Loading...
10/02/1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1991 7:30 P.M. Public Planning Commission City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1991 7: 30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: August 21, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A LICENSE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR GARAGES (PROPOSED CHAPTER 18) RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: Ml . CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the September 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Diane Savage, Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Dave Kondrick Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Jim Hill, Public Safety Director Dennis Schneider, Councilmember Timothy and Deborah Hutchison, 8021 Riverview Terrace Tom and Marge Brickner, 1671 Kristin Court See attached list APPROVAL OF AUGUST 21, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the August 22, 1991, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code entitled "Definitions" to change the definition of a Kennel as follows: 205. 03 DEFINITIONS 39 . KENNEL Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 2 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated that the City has two sets of regulations pertaining to animal control. One set is Section 110 which is the Animal Control Ordinance, and the other set is various regulations in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Over the past several years, a variety of issues have come up regarding animal control, and one of the issues has been the number of dogs and cats individuals can keep in their single family homes. As a result, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment regarding that particular issue and other related issues. Ms. Dacy stated this item is before the Planning Commission because of the proposed change in the definition of a kennel. A kennel is only permitted in commercial zoning districts of the City. The definition of a kennel as defined in the Zoning Ordinance is: "Any place where three (3) or more dogs or three (3) or more cats or any combination of three (3) or more dogs and cats are kept on the same premises. . " This means that right now the single family homeowner can only have up to two dogs and cats. It is being proposed that the definition of a kennel be changed to four dogs/cats so that a homeowner can have up to four dogs and cats in the same home. Ms. Dacy stated that staff surveyed other communities to find out what they do with this issue. Out of the surrounding eight communities, five do permit three dogs or cats in the single family home. Different communities have different restrictions regarding kennels. Some permit them as a special use in the R-1 district. That is not being proposed in this particular ordinance amendment. Ms. Dacy stated the Director of Public Safety, Jim Hill, was invited to the meeting as a resource for any questions the Commission members might have. The Planning Commission will only be acting on the definition of a kennel, because that is within the City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending approval of amending the definition of a kennel from three to four total dogs and cats or any combination thereof. Mr. Betzold stated the ordinance addresses vicious animals and animal nuisances. A few years ago, there was a woman in New Brighton who fed ducks on her property that caused some problems. Would this type of thing be included in this particular ordinance? Mr. Hill stated that they did discuss the issue of feeding wild animals and concluded that they did not want to recommend that for a variety of reasons. The issue basically came up because of the raccoons. Some members of the public requested that the City prohibit the feeding of those types of animals. He stated the enforceability of that kind of thing is very difficult, and then PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 3 there are the people who like to feed the birds, etc. , so it is difficult to determine where to begin and end with this type of issue. Mr. Hill stated this process has been going on for several years, and they wanted to get an animal control ordinance that is clear and understandable to the residents of Fridley. Ms. Pam Davis, 7231 East River Road, stated she is concerned about this ordinance because she presently has three animals. Before they moved to Fridley in June, she called the Anoka County Courthouse to find out if there were any special regulations for the City of Fridley. She was not told about the limitation of two animals. Because she is not in the zoning that allows kennels, she cannot get a kennel license. Her oldest animal is 9 years old and the two Chihuahuas are 3 and 4 years old. She would like to see this ordinance changed, because she does not want to have to dispose of one of her animals. Mr. Betzold stated that a letter dated July 30, 1991, from Pam Davis was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hill stated the number of animals per residence has not been vigorously enforced. It is enforced upon complaint; and in this situation, there has been a complaint. But, the ordinance is under consideration for change. They have advised Ms. Davis that they will be staying the enforcement of any action until some decision is made by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Sielaff asked the rationale for three animals versus two. Ms. Dacy stated that it seems the majority of other communities seem to approve o.f three animals. Some communities don't have any restrictions on cats. Mr. Saba asked if there have been a lot of complaints about the number of animals. How can they intelligently draw a line on the number of dogs and cats and the combination of dogs/cats? Mr. Hill stated he did not know if there is an answer to the question of what is the legitimate number of dogs/cats? The real issue is not so much the number of animals, but it is the animal owner and how he/she maintains the animals. He stated that from his experience and knowledge, there are many families in the City of Fridley who are violating the ordinance at this time, but they are not violating it by way of disturbing the neighbors. Many of them love animals and take in stray animals and care for the animals until a home is found for them. He stated that after many months of consideration, they feel four animals is not an unreasonable number. There will always be someone who wants 4-5 animals, but once they start getting into those numbers, they start getting into health issues. As far as the combination of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 4 dogs/cats, there are other sections of the ordinance that will relate to nuisances. Mr. Saba asked if any consideration had been given to the size of an animal. Mr. Hill stated it was discussed, but to his knowledge the size of an animal has never been addressed legislatively in any other ordinance. Sometimes three small dogs can make more noise than three large dogs. Mr. Betzold stated the proposed change does not address the special use permit issue. He asked Mr. Hill to give some rationale as to why that was not considered. Mr. Hill stated they looked at that for a long time. He stated the special use permit process is a whole other administrative process with other issues relating to it, and they decided not to get into it at all. Mr. Betzold stated that if the ordinance is amended, if a family with more than three animals moves to Fridley, they have to get rid of the extra animals. Mr. Hill stated, yes. The people would be given a notification, but they are quite liberal in giving them plenty of time to find another home for the animal (s) . He stated that destroying an animal is not the only option. The City's current animal shelter at Skyline Veterinary Hospital has done an admirable job in adopting out stray animals, even though legally they do not have to do that. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7 :50 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code entitled "Definitions" to change. the definition of a Kennel as follows: 205. 03 DEFINITIONS 39. KENNEL Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 5 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2 . PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #91-10, BY TIMOTHY HUTCHISON: Per Section 205.24. 04. (d) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24, Block V, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7 :52 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit request is to construct an addition to an existing dwelling unit located in the flood fringe district. The property is located in Riverview Heights between Ely and Dover Streets. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding parcels. Currently located on the property is a single family two-story dwelling unit and an existing detached garage. The existing dwelling unit which was constructed in 1966 prior to the adoption of the flood fringe ordinance regulations does contain a basement. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed addition would connect the existing dwelling unit to the existing garage. Also, an addition would be constructed to the garage. Section 205. 24 . 05.A of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance requires that new structures for habitation be constructed so that the basement or first floor, if there is no basement, is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The current dwelling unit is nonconforming with this section of the ordinance as it does contain a basement. The petitioner is proposing to expand the dwelling unit with a basement. The elevation of the basement would not be able to meet the requirement to be above the regulatory flood elevation; however, the first floor of the addition would be able to meet the elevation requirements. Ms. McPherson stated that in the past, the City has approved special use permits for crawl spaces and accessory structures which have been located below the regulatory flood elevation. The City has required that hold harmless agreements be recorded against the property to ensure that these crawl spaces and accessory uses are not converted to livable area. Because the ordinance is specific in that the basement floor must meet the regulatory flood elevation, to approve the special use permit, even with a hold harmless agreement, would be a clear violation of the ordinance. She stated the previous agreements and special use permits have been allowed by the ordinance under Section 205. 24 . 05.B of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 6 Ms. McPherson stated staff consulted the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources regarding this request. The request is out of the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers; however, the Department of Natural Resources has commented on the request and has supported the ordinance in that the basement does not meet the regulatory flood elevation. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner does have an alternative in that he can construct the addition on frost footings and create a crawl space under the addition area which- would then meet the flood elevation requirement, as well as meet the City ordinance requirement. Ms. McPherson stated that as proposed, the petitioner cannot meet the minimum elevation requirements set forth in the ordinance; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this request to the City Council. Mr. Tim Hutchison, 8021 Riverview Terrace, stated that he has discussed his proposal with Ms. McPherson and a gentleman from the Department of Natural Resources. He stated that sometimes these regulations do not seem to be enforced evenly in the area. An addition with a basement is being constructed to a house right now at 680 Fairmont Street, which is one block from him. Mr. Hutchison stated his proposed addition will be quite large. There will be bedrooms and bath on the second floor, and an expanded kitchen and family room on the first floor. He has no intention of using the basement as living space. It will be used only as an accessory for storage. He is more than willing to sign an agreement that the basement area will not be used for livable space. With the kitchen being expanded, they need the plumbing to go into the basement. There are a lot of reasons for having a basement, even though it might not be needed for structural support. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Hutchison what he would do if this special use permit as proposed is denied. Mr. Hutchison stated he did not know, but he would probably have to move. He stated he has lived in this house for 16 years and does not want to move. Ms. Savage stated that if the basement is to be used for storage, why wouldn't a crawl space satisfy his needs? Mr. Hutchison stated that perhaps a crawl space would satisfy his needs for storage, but the existing sewage pipe is below the regular basement right now, and he would have to meet that sewage pipe with the plumbing from the kitchen and the bathroom. If they didn't have a basement, the pipe would have to go into the ground PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 7 which is 50 degrees, and there would be no heat in the crawl space. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Hutchison if they had ever had any flooding in the 16 years he has lived in this house. Mr. Hutchison stated that in 16 years, he has not even had a wet basement. He stated he disagreed with the fact that there might again be flooding in this area. He works as a chemist for Minneapolis Water Department. He works with the river and knows all the charts and is aware of what happened when the river flooded in 1965. There was an ice jam on the river, and the Army Corps of Engineers were hesitant to dynamite the ice and free up the ice when they should have. The river backed up and flooding occurred through the ditch that runs down 79th Way. It was his understanding that no water came over the river bank. The City of Fridley came out and filled basements to keep the structures from hydrologically shifting. They did not flood crawl spaces. So, houses with crawl spaces could have caved in. He stated he is not worried about a flood again. He believed the Army Corps now knows to dynamite. The Army Corps is regulating the dam downstream at St. Anthony, and the Anoka County Park Board regulates the dam at Coon Rapids, and they work in tandem. Just recently, there has been flooding all over the state, yet the Mississippi has come up only four feet in the last 1 1/2 weeks. Ms. Dacy stated staff sympathizes with a lot of the homeowners in the Riverview Heights area, but until the flood elevation number changes, the City is bound to what the Federal Government tells them to do via these guidelines and ordinances. Ms. Dacy stated staff did check with the Building Inspector regarding 688 Fairmont Street. That particular lot is just outside the flood fringe district according to the flood insurance rate maps issued to the City in the early 1980 's by the Federal Emergency Management Association. Ms. Sherek stated her concern is that if the City approves this special use permit and the present owner or subsequent owner applies for flood insurance, should it become known that the construction below the regulatory flood elevation was permitted after the passage of the ordinance, that house may not be eligible for future flood insurance. Ms. Sherek stated that crawl spaces are frequently put into under new split entry homes under the lowest level to provide the sewer egress, etc. , and those areas have concrete floors and are vented, ducted, and heated along with the rest of the house. Ms. Hutchison stated she did not know if they want the Planning Commission to make a decision at this meeting. She stated it is her understanding that the City is petitioning to have the flood elevation changed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 8 Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. There is an issue as to whether or not the elevation that the City currently has to enforce is appropriate. However, until that officially changes, the City has to enforce the ordinances as they are. The Engineering Department has submitted a petition to initiate the process, but this process could take a very long time. Ms. Dacy stated staff is more than willing to meet with the petitioner and contractor to discuss the alternatives regarding the utility pipes, crawl spaces, etc. Mr. Al Stahlberg, 8055 Riverview Terrace, stated the house at 688 Fairmont Street which was built in the early 1980's has a basement. Mr. Dennis Prince, 8031 Riverview Terrace, stated there is another house in this area with a basement that is definitely in the flood plain. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to table Special Use Permit, SP #91-10, by Timothy Hutchison. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Betzold stated this item will be tabled until the petitioner requests that it be put back on the Planning Commission agenda. 3 . PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #91-02 , BY THOMAS BRICKNER: To rezone from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the construction of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located on the west side of Central Avenue, just south of Sandee's Restaurant. The property is zoned C-1, Local Business, and C-2 , General Business. There is similar zoning to the north; M-1, Light Industrial, to the south, and R-2 , Two Family Dwelling, to the west. This rezoning request is one land use request that will need to be considered by the Council. The petitioner is asking that the land use question be answered first. Should the rezoning request be approved by the Council, the petitioner will need to submit a plat in order to subdivide the parcel from the Sandee's Restaurant property, a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 9 drainage plan with appropriate drainage calculations, and a landscaping plan. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing a three story, 48 unit apartment building. Each floor will contain 16 units; four one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom units. Both above and below ground parking spaces are being proposed. The petitioner intends to live in the building and manage it. The petitioner has met with the neighborhood on several occasions and has agreed to file deed restrictions against the property to limit the following: 1. No outdoor sheds 2. No swimming pool 3 . Restricting the number of people per unit, to no more than three persons in a two bedroom unit, and no more than two persons in a one bedroom unit Ms. McPherson stated the intent of the deed restrictions is to promote the building as an "adult" building. Ms. McPherson stated that in analyzing a rezoning request, there are three tests which must be evaluated: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the district's intent; 2 . That the proposed use is consistent with the lot and structure requirements of the zoning district; and 3 . That the proposed use is consistent with adjacent uses and zoning. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed three-story apartment building is a permitted use in the R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, district. Therefore, the proposed use does meet the intent of the zoning district. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a site plan which meets the minimum requirements for lot area, setbacks, and provision of garage/parking spaces. However, there are still other issues that need to be addressed. These include height, landscaping, drainage, traffic, and platting. Ms. McPherson stated the apartment building is proposed to be constructed at a height of 42 feet which is below the 45 feet allowed by the zoning district. There are poor soil conditions which will need to be corrected prior to construction of the building. The petitioner has completed a soils report; analyzing the soils in the vicinity of the proposed building. The petitioner's consultant has determined that with appropriate soil ii. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 10 correction, the maximum height of the building will be 42 feet. The property is actually slightly lower than Central Avenue. The lowest floor elevation would be 882 feet, which would be the floor elevation of the garage space. If a person was standing on Central Avenue looking towards the proposed building, they would be able to look into the first floor of the apartment building. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will need to submit a landscape plan consistent with the R-3 zoning district regulations . As a condition of approval, the petitioner should be required to save as many of the existing trees as possible to provide screening and buffering for the single story, two family dwellings to the west of the parcel. These trees will aid in mitigating the difference in scale between the proposed building and the surrounding structures. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will not submit a drainage plan until the proposed plat has been prepared. Concern regarding the overall drainage in the neighborhood has been expressed by the surrounding homeowners. Ms. McPherson stated that currently storm water in the area flows from Harris Pond located east of Central Avenue through a series of pipes to an open ditch located north of the Graystar office building at the corner of Central and Rice Creek Road. Once the ditch reaches Central Avenue, it is joined by a second ditch parallel to Central Avenue. Storm water flows from the joining of these two ditches under Central Avenue and along the north side of East Moore Lake Drive through a series of pipes. These pipes enter a series of detention ponds located in the Moore Lake Commons development area, eventually entering Moore Lake. Ms. McPherson stated storm water from the proposed development should be directed toward a third ditch located along the west lot line of the subject parcel. The design of the project will require the construction of a detention pond at the northwest corner of the property, discharging into the third ditch. Any flooding problems the neighborhood is currently experiencing due to the capacity of the downstream system will not be increased due to the proposed project. By ordinance, water is not allowed to flow off the subject parcel at a rate greater than what flows off the site in its undeveloped state. Further, Anoka County has indicated its preference to have the site drain toward the west, and not toward Central Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated traffic issues pertain to two areas: (1) on- site and combined traffic with Sandee's Restaurant; and (2) the traffic impacted at the intersection of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. Ms. McPherson staff has analyzed the requirements for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Central Avenue and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 11 Mississippi Street. Between the writing of the staff report and this meeting, staff again consulted with Anoka County to determine exactly what the hourly counts are for Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The last hourly counts adjusted by the State of Minnesota were conducted in 1988. While the peak hour traffic in the morning and evening hours has been increasing over the years, there would still be 2-4 hours of the minimum 8 which is required where the warrants to install a traffic signal would be broken. Ms. McPherson stated Anoka County -will not consider the installation of a signal at this intersection until the actual vehicle volume exists. Anoka County is willing to complete the traffic counts after the project is completed and consider at that time adding a traffic signal to its capital improvement project. Ms. McPherson stated the access points with the restaurant and the proposed project need to be considered. Currently, the petitioner is proposing two driveways into the proposed project. The proposed vehicular entrance into the apartment complex is located less than 30 feet from one of the Sandee's Restaurant's parking exits. Staff recommends that the parking area for the apartment be tied with the parking area for Sandee's Restaurant to reduce the number of driveways. This will limit the traffic conflicts on Central Avenue. Anoka County has also suggested that one of the two driveways to the project be eliminated. Staff recommends that the southerly driveway be eliminated. Further, a driveway connection to the Sandee's lot should be made. Staff will recommend this on the plat request as well. Ms. McPherson stated that, currently, the subject parcel is legally combined with the Sandee's Restaurant parcel. In order to separate these parcels, a plat will need to be created and approved by the City Council. The platting process should be completed if and when the rezoning request is approved. The second reading of the rezoning would not occur until the plat was completed and construction had begun. Ms. McPherson stated the last test of the rezoning is to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent uses and zoning. While the rezoning request has met the first two tests, there are several advantages and disadvantages to approving the request: Disadvantages The proposed rezoning request would continue the mixed land use pattern which currently exists along the west side of Central Avenue. Currently, there are three developed properties: Sandee's Restaurant, the Advance Companies (M- 1) , and the Ziebart facility (M-1) . The remaining undeveloped properties are zoned commercial and CR-1, General Office PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 12 District. North of Mississippi Street, the land use on the west side is predominately residential and then industrial north of Rice Creek. The proposed rezoning would locate a higher density population near the M-1 zoning district. While the use of the property by the Advance Company has relatively low impact industrial use, it is possible that a higher intensity industrial use could locate in that location. Other homeowners in the area have complained about noise from Sandee's Restaurant and Moore Lake Commons development. There is also the issue of scale and the visual impact that the proposed apartment building may have on the neighborhood. The building will be the largest and tallest structure which exists in the area and may emphasize the mixed use nature of the west side of Central Avenue. Advantages The proposed rezoning request does meet all requirements of the zoning district and may have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. While the proposed building will be the tallest structure in the area, the R-3 regulations provide adequate setbacks between adjacent structures. There will be approximately 120 feet between the proposed apartment building and the adjacent structures. The intent of the district regulations is to mitigate the impact of scale between various structures. The proposed use would generate less traffic than a commercial use such as a restaurant, and there are no extended hours of operation. The vehicular activities of the building would be buffered by the building itself due to its "L" shape design, which forces the vehicular activities toward Sandee' s Restaurant and Central Avenue. In addition, the apartment building is a collector street (as opposed to an interior residential street) , near shopping facilities, and on a transit line. Staff also questions whether additional commercial development will be generated as "spin-offs" from the Moore Lake Commons development, and whether retaining the existing commercial zoning on both sides of the street will be compatible with the residential areas (compatibility issues were raised during the Moose Lodge request) . There is adequate commercial space in Moore Lake Commons for neighborhood commercial uses to locate, and to serve the area. Ms. McPherson stated that as the rezoning request meets the intent of the district, the lot and structure requirements of the district and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages regarding PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 13 compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the adjacent uses and zoning, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. A plat shall be submitted and approved by the City Council. 2 . A drainage plan and preliminary calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application indicating a pond in the northwest corner and the drainage directed to the west property line. 3 . A permit shall be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. A landscape plan in conformance with the ordinance shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application. 5. Existing trees shall be maintained along the west property line to provide buffering and screening, and shall be protected during construction. 6. Deed restrictions prohibiting outdoor sheds, a swimming pool, and limiting the number of persons per dwelling unit, shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. An overall parking and access plan with Sandee's Restaurant shall be submitted with the plat application. 8. The southerly driveway access shall be eliminated on the site plan. Mr. Tom Brickner stated staff has put together a very complete report together. He stated there is a real need for this type of apartment building for the empty nester people without children. He stated the stipulations are acceptable to him, and he is willing to answer any questions the Commission might have. Ms. Modig stated she is very concerned about the drainage problems that already exist in this area. She has a real problem with the apartment building and underground garage and the drainage situation. Mr. Brickner stated the parking will be higher on the front side and the lot will be pitched to the back so the water runs to the holding pond in the northwest corner and then south so the water is not running onto Central Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated that via this application, Anoka County has also stated that they do not want any more water coming toward Central PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 14 Avenue. So, no matter who develops on this site, a developer is going to have to tip the site back to the pond and submit calculations that prove that the rate of water runoff equals or does not exceed the rate of runoff from the site in its undeveloped condition. Ms. Modig stated that it seems like an act of futility, because the water in this area just does not drain. There is already so much water going into Moore Lake, and this water will go into Moore Lake eventually. Ms. Sherek stated that realizing this property is adjacent to Sandee's Restaurant and is undivided now, is any of the property being proposed for division currently part of Sandee's parking area? Mr. Brickner stated that City staff has been working with the owner of Sandee's to eventually put a green area long Central Avenue, and that would take away 6-8 parking spaces. However, if they turned Sandee's parking the other way and ran it parallel in line with the proposed apartment building and the apartment building's parking, Sandee's would not lose any parking. There could also be some cross easements for overflow parking. Mr. Brickner stated he is proposing 48 parking stalls inside and 42 parking stalls outside, and he did not believe the outside • stalls would ever all be full. Ms. McPherson stated the parking requirements are based on 1 1/2 stalls per one-bedroom unit plus an additional 1/2 space for each additional bedroom per dwelling unit. Ms. Savage stated that in terms of the amount of parking that Mr. Brickner is required to have, she could foresee a parking problem. Mr. Brickner stated they will not do anything to attract families with children. He and his wife will be living there and managing the building. Mr. Saba stated that every apartment building owner starts out with good intentions; but what happens 10 years from now? What will the conditions be like then? Ms. Sherek asked if deed restrictions with respect to occupancy in rental property legal and enforceable? Ms. Dacy stated this was discussed with the neighborhood and the intent was to restrict the number of people, and she believed the federal issues are with the age of the people. The petitioner would be limiting the number of occupants as opposed to the age of the occupants; however, the City Attorney has not checked the legality of this limitation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 15 Ms. Sherek stated if it is legal, then who is going to enforce it? Ms. Dacy stated it would have to be recorded against the property, and the owner of the property and management will have to enforce it. The City has a licencing procedure that every rental building has to meet which must be renewed annually. However, those procedures traditionally have pertained to fire and building codes. Ms. Sue Rau, 1341 - 64th Avenue N.E. , asked if the City of Fridley really needs another apartment building. She gave to the Commission members an article which appeared in the Fridley Sun Focus dated August 14, 1991, stating that Fridley has one of the highest vacancy rates of 20 large metro area cities from April through June of 1991. Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Maplewood, and Fridley had the highest vacancy rates. Ms. Jackie Calderom, 6401 Central Avenue N.E. , asked if the City is going to rezone the property first and then work on the other problems that could occur. She did not quite understand why they are not taking some of these other problems, such as drainage, before the rezoning. Ms. Dacy stated that the petitioner has asked that the City consider and decide whether or not it thinks an R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling district, is appropriate in this particular application. No matter who develops the site, the grading has to be meet the ordinance, and the access points have to be reviewed by Anoka County. If the City Council approves the rezoning, when the City rezones a property, it takes an ordinance which is approved via two readings. Typical policy has been that the Council will approve a rezoning on first reading but hold up the final approval until, in this case, another plat application comes through with more detailed plans. So, the City Council would have the plat process plus the second and final reading of the rezoning to determine whether or not the site plan meets all the ordinance requirements. The intent of this initial process is for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider whether or not going to R-3 is a good idea in terms of general land use. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue N.E. , stated that Mr. Brickner has told the neighborhood that it is either the apartment building or an addition onto Sandee's Restaurant for a rental hall . Is this true? Mr. Brickner stated he has been looking at alternatives for the use of this property and adding onto Sandee's Restaurant is his second choice. Ms. Barb Edwards, 1403 - 64th Avenue N.E. , stated that the petitioner is proposing an underground garage. What type of soil testing has been done to determine the water level under this PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 16 property and whether an underground garage can even be built without being under water? Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Brickner submitted a soils report conducted by Suburban Engineering. Suburban Engineering took soil boring test holes around in the area where the building is going to be constructed to determine depth to the ground water. They then made a recommendation based on the various depths. Soil correction will be needed, but they will be able to construct an underground garage that is above the water table. Again, additional soil borings and structural requirements will need to be submitted. Mr. Brickner stated the property will have to be raised to get good and proper drainage. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue, stated that if this rezoning progresses, is there any way for the neighbors to meet with the City Engineer to see what has been proposed as far as a drainage plan? She is very concerned because she has water in her basement which is a crawl space. There are a lot of problems with drainage in this area, and this development is going to affect them. Ms. Dacy stated that the plat process is also a public hearing process and the public is invited to attend. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue N.E. , stated that if the rezoning is approved, and the project is later denied because of the drainage issues, or whatever, is the property then zoned R-3? Ms. Dacy stated that if something falls apart during the plat process, under the Council 's typical policy, the property would revert to the current zoning because the second and final reading of the ordinance has not occurred or been approved. Mr. Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue N.E. , asked if Mr. Brickner was going to put up any kind of barrier to provide some privacy for the homeowners across Central Avenue. He stated the current commercial activity is during the daytime and it is gone when he comes home at night. If the property is rezoned to residential, then people will be coming and going at all hours of the day and night and car lights will be shining into his windows. Mr. Brickner stated he believed that with the residential usage, there will probably be less lights shining into the residential neighborhood. There shouldn't be a lot of activity or traffic late at night. Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue, stated that the last traffic count was in 1988 before the Moore Lake Commons development. Not counting the rush hour traffic, but all the other traffic, it seems that the traffic has about doubled since the construction of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 17 Moore Lake Commons development. Even though Mr. Brickner's intentions are good, it is going to be hard to get older people to rent; and in order to make the payments, he is going to have to rent to anyone because of discrimination. He believed it is going to end up being 2-3 single people per apartment with 2-3 vehicles. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue, stated it is a near impossibility to go either north or south from 64th Avenue onto Central Avenue from 7: 00-9: 00 a.m. , and there is a definite rush hour traffic pattern from 3 : 30-5:30 p.m. _ It will be difficult for the apartment building renters to get out onto Central Avenue also. She did not believe barriers forcing traffic north or south has not been looked upon kindly. There are a lot of vans coming and going from the Advance Company at 6400 Central Avenue, yet that type of traffic is not noticeable. If a commercial use such as that went on this property, it would not have as significant an impact as the proposed apartment building. Ms. Kowski stated that regarding the rezoning, the three homes on the east side of Central Avenue are going to be heavily impacted with a huge apartment building. Even with only three homes across the street, it is not fair to have that piece of property rezoned for multiple dwelling. When they purchased their homes, that piece of property was not zoned multiple dwelling, and they would not have purchased their homes if it had been. She stated she is not against progress, but she has a fear of apartment buildings and what can happen with them. Ms. Doris Bergman, 6435 Pierce Street, stated she lives directly behind Mr. Brickner's property. She stated the neighbors on Pierce Street are not objecting to the rezoning and the construction of an apartment building. Mr. Stanley Dubanoski, 6423 Pierce Street, stated he also lives directly behind the proposed development. He hopes Mr. Brickner builds the building. There are trees on that lot that are 150 feet high. If there is ever a tornado, those trees could destroy their homes. Ms. Jackie Calderom, 6401 Central Avenue N.E. , stated this is a good neighborhood, and they do not need or want this apartment building. Ms. Sue Rau, 1341 - 64th Avenue, stated they want housing for anyone that needs it, but not in this area where there are drainage problems already. Mr. Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue, stated that in looking at the compatibility of zoning, he did not see any reason to put residential zoning in the middle of commercial zoning. He is concerned about what the apartment building will look like in 10- 15 years as compared to a commercial building. He is concerned PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 18 about how this rezoning will affect his property value. The drainage is always going to be an issue. An apartment building is going to cause more problems with traffic and lights. He would like the Planning Commission to consider recommending that this property remain zoned commercial. Mr. Mattison stated that if the grade of the property is raised 4 feet, there is a strong possibility that the remaining trees won't survive. Mr. Doug Johnson, 6388 Pierce Street, stated he is also concerned about an apartment building on this property. If the deed restrictions are legal and enforceable, that would take care of some of the concerns; however, he doubted that is the case, even with a bond requirement or something to aid in the enforcement. Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Brickner has said he intends to own and live in the building. That is great, but many owners/ developers start out by owning/occupying their buildings, but as another project comes along, they move out into a newer building. Mr. Brickner stated this is his retirement home. Mr. Doug Johnson asked Mr. Brickner if he had looked at the possibility of building condominiums where the units are individually owned. Mr. Brickner stated he did not believe a condominium project would be saleable in this area. There are too many choices for condos in areas with other amenities. This property has the amenities for rental property. He stated he has a very good track record in Fridley, he has lived up to the stipulations put on other projects in the City, and he will build a building that Fridley can be proud of. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:55 P.M. Ms. Modig stated there are so many zones in this area, and she can see no reason to put in another one. There are too many problems with the parking, drainage, traffic, and the way the apartment would look in among the commercial . She realized that there is R- 3 zoning only a couple of blocks away, but they would just be creating another mix in this area that is not needed. She stated she cannot support the rezoning request. Mr. Sielaff stated he believes this is an acceptable use. The stipulations appear reasonable and the petitioner is agreeable to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 19 the stipulations. He stated he would vote in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Saba stated he looked at this as spot zoning. As a Commission they have to consider that whole area in terms of what they want to see there, rather than to allow different developments until they end up creating a mishmash of zones. He is also concerned about the density the apartment building would add to the area. He stated he thinks very highly of Mr. Brickner as a developer and has the highest regard for any development he does; however, he is concerned about the future when the building would be sold. Every apartment building after a period of time ends up affecting the crime rate and affecting adjacent property owners. He stated he cannot support the rezoning. Ms. Sherek stated she has very serious reservations about the drainage and whether deed restrictions with respect to occupancy are legal or enforceable. Ms. Sherek stated the Commission has given serious thought and discussion to this piece of property in the past, including a comprehensive study in 1989 on the Central Avenue Corridor from Moore Lake to Osborne Road. It was the Commission's discussion at that time to maintain this property as commercial property, especially in view of a number of public hearings that have been held with neighbors over other previously proposed uses for the area. Multiple dwellings were on the list of types of developments that the residents do not want in this area. Based on that and the unanswered questions with respect to drainage and what will happen to the property in the future, she would vote against the rezoning. Ms. Savage stated this is a difficult decision, but she agreed with Mr. Sielaff. She believed there are enough safeguards built into the proposal. She stated the Rice Creek Watershed District will also look at this proposed project closely and, ultimately, the drainage problems may be improved. As long as the stipulations are closely monitored and other concerns are taken into consideration, she would vote in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Sherek stated that if the Commission recommends approval of the rezoning, it might be appropriate to stipulate that the petitioner post a long term bond to make sure the drainage is effective. Ms. Dacy stated this is also required as part of the building permit. Mr. Betzold stated that no matter what goes onto this property, the drainage issue will have to be addressed, but there are no guarantees. He would hate to see them criticize this plan on the issue of drainage alone. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 20 Mr. Betzold stated he also has a lot of respect for Mr. Brickner, who is trying to do what he thinks best and what is in his best interest. He stated he has problems with the rezoning request. It is too bad they cannot go back and undo the mistakes that have been done along this stretch of land and the different zoning districts. It is possible they might never be able to develop all this commercial as it is zoned, but he did not think it was appropriate to have part commercial/part residential zoning. He would vote against the rezoning. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning request, ZOA #91-92 , by Thomas Brickner, to rezone from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3 , Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the construction of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, SABA, SHEREK, MODIG VOTING AYE, SIELAFF AND SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-2. Ms. Dacy stated that on September 30, 1991, the City Council will establish the public hearing for October 21, 1991. 4 . RECEIVE AUGUST 9, 1991, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the August 9, 1991, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE AUGUST 8, 1991, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the August 8, 1991, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE AUGUST 20, 1991, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August 20, 1991, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b ,. \ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 21 7. RECEIVE AUGUST 20, 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the August 20, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 3 , 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the September 3, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Memo Regarding Light Rail Transit Preliminary Design Plans Ms. Dacy stated the recommended action at this meeting is to receive the memo and discuss it in more detail at the October 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the memo regarding Light Rail Transit Preliminary Design Plans for discussion at the October 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the September 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Re ectfully s mitted, Ly e Saba Re rding Secretary S I G N - IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, September 18, 1991 Name Address/Business /IZ,,,/, ,r, -------, ( , , , '%1 , \, r-\\ )-,-k&Soi 7oavbrvte,,-,67-ex( // / r / _�� � , ZV J ��� )1 0 I' i; dk, /f / -Af--/ I 4 f. 116' ( - d i )1 6' C 5 `1 .' , It. I( C V b_0,0,,_. 10 ? , v N,C-: C y L) u/.�-ss ',sc,,/ 3 V a 1,1//6'o S T . ..A iLy ✓o�ilttiN 6 Y?O C 0-Tg g-c. g6/6 'ro )f Biz- ic /0/C4 / i/ kL2/ s.i/4/ G 7"". N 6 J /�lii. K yiut.,,,k ., -_ f:i eat 1 ,L .:.?,L.) (7 //: ` , 6‹,-• Y-11,6<-: /0-GV go-r . )7. VCR —6 732.1 E- ROA) 12A Pftac '\ Q,y,,...S--- A-4/ytcR .03( R, op.,meg.) --Lev:.Aav, ro le L_ Vo\ IL-L_- 6-7 0 c- c.,..0 E-Z ti. C. / / /3 7 4,,ef :ty,}119 1 5 S-!'i n e c-'r C,rix— eav/" ,l 57 AiA ' . .io ss pc� /e /e-E OLI, Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: September 27, 1991 TO: Planning Commission _Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Motor Vehicle Repair Garage Licensing Ordinance Background In July 1991, the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a moratorium on the issuance of special use permits for auto repair garages in the M-1 and M-2 districts so that a licensing ordinance could be prepared. The effective date of the ordinance was August 15, 1991. The ordinance required that the proposed ordinance be reviewed by the Planning Commission within 60 days of the effective date. A decision must be made on the ordinance within 180 days of the effective date, or February 15, 1992 . Applicability The ordinance has been drafted to require a license for motor vehicle garages which perform engine rebuilding, body work, or collision service. The ordinance exempts automotive service stations, oil changing facilities, and similar facilities not performing auto body work. The City of Minneapolis' ordinance was used as a guide. Those uses, such as the junkyards and car dealerships, have body shops as an accessory use. The City Attorney suggested that the City may want to amend the junkyard license chapter and the used motor vehicle chapter with some of the same regulations in order to avoid the necessity to obtain more than one license. Intent of the Ordinance The intent of the proposed licensing ordinance is as follows: 1. To establish uniform regulations for auto body repair garages. Motor Vehicle Repair Garage September 27, 1991 Page 2 2 . To enable the City (as it does with the liquor license, massage parlor license, and sexually oriented business license) to perform personal and criminal background investigations on the operator. 3 . To provide a basis for the City to deny a license based on illegal activities. 4 . To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Fridley. Other Automotive Related Licenses Other licenses required of automotive related uses include junkyards ($350) , motorized vehicle rental ($50/vehicle) , retail gasoline sales ($60 or $30 for private pump) , and used motor vehicles ($150/year) . Chapter 108, Fire Prevention, also requires permits from the Fire Department for storage of flammable liquids and spray booths. The Fire Department completes inspections of these facilities on an annual basis. Other Communities We surveyed immediately adjacent communities (except Minneapolis) and found that none of them currently license repair garages. Columbia Heights indicated they may be investigating this issue, and Moundsview may be considering a general business license. Existing Affected Uses We have notified 47 automotive related uses, including repair garages, gas stations, and car dealerships. About 11 of those appear to perform some type of auto body work. We advised all of the automotive uses that at this time, the ordinance would just apply to automotive repair garages performing collision service or engine rebuilding; however, the other automotive uses should be aware of the pending regulations. Copies of the proposed ordinance were also distributed. Concerns The owner of the MAACO Auto Body shop has identified several concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. A list of those questions is attached. We are currently reviewing these with the City Attorney, and hope to have at least a verbal response for the Planning Commission. Motor Vehicle Repair Garage September 27, 1991 Page 3 Planning Commission Review While the Planning Commission typically would not review a proposed licensing ordinance, the interim ordinance establishing the moratorium required the review and required a recommendation to the City Council. Recommendation Although there will be several questions and suggested changes to the proposed ordinance, we recommend that the Planning Commission conduct a hearing for the auto body repair garage owners to make suggestions, and state their objections so that it can be made part of the record. We then recommend that the Planning Commission make its suggestions and recommendations and move it onto the City Council. An ordinance requires two readings and no doubt the City Council will have a number of concerns and changes as well. BD/dn M-91-723 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE CITY CODE OF TEE CITY OF FRIDLEY, CHAPTER 18, ENTITLED "WTOR VEHICLE REPAIR GARAGES,' AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES" The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: 18.01. PURPOSE AND INTENT. It is the purpose of this ordinance to regulate Motor Vehicle Repair Garages to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations. 18.02. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall mean: 1. Motor Vehicle. Any new or used automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor scooters, motorized bicycles and tractors or as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169. 2. Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. A. A place where major repair of motor vehicles is conducted, including engine rebuilding or reconditioning and collision service including body, frame or fender straightening, replacement of body parts and overall painting of motor vehicles. B. Business engaged in the repair of motor vehicles, except: (1) Automobile Service Station. A place where fuel and other essential services related to the operation of motor vehicles are retailed directly to the public. This does not include motor vehicle repair. (2) A garage or shop engaged exclusively in repairing the motor vehicles of its awn fleet. 3. Person. A natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind. 4. Refuse. Refuse shall include, but not be limited to, trash, debris, discarded or abandoned parts, containers and tools, and motor vehicles defined as abandoned in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 168B. 5. Repair. A place where major repair of motor vehicles is conducted, including engine rebuilding or reconditioning and collision service including body, frame, or fender straightening and overall painting of motor vehicles. 6. Public Safety Director. The Public Safety Director of the City of Fridley or the Director's designee. 7. City. The City of Fridley, Minnesota, a municipal corporation. 8. Licensee. The person to whom a license is issued under this Chapter including any agents or employees of the person. 18.03. MOTOR VEEIICLE REPAIR GARAGE DISTRICTS. Motor Vehicle Repair Garages require a Special Use Permit in C-1, C-2, C-3, and M-1 Zoning districts and are a permitted use in M-2 Districts. 18.04. LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall exercise, carry on or be engaged in the trade or business of a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage without first obtaining a license from the City as provided in this Chapter. 18.05. INITIAL LICENSE APPLICATION. 1. General. Applications for Motor Vehicle Garage Repair Licenses to be issued under this Chapter shall contain information as required on forms prescribed by the City. 2. Nature of Application. The application shall state whether the applicant is a natural person, corporation, partnership or other form of organization. 3. Natural Person. If applicant is a natural person, the following information shall be furnished: A. True name, place and date of birth and street residence address, and length of time at that address, of applicant. B. Whether applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's true name and, if so, what was such name or names, and information concerning dates and places where used. C. The name of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style other than the full individual name of the applicant. D. Kind, name and location of every business or occupation applicant has been engaged in during the preceding five (5) years. E. Names and addresses of applicant's employers and partners, if any, for the preceding five (5) years. F. Whether applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, excluding traffic violations, and if so, the date and place of conviction and the nature of the offense. G. If applicant has not resided in the City for three (3) years last preceding the date of application, at least four (4) character references from residents of the State of Minnesota. 4. Partnership. If applicant is a partnership, the names and addresses of all partners and all information concerning each partner as is required of a single applicant. A managing partner, or partners, shall be designated. The interest of each partner in the business shall be disclosed. 5. Corporation. If applicant is a corporation or other association, the following information shall be required. A. Name and, if incorporated, the state of incorporation. B. A true copy of the certificate of incorporation, articles of incorporation or association agreement and by-laws and, if a foreign corporation, a certificate of authority as described in Minnesota Statutes. C. The name of the operating officer or proprietor or other agent in charge of the premises to be licensed, giving all the information about said person as is required of a single applicant. As used in this Chapter, the term "operating officer" shall mean the person responsible for the day-to-day operating decisions of the licensed premicc. . D. A list of all persons who, singly or together with their spouse, or a parent, brother, sister or child or either of them, own or control an interest in said corporation or association in excess of five percent (5%) or who are officers or directors of said corporation or association; together with their addresses and all information as is required of a single applicant. 6. Description of premisc-1. A. Legal Description. The exact legal description of the premises to be licensed, together with a plot plan of the area for which the license is sought showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access, parking facilities. B. Street Address. The street address of the premiclrl for which application is made. 7. Taxes. Whether or not all real estate taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the City, State or Federal government for the business and premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not paid, the years for which delinquent. 8. Other Information Required. Such other information as the City Council shall require. 18.06. RENEWAL APPLICATIONS. 1. License Period, Expiration. Each renewal license shall be issued for a maximum period of one year. 18.07. EXECUTION OF APPLICATION. If application is by a natural person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if by a corporation, by an officer thereof; if by a partnership, by one of the general partners; if by an incorporated association, by the operating officer or managing officer thereof. If the applicant is a partnership, the application, license and bond shall be made and issued in the name of all partners. Any false statement in an application shall result in denial of the application. 18.08. GRANTING LICENSES. 1. At the time of making an initial or renewal application, the applicant shall, in writing, authorize the Police Department to investigate all facts set out in the application and do a personal background and criminal record check on the applicant. The applicant shall further authorize the Police Department to release information received from such investigation to the City Council. 2. Each license shall be issued to the applicant only and shall not be transferable. 3. Each license shall be issued only for the premises described in the application and shall not be transferable to a different location. 4. No change in ownership, control or location of a license shall be permitted except by amendment to the license which amendment must be approved by the City Council. 18.09. LICENSE FEES ESTABLISHED. 1. Annual Fees. The annual license fee for licenses required by this article shall be in the amounts as specified in Chapter 11, General Provisions and Fees, of the Fridley City Code. 2. Investigation Fps. At the time of each original application for a license, applicant shall pay, in full, an investigation fee. The investigation fee shall be as specified in Chapter 11, Provisions and Fees, of the Fridley-City Code. 18.10. PAYMENT OF FEES. 1. Initial Fees. The annual license and investigation fees for a new license shall be paid in full before the application for the license is accepted. Upon rejection of any application for a license or upon withdrawal of an application before approval of the issuance by the Council, the license fee only shall be refunded to the applicant except where rejection is for willful misstatement in the license application. If any investigation outside the State of Minnesota is required, the applicant shall be charged the cost which shall be paid by the applicant, prior to issuance of a license, after deducting the initial investigation fee, whether or not the license is granted. 2. Renewal Fees. The annual license fee for renewal of a license shall be paid in full at the time the renewal application is filed with the City. 18.11. INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. 1. The Public Safety Director shall rid approval of the issuance of a license by the City to an applicant within 45 days after receipt of an application unless the Director finds one or more of the following to be true: (A) An applicant is under 18 years of age. (B) An applicant or an applicant's spouse is overdue in the applicant's payment to the City, County, or State of taxes, fees, fines, or penalties assessed against him or imposed upon him in relation to a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. (C) An applicant has failed to provide information reasonably necessary for issuance of the license or has falsely answered a question or request for information on the application form. (D) An applicant or an applicant's spouse has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed, as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, and has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform duties of a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. (E) An applicant or a person with whom the applicant is residing has been denied a license to operate a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage within the preceding 12 months, by the City or by any other municipality within the State of Minnesota, or whose license to operate a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage has been revoked within the preceding 12 months by the City or by any other municipality within the State of Minnesota. (F) The premises to be used for the Motor Vehicle Repair Garages has not been approved by the Health Department, Fire Department, and the Building Official as being in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances, including the City's Zoning Ordinance; such inspections shall be completed within thirty (30) days from the date the application was submitted, provided that the application contains all of the information required by this ordinance. If the application is deficient, the inspections shall be completed within thirty (30) days from the date the deficiency has been corrected. (G) The license fee required by this chapter has not been paid. (H) An applicant has been employed in a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage in a managerial capacity within the preceding 12 months and has demonstrated that the applicant is unable to operate or manage a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage premises in a peaceful and law-abiding mariner, thus necessitating action by law enforcement officers. (I) In the judgment of the Public Safety Director, the applicant is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business operated, or to be operated, under the license. 18.12. ISSUANCE OF LICENSE CONDITIONS. 1. The City Council shall act to approve or disapprove the license application within 120 days from the date the applicantion was submitted, provided that the application contains all of the information required by this ordinance. If the application is deficient, the Council shall act on the application within 120 days front the date that the deficiency has been corrected. 2. The license if granted, shall state on its face the name of the person or persons to whom it is granted, the expiration date, and the address of the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. The license shall be posted in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage so that it may be easily read at any time. 3. Licenses issued to corporations shall be valid only as long as there is no change in the officers or ownership interest of the corporation unless such change is approved by the Council, in which event said license shall continue in force until the end of the then current license year. Failure to report any change in stockholders, officers, or managers shall be grounds for the revocation of all licenses held by the corporation. Every corporation licensed under the provisions of this section shall adopt and maintain in its bylaws a provision that no transfer of stock is valid or effective unless approved by the City Council and shall require that all of its certificates of stock shall have printed on the face thereof: "The transfer of this stock certificate is invalid unless approved by the City Council of Fridley, Minnesota," and failure to comply with this provision shall be grounds for the revocation of all licenses held by the corporation. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the issuance of any license to a corporation whose stock is traded on a public stock exchange. 4. Licenses issued to associations or partnerships shall be valid only as long as there is no change in the partnership or association agreement or in the ownership of said partnership or association unless such change is approved by the Council, in which event said license shall continue in force until the end of the then current license year. 5. Corporation, partnerships or associations shall submit written notice to the City of any such changes described herein on or before thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any such change. In case of a corporation, the licensee shall submit written notice to the City when a person not listed in the initial application will be acquiring an interest and shall give all information about said person as is required of a person pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 18.13. INSPECTION. 1. An applicant or licensee shall permit representatives of the Police Department, Health Department, Fire Department, and the Community Development Department inlcuding the Building Inspection Division, to inspect the premises of a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the law, at any time it is occupied or open for business. 2. A person who operates a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage or the person's agent or employee commits an offense if the person refu.e:J. to permit a lawful inspection of the premises by a representative of the Police Department any time it is occupied or open for business. 18.14 . REFUSAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. 1. It is unlawful for any applicant to make a false statement or omission upon any application form. Any false statement in such application, or any omission to state any information railed for on such application form, shall upon discovery of such falsehood, be grounds for denial of a license, or if such license is already issued, shall be grounds for revocation. Issuance of a license shall not protect the applicant from prosecution of violation for this section. 2. The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this Chapter for operation on any premises on which real estate taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the City or of the State are delinquent, or unpaid. 3. The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this Chapter upon a finding of a violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any State Statute regulating Motor Vehicle Repair Garages. Any conviction by the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage for theft, receiving stolen property or any other crime or violation involving stolen property shall result in the immediate suspension pending a hearing on revocation of any license issued hereunder. 4. The City Council may revoke a license if the Special Use Permit has been revoked. 5. Except in the cage of a suspension pending a hearing on revocation, a revocation or suspension of a license by the Council shall be preceded by a public hearing. The hearing notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, include notice of the time and place of the hearing, and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. 18.15. INSURE REQUIRED. Every license applicant shall provide and maintain in full force and effect public liability insurance to indemnify any person against loss or injury in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for injury or death to one person and three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) for each accident or occurrence, and ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) property damage,and shall contain a provision that no cancellation thereof shall become effective without thirty (30) days' prior notice thereof in writing to the City Clerk. In addition, each applicant for a Motor Repair Garage License shall file with the City Clerk, a public liability policy or certificate of insurance for each vehicle used in the business of its Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. 18.16. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS REQUIRED. Every Motor Vehicle Repair Garage Licensee shall maintain, on the premise, original records which shall include all work orders, estimates, invoices and names of all customers for whom motor vehicle repairs have been performed. As used in this section, the term "invoice" shall contain that information required in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325F.56 to 325F.65 Such records shall be immediately available for inspection and copying by enforcement officials and shall be retained for at least two (2) years. A customer has a right to a copy of documents maintained by the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage reflecting any transaction to which he was a party. 1. The operator of the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage is required to identify the source of the parts used on repaired vehicles. 2. The operator is required to keep a record of parts that are purchased and all purchased parts are to be paid by checks rather than cash. 3. The operator is required to keep invoices and cancelled checks to establish the source of parts used on repaired vehicles. 18.17. UNAUTHORIZED W M; CUSTOMER'S RIGHT TO RETURN OF PROPERTY. No Motor Vehicle Repair Garage shall fail to return to any customer, upon demand, the customers' vehicle in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325F.61. 18.18. REFUSE. All refuse must be stored in a completely enclosed trash/dumpsters and must be fully enclosed as required by the zoning ordinance. 18.19. SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING. Must meet all screening and landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning Code. 18.20. SEVERELY DAMAGED VEHICLES. All severely damaged vehicles must be completely drained of all fluids prior to transfer to Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. 18.21. PENALTIES. Whoever does any act forbidden by this Chapter or omits or fails to do any act required by this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of the Fridley City Code. 18.22. SEVERABILITY. Every section, provision or part of this Chapter is declared separable from every other section, provision or part to the extent that if any section, provision or part of this Chapter shall be held invalid, such holding shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. CHAPTER 11, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES. Section 11.10, Fe' : is amended to include the following Motor Vehicle Repair Garage License. 18 Motor Vehicle Repair Garage $150.00 each location Investigation Fee $50.00 108 UFC Permit $50.00 PASSED AND ADOPAD BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1991. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publish : Comments on Proposed Motor Vehicle Repair Garage Licensing Ordinance 1. Section 18. 08. 04 Why does the City need to know about the change in ownership or control of a business and why must an amendment to the license be approved by the City Council? 2 . Section 18. 11. 01.0 What happens if an unintentional mistake is made on the application? 3 . Section 18. 11. 01.I The "judgement of the Public Safety Director" is too broad to determine whether or not the applicant is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business to be operated. 4 . Section 18. 12 . 03 Why does the City need to require that businesses adopt and maintain in its by-laws a provision that no transfer stock is valid or effective unless approved by the City Council. Is this required for any other license in the City, for example, a liquor license? Why does the City have to approve the transfer of a stock certificate? Why is it grounds for revocation of a license? 5. Section 18 . 13 regarding inspections What rules would be used for the inspection permitted under 18 . 13 . 01? City staff will need to address this. 6. Section 18. 13 . 02 What is a lawful inspection of the premises? Does that mean that a police officer can stop at any time and shut down the business for some type of offense? Does this conflict with the need for a, search warrant, and does this constitute an unreasonable search? 7. Section 18. 14 Again, what happens if an unintentional mistake is made on an application? Will this be grounds for revocation? How does the Public Safety Director administer this? 8 . Section 18 . 14 . 02 What happens in a multi-tenant building situation where one of the tenants is not ultimately responsible for payment of taxes and assessments? What happens if the property owner, and in some cases, an out of town property owner, is delinquent? Can the tenant be exempted from this requirement? Comments on Proposed Motor Vehicle Repair Garage Licensing Ordinance Page 2 9. Section 18. 15 Why is there insurance required? Why does the City Clerk need to be notified about the 30 day notice for change of insurance? Policy holders only receive a 30 day notice, so it may be impossible for the repair garage owner to notify the City within 30 days. Why is a public liability policy or certificate of insurance required for each vehicle used in the business of the repair garage? 10. Section 18. 16 Why do the records have to be available? Can't that be done through request of a search warrant? What do Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325F. 56 - 65 require? 11. Section 18. 16. 02 There are occasions where some parts are paid with cash. Why does it have to be checks? Why can't the building owner have the ability to pay with cash for some parts if so desired? 12 . Section 18. 17 What does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325F. 61 require? What happens if an auto repair garage performed work in the amount of $2 , 500, returned the vehicle to the customer, the customer with no basis demanded the vehicle without paying? Would this void the process of a mechanic's lien? 13 . Section 18. 18 (refuse) If refuse is defined as motor vehicles which are abandoned, some of the vehicles may not be able to be deposited in dumpsters. 14. Section 18. 20 Who is responsible for determining what a severely damaged vehicle is? Where are the fluids to be drained? How is severely damaged defined? 15. The City should require motor vehicle repair garage owners to obtain a hazardous waste generator's license and submit an EPA number to the City. ORDINANCE NO. 974 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR BUSINESSES AND PROHIBITING THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE CITY WHILE THE MORATORIUM IS IN EFFECT The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND INTENT The City Council finds that an interim ordinance placing a moratorium on the location and establishment of auto body repair businesses is necessary to protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the citizens of the community; and The City Council finds that an interim ordinance placing a moratorium on the location of auto body repair businesses is necessary in order to permit the planning process to take place and to allow the City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council to proceed in an orderly fashion to adopt a permanent ordinance requiring the owners and operators of auto repair businesses to obtain a license to operate within the City. 1 SECTION 2 AUTHORITY This ordinance is adopted pursuant to that authority granted in the City of Minnesota Statutes Annotated 462 . 355, Subd. 4, entitled "Interim Ordinance" . SECTION 3 DEFINITIONS The City Council hereby directs the City staff to study and prepare an ordinance requiring owners and operators of auto repair businesses to obtain a business license, and to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this interim ordinance. The City staff is further directed to report the results of their studies and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Planning Commission as soon as the Planning Commission has completed their hearings and recommendations. SECTION 4 VIOLATION The City may enforce any provision of this ordinance by mandamus injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. in any court of competent jurisdiction. m. Page 2 -- Ordinance No. 974 SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared severable from every other section, provision, or part thereof to the extent that if any section, provision, or part of this ordinance shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part thereof. This ordinance shall become effective _fifteen (15) days after publication and shall be in effect for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 1991. (..Pa121:411- WILLIAM J EE - MAYOR ATTEST: )/4.‘ /4.“1/2 - 1I SHIRLEY Al HAAPALA CITY CLERK First Reading: July 1, 1991 Second Reading: July 22, 1991 Publication: July 31, 1991 MAILING LIST Planning 9/23/91 Al Schrader Total Finish 5501 Lakeland Avenue North 8086 University Avenue N.E. Crystal, MN 55429 Fridley, MN 55432 Griffin Real Estate Triangle Coach Mike Griffin 7869 Beech Street N.E. 3800 West 80th Street Fridley, MN 55432 Bloomington, MN 55431 MAACO Keith's Auto Body/Current Tenant 148 Osborne Road N.E. 7570 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Northtown Nissan Mike Thompson 7810 University Avenue N.E. 10600 University Avenue N.W. Fridley, MN 55432 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Friendly Chevrolet Samir Awaijane 7501 Highway 65 N.E. 5096 Hughes Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fluff and Buff Pioneer Auto Trim 5649 University Avenue N.E. 7267 Commerce Circle West N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Aamco Transmission Christensen Auto 940 Osborne Road N.E. Carl Christensen Fridley, MN 55432 6509 East River Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley Auto Body 960 Osborne Road N.E. ABRA Fridley, MN 55432 7710 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley Tire and Brake 1010 Osborne Road N.E. JR's Auto Repair Fridley, MN 55432 5755 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gary's Automotive 6519 Central Avenue N.E. Midas Muffler Fridley, MN 55432 8080 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Keith DeGroodt 6490 University Avenue N. E Champion Auto Fridley, MN 55432 6528 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Rensfeldt Automotive 7363 Baker Street N.E. Kennedy Transmission Fridley, MN 55432 7700 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Wayne' s Auto Repair 7350 Central Avenue N.E. Frank' s Used Cars Fridley, MN 55432 Frank Gabrelcik 5740 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Page 2 Midwest Super Stop 8100 East River Road N.E. Ziebart Fridley, MN 55432 6300 Central Avenue N.E Fridley, MN 55432 Spur Station 6485 East River Road N.E. Fridley Auto Parts Fridley, MN 55432 7300 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Rapid Oil 7315 Highway 65 N.E. Central Auto Parts Fridley, MN 55432 1201 - 73 1/2 Avenue N.E Fridley, MN 55432 Rapid Oil 5701 University Avenue N.E. Sam' s Auto Parts Fridley, MN 55432 1240 - 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Conoco 7600 University Avenue N.E. Phillips 66 Fridley, MN 55432 7680 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Minnesota Petroleum 5333 University Avenue N.E. SuperAmerica Fridley, MN 55432 7449 East River Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Total Petroleum 5300 Central Avenue N.E. Total Petroleum Fridley, MN 55421 6101 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Motor Valet 5649 University Avenue N.E. Sinclair Fridley, MN 55432 6071 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bill Johnson Standard 5311 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55421 Union 76 5695 Hackmann Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SuperAmerica 7299 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 SuperAmerica 5667 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fina 7298 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432