Loading...
PL 08/03/2005 - 30881,-� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Savage called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 PM. ROLL CALL Members Present: Diane Savage Barbara Johns David Kondrick Larry Kuechle Dean Saba Leroy Oquist Members Absent: Brad Dunham Others Present: Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Fritz Knaak, City Attomey � APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - July 6 and July 20, 2005 � MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to approve the minutes as presented. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tabled public hearing discussion regarding rezoning request ZOA #05-03 by JLT East River Road LLC, regarding the rezoning of 5601 East River Road from M2, Heavy Industrial to C3, General Shopping. MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLC HEARING OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. 1 � Ms. Stromberg stated this rezoning request was continued from the July 20th meeting. She briefly reviewed the presentation she made at the previous meeting explaining that the petitioner is seeking the rezoning so they can market the site to potential commercial buyers. It is the petitioner's intention to ask for the rezoning at this time and once a specific user (or users) has been identified, the petitioner will come back for the second reading before the Council with a detailed site plan and any other City requirements. The petitioner has requested ample time between first and second reading to negotiate with potential users and develop a site plan based on those users. The petitioner has also waived the state statute 15.99 requirement to allow them the time they need to market this site. At the July 20'h meeting this matter was tabled as a result of concems expressed by the Longview Fibre Company, which is located north of the subject property. The concems brought forward by Longview included traffic conflict and a perceived incompatibility of neighboring uses. The petitioner and the Longview Fibre Company have had an opportunity to meet since the July ZOth meeting and came up with three conditions for approval of this rezoning request. 1) Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre (which approval will not be unreasonably withheld) that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements to and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed with the County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no corresponding charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required traffic improvements. 2) Longview Fibre, prior to final site plan approval, receiving written notice (at its plant c/or Mr. Comier, and to the attention of Joseph Finley, Esq. at Leonard Street) of all hearings, before the Planning Commission or the City Council, which involve any � rezoning, comprehensive plan amendment, site plan approval, or platting of the JLT Property. 3) Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants, substantially in the attached form, within a reasonable time following second reading and final passage of the rezoning ordinance. Ms. Stromberg explained that staff will include conditions #1 and #3 as stipulations on the proposed rezoning request and staff will use condition #2 as instruction to ensure that both Mr. Comier at Longview Fibre Company and Joseph Finley at Leonard, Street and Deinard, will be notified prior to final site plan approval. It should be noted that as part of the final site plan approval for this site, staff would require detailed site plans, which would include a traffic management study as well as all of the other standard site plan requirements and documents. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request as the proposed rezoning is an extension of the existing C3 zoning along the Interstate 694 corridor and the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If approved, staff recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1) Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for environmental impact review. 2) Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and landscaping details, prior to second reading of the rezoning ordinance. (Petitioner has waived 15.99 rights in order to comply with this stipulation.) 3) Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre (which approval will not be unreasonably withheld) that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements ^ to and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed with the County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no 2 � corresponding charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required traffic improvements. 4) Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants, substantially in the attached form, within a reasonable time following second reading and final passage of the rezoning ordinance. Ms. Stromberg explained that the access to both the petitioner's property and the Longview Fibre is not a pubic street. The petitioner owns the property where the access is located and Longview has an easement across the petitioner's property for access. Jay Lindgren, land use attomey representing the petitioner, stated they support the staff s recommendation and all the stipulations. They have had a good opportunity to meet with Mr. Finley, representing Longview, they're in full agreement and believe that these are good additions to this recommendation. Joseph Finley, land use attomey representing Longview Fibre, stated the process worked the way it was supposed to and they had very good negotiations with the petitioner. The issues can be handled with a declaration of covenants which will bind JLT Company and Longview Fibre. He is satisfied with the stipulations as written and has no further concems. Commissioner Kondrick questioned if Mr. Finley is satisfied that a change in use will not create difficulties for the truck traffic into the Longview Fibre property. Mr. Finley responded if the easement remains the same and the traffic from the JLT site � increases significantly there could be a problem. However, the condition included as a part of this approval gives Longview the opportunity to review the proposed use on this site prior to the second reading of the rezoning ordinance. They believe there are safeguards in place. MOTIOIV by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42 P.M. Commissioner Kuechle commented that the major concems expressed at the previous meeting have been addressed and he was glad that the petitioner and Longview Fibre were able to work together successfully. Commissioner Kondrick stated he is concemed about the impact on the truck traffic for Longview Fibre because trucks already wait a lengthy period of time at that access point. He asked if Anoka County has been notified of this proposal and if they're prepared to improve the intersection if necessary. Ms. Stromberg explained that Anoka County has asked to be kept informed of the process and will provide feedback once there is a tenant set for this site. Also, any changes in the access would be the responsibility of the petitioner. MOTION by Commissioner Johns, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to recommend approval of ZOA #05-03 by JLT East River Road LLC, at 5601 East River Road from M2, Heavy /'"'� Industrial to C3, General Shopping with the stipulations as presented. � � UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. Consideration of a Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CP #05-02, by the City of Fridley for Timothy VanAuken, to make the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation for 1475 and 1485 — 73`d Avenue consistent. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:46 P.M. Ms. Jones explained this is being initiated by the City as Mr. VanAuken has not requested a rezoning related to this matter. There is a discrepancy in the Comprehensive Plan that must be addressed to guide the future zoning designation of this property. On June 27, 2005, the City Council approved a preliminary plat for this property presented by the owner, Timothy VanAuken. Mr. VanAuken owns both lots which are zoned R3, Multi-Family, but each contains a single family home. The plan for this site is to subdivide the two lots into six lots creating four new lots that will contain two new finrin homes. The twin homes will take access off the back of the property onto 73'/ Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan reflects these properties as R1, Single Family. The City cannot approve the final plat on this property unless the zoning is consistent. In the platting process, staff found that the plat meets all the zoning requirements of � R2, because the proposed construction is two-family, staff used the R2 zoning guidelines. One exception was the rear yard setback and that was approved as a part of the plat. Ms. Jones stated when staff reviews a Minor Comprehensive Plan amendment, there are five questions that need to be answered: 1) Are there any impacts to Metropolitan systems? Stafl found that the proposed twin homes will not create a major impact on the systems. � 2) Is there going to be any change to the urban service boundaries? The entire City is within the urban service boundary, so there is no impact. 3) Will there be any changes to the timing of urban services? That is not applicable in this case because all of the Cityis within the urhan service area. 4) Are there any considerations for wastewater treatment'? Staff feels that the pr+oposed twin homes will result in no notable impact. 5) Will there be discharge to more than one metropolitan interceptor'? The answer to this question is no. Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of this Minor Comprehensive Plan amendment as it provides consistency with the present zoning in the area and it will not have any impact on �'�� metropolitan systems. � ^ Commissioner Saba stated when the replat was approved, there were several residents concemed about the change in the characteristics of their neighbofiood. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended, he questioned what will stop future Planning Commissions from changing the zoning back. He was concemed if a precedent is being set. Ms. Jones explained that when the Comprehensive Plan was approved the Council knew there were a lot of properties where the zoning was inconsistent with the use, this property being one of them. The Council decided to deal with those inconsistencies on a case by case basis as they came up for redevelopment or some land use change. The petitioner triggered this action when he requested the replatting on his property. Commissioner Saba stated he is not opposed to this project but is concemed about even minor amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the appearance that the City is making such changes for the petitioner. Mr. Knaak commented that ultimately the Comprehensive Plan has to be consistent with the zoning code. Since this is ordinarily done in the broad scheme of things and the plan for the entire City is passed, what happens is the zoning code, to the extent it is inconsistent, is modified to conform to that overall plan. It has been expressly upheld that if a specific proposal comes up and the City acts on it and modifies their Comprehensive Plan with a minor change, this has been expressly allowed by the courts in Minnesota and is a fairly common practice. The procedure being followed here is very common, legally allowed and does not require this be done in the future. ^ Commissioner Kondrick asked if Mr. VanAuken understands and agrees with the stipulations recommended by staff. ,� Mr. VanAuken responded affirmatively. John Jackels, 1479 73'/2 Av. NE, stated the neighborhood still has some concems. He does not agree with some aspects of the preliminary plat and has communicated with Council regarding these issues. The Comprehensive Plan was developed by the residents of Fridley, City Council and staff through a hearing process. The current Comprehensive Plan reflects the vision of the community. He believes that not following the Comprehensive Plan divides the community. He referred to the Minnesota Statute which states °If the Comprehensive Municipal Plan is in conflict with the zoning, the zoning ordinance should be brought into conformance with the plan." The Fridley City Code states "The zoning regulations are intended to achieve the goals and objectives and guide and direct the community development based on the Comprehensive Plan." The Court of Appeals of Minnesota has found that the City Council can't enforce the plan if someone is in conflict with it and wants to develop the land. It was his opinion that the way this was done on this property has tied the hands of the Council and the Planning Commission to change the Comp Plan to the zoning that's there. The neighbors feel this denies the ability to implement the Plan that was the desire of the City of Fridley. They believe all the inconsistencies in the Comp Plan should be corrected. They understood that the property would be developed as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. They may have made different decisions regarding their own home had they known this kind of change was possible. The Comprehensive Plan should control the zoning, not the zoning control the Plan. Chairperson Savage asked the City Attomey to comment on Mr. Jackel's remarks. � �.� Mr. Knaak stated as a general rule, when a Comprehensive Plan is created, it is contemplated on a city-wide review. Over time, the City seeks to conform the ordinances to the general plan. But in a situation like this, where in all likelihood, what the Council is considering a minor amendment, it is allowed to do the opposite. There is a Supreme Court case in Minnesota that speaks to the issue and found that Cities can do a minor zoning code change and then anticipate there would be a conforming amendment. It is clearly not the way the City would want to do general comprehensive planning or review an entire City. However, in a case like this where a proposal comes up and the City is dealing with the specifics of a proposal this is a procedure which the City is allowed to follow. MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:08 P.M. Commissioner Saba stated the neighborhood had some good comments and expressed them very well in terms of this project. But he has some concems because what is allowed isn't always what is right and he has a problem making minor comprehensive plan amendments after a project has already been presented without the input of the neighborhood, so he cannot support this change. Commissioner Kondrick stated he doesn't think that four additional units are going to be that much of a change for the neighborhood. The plans Mr. VanAuken has for the twin homes are � "sharp looking." Traffic won't be that much of an issue even if as many as eight cars are added. ! ` Also there is other multi-family housing in the area. He stated this is an odd situation but doesn't believe it will be that much of a change to the neighborhood. ;'"� Chairperson Savage agreed stating that right next to Mr. VanAuken's property there is a fairly large apartment complex. There will always be some opposition to such projects and the Commission has to listen, be concemed with the neighbors' views but also with what the law allows. In this case she agrees that this proposal is not going to have a large impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Oquist stated the rezoning issue has been discussed and approved. The matter before the Commission now is changing the Comprehensive Plan for just this area. The property is already zoned R3 and should the petitioner choose to, he could build an apartment building on this site. Commissioner Saba believed that the Comprehensive Plan drives the Commission to direct their zoning changes toward single family residential. He was also concemed about the issues raised by the neighbors at the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to recommend approval of CP #05-02 to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for 1475 and 1485 73`a Avenue to R3. UPON A FIVE TO ONE VOICE VOTE, WITH COMMISSIONER SABA VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS: � Ms. Stromberg announced that the August 17 Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to adjoum. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, :� � �� r ��-�r�c.�z� �1� r __._ i s Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary ,—. � r� �� � � �I CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �b.� Name <...�': 1..� 1�� � �er Address/Business � o � � 6 �° � , ��Pc,S SSy 0 ���► C�� �.2 �,z � 1 �.. � � .� �°�� _�r� �i�.✓� la�l�t-Q.�1 I�l�S �sr'd Av�a IJ�