Loading...
PL 10/19/1988 - 30689n � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 19, 1988 _______..__________...._________..____.,_..__..____,......._________.,_____ CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the October 19, 1988, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Kathlyn Castle, Planning Assistant Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Paul Schaefer, St. Cloud, MN Mary Martin, 133 Stonybrook Way N.E. Molly Jonak, 133 Craig Way N.E. Marjorie Jonak, 133 Craig Way N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Webb, 146 Stonybrook Way N.E. Mr. Jack Dumphy, 195 Stonybrook Way N.E. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the September 28, 1988, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Mr. Robertson gave an update on the October 17, 1988, City Council meeting. CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #88-03, BY PAUL SCHAEFER: To rezone from C-3, General Shopping, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2, Block 1, Pearson's Second Addition, and Outlot A, Pearson's Second Addition, generally located north of 77th Avenue and east of East River Road N.E. Ms. Castle stated that the reason the petitioner is requesting the rezoning in order to construct a three story, 38 unit apartment building on the site. Staff advised the Commission to discuss the rezoning in terms of zoning requirements and the effect the rezoning to R-3 would have on the adjoining properties, and not Mr. � Schaefer's proposal or its specifics. Ms. Castle stated currently the property is in a C-3 zone, general ,,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 19. 1988 PAGE 2 shopping. To the north is an R-3 zone (Meadow Run Apartments), to the west is an R-3 zone which contains mostly single family homes, to the south is a C-3 zone (Apache Camper), and to the west is an M-1 zone, light industrial. Ms. Castle stated this project does comply with all the lot requirements that are contained in the R-3 zone of the Zoning Code. The rezoning to R-3 would accomplish two things: (1) It would enhance the surrounding residential neighborhoods by allowing compatible uses; and (2) the rezoning would also create a better buffer from the light industrial district to the west and the single family homes to the east. Ms. Castle stated this proposal would encourage appropriate land use transitions and enhance the living environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Castle stated staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the following stipulation: The fee owner combine Lot 2 and Outlot A into one tax parcel by January 21, 1989. Mr. Betzold asked if there were any long range plans by Anoka County for this portion of East River Road, and how would this project be impacted by any widening of the road? � Ms. Castle stated she was not aware of the improvement schedule for East River Road. Mr. Barna stated Anoka County intends to continue with improvements to East River Road on a long term schedule. Their plans are to complete the improvements from the Coon Rapids City Hall past the 610 bridge down to the Coon Rapids city limits by 1990. The hardest area to get a foothold on has been in the north end of Fridley. Mr. Kondrick stated one reason why the widening of East River Roacl in the northern end of Fridley, from 77th Avenue north to Coon Rapids, has taken longer is because there are 2-3 bridges across the various creeks. This also makes the project more expensive. He did not know the time schedule for these improvements. The widening would have an impact on this project if the divider was put in, in terms of traffic getting in and out of the development. Mr. Kondrick asked if the parking requirements were met with this project. Ms. Castle stated, yes, 38 was the maximum units for the site, and the parking requirements have been met by the proposed development. ,� Mr. Paul Schaefer stated he is a contractor and developer out of St. Cloud, Minnesota. He is requesting a rezoning from C-3 to R- 3 to allow him to build a 38 unit apartment building with (���,� recreation areas, rH`'� 3 2 bedroom units, and one bedro m u its nd is me 3 bedroom units, living. He stated it is a very nice building, ant for family �r• Kondrick asked about the cost of the rental units. Mr. Schaefer stated it would be the general market rate rent the area--around $400-450 for the one bedroom apartments and for two and three bedrooms would rent for a little more than t the This buildin is meant for the workin class � hat. g g people and up. �. Schaefer stated there are stated there will be a big berm ai ng the outh side whi h WiHe hide Apache Camper, and there are garages alon th parkin building will face to the south, and they will t 11 g at border. The good trees in this area. z'Y to save all the �r• Kondrick asked if there were any provisions for recreationa areas for children. 1 �'. Schaefer stated there are tot lot yards for children. Mr. Betzold stated it is apparent that the County will be doi something to East River Road in this area, but ��when�� is still a ;� question at this oint. h P If the County takes 10-15 feet to widen the road, how will this affect Mr. Schaefer�s project? Mr• Schaefer stated the project meets and exceeds the re i setbacks so he did not think the widening of East River Road wou affect his � red parkin Project. He has more than an ade ld g• This parking could be moved back and he wo ld till meet the parking requirements. Mr. Saba asked if there were any plans in the future to sell of these units as condominiums. any �r. Schaefer stated, no, these are strictly rental units. Mr. Dahlberg stated that since the Plannin Commission is acting on Mr. Schaefer's g not specifics of the building a dritssiay ut and they are d alin f the with the rezoning, what is t h e p o t e n t i a l, i f an 9 o n l y b u i l d i n g p lans changin g at t h e t i m e h e s u bmi ts fi a document e r� s s t a f f, i.e., the number of u n i t s, o r i e n t a t ion o f the buildin s t o t h e s i t e, a ny o t her plannin g c o n c e p t s, e t c.? g on Mr. Schaefer stated he could not foresee any changes to building or the layout of the units. the of units, and he certainly did not intendnto d crease the n�er �� of units. He stated the only other thing he has to work out�er staff is the landscaping, ith � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 19. 1988 PAGE 4 Mr. Barna stated the question before the Planning Commission at this meeting is whether they would rather see this land rezoned to R-3 or whether they think it should remain commercial. Mr. Schaefer stated the Watkins Brothers have had several proposals develop this land as commercial property and those proposals were turned down. One proposal was for a strip center. The lot is not laid out very well for commercial development. He stated the lot is only about 200 feet wide. He stated he thought this property would be better served as residential, R-3, because it is right next to R-3 and across from a residential area and would block the industrial property behind it from the residential neighborhood. Mr. Betzold stated that once in awhile what happens with apartment buildings is the landlord will do anything to fill up the units, and that makes it rough on a neighborhood. Mr. Schaefer stated he owns 150 units in 7 buildings in St. Cloud. Mostly professional people live in those buildings. They do have one building that houses St. Cloud State students. Two weeks aqo he got his second police report in 4 1/2 years. He stated he does not tolerate any problems. The people are warned and then they are out. He stated there will be an on-site manager at this building. � Ms. Pat Webb, 146 Stonybrook Way N.E., stated she did not want any more apartment buildings in this area. They already have the Meadow Run Apartments. She stated that on any given night, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, there are police in the parking lot of the Meadow Run Apartments, and the police are there for a reason. There is a lot of trash, a lot of traffic, and a lot of noise and trouble that does spill out into the neighborhood. She could not see putting in another 38 units when they already have to put up with the Meadow Run apartments. Mr. Betzold stated that this property is not going to remain undeveloped forever. Did Ms. Webb prefer to have it remain C-3 and possibly have more convenience stores or something like that go in there? Ms. Webb stated she did not know what kind of business would go in there, but she knew she did not want an apartment building there. She stated they will have to take this one step at a time, and when another proposal comes in, they will consider it at that time. Mr. Betzold stated that if a proposal comes in to the City that is right for the commercial zoning and meets all the code requirements, it can be built without any involvement by the Planning Commission or City Council. � Ms. Webb stated she could not really say commercial would be preferable to apartments, but she knew what goes on at Meadow Run, and she did not want any more situations like that. She stated Mr. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 19 1988 PAGE 5 Schaefer might build a very nice building, but who knows what kind of people will live there. Ms. Webb presented a petition to the Commission which stated that the undersigned were opposed to the rezoning of Lot 2, Block 1, Pearson's 2nd Addition, and Outlot A, generally located north of 77th Avenue and east of East River Road N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive into the record Petition No. 22-1988. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOld BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Webb stated the feeling she got from the neighborhood is that no one wants an apartment building across the street. They feel they have their share of apartment buildings in this area. She stated she plans on raising her children here; and if the area gets worse because of rental units, she will move to another community where the neighborhood is more safe, more secure, and she knows her neighbors. She stated you do not have that security with apartment buildings, because people come and go all the time. Ms. Molly Jonak, 133 Craig Way N.E., stated she has lived 26 years ,�"1 in a neighborhood considered to be a somewhat prestigious neighborhood. She stated she grew up in a good community, attended good schools, with the opportunity to further her education. She stated she grew up in a neighborhood where she felt safe and secure, walking or jogging down the street, and that is the major reason why she still lives in Fridley. She knows what the big city is like, and she prefers the security, calmness, and the people of the suburbs, and she has grown to love the Craig Way neighborhood. Ms. Jonak stated she came to the meeting to fight for something she feels is hers and her neighbors. She asked the Planning Commission the following question: Is it really necessary for the City of Fridley to put apartment buildings on this property? Ms. Jonak stated the first major concern to her and her neighbors is the aesthetic value. As Ms. Webb had said, Mr. Schaefer can build a nice apartment building but in 10-15 years, he might not maintain it or a new owner might not maintain it, and it will become rundown. Ms. Jonak stated she knows about landlords and about tenants. She has been one of each. She did not think this area of Fridley is a perfect spot for another rental property. Rental properties are just an opportunity for an increase in crime and drugs. People come and go all the time, and all this is not conducive to the � neighborhood atmosphere they are trying to achieve. They do not think building an apartment building here will enhance the surrounding neighborhood. She thought their property values will PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 19, 1988 PAGE 6 ,�"�, decrease because of it. She challenged each Planning Commission member to ask themselves these questions: Would he/she want an apartment building across the street from his/her house? Would it enhance his/her neighborhood? Would it make him/her feel more safe and secure? Ms. Mary Martin, 133 Stonybrook Way N.E., stated she lives directly ,� across the street from this lot and from Apache Camper. She stated she wondered if the Planning Commission members have had time to hear the history of this area in that everything has been either rezoned or special permitted. If they are going to rezone everything or get a special use permit for everything, what is the point of having a Planning Commission and zoning laws? She stated Meadow Run Apartments were built because of a rezoning and Apache Camper was in its location because of a special use permit with stipulations. Now the City wants to change the zoning on another piece of property in this area. Didn't the citizens who were here first have any rights? Are they supposed to just it back and accept "progress" and say it is o.k. to change every zoning whenever the City decides it is best? She stated she hoped the Planning Commission had more faith in their city fathers who did the original zoning and that there was a reason for that zoning and that the zoning should not be changed. ^ Ms. Martin stated that in terms of the proposed development protecting the neighborhood from the Barry Blower Company, the neighborhood does not need any protection from Barry Blower. There is some occasional noise from that company in the summer when the windows are open but that is all. In terms of visual protection, from Barry Blower, the neighborhood does not need that either. All the neighbors see is a blank wall. They do need protection from Apache Camper, but that has nothing to do with the rezoning proposal before the Commission at this meeting, except for the fact that Apache Camper got a special use permit from the Planning Coinmission and the City Council. Ms. Martin stated another problem is that the Council and the Commissioners keep changing, as they should and as they always will; but she thought the history gets lost in the process. There is just no continuity on the commissions. What former Planning Commission members promised her she would have, she does not have now because the Commission in its various forms has given it all away to somebody else and because city staff thought it was a good idea. Also, the city staff has no continuity in going back 25, 30, not even 10-15 years, to know what the area was like when the neighbors moved in and what they were promised at that time. Ms. Martin stated she did not want 38 units across the street from her. There will be an increase in traffic and the noise of ^ screeching tires. There will probably be about 76 cars coming in and out of the complex. She had a hard time even believing that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 19 1988 PAGE 7 ,�"�, . 38 units could go on this site with landscaping, garages, outdoor parking, etc. She would like the Commission to also be concerned about the drainage, so drainage into the Stonybrook Creek is not changed. Mr. Betzold assured Ms. Martin that with every development in the City, the City Engineers are involved and they make sure there is no more or no less water leaving the development site than there was before the development. Ms. Martin stated this property should remain C-3 zoning. Any of the uses allowed in C-3 would be better than an apartment building. Mr. Jack Dumphy, 195 Stonybrook Way, stated he has lived in Fridley since 1955 and at this address since 1963. He served on the Parks & Recreation Commission for 7 years ending in 1963. He stated he would prefer not to have an apartment building across the street. It would increase traffic. East River Road is a very busy street and a dangerous one. There are many accidents on this street. Mr. Dumphy stated he lives on Stonybrook Creek and he doubted if all that runoff could be eliminated with the construction of an apartment building. He stated that since 1963 he has seen the Creek go from a pleasant stream to a dangerous situation. Also, ^ he felt 38 units on this location was overcrowding the situation to the extreme. He would prefer a C-3, light industrial-type business which would not generate as much traffic as an apartment building. Mr. Schaefer stated the project is well worthy of the City of Fridley and will bring a tremendous tax base into the City. The land has been sitting dormant for many years. He would like the Planning Commission to vote on this rezoning one way or the other. Ms. Martin asked for the number of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, and the number of people the building would house. Mr. Schaefer stated there would be two 3-bedroom units, thirty 2- bedroom units, and six 3-bedroom units. He estimated the project would house 66-70 people. Ms. Sherek stated the Commission has been given guidelines for for acceptance of special use permits, variances, etc. What guidance does the Planning Commission have regarding rezoning requests? Ms. Dacy stated on a rezoning request, the guides the Planning Commission can use are policies in the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not the Planning Commission feels the proposed uses the zoning district allows is compatible with the existing adjacent ^ zoning and land uses. Even though there is a specific proposal PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 19. 1988 PAGE 8 �^, before the Planning Commission, the Commission has to be thoroughly satisfied that the R-3 district is appropriate for that parcel. If the Commission is not entirely satisfied with that, then they can recommend to the City Council denial of the request. 5he stated the City always has the option of looking at another appropriate district, so the Comprehensive Plan and proposed zoning district are two guides the Commission can use in rezoning cases. Mr. Betzold stated that 30-40 years ago when everything was new, it was fairly easy to zone land. Once a community is 95�5 developed as Fridley is now, when they rezone any piece of property, they are doing it with a lot of already existing businesses and residences, etc., that have been relying upon the zoning being a certain way, and it is going to affect the character of the neighborhood by changing it. They have to make sure that by rezoning the property, it is going to be compatible, not only with the existing zoning, but with the land actually being used around it. This is not something the Planning Commission or the City takes lightly. Leaving the land vacant is probably not a probable alternative. He stated he saw this land being best used for the use already in the area, and that is for R-3, General Multiple D�aellings. Mr. Dahlberg what happens if, for some unforeseen reason, Mr. � Schaefer is not able to proceed with the project after the property is rezoned? For that reason, the Planning Commission has to feel very comfortable and convinced that rezoning to R-3, multiple dwellings, is appropriate for this site. Ms. Martin stated she would like to know if the members of the Planning Commission feel their job is to protect the residents of Fridley. She has often found that the City comes before the residents. Do the residents who have lived in this area for 25 years have any rights here or is it more important for the City to progress and get bigger and fill the Metropolitan Council's needs? Mr. Betzold stated when he says "in the interest of Fridley", he means every part of the City, whether business or resident. Unfortunately, there are usually always conflicts, and it is a tough balancing act. He stated every member of the Planning Commission is a resident of Fridley. They do their best to resolve these conflicts, and they are doing their best to make a recommendation, but it will only be a recommendation. The City Council makes the final decision. Mr. Barna stated he will object to any redevelopment along East River Road that will increase the traffic to any degree. Mr. Kondrick stated he lives in this neighborhood, and he will � object to rezoning to R-3. He stated an additional apartment building is not compatible with the neighborhood. There is too much density and too much traffic now. This is a very nice PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 19. 1988 PAGE 9 �^� neighborhood, but the neighborhood has its share of apartment buildings. He stated he was sure the developer had good intentions, but he will not always have control over this project. He stated he would' like the property to remain C-3, and another compatible use in the C-3 zoning should be considered. Mr. Saba stated he would support Mr. Kondrick's statements. He stated you do not solve the problems that come with apartment buildings by building another apartment building. He stated apartment buildings can be a nuisance in a neighborhood. They draw a lot of good people, but they also draw an element of people who spoil it for the rest of the people. He stated East River Road is a mess now and did not need any additional traffic on it. He did not think R-3 was appropriate zoning for this area. Mr. Dahlberg stated he lives on East River Road next to the Locke House which is next to a County Park. There is one property between him and the Mississippi Apartments. Directly across from that is another small apartment building. He stated the County Park causes more distraction and more disturbance and more heartache to him than the apartment buildings do. He stated he did feel the rezoning to R-3 was appropriate, but this was his opinion. The property could also be suitable for a commercial development, retail office, etc., but that is not what is being proposed. He � would vote in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Sherek stated she has been on the Planning Commission for a few years, and they have looked at a lot of sites that would be mixed use. One of the issues that comes up frequently, aside from the nuisance factor of apartment buildings, is the traffic. She agreed that East River Road is bad now. She did not see how another apartment building could make it much worse, but she also could not see putting more people into an area where they would have to make hazardous entrances and exits onto East River Road. A commercial or industrial business would create a lot of traffic, but she just did not feel creating additional residences along Easts River Road was a good idea. She agreed with the neighbors, that they have plenty of apartments already. Additional apartments was not going to solve the problems the neighborhood is already facing. Her biggest fear, as far as rezoning, is the fact that it is adjacent to Meadow Run. If the property is rezoned and Mr. Schaefer is unable to proceed with his project, are they going to end up with more property owned by Meadow Run? She did not see R- 3 as an appropriate zoning for this piece of property. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning, ZOA #88-03, by Paul Schaefer, to rezone from C-3, General Shopping, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2, Block 1, Pearson's Second Addition, and Outlot A, Pearson's ^ Second Addition, generally located north of 77th Avenue and east of East River Road PT.E. „"� � �'`� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 19. 1988 PAGE 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, KONDRICK, BARNA, SABA, SHERER VOTING AYE, BETZOLD AND DAHLBERG VOTING 1dAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1. Mr. Betzold stated the City Council will hold a public hearing on this item on November 21. Ms. Dacy stated that because there were a lot of concerns regarding the traffic on East River Road and access from East River Road to the site, staff will get an update on East River Road from the County and will also check with John Flora, Public Works Director, who indicated in his preliminary analysis that it appears there might be a median across from the subject site in the future which will allow for a"right in” and "right out" flow of traffic. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 1 1988. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the Sept. 1, 1988, Human Resources Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 8. 1988 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Nir. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 12. 1988, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the Sept. 12, 1988, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 20. 1988. JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL 4UALITY COMMISSION/ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the Sept. 20, 1988, Joint Environmental Quality Commission/Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 19, 1988 PAGE 11 f� RECEIVE OCTOBER 11, 1988, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the Oct. 11, 1988, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the Oct. 19, 1988, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully sub itted, LneSaba Recording Secretary �� �