PL 09/16/1987 - 30671��
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings ca]led the September 16, 1987, Planning Commission meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Steve Billings, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek,
Richard Svanda, Donald Betzold
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Tony Spigarelli, 3315 N. 2nd St., Mpls.
Jim Benson, 620 Mendelsson Ave., Mpls.
4�i�1 l i�m Henl ey, 6300 Baker St, N. E.
fielen & Gerald Machowicz, 6314 Baker St. N.E.
R. C. Bard, 6347 Baker St. N.E.
Mary �► Francis van Dan, 6342 Baker S�. N.E.
Sarah Harder, 2822 Leyland Trai1, Woodbury
^ Karol & David Andreasen, 5510 - 164 Lane N.W., Anoka
Ken Belgarde, 7841 Wayzata Blvd.
Linda Fisher, 1500 Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace
Dave Harris, 470 Rice Creek Boulevard
Ken Bureau, 5630 W. Danube Road
fJancy Jorgenson, City Councilperson-at-Large
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 5, 1987, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, 5EC0111DED BY MR. SVANDA, TO APPROVE THE AUGU5T 5, 1987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A5 WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #87-17, BY CENTRAL
ROOFING COMIPANY:
Per Section 2.18.1,C,9,of the Fridley City Code.to allow exterior storage
of materials and equipment on part of Lot l, Auditor's Subdivision No. 79,
the same being 4500 Main Street N.E.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY N.�2. SY.�1WD�., TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE
FORMAL Pi7BLIC HEARING NOTICE AND TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED Ah1D THE PUBLIC HEARIIITG OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
� PLANNIPJG COMP�ISSIOPJ MEETING, SEPTENIBER 16, 1987 PAGE 2
Mr. Robinson stated the petition was for outside storage on the northerly
5 acres of the formerly CECO Corparation at 4500 Main St. At the last meeting,
a special use permit was processed for outside storage for Rubber Research
located on the southerly 5 acres of the same site. Central Roofing Company
applied for a special use permit for outside storage around l�arch of this
year. The reason for the delays was because of concerns by Staff and the
City Council related to a potential odor problem.
Mr. Robinson stated the property was zoned M-2, heavy industrial; how�ver, it
was across the street.from residential, both R-1 and R-2. The site plan sub-
mitted by Central Roofing included that a majority of the site would be uti-
lized for outside storage. One of the key issues of this petition would be
the parking of tanker trucks which carry asphaltic material. Odor was one of
Staff's concerns based on the fact that odor.s are associated with the heating
of tar.
Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Spigarelli, President of Central Roofing, hired Twin
City Testing, and on April 27-29, 1987, they conducted a test on the_ site
utilizing two heated tankers parked in the rear of the a�orthwest portiQn of
the site and one he.�;te�i.�rue�-which was insiru�ted to drive up and down
Main St. Twin Cit� ,:Te�t�in,g conducted the qualitative analysis at one
mi nute i nterval s, �±�s.°��i�� :��� �r.��. �` Th� report ,fror� Twi n Ci ty Testi �g _
was in the Planning �����":3o�-agenda. What Twin City Testing noticed was
� �moderate but only transient �dors associated with "peak impact" of actual usage
- of the site, and those odors were only noticed for 2-3 secmnds while the trucks
passed. In addition, trucks were parked on the northwest corner of the site,
and no odors were noticed until they got within 50 meters of the hot trucks.
They also parked the trucks the third day in the cold state in the same loca-
tion, and little or no odors were.noticed at that time.
Mr. Robinson stated that after that experiment, the Company was asked by the
City to perform the tests again in order to allow some members of Gity Staff,
City Council, and Planning Commission to take part in that testing. That
was done on Aug. 19, 1987. There was a memo in the Planning Commission agenda
from Jock Robertson to Nas1m Qureshi which indicated the results of the testing
was the same as that indicated by Twin City Testing.
Mr. Robinson stated an environmental assessment worksheet was also completed
by the petitioner, and the Commission would note that little or no�environmental
impacts were anticipated from the plant being located on this site.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. All tar tanker trucks and kettles will be parked (for both long
and short �erm durations) on the northwest corner of the site as
indicated on the site plan- dated Sept. 16, 1987.
2. Emissions of tar odors from Central Roofing site and abutting right-
^ of-way to be managed in such a way as not to exceed the levels stated
in odor emission test report by Twin City Testing dated May 4, 1987.
,,..:� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 3
3. There will be no heating of tar in tankers or kettles on the
Central Roofing site or abutting right-of-way.
4. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), prepared by Central
Roofing dated Sept. 16, 1987, will be considered findings of fact
related to the granting of special use permit, SP #87-17, environ-
mental impacts due to Central Roofing operations, beyond those
described in said EAW, may:be cause for review and revocation of
the special use permit.
5. Storage of materials and equipment shall be managed so as not to
be visible from the public right-of-way or residential view.
6. Provide hard surface parking and connective driveway both with curb
and gutter, prior to occupancy of proposed office building or by
October 1, 1988, wMichever comes first.
7. Resod and provide landscaping along w��h automatic springkling in
area between Main Street and screening fence to be installed by
Oc�.��� 1, 1,988. The Ci ty rese�rves the ri ght .to mOdi fy t�e pl an i n
' order to make it consistent with proposed landscaping by Rubber
Researcn to south.
�' 8. A performance bond or letter of credit for $15,000 to be provided
to tk�e City to cover outside improvements, prior to occupancy of the
s i te.
9. Special use permit compliance to be reviewed by public hearing in
October 1988 or sooner with format specified by the City Council if
violation of any condition(s) is reported.
Mr. Spigarelli stated he had no problems with any of the stipulations.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the public
hearing cl.osed at 7:42 p.m.
Mr. Billings stated Staff and the petitioner have spent a lot of time on this
and have done a good job in working things out.
MOTION by_Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council
app— rova"1 of special use permit, SP #87-17, by Central Roofing Company, per
Section 205.18.1, C, 9, of the Fridley City_Code to allow exterior storage
of materials and equipment on part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 79,
the same being 4500 ��ain Street N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. All tar tanker trucks and kettles will be parked (for both long
and short term durations) on the northwest corner of the site as
n indicated on the site plan dated Sept. 16, 1987.
�.y PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 4
2. Emissions of tar odors from Central Roofing site and abutting right-
of-way to be managed in such a way as not to exceed the levels
stated in odor emission test report by Twin City Testing dated
May 4, 1987.
3. There will be no heating of tar in tankers or kettles on the Central
Roofing site or abutting right-of-way.
4. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAS) prepared by Central
Roofing dated Sept. 16, 1987, will be considered findings of fact
related to the gran�ing of special use permit, SP #87-17, environ-
mental impacts due to Central Roofing operations, beyond those
described in said EAW, may be cause for review and revocation of
the special use permit.
5. Storage of materials and equipment shall be managed so as not to be
visible from the public right-of-way or residential view.
6. Provide hard surface parking and connective driveway both with curb
and gutter prior to occupancy of proposed office building on or by
Oct. 1, 1988, wh�chever comes first.
7. Resod and provide landscaping along with automatic sprinkling in
area between P�ain Street and screening fence to be installed by
October 1, 1�988.._.The City reserves the right to modify the pTan in
order to make it consistent with pt�oposed landscaping by Rubber
Research to south.
,,� 8. A performance bond or letter of credit for $15,000 to be provided
' to the City to cover outside improvements prior to occupancy of the
site.
9. Special use permit compliance to be reviewed by public hearing in
October 1988 or sooner with format specified by the City Council if
violation of any condition(s) is reported.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to City Council on
2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #87-08, BY WILLIAM HENLEY:
To sp it parts of ot 1, 2, an 9, Bloc 2, oore La e Highlands, all
generally located at 6300 Baker Street N.E. The legal descriptions are as
follows:
PARCEL A: Lot 11, Block 2, except the South 90 feet and Lot.19, Block 2,
except the South 90 feet of the West 140 feet; all in Moore Lake Highlands.
,
PARCEL B: Lot 11, Block 2, except the North 60 feet; the North 40 feet of
Lot 12, Block 2; the Pdorth 115 feet of Lot 18, Block 2, except the South
80 feet of the North 115 feet and except the West 130 feet of the North 35
feet; Lot 19, Block 2, except the North 90 feet of the �iest 144 feet, lying
�outh of the North 60 feet and except the West 130 feet of that part of
Lot 19 lying South of the North 90 feet thereof as measured along South and
�"'o, West lines thereof; all in Moor.e.Lake Highlands.
PLANNING COMMISSION',MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 5
Mr. Robinson stated the lot split in question was located on the 6300 block
of Baker Street. The lot was�zoned single family. The proposal was to split
off the northerly 60 feet of the property (Parcel A). The City requires
lots to �e 75 ft, in width and 9,000 sq. ft, in a�ea, Although this lot
(Parcel A) was 9,600 s�. ft. in ar�a as proposed, it would be 15 ft. short as
far as lot width.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff has discussed this lot split with �r. Henley, and
Mr. Henley feels this is the best lot split he can propose at this time.
Staff felt there was the potential to make that parcel 6� f�. instead Af
60 feet. Due to concerns of access to the rear yard, this suggestion was not
heeded by Mr. Henley, and he has decid�ed to go ahead with the.60 ft, lot width.
Mr. Robinson stated there was a large depression in the area of the proposed
nev� lot which was a natural water collection area and also a percolation area.
Thi�s area was really quite low, and the house to the north was a walk-out on
the south and west--approximate elevation change was 7-8 feet. The Public
Works Department had expressed the concern that if a house was placed in this
area some of the` natural percolation would be impeded and the water would have
no place to go and could cause some flooding to adjacent properties.
Mr. Robinson stated the Commission has received two letters,
Janet Stanek, 6301 Able St., and Rose Jasper, 6270 Baker St.,
�`` objected to the lot split.
one from
stating they
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive into the record the
el tters from Ms. Stanek and Ms. Jasper.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI'NG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated all the other lots in the area are at least 90 feet in
width, so Staff did not feel a 60 ft. wide lot would be consistent with the
neighborhood, even though the City has gra-nted lot width variances in tKe past
in other areas when the lot width reduction was consistent with the lot widths
in the area. He stated Staff would reco�mend denial of a 6� ft. wide lot at
this time. Stipulations that would be recommended if the lot snlit was
approved were as follows:
1. Petitioner to.provide a
existing house at least
to recording split.
realigned driveway and curb cut for
three feet from proposed parcel prior
2. New house to be set back sixty feet (to meet averaging require-
ment) or variance apnroved.
3. New house location and drainage provisions to be authorized by
Public Works prior to recording lot split.
�
4. Park fee of $750 to be paid prior to recording lot split.
;�\ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 6
5. Variance for lot width to be approved by City Council with lot
split approval.
Mr. Henley stated he felt there was plenty of room to the north for a buffer
zone between a new house and his house. As far as �ercolation, all the yards
at one time sloped down in back and one by one they have all been filled in.
If the lot split was approved and a new house built on the lot, he would be
more than willing for the Commission to.put on a stipulation that a sewer be
placed in the yard in case of an overflow of water, He stated they have had
two big rain gushers within the last few years in this neighborhood, and there
has not been any water standing in his yard.
Mr. Henley stated the probl.em he had with a 68 ft. wide lot was that it would
not give him enough space_or his new neighbor enough space, and he would have
the hardship of having to move his driveway over and put a new gate into the
6ack yard. At this time, he did not want to have to do that.
Mr. Billings asked the petitioner if he was aware that if the lot split was
approved for 60 ft., that he would have a remaining lot wid�h for his lot of
130 feet.
Mr. Henley stated, yes, he was aware of that. It was a very big lot with a
P„� very big yard, and it was really too big for his family. He bought the lot
a little over two years ago. Since then, things have tighted up for him
financially, and since he had been approached about the availability of the
lot, he decided to look into the possibility of splitting the l�t. The money
generated off the lot.would go directly against the principle payments on his
house; he could remortgage tiis pr.operty at a lower interest rate and reduce
the payments by half.
Mr. Betzold s�ated that by selling off 68 ft., Mr. Heniey would not only get
more money for the lot but would probably be paying less taxes on the smaller
lot he would be keeping.
Mr. Henley stated he had thought about_that, but he would then have to rebuild
his driveway. When he rebuilds his driveway in about 5-6 years, he would want
to rebuild it in concrete rather than asphalt. If he rebuilds the driveway,
then he would have to go a little bit south and-put a gate �n the south side
of the house and proably have to put in some kin� of curb�ng so he could get
vehicl-e, boat, and other things into the back yard. If he has to give up
68 ft., he would do that; but that would limit his ability to get into his
back yard and it would be a financial hardship. He felt there was plenty of
room for a house on a 60 ft. wide lot so he had decided to apply for the lot
split for 60 ft.
Mr. �erald �a:�how�ic�, 6314 Baker St., stated he owned the lot .north of
Mr. Henley. He stated he bought his property in 1954, and he thought 90 ft.
widths were supposed to be the standard size lot in Fridley. He stated he
� had had water problems before, but never in the basement, just up to the walk-
out door. Mr. Henley has put a lot of fill in his back yard and changed the
basin, so Mr. Machowicz stated he did not know what was going to happen when
there is a lot of rain or snow. He stated he would object to both a 60 ft.
lot and a 68 ft, lot width.
�
,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 7
Ms. Mary van Dan, 6342 Baker St., stated she lived just no�th of Mr. Machowicz.
In a sense, this lot.split did not have any direct impact on her lot, but
she would certainly like to endor.se P�r. Machowicz'. feelings about not approving
a lot split on this::particular lot. As many of the Comrnlssion members knew,
she had served on the Planning Commission, and she could remember discussing
many issues of lot splits and turning them down because they did not meet the
standard size. She stated that during heavy rains, water has gone up to
Mr. Machowicz' basement door. The environmental impact of a new house on the
proposed new lat would have a detrimental impact on Mr. Machowicz' house.
Mr. Francis van Dan, 6342 Baker St., stated altb�ugh he emphasized with
Mr. Henley who, by selling off the northerly portion of his property, could
reduce his house payments, he would have to support the view of��'Mr. Machowidz
that the lot split not be approved.
Mr. R. C. Bard, 6347 Baker St., stated this lot split also did not affect him
directly, but he felt a smaller house on the 60 ft. lot w�uld be very hazard-
ous to the percolation of water. The house.would shed more water, plus the
excess water from Mr. Henley's lot, would really cause.a problem for
Mr. Machowicz. He stated another storm sewer might have to be added in the
area and this w6uld be an added expense to the property o�ners in the whole
area. He was opposed to the lot split.
� Mr. Robinson stated he did not believe there was a storm sewer in Baker St.
at this time. The str.eet crests and drains both to,the_north and south. In
this lot the depression was a natural drainage area for the residential
property and was a critical area:for percolation.
Mr. Betzold stated a 60.ft. wide lot was definitely out of the,qu�stion. It
was a substandard lot and the whole purpose of changing the code years ago
to 75 ft. was well founded so there were not the problems that 60 ft. lots
create. He found it unfortunate that Mr. Henley was not wi1ling to discuss
with the City a larger lot, but.even at 68 ft., he thought �� would be so out
of character for this neighborhood that it could cause some other problems.
He could not go along with a lot split for either a 60 ft. or 68 ft. wide lot.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Betzold. He thought there could be a
big water problem for both Mr. �achowicz and:.any owner of a new house. He
could not be satisfied with a lot width of either 60 ft. or 68 ft., and there
did not seem to be any feasible way to extend the lot width any more than
68 ft.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Betzol.d and Mr. Kondrick.
Mr. Billings stated that in looking at the property, he not�ced that all of the
lots in this neighborhood were of extensive size. Even a code size lot of
75 ft., althought it would be legal, really would not be in character with
this particular neighborhood. He could not support.�a 6Q ft. lot width, and
� he doubted that he could support a lot split for a 68 ft. lot width.
,r� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTE�IBER 16, 1987 PAGE 8
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to recommend to City
ounci denial of lot split, L.S. #87-08, by William Henley.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UIVANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Sherek stated she did not feeJ a�8 ft. lo�.width would be in keeping
with the neighborhood, and she thought that was something they should
emphasize to the City Council.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to direct Staff to bring
it to the City Council's attention that a 68 ft, lot width in this neighbor-
hood would not be in keeping with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission
would be opposed to a lot split for a 68 ft. wide lot also.
UPON A VOIC E VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to City Council on
3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION, SAV #87-09, BY GREGORY MORTENSON:
� To vacate t e foot rainage easement on t e nort si e of ot 3, Block 2,
� Heather Hills Second Addition, the same being 6191 Kerry Lane N.E.
° Mr. Robinson stated this praperty was located on the east side of Kerry Lane
in the 6100 block. The petition was to vacate a 6 ft. drainage/utility
easement located on the north side of the property. The petitioner also
requested a variance. Originally, the variance was not only to allow the
existing encroachment of an existing garage from 5 ft. to 4.6 ft., but also
for a proposed expansion of living area in the rear of the home for a side
yard setback from 10 ft. to 4.4 ft. On Sept. 1, the Appeals Commission
recommended denial of the side yard setback but did sup�i��he variance for
the existing garage. On Sept. 14, the City Council approved both variances.
At this time, the petitioner was seeking to vacate this easement in order
to clean up the tfitle with the existing garage being in that easement.
Mr. Robinson stated the Commission had received a memo from the Public Works
Department supporting the vacation of the drainage/utility easement and that
the vacation should n�t create any problems in terms of storm water, and there
were no utilities in the easement.
Mr. Robinson stated the Commission had also received a letter dated Sept. 14
from Larry and Kathleen Morford at 6235 Kerry Lane stating they were fully
aware of Mr. Mortenson's buildfng plans and had no objections.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to receive the letter from
a�-& Kathleen Morford.
r'"� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
r,.� PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 9
�
�
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council
approval of vacation, SAV �87-09, by Gregory Mortenson, to vacate the 6 foot
drainage easement on the north side of Lot 3, Block 2, Heather Hilis
Second Addition, the same being 6191� Kerry Lane N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UI'JANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF RECODIFICATION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
SE
rH�l�lilt5 tN INUUSTRIAL ZONES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated that approximately two months ag�� Staff brought to the
Planning Commission the idea of altering the M-1 and M-2 sections of the
Zoning Code to allow for some limited commercial t�pe uses in office/ware-
house mixed use type buildings. After several meetings and discussions, they
arrived at the present draft ordinance which was the subject of this public
hearing.
Mr. Robinson stated the reasons for the changes were that the econorr�y has
changed to a more service economy and the lion's share of the development in
Fridley over the past five years has been in the office/warehouse market.
He listed a few of the developers, both existing and proposed: River Road
Business Center; Winfield Development at 73rd � University; Harris' office/
warehouse directly behind Winfield Development; proposed Rosewood construction
at Osborne and Main; M-D Properties at 83rd and Main.
Mr. Robinson stated also _under construction or presentl,� built, the.City
had approximately 3/4 million sq. ft. of office/warehouse development. These
developments have been of high quality, both in terms of architectural treat-
�nt and in site development. They have been good additions to the tax base
pl us the urban fabri c.
Mr. Robinson stated the City has had numerous concerns and requests from
these developers regarding the limitations imposed upon them in acquiring
tenants which would benefit the development and the area at l�,rge and which,
on the surface, would not be detrimental to the area. In order to make
Fridley more marketable and more in tune with today's development, the
present ordinance was be�ng proposed.
Mr. Robinson stated that at the request of the Planning Commission, notices
were sent to all developers, both existing and proposed. The City also made
a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce on September 10, 1987,
;�
PLANNING COMP�ISSIQN MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 10
Mr. Robinson stated there already is an allowance for offices associated with the
principle use in an industrial area and also for retail sales or services of
products either manufactured or warehouses in an industrial district without
any kind of special use permit. With a special use permit, they allow offices
not associated with a special use permit, and that will continue.
Mr. Robinson reviewed the proposed or.dinance with the Commission and those
in the audience.
Mr. Dave Harris, 470 Rice Creek Blvd., stated he was in favor of this type
of ordinance, but he did have some concerns. As a developer, he took a look
back to see how this ordinance would pertain to him if this ordinance had been
in effect at the time he did some constructian. He has been involved in
about 800,OOO:sq ft, of M-1 structures in the City, 154,.000 sq, ft. of that
would fall into the 35,000 sq. ft. or more area, so initially by using the
35,000 sq. ft. requirement, it would eliminate about 80% of the buildings he
has been involved in. That was just based on.the size requirements in this
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Dave Harrfs stated he felt something better than the size�reqa�irements
for an overall building could be addressed in a non-discriminatory manner by
utilizing a percentage which the City alluded to in the o�rdinance of 3,000
�,,,� sq. ft. or 20% of the total gross area. His suggestion would be that they
reduce the overall floor area :and go ta �ome kind of percentage of the
building for use of the site.
Mr. Billings �sked Mr. Harris what the average square footage was of the
buildings he has been involved with.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he tho�ght the ave`�age square footage of office/
warehouse buildings in M-1 was in the neighborhood of 15,000-22,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he was also concerned about the hours of operation.
If the City was going to involve itself in recreation for pay; for example,
a billiard center, computerized golf, etc., it would be discriminatory to
ask these kinds of businesses to close at 9:00 p.m. He felt_the latitude
should be on the �ame basis as other uses allowed in other locations. In
other words, if a restaurant was open from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m, in
another location, the same hours should be.allowed in this particular provision.
Mr. Robi�nson stated perhaps a clarification needed to be made here. Under
Section 205.17.c,2, it stated: "Commercial retail and service uses and
Class I restaurants within office/industrial mixed use buildings which are
supplemental to and for the convenience of the operation of the zoning
district and which provide goods and services which are primarily for the use
of people employed in that district..." These were uses permitted with a
special use permit in an°M-1 district. They would allow this type of special
use permit in a structure as a benefit to offices but not.in a typacal ware-
� house structure which might have some offices associated with the warehouse,
but whi ch mi ght not be di rectly rel ated to some of the bu� �i�di ngs Mr. Harri s
was referring to.
r.-,` PLANNIfJG COMMISSION �EETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 11
Mr. Robinson stated.Staff was talking about the newer kind of building
which was mainly a office and service typ� of ��;�t�o� and not �n
the manufacturing/warehouse type of bu7lding. So, maybe a clarification
needed to be put in here that the special use permit for corrm�ercial retail
would only be in conjunction with buildings which have a special use permit
for offices not associated with the principle use. This pertained to all
the developments he had mentioned earlier.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he tho�ght that would be a mistake. He felt it was
unfair and restrictive to say a bu�lding doesn't qualify because of its size
and its use. The use today might not be the use �o�r.th�t'�uilding in the
future. The single purpose building today might be a multi-tenant building
with bays in the future. He thought the privileges should be the same for
both kinds of buildings.
Mr. D9ck Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, stated he had some problems with
the whole issue of special use permits. As he remembered, a long time ago,
the City Attorney wrote a memo stating the special use permit had to be
attached to the property and not to the tenant. So,.even though there was a
change of ten�nt, there was still the special use permit for the property.
When`a tQ�ant mo.�es, such as a Class II restaurant, it might not be advanta-
geous to have another Class II restaurant in the same location.
`�' Mr. Dick Harris stated that in_�hinking about this type of situation, he
wondered if perhaF�s the City should be looking at a different zoning for
those particular parcels that have hi�h visibili�tr and hich traffic areas
such as the proposed Rosewood development. is was propose a�ou -
years ago wh�n Plywood Minnesota and Wickes were going to build on the
Burlington Northern property at 694/East Ri�er Road--a high visibility zoning
where it takes into account these different types of possibilities for
business centers and different types of operations than what they normally
look at as industrial. He could not imagine having a restaurant or retail
or office in his buildings on Main St., because they were not in high
visibility, high traffic areas. He would probably cater more to the machine
shop/welding type of businesses, and the industrial zones that were enacted
by the City were really for those kinds of businesses. It has been his
feeling for quite_some time that there was a lot of property in high visi-
bility, high traffic areas that probably should have some other kind of
zoning than M-1 and M-Z. He realized this was kind of late in the day to
talk about a zoning change; it was something that probably should have been
done about 20 years ago.
Mr. Dic� Harris stated the City might be opening itself up for some legal
problems down the line, and he would like to have an opinion from the City
Attorney on e�at the situation would be on the revoking and termination of
these special use permits and then reinstituting special use permits every
time a tenant moved in.
�
,�.� PLAfJNItJG COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTFPIBER 16, 1987 PAGE 12
Mr. Ken Bureau, 5630 West Danube, stated he was representing Rosewood Corp.
He stated that in many of the communities he has dealt with, they start out
with an M-1 and M-2 zoning. If you are in an M-1 zone, you are not going to
do what is in an f�l-2 zone, but you are allowed to go down and use the property
for less than the zoning allows. However, in M-2, heavy industrial, you are
allowed less than the M-2 zoning requirements. It really did not make any
difference whether an office/warehouse building becor�es all office as long as
the developer can meet all the requirements. The things that do matter are
whether or not there is enough parking and if the development meets the zoning
code f�r office use. The City need not be overly concerned about whether an
office/warehouse building was used for light retail or retail, because the
marketplace was going to decide whether or the building could support retail.
The market place will also determine whether i�L is office or office/warehouse
space.
Mr.Bureau�stated that if the City sets up a code, they should set it up in
such a way so that everyone is not running back to the Planning Commission and
City Council every time there is a slight change. Set up the rules so every-
one knows the rules, so it would have to.be a v�ry unusual situation for people
to have to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for a change.
Ms. Linda Fisher stated she was representing the owner and developer of the
�,,,� River Road Business Center. She stated they have worked with the City on the
` proposed ordinance change for the last several months and were at the last
Planning Commission meeting where they basically gave their comments at that
time. Again, she would like to state that the River Road Business Center was
basically in favor of the concept. They would like to commend the City and
Staff for a fine job.
Ms. Fisher stated that regarding the building size, the restriction in the
ordinance seemed to work with Mr. Belgarde's projects. They had to leave it
up to the discretion of the Planning CotrQnission and the City Council as to
whether it was too restrictive for other developers. Regarding the comment
from Mr. Dick Harris about possible legal problems with special use permits,
her only comment was that there probably were some legal controls the City
could attach to special use permits that would deal with Mr. Harris' concerns.
Ms. Fisher stated the only other comment she would like to make again was
regarding the hours of operation. In her review of the existing ordinances,
there were no hours of operation restrictions anywhere in the City, She
did not see the need for any hours of operation restriction at all in this
particular case. Tf, however, the Planning Commission deemed it appropriate
to have some hours, she would like to see the evening hours extended to at
least 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Dick Harris stated �Ir. Bureau had brought up a point. Back before the
present zoning ordinance, they had what was called pyramidal zoning and that
was essentially how it worked. If you had an M-2 zone, you could do any�hin�
,'"� in an M-2 zone that you could do in any of the other zones except build
� PLANNIfJG COMf�ISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 13
residential. That code served the City pretty well for a lot of years. Then,
the Zoning Code got more complicated, but the old code was probably a lot
simpler way of handling things.
Ms. Sarah Harder stated she was repres�nting Winfield Development. As a leasing
agent for the project, she was glad to see this proposed ordinance. She did
think there were just a very few buildings that would qualify as far as having
retail. She did not think it was meant for a lot of office/warehouse that are
not in high visibility areas. With the new designs of the buildings today,
the buildings lend more to office and warehouse and also �aybe to some retail.
Ms. Harder sta��d that regarding the hours of operation, especially with a
Class II restaurant, it would be almost too restrfctive for them to have to
close at 9:00 p.m. They would serve lunches, but they would also want to
pick up some night business. She would like to have the percentage go up as
far as the percentage of the building--at least 40% of the building to be able
to have some kind of quasi-retail or whatever. The City Council would have
the final say anyway, and she did not know how a higher percentage could hurt.
Being located on University Avenue, they are very concerned that the design of
the buildings be maintained and be very professional looking.
Ms. Harder sta�ed that as far as the individual tenant size, she would like to
see at least 6,000 sq. ft. Her basis for that was their bays run about 3,000
'� sq, ft., and if a tenaf�t takes more than one ba , which the
y y generally do,
they would like to be able to have that tenant go in also.
Ms. Svanda asked P�s. Harder what her feelings were on the 35,000 sq. ft. issue.
Ms. Harder stated she did not think 35,000 sq, ft, was a bad number. Not many
of the smaller buildings have the good access and good visibility that lend
themselves to be retail centers. That was not to say there weren't any, but
it was not a concern to her as their bui�ding was 58,000 sq, ft.
Ms. Karol Andreasen, 5510 - 164 Lane N.�., stated she was with D& K, which
was a catering and concession firm. She had probably contacted all the
developers at this meeting regarding putting in a catexing establishment and
delicatessan. She was at the meeting because she was int��ested in locating
in one bf these office/warehouse developments. As far as visibility, her
whole concept was not to supply basically to the general public, but to
supply to the �enants on location. She was looking for limited hours, beaause
of her catering business; h�irever;' the hours did not make any difference to her.
Ms. Sherek asked if the 3,000 sq. ft. restriction was overly restrictive for
Ms. Andreasen's type of use.
Ms. Andreasen stated if �ou are in the food business and are having a lot of
people coming in and are �strictly being a� restaurant per se catering to the
general public, then 3,000 sq, ft. was adequate. For her, she felt 1,000-
,�—� 1,500 sq. ft. was adequate. It all depended on the type of restaurant.
,� PLANNItJG COMP�ISSION PIEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 14
Mr. Billings stated Ms. Harder had stated that the bays in the Win�ield
Development were 3,000 sq. ft. Was 3,000 sq. ft. a fairly standard size?
Mr. Bureau stated they were seeing more buildings coming onto the market
that have more flexibility built into them. Some bays are 60-90 ft. deep,
but most bays are wider than 30 ft. A 30' x 60' bay would be 1,800 sq. ft.,
but a bay 3�' x 90' would be 2,700 sq. ft. They do not get any larger than
that. The great big bays have pretty much gone by the wayside.
�r. Dave Harris stated they have to remember, though, that bays can be com-
bined so if a tenant has two 2,500 sq. ft. bays, the tenant is utilizing
a 5,000 sq. ft. area.
Mr. Dick Harris stated what they were really talking about was a commercial
enterprise in an industrial zone. He was wondering how much in�ut the City
had gotten from the developers and owners of commercial properties. They
might be looking at this in a different light.
Mr. Billings stated the City had done all the usual means of advertisinq this
public hearing,plus direct mailings had been sent to all those people doing
development in the CitX. In order to come up with a base of commercial
people, they made a pr.esentation at the Chamber of Commerce also, and they
have not had any cQmttrents from them.
�
Mr. Robinson stated also some of the office/urarehouse developers are also
commercial strip developers and he has not received any comments from those
developers.
Ms. Harder stated she did not think any of them were trying to turn their
business centers into retail ma11�. Th�y a�e lookinr�.more at the quasi-
retail for the people who just pick up something and leave, not for the type
of clientele who will shop all day and go from one shop to another. She
persanally would not want a sit-down restaurant_in her center because the
parking was so �l,imited, but she might like a take-out restaurant.
Mr. Betzold stated he thought the original rationale presented for this
ordinance change was they wanted to provide some services for the immediate
area--for the people working in these offices and warehouse.districts, who
would otherwise have to drive great distances to get errands done. That was
a key point to keep in mind. As far as hours, he would think the businesses
would probably go out.of business if they tried to stay �pen too long after
their normal customers have gone home.
Mr. Billings stated if.the Commission decided to go with no hours of opera-
tion in the ordinance, when an application for a special use permit came
through where they saw there was a specific need for hours of operation for
a specific location, would they be_able to tie operational hours to that
special use permit?
,�
„.,� PLANNIfJG COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTE�BER 16, 1987 PAGE 15
Mr. Robinson stated, yes, they could do that. Also, under the blanket
special use permit for commercial retail, he did not believe the hours of
operation would be an issue. The businesses would be there primarily to
service the district and �.� �ould be natural for them to close when the
district closed. For other things which require a separate special use
permit, such as C1ass II restaurants, they could review those on an individual
basis and if there was a need for specific hours, they could establish hours
at that time.
Mr. Billings stated Dick Harris brought up the issue that the special use
permit generally goes with the property. In Section 205.17.c,3,h, it
stated: "All such uses shal] only be considered on an individual, tenant
specific basis.” Was that saying the special use permit would die when that
particular tenant left or what was the intention of that statement?
Mr. Robinson stated all special use permits have to be issued to the fee owner
but they have issued special use permits to a specific tenant with the
au�horization of the fee owner which would be the case in that statement.
However, he would be willing to do some checking on this with the City Attorney.
MOTIOfJ by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearinq.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
'� CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated one thing that has been raised at this meeting that has
also caused him some concern was the gross square footage of the buildings.
He believed it would be advisable to have a survey done to accompany this
ordinance to the Planning Commfssion and then on to City Council that would
give a good indication of the �quare footage of locations and square footages
of buildings. He would propose the survey be limited to office/warehouse
type buildings,which was the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Robinson stated that under 205.17.c,3a. regarding a minimum gross floor
area of at least 75,000 sq. ft. for small retail, he thought that might be
a little excessive, but some research sho�ld tell them that.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to table further discussion
on t�is item until more information is received from Staff.
Mr. Dave Harris �sked:why there should be any square footage requirement if
there is a percentage of the building allowed for this type of thing.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff would like some direction as to whether the Planning
Commission intended this ordinance to be for other office/industrial mixed
use buildings with a special use permit or for all other mixed use buildings
that do not have special use permits. There needed to be �a key distinction
between the two, because there are a lot office/warehouse bufldings which are
�, really warehouse buildings with little office. Some of the buildings are
older buildings, and he did not think it was the Co�mission's intent to pro-
vide commercial in those areas.
,,...� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 16
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIP�OUSLY.
Ms. Fisher stated she did not want to cut short the Commission's deliberations
and would like the Commission to take as long as they need. However, they
have been getting periodic calls from their clients as to the schedule. She
stated it would be helpful if they had some dates when this would come back
to the Planning Commission and when it would go to City Council.
Mr. Billings stated Staff and the Planning Commission have been working hard
on this for a_couple of months. He stated the Commission did appreciate the
fact that revenues might be being lost. He did not think he could give
Ms. Fisher any specific dates, but it would be moved along as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Robinson stated the next Planning Commission meeting was October 7, and
he felt Staff could provide the Commission with more information by that
meeting. If any of the people in the audience had any further comments or
clarification of this meeting, he would appreciate their submitting those
comments to him within the next week.
Mr. Dick Harris stated he would like some clarification as to whether the
^ ordinance would.just handle the office/warehouse mixed use type buildings
versus the warehouse buildings with offices and manufacturing. He felt if
they were going to allow commercial uses for one, they should allot it for
th�tn all, because they are all in the same zoning. If the market was changing
for the n�v buildings, it was also changing for the older, existing buildings.
It would really be tough to deline.ate�_between which buildings are covered by
the ordinance and which ones are not; and if the market would support a
restaurant, for example, in a heavy industrial area, why was it so wrong?
Mr. Dick Harris stated Mr. Bureau's development was going to be across the
street from some of his property. Mr. Bureau's building would be under this
ordinance. Mr. Harris stated that even though his buildings were right
across the street, they would not be under this new ordinance. What was the
d-iffe-rence between Mr. Bureau's market and his market?
Mr. Billings asked if the easy solution for-that was for Mlr. Harris to come
in and apply for a special use permit for unrelated office type things.
Mr. Robinson stated that was possible in either the M-1 or M-2 zone. The
key here was i f there was real ly go�ng to be :�f�i ce :i:n _ the :b;ui 1 da ng. Was i t
really going to be a business service center, or was it going to be a manu-
facturing warehouse with limited office and then commercial coming in?
Mr. Kondrick stated he thought the amount of office space in a building was
the key.
�, Mr. Robinson stated that needed to be addressed. He felt that when they look
at the types of tenants that are in the office/warehouse buildings with a
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 17
� .
special use permit, versus some of the other bufldings, they should be able
to begin to ciraw some pretty good lines between what is a business center
and what is a manufacturing/warehouse operation.
Mr. Dick Harris stated that brought him back to the problem he had in the
beginning of this whole thing. All these things they are talking about are
under the same zoning. If they were going to do what Staff was recommending,
then the City better have a special zoning.
Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Harris had a good point about the fact that they are
allowing one thing for a business in one zoning and not allowing for another
business in the same zoning. Maybe the problem cou�l�d be handled through
criteria. Maybe the criteria needed to be a little bit tougher and they
should say that a buildi�rg needed a certain percentage of office in order to
qualify for additional commercial on o�e scale._ On the,other scale of
development such as Mr. Harris' buildings that have some manufacturing and
warehousing, if Mr. Harris wanted to apply for these special use permits,he
could, but he could only have a minimum amount of manufacturing in order to
balance things out. Another way, as suggested by Mr. Harris, was to create
a new z�ne and rezone these properties. If the property was rezoned, then
some tenants would have to leave h�ecause they would not be allowed in that
zoning.
� Mr. Dave Harris stated he did not think they should create.a zoning district
within another zoning district. He thought that was one of the philosophies
the City has had in the past--that there be.no spot zoning. He�thought that
would be a real mistake and not beneficial to anyone. This ordinance was
being proposed because of the requests of developers today, but he thought
they should also be looking at some of the things that wi]1 be happening in
the future. Many great big industrial buildings of yesterday now have other
uses. Example: The Spaghetti House and the Prime Rib House in Winnipeg,
two of the choicest restaurants in Winnipeg, which used�to be industrial
buildings in an industrial district. These kinds of things could happen in
Fridley, too, and they should not prejudge that they would not want a
restaurant in an industrial district.
Mr. Saba stated an important point that was.brought up was that the market
will decide wheth�r or not someone wants to move into an industrial/manufac-
turing district and open up a restaur.ant or a print shop to service that
facility.
Mr. Billings thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for the valuable
input. At this time, the Planning Commission has asked Staff to gather more
information for the Commission's consideration at the next meeting. If those
in the audience wished to come back to the next meeting, they were welcome
to; but the City Council would also have a public hearing on this and they
would have the opportunity to provide input to the City Council at that time
also.
n
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTENIBER 16, 1987 PAGE 18
5. RECEIVE AUGUST 13, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the Aug. 13, 1987,
Housing � Redevelopment Authority minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIN6S DECLARED THE P�OTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE AUGUST 18, 1987, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by P�r. �vanda,.seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the Aug. 18, 1987,
Envi o mental Quality Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to receive the Sept. 1, 1987,
p�eaTs Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
� CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
' ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Ms. �herek, to a�,jonrn the meeting. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the Sept. 16, 1987,
Planning Commission meeting ad,jourrr�d.at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submi,�ted,
�
��
y Sa a
Recording Secretary
n
�_
�
— - -- -- — ��.ir.c!� - ` — -- - - - ----- ------
---- -- ��'�'�`--' -�1 ��� -------- -
�
.-
a gaa_ ---- - - -- °�� r_��C�
���� _i� �! �� . �� ��?���� ,
�� ��
�? -
G(�
� e,_�__ ��.�� �-�'� �`�Q ���---
- � ...,.�� V
; , ,
� � ,
/�� - -/_,i,_ r... �� � l ���� ,
, �, � , `: , .
�
.
� . .
,
_ /� � , _ i
, .
,
, � � �
�r _ / �1 J� / 11 1 . /
��.. � ,� _ � � + , �
,c , � -
L ��J' ��
r��.. ��� � � � � ��
� � � .�1 , �� � � � �i �� ,r � ��•►' � � �
�
r
�