The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 10/01/1997 - 30848�� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CO1�lISSION N�ETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the October 1, 1997 Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson,.Planning Assistant Dennis Honsa, Bolton & Menk Ron Stelter, Friendly Chevrolet Ray Kahl, 941 Hillwind Road Councilmember Billings A1 Quam, 399 73rd Avenue NE n Jeff Brenk, Brenk Brothers, Inc. Suzanne & William Holm, 7424 Melody Drive Peter 0'Keefe, 5641 4th Street NE Toni Ferdelman, 6007 3rd Street NE Carl & Kathy Agerbeck, 7551 Central Avenue NE Cynthia & Tony Schreiner, 7372 Symphony St NE Thorwald Johannsen, 7358 Symphony Street NE Margaret Reed, 6017 3rd Street NE Frank Masserano, International Ministerial Fellowship Chet Masserano Brian Houwman, Houwman Architects Jane Brassam Joel Harding, Dolphin Development and Construction Co., Inc. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the September 17, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #97-01, BY MARGARET REED: . � To vacate the south half of the alley located in Block 5, Hyde Park, as follows: the 12 foot alley in Block 5, Hyde Park, lying south of the south lot line of Lot 22, extended ^ PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 2 easterly and north of the south line of Lot 16 extended easterly. All lying east and adjoining Lots 16 - 21, Block 5, Hyde Park, generally located at 6017 - 3rd Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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 DECLARF.D THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC �n�T'�G OPEN AT 7•33 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the vacation request is to vacate a 12-foot alley located on Block 5 of Hyde Park behind three homes along the east side of 3rd Street. The three properties are located in the northeast corner along 60th Avenue and 3rd Street. The site is also adjacent to the University Avenue right-of-way. The property is zoned S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood, which is a special type of zoning district exclusively for the Hyde Park area. Ms. Dacy stated there was a similar vacation request for this 12- foot alley just north of the properties being discussed at this time. In 1987, a request was initiated by one of the five property owners `to vacate the alley at that time. That process �..1 was ultimately concluded in 1992. The alley was platted in the original Hyde Park plat which was recorded in the latter part of the 1880's. The plat also created lots which were purchased by MnDOT in order to construct University Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated they learned from the previous request that a legal process that needs to occur on the certificates of ownership for each of those lots. That process is called a memorialization process. Vacating the alley will not have an adverse impact on the sites. All of the lots will have access from either 60th Avenue to the south or from 3rd Street. Ms. Dacy stated Ms. Reed, the property owner at 6017 3rd Street, is proposing to construct a new garage and a new driveway from 3rd Street. Right now, she has a garage with access through the alley at the rear of the property. She has already planned to reconstruct her access to 3rd Street. The property owner at 6011 3rd Street has access from 3rd Street at this time. The owner at 6007 3rd Street has a driveway to 60th Avenue. She also understands from a phone conversation today that this owner wants to build a new garage as well. Ms. Dacy stated there is an NSP power line located along the alley so a public utility easement will be required along the area. The petitioners will also need to complete the memorialization process to attach the 12 feet to the certificate of titles that they have ^ at the County. The petitioners will have to incur that expense. PLANNING CON�ISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 3 Ms. Dac� stated the memorialization process has a number of steps. The City will vacate the alley - the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council and the Council will pass a resolution vacating the alley. When vacating alleys or road rights-of-way, one half of the alley will go to the owner on one side and the other half to the owner on the other side. In this case, the east 6 feet of the alley will accrue to the ownership of MnDOT. Then, we need to contact MnDOT after the alley is vacated and ask them to deed that 6 feet back to the City. When the City gets it, the City has to declare the property as excess, meaning it is okay to convey that back to tfie property owners. At that point, the p'roperty owners initiate the legal process to memorialize the certificate of titles. That is a process where an attorney would file an order at Anoka County court which would identify all of these deeds and transactions, and officially declare the full 12 feet is attached to the property. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the vacation request with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioners agree to provide a 12-foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the entire length of the � alley. 2. The petitioners are responsible for the appropriate memorialization processes required to properly attach the 12- foot alley to each of the subject properties. 3. The area now used as an alley shall be converted to lawn/grass area by October 1, 1998. 4. Vehicles shall not be stored on the vacated alley and must be parked in conformance with City Code. 5. The petitioners shall provide the correct legal description of the alley to be vacated, including the triangular-shaped property next to 6007 3rd Street N.E. Ms. Dacy stated the reason for the last stipulation is that there is a triangle of property located immediately adjacent to 60th Avenue that adds additional area to the vacation that is just a little unusual. Staff have advised the petitioners to have a surveyor review that and prepare a legal description to make sure that, when the Council vacates it, they are vacating the right piece of property. The petitioners have initiated that process. Ms. Savage asked if there were questions of staff. � Mr. Sielaff asked if the cost of the MnDOT deed to the City was also a cost of the petitioner. PLANNING CON.�IISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 4 Ms. Dacy stated the State will not charge or require payment as part of the transfer of that east 6 feet. They will convey that to the City for $1.00. As part of their application fee for the vacation, staff will do the required steps for the vacation, contact MnDOT to obtain the deed, and initiate the process to pass an ordinance declare that east 6 feet as excess. The petitioners' costs come in to take all of those documents and hire an attorney to do the processing. The only cost to the City is staff time. Mr. Oquist asked if staff could foresee any problems with MnDOT. Ms. Dacy stated no. She did not see a problem with MnDOT conveying the east 6 feet. She was the staff person who worked on the application to the north. It is just an issue of time as to when they can complete the quit claim deed. Mr. Oquist stated he understands three property owners will be affected. Do all three owners have to agree to this vacation? What happens if one decides not to proceed with this process? Ms. Dacy stated all three property owners have signed an agreement n for the vacation. If one or two decides to drop out, we would need to take a look at which two out of the three. If Ms. Reed who is at the end of the alley and has access through the alley decides not to pursue the driveway from 3rd Street but the other two do, that would cut off her access. We would have to look at who is objecting and for what reason. At this point, all three agree. Ms. Reed stated, back in 1987, the only reason the alley was kept open was to allow access to her garage. When she decided to do something about the driveway and understood the need for it to be a hard surface, she looked at maintaining the alley which she has done all along. She decided on the 3rd Street access for the garage and that started the ball rolling. She had staff look at the site before deciding where the driveway might be. She then decided to offer the option to the other two property owners to close the alley since it did not need to be open for her. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the stipulations. Ms. Reed stated no. Ms. Ferdelman stated she had no problems with the stipulations. She had no additional comments. � Mr. Oquist stated staff had come out to look at Ms. Reed's property. There is no problem with putting the driveway in and no �.. PLANNING COI�IISSION N�ETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 5 need for a variance. Ms. Reed stated she had several different options. There was room on either side of the property, but the south portion would only allow an 8-foot driveway. The north side will be a better access and will accommodate the garage and a two-car width driveway. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIED AND T� PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M. Ms. Modig stated the only stipulation she wondered about was #3' where staff is asking to have the alley converted to grass by 1998. If the process takes as long as the other one did, is it reasonable to expect them to have that landscaping taken care of in one year if the process is not completed? Ms. Dacy agreed this was a good point. She suggested that the stipulation could be amended to say "... to be completed within one year of the memorialization." One of the owners wants to n construct a fence back to the chain link fence on University Avenue. That is why she did not think they were objecting to that stipulation. I�f the Commission would like to clarify, that should give ample time. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Vacation, SAV #97-01, by Margaret Reed, to vacate the south half of the alley located in Block 5, Hyde Park, as follows: the 12 foot alley in Block 5, Hyde Park, lying south of the south lot line of Lot 22, extended easterly and north of the south line of Lot 16 extended easterly. All lying east and adjoining Lots 16 - 21, Block 5, Hyde Park, generally located at 6017 - 3rd Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioners agree to provid� a 12-foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the entire length of the alley. 2. The petitioners are responsible for the appropriate memorialization processes required to properly attach the 12- foot alley to each of the subject properties. 3. The area now used as an alley shall be converted to lawn/grass area no later than one year after the date of completion of the memorialization process. �'� 4. Vehicles shall not be stored on the vacated alley and must be parked in conformance with City Code. i`�, � � PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER l, 1997 PAGE 6 5. The petitioners shall provide the correct legal description of the alley to be vacated, including the triangular-shaped property next to 6007 3rd Street N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #97-04, BY BOLTON & MENK• To rezone property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. MOTIOTV by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, 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 T8E PUBLIC �'n'�T�G OPEN AT 7•48 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the rezoning request is by Bolton & Menk who is representing Friendly Chevrolet/Geo located at 7501 Highway 65. They are requesting a rezoning of approximately 2.48 acres from M- 4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center District. Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of the east Highway 65 service road and Fireside Drive. There are mobile homes to the south, additional C-3 zoning to the south, and to the east is a manufacturing plant owned by Brenk Brothers Manufacturing. If approved, the owner of the property is proposing to expand the parking area to the rear. Located on the subject property is the car dealership, Friendly Chevrolet/Geo. A car dealership has been located on this location since 1971. The Appeals Commission reviewed a variance request related to the expanded parking area at their September 24 meeting. The property owner and the adjacent owner, Brenk Brothers, are also in the process of proposing a preliminary plat which is the next item on the agenda. Ms. McPherson stated there are three criteria used to analyze rezoning requests: r...� PLANNING CO1rIlrlISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 7 l. Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing the expansion of the parking lot. If the plat is approved, the property owner proposes to expand their parking area to the east by approximately 200 feet. Parking lots are a permitted accessory use in the C-3 district. The C-3 district, however, does require a special use permit for automobile uses such as new and used car sales and any expansions of such uses. 2. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning. Ms. McPherson stated the M-4, Manufacturing Only District, was recently adopted to encourage manufacturing uses and to reduce the number of warehouse/distribution facilities which the City has seen develop in recent years. The parcel prior to its being rezoned to M-4 was zoned M-1, Light Industrial. A manufacturing parcel is located to the east and north of the property. This zoning pattern in this neighborhood has been established since 1958, based on staff's review of historic zoning maps. The expansion of the C-3 use to the east would still be compatible � with the adjacent uses and zoning. 3. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has requested several variances for the proposed parking lot expansion including a reduction in the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet; a reduction in the hard surface setback from the side lot line (north side) from 5 feet to 0 feet; and to waive the requirement for curb and gutter along the north side of the parking lot. The petitioner has requested these variances in order for the expanded parking area to be consistent with the existing parking area. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of these variances to the City Council as requested by the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a landscape plan which indicates the required screening along Fireside Drive. In order to provide consistent landscaping along Fireside Drive, staff is recommending additional street trees be installed in addition to the proposed hedge. The petitioner is proposing to install a security fence along the east and north lot lines and is unsure at this time if the existing fence along Fireside Drive will be extended along the new parking area or if it will be removed. A small portion of the fence was removed in conjunction ,-1 with the recent building addition that was completed in 1996. The fence now has three strands of barbed wire on top of the chain P7�ANNING CONIl�lISSION A�ETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 8 link. The City Code expressly prohibits the use of barbed wire. Staff has recommended a stipulation that the barbed wire be removed as well as no barbed wire installed on the new fence. Ms. McPherson stated, since the request meets the three evaluation criteria, staff recommends approved of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. Barbed wire shall not be installed on the extended fence and shall be removed from the existing fence. 2. Three Marshall's Ash, spaced evenly, shall be installed along Fireside Drive in addition to the proposed hedge. 3. The plat and variance requests shall also be approved. 4. The petitioner shall receive a special use permit prior to expansion of the parking lot. 5. Additional hedge materials shall be installed along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. � 6. Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided, on-street parking shall not be allowed. Ms. Savage asked if there were questions of staff. Mr. Oquist asked if there had been a similar request from this dealership within the confines of the place for employee parking. Ms. McPherson stated in 1996 they completed a substantial addition for office and showroom and did a small addition to the rear. At that time, the Appeals Commission and City Council did grant similar variances for the parking lot. The lot has not been further expanded from where it was. It was just brought into compliance through the use of variances. Ms. Modig stated stipulation #6 talks about adequate on-site employee and customer parking and no on-street parking will be allowed. Is that on all three sides? Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Oquist asked how this would be policed. If he drives up there and has to park on the street, do they come out and have to move the car? Ms. McPherson stated this would probably not happen. The purpose �--� for stipulation #6 is that we have had recent code enforcement complaints regarding the amount and length of on-street parking �� "'\ PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 9 for this location. It has been customer cars, service cars, and employee cars parked on the street for long periods of time and causing traffic complaints, etc. Staff is working with the petitioner through this process to rectify that. This is to stipulate that they need to park on the site and not on the street. Mr. Oquist asked if they needed to install No Parking signs or paint the curbs yellow. Mr. Hickok stated that it is anticipated by the nature of folks as they are shopping for cars that sometimes they would just like to peruse the lot without pulling in and parking. It is anticipated, without painting the street or posting signs, there will be some customers who will park there. The issue here is providing parking for those who want to park on site and to make sure that all vehicles being serviced or belonging to employees have a spot on the lot. The big issue is not the occasional guest who parks on the street but rather those folks that should be parking on the lot. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner could put up signage indicating customer parking and in that way designate a certain portion for customers. Mr. Hickok stated he thought that was a excellent idea. Mr. Sielaff stated he could foresee that the Planning Commission would pass this for these uses, and it could be taken up by new cars. What about the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning this? Is this a significant change for the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. McPherson stated there will need to be a minor amendment to the comprehensive plan. However, we have had several minor changes in the land use designations such as the American Legion. The City is in the process of updating the plan itself. Staff is hoping that all of these minor land use changes will occur at the same time and be presented to the Metropolitan Council at one time. Mr. Sielaff stated he thought they should designate customer parking. The question becomes what amount. Mr. Honsa stated he is working with the City and he plans to meet the six additional requirements. He has no problem with those. Ms. Savage asked if they had any additional comments. Mr. Stelter stated they had nothing further to add to his knowledge. �--� PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 10 Mr. Sielaff asked about a stipulation to designate an area for on- site parking. Mr. Stelter stated that is no problem. They are providing parking now. They do not have enough parking on site for employees. You will see an occasional car park out front on Sundays because the lot is closed. Mr. Sielaff asked what percentage of the additional parking was going to be designated for customers and for employees. Mr. Stelter stated the entire back lot will be for customer cars that will be serviced and for employees. The lot will be approximately 50/50. Mr. Sielaff asked if they would object to putting signs there for customer parking. Mr. Oquist stated he thought there was some confusion. Mr. Stelter is talking about cars that will be left outside for service work. Mr, Sielaff is talking about new/used car customers �..1 coming in to browse. Is there space allocated for that? Mr. Honsa stated the expansion being put in on the east side will open up room for the new car buyer. Most people will enter on the southwest corner or the south and westerly side. On the westerly side, it is there intention to open up some additional space to provide for customer parking. The expansion lot is to get employees parking there and then the people who drop their cars off for overnight service will park in that additional parking area. The building expansion has taken up some of the parking. Mr. Sielaff asked if there would be any new cars in this expansion area. Mr. Stelter stated there may be some if space provides for it. Mr. Sielaff stated his concern is that they would put many new cars back there and then there would not be enough room for customer parking. This could result in the customers parking on the street again. He is trying to get an idea of how much signage would be adequate. Mr. Stelter stated he would rather not put signs up. If they open up the entire front of the building, that should be enough space for customers. � Mr. Honsa stated they could work with staff to see what they feel would be adequate. n PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 11 Mr. Oquist stated they just don't want all new cars in the new area and then get the same parking situation again. He thought staff could work that out with the petitioner. Mr. Brenk stated he was one of the owners of Brenk Brothers, Inc., the property directly to the east of Friendly Chevrolet. They are in favor of this property transfer overall. It is still pending a formal agreement between themselves and Friendly Chevrolet, but it is a logical move to make this swap. There are three issues that he wanted to mention, and some may apply to the following rezoning request. First, as the platting occurs, they want to separate any property as a separate parcel and that parcel may stay as an M-4, Manufactory Only, future expansion. Second, they need to define and confirm the status of the storm drainage pond. He was not sure of the definition. They were not sure at this point whether to consult an engineer to see if the pond is going to require additional storm conveyor or, as this is defined, if there is any future liability they need to be concerned with or any safety issues. Third, they share the parking issue concerns. There are times when Friendly Chevrolet employees have parked on their property and on the street. They share some of those concerns as n well. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TEE PUBLIC EEARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to see added to stipulation #6 that the petitioner shall provide adequate customer parking signage as agreed to with City staff. Otherwise, he is comfortable with the recommendation. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Rezoning, ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk to rezone property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. Barbed wire shall not be installed on the extended fence and shall be removed from the existing fence. r'"'� 2. Three Marshall's Ash, spaced evenly, shall be installed along Fireside Drive in addition to the proposed hedge. � � ,�� PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 12 3. The plat and variance requests shall also be approved. 4. The petitioner shall receive a special use permit prior to expansion of the parking lot. 5. Additional hedge materials shall be installed along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. 6. Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided, on-street parking shall not be allowed. The petitioner shall provide adequate customer parking signage as agreed to with City staff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #97-03, BY BOLTON & MENK: To replat three lots into two, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIID AND TEE PUBLIC �'nR�G OPEN AT 8:08 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the plat request is by Bolton & Menk on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet/Geo and also Brenk Brothers Manufacturing. The proposed preliminary plat is to re-subdivide three parcels into two. The request is for parcels located at 7501 Highway 65 and 7490 Central Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated the analysis of the preliminary plat indicates that both lots as indicated by the plat meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for both the M-4, Manufacturing Only, and C-3, General Shopping Center districts. The current unplatted lot configuration indicates there are three parcels. There is a dividing line to the east of the Friendly Ch�vrolet/Geo parcel. There is a vacant parcel to the north of the Brenk Brothers and also the Brenk Brothers property which extends the same distance as the property to the north. The land � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 13 swap, as it were, occurs with the area to the east and adjacent to Friendly Chevrolet/Geo. The preliminary plat indicates two lots - one adjacent to Friendly Chevrolet extending from Fireside Drive north even with their north property line, and another parcel including the Brenk Brothers site and the parcel to the north. Ms. McPherson believed Mr. Brenk is requesting that the parcel to the north of their site be maintained as a separate lot, thereby creating a third lot. However, that is not the plat that is before the Planning Commission this evening. Ms. McPherson stated staff calculations indicate that the lots will be 5.4 and 8.87 acres with the Friendly Chevrolet/Geo lot being the larger in area. The plat also dedicates right-of-way for the east Highway 65 service road, Central Avenue, and Fireside Drive. Additional land gained through the exchange between the property owners does provide additional expansion area for both properties. Ms. McPherson stated a joint stormwater detention pond is proposed. Staffs calculations indicate that it is sized to provide adequate area for the proposed parking area and should be adequate to provide detention for possible future expansion of the Brenk Brothers facility or a secondary building to the north of �� Brenk Brothers. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends an easement be indicated on the plat in the area of the pond, and staff also recommend that a joint stormwater maintenance agreement be recorded against both properties to insure that the property owners properly maintain the stormwater facility. The subdivision ordinance does require park dedication fees to be paid and those are calculated at .023 cents per square foot of land area. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request to City Council with the following stipulations: 1. A drainage or pond easement shall be indicated on the final plat in the area of the proposed detention pond. 2. Park dedication fees as indicated below shall be paid: A. Friendly Chevrolet/Geo - $8,886.68 B. Brenk Brothers - $5,560.42 3. A shared pond maintenance agreement shall be recorded against both properties. 4. The rezoning and variance requests shall be approved. n Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. n PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 14 Ms. Modig asked if the parcel at the back portion of Friendly Chevrolet/Geo was big enough to stand by itself if it were kept separate. Ms. McPherson stated she believed it had adequate lot width and that it met or exceeded the 1.5 acre requirement. Mr. Oquist stated if he understands correctly, if this is approved, that whole area would become one lot. If they choose to make two lots out of it, then we have to have another lot split. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct according to the proposed plat. However, there is time that they could add the third lot prior to the final plat. Mr. Oquist asked if the plat could be revised before final approval or would it have to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hickok stated, if it is okay with the Planning Commission, staff can require before the final plat that the decision be made and that it be platted accordingly on the final plat. Ms. Modig asked if the Brenk Brothers property and the lot to the north were now proposed to be platted as one lot. Ms. McPherson stated it is proposed as such currently. Ms. Modig asked if there was a separate legal description for that now. Ms. McPherson stated no. Mr. Sielaff asked what the current zoning was on the lot north of Brenk Brothers. Ms. McPherson stated it was zoned M-4, Manufacturing Only. Mr. Sielaff stated that Friendly Chevrolet/Geo currently owns the property extending to the east boundary. That is currently zoned M-4. � Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Oquist asked what happens after the plat. Ms. McPherson stated the area to the east will remain M-4. The area adjacent to Friendly Chevrolet/Geo becomes C-3 and part of � the existing dealership. � PLANNING CO�SSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 15 Ms. Modig stated Mr. Brenk addressed the question of the pond. She asked if staff was responding to that or if staff had talked with Mr. Brenk. Ms. McPherson stated she had not spoken with Mr. Brenk. They are working with Bolton & Menk who did the calculations. The City Engineer reviewed those calculations and did not have any additional comments regarding the drainage calculations or the design of the pond. If Mr. Brenk feels comfortable having a third opinion regarding the detention pond, she would recommend he get the third opinion regarding the design. Ms. Modig asked if there were other places in the City that had a joint pond arrangement. Ms. McPherson stated there are not a lot of joint ponds in the City. The previous policy has been to have individual ponds as opposed to a more regional type approach. However, there will be a similar situation with Sam's Club pond which has been sized to accommodate a development to the north and that has similar stipulations as well. � Ms. Modig asked if this type of pond worked well. Ms. McPherson stated this will work. This is a more preferred approach as opposed to having many little ponds. A larger pond actually serves the clean water objectives much better. Mr. Honsa stated, up to this point, they were not aware of Mr. Brenk's concern for getting two parcels out of the one. They will work with Mr. Brenk. It is"a buildable M-4 lot so you are not losing any additional M-4 zoning area if they do create two separate parcels. They could proceed with a three-lot plat. He believed that is what Mr. Brenk is after. That has not been conveyed to Friendly Chevrolet, which would have been passed on to Bolton & Menk. As far as the pond, regional ponds are more environmentally sensitive. If you are concerned about this pond, Ms. McPherson has stressed that the City is going to require a maintenance agreement. Both parties will have a legal binding document as to what is covered for maintenance on the pond. Bolton & Menk designed the pond. If Mr. Brenk does create a third parcel in the northeast corner, they would then join in on the use and sizing of that pond. If Brenk Brothers puts additional parking out in the front, they may need some storm sewer to get it back. If they put parking in the rear, they can use the grade to get it to drain into the pond. � Mr. Oquist asked if there were any issues with the other stipulations. � � PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 16 Mr. Honsa stated no. They will meet the City's stipulations and have no objections. Mr. Brenk stated he had the same concerns as previously stated. Mr. Oquist stated, if Mr. Brenk wants to do the lot split for three lots, he should do it now so this request can move on in a timely manner. Mr. Brenk stated he thought this had been communicated through legal council. Mr. Oquist stated he understood they could recommend approval for three lots. Mr. Brenk stated this gives them flexibility as they move forward. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC �•A�TNG CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated he has no problem with the request. He would like to include a stipulation regarding the third lot. Ms. McPherson stated she would suggest the stipulation read, "The preliminary plat shall be amended to indicate a third lot prior to the October 13 review of the request by the City Council." Ms. Modig stated, by handling the issue of the third lot in that way, it brings up another situation regarding the drainage and pond easement, etc. Ms. McPherson stated the stipulations would be the same. The City would require the recording of the document against that lot as well. Staff would have to recalculate the park dedication fees to address the third lot and to verify that the pond provides adequate storage for any development on that third lot. Mr. Sielaff stated they won't know how to size the pond until you know how much hard surface there will be. Ms. McPherson stated the engineers look at the zoning code requirements and what is allowed in terms of green area and parking. From that, they make a worst-case estimation. Ms. Modig stated let us say for example that Brenk Brothers and � Friendly Chevrolet/Geo are someday sold. Do these pond easements and agreement pass along with the property? � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 17 Ms. McPherson stated yes. The documents are recorded against the properties and become part of the permanent land record. The agreements refer to successors and assigns so it does carry forward and is not limited to the current property owners. Ms. Savage asked if the park dedication fees needed to be changed. Ms. McPherson stated she would recommend amending that stipulation to read, "Park dedication fees shall be paid and each lot will be calculated by staff prior to the October 13 City Council meeting." Ms. Modig stated stipulation #3 should also be adjusted to reflect all properties. Ms. Modig stated, by changing this to three lots, if they decide not to change it and only want two, does it then have to come back to the Planning Commission or can the Commission just say we are going to recommend approval of the preliminary plat be it either two lots or three lots. Mr. Hickok stated they just need to know by final plat time. If the Commission trusts staff to carry that forward, staff will by i�1, the time it gets to the City Council for approval have all the calculations done. What is being presented this evening and agreed to by both parties is that we have a three lot subdivision and that the stipulations as suggested apply. If those facts change, staff will make sure before the City Council meeting that all facts apply to what is being presented to them. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #97-03, by Bolton & Menk, to replat three lots into two, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. A drainage or pond easement shall be indicated on the final plat in the area of the proposed detention pond. 2. Park dedication fees shall be paid and each lot will be calculated by staff prior to the October 13 City Council meeting. 3. A shared pond maintenance agreement shall be recorded against all properties. � 4. The rezoning and variance requests shall be approved. ^ PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 18 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #97-05, BY DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.: To rezone property at 73rd and University Avenues from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business, to allow for future commercial development, on Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, generally located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, 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 T� MOTION CARRIID AND THE PUBLIC �'n'��G OPII�i AT 8:34 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the rezoning request is by Dolphin Development and Construction Company for property to be changed from M-2, � Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business. The property is located at the southeast quadrant of University Avenue and 73rd. There is M-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning to the east; R-1, Single Family, and R-2, Two Family, to the north; and C-2, General Business, across University Avenue. The site is 2.4 acres and is currently undeveloped. Mr. Hickok stated a convenience store with fuel and a car wash has been illustrated as a possible use for this site. In the layout for such a proposed site, the convenience store itself is in the northeast corner of the site and bermed with landscaping. The code requires 30% evergreens as part of the tree planting scheme. This developer has chosen 50o evergreens to provide additional screening of the building itself. The building has been backed into the corner of the site without a service drive behind the building in an effort to create the maximum possible amount of buffering and to eliminate the commercial feel on the backside of the building leaving more of a natural wooded look as you look across from the residential area to the north. The more intensive uses would be between the store itself and University Avenue. On the site would be fuel pumps and a car wash behind which is a storm pond area. The City's engineers have calculated, based on this design, this pond to accommodate a convenience store. The engineers would like to take another look at it if there is a modification to this proposed layout. Mr. Hickok stated the City's comprehensive plan designates this ^ PLANNING CONIl�lISSION N�ETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 19 site as commercial and not as an industrial site as it is currently zoned. The parcel is call a loopback or switchback parcel. These type of parcels are seen along University Avenue and Highway 65. There are 19 parcels that are like this. Of those, 15 are located along University Avenue. Of the 15 University Avenue switchback parcels, 4 are zoned C-3; 10 are zoned C-2, and 1 is zoned M-2. Ms. Hickok stated staff uses three criteria to evaluate rezoning requests. l. Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. Ms. Hickok stated the proposed use is for a general business operation. Motor fuel and convenience operations are permitted with a special use permit in the C-2, General Business, district. For this developer to proceed, they would be back before the Planning Commission for a special use permit request. At this time, we simply have a rezoning. This use is compatible with the district. With a special use permit, it could be made compatible with the neighbors. 2. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and n zoning. Mr. Hickok stated the surrounding properties include C-2 across University Avenue, M-2 across the service drive, and R-1 and R-2 across 73rd Avenue to the north. The C-2, General Business, district is compatible with the surrounding uses. It is separated by 73rd which is the point of demarcation. 3. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. Mr. Hickok stated evaluation of setbacks, building and parking, drainage, landscape, building materials, lighting, etc., reveals compliance. Once the precise building footprints have been placed on the site plan, an adjustment of drainage calculations may be required. The use would be compatible with the proposed district once a special use permit is processed. Mr. Hickok stated the site has been vacant since incorporation of the City. In 1989, Phillips Petroleum filed a special use application to allow a motor fuel and convenience store operation with a carwash. The applicant was not requesting a rezoning at that time, and therefore the use was denied because it exceeded the 30% allowable retail in an industrial district. Also in 1989, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suspected that a wetland was ,� present on the site. The City later hired an environmerital consultant to delineate the suspected wetland. The wetland expert /"1 � � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 20 determined that no wetland existed on this site. Mr. Hickok stated later an informal request was made regarding the use of this site as a bank location. The formal request was never made. In 1995, the City of Fridley considered rezoning the site to C-2, General Business, in an effort to locate the municipal liquor store on the site. The rezoning fails for lack of support of 4/5 of the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the rezoning request without stipulations. Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. Ms. Savage stated she was wondering after reading the letter about the concerns for screening and landscaping if there should be a stipulation concerning the landscaping plan to make sure there would be adequate screening for the residential area. Mr. Hickok stated, as proposed, the plan does address the concerns. This would be appropriate if the Commission wanted to add that. Mr. Sielaff stated there must be a reason why this area was evaluated as a wetland. There must be standing water there. Mr. Hickok stated aerial photos are taken. Seasonal shadows on these photos can cause misconceptions about what is actually real on the land. This is not the first time that this has been discovered. On aerial photos of a raised rail bed with shadows along the edge of the railbed often looks like a linear wetland. When further evaluated is found not to be a wetland. The City wanted to be careful about whether there was a wetland on this site and whether or not to pursue this site as a liquor site so the City hired an environmental consultant to do an analysis of the site. They determined there was not a wetland. Characteristics they look for is wetland vegetation and the composition of soil. Those conditions were not there. Mr. Sielaff stated there is no saturated soil or standing water on this site. He would be concerned with underground tanks. Mr. Hickok stated there was no saturated soil, no standing water, and no vegetation to indicate that it stands at any time during the season. Mr. Harding stated he was in the business of development and construction of commercial, industrial and manufacturing projects. He was last here was in support of the Linn Companies redevelopment project on 57th Avenue for which they acted as the ^ PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 21 general contractor. Mr. Harding stated he had some parallel comments to the staff report. The agenda packet included copies of letters from him sent to the City staff and to 84 neighbors in the area. As staff indicated, the City pursued this site for use as a municipal liquor store in 1995. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended rezoning approval but did so without comment as to the particular use. In 1996, the subject of rezoning the site was before the City Council. It was there based upon a letter request from the fee owner. The City Council voted 3 for, 1 against - not the 4/5 required. At that time, the then current mayor was ill and not in attendance. Mr. Harding stated, since that time, they have been working on this rezoning issue with staff. They have submitted several plans and the Commission has seen the l�test version of that plan which was submitted in early August on the basis of what they think is the worst possible case for rezoning consideration. That is really as it relates to the neighbors and their view of this rezoning process. They are requesting rezoning so they can go out and market the site. They do not have a buyer, investor or client �„� in hand today. If he went to that community of his and said he had a property but it was not rezox�ed, he would leave the office very quickly. It is an expensive piece af land and he does not have a user today for it. Depending on the use they find, who purchases, invests or uses the site, a special use permit may be required. Mr. Harding stated the comprehensive plan shows this site as commercial. As he understands the current law, the comprehensive plan takes precedent over the zoning ordinance. They have stuck with the rezoning process for 18 months. They would like approval on the rezoning. Ms. Savage stated in Mr. Harding's letter to the neighbors he states he would agree to not include a liquor store in the marketing efforts. Mr. Harding stated he was not thinking straight because the City would be the one that would have to come to him for that. There could only be a municipal liquor store requested by the City. Mr. Quam stated the neighborhood has historically been against the developm�nt of this property for a liquor store, convenience store and gas stations. He thought they should maintain that position. If and when a particular buyer comes forward with a proposal, he thought it should be brought then for rezoning. He does not like � writing a blank check. He also disagrees with the judgment. He has been supportive of some real estate development. When a n PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 22 serious buyer comes along, they will go through the process. He would recommend not rezoning the property at this time. Ms. Holm stated she took pictures of the last development. That development was supposed to be bermed. She showed pictures of the site. The map does not show the McGarvey trucks parked in front or the berms. The trucks go up on the berms, and the neighbors get to look at the trucks. This was supposed to be as this proposal. It was landscaped. It was bermed. It was protected from the neighborhood. Now they look at trucks in the parking lot and a featureless wall which everyone refers to as "the great wall". Where is the berm? If they did not get a berm that time and this man is telling them that he will at some point sell this property and change it from M-2 to C-2 and this lovely diagram with the trees, etc., there is no guarantee that this will be part of it. She agrees with Mr. Quam. Don't rezone this if you don't know what it is going to be used for. This is a piece of virgin property that has been in the City since before your time and before the City Council's time. If you want to do something, how about the corner where The Gym is? You don't seem to do anything with that corner so why mess with ours? That is the entrance to their property and they care about that. � Mr. Schreiner stated they received the notice about the hearing tonight. He knew that a number of their neighbors did not receive a notice. He was wondering what the procedure was for sending out these notices. Also, the notice was addressed to his wife, not to him. Mr. Hickok stated, according to State statute, the City is obligated to notify properties within 350 feet of the perimeter of the site. For that reason, some neighbors may not receive it. Mr. Schreiner stated he brought with him a neighbor who lives closer who did not receive a notice and his neighbors across the street did not receive a notice either. Ms. Dacy stated staff can check the list. As she recalls, staff sometimes maintain lists over a number of applications. Sometimes staff will pull names from lists of persons that have attended a previous meeting. So, if someone attended a meeting from the other side of the neighborhood, they may be on the list while someone else is not. Mr. Schreiner stated that may be the reason the notice was sent to his wife. Mr. Harding stated he sent out 84 letters. He received a letter, answered it, and sent a copy to all the Councilmembers and the Mayor. He did not receive a response from anyone. He ,--� does not know if they received his response or not. He is also completely opposed to rezoning this property. His concern is the r,..,� PLANNING CONN�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER l, 1997 PAGE 23 traffic situation. He did not know if the Planning Commission looked at traffic. Melody Manor has two exits to 73rd Avenue to the south. Those are the only exits from the neighborhood. The traffic has been bad and is getting worse. The most recent building has not helped that situation. Also, there is another big building going up to the south. Has the Planning Commission addressed how that will affect the traffic issue on 73rd? He thought before anything is decided on this parcel that should be evaluated. Getting to the two exits from Melody Manor, he would invite anyone at peak traffic time to try to exit from Melody Manor, especially if you are trying to go east. Ms. Schreiner stated they moved there in 1971. At that time traffic was not a problem. They have no right-of-way. Nobody yields to them. If they want to get out of their neighborhood for any reason, they have to wait to get out. There are no three-way stops either on Osborne or 73rd. They are getting locked in with traffic. 73rd is constant semi's back and forth from University to Highway 65. She did attend the Planning Commission meeting a few weeks ago. After being at that meeting, she was enlightened about the University corridor and how run down the corridor looks. In the area of 73rd and University is another eyesore - the gas station that sits vacant and is zoned C-2. There is a new Freedom �� gas station on Osborne and University. At the side to the east where there is a Fina station and SuperAmerica station, the Fina station she thought was struggling to stay alive. There was a convenience store, gas station, car wash there that did not make it, and they have one on Osborne and University. There was another gas station there that never survived. They have two strip malls before Columbia Arena. There are businesses that do not survive. The strip mall west of University cannot maintain tenants. The office building on the southwest side of 73rd and University has rental space. She did not think they had ever taken down the sign. The buildings have never been full to capacity. Ms. Schreiner stated the main concern is traffic. That big warehouse, the "great wall" as it is called, is a request for which she came down. Northco did not have to have that setback and the barrier for neighborhood aesthetics. It is a big storage warehouse with windows cut into it. When you drive past at night, you see all the shelving. It has created more traffic. She sees their neighborhood going down. In the northern area of Fridley, they are becoming further and further detached and do not feel like a part of the City. Their children grew up their and went to the Spring Lake Park school district. It is hard to say that Fridley is their home. They are being cut off and isolated and not being considered part of the City. It seem like they are �-,, fighting city hall. � �'1 � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 24 Ms. Schreiner stated she would like to see the area cleaned up first. If there are other viable businesses then think about it when the time comes. When the bank talked about coming in, they did soil borings and felt it was not feasible. Mr. Schreiner stated, getting back to the wetland issue, he is not an engineer or environmentalist. He does know this is a low area and he knows personally that the bank pulled out after soil borings were done and they found it needed fill. The primary concern that he has is the traffic. He would hate to see someone killed on that corner. People end up cutting in front of cars because there are no stop signs along 73rd between University and 65. That is where everyone wants to get across because there are no stops. When the green light comes on, there is a steady stream of cars both from the east and west. Some on the Planning Commission have been around long enough to know that when the Target warehouse was built, they were told not to worry about the semi trucks because they would take Highway 65. He invited everyone to come over and take a look at where the semis are actually driving. Ms. Schreiner stated they have lots of traffic. In the morning, the hospital traffic comes off 73rd up Zurich Lane. There are many dangerous maneuvers that are made. Mr. Schreiner stated, if there was something that was to go in there, he would like to see something that did not have traffic. Is it so terrible that there is a corner of property that is not developed? Is there some kind of rule that says that every square inch of Fridley has to be developed? Ms. Modig stated she drives that route everyday. That corner, in her opinion, is an eyesore. It is full of garbage and trash. Leaving it undeveloped to her does not make sense. Mr. Schreiner stated it is a small parcel of property. One reason the Phillips 66 did not fly was because there was not enough room for a berm. Ms. Schreiner stated a bigger eyesore is the northwest corner of 73rd and University with the vacant station and carwash. Mr. Schreiner stated he personally would not mind seeing trees, grass, bushes, etc., on the low land. Ms. Modig stated her point is that the property has been undeveloped since the City was incorporated. We have to either make it a park or develop it. They cannot leave it as it is. Mr. Schreiner stated he disagreed and saw nothing wrong with it as r''�� PLANNING CO1��lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 25 it is. Mr. Johannsen stated he did not get a letter. He asked the neighbors across the street who also did not get a letter either. Other neighbors also did not get notices. Ms. 5avage asked Mr. Johannsen if he had any comments regarding the rezoning request. Mr. Johannsen stated he did not like it. He would prefer to leave the lot as it is. He has to fight traffic to get out into the street. He has to wait until people get by. He cannot get out. Ms. McPherson showed a map with the radius drawn to 350 feet to show the properties that were notified. Staff also used the same mailing list as part of the liquor store proposal in 1995. They started with the 350-foot radius and added those persons who attended the Planning Commission and City Council meetings at that time. That is probably why some of the residents did not receive a notice. Ms. Holm asked when the notices were mailed. Ms. McPherson stated the notices were mailed on September 17. Ms. Holm stated she was at all the meetings in 1995 for the liquor store and did not get a notice. Ms. McPherson stated their address is on the mailing list twice. Ms. Dacy stated the 350-foot radius stops just short of the cul de sac on the corner of Symphony. For the record, staff has completed the process that is required by State statute which is the 350-foot notification, and staff has gone beyond that by also sending notices to those people who signed up at the City Council meeting several years ago. Staff have tried to go beyond what is required. It is conceivable that Mr. Johannsen did not receive a letter and that his neighbor also did not. The same list was provided to the developer prior to this application. She apologized for the confusion but that is how they try to get everybody on the list. Mr. Sielaff asked under what conditions would it come back to the Planning Commission for a specific proposal for this site. Mr. Hickok stated the list of permitted uses includes professional offiee buildings, several types of retail including convenience store. If there are uses under special use such as a carwash, � motor fuel, etc., it would come back for specific review. If a developer moved ahead with the proposed plan, it would be back �\ PLANNING CONIlKISSION N�ETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 26 before the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Savages asked if there were any plans for a municipal liquor store in that location. Mr. Hickok stated no. Mr. Schreiner asked how many notices were sent out. Ms. McPherson stated 97 notices were mailed. Ms. Schreiner asked what percentage of representation is this of people living in Melody Manor. He asked this because of the traffic situation. He understands the statute is 350 feet from the site. When you take into consideration that the traffic affects the whole area, it seems that you would notify the whole area. Ms. Dacy stated she agreed that traffic is a legitimate concern as they go through this request. Not only does the statute require notification, but staff also placed an ad in the Focus. This area has been a concern for the neighborhood for a number of years. n The point she is trying to make is that there has been no fault in the process. Staff took the extra steps to have the developer contact the neighborhood prior to the application. He requested that if anyone would want to meet with him individually or as a group he would do so. The only way that we know someone is interested in the process is by the people that show up at the meetings, that sign in, and we add that to our list. They want to include as many people as possible. It is hard for staff to tell how many people are or are not interested in any particular development request. An ad is placed in the Focus, neighbors notified within a 350-foot radius, and kept track of who signed in at meetings. Ms. Savage stated this matter will go to City Council so neighbors can certainly be told of that meeting so they can attend. Mr. Schreiner asked how many letters were sent by the developer. Mr. Harding stated he send 84 letters and received 2 or 3 responses. Those responses were directed to staff and he received copies of them. No one asked for a meeting. Mr. Hickok stated there is a sign on the site that is posted by the City for the rezoning and he personally received two calls from that sign on the site from folks who have driven by. That is another attempt that the City makes to make an announcement that � something is going to be happening on the site. �1 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 27 Ms. Savage stated it is clear that the City did everything that it could not only in conformance with the statute but in what they did to notify the area. Mr. Harding stated he knows staff has done an excellent job in looking at traffic and consulted with people who know what they are looking at for traffic. They will go through this again. In Fridley when making a rezoning request, you must show certain things. More importantly they go through a plan review, then to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council. What they are asking for is approval to rezone the property in order to market the site. When they have marketed the site, they will be back with a full set of plans. They have always built what they have said they would build. The traffic issue is of concern. That has been studied by the staff. As he recalls, the recommendation indicates that 73rd can handle the traffic. Mr. Sielaff stated someone brought up the issue of soil borings on the site. He would like to get that cleared up that this is a buildable site. Mr. Hickok stated the City did borings and made the determination that it is a buildable site. When the bank was to be built, there n was a concern about a wetland and, if so, how much of the site would be affected by the wetland. He thought, if they had gone through the same analysis, they would have come to the same conclusion. It can accommodate an underground tank. Mr. Sielaff stated that use would have to have a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Hickok stated a speaker this evening was concerned about a berm that was supposed to be on the building to the east that was not there. He would like to clarify that. The code requires parking areas to have either/or a berm of three feet or they need to mitigate the effect of headlights by having a hedge. As you know, that development was ultimately approved with a hedge and a spacing of shade trees along the northern property line. It meets the setback and landscape screening requirements for the proposal. At one end of the site, it also has a retaining wall which brings the headlight of vehicles lower. Because of the contours of the site, on top of that retaining wall is a hedge and shade trees. This does meet all code requirements. Ms. Holm showed pictures of the site. If that is what they get with approval meeting City codes facing their houses, perhaps they � need to think about what the hedge and tree requirements are. What is there is pretty crummy. If this meets requirements, � PLANNING CONa�lISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 28 anything you put there only has to meet requirements. What they see daily is trucks facing directly into the neighborhood. She felt that destroys the property values. There are nice houses there but they look at a bunch of crummy trucks. You can say what you want about a mud filled triangle, but at least it is not filled with things that are destroying the property. Mr. Hickok stated the trucks are not permitted beyond the front corner of the building. They are to be parked in the side and rear yard. The developer brought in a 30-foot tree and others in the 15-foot to 20-foot range in an effort to mitigate the trucks and would be permitted on the side but an effort to further screen. The hedge is still young. They would like to see five years of growth but that is not realistic. Within a given period of time, it will mask the parking lot and provide the effect they want to separate the parking lot from the residential community. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC �nRT*TG CLOSED AT 9•25 P.M. � Mr. Hickok stated according to code they do have the minimum number of trees required. We do have a building plan review. Even though it is not coming to the Commission staff analyzes the site and takes into account the things that folks have been asking for. That can be accomplished during the staff review. Mr. Oquist stated part of the building permit is to have a landscape plan, lighting plan, etc. He has been toggling with the discussion tonight. He can appreciate the issues the residents have. On the other hand, we have been trying to develop this property and it is going to develop someday somehow. Perhaps we can at least have some say as to what goes in there. He have a problem rezoning the property without knowing what is going in there. On the other hand, it is a rezoning only and anything that is developed there will have to come back through anyway. He thought it okay to rezone. Ms. Savage agreed. Realistically, the site will not be vacant unless it is turned into a park. It seems there could be a worse scenario in developing or leaving it vacant and not cared for. Residents will have an opportunity to voice their opinion as far as what is actually going to go in there. It will go to City Council. The Planning Commission will monitor what type of business will go there. � Ms. Modig stated she feels that the traffic issue is a real problem. She drives on 73rd three or four times a day and she n PLANNING CONIl�IISSION N�ETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 29 knows it is a problem. No matter what is put on this site will have an effect. We have to have a realistic idea of what we can use the site for. She thought changing the rezoning to C-2 is more realistic is getting the proper type of tenant there. Anything that has been proposed for this property has met with opposition. At this point, they are not making a decision about what is going there. It is just a rezoning. The rest of the steps will be back and forth again. Mr. Sielaff stated, to him, the request has been property noticed as far as time and who was notified. He would encourage the residents to be involved in whatever is developed on this site whether it is with City staff, going to Council meetings, or coming back to this body. He would encourage residents to come back and be involved in that process. Ms. Savage stated she appreciated the residents comments. The comments are recorded and put in the minutes that are forwarded to the City Council. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of a Rezoning, ZOA #97-05, by Dolphin Development and ^ Construction Co., Inc., to rezone property at 73rd and University Avenues from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business, to allow for future commercial development on Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, generally located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. Mr. Oquist stated he has driven by the site with the "great wall". At times he has driven by there and those trucks have been parked in front in any manner. If there is something that could be done, he would like staff to look into it whether a letter be sent or whatever. He has seen it worse that what was shown in the photographs. Mr. Hickok stated this site has had a code history. The next time that a truck is in the front parking lot the owner will be cited. The follow up carries beyond the development of the site. They will have to appear in court for that issue if that is the case. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #97-03, BY RAY KAHL• ,� To create two residential lots, on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, generally located �,` PLANNING CONIl�ZISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 30 at 5616 - 4th Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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 THE MOTION CARRIED AND T8E PUBLIC SEARING OPEN AT 9:30 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the lot split is being requested by Mr. Kahl who is representing two property owners. Mr. Kahl is requesting that a lot split be granted to create two residential lots. One lot will be vacant and could be sold for development of a residential dwelling containing three or fewer units. The property is located at 5616 - 4th Street which is south of 57th Avenue, east of University Avenue, and on the west side of 4th Street. Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is composed of four 40- foot wide platted lots. The petitioner is proposing to subdivide those four lots along the previously platted lot lines as part of Lot 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville. Each of the proposed lots measures 79.84 feet x 136.28 feet as each lot � contains half of the vacated alley. Each lot would be 10,831.5 square feet in area. Ms. McPherson stated proposed Tract A is vacant. Currently Lots 4 through 6 are combined under one property identification number (PIN) for tax purposes. Lot 7 has a separate PIN. Tract A will be composed o� Lots 4 and 5. There is a detached 8 foot x 12 foot shed on a concrete slab which will be located on proposed Tract A. Proposed Tract B will contain a single family dwelling unit and a detached garage measuring 24 feet x 24 feet. The garage meets setback requirements for the rear and side yard. However, the existing dwelling is only 3 feet from the south property line. That means that the dwelling is nonconforming. It was constructed prior to 1955. Any expansion of this dwelling will require review of the expansion by the Appeals Commission to correct the nonconformance issue. Ms. McPherson stated staff is stipulating that the detached shed on proposed Tract A be removed or relocated onto Tract B. There is also a park dedication fee requirement for the proposed lot split which is $1,500 per lot. Ms. McPherson stated staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The detached shed located on Tract A shall be relocated to ,� Tract B or completely removed. r--1 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 31 2. A park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot shall be paid. Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. There were no questions of staff. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner if he had any comments . Mr. Kahl stated he is the real estate agent marketing the property. He looked at it and thought it was a strange situation with the 40 foot x 129 foot lots. It did not look right and he moved forward with the lot split request. The other lot will be sold. It was set up in 1942. It makes more sense. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Kahl stated the only problem is with the park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot. They wanted to know why because they do not have $1,500 per lot. Ms. McPherson stated the fee is calculated for each lot so that is a total of $3,000. The park dedication fee on Tract A could be deferred until a building permit is applied for at a future dwelling. n MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. VPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CEAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:38 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she had no problem with the request. Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with the request. If there is difficulty with the park dedication fee, can it be deferred? Can they pay that in installments or as part of the taxes? How does that work when there is a problem in paying? Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the park dedication fee for Tract A can be deferred until such time that a building is constructed. Staff has never been presented with this type of situation. The City Council would have to determine that with the owners. Ms. Modig asked staff to look into that issue with the owners and agent. Ms. Dacy suggested the wording, "... at the time a building permit is issued" and staff can investigate for Tract B. �"1 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of a Lot Split, L.S. #97-03, by Ray Kahl, to create two � � r'� PLANNING CONIlrlISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 32 residential lots on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, generally located at 5616 - 4th Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The detached shed located on Tract A shall be relocated to Tract B or completely removed. 2. A park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED TEE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #97-06, BY FRANK MASSERANO III• To rezone properties from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C- 3, General Shopping Center District, to CR-1, General Office, to allow construction of a 2,640 square foot office building on Lot 1, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition, together with Outlot A, Shorewood Plaza, reserving easements of record, generally located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, 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 PUBLIC 1�nAT'�G OPEN AT 9•40 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this is a rezoning request for property located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive. The property will be owned by Frank Masserano III who is requesting a change in the zoriing from R-1, Single Family, and C-3, General Shopping Center District, to CR-1, General Office. If the rezoning is approved, the developer will construct a 3,022 square foot office building for the International Ministerial Fellowship. Mr. Hickok stated the property is located in the southwest quadrant of 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive. The site consists of 0.54 acres and is undeveloped. A residentially styled professional office building has been designed for this site. The proposed building has a residential style to mimic the residential character of the homes to the north and west. The exterior of the building will be a combination of brick and rock-face block. Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan designated the site as a � PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 33 commercial and residential site. A minor amendment to the comprehensive plan will be required if the site is rezoned. Similar minor amendments have been discussed with the Fridley American Legion and earlier this evening with the Friendly Chevrolet/Geo proposal. These could be under the umbrella of a comprehensive amendment. Mr. Hickok stated the criteria used to evaluate is as follows: l. Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed use for this site is for a general office use. Professional office buildings are a permitted use in the CR-1 district and this use is compatible. 2. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning. Mr. Hickok stated the CR-1 district was created to provide a transition between commercial and residential properties. As such, the proposed use would be compatible with adjacent uses. To the east is C-3 and to the west there is residential. The CR-1 district was created to provide a transition between those two �� which is proposed. 3. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. Mr. Hickok stated there has been an evaluation of the setbacks, building, parking, drainage, landscaping, building materials, etc. Generally, it reveals compliance. There will be a stipulation regarding the landscape. The developer is proposing a bathroom module on the west face of the building which will require a variance and will go through a separate variance process. That would afford them more office and conference space within the building itself. The developer has requested that variance. The use is compatible with the district if the variance is granted. Mr. Hickok stated the site has been vacant since the incorporation of the City. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of Variance Request, VAR #97-18. 2. A new landscape plan will be required and shall be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. A minor comprehensive plan amendment sha].l be processed. � Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. n PLANNING CO�SSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 34 Mr. Oquist asked why was the bathroom module proposed. Mr. Hickok stated, as the petitioner was evaluating their space needs, they determined that the bathroom itself and the necessary hallways, etc., caused the interior space to be cramped. In their effort to create a building on this site, they thought that a bathroom module that is attached to the building would function and look from the exterior like any other portion of the office space and that would provide them with the usable space within the building that they needed. If the variance is not granted, he believed that the plan would go back to the original floor plan without the variance for the bathroom. Mr. Chet Masserano introduced Mr. Houwman, the architect, and Mr. Frank Masserano, the petitioner. He stated that his father, Frank, leases space directly across Moore Lake now. They are from Fridley and want to stay. They are trying to get as much building as possible for continued growth so they can stay for many years. They designed the building to blend into the neighborhood. They have commercial on the south and east and the pump house to the north. �� Mr. Frank Masserano stated, with the proposed variance, they show an 8-foot privacy fence between the building and the house next door and would close it in toward the front of the building. From the street, you would never now 'the bathroom area was not in compliance. It is a very small lot and it is hard to justify it as residential. The pump house is across the street, commercial on either side, and soil correction costs to absorb. Another kind of commercial unit could be a gas station or auto body shop. He lives in the neighborhood and has seen the lot for many years. It is not big enough for a regular commercial developer. Even now, without that module, the building is 2,644 square feet. It is hard to justify the cost of building there. If the City would see fit to get the space for that extra office, they could use it effectively and it would not be an eyesore. He has talked with the neighbors and some are at the meeting. He met with everyone within 350 feet. The second neighbor to the north has some concerns. They had originally designed the site to have an entrance from 63rd. She has small children as does the potential purchaser of the home next door. They had concerns about cars on 63rd. So they came back to have the entrance from East Moore Lake Drive. Mr. Frank Masserano stated one neighbor had concerns about the 8- foot privacy fence between her lot and this property. Kids come through there so they agreed to extend the fence from their back � corner to where it catches the fence from the shopping center. They have met with the community, heard what they are saying, and ^ PLANNING COI�IlrlISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 35 incorporated that into the plan. Ms. Brassam stated she attempting to buy the house next to this property. She asked when the variance would be voted on. Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission would consider this request on October 22. The City Council would see it in November. She would be getting notices regarding the meetings. Ms. Modig asked if she had any problem with the bathroom request. Ms. Brassam stated she did not. They are putting up an 8-foot fence. She was wondering about the height of the building. Mr. Houwman stated the bathroom would be connected and have a roof. The fence will be 8 feet. The site line is such that they will see just the top of the roof. The fence shown in the drawings is the view from 63rd. The fence is as tall as the eaves of the building. The fence is on the property line, the line of site will go up, and all the neighbor would see is the roof. This is a neighborhood thing. Neighbors put fences between themselves all the time. He did not see it as a wall. �` Mr. Frank Masserano stated there are currently trees there. They plan to keep all of the trees. If they have to offset the fence in order to do so, they will do that. On the south side is growth and they plan to leave it. Ms. Brassam asked what type of landscaping they were going to do on the east side. The only other concern was from the house would she be looking at a big fence. They are going to landscape for everyone else but she is looking at a fence. Mr. Chet Masserano stated there will be a fence, tress, and landscaping that is there. Basically it will be like looking at a house next door. Mr. Frank Masserano stated there is a row of trees all along there right now. All those trees will remain on the residential side. There will be 30 to 40 feet of fence to keep kids from c�ming through. If Ms. Brassam closes on the house, they would be happy to plant more trees along there if the neighbor wants that. Mr. Houwman stated, if they do that, Ms. Brassam would have to maintain all that. Mr. Hickok stated it is sometimes hard to imagine what a fence would look like in that same neighborhood. As you drive behind �, the credit union building, they have an 8-foot fence which would give a sense of the scale. � � /"1 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 36 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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 FIEnRTNG CLOSED AT 9:57 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated building would be He is pleased and neighbors. the request is pretty straight forward. The constructed to look like a residential house. impressed with the willingness to work with the MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of a Rezoning, ZOA #97-06, by Frank Masserano III, to rezone the property from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C-3, General Shopping Center District, to CR-1, General Office, to allow construction of a 2,640 square foot office building on Lot 1, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition, together with Outlot A, Shorewood Plaza, reserving easements of record, generally located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive, with the following stipulations: 1. 2. Approval of Variance Request, VAR #97-18. A new landscape plan will be required and shall be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. A minor comprehensive plan amendment shall be processed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED T� MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 1997 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 27, 1997. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Dacy stated the next meeting is on October 15 with a planning area meeting for the comprehensive plan and a public hearing on the ordinance regarding the telecommunications issue. The City has hired a consulting firm to prepare a report on the options ^ PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 37 that the City Council is evaluating for the telecommunications facilities. Ms. McPherson stated the meeting will also include a plan amendment for the northeast corner of University and Mississippi for Walgreens. Also, there will be three requests for Bachmans on property north of Sam's Club. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND.THE OCTOBER 1, 1997, PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:02 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � i , ,� _ .� �� Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary �"� � r r'� S I G N— IN S H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, _� Wednesday, October 1, 1997