Loading...
PL 04/02/1997 - 30840�� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 C��. • •;�� Chairperson Savage called the April 2, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. I��i]���RN'��i�� Members Present: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Jim Steilen, Popham, Haik and Lawton John Prichard, McGlynn Bakeries Dennis Zylla, Northco Tim Nelson, Everest Development George Ludcke, Kelly & Berens Paul Bakken, 8085 Wayzata Boulevard, #105, Minneapolis, Minnesota ^ APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1997, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � 1. (Tabled 3/19/97)� PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED"ZONING", BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.17.05.D.(6), 205.18.05.D.(6), 205.19.05.D.(6), ADDING SECTION 205.20 (M-4 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to remove from the table and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC �nRTUG OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this item is carried over from the last Planning Commission meeting and involves a moratorium on warehouse or distribution facilities. Mr. Hickok stated staff's recommendation is to recommend approval .,� of an amendment to the existing zoning districts to establish stricter standards for corner lots and lots adjacent to residential districts; to establish a new industrial district � PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 2 entitled M-4, Manufacturing Only; and to rezone the parcels as appropriate. Associated with the proposed amendments will be improved definitions for loading docks, overhead doors, parking in front of the distribution facilities. There will be another public hearing before the Planning Commission in May that will be specific to the sites that are selected for M-4. As you consider this, staff would like a recommendation for M-4 and modified language to the other industrial districts. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council established in January a moratorium for warehouse and distribution facilities with more than 10 docks in order to examine the industrial zoned properties within the City and to determine the compatibility of warehouse facilities and other allowable uses in the City, to review the number and location of existing warehouse and distribution facilities and to determine if the zoning on the remaining vacant parcels should be amended or changed to another zoning classification. Mr. Hickok stated, over the last 18 months, the City has experienced over 500,000 square feet of industrial warehouse � growth in industrial districts. As a result, there have been complaints and concerns about truck traffic, residential streets south of 53rd have been designated "no truck traffic" routes in response to the Murphy Warehouse facility and other similar developments along Main Street. Residents complained about a large number of trucks traveling through their neighborhood causing additional noise. There are also several areas in the City where industrial districts are located directly across the street from residential areas. Warehouse distribution facilities can cause adverse impacts because of the amount of truck traffic entering and exiting the site during the course of the day. Of the City's 1,148 acres, there is only 89.79 acres left of industrial zoned property. The City felt it was the appropriate time to analyze the remaining parcels and to make certain that those parcels are developed and, if any modifications to the code were necessary, that they be made as a part of this process. Mr. Hickok stated the goals of the potential amendments include: 1. To reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities on residential properties from truck traffic by first controlling the location in the City and by implementing site design controls. 2. To encourage uses which provide a significant amount of job opportunities which require more complex building systems. '� Buildings with a mixture of uses tend to have higher building valuation than warehouse construction. ,� PLANNING CONa�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 3 3. To promote clean uses which do not produce fumes, odors, or require outside operations which may cause noise. 4. To eliminate uses which require significant amounts of outdoor storage display. Mr. Hickok stated these are already permitted in other zoning districts; therefore, refined language in that area has been suggested. The City went through a rather elaborate analysis which was discussed at the last meeting. The City was divided into three study areas. Those areas were evaluated for the number of existing warehouse/distribution facilities, amount of land dedicated to that use, impact of the facilities, etc. Staff determined there were seven sites that appeared to be primary candidates to be considered for the M-4 zoning. The other industrial districts - M-1, M-2, and M-3 - had special consideration given to the language within the text so that loading docks, outdoor storage, and those elements that are of concern are properly addressed. n Mr. Hickok stated the discussion at the last meeting lead to some questions the Commission asked to be answered. Mr. Hickok reviewed the questions and staff's responses as provided in the staff report included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hickok stated also included in the agenda packet were the parcels of land that were considered. The industrial inventory leaves few large parcels to be developed. Some parcels do not meet the 1.5 acre minimum size,.and those sites were eliminated from consideration. There were other small sites eliminated by size or by virtue of not meeting the criteria, as follows: 1. Is the property adjacent to or across the street from a residential use? 2. Would the property meet the minimum requirements of the proposed M-4 zoning district? 3. Would it be possible to develop a distribution or warehouse facility in excess of 10 loading docks? 4. Is there a distribution warehouse facility already in the area? Mr. Hickok stated a question came up at the last meeting about whether or not the Northco site was feasible and was it realistic to consider this site as an appropriate site for a 10-dock facility. The site is a 2.2 acre parcel located south of 73rd in the Northco industrial district. Staff did an analysis of a �1 footprint in the area where a building could be located based on the setbacks. It would be extremely difficult to put a warehouse � n � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 4 facility in excess of 10 bays on the site. Staff feels this site could be eliminated from the M-4 consideration. This site was considered because it does have over 1,000,000 square feet of warehouse to the immediate east and to the north is the Melody Manor residential area. Mr. Hickok stated, in summary, staff would like to see a recommendation regarding the M-1, M-2, and M-3 industrial zoning language modifications and a recommendation on the M-4, Manufacturing Only, language to be added. Also, staff would appreciate concerns or comments about the remaining six sites and whether the Commission feels they are appropriate candidates for rezoning. Staff will prepare a public hearing from that information on those particular sites if M-4 is a choice on which the Planning Commission and City Council agree. The moratorium ends in May. Staff would like to have a decision in a timely fashion so at the end of the moratorium staff have a good sense of where we are going. Ms. Savage asked if staff was recommending that the Northco site be eliminated from consideration. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Staff is recommending six sites but this site could be included if the Commission so chooses. Ms. Savage stated, as she understands, if the Planning Commission approved the ordinance language, the next step would be another Planning Commission meeting in which the individual sites would be discussed. If there are still concerns about the sites, there would be an opportunity at the next meeting to evaluate including a site, such as the McGlynn's site. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Mr. Kuechle asked, if the sites are classified as M-4 and they want to build, for example, on the McGlynn's site and want to have a truck dock, is there something that can be done to still allow that such as with a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated the McGlynn site is an interesting site. It is staff's understanding from past discussion that it is McGlynn's interest to expand or build to the north which would likely start as a warehouse and, in the future, become a manufacturing facility as their space needs change. One of the big factors is that there is a 60-inch sewer pipe between the McGlynn existing site and vacant site to the north. In the past, the public works director has indicated they have talked about the possibility of bridging the two buildings with some sort of an elevated walkway to allow enough room to get at the pipe should something happen. If the � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 5 McGlynn site were to be attached and this was an expansion with the warehouse as an ancillary use to the existing manufacturing facility, that would certainly be a different picture. The concern is that it would develop as its own independent warehouse facility and not be connected to the large building. We did have a lengthy discussion with the public works staff about moving that pipe so that it does not limit McGlynn's. The answer to that is that there are options. It is in a tax increment district area, and it is a site consideration that we would have to look at. Approving that site and allowing McGlynn's to expand to the north could be facilitated by the pipe being moved to the north and then back around to the alignment that ends up at the pond at the rear of the McGlynn's building. All that being considered, it would make more sense to have that part of the facility and not free standing. Until then, M-4 is the most appropriate district as we see it. Mr. Oquist stated, as he understancls, the Planning Commission can approve the ordinance but there will then be more public hearings to identify the parcels and to rezone. n Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. From here, the Planning Commission at its May 7 meeting, if they wish to consider all seven sites, staff could publish a notice for each of the seven sites and that notice would be specific and would have all of the notification standard for rezoning the sites. It would be before the City Council for the first reading of the ordinance on May 14. That would allow staff and landowners to have a good sense of where we are heading with this before the moratorium ends. The City Council would have a reading of the ordinance before the moratorium ends. Ms. Modig stated she got the impression that by doing it this way they were saying the M-4 was going to be all inclusive of the sites, but it is going to separated out. Mr. Hickok stated staff needs to have from the Commission a good sense of which sites are appropriate for M-4. In the notification, we may rezone fewer or more than the recommended sites. Ms. Savage asked if staff wants an indication of which sites or an indication of whether we would recommend approval of the ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated, if staff could walk away this evening with a recommendation on the M-1, M-2, and M-3 language and the addition �"� of M-4 language, staff would feel this was a successful meeting. In addition, staff would like the number of sites in which you are � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 6 interested and staff will prepare notices based on that discussion. Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is the owner of a 10.6 acre parcel on the southwest corner of Main Street and 61st Avenue. He was not present at the last meeting but did have correspondence from their attorney, Mr. Ludcke, who is at the meeting to address his letter and some responses staff gave to that letter and the overall context of their position on this proposed zoning change. Also present is Mr. Bakken, a professional appraiser, who was asked to take a look at an issue that was raised independently by members of the Planning Commission regarding the question of value. If you are going to restrict the uses that the property can be put to, are you impairing the value and is that fair? Mr. Bakken has data from the marketplace that he deals with on a professional basis that we would like him to share wi,th the Commission. Mr. Nelson stated he would like to provide Everest's history in this property with the understanding that the Planning Commission has a meeting later. They have concerns both about the specific �,.,1 proposal to rezone their property and the restrictions. The property is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. They also have concerns about the way this has come up specifically relating to their property and a proposed project for the property. Mr. Hickok has addressed some of that but he has additional background on that.as well. They also have concerns about the possible impact on the value of the property. Mr. Nelson stated Everest Development is a commercial industrial real estate developer based in Roseville and is active in most of the northern suburban communities, around the metro area and out of state on a project by project basis. They develop business parks, industrial and office facilities, and develop as contractors and property owners. Everest acquired this parcel in 1992. They purchased the parcel as an investment for future development of the property. They purchased the property in the depth of the real estate recession knowing it might be a number of years before they could develop the property. When they purchased the property, it was a good site and had potential. As part of the purchase process and at the same time, they also purchased another property which is now the site of Home Depot. They purchased both the parcels at the same time from Glacier Park, which was the real estate arm of the Burlington Northern Railroad who had owned the property since the early 1960's. As part of the purchase before acquiring the property, they did what is referred to as "due diligence" doing soil tests, environmental assessment, ,� survey, title examination, etc. Part of that was meeting with City staff to verify the existing zoning, permitted uses, design � PLANNING COl��lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 7 criteria, so they knew what they were getting into. They had several meetings with City staff both in the economic development and planning areas about these issues and came from those meetings secure in the knowledge of what the property was zoned and what was permitted there, which was a variety of industrial uses. He also came away impressed with the sense that the City was interested in seeing developers come into town and appreciated the developer making an investment in the community, and looked forward to working with City staff as they developed the site. Mr. Nelson stated Everest started marketing the site as soon as they purchased the property and it has been on the market since. About one year after purchasing the site, they were met with an increase in the real estate tax valuation by the city assessor to the tune of about three times what they paid for the property. They thought that was inappropriate. They resisted and tax petitioned, and ultimately the Anoka County tax board significantly pared back the valuation. It might be coincidental, but it felt that the friendly reception was not across the board. Mr. Nelson stated a few years later they were fortunate enough to n get interest from Home Depot on the 14.5-acre site across from Holiday Plus. They entered into a contingent purchase agreement °" where they would need to apply to the City for the comprehensive plan change and a rezoning change. They were surprised when that � project came forward and staff recommended denial of both the rezoning and the comprehensive plan change. The rationale was in significant part that the City has few industrial sites and staff did not want to loose it in favor of a commercial project. The Planning Commission and the City Council recommended approval of the rezoning and comprehensive plan change. Mr. Nelson stated another thing that concerned them in that process was that, as a recommendation of approval, staff recommended that the existing billboard signs be removed as part of project. Staff persisted in this recommendation despite being advised that Home Depot had no legal rights or interests in the signs. It was ultimateiy not made a part of the approval but at no time was there any discussions or suggestions of compensation to the parties who owned those signs. Mr. Nelson stated about a year ago we starting coming out of the real estate recession into a significantly healthier market. The market especially for warehouse space is significantly improved. They are getting more interest in the property. They received interest from a large industrial warehouse tenant for a lease transaction on this property. They started site design and �"'1 retained an architect. Thus far, they have expended over $10,000 in the architectural design phase to get it to the point where it � PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 8 is at. They started meeting with City staff on an informal basis to make sure before they submitted their building permit application that the plans met all the requirements. They had a series of ineetings and phone conversations. They have pieces of correspondence back and forth with staff. They thought they knew the requirements of the M-2 district. They sensed from the start, however, that staff was not pleased with the project going on this site despite the fact that it met the zoning requirements. The first indication of that was a letter after meeting with staff asking us to demonstrate why this project, which was clearly a large distribution warehouse, should not be viewed as a truck terminal. They know what truck terminals are, and they know what warehouses are. Staff knew what they were, but their main issue was to try to put the burden back on us to demonstrate why it was not a truck terminal. They did that in a lengthy letter and in phone conversations documenting the differences between a truck terminal and a warehouse property. This did not satisfy staff. They had answered the question and submitted three separate letters to staff asking for verification that they accepted that the project was not a truck terminal. Staff took the view that the information was too sketchy. They do not allow anyone to visit the tenant's operation because it is confidential, and the use was clearly set forth in the description of the building from the plans. Mr. Nelson stated their initial meeting was in early August. They had a follow-up meeting in mid-September. They had phone conversations in mid-September and a meeting early in October, and a letter to the City on October 11 explaining why this project was not a truck terminal. Staff agreed that this project was very similar to the Murphy Warehouse project that recently had been built and that those projects were not truck terminals, but they would not accept this fact in looking at our plans. Mr. Nelson stated they sensed that this was occasion for some delay and he would like to respond to the real project in front of them. This sense was also borne out when the City Attorney got involved in the discussions. Mr. Ludcke will describe that process. Discussion dropped off to the point where they saw a legal notice in the paper that the City has adopted a zoning moratorium affecting their property with no prior notice to them whatsoever. They indicated in letters and in conversations with staff that they intended to obtain a building permit for that project and staff were holding up having us apply for the building permit application with this question about truck terminals, even though they did resolve it to their satisfaction. � Mr. Nelson stated they have been embarrassed in this situation with their tenant's prospect. They have a site that is excellent PLANNING CO�SSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 9 for this type of use. The features it offers gives proximity to a freeway, rail on the west side of the property, and is sizable for a project of 185,000 square feet. Mr. Nelson stated staff indicated the remaining industrial land is 7.80 of the overall industrial land inventory. Their 10.67 acres is 1.50 of the industrial land inventory, yet the sense of background is that we have big problems with trucking and will have lots of bad things happen if you don't hurry up and rezone some of these properties to this new zoning classification and adopt the other changes in wording. He would suggest that it is real late in the game and you may be able to do it and may be legally entitled to do it, but from a common sense standpoint and from an intact community standpoint, it is real late in the game to be adopting these kinds of changes now and selecting a few properties that are in dwindling supply to deal with a problem that has occurred over the past 30 years in the history of development in Fridley. Mr. Nelson stated he opposed the rezoning of their property to M- 4, and will be back for a future public hearing on that. They do ^ not object to the City drafting a new zoning classification of the M-4. They think it should be a voluntary situation where the owner of a property could apply for that zoning. It does have a significant impact on their use of their property, the value, the marketability and attractiveness of the site. At this point, he did not know if they have lost the deal or not, even if they decided to keep the existing M-2 zoning in place. Their tenant is not happy with the situation on timing and had hoped to be started. They have waited five years through a real estate recession. They bought into that recession hoping to and expecting to come out with development of the property. They are at a point where they would like to be able to capitalize on an improved market to develop the property and ultimately be able to sell the project and make a significant profit on a significant investment. � Mr. Nelson stated they would like to proceed with their plans. They feel that they got torpedoed in this process when the moratorium came up. That, and as the City has indicated, Everest is not being singled out in this but we feel that some of these other property owners have been thrown into the mix. Staff is already saying that this site could be dropped and that site could be dropped. This is, in our view, in effect really about spot zoning of their property and they disagree. There is a comment from the last meeting that staff want to move this through the process expeditiously so that the property owners who have projects to do can proceed with their projects. The irony is that, if what is recommended is approved, it will have exactly the �<-.� PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 10 opposite effect on them. Mr. Nelson stated they also oppose the specific language changes in the M-1, M-2 and M-3 zoning criteria. They believe that, even on a corner lot, the screening requirements are significant and already in the existing ordinance and does not need to be duplicated. Mr. Nelson stated truck traffic for their property would utilize Main Street, 61st and 57th. He would submit that the neighborhood problems occurred in residential neighborhoods near the Murphy buildings. This is a different situation in that there are more outlets to University Avenue. The City resolved that with some residential traffic requirements on some of those streets. That is probably pushing truck traffic up here now between 57th and • 61st to get out to University Avenue. This has always been an industrial area and will remain so. He did not see the point of restricting the development of that office warehouse project which will not have a drastic impact on that traffic flow and traffic pattern compared to what is already there. They do not have a manufacturing user for the site. They welcome the opportunity to � work with one but they are few and far between. They would like to proceed with the project as proposed. Mr. Bakken stated he works in the Twin Cities as a commercial real estate appraiser. He owns a real estate firm and has been working in the field for 15 years. For the meeting presentation, he prepared a letter dated April 1, 1997, to summarize his comments. He distributed copies of the letter. Mr. Bakken stated he was essentially asked to provide some evaluation, counseling and advise to Everest Development in light of the potential change in the zoning classifications. Since it appears that the change from M-2 to M-4 is one that restricts the overall number of uses to a single use, his first question was to figure out how active the manufacturing market is in the Twin Cities. On page 2 of his letter is a schedule which is a review of all of the industrial land sales that have occurred in the Twin Cities metro area since 1993. The manufacturing use is a very small portion of the overall industrial marketplace. He has heard discussion about the strength of the marketplace and all of the activity that is happening in Fridley. He would direct their thoughts to non-manufacturing uses primarily. From his perspective, it does appear that the manufacturing use is a very small portion of the market. Mr. Bakken stated, on the bottom of page 2, he finds that this is ,�'� interesting for several reasons. We have seen an increase in the health of the market and have also seen a relaxing of the „.� PLANNING COD�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 11 contamination rules as it pertains primarily to manufacturers. A few years ago, they had some fairly stiff rules on soil contamination and that was something that was geared to a number of manufacturers. Over the last three or four years, the rules have been lessened in severity and today manufacturers can get no action letters and other devices to insulate themselves from contamination. If anything, one would expect a renewed activity in the manufacturing sector but that has not occurred. Mr. Bakken stated, on page 3, he offers some of the reasons why the manufacturing sector in the Twin Cities has diminished. For a number of years, Minnesota has been known as a"net exodus” state for manufacturing. Because of the property tax, worlQnen's compensation, and other issues, they have found more manufacturers leaving the state than coming in. Second, every year, there is an annual study done by a local real estate group, CCIM. They have actually cataloged that in the last few years 70 manufacturing companies have vacated the Twin Cities for the Hudson River valley which is primarily due to cheap land, lower worlanen's compensation, and other issues. Again, this is reinforcing why we are not seeing a lot of manufacturing sites purchased and built in � the Twin Cities. Mr. Bakken stated another factor that you see on the manufacturing side is cities that are giving land away to property owners. Anoka and the port authority are giving land away for $1.00 per site for manufacturing when a number of jobs are created with that. It is tough competition in light of the few manufacturers that are looking for sites. Mr. Bakken stated, on page 4, with restricting of the use to manufacturing, he indicated there are municipalities that do give land away. There are also municipalities and governmental agencies that will offer the land at reduced cost. As an example, in Chaska a number of manufacturers have relocated there where the land was priced very, very reasonable. Mr. Bakken stated he had a few thoughts on the potential change on the zoning. It seems to him that if the restriction of uses is limited to manufacturing only that the number of potential buyers for any of these sites will drop off sharply because the demand is not there. Secondly, you will have reduced profits because it will lead to increased marketing times. He will predict that the developer will hold the land longer before development would occur. Thirdly, there is competition with agencies that are giving sites away for manufacturing. Last, it is his opinion that most of the manufacturers prefer to own their own sites and that a � great number of warehousing concerns are happy to lease property. From a deal perspective, this would limit the potential of the ^ PLANNING COi�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 12 site to a sale of the property only as opposed to a lease and develop parcel. If the change from M-2 to M-4 were adopted, it is his opinion that the value of the property would decline. Mr. Ludcke stated he apologized for not having been at the last Planning Commission meeting. It is better to be there at the time and take the flack that may follow. It is fair to say that we have a pretty vigorous difference of opinion about what went on in the fall of 1996. There was no claim that everyone involved did not do their job. Frankly, they feel like they were foxed into not filing a permit application. They came with a project and tried to force a decision on whether or not we met the zoning criteria. He believes they did and he believes the best proof of that is what the staff is proposing to be included in the M-4 district. The plan they had cleared and submitted did show the docks that Mr. Hickok addressed and, he thought in retrospect, prompted the concern and decision that something had to be done to hold them up. He thought Mr. Knaak would agree that it is a different situation if the property owner applies and complies with existing zoning as opposed to a situation where no application is in place and then a moratorium. They feel that, in effect legally, they are reduced to the same situation because �� what they are doing is trying to get information back from the City of what they want to see from them. They did everything short of identifying their tenant and invited City staff and the City Attorney on a tour. He spoke with Mr. Knaak about starting in the fall and asking him about what is it that the City is really interested in. They got a strong message that the City was not interested in our use which we felt conformed. Mr. Knaak did not get back to him when he made these requests. Mr. Ludcke stated in the interim Everest received a call from Ms. Dacy suggesting that she might have a manufacturing user for a portion of the site which confirmed the concern that the City was not going to approve under any circumstances a warehouse use. This is where he takes issues with staff's characterization that they did not provide information. Everest was the party that was not provided with the information. They were not told that what was in the works was a change of zoning that would prevent them from having any kind of warehouse development in favor of manufacturing. He thought they went as far as they possibly could. They pointed to the Murphy warehouse type of use. They certainly knew this was not a truck terminal. They did delay, and they did not make the application. They did not want to step on staff's toes and wanted to get around that. When he did not get the last call from Mr. Knaak and then was told that the moratorium was in place, at a meeting in February Mr. Knaak apologized to him n because he said, according to the circumstances, he was not at liberty to comment. �.y PLANNING CONIlKISSION N�ETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 13 Mr. Ludcke stated, if he were in Mr. Knaak's position, we would not have disclosed that either, but if the net effect is to keep them from moving forward and applying for a building permit when they did comply, that he thought takes it out of case law that justifies the moratorium. He was not there to talk about so much the legalities of case law philosophies, but they think it was their project that was in the spotlight and not the other folks. He did not know whether they were involved in similar discussions with City staff about projects. They were involved in these discussions on an on-going basis and they did delay in order to comply as best they could. They feel that this ordinance is aimed directly at them. He thought that, when there is a limited amount of property in the City available for industrial development, that they should not end up being the victims of a policy that should have been adopted long ago to prevent some wrongs that Mr. Hickok, he believes, described in lesser part. He thought they had developed expectations when they bought the site which were consistent based on discussions then and with the existing zoning that should be considered by the Gommission when deciding whether or not to adopt the M-4 zoning at all and its impact on them. Mr. Nelson stated he would like to enter into the public record � the series of correspondence relating to this issue to indicate that this is not a truck terminal. He would like to leave with the question that, if this was your property and you had significant capital and time invested in plans and this situation occurred, would you feel that it is fair. They feel it is unfair. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to enter into the public record the letter from Bakken & Leidl dated April l, 1997, and correspondence between the City of Fridley and Everest Development as provided by Mr. Nelson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Nelson his definition of a warehouse versus a truck terminal. Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal typically has a very low ceiling height because no product is stored for a long period of time. Typically, it is a long, narrow building. A warehouse, especially a distribution warehouse, is a big box - a large rectangle or square in shape. It has a high ceiling height for storage. Truck terminals often have cross docking - docks on both sides of the building - and a much higher ratio of docks to building square footage. A distribution warehouse also can have a ^ significant number of docks but pales in comparison to a truck terminal as far as ratio. The product that is stored in a � PLANNING CONIl��lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 14 warehouse is typically stored for a longer period of time versus products at a truck terminal that is unloaded from one truck then onto another truck sometimes the same day. It may stay in the facility for a few days. Frequently, a truck terminal also has a truck repair facility or garage on site for maintenance of the truck fleet. It is a very different situation. The Murphy warehouse buildings are examples of distribution warehouse facilities. Mr. Oquist asked how many docks were in the development as proposed. Mr. Nelson stated their building was proposed to have from 20 to 40 docks - 50 at the outside. Certainly not 50 on Main Street as indicated in the staff report. The exact number of docks had not been pinpointed because their tenant's needs varied with the contracts they had. The likelihood was that it was going to be in the range of 35 docks with some along the east side of the building along Main Street and some along the south side of the building. The front yard of a corner lot is defined as the shortest side on a public street so the side along 61st would be � considered the front yard. Mr. Kuechle asked how many trucks would they expect to go in and out of there during the day. Mr. Nelson stated he did not know. It would vary with the tenant's business. There would be a significant amount of truck traffic, but there might also be with a manufacturing use. While the number of docks for manufacturing zoning is probably less than warehousing, the actual truck traffic may be just the same. From a design standpoint, they needed to reserve the entire west side of the building for potential rail access in the future. Possible rail access was another attractive feature of this site. Mr. Kuechle stated he was curious why, if they met all the requirements, they did not get a permit. Mr. Nelson stated they did not because staff told them that the matter of proving this was not a truck terminal had to be resolved before they would consider an application. Mr. Hickok stated at no time did staff say they could not apply for a building permit. Mr. Nelson stated, in hindsight, they wish they would have. They were told they needed to demonstrate why that building could not n be considered a truck terminal or warehouse and that issue had to be resolved before the project would be given further r's'� � PLANNING CO1rIlRISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 15 consideration. Mr. Oquist asked if the ordinance controls truck terminals versus warehouse. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Nelson stated a truck terminal requires an M-3, Heavy Industrial, zoning. Ms. Modig stated the minutes indicated that we were talking about getting some additional information from the assessor and the fact that some Commission members questioned that restricting the use may affect the value. Staff did not respond to that in the questions provided. Does staff have any information that would differ from the information Mr. Bakken is telling us? Mr. Hickok stated the assessor did not make a blanket statement regarding values. He said that the values would be determined on a site-by-site analysis. Ms. Savage stated, if we did proceed with another meeting•to discuss individual sites, would we have that information. Mr. Hickok stated staff could have some general information about uses and how the formulas work for industrial and manufacturing uses. Ms. Modig stated they were getting an indication from the City assessor that this does not diminish the value and then we are getting information from Mr. Bakken that it will diminish the value. This is sending a mixed message. It has to be done on an individual basis. Mr. Kuechle stated, to summarize the situation, if you rezone, there are fewer people in the marketplace. On the other hand, there is less pressure on the land price from a manufacturing point of view because the land is a smaller portion of the total project. They would like to build and manage the property for more income over a longer period of time; whereas manufacturing interests wish to buy the land, build and be done with it. The land purchase is not a big deal but it becomes more important with a warehouse because the warehouse costs are less. But there are fewer manufacturing potential buyers. Mr. Nelson stated 900 of the calls � warehouse uses. companies who can he does some of the marketing of this site and are not manufacturing but warehouse or office/ From a study of the Anoka Enterprise Park, even afford expensive land flock to where there is no PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 16 or low cost land because they can put that on the bottom line. They have developed over 2 million square feet of mostly manufacturing facilities in the last 24 months because they are giving the land away. He thought there was a comment at the last Planning Commission meeting that the assessor reported back that he would not necessarily reduce the assessed value for tax purposes if it had the new zoning. He would submit that this is a very different issue from the real marketplace. The owner may petition taxes. It does take longer and longer to get something going. It is not really a question of whether there is an effect on the market value for the assessor to say it would not affect the assessed value. That is a separate issue. Mr. Hickok stated it might be very easy to lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish by the legal discussion or the technical discussion. Staff does and always has looked to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community as they review a project. For the Commission's clarification, the planning of that particular project involved meetings of the developer saying "this is not a trucking terminal, we are right and you're wrong". Planning needs more than photos of trucking terminals and � warehouse facilities that we know exist. The reality of it is, in order move a project, planning staff have to have a sense of how that is going to work on the site, and the credibility of the project with adjacent properties is very important. When we are seeing a big box and are being told by the developer it meets the code and that is all we are seeing, it gives us very little to evaluate. Staff did not tell anyone they should not submit a permit application. If these folks felt they were right about the use on that property, they should have been in to the building department to submit an application. This is not directly related to their property, but instead it has to do with the industrial property and the amount of property we have left in the City. It is our role, and our attorney will agree, to look out for the health, safety and welfare of the community and it is appropriate for us to ask all the vital questions before we get a project. We need a project first before we can evaluate that. In looking at Murphy, they were careful not to point any doors across the street. We were told this is appropriate and this is how we are going to lay it out. The point is not to be argumentative, but the Commission might have a dim view of how staff reviewed this and it may taint you view of the M-4 issue. Mr. Ludcke stated he would like to respond to the question of why they did not apply for a building permit. It is true that we were not told that we could not apply, but a sophisticated real estate developer does not wish to go against staff's wishes. We bent i"1 over backwards to try to accommodate those wishes. If you look at what is in the handout, it is in part to show what happened and PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 17 why. In November, when he took Mr. Knaak on a tour, they indicated that Murphy Warehouse was a similar use to their proposal. He did not perceive that this was meeting the need of the request. He asked Mr. Knaak what is going on here and, ultimately, is it a manufacturing use that staff really wants here. The attorney never called him back until after the moratorium was placed on the property and the manufacturing use was recommended. Staff never did say no to applying but he would like to know what the staff wants. The only thing they did not do was give staff the identity of their tenant. They did not do that for a number of reasons. One of those was that the tenant did not want their identity known to the City. Other reasons were that we did not know that the City could protect the identity. They had a bad experience in another community. It did not seem that this was the interest. He thought the staff could have been up front and said they were interested in changing the zoning and that they did not want to see a warehouse use. Staff could have said that to us and we would have had accurate information to respond to. Mr. Prichard stated he would like to reiterate the concerns and opposition of McGlynn Bakeries to the proposed M-4 zoning. Their n first and largest concern is the limitation this change would place on their future growth in the City. They expect to outgrow their current manufacturing facility in four to five years and possibly sooner. When that occurs, they anticipate they will first need to build a warehouse distribution facility on the vacant land. They would probably make use of that facility for manufacturing over time as they build their business. The truck traffic does not flow through residential nor any traffic frorn the facility on the land that they own. They do not feel that is an issue. The proposed M-4 class would significantly limit their options in the City and take away the flexibility that they need. The flexibility they see is that they need to construct the type of facility that best supports future growth. He cannot at this time tell what that will be. The second concern is related to their need to have warehouse manufacturing distribution operations as close as possible to one another. This will give them the opportunity for maximum efficiencies, best communications and quality control. They are forced to be very competitive in the markets they serve and must keep costs as low as possible. They are looking at many new business oppor�unities and to be successful they must lower costs and keep them low. He felt this would cost them more money and increase their costs ultimately. They would not be as competitive. Mr. Prichard stated their third concern relates to the market value of the property. From their point of view, it seems that if � you limit buyers, and they are not in the market to sell, but they wish to retain that as an option down the road. They may need at PLANNING CONIl��ISSION N�ETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 18 some point to sell that land to create capital. He wanted to make sure that it is clear that their land does not border any residential at all. To the west of them is railroad tracks, and immediately to the west of the railroad tracks is commercial property - Super America, A& W Restaurant, and the flower shop. The closest residential is across East River Road to the west. Visually, it would be limited in how the residential would see their facility at all. He did not envision many people would look across East River Road and worry about the railroad tracks and then their building. Mr. Prichard stated McGlynn's came to the City in 1992. They entered into a redevelopment agreement to revive the shut down Totino manufacturing facility. This was done in the spirit of cooperation and has been mutually beneficial. Today they employ 500 people in the City generating $16 million in annual payroll. They pay nearly $170,000 in real estate taxes annually after tax increment assistance. They expect these figures to grow as they expand their business and their facility. The proposed rezoning works against their growth efforts. They respectfully request the Commission to leave their land out of the proposed M-4 zoning. � They would like to spend their time and money growing their business and not on challenging this issue. Ms. Savage asked if this would be a situation where, if McGlynn was included as one of the proposed M-4 sites and then in five years wanted to expand, what would be their recourse. Mr. Hickok stated, depending on the expansion, if it were to be attached, they may want to do what Tri-Star Insulation did where they proposed to build a building and attach it to a CR-1 office building. In that case, they amended the CR-1 to match so that the entire site was amended to industrial. If they were going to attach, it may be most appropriate to combine all the PIN numbers and make the property into one parcel and amend the zoning to make it all consistent. With the uncertainty about how the land will develop, the M-4 would allow the City to keep specific uses for that site. They can always request rezoning if it does not match. Mr. Steilen stated he would like to respond to some of those questions. That really does not work for them. They are not the problem the City is trying to solve. It is stretching it to say that there are residential problems associated with this site. There is commercial and industrial on all sides. It is not acceptable to have a nonconforming use because it creates problems. If you have a fire or destruction of property, most city codes do not give you the automatic right to rebuild or to /"'� expand. The problem with McGlynn is that they want to build a business and invest more money into the site. They bought the � � PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 19 property under a set of laws that allowed them the flexibility. They do not want to be in a situation where that flexibility is taken away. It creates too many questions about future flexibility. They do not want to be in the situation where they continue to make substantial investments in the property and, then maybe in five years, they may or may not be able to build a warehouse. This is a bad situation for them. Mr. Steilen stated they would hope that they would conclude tonight that this is not the problem that you are trying to solve. These hearings are necessary as a part of the process, but they become very expensive. The further this goes along the more they have to invest because they are very concerned about this. So far, they have taken a fairly low key approach. They have what they think is a very successful relationship with the City and they do not want anything to disturb that. Every meeting that goes forward, you get closer to the possibility that something is going to happen that you absolutely do not want to happen. So, they then need to invest money in the attorneys. It is a strain on their budget. They would hope that the Commission would take a good hard look at McGlynn and not require them to invest in further meetings and take that site off the list because it really is a stretch. Ms. Modig asked if McGlynn's had addressed the issue of the pipe before. Mr. Prichard stated the pipe issue is something that he personally had not discussed. Someone in the company has talked to the City as a possibility. They do not see that as a good option right now because they do not know the future use of that land. It maybe an unnecessary expenditure. Mr. Zylla stated he represents the Fridley Business Center Partnership and is an employee Northco. As he was preparing for the meeting, he was trying to think through the issues and do some research. There are a couple of things at work that are important not to lose site of. They are admittedly concerned about the M-4 zoning. There have been some discussions earlier by Mr. Hickok that suggested that the list would be pared and their 2.2 acre site in the Northco development would be eliminated. He would feel good about that because they do not feel it should be on the list, and he is sure that as they develop the property it would be an office warehouse use with two or three docks. They have not done a site plan other than for a single user. They would like to have that property removed from the list. They agree with earlier comments that it would limit the possibilities to market the site. � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 20 Mr. Zylla stated they don't want to lose site of the major issue with the language revisions that have to do with loading docks on a corner lot. On the parcel to the southwest of this site there are 4 acres which they are in the process of developing. They have a lot of money invested in soil borings, site plan, grading plan, and everything that they are getting ready to get into the working drawings. There is a major issue in the code review with suggested language that relates to corner lots and that loading docks on corner lots shall not face the public right-of-way. On this lot, they have three sides of public right-of-way on the site plan. They are concerned that, if this language is adopted, this will kill that project. They also had some discussion at the last meeting about the reference to no truck or trailers parked and to be visible from the public right-of-way. He did not have a particular concern about this language if they did not have "on corner lots or across from residential". If it just said across from residential, they would not have a concern. If it includes corner lots, it will impact them in a very negative way. Mr. Zylla stated the M-4 impacts few properties. There is a marginal impact in total to the City, but there is a major impact � to the sites. The question he has is not that this should not be created in the zoning but he cannot remember seeing a zoning code where there was a particular zoning classification that � specifically called out a particular use. It seems to him that this is not only prohibitive but that this is impacting such few properties that everyone would be well served to be rethink this and perhaps kill it before it went any further than this. Mr. Zylla stated, regarding the language related to corner lots, his view has always been that Fridley has a pretty good reputation in the development community. When he met with staff and their client, his client was impressed with staff that he wrote a letter thanking staff for the professional approach that Fridley was taking. He spent seven years on the Plymouth Planning Commission and he can tell you that Fridley's current code even without the changes is more stringent than Plymouth relative to loading docks, and Plymouth does not have a very good reputation generally in the development community in how they are viewed regarding loading docks. If you look at what is already in the code relative to loading docks, for example, loading docks now have to be in the rear or side yard. Plymouth does not even require that. Loading docks can be in any yard. Fridley's code presently requires not only screening but it dictates six-foot high minimum solid screening fence, etc. Plymouth basically says to show them a plan that meets their approval relative to screening. Plymouth makes no reference to corner lots relative to loading docks. This has a � major effect on them because their plan has only one loading dock on that 4-acre site and it has to face 71st Avenue or their plan ,..., PLANNING CONIl��lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 21 does not work. Again, it is only one loading dock. It faces the ice arena and does not face any residential. If they had to turn the dock to face to the east, they would not be able to proceed at a significant financial cost to everyone. He thought the City should eliminate the reference to corner lots and eliminate tYiem from the M-4 consideration on the 2.2 acre lot. Mr. Zylla stated, in their particular situation, whether it is the 2.2 or 4-acre lot, the trucks that are there, to his knowledge, travel on major arterials. Any truck traffic that exists near that industrial park is on a major arterial, and that is the reason to have major arterials. He would like to suggest that they rethink the whole thing. Someone suggested to stop it here. He would agree wholeheartedly that this should just be stopped here tonight. Ms. Savage stated she wished to make one comment. She was not that familiar with Plymouth. The problem that Fridley has is that we have many residential areas near industrial areas, and we have to be concerned about those residential areas. She asked if staff had comments about the corner lots. � Mr. Hickok stated before the Commission is a revised ordinance. Initially, the M-1 stated in paragraph C, "On corner lots or lots across from residential districts, no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way." It then went on to paragraph D to say, "On corner lots or lots across from residential user districts, no trucks or trailers shall be parked in a manner which is visible from the public right-of-way of residential use or district." The revised language removes paragraph D, puts the essence of C and D into one paragraph, and gets at the heart of what staff was looking at in the recommended language and that is on corner lots across from residential. Mr. Zylla is correct as he reviews the ordinances and states that we already say that outside loading shall be located in the rear or side yards and properly screened. We do have protections in there. The exception was that residential lots near corner industrial lots are subject to some impacts that staff was hoping to screen. Paragraph C states, "On corner lots across from residential districts, no loading docks shall face the public right-of-way." How that relates to the project discussed in the Northco development with three streets surrounding it makes it more difficult. Normally the industrial lots if they are corner lots might have two streets but a third street does compound the site design problems. It does specifically talk about a corner lot across from residential district and then states that as long as the docks are in the rear and side yard, properly screened, you are okay. He thought that � successfully addressed that concern. ,.-.1 PLANNING CO1�IlrlISSION N�ETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 22 Mr. Oquist stated the proposed ordinance in front of them which is for the M-1, M-2 and M-3 says on corner lots across from residential areas. The language for M-4 states on corner lots or lots across from residential districts. He thought this should be modified. Mr. Hickok agreed that this should be consistent. On all of these, the consistent statement is, "... on corner lots across from residential districts." As staff analyze the language in the code, they actually covered the other concern,in paragraph A where they talk about outside loading docks which are to be located in the rear and side yards and properly screened. On corner lots, additional protection is necessary. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T8E PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:15 P.M. Ms. Savage stated, as she read the minutes, she got the sense that � the Commission was in favor of the ordinance but had some concerns about some of the individual sites. She wanted to reiterate what staff said, and she thought it was important that they look at the big picture. A few months ago, they met with the Mayor and City Council and talked about goals for Fridley and how we can improve the quality of life in the City. That is truly the big picture to keep in mind. She got the sense that generally the Commission members were in favor of the ordinance. The Commission could possibly approve and not make any recommendations about the sites and have another hearing to consider the individual sites. Ms. Modig asked, if they excluded a site tonight, is it correct that it would not come up again unless it is put back on by the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Staff would notify the property owners if the City Council felt it was appropriate. At that point, staff would go back and reconsider action to rezone those properties. Staff wants to be certain the Commission is comfortable with every property that staff notifies. If the Commission feels compelled to add to the list or delete some properties, it is those properties staff will notify for the next public hearing. Mr. Kuechle asked the size of the Northco property. ,� Mr. Hickok stated the site is 2.2 acres and is zoned M-2. �"`� � � PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 23 Mr. Oquist stated the Commission talked about the Northco property, but he also felt the McGlynn property does not fit into this category either. He can support the M-4 zoning and the ordinance change, but he felt there are two sites that should be excluded and they should xeview the other five. Three members of the Planning Commission are not present at this meeting, and they had strong questions and/or opinions. Ms. Savage stated this is also her concern. Three members are not present so there is not full opportunity for everyone to be heard. Mr. Oquist stated there is no guarantee that they would be present at the next meeting. He thought the Commission needed to move forward on the proposed M-4. He strongly would like to see the two above mentioned sites excluded. Mr. Kuechle concurred. He was in favor of recommending approval of the M-4. He would suggest dropping the Northco site because it is small and does not amount to very many loading docks. He had a different feeling about McGlynn site. He would like to exclude it as long as McGlynn owns the property. He can see the development, not so much as a warehouse, but as an adjunct to their current operations. On the other hand, if they decided to sell it, there is no handle on it. He is trying to figure out some way to do that but there is no smooth way. Ms. Modig stated she would support the M-4 zoning, but she would like to exclude the Northco and McGlynn sites. McGlynn does not meet the criteria as far as residential property. It is stretching it to try to include that. Mr. Hickok stated the Commission could send a recommendation regarding the ordinance language. The Commission sounds split as far as the sites. Staff could notify all seven property owners and those within 350 feet of the properties and bring them in for a discussion at the next public hearing. Ideally, it would be great if everyone agreed. What would be lost is that staff would be notifying more properties, but at least we have given notification and allowed ourselves to make a decision regarding the sites at a later date. Mr. Kuechle asked if this would go before the City Council before the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hickok stated no. Staff will wait for a decision on the specific sites and move rec,ommendations for the proposed language and the proposed sites at the same time. Ms. Modig stated she did not understand. If the four members i� /�'1 PLANNING CON.�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 24 present choose to make a recommendation on the sites and all cannot agree, that is not enough. Mr. Hickok stated, combined with the fact that the Commission does not have a full complement of Commissioners, he would feel best if staff contacted the property owners around all seven sites. The comments seem to indicate there is not a consensus among the group. They would be safest to contact all property owners. If it was clear that there was concurrence that a site or sites should be dropped, then staff would then notify the remaining property owners. At any point, the City Council can give staff the directive to include a site. Ms. Savage stated she felt uncomfortable about eliminating any sites because of the small group. She would rather, at this point, not eliminate any of the sites. MOTION by Mr. City Council M-2, and M-3 Only. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to the approval of the proposed language changes to the M-1, districts and the creation of M-4, Manufacturing UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Modig stated she would feel more comfortable acting on a motion regarding the sites to be included for consideration. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to exclude the McGlynn Bakeries site and the Northco site from the seven properties because they do not meet the criteria. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MS. MODIG AND l�t. �UIST VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND NIIt. KUECHLE VOTING NAY, CEAIRPERSON DECLARED TSE MOTION FAILED FOR LACR OF A MAJORITY. Mr. Hickok stated staff would send notices to the affected property owners. 2. RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPM�NT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of this resolution is to comply with State law which requires the Planning Commission to review a modification to the City's redevelopment plan in order to insure consistency with the City's comprehensive plan. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Linn of Linn Properties is proposing to add � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION N�ETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 25 five parcels to the City's redevelopment area in order to refurbish the former Dick's Wheel and Tire and to develop an 8,000 square foot strip mall on the north side of 57th Avenue. The properties being considered are five properties starting at the northeast corner of Main Street and 57th Avenue. Also, as part of that project area, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider 57th Avenue N.E. in the project area. Mr. Hickok stated in the review process the Appeals Commission will evaluate a variance request on April 9 for the development that will be occurring on the northeast corner. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 18 to alert the neighborhood of a proposed development. The meeting was well attended, and the developer spoke about the development and the interest in taking the former Dick's Wheel and Tire, the former duplex site, and the single family home to the west and developing this into a commercial center. The reason for the variances is that the lots are relatively shallow sites at 140 deep and do not have the depth that you would typically see to develop a commercial strip mall. Therefore, there is consideration being given to the site dimensions as they relate to the proposal. !� Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan identifies the subject property as commercial. The property is zoned C-2, General Business. In spite the fact that there was a duplex and a single family home, the parcels are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission is asked to consider a resolution for modifying the redevelopment plan to reflect the increased geographic area. The reason for the interest in including the expanded area of the 57th Avenue right-of-way is that there is a project that staff would like to discuss that would involve some potential improvements to 57th as well as lighting and landscaping. Mr. Oquist asked if the street was to be included so it can be done at the same time. It does not have to be a part of this resolution to allow the development per se. Mr. Hickok stated, in this development, there is tax increment being used for demolition of blighted properties, etc. According to the law, we can utilize funds in a project area to make other improvements and that is why this is being included. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adopt a resolution finding the modification to the redevelopment plan for redevelopment project No. 1 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. :;�-� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, APRIL 2, 1997 PAGE 26 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of February 26, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIl�IOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Scott reviewed the proposed improvements along the 57th Avenue corridor. Landscape plans and lighting will be considered at the time that the improvements are made. The City Council will consider this on Monday. If approved, the planning drawings could be completed for 1998 or 1999. Mr. Kuechle stated he would like to express his support of the integrity and quality of staff's work. ADJOURNMENT !""1 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 2, 1997, PLANNING CO1��lISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45.M. Respectfully submitted, � w Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � ��, � �� S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING CObfMI SSION .MEETING, i�pr i l 2, 19 9 7 . ,,�. �,� `E�