PL 10/07/1987 - 30672CITY OF FRIDLEY
� PLANNING COP�P�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 7, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the October 7, 1987, Planning Commission meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Steve Billings, Dave Kondrick, Bruce Bondow (for Qean Saba),
Sue Sherek, Donald Betzold
P1embers Absen�E:: Richard Svanda
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
APPROVAL OF SEPTEP�BER 16, 1�87, k�LANNING COPIMISSIOfJ PIINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 16, Z987,
PLAIVNING G�OMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTI02V
CARRIED UNANINIOUSLY.
��
1. CONSIDCRATION OF RECODIFICATION OF TNE�CITY OF FRIDLEY ZONING CODE TO
11Y 11VUUJ 1 K1HL LUIVCJ:
Mr. Robinson stated �hat after the discussion at the last meeting, the
main issues seemed to be the size of the building in which they would
allow a special use permit for limited commercial establishments and also
the hours of operation, and the definition of the concept of what is a
mixed use office/industrial building.
Mr. Robinson stated a few of the developers at the last meeting expressed
a lot of concern that the majority of the buildings they have built over
the last 20 years would not qualify because they would not be large
enough to meet the 35,000 sqnft. threshold. At that time, Staff stated
they would do an inventory of the existing industrial buii�dings in the
City, and Staff has now done that. From the address file, they pulled
out all the industrial properties in the City and graphed them. As the
Commission could see, 95 buildings out of 125 buildings wou7d not meet
the 35,000 sq, ft, threshold, and 30 buildings would have qualified. So,
there were a limited amount of buildings that would qualify under the new
ordinan.ce. From a percentage standpoint, 75% of the buildings would not
qualify and 25% would qualify under the new ordinance.
Mr. Robinson stated that in addition to that, Staff did a survey of the
i"'� tenants in all the industrial buildings. They discovered that the majority
of the mixed use buildings are in the older industrial area of Fridley and
%"1
PLANNING COMPIISSION P9EETIPlG, OCTOBEF? 7, 1987 PAGE 2
are the buildings referred to by Dick Harris and �ave Harris at the last
meeting and which are the smaller multi-tenant buildings. The type of
tenants that are in those buildings are much more manufacturing oriented.
There was nothing that would qualify as a business service type of use, with
the exception of the automotive type businesses. The other tenants are
light industrial--fabrication, machine shops, and warehouses.
P�r. Robinson sta.ted the true r�ixed use business centers are the East River
Road Business Center, �linfield Development, Dave Harris' building across
the street from the Winfield Deve.lopment, a building built by Jerry Paschke,
and the proposed Rosewood Development and P9-D Properties.
P4r, Robinson stated the quasi-business centers--light �aa�ufacturing, ware-
house, and more service type businesses--are seen primarily between Commerce
Circle West and Commerce Circle East and over by Old Central.
P�r. Robinson stated this gave the Commission an overview of the types of
tenants they think will take advantage of the new ordinance. In looking at
the other tenants and analyzing the criticism of this ordinance, they really
feel they can let the market dictate what goes in in those other industrial
buildings. No one is going to locate there; and if they do, they will probably
not last too long. He just could not see those areas supportTng the types
of commercial development which this ordinance would allow in there.
^ P�r. Billings stated that if the City allows a business (for example, a small
restaurant) to go into an industrial building and sometime later, the land-
lord rents out the adjacent space to some type of industrial use that will
be creating paint fumes or whatever, would there be any liability on the
part of the City if the restaurant owner came back to the City and claimed
he went out of business because the City had a lousy zoning ordinance and
allowed a conflicting business to move in next door?
Mr. Robinson stated that was a good point; however, first of all, that
business would have to get a special use permit and at that time the business
owner would be made aware of the fact that there was the potential for
other industrial uses adjacent to him. Secondly, that same scenario was
now possible under the existing ordinance in these mixed use service-type
buildings, not with a restaurant, but there could be, for example, a carpet
showroom or a copying business with an automotive business next door.
Mr. Robertson stated he and P1r, Robinson also discussed another scenario
of where a business owner might come back a couple ot months later and
say that no one was coming to his restaurant and he needed a higher sign.
Again, through the special use permit process, the City can inform the
prospective tenant that there are certain rules, and if he wants to operate
in an industrial area, he should be advised that it is not a commercial
district, and that the City sees the busi��ss as a service-type of function,
Mlr. Billings asked if there was some way they could establish a policy
� with some standard wordage that goes as a stipulation on the special use
permit whenever there are these kinds of requests.
� PLANNIPJG COP1P1ISSIQN IMEETING, OCTOBER 7, 1987 PAGE 3
Mr. Robertson stated one thing they think might work that if the land-
lord knows that the retail portion is only going to be a minor percentage
of his tenants, again the market should work consistent with the City's
policy. The landlord is not going to put a business in that is going to
cause problems for his major tenants.
Mr. Billings stated he could appreciate the fact that the market is going
to dictate what goes into these buildings, but at the same time there are
certain times when a landlord might be looking for next month's rent so he
can make the payment. Or maybe the landlord has plans on selling the
building and is only concerned about having a tenant in the building. There
could be a lot of variables that get into this.
P�r. Betzold stated he felt the City has tried to make an ordinance that
explains fairly clearly what the City's intentions are and what the
developers are limited to.
�9r. Robertson s�ated maybe they,sMould be more explicit in the ordinance so
people are on notice that this is a special district and the City recognizes
there are certain risks businesses will be taking when they locate in these
i ndus tri al areas .
Mr. Betzold stated he did not see anything wrong with putting into the
�'� ordinance some wording that explains the reason for the ordinance.
"1r. Robinson stated that in talking to other cities that have ordinances
similar to this, they make no distinction as to what types of businesses
(restaurants and other commercial) can go into these industrial buildings.
They just say any commercial up to a certain percentage, and do not
even require a special use permit. He felt one thing they have to realize
here in Fridley was that they would be granting a blanket special use
permit up to 20% for these types of support services, so they would not have
the type of control with each individual tenant that "9r. Billings might be
referrrng to.
P1s. Sherek suggested that as a condition of granting the special use permit,
there be a stipulation that the owner of a building is responsible for
notification in writing to any prospective tenant before the lease is signed
that this is an industrial zone and the tenant's property might be subject
to odors, noise, etc., from this or surrounding prapertaes in the indus�rial
zone. She stated it was the owner's responsib�lity, because no owner wants
tenants moving in and out repeatedly; therefore, it is in the owner's best
interest to get compatible tenants and keep them. Then, if the tenant comes
in and complains to the City, the City does not have the responsibility and
the tenant can sue the owner of the building for not notifying him/her of
these things.
h1r. Robinson stated that sounded like a very good idea, and it could be
i"'� stated right in the ordinance.
^ PLANNIPdG COP4�IISSION �1EETIPJG, OCTOBEP, 7, 1987 PAGE 4
Mr. Robertson stated that under P1-2, Item 2 state�: "Commercial retail
and service uses and Class I restaurants within office/industrial 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 persons employed in that district." So, this describes
what the purpose of these retail uses are.
Mlr, Robinson stated another change made in the ordinance was they had
replaced the definition that said "Office/industrial mixed use buildings"
with "office/industrial buildings." That took into account all industrial
buildings.
P1r. Robinson stated they deleted any hours of operation.
Mlr. Robinson stated that under item 3.A., they changed the cumulative
percentage allowed from 20% to 30%. It was still 20% for the support-type
bus i nesses, but the other types of commerci al ha�re_ -gorte_. up an addi ti onal
10°o to allow more commercial in those particular areas.
Mr. Robinson stated that on the last page under the definitions, they were
now stating in which zones the Class I, Class II, and C�,ass III restaurants
could gq. Prior to that, no restaurants were allowed in a C-1 zone.
'� MOTION BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TFYAT I�IUDER- S�CTIOIV 205.17.
M-Z LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND UNDER SECTI0IV 205.18. HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT REGULATION5, THE FOLLOWIP7G LANGUAGE 5HOULD BE ADDED A5
C.2.d, and C.3.g:
"IT I5 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER AND/OR AGENT TO INFORM ANY
PROSPECTIVE TENANT THAT THE PROPERTY I5 ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE."
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYF, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO PASS ON TO THE CITY
COUNCIL THE ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW LIMITED
COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITIES IN INDU5TRIAL ZONES
AS AMENDED AND TO RECOMMEND TNAT THE CITY COUNCIL SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RPERSON BILLINGS DE,CLARED TNE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. RECEIVE AUGUST 25, 1987, ENERGY COPIMISSION P9IPJUTCS:
MOTION BY MR. BONDOW, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECEIVE THE AUG. 25, 1987,
ENERGY COMMI5SION MINUTE5.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTI0111
CARRIED UIVANII�IOU5LY.
�
i^,
PLANNIPJG COP1P9ISSION PIEETIP�G, OCTOBER 7, 19�7 PAGE 5
3. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 17, 1987, HUP1AN RESOURCES C0�!P"ISSIOPJ N1IPJUTCS:
MOTION BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO RECEIVE THE SEPT. 17, 1987,
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIIVGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE SEPTEP•16ER 22, 1987, APPEALS COPI�1ISSION �1INUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO RECEIVE THE SEPT. 22, 1987,
APPEALS COMMI5SION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CNAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOU RP��1ENT :
MOTION BY MS.. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILbINGS DECLARED THE OCT. 7, 1987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.
� Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Saba
Recording Secretary
�"�