Loading...
PLM 11/20/2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2013 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Jack Velin, Dean Saba, Tim Solberg, and Leroy Oquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Brad Dunham OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Julie Jones, Planning Manager , Richard Koenig Aramark Uniform Services Greg Goeke, City of Minneapolis John Fruetel, Minneapolis Fire Department Approval of Minutes: October 16, 2013 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #13-13, by Aramark Uniform Services, LLC, to allow limited outdoor storage, generally located at 5330 Industrial Blvd NE. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated the petitioner, Richard Koenig, with Aramark Uniform Services, located at 5330 Industrial Boulevard, is seeking a special use permit to allow limited outdoor storage in the rear yard of the property. The items that need to be stored outside are storage trailers, pallets, empty drums and totes. rd Ms. Stromberg stated the property is located on the northwest corner of 53 Way and Industrial Boulevard, in the City’s Great Northern Industrial Park. It is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial as are all surrounding properties. The property owner also owns the vacant parcel directly to the east. The building was originally constructed in 1975. A building addition was constructed in 1999. In 1992 a special use permit was issued to allow the construction of a cell tower. As a result the cell tower was constructed in 1992. That cell tower has seen modification in both 2002 and 2004. Ms. Stromberg stated this summer the City’s Community Development Department hired a Code Enforcement Intern to do systematic inspections of the City’s commercial and industrial properties. As a Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 2 of 13 result many of its industrial businesses will be coming before the Planning Commission and City Council for special use permits for outdoor storage. This special use permit request is one of those that came to staff’s attention during those systematic inspections. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code allows limited outdoor storage in the industrial districts with a special use permit that is up to 50 percent of the buildings footprint. The existing building’s square footage is 67,955 square feet, so City Code would allow up to 33,977 square feet of outdoor storage on this property. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner would like to continue to have two outdoor storage areas for the storage of pallets, empty drums, and totes, and three storage trailers. One of the storage trailers is used to store spare parts and the other two are used to store garments. The storage area connected to the east of the building is 30 feet by 40 feet (1,200 square feet) and is for the two garment storage trailers. They also have a storage area on the northeast side of the property that is 30 feet by 50 feet (1,500 square feet) that is used for the storage of the trailer with parts, pallets, empty drums and totes. Total square footage of both outdoor storage areas is 2,700 square feet which is well below the allowable outdoor storage area for this property. Ms. Stromberg stated before the proposed special use permit can be issued, several additional requirements need to be met. Those specific requirements relate to height, screening, parking, and the types of materials allowed to be stored outside. Ms. Stromberg stated based on the calculations provided to the City by the petitioner on how the interior space of the building is used, City code would require 190 parking stalls for this site. There are 115 parking stalls on site, of which 22 are used for truck parking. The petitioner has articulated they have more than enough parking on-site for employees and have never had a parking issue. She was inside the building yesterday, did a tour of the facility, and the ratios of employees to space was very small. Staff has not noticed that parking has been a problem, but will stipulate that if it does become a problem, additional parking will need to be installed. Ms. Stromberg stated the screening of storage containers can be difficult and can also become more of a maintenance issue than the actual container if the screening is not maintained. Therefore, the two garment storage trailers connected to the east side of the building provide sufficient screening from the public right of way. Ms. Stromberg stated the storage area on the northeast side of the property will also be screened through the use of a storage container on the north side, and existing landscaping that is established on a hill from the south and Industrial Blvd. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is meeting all of the other code requirements to allow a special use permit for limited outdoor storage. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of this special use permit with stipulations as limited outdoor storage is a permitted special use in the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district, provided specific code requirements are met, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 3 of 13 1. Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the two areas as shown on Exhibit B of the resolution approving this special use permit request. 2. The types of materials stored within the two outdoor storage areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. 3. If a parking shortage occurs on the site, the petitioner shall develop an agreeable plan approved by City staff to re-work the interior space of the existing building or find other parking options. 4. Outdoor storage area on northeast side of the property should be screened through the use of opaque fencing and/or landscaping materials. Ms. Stromberg stated she crossed out Stipulation No. 4 after being on-site yesterday which proved there really is no need for additional screening of the outdoor storage area. Richard Koenig, Aramark Uniform Services, stated he is the maintenance manager. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Koenig whether he had any questions about the things Ms. Stromberg said and is he in agreement with them? Mr. Koenig replied, yes. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether he had any problems? Mr. Koenig replied, no problems with them. Commissioner Oquist asked about the empty drums, what was in them? Is there hazardous waste or anything like that? Mr. Koenig replied, no hazardous waste. It is fabric softener, a solvent they use to wash; but everything has to be rinsed out and cleaned before putting it outside as the hauler will not take it unless they are clean and dry. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Koenig he is in the clothing preparation, dry cleaning, business. Mr. Koenig replied, yes. Commissioner Oquist asked whether the drums are out there temporarily and then someone picks them up? Mr. Koenig replied, yes, but they do have to have 60 drums before they take them. Commissioner Sielaff stated he was satisfied with this SUP request. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:10 P.M. Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 4 of 13 Chairperson Kondrick stated he drove over there. He has no problem with it. He can see how if the trailers are arranged in a certain way you cannot see what is going on back there. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Special Use Permit, SP #13-13, by Aramark Uniform Services, LLC, to allow limited outdoor storage, generally located at 5330 Industrial Blvd NE with the following stipulations: 1. Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the two areas as shown on Exhibit B of the resolution approving this special use permit request. 2. The types of materials stored within the two outdoor storage areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. 3. If a parking shortage occurs on the site, the petitioner shall develop an agreeable plan approved by City staff to re-work the interior space of the existing building or find other parking options. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA # 13-02, by City of Fridley, to consider rezoning property, from C-2, General Business to M-2, Heavy Industrial, generally located at 3720 East River Road NE. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:12 P.M. Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated the latest use of this site was Baggan’s Pub, which was foreclosed and is now owned by Prime Security Bank. The site comprised of two separate lots at the corner of East th River Road and 37 Ave on Minneapolis border. Ms. Jones stated this rezoning was initiated by City staff. It is something they have been talking about internally for about a year. Since the property is vacant with no current buyer, the City felt it is a good time to address this problem which they feel is an incorrect zoning on the property. Ms. Jones stated the current owner, however, disagrees with staff recommendation to rezone, feeling it limits their ability to market the site and receive a top value offer on the property. She did provide a copy of a letter the City received from the owner just about an hour before the meeting started. It is a letter from Prime Security Bank giving their concerns. They were not planning to have a representative here tonight; therefore, Ms. Jones encouraged them to send the City something in writing to convey their opinion on the site. The owner feels that rezoning the property to Industrial would limit their marketability of the site and limit their ability to receive the top dollar value they would like to have for the property. Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 5 of 13 Ms. Jones stated State Statutes give zoning authority to cities, even without support of the owner. It is in both the City’s and the owner’s best interests to see this property repurposed to its highest and best use. Staff feels strongly that the rezoning will improve the marketability of the site. Ms. Jones stated in its vacant condition, this site is a strain on City resources. She printed out a report from just the past six years and there are 12 violations that have occurred just in the past two years and those are only the ones that are documented. There are a lot of other times where she has simply called the Bank and told them that the property is open for trespass, and they need to secure it rather than send in a letter. Police need to patrol it regularly in an out-of-the way location. It appears the site is also being used for unauthorized outside storage. Ms. Jones stated the site is currently zoned C-2, General Business. With the lots combined in size it is 2.31 acres of land. The existing building on the site is 10,708 square feet. The vacant building is in poor condition, as is the parking lot. th Ms. Jones stated the surrounding uses are all heavy industrial. There is a business across 37 that is in Minneapolis that is a manufacturing type of business which is industrial. And then Rock-Tenn is across East River Road on the Minneapolis side, which is the manufacturer of cardboard and has quite a massive trucking operation. To the north of the property is the Minneapolis Emergency Training facility. Across East River Road in Fridley is Copart, which is a salvage yard. Ms. Jones stated the site’s zoning originally was M-2 to match surrounding zoning. The first use on site in 1949 was as a City liquor store and became zoned public. In 1970 a restaurant was added, the liquor store closed, but rezoning to commercial use, C-2, did not occur until 1975. Different restaurants serving liquor came and failed after the commercial rezoning, the last one being Baggan’s Pub. Ms. Jones stated the site has deteriorated a lot, especially in the last couple of years - likely due to inadequate business. The site has not been maintained for decades and now contains a deteriorated building, parking lot, and landscaping. Ms. Jones stated M-2 zoning is a better fit. The C-2 zoning was spot zoning and failed because commercial uses need the synergy neighboring commercial sites offer to succeed. Ms. Jones stated the site, with lots combined, meets the minimum lot size standards for M-2 zoning. M- 2 zoning would allow most of the uses the owner has had inquiries from. The City has had discussions with the City of Minneapolis looking at possibly expanding their training facility next door. At this time they do not have the money in the budget but are interested in it. Hennepin County has also been looking at it to build another recycling facility in north Minneapolis. Ms. Jones stated that other than the letter received tonight, staff has received no phone or written comments from surrounding properties and believes the current C-2 zoning is not appropriate for this site. M-2 zoning is a better fit for this site and will lead to the site being sold to a long-term, successful user. Ms. Jones stated one of the concerns expressed in the letter received tonight is a potential buyer of a vocational school of some sort. There are not a lot of details. That is one use that has not been portrayed to the City before. In the Zoning Code that use would require the C-2 zoning but is not a permitted use in the M-2 zoning. They are asking in the letter for the City to hold off on the rezoning for six months. In light of this new information, staff would still contend the City go ahead with the rezoning as, while the vocational school use sounds promising, the City has gotten calls from uses that would be a much better Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 6 of 13 fit in the Industrial zoning. Also, she really questions whether the existing building can be re-used as is indicated in the letter. It has had severe deterioration on the exterior and there is extensive water damage as it has been vandalized repeatedly and apparently the plumbing was ripped out of it while the water was still connected. It is an old building built in 1949 and has had patchwork additions. Commissioner Sielaff stated regarding a vocational school that was a last minute thing that was brought up so nothing has been asked about this from the property owner? Mr. Jones replied, that is correct. The City has not had any inquiries on that use, which is unusual. Usually the City will hear from someone asking questions to make sure of things - especially from schools. They receive a lot of inquiries from schools wondering whether something would be permitted in a zoning district. MOTION by Commissioner Saba accepting the November 20, 2013, letter from Jay Larsen, Prime Security Bank. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Sielaff asked how long has this been a foreclosed property? Ms. Jones replied, it went into foreclosure in 2010. She believed it states that in the letter from Prime Security Bank, and it matches the City’s code enforcement records. Greg Goeke , Director of Property Services for the City of Minneapolis, stated the City of Minneapolis has had some on and off discussions with the current owner about acquisition and also planning staff. However, as they can imagine in an election year with a new Mayor and City Council it is hard to move forward with large strategic real estate decisions. He does not think they will be able to do anything serious in discussions until their new council and mayor has had a chance to take the oath of office, carry on some other business, etc. They still have an interest in the property. They understand the market value of it and know that real dollars speak more than intentions. Mr. Goeke stated they have quite a bit of investment in the whole area, and what may not be visible at their emergency operations training facility behind the doors is $3 million of technology with which they monitor key public safety cameras in the downtown district and other commercial corridors. It is an extension of the City’s policing operations. There is the fire training unit there and they also train first responders from other communities. The apparatus that Ms. Jones was speaking about is part of the emergency training. They have a special team that is available to the entire metro area. Minneapolis also has a long-term investment in the City’s waterworks. One of the concepts they are working on is a new facility plan for the public water works facility. It may not be located in that general area or there may be more involvement with the current property. They are weighing a couple options and doing time studies, etc. However, they are nowhere near a decision on that. Mr. Goeke stated obviously they are not familiar with the City of Fridley’s planning and zoning classifications but, when they hear Industrial, if they had a little better knowledge of a current use they might feel like it was something they could live next to comfortably. They are concerned about their investment and the close proximity to the property as they are the folks that border it. Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 7 of 13 John Fruetel , Chief of Minneapolis Fire Department, stated obviously he has been closely involved with the project since its inception. Around 1985 they looked for a new facility and it has taken a long time for them to find a real quality training facility. It also serves as the greater dimensions of the emergency operations center. After the fall of the 35W bridge, one of the things that came out of that event is they were woefully aware of needing an effective emergency operations center, which this center has turned into. When he saw, Heavy Industrial, he himself was a little bit concerned about what might move in next door. Right now the building for their facility is operating on almost a 24/7 basis. If the Commission gets an opportunity they offered a tour, because it is really interesting to see what the strategic information system can do. Fire Chief Fruetel stated he too wishes he was in a position to be able to have a little more flexibility as they would love to have the subject property. Commissioner Kondrick asked if they would be interested in acquiring this property if Minneapolis had the money? Would they be interested in expanding the facility they have now into this area? Mr. Goeke stated as he works with the Fridley staff, it was difficult to make an offer with a ready to go project. The project size vs. the acquisition costs and the location, it is very easy for them to say they would be interested in doing it at that property. Commissioner Sielaff asked Ms. Jones whether she did say there were other interested parties? Ms. Jones replied, yes, they have had inquiries a few times from Hennepin County interested in an industrial use. That is one of the reasons why staff feels the industrial use would serve the property well because the serious inquiries the City has had on the property have been industrial in nature. However, Hennepin County is looking at numerous sites; and she has not heard from them lately, but this is one of the sites they have been looking at for building another waste/recycling facility. Chairperson Kondrick stated he was having breakfast with Jim Kodiak and he mentioned that might be a possible site for the County to build a new recycling plant. Ms. Jones stated the reason Commissioner Kodiak is knowledgeable about that is there has been a joint agreement for negotiations going on between Anoka County and Hennepin County to share such a facility. Mr. Goeke stated the City spent a little over two years working with the County on a joint recycling and drop-off center. The acreage needed for that purpose is four or five acres for the storm water th management, parking, and so forth. The City did acquire industrial property at 27 and University for that purpose, and they have not disclosed of that. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:37 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated the City of Minneapolis is not ready to move yet for obvious reasons. They have new people and do not know where the money is going, but he thinks the M-2 zoning is going Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 8 of 13 to give the City of Fridley many more customer opportunities than it is currently zoned. They have all driven by there thousands of times, and he can see how that would be an appropriate zoning and would give the cities of Fridley and Minneapolis much more flexibility in terms of usage. Commissioner Oquist stated he agrees with that. It has always been sort of a trouble spot. It is all heavy industrial down there anyways, M-2. Commissioner Sielaff stated he did not think it appropriate to have Commercial down there. Commissioner Saba stated he does not have any problem with it. Commissioner Solberg stated he has no problem with it. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Rezoning, ZOA # 13-02, by City of Fridley, to consider rezoning property, from C-2, General Business to M-2, Heavy Industrial, generally located at 3720 East River Road NE. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Receive the minutes of the October 3, 2013, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the minutes of the July 9, 2013, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the minutes of the September 10, 2013, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the draft minutes of the November 12, 2013, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 9 of 13 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Consideration of forwarding EQE Organized Garbage Collection recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Velin stated in 2009 because of the citizens’ complaints about trucks damaging newly paved roads, EQEC and City Manager launched studies. The EQEC (Environmental Quality and Energy Commission) conducted studies in 2010 and 2011. The public, haulers and experts participated. Commissioner Velin stated Fridley has an “Open” waste hauling system. Haulers pay a minimal licensing fee to operate in the city. The five licensed haulers (Ace, Allied, LePage & Sons, Walters, Waste Management) have customers scattered around the city and their routes vary. Day of the week pickups are not the same for each neighborhood. Commissioner Velin stated an organized system involves the City contracting with one hauler to collect garbage and yard waste in the entire City (like is done now for recycling) or with a group of haulers that collect in zones to match their current customer base. These are usually long-term contracts and typically involve the City handling the administration of the service. Commissioner Velin stated in April 2010 panel discussions started on benefits and challenges of organized vs. open collection at EQEC meetings. Surveys and newsletter articles went out to residents. In May 2010 the Fridley city attorney attended and state and local laws were discussed and it was clarified that any new collection system must not impair recycling. In July 2010 City staff panelists from Blaine, Robbinsdale, Columbia Heights, cities that have organized collection, provided input. How to handle yard waste and bulky items was discussed. In September 2010 air quality like CO2 and neighborhood health impacts were discussed. In October 2010 Peter Sandhei from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency presented findings from a waste collection service study. He stated that substantial licensing fees do not produce enough revenue to compensate cities for road damage. Commissioner Velin stated in November 2010 Fridley's haulers shared their points of view on organized vs. open collection systems, voicing opinion that the open system offers residents better service because of competition. They voiced fear that small haulers cannot compete if one-hauler system is selected and said that axle weight of trucks had decreased over the years and that some haulers are now using natural gas-burning trucks that have less impactful emissions Commissioner Velin stated the following are EQEC findings: (1) The recycling recapture rate is higher with organized garbage programs and more easily follow Anoka County directives to reduce solid through same message with all haulers; (2) An MPCA study shows that 73 percent of US Cities outside Minnesota have one- hauler/neighborhood; (3) Garbage trucks are among heaviest on road, based on axle weight; (4) Minnesota studies between 1993 and 2004 show lower cost for organized collection (but individual contracts may be less than if switch to organized takes place); (5) City would incur administrative costs but currently has many code enforcement cases involving lack of garbage service (over 100 annually) which also involves staff time; Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 10 of 13 (6) Reducing truck noise and air pollution would reduce property owner complaints and match Comprehensive plan goals; (7) Increasing safety in our residential neighborhoods is important for encouraging walking and biking: (8) Food waste collection could be done more uniformly. Up to 30 percent of waste stream is food waste. Too many plastics in waste stream also, marketing to reduce this may be easier; and (9) With organized collection haulers lose pricing flexibility and are concerned about smaller haulers’ livelihoods. Commissioner Velin statedDr. Wiley from Minnesota State University-Mankato is working on a model for assessing road impact (2011 preliminary paper issued, model in process, fall 2013). The 2013 MN Legislature passed new procedures for Organized Collection: Statute #115 A-94. The 2013 Public Works Director Kosluchar presented a memo on Fridley road impacts from heavy trucks in residential areas in November, summarizing that the City could potentially extend the life of residential streets 7 years and reduce street repair costs by $100,000 per year if there were one rather than five garbage trucks going down residential streets each week. Commissioner Velin stated ties to Fridley 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals are: Protecting Fridley’s natural environment, reducing air and noise pollution, improving common health and quality of life, shifting away from polluting and wasteful practices, working to minimize conflicts between different modes of transportation, and improving overall safety and quality of life. Commissioner Velin stated the 2013 EQEC Recommendations to Council are: (1) That the Fridley City Council explore the option of organizing City garbage collection (per 2013 MN Statute 115A.94); (2) That the City Council encourage a process that allows the existing five licensed residential haulers to divide their existing Fridley market share into zones (per 2013 MN Statute 115A.94); (3) That if an organized garbage system is developed in the City, it should include single- family homes through 12-unit apartment buildings (like recycling); and (4) That the EQEC would be willing to conduct further studies if the Council felt it met the statutory requirements for considering organized garbage collection. Chairperson Kondrick thanked Commissioner Velin and commended him and the other members of the EQEC for putting a lot of time and effort into this. Commissioner Velin replied, four years they have been working on this. Commissioner Sielaff asked where do they go from here now? To the City Council? Commissioner Velin stated under the statute the Council has a process to follow. They can vote to approve it or turn it down. The process is available if they want to use it. Commissioner Sielaff asked Commissioner Velin whether his recommendation is to go forward with it? Commissioner Velin replied, to go forward with it. Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 11 of 13 Commissioner Oquist stated he had a bit of a problem with No. 2 and asked if it was legal? Regarding the five existing haulers divide their existing Fridley marketing shares. Companies cannot get together and say, I am going to take care of the south side and you take care of the north side. He asked whether somebody has reviewed No. 2? Ms. Jones replied, it is not only legal, it is required by the law. The reference that Commissioner Velin made to the 2013 statute, there was an amendment to Chapter 115 in State Statutes that now require cities that pass a resolution to study organized collection, that they have to start that process by allowing the existing licensed haulers 60 days to discuss among themselves and organize themselves into a consortium should they choose to do that. That has always been a process a lot of cities have followed and encouraged. However, now it is actually required in the law the City has to allow 60 days for that process to attempt to happen. That requirement was put into place to protect the small haulers. Commissioner Oquist asked as to specifically the hauler question, he still kind of questions this if it is truly legal to do that; allow companies to get together and decide where they are going to do their work. He remembered in the past that was not legal. Ms. Jones stated Minneapolis is handled by MRI, Minneapolis Refuse Inc., which is a consortium of a number of haulers. Commissioner Oquist stated this is not unique to haulers then. It is legal for haulers to get together. Ms. Jones replied, yes, it is. They have situations where it has happened. Champlin is another location that has an organized group of their existing haulers. That is what the EQEC is saying; that they support this, and the City should go that direction. To try and keep the existing five haulers and encourage them to work among themselves, divide up the accounts they have in designated areas of the community, so they all still have the same number of accounts but are in a concentrated area. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether the haulers themselves would decide what parts of the City they would have. He asked whether the City be overseeing this at all? He could see haulers going door to door trying to get more customers as they need a greater share. Chairperson Kondrick stated part of the problem is they decide what area they want to have and set the price. They could do so according to what type of neighborhood it is. The City Council is going to have to have a say in this. Chairperson Kondrick stated it would be nice to have fewer trucks coming through their neighborhoods. Ms. Jones stated in the system with the five haulers if they were to become a consortium, say it is FRI (Fridley Refuse Inc.) like so many cities have done, what happens is that consortium then contracts with the City; and the price is set uniformly across the City. Every hauler charges the same rate. Commissioner Oquist asked, if they then want to raise their rates, like a utility company does, do they have to come to the City and request the rate hike? Ms. Jones replied, right - just like the City does for recycling. Commissioner Saba asked about the yard waste. Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 12 of 13 Ms. Jones replied, in these systems some cities have the yard waste incorporated into their recycling contract and sometimes it is incorporated into the refuse contract. She would assume since it is not currently in the City’s recycling contract, it would end up being part of the refuse contract. Commissioner Sielaff asked where they are at right now the City Council will make a decision on some type of a schedule? Ms. Jones replied, Commissioner Velin is planning on presenting what he did this evening to the City Council on December 2. It will then be up to them to decide whether they want to go full fledge into it, they can pass the resolution, start the timeline going. Or they may decide they want to study it some more. One of the reasons the EQEC made that fourth recommendation is, if the City Council needed them to, because of another change to the recent amendment to the State Statute is the City now has to designate a committee to study it. That happened after the EQEC already spent three years studying it as a committee; therefore, unfortunately they will likely have to start over again. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving forwarding the EQE Organized Garbage Collection recommendation to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Update on TOD Master Plan Grant Review of the Islands of Peace park plan. Ms. Jones stated staff wanted to give the Commission the map she provided as an informational item. It is a product of the Livable Communities TOD master plan grant the City received from the Metropolitan Council last December. Unfortunately they found out once they got the grant agreement they could not use the consultant grant funds to hire a consultant to do any planning of park property. The Islands of Peace Park property was a key component in the whole TOD master plan area the City wanted to take on. Basically, staff is taking on master planning the part of the Transit Oriented Development zoning district the City received special legislative approval for which to develop a transit tax increment financing district. It is not the whole area of the TOD district, it is basically Main Street on over to the river. Staff feels that incorporating access to the river is a key part of seeing that whole area redevelop over time. This is a long-range, multi-decade-long plan. Ms. Jones stated what staff did is work with Anoka County Parks and hire a consultant without the grant funds, and this plan worked out just for the Islands of Peace Park. They will see there is a larger area on the map with some marked up things; however, staff had to do some of that because they had to look at th how the 57 Avenue connection was going to come into play with that area of the park. All are happy with it and they are good to go with the rest of the master plan project. They did send out proposals today for the rest of the master plan project they need to finish by the end of 2014. Ms. Jones stated that this process staff is moving forward on is going to involve public meetings, public input; but they really needed to proceed with this part of it, too, because Anoka County was doing a master plan update with Metropolitan Council’s parking department for the Riverfront Regional Park. Islands of Peace Park is actually technically part of Riverfront Park south of the freeway. They have done Planning Commission November 20, 2013 Page 13 of 13 that for funding purposes so they can obtain federally funding for the regional park in that area, and it gave them enough acreage to include that. It is kind of interesting because it is all land owned by the City, but it is under a joint powers agreement with the County to maintain it with the County facilities there. Ms. Jones stated it is a rather unique situation; they worked out a good partnership on it and came up with a good plan, a good start, to see how they can tie in new housing to that area and really take advantage of the access to the river and the trails they currently have funding for and the ones they hope to have in the future with that transit tax increment financing money. Chairperson Kondrick stated in general what it means is that the City, the County, and Metropolitan Council feel this area is going to grow because of a lot of different things; and that this is going to provide some people with some recreational opportunities who live in that general area. For example, the people at Georgetown Apartments, and all around that area people can use this for recreational opportunities, correct? Ms. Jones replied, as they can now. They are actually looking at expanding the park over time. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Solberg adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary