Loading...
05/06/1998 - 00003321CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1998 • • •G� G Chairperson Savage called the May 6, 1998, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. GZ�IRNe��� Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Tatting, Planning Assistant Bill Richards, Express Auto Sales & Leasing George Klus, WW Klus Realty Jim Utter, 131 Sylvan Lane _••:• _ • _•: ••; - _►► ► •►�►� •► ►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the April 1, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PlBL1C; HEARINC� �C;nNTINIIED�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMITr SP #98-04, BY ANC�ELES MnRTC�AC�E INVESTMENT/W�N KLl1S REALTY, INC; : To permit the sale and repair of automobiles on Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 3, University Industrial Park, generally located at 7920 and 7976 University Avenue N.E. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, 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 HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. George Klus of VWV Klus Realty has requested a special use permit to allow the outdoor sales and display of a total of 30 automobiles at 7920 and 7976 University Avenue N.E. The site consists of two multi-tenant buildings with addresses !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! ranging from 7920 to 7990 University Avenue. The two buildings are under the same ownership. The parcel is 4.5 acres. The property is zoned C-2, General Business. There is M-1, Light Industrial, to the north; C-2, General Business, to the east; C-3, General Shopping, to the south; and M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, to the west. Mr. Hickok stated the code requires a special use permit for agencies selling and displaying new and/or used vehicles. The code also indicates the required parking ratio for the C-2, General Business, district. Approval of the special use permit would allow the use of 30 parking stalls as a sales area for vehicles. The vehicles would be for sale by the company, Express Auto, which is leasing space at 7920 and 7976 University Avenue. A total of 16 different addresses are available at the two buildings. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Tatting did an inventory of the tenants currently leasing property. These results are included in the agenda packet. The total size of the two buildings is 51,200 square feet; 244 actual parking stalls exist on the site. Because the site is a mixed use, a speculative ratio of 1:200 was placed on the site and would require 256 parking stalls. Apparently at the time the building was constructed, it was deemed appropriate to have 244 parking stalls. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has worked with an architect to determine whether or not they can achieve 256 spaces. The architect has suggested some potential locations for additional stalls on the site as noted on the architect's drawing included in the agenda packet. He believed the original number of parking spaces was accepted by the City based on the uses proposed at that time. There are concerns about the location of the proposed additional parking spaces. Parking stalls are proposed near driveways, and staff likes to keep the parking away from movement areas. The proposed parking spaces suggested to the north of the building would need to be well defined. There is merit to the additional six stalls along the front landscaped area. There are some problems with running into the setback from the front property line and with the driveway entrance making it more difficult to maneuver in that area. The request would reduce the number of available parking stalls by 30 spaces leaving 214 remaining parking stalls. Mr. Hickok stated staff has received a letter from the former developer of the site, Mr. Paschke. He is not in favor of the request due to the type of use and the parking agreement between this site and Main Event (formerly T. R. McCoys). The Police Department has expressed concern that security of vehicles for sale may be difficult. Griep of the Police Department has spoken with the petitioners and has submitted a memo with her response to those original concerns. Due to the mixed nature of the site, it is difficult to determine which vehicles are for sale and which vehicles are for customers. Ms. Griep spoke about the paper on the window required by the state to identify vehicles for sale. Additional lighting and fencing may alleviate the security problem but may be difficult to achieve due to the nature of the site. Mr. Hickok stated that as part of the Express Auto building permit for interior alterations for the site, it was stipulated that no outdoor display of automobiles or other vehicles is !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! permitted. In 1995, one of the petitioners requested a building permit to modify space for what was then called Express Auto Pawnbrokers, Inc. They had started to operate the site as a pawn brokerage for vehicles and ran into difficulties. At that time, he came back and received a signature from a staff person for a license to sell used vehicles in this location. The signature runs contrary to the staff person's knowledge that this would require a special use permit in this location. There are questions about how that happened. It was very clear at the time of the building permit that this was not to be a used car lot. It was represented to be an office location and there would be no vehicles for display or sale outdoors. For a used car license, the State requires a minimum of five outdoor spaces available for sale of vehicles, an office location, the hours posted, etc. A special use permit is required to have a used auto business in this location. There are currently vehicles for sale parked at the site. On any given day, as many as 20 vehicles have been observed. Mr. Hickok stated there are six other vehicle sales lots in the City, including Sam's Club which has a special use permit for a three times per year event in the parking lot over a weekend; a similar special use permit for Columbia Arena for a three-day event; Jim Lupient has a permanent lot; Motor Valet on University Avenue; Five-Star sales lot on Osborne; and Friendly Chevrolet. Mr. Hickok stated the owner of the Five-Star sales lot also owns an auto body operation, which was is in an inappropriate district. Staff contacted the owner explaining that this was an inappropriate location and asked the owner to discontinue operation. As a result, the owner constructed a new building in an appropriate district and a special use permit for that site was approved by the Planning Commission. At the same time, two other locations had state licenses for auto sales lots in inappropriate locations and did not have appropriate signatures on the application from the City. When receiving an auto sales license from the State, the City is required to sign off. In those two instances, the licenses were revoked and those businesses are no longer operating. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of the special use permit because it creates a deficiency in the number of required parking stalls and because it poses a potential security risk. A letter from the petitioner states they have worked to get a cross parking arrangement for 28 additional parking stalls in addition to those potential stalls identified by the architect. When a use takes a property beyond their capacity and causes possible parking on another site, it is different than having by choice additional parking area through cross parking arrangements. Mr. Hickok stated further reasons for recommending denial include the inappropriate use for a multi-tenant building. The City has had other requests for an auto sales operation in a parking lot at the Skywood Mall as a permanent use. A request was also made for the former Lampert building which was not permitted. This is an after-the-fact request for a special use permit for auto sales. The business is currently operating. Again, it was clear at the time of the building permit that they not display or sell vehicles on this site without a special use permit. Therefore, this is in defiance of the building permit stipulation. There ! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► 11 � . • • ; ' � • are potential circulation problems. Some of the proposed additional parking has the potential to be dangerous. There is also the potential for auto theft and robbery. This is an area of a higher incidence of auto theft and robbery. He reviewed the police map showing the location of car thefts in the city. Mr. Hickok stated there is also a current inappropriate use by the same petitioners at 7920 University Avenue. In that location, the petitioner is leasing this site for auto repairs for the auto sales operation. Auto repair in this district also requires a special use permit. Further, there are vehicles stored for periods of time at 7920 University Avenue related to the Auto Express operation. According to the State Licensing Division, they cannot have vehicles stored at another location with the license issued for this site. The petitioner stated he was not aware of this requirement but will be back to ask for a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated Ms. Griep has stated the lighting appears to be appropriate. Staff believes the lighting is questionable in this area. Staff feels the lighting should be brighter which would allow for better visibility and deter auto theft. There is no segregation of cars or safeguards in this location. Ms. Savage asked if cars are now being displayed and what can the City do about it. Mr. Hickok stated, yes, cars are being displayed. The City has the right to contact the State and have the license revoked. This special use permit request comes as the result of the code enforcement activity efforts. Staff contacted the building owners notifying them that this is an inappropriate use for the location, that a special use permit is required, and they are now going through the process. The petitioner asked if they could operate while going through the process. The stipulation was part of the building permit, and staff is frustrated that the operation exists. If the Planning Commission and City Council deny the request, staff will proceed to contact the State and have the license revoked for that area. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner continued to display autos even though the matter had been at the City over a month and asked if staff had spoken with the petitioner about it. Mr. Hickok stated, yes, cars continue to be displayed. Staff has not attempted to have cars removed in the interim until the decision regarding the special use permit is made. Mr. Klus stated he is the property manager of the center and has a lease with the tenant. He is not the owner of the center. He wanted to review the history. He felt there were some gaps in the information. The tenant has been there since December 1995. In April 1996, Ms. McPherson signed the Minnesota Dealers License application on behalf of the City for the tenant to be there. The City has been aware of this tenant. The tenant did come in during 1995 for a building permit. He later came back when he changed businesses and asked the City to sign off, which they did. Mr. Klus stated they were made aware as a representative of the owner in the late part of !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! the fourth quarter of 1997 that they needed a special use permit for the center. Up to then he had not been made aware that they were going to need a special use permit for this tenant. The tenant has been there since 1995 so they are applying for a permit. They started the process of having an architect do some work and decide what the best thing would be for them to do. They applied for a special use permit in February 1998. His father was here and was presented the staff report which they had not seen. That was why he asked for an extension and to give them time to go over the report. Mr. Hickok delivered a copy of this staff report to them last week and they have since reviewed it. Mr. Klus stated they are here for a special use permit for this tenant in the center. He was surprised to see a letter from Mr. Paschke, who has not had any ownership with the center for many years. They work for the owner who received the property when it was in receivership. They are not aware of any recorded easements on the property as referred to by Mr. Paschke. When he talks about the ownership of the center, Mr. Paschke does not refer to the correct owner of the center. There was a partnership that did own it before it went into receivership and that has nothing to do with the current owner. If there is a recorded easement issue, he would like to have a copy of it because they have not found one. Mr. Klus stated he wrote a letter on February 13 because a City employee, Ms. McPherson, told them they could look at the uses of their tenants to help determine the parking requirements at that time. In his letter, he stated he would divide the space between office, storage and warehouse and look at those parking ratios. He worked with the architect and, with the type of tenants they have in the building, determined that they meet those codes. When they came back and with the new staff, they were told that they did not meet the code so they went back to do some more work on the parking. Mr. Klus stated the parking lot has had 244 parking stalls since it was built. Mr. Tatting stated there are 60 people employed there. If so and they all drive to work, that still leaves a lot of extra parking for people who are coming and going. Besides that point, they want to meet the 255 space requirement. They looked at that to see how they could handle it without any variances. As his letter indicates, they probably have 100 to 150 parking spaces that are available at any one time during the day. There just has not been a need for that. The City could live with that until this year. He was not sure it would change this year versus the last 15 or 16 years. They want to try to live with 255 plus. At the same time, there was the issue that if you are going to subtract parking because of the cars there to sell, then you really need 10 more parking spaces. There is an area between the buildings for parking, and they thought it would be a good way to do a cross parking agreement with the neighbors to the north. Once in a while, they also have some of their employees on the south end of their building park on their lot. So, they did a cross parking easement which does not have to be recorded and which is an agreement between two owners to add 38 more parking spaces. Mr. Klus stated it was not brought to their attention until last year that they needed a special use permit. In April 1996, the dealers license for used cars was signed by a City staff !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! . person so the City did acknowledge that there was a dealer there. On page 2 of his letter, he says the City's concern is about a use contrary to a special use permit which staff does not believe is appropriate for the site. He needs to know what appropriate is because under the current zoning this is an appropriate use with a special use permit, and that is why they are there. Mr. Klus stated he wrote a letter dated April 27, 1998, to address Ms. Griep's concerns. He and the tenants met with Ms. Griep from the Police Department about her concerns. She was understanding that they were really a full fledged used parking lot, and they are not. In looking at the Police Department security issues, they are not the typical dealership. People only come there invited or with set up appointments. The hours are listed under #10, and those are not the typical hours of a dealership. There are no balloons, strobe lights, or windows painted to attract people to the. It is easy to distinguish which cars are his and which are the tenants. The tenants usually do not drive cars with stickers. He works on an appointment basis. They advertise and get referrals for their appointments. These are all stipulations. He asked Mr. Richards to put these together because these are things he works with every day. Mr. Klus stated this has not changed since the day Mr. Richards got his dealers license signed off by the City. He did not think that most residents in the City know there is a leasing dealership place back in that corner. They have never once had a theft since he has been there. Mr. Klus thought that most of the areas of high theft shown on the map are apartment complexes. Also, he has not had one tenant complaint about this business. Mr. Hickok stated it is true that there are a large number of vehicle incidences at apartment parking lots. He would be hard pressed to say because it is an apartment building, but rather that it is outside parking with vehicles unattended for long periods of time. That is the important thread. In an industrial district, there are parking lots where vehicles are parked and folks work in shifts. In the area where this business is located, there are a number of thefts. Ms. Griep mentioned that north of 73rd and along University Avenue there is a high intensity of activity not only vehicle theft but robberies such as stolen car stereos, wheels, etc. Mr. Klus stated they have not had one incident. There was discussion about lighting. They have not had any issues with lighting. They have been managing the center since 1995 when it was taken back from receivership. When they took the building over, it was nearly empty. There is some empty space today. When you look at landscaping, it is not a building that sticks out and grabs you. It is behind Godfather's and it is hard to see the vehicles from University. The cars are screened from site. Mr. Klus stated one of the concerns he understood was that the City might be concerned that if they allow this they may have to allow it in another multi-tenant building. His suggestion is to put those ten stipulations on the special use permit so it will keep other people out. A typical dealer is not going to want to live with those things. Mr. Richards is not the typical dealer. In going through the letter on page 2, in April 1996, a staff person !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! signed off on the state application for a license. He cannot believe the City can come back today and close it down when they signed the license. Mr. Klus stated Mr. Richards started the business in 1995 as an auto pawn broker. In August 1996, the State of Minnesota changed the law and no longer allowed auto pawn brokers in the State of Minnesota. Mr. Richard spent $13,000 for a pawn brokers license that he could use for only eight months. He then looked for a way to stay in business and maintain the lease he had signed with them. The City knew he was there and could have told them in 1996 to get a special use permit. He did not hear about that until 1 1/2 years later or they would have gladly worked with the City. Mr. Klus stated page 3 of the staff report states the plan shows 9 additional stalls that may be possible and 12-24 stalls possible with a variance. He thought there were 11 stalls that were permitted and meet the requirements of the law. Even though he can appreciate what Mr. Hickok is saying about turning radius, they meet the turn ratios that are required by law. With the cross parking agreement, they go from 244 to 283 spaces which is more than enough. They would never use them all. In one of our discussions, Mr. Hickok raised the question of what would happen if they got a big tenant and they needed more parking. It is not going to happen. He does not know any big retailers that would want to go in there. Klus Realty has signed a letter of intent to purchase this building so they have a long term interest in this building. They want to be part of this community. They do have a cross parking agreement which is allowed to meet the code. Mr. Klus stated the State Dealers' Division indicates a license was issued for used automobiles at 7976 University Avenue. Right now Mr. Richards is using 7920 on a month- to-month basis because he recognizes he must apply for a special use permit. The tenant is not selling cars at 7920, so this address has nothing to do with the dealership license. Only 7976 has to do with the issue of the dealership license. If he understands correctly, Mr. Richards must have a garage within 10 miles. That has nothing to do with this special use permit. He does not see how that is relevant. Mr. Klus stated page 3 of the staff report discusses zoning. Staff has talked about rezoning the property. The zoning has nothing to do with the special use permit. The City has suggested rezoning but, if they were to rezone it, they would be a non-permitted use under the proposed zoning classification. They are not interested in doing that. That would have financial ramifications for them. Mr. Klus stated the report talks about how you value a center. He has a real problem with somebody who wants to help him evaluate his center. It has nothing to do with the issue tonight, and he would hope they would stay away from how they evaluate a center and how they look at the zoning. That is a non-issue as he sees it. Mr. Klus stated staff states they "believe" the use is inappropriate for the location but it is a permitted use under the zoning. He cannot deal with "believes" because he does not know !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! : what "believes" means other than that is a personal preference. He has no tenants that have complained about this individual. They are working with the City as quickly and as best as they can. This tenant is not running a typical used car dealership and that is what is hard. He did not know how many Commission members had driven by the location; but, if they did, he would bet they did not even notice it was a used car dealership or a place where they were selling used cars. Mr. Oquist stated he did drive by there. It was obvious to him. It also seems to have expanded in the last several months. He does not recall seeing as many cars as he has recently. Mr. Klus stated he wanted to deal with concrete issues. They are talking about permitted uses. He cannot deal with nebulous types of findings that tell him "I believe" should be here. A cross parking easement does meet the requirements of the code for parking. When talking about security issues and the lighting, he thought the lighting was adequate. Even though there have been thefts along 73rd and they have not had any issues, is that any reason to keep out businesses along 73rd? He did not think so. He thought they were all working together to prevent that problem. Mr. Klus stated Mr. Tatting's memo shows they have 60 employees at the complex. He thought that was high. They have lived with 244 parking spaces since the early 1980's. There is not a parking issue there. He does not understand that parking is an issue there. He has shown they can add to that to make 255 and can add 28 more with cross parking. He thought that met the criteria. They are not asking for any parking variances and they are not reducing the number of parking stalls. Mr. Klus stated that fencing is an issue he does not understand at all. Fencing does not seem relevant to this site at all for the number of cars they are talking about. He explained the pawn broker issue was changed because state law changed. They are not a Jim Lupient, not a Motor Valet, not a Five Star, not a Friendly Chevrolet. This is a small operation and cannot be compared to those operations. Again, the City signed off on this location. Regarding the statement of potential circulation problems, they meet all the requirements for the parking stall and for distance from the buildings. The architect thoroughly checked into that. They are not asking for the five spaces at the entrance. They are not a Skywood Mall nor do they want to be a Skywood Mall. They are working not in defiance with the City but with the City. Mr. Kondrick asked how many tenants are in the buildings exclusive of this tenant. Mr. Klus stated he believed there were 13 or 14 tenants today. Mr. Kondrick asked what would happen if they lose one or two tenants and they re-lease to another party who would have 20 employees resulting in a big change in the number of ! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► 11 ! . • •: • � • employees working there and requiring more parking. What happens to the parking ratio then? Mr. Klus stated they would still meet the parking ratio. There is not an issue there. They have 283 parking stalls and the City requires 255 so they would meet that even with the number of cars they are asking for. They would meet or are real close to the 1:200 ratio that is required. At the same time, if they have a tenant with 20 to 30 employees, they would need a large space. The largest space they have available is 8,350 square feet formerly occupied by Total Bedroom, which is at the opposite end of the center. The tenants they have are strong tenants doing good business. They do not see them leaving. They just do not have the space for someone to come in and have that number of employees with the building as it is configured. Mr. Oquist asked how many cars the tenant typically has on the site. Mr. Klus stated he would estimated they have between 20 to 30 cars parked in front of the building at 7976. Ms. Savage asked why the tenant continues to display autos when the City Council has not made a decision on the matter, and they are in violation. Mr. Klus stated he did not think they were in violation because the City signed off on the dealers license for this location. Ms. Savage stated that is up to dispute. She asked if Mr. Klus was saying that his tenant is correct to continue to display automobiles before being given a special use permit. Mr. Klus stated he would say the City signed off on the license. They do approve of what they are doing. Also, they were not aware they needed a special use permit until the fourth quarter of 1997. When they were made aware of it, they worked with the City on the issue. Ms. Savage asked if it would have shown good faith to have moved the automobiles until such time that a decision was made. Mr. Klus stated the tenant has a lease. The City is aware that they are operating there. Staff elected to allow the tenant to continue while working on this issue. This also means that the tenant would have to close their business and perhaps file bankruptcy. This is also a financial hardship for the ownership of the center. When they were told about the problem, they started working on the problem to solve it. Mr. Kuechle stated the dealers license as signed was really a separate issue. Just because you have a license to sell used cars does not have anything to do with the requirement for a special use permit nor does it in any way give you permission to go against the original building permit stipulation which said there is to be no outdoor display !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! 1 of vehicles. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. Mr. Klus stated the license was signed by the City. The license stated that the dealership has a display area either indoors or outdoors large enough to display at leave five vehicles and that the display area be separate from other businesses and their inventory. Mr. Oquist stated this is true of the license, but not true of the ordinance that governs the property. The tenant has a license to sell vehicles but now you also have to deal with the property. Mr. Klus stated if they had been made aware of that in 1996 they would have done so at that time. Mr. Richards stated he is the owner of the business. It is true that if he cannot operate his business, everything that he has and that he has worked for will be gone. With respect to the number of vehicles, the number fluctuates. Thirty is a livable number but very small if you look at other dealerships. Due to capital constraints, the inventory goes up and down anywhere from 10 cars towards the end of the month and then he can buy some cars and it gets back up to 20 or 30 cars. It would not go past that. Mr. Hickok stated he would like to respond to some of the comments. To clarify, a special use permit in a zoning district is not a permitted use. A special use permit is put in that section of the code recognizing that there may be businesses that would be incompatible with other uses, that having businesses co-exist may not be possible. The Planning Commission and City Council have within their right to say no to a special use permit if they feel there are conditions beyond that which could be mitigated through stipulations. It is legally correct to say that it is not a permitted use but a special use and that under special conditions it could be permitted. Mr. Hickok stated a special use permit goes with the land. He commended the petitioner for his effort in putting stipulations on his use to separate him from some of the other things that may not be attractive about a dealership, but the next user at this site at this address would have a special use permit to sell cars. It is filed with the County and goes with that address. Mr. Hickok stated it is important to recognize that he has stated beliefs in the staff report and that is why he was hired. He is a professional in these matters, and his belief is that this is an inappropriate use and that the special use permit is not appropriate for this location. Mr. Hickok stated the space formerly occupied by Total Bedroom is available and consists of approximately 8,000 square feet. It is important to know that behind that space is an Onan training center site where they have training on site at least two times per week. They could have as many as 50 students in that location. Certainly, they have parking !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! stalls near their space; however, if there is a development in the Total Bedroom space, that would create a conflict with the Onan training center may occur and push cars down to the south end of the site. There is some talk of a restaurant going into that space. There are concerns with traffic parking and circulation if happened. Those are the kinds of things that cause staff to look at the overall site and sometimes apply a speculative parking ratio recognizing that things can shift back and forth. Mr. Hickok stated a cross parking agreement may be for the enjoyment and convenience of guests but not necessarily because there is something that pushes them off site. He thought it interesting that the folks on the other end of the reciprocal parking agreement are parking on the subject site which tells him there are more cars than are generated from the businesses in this location. Mr. Hickok stated that regarding a rezoning, the petitioner and his father indicated that this is not a retail location. The sign they have on site says retail/office/warehouse. This site is not zoned for office/warehouse. Hand written notes on the side of the architect's notes state a warehouse use having a 1:2000 parking ratio would be applied. While it is true this can be applied to an industrial zone, this is not zoned as an industrial site. Though they claim that their market is not retail, they have no great access off University Avenue and don't have an immediate break for that retail customer to make that impulse move, etc., so that is not the market they are after. That is where staff indicated that perhaps it is an office/warehouse market that they should be after and, surrounded by other light industrial uses, there may be some merit in considering that. There are separate issues here. There is a special use permit being requested for a use that staff feels is inappropriate. That fact aside, staff feels the petitioner should look at the long term use of that property. If it is truly a market situation where their market is office/ warehouse, then they need to be an industrial district but they should not be promoting office/warehouse uses until they are. Mr. Hickok stated that regarding the value of the property, the value of the property was determined by the assessor. That is the value applied to the property for tax purposes. The assessor is the person responsible for putting values on the land and buildings and the taxes are paid in accordance with those values. His indication to staff is that the zoning on a property does not speak to the value. The zoning is secondary to the income that can be generated. A problem may result, however, if the value of the property has been represented to a bank as having an $11.00/square foot income generation potential and their collateral is based on that, when in reality $6.00/square foot is what a property might generate. Changing the property to an industrial use may match the market. If that is true, maybe rezoning to match the use is something that should be considered. Mr. Hickok stated that as far as the parking ratio, they need to be careful about the numbers. When talking about 244 parking spaces versus 283 spaces, the reality is that without variances or without a cross parking arrangement , they are at the number that was approved for that site originally. When talking about the site, it is hidden. All of these things seem to be a condition as he analyzes the site for things such as vehicle theft and !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! potential robbery of items from cars. Mr. Hickok stated that he cannot say why the State license was issued. He finds it interesting that the penmanship on the business name is different from the answers to the questions. Answering questions after obtaining a signature could possibly change the intent. With the signature on the license and if the State sees it as valid, the City does have the authority to contact the State and indicate that this is inappropriate for this location. They do not have a special use permit. The City is not bound by the signature of an individual. The license can be revoked with a signature that was issued in error. Mr. Hickok stated he had conference calls between Mr. George Klus, Mr. W. Klus, and the code enforcement officer in September 1997. Staff reminded them that they need a special use permit because they were operating contrary to the law. In February 1998, the application came in. Staff could have pulled the license in September 1997 at the time of the first contact and perhaps should have. Nonetheless, the petitioner has made an application for a special use permit and that application is now being processed. Mr. Klus stated he thought this was becoming personal, and he did not think this is a personal issue and did want to make it personal. He has no hard feelings toward the City of Fridley or toward the staff. Even though they have had some tough meetings, he has not hard feelings. He is concerned about the accusations that have been made. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Hickok to address the issue of the State license and the issue of a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated the license is issued by the State and says that the dealership at the address named above is permitted or a conditional use within the district. The words "permitted" and "use" were circled on the license. The fact is that those circles were done in error. Being done in error, there is case law supporting that the City would not stand on that signature. That is a separate issue. A special use permit is clearly required in this district. They do not have one and, therefore, are not in compliance. The City can call the State, inform the State that the business is not in compliance, and the State can revoke the license. Mr. Klus stated that at the same time, they have addressed the security issues and the parking issues. Those issues have been solved as far as he can tell. Mr. Oquist stated the petitioner has not addressed the security issue of a fence around the property nor addressed the issue of auto theft. Mr. Klus stated it is not required that they have a fence. They have lighting. There are people coming day and night. They have not had a problem since 1995. He does not see that a fence is required. !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! Mr. Oquist stated the petitioner has not addressed the security issue other than saying they have not had a car stolen. Mr. Klus stated they have adequate lighting. The tenants in the building have no complaints. They are trying very hard to work with the City. They are considering legal counsel. He is very concerned that when they have addressed an issue, there is a new issue. He has taken the staff report and has addressed those issues. He is now being told that the City is questioning the tenants in his building that has a history of being there. In some cases, they are going back 10 years and saying they are not sure that this center should have what it has. That is of concern to the owners. It is a concern to their liability and to the tenants. If the City continues to address those issues, then they have no choice but to seek legal counsel. Mr. Oquist stated staff had mentioned two addresses and that the State was not aware of the other issue. He asked staff to go over that point again. Mr. Hickok stated the State was not aware of the address of 7920 or that there were vehicles at that location. Mr. Klus stated vehicles are not being sold at 7920. The license states vehicles are to be sold at 7976. There are no vehicles being sold at 7920. Ms. Savage asked why the vehicles are at 7920 University. Mr. Klus stated these are vehicles owned by the owner but he does not have them in the sales part because they still need work or they need cleaning before they can be put into the sales lot. Mr. Richards stated the only reason the State may have a question is because of the display for sale for which there is an additional form that needs to be filled out. In this situation, it is not applicable because that is not the use. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Klus if he had any additional comments. Mr. Klus stated he did not at this time. Mr. Richards thanked the Commission for their consideration in light of the unique situation that Mr. Hickok has been put through and the diligence he has put forth. He stated that, hopefully, they can come together and look at the true issue and the respective parties that are related to it. MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE ! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► 11 � . • • ; ' � • MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:50 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she would have to recommend denial. She is concerned about the use. She is more concerned about the use than about the parking spaces. She is concerned and agrees with staff that the use is not appropriate. They have spent a lot of time with surveys and trying to improve the quality of life and the image of Fridley. She did not think another used car dealership would do that. This is a complicated issue, and there are a lot of factors involved. But, at this point, she would be inclined to recommend denial. Mr. Kuechle agreed. He believes that this is not a good use in that area. It is a matter of fact that a special use permit is required and there is a certain amount of latitude given as to whether or not this is a good use. He feels it is not appropriate and would recommend denial. Mr. Saba states he has respect for staff s opinion but he is struggling with this. With proper stipulations, this may be resolvable. The site is a very sensitive site in a sensitive area. However, he, too, would recommend denial. Mr. Kondrick agreed with Mr. Saba. He has some mixed emotions about this. He can think of some ways to have some other binding restrictions or stipulations on this property, but he is going to go along with staff s judgment and recommend denial. Mr. Oquist concurred. In the past, there have been times where they have not agreed with staff. This time he agrees and feels the same way. He has some mixed emotions. He has a business and can appreciate the individual and his business. He is not as concerned about the parking as he is the use on this site and the requirement and need for a special use permit. They just don't have the stipulations. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend denial of Special Use Permit, SP #98-04, by Angeles Mortgage Investment Trust/WW Klus Realty, Inc., to permit the sale and repair of automobiles on Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 3, University Industrial Park, generally located at 7920 and 7976 University Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated this item would be considered by the City Council on May 18. 2. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF PLAT RECJIIEST, P S#98-03, BY .IAMES 11TTER: To replat property on part of Lot 6, Block 2, Moore Lake Hills Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, to create two conforming lots on which to build. Lot 6, Block 2, Moore Lake Hills will become Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Everett Addition, generally located at 6084 Woody Lane N. E. !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, 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 HEARING OPEN AT 8:57 P.M. Mr. Tatting stated the plat request is to subdivide a parcel located at 6084 Woody Lane N.E. The existing lot is 26,650 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1 district is 9,000 square feet. The proposed lots would be 12,900 square feet and 13,750 square feet. The minimum lot width is 75 feet. Both lots would be 85 feet wide. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the surrounding properties. Mr. Tatting stated the lot is proposed to be split nearly down the middle with the easterly portion having frontage on Woody Lane to the east and the westerly lot fronting Central Avenue to the west. The existing house with attached garage on the easterly portion meets all of the setback requirements. There is a detached garage on the proposed lot to the west which meets the code requirements; but, for a garage to exist on a parcel, a principal dwelling also needs to be on the parcel. Anoka County has requested an additional 10-foot easement along Central Avenue, which he believed had already been done. Mr. Tatting stated the topography has a fairly severe slope. The placement of a house on the proposed Lot 2 could be something of an issue so the Engineering Department should review the grading and drainage plans before the actual construction of the principal structure begins. Mr. Tatting stated proposed Lot 2 also needs City sewer and water. To the west is Central Avenue with sewer and water lines. The existing house on Lot 1 has sewer and water from Woody Lane. Running the water and sewer lines from Woody Lane would require a lift station. It would be easier to bring in service from Central Avenue. The County is doing work on Central Avenue this summer so it makes sense to put the stubs in to the property before construction. Also, creating a new lot requires park fees and storm water fees. Mr. Tatting stated staff recommends approval of the lot split request with the following stipulations: A house must be built on Lot 2, Block 1, of the Everett Addition within one year of the approval of the plat or the garage must be removed. 2. An easement for an additional 10 feet of right-of-way adjacent to Central Avenue N. E. (CSAH 35) for future reconstruction purposes be recorded with the County. 3. Before a building permit is granted for Lot 2, the grading and drainage plan should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! . 4. If Lot 2 is to connect to the City utility services located in the right-of-way of Central Avenue N.E. (CSAH 35), the connection should be made prior to Anoka County's reconstruction of CSAH 35. 5. Park fees of $750 shall be paid before the building permit is granted. 6. A$1,000 storm water fee shall be paid before the building permit is granted. Mr. Kuechle asked, in stipulation #1, when does a house constitute being built> Mr. Tatting stated that is when the building permit is issued. It also has a time frame involved in which the structure must be completed. Mr. Oquist stated stipulation #5 requires park fees. Is this typical for a house? Mr. Tatting stated $750 is typical for a lot. Mr. Saba asked if there are any plans at present to build a house on that lot. Mr. Tatting stated he is not sure. Mr. Utter stated they have someone interested in the lot. The lot to the east with access to Woody Lane and with the house has a signed purchase agreement. The realtor that has done the work on the sale of that portion of the property also has a buyer interested in the lot. The easement may have been an issue originally because of the drawings as drawn up by the surveying firm and sent to the County. The County sent them back with the changes they wanted to see. He was in contact with Anoka County to see if there are any problems and he has a letter indicating that they need the 10 feet. The lot that was south of this parcel was the same and split into two lots. One of the stipulations was that there is a curb cut for a driveway to the garage and Anoka County requested that this access point remain the same. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner has any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Utter stated, no. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:08 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he thought the request was straight forward. !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! Mr. Oquist recommended changing stipulation #1 to indicate that a building permit be issued within one year rather than stating a house must be built. Mr. Kuechle asked if they should add a stipulation that the driveway cut remain the same. Mr. Tatting stated they did not need it because the Engineering Department will review the grading and drainage plan and it seems that this is the only logical place to put the access. Mr. Utter stated there has been quite a bit of drainage work done from Hillcrest on down, Last year, the neighbor to the north had their retaining wall fall down and there was only one drainage basin. They installed another one and put it all the way through the property. They have also done a lot of work on Central Avenue. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of Plat Request P.S. #98-03, by James Utter, to replat property on part of Lot 6, Block 2, Moore Lake Hills Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota, to create two conforming lots which will become Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Everett Addition, generally located at 6084 Woody Lane, with the following stipulations: A building permit shall be issued on Lot 2, Block 1, of the Everett Addition within one year of the approval of the plat or the garage must be removed. 2. An easement for an additional 10 feet of right-of-way adjacent to Central Avenue N. E. (CSAH 35) for future reconstruction purposes be recorded with the County. 3. Before a building permit is granted for Lot 2, the grading and drainage plan should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 4. If Lot 2 is to connect to the City utility services located in the right-of-way of Central Avenue N.E. (CSAH 35), the connection should be made prior to Anoka County's reconstruction of CSAH 35. 5. Park fees of $750 shall be paid before the building permit is granted. 6. A$1,000 storm water fee shall be paid before the building permit is granted. 7. The driveway cut shall remain in the existing location. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on May 18, 1998. � ►�_ ► ►e► • :. �_ 1�_ .��_ !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! : Mr. Tatting stated he has talked with the engineers about the issues. They are looking at doing a slurry coat on the bikeway on 73rd Avenue between University and New Brighton and along University Avenue between Mississippi and 69th. There are some financial issues to determine whether they are actually going to do this. The County is looking at doing Community Park and Locke Park also with a slurry coat. Again, there is a financial issue involved. Ms. Savage asked if the County was considering doing this along University Avenue along the southern portion of Fridley. There is a lot of improvement needed there. Mr. Tatting stated he was not sure. The trails he listed earlier were the only trails mentioned. Mr. Kuechle asked if anything was proposed to happen to the trail between the Mississippi River and East River Road. Mr. Tatting stated he did not think so. The County only mentioned Community Park and Locke Park. Mr. Saba asked if there were any plans to maintain the excessive weed growth along the bike trail on University. This is a trail that gets a lot of use but looks terrible. Mr. Tatting stated this trail is in the State right-of-way and MnDOT only mows twice a season. The City did at one time contract for service to take care of it but that got expensive. Mr. Saba stated the City could work with businesses to adopt a portion of the trail in order to maintain it on a regular basis. Mr. Hickok stated last week the staff at Bob's Produce cleaned the road along University Avenue from just south of their site to the next cross street. That is a commendable effort from Bob's Produce. That does point to the fact that it is important to the businesses to look good also. He thinks it would make sense to talk to our businesses that do not maintain and see what their interest is. There are some great efforts there by some businesses. Staff is hearing from residents that they are tired of the weeds and tired of the unkempt look. It is not good for the image and residents want to address it. Staff will work toward solutions. Mr. Saba stated he would like to see Bob's Produce officially commended for their efforts and to encourage others do the same thing. Perhaps the City would do a program similar to the State adopt-a-highway program such as adopt-a-trail. Mr. Tatting stated that came up in an office discussion. Staff will look into that type of a program, perhaps putting a sign up on the road. ! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► 11 ! . • •: • � • Mr. Saba stated it would not be hard to put a sign up. Next year is the 50th anniversary of the City. It would be good to have a beautification project along those trails. � � ■ 11 \ � ■ �'� i •�i �" � �1111 �\ 11 \ MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting dated April 8, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. : . ►� ► • . �-: ••; .• ► :. : � •�►� ► _ .•: � ►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting dated April 2, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . : . ►� ► • . _': • ": '_:. :- : : _ •► • ►� ►� • ► ►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting dated April 6, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. •►�': ■ ► ' '► '�_ Mr. Hickok stated the City conducted a series of six meetings with the seven planning areas related to the comprehensive plan. They are now moving into the next phase which involves vision meetings. A vision meeting is a group of people gathering to discuss the City's future. Anyone who lives, works, or owns a business in the City is invited. The first meeting will be held on Thursday, May 28, 7:00 p.m. and on Thursday, June 25, 7:00 p.m. in the gymnasium of the Fridley Community Center, 6085 Seventh Street. Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of the first meeting is to talk about what is Fridley. What does the community want in the year 2010 and in the year 2020? What characteristics do they want the City of Fridley to have? !►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► 11! . ••: '! 1 Mr. Hickok stated the purpose of the second meeting is to explore the ideas identified in the first meeting, weigh priorities, and identify benchmarks for success. Mr. Hickok stated Horsington Koegler Group, Inc., a planning consultant team, has been hired to facilitate these meetings for the City. They use group discussion techniques and have extensive experience in the metro area. The public will be invited through a press release, a newsletter article, and cable television. There will also be a Mayor's invitation going out to a cross section of the community to assure a balance of ideas and opinions. Commission members are invited. Mr. Hickok stated that after the meetings are completed, a summary will be compiled and published in the newspaper with a return comment sheet. The outcomes of these meetings will be reviewed with the commissions and Council members. Staff will then begin the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. Mr. Hickok stated the Horsington Koegler Group was hired for the vision meeting process only. Staff is preparing a request for proposal at this time for completion of the plan. The tentative consultant start date for that is June 1998. More public meetings will occur in late 1998 or early 1999. e� • :►►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 7, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary