdoor storage, and those elements that are of concern are properly addressed. Mr. Hickok stated the discussion at the last meeting lead to some questions the Commission asked to be answered. Mr. Hickok reviewed the questions and staff's responses as provided in the staff report included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hickok stated also included in the agenda packet were the parcels of land that were considered. The.industrial inventory leaves few large parcels to be developed. Some parcels do not meet the 1.5 acre minimum size,_and those sites were eliminated from consideration. There were other small sites eliminated by size or by virtue of not meeting the criteria, as follows: 1• Is the property adjacent to or across the street residential use? 2. Would the property meet the minimum requirements proposed M-4 zoning district? 3- Would it be possible to develop a distribution or facility in excess of 10 loading docks? 4• Is there a dist 'b from a of the warehouse ri ution warehouse facility already in the area? Mr. Hickok stated a question came up at the last meeting about whether or not the Northco site was feasible and was it realistic to consider this site as an appropriate site for a 10-dock facility. The site is a 2.2 acre parcel located south of 73rd in the Northco industrial district.'�:Staff,did an analysis of a footprint in the area where a`building couid be located based on the setbacks. It would be extremely difficu�t to put a warehouse ,., r;.. < 3:03 f ;> � PLANNING CO1�IlriISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 4 facility in excess of 10 bays on the site. Staff feels this site could be eliminated from the M-4 consideration. This site was considered because it does have over 1,000,000 square feet of warehouse to the immediate east and to the north is the Melody Manor residential area. Mr. Hickok stated, in summary, staff would like to see a recommendation regarding the M-1, M-2, and M-3 industrial zoning language modifications and a recommendation on the M-4, Manufacturing Only, language to be added. Also, staff would appreciate concerns or comments about the remaining six sites and whether the Commission feels they are appropriate candidates for rezoning. Staff will prepare a public hearing from that information on those particular sites if M-4 is a choice on which the Planning Commission and City Council agree. The moratorium ends in May. Staff would like to have a decision in a timely fashion so at the end of the moratorium staff have a good sense of where we are going. Ms. Savage asked if staff was recommending that the Northco site be eliminated from consideration. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Staff is recommending six sites but this site could be included if the Commission so chooses. Ms. Savage stated, as she understands, if the Planning Commission approved the ordinance language, the next step would be another Planning Commission meeting in which the individual sites would be discussed. If there are still concerns about the sites, there would be an_opportunity at the next meeting to evaluate including a site, such as the McGlynn's site. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Mr. Kuechle asked, if the sites are classified as M-4 and they want to build, for example, on the McGlynn's site and want to have a truck dock, is there something that can be done to still allow that such as with a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated the McGlynn site is an interesting site. It is staff's understanding from past discussion that it is McGlynn's interest to expand or build to the north which would likely start as a warehouse and, in the future, become a manufacturing facility as their space needs change. One of the big factors is that there is a 60-inch sewer pipe between the McGlynn existing site and vacant site to the north. In the past, the public works director has indicated they have talked ab�out the possibility of bridging the two buildings with some sort of an elevated walkway to allow enough room to get at the pipe should something happen: If the 3.04 PLANNING CON�SISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 p� 5 McGlynn site were to be attached and this was an expansion with the warehouse as an ancillary use to the existing manufacturing facility, that would certainly be a different picture. The concern is that it would develop as its own independent warehouse facility and not be connected to the large building. We did have a iengthy discussion with the public works staff about moving that pipe so that it does not limit McGlynn's. The answer to that is that there are options. It is in a tax increment district area, and it is a site consideration that we would have to look at. Approving that site and allowing McGlynn's to expand to the north could be facilitated by the pipe being moved to the north and then back around to the alignment that ends up at the pond at the rear of the McGlynn's building. All that being considered, it would make more sense to have that part of the facility and not free standing. Until then, M-4 is the most appropriate district as we see it. Mr. Oquist stated, as he understands, the Planning Commission can approve the ordinance but there will then be more public hearings to identify the parcels and to rezone. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. From here, the Planning Commission at its May 7 meeting, if they wish to consider all seven sites, staff could publish a notice for e.ach of the seven sites and that notice would be specific and would have all of the notification standard for rezoning the sites. It would be before the City Council for the first reading of the ordinance on May 14. That would allow staff and landowners to have a good sense of where we are heading with this before the moratorium ends. The City Council would have a reading of the ordinance before the moratorium ends. - Ms. Modig stated she got the impression that by doing it this way they were saying the M-4 was going to be all inclusive of the sites, but it is going to separated out. Mr. Hickok stated staff needs to have from the Commission a good sense of which sites are appropriate for M-4. In the notification, we may rezone fewer or more than the recommended sites. Ms. Savage asked if staff wants an indication of which sites or an indication of whether we would recommend.approval of the ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated, if staff could,walk away this evening with a recommendation on the M-1, M-2,`and M=3 language and the addition of M-4 language, staff would feel this was a successful meeting. In addition, staff would like the'number of sites in which you are � `3:05 . � (. � i PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 6 interested and staff will prepare notices based on that discussion. Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is the owner of a 10.6 acre parcel on the southwest corner of Main Street and 61st Avenue. He was not present at the last meeting but did have correspondence from their attorney, Mr. Ludcke, who is at the meeting to address his letter and some responses staff gave to that letter and the overall context of their position on this proposed zoning change. Also present is Mr. Bakken, a professional appraiser, who was asked to take a look at an issue that was raised independently by members of the Planning Commission regarding the question of value. If you are going to restrict the uses that the property can be put to, are you impairing the value and is that fair? Mr. Bakken has data from the marketplace that he deals with on a professional basis that we would like him to share with the Commission. Mr. Nelson stated he would like to provide Everest's history in this property with the understanding that the Planning Commission has a meeting later. They have concerns both about the specific proposal to rezone their property and the restrictions. The property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. They also have concerns about the way this has come up specifically relating to their property and a proposed project for the property. Mr. Hickok has addressed some of that but he has additional background on that as well. They also have concerns about the possible impact on the value of the property. Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is a commercial industrial real estate developer based in Roseville`and is active in most of the northern suburban communities, around the metro area and out of state on a project by project basis. They develop business parks, industrial and office facilities, and develop as contractors and property owners. Everest acquired this parcel in 1992. They purchased the parcel as an investment for future deveiopment of the property. They purchased the property in the depth of the real estate recession knowing it might be a number of years before they could develop the property. When they purchased the property, it was a good site and had potential. As part of the purchase process and at the same time, they also purchased another property which is now the site of Home Depot. They purchased both the parcels at the same time from Glacier Park, which was the real estate arm of the'Burlington Northern Raiiroad who had owned the property since the early 1960's. As part of the purchase before acquiring the property,.they did what is referred to as "due diligence" doing:soil°°tests,;envirorimental assessment, survey, title examination,_etc. Part of that was meeting with City staff to verify the existing zoning, permitted uses, design ' 3:OS PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING APRIy 2 1997 PA+GE 7 criteria, so they knew what they were getting into. They had several meetings with City staff both in the economic development and planning areas about these issues and came from those meetings secure in the knowledge of what the property was zoned and what was permitted there, which was a variety of industrial uses. He also came away impressed with the sense that the City was interested in seeing developers come i.nto town and appreciated the developer making an investment in the community, and looked forward to working with City staff as they developed the site. � Mr. Nelson stated Everest started marketing the site as soon as they purchased the property and it has been on the market since. About one year after purchasing the site, they were met with an increase in the real estate tax valuation by the city assessor to the tune of about three times what they paid for the property. They thought that was inappropriate. They resisted and tax petitioned, and ultimately the Anoka County tax board significantly pared back the valuation. It might be coincidental, but it felt that the friendly reception was not across the board. Mr. Nelson stated a few years later they were fortunate enough to get interest from Home Depot on the 14.5-acre site across from Holiday Plus. They entered into a contingent purchase agreement where they would need to apply to the City for the comprehensive plan change and a rezoning change. They were surprised when that project came forward and staff recommended denial of both the rezoning and the comprehensive plan change. The rationale was in significant part that the City has few industrial sites and staff did not want to loose it in favor of a commercial project. The Planning Commission and the C�ty Council recommended approval of. the rezoning and comprehensive plan change. Mr. Nelson stated another thing that concerned them in that process was that, as a.recommendation of approval, staff recommended that the existing billboard signs be removed as part of project. Staff persisted in this recommendation despite being advised that Home Depot had no legal rights or interests in the signs. It was ultimately not made a part of the approval but at no time was there any discussions or suggestions of compensation to the parties who owned those signs. Mr. Nelson stated about a year ago we starting coming out of the real estate recession into a significantly healthier market. The market especially for warehouse space is significantly improved. They are getting more interest in the property. They received interest from a large industrial warehouse tenant for a lease transaction on this property.-�.:They started site design and retained an architect. Thus far, they,have expended over $10,000 in the architeetural design phase to get it to the point where it ;::3.07 PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING APRIL 2, 1997 p�E 8 is at. They started meeting with City staff on an informal basis to make sure before they submitted their building permit application that the plans met all the requirements. They had a series of ineetings and phone conversations. They have pieces of correspondence back and forth with staff. They thought they knew the requirements of the M-2 district. They sensed from the start, however, that staff was not pleased with the project going on this site despite the fact that.it met the zoning requirements. The first indication of that was a letter after meeting with staff asking us to demonstrate why this project, which was clearly a large distribution warehouse, should not be viewed as a truck terminal. They know what truck terminals are, and they know what warehouses are. Staff knew what they were, but their main issue was to try to put the burden back on us to demonstrate why it was not a truck terminal. They did that in a lengthy letter and in phone conversations documenting the differences between a truck terminal and a warehouse property. This did not satisfy staff. They had answered the question and submitted three separate letters to staff asking for verification that they accepted tliat the project was not a truck terminal. Staff took the view that the information was too sketchy. They do not allow anyone to visit the tenant's operation because it is confidential, and the use was clearly set forth in the description of the building from the plans. Mr. Nelson stated their initial meeting was in early August. They had a follow-up meeting in mid-September. They had phone conversations in mid-September and a meeting early in October, and a letter to the City on October 11 explaining why this project was not a truck terminal. Staff agreed that this project was very similar to the Murphy Warehouse project that recently had been built and that those projects were not truck terminals, but they would not accept this fact iri looking at our plans. Mr. Nelson stated they sensed that this was occasion for some delay and he would like to respond to"the real project in front of them. This sense was also borne out when the City Attorney got involved in the discussions. Mr. Ludcke wi31 describe that process. Discussion dropped off to the point where they saw a legal notice in the paper that the City has adopted a zoning moratorium affecting their property with no prior notice to them whatsoever. They indicated in letters and in conversations with staff that they intended to obtain a.building permit for that project and staff were holding up having us apply for the building permit application with this question about truck terminals, even though they did resolve it to their satisfaction. Mr. Nelson stated they have been embarrassed �n this situation with their tenant's prospect.` They have a site that is excellent ; 3.Q8 �" y � � � PI�ANNING CON�SISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 9 for this type of use. The features it offers gives proximity to a freeway, rail on the west side of the property, and is sizable for a project of 185,000 square feet. Mr. Nelson stated staff indicated the remaining industrial land is 7.80 of the overall industrial land inventory. Their 10.67 acres is 1.50 of the industrial land inventory, yet the sense of background is that we have big problems with trucking and will ha�re lots of bad things happen if you don't hurry up and rezone some of these properties to this new zoning classification and adopt the other changes in wording. He would suggest that it is real late in the game and you may be able to do it and may be legally entitled to do it, but from a common sense standpoint and from an intact community standpoint, it is real l.ate in the game to be adopting these kinds of changes now and selecting a few properties that are in dwindling supply to deal with a problem that has occurred over the past 30 years in the history of development in Fridley. Mr. Nelson stated he opposed the rezoning of their property to M- 4, and will be back for a future public hearing on that. They do not object to the City drafting a new zoning classification of the M-4. They think it should be a voluntary si:tuation where the owner of a property could apply for that zoning. It does have a significant impact on their use of their property, the value, the marketability and attractiveness of the si.te. At this point, he did not know if�they have lost the deal or not, even if they decided to keep the existing M-2 zoning in place. Their tenant is not happy with the situation on timing and had hoped to be started. They have waited five years through a real estate recession. They bought into that recession hoping to and expecting to come out with development of the property. They are at a point where they would like to be able to capitalize on an improved market to develop the property and ultimately be able to sell the project and make a significant profit on a significant investment. Mr. Nelson stated they would like to proceed with their plans. They feel that they got torpedoed in this process when the moratorium came up. That, and as the City has indicated, Everest is not being singled out in this but we feel that some of these other property owners have been thrown into.the inix. Staff is already saying that this site could be dropped and that site could be dropped. This is, in our view, in effect really about spot zoning of their property and.they disagree. There is a comment from the last.meeting that staff want to move this through the process expeditiously so.that the property owners �ho have projects to do can proceed with their projects. The irony is that, if what is recommended is approved, it will have exactly the '. $.09 � . ,�.�.e.� PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 10 opposite effect on them. Mr. Nelson stated they also oppose the specific language changes in the M-1, M-2 and M-3 zoning criteria. They believe that, even on a corner lot, the screening requirements are significant and already in the existing ordinance and does not need to be duplicated. Mr. Nelson stated truck traffic for their property would utilize Main Street, 61st and 57th. He would submit that the neighborhood problems occurred in residential neighborhoods near the Murphy buildings. This is a different situation in that there are more outlets to University Avenue. The City resolved that with some residential traffic requirements on some of those streets. That is probably pushing truck traffic.up here now between 57th and 61st to get out to University Avenue, This has always been an industrial area and will remain so. He did not see the point of restricting the development of that office warehouse project which will not have a drastic impact on that traffic flow and traffic pattern compared to what is already there. They do not have a manufacturing user for the site. They welcome the opportunity to work with one but they are few and far between. They would like to proceed with the project as proposed. Mr. Bakken stated he works in the Twin Cities as a commercial real estate appraiser. He owns a real estate firm and has been working in the field for l5 years. For the meeting presentation, he prepared a letter dated April 1, 1997, to"summarize his comments. He distributed copies of the letter. Mr. Bakken stated he was;essentially asked to provide some evaluation, counseling and advise to Everest Development in light of the potential change in;the zoning classifications. Since .it appears that the change from M-2 to M-4 is orie that restricts the overall number of uses to a single use, his first question was to figure out how active the manufacturing market is in the Twin Cities. On page 2 of his letter is a schedule which is a review of all of the industr�,al land sales that have occurred in the Twin Cities metro area since 1993. The manufacturing use is a very small portion of the overall industrial marketplace. He has heard discussion about the strength of the marketplace and all of the activity that is happening in Fridley. He caould direct their thoughts to non-manufacturing uses,primarily. From his perspective, it does appear that the manufacturing use is a very small portion of the market. Mr. Bakken stated, on the:bottom.'of:page 2, he finds that this is interesting for several reasons. We have seen an increase in the health of the market and have also seen a relaxing of the �3:10 << �r _ � PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 11 contamination rules as it pertains primarily to manufacturers. A few years ago, they had some fairly stiff rules on soil contamination and that was something that was geared to a number of manufacturers. Over the last three or four years, the rules have been lessened in severity and today manufacturers can get no action letters and other devices to insulate themselves from contamination. If anything, one would expect a renewed activity in the manufacturing sector but that has not occurred. Mr. Bakken stated, on page 3, he offers some of the reasons why the manufacturing sector in the Twin Cities has diminished. For a number of years, Minnesota has been known as a"net exodus" state for manufacturing. Because of the property tax, workmen's compensation, and other issues, they have found more manufacturers leaving the state than coming in. Second, every year, there is an annual study done by a local real estate group, CCIM. They have actually cataloged that in the last few years 70 manufacturing companies have vacated the Twin Cities for the Hudson River valley which is primarily due to cheap land, lower workmen's � compensation, and other issues. Again, this is reinforcing why we are not seeing a lot of manufacturing sites purchased and built in the Twin Cities. Mr. Bakken stated another factor that you see on the manufacturing side is cities that are giving land away to property owners. Anoka and the port authority are giving land away for $1.00 per site for manufa�turing when a number of jobs are created with that. It is tough competition in light of the few manufacturers that are looking for sites. Mr. Bakken stated, on page 4, with restricting of the use to manufacturing, he indicated there are municipalities that do give land away. There are also`municipalities and governmental � agencies that will offer the land at reduced cost. As an example, in Chaska a number of manufacturers have relocated ther.e where the land was priced very, very reasonable. Mr. Bakken stated he had a few thoughts on the potential change on the zoning. It seems to him that if the restriction of uses is limited to manufacturing only that the number of potential buyers for any of these sites will drop off sharply becaus.e the demand is not there. Secondly, you will have reduced profits because it will lead to increased marketing times. He will predict that the developer will hold the land longer before development would occur. Thirdly, there is competition with agencies that are giving sites away for manufacturing. Last; it is his opinion that most � of the manufacturers prefer to`ocan their own sites and that a great number of warehousing concerns are happy to lease property. From a deal perspective, this would limit the potential of the 3: y 1'- � 7 � �' � f � i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 12 site to a sale of the property only as opposed to a lease and develop parcel. If the change from M-2 to M-4 were adopted, it is his opinion that the value of the property would decline. Mr. Ludcke stated he apologized for not having been at the last Planning Commission meeting. It is better to be there at the time and take the flack that may follow. It is fair to say that we have a pretty vigorous difference of opinion about what went on in the iall of 1996. There was no claim that everyone involved did not do their job. Frankly, they feel like they were foxed into not filing a permit application. They came with a project and tried to force a decision on whether or not we met the zoning criteria. He believes they did and he believes the best proof of that is what the staff is proposing to be included in the M-4 district. The plan they had cleared and submitted did show the docks that Mr. Hickok addressed and, he thought in retrospect, prompted the concern and decision that something had to be done to hold them up. He thought Mr. Knaak would agree that it is a different situation if the property awner applies and complies with existing zoning as opposed to a situation where no application is in place and then a moratorium. They feel that, in effect legally, they are reduced to the same situation because what they are doing is trying to get information back from the City of what they want to see from them. They did everything short of identifying their tenant and invited City staff and the City Attorney on a tour. He spoke with Mr. Knaak about starting in the fall and asking him about what is it that the City is really interested in. They got a strong message that the City was not interested in our use which we felt conformed. Mr. Knaak did not get back to him when he made these requests. Mr. Ludcke stated in the interim Everest received a call from Ms. Dacy suggesting that she might have a manufacturing user for a portion of the site which confirmed the concern that the City was not going to approve under any circumstances a warehouse use. This is where he takes issues_with staff's characterization that they did not provide information. Everest was the party that was not provided with the information. They were not told that what was in the works was a change of zoning that would prevent them from having any kind of warehouse development in favor of manufacturing. He thought they went as far as they,possibly could. They pointed to the Murphy warehouse type of use. They certainly knew this was not a truck terminal. They did delay, and they did not make the application. They did not want tQ step on staff's toes and wanted to get around that. When he did not get the last call from Mr. Knaak and then was told that the moratoritun was in place, at a meeting in February'.Mr. Knaak apologized to him because he said, according to the circumstances, he was not at liberty to comment. 3.12 PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PA�E 13 Mr. Ludcke stated, if he were in Mr. Knaak's position, we would not have disclosed that either, but if the net effect is to keep them from moving forward and app�ying for a building permit when they did comply, that he thought takes it out of case law that justifies the moratorium. He was not there to talk about so much the legalities of case law philosophies, but they think it was their project that was in the spotlight and not the other folks. He did not know whether they were involved in similar discussions with City staff about projects. They were involved in these discussions on an on-going basis and they did delay in order to comply as best they could. They feel that this ordinance is aimed directly at them. He thought that, when there is a limited amount of property in the City available for industrial development, that they should not end up being the victims of a policy that should have been adopted long ago to prevent some wrongs that Mr. Hickok, he believes, described in lesser part. He thought they had developed expectations when they bought the site which were consistent based on discussions the.n and with.the existing�zoning that should be considered by the Commission when deciding whether or not to adopt the M-4 zoning at all and its impact on them. Mr. Nelson stated he would like to enter into the public-record the series of correspondence relating to this issue to indicate tha� this is not a truck terminal. He would like to leave with the question that, if this was your property and you had significant capital and time invested in plans and this situation occurred, would you feel that it is fair. They feel it is unfair. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to enter into t�he public record.the letter from Bakken & Leidl dated April 1, 1997, and correspondence between the City of Fridley and Everest Development as provided by Mr: Nelson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON'SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Nelson his definition.of a warehouse versus a truck terminal. Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal typically has a very law ceiling.height because no product is stored for a long period of time. Typically, it,is a long, narrow building. A warehouse, especially a distribution warehouse, is a big box.- a large rectangle or square in shape. It has a high ceiling height for storage.: Truck terminals often have cross docking - docks on both sides of the building - and a much higher ratio of docks to building square footage. ' A distribution warehouse'also can have.a siqnificant number of docks but pales in compa,rison ta.a tru�k terminal as far as ratio. The prod�et that is stored in a ,< : : kr3:;1`3 � . .. . - . . . ' . . . �'i ii.''„ .> . . . . . . . ' . �. _ .. ' ' . PLANNING CONIlrIISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 14 warehouse is typically stored for a longer period of time versus products at a truck terminal that is unloaded from one truck then onto another truck sometimes the same day. It may stay in the facility for a few days. Frequently, a truck terminal also has a truck repair facility or garage on site for maintenance of the truck fleet. It is a very different situation. The Murphy warehouse buildings are examples of distribution warehouse facilities. Mr. Oquist asked how many docks were in the development as proposed. Mr. Nelson stated their building was proposed to have from 20 to 40 docks = SO at the.outside. Certainly not 50 on Main Street as indicated in the staff report. The exact number of docks had not been pinpointed because their tenant's needs varied with the contracts they had. The likelihood was that it was going to be in the range of 35 docks with.some along the east side of the building along Main Street and some along the south side of the building. The front yard of a corner lot is defined as the shortest side on a public street so the side along 61st would be considered the front yard. Mr. Kuechle asked how many trucks would they expect to go in and out of there during �he day. Mr. Nelson stated he did not know. It would vary with the tenant's business. There would be a significant amount of truck traffic, but there might also be with a manufacturing use. While the number of docks for manufacturing zoning is probably less than warehousing, the'actual truck traffic may be just the same. From a design standpoint, they needed to reserve the entire west side of the building for potential rail access in the future. Possible rail access was another attractive feature of this site. Mr. Kuechle stated he was curious why, if they met all the requirements, they did not get a permit. Mr. Nelson stated they did not because staff told them that the matter of proving this was not a truck terminal had to be resolved before they would consider an application. Mr. Hickok stated at no time did staff say they could not apply for a building permit. Mr. Nelson stated, in hindsight, they wish they would have. They were told-they needed to demonstrate why that building could not be considered a truck terminal or warehouse and that issue had to be resolved before the project wouYd be given further 3.14 PLANNING COI�IlKISSION MEETING, Ap12IL 2� lgg� pA,GE 15 consideration. Mr. Oquist asked if the ordinance controls truck terminals versus warehouse. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal requires an M-3, Heavy Industrial, zoning. Ms. Modig stated the minutes indicated that we were tallcing about getting some additional information from the assessor arid the fact that some Commission members questioned that restrictinc� the use may affect the value. Staff did not respond to that in the questions provided. Does staff have any information th�it would differ from the information Mr. Bakken is telling us? Mr. Hickok stated the assessor did not make a blanket statement regarding values. He said that the values would be determined on a site-by-site analysis. Ms. Savage stated, if we did proceed with another meeting to discuss individual sites, would we have that information. Mr. Hickok stated staff could have some general informat.ion about uses and how the formulas work for industrial and manufa��turing uses. Ms. Modig stated they were getting an indication from the City assessor that this does not diminish the value and then .we are getting information fronl Mr. Bakken that it will diministi the value. This is sending a mixed message. It has to.be dc>ne on an individual basis. � � � Mr. Kuechle stated, to summarize the situation, if you re:zone, there are fewer people in the marketpiace. On the other hand,-. there is less pressure ori the land price from a manufacturing point of view because the land is a smaller portion of the total project. They would like to build and manage the pro ert for more income over a lon er P y interests wish to buy the pand�dbuildland beedone Wathfa�turThe land purchase is not a big deal but it becomes more important with a warehouse because the warehouse costs are less. But th��re are fewer manufacturing potential buyers. Mr. Nelson stated he does some of the marketing of this s:ite and 900 of the calls are not manufacturing but warehouse or o�Ffice/` warehouse uses. From a study of the Anoka Enterprise Par}c, even� companies who can afford expensive land flock to where thE�re is no 3.15 '� PLANNING CO1rIlKISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 16 or low cost land because they can put that on the bottom line. They have developed over 2 million square feet of mostly manufacturing facilities in the last 24 months because they are giving the land away. I3e thought there was a comment at the last Planning Commission meeting that the assessor reported back that he would not necessarily reduce the assessed value for tax purposes if it had the new zoning. He would submit that this is a very different issue from the real marketplace. The owner may petition taxes. , It does take longer and longer to get something going. It is not really a question of whether there is an effect on the market value for the assessor to say it would not affect the assessed value. That is a separate issue. Mr. Hickok stated it might be very easy to lose sight of what we are try'ing to accomplish by the legal discussion or the technical discussion. Staff does and always has looked to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community as they review a project. For the Commission's clarification, the planning of that particular project involved meetings of the developer saying "this is not a trucking terminal, we are right and you're wrong". Planning needs more than photos of trucking terminals and warehouse facilities that we know exist. The reality of it is, in order move a project,.planning staff have to have a sense of how that is going to work on the site, and the credibility of the project with adjacent properties is very important. When we are seeing a big box and are being told by the developer it meets the code and that is all we are seeing, it gives us very little to evaluate. Staff did not tell anyone they should not submit a permit.app�.ication. If these folks felt.they were right about the use on that property, they should have been in'to the building department to submit an application. `This is not directly related to their property, but instead it has to do with the_iridustriai property:and the amount of property we.have left in the City.- It is our role, and our attorney will agree, to.look out for the health, safety and welfare of the community and it is appropriate for us to.ask all_the vital questions before we get a project. We need a project first before we can evaluate that. In looking at Murphy,. they were careful not to point any.doors across the street. We were told this is appropriate and this is how we are going to lay it out. The point is not to be argumentative, but the Commission might have a dim view of how staff reviewed this and it may tain� you view of the M-4 issue. Mr. Ludcke stated he would like to respond to the question of why they did not apply for a building permit. It is true that we were not told that we could not apply, but a sophisticated real estate. devEloper does not wish to go'against staff's wishes. We bent over backwards to try to accommodate those �aishes. If you look at what is in the handout; it is in part to show what happened and : 3:�6 PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING APRII, 2, 1997 PAGE 17 why. In November, when he took Mr. Knaak on a tour, tl-�ey indicated that Murphy Warehouse was a similar use to tr�eir proposal. He did not perceive that this was meeting th.e need of the request. He asked Mr. Knaak what is going on here and, ultimately, is it a manufacturing use that staff really wants here. The attorney never called him back until after the moratorium was placed on the property and the manufacturing use was recommended. Staff never did say no to applying but he would like to know what the staff wants. The only thing they did not do was give staff the identity of their tenant. They did not do that for a number of reasons. One of those was that the tenant did not want their identity known to the City. Other reasons ware that we did not know that the City could protect the identity. They had a bad experience in another community. It did not seem tizat this was the interest. He thought the staff could have been up front and said they were interested in changing the zoning and that they did not want to see a warehouse use. Staff could have :�aid that to us and we would have had accurate information to res��ond to. Mr. Prichard stated he would like to reiterate the concerr_s and opposition of McGlynn Bakeries to the proposed M-4 zonirig. Their first and largest concern is the limitation this change would place on their future growth in the City. They expect t:o outgrow their current manufacturing facility in four to five ye��rs and possibly sooner. When that occurs, they anticipate they will first need to build a warehouse distribution facility or,. the vacant land. They would probably make use of that facility for manufacturing over time as they build their business. The truck traffic does not flow through residential nor any traffic from the facility on the land that they own. They do not feel that is an issue. The proposed M-4 class would significantly limit their options in the City and take away the flexibility that they need. The flexibility they see is that they need to construct the type � of facility that best supports future growth. He cannot at this time tell what that will be. The second concern is related to their need to have warehouse manufacturing distribution ��perations as close as possible to one another. This will give the�n the opportunity for maximum efficiencies, best communication,s and quality control. They are forced to be very competitive in the markets they serve and must keep costs as low as possiblE�. They are looking at many new business opportunities and to be successful they must lower costs and keep them low. He �`elt this would cost them more money and increase their costs ultirnately. They would not be as competitive. Mr. Prichard stated their third concern relates to the m�irket value of the property. :From their.'point of view, it seems that if you limit.buyers, and they are not>in the market to sell, but they wish to retain that as an option down the road. They may need at � 3:1:7� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 pp�� 18 some point to sell that land to create capital. He wanted to make sure that it is clear that their land does not border any residential at all. To the west of them is railroad tracks, and immediately to the west of the railroad tracks is commercial property - Super America, A& W Restaurant, and the flower shop. The closest residential is across East River Road to the west. Visually, it would be limited in how the residential would see their facility at all. He did not envision many people would look across East River Road and worry about the railroad tracks and then their building. Mr. Prichard stated McGlynn's came to the City in 1992. They entered into a redevelopment agreement to revive the shut down Totino manufacturing facility. This was done in the spirit of cooperation and has been mutually beneficial. Today they employ 500 people in the City generating $16 million in annual payroll. They pay nearly $170,000 in real estate taxes annually after tax increment assistance. They expect these figures to grow as they expand their business and their facility. The proposed rezoning works against their growth efforts. They respectfully request the Commission to leave their land out of the proposed M-4 zoning. They would like to spend their time and money growing their. business and not on challenging this issue. Ms. Savage asked was included as years wanted to if this would be a situation where, if McGlynn one of the proposed M-4 sites and then in five expand, what would be their recourse. Mr. Hickok stated, depending on the expansion, if it were to be attached, they may want to do what Tri-Star Insulation did where they proposed to build a building and attach it to a CR-1 office building. In that case, they amended:the CR-1 to match so that the entire site was amended to industrial. If they were going to attach, it may be most appropriate to combine all the PIN numbers and make the property into one parcel_and amend the zoning to'make it all consistent. With the uncertainty about how the land will develop, the M-4 would allow the City to keep specific uses for that site. They can always request rezoning if it does not match. Mr. Steilen stated he would like to respond to some of those questions. That really does not work for them. They are not the problem the City is trying to solve. It is stretching it to say that there are residential problems associated with this site. There is commercial and industrial on all sides. It is not acceptable to have a nonconforming`use because it creates problems. If you have a fire or destruction of property,, most: city codes do not give you;the'automat'iC;right to rebuild or to expand. The problem with McGlynn'is that they want to build a business and invest more money into the site. They bought tlie ! ' �' , 3.1 � � . ,fir . ..L . . .. PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING ApRII, 2 1gg� P� 19 property under a set of laws that allowed them the flexibility. They do not want to be in a situation where that flexibility is taken away. It creates too many questions about future flexibility. They do not want to be in the situation where they continue to make substantial investments in the property and, then maybe in five years, they may or may not be able to build a warehouse. This is a bad situation for them. Mr. Steilen stated they would hope that they would conc_lude tonight that this is not the problem that you are tryinc� to solve. These hearings are necessary as a part of the process, but they become very expensive. The further this goes along the more they have to invest because they are very concerned about th__s. So far, they have taken a fairly low key approach. They h�ive what they think is a very successful relationship with the City and they do not want anything to disturb that. Every meetirig that goes forward, you get closer to the possibility that soitiething is going to.happen that you absolutely do not want to happen. So, they then need to invest money in the attorneys. It is a strairi on their budget. They would hope that the Commission wculd take a good hard look at McGlynn and not require them to invest in further meetings and take that site off the list because it really is a stretch. Ms. Modig asked if McGlynn's had addressed the issue bf the pipe before. Mr. Prichard stated the pipe issue is something that he ��ersonally had not discussed. Someone in the company has talked to the City as a possibility. They do not see that as a good option right no.w because they do not know the future use of that land. I1� maybe an unnecessary expenditure. - Mr. Zylla stated he represents the Fridley Business CentE�r Partnership and is an employee Northco. As he was prepal-ing for the meeting, he was trying to.think through the issues arid do some research. There are a couple of things at work that are important not to lose site of. They are admittedly concerned about the M-4 zoning. There have been some discussions earlier by Mr. Hickok that suggested that the list would be pared and their 2.2 acre site in the Northco development would be eliminated. He would feel good about that because they do not feel it should be on the list, and he is sure that as they develop the property it would be an office war�house use with two or three docks. They have not done a site plan other than for a single user. They would like to have that property removed from the list. They agree with earlier comments that it would limit the'possibilities to market the site. �3.19 PLANNING CON.�iISSION MEETING, APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 20 Mr. Zylla stated they don't want to lose site of the major issue with the language revisions that have to do with loading docks on a corner lot. On the parcel to the southwest of this site there are 4 acres which they are in the process of developing. They have a lot of money invested in soil borings, site plan, grading plan, and everythinq that they are getting ready to get into the working drawings. There is a major issue in the code review with suggested language that relates to corner lots and that loading docks on corner lots shall not face the public right-of-way. On this lot, they have three sides of public right-of-way on the site plan. They are concerned that, if this language is adopted, this will kill that project. They also had some discussion at the last meeting about the reference to no truck or trailers parked and to be visible from the public right-of-way. He did not have a particular concern about this language if they did not have "on corner lots or across from residential". If it just said across from residential, they would not have a concern. If it includes corner lots, it will impact them in a very riegative way. Mr. Zylla stated the M-4 impacts few properties. There is a marginal impact in total to the City, but there is a major impact to the sites. The question he has is not that this should not be created in the zoning but he cannot remember seeing a zoning code where there was a particular zoning classification that specifically called out a particular use. It seems to him that this is not only prohibitive but that this is impacting such few properties that everyone would be well served to be rethink this and perhaps kill it before it went any further than this. Mr. Zylla stated, regarding the language related to corner lots, his view has always been that Fridley has a pretty good reputation in the development community. When he met with staff and their client, his client was impressed'with staff that he wrote a letter thanking staff for the professional:approach that Fridley was taking. He spent seven years on the Plymouth Planning Commission and he can tell you that Fridley's current code even without the changes is more stringent than Plymouth relative to loading docks, and Plymouth does not have a very good reputation generally in the development community in how they are viewed regarding loading docks. If you look at what is already in the code relative to loading docks, for example, loading docks now have to be in the rear or side yard. Plymouth does not even require that. Loading docks can be in any yard. Fridley's code presently requires not only screening but it dictates six-foot high minimum solid screening fence, etc. Plymouth basically says to show them a plan that meets their approval relative_to screening. Plymouth makes no reference to corner lots relative to loading docks: This has a major effect on them because their plan has only one loading dock on that 4-acre site and it has to face 71st Avenue or their plan '3:20'' PLANNING CONIl�lISSION i�ETING APRIL 2 1g97 pAGE 21 does not work. Again, it is only one loading dock. It faces the ice arena and does not face any residential. If they h.ad to turn the dock to face to the east, they would not be able tc proceed at a significant financial cost to everyone. He thought the City should eliminate the reference to corner lots and eliminate them from the M-4 consideration on the 2.2 acre lot. Mr. Zylla stated, in their particular situation, whether it is the 2.2 or 4-acre lot, the trucks that are there, to his kn�wledge, travel on major arterials. Any truck traffic that exists near that industrial park is on a major arterial, and that i,s the reason to have major arterials. He would like to sugge:st that they rethink the whole thing. Someone suggested to sto�� it here. He would agree wholeheartedly that this should just be stopped here tonight. Ms. Savage stated she wished to make one comment. She ��as not that familiar with Plymouth. The problem that Fridley has is that we have many residential areas near industrial areas, arid we have to be concerned about those residential areas. She asked if staff had comments about the corner lots. Mr. Hickok stated before the Commission is a revised ord.inance. Initially, the M-1 stated in paragraph C, "On corner lots or lots across from residential districts, no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way." It then went on to paragraph D to say, "On corner lots or lots across from residential user districts, no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner which is visible from the public right-of-way of residential use or district." The revised language removes paragraph D, puts the essence of C and D into one paragraph, and gets at the heart of what staff �was looking at in the recommended language and that is on co:rner lots across from residential. Mr. Zylla is correct as he rev_iews the ordinances and states that we:already say'that outside lc�ading shall be located in the rear or.side yards and properly ;;creened. We do have protections in there. The exception was thai: residential lots near corner industrial lots are subject to some impacts that staff was hoping to screen. Paragraph C st��tes, "On corner lots across from residential districts, no loadinc� docks shall face the public right-of-way." How that relates tc> the project discussed in the Northco development with three s,treets surrounding it makes it more difficult. Normally the inclustrial lots if they are corner lots might have two streets but a. third street does compound the site design'problems. It does specifically talk about a corner lot across from residential district and then states that as long as the docks are in the rear and side yard, properly screened;'you are okay. He thought that successfully addressed that concern. , -, .3:21 .� . . . _. _ _ ._ ......:....,,: ....... ..,,,, � �.,>, n. , :?� " ' . i'LANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 pp�GE 22 Mr. Oquist stated the proposed ordinance in front of them which is for the M-1, M-2 and M-3 says on corner lots across from residential areas. The language for M-4 states on corner lots or lots across from residential districts. He thought this should be modified. Mr. Hickok agreed that this should be consistent. On all of these, the consistent statement is, "... on corner lots across from residential districts." As staff analyze the language in the code, they actually covered the other concern in paragraph A where they talk about outside loading docks which are to be located in the rear and side yards and properly screened. On corner lots, additional protection is necessary. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CAFtF2IED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:15 P.M. Ms. Savage stated, as she read the minutes, she got the sense that the Commission was in favor of the ordinance but had some concerns about some of the individual sites. She wanted to reiterate what staff said, and she thought it was important that they look at the big picture. A few months ago, they met with the Mayor and City Council and talked about goals for Fridley and how we can improve the quality of life in the City. That is truly the big picture to keep in mind. She got the sense that generally the Commission members were in favor of the ordinance. The Gommission could possibly approve and not make any recommendations about the sites and have another hearing to consider the individual sites. Ms. Modig asked, if they excluded a site tonight, is it correct that it would not come up again unless it is put back on by the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Staff would notify the property owners if the City Council felt it was appropriate. At that point, staff would go back and reconsider action to rezone those properties. Staff wants to be certain the Commission is comfortable with every property that staff notifies, If the Commission feels compelled to add to the list or delete some properties, it is those properties staff will notify for the next public hearing. Mr. Kuechle asked the size of the Northco property. Mr. Hickok stated the site is 2.2 acres and is zoned M-2. 3.22 PLANNING CO1�IlrlISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 p,� 23 Mr. Oquist stated the Commission talked about the Northco property, but he also felt the McGlynn property does not fit into this category either. He can support the M-4 zoning and the ordinance change, but he felt there are two sites that should be excluded and they should xeview the other five. Three �nembers of the Planning Commission are not present at this meeting, and they had strong questions and/or opinions. Ms. Savage stated this is also her concern. Three membf�rs are not present so there is not full opportunity for everyone tc� be heard. Mr. Oquist stated there is no guarantee that they would be present at the next meeting. He thought the Commission needed t�o move forward on the proposed M-4. He strongly would like to see the two above mentioned sites excluded. Mr. Kuechle concurred. He was in favor of recommending approval of the M-4. He would suggest.dropping the Northco site because it is small and does not amount to v�ry many loading docks. He had a different feeling about McGlynn site. He would like to exclude it as long as McGlynn owns the property. He can see the development, not so much as a warehouse, but as an adjunct to their c:urrent operations. On the other hand, if they decided to sell it, there is no handle on it. He is trying to figure out some way to do that but there is no smooth way. Ms. Modig stated she would support the M-4 zoning, but she would like to exclude the Northco and McGlynn sites. McGlynn does not meet the criteria as far as residential property. It is stretching it to try to include that. Mr. Hickok stated.the Commission could send a recommendation regarding the ordinance language. The Commission sounds split as far as the sites. Staff could notify all seven property owners and those within 350 feet of the properties and bring th�em in for a discussion at the next public hearing. Ideally, it would be great if everyone agreed. What would be lost is that st,aff would be notifying more properties, but at least we have given notification and allowed ourselves to make a decision re��arding the sites at a later date. Mr. Kuechle asked if this would go before the City Counc:il befoxe tYie next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hickok stated no. Staff will wait for a decision on the specific sites and move rec,ommendations for the proposed language and the proposed sites at the same time. Ms. Modig stated she did riot understand. If the four members `3.23 ` _ --. � . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 PAGE 24 present choose to make a recommendation on the sites and all cannot agree, that is not enough. Mr. Hickok stated, combined with the fact that the Commission does not have a full complement of Commissioners, he would feel best if staff contacted the property owners around all seven sites. 'Fhe comments seem to indicate there is not a consensus among the group. They would be safest to contact all property owners. If it was clear that there was concurrence that a site or sites should be dropped, then staff would then notify the remaining property owners. At any point, the City Council can give staff the directive to include a site. Ms. Savage stated she felt uncomfortable about eliminating any sites because of the small group. She would rather, at this point, not eliminate any of the sites. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed language changes to the M-1, M-2, and M-3 districts and the creation of M-4, Manufacturing Only. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Modig stated she would feel more comfortable acting on a motion regarding the sites to be included for consideration. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to exclude the McGlynn Bakeries site and the Northco site from the seven properties because they do not meet the criteria. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. 1�DIG`AND l�t, pQUIST VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND l�t. RIIECHLE VOTING NAY, CBAIRPERSON DECI�ARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A 1�,�TORITY. Mr. Hickok stated staff would send notices to the affected property owners. 2. RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPM�NT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of this resolution is to comply with State law which requires the Planning Commission to review a modification to the City's redevelopment plan in order to insure consistency with the City's comprehensive p1an. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Linn of Linn Properties is proposing to add 3:24' � . PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING APRIL 2 1997 pp,GE •25 five parcels to the City's redevelopment area in order to refurbish the former Dick's Wheel and Tire and to d�vel��p an 8,000 square foot strip mall on th� north side of 57th Avenue. The properties being considered are five properties startin�� at the northeast corner of Mair� Street and 57th Avenue. Also, as part of that project area, the Planning Commission .is being askE�d to consider 57th Avenue N.E. in the project area. Mr. Hickok stated in the review process the Appeals Comrnission will evaluate a variance request on April 9 for the devE�lopment that will be occurring on the northeast corner. A neigriborhood meeting was held on March 18 to alert the neighborhood c�f a proposed development. The meeting was well attended, a.rid the developer spoke about the development and the interest i.n taking the former Dick's Wheel and Tire, the former duplex site, and the single family home to the west and developing this into a commercial center. The reason for the variances is that the lots are relatively shallow sites at 140 deep and do not have the depth that you would typically see to develop a commercial strip mall. Therefore, there is consideration being given to the site dimensions as they relate to the proposal. Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan identifies the subject property as commercial. �'he property is zoned C-2, General Business. In spite the fact that there was a duplex and a single family home, the parcels are consistent with the compreh�ensive plan. The Planning Commission is asked to consider a re,solution for modifying the redevelopment plan to reflect the increased geographic area. The reason for the interest in including the expanded area of the 57th Avenue right-of-way.is that thE�re is a project that staff would like to discuss that would invo:Lve some potential improvements to 57th as well as lighting and landscaping. Mr: Oquist asked if the street was to be included so it r.an be done at the same time. It does not have to be a part of this resolution to allow the development per se. Mr. Hickok stated, in this development, there is tax incx�ement being used for demolition of blighted properties, etc. F�ccording to the law, we can utilize funds in a project area to mak:e other improvements and that is why this is being included. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adopt a resolution finding the modification to the redevelopment plan for redevelopment project No. 1 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRpERSpN S�jVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3.25 ! I PLANNING COI�SISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 26 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of February 26, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Scott reviewed the proposed improvements along the 57th Avenue corridor. Landseape plans and lighting will be considered at the time that the improvements are made. The City Council will consider this on Monday. If approved, the planning drawings could be completed for 1998 or 1999. Mr. Kuechle stated he would like to express his support of the integrity and quality of staff's work. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 2, 1997, PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary ` 3:26 � S I G N- IN S H E E T PLANNING C�MMIgSIUN.MEETING, April 2, 1997 3.27 i � ��.:.: ��.� f 'G��^�5:�1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMAIRY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST• � The petitioner requests that a special use permit be issued to allow the s�ile of used cars on May 16 & 17, 1997. The request is located at Columbia Arena, 7011 Uni�rersity Avenue N.E. SUMMARY OF ISSUES City Code requires issuance of a speciat use permit prior to the sale of au�tomobiles. The City previously approved similar requests in 1993 and 1994 for fr�endiy Chevr��let. The sales occurred in May and September each year. Previous approvals included 11 stipulations. No complaints were received from previous sales. Staff has received finro phcme calls from residential property owne�s. Neither caller was opposed to the use, provicled the sale is a temporary, short-term use. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff recomm,ended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request, SP #97-01, with the previously-approved stipula#ions from special use permits, SP #93-13 and SP #94-02, `plus Stipulation #12 which wiN require a minimiam 90 day . separation befinreen'a first and second sale. ' PLANNING COMMISSION `�1CTION The Flanning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The Commission amended stipulation #1 as follows 1. The vehicle sales will occur no more than finrice per year. The Commission also added stipulation #13: 13. The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and clean-up. �ITY COUNGL RECOMMENDATI N �Staff recommends that the City Councilaconcur with the Planning Cornmissi�3n action. ��4:01 _ �t:: . �� Project Summary SP #97-01, by Lease Management Group Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: . Temporary sales of vehicles. Location of 7011 University Avenue N.E. Property: Legal Description Part of Section 11 of Property: Size: 480,000 square feet; 11 acres Topography: Flat Existing Typical suburban; grass, trees. Vegetation: Existing Unplatted; P, Public Zoning/Platting: Availability - Connected of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: . Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: East University Avenue Senrice Drive N/A _ N/A The zoning and comprehensive ptan are consistent in this location. To be taken. ' �.�Z ,. ... ' Project Summary SP #97-01, by Lease Management Group Page 3 WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: ADJACENT SiTES: Zoning: M-1, Light lndustria! and C-2, Gen. Bus. Zoning: P, Public and R-1, Single Fam. Dwelling Zoning: P, Public Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial Site Planning lssues: REQUEST Land Use: Comm�srcial Land Use: Park & Single Family Land Use: Pubtic WVorks Garage Land Use: Industrial The petitioner requests that a special use permit be issued to allow the sale of used cars on May 16 and 17, 1997. The request is loca#ed at Columbia Arena, 7011 University Avenue N.E. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The property is located in the northeast comer of the intersection of 69�' and University Avenues. The property is zoned P, Public Facilities. There is M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning to the north and R-1, Single Family Dwelling zoning to the south. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission reviewed similar requests (SP #93-13 and SP ��94-02) by Friendly Chevrolet to conduct used car sales on Labor Day 1993 and May 6 and 7, 1994. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The vehicle sales will occur no more than once per yea�. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 3. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all ten�porary signs on the property. �4.03' I Project Summary SP #97-01, by Lease Management Group Page 4 4. The petitioner shail obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the Uniform Fire Code. 5. Portable toilets shall be handicapped accessible. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on-site and to prevent problems occurring on 69"' Avenue at the University Avenue frontage road, and to direct unnecessary traffic away from the residential neighborhood. 7. The participating dealerships shall apply for and receive the appropriate City licenses. 8. There shall be no:test driving of cars in the residential neighborhood located south of 69th Avenue and in Locke Park. 9. Barricades shall be placed at the entrance to the neighborhood on 69'h Avenue and on 71 S' Avenue. The barricade at 69th Avenue shall include a sign with the language "residential area - no exitn. 10. The cars for the sale shall be street operable and shall not be leaking fluid. 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the next sale. 12. A second sale will not be held for at least 90 days after commencement of the first sale to eliminate the appearance and impacts'of a perpetual auto sale in this iocation. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation on requests SP #93-13 and SP #94-02. Staff reviewed the previous requests with the Police Department. The Police Department did not receive any complaints. They recommended, however, that a traf#ic management person again be required to direct traific away from the neighborhood located south of 69"' Avenue. Lease Management Group owns and leases vehicles at 9019 Central Avenue. They have previously held similar sales at Emanuel Christian Center. The petitioner's request is to allow one sale in 1997. ; The sale wiU be held the weekend of May 16"' and 17"'. Previous approvals allowed two sales. This. petitioner indicated an interest in a �`4:04 � � �.�_---� �: Project Summary SP #97-01, by Lease Management Group Page 5 second sale pending success of this .sale. If a second sale shouid occur, 90 days should separate them. The automobiles are proposed to be located in the north parking lot of the site. The customer parking will be in front of the arena in the west parking lot. The area for the vehicle displays is proposed to be blocked off and traffic re-routed within the site. A staff person will direct traffic on-site. A tent wi11 also be erected and portable toilets provided. As the publicwill not have access to the arena, portable toilets will need to be handicapped accessible. The petitioner is proposing to have 24 hour security. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMlSSION Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request, SP #97-01, with the previously-approved stipulations from special use permits, SP #93-13 and SP #94-02, plus stipulation #12 which will require a minimum 90 day separation between a first and second sale. PLANNfNG COMMISSION ACTION Th� Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend� approval of the request to the City Council. The Commission amended stipulation #1 as follows: 1. The vehicle sales will occur no more than twice per year. The Commission also added stipulation #13: 13. The petitioner shall be responsible for trash containment and clean-up. �ITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City CounciF concur with the Planning Commission action. . . ::.-.�1�. `�4.05 � � ��: 0 �-, -o�,eF�;yu�:� � I�s - Two Fariy uMs 0 fi3 - General MJIiple Urits � ii 4- Nbbile hbrre Parks � PlA - PI2nnBd UI'rt De+�elOprT�nt � S1 . - Hfrde Pak Neighbaiiood S2 - Redeveloprrert Oistrict c� - � a,�� c2 -c� a,�� , � c-s - c�,� sr,�p� � c.� - c�,� o�� n,�� - usnc i�,d�cr;� � n�z - F+�r i�c� � nn,� - acdoor i�t� �y i � t7R - tiai�roeds � P ; . - Pil�lic Facilities p wA�t 0 Poa�r-o�wAY ' /I _ . ......, .. . ... .. ........ ...:,� :,:.:...:.: . . ........ ....,,:. :...:. . ..,. . ...:.. � . F! � � - � �� ... - .�.-- -- - - . _ . _ �, N A- :, Spec.tial Use P�emtit, SP #97-01 _ 2�19r7 9D 0� feet ' -_ j �-r ��'� , �,�..��. ��akJ�.+ �(1'lIS f �U@St; ,�/ �-eQSe,,�tlaC�tl1et'1� �on O�r+rir�a' `no�e �a�d � �"effe�'�v� : ,, . am� C71�O1) WI�� ONV� t S�@ ;�e'1/27/36�ogetherwitFi°a�N � ardu►=� � af v�tiides: ��Y` e"°� �,a��y, �, �, � The sale'will occur ova- �` ..� ',. �.��, ` 'a� the May 16 and 17, .1997 wedcend ;m�c��r-�;,n��,�;;��p„o- � t,vide the most.tprbot�e i��rrr�an available. , ,� ja�l@ � � �IEI� IS Sli� �D d1�,'+, �� -t� ��, s � ��;; ,.,,��.� ��,�ji�e Cdy of Fric�ey w�ll not be r�spons�le fa..,a, , ;�trrFo�eseen eiras arti�ge ofthisdoament:' , -.�<�� :� ' �t ,. � . . . . .. .. . . � .,. � A v Y 7 a ? Y \ N� '_ ' �- __ _ ' 1 Q � ` � . � �s 3 . ;� � e •� h � �-� •es l .... .... vr'�ii _.. " ' � • _._ � � I j . � , � � i h y ' 1 "� Q ` ` c� , . � ti � ' 9 � i I ; � � � p � ; � m � m � Qp' :; � �, _9 s� Q � � � � �� -�., -j o ,y. � � g r , .s �_ N 0 � bp `b. v a � ib �� 7 �_ � � � � ti : = ' w..� :� • h M i t.' c,, � � Z'�^ i -i- o � ..,, .. .,.. . , ,., . .. . . . . . . . �12 . ?v: . . � . . .. . . . vS ��97-03 . ase Management ro p � � � v 0 � _. � f) � : v .--�, +y � � � e v� �orf'a�IP PrPtfi Rp:�tm.S " �- -- � � � --- . �, t'. L ' �o ti 1'�: � V � � ... \ y � LiJ Z .,.a � � � ��l o o.n a nrnt.s �at�a� Teh � � � -at "ii ` � • �t' � - � t � � � W � _- , . ! ,�) a � � �� Q M _ �, _ _: �� j , � � � � � . �• ,� , �� O ` � N , , � C� " � . .ti • i � V � ; M tie I�� .2. _ F— i. i � ; N s ( ' ` � a '� �"' � _ � � . + + ` . . �a . . . t"' . .0 � � � ; �' 1 ... :�. . � �.. _ � �,:� . . � - . � � eZ Z � � . � r ' ��. �' }'.� � ... ., � .�� v �. � . ' . � � . n � � � �' M Q •' � � v �� i� � v�" � � �' JV � � � � L V � �i "' t.. a�,r�._ � �h � i�{'. t 1 j� �• a, .� :as / `N as°".- �-_.______—_—_.._--_,_/ � d �, o a �i, �. ; :_v cy ��,� �„ �j � ,: � . y or � Z n b .Upr -- , , , � � Sj � I . . � • � �; '" i. . J ,y�r? b% -� •---------------•-------------------- � • - -------- -- - • - --------------- ' O Q'. r. • � � n'r/ rr'�..yl��, �-- -- '----"---------�----^--'-- �� $ �w r - . ", _ - � ^ �-�- , � �,N JIdMHJIH H_ flal _ i -�—I°�� ; , , •� m� � ^' i '�--..-.�--- :----�-� � ►,�1��1 i , ` �� . � � � �� ..��i�r-sr'..Y � � Lf fi-.,r . . � ;� ; ♦� - �' R' O.fJ' J/ i i� � 7ii/1 �lJ • S • ►�� ^ /:Y " �sie~..t tl.. _. ._ _ir7Yf-' - - ' - � , i .i � sr,. y � • .� � � � � " k � ''• :.'�7r� i � i � ; � - -��- � - - --- . r\ � ►.t�i'. `r� \ y-` "'= -- qt — ,- -� - — � �Y � ; b � ,� � 2 . • �• �.E �3�tlt � ��O .Y� � �" ^ _ j �, : � -,.. � � : � �Z -Y ' I � � S ' U` �,.� ^ ' � � � y � � i A ; �s'�` �e. � � a � /�/_ : Q � � . . ��--- �- . -� __ n'eL .;� • � L^' ,^'� - _� v� il V�% � �� ' ,. �`_. __ -A ' WO��, � - - - - FY = c _ � �_ 1—� "�r , ,r L� + _ � a � . �.. ., r.• .aF., . � . � : . . . � . � • O 1� O - - ` �' � O .4 •a . . ; .��_, .1_ _ % . . . . � . � ��a � . . � � ! � a I . J -�� tA X , � J 0 March 18, 1997 Scott Hick 6431 University Ave N E Fridley MN 55432 Re: Lease Management Group Special Permit #97-01 As a nineteen year resident of Holiday Hills, I am opposed to a carte blanche Use Permit even being considerEd for the Columbia Arena facility and parking area. I moved into this area because of the park area, the cul-de-sac housing which would never expand, the open area to play ball in or to fly a kite, and only local traffic in or out of the "Hills". I like my privacy and have always the peace and quiet of living here. The vehicle display that occurred in the area last year was a real nuisance to residents. The traffic flow in and out of the "leased" area created stoppages at the traffic light intersections to the point where residents coudn't get onto the service road to get out of the area. There was trash left that "decorated" our back yards as the wind blew. The area around the Arena was full of wrappers and cigarettes. I walk my dog around the Arena and into the park all year. It's not enjoyable to have to walk.around all the "stuff" that's there-after all it is a park. There was a fair amount of curiosity driving thru our neighborhood by strangers-I like living in an isolated neighborhood and resent the intrusion created by the vehicle sale. I called the city last year and was told that leasing the parking lot area generated $300-I can tell that the money was not used to repave the asphalt. I'm also curious why there are semis that park in the Arena parking lot, I doubt that the lot was designed to carry semi truck traffic, I'm very upset about the apparent "plan" to allow some outside business to lease out the property whenever it wants to do so. Where are the families (who park in the lot) that want to play soccer, horseshoes, fly kites or have a picnic, or take the dog for a walk, or practice bow and arrow shooting- supposed to park their vehicles without having to be concerned about them. Last, but not least, I don't care for.our neighborhood to be exposed..:to "the outside world'! --the fewer.people that�,know _ ._._ about Holiday Hills,�the better �� -it's -safer than. most-..areas because . � ._., it's -isolated and �I� suspec,t. �most residents want to.,keep;_it' that way. - . . � . . - . : ,.. _ �4:08 � I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow, and hope that my comments will be shared as necessary. Sincerely, > %��' � L '7�',��--� / Kathleen A agnon 561 Rice Creek Blvd Fridley MN 55432 fridl.l �4.09 � MEMOl�;ANDUM � DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: April 10, 1997 �� TO: William Burns, City Manager �{ FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for Osborne Commerce Center; 223 Osborne Road N.E. The developer of Osborne Commerce Center, Steiner Development, Inc., has submitted a comprehensive sign plan for the City CounciPs review and approval. Chapter 214 of the City Code requires that a comprehensive sign plan be approved by the City Council for all multi-tenant buildings with three or more tenants. The developer proposes the following sign criteria: 1. Each tenant will be allowed one (1) four foot by ten foot .tenant sign. . � 2. The tenant signs are wall mounted, sirigle faced pan'signs, non-illuminated�.' . 3. The signs are constructed of 9.25 guage aluminum which has been annodized to dark bronze in color. Each tenant is allowed their own color for tenant 1ogo and letters. The proposed sign areas comply with the ordinance for maximum area RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends that the City Council approve #he above comprehensive sign plan for Osborne Commerce Center. . . MM/dw M-97-173 �:v�01�� 04/09/97 16:10 FA� 612 473 7058 �f ��-^rf�'.�'^�` Steiner � -= ��-� .�..��''�...'_ Deve�opr�ent,'Inc. 3610 South Hi�hway 101 : Wayzata, MN 55391 (612 ) 473-5650 Fax 473 7058 Apri19,1997 Michele McPherson Planning Assistant City of Fridley 6431 Universiry Ave. N. E. Fridley I�N SS432 Dcaz Michele: STEINER FA�C: 571-1287 Attached is an El�vation Drawing that locates the building si�uage proposed .for thc Osborne Cnmmetce Ccntcr Project Thcse signs are wall mounted sing�e faccd pan signs. The signs arE made of 1.25 gage aluminum anodized to dark bmnze. The individual tenant logo/letters will be movntcd on the sign leaving an approximat,� four inch bnrder. Please let me know if thene is any additim�al i�onnation the Ciry n�ds r�garding this matter. ..;; - . - , ` 5incerely, STElNER DE'YEiOPMENT, ING �r: . rederick Richter Vice President .. . ; 5.02� �� ;,. � UO2/00� 04/09/97 16:10 FA% 612 473 7058 STEINER f�j 00�/003 I � 4 �� as r� � 6 � � �C � �`;.��i � ` � �� ¢ � s i e' ia � .ia�w.� 'uau � s � s �� 5 �l� �1�a� ��li1 � � � � '" � aa1W3� 3�a3wwo� 3waoe5o f};d �� O ii - �. @� s � f� �6 -a°� � d� � Y � � Q � - L �. „ O_ _ 1 o �� O –- a r � _� � ` _ �!� �. ►� � - � 14 .� � _ - ,�� Q, ,� � �� h ) ?J �-� _� _� � . il �� ij G �; ii u 1 �� s �.. �. � � , Z _ -'t�y � � � � � � � � � �� - - ii , � u '� _ �I ` ��;, � _ - ii _ � �g � G� :� � � � � O— q `�p v— — �� a �6 _ ___ h � ;� O 4 � e - - ij � ; ��' _ E 0_ ` - ' ii` �� '� _— _ �i �� g 0 , � ° �i .� o ;� j 0 r �,,� I� � - II� _ y� ;i � �� ii � Islllll . �� e ��7 , �,� . e�imi � e �� ' ; �� _ � v .� �� 4 � r'� — � � ��6� t �i ., �e �' f; �`° � ' _ � ,,�� — ' � �_ - n �i o O � � j � ' N ,; . h � 1� „ Z y :i; �� y �� I; , � � N¢ �� 4 �� a, . Q o c �, � ` • `� � - _ �I ; _ — o O Ny O— � — � � � � $BS � I � �q� 4 � ��' u �d _d '9 7 � . � � ' :.� . . . � � @ N ,, � o - ', � �` - �� 3� ,. n DATE: TO: April 10, 1997 MEM�I�:ANDUM �LANNING DIVISION William W, Burns, City Manager��' FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator Julie Jones, Planning Assis#ant, Recycling Coordinator RE: Clean Water Partnership Resource Investigation Grant A resolution authorizing a partnership befinreen the City of F�dley and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been prepared and attached for your review and approval. On March 5, 1997 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency notified staff that their grant application for the Springbrook Subwatershed Resource Investigation Grant was approved. : The grant,application was sponsored by #he Sa Cities Watershed Management Organization. The Ci#y of Fridley agreed to take the lead in coordinating the various aspects ofthe grant. The Grant award amount is $29,745.00. The Cities of Fridley, Spring Lake Park, and Blaine will join in partnership to match the dollar amounts with'cash and in- kind contribution. The City of Fridfey is contributing $1500.00 cash plus a $11,340.00 in-kind contribution. The multi-city partnership has agreed to complete following objectives: 1. 2. Investigate the water quality, quantity, tand use changes in vegetative cover and ecologically sensitive areas throughout the entire Spri�gbrook Subwatershed; Model current and proje�ed water quality and quantity, with emphasis on flows entering into the Springbrook Nature Center wetland complex; �'3rg� ^ .6,01tµ � William W. Bums April 10, 9 997 PAGE 2 3. Identify the primary sources of non-point source pollution that are causing the degradation and impaired use of the Springbrook Nature Center Complex; and 4. Identify potential best management practices (BMPs) in order to reverse the current trend of degradation. The Springbrook Nature Center Staff (City of Fridley) will develop an educational program and materials to educate citizens of all four tributary cities about proper water resource management. The education program will target not only residents within the watershed but also commercial, industrial and institutional landowners. A Phase II grant is possible and can be applied for upon completion of the Phase I investigation. Phase II would provide additional funds for the implementation of corrective water quality/quantity measures identified by the Phase I investigation. A separate approval process and resolution would be required if the City Council elected to continue with Phase II of this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution for the attached agreement. 6.�2` �' RSSOLUTION NO. - 1997 RSSOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNZNG AN U SOTA POI,LUTION CONTROL AGRSEMSNT WITii TFi� MINNE AGENCY TO PROCBED WIT� THE SPRINGBROOR gUBWATSRSHBD R�SO�� I�SSTIGATION PROJSCT has endeavored to evaluate the cause and WHEREAS, The City of Fridley in the Springbrook Subwatershed; uality degradation in the water q p With the Cities of Fridley has joined in partnershi Water and Blaine to investigate the WHEREAS, The City and of Coon Rapids, Spring Lake Park, uality and quantity issues in the Spring�rook Subwatershed; q WHEREAS, The City of Fridley has been selected to receiResourcecial an technical assistance through a Clean Water PartnersYiip Investigation Grant for the Springbrook Subwatershed; the City Council, that the City of NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED bY reement with the Minnesota to conduct the followin9 Project: Fridley enter into the attached Grant g enc. (MPCA) ation Project. Pollution Control Ag y Springbrook Subwatershed Resource Investig the City Council, that the City Manager be gg IT FURTHER RESOLVED by reement for the above- of Fridley• authorized to execute the attached Grant 9 mentioned project on behalf of the City PASSED � ��pT ED BY THE CITY COUNCIL �F THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS �_ DAY OF __�_� 1997 - ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA ' CITY CLERK 6:03 Np•NCY J - JORGENSON - MAYOR � � � April 10, 1997 �" TO: William W. Burns� City Manager FR: Jack Kirk `�� Director RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT BIDS On Wednesday, March 26, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. the bids were opened for the 1997 playground equipment projects. There were four companies submitting proposals for the four playground sites being upgraded this year. After review of the various proposals of the three different park locations and Stevenson Elementary School, I am recommending that the City Council receive the bids and award the contracts to the equipment suppliers listed below.` To Minnesota/Wisconsin Playgrounds, •lnc. with the Game Time Nne of playground equipment, I recommend awarding of: . , Project No. 306b. Commons Park ` $75,000 Project No. 306c. Moore Lake Park $35,000 To Earl F. Anderson, Inc. with the Landscape Structures line of playground equipment, I recommend awarding of: Project No. 306d. Stevenson Elementary School $38,000 To Flanagan Sales, Inc. with the Little Tykes line of playground equipment, I recommend awarding of: Project No. 306a: Altura Park � $30;000 JK:sj ¢7:01 JK97-36 � w '� Q' � a a � > R Ca 0 8 a C� � O � d °� a � h � � '" o �o �N .0 = u p L � � � � h � y u � � �a `' 3� z w oa 0 0 � u � �' eC C � � � . c=a � � o ^o � bIJ 4'% iL +'' � � � � � � � � p a� .� O M O •�'` G''' O �. z � Q( �j e'�C .�.+ a � � � �= 'o o � 'T� �°. ° W � �� e� ... � a � r � o� � � C ", o � 0 � L � a � �. � � d \� ¢ ¢ " w � � � � � H� w . � L O W y � � � � � [r,a .... W W `° \ o � _ z z z o� N � o � z o 0 U •• II � •• � •• U � a o � c '�., c t� s°°o o F" o � o u" o O � ,r; `° F" � ¢ � c�i� � b � � + -a Q .•'v � .� � o Y o o c � c � n � 0 0 0 - o = o [�1 c o o CA c W � 0� c -o � o �ri -o � :o � :v � ma�� r� a aa a m a z �" o� � �� o 0 0 � o 0 0 zz� mo 0 0 � �" c:] o 0 00 00 00 W � M * M � 6M9 � � � � ca Y * � � ,.�] `..� °o °o �, " o W C � ° ° � o ° o �n v-, W o �n O °' K' 69 ss � �,�, � ,� � � � � z O � � °o °o °o o° � � � o - o 0 0 � ��" " � s � s O U Q � Y � o o° °o 0 aa M o 0 0 0 Q � . � � � � � o a � � � � � � � U . � z � U ,� U ly �r N � M Z � � � Z �i .� Qy y 1A C z pp � � V� iJj y ~ �fi � M v � A .fl �.�7 � S.0 N� u ai V"�" i� a� O,� � �� N � a k..,.�.�-G� a� C� C-r" = A a� �' °�v'„da�� fA=�z �,$ a�Z � =� Q Lav�� LaO�caQ� ��yv�.� aai �° i. .��, i1' p;, y Gz' o°o � Q"' y 3�a , � � a� ° QN a . a Q °� w � � � w � r =- . ,_ � , ., TO: FROM: CITY OF FRIDLEY M E M O R A N D II M WILLIAM W. BIIRNB, CITY MANAGER � � RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, CITY CLERR SUBJECT: ESTABLISH A PIIBLIC AEARING FOR RWIR STOP-N-SHOP INC. DATE: APRIL 10, 1997 Kwik Stop, located at 315 Osborne Road, is under new management and has applied for an off-sale beer license. Pursuant to Chapter 602 Section .07 of the Fridley City Code, we are required to hold a public hearing before issuing this license. As a result, we would.like to establish a public hearing for Kwik Stop on April 28, 1997. The Police Department has conducted the required background investigation on Kwik Stop and Lieutenant Zimmerman has not found any reason to deny this application. :8.01 � �� . �� i TO: WILLIAM W. B LIRNS, CITY MANAGER ,�� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBjECT: RESOLUTIONREAUTHORIZING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES DATE: April 10,1997 The attached resolution designating the official depositories also defines the names of the City officials that are authorized to sign checks for the City of Fridley. A change must be made to the Depository Resolution originally passed by Council at the first meeting in January,1997, due to the appointment of the new Assistant Finance Director, Susan K. Lemieux. The only change tQ the resolution is to include the new Assistant Finance Director as an official signer. Since Howard Koolick resigned as Assistant Finance Director before the first meeting in January, his name was not included on the Depository Resolution. With the addition of Susari s name it will then provide the City with the necessary three authorized signers. RDP/me Attachment ... ., .:ts:. _.>:itS,. ,. ... . r9.01: _ . , .,;_. .. � � RESOLUTION NO. -1997 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY I, Richard D. Pribyl, do hereby certify that I am Finance Director-Treasurer of the City of Fridiey, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota. I further certify that at a meeting of said corporation duly and properly called and held on the 14th day of April, 1997, the following resolution was passed; that a quorum was present at said meeting; and #hat said resolution is set forth in the minutes of ineeting and has not been rescinded or modified. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that Norwest Banks is hereby designated as a depository for the funds of this corporation. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that checks, drafts or other withdrawal orders issued against the funds of this corporation an deposit with said bank shall be signed by two of the following: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director-Treasurer Susan K. Lemieux, Assistant Finance Director William W. Burns, City Manager and that said bank is hereby fully authorized to pay and charge to the account of this corporation any checks, drafts, or other withdrawal orders. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Norwest Banks as a designated depository of the corporation is hereby requested, authorized and directed to honor checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money drawn in this corporation's name, including those drawn to the individual order of any person or persons whose name or names appear thereon as signer or signers thereof, when bearing or purporting to bear the facsimile signatures of finro of the following: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director-Treasurer Susan K. Lemieux, Assistant Finance Director William W. Bums, City Manager and Norwest Banks shall be entitled to honor and to charge this corporation for all such checks, �. drafts or other orders, regardless of by whom or by what means the . facsimile signature or ' signatures thereon may have been affixed thereto; if 'such facsimile signature or signatures `` resemble the facsimile specimens duly certified to or filed with Norwest Banks by the City Clerk or other officer of his corporation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any and all resolutions heretofore adopted by the City Council of the corporation and certified to as goveming the operation of this corporation's account(s) with it, be and are hereby continued in full force and effect, except as the same may be supplemented or modified by the foregoing part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all transactions, if any relating to deposits, withdrawals, re-discounts and borrowings by or on behalf of this corporation with said bank prior to the adoption of this resolution be, and the same hereby a�e, in aH things ratified, approved and confirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOL.VED, that any bank or savings and loan may be used as depositories for investment purposes so long as #lie investments comply with authorized investments as set fortM ` in Minnesota Statutes. _ �.�:OZ.`,, ■ Page 2 - Resolution No. -1997 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signatures of iwo of the foilowing named City employees are required for withdrawal of City investment funds from savings and loan associations: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director-Treasurer Susan K. Lemieux, Assistant Finance Director William W. Burns, City Manager BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any brokerage firm may be used as a vendor for investment purposes so long as the investments comply with the authorized investments as set forth in Minnesota Statutes. I further certify that the Council of this corporation has, and at the time of adoption of said resolution had, full power and lawful authority to adopt the foregoing resolutions and to confer the powers therein granted to the persons named who have full power and lawful authority to exercise the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF APRIL, 1997. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - ClTY CLERK `9:�3' : ...., ��- , Il � TD: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER � �� FROM.• RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT.• CREATION OFA CHECKING ACCDUNT FOR ALUMI�VUM REDEMPTIONACTIVITES DATE: MARCH 28, 1997 Attached you will find a resolution which will provide the authority to create a checking account to be used in conjunction with the aluminum redemption activities at the recycling site. This checking account is to be used for payouts that exceed a certain dollar amount so the site does not have to keep large amounts of cash on hand and also would not cause the site to run short of money on large volume days. Staff has setup up controls to monitor the cash and minimize the risk of theft at the site. �1;0;0:�,, ;: .. �.�. . � , � . _ : .. . �.,: _ � . � .. . .. � 5 .,�/,.. . -� RESOLUTION NO. -1997 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A SECON.DARY CITY OF FRIDLEY CHECKING ACCOUNT I, Richard D. Pribyl, do hereby certify that I am Finance Director-Treasurer of the City of Fridley, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota. I further certify that at a meeting of said corporation duly and properly called and held on the 14th day of April, 1997, the following resolution was passed; that a quorum was present at said meeting; and that said resolution is set forth in the minutes of ineeting and has not been rescinded or modified. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that Norwest Banks has been previously designated as a depository for the funds of this corporation and . IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that checks, drafts or other withdrawal orders issued against the funds of a special account set up for this corporation for the specific purpose to provide funds for the purchase of aluminum cans shall be on deposit with said bank and shall be signed by one of the following: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director-Treasurer Susan K. Lemieux, Assistant Finance Director William W. Bums, City Manager Barbara J. Dacy; Community Development Director Mark D. Halfmann, Temporary Recycling Monitor and that said bank is hereby fully authorized to pay and charge to the account of this corporation any checks, drafts, or other withdrawat orders. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Norwest Banks as a designated depository of the corporation is hereby requested, � authorized and directed to honor checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money drawn on the account of this corporation, including those drawn to the individual order of any person or persons whose name or names appear thereon as signer or signers thereof, when bearing or purporting to bear the facsimile signature of one of the following: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director-Treasurer Susan K. Lemieux, Assistant Finance birector `- William W. Bums, City Manager....; , Barbara J. Dacy, Community Development Director ,;. Mark D. Halfmann, Temporary Recycling Monitor and Norwest Banks shall be entitled to honor and to charge this corporation for all such chedcs,- drafts or other orders, regardless of by whom or by what means the facsimile signature or signatures thereon may have been affixed #hereto, if such facsimile signature or signatures resemble the facsimile specimens duly certified to or filed with Norwest Banks by the City Clerk or other officer of his corporation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any and a11 resolutions heretofore adopted by the City Council of the corporation and certified to as governing the operation of this corporation's acxount{s) with it, be and are hereby continued in full force and effect, except as the same may be supplemented or modified by the foregoing part of this resolution. , ;L, � � � �.fl2 � � � ;; � ;' � . , s._�,. �.. . , ; .. ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ali transactions, if any relating to deposits, withdrawals, by or on behalf of this corporation with said bank prior to the adoption of this resolution be, and the same hereby are, in all things ratified, approved and confirmed. I further certify that the Council of this corporation has, and at the time of adoption of said resolution had, full power and lawful authority to adopt the foregoing resolution and to confer the powers therein granted to the persons named who have full power and lawful authority to exercise the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF APRIL, 1997. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK , �'1'0:03 � �.�� _ _.__ '/ � �� ;'I�- il � TO: W/LLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER �� ,� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE D/RECTOR SUBJECT: ABATEMENT OF A PORTION OF PUBLIC fVUISANCE FEES CERTIFIED TO COUNTY IN 1996 DATE: APRIL 19, 1997 On October 26, 1996 the public nuisance costs associated with 4680 2�d Street were certified to the County to be collected with the real estate taxes for 1997. The Finance Department had been billing the costs associated with the property clean up to the property owner prior to the certification through the billing system. Sometime in 1996 the property was taken over by HUD and then sold to a Mr. Thomas Ryan. The sale process occurred during the period in which we were assembling all project costs to be certified to the County for collection on the 1997 taxes. Prior to the certification o# the ciean up expenses, the costs were being billed through our billing software. The search had been requested prior to the certification process and did not appear on the Special Assessment System. When the properly was in the process of changing hands, a title search was requested. A search of the Special Assessment System was done by staff showing no evidence of the costs for cleanup of the property. This was the information that had been provided to the Title Company for the closing. After the search was done it was discovered that the amount being billed through the billing software had not been identified as part of the assessment search. The amount of the clean up cost on the property was certified last fail with all the other assessments for collection with property taxes in 1997. When Mr. Ryan received his tax statement, it included the clean up cost as a special assessment. Mr. Ryan contacted the City upset that the cost now appeared on his taxes as an expense to him. Staff has contac#ed HUD to request additional funds to pay for the clean up expenses. Since the property had already closed we did not anticipate any compensation for the expenses. They did agree to pay '/2 of the outstanding amount. This would leave a balance of $967.08. 11.01 Staff is recommending that the entire assessment be abated and #he HUD payment be credited to the proper fund. This process would provide a less complicated correction than working with one half of the assessment. The attached resolution would provide for the elimination of the assessment from the taxes for 1997. Staff has taken steps to insure that this type of situation does not occur again. RDP/me Attachment 1 1.02 PjMENiOT °* Oo��oo * � � Iillflll � �� 19e4N O EYf.I�Q To: William W. Burns City Manager 6431 University Ave. NE Fridley, MN. 55432 From: Dorothy Pehl, HUD REO 220 S. 2nd St. Mpls, Mn. 55401 Telephone 370-3100 FAX 370-3046 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban D�elopment � Minnesota State Office � tg a�, �� 220 Second S#reet South �f Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2195 Subject: 271-423265 Second St. NE, Fridley The U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban F.edevelopment agrees that the buyer of the above named property should not be penalized for the error of ommission ($1937.15) in the City of Fridley's special assessment search. Although it is extremely difficult to make an exception to the established rules, Hud has agreed to split the cost of the special assessments with the City of Fridley. Please see the enclosed "Sellers Policy". Submit invoice for reimbursement of $967.00 to the US Dept. of HUD using the case number 271-423265. CC Thomas G. Ryan 11.03 RESOLUTION NO. -1997 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE ABATEMENT OF CERTAIN, NON-IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR A RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 4680 SECOND STREET N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, finds that: 1. A certain residence within the City of Fridley located at 4680 Second Street N.E. (P.I.N. 26-30-24-33-0048) required nuisance abatement, the costs of which were certified to Anoka County in 199fi to be taxed against the property in 1997, as authorized by law. 2. After the nuisance abatement, in 1996, the property became the property of the United States Depa�tment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 3. HUD sold the residence to Thomas Ryan in 1996. 4. As part of the process of selling the residence, a title and assessment search was conducted on the property. 5. At the time of the assessment sea�ch, the costs that became the basis for the nuisance abatement special assessment against the property had no#, as yet, been calculated and forwarded to the County, nor was the information located in City records that, at that time, would ordinarily have been searched to determine the existence of outstanding assessments. 6. All outstanding assessments, except the one for nuisance abatement, were paid at the time of the closing of the sale of the residence to Thomas Ryan. 7. That at no time did the City of Fridley represent to HUD or any other individual or party that the assessment search conducted was complete or final. 8. That a current and valid special assessment continues to exist for the property for nuisance abateme�t in the amount of $1,934.16. 9. That the current owner purchased the property with the understanding that any and all assessments against it had been paid by HUD or would be paid by HUD ftom the proceeds of the monies advanced at closing. 10. HUD has agreed to pay one-half. of the outstanding balance of the special assessment for nuisance abatemenf against the property, notwiths#anding its lack of actual notice of the outstanding assessment at the #ime of the sale. 11.04 Page 2 -- Resolution No. -1997 11. The outstanding special assessment against the property was not "for local improvements" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 270.07. 12. That the reason the information concerning the special assessment for nuisance abatement did not come up on the City's search for special assessments was because the information had not been merged into the data matrix that existed for special assessments fo� local improvements in the City, a defect that has since been remedied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED THAT: The City of outstanding HUD of the Fridley agrees to accept as full and complete payment of the special assessment against the foregoing residence the payment by sum of $967.08 and that the remaining balance of $967.08 shall be deemed abated and paid in fuN. 2. The City staff is directed, by forwarding copies of this Resolution to Anoka County, the Commissioner of Revenue, HUD and the current owner of the residence, to notify interested parties of the City's decision in this matter. 3. The City, in making this Resolution, is allowing this abatement only under these particular and peculiar circumstances and expressly does not intend for this action on its part to opera#e as any sort of precedent for these or any other parties within the City at a future date. PASSES AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF APRIL, 1997. AYES NAYS Attest: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CIERK 11.05 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR � � � . arY oF FRIULEY April 14, 1997 TYPE OF LICENSE: BILLARDS Sharx Niteclub 371� E. River Rd. Fridley, iNN 55421 LIC�NSES ['3'� Am.Amus. Arcades APPROVED 8Y: Richard Larson Fire Inspector Dave Sallman Public Safety Director FEES: $li(l.(l� ENTERTAINMENT No.Air Home Assoc. No.Air Home Assoc. " " " $85.�� 6831 Highway 65 N.t. Fridley, MN 55432 FOOD ESTABLISH�IENT Central Embers Central Embers $45.(l� 54�� Central A.ve.N.E Fri dl ey, "1N 55421 Children's World Children's World qr�5,�� Learing Center Learing Center 531� Monroe St. N.E. Fridley,,MN 55421 East River Rd. Texaco Don Kisch $45.00 8100 E. River Rd. Fridley, MN 554s2 . Mike's Gas & �rocery Mich�el.Deconcini $a�;�q '6485 E. River Rd, Fridley, MN 55432 North Air Home Assoc, North Air Nome Assoct .a45.�� E831 Highway 65 N,E, � Fridley,"MN 55432 -0ld Coantry Buffet #,2 Buffet, Inc� $a�,pp 6540 University Ave.N1E. ' Fridley, MN 55432 Ozzie's Robert Wineman $a5t�p 620 Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Stuart Anderson's Cattle ARG Enterprises, Ine, � $45.Q0 Co. Restaurant 5596 University Ave.N.E. � Fridley, MN 55432 .,� :. ,, ��.ti�� . ��.:.. • ,: . -. :.. .. � • r � � . � � �� . �� '�� : . , . .w. . ' � � CffY OF FRIDLEY April 14, 1997 SuperAmerica #4199 7299 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SuperAmerica #,42�7 7449 E.River Rd. Fridley, •f�11! 55432 JUNK YA�D Fridley /?uto Parts 73�� Central Ave. N.E, Fri dl ey, f"N 55432 LICENSES Martha Evans Martha Evans Derek Haluptzol; Page 2 Richard Larson Fire Inspector Dave Sallman Public Safety Director $45 . �(1 �45 . (1� $350.0� OFF SALE BEER Holiday Food Co. Holiday Food Co. Dave Sallman �6�.�(1 25(1 5th Ave.N.E. Public Safety Director Fridley, MN 55432 PRIVATE �AS PUP1P Kuether Dist. Co. Kuether Dist'. Co. Richard Larson $3O.n� 6982 Hwy. 65 N.E. Fire Inspector Fridley, t�IN 55432 REFUSE HAULER � - Hilger Transfer, Inc, Hilger Trsf,Inc, Ron Julkowski 8550 Zachary L'n. Building Inspector Maple Groye, MN 55369 Johnson Sanitation LeRoy P,, Johnson'Jr, " " '�• 125 Bunkder Lk.Blvd; Anoka, MN 553�4 Twin City Sanitation Twin City Sanitation In.c " 95 W. Ivy St.Paul�;f�ln 55117 United Waste Systems Of United GJaste Sys.of MN Inc. MN�dba UWS/Gallaghers 95 W,Ivy St.P�ul, MN 55117 . Walter's Recyling � Kefuse George Walter 283� 101st Ave.N.E. Blaine, MN .,14:02 � �: �� ::: � 11 N I I $9�.00 �9Q.0� $6�.00 $135.�(l ,,;, " «,: $ 6 0 . �n � � «� oF fRIDLEY LICENSES April 14, 1997 Page 3 RETAIL GASOLINE E. River Rd. Texaco Don Kisch Richard Larson $6�.�� 81�� E. River Rd. Fire Inspector Fridley, MN 55432 Mike's Gas & Grocery Michael J. Deconcini " " " $6�.�� 6485 E. River Rd. Fridley, MN 55432 SuperAmerica �4199 Martha Evans " " �� g�.�� 7299 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SuperAmerica ,=42(17 P7artha Evans " " " $6�.�� 7449 E. River Rd. Fridley, MN 55432 Terry's Amoco Frid7ey Terry Preslen " " " �6�:�� 53i1 University Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 TREE REMOVAL Drobnick's Tree Service John Drobnick Paul Lawrence $4(l.�(l 311 93rd Ave.N.E. Public Nlorks Supt. Blaine, MN 55434 TOBACCO PRODIlCTS(CIGARETTE) E: River Rd. Texaco Don K�sch Dave Sallman �125.0(l 810� E. River Rd.� Public Safety Director Fridley, MN 55432 Mi ke�'�s Gas & Grocery Mi chael J, Deconci ni " ° " �125. (l0 6485 E. River Rd. Fridley, MN 55432 North Air Home Assoc. No. A.ir Home Assoc. " '�> " $125,(l� 6831 Hwy. 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ozzie's Robt, Wineman " "� " �125.0� 62� Osborne Rd. Fridley, MN 55432 � � Sharx Niteclub Am. Amusement Arcades " " " , $25�,�p 3710 E. River Rd. Fridley, MN 55421 14.03 �o- � � CfiY OF FRI�LEY il 14, 1997 LIC�NS�S Stuart Anderson's ARG Enterp.Inc. Cattle Co. Restaurant 5696 Universiiy Ave.N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SuperAmerica #4199 7299 Hwy. 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SuperAmerica #42�7 7449 E. River Rd. Fridley, MN 55432 Martha Evans Martha Evans Terry's Amoco Fridley Terry Presler 5311 University Ave.N.E. Fri dl ey, �1N 55421 MOTOR VEHICLE BODY REPAIR BUSINESS Fridley Auto Body Inc. Harry 4J. Herrman 96� Osborne Rd. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Page 4 Dave Sallman Public Safety Director �� $125.�� $125.�(1 $12 5 . �l(1 $12 5 . il(1 $2��.f1�. Buttweiler Auto Body Inc. Tim Buttweiler " ° " $15�.�0 7869 Bee�h'St. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 GAMBLING ' Fridley Golden Lions ,. Barney;Buss : " ° " Fee Exemt 6085__7th St.=NE: .: , �-.. ., � , ; Requ�st Fridley, :MN 55432 : � . . . . . .. . � ��n: i:a;.-. � .... .. .. .. . . . . Y. . " , . . . . . Joe -`piMaggio�s Spor,t'-�s ` Joe Dit�taggio , « �' � $3�0,f)0 Bar & Gri l l � 1298 E. Moore Lk.Dr. Fridley, MN 55432 � Shorewood Inn James Nicklow' " " " R30�,�0 6161 Hwy 65 N.E. � Fridley, MN 55432 `h�,_,4:04�� . . . . . ...� . � . . . ...,s i�� p . � � . . .. . . � � . �. i ;. , t, MEMORANDUM DEVELOPl�IENT DIRECTOR DATE: April 10, 1997 TO: Wiliiam Burns, City Manager � �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Modify Redevelopment Project Area No. and Creating Tax Increment Financing District No. 15, Minnesota Commercial Railway Company Background State law requires the City Council to hold. a public hearing before modifying the redevelopment project area and/or creating a new tax increment financing district. The HRA; at its April 10, 1997 meeting, approved a resolution recommending the addition`of . the four acre site to the proje�t area, and creation of T1F District No. 15 in order to . assist the proposed project by Minnesota Commercial,Railway Company. , The project, to be known as Commerc�al Transload. of M�nnesota (CTM), is<a 57,890 r:,� square foot industrial� bu�ldin g CTM provid`es "sm gle bill of ladin g". iust in time service �� . '�. forsteel processors. Rolled'steel is to iie Teceivetl'from �a rail`spur on the Minnesotat�.�� .,;� � Commercial Railway line which runs east/west through'Fridley;° just north of 71 � Avenue. �- (Willamette has a spur from this raif line). The rail spur would be extended along the north side of 71 � Avenue and would be extended directly into the CTM building. The steel will be transferred from the rail cars to semi trucks who in #um deliver the steet to a variety of steel processors in the metro area.` - `_ Economic Development District The proposed district to be created is an: economic development district. The proposed site consists of two parcels and v�ill be,th,e,�nly parcels in the district. -�The ,maximum_ .;. duration of the distric# is nine years fromthe�''date of receive of fhe_first payment of tax.� � increment, or 200T. `'The dis#rict wili'expi�e�in 2007'and is estimated to generate . approximately $364,552 of tax increment. � _ � �. �. �1�6��1 � , ., . � �� K,a � , �, . �_ _ :� � �; ,.. �� . _ ., .�.� ��^ .. , ,, . > . .,>�. ,�� ,. , . TIF #15 Aprii 10, 1997 Page 2 The project cost is $2,525,474, exclusive of a$200,000 c�ane and $160,000 to e�end the rail spur. The requested amount of assistance, $250,000, is to be provided through a grant ($125,000) and a ten year loan ($125,000). The assistance is to be used for removing poor soil, site clearance, and building substantial foundations to support the crane to transfer the steel. The developer will be required to obtain a certificate of completion prior to delivery of the assistance. The development contract will also require that the developer ag�ee to pay a minimum amount of taxes ($92,000). Because the site will be valued based on State Statute regarding railway facilities, payment of a minimum amount of taxes will be proposed in the development contract as opposed to a minimum assessment agreement. Four to six employees will be hired the first year. The County and School District were properly notified, and no comments have been received as of this date. TIF districts #4, #5, and #8 have expired, so this district is the twelfth active district. There will be no LGA/HACA loss to the City as a resul# of this district. The legislature amended the TIF laws in 1995 to provide a"local cantribution" option for cities instead of a LGA/HACA deduction. The contribu#ion must be made from "unrestricted monies" of either the Authority or the City. The contribution is equal to 10°/a of the increment, which would be a maximum of $40,000 over the entire life of the district. The HRA has adequate unrestricted monies to provide the contribution. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the pubfic hearing. The resolution authorizing modification of the redevelopment project area and creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 15 will be scheduled for approval at the City Council's April 28, 1997 meeting. B D/dw M-97-167 ' �16:02 � � < m � :i .■�...��.�. q�, �� UN�v�� v NE. ..� .. .. ...-.._ .. l � �� l �� _ , � -� � � G ( �� / � I �° � , ' . I :� �� -,�, : �,� � _ ,t, . '�-L,_ 3' = q:r '-��V . � 1 \ 1 � �� T " ,. I I� �� \ � i � \� \ � �, �� \\ � �� \ ` / �i ` � / \ Y �� !- � : -- -, • ; � � ,Z !I O � : '�'� � � O: v �v _ < rn �� Y� .� � � � � � � �. .. � � ��.a • _. � `�- ��`' f . 1 � -� ��-�� 11 �� 1 1 � � I V I •. • \ � I� . . . � . � . . . . .. � , ••r•. � �" 1 = �� 16:03: �� . l . � . ., :. � SECTION XVI TAX .INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT`FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 15 (MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL RAILWAY CO. PROJECT) Subsection 16.1_ Statement of Obiectives. See Section I, Subsection 1.5. Statement of Objectives. Subsection 16.2. Modified Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.2. through 1.15. Subsection 16.3. Parcels to be Included. The boundaries of Tax Increment Financing District No. 15 are described on the attached Exhibit XVI-A and illustrated on Exhibit XVI-B. Subsection 16.4. Parcels in Accruisition. The Authority may publicly acquire and reconvey any or all of the parcels in Tax Increment Financing District No_ 15 identified on the attached Exhibit XVI-A. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acguired at a future date: (1) The City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of the Tax Increment Financing Plan; and (2) Such acquisition will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and reiated costs. Subsection 16.5._ Developcnent Activitv for which Contracts have been Sicsned. - As of .the date -of•-adoption of: the Tax - Increment Financing,Plan,�the City intends to enter into-a � Development Agreement with Minr�esota Commercial Railway Company `` for the activities discussed below.' Subsection 16.6. Specific DeveloAment Exnected to Occur_ � At tliis time it is anticipated that an approximate 57,980 square foot warehousing and transloading facility with an estimated market value of $1,159,600, calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 270.80, will be constructed in 1997. Subsection Z6_7. Prior Planned Improvements. The Authority shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the-County'P,uditor'or its notice of district` enlargement with a listing of all,properties within Tax-Increment Financing District No: 15 for'which building permits have lieen issued during:,,the eighteen,'- (18).,.:moriths'.:imiriediately greaeding �' ` approval of the Tax I�icrement Financing Plan by tlie Authority. 16 - 1 �; fi ��''. . � � �� . �., 4 � . . _ , .� . _, . �. . . . ... � . �}n.: , . . . , �� ._. .� . The county Auditor shall increase the original tax capacity of Tax Increment Financ,ing _District No.._: � 15 _,by, the ,.tax capacity of - .,: each improvement for which :the�fbuilding.�permit _was ,.issued.�,- If .. ,. said listing-does not"accompany��theraforementioned"request'or � " notice, the absence of such listing shall indicate to the County Auditor that no building permits were issued in the eighteen (18) months prior to the Authority's approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Subsection 16.8. Fiscal Disparities. The Council hereby elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3, clause (a) if and when commercial/industrial development occurs with Tax Increment Financing District No_ 15. Subsection 16.9. Estimated Public Improvement Costs. The estimated costs associated with Redevelopment Project No. l are listed in Section I, Subsections 1.9 and 1.10. Subsection 16.10. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated that $480,000 of bonded indebtedness could be incurred with respect to this portion of Redevelopment Project No. 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subdivision l, General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds.may be used as reguired to amortize the costs identified in Section I, Subsections 1_9 and 1.10. The City reserves the right to pay for all or part of the activities listed in Section I, Subsections 1.9. and 1.10. relating.to Redevelopment Project No. 1 as tax increments are generated and become available_ Subsection 16.11. Sources of Revenue. The costs outlined in Section I, Subsection 1.9. will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments_ Subsection 16.12. Estimated Original:and Captured Tax Capacities. The tax.capacity of all:,.i�able property in Tax Increment:Einancing:-District;No.��15, as most recently certified by the Commissioner;of�"Revenue.of the State of Minnesota'"on - January 2, 1996, is estimated to be $14,025. The estimated captured tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 15 upon completion of the proposed improvements on January 2, 1998 is estimated to be $39,317. Subsection 16.13. Tax Increment. Tax increment has been calculated at approximately $45,007-upon completion of the improvemerits assuming a's.tatic tax"capacity'rate and a valuation increase of zero percent (0%)`compounded annually.' Subsection 16.14. Tax:Capacit}� Rate. The estimated 199b/1997 total tax,capacity raCe.;is"estimaied at 114.47300`: - 16 - 2 �, '�16:05� S . "� r` _� ,`.��',u` Subsection 16.15. Tr e of Tax Increment Financinq District_ Tax Increment Financing District No._15 is, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,,Subdivision 12, an Economic De"velopment District. Subsection 16.16. Duration of Tax Increment Financinc{ District. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 15 is expected to be nine {9) years from date of receipt of the first tax increment or eleven (11) years from approval of the TIF plan, whichever is less. The date of receipt of the first tax increment is estimated to be July, 1999. Thus, it is estimated that Tax Increment Financing District No. 15, including any modifications for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate in the year 2007. Subsection 16.17. Estimated Impact on Other Taxinq Jurisdictions. The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 15. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred without the assistance of the. City, the attached Exhibit XVI-E reflects the estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 15 if the "but for" test was not met. Subsection 16.18. Election of City Contribution. The Council hereby elects a qualifying local contribution equal to ten percent (10.000) of the tax increment generated from Tax Increment Financing District No. l5, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes 273.1399. Subsection 16.19. Modification of Tax Increment Financinct District and or Tax Increment Financinct Plan. On April 28, 1997, no modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. lS or the Tax Increment"Financing Plan therefore has been made, said date being the date of initial approval and adoption thereof by the City Council. \FRIDLEY\TIF\TIFPLAN_DOC � lb - 3 16:06.� �.::.: � EXHIBIT XVI-A PARCELS TO"BE INCLUDED iN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 15 AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED APRIL 28, 1997 PIN 11-30-24-31-0011 PIN 11-30-24-31-0012 XVI-A-1 1 G:07' : ... � � . � � � � y � �-� t �T � EXHIBIT X�'I-B Boundary Map � ' . 73rd .A�enue N. �' �-� �n� � ��t {�; � �v� � ! �. . � • ` ,, . �. . :.... " �4I��1C0 �F2, . . 5- ' � _._, � Y� � � � ;- . . „ � . . i . . / �a ' t�� - c�� i�'� ` ■ . - '. ■ -; - . '� ' �a �s�.� • � � . '�1,��08�� . . . .. ,, . � , . . �.:.. � � � � � . .. fi. . .. .�.��_ . � � f � I Origina( Market Va�ue PINS: Economic Inflator Original Tax Capacity Estimated Market Va(ue Esfimated Tax Capacity Esiimated Taxes 1997 Tax Rate Administrative Fees Inflation P.V. Rate Construction � 997 Valuation � ggg Taxes Payable � ggg RAILWAY1 EXHIBiT XVI - C ASSUMPTIONS ; -- : . , 1992 Mkt 1996 Mkt PIN Sq. Ft Value Value 11-30-24-31-00� 1 87,120 174,200 174,200 11-30-2431-0012 ' 87,120 '' ` 130,700 130, 700 174,240 304,900 304,900 4.600% 57,980 Sq. Ft. 57,980 Sq. F#. 1.144730 10.000% 0_000% 7_500% 20.00 per Sq. Ft. 1.60 per Sq. Ft. 304,900 1.00 14,025 1,159,600 53,342 61,062 "EX,i�.�l - C - 1 .�. � _ . �, � .. . , . � �._:�„�.,.�:.�. �..� ,�: . � . � , , , € EXHIBIT XVI-E ESTIMATED IMPACT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 15 iMPACT ON TAX BASE ORIGINAL ESTIMATED CAPTURED DISTRICT TAX TAX TAX TAX AS % ENTITY BASE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY OF TOTAL City of Fridley 29,228,679 14,025 53,342 39,317 0.135% County of Anoka 181,018,245 14,025 53,342 39,317 0_022% ISD #14 26,069,493 14,025 53,342 39,317 0.151 % IMPACT ON TAX RATE TAX % OF TAX TAX RATE ENTITY RATE TOTAL INCREMENT INCREASE City of Fridley 0.15693 13.71 % 6,170 0.021 % County of Anoka 0.30542 26.68% 12,008 0.007% ISD #14 • 0.61268 53.52% 24,089 0.093% Other � - 0.06970 6.09% 2,740 1.14473 100.00% 45,007 * Assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of a Tax increment Financing District. If construction is a result of Tax increment Financing, the impact is $0. . �16;��2 ' JCVL-E-� � , . ; _ .. .;.. AS MODIFIED APRIL 28, 1997 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 15 (MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL-�R.AILWAY CO.) � � r,. Acquisition $150,000 Site Work, including Soil Correction and 150,000 Site Preparation for unusual weight bearing supports Public Improvements 50,000 Administration 50,000 Total $400,000 Maximum Estimated Bonded Indebtedness * $480,000 * This amount includes capitalized interest in an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenues to meet scheduled interest payments when due. \FRIDLEY\TIF\R�DEPLAN.DOC ' � � - 21 � 16.13 DATE: TO: FROM: MEMOl�.ANDiJM DEVELOpMENT DIRECTOR April 10, 1997 William Burns, City Manager �� Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Modify Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and Creating Tax Increment Financing District No. 16, Linn Property Holdings BACKGROUND State law requires the City Council to hold a pubfic hearing before modifying fhe redevelopment project area and ereating a TIF district. Steve Linn of Linn Property Holdings is proposing to create a tax increment financing districf and add a 1.5 acre site to the City's redevelopment program., The develo er,is ro sin to construcE an 8,000 � .P.... P._:Po .9 square foof retail,mall and refitt-bish the former Dick's'�Wheei and Tire�building into a�'`: -= � Goodyear Service Center at #he nortt�east comer of 57"'=qvenue and'Main Street ,� ` . - � .. . . ,cr - The HRA is evaluating a request�for $200,�00� in fax �ncrement financing assis#ance. �- The staff recommendation to the HRA a# its A ril 10, ��- '��` p ' 1997 �s to`provide pay-as-you-go � assistance in the amount of $175,000. The HRA at its April meeting approved a resolution recommending the modification to the redevelopment program and creation of TIF District #16. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRIC;T . The proposed district is a redevetopment district which has a maximum duration of 25 years. The TIF district would include the five parcels proposed for redevelopment. It is also proposed th�t #he modification to th e pro)ect area include the ex�sting and ,:^ - . : .; . proposed right-of-way for 57�' Avenue from Main Street to a pproximately 300 f.eet east � of University Avenue. : ;. , „ � . , . � , ,.. , ,� �� :�� . � � . . ,. � '��: � _ � � � � . � TIF #16 April 10, 1997 Page 2 The purpose of the expansion of the project area is to enable the HRA to contribute toward the 57th Avenue reconstruction plan. At this time, it is contemplated that the HRA woutd contribute 50% of the street light and landscaping/irrigation costs for the project. The TIF plan estimates that $513,000 of increment will be generated over 20 years. About $25,000 per year of increment is estimated. The total project cost estimated by the developer is $1,566,200. The estimated market value of the Goodyear Service Center is $432,000 (versus the existing $293,000), and the new strip mall's market value is estimated to be $518,700. The County and the School District have been properly notified, and there have been no comments made to-date. The Appeals Commission at its April 9, 1997 meeting recommended approval of several variances subject to several stipulations. The variance and the resolution authorizing creation of the district and modification to the redevelopment project area will be on the April 28, 1997 City Council agenda. There will be no LGA/HACA loss to the City as a result of creating the district. The proposed tax increment financing plan elects the "local contribution" instead o# the LGALHACA loss. The local contribution equals 5% of the tax increment generated from the district. It is estimated that about $513,000 of increment would be generated over 20 years. The 5% contribution, or approximately $25,000, would come from : unrestricted monies from the City or the HRA. The HRA has adequate unrestricted funds to provide the local contribution. . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing as required by State statute. The resolution approving the modification to the redevelopment area and creation of the TIF district is scheduled for the City Council meeting on April 28, 1997. BD/dw M-97-174 ` 17:02± _ .�:..�. . � ^ � � � ti �� = I _ L _� �� _ � -------- - __- �- ��ts.rantu� - -------- ---- - -- - _ .- --,- I �^ � � , �-, -- _ _ � _ j � ; i L_ -- ' ---- � �V � go � � ��, �� I �� _ �� ,,.. �^ v �� ^ o � �� 8� ��^ i , �� ^ ;� ----� ----� --1 -- 1----- ---- - - ---- �---- � --� i V � - ----- ---- � - -- -- . _ _ � -__ --- - --- --- , _ _-- _- --- -- -- , �_ �� , � �, _ � � � � � �" `� �� = � � �° � -- � = P �� = �� " � -� -- � � � � � � ; ; �aa.r�S �� --- V -_ � ° � � , � ; _ �� . ; o � �� -- --- -- � � �� v _ - � ' � - --i- ' -- ��---, � � =- _ - --- - - �� '- \' �' �� ) ; � �° \ � j , � ,� - � - ---_ , _ ----- _ _ - _ _ -- --_ . �- -- ---- - ------- --_ _ ---------- I _ ±� ;, � ��l�j anua�� (}tslaAItI� ;� _ . :l ..... �--- �� _�____--� ..� _ , � `� -- �� i ` .. �s .t ,t ��^� . .` - - �� ,- �v �� ' �� S _. � �� ; ■ � �� ., c ��l h � 0�3 �;y �53 :46'�e l _ �t � � _ �:R, � �� ..._ -� � a e V �; . W "7 L�� "� � � a 0 i W � Z Q � a ► x i ' � � qr a: �1' Y .�� . . . _ . .. � i ' �� ' . j ��3 _ _ ' = _- _- W W � ' - +�f Ai� Ym � a '�IA = - __ ��'�:�j '` 0�3 .I �°` : ;`�� _ ;I4�,. o { N ; , u ��"g3 z ; rsy� o :::. i NW 'A3lO1Hj i = 3N 311V H115 " ! ^ H1�A000`J 4 lf3LJ3J lY1�H3Wi'r0'J Nlfld �liS � � a � y . -• _. —� t i � , � �i i i i :i; j+D i F ,�..y . r.,... i � --- ...., ,. v . i : ! ' _` -'{ -'� �? �: � � � � �-��- - - i �i� ,\ :i i i � 4 , � � — ��_—� _�,, � I , , -_ , � ��i � � i � j ; . . . -a..i - , . � __. � � I , 1 j R � � � � � � ,��. � i '. . i '� . , . • __ ____ ' � i � � � —' � L__I ._.___-_ - � � �i � EY ____ � ge^: � ' Y r � �' � 'tz 3 ( � I�: r`�� ?� C � ;�g=+ � i ; i��s� g I � 3ae p� s_. a� :Ea�� i�l� J ' p i f,r :?, �i s�E'ya i i J e fY`a �� a--c a.,xa< o � � ; � i ; �i= 3-� fj�f t'��¢°' ' � _J� sf ; Yo i. E'��= D :S. 2 T �i`j �Y� ' I \ � 'l � � t'e-y d4f i�i g i 3;p S`� ; � I � Ebe¢ iYS` Y3I �74-t i L"� . , �� _Q' =�ZQ !� �_'Y .L�Y�7 ' . I:I N J" j' ] S- I � z 4��d 4i�;� 56r �iYa �Si S . i � ��_e 3g°:�� Y= { � � �Yie a:-a� #jS �i: °'?p3'd . �� a'YYZ SS::y �?'i Y3_`4 �r6�'�� i+: 1 r 5sz2 :<=�'_ ��: _i: ,.`'�. 't � ° - - • - • f i p �,�t� _ i � ' �:: tl - :I �' J � ''i d 4 �' a� !I� � I a '�F�a� Y �5�3�Q . 2 = ,a,' : ' , : � c d i ' ' cf� �• : � � 6 s� � � e�`l 2; ' �! Fs= Ei f � � � s s 7€ ia� � � = � 8m� y - ; ; $ - rsr i � i � � t �g g$g F i A � I � . �T a' Y_ s € � j.� b� � - ' � G ��F � e � � C�§ i€%$= � i ��' a s a i � Y 3 : � :�i� _ � �� I Z �_ .f .f � j - o � � ��' i 1 t ;: � � £� gF � I j: # ia i" � d t �� g � � .� i j . `j� _ �y g a a � � � E� �p � �� p� i a `�� i I t Y a t- � � � � ` oY ' ' y �. �= 1 � � � � a� � � � 1 � ' ..lac s s Se" .�s ti �Y � i � i: . I ' ��a' a� ; ; � , s _.e , ; t 8 : a�a F . i �«• Y� � � e b` r' � / ' ��...� Q] �L�i gi g p t'� a i�. I�. ta • x � 1 1 :�� . � --, ' ' o-�_ �4� � � , ; . . �F a a r i _ „ , 6 _ � I . . . _z�_—_= m�-° � _ � � �s1�og ' � b a =' s Y � � !I� j: : -_ - — ----#�----- ;1 � . s� B : " dd :�` , x< �� efr P�e �k 6� � Y7 �'d ; i_i : j . ` '-� � � ,� � � 17:04 �� ° �rr - � � �_. � �,: � ;. ; � � , ' " � I i j , __— , ij' Pa I S� e i q �I . 8r i��' a I �� 9� a y' �Lf f� � i _ _ ,' jJ �; -�� 1 __- � . � _ " ! .. �,f - � � I _L_ �� IS �� ; j i 'f� � , __."' ' � I ., . . . I I 1 � '� -�� _'� �� . � i _ �i� Er � z' -- � �' �I �I � II i ; I Q i � � ir f � � � i_� � 3 �' v�f;�l <g :a`ear � iS$_c � � I � .'c'..« J � :n I r � aYe ( � �p� I � ��i ; � � � I 1 � t � �-.w.«....-. sf_6= f { �� \ �� ! ' �\ . � 8 S� •. �� . • ��i � . �� : � �� '� �i ■ I \ i�� ■. ti.:� �i� r�� , ::� � -1-N -.5 NNA r � � SECTION XVII TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 16 {LINN PROJECT) Subsection 17.1. Statement of Ob�ectives_ See Section I, Subsection 1.5. Statement of Objectives: Subsec�ion 17_2_ tfodiried Redevelopmen� Plan_ S�e �ectio:: I , S�.�bsact ions __ _ :? . �:-.�-ough 1 _ 15 . — . Subsection 17_3_ Parcels to be Included_ The boundaries of Tax Ir.crement rinancing District No. 16 are descri�ed on �i�� dC:;.�,1 F�tii�i� --��-_-�_ -�?�C _�lUS�2��?� O!: ��-�'�^�-- •-----_ SUbsection � 7. �. ?arcels in ACC1I.11S1t10::. `I':?�? ,.u��:o,-; �v mtiv TJUb� 1C'" �CQU1�"° d:�^ '_".,^O.1V2y dT?V Or Gl 1 'JL �:�a -��- ,. - � _ - Tj�r.�i2TT':°_.` i i :!�`.�'_- _ ��= S`� _ _�.. ?`JO � � 1C�?i1t 1 _ _°_ ,. �.. . _ �__ � ___- -� E>chibi� YVI � -._. T�-:e �ollo�:��z�g �r� condi�ions under urhic�n ��c;��,-'�; ,_s : �_ des_g:_��ec �o be :c�u�=�d �_,av �� accui�eu a� ._ ��_�_� _ _�._- . (-) The Ci�v may accruire property by gi=t, ded�cation, condemr.ation or direc� purchase irom willing sellers ir. order to achieve the objectives of the Tax Increment Financing Plan; and (2) Such acquisition will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 1?.5. Development �ctivitv for which Contracts have been Sianed. As of the date of adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, the City intends to enter into a D�velopment Agreement with Linn Property Holdings, L. L. C. for the activities discussed below. Subsection 17.6. Specific Development Expected to Occur. At this time it is anticipated that the rehabilitation of the existing 8,640 square foot Dick's Tire facility with an estimated market value of $432,000, and the construction of an approximate 7,980 square foot retail center with an estimated market vaiue of $518,700 will occur in 1997_ Subsection 17.7. Prior Planned Improvements_ The Authority shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of district e��largement with a listing of all properties within Tax Increment Financing District No. 16 for wh.ich building permits have been issued.during the eighteen {18) months immediately preceding 17 - 1 �`17:05 u approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan by the Authority. The county Auditor shall increase the original tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 16 by the tax capacity of each improvement for which the building permit was issued. If said listing does not accompany the aforementioned request oi notice, the absence of such listing shall indicate to the Countv Auditor that no building permits were issued in the eighteen (i8) months prior to the Authority's approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan_ Subsection 17_8. Fiscal Dispa�-�ties. Th� Counc�l ?�r�: el�cts the method of ta}: increment compu�ation'se , 1`�` �v ffinnesota Statut�s, Section 4 � i t io�t,1 in and when comme 1/industrial9developmentJOCCUrs3o;ithaTax {a� ii Increment Financing District No. 16. Subse�tion 1"7.9. �stimated Pubiic estimated costs associate =��"ovement Costs_ �,� d with Redeveloti:;�ent Pr ; P iisted in Sect_or �, Subs�c� _ _o��ct No. � are ior � � _ - µ='-�� _ _ _ � - Subsection 17.1 y ` 0 . Estimated �:,,oun� �� o��ded ` is anticipa�ed that $450, 000 oi bo;�deu ; 1 P �'�d��`-�d�'as� incurred with respect to ndeb�`dness coulct be �'o � this portic_� oi �`aeveiopment PrO��C*" • Pursuant to Ni*��eso�a S� r c �d ��5 �.�-. - 45G , .� Ll:� � i J � S i v Z � �� .� � r ' ----� � l. .'�� J � '_ .^, - ��._2_�i O�� 1gG".OP. I � - ' �- , as required to amortize �l' `11�."`;'a�=` 3onds ma1J �` �„ the costs identi�, e '4'�'=" Subsections 1.9 and 1.�0. The Cit ,- r d ir_ Section r, all or part of the activities listed ineSectionPIr1Subsections r g P Y to_ 1•9. and 1.10. relating to Redevelopment Project No_ 1 as tax increments are generated and become available: Subsection 17.11. So_ ur�eS of Rev�e_ The costs outlined in Section I, Subsection 1.9. will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments. Subsection 17.12. Estimated Oriqrinal and Ca tured Tax Capacities_ The tax capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 16, as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota on January 2, 1996, is estimated to be $19,610. The estimated captured tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 16 upon completion of the proposed improvements on January 2, 199g is estimated to be $24,122. Subsection 17.13_ Tax Increment. Tax increment has been calculated at approximately $2g,5p4 upon completion of the improvements assuming a static tax capacity rate and a valuation increase of zero percent (Oo) compounded annually. Subsection 17.14. Tax Ca acit Rate. The estimated 1996/1997 total tax capacity �ate is estimated at 118.1680. 17 - 2 I y 7.06� Subsection 17.15_ Type of Tax Increment Financina District. Tax Increment Financing District No. 16 is, pursuant to Minnesota Sta-_ tutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a Redevelopment District. Subsection 17.16. Dur__at�on ol Ta�: Increment Financ�na District. The duration of Tax Zncrement Financing District No. 1� is expected to be twenty five (2�) years from receipt of the first tax increment_ The date of receipt of the first ta� � ncremen� is �stimat�d to i�,= �� - loo � ��9. Tnus, it is �stimatec ��a� Tar �nc�-ement Financing L�s�rict No. 16, including anv modifica�io::s �or subsequer.t :� :a�-.- ��S O� O�11�.�Y- .,:':�i1CJ�S, �:�011�Ci �e_�minate in �: e year 2024 . � Subsection 17_17. Estima�aci rmpact on Other ��, -, �l?"1SG�1C�� OT?� `j' A a `' �,'1..Cr ssumes h_ s�;;a �ed �ac �:-� o� ti,�,- r.}.� ng J�' - a1� ;: - cons��;,;�tion c,Tould na�_ a u �. -`==- "I'ax ?ncre. � . oc ur�-�d witnout t:!e c�e�.�ion c� �rent ��nancing D�s�.r��- No. 15. r� � � r�qul ` Vr . �- i L�'iE COi7SL?"U^'�l - � �-i- iI7C� c_.iil?_^_; i •� = Oil __. — �1� .�'.. � -, - 'i;, -'?.. 'r ;��` _.� � �^ `�7�_ "_ ` T I ' ^ — _ ' __ _ 11:� " $ '� ,_ 1C o�'�•=�hstanulnr �_-_ � ` , �� ii3` �.I?'c� i�SCc?i 1;i.D�:C` O� i;�:= o`-`,er t�;,-iZg j ��_�-isdictions � s �� cu-` �o ��e �ac� cnat �'�e �-inancin5 woula not have occu��-�� •,i�hou� �;-�P assistanc� o� ��c `i�y, the att n d Exhib;� xpT-_ - °` �-a'`: !--�-'��'m°c��inancinc �- _- J _`"_'`c�s the estimat?d _m�a�� .S ._� .�._�. __�_ � _ �. _`� �-_ --_�°— "�-�'�... �G�" �_. Subsection 17.18. Electio^ ot Citv Contribution. The Council hereby elects a qualifying local contribution equal to five percent {5_OOo) of the tax increment generated from Tax Increment Financing District No. 16, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes 273.1399. Subsection 17.19. Modification of Tax Increment Financinc� District and or Tax Increment Financinq Plan. On April 28, 1997, no modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 16 or the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore has been made, said date being the date of initial approvai and adoption thereof by the City Council_ �FRIDLEY\TIF\TZFPLAN,DOC 17 - 3 17.07 � _ _ _. EXHIBIT XVII-A P�RCELS TO BE INCLUDED IN TAX INCREMENT FIIvTAI�TCIi`TG DISTRICT NO. 16 AS O?IGIPJAi,Li' ADOPT: D APRIL 2S, 1997 ?IN 23-3�-2:-23-0028 ?IN �J-JO-�=-:�-OC2� ?IN 2:;-;C-2�-��-0030 PIN 23-30-24-23-0031 PIN 23-30-2--23-0032 XVII-A-1 � 17.08 i : � � i -. � �� I ' � :. : :.- 1 � . i / C � � C rti , EXHII3IT XVII-B BOUNDARY A1Ar �dain ST T � `� r� _� =� = i _ � _ _ ,. � _ I � �� --� ^� �-- - � ! ?nd Stree� �;-E- _ � I � � -- � � L� = �z � = - � i - =� -- � ; `!, ± _ � - — =� � ! i i ! � -- � i � � �, � �' t�. — �� . ' _ � i � �`� i`L i`:� ;z�i ;_ � i � + i � 1 %� .-,, . ,, � -� 1� ... .�l L. �F � :�'!..�. 3rd S�reet N.E. University Avenue N.E. XV�7:09. � EXH1BlT XXVII - C ASSUMPTIONS Original Market Value Land sq. ft. Land M.V. Bldg M.V. Total M.V. 23-30-24-23-0028 5,600 � 5,400 23-30-24-23-0029 � 15,400 23-30-24-23-0030 ��,200 20,400 26,500 46,900 11,200 20,400 35,500 55,900 23-30-24-23-0031 28,000 92,400 201,000 293,400 23-30-24-23-0032 � 600 14,700 0 14,700 . -=----___ _- __ __-- ---- ___---- - bi,600 163,300 203,000 426 300 Original Tax Capacity i 99�i 1997 Tax Rate Administrative Fees Inflation P.V. Ra,e �stimated Market Value New Construction Rehabilitation rsiima:�u 'ax Capaci�y Estimated Taxes Construction Valuation Taxes Payable �IVN1 4.600% 7,980 sq. ft. @ �,6-^0 �� ; � -.oGO i 16,620 sq. ft_ @ 1997 1998 1999 , 65.00 per sq. �;. �v.V� D�i S�. ii. 3.11 per sq. t�. 17.10i i 2/01,'97 5 i 8.,C0 �J� � �, .- �.�;v�-_, , � 426,300 19,51n ' .' 81680 10.000% 0.000°!� 8. SCC �� 950,7Qn 43,7� % 51,677 �xHiBi� xxv�i - c - CASH FLOW Originai Estimated Captured Estimated Less: Estimated Tax Tax Tax Tax Admin Tax Date Ca acity Capacity Capacity Increment__ _Cosis increment 06/01 /97 12/01 /97 06/01 /98 12/01 /98 06/01 /99 1 �/01 /99 06/01 /2000 12/01 /200Q 06/01/2001 12/01 /2001 06/01 /2002 12/0 i /2002 06/01 /2003 12/01 /2003 06/01/2004 12/01/2004 06/01/2C05 12/01 /2005 06/01 /200� � 2/01 /2005 06/01 /2007 12/01/2007 06/01 /2008 12/01 /2008 06J01 /2009 12/01 /2009 06/01/2010 12/01 /2010 06/01 /2011 12/01 /2019 06/01 /2012 12/01/2012 06/01 /2013 12/0'1 /209 3 06/01 /209 4 12/01 /2014 06/01 /2015 12/0'! I2015 06I01/2016 12/0 i /2016 06/01 /2017 12/01 /2017 06/01 /20'! 8 12/01 /2018 ;�11 19,610 19,610 19.610 19,610 19,610 19,610 19,610 i�,610 � 9,610 19,6i0 19.610 ;9,oiG `19,610 � °,610 i°,6 i0 19,510 1°,610 19,510 'Q 5�G � i.,,o1� 19,610 19,610 99,6�0 19,610 19,610 19,610 19,610 19.610 19.690 19,610 19.610 99,610 19,61a 99,610 19,610 3 9,610 19,610 i9,610 19,610 19,610 19,6i 0 19,fii0 19,6i 0 99,610 19,610 19,610 43,732 43,732 43, 732 43, 732 43,732 43,732 43, 732 43,732 43,732 43, 732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43, 732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43, 732 43, 732 43, 732 43,732 43, 732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43,732 43, 732 43,732 43,732 43, 732 43,732 43,732 0 0 0 0 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 ?_4,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24, 9 22 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,'122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24,122 24, i 22 17.11i 0 �j 0 p �� 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 i4,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 15,2�2 i4,252 i 4,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 94,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 �4,252 94,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 14,252 �4,252 14,252 0 0 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 i,425 ,42J i ,425 i .425 1,42� ,�2� i ,42J : ,425 � ,42� �' 2 5 i ,425 i ,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 0 0 0 12,827 12,827 12,827 9 2,827 12,827 12,HG7 12,827 i 2,827 12.827 �2,827 1 �,827 � 2,82� � 2.027 12.827 12.827 12,�27 12,827 12,827 12,827 12,827 12, 827 12,827 i 2,827 12,827 92,827 12,827 12,827 12,827 12, 827 12,827 12,827 12, 827 12,827 12,827 12,827 12,827 12,827 12,827 12,827 12,827 _ 570 099 57 0 9 0 513, 089 EXHIBIT XVII-D "BUT FOR" ANALYSIS The redeveiopment project consists of the acquisition and com�lete renovation of the er.isting "Dick's Tire" to a Goodyear Tire and Service Center. The current facility is outdated and in subs�andard condition, in need of complete renovation, including but not limited to, the renovation of the roof, floors, ceilings and electrical and mechanical systems. �-,. reta_1 cent�r �ont�r�..�oraneously, a new will be construc�ed on th` adjace::t property. ii, orde_- to do so, `wo houses will � ' b� acqu_��d �_.� u�molished and '�� G�-°� o=� �=��zse �wo lots and an adjace_�t �.c� . `� nis retail deve�opment will be congruous with the renovated tire store and ir.cr�ase the value of both developments. iil� '_`�C�a�✓�_' O�Jiil°i i. D�-O]?CL COU�C TJO`entiG! � V - .� • employment a` the pro ect site by ��l��s`� `"1�? n � riftee- to �;�-�` a 1 I aC�Cil.,_O , '�.�0:? �OT� � ?�.lOZ'_ O� �rl� Di"� a -- `� - 'v "�J CTJ °. i: .�i__ �:�c�-ea�� :�� a��tiro}:ima`e.�y $�?� �� , �._- -= : �� _-�;. '� :s�_ -, . :S°CG::S° OL Li1° SL'.JS`_d_ii.1�1 COS�.S OI dCQu'�51: 1^v� , �-�-� reco�struct�on o� �ne exis~inc ^ -�1•OV�tion and r.� i .-' . . ` i3Ci� 1LV ;'!C1 �I-h.� GCQU1S1�10?; _C'G�10P_ �-, _.=;�t0� _ 1`10:7 �O?" COP_S`'"��:C , � :^ '�; V - � :r:.�-, �1�.�'�� COil! ' P_p:.Y��"OCc°_Q . � r•=•j '-°`-�u1� 'a? tl`'-O�'-t t�1� A1�i'10Y'l�V' S�SS1S��riCe _ J_ �`�i�J?�� XVI-D-1 17.12 I EXHIBIT XVI! - E ESTIMATED IMPACT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 16 lMPACT ON TAX BASE ORIGINAL ESTIMATED CAPTURED DlSTRICT TAX T� TAX TAX AS % ---ENTITY-- __BASE----- --- ___ .CAPACITY ___ _CAPACI_TY �at?;,CJTY _ _OF__TOTAL_ City of Fridley . 27,329,921 19,610 CountyofAnoka 146,471,588 43,732 24,122 0.088% ISD #14 �9,610 43,732 24,122 0.016% ?1,514,810 19,610 43.73? ?� �22 `�� 0.209% IMPACT ON TAX RATE T� % OF TAX T,^,X Rr�TE ENTI___ TY__ RATE � Tp7-q_� lNCREMENT _INCREASE_ City of Fridiey ----- 0.15242 12.90% County of Anoka 3,677 0.013%0 1SD #14 �.30099 25.46% 7,259 0.005% �Other 0.66159 55.99% 15,959 0.139% 0.06676 5.65% � �g� p 1.18168 100.00% 28,504 Assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of a Tax increment Financing District If construction is a result of Tax Increment Financing, the impact is $0. 17.13�. _INN f Xv�� . _, AS MODIFIED APRIL 28, 1997 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. lb (LINN PROJECT) Acquisition and Relocation Demolition Site Preparation Administration Total �aximum Estimated Bonded Indebtedness * $270, 000 $ 25,000 $ 2�,000 � 55 , 000 $375,000 S45o,o00 * This amount includes capitalized interest �� an ,�;:�;��,�n� ��;=L; ;,,� to pay interest on the bonds rrom the date o� issue ;:n�.il �.r.e da�e� of collection of sufficient tax increment revenues to meet scheduled interest payments when due. 1 - 21 I y7.y4 I DATE: Aprii 8, 1997 MEMUR.A,NDUM PLANNING DIVISION TO: Wiliiam W. Burns, City Manager � � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant RE: Recommendations for the Industrial Land Moratorium fNTRODUCTION On January 27, 1997 the City Council established a moratoriam on warehouse facili#ies with more than ten (10) docks. The moratorium would allow time #o: 9. Examine the industrially zoned properties and determine compatibility of the warehouse facilities with surrounding'uses. 2. Review the number and location of existing warehouse and distribution facitities to determine if the zoning on remaining vacant land should be � amended or changed to another zoning classification. : PROBLEM Over the course of the last 18 months, the City has experienced 500,000 square feet of industrial warehouse development. With that development has also come � an increase in occurrence of trucks traveling through neighborhoods, idling near homes, and an increase of additional noise and fumes. As you might anticipate, complaint calls from residents have increased due to impacts of these developments. � Another impact from this type of development is the unsightliness of overhead doors/dock doors, trucks, and industrial implements facing residential properties. Comer lots are also problematic because, in some cases, the industrial site faces two residential areas. GOALS OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS An ordinance to address these impacts should meet the following goals: � �8.� � I William W. Bums April 8 1997 PAGE 2 1. Reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties by: • Controlling their location in the City {rezone sites); and • Through implementation of site design controls (amend existing zoning language). 2. Encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities and which require more complex building systems (buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher construction values and less loading docks than warehouse construction). 3. Promote "clean" uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which may cause noise. 4. Eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage, display, or are already permitted in other zoning districts (i.e. repair garages are permitted in commercial districts) SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS In order to meet these goals, two amendments are proposed: 1. Amend the existing industrial zoning districts M-1, M-2, & M-3 to prohibit loading docks fiacing the public right of way on comer lots, located across from residential uses.. 2. Establish a new industrial district entitled "M-4, Manufacturing Only", and rezone some of the remaining vacant sites to an M-4 district designation to encourage manufacturing uses. ANALYSIS All vacant industrial parcels where evaluated using the following 4 criteria: � Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a residential use? • Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M-4 zoning district? • Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility in excess of 10 loading docks? • Is there a distribution warehouse facility already in the area? y $.�2 � � Wiliiam W. Bums April 8 1997 PAGE 3 If the answer to any of these ques#ions was "yes", the land was proposed for M-4 consideration. Seven properties were discussed by the Planning Commission. An eighth property was erroneously omitted, but should be included with the properties considered for M-4, "Manufacturing Only" zoning. The eighth property is owned by Coachman Companies and is located at 100 Osborne Road, NE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the loading dock revision on corner lots facing residentiai areas in the M-1, Light Industrial, M-2, Heavy Industrial, and M-3, Outdoor Intensive Industrial districts. This revision states, "On corner lots across from a residential district, no loading docks shall face the . public right-of-way". The Commission also recommended the addition of an M-4, Manufacturing Only, district. The M-4 district language has been attached for your review. The Commission recommended that staff prepare the appropriate legal notices for consideration of rezoning of affec#ed properties. If the City Council concurs with the M-4 classification, the Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on all properties being considered on May 7, 1997 and City Council will hear these items on May 99, 1997. First reading of the specific zoning amendments to those properties will occur on May 19, 1997. The moratorium can be extended 30 to 60 days to complete second reading of the land use designa#ions on the selected properties. COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends the Council conduct the public hearing on the ordinance � amendments. First reading of the amendments would occur on April 28, 1997 18.03 ! Amendment Options Advantages and Disadvantages i 18.04 I Area One EXISTING POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF WHO IS WAREHOUSE OR EXPANSION VACANT LAND IMPACTED BY DISTRIBUTION OPPORTUNITY ON ADJACENT TO THE FACILITY? FACILITIES SiTE FACILITY Murphy No 7.11 acres north of Residential Warehouses 1&2 facility. properties across 177,950 & 266,000 the street. No square feet docks face street. Tri-Star Insulation No None Residential property 40,000 square feet across the street. (proposed) No docKs face street. API Supply No None Residential property 140,238 square feet across the street. All-Temp Minor None Residential propertjr 344,000 square feet across the street. Perlman-Rocque No None None 104,000 square feet Quebecor Minor None None 175,800 square feet Barole Trucking Currently under 2.7 acres None 26,280 square feet expansion to stated square feet. Bunzl No None None 100,800 square feet There are 27.61 acres of vacant industrial land remaining in Area One. 18.05 Area Two EXISTING POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF WHO IS WAREHOUSE OR EXPANSION VACANT LAND IMPACTED BY DISTRIBUTION OPPORTUNITY ON ADJACENT TO THE FACILITY? FACILITIES SITE FACILITY Target No None Residential property 1,065,094 square across the street. feet ATS Yes 3.81 acres to the Residentia) property 5,600 square feet north. across the street. Keuther No None Locke Park 54,731 square feet PenZoil No None None 42,186 square feet Fridiey Bus Minor 3.81 acres to the None 22,625 square feet east. There are 21.6 acres of vacant industrial land remaining in Area Two. Area Three EXISTING POSSiBLE AMOUNT OF WHO IS WAREHOUSE OR EXPANSION VACANT LAND IMPACTED BY DISTRIBUTION OPPORTUNITY ON ADJACENT TO THE FACILITY? FACILITIES SITE FACILITY ANR/CCC No 6 acres to the north None 64,560 square feet Joseph Land Yes, substantial. 6 acres to the east. None 16,140 square feet Lindstrom Metric No 1.63 acres to the Residential and 35,000 square feet north. park property across the street. Gazda No 3.67 acres to the None 103,000 square feet west. There are 34.6 acres of vacant industrial land remaining in Area Three. � 8.�6 � Vacant Commercial and Industriai Property Inventory Property lnformation ��.r;�_ ; -. - Owner: Northco Reai Estate Services 4900 Viking Drive Edina, MN 55435 Dennis Zylla: 820-1650 P i N : 11=30-24-31-0010 '` �ea: 95,832 Sq. Ft./2.2 Ac. IViarke# Value: $143,700 (1995) Zon�ng: M-2, Heavy Industrial 18.07' N „ Vacant Commerciat and tndustrial Property Inventory Property Information �� 1�`�' Owner: McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. 7350 Commerce Lane Fridley, MN 55432 John Prichard: 574-2222 P I N: 10-30-24-14-0058 & 11-30-24-23-0025 :� rea: 177,790 Sq. Ft./6.3 Ac. IVlarket Value: $262,400 (� 995) Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial 18.08 � , , Vacant �ommercial and lndustrial Property Inventory Property information " 1 �,�. . . � , Owner: Kurt Manufacturing 5280 Main Street Fridley, MN 55432 St. Paui, MN 55101 N P I N : 12-30-24-2'1-0007 � ,!' rea: 251,74Q Sq. Ft./5.77 Ac. Market Value: $224,100 (� ga�� Zoning: M-'i, Light Industrial 18.09;� ,� Vacant Commercial and Industrial Property Inventory Property Information wf-� :��:� Owner: Fridley Cheverolet Geo 1578 University Avenue S#. Paul, MN 55104 � P I N : 12-30-24=21-0005 /' �ea: 139,400 Sq. Ft./3.2 Ac. Market Value: $124,400 (199�� Zoning: N1-1, Light industrial yg,yp ; __ � � .� �, C 24 1/acant Comrr,ercial and Industrial Property Inventory Property Information w.:�;;'� �. Owner: RRI Inc. 820 38th Lane Anoka, MN 55303 421-6046 P I N : 3-30-24-13-0016 ^ rea: 71,000 Sq. Ft./� .63 Ac. �vlarket Value: $71,000 (1995) Zoning: M-� , Light Industriai yg. y 1 Property has railroad access. N ii Vacant Commerciai and industriaf Property Inventory Property Information Owner: Anderson Trucking Co. 203 Cooper Ave P.O. Box '1377� St. Cloud, MN 56301 N P I N: 12-30-24 21-002 8 !` rea: 166,089 Sq. FtJ3.8'i Ac: �v�arket Value: $21 '! ,800� (1995) Zoning: M-1, Light lndustrial � . 18.12 27 . Vacant Commercial and lndustriat Property Invento rY Property Inforrnation Owner: Commercial Property investment 2685 Long Lake Road � Roseviile, MN 55113 . N PIN: 22-30-24-11-00�8,0007,0006 " Vea: See Map Above Market Value: $146,200; `l64,600; '150,000 t'1995 Zoning: M-2, Heav lndus ' ' � y tria 18.13 _ , � PUBLIC HEARING BfiFORE THE PLANNING CONIl�IISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 iJniversity Avenue N.E_ on Wednesday, March 19, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCS RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLSD "ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.OS.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.OS.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MANUFACTIIRING ONLY), AND REN[TMBERING CONSECIITIVE SECTIONS 205.17 M-1, Light Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right of way. (c) On corner lots across from a esid ntial district, no l9adina docks shall face he public right of way 205.18 M-2, Heavy Industrial District Regulation 5. Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right of way. (c) On corner lo � a ro f om a r Gid nt-ial district, no loadina dock hall fa � the public right of way 18.14 e 205.19 M-3, Outdoor Intensive, Heavy Industrial District Regulation 5_ Parking Requirements D. Design Requirements (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks shall be located in the rear or side yard and be properly screened_ (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right of way. (c) On corner lots across from a residential district, no loadinq docks shall face the public right of way. 205.20 M-4, MANIIFACTIIRING ONLY DISTRICT RSGIILATIONS 1. USgS PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in M-4 Districts: Manu�acturing uses which will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity and will not impair the use or value of any nroperty, but not including any uses excluded hereinafter. B. Accessory Uses. - • . �. - - • � - � � � (1) Off-street parking facilities. (2) Off-street loading facilities. (3) Business signs for uses �ermitted. �4) Retail sales or servicing of products manufactured. 15) Offices associated with the principal use. 15) Warehousing or distribution activities associated with a principal use.: (7) Solar energy devices as an integral part of the principal structure. 18.15 C. Uses Permitted With.A Special Use Permit. �- . . _�. - - .-�_ -. � .- - -��t. � Radio transmitters and microwave towers. (2) Storage of materials, equipment, or motor vehicles. incidental t� the principal operation of the use except under the following conditions: (a) Motor vehicle storage is conducted as provided in Section 205.20.07.D.(5).; (b) Materials, motor vehicles and equipment are keot in a building or are fullv screened so as not to be visible from: (1) a residential use or district adjacent to the use or (ii) a residential use or distr.ict across a public right- of-way from the use, or (iii)a public park adjacent to the use, or (iv) a public right-of-way adjacent to the use. (c) Materials motor vehicles and equipment stored outside do not exceed fifteen (15) feet in hei9ht; (d) Screening materials are provided as in Section 205.17.06.G.(1).(al. - . - � -. . - - . - -. . -•�_ -. _. -_ . - ._- ..- - _ . -.a -. ! �-__- � -�-�_ . . . _�- �s-- �- _�._ . -.t -. . . �{- - - -. _ � - . � � - • . � �.. .�. - . . - . - �_ . ._ - -.t- - - - ._ . . ._ . __ s. _. . -- . - .- - .� .. _. - . - . - . . . . - . _.. . . . . . . .-. . �- 2. IISSS SXCLIID33D __� - . -. . - . -. . . � • � - . - .- . -. �.- - - su -. . �- • - - .-. � B Uses wh�ch may be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity thereof or to the ggneral 18.16 - - . u- �- �- - - . u,- . - . . ..- s • - su � - D Uses whose principal operation re�uires the outdoor storage of materials, motor vehicles, or eq�pment, including the outdoor manipulation of said materials, motor vehicles, or equipment. 3. LOT RSOIIIREMSNTS AND SETBACRS A. Lot Area. A lot area of not less than one and one half (1-1/2) acres is required for one (1) main building. B. Lot Width. A lot width of l00 feet is re�uired at the required front setback C. Lot CoveraQe. (1) The maximum gercent of the area of a lot allowed to be covered bv the main building and all accessory buildings is as follows: (a) One (1) Story - forty oercent (40�) maximum: fifty percent (50�) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (b) Two (2) Story - thirty-five percent (35�) maximum; forty- five percent (45�) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. �_-- .� �_ .- - ��. . .- - • �•. � . .- - .- . . .-. __�. .-_. � • s � ' t ' f' - � lt c., . il _ � . . - � " _ ". _1. ! - � ' ' 1 - Sli._ .. � •' _ • - - • � - } � ' ' � '. ll .. 11 • - _ - 1 '. � . • - - � - • • • ' • • - • • � - ' ! • - - � ' �_ - � ' - .� • - - � - lS _ _ � • - • . � - _ • • - • • - - • - • ' • • �_" • � . . � - • }.- • • � . � • - .} � • � ' � = � . ' ' �L _ lf - } ' • ' . ( • � • � .. ❑ • • ' • � • ' ' - " it • • - - (3) The lot coverage may be reduced by the City if and when there is grovision for underground parking within the main 18.17 _ - . . .-. - . . - - _,_ . .- . - . .- -. •�'. (4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above may be increased un to a maximum of ten percent {10�) of the lot area upon obtaining a special use permit In addition to the requirements of this Section and the factors identified in Section 205 05 04 to evaluate special use permit reguests the City shall consider �h� following factors in determining the effect of the increase in lot coverage: �a) The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met, including but not limited to parkina, storm water management and landscaping D. Setbacks. (1) Front Yard- A front yard depth of not less than thirty-five (35) feet is required for all �ermitted buildings and uses f2) Side Yard• Two (2) side yards are required each with a width of not less than fifteen (15) feet except: (a) Where a driveway is to be provided in the side yard the minimum rerxuired side yard increases to thirty (30) feet. (bl Where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot the side yard re�uirement increases to a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet. (c) No side yard is rerxuired where a common wall is provided between two t2) buildings which meet the requirements of �he Building Code. - _ . A rear yard depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet is r�quired with an additional one (1) foot of rear yard depth for each four (4lfeet of building height over thirty-five (35) feet •.. .� - . . - .. Whenever any industrial district is adjacent to or adjoins any other district permitted buildings and uses except automobile parkinq and loading��naces driveways essential services walks and planting spaces shall not be: {a) Closer to a street right-of-wav line ab�tr�ng a residential district than 100 feet. 18.18' (b) C1o�Pr to the al� y right-of-way line than forty (40) Pr. 1_c) Closer to the boundarv �ne of anv other distric th thirtv-five (35) feet. (d) Closer to the boundary line of a residential use or district than fifty (50) feet 4. BIIILDING RSOIIIR$MSNTS A. Height. Buildina heiaht shall be a maximum of six (6) stories not exceeding sixtv-five (65) fe provided that no building shail be erected to a heiQht exceeding forty-five (45) feet within fifty (50) feet of anX R-1 or R-2 residential use or district unless one (1) additional foot of setback can be Arovided for each one (1) foot of building height or portion thereof exceeding forty-five (45) feet B. Exterior Materials. The twe of building materials used on exterior walls shall be face brick, natural stone. specifically desiQned precast concrete factorX fabricated and finished metal frame paneling glass or other materials a�proved by the Citv 5. PARKING REOIIIREMENTS A. Reduction Of Parkina. Reduction of parking stalls may be allowed when he provision of space reauired for aarking stalls due to hP particular na e of the proposed use or other considerations would be an unn cessary hardshi�. Adecfuate open space shall be provided to sati fy the total numb r of re�uired parking stalls B. Additionai Parking. When the provis�ons for parking snace rP�;rP3 for sn �f;� d' r;�t uses is inadeQUate the City may rgcruire that additional off treet parking�provided. C. Parking Ra io. I1) For office use at leas one (1) off street parking�pace shall �provided for each 250 Sf�arP feet of office sg��e use. (2) For ret�il us at 1 ast on (1) off street parking space shall be nrovided for ach 150 srruarP feet of reta�l space use (3) For manufacr»r;ng use at leaGr one (1) off street par ina sAac� shall be provided for each 400 rn�arP feet of manufacturing space use. 18.19'.� • _ - . _ - . . _.- - - . - _ . �. _ �• •_ ' _ �. •- � • • -• _ • ' 1/1 ��--' - - - • •. - - (5) For s�eculative building use at least on (1) off str P+- parking sDace shall be Drovid d for ach 500 sguare fe t of loor area on lots of more than one and one-half (1-1/2) acres. (6) For s�ec�lar;�P b;lr�;ng use a 1 aGr one (1) off street parkincr �n�ce shall be Drovided for each 700 square feet of floor area on lots of less than one one half (1 1/2) acres 7 The speculative parkina ratio will be used for all mixed uses unless the own r acrrees to enter into a written agreement in recordable form with the Cit in which the owner r resents to the City what the ratio of all uses in the building will be. Upon this hapnenincr the Aarkincr ratio for the building will be determined on a ro-rata basis b h arkin ra i er the number of scruare feet for each tvne of use which the owner represents will be located in the building After execution of this agreement anv chaneres to the specified uses will require a special use permit from the Ci� 8 At least one (1) handicap off st eet parking space shall be rovided for ach fift 50 s aces or fraction thereof. D. Design Requirements: 11) DrainaQ : All drivewavs and Darkina areas except those for 1 G than four (4) vehi-�P. shall be crraded ac��•- ing to a drainag�Dlan which h�s been approved by h itv. f2) Ligh �na: � •� :• -. . n_�. - _� •_ -- ._ . - _ -. �. •- _�-• • • __-. . - - - . - - - • - _• • . •.- . (3) Curb�na: - - - .- _i - - . .. - - - • - - -_ . . . - - • - - �- •-• �• - �- - . . - _ - . - _ . - 1 . . - - ' • ' • - • � • - • _ . } } � • � • } ' ' • ' . � • • ' ._ •. �• - �- •' '�l_ '� __• .�• ' � • • _ _ . } • . � � _ • � ' . � • - � � - • • ' �- - - -� - -�� -• • _ - � �- - � �. _ 1.- t - _ t • • . • • • - • •� - ) - A I ■ V�LO I ...... ... I • _ � ' - - lil � • .1. • f(1)) Where the parking lot directly abuts a sidewalk which is sufficiently higher than the qrade of the parkincl lot and satisfies the curbing reauirements ((2)) Where the City has approved future expansion . _�4) Driveway Requirements: 1a) A maximum driveway width of thirty-two (32) feet at the curb opening excluding the entrance radii can be �onstructed. (b1 The Darking aisle shall be a minimum of twentv-five (25) feet in width for two-way traffic and eighteen (18) feet in width for one-way traffic (c) The edcre of the curb opening shall not be closer to the nearest Aortion of a street right-of-way intersection than seventv-five (75) feet or two-thirds (2/3) of the lot width whichever is smaller. 1d) Where a"T" intersection exists a drive may be located oubosite the end of the intercepted street (e) The minimum driveway anale ta the street shall be sixt.y (60) degrees. (5) Al1 parking and hard surface areas shall be � . . - -� � -- . -- . . • . _._- ._� - -- ., ,a .- . �- - -. - � - • ��.1 • �. • - _ � • • - • • } - _ • • __ � • • � - • ! ' _1 ! � - .,• • - . t- ! - -- •{� . � - • - ! " � . • - • - - - - � - ' • _ _ • ' �. - - • • - ' ' - • • • - . � - - - • - � • • • - _ •' • 1 _ .� _fl � _. . - - . • • ' q � _ _ • } � -. - _ �.• ' ' • • _ • • � • �� y��r_ar•rr.r■ r � rT.rz==a-��-rwrTSS�rsr:n r� ______'_ _ _ _�_ _�_ _ _ ��zr��s�s�K�ii1�:ZS:iti � • • • ' � • � ' _ ' � ' • • � - • - - • � • � • • • • • • 18.21 . �-�� . - • . s• - - •.• • • _� •_ • • --• • • • • - � • • � (c) On corner lots across from a resid ntial us or district, no loadinQ docks shall face the public right of way (7) Off-street narkinQ shall be provided for all vehicles concerned with any use on the lot. (8) Parkin4 lots with more than four (4) parking stalls shall be stribed. (9) Sufficient concrete area may be required for motorcycle �arkinQ in addition to the required vehicle parking stalls. (10)Bike racks mav be required bv the City in an area that is convenient to each ma'or buildin entrance and will not disru t pedestrian or vehicular traffic or fire lanes. (11)Safetv sicrns markings and traffic control devices may be re�uired to nromote vehicular and pedestrian safety. �2)Parkina stalls mav be nine l9) feet in width for manufacturing uses, warehouse and storaae uses speculative industrial buildinas, and barkinq lots for long term emplovee barkins. 1Ref. Ord. 952 960) 6. LANDSCAPE RPsOIIIRSMENTS A. Sc�e. All open areas of anv site except for areas used for parking drivewavs, or s oracre shall be land aped and incorporated in a landscape plan �) All new develo�ments re �iring a bu�lding p�rmit shall omDlv with the iETll YPmAn?'S Of th] S r'ti n. � ■ • • - - - �sui t��.riR��}lS�S3�t��11L��_� � _ _ - • • - • • ' • - • • • . • • - (a) At the time of a building expansion or alteration whi h dictates the nece sity for additional parking or hardsurface areas in excess of four (4) stalls. (b) Buildincr alt ra ��n wh� dic atP a hang� in use such that the Dark�nQ area mu�t be expanded in excPss of fo r (4) stalls. • . �ssm.a.s•l�.f-� (d) Construction of new parking area 'n xcPCs of four (4) s 1 . 1$.22 � _ • � - • • - - - • • - • - • _ � � - • � _ � - • ' - _ � - • • - � . • - ' - • ' • 4 The reruirements of this section shall not be required for buildina alterations which do not affect the exterior portions of the site. B. Bonding Requirement The_Citv shall retain a performance bond cash or letter of credit, as rernzired in Section 205 OS 06 A(3) of the zoning code for one qrowina season after the installation of landscape materials is completed. C. Plan Submission and Approval. 11) A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved bv the Citv Arior to issuance of a buildinc�permit or prior to approval of outside imorovements not related to bu'lding improvements. A_plan shall not be required for routine replacement of existina materials or the installation of new materials when not associated with a building project. (2) The followinQ items shall appear on the landscape plan: (a) General ((1)) Name and add ess of owner/d veloper 1_(2)) Name and address of architec /designer ((3)) Date of Dlan preparation ((4)) Dates and de ri8tion of all revisions 1( 5)) Name of proj��r or deve] o�me*+t ((6)) Scale of pl�n (eng�nPPr;ng sca�e only) at no �mal�er than 1 inch e a�� 50 fe _((7)) North point ind�ca*�on • _a. ..- �. _. .. .- - ---- — -- - - � - sliaa_�!aer�si:o i � 3 ) ) .Sj�Ii hA14 ((b)) Ouan iri ((c)) Common nam � L(d)) Botanical name 18.23 � - - • � _ � tt - - _ � - • � . �_ • (tf)) Root specification (B R B& B potted etc ) ((g)) Special planting instructions 1(2)) Existing tree and shrubbery, locations common n�mes and approximate size ((3)) Planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crown diameter, or spread for local hardiness zone) ((4)) Typical sections in detail of fences tie walls, planter boxes, tot lots picnic areas berms and other similar features. ((5)) Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. ((6)) Details of planting beds and foundation plantings. ((7)) Note indicating how disturbed soil areas will be restored through the use of sodding seeding or other techniques. ((8)) Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with total areas provided in square feet and s_�ope information. ((9)) Coverage p�an for underground irrigation system, if any. ((i0)) Statement or symbols to describe exrPrinr lighting plan concent. .- .,• .� - - . ..- . _� _.- - - -. . . . .- -.� -. -- • _. - . - •• . • .�- - • - • �- •- . • .-. . . - - . _. -� . •�- - • • • •�- - - • - �. . . . _�• -- �. - � s .�_�. y. - �- � •�- • � u - � .- . . . • • • -• (1) Grass and ground cover. (a) Ground cover sha11 be planted in such a manner as to 1�.24� present a finishe� g8p�aranrA and reasonab] comnlefiP �overaae w�thin twelve (i�� mon � a P� p an i q W;rh DrOD2r erOS10II COII r�l dir��ng alant eS gbliahmant 8er;�. ExceDtion to th�G i ndiat,�rhP arpa COII aining natLral veaetation which can be main ained fr e of foreign and noxious materials �) AcceDted around covers are sod seed or other organic material. The uGP of rock and bark mul h hall b limit d to areas around other veQetation fi e shrubs) and shall be contained by edging. (2) Trees �a) Over-story Deciduous �(1>) A woodv plant which at maturity is thirty f30) feet or more in heiaht, with a single trunk un branched for several feet above the around having a defined crown which looses leaves annuallv. (�2)) Such trees shall have a 2 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. (b) Ornamental. f(1)) A woodv nlant which at maturity is less than �hirtv (30) fee in h�ght with a single tr�nx �r,- branched for several f r above th g o md, h�vina a define� crown whir� loosp� leav G ann—uallv• 1�211 Such tr hal� have a 1 1/2 in ca�iper mi imum a plan in�, .� - . L_ ... . .� �- � �- - � -- . ,,. - � �- .� � - +� • - � � - . . �- . �. - s • • _ . • - • } � - • - iit � . � • � • � • - • - - • • ((21 ) St�h tYPPF! �t,ai � be six (6) Pr in h�gh at plantina. .. . .- . ._ ._ - - --� . .� „- - � . � _ - --� -- � �- ., . - _ , - .- -. . - - �' •�u- •� • �-..-c � �- - �. -- - • • ._�• 11 _ �..IS lt : . ��. •- - - _!I- • • _ � �• � • - �-ze:s�i�i-�r7S_l��.�Zc��SSliI��iTT�G�� 18.25 inches tall. 1(2)) Deciduous shrubs shall be twenty-four (24) inches tall except as in Section D below. ((3)) Evergreen shrubs shall be of the eighteen (181 inch classification. (4) Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting and are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. (5) Slopes and Berms. (a) Final sloDe Qrades steeper than 3:1 will not be permitted without special approval or treatment such as terracing or retaininq walls. (b) Earth berm screening parking lots and other open areas shall not have slopes exceeding 3:1. A minimum three (3) foot berm is required. E. Perimeter Landscaping; Standards. �1) In order to achieve landscaping which is appropriate in scale with the size of a building and site, the minimum standards a�nlv: (a) One (1) tree for everv one thousand (1 000) square feet of total building floor area or one (1) tr�e for every fifty (50) feet of site perimeter whichever is greater A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the trees rerxuired will be coniferous. (b) Two (2) ornamental trees can be substitutPd for ev ey one (1) over-storv deciduous shade tree In no case shall ornamental trees exceed fifty (50) percent of the rec�uired �umber of trees. (c) Parking and driving areas between the building and frontage street shall be screened in the following manner: ((1)) A continuous mass of plant materials• minimum Q� three (3) feet in height at time of planting• or • _ s _• - .-,� � ..- . . - - �-� • u . �_-- -- � -_ . 3)) A c�mbination of earth berms and plant materials �uch that a minimum of three t3) feet o continuoLS screening is achieved. F Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Standards 18.26 � (1) All narkina are�s conta�n�ng over one hundrP (innl sta�lc �hall incl,��P un8aved. lands-a ��.is�an� p ____s tha ar aGryna�� distri ut d throughout the nark�,ng area to break up the ex�anses of naved ar as Landscaoed islands shall be r vided everv two hundr d fif y(250) feet or more of uninterrupted parking stalls (2) All lands aped islands sha11 ontain a minimum of one hundred ei ht i80 s uare fe with a minimum width of five (51 feet and shall be provided with deciduous shade trees or ornamental, or everareen trees plus ground cover mulch and/or shrubberv in addition to the minimum landsca�e re�uirements of this ordinan Parking area land aping shall be contained in olanting beds bordered by a six (6) inch raised concrete curb. � Trees shall be provided at the rat of one tree for each fifteen (15) surface narkinq spaces provided or a fraction thereof. G. Screenina and Buffering Standards 1 Where the arcel a u s ark or residentiall zoned ro ert there shall be provided a landscaned buffer which shall be constructed in the followina manner: (a) A screenina fence or wall shall be constructed within a five (5) foot strip along the proper y line(s) abutting the bark or residentia�ly zoned properry Said fence or wall �hall be constrt�tP� �f d ractlV , D rmanent finished ' materials. comoatibleVwit thos us d in the principal c ure and shall be a min�mum of �x l6) feet high and a maximum of e?ght (8) f Pt high_. Chain link f nce shall hav�_ non-wooden s1a when us � for scre n�,�a pu�poses• or �b) A �1an�in� gCrePn �hall be COriSt7'LrtP 3 in a f�fte n(isl foo strin and shal� conei�r of h althy. fully har y plan mater;als and shall b d R�gned to p�ovide a minimum vear-roun ona �Pnp�s of e�ghtv (80) per�Pnt at the time Q_�maturitv. The Dlant m r;al hall be of su ficient height to achieve the rerniirP� screen�ng Planting screens shall be ma�ntained �n a nea and heal hf 1 condition D�d veae�at� on shal b promp�l3r_��laced �- - . •.�. _. . • • -.- • .- yt - �- . . _ a. . • � - .. _ - -- - _ •_ . -�- -- . .�� • -• • - - •- • -• • • ._ • - - - - '� -� • ��--� -�• -- (2�11 loadino do ks muGr be loca+-P� in the r ar or �r�P be scr??npd with a six (6) foo h�gh minimum solid screeninards and fence if vi ible from a �ublic right of way or if within hirty (30) 18.27 ` feet of a residential use or districts. (3) Al1 external loading and service.areas accessory to building� shall be completely screened from the qround level view from . contiguous residential properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. H. Credit for Large Trees The total number of required over-story trees may be reduced � one-half (1/2) tree for each new deciduous tree measuring three (3) inches or more in diameter or each new coniferous tree measuring eight �� feet or more in heiqht. In no event, however, shall the reduction be greater than twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of tre s required. I. Credit for Existing Trees The.total number of reauired new over-story trees may be reduced by the retention of existing over-story trees provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Such trees are four (4) inches or greater in caliper measured six (6) inches from soil level. (2) For each existing tree meeting the requirement, two trees as required in section D above may be deleted. (3) ProBer precautions to protect trees during develqpment shall be indicated on grading Alans submitted for plan review Such. precautions are outlined in section J These precautions shall be included in the landscape surety. �. Irrigation. Underground irrigation shall be re�u,ired to maintain all landscaped, boulevard, front and side yard areas. K. Installation. 11) The following standards shall be met when installing the reguired landscapinq: � - �. .- . -. . . . .- - . _. - - . . - . -.i_ -. --� • . . - _�• .�. .- . -. . �-, . . . _ -. . - - . . . s - . .- --�.-. . --�_�. . . - _�. .- . -. . . . .� . ...-. - .� ..- .- -. . --.-. - .- -. . . - - 18.28 �rQSion Hydro mulchinq �s acce8table. (e) Oak trees shall be s� ro� ded by snow fence or other means at the�r drip line to prevent compaction of their root systems. (f) Plantings shall not be placed so as to obstruct lines of sight at street corners and driveways. 1g) No plant materials reaching a mature height of twenty (20) feet or more shall be planted within a twenty-five (25) foot lineal Dath of the centerline of an overhead �ower line. (2) The applicant shall install all landscape materials within one year; but shall have three (3) years within which to install the required landscaping if the following minimum standards are met: �a) First �ear ((1)) All grading is completed including installation of berms. 2 The re uired irri a-ion s st m is ins lled ((3)) Areas to be seeded and/or sodded are installed ((4)} Screening for adjacent residential areas is installed if re�uired. ((5)) Twenty-five f25) percent of the rec;uired,over- s ory trees are insta>> �. -� - .- -� . - .- - - . _. . -. . - .�. - �- -��- ..- . �- .- _u- - . _. �. �__ -. ((2)) Tnterior landscaping is installed � .- - � . - - �. -.�_ -. . - . -- - �- -. �_ . - �� -�� . .. .. . .. - - _ ------- --- _ — - -- �-�-� L. Maintenance. �- . ..- . �- �_ .- - ..�_ . - . -. - - . � .-_. __ ' ' - - - - i 8.29 �lant materials are not mainta�ned or re8lace� the properti� owner sha�� have upon written notification from the City one growing season to replace said materials before the City sha11 maintain or replace said plant materials and assess the property for the costs thereof. Plant materials need not be replaced specie for specie• however in no case shall the number of plant materials be reduced from the minimum that is required by this section when replacing dead.glant materials. (2) Screen fences and walls which are in disrepair shall be repaired. 13) All vacant lots. tracts, or parcels shall be properly maintained in an orderly manner free of litter and junk (Ref Ord 960) 7. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A. Parking Facilities. All driveways, parking areas and loading docks shall be surfaced with blacktoD, concrete or other hard surface material approved by the CitX. B. Exterior Storage. The exterior storage of materials motor vehicles and equiDment shall comply with Section 205.17.O1.C.(111. (Ref Ord 995) C. Refuse. All waste materials refuse or garbage shall be contained in clo d containers as required under the chapter entitled "Waste Disposal" of the Fridley City Code. D. Screenina. 11) Screening of off-street parking shall be required for: (a) Any off-street �arking area visible from a public right-of-way. (b) Any driveway to a garking area adjoininQ a p lic right-of-way. (2) Where any industr�al district is adjacent to a nublic riqht-of-way or across from anv residential use or district the fol�owing requirements must be met: (a) There shall be-a five (5) foot sidewalk easement provided along the property line. Council may allow the applicant to delay the installation of the �i�ewalk if the applicant signs an agreement that it will be s�nstructed when the City re�uires the installation: 18.30 �:] �- - � .- -- .. . . . . -. •-�. . �- -.� -• .- . - • .� . - - . -._ .� •- --� - . . .� . . - . . ..- (3) All trash or q.arbage storage receptacles must be located in the rear or side vards and be totally screened from view from any public riqht-of-way Provisions must be taken to protect screening �rom vehicle damage. L) All raw materials supplies finished or semi-finished products and equipment not including motor vehicles shall be stored within an enclosed building or be screened on all sides from view from a public right-of-way or an adjoining property of a different district bv a fence or other approved screen which extends two (2) feet above the hiqhest item to be stored with the heiaht of the fence not to exceed eight (8) feet except where materials and equipment are being used for construction on the premises. (5) Motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use, mav be stored without screening only in the permitted rear vard area if they are not readily visible from a public right of waY, adjacent residential use or distric a resid ntial use or district across a public right of way or a public park (Ref Ord. 995 (6) All roof eauipment excent alternate energy devices must be screened from public view unless the equipment is designed as an integral part of the bu�lding and is compatible with the lines of the building as determined by the City (Ref Ord 9 0 E Drainage And Grade Reguirements ' i • • • • � • ' • - ' � • ' • • � . � � . •u . - - � - -� �.�- -- � • • -• - • • • .11. l - - � 1 The minimum elevation of finished grade shall not be less than one-fourth (1/4) inch rise per horizontal foot of setback measured from curb rade. (2) The City mav specify a minimum finished cTround grade for any �tructures in order to allow proper drainage and co�nection to City utilities. F. Maintenance. It shall be th re ponsibility of the property owner to ensure that 11) Every exterior wall foundation and roof of any building or structure shall be reasonablv wa rtight weathertight and rodentproof and shali be ]c pt in a good state of maintenance 18.31. • -�. - • •- lr !. -• -- • - - - • . � • _ • � • - • - • • - • •- - _• -• � _ ' _ • • ��• • • �- - _�_. - - • - - • • - • - (2) The protective surface on exterior walls of a building shall be maintained in good repair and provide a sufficient coverin,g and protection of the structural surface against its deterioration Without limiting the generality of this Section a protective surface of a building shall be deemed to be out of repair if: (a) More than twenty-five percent (25g) of the area of anX plane or wall on which the protective surface is paint is blistered, cracked, flaked. scaled or chalked away or _(b) More than twenty-five percent (25�) of the pointing of any brick or stone wall is loose or has fallen out. (3) Every yard and all structures walls fences walks steps, drivewavs, landscaping and other exterior develoAment shall be maintained in an attractive well kept condition. (4) The boulevard area of a premises shall be properlX maintained, qroomed and cared for by the abutting property owner. G. Essential Services. (1) Connection is re�ired on each lot served by City sanitary sewer. f2) Connection is required on each lot served by a City water line. (Ref. Ord. 960) Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item may be referred Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator at 572-3599 or Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant 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 March 12, 1997. Publish: March 6, 1997 March 13, 1997 18.32 j� � DIANE SAVAGE CHAIR PLANNING CONIl�IISSION DATE: March 28, 1997 MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION TO: Members of the Pianning Commission FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Commission Questions Regarding Modifications to the °M - Industrial" Districts Why was the Site on Ash#on Avenue included? Answer: The Ashton site is across the street from Ruth Parlc and an adjacent residential area. Why was the McGlynn's bakery site included? Answer. All vacant industrial parcels where evaluated using the following 4 standard criteria: • Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a residential use? • Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M- 4 zoning district? • Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility in excess of 10 loading docks? • Is there a distribution warehouse facility already in the area? If any of the 4 criteria were met with an affirmative response, the site was included as an M-4 candidate. The McGlynn Bakeries site could arguably fail the "across the street from a residential use" test. However, staff considered impacts to the neighborhood to the west, which are technically across the railroad tracks, ra#her than across the street, as equally detrimental to neighborhood environment. 18.33 M-4, Industriai Zoning March 28, 1997 PAGE 2 A strong component in the final determination to include this site was the recent construction of nea�ly 103,000 s.f. of industrial warehouse on Osbome Road, north of this site. Has staff had an opportunity to review the comments in the letter from the law firm of Kelly and Berens regarding the property at Main Street and 615t Avenue? Answer: Yes, staff was aware that Everest Development was contemplating development of the site at 61 S` and Main Street. In October 1996, staff met with the developer to discuss the elements o# his project. A site plan showing a basic "box" footprint with an indication that approximately 8,000 square feet of the 185,000 s.f. complex would be office. The remaining space was to be designed to accommodate 50 overhead/dock doors facing Main Street and numerous (20 or more) dock doors facing south and west on the site. Truck docking would occur primarily in the east (Main St�eet) and south yards. Attached you will find a letter dated November 5, 1996. !n that letter, staff recognized the landowner's concem over the confidentialiiy of the prospective business owner. As was done with Murphy Warehouse in 1994, it was suggested that the City Attomey tour the pro�sed tenant's facility so the plan would not be stolen. The City has every right to require as much information as needed to assure proper administration of the ordinance. Staff was not informed until December 1996 by Tim Nelson #hat they had no intention of complying with this request. It is not accurate to state that staffi "opposed the warehouse project" or was "less than candid". Specific requests for more information were made but everest declined the opportunity to provide more information. At no time was the City made aware that Everest was delaying its permit application. The City certainly did not "ask" Everest not apply. Lastly, Barbara Dacy routinely contacts all eligible property owners when major manufacturing opportunities arise. Everest holds two of the largest remaining sites #o accommodate these uses. Why is the City now subject to critique when suggesting potential development opportunities? The City is interested in viable devefopment whicfi is the most compatible with the development which suROUnds it, especially residential neighbofioods. 18.34 M-4, industrial Zoning March 28, 1997 PAGE 3 No Everest building plans were ever submitted or a permit application filed. Is it premature to move this discussion along considering the responses of both the McGlynn's and Everest representatives? Answer: This is the best time to discuss these issues. The purpose of the moratorium is to evaluate the impact of distribution facilities. The Everest site is in the same area as several other companies (AN Temp, API Supply, Murphy Warehouse). The City Attomey has agreed that it is appropriate to evaluate proper controls (i.e. location of loading docks) and to evaluate other types of zoning districts (M-4). If the Planning Commission does not agree with the staff recommendation on the McGlynn site, the Planning Commission can consider deleting the site because the residential area is on the west side of the tracks and does not "face" the development. Is the purpose of the Planning Commissions recommendation to both approve the concept and language of the "M-4, Manufacturing Only" district and approve the specific sites where M-4 is an appropriate designation? Answer: Yes. The ordinance language without simultaneous consideration of sites would only accomplish half the mission of answering the questions of what to do with our remaining industrial parcels. With the current level of market interest in developing our remaining industrial land inventory, we need to identify the appropriate sites within the time frame of the moratorium. Was the public hearing announcement clear about the issue being both M-4 ordinance language and the specific site where the zoning designation would be applied? Answer: It is true tha# the legal notice did not cite the legal descriptions of the properties affected; however the affected owners were notified. Another series of hearings can be conducted before the Planning Commission on May 7 and the City Council on May 14, with the first reading of the ordinance occurring on May 19, before the May 24, 1997 deadline. In addition the moratorium could be extended 30 days if necessary . The Anderson Trucking parcel is a corner lot, but there is not much residential in that area, is there? 18.35 M-4, Industrial Zoning March 28, 1997 PAGE 4 Answer: Across Central Avenue is a mix of C-1, Loca1 Business and R-1, Single Family Residential. It is true that the Local Business district is not single family residential, it is however a commercial land designation that was intended to provide convenient goods and services while maintaining a greater level of compatibility with residential than other more intense commercial land designation. The C-1 district is surrounded by single family residential. A small C-1 district containing 3 parcels is not believed to be a sufficient transition between the R-1, Single Family, residential use and the potential impacts of a warehouse/distribution facility. Rather than prohibiting a use through an ordinance, what about offering an incentive to get the type of development desired in those locations? Answer: Staff will recommend that those sites affected by the M-4 rezoning be considered for eligibility to receive tax increment project area assistance for their projects. Trucks parking is discussed in the ordinance, however, the type and size of truck is not defined. What type of trucks are being restricted from storage on certain portions of these properties? Answer: The current ordinance is clear regarding permitted storage in industrial districts. No additional truck size language was deemed necessary based on that current language. What does not visible from the pubiic right-of-way mean? Answer: Industrial property ovvners are curren�y required to keep all incidental storage in the rear yard and screened from the public right-of-way. A truck when not loading or unloading must be kept in the rear yard. The code clearly defines what screening is and how a land owner can accomplish the screening that is necessary either through the use of fence materials, plantings, or a combination of both. To evaluate fully what is required, a site analysis is performed on each site as the building permit for that building is reviewed. Does the 1984 Northco Development agreement preclude this ordinance and allow for the dismissal of the property on Northco Drive from consideration as a site for M-4 zo�ing? Answer: No, the development agreement set expectations between the Developer and the City {i.e. utilities were to be installed, roads completed , etc.). The ultimate � 18.36 ( M-4, lndustrial Zoning March 28, 1997 PAGE 5 use of each of the parcels created in the development was left to be�determined by the applicable zoning ordinance. There is no section in the development agreement that p�ohibits eonsideration of a rezoning of these parcels. 18.37 i' MEMO To: Barb Dacy Michele McPherson From: Edward Hervin City Assessor � Date: Mar. 25, 1997 Re: M-4, Land values and zoning We recently had a discussion regarding the possib(e impact on land values �f adding a new zoning class. The new class would be known as M-4, which is to be a manufacturing use. The land to be re-zoned is currently zoned for warehouse and office/warehouse use. I would not expect to see a change in market value due to the new zoning. The values in areas zoned for these usage's does not seem to be different for warehouse or manufacturing. Generally, the more restrictive the zoning the less market there is for a property and this may result in a decrease in ma.rket value. The smaller market does not necessarily equate to lower value. Marketing time does not necessarily relate to the property value. Sales price has a direct and strong relation to market time. While the M-4 zone is more restrictive than the current zoning because it eliminates some common usage's it still ha.s a substantial market for the property. Many manufacturers may actually have trouble finding a site that permits their activity. All land is zoned for some particular use and this does not reduce its' market value. Zoning actually increases land values by putting like users together with m�imum advantages to each type of user. The factors that go into site selection for a potential user are much the same whether the intended use is warehouse or manufaciuring. They are concerned with adequate size, good access, close highways, adequate utilities, etc. We normally expe�t to see the prices for industrial land to be about the same regardless of their particular use. H'igher values would be expected for office and retail locations but they are normally not in consideration when looking for an industrial site of any type. Rail availabiiity may be a consideration for some businesses. i 8.38 � � MAR-19-97 WED ?5�4� KELLY & BERENS, P.A. ATiORNEYS AT L/wu 372010S Cer�rea 80 SouTH E�� S�EEr M�n�nrous, Mknn�esor� 55402 TIM07MY D. KELLY iU�ICMAEL BEftENS Ric��aan A_ K�auw MADGE S. THORSEN GEORGE O. LUOCKE WENDY A. SNYDER i]EAnlO Ci. fi081NSON THOMq$ W.PqHL MARET Fi. MOREUWD ANORFA CARRUTHER9 JENNIFEA L. FR19CH Via Facsimile 571-1287 Mr. william Burns City Manager City of Fridley 6431 Univeraity Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Re: Dear Mr. Burns: March 19, 1997 ?. C2 TEC.EGHONE �s�2� aas-ei�� Fnx (612)349-6416 Evereet Development Limited, Ltd._ Property at Mair. Street and 61st Avenue NE; Proposed Zoning Changes This law firm represents Everest Development Limited, t"Everest"). One of Everest's affiliates owns a 10.67-acre site located at the southwest corner of Main Street and 61st Avenue NE in the City of Fridley. Everes� also has under option a 17 acre site located at 81st Avenue and Hickory. This letter addresses issues pertaining to proposed zonirig changes on Everest's property. The City Council's decision regarding proposed zoning changes will affect Everest's disposition of each of these properties. I request that you provide copies of this letter to all council members and planning commission members as well as all City staff involved in the planning process. When Everest acquired the parcel located at Main Street and 61st Avenue NE, Everest representatives had extensive discussions with City staff regarding pe�mitted uses within the City's M-2 (heavy industrial) zoning classification. The City staff never suggested that a distribution wa�rehouse project would not qualify as a permitted use under thaC classification. Everest relied upon the City staff�s information in seeking tenants: In the summer�of 1996, Everest found a tenant interested in leasing a new distribution warehouse facility at 18.39 ' iiAR- ? 9-97 I��cD 1. 5:�=� KELLY & BERENS, P.A. Arroa�vErs Ar Lnw Mr. William Burns March 19, 199"7 Page 2 P, � � the site. Everest proceeded with plans for a 185,00o square £oot warehousc facility to accommodate this tenant_ In August af 1996, Everest representatives met with City staff and presented plans for the project. Michele McPherson, the City's Planning Assistant questioned whether the proposed warehouse was a trucking terminal, a use not permitted by the M-2 classification. Because the �roposed project did not have the characteristics of a trucking terminal, Everest became concerned that the City was opposed to its project for som� reason. On September 19, 1996, Scott H�ckok, the City's Planning Coordinator, contacted Everest's Tim Nelson regarding the project. Mr_ Hickok indicated that he was concerned that the proposed warehouse project was a truck t�rminal. Mr. Nelson explained that proposed Everest project was like the Murphy warehouse buiidings on Main Street south of I-694, which Mr_ Hickok conceded were not truck terminals. Mr. Nelson further explained that a truck terminal is typical3.y a shallow building with cross docking used primarily for pi�k-up, delivery and transfer of items between trucks, with�less emphasis on longer term product storage. A distribution warehouse, on �he other hand, has as.its primary function the warehausing and storage of product, with truck deliveries being incidental to the warehou9ing function. Mr. Nelson agreed to provide the City with a.written explanation of why Everest's proposed use was not a truck terminal_ On October 8, 1996, Mr. Nelson met with Mr. Hickok and Ms. McPherson and expiained in detail why the proposed Everest project was not like a trucking terminal. Mx. Nelson referenced criteria applied by Barb Dacy, the City's Community Development DiYeCtor, in a letter dated June 16, 1994 whiCh MS_ DaCy sent to Murphy Warehouse Company. Mr. Nelson serit a follow-up letter dated October 11, 1996 in which he described in detail the features of a truck terminal that made i� very different from Everest�s proposed project, When the City did not respond for almost three weeks, Mr. Nelson again wrote on October 31, 1996 to inquire as to the City's position. The City finally responded in a letter dated November 5, 1996, suggesting that Everest talce the Fridley City Attorney Fritz Knaak on a tour of the prospectzve tenant�s existing facility in order to identify the differences betcveen a waz'ehouse ana a truck terminal facility_ At this point, it was apparent that the City opposed a warehouse project 18.40 � ' MAR-1°-97 ritD �h�4° KELIY & BEAENS, P_A_ ATTORlEYS AT LAY� Mr. William Burns March 19, 1997 Page 3 ° J' being built on the Everest site and was using the t-ruck terminal issue to prevent Everest from proceeding with its project. I contacted Mr. Knaak and expr�ssed to him Everest's concern about identi.fying its tenant to 'the City. I informed Mr. xnaak that Everest had an experience with another city in which a competing developer had appropriated Evecest's plans for a commercial office building that had been presented to that city, I also asked Mr_ Knaak whether the City had a different type of use in mind for the Everest site_ Mr. Knaak indicated he would discuss the matter with City staff and get back to me, Subsequently, Everest received a ca11 from Ms. Dacy indicating that she knew of a company th�t might be interested ir. leasing a portion of a manufacturing facility on th� Everest site_ I again contacted Mr. Knaak and asked him to determine whether the City was committed to a manufacturing use on the site. Again, Mr. Knaak indicated that he would consult with City ataff and get back to me_ Mr. Knaak did not call me back, however, and I subsequently leamed that the City Council had establ.ished a moratorium on the developm�nt of warehouse and distribution facilities at its January 27, 1997 meeting. Everest had delayed applying for a building permit for its warehouse project while attempting to address the issues raised by the City staff. I�Teedless to say, Everest and i felt the City had been less than candid with us in expressing the basis for its opposition to Everest's project. Recently, the City demonstrated that its true intentions were to restrict the development of the Everest site to a manufacturing use. The proposed rer_lassification of the property to "M-4 manufacturing only zoning" will prevent Everest from proceeding with the warehouse project, for which it had a tenant and severely li.mit Everest's development option•s. The proposed change in the industrial parking requirements that "on corner lots, or lots across from a residPntial district, no loading dock shall face the public right-of-way" demonstrates that the City staff�s objections to the project in.August 1996 were not legitimate under the existing zoning code. For the record, Everest strongly opposes the proposed zoning changes affecting its property. The City of Fridley is placing Everest in a position where it has limited alternatives. Everest does not have manufacturing tenaiZts committed to lease a manufacturing facility. The sequence of events makes it apparent that the City of Fridley is not interested in promoting viable 18.41'. _ f1�9K= �-� I r:�_� ": � � �v � ,�- . u� KE��.Y & 6EHENS, P.A_ Arro��rs AT i.aw Mr. William Burns March 19, 7.997 Page 4 developments on the relatively few sites which remain in the City. Ev�rest intends to protect its interests as best it can if the City imposes tne zoning changes, including making alternate dispo9itions of both properties by year end_ GOL:nam 18.42 Very truly yours, � George O. Ludcke S��C E �9<fl I� a .e'� KE��. McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. 7350 Commerce Lane Minneapolis, MN 55432-3189 612-574-2222 FAX 612-574-2210 March 18, 1997 City of Fridley Planning Commission Diane SavaQe, Chairperson David Kondrick, Vice Chairperson Connie Modia Dean Saba v LeRoy Oquist Brad Sielaff Larry Kuechle William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Planning Commission Members and City Staff: Recently our company received notice from the City of Fridley that the City was considering rezoning a portion of our Property to M-4. The notice contained an invitation to respond and to participate in the decision-making process. Because we believe strongly that the potential zoning would have significant negative consequences to our company, we will avail ourselves of the oppo�tunity to participate. Briefly stated, McGlynn Bakeries owns two side-by-side real estate parcels. One parcel contains our manufacturing facility and corporate headquarters. The second parcel, currently vacant, was acquired for expansion purposes. The primary nature of the expansion building is likely to be warehouse. Our operations are much more manageable and e�cient if the warehouse operation is adjacent to the manufacturing operation. The route from our manufacturing location and the expansion lot to University Avenue is only three blocks and is not near any residentiai neighborhood. Accordingly, we ask that the City leave the zoning of our parcel unchanged. A more detailed explanation of our situation follows. 18.43 � City of Fridley Planning Commission Messrs. William Burns and Scott Hickok March 18, 1997 Page 2 McGlynn Bakeries moved to Fridley in 1992 after selling a major portion of its operations to Pillsbury. Our previous headquarters was in Chanhassen, and many of our executives and employees lived in the south and west suburbs of Minneapolis. We chose to move our operations to Fridley because of the City's willingness to assist us in converting the Totino's plant to a regional bakery operation. The Totino plant had been vacant for two years prior to the move. We have enjoyed an excellent relationship with the City. The City entered into a redevelopment agreement with our company to provide financial assistance in upgrading the plant. The State also assisted our company with a State Economic Recovery Fund grant. The purpose of the City and State assisting our business was to attract a business that could prosper and contribute jobs and taxes to the community and state. Growth and expansion are an important but sometimes unfulfilled part of that equation. We have been fortunate, and have been able to keep our promises to Fridley and grow our business well. We now have 500 Fridley-based employees earning an annual payroll of Sixteen Million ($16,000,000) Dollars. Currently, we pay $241,031 in annual real estate taxes which nets to $169,766 after subtracting the tax-increment assistance. In our view, it has been a mutually beneficial relationship which illustrates what good municipal and corporate leadership can accomplish. Our intent has been to maintain our headquarters and principal manufacturing and warehouse facilities at our location in Fridley for so long as that location can adequately and efficiendy service the business needs of the company. Accordingly, we purchased approximately 6.3 acres of vacant land adjacent to our plant for purposes of accommodating expansion. We are not ready to expand today but will probably expand in the next five (5) years. That expansion could be for many purposes, but undoubtedly will have a major warehouse component or possibly be all warehouse. We have been told by City Staff that both of these possibilities are prohibited by M-4 zoning. The bakery business has become extremely competitive and extremely dynamic. We spend significant amounts of money in researching new products (croissants in the past, specialty Europeans bread now), and in developing new market niches. While it is difficult to predict the future, we have a growing need to be a able to transport our products overnight by truck to retail locations in the five-state Upper Midwest. In order for our company to be able to meet the price and service demands of our superstore customers, we have to be very efficient in cost and time. 18.44 � City of Fridley Planning Commission Messrs. William Burns and Scott Hickok March 18, 1997 Page 3 As soon as we have enough business to justify our own warehouse operation in one efficient construction project, we intend to accomplish that task. It needs to be located adjacent to our manufacturing facility for reasons of efficiency, communication and quality control. We believe that any other location is disadvantageous to our ability to compete on the basis of quality and cost. The disadvantages are so significant that if our property is rezoned, we would have to seriously examine alternative locations for all of our operations. We loathe even discussing the possibility because we have considered the long-term location issues as settled and do not wish to spend additional money or executive time on that issue. We certainly do not have any expert land-use planners on our staff. However, a review of our location and the route our trucks would take to University (map attached) seems to indicate that no residences would be affected. Our trucks would proceed through the industrial park that sunounds both sides of Commerce Lane and 73`d Avenue to University Avenue. There seems to be very little, if any, adverse impact on any residential area. Accordingly, we respectfuily request that the City leave our zoning unchanged. A change to M-4 zoning would be seriously disadvantageous to our business and create no significant advantage to any residential citizens. Thank you for considering our viewpoint and concerns. Very truly yours, 1 �- . John R. Prichard Chief Operating O�cer JRP/bb enclosure y 8.45 ' � �, T. ,3Q, R. 24 R/OL EY N �/2 I EAST RANCH ESTAT S ESTAT�NCH 2) ( � +j 22 FOURT� ADD. U i l I I F/RST ADD Nr opwfiv r± £c.yi__ , i � _ ..,.. . . "- - .� -_,��-�+f--%.rz.-R:t:-- � i•°.� ��`�_ - � .�. - ` � '� �= ` �_��,... _ '�`r�,. - ��''+ S80RN � -'" ✓ .� _ „> � a .�_ � t ` j --'EAST, � h'.4 CH ' ; r ... �• . _ ! ; _ -f' `- '�`� y" �—� � �:'��+ = �\�, ` ,��ESTATES ;'' _� ' __ �' .'` �� ,S= � � �� __; '" �s� ` � `° � �-ti �'- _ THlRD ADD =�: � � :b � �.t- s � i � , _ , — � � � z � �`-. -- -�, ... . �� - � � y� : ' ^ �•� i �_� N� � , �.. � , s� ; � � - % � ' � ' ,�., �; �,,,y _ _ � ��r - _. . �� Y ay ' / �" \ � �• �s�.i' I :tt'1+'J �' '/� �I ',� '�. 6��Y:�J , \ \ \ �� i I.�t�. . �.s� � F `i` f • .. '� � ' i'� ` � �� ; � � /1 r� � � ��' . � � ��- , � ��- 7 . �� f, S � t �.'. � `-��F- �� , 4 � \�, \ � j I i!' � . ' ' � _ - � ,. ; N e �, M �Z� y p � ' � / � \ �� ,i�,i.. , -=__.._ -. -' {.� � �� 7 � �l�' _ I r � � W �l �9� p l' (ip ` �� ` 'i � �e� . ' , ' � 1y 11P�RL16 •:- 9 .- \\ '. � .• -� _ --- ; ;� e , _ a� i J ` s__ pN r: � ,a� � rs� r Y<' i» � � / ��v\S� !, /( z - - - -t}t�-•T "- � p' �,�, F: _ .. 10 �)' �,� t� ,i.�• �� $ _ ; � ��r �. ' � "i �� F, � ��\' , 1� �� (�?� _ - - -°r`- ` I i ,� ¢'�'d r.�� Y M�.6 � J�� W: ,.a< Fj S.. �` /' <r � i: , i i � �� Zi �ZO _�, �'�.� .� ;� . . ; � i T-'t,� n"� `u "" �.i � 2 .� � �, I �y � ''�''= i..l � �j �\`\ %!��'�'�O __ . _.. ,_ - . ' I i � � lo'.. �k rit" }ti Cw � s� x. '; �+, � S ' O*' I . � ; � " :��a` _ - �3 (o) 3 y\ r~ :t� (�' � _ � z� s � mk�� C"a e e"' 3 a .e` �'...=`y I 4 � r. '•�� lu� � i.n <i � . . Z I �st� n�� irr � s Fn � C KS � �r i ^, $ ' � � � p �`•� . — �Lr) f. � L.____ Z i p �! ' i � �wi � � Of �� 4*"' �� . i ,.TY' •' �� — —z� �� - - , �' � :, -i _ ��t �� -. �j� '1a --- —�--� . . � * i - - � �. �r: L 1'�.� � P a ( .a• Al 1 _.. ._... �...., �� ti- � - �% I:a' `, � S -s+'_ . - � � $ �,. � �.', //: �� r• a i ..,L ��,�"'1 � � _ � � +: pt � � lj `� Ol ,� � � � - � D . ,, ` �,;; Q � Q �' � � i � �: ; �� ' t �� . � 1 � ' , ``�� `' � � ; . ftf � 2k "., ' W I � i � ~ ('� ' ` E D ' ,�+ � � � � � � , �,�� ' r� _ � � + �� :�t� ` �� `" ' s : . t x � 2 ' 1s ; 11 11 �� F , + 4f �f42 9. / . •��, , t�' �s 1 ��ti �� I] ' ' —�= ` ��"" 74TH /NEN OL£ , ; � � , „ : � s=- --a t , 1 i` 11 , _--------i - -' ' 1°. 3 ! a 1 �i J �___-_ _ : W C*� Q�7 � aMl a �k,� LA �� _ - , � . � I -2 ! � O X :3 2 :� t•� 1 G�1 M� � 11 / 1 j >. j� �J ��7� ��?�; � 3 't� "`z . � , �� 1y �� (�.) .. � � � a � tii + � ,;+io �"� �_ �yi 1 \ � � 1 : � � ,/� � � ; 1 j ' i `� � •� ... ' .a D60 i�!'J i � R 79 V '�� _ . 1 ,1 , � / . . 9 ` r ��` �/ �� : �? +; 1 ;',,i, •�t1 l , � .4 � ('_V � � c 8 � �� ,•'�b ��'1: 3 V � , ,a*' °�� ' �"� �\ � � � � I' Q� Z' �, „ e� �'�`' _ :, •� t� � i \ - � � i `�' _� 5 '� , ; �., • . :E, tr '� __ ' ; i 4 � ",, , . 7 - d ,* � -, tro ��;�., h) ;I • � za ,� "� i � °(�: f is �ei A ; � : 1` �''+, i � ;r �� E,� ' - EEK: R ;, i' ,I i : I+.J : = ° : : N6'�. * N tf�y ` A: � � �� - � ° `r /_•� � i i �5.� Me � j(,+� �1c � � � � ,� f !4 � �.! 1+•• ' �; 3 I r` _O' 1 '" � /-. ' ° s . � 2' I//) ,� � � �' ,�- I V i- �: �P _ _ _ t" � ` v `il�� K a. � �'iG _ _ Rtc �� .,-_� :r� _ - ,-y i. ,� � � �7sR� � +.w. � :, _ - - � ��...� F �__� , �_ sec, c. u ANOKA COtMTY ANOKA� COUKT HICaHWAY R/W HIGMWAY R/ W PLAT NO. 42 �pL�T N0. 28 i�` 18.46 �\ ,23� ',24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 12 Ms. Savage asked if there would be another public hea ' at th time. Ms. Dacy stated staff would b Mr. VanWormer stated a public public has the opportunity tq issues, then another meeti-rfg g at e happy to -C'lfy/the public. � hea.�ing is not required, but the Comment_ Ii tnere are controversial ould 'oe hel� to �rovide information. Ms. Dacy stated, arding some of �he individual lot owners cornments, she ld be happy to co::�a�� t:em dir�ctly. i�:r. Van mer stated they now have t:_e com-nents. When going into the � al design stage, they can take *hose �nto account. He a,ppreciated the comrnents and questior�. �. INFORMAL DISC�JSSION ON RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ZONING CONTROLS FOR MULTI-BAY WAREHOUSE OR SIMIL,AR TRUCKING-BASED PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Ms. McPherson stated her presentation will include a brief review of the memo included in the agenda packet; a discussion of the purpose, the problem, and describe the study areas; review a video; and present their recommendation to the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council established at its January 27 meeting a moratorium on the construction of warehouse and distribution facilities with more than 10 docks. The purpose of the moratorium was to provide time for staff to: l. Examine the industrially zoned properties in the City and determine the compatibility of warehouse facilities with other allowable uses in the vicinity, and 2. Review the number and location of the existing warehouse and distribution facilities and determine if the zoning on remaining vacant land should be amended or changed to another zoning classification. Ms. McPherson stated the problem is that the City has recently seen the development of approximately 500,000 square feet of warehouse and distribution facilities in the last 18 months. Along with that development has come the increase of resident complaints regarding truck traffic, parking of trucks parallel to adjacent streets and the public right-of-way, and noise and odor problems. Ms _ McPherson s`ated, �n 1_ 996, the Ci _�:� establ�_sh�d the � : � I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 13 neighborhood south of 53rd Avenue as no truck through traffic routes. In addition to the physical impacts of these facilities, there are only about 90 acres of vacant industrially zoned land left in the City. There is about 1,090 acres of industrially zoned land which is about 170 of the City's land area. Loo}dng at the remaining vacant land and determining what is the best use for these properties is also the goal of looking at the City in terms of what types of industrial uses the City wants to encourage. Manufacturing uses tend to increase job creation as well as valuation on the sites thereby increasing the tax i�ase ror tne C_ity. Ms. P��cPherson stated, in ter^�s of what staff looked a�, t�e Citv was divided into three piannina areas. The first area is south o-- olst Avenue, straddling the railroad tracks stretcning from East River Road to Main Street and south to the City border. The second area is the northeast part oi the City from University to the easterly City borders and north to Osborne along �he High�aay 65 corridor north of Locke Park. The third area ;s north of 73rd Avenue from University Avenue to East River Road and north to 83rd. It includes some light industrial properties along the railroad tracks. I� picres up the Onaway district and areas r�ex�. �o the Springbrook I�Tature Center_ Ms. McPherson showed a video which shows some of the warehousing facilities in the City. Ms. McPherson stated the goals of any potential ordinance amendment would be as follows: l. Reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties from truck traffic by: a. controlling their location in the City; and, b. by implementing site design controls. 2_ Encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities and which require more complex building systems (buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher building valuations than warehouse construction). 3. Promote "clean" uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which may cause noise. 4. Eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage, display, or are already permitted in other zoning districts {i_e. repair garages are permitted in co,-nmercial districts). Ms_ r•nC�rl�r'SOCI Sf_c3t�?C� StdfT looked �?t ��l° thrp(� St„^'i �'.�=.� •, . - - . '. :l`_ 18.48 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARy 19, 1997 PAGE 14 number of existing warehouse or distribution facilities, whether they would have possible expansion opportunities on site, the amount of vacant land adjacent to the facility, and who would be affected by the facility (i.e. if there was residential property across the street or nearby�. Staff also looked at the average floor area ratio. The average ratio of docks to floor area which is approximately 1:5,000 in a warehouse distribution iacility versus 1:14,000 in a manufacturing facility_ Ms. McPherson stated, once staff compieted this :; identified five ordinance arnendment options: �i '' �� "is, �i`'-ey l. Do nothing. 2• Amend district requirements for existing indus�r_al zoning districts. 3• Amend the M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Hea��y �ndustria�, to allow warehouses and distribution facilities as special uses only. 4- Amend the M-1, Light Industrial, district tc ��_;:-,=nate warehouses and distribution facilities as permitted uses. 5. Create a new district entitled "M-4, Manufacturing Only". Ms. McPherson stated each option has its advantages and disadvantages which are outlined in the staff report. The first option has no advantages while there are a number of disadvantages. The City does not have any control over the physical impacts of warehousing and distribution facilities on residential properties. Any remaining vacant land would then be subject to the existing standards of the current ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated the second option has the advantage of reducing or eliminating the physical impacts on the remaining vacant properties as well as any future redevelopment opportunities the City may realize as properties become blighted and the City needs to encourage other industrial development. Ms. McPherson stated options 3 and 4 have really no advantages to the City and have disadvantages in the fact that a number of existing facilities would become nonconforming and, with the special use permit option, the burden of proof is on the City to deny the special use permit. The amendments do not address the aesthetic or physical impacts of warehouse and distribution facilities_ Ms. McPherson stated option 5 has sevaral advantag�s ar_d Laii.r :�o disadvantages identif_ied. �:�e advantages are that '__~ ';��it._, � r c � }, .-, 18.49 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUlARy 19, 1997 PAGE 15 locations of warehouse and distribution facilities to those existing, promotes uses which have less truck traffic, promotes uses which have higher job generation and building valuation, and establishes standards to limit outdoor activity or noise, fumes, and odors. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the remaining vacant land inventory of approximately 90 acres of industrially zoned land_ Staff selected se�-en sites which they felt would meet the ne�d �o be rezoned I�:-�= . `"his totals about 33 _ 5 acres or about 37 � o� tne re�ain�ng inventory_ �S - �C'-�::crSOi1 Si_c �2C1 Std � i� S r£,-'COIilIP.2I1�cL10i1 i_ � �O ?':_'.CJi St1°'?Q �: Ci; y Counci_1. F�urs�,;ing the following actions: �� - u-nend th� e�;i st�ng industrial ��ricter s�anda�ds for corner ��sidential :^is�ricts_ zoning distric�s �o es�ab�i�� lots and 1_o�s �djacent `.v 2• Establish a izew industrial district entitled "M-�, i�_anufacturi n J �n1y", and rezone arcel_ � ,- -„-; P s �� p�o��_a�e.. Ms. Savage asked if staff were recommending both of th�se actions. Ms_ McPherson stated yes. Staff determined that the best approach is a two-prong approach - one, to amend the existing standards in the current districts to encourage stronger standards for corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts, and two, to establish the M-4 district to create a manufacturing only district, and place some properties within that district to encourage the development of manufacturing facilities_ Ms. Modig asked, if you did the M-4, Manufacturing Only, district, does that then allow or have a chance of being spotty all over and among other types of zoning in the area. Ms. McPherson stated it is possible. The sites selected out oi the vacant land inventory are within existing M-1 and M-2 districts. The parcels are not contiguous parcels so there could be "spot" zoning. Mr. Kuechle asked what kind of manufacturing staff envisioned coming into the City. _ Mr. McPherson stated they envisioned uses similar to what is currently here. Just down the road from the site at b�st Ave�n�:a is Sheet Metal Coni�ectors, a manufacturer, tool and die comba,�;�s, small furniture companies, etc. � - ` Mr'_ YLaCt]le c3Si,�C� !` Nj-Li ��IOL:�S }1°aVV I:lc-3-i]Ui�3(;i-ii'':`?'� - -. 18.50 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PA6E 16 envision saying making them strict-y manufacturing and end up with something worse than a warehouse? Ms. Dacy stated staff discussed that at length. On Main Street is Kurt Manufacturing and a timber f�nishing use have from time to time an odor and the City receives complaints from the residential area. While the language is not ;:�t deTaeloped for the district and because of the location across from a residential area in some of the cases, staff wants to be v�rv car�ful about �he exterior impacts. They would encourage us=� tna� have no ou�door fumes and a small amount of outdoor storage. The `ypes of impacts that will not cause problems. Staff caill r?�,d to =ake a look at the uses and perhaps make some exceptions c_ �ro:r:_bi�icns. Mr. Kuechle stated he also thouqh` �he i.:ea of restricting existing ones would be helpfu?. _= you =ook a� th� ones on Main Street, you can identify those �h�_ are ��oble?ns. Mr. Oquist stated he is concerned �bout ��e presen� owners of these properties. If you rezone �-�d put on further restrictions, that makes it more difficult to de-:elop. Also, if �his is changed to M-4, the City wili probably :ai��.in th� first year have a request for rezoning. There may n�ed to be controls on that to prevent that option. Ms. Dacy stated this gives the City the greater amount of control and forces evaluation of the proposed use. While it sounds as if this is manufacturing only, when looking at the uses in the other districts, some of the special uses are really not industrial. With 90 acres left, she thought the Planning Commission and the City Council have to look at what �hey want to see there. Mr. Oquist stated he has a tendenc�- to look for businesses and allow rezoning. It could be putti_^_g the burden on �he present owners, and the City should consid�r that as it goes through this. Ms. Dacy stated they do need to si� down with the owners of the properties that are affected. Ms. Savage stated this sounds as ;- this is very much in the preliminary stage. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. Staff are convinced the owners will come back and provide specific information about how the language should be worded. The Ci�y objectives are clear that it wants to control exterior impacts and the volume of traffic. The owner's experience can help to wri�e the ordinance. Ms_ Savage stated she agreed ::it:; =�e goals. S=:� =�lt the proposal was going in the ric�` �__�ct;on_ ShP �;,as in fa��or �� 18.5 i � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 17 adopting the recommendation_ Mr. Wedgewood stated, when the City alters zoning and possibly impairs the value of that property, what liability does the City have to compensate the owner for that decreased value_ Does�this amount to taking? Ms. Dacy stated the City has authority to change zoning on property_ A taking technically occurs ��hen �h�r•� � s no reasonab]_�, use of th� property. you would hear ��at �n the c�se oi an industr�ally zoned property being ?-ezoned as residential_ There are ques�ions of value there but thz_� nas �e�n a:��story oz case law whic�: says that, as long as �he�� i; a �-�,�i�;,;, ;-� pUb; ;c- j�UYpOSS ''.�,c'�11_i1C� �}1P_ r'eZOi'1111CJ c�CtlOil cil�; ti�lE'L�: 1S SOiilE' �E,'dSO:lca}Jl� use oz �:ie proper�y, the courts raca tendec �o �inc favor wi�h the municipality_ It is the same uses, sa�e zo�,;___1g. _'~�e o, 1,�, pro�ert,��s affected are those across ^ror,: a�esident;al a�-eGs. There is a public purpose established �o pro�ec� �� r_es;dent�al areas_ �_� her opinion in tnis case she did not :�e1ie�=e that this was a tai;i ng. P�r_ Kuec��e stated., in mos� cases �h� r ;., � value as a manufacturing facility�than as�a�warehouse.��Therelare, perhaps fewer potential customers ror it because c� the limited uses. Mr. Oquist asked how long �he moratorium would be. Mr. McPherson stated the moratorium is for 120 days_ It expires at the end of May. Mr. Oquist asked how long it would take to get this proposed amendment in place_ Ms. McPherson stated staff is proposing that, assuming the Planning Commission concurs and the City Council concurs, staff would come back at the end of March with the proposed ordinance language for the M-4 and also the amended language for the M-1 and M-2 and complete the process by the time the moratorium expires. Mr. Kuechle asked if the Keller proposal would be aifected by the moratorium. Ms_ McPherson stated it is a distribution activit}% but it is under the 10 dock limit so it is not affected_ Mr_ Oquist stated, other than beina concerned abou� the oresent �roperty, �tc_, he liked cahat Lhis ?s attem�tinr: t; do_ , , � 1 1_�� ;�V ?' (�r. , � _ ,� �- r ' � . � ° , <' �r��n%-�C�(j }7l% �✓" _ ,],o!"�;; - - - _ � . 18.52 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 19, 1997 PAGE 18 City Council pursue the following actions: 1. Amend the existing industrial zoning districts to establish stricter standards for corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts. 2. Establish a new industrial district entitled "M-4, Manufacturing Only", and rez_one parcels as appropriate. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. REGIEW 1997 COMMUN?TY D��✓E�OPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS:AN� OB��CTIVES Ms. Dacy stated, in response to �he previous meeting, staf.-� has provided the Planning Co;nmission Uaith a copy of the 1997 goals and objectives for the Community Development Department. Also attached is a copy of the survey taken of the City Council members and the HRA and the results of that survey. The comment from the Commission to the City Council is that you want to get involved in some or the bigger things and lo�k at the big picture ror the community and participate in that decision-making process. Each department is now working on their,�1998 goals and objectives. Any comments received at this meetin will be incorporated into the process to recommend that to t��ity Council. Ms. Dacy stated she gave th Commission the 1997 goals and objectives because Council ember Bolkcom has talked about the exercise that staff put e City Council through last February. Staff asked them to ima ine driving down University Avenue and Highway 65 in the yea 2000 and asked what they wanted to see. They identified 12 0 13 items they wanted to see accomplished by the year 2000. In rder to accomplish some of those objectives, staff backed thos into current years to see what staff needed to do in order to a complish that. Ms. Dacy stat d, in general, their priorities from the City Council hav been Lake Pointe, the southwest quadrant, and housing. aff have accomplished a significant portion of those prioritie . At Lake Pointe, MEPC is under contract, they have the indirec source permit,�and they are moving on the intersection. On the southwest quadrant, half of the units are under const uction and they hope that next year will be better_ In the hou ng area, the City has a very successful revolving loan pr gram. The Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) is providing o e-stop service for home owners wanting to improve their homes. he Citv has also started a dual track process where the HRA has allocated funds for a focus neiqhborhood. The Hyde Par_k area �.aas 18.53 i�i�J�� .�+Id��`� ��i��'� �`�� :lll;'.� 1 �t�l�:� ��TDI t '.l l DATE: APRIL 11, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY �OUNCIL CITY MANAGER ��' � ��' �-� CITY ATTORNEY FROM: STEVE BILLiNGS, COUNCILMEMBER WARD ONE SUBJECT: PREVAILING WAGE ORDINANCE Attached is the prevailing wage ordinance for second reading at the City Council meeting on Monday, Ap�ii 14, '1997. This ordinance is similar to the resolution that 1 previously presented and was approved in March of 1990 by the City Council. It is also similar to, but more inclusive than, the ordinance that was drafted by staff in response to the Mayor's request. In 1990, I did a detailed analysis of the public works projects that were done during the period 1986 to 1990. 1 found that almost all of the contractors that we did work with were, in fact, paying the prevailing wage. Further, I found that if we had a prevailing wage policy in' force during that time frame, the cost to the City would have increased by approximately' 1%. Since we have had prevailing wage in force since 1990, a similar analysis of current data would be meaningless. In the proposed ordinance, 1 have excluded one to four family dwelling units from the prevailing wage requirements. We are encouraging the revitalization of our housing stock and are providing loans and grants to accomplish these ends. Often to get the most for their money, homeowners wifl per#orm much of the work with the aid of family and friends. I# someone were to pay their nephew a few dollars to help with a deck;`roof, or painting and staining that are part of a larger project, we would not expect them to follow all of the prevailing wage requirements. - 19.01 � ..:.: .. . ..,.. . .:...: . .... ... . . . . . _ _. Prevailing Wage Ordinance April 11, 1997 Page Two In determining the "cut-off" point for the exclusion, I chose to use the Federal HUD guideline of four families. It is likely that owners of larger properties will contract out for all of the work. Although it was suggested that we have liquidated damages in the ordinance as a penalty, 1 did not place them there. It would seem that liquidated damages are a civil ( contractual ) penalty that should be covered in the actual contract language. The ordinance would in all likelihood be enforced by the Courts with criminal penalties set by the Judge. Upon adoption of the ordinance on first reading, I am prepared to make a motion directing the City Manager and the City Attorney to draft language to be used in all City and HRA contracts, loan agreements, grant agreements, and development agreements that will provide the necessary procedure for enforcement of the prevailing wage ordinance and provide for liquidated damages of five percent (5%1 of the contract amount. Said language shall be presented to the City Council at the time of the second reading of the ordinance. It would be my intent that this language not become part of the actual ordinance, but, rather, would be policy of the City. Further, it would be my intent that this language and procedure be patterned after that of the Anoka County and Minnesota Department of Transportation language and procedures. I hope that 1 have provided you with what you are looking for. If not please contact me prior to Monday's meeting, and we can draft a modification that meets your needs. Attachment 19.02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF TH� CITY OF FRIDLSY, MINNSSOTA, ADOPTING THFs PREVAILING HOURS OF LABOR AND PREVAILING WAGS RATE ON CERTAIN PROJECTS FOR OR WITHIN THE CITY The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: Subdivision 1. Legislative Findings. The City of Fridley finds it to be in the best interest of its citizens that buildings and public works projects constructed with City funds be constructed and maintained by the best means and highest quality of labor reasonably available, and that persons working under contract on buildings and public works constructed in whole or in part with City funds should be compensated according to the real value of the services they perform, which, for purposes of this Ordinance, is defined as the prevailing wage and hours of employment as determined for the City by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 177.42, subd 6. Subdivision 2. Prevailing Wages and Hours on Certain City-related or funded Projects. a. Wages paid for all work performed by contractors and subcontractors that is financed in whole or in part by funds obtained by bonds issues by the City, including but not limited to Industrial Revenue Bonds, and all projects let after May 1, 1997, financed by General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds shall be paid in accordance with the prevailing wage and hourly rate. b. Wages paid for all work performed by contractors and subcontractors on any project let after May 1, 1997, that is financed in whole or in part by City funds shall be paid in accordance with the prevailing wage and hourly rate. c. Wages paid for all work performed on any project for a Developer in conjunction with the Developer's development of real property in the City if the Developer purchases said real property from the City, or if the City grants or loans money to the�Developer for the development of said real property, shall be paid in accordance with the prevailing wage and hourly rate. 19.03 ' Ordinance No. Page Two d. The term "City" shall refer to the City of Fridley and to all related agencies, including, but not limited to all Housing and Redevelopment Authorities and Economic Development Authorities created by the City of Fridley. Subdivis;on 3. Exceptions. This ordinance shall not apply to the following circumstances: a. Any project financed by City funds or bonds authorized by the City as provided in subdivision 2 that has a value of $25,000 or less or a value equal to or less than the amount required for sealed bids by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, subd. 3. b. Any housing project or program within the City directed to housing for one, two, three, or four families per building. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TH8 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF - , 1997. T8B FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTED AYE : � p�l�TD TIiE FOLLOWING NAY : ATTEST: NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR WILLIAM A. C�iAMPA - CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: March 31, 1997 � 9.04 i� � ` rn,r oF �r TO: FROM: DATE: William W. Burns M E M O R A N D ll M City Manager The Honorable Mayor and City Council � ,�;;;� William W. Burns, City Manager j April 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Prevailing Wage Contract Language Fritz Knaa.k and I are proposing the attached resolution endorsing the prevailing wage contract language that is used by the Anoka County Highway Department. We hope this meets your expectations. �i ri ; 20,01 � �.:.: ____ RESOLUTION NO. -1997 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, FOR THE ADOPTION OF A POL.ICY AND CONTRACT LANGUAGE IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. , PROVIDiNG FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES ON CERTAIN PROJECTS AND CONTRACTS WITHIN THE C1TY WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota, has adopted a ce�tain Ordinance, Number , providing for the payment of the p�evailing wage to workers within the City under certain specified conditions and circumstances; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota, wishes to provide specific guidance to the public and its own employees, as we11 as contractors and others doing or wanting to do business with or in the Ci#y, as to how it expects the aforesaid Ordinance to be implemented in contracts and work govemed by the Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Fridley adopts as its policy concerning all bids and contracts governed by the aforesaid Ordinance that the following language, either fully or by express reference to the aforesaid Ordinance and this Resolution, shall be included in all such bids and contracts, and that this same language shall operate as the ongoing policy of the City of Fridley with respect to any such bids and contracts: PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES. The Contractor agrees that the Contractor's laborers and mechanics and any subcontractor's, of any tier, laborers and mechanics who work on this project and,who fall within any job classification established and published by the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry shall be paid, at a minimum, the prevailing wage rates as certified by said Department. Each Contractor and subcontractor of any tier performing work on this project shall post on the project the applicable prevailing wage rates and hourly basic rates of pay for the County or area within which the project is being performed, including the effective date of any changes thereof, in a least one conspicuous place for the information of the employees working on the project. The information so posted shall include a breakdown of contributions for health and welfare benefits, vacation benefits, pension benefits and any other economic benefit required to be paid. 1. Definition. The definition of "laborer' and "mechanic" used in connection prevaiiing wages shall be that definition contained in 29CFR Part 5.2{m). 2�.�2 Page 2 -- Resolution No. -1997 ��` .1 - - . 1 . . a. Upon request of the City, the contrac#or and subcontractors, if any, shall submit to the City, weekly for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of all payrolis. The payroll submitted shaU set out accurately and comple#ely ail the information required to be maintained under Section 5.5(a)(3)(I) of regulations, 29 CFR Part 5. b. Each payroll submitted shall be accompanied by a"Statement of Compliance" signed by the contractor or subcontractor or her agent who supervises #he payment of the persons employed under the contract and shall certify the following: (1) That the payroll for the payroll period contains information of the type required to be maintained under Section 5.5(a)(3) o# regulation 29 CFR Part 5, and that such information is correct and complete. (2) That each laborer or mechanic (including each helper, apprentice and trainee) employed on the contract during the payroll period has been paid the full weekly wages eamed, without rebate, either directly or indirectly, and that no deductions have been made either directly or indirectly from the full wages eamed. (3) That each taborer or mechanic has been paid not less than the applicable wage rates and fringe benefits or cash equivalent for the classification of work performed as specified in the applicabfe wage determination incorporated into the contract. (4) The contractor or subcontractor shall make the records required under this paragraph available for inspection, copying or transcription by the City and shall permit the City to intenriew employees during working hours on the job. If the contractor or subcontra�tor fails to submit the required records and make them available, the City may, after written notice to the contractor, take such action as may be necessary to cause the suspension of further payments, advance, or guarantee of funds. . . .1 . . � . 1 .. . 1 ... - In the event of any violation by the contractor or subcontractor relating to the prevailing wage provision in this contract, the contractor shall be liable for #he unpaid wages. 20.03 Page 3 — Resolution No. -9997 . � 1. . �. � .�: The City of Fridley may, upon its own action, withhoid or cause to be withheld from any monies payable on account of work performed by the contractor or any subcontractor such sums as the City may determine to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such co�tractor or subcontractor for any unpaid wages as required herein. 5. Fringe Benefits. The Contractor and subcontractor shall pay fringe benefits in the manner and in accordance with the 1964 amendments to the Davis-Bacon Act {Public Law 88-349) and the implementing regulations contained in 29 CFR, Subpart B, 5.20, et seq. 6. Liquidated Damages. If the Contractor or any subcontractor of any tier does not pay its laborers and mechanics prevailing wages as provided herein, the Contra�tor shall be liable to and pay to the City, as liquidated damages, a sum equal to five percent (5%) of the contract amount. The City may deduct any money due or coming due #o the Contractor such sums as the City may determine to be necessary to satisfy any liability of the Contractor to pay liquidated damages as provided herein. Any monies collected or deducted are no# to be construed as penalty but as liquidated damages to compensate the County for the Contractor's and/or subcontractor's failure to pay prevailing wages. The rights and remedies provided for in these specifications shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any rights or remedies otherwise available at law. In any lawsuit involving assessment or recovery of liquidated damages, the reasonableness of the charges therefore shall be presumed, and the amount assessed shall be in addition to every other remedy now or hereinafter enforceable at law, in equity, by statute or under the contract. i • i � • .Y= A violation of any of the above-stated provisions in a contract governed by the Ordinance shall constitute a substantial breach of that contrac# and shall constitute grounds for termination. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF APRIL, 199�. AYES NAYS NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 20.04 � � CITY OF FRIOLEY TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDIIM The Honorable Mayor and City Council William W. Burns, City Manager�� April 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Northstar Corridor Development Authority Joint Powers Agreement William W. Burns City Munager Please note the attached Joint Powers Agreement that establishes the Northstar Corridor Development Authority. This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, Fritz Knaak. At the City Council meeting on Monday evening, we need to approve the agreement and appoint a representative (an elected official) and an alternate (does not have to be an elected official). Staff recommends approval of the joint powers agreement and the appointment of a representa.tive and alternate to the Northstar Corridor Development Authority. If you have any questions, please give me a call. WWB:rsc Attachment 2 �.01 � � `, ` � ,: ..� ;/ �' // ' Steven Billings Northstar Corridor Development r'luthority Representative City of Fridley 5215 Lincoln Street NE Fridley, MN Si421 Dear Steve: APR � 0 1997 NORTHSTAR C4RRID4R DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY April 9, 1997 Please find attached the revised Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Northstar Corridor Development Authority. This Joint Powers Agreement, dated April 9 incorporates the changes discussed at the Northstar Corridor Development Authority meeting of Thursday, April 3, 1997. As you may be aware, legislation is currently being drafted for the new ISTEA bill. Drafters of the bill are urging the establishment of the Northstar Conidor Development Authority as soon as possible. , We urge the City of Fridley to adopt this Joint Powers Agreement at your earliest convenience. When the Fridley Council approves the Agreement, please execute the April 9 copy of the Agreement and return the signature page, only, to Tim Yantos at the Anoka County Government Center, 2100 - 3rd Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303. Thank you for your assistance in establishing the Northstar Corridor Development Authority. I believe that this is an exciting project that will be very beneficial to our area. As always, should you have any questions please feel free to call me at 323-5680. TY: kr Enclosure cc: Dr. William Burns, City Manager 21.�2 ' Sincerely, C�G;uX ��' l '��L�v�-a�I Paul McCarron Anoka Counry Regional Rail Authority �3/9/97 JOINT POWERS AGREEME�IIT ESTABLISHiNG TNE NORTHSTAR CORRlDOR DEVELOPNlENT AUTHORITY T4-4iS AGR�EMENT, ;s ��nter�c in�o �y and ��t�ve�n tne undersigr�ed Counties, Regional Railroad Authorities, Cities, and Townships, all being �-��ment_ai uni*s of the State o* f�1linnesota, ��rs:�ant �o The au.horit•�,� contair�:�' in the Minn. Statutes §§471 .59 and 398A.04, subd. �_ r�EClT.4LS �<'�v`i��c'�`��, � fUiliC I��ghv✓ay 1.r.' � I�i t��J ifJ(ii i1!l7ililt:��O11S i0 J:. ..tO::i: !S .. transportation corridor in the fastest growi�g area in the State of Minnesota and such growth has created significant transportation, safety and land use issues; and WHEREAS, there a�e opportunities for a variety of multi-modal transportation improvements in the TH10 corridor, including highway improvements, commuter and freight rail, multi use paths and lntelligent Transportation Systems (ITS); and WHEREAS, TH 10 serves as a p�imary link between the Twin Cites metropolitan area and the communities in the corridor from Minneapolis, north along TH47 north to TH 10 northwest to St. Cloud; and 'vVHEREA►S, such communities wish to collaboratively plan for multi-modal transporta#ion improvements to the co�ridor and for the �elated land use and development impacts. 21.03 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises a�d benefits that each party shall derive herefrom, the parties agree as foilows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE i hB (�UfpOS@ O; lh° (J2(tlES ifl 8(ltEfl(1g IfltO i�"1;S ,=-lui"�:.'�I71��r1t iS i0 a(1c9�yZ2 iilE feasibility and environmentat impacts of integrated transportation improvements along the High��vav ? 0 corridor, including highway i,:,��c.�e;M�n�s �on�muter and freight rail, recreational trails, lTS, safety and reiated iand use issues. The method of accompiishing �he purpos� o+ this �lgreement is ;1,:� ��;,- :�lishmen� ofi ;;oint powers board to prcvide a mechanism whereby tne pa�t�a� cari jointiy address the need for enhanced iransportation along the corridor, congAstion rali�f: decreased traveling time, a;�d �y;temati� 'tand use and deve!oprr;:..,.-� ;..;_:r;��-;;:-;�_ ARTICLE il. JOINT POWERS BOARD MEMBERS AND TERM The government units that are eligible to participate in this joint powers agreement include: Anoka County Regional Railroad Autho�ity Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority St. Cloud/Stearns County Regio�al Railroad Authority Sherbu�ne County Regional Railroad Autho�ity County of Anoka County of Hennepin County of She�bur�e City of Elk River City of Big Lake City of Clear Lake City of St_ Cloud 21.04 County of Benton County of Stearns City of Anoka City of Coon Rapids City of Blaine City of Becker City of Fridiey City of Spring Lake Park City of Cofumbia Heights City of Minneapolis �.ity of Rice Sauk Rapids Township �angola To�^mshi� City of Sa�te11 City of Sauk Rapids City of Ramsey Becker Township Clear Lake Towns��ip `�3V;::', i OVVi1SiiIN Watab Township :�i� �ake i o�vnsn+;._; ti�s'�Ii�O(lai gOV@illtllE'f?:3'. li:��:i .'.I:., �� :�;Di•� �'.� „�:.;ti:.;�7ar� if aa}i(.�`�:°j :�'. �he Autnority. The terms and condit+ors �` �f �is Ag�eement shall be effiective as �; an eligible oarticipant when the Agreement has been executed by the dulv ��tho�ized � epresenta:iv�s o, _�; ��' �; , . _ ��:s Agre�mzr�t. snaii .;o��r;�an�� .��:-.� .��. :�_ nas been duly executed by Anoka County and Sherburne County or their respectiv� railroad authorities and shail continue until terminated as provided he�ein. ARTICLE 111. JOINT POWERS BOARD Section 1: Establishment and Comt�osition. The parties hereby establish a joi�t powers board to be k�own as the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (°Authority") to jointly exe�cise such powers and authorities as are necessary to achieve its purposes and fulfill its duties as provided fo� in Article !V, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Authority shall consist of� one elected official each f�om the member governmental units. Each membe� shall be entitled to one vote. In the absence of the appointed elected official at the meeting, the alternate appointed pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 may exercise the voting rights of the membe�. This Agreement defines and establishes the structure and procedures of the Authority, 21.05' ■ the responsibilities and powers of the Authority, and the relationship between the Authority and the memoer governmental units. ARTICLE IV. DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY -he duties of th�� ,��_,tl�ori:y shall include the fo;lowing: ,. � f1P AUiCIv((`V tii"?�� ."?�,ai..��r� 7'�� (il�.11?,^�° IST�P. `�'(c3�1 ..:;1�.'�" .. � � ;,; ac� :dan�e with all appGcable rul�s, regulations and other requirer�enis by the r-ederal T; ansit Administra�ion. �. The Authority shail assess The need for and anaiyze the feasibility of multi- modal transportat;on improvements in the Corridor, incl�di�g nigh��nray improve;lients, corr��uter and freight raii, recreational �rails, lTS, safety and related land use issues. C. The Authority shaii establish such advisory committees and task forces as needed for the purpose of receiving public input and shali identify appropriate interested parties, and develop guidelines #or public participation. D. The Authority shall conduct envi�onmental evaluations, as required by law. E. The Authority shaH coordinate its activities as necessary with Burlington Northern Railroad, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, affected airports, the Metropolitan Council, the St. Cloud Planning Organization, and other necessary entities. ' F. The Authority shai! prepare reports addressing implementation issues, including but not limited to ownership, operation, construction, start-up and financing. The Authority shall also p�epare a report addressing the on-going implementation responsibilities of the Authority, if any, and shall make recommendations �egarding the composition, powers and duiies of the Authority for implementation. , 21.06! ARTICLE V. POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY S�ction 1 : General Powers. The Authority is hereby authorized to exercise such powers as are necessary and proper to fulfili its purpose and perform its duties. Such powers shali include thos° specific powers enumerated in 5ection "Z of r_fiis article. The �luthority may refer decisions for approval by the governing bodies of its member governmenta[ ,��`s. The Au*horiTy shall n�r ha�;� ±h� �o�,,,�- -^ .�v�,- p-operty taxes nor �he ;�,�,,,,::::, *o issue bonds. �2CIlO;fl 2: Specific Powers. '�.. The Authority shall adopt an annua! budqet: together with a statement o� the �ources cf �unding ard Un estimate o� th? pro,��rtion of suc{�� a�ou^ts required of each governmenta! unit, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article VII. B. The Authority may enter into any contract necessary or proper for the exercise of its powers or the fulfillment of its duties and enfo�ce such contracts to the extent avaiiable in equity or at law. The Authority may approve any contract relating to this Agreement up to the amount app�oved in the annual budget, and may authorize the Chai� of the Autho�ity to execute those contracts. No payment on any invoice for services performed by a consultant or any other person or o�ganization providing services in connection with this Agreement shall be authorized unless approved by the Executive Committee. C. The Authority may provide for the employme�t, discipline or discha�ge of personnel required to accomplish the purpose of the Agreement. D. The Authority may disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by counties, as well as any federal or State requirements. 2 y.�%: E. The Autfiority shail have the pvwer to adopt such by-laws that it may deem necessary or desirable for the conduct of this business of the Authority. Sucli by-laws shall be consistent with this Agreement and any applicable laws or regulations and shaH address the requirements for a quorum of the Authority. ,. Tiie Author;�y rr�ay app;y fot arid accept gifts, gran�s ^- oans o� money; other property or assistance from the United States Government, the State Of MIT1f1PS0�3, Of 2i1V pBfSv^(1, 2SSOCfc�tl0:'l Oi 8y°i;C" '^,r '^�, iT !�S LU�:�rj°�; enter into any agreement in connection therewith; and ho!d, use and dispose �� suc;� r��o��y, oth�; proper�y ;nd assistance i;. ,.��o-:G;�� ..i��,: ,i term� �e of this gift, grani or loan reiating thereto. G. The Authority may hold such property as may be re�uired to accomplish the , ;;iUf�.Oj3S O` �i;IS ;�gr�:iil°fl'`, af`:G upon ��rr,�inat�on O� liilS .�-l�i�c;i �(i�, i71a�:� distribution of such property to the parties as is provided for in this Agreement. H. The Authority may pu�chase insurance as is deemed advisable and may take action to enforce its rights in equity or in law. Section 3: Exercise of Powers All powers granted herein shall be exe�cised by the Authority in accordance with the legal �equirements applicable to counties. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 471.59, subd. 3, the purchasing and contracting �equirements of the county selected pursuant to Articie VII, Section 4 shall apply to the Authority. ARTICLE Vf STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES Section 1: Terms. . A. Each member gove�nmental unit shali appoint a representative and alternate, by resolution, to serve on the Authority for the period commencing with the 21.08� execution of the Agreement untii January 15, 1998. The representative must be an elected official of the gove�nmentai unit. The alternate may be an elected official or a staff person. B. Each representative and alternate shall be appointed for two year terms, beginning January 1�, by resolution oi tt�e appoint+ng governing bo�'y. in the event t,�at any representar,v�; �; aiternate s'r�a!! not have �een aapointed b�;� January 1 5 in any year, the incumbent representative shall serve until a successor has �J•�an ?Dr�f�+(???� '?ai,�.-��'�'cl GF �r1V . ':��°$�iiio�lV�', .�" 'j•�,• ,?- _ c; during the term for which the representative has been appoint�d may be done 8I 8il tlfTl2 Ji:i �ilc`'11 i;? (:u�� Oill`/ � i �� p r� •�j-�r r•�a Y y'iV CI,SO U`IOi� OT :� 7� i,.l � goveming body. Resolutio�,s o� any qoveming bocy ��nder tnis s�c:ion s�ai; be filed at the Office of Admir�istration, ,4noka Countv Lou�thouse, Anoka. ��I(I��SOI3. Section 2: Chair and Vice Chair. The Authority shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from its membership at its first regular meeting. The Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected by the Authority from its membership for a two year term. The Chair shaN preside at all meetings of the Authority, may establish such subcommittees as may be needed from time to time and shall perform other duties a�d functions as may be determined by the Authority. The Vice Chai� shall preside over and act for the Authority during the absence of the Chai�. The Vice Chair shall also perform the duties and #unctions of the Treasurer as provided for in the by-laws. If both the Chair and Vice Chair are absent, the Authority may elect a temporary chair to conduct its business, provided a quorum is present. ' - �ection 3: Executive Commit PP The Authority shall establish an Executive Committee of the Authority consisting of five members and alternates, including one rep�esentative from a city, 21.09' a town, a county and a regional railroad authority, as well as the Chair of the Authority. !n establishing the Executive Committee, the Authority shail consider geographic balance in the representation on the Committee. The Executive Committee shall be responsible for approving invoices within approved contract amounts, addressing personne! issues and performing such oth2r duties as set rortn n il�e .Authority's bylaws_ Section 4: Stazf. Each member governmental unit may provide staff support to the Authority, s!,i�jec* to ihe approval c; �h�: r;�err7be; governmental uni;. Section 5: Vacancies i1 afl c�j��0!ilLfllefli O" a:l'y' ,*�(Ji�S�1��1V;; OC a1Lnf�2t2 iS L'a�ai�G .�i2t0,'P ��1P �f7G' of the term, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the appropriate appointing governing body. Vacancies shall be filled within thirty �30j days of their occurrence. A vacancy shal! be deemed to have occurred when any of the conditions specified in Minn. Stat. § 351.02 exist, or if a �epresentative fails to qualify or act as an elected officiai. Section 6• Meet�ngs An initial organizational meeting of the Authority shali be held at the Sherburne County Courthouse, on May 1, 1997, at 4:30 p.m. Thereafter, the Authority shali meet at reguiar meetings at such times and places as the Authority shall establish in its bylaws. Special meetings may be held on reasonable notice by the Chair or any two representatives upon terms and conditions as the Authority may determine. 21.10' ARTICLE Vli. FUNDING Section 1 : Initial F�ndinq !t is understood by the parties that the activities and duties of �he Authority are to be funded primarily by grant monies from the United States Government, the State of Minnesota or any other associaiion or agency. Neverthaless, ti�e ;��em�Pr :�u,�ties and regior�a� raiiread authorities agree to contribU.e iun:ir�g, ;� riecessary, for the start-up administrative expenses �f the 8oard Ito the extent not c�vered bv �7ra�it F:i`?:�S� . �' , " fYl'f�lucr �::�.i,.�.,., a(..,� (',�iJ! _, '3',f��al: .,�.�r`.�..1!°:; . . ;5..`_, _ i .1 i!ii:3� budget and agree to the allocation o� any necessary i:�i*ia! con:ribuzior;s. `aC�i �il�;l�u�( �.C:.;;; , c:i� f�yiCil�i ;dliiOaG u�i�iilOfii`� S(lali r;ay' .;s a�propna�� initial contribution to the county acting as fiscal agent of the Authority witnin 30 days of execution of this Agreement. Section 2: On-Going Administrative Expenses A. By July 1 of each year, the Authority shall adopt an annual administrative budget for the following calendar year, and shal! determine the amount of contribution, if any, by each member. The budget and tfie resulti�g assessments shall be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Authority. Any excess funds in the administrative budget remaining at the end of the #iscat year shall be carried forward i� such manner as to reduce proportionately each member's contribution for the following fiscal year . B. If the Authority incurs any expenses as a result of a claim for damages, the expenses and any damages paid shall be assessed against each member in the same proportion as the assessments described in paragraph A above, as applicable. 21.11 Section 3: Time of Payment. Except for the initial contribution, al! assessments made under the ��rovisions of this Articie shal{ be paid by each ,��ember by January 1 of each year unless the member has withdrawn pursuant to Article VIII. :�c:ction 4: Budgeting anci `"-_,�_�::��.,,�_:i�'s-=��•---�:;-_ The Authority may contract with one of its member counties to provide any ar.,� all budgeting an� a�c�u, �;� : __ ._.�� c�nven��' _. `� . Authority. Such services shall sncfu�e, bu* not be limited to: managemen� o� al� �.;,�s, including county cc„�,�..u� �:,s �. �:; _,.� r,;��;,ies; payn��;�;� ,�; ,:�r ...;._. _ _, services; and relevant'�ookkeeN;ng �nu ;�c�rukeeping. The contractin� an.: �urchasing requirements ofi t�e Countv sa �eiec�ed SII�iI BDDIV tfl T�a'1S��il�;n, �. �� nUttlO�li�' JU�;1 "OU � ' .,,�.. ��._ ._ ,. , . �_ „ ^., �r�.- ._ .�G �.., _ _.". ..... the Authority. Section 5: Accountability for Funds. All funds shal� be accounted for according to generally acceptable accounting principles. A �eport on all receipts and disbursements shall be forwarded to the Authority on an annual basis. The members have the autho�ity to request reports pertaining to any and all budgeting and accounting services. All interest earned from estabiished Authority funds shall be credited back to that same fund. ARTICIE VIII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMlNATION Section 1: Withdrawal. Any party may withdraw from this Agreement upon the following conditions: a) giving 90 days written notice to the Authority, and b) showing that al! amounts due and owing pursuant to Article VII, Section 1 and 2, have been paid. Notice 21.12 shall be a certified copy of a resolution of its governing body indicating its intent to withdraw from this Agreement. Upon receipt of the resolution, the Chair of ttie Authority shall forward a copy of the resolution to each of ttie members_ in the event of withdrawal by any member body, this Agreement shall remain in full force ar�d effect as to a�l remaininy �»errioer t�odies. Section 2: Effect of Withdrawal. Withdrawaf oy any me�nb�, s��ai! no' :ermi;��-a �his ,=;oree�,,:e.-�� :.ce;�: :_3:, provided in Section 3, herein. 'vVithdrawal snall not act to oischarqe any iiabiGtv �r,�urred or chargeabie �o a- , ��:�;��r �..`�� _..� °r:�c�:�� . _„-� �..�._ Such liability shall continue unti( appror�riateiv discharoec b�� !a�.�r or agr�e:i�e^r. '�::; member shall be entitled to a refund oT assessments paid, or fora�veness of sU�^ assessme �.s o�v�a, t;, rhe .=;u�h��r._. Section 3: Termination. This Agreement shali terminate upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: A. When members withdraw pursuant to Section 1 so that, in the judgment of the Authority, it becomes imp�actical or uneconomical to continue. B. When necessitated by operation of law or as a result of a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. C. When a majority of the parties agree, by resolution adopted by the respective governing bodies, to terminate this Agreement. D. When a majority of #he Authority agree to terminate this Agreement because: 1) no grant funds f�om outside sources were received or 2) all duties or activities of the Authority pursuant to this Agreement and any grant agreements have been completed. 21.13 Section 4: Effect of Termination. Termination shall not discharge any liability incurred by the Authority or by tf�e members during the term of this Agreement. The Authority shall continue to operate after the date of termination only for the purpose of winding up its business .�nc: for aiding in the prosecution and de,ense of cSaims. Property or surplus money �:��;_�+��:d by the Authority >`�a�i ��_; �+stributed *o �he r��embers in proportion �o contributions of the members. The Authority shall approve a final report of its ._..,.�ities and affairs and, o,� 'he exc�;;a�ion �f ,n;rty (301 days *herefrcni, s�ai'. ��ase to exist. ARTiC�� iX. i1/lISCELLANEOUS ;:u�l /=�'Tl�(lCi`71Af1LS. This Agreement may be amended by agreement of a majority of the parties as evidenced by resolutions adopted by the respective governing bodies. Article VII, Section 2 and Articie VIII, Sections 1 and 2 may be amended only by unanimous agreement of the parties. Section 2: Records. Accounts and Ren°rts. The Authority shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practices. Tfie books and records of the Authority shall be subject to the provisions of Min�. Stat. Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and Min�. Stat. § 166.04. The Authority, within one hundred and twenty (120) days afte� the close of each fiscal year, which shall be January 1 to December 37 , shall- give a compfete w�itten report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to the parties. Section 3: Counter a�_ This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of 21.14 which shai! be deemed an original, but ali of which shall constitute one and tt�e same �nstrun�ent. Section 4: Severabilitv. The provisio��s ��z t�is Agreement are severabie. ;? �.r��- .�aragra�;,, �ectio�i, ��!J!�IVf5i0:"1, ��3ili . _„�, .i��US�, O� :��1f�S° Oi �i?'� .�'�g(Z�.'??�, � i:lj� . �,:_;�1 i �i,: •,+J be contrary to law, or co�trary to any rule or regulation having the force and effect Ot �c��N, CUC;� ��c;^iSjn:� Sh�l� 'lOr ?f�aCt *tle remainir,� �-}r in� - ;��y .� _, ll?�'. 5?C�IOR �. iNi`—'l.°--- .=1S�Ut' 7":i01?;`tl0�1. In the Gven` o� a dispute arising under *his Agr�eme�t, ��,-� parti�s an�� ti-.� Authority agree to attempt to ,esolve their dspute by Foi�o�:��;rc the pro��ss �y�.�J'�.,�I.JP�.! v'1�,:._ .. . A. A party snai! provide v��ritten notice to the Authori�y describing pe-�eived conflict, positions and underlying reasons. B. The Authority or member shall p�ovide written response to notice with 7 days of receipt of notice. C. The parties shall meet within 14 days of receipt of �esponse with a neutral facilitator. The neutral facilitator will be a �epresentative from the Minnesota Office of Dispute Resolution. D. At the first meeting, the neut�a! facilitator will assist the parties in identifying the appropria#e parties and participants in the dispute resolution process, their concerns, a meeting agenda and design for any subsequent meetings: The pa�ties shall agree on a process for �esolving the problem that would involve additional negotiations, mediation or a�bitration. E. In deveioping the process, the parties will be guided by the following principles: 1) The parties will attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated settlement. 2) The parties agree that there must be fair representation of the parties 21.15 directly involved in the dispute. 3) Tf�e parties will use legal proceedings as a last resort. �I In the event the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, eacii party retains all rigfits, remedies or defenses it had prior to ente�ing the �rocess. _, ��2. �i.'.S 1/Vl�� (?�C�1 CO ii',.� .��J�(l0 �.'.' -. '�._. � 1..�5 �. �, �. - S; � ,_ on the resolution of the dispute or a recommendation to commence legal �,�,�;,.v��„as. �. �4�`'.!: i��CsS ��t-:Gt-i�0�, , ..._ , .,.� , ., . _. . . . .; , _ , _ �!, �,- ,,�ds �� The date �^�ri?tar, !�c}io... 21.16 JO[NT POWERS ACREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE NORTHSTAR CORR[DOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN WITNESS WE-[EREOF, tl��e undersi��i�ed �artie� have caused tl,is �l<�ceement to �� e�ecuted �il their bci�a(f�. ATTEST: I3v: _I iti�: 21.17 CITY OF FRiDLEY �3. _ Date: