Loading...
PL 09/03/1997 - 30846�, � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CONIl�IISSION N�ETING, SEPTEI��R 3, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the September 3, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondriek, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig LeRoy Oquist, Larry Kuechle Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Maynard Nielson, 7144 Riverview Terrace Delores Hartos, 6200 Starlite Boulevard Barb Thorstad, 6211 Starlite Boulevard Sylvia Lindgren, 6181 Starlite Boulevard Craig Hartos, 6200 Starlite Boulevard Councilmember Bob Barnett APPROVAL OF AUGUST 20, 1997, PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the August 20, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-06, BY DELORES AND CRAIG HARTOS: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of a second garage on Lot 16, Block 4, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, Generally located at 6200 Starlite Boulevard N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC AEnRT*�G OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the property is located on Starlite Boulevard and is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are all the surrounding properties. To the west of the property is the railroad line. Located on the property is a single family home. Behind the home is a 22 foot x 22 foot detached garage. There is also a 10 foot x 28 foot accessory structure on the northwest corner of the � PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, SEP'1'EN�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 2 property that encroaches 5 feet into the utility easement. Mr. Hickok stated the request is to allow for the 22�foot x 22 foot garage to be moved back to where the 10 foot x 28 foot structure once stood and to locate the garage 5 feet from the property rear line and outside of the utility easement. Then a new garage measuring 24 feet x 38 feet would be constructed. The proposed new garage has a narrow front and is deeper than the typical garage. On the west elevation of the proposed garage will be a single garage door to allow access between the two structures. Mr. Hickok stated, as discussed, the petitioner is proposing to keep the current 22 foot x 22 foot existing garage but to move it back on the site. In order to do this, the 10 foot x 28 foot structure will be removed. The total square footage for the accessory buildings being considered is 1,396 square feet. The maximum allowed is 1,400 square feet. The purpose of keeping the 22 foot x 22 foot structure is to provide storage for firewood, lawn and snow equipment, and to provide shelter for the dogs when they are left alone. ^ Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. The structures shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. 2. Neither accessory structure be used for a home occupation. 3. The 10 foot x 28 foot structure shall be removed within three months of completion of the garages; a demolition permit shall be obtained. 4. Proper moving and building permits shall be obtained prior to construction starting. 5. The second garage (22 foot x 22 foot) shall not be located in the utility easement. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any special setbacks other than that the existing garage not be located in the utility easement. There is no other dispensation granted by the Appeals Commission to allow the buildings to sit where they are. The setbacks are met. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. ,�1 Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any comments from the � PLANNING COIIl�IISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 3 neighbors. Mr. Hickok stated staff had received no comments. Mr. Sielaff asked how big the site was. Mr. Hickok stated the site is 11,250 square feet. Mr. Sielaff asked what was the percentage of lot coverage when taking into account the house and accessory structures. Mr. Hickok stated the total coverage will be 21.9a. 25% is the maximum allowed coverage. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner had any problems with the stipulations. Ms. Hartos stated she did not, except the demolition permit for the shed. Mr. Hickok stated, however the petitioners chooses, the shed would be a third building and must be removed. In order to do that, if ^ the building were going to be demolished, they would need a demolition permit. If the building is to be moved, they would need a moving permit. Ms. Hartos stated they had planned to tear down that building before construction. Ms. Hartos stated the garage to be moved is about 10 years old and in good shape. The shed is more make-shift. This will look much nicer. It was her idea. She could not see a good garage going to waste. She started the plan to tear down the shed, move the existing garage and build a new garage. The existing garage will make good use for storage space. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioners had any problems with the buildings being architecturally compatible. Mr. Hartos stated everything would be the same. The garages would be sided the same as the house, and they will be the same color. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioners had heard any complaints from the neighbors. Ms. Hartos stated the two neighbors are at the meeting. One neighbor stated she had no complaints. She just wanted to be � sure that the garage would not be used for a home business. That concern was cleared during the staff report. � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEP'�'F'��'R 3, 1997 PAGE 4 Ms. Hartos stated another neighbor had planned to attend to support the request. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLPiRED TEE MOTION CARRIED AND TEE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:40 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he drove by the site and saw what they are going to do. He has no problem with the request as long as the petitioners are comfortable with the stipulations. Ms. Modig stated she had no problems with the request. She thought the proposal would be an improvement for that property. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-06, by Delores and Craig Hartos, to allow construction of a second garage on Lot 16, Block 4, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, generally located at 6200 Starlite Boulevard N.E., with the following stipulations: ^ 1. The structures shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. 2. Neither accessory structure be used for a home occupation. 3. The 10 foot x 28 foot structure shall be removed within three months of completion of the garages; a demolition permit shall be obtained. 4. Proper moving and building permits shall be obtained prior to construction starting. 5. The second garage (22 foot x 22 foot) shall not be located in the utility easement. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DEr?:A'�LD THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of September 22. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #97-03, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To rezone property from R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, to R-1, Single Family Dwelling, on Lots 2 and 21, � not taken for street purposes, and all of Lots 4 through 10 and 14 through 20 of Block 20, Fridley Park, as recorded at �..1 PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 5 the'Office of the Anoka County Recorder, generally located at the northeast corner of 61st Avenue and East River Road. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC BEARING OPEN AT 7:43 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the site is located in the northeast corner by East River Road and 61st Way, and encompasses the entire block. The property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, and is surrounded by R-1, Single Family, to the north and west. To the south, the Commission acted to rezone the CR-1, General Office, to M-1, Light Industrial. A 30,000 square foot warehouse complex will be constructed on that property. Ms. Dacy stated this request is to rezone the 3.1 acre site from R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, to R-1, Single Family. The request is being proposed by the City of Fridley. When the development and the rezoning occurred on the property originally, there was a development agreement approved. Because no ^ development occurred on the property, the direction was clear that the zoning was to revert back to R-1. This action happened on this site in 1984. At that time, the current owner had proposed to develop 28 loft townhomes on the site. The developer was unable to follow through with the development and to comply with the stipulations. Ms. Dacy stated, when staff analyze a rezoning, they look at a number of factors. In this case, because the rezoning is back to the original zoning that was on the property in 1984, it would be consistent with the zoning historically. Under the current plat, 12 to 15 single family lots could be developed under the R-1 zoning. The R-1 district, as well as R-3, allows churches, nursing homes, convalescent homes, and other similar types of uses by a special use permit. It is conceivable that the Planning Commission could see a special use permit request for this site. Ms. Dacy stated staff wanted to point out that the R-3 zoning works for this site as well even though this application is being proposed to be consistent with the 1984 action. Because the site is located just to the north of an industrial area and to the south edge of a single family area, it forms a good transitional type of piece. The size of 3.1 acres is large enough to accommodate berms or other types of landscaping for additional screening if so desired by the neighborhood. It is located near a railroad which is just to the east. Sometimes that may not be as � attractive for single family homes. � � � PLANNING CONIlrIISSION MEETING, SEP�T� 3, 1997 PAGE 6 Ms. Dacy stated, despite the recommendation to rezone back to R-1, it is just as likely that the Planning Commission may see a rezoning request in the future to go back to R-3 because of the parcel's location and it would be an opportunity to create a different housing style. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council to rezone the property to R-1, Single Family. Ms. Modig asked if staff was saying there is still the possibility that the Planning Commission may be asked to rezone this property again back to R-3 because of the type of property it is. Ms. Dacy stated yes, this is possible. Ms. Modig asked, if the Planning Commission chose not to rezone the property, what negative thing would happen. Ms. Dacy stated she did not know that there would be any negatives. A rezoning application gives the City the maximum amount of discretion. It also requires a 4/5 approval by the Council. It offers the Planning Commission and City Council more control. If the property remains R-3, a development could occur on the site as a permitted use, and the Planning Commission and City Council would not have the ability to look at the project in some type of detail. There was an option discussed with the City Council of amending the development agreement and keeping the zoning the way it is, but it was determined it would be more appropriate to rezone the property to R-l. Any new request that would come through would have to go through the same type of scrutiny as any other request. Mr. Nielson stated he is the owner of the property. He would like to keep the zoning R-3. He is working with two contractors at this time. He thought a higher density development would be better for this property. He has not had much luck getting anyone to purchase the property for single family use. Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioner why he would prefer to have the zoning remain R-3. Mr. Nielson stated he had a contractor recently interested in building 12 townhomes and another contractor who called today also interested in building townhomes. He would like to develop the property. Mr. Kondrick asked how much of a hardship would it present if the property were rezoned to R-1. �, � � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEI��R 3, 1997 PAGE 7 Mr. Nielson stated he would probably be back within one year to rezone back to R-3. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIIAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID AND TEE PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he is concerned about putting the owner through hoops by rezoning. In looking at the location, there is not a good chance that will be developed as R-1. It is more likely to be developed as R-3. The request is to go from R-3 to R-1, with the probability it will go back to R-3 again. He did not understand why they are changing the zoning. He does understand that they have more latitude in the development of that area. However, the site is located next to the railroad and just north of property zoned M-1. To him, R-3 would make an ideal buffer. Mr. Kondrick agreed. He wondered if he was missing something. Since there is M-1 across the street and other housing one block away, it seems this would be a good spot for transitional housing or multiple family housing. He did not see why they should do this. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission does not have to agree. If the Commission feels the current zoning is what you believe should remain on the property, then the motion can reflect that. The intent behind the application is essentially to start all over. The 1984 application could not happen for a variety of reasons. The analysis was that, if it is rezoned to R-1, then any development would have to meet today's standards, would have to go through the process including a public hearing, and involve the people in the neighborhood. If you feel R-3 is more appropriate, the Commission has the option to recommend denial of the request. Mr. Kondrick stated putting single family houses there is a possibility if the property is zoned R-1, but nothing has happened since. He does not think they would put houses there. Ms. Savage stated her concern is that they should not be making decisions themselves without the opportunity for a full hearing. We would be making the decision that the property should be R-3. It seems to her that this is not for the Planning Commission to decide because they do not have the full opportunity for interested parties to have a say, to have their due process which is the opportunity to be heard. Why should we decide that this property should be R-3 without going through the procedure that would be set up? n PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 3, 1997 ' PAGE 8 Ms. Modig stated the property is currently zoned R-3. The process, if that was a problem, would not have taken place. Unless she is misunderstanding what staff is saying, by going back to R-1, it gives us some input as to the type of R-3 housing that goes in there. If the property remains R-3 and staff referred to today's standards, whatever development goes in there has to meet the current criteria. The advantage to the Planning Commission putting the zoning to R-1 is that no one could put in a development without first coming through the process. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. Mr. Kondrick stated he understood they would have more control if the zoning was R-1 rather than R-3. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. Ms. Sielaff stated staff inentioned that a special use permit could be obtained. For what purposes would such a permit be required? Ms. Dacy stated the R-1 and R-3 special uses such as churches or size of the site, you could see � either zoning. The special use through the process. � zoning allows convalescent a request for permit request a similar list homes. Because a church under would have to of the .. Ms. Dacy stated in 1984 the City rezoned the property subject to the execution of a development agreement based on 28 loft townhomes. The developer could not construct the loft townhomes. The City proceeded to pass the zoning to R-3 with the development agreement stipulations. While there is an option that would renegotiate the development agreement to something different under today's standards, the City Council felt it was appropriate to initiate the process to rezone the property back to R-1. Any development would require the petitioner to file a new petition, the City would have to notify the surrounding people within 350 feet and would involve the public in that new plan. That gives the City control to evaluate the request to zone back to R-3. Ms. Savage stated this also gives all interested persons an opportunity to be heard. Ms. Modig asked, if the Commission were to rezone as R-1 and the owner comes back next year to request R-3 zoning, is there a way we can put on a time certain so this does not keep coming back year after year. It seems like a lot of paperwork and a lot of wasted time. She likes to think that the City could look at those things and have some input about what goes on the property and the type of use. If reverting this back to R-1 gives us greater input and control, that would be an advantage. Otherwise, she thought n PI,ANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 9 they were just changing numbers. Mr. Sielaff stated part of the issue is also getting input from neighbors. Mr. Kondrick asked if they should be thinking about rezoning any other R-3 properties to R-1 so we have control. Ms. Savage stated this property is unique because the contractor did not fulfill their obligations. Ms. Dacy stated the only other substantial piece of property zoned R-3 that was developed recently was the Harstad townhomes east of Highway 65. There are no other vacant parcels zoned R-3 at this time. There are spots zoned R-3 here and there but the majority are developed. Mr. Saba asked if this would be treating the matter of rezoning rather lightly and not sticking to a zoning plan. He has a problem with changing the zoning from R-1 to R-3, then R-3 back to R-1 without a specific plan for development. We still have some control if the zoning is R-3. The intent is to develop the n property as a townhome development as it was intended in 1984. He has a personal issue with just changing the zoning for the sake of changing the zoning to have control. Ms. Savage stated she sees this as a unique situation where in 1984 a request was approved to allow loft townhomes to be built. There was a plan and a project, but that did not happen. Right now there may be in the future a similar plan but it is not before us now. She thought this was more procedural. This is reverting back to what it was before because the agreement was not carried through. She personally would concur with staff's recommendation. If there was a plan in front of us, that is different but we do not have a plan and may not for another year. Mr. Saba stated that is the issue he has. They do not have a plan for R-1. The location is next to the railroad tracks and across from M-1. He did not see that as a prime development for R-l. He thought the City wo�uld see a request in one year to go back to R- 3. Ms. Savage stated she thought the main concern is that this will give people the opportunity to be heard. There was a hearing in 1984 where the neighbors had the opportunity to be present and express their views. That is not happening now. She thought that needs to occur. That is a fundamental due process of the law that people can be heard, and she thought that was the intent of the � City Council. � � i� PL�iNNING CO1rIl�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 10 Mr. Saba stated they were holding a public hearing now and people had the opportunity to be heard, but few people are at this meeting. He thought that was due process. Ms. Modig stated she is going back and forth. She sees what the City wants to do and understands it, but she also thinks the property is not viable and has not been for all this time for single family. It was R-1 for years, and nothing happened. Nothing happened on it with R-3 either. She thought they would be spending more time down the road going through the same process and argument. If the Commission chose to leave the zoning as it is, because the developer has to come in for building permits, submit a site plan, and meet certain criteria, she really does not understand how much more input they would have by changing the zoning than not other than a public hearing. She thought that was valuable, but there was a public hearing tonight. The mailing list would be the same. There was no interest now. Mr. Nielson stated he also owned the 1/2 block that is vacant to the north of this block which is zoned R-1. The rezoning would only affect 4 houses. There is only one house that faces his property and that is across East River Road. It is not really affecting anyone. Mr. Sielaff stated, as he read the public hearing notice, he did not get all of the issues that were discussed tonight. If he were part of the public, he would not get upset about it because he would not know what the issues were. Ms. Modig stated the rezoning would still be the same. If there is no interest in the rezoning, why rezone the property. The mailing list was quite extensive and included a number of commercial properties. Mr. Kondrick stated he thought any resident driving by there would conclude multiple family would be better there than single family. The railroad tracks are there. Industrial land is to the south. When the zoning changed from R-1 to R-3, the neighbors had the opportunity to have their say. He likes the idea of having control but after hearing discussion he would prefer to have the zoning remain the same. The City sent out notices that the rezoning is an issue but there were no responses. Personally, he also feels the property would best serve the citizens for a multiple family use. Ms. Savage stated she did not disagree with that. They do not know what will be going up there. They do not know the type of ' multiple family dwelling that would go up there. If the zoning is R-3, there is not the same control as to what type of multiple dwelling can be erected there. There was a concern voiced in the � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 11 surveys about multiple family dwellings. Part of it is the fear of crime. If the people knew there was going to be some type of development going up, they would come. If they find out there is a development that they might not want in their neighborhood, they would come. She understands the concerns being expressed that the property is not a suitable property for single family dwelling area. She still feels though that it is important to wait until there is an actual project that is going to be there and to have an opportunity for everyone to have their say. She did not think they should be concerned with the extra time and paperwork when it comes to letting people decide what type of property they want in the City. Mr. Sielaff asked what happens at this point to the previous development agreement. Ms. Dacy stated a resolution passed by the City Council declared the development agreement breach. Because the developer could not fulfill their obligation, the agreement becomes null and void. The re.solution instructs the City to initiate the rezoning process back to R-1. ,� Mr. Sielaff stated an alternative would be not to rezone the property. Would the City then need another development agreement? Ms. Dacy stated, because the City Council has taken action to consider the agreement breach, they can no longer use the original agreement as a negotiating tool. It would be left to building codes and zoning codes. If there was a proposal for owner occupied townhomes, there is the possibility of a plat application which would go through the process. A developer may request a variance which would go through the Appeals Commission. There is a possibility there may be a public involvement process. But the developer could also submit a plan that meets all the requirements, and they would have to then use the existing standards. Mr. Kondrick asked, if the Commission left the zoning as R-3, would they lose control of the density on this property. Ms. Dacy stated whatever the R-3 zoning stipulates would have to be adhered to. If they met the letter of the law for R-3, then they would have to issue the building permit. Mr. Kondrick stated, if the zoning were R-1, we would have more control over the density. Ms. Dacy stated, in that case, they would have to file a rezoning ^ application and then you get into the discussion of whether this is a good site for R-3. You still have the density requirements � PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 12 to act as a guide. Through the rezoning process and site plan review process, you may be able to control that a little more. Mr. Kondrick asked if they could control the quality, design, etc. He is willing to do that if they could exercise some power. He is not hearing that staff is saying that. Ms. Dacy stated this is not the same as the southwest quadrant. In the past, the City Council has based the stipulations as part of the rezoning request to control some issues such as architectural exteriors, etc. Each case has different circumstances. She cannot say they would have total control by rezoning back from R-1 to R-3. Mr. Saba stated this is difficult. He would like to restrict R-3, but in this location he personally cannot see rezoning the property to R-1 and then back to R-3. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend denial the Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-03, by the City of Fridley, to rezone property from R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, to R- 1, Single Family Dwelling, on Lots 2 and 21, not taken for street � purposes, and all of Lots 4 through 10 and 14 through 20 of Block 20, Fridley Park, as recorded at the Office of the Anoka County Recorder, generally located at the northeast corner of 61st Avenue and East River Road. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITB MS . MODIG, NIlt. SABA AND 1�IIt. RONDRICR VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE AND NIlt. SIELAFF VOTING NAY, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY I�iJORITY VOTE. Ms. Dacy stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of September 22. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #97-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To recodify the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning", in order to regulate the location of pawn shops, pawn brokers, and second hand goods dealers: To amend Sections 205.13.02, 205.14.O1.A, 205.15.O1.A, and 205.16.02. 205.13 C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2. USES EXCLUDED Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless n specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in C-1 Districts, including, but not limited to: n P7�ANNING COI�lISSION N�ETING, SEPTEI��R 3, 1997 PAGE 13 pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and second hand goods dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. 205.14 C-2 �F'-NE_�nT• BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in C-2 Districts: (18) Pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and second hand goods dealers as defined in M'innesota State Statute 471.925. 205.15 C-3 ���nT• SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. � The following are principal uses in C-3 Districts: (3) Pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code,�and second hand dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. 205.15 CR-1 GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2. USES EXCLUDED Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in CR-1 Districts, including, but not limited to: pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and second hand dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUSLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is for a zoning text amendment that /'1 would affect Sections 205.13.04, 205.14.O1.A, 205.15.O1.A, and 205.16.02 of the.Fridley City Code. The purpose of the amendment �--� PLANNING CONIl��IISSION MEETING, SEPTEL�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 14 is to prohibit second hand dealer shops and pawn shops in the C-1, Local Business, and CR-1, General Office, zoning districts and also to modify the C-2, General Business, and C-3, General Shopping Center District, to allow second hand and pawn shops. Mr. Hickok stated the C-1 and CR-1 districts have historically served as a compatible transition between commercial and residential uses. The C-1 district provides local conveniences to surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Hickok stated in early 1997 the City had a request to allow a second hand shop in a C-1, Local Business, district. The code was non-descript about the use and for a short time the business occupied a building in the C-1 district. During that time, concerns were voiced regarding the intensity of the use, the potential sale of used handguns, etc. Based on a request, staff analyzed the situation and determined the code should more explicit about such uses in the C-1 and CR-1 districts, and in the C-2 and C-3 districts it should be more descriptive in allowing these. Mr. Hickok stated the City is required to make provisions for uses n in its community. It is not easy to simply say no, but we can be clear about where we direct uses. The proposed text amendment will clarify where pawn shops and second hand stores should be located in the City. Second hand shops are a bit different from pawn shops. Pawn shops are regulated in Chapter 31 of the City code which requires a license and a review process before commencement of operation in a certain location. Second hand uses are also in the City. Staff held a meeting with the owners of second hand businesses to discuss the modifications. They were in concurrence with the C-1 and CR-1 prohibition. Their best locations are in the C-2 and C-3 districts. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends the C-1 and CR-1 districts be modified to prohibit second hand shops and pawn shops, and that C- 2 and C-3 districts be modified to allow second hand shops and pawn shops as permitted uses. Ms. Savage stated there were not to be any second hand shops in the C-1 or CR-1 districts. She asked if there were any requests to have any. Mr. Hickok stated, with the exception of one discussed, there are no pending requests. The one mentioned in the presentation has moved to another location. � Mr. Kondrick stated he wished to clarify that the owners of these � types of businesses concur that the locations would be best located with the language that is being submitted. �..1 PLANNING CONIl�lI S S ION MEET ING , SEPTII�ER 3, 19 97 PAGE 15 � Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Mr. Kondrick asked if the police department prefers the proposed language as well. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The police department first asked staff to look at the C-1 district. Staff feels the CR-1 district should also be included. Councilmember Barnett asked if this would also apply to the second hand clothing and consignment stores in Holly Center. Mr. Hickok stated this would apply to all second hand operations. He is not familiar with any existing second hand use in a C-1 or CR-1 district. Second hand shops would be permitted by right in the C-2 and C-2 districts. Holly Center is a C-3 district. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEn�T*1G CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problem with the request. He thought it was nicely done. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #97-01, by the City of Fridley, to recodify the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning", in order to regulate the location of pawn shops, pawn brokers, and second hand goods dealers: To amend Sections 205.13.02, 205.14.O1.A, 205.15.O1.A, and 205.16.02. 205.13 C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2. USES EXCLUDED Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in C-1 Districts, including, but not limited to: pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley Cit Code, and second hand goods dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. 205.14 C-2 GENERAI� BUSINESS DISTRICT REGULATIONS l. USES PERMITTED �•.1 PLANNING COIIl�SSION MEETING, SEPTET���t 3, 1997 PAGE 16 A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in C-2 Districts: (18) Pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and second hand goods dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. 205.15 C-3 GENERAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in C-3 Districts: (3) Pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and second hand dealers as defined in�Minnesota State Statute 471.925. 205.15 CR-1 rF°�'��T• OFFICE DISTRICT REGULATIONS � 2. USES EXCLUDED Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in CR-1 Districts, including, but not limited to: pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley Cit Code, and second hand dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Saba asked if there are any other businesses that should be included in this type of activity. Mr. Hickok stated the City did have a request to expand the CR-1 for a jewelry store which was more of the insurance side of the jewelry business with some sales. Staff is monitoring that carefully. As they looked at this type of thing, they looked at the uses in the CR-1 and believe they are appropriate. With this exception, the code was not descriptive enough about these. That is why staff brought this forward. 4. FRIDLEY EXECUTIVE CENTER UPDATE ^ Ms. Dacy stated in December, 1995, the HRA executed a contract for exclusive negotiations with MEPC-American Properties which � PLANNING CONasISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 17 required MEPC to market the property on behalf of the HRA. During the same timeframe, the City agreed to complete the intersection analysis and design and some of the environmental approvals that were required to serve the site. The current status is that MEPC has completed the master plan process. The current plan was approved for up to a maximum of 580,000 square feet of office plus a little less than 100,000 square feet of service/commercial uses. Ms. Dacy stated, in the last 18 months, the City has completed the Highway 65 intersection design. The final plans and specifications are now underway. Construction is proposed to start next spring. The City completed the environmental assessment worksheet and obtained an indirect source permit from the MPCA. Ms. Dacy stated MEPC also completed a number of marketing activities. They completed the focus group analysis. They changed the name of the site from Lake Pointe to the Fridley Executive Center because there were some conflicting development names in the metro area. They have a new logo that is out on the signs. They conducted a site event for brokers during the summer of 1996. They have been conducting a number of ineetings with �.,� major prospects. In the agenda packet, correspondence from MEPC lists those companies to which they have sent proposals. Nine of the proposals that were sent to users for the office part of the campus and 14 proposals for restaurants, hotels, banks, etc. Ms. Dacy asked, "What did we learn from the market during the last 18 months?" Sometimes it was a mixed message, but they did learn a lot. The Class A market for office space is getting better in the metro area; however, it does not seem to be improving fast enough in the north metro area. Some of the things they heard from the market is, even though Fridley has Medtronic, Onan and a number of very good companies, Fridley has to compete with places like Wayzata and Edina which may have more CEO appeal. The southwest and western communities in the metro area have the advantage of a number of corporate office developments in one location so there is a synergy there. Our site is an isolated site, and we compete with other communities and their development patterns. Mr. Kondrick asked if the costs per square foot are similar. Are the costs less? Are land costs less? Wouldn't that make the property more attractive? Ms. Dacy stated construction costs are the same throughout the metro area. Even to write down the cost of the land to $1.00, a key part of the proposal is to do structured parking and the City n is agreeing to provide an increment to the developer to construct that parking. In Edina which has the Centennial Office building, � � � PLANNING COI�lISSION 1�ETING, SEP��'-R 3, 1997 PAGE 18 a very similar circumstance exists. They have a parking structure in place and TIF areas in place. Even though we are in different markets, we are all offering nearly the same type of package. At one point we thought we could offer a tax advantage. The property taxes in Anoka County are typically below that in other counties. However, a referendum in that school district altered the tax picture. Over the last six or so years the tax rate in that area has increased. The edges that we thought we had no longer exist. Another issue is that the nature of companies is changing. The era of the campus development such as Honeywell and Medtronic may be gone. Companies are focusing on the bottom line and trying to conserve as much cost as possible. Ms. Dacy stated it is possible that we could get the original vision of 580,000 square feet but there would be no guarantee as to when that would occur. The TIF district expires in 2011. Each year that goes by with the site undeveloped reduces our ability to provide financial incentives. Ms. Dacy stated they have also been getting the "chicken and egg" feedback. The commercial people hesitate to locate a building there until there is an office building there. The office building people are hesitant to locate there because the services are not there. That brought us to tech-flex which is a jargon term for a one-story, high quality building for high tech companies that need flexible space for production and office areas. Ms. Dacy presented a videotape showing two such buildings - one in Golden Valley and one in Eden Prairie. The Eden Prairie building site is interesting because it is down the block from a multi-story building and exemplified that a mixed use could occur in the marketplace. This approach is the approach that the HRA and the City Council want to pursue on the property. Ms. Dacy stated the video also showed a two-story building in St. Paul. They have input from companies that want to build an operation center on the property. A two-story building would probably require a larger footprint than a multi-story building. Ms. Dacy stated the City Council and the HRA would like to pursue construction of a 100,000 square foot, one-story tech-flex type of building on the west part of the site and reserve the east part of the office park for a multi-story development of approximately 250,000 square feet. The HRA has agreed to temporarily extend the contract to allow MEPC to go to their board to get approval on the one-story building. The City Council and the HRA are concerned about the length of time the site has remained vacant. Since 1987 when the theater was removed and the utilities and streets installed, the City has been actively trying to market the site for its original vision. The City Council and HRA felt that the tech-flex concept does not detract from the image and could n PLANNING CONIl�ISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 19 attract a high quality company that could stimulate interest and attract other development. Ms. Dacy stated this is a mixed use approach - one story plus the multi-story. However, it initiates a pro-active approach on this site which can be accomplished within the TIF timeframe. She would be happy to forward any comments to the City Council and HRA. In the next two to three months, they will be researching a 100,000 square foot proposal in more detail. . Mr. Sielaff asked if they need a commitment from a company before constructing a building. Ms. Dacy stated, based on MEPC's experience in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie, they are so confident there will be a tenant in a one-story tech-flex that they are going to their board for a speculative proposal. The City has received a number of calls over the last one or two years from those types of companies that we have not sought actively because the vision was always 500,000 square feet of office. Mr. Sielaff asked if there were any restrictions on the amount of ^ space a company could lease in that type of building. Ms. Dacy stated no. It may be the case that one company may need the entire building depending on the nature of the business. MEPC did make a proposal to Lawson Software. This mixed used proposal is very close to what they were evaluating - a one-story production space with corporate offices next door. There could be a user who needs 100,000 square feet but because of the campus may want to reserve more space for corporate offices for more development. Mr. Sielaff asked it would reduce the risks involved with losing a tenant if you have more tenants. Ms. Dacy stated this was true. There are usually one, two or three tenants in these types of buildings. The companies are generally of good size and have 100 to 200 employees. There could be a smaller tenant there but that does not seem to be the case. Mr. Saba stated he works in a similar type of building. If you drive along I-494 along Bass Lake Road and Wedgewood, the intersections are gorgeous with flowers all summer and well maintained landscaping. Corporations want to bring customers in to show them their product. They don't want the customer to feel as though they are driving through a"bad part of town". One gets a good feeling when driving to these facilities. When driving ^ along Highway 65 from I-694 to Mississippi and looking at the growth in the median, it is not a pretty site. If you want �..1 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEN�ER 3, 1997 PAGE 20 something to attract customers to a corporate center and to impress customers with your product and your location, you need to do something about Highway 65 and also University Avenue to maintain what we have. We cannot rely on the state. This may have to be done by the City. Tl�e median and the roadside along Highway 65 need an overhaul. It makes all the difference in the world. Corporate centers in Golden Valley have well maintained roads and medians. It is very different in Fridley. If we expect to develop a corporate client that will exit from I-694 and drive up Highway 65, that is not a pretty site. Ms. Savage stated this is a point is well taken. Also, flowers add to the appearance of the city. While on vacation in British Columbia, she was impressed with Vancouver which is a beautiful city with flower gardens that were well tended. The landscaping adds much to the appearance. She thought this is something the City needs to work on. Ms. Modig asked who is responsible for the median. Ms. Dacy stated the state is responsible for the median on Highway 65. Staff did write the state about the condition of the guard ^ rail from West Moore Lake Drive to East Moore Lake Drive, and they did agree that it was unsightly. They are looking at having some of the guard rails replaced as part of the intersection improvement project to start next spring. � Mr. Kondrick stated, when you travel west on I-694 from Highway 65 to University, the road is high and the land is low. Nothing is worse than looking at the roof of some building with the air conditioning systems, etc., as you drive by. At ground level a building may look good, but it looks bad when you are on the roadway. He would imagine there are ways to design around it so we do not have to look at that especially with a one-story building. He would recommend screening to hide the roof from any passerby. � Mr. Kondrick stated the video of the tech-flex building in Golden Valley showed in the background a condominium. He knows they mentioned the office parking. What about the idea of condominiums in that area? Do developers find that area too expensive, poorly located, too noisy, etc., for a possible condominium development on a portion of the property? Would that be impossible to have on a portion of the site? Ms. Dacy stated the developer has not approached the City for a residential use. On the other hand, the master plan has always leaned toward the corporate office park. A highrise condominium could be developed on the site. She thought the primary issue was an economic one. An owner/occupied development would not produce � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII��R 3, 1997 PAGE 21 the amount of taxes that office space would. The planning for this site is that intensifying the site is the best use for the property; and when the TIF district expires, there will be the maximum amount of return to the community as a whole. Mr. Sielaff asked if the buildings were being marketed as regional headquarters or as corporate headquarters. Ms. Dacy stated the marketing is generally as office space. She did not know if there has been a distinction made between corporate headquarters and regional headquarters. It is marketed as a full service campus where companies can locate for office, production and/or research and development. The interested parties have proposed a gamut of different types of uses from an operation type of center to corporate headquarters with research and development facilities. Ms. Modig stated her concerns about a one-story is that it puts them in the same mode of operation that we have on University Avenue near 79th where the majority of which are empty. Ms. Dacy stated, in terms of the one-story, this is a different ^ market than that development would have. It is a different market, a different interior and a different exterior. We would exert more control in this development because of the master plan. Those developments are more the office/warehouse and industrial types of buildings. This is specified for the high tech use. Mr. Sielaff stated, for 250,000 square feet, how many stories would that be. Ms. Dacy stated 250,000 square feet could be accommodated in two 125,000 square foot buildings with a range of four to six stories depending on the proposal by the company. Mr. Sielaff asked if this would be away from the residential areas. Ms. Dacy stated yes. The parking lots are to the north between the buildings and the residential area. Mr. Kondrick asked if they dare spend more money to make it marketable, such as adding ponds, fountains, brick, etc. What if we spent $1 million to make the site more beautiful than it is now? Can we spend some money to get back more? Ms. Dacy stated realistically the City has done much to make the site attractive. The roads and utilities are in. Some people �"� think it is a park. What detracts from the site is the function of the intersection. It took 18 months to get approvals on the � PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII��'R 3, 1997 PAGE 22 design of the intersection and construction is hoped to get going next spring. A company will look at the cost of the land, what they can do on the site and how that will affect the bottom line. With the TIF district in place, the incentive is there. It is true that Edina has some other advantages that helped. This site tends to be isolated but it has excellent visibility. Once there is activity on the site, there will be more attraction to the site and more interest. She thought they have to get the first building up. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1997 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 13, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI� VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOT�ON CARRIID UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY CODM�lISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1997 � Mr. Sielaff stated the minutes of the August 19th meeting had not yet been approved by the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission (EQE) and asked that these minutes be received by the Planning Commission after EQE approval. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Hickok provided an update on the progress being made at the Menards property. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission meeting of September 17 which will be a Comprehensive Plan meeting as well. ADJOURNMENT � MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DE�'T�D T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEt�ER 3, 1997, PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ` 1�1,�,L? � � � � 1 � [� �^` Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary i� n i-� S I G N- IN S H E E T ) ��>�