Dais papers-Re_ Public Hearing Comments_ 6400 Queens Ave Industrial Redevelopment (Interim Use Permit & Preliminary Plat) - Katie Kalland - OutlookOutlook
Re: Public Hearing Comments: 6400 Queens Ave Industrial Redevelopment (Interim Use Permit &
Preliminar y Plat)
From Noah Barka <noahbarka@gmail.com>
Date Mon 5/18/2026 9:20 AM
To Dan Licht <DDL@PlanningCo.com>
Cc Nicki Barka <nickibarka@gmail.com>; Katie Kalland <kkalland@otsegomn.gov>
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the confirmation and for passing those along to the commission as part of the public
record.
Please anticipate myself and others to be in attendance and provide additional comments at the
public hearing this evening.
Best regards,
Noah
On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 9:13 AM D. DANIEL LICHT <ddl@planningco.com> wrote:
Mr. Barka:
Thanks you for submitting your comments. Received. These will be provided to the Planning Commission at
the meeting.
DDL
From: Noah Barka <noahbarka@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:06 AM
To: D. DANIEL LICHT <ddl@planningco.com>
Cc: Nicki Barka <nickibarka@gmail.com>
Subject: Public Hearing Comments: 6400 Queens Ave Industrial Redevelopment (Interim Use Permit &
Preliminary Plat)
Below are public comments related to the notice Dated May 2, 2026 regarding the proposed
activities by Endeavor Investments XII LLC at 6400 Queens Ave.
Acknowledgement of the receipt of the comments is requested prior to the comment period
closing.
18 MAY 2026
Subject: Public Hearing Comments: 6400 Queens Ave Industrial Redevelopment (Interim Use Permit
& Preliminary Plat)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing regarding the proposed Interim Use Permit and Preliminary Plat for the redevelopment
of 6400 Queens Avenue. My home is located directly south of the site, and I appreciate the
opportunity to provide input ahead of the public hearing.
I want to begin by acknowledging that industrial development and I-1 (limited industrial district)
zoning in this area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and I understand the potential
economic benefit of reinvestment in this property. My concerns are not with the industrial zoning
itself, but specifically with the proposed outdoor storage operations, which are not a permitted
use and therefore must be carefully evaluated for compatibility with adjacent residential uses.
At present, I do not believe the application demonstrates that this interim use will be compatible
with the nearby residential neighborhood or that it satisfies the ordinance requirement to mitigate
nuisance impacts. I respectfully request that the Commission consider the following issues.
1. Incomplete Application: Lack of Required Screening and Landscape Detail
The zoning ordinance requires that outdoor storage areas be effectively screened from adjacent
residential properties. However:
A final landscape plan has not been submitted.
Fence design and construction details are not provided.
Screening elements are described only conceptually and remain subject to later administrative
approval.
While staff has recommended increasing fence height, the absence of a complete screening plan at
this stage indicates that the application is not fully developed with respect to a critical
mitigation requirement.
Because screening is central to the compatibility of this use, particularly given its proximity to
residential homes, the application should not be considered complete without a detailed and
reviewable screening and landscape plan.
2. Overreliance on Distance and Open Space as Mitigation
The proposal relies heavily on approximately 350 feet of separation and intervening open space
(including a stormwater pond) as justification for compatibility.
However, this approach does not adequately address the nature of expected impacts:
Outdoor storage materials will be stacked up to 12 feet in height.
The site includes a large expanse of imper vious sur faces, which reflect and project sound.
The warehouse buildings and paved areas can amplify and direct noise toward adjacent
properties
Distance alone, especially in the context of elevated noise sources and reflective surfaces, is not
equivalent to engineered mitigation. The pond and open space may create visual separation and
allow limited, distance based sound attenuation, they do not function as effective barriers to sound
transmission.
3. Lack of Adequate Noise Analysis and Mitigation
Noise is likely the most significant impact of this proposal, yet:
No sound study or acoustic analysis has been conducted
The only proposed mitigation is a limitation on outdoor operations between 10:00 PM and
7:00 AM
This is not sufficient given the scale and nature of the proposed use to meet the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agencies part 7030 rules and standards.
The facility is expected to support over 100 jobs and includes a large outdoor storage yard. This
would indicate a high level of activity, including:
Outdoor forklift operations
Outdoor truck loading and unloading
Outdoor backup alarms and warning signals
Importantly, many of these noise sources are intermittent and impulse-based (e.g., backup
alarms), which are inherently more disruptive than continuous background noise. Backup alarms are
designed to be intrusive and attention-grabbing, and their repeated occurrence over long hours can
significantly impact the quiet enjoyment of nearby residential properties.
The current application does not demonstrate that these impacts have been evaluated or mitigated.
4. Inadequate Screening for Acoustic Impact and Second-Stor y Exposure
The proposed screening approach (fencing, existing 6-foot fencing, berms, and vegetation) is not
designed to provide sound mitigation:
Chain link fencing provides no acoustic benefit
Even a 6–7 foot fence is inadequate relative to:
12-foot material stacks
truck and equipment height
elevated noise sources
Additionally, nearby homes, including mine, have second-stor y bedrooms, where:
Noise sensitivity is highest
Sound travels over low barriers with little attenuation
The current proposal does not address sound propagation to upper-story living areas and therefore
does not adequately protect residential use.
5. Nature of the Use: Not a Permitted Use, Requires Demonstrated Compatibility
It is important to emphasize that:
Warehouse operations are a permitted use
Outdoor storage is not permitted and requires an Interim Use Permit
Because this use is not inherently compatible, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that it
can operate without creating nuisance impacts. At present, that burden has not been met.
The operational needs described could potentially be accommodated through expanded indoor
warehouse space, which would be a permitted use and significantly more compatible with adjacent
residential properties.
6. Risk to Quiet Use and Enjoyment of Residential Property
This proposal presents a significant risk to the quiet use and enjoyment of neighboring
residential properties, particularly due to:
Frequent and intermittent noise from outdoor operations
Early morning and late evening activity
Reflection and amplification of sound from hard surfaces
Lack of sufficient physical or operational buffering
The ordinance requires mitigation of nuisance impacts, not simply compliance with baseline
standards, and the current plan does not adequately demonstrate that this obligation will be met.
7. Recommended Conditions and Actions
Given the concerns above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission:
A. Delay Approval Until Application is Complete
Require submission of:
A detailed landscape and screening plan
Fence design specifications
A professional acoustic (sound) study
B. Strengthen Operational Conditions (If Approved)
If an Interim Use Permit is considered, it should include enforceable conditions such as:
Hours of Operation (Outdoor Use):
No outdoor operations before 7:00 AM
No outdoor operations after 5:00 PM
No outdoor operations on weekends
Noise Controls:
Require pre-approval acoustic analysis demonstrating compliance at residential property lines
Establish measurable performance standards
Require follow-up monitoring if complaints are received
Provide clear enforcement and corrective action provisions
Physical Mitigation:
Require a solid, acoustically effective barrier (not chain link or vinyl)
Increase fence/barrier height to account for material stacking and second-story exposure
Consider berm + wall combinations for effective sound attenuation
Site Design Adjustments:
Limit high-noise activities near the southern property edge
Evaluate sound-reflective impacts of building walls and paving
Consider sound-dampening treatments on south and east building facades
Conclusion
In summary, while the proposed industrial use of the property is consistent with zoning, the addition
of large-scale outdoor storage introduces impacts that have not been sufficiently analyzed or
mitigated.
The current application lacks critical information and does not adequately demonstrate compliance
with the ordinance requirement to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. At minimum,
additional analysis and stronger conditions are necessary before approval should be considered.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Nicki and Noah Barka
16580 62nd St NE
Otsego, MN 55374