Loading...
PCA 2-12-24 Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 2024 7:00 PM Fridley Civic Campus, 7071 University Avenue N.E. Agenda Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Meeting Minutes 1.Approval of the November 15, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Hearing 2.Public Hearing to Consider Interim Use Permit, IUP #24-01, to allow an electric security fence use at 4650 Main Street NE Other Business Adjournment Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any City of Fridley services, programs, or activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons who require auxiliary aids should contact the City at (763) 572-3450. 2 Jufn!2/ AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date:February 21, 2024 Meeting Type:Planning Commission Submitted By:Julianne Beberg, Office Coordinator Title Approval of the November 15, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Background Attached are the November 15, 2023, Financial Impact None Recommendation Staff recommend the approval of theNovember 15, 2023,Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments and Other Resources November 15, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Vision Statement We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses. 3 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission November 15,2023 7:00 PM Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue NE Minutes Call to Order Chair Hansencalled the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present Pete Borman John Buyse II Mark Hansen Mike Heuchert Aaron Klemz Terry McClellan Ross Meisner Others Present Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager Nancy Abts, Associate Planner Approval of Meeting Minutes 1.Approve October 18,2023, Planning Commission Minutes Motionby Commissioner Meisnerto approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing 2.Public Hearing to Consider Interim Use Permit, IUP #23-01, to Allow an Electric Security Fence Use at 3737 East River Road Motionby Commissioner Bormanto open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Meisner. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 7:01p.m. Nancy Abts, Associate Planner,presented a request from Amarokon behalf of Copartseeking approval for a ten-foot-talllow voltage electric security perimeter fence for the existing automotive 4 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 11/15/2023 auctionand outdoor storage use at 3737 East River Road. She reviewed the previous Special Use Permits that were issued for this use. She provided a site description and reviewed the history of the site. She reviewed the criteria and analysis for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) and provided additional details on landscaping. She then reviewed the proposed stipulations of approval. She asked that the Commission hold the public hearing and stated that staff recommends approval with the stipulations. Commissioner Buyse asked how the City would know that the use has discontinued. Ms. Abts commented that staff is active in code enforcement and would discover that if the applicant did not expressly tell the City. Commissioner Klemz asked if the fence has already been installed. Ms. Stromberg replied that the fence is installed and the request from the applicant is to make the installation legal. She confirmed that the fence was installed in 1994. She also confirmed that the landscaping plan is from 1987 and the stipulation would require compliance with that plan to some degree. Commissioner Klemz stated that it seems odd that the first IUP being considered is to ratify a site that is over 30 years old and has not been in compliance with paying park dedication fees or its landscaping plan for several decades. He stated that if approved there is a stipulation that the park dedication would be paid within 30 days and asked if that could be required before the City Council consider the application. Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, confirmed that change to the stipulation could be made. Ms. Abts commented that for this site the park dedication would have been collected with a building permit but there has not been a building permit, therefore staff believed it would be appropriate for that fee to be paid at this time. Commissioner Heuchert asked and received confirmation that it was both the height and electrification that require the IUP. He asked for more details on how an electrified fence is a use, as the use of the parcel is already approved. Mr. Stromberg stated that the auto auction use is permitted through the Special Use Permit and this change would make the electric fence, that has existed for 30 years, legal through the use of an IUP. She stated that the fence would be removed if the use leaves the site. She stated that the applicant was going to apply for a text amendment to allow electric fences in all industrial districts, but staff felt that an IUP would be a better tool to allow this use. Commissioner Klemz asked if approving this IUP would set precedent for future requests. He stated that while he could see that an electric fence would make sense in this location, there are other similar uses adjacent to residential that would not be a good fit for an electric fence. Ms. Abts replied that approving this IUP would not set precedent for future requests as it is unique to the property and temporary. She stated that anyone can make a request, but the request must be considered on its own merits. Commissioner Borman stated that the staff report made it seem that the fence was not already in place, but received confirmation that the electric fence has been installed and in use for 30 years. Mr. 5 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 11/15/2023 Stromberg stated that the Fire Department responded to a call four months ago and alerted staff to the fence which led to this path forward. Commissioner McClellan asked and received confirmed that the Fire Department would have the appropriate key, or knowledge from the property owner, to disarm the fence if needed. Commissioner Buyse asked if the City had previous knowledge of the fence. Ms. Stromberg stated that staff was not aware of the fence. She stated that the electric fence is inside the existing corrugated fence. She commented that the owner/operator has not been the same since 1994. Commissioner Klemz asked and received confirmation that the owner of the site asked staff for approval to install an electric fence in 1994, was told to apply for a text amendment, did not do so and then installed the fence anyway. Commissioner McClellan asked and received confirmation that the payment in lieu of trees planted would be placed into a forestry fund rather than the general fund. Commissioner Meisner asked the length of the current ownership. He asked the schedule for business inspections, as he would anticipate that an unapproved property enhancement would have been caught during that process. Ms. Stromberg replied that a building permit has not been pulled since the 1990s, therefore she was unsure how often the Fire Department would have inspected the business. She noted that typically permitting is the trigger for business inspections. Chris Eaton, Amarock, commented that the original owner of the company started as a guard dog company which then morphed into an electric fence type of protection. He stated that the use has always been an auto auction use and his company protects their sites all over the country. He stated that they reviewed previous City Council minutes from the 1990s and the only instance he could find was related to a discussion of a potential text amendment for an electric fence and while there seemed to be positive input from the Council, there did not seem to be any follow up therefore he was unsure where the miscommunication arose. He stated that they found out about this from the Fire Department, and they then worked with City staff to find a solution when they discovered the fence was not permitted. He stated that people are not aware of the fence because it is fairly transparent from the outside and is only armed when it needs to be armed. He further explained how the fence works and stated that his company owns the fence and if the use changes, they would remove the fence themselves. He asked that the Commission recommend approval of the fence as it would allow continued protection of the property. He confirmed that the signage has been in place and was updated to match his company’s current standards. Commissioner Buyse asked why Amarock is here rather than Copart. Mr. Eaton replied that his company owns the fence and leases it to the business owner. Commissioner Buyse commented that it seems strange that Copart is not here to address the other elements such as landscaping. Ms. 6 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 11/15/2023 Stromberg stated that it is typical that another party can applyfor a land use application for the property owner, provided the property owners signs off on the application, noting a similar situation in the next case. She clarified that Amarock is the petitioner. Commissioner Buyse asked why money would be accepted in lieu of the landscaping they would want to see. Ms. Abts replied that the recommendation is born out of practicality as there are not many opportunities to plant onsite given the 40 plus years of auto auction that has occurred onsite. Commissioner Meisner asked if there has ever been enforcement on the lack of landscaping. Ms. Abts replied that the records do not show such actions. Commissioner McClellan asked and received confirmation from Mr. Eaton that Amarock owns the fence and has owned the fence since its installation since 1994. Commissioner Borman asked if Amarock would be paying the fee in lieu of landscaping. Mr. Eaton replied that Amarock is responsible for the fence,but the landscaping is the responsibility of Copart. He commented that Amarock did not know that this fence was not permitted when it was installed. He commented that while this seems unusual, this is not an unusual occurrence to find that something was not properly permitted. Commissioner Borman expressed frustration with this case being presented as something that has not yet happened only to find out this fence has existed for decades. He also expressed frustration with Copart not being present to provide input on the stipulations that would be directed towards the business related to park dedication and landscaping. Commissioner Buyse commented that it would have been reasonable to give Copart time to plant trees, if they had not already had 30 years to do so and is not present tonight, therefore he supports the payment in lieu. Mr. Eaton noted that Copart may be in the same position of Amarock in that ownership has changed hands over the last 30 years and the current managers and principles had no idea of these outstanding issues, therefore all they can do it try to make it right at this time. Commissioner Meisner asked what would occur if the applicant were to try to plant the trees and the trees were to die. Ms. Stromberg replied that the City is going to review its landscaping policy in the coming months to ensure they make sense. She stated that in this instance there is not a lot of space to plant trees, but if trees are planted and they die, the tree would need to be replaced. She commented on the staff turnover since the 1980s, noting that the landscaping plan was in the file, but she cannot say with certainty that it was an approved landscape plan. She commented that most of the landscaping was in the right-of-way and therefore permission would have been needed from Anoka County. She stated that nonconformities on the site have been identified and the current owners are trying to resolve them. Commissioner Meisner asked if there are other electric fences in the city. Ms. Stromberg replied not that she is aware of. 7 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 11/15/2023 Motionby Commissioner Meisnerto close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heuchert. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner McClellan commented that he feels pressure to fix something that has been unresolved for decades and would have preferred for someone from Copart to be present. Commissioner Buyse commented that while is does seem fishy, it could also be a mistake that occurred years ago. He stated that if the application were brought forward today, he would support the fence but would want it to be visually hidden. He also recognized that may not be something that is fixable. Commissioner Meisner commented that this is located in an industrial area and therefore is not impacting residential properties. Commissioner Klemz commented that he believes this is the best solution as he would not support a text amendment allowing electric fences district wide. He stated that he would like to see park dedication paid prior to this moving to the City Council. He stated that while there are concerns that this has been unpermitted for 30 plus years, this does appear to be the best solution. Chair Hanson commented that he lives in this area and therefore drives by frequently and was not aware this fence existed. He recognized that there was probably miscommunication between all parties related to the original permit and also believed that this is the best method to resolve the situation, agreeing that the park dedication should be paid before moving to the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Klemz recommending approval of the Interim Use Permit until the present automotive auction use is discontinued, subject to stipulations and amending the park dedication stipulation to state that park dedication be paid prior to the City Council meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. Further discussion: Commissioner Meisner asked if additional language should be stated that in lieu of the landscaping requirements, the payment could be made. Commissioner Buyse commented that the applicant would have one year to do so or make the payment. Commissioner Klemz commented that if the trees would be feasible, he would be fine with the trees being planted. He believed the requirement was reasonable as stipulated and wanted to allow the applicant to make the decision. Upon a voice vote, six voting aye, one voting nay (Borman), Chair Hansen declared the motion carried. 8 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 11/15/2023 3. Public Hearing to Consider Special Use Permit, SP #23-03 to Allow an Assisted Living Use at 6425 Highway 65 N.E. Motion by Commissioner Buyse to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Meisner. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was opened at 8:16 p.m. Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, presented a request for a Special Use Permit to covert the property at 6425 Highway 65 to a Supervised Living Facility (assisted living facility). She noted that this use is permitted through the Minnesota Department of Health. She reviewed the site description and history of the previous activity of the site noting the last use as a chiropractic clinic. She reviewed the applicable Code requirements and analysis of the request. She asked that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and stated that staff recommends approval of the request subject to the reviewed stipulations. Commissioner McClellan asked if there are any other similar facilities in Fridley. Ms. Stromberg replied that all other assisted living facilities in the City would be similar. She confirmed that this would be a short-term facility with stays of 30 to 90 days. Commissioner McClellan asked if there were any concerns from Public Safety. Ms. Stromberg replied that Public Safety did not have any concerns. Commissioner Klemz asked if the applicant owns any other facilities in Fridley. Drew Horwitz, Horwitz Health, stated that this would be their first project in Fridley and fourth project in the metro. He commented that they like the building and location and believe this would also be an improvement for the site. He recognized that there are not many short-term facilities in this area. He stated that this facility would serve people 55 plus that experience cognitive delays and disorders, whether that is due to injury or age. He confirmed that this would be a transitional care facility and after their stay they could return home or to wherever would best care for them. He commented that all of their guests are staying their voluntarily and do not require a locked facility. Stephanie Goode, Howitz Health, provided details on the security that would be implemented and the screening that is completed to ensure the resident would be appropriate for this facility. Mr. Horwitz stated that they also have case managers that help to develop a long-term plan for the residents, should that be needed. Motion by Commissioner Meisner to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse. 9 Jufn!2/ Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 11/15/2023 Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Borman noted that there were residents that attended the public hearing for a previous use request for this property that requested the wooded area remain but be cleaned up. Commissioner Buyse believed that this use would better fit the space compared to the previously requested daycare use that may have had some issues with parking. Motion by Commissioner Meisner recommending revocation of the previously approved Special Use Permits for this property. Seconded by Commissioner Klemz. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Klemz recommending approval of the Special Use Permit, subject to stipulations. Seconded by Commissioner McClellan. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Ms. Stromberg provided an update on planning actions recently considered by the Council as well as items that are on the agenda to discuss in the coming year. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner McClellan to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Heuchert. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair Hansen declared the motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amanda Staple, Recording Secretary : Jufn!3/ LAND USE APPLICATIONSUMMARY Item:IUP #24-01 Meeting Date:February 21, 2024 General InformationSpecial Information Applicant:Building and Zoning History: Michelle Affronti, Amarok Security1966OriginalBuilding Permits issued for th 550 Assembly Street, 5Floor masonry & steel factory, office, & factory Columbia, SC 29201 a On behalf of property owner, Electric Motor Corporation. Supply Building Permits for Requested Action: Public Hearing to Consider InterimUse Permit, 1985 Variance issued to increase lot coverage IUP #24-01,to allow an electric security fence from 40 to 41.5 percent useat 4650 Main Street NE 2003 Electric Motor Supply Co. occupies Existing Zoning: building & receives SUP for Limited Outdoor M-2, Heavy Industrial Storage Size:11.47acres Legal Description of Property: Existing Land Use: . Warehousing and Outdoor Storage Public Utilities: Surrounding Zoning& Land Use: Building is connected. N:M-2 (Murphy Warehouse) Transportation: E:Main Street ROW& R-1 Residential The property receives access off Main Street NE S:M-2 (Central Roofing Company) Physical Characteristics: W:BNSF RailroadROW Large warehousing building with associated office Comprehensive Plan Conformance: space.Hard surface yard, parking area, Existing and Future Land Use Maps both landscaping.A multi-use trail is adjacent to the designate the property property. Summary of Request: The petitionerrequests approval for a ten-foot potential Redevelopment Area. tall low-voltage electric securityfencearound the Zoning Ordinance Conformance: rear storage and parking area. Warehousing is a permitted use.Outdoor Staff Recommendation: storage isaccessory to warehousing and is City staff recommends denial of the interimuse approved by an existing Special Use Permit. permitrequest. City Code Section 205.05.06 definesand City Council Action/60 Day Action Date: regulates Interim Uses. City Council March11, 2024 60 Day Date March 18, 2024 Staff Report Prepared by Nancy Abts 21 Jufn!3/ Written Report The Request The applicant requests approval for a ten-foot tall low-voltage electric fence at the subject property. The property has an approved outdoor storage special use permit. The applicant is a security company that would install and own the fence and lease it to the property owner. The property owner is concerned about crime which has prompted the request for the interim use permit. Site Description and History The subject property is located off Main Street. It is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. It is a similar size to other M-2 properties in the city. The property is located in southern Fridley, between Main Street and the railroad right-of-way. Limited outdoor storage on the site is authorized by Special Use Permit #03-18. The outdoor storage area is limited to no more than 50 percent of the building area. (The proposed electric fence encloses an area much larger than what is allowed for outdoor storage at this site.) The property is similar to other Fridley industrial properties in its location between the railroad and a two-lane road. It has a regular rectilinear shape. The Fridley Police Department notes that the property has experienced theft and repeated damage to their existing chain link fence. Crime likely relates to the specific items that are stored outside at the property. Electrical and mechanical components are targets for theft. Other properties along the railroad store building materials without issue. The Police Department has offered to do a site security assessment for the business. In response to concerns about security, the Police Department offers suggestions for improving safety at the site, including removing overgrown vegetation along and within the fence line and improving lighting. The chain link fence could be replaced with a solid barrier. CźŭǒƩĻ Њʹ ŷĻ ĭǒƩƩĻƓƷ ĭŷğźƓ ƌźƓƉ ŅĻƓĭĻͲ ǝźĻǞĻķ ŅƩƚƒ .b{C ƩźŭŷƷΏƚŅΏǞğǤ ƚƓ CĻĬƩǒğƩǤ ЊͲ ЋЉЋЍ͵ ŷĻ ŅĻƓĭĻ ŷğƭ ĬĻĻƓ ĭǒƷ ğƓķ ƩĻƦğźƩĻķ ΛĭĻƓƷĻƩ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ źƒğŭĻΜ͵ 9ğƭźƌǤΏĭƌźƒĬğĬƌĻ ǝĻŭĻƷğƷźƚƓ ŭƩƚǞƭ ƷŷƩƚǒŭŷ ƷŷĻ ŅĻƓĭĻ͵ ŷĻ ŅĻƓĭĻ źƭ ƭŷƚƩƷĻƩ ƷŷğƓ ƷŷĻ ğķƆğĭĻƓƷ ƭƚǒƷŷĻƩƓ ƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤγƭ ŅĻƓĭźƓŭ͵ 22 Jufn!3/ Code Requirementsand Analysis In October2023In December, the City Council approved an after-the-fact Interim Use Permit for an electric fence at the property located at 3737 East River Road(Copart), where automobile salvage is stored outdoors.The Copart application was submitted on October 13, 2023. The property owner authorization allowing Amarok to apply for this permit for EMSCO was signed on October 20, 2023. The Copart application was approved by the City Council on December 11, and the EMSCO application was submitted on the next available application date, January 19, 2024. Interim use permits are intended to regulate a use that is presently acceptable, but that with anticipated redevelopment will not be acceptable in the future. Code lists the uses allowed by IUP as including: (1) Interim use of an identified Redevelopment Site unlikely to redevelop within the interim use permit period; (2) Temporary structures in use until a permanent facility can be constructed; (3) Off-siteparking; (4) Seasonal uses not otherwise provided for; (5) Any other uses determined by the City Council to be the same or similar type uses. Staff does not believe that an electric fence at the subject property qualifies under any of the possible uses. Outdoor storage of automotive salvage was the principal use at the property on East River Road where an IUP for an electric fence was approved(Copart). When the principal use of that property changes, the fence will no longer be needed. However, at the Main Street site (EMSCO), the principal use of the propertyindoor warehousingdoes not necessitate the electric fence. Code provides general standards for reviewing IUPsin205.05.6.D: CriteriaAnalysis The use will not:delay The site is not an identified redevelopment siteand no anticipated development or future change in use is proposed redevelopment of the site; Adversely impact The comprehensive plan guides the site for Industrial land implementation of the storage of material and equipment Comprehensive Plan; Be in conflict with provisions If approved by the IUP, the use would not otherwise be in of the city code on an conflict with city code ongoing basis; Adversely affect the adjacent The electric fence would be located within an existing property, the surrounding chain link fence. However, the proposed fence would be neighborhood, or other uses located ~300 feet from a multi-use trail along Main Street on the property where the use and ~400 feet from residential properties. Its prominent will be located; andwarning signs would be visible to the area and would affect the neighborhood character.The area proposed to 23 Jufn!3/ be enclosed by the electric fence is much larger than the area allowed for outdoor storage. The date or event that will No criteria for terminating the interim use have been terminate the use can be identified. identified with certainty The use will not impose If the fenceis not removed following the termination of additional unreasonable costs on the publicproperty to bear the costs of removal. The application acknowledges there is no entitlement to future re-approval of the IUP. The application also says the IUP won't impose additional costs on the public. Affirming these statements is part of the general standards of approval for IUPs. proximity to residential and recreational uses (a multi-use trail along Main Street is approximately 300 feet from the proposed fence, and residential properties are approximately 400 feet from the fence) and its prominent warning signs, the electric fence would affect the neighborhood character. Additionally, the fence has not been identified as an interim use. There is no date, event, or criteria that would terminate the use. Unlike the Copart site, the principal use at this property is not outdoor storage. Alternately,the Planning Commission or City Council might wish to allow electric fences more widely throughout the community. If a broader application of this use is allowed on a permanent rather than interimded to identify electric fences as a use that is permitted with standards. That process would involve a text amendment application, not an interim use permit. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing for InterimUse Permit, IUP#24- 01.Staff further recommends denial of Interim Use Permit, IUP#24-01. Attachments 1. 2.Public Hearing notice and mailing labels to properties within 350 ft. 24 Jufn!3/ 25 Jufn!3/ 26 Jufn!3/ Justification for Interim Use Permit (10’ Electrified) 4650 Main Street Northeast, Fridley, MN 55432 _____________________________________________________________________ AMAROK, LLC on behalf of Electric Motor Supply Company, is respectfully requesting Fridley, MNto approve an Interim Use Permit for the security system application which has been submitted to the City of Fridley; allowing a 10’ tall low-voltage, 12V/DC battery- powered, pulsed electric security system to secure the property of Electric Motor Supply Companysafely and effectively. The property is located at 4650 Main Street Northeast Road, Fridley, MN 55432, and is zoned M-2 Heavy Industrial. The installation of this security system is safely located inside of/behind the existing 6’-0” and 8’-0” tall partially slatted chain-link fence to secure the property during non-business hours. The AMAROK security system has proven to be the most effective theft and crime deterrent for businesses across the country such as Electric Motor Supply Company. Even in cases where businesses were experiencing frequent theft and loss, the installation of our security system immediately results in the prevention of any further attempted break-ins, vandalism, and theft. 27 Jufn!3/ The extenuating circumstances and special conditions are of no result of actions from the applicant. The extenuating circumstances and special conditions are based on business, theft and general crime experienced in the area. The applicant’s actions have not contributed to this result in any way. The applicant is a reputable business owner contributing to the tax base, employing residents, and providing a valuable service to the community. The applicant should not be denied the right to protect property and assets, nor should the applicant have their business penalized by the inability to secure property. The business inventory is currently secured behind a perimeter barrier which has proven ineffective. Due to the size, volume, and nature of the inventory, products must be stored in an outside lot and cannot be protected inside of a building or other enclosure. Even inventory inside the building is at risk due to the nature of the business. The products secured inside the yard are an open invitation to the criminal class. Vehicles, metal, electrical components, specialized equipment, and tools are all items that are targeted as whole or parts of these items, as these items can be sold for quick money. A business with products that include components or items that can be quickly stolen and fenced, are a criminal’s dream to be able to obtain and cause a huge financial loss to a business, sometimes to the point where a business must close its doors which in turn taxes away from the tax base of a community and displaces employees from a job causing community hardships. The company provides a valued and necessary service to the community. The company needs to ensure the safety of employees, supplies, products, and contents on the applicant’s property to maintain their excellent reputation with residents, businesses, employees while maintaining the business, securing entry into the property and its assets on the property. Business theft of this nature, along with vandalism and criminal trespass continue to increase, and the applicant is taking proactive steps to decrease crime with a monitored security system and maintain the ability to operate the business. The elevated crime rate in the area is attributed to the property's location within the city, coupled with the unique characteristics, shape, and size of the land. The property location makes this a property that ultimately lends itself to being more desirable to criminals due to the ability to access with minimal risk especially from the sides and rear. The parcel is bordered by trains, numerous local roads, and other businesses, which lends to the ability to enter and exit from various locations. The property is set back from the roads, and eyes of people passing by the property thus providing cover for criminals to trespass, commit the criminal acts, and flee with various access points surrounding the property virtually undetected. The numerous train lines in the back provide a valuable link for products to companies, however at the same time, they bring the ability for transients to jump on and off, quickly, easily, and undetected exiting the area and on to the next to commit a crime. The ability to leave through the back, over the tracks and over to East River Road allows for various ways for criminals to trespass. The neighboring properties additionally provide cover when one is entering or exiting to commit a crime. Regrettably, the criminals could easily infiltrate a residential area, posing a threat to residents' physical, financial, and emotional well-being due to the escalating criminal activity. 28 Jufn!3/ The storage yard of products, shipments and supplies are set back from the road inside a chain link slatted fence to reduce the ability to see what is on the storage yard. Unfortunately, this also reduces the ability form a passerby to see any criminal activity. Even if someone were to notice, little consideration would likely be given, as it's a business area with trucks coming and going at various hours. People generally avoid getting involved in such matters. Driving by business, it is not possible to see into the area where the items are stored. A criminal might engage in activities such as stealing, vandalizing, or trespassing for illicit purposes without being observed by passersby, given the secluded location of the storage area on the property. Criminals fleeing a crime scene are not concerned with residents or anyone in the area. They simply care about getting in and out with as much as possible. Criminal trespass and resultant incidents can lead to catastrophic outcomes (arson, employee endangerment) and/or a public safety concern. Public safety concerns come in many forms, such asstolen vehicles/trucks driven on public roadways or specialized tools, equipment, and regulated supplies being trafficked and sold illegally. Theuse will notadversely affect the adjacent property, the surrounding neighborhood, or other uses on the property where the use will be located. There is no change or newly proposed use to the existing parcel. The existing parcel’s use remains the same with the battery-powered, perimeter security system running concurrent with the existing perimeter barrier fence. The security system does not affect the yard, spaces, fences, parking, loading, and landscaping. Therefore, there will be no impact on streets, highways, and pavement type. The permit approval will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor will there be any adverse effects on abutting properties or improvements in the neighborhood. The security system is installed completely inside the existing perimeter fence and therefore not exposed to the public. To encounter the AMAROK security system, a criminal would have to intentionally trespass on the property by, first, disregarding the posted warning signs and then breaking through or scaling the existing perimeter barrier. The approval of the security system would have the opposite effect on the safety and general welfare of the neighborhood through crime prevention. In fact, the proposed security system enhances the health, safety, and welfare of persons by improving workplace safety and discouraging criminals from targeting the subject property and committing other crimes of opportunity in the neighborhood.The security system is medically safe and will not harm anyone who encounters the security system; however, it will deter someone who is planning on committing a criminal act and breach a perimeter fence. The security system is the most reliable, economical, and effective perimeter security system application available. The installation of the security system will secure the property, increase the security of the surrounding properties and the immediate area by deterring the criminal element from targeting the neighborhood resulting in higher property values and increasing the 29 Jufn!3/ tax revenue for the community and the City of Fridley can redirect law enforcement time and resources toward crimes other than trespass and burglary. The use will not adversely impact implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, nor will it be in conflict with provisions of the city code on an ongoing basis. The granting of this interim use permit approval does not change or alter the use of the property. The purpose of the code isforthe city to reviewand approve usesthat enhancethe city to residentsand businesses, thus providing a high quality of life in the city to all who reside and work in Fridley. By granting interim use permit, the zoning code and planning remains intact with emphasis on keeping the city, businesses, and residents safe while providing a place of employment for residents, and tax revenue for the city by having a strong reputable business operate in the city of Fridley. Electric Motor Supply Company has located the business at 4650 Main Street Northeast Road, Fridley, MN 55432 and provides a strong tax base to the community of Fridley. Electric Motor Supply Company would not consider implanting or using anything that could harm their employees or residents. Electric Motor Supply Company has installed this security system at other sites acrosstheUnited States and found that itis the most effective way of securing their business, property, and employees. Applicant should not be denied the right to operate a business and protect the business property along with the assets of the business. Businesses need to be able to secure products and supplies to continue to operate and add to the local economy. The granting ofthe interim use permit will notprovide applicantwith any special privilege that is denied to others in this district. Granting the interim use permit will allow the Company to protect the business and its assets, alleviating the practical difficulty and resulting hardship that has not been caused by applicant. Basedontheinformationandevidenceprovided,werespectfullyrequestthe granting of this interim use permit for Electric Motor Supply Company. Michael PateMichelle Affronti Government RelationsDirectorCompliance Manager AMAROK, LLCAMAROK, LLC Mobile:(803) 422-3600Mobile:(803) 923-2715 mpate@amarok.commaffronti@amarok.com www.AMAROK.comwww.AMAROK.com 2: Jufn!3/ 31 Jufn!3/ 32 Jufn!3/ 33 SITE PLANSHEET TITLE: FRIDLEY, MN 55421 / RLR 4 4650 MAIN ST NE 3 of 3 !3 C1 10/31/2023 ELECTRIC MOTOR SUPPLY n f PROJECT: u APPLICANT: AMAROKSCALE: SEE PLAN # DATE / DESCRIPTION 550 ASSEMBLY ST 5TH FLCOLUMBIA SC 29201803-404-6189DATE:DRAWN BY:SHEET J EN EVA TS14 EN EVA DN24 D R A DR34R EN EV E V I R E N E E PROPERTY LINE / ROWEXISTING FENCE PROPOSED SECURITYFENCEROAD/CURB EDGEEXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED FENCELENGTH V A H T 4 4 E EN EVA HT54 N T S N I A M EN EVA HT64 VICINITY MAP EN EVA HT74 APPROXIMATELY ON EACH SIDE OF GATE(S) & EN EVA HT84 NOTESPOLE LOCATIONS:STEEL POLES: TO BE LOCATEDEVERY 90° (OR GREATER) TURN IN FENCE LINE.FIBERGLASS/INTERMEDIATE POLES: TO BELOCATED APPROXIMATELY EVERY 30'DISCLAIMER:POLE LOCATIONS MAY SLIGHTLY DEVIATEFROM STIPULATIONS ABOVE DUE TO ON-SITECONDITIONSSTORM DRAIN:NO STORM DRAIN IS BEING PROPOSED AS PARTOF THIS PROJECT LEGEND N PROJECT EN EVA HT94 EN TS NIAM 200 SITE PLAN 4650 MAIN ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55421 SECURITY FENCE FOR: ELECTRIC MOTOR SUPPLY REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A 100 TO REMAIN EXISTING 6'CHAINLINK FENCEEXISTING 4'SWING GATE 2550 1C SCALE : 1" = 50'-0" SITE PLAN 1 0 EXISTING 6'CHAINLINK FENCETO REMAIN EXISTING 24'DOUBLE SWINGGATE 4-8" MIN. FROM SECURITY FENCE PERIMETER FENCE 50 APN:27-30-24-41-0002 1C 1 8' 150' TO REMAIN EXISTING 6'CHAINLINK FENCE N APN: 27-30-24-44-001 PROPERTY OWNERSTB MINNEAPOLIS PTSHP LLP4650 MAIN ST NEPROJECT DATAACRES: 11.44 FRIDLEY, MN 55421ZONING: M2 320' 1 SECURITY FENCE4-8" MIN. FROMPERIMETER FENCE 1 C CONTROLLER/POWER SOURCE REGULATING & MONITORING EQUIPMENT 366' 1 2 C 4-8" MIN. FROM APN:27-30-24-44-0001 SECURITY FENCE PERIMETER FENCE EXISTING 8' 500' SECURITY FENCE4-8" MIN. FROMPERIMETER FENCE SLATS TO REMAIN CHAINLINK FENCE W/ 208' 4-8" MIN. FROM SECURITY FENCEPERIMETER FENCE C1 1 1 C 7 00 0-1 44- 42 -0 3-7 2: NP A TO REMAIN EXISTING 6' TO REMAIN CHAINLINK FENCEEXISTING 6' CHAINLINK FENCE PROPOSEDPROPOSED NTSNTS PERIMETER FENCE SECTIONPERIMETER FENCE SECTION EXISTING 6'-0"EXISTING 8'-0" EXISTING GRADEEXISTING GRADE SECURITY FENCESECURITY FENCE2 1 C1C1 CHAINLINK FENCECHAINLINK FENCE *PROPOSED LOCATION OF ELECTRONICS ONLY, SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS. TYPICAL DETAILSSHEET TITLE: FRIDLEY, MN 55421 / RLR 5 4650 MAIN ST NE 3 of 3 !3 C2 10/31/2023 ELECTRIC MOTOR SUPPLY n f PROJECT: u APPLICANT: AMAROKSCALE: SEE PLAN # DATE / DESCRIPTION 550 ASSEMBLY ST 5TH FLCOLUMBIA SC 29201803-404-6189DATE:DRAWN BY:SHEET J TYPICAL DETAILSSHEET TITLE: FRIDLEY, MN 55421 / RLR 6 4650 MAIN ST NE 3 of 3 !3 C3 10/31/2023 ELECTRIC MOTOR SUPPLY n f PROJECT: u APPLICANT: AMAROKSCALE: SEE PLAN # DATE / DESCRIPTION 550 ASSEMBLY ST 5TH FLCOLUMBIA SC 29201803-404-6189DATE:DRAWN BY:SHEET J 1.5 61.627.03.59 108.8 WEIGHT (LBS.) DESCRIPTIVE NAME HEAD-END ELECTRONICS SIREN UNISTRUT DESCRIPTION SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANEL MTG. KIT OMNI ANTENNA ASSEMBLY LOCATION MAIN GATE ASSEMBLY WEIGHT CHART ELECTRONICS ARMATURE Jufn!3/ PUBLICNOTICE City of Fridley PlanningCommission Notice of Public Hearing to Consider anInterim Use Permit by Amarok, LLC on behalf of Electric Motor Supply Co Notice is hereby giventhat the PlanningCommissionof the City of Fridley willhold a public hearing on February 21, 2024at 7:00pmat Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E. The public hearing will consideranInterim Use Permit, IUP#24-01, by Amarok, LLC on behalf of Electric Motor Supply Co,to allow a ten-foot tall electric security fence at 4650 Main Street NE,the legal description is on file and available at Fridley City Hall. Any person desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunityat the above stated time and place. Or, comments may be submitted before the meeting tostacy.stromberg@fridleymn.govor 763572 3595. Publication date(s): February 9, 2024. The City Council will consider this item onMarch 11, 2024. 37 Jufn!3/ Fridley Civic Campus 7071 University Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 763-571-3450 | FAX: 763-571-1287 | FridleyMN.gov PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE To: Property Owners and Residents within 350 feet of 4650 Main Street NE Applicant: Amarok, LLC, on behalf of Electric Motor Supply Co. Request: Interim Use Permit #24-01, by Amarok LLC, on behalf of Electric Motor Supply Co., to allow a ten-foot tall electric security fence at 4650 Main Street, the legal description is on file an available at Fridley Civic Campus. Date of Hearings: Planning Commission Meeting, Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting is televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. Location of Planning Commission Hearing: Meeting will be held in person at Fridley Civic Campus located at 7071 University Avenue NE. How to Participate: 1. You may attend the public hearing in person and testify. 2. You may submit a letter in advance of the meeting to Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager at the address above or by email at stacy.stromberg@fridleymn.gov Questions: Call or Email Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager at 763-572-3595 or stacy.stromberg@fridleymn.gov Mailing date: February 9, 2024 Publication date: February 9, 2024 *If you require auxiliary aids or services to participate to communicate in the meeting, please contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 or roberta.collins@fridleymn.gov no later than February 14, 2024, for the Planning Commission meeting and March 4, 2024, for City Council meeting. The TDD # is: 763-572-3534. 38