The URL can be used to link to this page

01/23/1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1991 7:30 P.M. Public Planning Commission I... City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1991 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: January 9, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the adoption of the redevelopment plan for Fridley Town Square development, to consider adding a drive-through window for a fast food restaurant on the west side of the proposed building. The property included in this redevelopment plan are as follows: Lot 9, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 355 Mississippi Street N.E. ; and Lot 12, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 368 - 66th Avenue N.E. ; and Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1, except the South 30 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2, according to the recorded plat thereof one file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C-1, Local Business, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 6525 University Avenue N.E. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 1990 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 1990 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 8 . 1991 OTHER BUSINESS: 1990 Accomplishments and 1991 Workplan ADJOURN: CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the January 9, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:40. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Connie Modig, Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Virgil Herrick, City Attorney David Gronbeck, 701 4th Ave. , S. , Suite 1440, Counsel for Fantasy House Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus Jim Kay, Crysteel Truck Equipment Terri Mau, 7343 Hayes Street N.E. Steve and Gayle Boswell, 6800 Washington Street Helen Wojciak, 6280 Able Street C. A. Halpin, 6390 Monroe Street APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 12, 1990, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the December 12, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SEXUALLY-ORIENTED BUSINESSES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated that because of the location of the Fantasy House in the Moore Lake Commons shopping center, the City PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 2 Council directed the City Attorney's office and the Community Development Department to prepare the proposed ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration and approval. She stated the ordinance contains the following nine sections: 1. Purpose and intent - this section clearly establishes the intent of the City of Fridley to prevent additional crime activity within the City and to prevent deterioration of neighborhoods as a result of the location of sexually oriented businesses. 2. Definitions - this section defines various types of sexually oriented uses ranging from adult book and media stores to adult novelty businesses such as the Fantasy House. 3 . This section requires that any sexually oriented business cannot be constructed, altered, or enlarged for any purpose which is not in conformity with the ordinance. 4. Nonconforming uses - this section states that all sexually oriented business which were lawfully in existence at the effective date of the proposed ordinance are to be rendered nonconforming. These businesses will have three years to relocate to either a conforming location or relocate to another location outside of the City. 5. Location - this section establishes the distances that sexually oriented businesses must be from residential areas, churches, schools, and parks. Sexually oriented businesses must be 500 feet from any residential zoning district boundary and 1,000 feet from churches, schools, or parks which are adjacent to properties zoned residential. Also, no sexually oriented business can be located within 1,000 feet of another sexually oriented business. 6. Hours of operation - the hours of operation for these businesses will be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 . Operation - this section regulates viewing of merchandise in the windows and doors, layout of display areas, visibility of access into the business from the public right-of-way, and provision of adequate illumination of the premises. 8. Signs - this section requires that proposed signs must be in conformance with the City's sign ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 3 9. Licenses - this section stipulates the requirements and procedures to obtain a license for this type of business. This section also permits the City to investigate the background of proposed sexually oriented business operators. The term of the license will be for one year only. The operator would have to renew the license 60 days prior to expiration. The ordinance also provides procedures for suspension and revocation of the license. Ms. Dacy stated the ordinance was developed by the City Attorney's office. City staff reviewed the City of St. Paul's 1987 Adult Entertainment study, the adult use findings from Phoenix, Arizona, the Adult Use study from Indianapolis, Indiana, and the State of Minnesota's Attorney General 's report. Copies of these were included in the agenda. Ms. Dacy stated staff tried to summarize key and major issues from the studies. Staff believes the key findings apply to the City of Fridley. The distances established in the proposed ordinance are consistent with other communities' ordinances and also will protect the value and neighborhood quality of the areas surrounding the sexually oriented businesses. Given the relationship between sexually oriented businesses and the types of crimes, the requirements in the licensing section of the proposed ordinance to regulate the hours of operation and to provide for an annual license process and investigation process are warranted. Ms. Dacy stated that under the proposed ordinance, the Fantasy House will become a nonconforming use. Under the terms of the ordinance, the Fantasy House would have up to three years to relocate to another location. The distances required in this ordinance will permit location of sexually oriented businesses in industrial and certain commercial areas (about 4%) of the community. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment regulating sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Herrick stated this ordinance was based substantially on an ordinance out of Dallas, Texas. That ordinance has been reviewed by the Federal Court System up to and including the U. S. Supreme Court. He would like to emphasize that the purpose of this proposed ordinance is to regulate the location of sexually oriented businesses, not to prohibit or prevent these businesses from locating in the City of Fridley. The courts have made it clear that any activity that is protected by the First Amendment has the right to locate within a community, and that a community must provide adequate locations for those types of businesses. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 4 Mr. Herrick stated that in one of the cases, the U. S. Supreme Court indicated that 5% of an area -of a community would be sufficient; and with the limitations being suggested in the ordinance, the areas that would qualify for location of sexually oriented business would be approximately Mr. Herrick stated that one thing to keep in mind is that this ordinance will allow legitimate adult uses, those businesses which are not considered obscene. If there is a business that the City feels is conducting an obscene sale or business, it would be prosecuted through the use of the State Obscenity Ordinance. He stated the difficulty comes in trying to distinguish between what is a criminal activity and what is not, and that is going to be something the City might be faced with in the future. Again, this ordinance is only to limit the location of legitimate adult use businesses in the City. Mr. Betzold stated he believed this ordinance would not apply to a video store that sold off-color videos or obscene magazines. Mr. Herrick stated that if the principal operation of a video store or newsstand is the sale of adult magazines or adult movies, the ordinance would apply; and if the video store or newsstand is selling or renting movies that are for adults, but that is not the principal portion of the business, then it is the understanding of his office, and he believed of City staff, that this ordinance would not apply. Mr. Betzold stated a part of the ordinance says that no sexually oriented business can be located within 1,000 feet of another sexually oriented business. In reading through the other materials, it seems that kind of limitation is more directed towards Minneapolis and the metro area where there is a wider area and it is easier to separate these businesses. Is this limitation too restrictive for the City of Fridley? Mr. Herrick stated he did not think so, because, as shown on the Fridley map, the areas where these businesses would be allowed are scattered throughout the City. Even with the 1,000 foot separation, there could be locations for several businesses. As near as he and his office can determine, these restrictions, both in terms of the distance that is required as far as separation, and the percentage of area in the community that would be available, do meet the court tests. Mr. Savage stated she is a Criminal Prosecutor with the Anoka County Attorney's Office. She wanted to clarify that if there re was any complaint of a possible criminal violation; example, a video that was known to be pornographic, there would be an investigation by the sheriff's office, whether it A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANIIARY 9, 1991 PAGE 5 was a City Attorney matter or County Attorney matter. This ordinance would have nothing to do with that kind of thing. Mr. Herrick agreed. He stated this is a zoning ordinance, not a criminal ordinance. Mr. Steve Boswell, 6800 Washington Street N.E. , stated the studies listed by City staff state that adult uses in an area result in an increase in crime and a decrease in property values. Were those reports based on businesses dealing in obscenity or businesses dealing in pornography? Mr. Herrick stated the studies deal with adult sexually oriented businesses, and he did not think any of them attempted to categorize businesses as either pornographic or obscene. Ms. Terri Mau, 7343 Hayes Street N.E. , stated that to say that she opposed the ordinance would not be a fair statement because it would be saying that she approves of pornography. But, as a business person, she feels very strongly about any ordinance that restricts business. To say that this type of business in the City is going to bring in more crime is not really true. Crime has been in this city long before there was a Fantasy House. They had many problems before Fantasy House. Ms. Mau stated it bothered her that the City is planning to put these businesses in certain areas. She would think these businesses could be controlled better if they were in a business district. They would be very visible and very exposed. She stated the Fantasy House has gone out of its way to make sure that minors are not allowed in the store. The Fantasy House runs just a business, and to restrict it in some ways, just because it is a sexually oriented business is, in her opinion, uncalled for. She is concerned with the fact that the City is considering passing an ordinance that puts restrictions on a certain type of business that couldn't be done to any other business, such as regulating business hours. If the City wants to restrict these types of business, that is fine, but restrict them so they are all in one place where they are visible and the police can keep track of the businesses' activities. Mr. David Gronbeck, lawyer and counsel for the Fantasy House, stated he would like to address several things about this ordinance. He stated he has not seen the Dallas, Texas, ordinance, but it seems very similar to the St. Paul ordinance. He stated he spent a lot of time litigating with St. Paul. St. Paul finally agreed with the Fantasy House's legal counsel that the ordinance did not apply to the Fantasy House--that the Fantasy House is not an adult use. That is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 9. 1991 PAGE 6 the position taken by St. Paul, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, etc. Mr. Gronbeck stated he has a lot of questions about whether the proposed ordinance, as written, will apply to the Fantasy House in Fridley. Mr. Gronbeck stated he questioned whether it is appropriate to say that any adult use has to have opaque window covers. For example, in Minneapolis, there is a bookstore which has a lot of adult materials, but also sells baseball cards. Would the City of Fridley say that those baseball cards cannot be displayed in the window? He doubted it. He stated he questioned a section of the proposed ordinance that requires character references from residents of Anoka County. Last of all, he would question a three year abatement of any nonconforming uses. Fantasy House is the only existing nonconforming use that applies to this ordinance, so they are saying the Fantasy House has to move to an industrial area or get out of town in three years. He believed the Fantasy House has a six year lease, and he did not think that kind of provision is reasonable. Mr. Gronbeck stated the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and other municipalities do not regard the Fantasy House as being governed by the adult use ordinance, and he questioned the applicability of any studies that talk about crime, etc. This is a business that has a somewhat unconventional line of merchandise, but is hardly in the category with bookstores, video parlors, and the like. It would probably be helpful for everyone to devote some more thought to the question of: What does the City of Fridley really want to regulate? Do they want to go after businesses like the Fantasy House, or do they want to attack things like the adult movie theatres, etc.? Mr. Gronbeck stated he would be glad to provide the Planning Commission with a copy of the dismissal from the City of St. Paul. Mr. Betzold stated that assuming this ordinance does not apply to the Fantasy House, how did Mr. Gronbeck feel about the wisdom or validity of having a zoning restriction for sexually oriented businesses? Mr. Gronbeck stated that again the question is: What does the City of Fridley want to regulate? The broader the scope of the ordinance, the more problems he saw. Does a business become a sexually oriented business if it has a half dozen products on the shelf that fit within the definition? If the question is a policy question, does he see a problem with regulating by location? The answer is, no, if it is otherwise reasonable. He would echo the comments made by Ms. Mau, and he had problems with saying these businesses should be located next to a factory and not in a strip mall. It didn't seem to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 7 him that a business that sells some products that might be limited in use to adults in any way offends the Subway or Sears or its other neighbors. He supposed it was a different question if it was next to a daycare center. Mr. Gronbeck asked how broadly the City wanted to draw its definition of sexually oriented businesses. He stated the problem is that the standards seem to be changing all the time. They now have every drugstore in town openly displaying and hawking products a drugstore would not have dared put on open shelves 5-10 years ago. Mr. Betzold stated Mr. Gronbeck had made the following points: (1) He did not believe the proposed ordinance applies to the Fantasy House; (2) he questioned the need for opaque windows; (3) he questioned the character references; and (3) he questioned the 3 year nonconforming issue. Mr. Gronbeck stated he believed those are the points he made. He did not take any position on whether the ordinance as a whole is constitutional or not. He was certain the City could write a constitutional ordinance, but he is much more concerned whether it even applies to the Fantasy House. If it doesn't apply, it does not matter to him. Mr. Gronbeck stated that as matter of business policy, his client does not allow minors in the store, because some of the products might not be appropriate and for shoplifting reasons. Mr. Steve Boswell, 6800 Washington Street N.E. , stated he is certainly in favor of the ordinance. Quite a few people have been picketing the Fantasy House for about five months. He would like to address some of the points raised by the Fantasy House's attorney. First of all, the question about whether the Fantasy House is an adult oriented business, and they only allow adults into the Fantasy House. He did not know of any shoe stores or drug stores that limit the age of their patrons to 18 in order to solve a shoplifting issue. Mr. Boswell stated the City of St. Louis Park did prosecute the Fantasy House approximately one year ago based on a movie that was purchased at the store. The person thought it was obscene and took it to the City. The City thought it was obscene and decided to prosecute. That charge was later bargained down to the same or similar charges meaning that unless the owner tried to sell such a movie again within a period of one year and was prosecuted for it, his record would remain clean. Since then, a movie was purchased at the St. Louis Park store. The name of the movie is "Ass Masters". It was found obscene in the Ferris/Alexander trial, and the City of St. Louis Park is investigating what it will take to E PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 8 prosecute under that. The State Attorney General's office has urged the St. Louis Park to prosecute under obscenity charges. Frankly, the main reason there are not more prosecutions is because the first prosecution has to be financed by the City, and most cities are not willing to undergo the tens of neys. thousands dollars say the Fantasy House has anpextremelyorn" r So,o, no one can clean record. Mr. Boswell stated one of the items they purchased at the Fantasy House for purposes of prosecution under obscenity was an item called the T-15 Trainer. It is harness that fits around a woman's head and forces a rubber ball into her mouth. There are hooks on the side of the harness and the is to bind the "slave" ons and on the harness say that the purpose to force the ball deep into her mouth. Mr. Boswell stated he would like to describe a few of the things that are sold at the Fantasy House, and the Commission members could decide whether or not they thought it is an adult oriented business. Besides the T-15 Trainer, there are chains and whips, some of them with descriptions for rape and simulated rape, movies such as the one found at the St. Louis Park store and found obscene in the Ferris/Alexander trial; also nighties and lotions. He stated they are not complaining about the nighties and lotions; it is all the other things the store sells, and they definitely believe this is an adult oriented business. Mr. Boswell stated that as far as visibility and location of the store, in its present location, he knows minors have been in the store who have not been carded. He knows that because he has spent hundreds of hours picketing the store, and he has watched people go into the store. Some are carded; but he would assume that many are not carded. One evening he observed some teenage boys holding up a video camera and taking pictures inside of the store. Because of its present location, the store is very accessible to this kind of thing. It is very important to get that type of business out of a family shopping center. Mr. Boswell stated that in December he presented the City Council with a petition of 2,200 signatures gathered from residents of Fridley and people who work and shop iurgingFiley. There were three main points on the petition: (1) City to pass a stronger obscenity statute, particularly to get rid of the torture devices being used for rape and simulated d rape (2) urging the City to pass a zoning ordinance; directive to the State of Minnesota for a stronger obscenity statute. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 9 Mr. Boswell stated he would like to refer to a couple of things in the proposed ordinance. He referred to 2.A (under Definitions) : "Adult Book and Media Store: An establishment having as a substantial portion of its stock in trade or stock on display books, magazines, films, videotape, or other media which are characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to 'Specified Sexual Activities' or 'Specified Anatomical areas' . " Mr. Boswell stated that, as he understood that, that means that if there is a store the size of K-Mart, they could have only 25% of their business in this type of adult materials, and it would not be considered substantial. The meaning is a little vague, and the Commission might want to take a look at it. Adult materials cannot be viewed by children and in an area that is zoned for family businesses, a business should probably be considered an adult business based on the fact that there is more than one item, rather than requiring a "substantial" amount of items. He also suggested the Commission change the heading to "Adult Book and/or Media Store". Mr. Boswell stated he questioned Section 7.0 under Operation. He did not know if Section C referred to the covering of the windows or not. Mr. Boswell stated they are definitely in favor of this ordinance. There has never been a City that has had a decrease in the crime rate after a porn shop has moved in. The space next to Fantasy House has been vacant since the Fantasy House moved in, and he doubted a business would be moving in very soon. All other cities have shown that there is a definite link between adult oriented businesses and the type of clientele they draw and the crime rate. While there may have been crime in Fridley before Fridley had pornography, they can be sure that it will increase because of it. He stated they are urging the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this zoning ordinance amendment. Ms. Gayle Boswell, 6800 Washington Street N.E. , stated she has also picketed for many hours in front of the Fantasy House, and thought she was pretty knowledgeable about the people who go in and out. They have seen many minors go in. This is a family mall and not an appropriate place for the Fantasy House. She stated she works for the school district and is around a lot of teenagers. Since the Fantasy House opened, there has been a lot of teasing and joking about the Fantasy House. She knows some of those kids have been in the Fantasy House, even if it is to walk in and get carded and walk out. That concerns her very much because of what the teenagers see when they walk in. Morning walkers have picked PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 10 up some very nasty trash left by people who have shopped at the Fantasy House. Ms. Boswell stated that regarding the opaque windows, right now the Fantasy House has curtains in front of the windows. There has been many times when it has been easy to see through those windows. Children do not need to see the things in this storem and be where confused are them. chi den, because it is too f the family are accessible to the children. Mr. Gronbeck stated his client tells him that minors are typically carded and not permitted inside. He stated the City has a very interesting ordinance. If they make an adult use the sale of any product that fits within the definition, will have to license every drugstore in town. He the is unconvinced that the ordinance, as drafted, would apply Fantasy House. tion Mr. Betzold aske d Mr.of theronbeck Fantasylf he had any House in St. 1LouisaPark,about the prosecution Mr. Gronbeck stated he was unaware of any prosecutions of that sort, as he was not representing the Fantasy House at that time. He stated he will be happy to check into it and provide City staff and the City attorney with that information, as well as the dismissal of the St. Paul ordinance. Ms. Helen Wojciak, 6280 Able Street N.E. , stated she also pickets the Fantasy House. She hoped the Planning Commission members have visited the Fantasy House to see what it is really like. The people who go there are people not normally seen in this neighborhood. These are the people being drawn to this area by the Fantasy House. It isn't until a child is raped or something terrible happens in this neighborhood that someone will do something about it. They want something done before anything happens. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A DECLAREDVOICE VOTE, ALL THE MOTION CARRIED VOTING AYE, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IRPERSON BETZOLD HEARING CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M. Mr. Betzold asked the Commissioners if they wished to make any changes to Section 9.1.D regarding the fact that the applicationeleh numberr scense shall contain of of two persons who shall ,beddresses,residents and of telephone n Anoka County. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 11 The Commission members agreed there should be no change to Section 9.1.D. Ms. Modig stated that a comment was made that limiting hours was putting a restraint on small business; however, the City does set limits on other adult-type businesses. Ms. Sherek stated the City has even limited the hours of operation for Menards. Mr. Saba stated in many cases with special use permits applications, they have limited hours because of the proximity to residential areas or other areas. Ms. Modig stated maybe they should clarify Section 7.C. so there is no doubt that this statement refers to the inside of the store. Ms. Savage agreed with the change suggested by Mr. Boswell for Section 2.A. Ms. Modig stated she has visited the Fantasy House, and they do have everything mentioned by Mr. Boswell. She did not like these things, but she had a difficult time with limiting with what people can sell and how they can sell it. But, she also realize they need some control over adult oriented businesses so they don't have them all over the City. She uses this shopping center a lot, and she has seen children and teenagers go into the Fantasy House. Whether they are carded or not, she did not know. They do need to address this issue; and they are doing that, and if the obscenity statute would make a change, they should look into that also. One of the studies said that where there is a higher concentration of adult oriented businesses in one area, there is a higher crime rate than if they were not concentrated into certain areas. In essence, they would be doing that because there are not too many areas left, and they are limiting them to little pockets in the City. That concerned her. Ms. Dacy stated that it helps to separate the businesses by 1,000 feet. There is another philosophy that concentrating all these businesses in one area is more detrimental than separating them throughout the community. There have probably been studies both ways. The areas that remain within Fridley are secluded as they are within major industrial areas and some commercial areas. It is the best attempt to put the adult oriented businesses in a location that is going to preserve the quality of life in terms of the residential areas of the community. Mr. Kondrick stated he would be in favor of the ordinance with some of the changes discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 12 Mr. Betzold stated that the issue as presented to the Commission is to address the zoning issues of the City. He did not have a problem with saying an adult business has to be in one area as opposed to another. The problem comes in defining what constitutes an adult oriented business. If this ordinance is intended for the Fantasy House, that may or not be accomplishing the goal because the ordinance may or may not apply to the Fantasy House. He is trying to separate the Fantasy House from the ordinance amendment. Mr. Saba stated children are confused enough when it comes to sex materials. This is and always has been a family shopping center. He is he concerned support the ordinancechildren without any being exposed to, problem. Mr. Sielaff stated he believed that the Fantasy House is an adult oriented business, whether it is called "other adult use" or not. He believed the Planning Commission should recommend approval of this ordinance amendment. Ms. Savage stated she supported the ordinance. Ms. Modig stated that, as Mr. Betzold has said, there are two different issues here. This ordinance may or may not affect the Fantasy House if the Fantasy House's attorney is found to be cohe• ordinance 1 amendment which Commission has to be concerned aboutut taddresses sexually oriented businesses in Fridley. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City Council approval of an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses with the following amendments: 1. Section 2.A. : Adult Book and/or Media Store 2. Section 7.1.C. : The layout of the display areas shall be designed so that the management of the establishment and any law enforcement personnel inside the store can observe the patrons. . . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated the City Council will establish a public hearing for February 11, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 13 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES IN THE C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS, AND C-3, GENERAL SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICTS, AS A PERMITTED USE, AND AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:55 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated that as a result of the distance analysis, staff determined that there are small areas of the C-2 zoned properties available for these sexually oriented businesses, some C-3, and a substantial amount of industrial area. This ordinance amendment adds the term "sexually oriented business" to the Zoning Code. In the C-2 and C-3 district, it would add it as a permitted use, subject to the terms and conditions of the ordinance which was just recommended for approval. In the industrial districts, it is recommended as a special use permit to be consistent with previous city action for commercial uses in industrial districts. It would be listed in the M-1 and M-2 districts as a special use permit, conditioned upon the ordinance that was just recommended for approval, plus the standards that are in place right now for commercial uses for multi-tenant buildings. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:00 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment permitting sexually oriented businesses in the C-2 and C-3 districts as a permitted use, and in the M-1 and M-2 districts with a special use permit as follows: 205. 17 M-1 Light Industrial District Regulations 1. Uses Permitted C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. (12) Sexually oriented businesses as defined and regulated in Chapter of the Fridley City Code. Sexually oriented businesses shall meet the standards PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 14 required for commercial uses as stated in Section 205.17.01.C. (3) . 205.18 M-2 Heavy Industrial District Regulations 1. Uses Permitted C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. (13) Sexually oriented businesses as defined the and regulated in Chapter oriented Fridley City Code. Sexually businesses shall meet the standards required for commercial uses as stated in Section 205.18.01.C. (3) . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 . (Tabled) PUBLIC HEARING: ECOISIDERATION OF A REZONING. ZOA #90-06, BY CRYSTEEL TRUCK To rezone that part of the east 225 feet of the west 475 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 405.60 feet of said north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business, the same being 1130 - 73rd Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to remove the item from the table and open the public hearing. DEC A VOICE VOTEM MOTION, CARRIED ALL VOTING AND THE AYE, PUBLICCHAIRPERSON BETZOLD HEARING OPEN AT DECLARED 9:05 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at 1130 - 73rd Avenue N.E. The property is currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial. Currently, there is a building located on the property which is being used for the assembly and installation of after market truck equipment. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting to change the zoning from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, ral Business, in order to apply for a special use permit to allow for the outdoor display of merchandise which is a special use in the C-2 district regulations. Ms. McPherson stated the analysis indicated that both the SuperAmerica and Rapid Oil sites which are adjacent to the subject cmetpercialain nature. The Central t Avenue Industrial, Avenue moreed Corridor Study PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 15 completed by staff in 1989-90 recommended that properties directly adjacent to Highway 65 be rezoned from an industrial designation to a general business designation. Ms. McPherson stated Crysteel 's use of this current building is predominately assembly with some sales and repair occurring from the site. The C-2, General Business, district does allow automobile service station and repair garages as a special use in the district. However, because of the types of vehicles that Crysteel does repairs and assembly work on are defined by statute as "heavy" vehicles, the code would define the facility as a heavy repair garage and not just a standard repair garage. The heavy repair garage is not a permitted use in the C-2 district, nor is it defined as a special use in the C-2 district. Ms. McPherson stated that by approving this particular rezoning request, the current use of the property would be rendered nonconforming and any future expansion of the property or the use would not be permitted. The property would meet the minimum requirements of the C-2 district for lot area, lot coverage, and lot width. The property itself did receive variances in 1988 for side corner and hard surface setbacks. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the rezoning request as the use of the property does not fit under the C-2, General Business, district regulations. Approving the rezoning request would render the property nonconforming under the zoning code. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission has received documentation from the City Attorney regarding the request and the interpretation of the Zoning Code by staff. Mr. Jim Kay, General Manager for Crysteel Truck Equipment in Fridley, stated the members of the planning staff have been very cooperative. He very much appreciated their openness and willingness to discuss this issue. Mr. Kay stated that Crysteel Truck Equipment is a subsidiary of Crysteel Distributing which is located in Lake Crystal, Minnesota, where they have been in business for about 18 years. They have been in the Twin Cities area for approximately 5 years, and in the current location in Fridley for just over 2 years. He has been with the company for a year and at the Fridley store since the first of October 1990. Mr. Kay stated that as indicated in the second attorney's opinion, they do not have a specific thing in either the M-1 or the C-2 zoning districts that specifically applies to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 16 Crysteel Truck Equipment and the things they do. He has a problem with some of the things the attorney has said and would like to address those issues with the Planning Commission and City Council. They seem to have their foot in one zone and the other foot in another zone. Some of that is brought about by the fact that their business has been changing over the last few years. When they first came to Fridley, about 95% of the business done at this store was the sale of after market truck equipment which would be physically installed on a truck chassis. Over time they have found that both the demands of a profit driven business and the demands of the market place have caused a change. Now about 85% of their business is of that nature, and he anticipates that if they can will rk t the change conflictsto 7 % of tween them and the City, their goaltheir business of that nature. Mr. Kay stated their business has grown considerably faster than they anticipated. They have increased sales volume from $1.8 million in fiscal 1989 to a little over $3 million in the year ending October 30, 1990. If they continue to grow at that rate solely by doing what they have always done, then some of their problems will multiply. They are seeking relief in three areas: 1. Outside storage of finished truck units and other equipment due to numbers of units in the yard. 2. Outside storage of finished truck units and other equipment due to the need to promote their products. 3. Changing product mix reflecting increases in equipment and related products which need not go through the shop. Mr. Kay stated they would like to be able to use specifically the parking area during the daytime store hours for periodic parking of equipment. They need the parking for two reasons: (1) to promote the products they sell; and (2) because of the limited nature of the site, they cannot get enough trucks going through the process at one time and it becomes very congested. They would only put new equipment out there that would not be junky, and they do not feel it would be detrimental to the appearance of the general area. Mr. Kay stated he respected the City Attorney's opinion, but he accepted it only as an opinion. It was an opinion of the ordinance that they are not a repair garage and, therefore, do not have a restriction to the heavy repair garage. They d are an on vehicles. That is part equipment installedof the service they provide to their customers. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 17 Mr. Kondrick stated the fact that Crysteel services what they sell might be part of the problem in the differences of opinion. Ms. Sherek stated that several of the Planning Commission members were on the Planning Commission three years ago when the people who owned Crysteel came in seeking to build the building. Crysteel is not a new business. Crysteel was formerly in the Hydraulic Specialties building. They were illegally parking vehicles before the building was constructed, and that was the reason for the limitation placed on the special use permit when the building was constructed. Crysteel has a special use permit and continues to violate that special use permit. The Planning Commission talked extensively about the limitations of the size of the property with the need for setback variances and special use permit, etc. , with the principals of the company when the business was built. If that was not acceptable at that time, why did they agree to the limitations and build on property where they knew there were going to be problems? Mr. Kay stated he can only speculate as he was not associated with the company at that time. . Mr. Kay stated Crysteel 's problem is that given the volumes the business has moved to, there are times when they cannot fit everything in the back of the site. They have rented space across the street, but that is not sufficient. If the end result is that the Planning Commission and City Council don't see the solution to the problem as suggested by Crysteel, either by a variation or a change in the special use permit or some other resolution, then fairly soon he will have to go back to the owners of the company and tell them that the building is not adequate and something else will have to be done. Mr. Kondrick stated that Crysteel may be pursuing something that should not be pursued, and maybe they are trying to put too large a business in too small an area. Ms. Sherek agreed with Mr. Kondrick. This site is very limited, and too many things are being crammed on a very small parcel of property. Maybe Crysteel, in fact, has outgrown this site and should be looking for a larger site. Mr. Betzold stated he also agreed. They can go around and around about whether the business should be in an M-1 zone or C-2 zone. Looking ahead, they have to agree that Central Avenue Corridor ought to be more C-2 zoning. And, the question is being raised: Where does Crysteel fit in? Crysteel 's neighbors, Rapid Oil and SuperAmerica, are PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 18 radically different from Crysteel. He stated there are places for the type of business Crysteel does, whether it is in Fridley or another community. The City wants to solve a lot of the problems in this area, not create new ones. Mr. Kay stated that he is concerned with the "Uses Excluded" in the M-1 district: "Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in M-1 districts. " He is trying to find the common ground. He did not want to spend a lot of time changing the product mix and successfully bringing on new lines, etc. , to sell out of their store and then find out that as they do that, they are violating the intent of the M-1 zone. At the same time, he does not want to park vehicles outside the parking lot and have the Code Enforcement Officer issuing fines or revoking their special use permit. Mr. Betzold stated heavy industrial districts are different from commercial in that businesses in commercial districts have to be in areas where there are a lot of people and traffic or they will not survive. Industrial businesses do not need that. It is his feeling that Crysteel is like that. Their customers will come to them whether they are on or off a main street. Mr. Kay stated that is true to a certain extent, but there is no doubt that there is an advantage to being on a main street. Mr. Kay stated that he does not care if the property is rezoned or not. It was simply a vehicle to get before the Planning Commission to see if there is a way the City and Crysteel can work together to solve Crysteel's problems. Mr. Betzold asked if the Planning Commission could approve the rezoning and deny the special use permit. Ms. Dacy stated that in order for Crysteel to not only store the vehicles but to display them for sale, the Planning Commission and City Council have to grant the rezoning and the special use permit. Mr. Betzold stated they seem to be spending a lot of time discussing the rezoning and yet there is another part to this, and that is the special use permit request. This particular area has both M-1 and C-2 zoning in it. He believed the big problem involves the outdoor storage. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 19 4. (Tabled) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #90-19, BY CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT: Per Section 205.17.01.D. (11) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment on that part of the east 225 feet of the west 475 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 405.60 feet of said north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the same being 1130 - 73rd Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to remove the item from the table and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:50 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that a special use permit be granted for either of two conditions: 1. To allow outdoor display of merchandise in the C-2, General Business District; or 2 . To amend stipulation #7 from SP #88-01, which requires that "no display or sale or otherwise of trucks or equipment shall be permitted outside the storage yard on or off site. " Ms. McPherson stated that based on the C-2 district regulations, staff does not believe Crysteel fits under the C-2 regulations; therefore, this special use permit would not be appropriate at this point. Ms. McPherson stated that under the M-1 zoning, the district regulations require that all storage occur in the rear and side yards. In addition, the code requirements do not include the outdoor display of merchandise. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that Crysteel be required to store and display all materials and equipment as required with the original special use permit. The requirement of storage of such materials is consistent with past and recent requests that have come before the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council denial of the special use permit to allow the outdoor display of merchandise in the C-2, General Business District, or to amend stipulation #7 from the original special use permit, SP #88-01. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 20 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing for the rezoning and special use permit requests. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED AT 9:55 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated this business has just outgrown this location. Mr. Saba stated he sympathized with the business owner, but he did not think they should recommend a change in the ordinance to allow outdoor storage in an M-1 district or to approve a special use permit for outdoor storage, especially with the history of violations at this location. Ms. Sherek stated she concurred with the City Attorney's opinion. She did not see this as a C-2 use, so they would be rezoning the property for a use that it is not currently being used for. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning, ZOA #90-06, by Crysteel Truck Equipment, to rezone that part of the east 225 feet of the west 475 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 405.60 feet of said north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business, the same being 1130 - 73rd Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council denial of special use permit, SP #90-09, by Crysteel Truck Equipment, per Section 205.17.01.D. (11) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment on that part of the east 225 feet of the west 475 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 405. 60 feet of said north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the same being 1130 - 73rd Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated that on January 28, 1991, the City Council will establish a public hearing for both the rezoning and special use permit requests for February 11, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE 21 5. RECEIVE THE NOVEMBER 20. 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the November 20, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 3. 1990. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the December 3, 1990, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the January 9, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully su1bmitted, 1Lpe Saba Recording Secretary f 1 j• STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITYOF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : January 23, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE : February 1 1 , 1991 AUTHOR BD/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER ZOA #90-02 APPLICANT Fridley Town Square Associates PROPOSED REQUEST Amendment to an approved development plan in an S-2, Redevelopment District LOCATION Northeast corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street SITE DATA SIZE 2.86 acres DENSITY N/A PRESENT ZONING R-1 and C-1 ADJACENT LAND USES North - R-1 , Single Family; East - R-1 , Single Family; & ZONING West - C-3, Shopping Center; South - S-2, Redevelopment DES Services available PARK DEDICATION Park dedication fees payable at time of building permit ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS HRA has approved conceptual agreement for TIF assistance CONFORMANCE TO Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL N/A CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION s. • Fridley Town Square Redevelopment Plan Amendment Page 2 Proposal The petitioner is proposing an amendment to the originally approved development plan in an S-2 District to add a fast-food drive- through facility at the west end of the proposed shopping center in the northeast corner of Mississippi Street and University Avenue. The intended tenant is Burger King, which would relocate from the current location at the southwest corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street. Because a drive-through facility was not discussed during the original development plan approval, staff determined that it constituted a substantial change in the development plan. Section 205.22.5. (C) of the S-2 District requires that substantial changes be submitted to the Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council. Background In March of 1990, the petitioner filed a rezoning application for construction of a 28,230 square foot neighborhood shopping center. The Planning Commission considered the redevelopment of the northeast corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street at the April 25, 1990 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended on a 4-1 vote denial of the rezoning request from C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family Dwelling to S-2, Redevelopment District. The Planning Commission determined that the LRT issue should be resolved prior to making a recommendation for the development of the property for commercial/retail use, and some Commissioners felt that the proposed development was over-built. On June 18, 1990, the City Council approved the rezoning request and the proposed development plan subject to 18 stipulations. The HRA has agreed to assist the project with tax increment financing; however, a development contract has not been executed in order that the planning issues are resolved with the proposed request to add a drive-through window for a fast-food restaurant within the facility. Analysis Adding the drive-through window function to the proposed site has the following impacts: 1. Site design. The proposal would dictate that traffic utilizing the fast-food drive-through window would enter the site at the far east side, travel north to the rear of the building, travel west to the west 6 • Fridley Town Square Redevelopment Plan Amendment Page 3 side of the building to the order window, and then pick up the food along the west wall of the shopping center. Customers would then leave the site traveling south to the end of the parking lot, then east to the site entrance (counter-clockwise pattern) . The originally-approved plan proposed that the rear of the building was to be used for truck loading and unloading activities only. A clockwise traffic pattern was proposed. Also, the loading and unloading area was located on the east side of the shopping center; however that has changed to the north side of the shopping center directly behind Walgreen's. Mixing automobile traffic with larger vehicle and truck traffic at the rear of a building is not typical, and usually discouraged. The developer has given us another example of this situation in Circle Pines. We hope to have a video for the meeting. The petitioner has rearranged the site plan to maintain a 15 foot setback along 66th Avenue, but widened the driving aisle along the rear of the building from the originally-proposed 20 foot wide driving aisle to 28 to 33 feet in width, depending on the particular location on the site plan. The intent of the widening of this area is to give room for service vehicles to make deliveries during the day, but yet allow automobile traffic to circulate around the rear of the building while service vehicles are on the property. The petitioner has indicated that Walgreen's would agree to a restriction on loading/unloading activities during the peak restaurant period of 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Trucks would park parallel to the building and unload by a curving conveyor into the building. Due to the widening of the driving aisles on the east and west sides of the building, the setback along University Avenue has been reduced from five feet to two feet. 2. Traffic impacts. We asked Barton-Aschman to revise the April 1990 traffic study to address the impacts of the fast-food restaurant. Included in your packet is the consultant's report and recommendation (remember that Barton-Aschman is the City's consultant, and the developer paid the fees) . The consultant determined that there would be no change in the level of service on Mississippi Street during peak hour from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Although additional traffic volume will be created at this time of the day, it will not be enough to trigger a drop in the level of service. • to Fridley Town Square Redevelopment Plan Amendment Page 4 As part of the consultant's analysis, actual data from the current Burger King location was analyzed. The peak hour of the fast-food use appears to be during the noon hour, from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. The typical peak for the shopping center occurs as people are traveling home from work between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Remember that the original April 1990 study assumed that 100% of the traffic generated from the site was brand new traffic and not traffic that already exists on the abutting roadways. This was a worst-case approach. In the revised study, it was assumed that 25% of the traffic generated by the fast-food restaurant was traffic that already exists on the roadway. In fact, the consultant noted that relocation of the Burger King to the northeast corner of the intersection redistributes the trips to the extent that the function of the intersection is slightly improved. 3 . Noise. The addition of more activity at the rear of the building poses concern for additional noise impact to the neighborhood to the north. Contributors to the noise would be the intercom system for the drive-through vehicles to place orders and responses by the fast-food restaurant employees, and the sound of cars waiting in line to place the order. The developer has indicated that he has hired a sound consultant (Twin City Testing) to analyze the appropriate decibel level of the order box and other noise generators. As another mitigating factor, the developer has proposed an extension of the screening wall from the originally-approved plan an additional 75 feet to the property line along University Avenue (landscaping was originally proposed in this area) . The developer has also indicated that, depending on the preference of the City or the neighborhood, he would be willing to construct an eight foot wall or a combination of the originally-proposed six foot wall and additional landscaping. The developer has indicated that the order box would be located in such a manner that it would point toward University Avenue in order to direct the noise away from the neighborhood. 4. Odor. The City Council added a stipulation during its consideration regarding the odor venting from the shopping center. Stipulation #17 required the following: "The HVAC and odor venting shall be designed with all possible design features and equipment which is economically available to eliminate to the greatest extent possible any odor emissions from the shopping center or its individual Fridley Town Square Redevelopment Plan Amendment Page 5 tenants, and proper venting will be provided for all odors caused by the shopping center or its individual tenants. Venting for specific odor-causing tenants such as restaurant or dry cleaning shall be routed to the most westerly point of the shopping center building before being released to the open air. " Locating the fast-food restaurant at the extreme west end of the building is consistent with the intent of stipulation #17; however, as to the type of equipment that will be used to minimize the odor of the fast-food restaurant needs to be submitted by the developer. Venting from the restaurant could occur along the west wall of the building. 5. Screening. The petitioner is prepared to construct an eight foot screening wall along 66th Avenue or a combination of landscaping and the originally-approved six foot wall. Staff is concerned that the addition of two more feet on the masonry wall may be perceived as increasing the impact of a large wall mass along 66th Avenue. Staff recommends that if the six foot wall is maintained that the landscaping plan be revised to provide additional landscaping along the northwest part of the site to break up the view and noise generated from that part of the center. If the recommendation is to construct an eight foot wall, we recommend Ivy plantings along the wall in order to break up the expanse and height of the wall. Due to the site design changes on the property, an increased setback is provided along Mississippi Street which will give additional room if the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority needs this area for a small park-and-ride facility. However, given the reduction in setback along University Avenue, the originally proposed shrubs on this side of the property will have to be placed along the property line, and snow storage on the site should not occur in this area. The original landscaping plan did not include a three foot hedge along University Avenue on the west side of the shopping center. If approved, the landscaping plan should be amended to provide a continuous three foot screen along University Avenue to screen the view of the drive-through traffic. Also, trees should be planted for every 50 feet of driveway aisle (this is consistent with the recently-adopted landscaping ordinance) . A five foot setback is still maintained along the east lot line adjacent to existing residences, and there should be no changes to the landscaping plan agreed to by the developer and those homeowners. 111. Fridley Town Square Redevelopment Plan Amendment Page 6 6. Light Rail Transit. BRW, Inc. has reviewed the revised site plan for this development. They identified a pedestrian compatibility concern with the drive- through traffic along the west side of the building. The proposed station location for the LRT would be at the northwest part of the site. The bus drop-off for the LRT is proposed to occur along Mississippi Street. The Rail Authority would have to provide a sidewalk along University Avenue to the bus drop-off. A pedestrian connection should also be made into the site as LRT users may want to either shop at the center or return to their vehicle in the parking lot. The developer should be required to stripe a pedestrian cross-walk area across the westerly driveway aisle in order to accommodate LRT users. This striping would obviously not occur until the system is constructed. Pedestrian access plans will be developed in the near future, as the LRT system is nearing draft Environmental Impact Statement review. 7. Hours of operation. As opposed to the originally-proposed plan of typical shopping center tenants, the addition of the fast-food restaurant poses an additional intrusion into the residential area in terms of hours of operation. Typically, fast-food restaurants are open until 11: 00 p.m. , and the drive-through activities could occur late into the evening, although they are not as heavy as during peak hours from noon to 5:30 p.m. 8. Lighting. Additional lighting at the rear of the building should be placed such that the light source is completely shielded and located away from the residential area. In fact, locating the wall packs on the south side of the proposed screening wall may help to minimize the glare. A specific lighting and location plan should be submitted if the amendment is approved. Recommendation In rezoning the property to the S-2, Redevelopment District, the district provides the City with the discretion to determine whether or not the proposed development plan is consistent with the redevelopment objectives of the City. During the original consideration, it was determined by the HRA and the City Council that construction of the 28,000 square foot shopping center was consistent with the intent of redeveloping the Center City District. It was determined to be a neighborhood retail facility that would not only provide service to the surrounding residential neighborhood but also provide an addition to the commercial economy Ilk Fridley Town Square Redevelopment Plan Amendment Page 7 of the City of Fridley. During deliberations for the center, the City Council wanted to be sensitive to various impacts on the residential properties to the north and east of the site. The rear of the building was to be for delivery and loading and unloading services only. Hours of operation would be the same as any typical shopping center. Traffic and parking activity was concentrated to the south of the property abutting Mississippi Street. The proposed addition of the drive-through window does intensify use of the property along 66th Avenue. The developer has identified several mitigating measures to control and contain the various impacts of noise, traffic, and odor. In fact, these measures are in excess of typical free-standing fast-food restaurants abutting residential areas (the former McDonald's site and Hardees) . The issue to be decided is whether or not the originally-approved plan in June 1990 is more appropriate/ compatible with the adjacent uses and zoning. Despite the improvements made to the site plan in order to accommodate the proposed change (including increasing certain setback areas) , staff remains concerned about the impact of the use onto the adjacent neighborhood in terms of noise, odor, and hours of operation. The result of the petitioner's noise and odor study will be available for Wednesday's meeting. Adding a fast-food restaurant at the end of an existing shopping center building appears to be a new market industry addition. However, because of its location on this particular proposed site, it creates an unusual and awkward circulation system around the rear of the building. Given these reservations and uncertainties, staff is not making a recommendation until receipt of the noise and odor studies. However, should the Planning Commission recommend approval, the following stipulations should apply: 1. The screening wall shall be extended to University Avenue. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add additional Evergreens along 66th Avenue if a six foot height is maintained or Ivy plantings along the wall if an eight foot height is constructed. A three foot continuous hedge and trees for every 50 feet of driveway should also be provided along University Avenue. M., Fridley Town Square Redevelopment Plan Amendment Page 8 2. A lighting plan should be submitted and approved in conjunction with the building permit application. 3. A pavement marking plan delineating drive-through and loading traffic should be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. A "no parking" zone should be striped along the rear of the building adjacent to the Walgreen's use, and along the east side of the building. 4. The decibel level of the order box should be at a level where its noise is not audible from residential properties to the north. 5. Construction details of the odor venting system shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. Venting for the fast-food restaurant shall be routed to the westerly point of the building before being released to the open air, consistent with the original approval in June of 1990 (stipulation #17) . 6. The property owner shall work with the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority to provide pedestrian connections where appropriate into the site, including striping or sidewalks. 7. Walgreen's shall agree in writing, and submit it to the City, to prohibit loading/unloading activities between 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. ZOA #90-02 . U.C.D. lt ! ' i'r i join . ' . ifF e! g! i r i i61 :• i .r s : I �.- t 1. a € ) it. E 1143i it 1 t}E 1 iii i ii f E " iqi 11 ! glii! t > 111111 's t t ! i 1 i it 3r!-_-1'2 1'2 r -' :_ ��t iit • i i i s i i g i s i 1 1 i i I s i i E ;i 1 ! i i :}i i}! ri t ! _ III! ; ; ;fi ri ' zit} -I ! rzi :I a' g s_i rg 1 • ! i ;II, ils .t i 'iti m - :z! pis! _E tri ig ii t 51 =1t} .; :� 1.1}i}1 g I i _riv_ iris: Igig• lgc: _ ii i :a iiii - rr - tik.al ! i ! ._s: = r�g! iiiii 3i 3ii<=_ ii ii . ii iiii i II 1 i! 7� 1le 4 . I •. r' S II • •i �• r ala ... N il3 I! P:.'" 2 \-' 1i . i' :\ill r :i. • • 0 ,� t �i: . I O G r _f. 11 • ttl - � -.\ N.._....._:_— . -i 1 1 i i 5— "� II ' lii '` ` ` , .. Al ! .. �r ' Na y ,I . .,-; ‘‘‘ . II ; i, % 1 . I `i ZI ..," • 1 .ter.+ (4 • 1%)- i\' • �r•Sri— �` 'v ktti .I 1 ilL, i \ I I • e \'� Vlg� i 't' H ! i i Z W 1>1 ..4111IMP-1121MMF-IMED— C.,, 8 . 1 •!! qt 2E1 ..•••2-/ 1 _. g 1 �-f! \r.r.. .' li : Mf� ` .' 1 ti . •.. jam,, - As...`" i--.; IWL • b mw i M:L.:....>) —I S1f3A1 NA ; • EXISTING CONDITIONS ZOA #90-02 TT C n i W t 'N jtj L.- N Z W 0 iI:; 'b 1 t E t 11 I. i3 I- £ L 11 I -E I i� I P' i I 11 I R; . I I, 1 I I ; I I i I I I I I I I I I IAA. II 1 ; ± N ct .00I •• Am i S3]vdS Et }SI ?, w+r g N G • i1 - i I wII I .8 '" / 1 N. 8 ,I__II I 1 n n 1 1 ill....-1 QII 1 N i -g II I 1 ti I I t a i iin -rI W id I �I I 1_ ate_ It I �_ T I -f � I' rn o=C Vrt ti —o-1 s H „ II ' 1 —N -h. —o - j Y1.I yvv- I. .D t _a, I. I I L C N ' 1-I •j,a LS CZ I——I. N _ -N 1 1 1I 1 6. I II I r- - "' " -t-4--- I 1 I' I I I I C. n -1---o . I I rI-I--- : I /I{ 1 II 1 -ri m a C I I : il- 1 I ' �_, I I I Q- S +} n c. I 1 - 1 P I I a j I I • ti E, ) a " r.. s 1 (n1I IV aN I I' iN ? n N� '•'Iti V s l 1 J 1 ' I } I• N o 1 - \ I I I 10 ----- 3N 3nN3At, Aiis 13/,INn f I 1 I . i. Ili 6/90 APPROVED SITE PLAN till ' .-- • -:In 4 9` TI ,, 1 7.7 1, ; , . i tAt7 oN a1 .ram(. . .. -- C, t m I II a 11- T ,i r C- .-1 . -----i -1-\, 1 i` -.,- A J , _ , , . \A N , , ) in ' • 72- E_ ` ) " 1 1 ' H C ..... .... -I ' I'l Zz +�� rOlrQI� SZ4 6I Frz ,Sb2` e ,c,i„,... ii , , fit ,7 y 1 .".11. : 1 i ' N N f , PROPOSED SITE PLAN lk. - JI 1 I _ firijLi. ,.. ,d1 1 1 c.-. ,„, f . 1 l": . ill . ..,, . • iii s i 1 ,I .- 1iIIIiI i i ii,IIi iti:i"1i 1,. - 1, , c.-- iiii • 1 c, i,l 1 , i , li :i�I l 1 t it_ ! f EeF! d t8888s9r1tt1iY- C-••.. i : I , .- ., „di' • I / i ttlit'1;141 it I d • lip 11 g 1. ` ipil 1 a i _ W II 7 3{ L: ea° yt•t ilL.' s i --- rill EE I iti zti 1 !1 p i1 ..1 a , l; , ;0 I . r llt• Ma . __ , I l — lit I —— LT'.I I a• 1 t I r �— ,i; 141 i! • II ./ik silk fit, IT r W t� cr aw._ I. i y — — 'I 11 II z�� 1 .. 1I I1• • -- — - - i I I J>=ff 11 I °� — 6D II i I I i h - - _ 'lit- jd 1 I . 11I 'e‘-- v ., 1 i il I t i t 1 4..,, II \� III i I -- � +' ', I . 1 ORIGINALLY-APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN i r : - s I PROPOSED DRIVEWAY • 50 C 10,000 AUTO PARTS I CGNST. BY OTHERS �in � j --- r— scale .-3 1 'USE riCV -Cu' ..._ ._..-__.... _.. _.....__. � �,` .,yam 1 t �. - RETAINING WAL I fl (SEE DETAIL ST. 5 —•_ 1 `_. ._.- ` PARKING LOT 7I i j // ti I �•''---ace, ,, ..\,k4s......., ; • •T 1,•�1 t� �',. f T._1 ..•. •-' •. ■aeieee/aaase0/ar mseseetakciae�mivar . < e 2O } '—� — 25 =Q ION TO EXISTING �-Y �` """ ' ' leA -PAVING STONE _ _ _ i )ENTAL; f �, - -- _ - an B618 CaG ?6il `. if..: h � � �� chi •■ •.. .. .': (?3:t g yam■ Ill lbw eaubeeso sacesR> .lar eli0saar�sai"a!pgns r10�rB-•_ = - -- _. 2Cv re ' s-`-"' •-- --`..._' :�-,~: •_.--';�•-:_z.4� ... ...,0 � RETAINING WALL 1Q � -�•''•`" 5 �./ 5•SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL SHT, 5) , .��t+ 50'R a .i & .R BETE AN - _,* TARGET TARGET FARKING LOT / I .11 RELOCATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS NECESSARY 10 I - SYSTEM AND PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO LANDSCAPED l L SAW ;;UT AS ,I- C-ED SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL BY ENGINEER INFORMATION. I B.Ni TOP WES STA cr rs z Lo o S I~_ r• co co U=) m N- ti r W CO CO W . _. 1- I a 0. a u s II 200'V.C. M=0.09' . ANOKA COUNTY IMPROVEMENT PLAN EAST OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE (NOT TO SCALE) FRIDLEY TOWN SQUARE PLAN CHANGES APPROVED PLAN PROPOSED PLAN 1. 28,230 square feet 27,745 2. 143 parking spaces 140 3. 20 aisle width 28-33 around building 4. 6 screening wall wall extended to University Avenue; could be eight feet 5. east side of loading zone north side of building building 6. plan approved landscaping less area for shrubs along University Avenue 7. clockwise traffic direction counter-clockwise 8. 5 feet along setbacks 2 feet along University University Avenue; Avenue; 18 feet along 15 feet along University Avenue University Avenue 9. 20 foot length parking stall One system at 18 feet 25 foot aisle systems long with 24 foot aisle 10. Drop-off site; LRT Same; however, conflict potential for with pedestrian traffic additional spaces along Mississippi Street 11. 322 Peak hour volumes 404 at site intersection (all directions) FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1990 PAGE 10 NEW BUSINESS: 4. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING. ZOA #90- 02. BY FRIDLEY TOWN SQUARE ASSOCIATES: Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated that the S-2 zoning district is similar to a planned unit development district. She stated that it is unlike any other district in that Council determines what types of uses are located in the district based on a redevelopment plan. Ms. Dacy stated that staff is recommending first reading of the ordinance to rezone this property in the northeast quadrant of Mississippi and University to S-2 with 16 stipulations. Mayor Nee stated that this rezoning question is very difficult. He stated that he has given much thought to Mr. Thayer's comment about not making the same mistake as last time in regard to this property. He stated that the Planning Commission has recommended against the rezoning and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has recommended approval. He stated that he felt if the rezoning is approved, there may be several families immediately to the east of the property that may have some damages. He stated that, on the other hand, there are several families that had that impact for the last 25 years. He stated that many persons are opposed to the rezoning, but he has also heard from others in the community who want this site cleaned up. He stated that under an S-2 zoning, the City has all kinds of discretion in terms of the development standards. He stated that in weighing the pros and cons, he felt it would be in the best interests of the City to allow the rezoning. Councilman Billings stated that he contacted those property owners immediately adjacent on 66th Avenue and, unfortunately, the weather has not cooperated, and he did not get out and communicate with residents who live further away from this site. He stated persons several blocks away have signed the petition. Councilman Billings stated that one of the main concerns is the fact that, if this project proceeds and if a LRT station is located on this site, it would necessitate the removal of approximately eight homes for a park-and-ride. He stated that the information received from the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority was that they are not looking at this option for this site. Councilman Billings stated that another concern was that the site was not large enough, and additional homes on Mississippi should be taken for this project. He pointed out that the ratio of lot coverage to buildings is 23 percent for this site and 21 percent for Holly Center so these are about the same. He stated that this site would not be any more over-built than Holly Center. He stated FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1990 PAGE 11 that on the other side of the issue, some residents did not want a commercial area to encroach into the residential neighborhood. Councilman Billings felt that if this rezoning is approved, it would preclude or minimize the future commercial encroachment into the residential neighborhood. He stated that there would be no entrances into the residential area from 66th Avenue, and there should be no increased traffic on 66th Avenue as a result of this project. Councilman Billings stated that very few people have an idea what type of development should be allowed on this site other than to make it into a park. He stated that because of the close proximity to University Avenue, this site would not be considered for a park. He felt that other options would mean several peak periods of traffic when workers arrive and depart from work. He stated that the traffic for this project would be staggered rather than two peak hours, which is probably a better option for this site. Councilman Billings stated that one of the other comments pertained to odors. He stated that he does have a stipulation to add regarding odors being generated from a restaurant or dry cleaning business in particular. Councilman Billings stated that some of the positive aspects of this rezoning is that development of the site would generate more taxes for the City, County, and school district. He also felt that the development would be a visual improvement for the area and City as a whole. Councilman Schneider stated that his concern is what other type of development should be allowed if this is not approved. He felt that the site, as it now exists, is not good for the neighborhood. He stated that this proposal is viable and would benefit most of the neighborhood, except possibly one or two homes. He stated that the report from the traffic consultant is that this would not greatly affect the traffic flow. Councilman Schneider stated that it seems to make sense to proceed with the rezoning, with the stipulations, so the City has control. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and approve the ordinance upon first reading, with the following stipulations: (1) the development shall be constructed in accordance with site plan dated March 8, 1990, as represented in ZOA #90-02; (2) the landscaping plan shall be revised to include: (a) six American Lindens along the north lot line (b) Honey Locust trees shall be replaced by Hackberry trees; and (c) Annabel Hydrangea species shall be replaced with rosa rugose; (3) the petitioner shall pay park dedication fees prior to issuance of the building permit; (4) storm water management calculations shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit; (5) all rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-ways; (6) the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OP JUNE 18. 1990 PAGE 12 petitioner shall obtain development contract approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority; (7) the petitioner shall execute a maintenance agreement for the landscaping and parking areas; (8) no automotive service uses, car sales, or other outdoor repair/display uses shall be permitted; (9) the City shall have the right to review each use within the center to determine whether or not it is consistent with the intent of the Center City Redevelopment Plan; (10) the site plan shall be revised to provide one 18 foot entrance lane and two 12 foot exit lanes; (11) shared parking and access easements shall be provided on the property for LRT kiss-and-ride traffic, and specifically along the west and south lot lines; (12) all lighting shall be shielded such that the glare does not adversely affect residential properties; (13) all parking and driving areas shall be lined with concrete curb; (14) all dumpsters shall be screened in accordance with the City's ordinance; (15) underground irrigation shall be provided to landscaped areas; and (16) a comprehensive sign plan for free- standing and wall signs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Council. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she shared Councilman Schneider's concern about the buildings that now exist on this site and that the problem will only get worse. She felt that this rezoning allows the Council to take some action from causing the neighborhood any more harm. She stated that perhaps another developer may wish to develop the site but may want to acquire more homes which would further impact the neighborhood. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that this is a very difficult decision and hoped the rezoning would change the neighborhood in a positive manner and not a negative one. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that some development has to be allowed and that it has been elaborated on in the public hearing. He stated that there does not seem to be an answer to what type of development should occur on this site. Commissioner McCarron's assurance has to be taken seriously that this site would not be expanded in the near future for a park and ride facility. MOTION by Councilman Billings to amend the above motion by adding Stipulation No. 17 as follows: (17) the heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and odor venting shall be designed with all possible design features and equipment which is economically available to eliminate to the greatest extent possible any odor emissions from the shopping center or its individual tenants. Proper venting will be provided for all odors caused by the shopping center or its individual tenants. Venting for specific odor causing tenants such as restaurant or dry cleaning shall be routed to the most westerly point of the shopping center building before being released to the open air. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1990 PAGE 13 UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, Councilman Schneider, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Fitzpatrick and Mayor Nee voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings voted against the motion. Mayor Nee declared the motion carried by a 4 to 1 vote. Councilman Billings requested that in the next two weeks, and prior to a second reading of the ordinance, the developer contact the property owners at 365 Mississippi Street and 370 - 66th Avenue to try and reach a mutually acceptable agreement in regard to the landscaping. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 34-1990 PROVIDING FOR WATER RATE CHANGE: Mr. Rick Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that this resolution would increase the water rates in the City. He stated that the Council, staff, and some of the consultants discussed this issue a number of times since last December. He stated that t,his process started with the need for additional construction and repairs necessary to provide a proper supply of water to operty owners of Fridley. He stated that these improvements wer outlined in the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Pribyl stated that various versions f water rates were reviewed, and it was decided to proceed with a two-tier rate structure which would allow for a volume discount for the large users that consume over 5,000, 000 gallo s per quarter. He stated that the rate proposed provides for 0 to 5,000,000 gallons to be priced at .60/1000 gallons and over , 000,000 gallons to be priced at .55/1000 gallons. Mr. Pribyl stated that in arri ing at this rate structure, the rates were compared with surro ding communities, and it was found that Fridley is extremely com etitive. He stated that the increase still provides for discount for senior citizens and those who are disabled. He stated that e first billing for this increase would not be effective until 0 tober. Councilman Fitzpatri• asked the effect of the increase for a typical family resi• -nce. Mr. Burns, City anager, stated that if a customer uses 135, 000 gallons per qu- er, the increase would be about 5. 13 percent. Councilman :illings stated that he received two letters from constituen s questioning the rationale that large users have a five cent dec -ase in the rate at a time when water conservation is an issue. Mr. •ribyl-` stated that large users are taking the brunt of the in. ease. Therefore, for those who consume 5,000,000 gallons or o er a five cent decrease was offered as it will have a greater . mpact on these consumers than on the average resident. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION SLEETING, APRIL 25, 1990 N.��►.��.M....O..��.4.M ...r.1M.�.rM�.M�.r.►.0.�.��Np.M... .r CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the April 25, 1990, Pla ing Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MOLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondr' k, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Paul Dahl. -rg Members Absent: Alex Barna Others Present: Barbara Dacy, P anning Coordinator Michele McPhe - on, Planning Assistant Jock Robert •n, Community Development Director Leon Mads- , City Assessor William ' rns, City Manager Steve : llings, Councilmember Tom S' uette, UCD Sco Erickson, UCD D- •e Koski, Barton-Aschman Associates ate Kemper, 7857 Alden Way N.E. Phyllis Forsberg, 1404 West Danube Road Roger and Myra Hanson, 6065 Central Avenue N.E. (See attached lists) •PPROVAL AF APRIL 1 990 NIN COMMISSION INUTES: OTION .y Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the April 11, •90, Planning Commission minutes as written. U ON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED HE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A 02, BY 1. URBANC HEARING: COMME COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION ELOPERS OF AND REZONING, FRIDLEY Z TOWN 0 SQUARE ASSOCIATES: To rezone three separate parcels as follows: Lot 9, Block 2 , Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 355 Mississippi Street N.E. ; AND Lot 12, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 368 - 66th Avenue N.E. ; AND Lots 10, 11, and 12 , Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat i, except the South 30 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof Mi. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 2S, 1990 PAGE 2 on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2, according to the recorded plat thereof one file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C-1, Local Business, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 6525 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated this item was originally scheduled for the March 14 , 1990, Planning Commission meeting; however, two primary concerns were identified by the neighbors at the two neighborhood meetings, and by members of the HRA and the City Council. Those two concerns are: (1) The use itself--the proposed rezoning; and (2) Traffic issues. Ms. Dacy stated the vacant single family lots north of the 10,000 Auto Parts building and the two single family homes to the east of the 10, 000 Auto Parts building are zoned R-1, Single Family. The 10, 000 Auto Parts building and property is zoned C-1, Local Business. The rezoning request is to rezone all those parcels to S-2, Redevelopment District, in order to construct a one-story 28, 000 sq. ft. retail building. The S-2 district is a district for redevelopment projects and permits site plan flexibility for a redevelopment project. If the Council approves the rezoning, the Council 's approval is based on a specific site plan. Mr. Robertson stated Center City Redevelopment District, which was adopted in 1979, is one of several in the City of Fridley. In 1979, the City Council made findings that there were severe traffic and safety problems with the existing layout of the entire district, that the land north of 10,000 Auto Parts had not been intensely developed because of severe access and traffic problems, small land area, and the location of abutting single family area. The Redevelopment Plan noted that the land area had several proposals for redevelopment, but because of the traffic problems and small land area and location, each application has been denied. Mr. Robertson stated that since 1979, the Fridley Office Plaza, Target Northwest Operations Center, and the Fridley Plaza Clinic have been constructed. There was also the renovation and expansion of the Holly Shopping Center. However, this original 2.4 acre site has remained essentially the same before 1979 due to the land ownership patterns and the traffic patterns that prevented any redevelopment of the site. In the meantime, the County has purchased access easements on this parcel, and the Minnesota PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 3 Highway Department has purchased access easements on University Avenue. Mr. Robertson stated that in an attempt to develop this intersection in accordance with the proposed plan, the HRA considered the impact of this particular redevelopment proposal on other potential redevelopment in the southwest quadrant. Mr. Robertson stated that at the April 18, 1990, meeting, the HRA concluded that for both of these proposals it would be appropriate for some mixed use of residential office and retail. The HRA concluded that if there were commercial development on this corner, there would probably still be a mixed use on the 10 acre southwest corner, but there would tend to be less retail and a higher proportion of office or residential in the southwest quadrant. At the conclusion of the meeting on April 18, the HRA recommended approval of the UCD redevelopment plan based on the site plan for this parcel. Mr. Robertson stated the HRA discussed the question that was raised earlier about how the proposed retail facility would affect existing retail in the area. The developer presented their view based on their experience. Essentially, this is a situation where there has been no retail development, with the exception of the small expansion of the Holly Center, in this area for 30-40 years. In the meantime, the City has grown in this area. When the southwest quadrant is developed, there may be less retail in the future, because the retail that is there may be displaced by other office or housing uses. Mr. Robertson stated Walgreen is the proposed anchor tenant, using 11, 000 sq. ft. of the 28,000 sq. ft. The remaining 17, 000 sq. ft. will be added to the retail stock of the City. Staff believes this is a relatively small amount of retail to add to the existing stock of retail centers. Mr. Robertson stated the HRA found the redevelopment proposal primarily intended to serve both as a neighborhood facility and to take advantage of the existing traffic on University Avenue. The petitioners feel this facility will not significantly compete with the other shopping center that is nearing completion at Moore Lake Commons. Mr. Robertson stated HRA Chairperson Larry Commers noted that the proposed project is a modern facility which may attract existing tenants from other less desirable centers around the area. Another existing center in the Center City Redevelopment Area is Moon Plaza, which is probably at the end of both its functional and design life. Mr. Robertson stated the HRA approved this particular redevelopment plan. They recommended staff initiate preparation of a pay-as-you- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 4 go tax increment financing to the project in which the project will be assisted with approximately $300,000 that will essentially come from the taxes that the project pays after it is completed. There is no up-front money and essentially no risk to the public for financing. The purpose of the financing is to assist in the assembling of the various pieces of land and to write down those land costs so that the land costs of this project are comparable to other existing open sites. The differential in the taxes that would be paid on this site compared to what are paid now is in the neighborhood of a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio. The taxes that are presently . paid on this proposed site are approximately $17,500, payable 1990 taxes. The most minimum tax revenue, using the worst case approach, the income approach based on the rents of competing retail centers in the area, indicate there would be a minimum of $84, 000 a year. Ms. Dacy stated that despite the fact that the S-2 district does not stipulate any setbacks, staff approached the site design analysis to try to accomplish as much of the standards as would be typically required if this was a vacant piece of property and the entire property was zoned C-1. There are only two instances where the site plan does not meet those standards. (1) The building on the University Avenue side has a setback of 30 feet instead of the required 35 feet; (2) Typically, parking lots have to be set back 20 feet from the public right-of-way. .Along Mississippi and 66th Avenue, the setback is 15 feet, and along University Avenue, the setback is 5 feet. However, the proposed application does meet the screening standards required by ordinance, which is a 15 foot planting strip with some type of 6 foot screen, either a fence or dense vegetation. In this case, the petitioner is proposing a 6 foot masonry wall matching the exterior of the building to be located along 66th Avenue and then along the east lot line separating the development from the two single family homes to the east. Around the wall will be plantings of Boston Ivy and lilac bushes (5 ft. ) . She stated that staff is recommending six additional Linden trees along 66th Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the LRT issue, the Commission members had received a copy of a letter from Tim Yantos, of the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority, who notes that this site is part of the LRT design system plan. In the letter, Mr. Yantos related the following: (1) If this site were to be developed, the initial phase for LRT use would be that Mississippi Street would have a special bus drop-off located near the intersection and that the site would, in effect, operate as a "kiss and ride" as opposed to a "park and ride" ; (2) If it is determined that the demand in this area warrants it, Mr. Yantos is requesting that an easement be reserved along Mississippi to install additional 30 parking spaces for a small park and ride facility; (3) As a final phase, if demand warrants it and as a long term option, the County would be looking at acquiring homes on the north side of the development on the north side of 66th as well as 67th for a park and ride ah. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 5 facility. Access to the park and ride facility would be from the driveway into the development, and the driveway would have to be widened in the northeast corner of the site. At this time, there is no indication that there would be any direct access from the park and ride to the neighborhood, nor would staff recommend that. Ms. Dacy stated she would like to introduce Dave Koski, Barton- Aschman Associates, whose office conducted the traffic impact analysis from this development onto the existing roads, as well as the impact onto Mississippi and University Avenue after Anoka County's proposed improvement project. Both Mr. Koski's staff and City staff conducted traffic counts during various times during the last month to determine the existing traffic conditions. Mr. Dave Koski stated they conducted observations of all turning movement traffic count on the afternoon of April 10, 1990. They wanted to test the worst case during the P.M. peak hour which is basically from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Next they wanted to determine what kind of traffic this development would generate. They have conducted surveys of centers similar to this throughout the metropolitan area. In addition, the Institute of Traffic Engineers has collected data on traffic generation by various size developments around the country. Mr. Koski stated that using a combination of their own traffic generation figures plus nation-wide statistics, they calculated what they thought would be the traffic generation and the entry and exit volumes for this center during the P.M. peak hours. Mr. Koski stated that in both cases with the existing traffic conditions, they came up with a level of service D. Traffic level of service is rated on a scale from A (perfect) to F (failure) , C is average, and D is considered acceptable. Level of service D really means that all the traffic clears the traffic signal phasing in each cycle. Level D is not perfect. It means if there is something that goes wrong (snowfall, accident, etc. ) , there can be intermediate congestion at times. The existing level of service at the University/Mississippi is level D, and with the added traffic from the shopping center, the level of service remains at D. The volume of traffic doesn't have much impact on traffic operations at this intersection. Mr. Koski stated they wanted to know how the eastbound left turn from Mississippi Street into the shopping center could work. They were interested in the longest backup of traffic to enter the site during the peak hour period with the existing traffic plus the shopping center traffic. The calculations indicate that the longest backup within that P.M. peak hour period would be about 280 feet. The distance from University Avenue to the driveway of the shopping center will be 340 feet. They found there would be sufficient gaps in the Mississippi Street traffic to allow the eastbound left turn in to operate basically a level service A. IN\ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 6 They do not see any problem with the left turning movement into the site with the existing street configuration. That will be improved somewhat with the improvements proposed by Anoka County for Mississippi Street. Mr. Koski stated, similarly, the left turn out of the site on eastbound Mississippi Street seems to work alright. If there is any backup that occurs at all, it would be within the shopping center site waiting to turn left. They calculated that backup at the peak period to be about three vehicles. Mr. Koski stated they also looked at the intersection at 5th Street and Mississippi. They determined there would be some delay, but it would not be significant and really doesn't have any impact over what exists today. Mr. Koski stated Barton-Aschman's conclusions were that, assuming the worst case scenario, of all the traffic being new traffic during the P.M. peak hour, that the impact of the entry and exit operation into the shopping center would not have significant impact on the University/Mississippi intersection traffic operations, and that Mississippi Street is able to accommodate the left turn into the site from eastbound traffic without little or no impact on Mississippi Street. Mr. Dahlberg stated that even though the traffic report does not take into consideration potentially added traffic due to the LRT in the future, could Mr. Koski make a guesstimate as to whether or not that impact would adversely affect the level of service D rating on this intersection, taking into account that there are smaller vehicles as well as buses. Mr. Koski stated the LRT is obviously going to have an impact. They did not consider the LRt in their findings. They did review with the consultant some of their ideas as to what the amount of traffic might be. At this point in time, the consultant has a wide range of figures as to how many people might park and what the entry and exit movements might be during the peak hour. Total entry and exit traffic could be as high as what they calculated for the shopping center itself. However, they think it is mitigated by the fact that P.M. peak hours would mostly be exiting traffic and would be later than the 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. peak hour. A video tape presentation was shown facing west on Mississippi Street toward the University/Mississippi intersection. The video tape was filmed on Monday, April 23, 1990. Mr. Leon Madsen, City Assessor, stated he was asked to make comments on the Assessing Department's reactions on this rezoning. He stated there are two criteria they use to determine what to do in a situation like this. They first need to look at the accepted appraisal practice. That practice says that if an informed buyer PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 7 has the choice of two identical properties, one next to commercial and the other within a compatible neighborhood, the buyer will more than likely choose the property located in the compatible neighborhood, if the price is the same. Mr. Madsen stated the other process is a practice they have followed in past years. Throughout the City in locations similar to this, they have consistently placed a lower value on the properties that abut or are located directly across from commercial development or commercially zoned property. In this particular case, if the rezoning takes place within the area marked, the City will probably reduce the property values of the properties that abut the 10,000 Auto Parts property. Mr. Madsen stated that properties that back up to Holly Shopping Center have property values about $2, 500 lower than those homes across the street. These neighborhoods are quite similar, and the property values are similar. The City is looking at a reduction of approximately $2 ,500 in property values for the three properties and one property facing 66th Avenue to the east of the proposed development, if the rezoning goes through. Mr. Betzold stated that if the County changed its position and decided this property would be ideal for a park and ride, and the entire property became a parking lot, what kind of tax base would there be? Mr. Madsen stated he had not done any analysis of that scenario. There is no other similar situation in Fridley. There are other park and ride facilities throughout the Twin Cities, but he would hesitate to make any kind of projection at this time. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the assessed value of those six residential properties decrease the same amount, more, or less intuitively if this was a park and ride lot rather than a retail center. Mr. Madsen stated that, again, he has not studied that scenario at this time; however, it might be appropriate to do so. Ms. Dacy stated that given the recommendation of the HRA that this project is compatible with the redevelopment plans for Center City, because of the positive conclusion from the traffic analysis, and because the proposed site design meets a majority of the City's standards and screening requirements, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the rezoning request from C-1 and R-1 to C-2, Redevelopment District, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The development shall be constructed in accordance with site plan dated March 8, 1990, as represented in ZOA #90- 02. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 8 2. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include: a. six American Lindens along the north lot line; b. Honey Locust trees shall be replaced by Hackberry trees; c. Annabel Hydrangea species shall be replaced with rosa rugose. 3. The petitioner shall pay park dedication fees prior to issuance of the building permit. 4 . Storm water management calculations shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. 5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-ways. 6. The petitioner shall obtain development contract approval from the HRA. 7. The petitioner shall execute a maintenance agreement for the landscaping and parking areas. 8. No automotive service uses, car sales, or other outdoor repair/display uses shall be permitted. 9. The City shall have the right to review each use within the center to determine whether or not it is consistent with the intent of the Center City Redevelopment Plan. 10. The site plan shall be revised to provide one 18 foot entrance lane and two 12 foot exit lanes. 11. Shared parking and access easements shall be provided on the property for LRT kiss-and-ride traffic, and specifically along the east and south lot lines. 12. All lighting shall be shielded such that the glare does not adversely affect residential properties. 13. All parking and driving areas shall be lined with concrete curb. 14. All dumpsters shall be screened in accordance with the City's ordinance. 15. Underground irrigation shall be provided to landscaped areas. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 9 16. A comprehensive sign plan for free-standing and wall signs shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Council. Mr. Tom Schuette, UCD, stated the center is a 28, 000 sq. ft. building intended to be a neighborhood service retail center. It is designed to service a 1-2 mile population. It is not intended to bring people from distances farther than that. Some of the proposed uses in mind are the Walgreen Store and other neighborhood service type uses such as dry cleaning, hair salon, movie rental, Chinese restaurant, framing gallery, small furniture store-- services aimed at uses which the local community would frequently use. They feel the University/Mississippi intersection has long been identified as an area that needs to be revitalized, yet not much has happened. Mr. Schuette stated that in addition to the Walgreen store, they would have 17 ,000 sq. ft. of retail space. That would be 5-6 shops. Holly Shopping Center is approximately 75, 000 sq. ft. Moore Lake Commons is over 100,000 sq. ft. This 17,000 sq. ft. of new retail after such a long period of time with no new retail in this area is a mild and appropriate development. Mr. Schuette stated he knows the City is very concerned about the southwest quadrant. They have estimated that the southwest quadrant has 30,00-40,000 sq. ft. of retail space today. Redevelopment on the southwest quadrant certainly could include at least that much retail without fattening the market of retail space. In the event the southwest quadrant is developed without a retail component, the intersection would see a net loss of retail space, even with the addition of their new center. Mr. Schuette stated the proposed a first class neighborhood shopping center that will continue to be attractive and well maintained and a service to the community. Mr. Betzold stated the Commission has received petitions filed by the neighborhood. It would be in order to receive these petitions. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive Petition No. 1-1990 and Petition 2-1990 signed by people opposed to the proposed 28, 000 sq. ft. retail shopping center at the northeast corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Betzold stated he would like to go through the items of concern expressed by the those who had signed the petition, and he asked for Mr. Schuette's reaction to each one. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 10 (1) It requires the removal of two existing homes and the erection of a towering concrete wall along the perimeter of the property. The sheer magnitude of the wall would be an eyesore to residents in adjacent homes and would create resident concern about maintenance of a graffiti-free wall. Mr. Schuette stated they have a great deal of concern about the wall and the immediate 6-7 neighbors. Throughout the process, they have felt that the proposed wall would be the most acceptable solution to the neighbor's concerns. Most of the oral comments he has heard have not referred to a "towering" wall. Some have even said the wall is too low. He stated the wall will be built of the same attractive block as the shopping center. The color of the block goes all the way through the block, so any graffiti can be sandblasted off. They feel a 6 ft. high wall is best, and with the expanded center 15 feet, they now have the ability to add some berming in front of that wall in that 15 feet. To put a shorter wall on top of a berm defeats some of the safety issues about children. (2) We recognize the fact that an underground sprinkler system is to be installed, but that alone does not assure that the grounds will be well manicured. Mr. Schuette stated a maintenance requirement is one of the stipulations. It is in their best interest and in the interest of their retailers to maintain that landscaping professionally. They expect to do that. (3) The same type of retail shops as are being proposed on the 10, 000 Auto Parts site already exist at Holly Center just across the street. Additional retail is not necessary in such close proximity to Holly Center. Mr. Schuette stated that it is their opinion that additional retailers are not necessary; however, he would think everyone would agree that not all their retail shopping needs are met on the corner of Mississippi and University. If a similar shop exists in Holly Center, it is nothing more than fair competition and the normal evolution of a growing community. (4) Residents are concerned about the negative impact increased traffic along Mississippi Street will have on the safety of children walking to and from Hayes School and on the increased potential for accidents and bottlenecking due to the stacking of cars making a left hand turn into the shopping center from the eastbound lane on Mississippi Street. Mr. Schuette stated Mr. Koski addressed many of the actual traffic flow concerns. It is Mr. Koski's expert opinion that there will not be a traffic problem. As far as the children walking to Hayes School, the shopping center will not be located between the homes NMh. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 11 and the school. Again, he has to rely on experts and City staff who believe this proposal will not create a danger for the children. (5) Many residents in the neighborhood abutting this proposed development have resided in their homes for years and years. They take pride in their immediate neighborhood and consider their residential area to be much more than just a home on a street in Fridley. Mr. Schuette stated that, obviously, the homes in this neighborhood are nice, and they want to maintain the quality of their neighborhood. Personally, he felt the existing use of the 10, 000 Auto Parts property is unattractive, and they want to bring in a shopping center that is as compatible as possible to the neighborhood. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive a letter dated February 23, 1990, from Diane and Peggy Hanson, 365 - 66th Avenue N.E. , stating they are opposed to the rezoning request. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. James Thayer, 377 - 66th Avenue, asked who is going to maintain the right-of-way area 15 feet back from the curb to the property line on both sides of the street. Mr. Dahlberg stated he believed the City requires any property owner within the City limits to maintain to the curb line, so it would be the responsibility of this development to maintain all the way to the street. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct, and they can ensure that through the maintenance agreement. Mr. Lyle Olson, 376 - 66th Avenue, asked if the tax base remains the same whether or not there are tenants in the shopping center. Mr. Madsen stated part of the appraisal process is to assess the income flow from the property, and the vacancy rate is an important factor of that process. As the property rents up, the City will be monitoring that and will adjust the values for that rent-up period which typically lasts about 3 years. Hopefully, they will be able to settle in on a vacancy rate that is typical in the market. They will be looking at what the typical shopping center of that size in Fridley or even a little bit larger area are experiencing in terms of vacancy. So, if the center does have some extreme vacancy rates, the City will have to reluctantly change the tax base. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 12 Mr. Thayer asked Mr. Madsen if he had some vacancy percentages on Holly Center, Moon Plaza, and other centers in the City. Mr. Madsen stated Fridley has a decent ongoing record of vacancies in retail centers. They try to check them out on an annual basis. The vacancy rate right now is about 10-15%. Mr. Thayer asked what Mr. Madsen considered the average life of commercial property in Fridley. Mr. Madsen stated he thought the renovation turn around is about 10-15 years, but that varies. Ms. Brenda Tibbetts, 421 Mississippi Street, stated she did not feel City staff has addressed the traffic problems correctly. They are looking at cars, not pedestrians. They see children trying to run across Mississippi Street to the library and across 5th Street to Mississippi to go to Holly Center. There are no crosswalks or stop sign at the corner of 5th and Mississippi. A better time to video traffic would have been 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. Why wasn't the video taken farther back from 7th Street or 5th Street? Again, why wasn't the pedestrian issue addressed? Ms. Dacy stated the concerns that staff heard from the neighborhood meeting was the amount of stacking on Mississippi would block the traffic going into and out the site. So, they wanted to observe exactly how far back the queue would occur on Mississippi. People were concerned that drivers would rear end or back into people wanting to turn left into the site. The video showed that a majority of time the left hand lane was clear of traffic and the majority of the traffic was in the right lane. As to the time, 4 : 30 - 5: 30 p.m. , the consultant has stated that is the peak hour for shopping center activities, as many people combine a shopping trip on their way home from work. Mr. Koski stated that as far as pedestrians are concerned, they did count pedestrians. There is no question that at times, it is difficult to cross Mississippi Street without the benefit of a traffic signal. They don't think the shopping center will have any significant impact on pedestrian crossings. Ms. Louise Bennethum, 368 - 66th Avenue, stated they have lived in their home for 32 years. She stated this is the best proposal they have seen in that 32 years. She lived there before either Holly Center or Red Owl (a former tenant of the 10,000 Auto Parts property) . She stated that over the years, she has put up with rats, smells, trespassing, snowmobiles through the yard, trash, noisy vehicles, etc. They have put up with all this, because their neighbors have voted down every other proposal that has been made for this property. She has checked with people across the United States who have a Walgreen Store in their neighborhood, and she has not received one negative response. She stated she wanted her OM11. 'LANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 13 neighbors to realize that they have not lived next to these lots and next to this horrible building and the things she just mentioned. It is now time not to have to bear this anymore, and they are in favor of this proposal. Mr. Marbolez, 355 Mississippi Street, stated he agreed with Ms. Bennethum. The 10,000 Auto Parts store is an eyesore, and there definitely should be some consideration given to remodeling or rezoning this property. Mr. Clinton Tibbetts, 421 Mississippi Street, stated the traffic on Mississippi Street backs up past his house. He and wife have a daycare in their home, and they have seen cars almost run the children over at 7th and Mississippi. He stated they do not need any more traffic. They do not need another retail center. Holly Shopping Center is just across University, and Moore Lake Commons is only a mile away. If all the existing centers have a 10-15% vacancy rate, then put the new retail shops in the 15% that are already empty. He agreed that the 10,000 Auto Parts site should be remodeled into something, but not another retail space. Mr. Betzold encouraged anyone in the audience who opposed the rezoning request to tell the Commission what they would prefer to see on this site. Ms. Pat Anderson, 367 - 67th Avenue, stated it was her understanding from listening to City staff that the light rail transit issue was to be a kiss and ride and then maybe several years down the road, there might be the need for a park and ride. She stated late that afternoon, she had a conversation with Tim Yantos from Anoka County, and he had told her that the proposed light rail system will go in within 3-4 years, but that they will only wait approximately one year before deciding whether or not they need the park and ride. She stated she sees this whole issue tied to the light rail issue. If they go ahead with this development, it precludes them from using the existing space for a park and ride; and then houses on 66th Avenue and 67th Avenue would have to be removed. Ms. Dacy stated she had spoken to Mr. Yantos on Thursday, April 19, and had received a letter from him dated April 19. She had not spoken to him since that time. Mr. Thayer stated that he is opposed to this proposal. He stated the plan as submitted is marginal in that the developer already recognizes the need for additional space. That is the reason for purchasing and rezoning the two single family lots adjacent to the property. It is just moving the problem to the next neighbors, and it will just keep continuing until the whole block is gone. This project is not going to do a thing for the neighborhood, except its downfall. It also concerned him that the plan did not quite meet the standards required by the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 14 Mr. Thayer stated this is a difficult area to develop. It is a very small area which is part of the problem. Mr. George Meisner, 373 Mississippi Street, stated his objection to the proposal is that he believes it is an inappropriate development for the needs of the neighborhood. Holly Center is right across the street. Everything proposed for this site is already available either at Holly Center, Moon Plaza, or Rice Plaza. He, too, questioned the traffic surveys done. The surveys were done on Monday and Tuesday, and he did not think those were the worst days of the week from a traffic standpoint. A better view of the traffic might have been done on a Friday afternoon. Last year, when Anoka County was using Mississippi Street as a bypass for I-694, the traffic was miserable. Subsequent to that, the traffic has not been so bad; however, there are many days when he comes home from work that he is not been able to turn left into his property going east without waiting for the traffic to clear. This indicates to him that the traffic is worse than that indicated by the study. Mr. Meisner stated some type of senior housing might be a suggestion for part of the property. He stated the LRT should be strongly considered in conjunction with any development on this property. He thought a park and ride facility would really benefit the City of Fridley. Ms. Janet Thayer, 377 - 66th Avenue, stated she would like to see some type of community park on this corner that could be enjoyed by everyone in the City of Fridley. Ms. Marilyn Sullivan, 522 - 66th Avenue, stated she lived a little outside the immediate neighborhood. She stated she has grown up in Fridley. She would like to raise her family in Fridley. She stated she has some problems with this proposal and rezoning request: 1. The LRT issue. The idea of possibly removing eight residential homes in the future was unconscionable. Even removing two homes is unthinkable. 2. There is the possibility that 10 homes would be removed. These people have paid a lot of taxes in the City of Fridley, they are close to fine schools, yet this development would eliminate those homes. She believed these neighborhoods should remain strong and viable, which means holding back on developments that are not residential. 3. It was the direction of the Planning Commission in the 80's to preserve affordable homes, and now why are they committing themselves to redevelopment that was proposed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 15 back in the 70's? It might have been desirable back then, but it is not now. - 4. The increased traffic is a problem, and she had not heard anything about a pollution control study or impact. 5. Noise has to be a serious consideration. 6. With the extended turn lane and the road line being so close, the privacy and quality of life is being reduced, which is also supported by the lower tax value on some of these homes. Ms. Sullivan stated they do not need a Walgreen Store. They have a Snyder Drug Store which is a Minneapolis-based chain, and she would hate to see it go out of business by Walgreen which is an out-of-state chain. They should keep the neighborhoods intact. They should not have development encroaching upon them and potentially downgrading their quality of life. She thought the citizens of Fridley deserve priority treatment. Mr. Madsen stated he wanted to clarify that vacancy rates in themselves are not entirely unhealthy situations for a shopping center, because it does provide space for additional new and fresh tenants. The vacancy rates in Fridley in the existing shopping centers are fairly typical of vacancy rates in the local area. Ms. Holly McGregor, 355 - 66th Avenue, stated she is opposed to the shopping center because of the traffic. She agreed that the traffic is heaviest on Friday and Saturday, not on Monday and Tuesday when the traffic study and video were done. Mr. Lowell McGregor, 355 - 66th Avenue, stated he is opposed to the shopping center. He did not want to see them consider any development on this site until they know more about the LRT, because his home is one of the ones that would be removed for a park and ride. Mr. Ellsworth Hinz, 384 - 66th Avenue, stated 66th Avenue is one of the best streets in Fridley and let's keep it that way! Ms. Brenda Tibbetts, 421 Mississippi Street, stated their property values are going to go down. If the LRT is a big issue, then they should just put in the park and ride lot. $OTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:40 P.M. 1 I. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 16 Mr. Kondrick stated this property is an eyesore now, and he had to believe that this proposal would certainly be an improvement over what is there now. What concerned him the most was the light rail issue. Mr. Betzold stated he has also been troubled by the LRT issue ever since they first discussed it quite awhile ago. He was concerned that the City has made a strong commitment to try to develop this whole area, and he did not think that the existing 10,000 Auto Parts building is doing the neighborhood any good or the City any good. His first reaction was, why do they need another shopping center? Part of this property has been zoned commercial for many years. This is the center of the city. The problem is that the developer who developed this property 30-40 years ago could not have possibly foreseen the development and the traffic of today. Unfortunately, a park would not be economically feasible for the City, and residential is also not realistic for this corner. The wild card, of course, is the LRT. Mr. Betzold stated the Planning Commission strongly encouraged the County to look away from Columbia Ice Arena as a park and ride site because of poor access to it and had recommended the County look at the corner of Mississippi/University. This is now a golden opportunity for the County to step in and acquire this property for a park and ride while there is the opportunity. The worst thing that could happen is to put a shopping center in now and then have the LRT come in later and need more space and tear out homes. Mr. Betzold stated that from a tax base standpoint, maybe it is not in the City's best interest to build a parking lot, but he thought they should take the advantage now and acquire the land for a park and ride. If a park and ride does not go in, the property would be available and maybe there will be a good proposal. For right now, they are just hemmed in with 30 years of development that the City can't control and the neighborhood has grown up around it, and they might be trying to put too much onto this small piece of land. Mr. Saba stated there are some very positive benefits from a development such as this. One problem is with the elderly and children trying to cross University to shop at Holly Center. A development of this type would resolve that problem. However, he is also very concerned about the light rail issue. It is really stymieing development in the City. He would not want to see 6-8 homes taken because this was developed into a retail center with light rail coming through. It is unfair to the neighbors to tear out existing homes and replace them with a brick wall, even though the developer will try to make it look nice with plantings. He would like to see a Walgreen Store go into this area, but with the rest of the shops, it just makes too big a development for this small piece of property. For these reasons, he would vote against the rezoning. L PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 17 Ms. Sherek stated she agreed with Mr. Saba. The Coabmmission the issue has struggled a number of times over the last few years that the value of the land in Fridley is so high and the cost of building and developing is so high, that there the need to st every square inch the City will allow on a piece of property in order to make that piece of property financial feasible being development. She feel this property is probably overdeveloped for its size, given the present proposal. Ms. Sherek stated that the Planning Commission has also been looking at the LRT issue for quite some time. The Commission ion indeed did direct the County to look at this corner for a park ride. She was not sure that a park and ride was the most wonderful thing for this corner, but light rail is certainly coming, but it would be preferable to see a park and ride on a lot that is already essentially a parking lot that would be upgraded, as opposed o taking homes (to which she is opposed) . For those two reasons, the ovail transit in later which of the rty and light vote might the rezoning also. Mr. Dahlberg stated he is disappointed in the Anoka County Rail Authority in its lack of response to this whole issue. He agreed with what has been said by the other Commissioners relative to the LRT. One of the other aspects of LRT that the Commission has advocated is that -as part of any possible station location that would occur at this intersection, there would also be constructed a pedestrian bridge over University Avenue. He thought that opportunity still exists. He had some concerns about the proposal as presented. He thought the setback requirements being eased, specifically on Mississippi Street and University Avenue, are a little difficult to deal with, primarily from the standpoint that if the 15 ft. setback along Mississippi Street is acceptable, an easement for LRT parking will also have to be provided, with the possibility that additional parking spaces would be constructed along Mississippi Street which would bring the setback down to 5- 10 feet from the b. He did not especially at thise the idea o intersectionf all that pavement and concrete, es P Mr. Dahlberg stated he has visited and shopped at the Calhoun Center that the developer has constructed and owns. It is with at very nice center. The company has done a nice job properties. The center is maintained, and that center is leased 100%. Mr. Dahlberg stated he is a little concerned about the additional truck traffic to the service drive around the back of the building and dumpsters that are located in back. He stated this is a good project, and it would be well suited to this site if the LRT question was not a the Commincern. ssion mightut, it is a concern; and he felt it bbe prudent for to try to resolve the issue of MINIM • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 18 the LRT before making a recommendation for the development of this property for commercial/retail use. Mr. Dahlberg stated the neighbors have responded both positively and negatively to the idea of a park and ride lot; and it is his interpretation that the neighbors would rather see a park and ride lot than a retail center. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning request, ZOA #90-02, by Urban Commercial Developers and Fridley Town Square Associates to rezone three separate parcels as follows: Lot 9, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 355 Mississippi Street N.E. ; AND Lot 12, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 368 - 66th Avenue N.E. ; AND Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1, except the South 30 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2, according to the recorded plat thereof one file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C-1, Local Business, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 6525 University Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, KONDRICK VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Dacy stated that on May 7, the City Council will set the public hearing for May 21. Everyone will be renotified of that meeting. Chairperson Betzold declared a 15 minute break at 10:00 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT -P.S. #90-02. MICHAEL SERVETUS 2ND ADDITION, BY KATE KEMP OR THE MICHAEL SERVETUS UNITARIAN SOCIETY: Being a replat of Outlot A, Michael Serv= s Addition, to create four separate lots, generally - ated at 980 - 67th Avenue N.E. NOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconde. •y Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading of the public hearing - ice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V. ING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UN , - OUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:15 P.M. Ms. McPherson - ated this request is being made by Kate Kemper and Phyllis Fors- -rg who are co-chairing the building committee for the Michael S- etus Unitarian Church. The plat is just one of three reques = that are interrelated. The Planning Commission will also It CITY OF FRIDLEY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the December 13, 1990, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Commers, Virginia Schnabel, John Meyer, Duane Prairie Members Absent: Walter Rasmussen Others Present: Bill Burns, Executive Director of HRA Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Rick Pribyl, Finance Director Paul Hansen, Accountant Jim Hoeft, City Attorney APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 8, 1990, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the November 8, 1990, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT TURNBACK TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Mr. Burns stated that in addition to the agenda material, the HRA members were given an updated memo entitled "Update on Information Regarding Interest and Penalties on Delinquent Taxes from Skywood Mall" . Mr. Pribyl stated that as the HRA stipulated, he is bringing this agreement to the HRA earlier than in the past so that the school districts can incorporate this into their budgeting processes. Staff has provided the HRA with an estimate of what they feel this agreement will actually return to the various school districts within the boundaries of the City of Fridley. This year the estimated amount is $268, 958, the most significant amount returned to date. Mr. Pribyl stated one item he wanted to clarify is in regard to the penalties and interest on the Skywood Mall. In his memo he made HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 2 a comment regarding the windfall to School District #13 and possibly holding back $113 , 500. The Finance Department of the Department of Education has just clarified what happens with those penalties and interest. These penalties and interest are actually part of a formula, just as the City has a formula for the levy limit and the state aids. These penalties and interest for the school district are part of their formula in their determination of their per pupil aid that they received more in penalties and interest because they are actually coming through with the tax settlement that actually reduces their aid. So, School District #13 is not privy to a windfall of $113,500, because their aids are reduced proportionately by that amount. What really happens is the State of Minnesota then is the benefactor of that $113,500; it is not the school district. As it stands, he is asking the HRA's approval of these agreements without any stipulations. Mr. Burns stated that if the HRA withholds the $113,500 turnback to School District #13 , the State does not kick in with more aid. Mr. Pribyl stated that in regard to the referendum return, this amount of money does not enter into the State's calculations. So, this amount of money would be a true return to the School District. If the HRA holds back the $113 , 500 from School District #13 , they will not get that amount of money back from the State, because it is not part of the apportionment process that is figured into their taxes and the School District would be penalized for something they did not even receive. Mr. Commers stated there is a bigger policy issue that has been raised every time they have discussed this subject, and that is the purpose of the refunding to the school districts and the fact that they are doing it now in December 1990 for the 1992 fiscal year without knowing what, in fact, will be the HRA's financial position. That raises issues in view of the fact that they have a major project under dispute which may cause a significant financial commitment from the HRA. He is not so sure the HRA can just continue to promise the return of these funds to the school districts two years in advance. The original reason was not that this was going to be an ongoing process, but he did know there have been a number of issues raised by the schools and they do have problems, so it is very difficult to draw the line. But, from a philosophical and policy point of view, it is something the HRA will need to address again. He believed the HRA said they would consider it this time; but it is something they will have to watch, especially since the dollar amount has increased significantly. Mr. Prairie stated that it might be prudent for the HRA to set a maximum dollar limit on the return to the school districts and not exceed that amount. Setting a limit would provide the HRA some protection from these increases. Mr. Burns stated he would like to make two observations: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 3 1. It is important to go back to the rationale that supports the HRA's option, and the rationale behind the legislation gives the HRA this discretion that this referendum money is money that was not anticipated at the time the tax increment financing district was set up. 2 . They have seen a lot of increase in their return to the schools, but he believed as Moore Lake Commons and the Moore Lake Racquet, Swim, & Health Club have been completed that they are probably getting close to the point in time when they will not see these large increases. Mr. Meyer stated that if they put a cap on the amount of money to be returned to the school districts, the school districts would be put on notice that they cannot continue to expect increasing returns. Mr. Pribyl stated the way the agreement is now written, it actually stipulates that the increments will be returned. By approving and signing the agreement, the HRA is bound to return the amount collected. Mr. Burns stated the HRA might want to consider tabling further discussion and before voting on it, look at their revenue flow and compare it with the projected projects. The HRA has not done that for awhile, and it might be timely to do that as they start a new year. Mr. Commers stated that he thought the HRA should be honest with the school districts that the HRA may not be able to continue returning these kinds of monies in the future. He did think the HRA should make a commitment to the school districts, but they should make the commitment less than what it is--possibly $200, 000. Mr. Meyer stated he thought the HRA should send a noticeable signal to let the school districts know that the HRA is trying to build a noticeable reserve for any future needs the HRA might have. MOTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to authorize a referendum levy return to School Districts #11, #13, #14, and #16 in the amount of $200, 000, payable out of the referendum recovery of 1991, payable to the school districts in 1991-92 ; the total amount to be prorated among the four school districts. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Pribyl stated the agreements will be modified to incorporate this dollar change. • HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 4 2 . SIGN PERMIT FOR FRIDLEY PLAZA PHARMACY, FRIDLEY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING: Ms. Dacy stated this request is brought to the HRA as a result of the original development contract for the Fridley Plaza Office building. The original development contract was quite specific on the type of exterior signage allowed. There is no wall signage on this building, except for the signs within the tenants' windows. Staff wanted to bring this request before the HRA and the City Council to make sure that this request is consistent with the original intent of the development contract and the intent of the redevelopment district. Ms. Dacy stated the Fridley Plaza Pharmacy is proposing to put a sign right above their tenant space on the south side of the building across from the Fridley Plaza Clinic. The owners of the pharmacy have received a number of complaints from their clients regarding the clients' ability to see the pharmacy from 5th Street and from their elderly patients coming from the clinic across the street. The Fridley Plaza Pharmacy wants to put up a 17 sq. ft. sign which will say "Pharmacy" . The height of the letters is about 18 inches, and the length is 11 feet 4 inches. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending that the HRA approve the sign permit request for the Fridley Plaza Pharmacy with the following two stipulations: 1. The letters be a golden color consistent with other window signage on the building; 2 . No additional signage be permitted for the building unless the HRA and the Council consents to accept additional exterior signage for the building. Ms. Dacy stated it was staff's interpretation that the original intent to control the signage on this particular building was to minimize the impact of the appearance from along University Avenue. This particular sign would be on the south side of the building and would not be very visible from University Avenue. However, if one tenant has a sign, there is nothing to prevent another tenant from petitioning for additional signage. Ms. Dacy stated staff has expressed their recommendation to Tony Krajeci, the building manager. Mr. Krajeci agreed with staff's recommendation and stipulations. Mr. Commers stated he believed one of the reasons the HRA put a restriction on exterior signage was not with so much concern about the appearance of the building from the University Avenue frontage, but more because it was the HRA's desire to maintain control over the exterior and general appearance of the building. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 5 Mr. Commers stated he could certainly understand the desire and need by the Fridley Plaza Pharmacy for this sign. Mr. Meyer stated the sign is not going to be illuminated so that is not an issue. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the sign request as proposed by the Fridley Plaza Pharmacy with the following stipulations: 1. The letters be a golden color consistent with other window signage on the building; 2 . No additional signage be permitted for the building unless the HRA and the Council consents to accept additional exterior signage for the building. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Commers stated he was not sure the City Council had the right of final approval on the development agreement for the Fridley Plaza Office building. He believed it was just the HRA. 3 . ESTIMATES: a. The Kordiak Company (Rice Plaza) Mr. Hansen stated the HRA no longer needs to approve the management fee for The Kordiak Company. It is part of the check register and part of the normal operating billing. Mr. Commers stated it might be helpful for The Kordiak Company to submit a written memo to the HRA on the status of the tenants in terms of the rent payments. Mr. Pribyl stated staff can contact Mr. Kordiak and find out what his policies are as far as rent payments. Staff can then give the HRA a monthly status report based on the rent checks received. 4 . CLAIMS (2082-2089) : MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the check register dated December 13, 1990, as submitted. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. CONSIDERATION OF 1991 MEETING DATES: HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 6 The HRA members were in agreement with the following 1991 meeting dates, with the time of the meeting changed from 7:00 p.m. to 7 : 30 p.m. January 10 July 11 February 14 August 8 March 14 September 12 April 11 October 10 May 9 November 14 June 13 December 12 6. PROPOSED AGREEMENT TO ASSIST PROPOSED NEW RMS PLANT WITH ONE- HALF OUTSTANDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: Mr. Burns stated it is staff' s plan to have either a resolution or a very small development agreement prepared for the January 10, 1991, HRA meeting. Ms. Schnabel stated that the City Council will discuss this proposed agreement on December 17, 1990. She stated she would like staff to give the HRA a general report on the discussions. 7 . STATUS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION AT 57TH PLACE: Ms. Dacy stated she had just spoken that day with the MPCA staff member following this project. As far as the MPCA is concerned, they feel that Delta Engineering is continuing to do the additional studies they want. She had also received a telephone call from Jack Lemley of Ashland Oil that day. Mr. Lemley wanted to know if the HRA would be discussing this particular redevelopment area. She told Mr. Lemley that the HRA would not be discussing it. She stated she asked him where Rapid Oil is with their particular plans, and Mr. Lemley said he could not discuss that at this time. They have agreed to contact each other in January. 8. STATUS OF UNIVERSITY/MISSISSIPPI STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Ms. Dacy stated that when the HRA discussed this item on November 8, 1990, the Council was going to consider the improvement issue at their November 13th special meeting. The Council did that and agreed in concept with installing the street lights and all the elements of the University Avenue Corridor concept the HRA has agreed to pay for. Ms. Dacy stated that in Mr. Flora's memo dated November 29, 1990, he stated that the City can expect an agreement from Anoka County requesting approval and identifying the appropriate fund participation, and this will come to the HRA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 7 for approval. The County is in the process of amending their plans. Ms. Dacy stated that Councilmember Steve Billings is quite concerned that when the new median is constructed down the middle of Mississippi Street, it will block the full traffic movement area where the frontage road now intersects with Mississippi. Councilmember Billings has received a lot of comments from the neighborhood expressing a need to get out of the neighborhood and be able to go both directions on Mississippi. The Council has instructed Mr. Flora to come up with a method to maintain some type of temporary access during construction and until the southwest quadrant can be developed. Ms. Dacy stated that also in process, staff is still working with Don Fitch, owner of the Dairy Queen, regarding the impact this has on his drive-through. A meeting was scheduled with Mr. Fitch last week, but he had to cancel that meeting. Another meeting has not yet been rescheduled. Staff will be working with Mr. Fitch on some type of temporary arrangement to maintain his drive-through ability. Ms. Dacy stated staff is proceeding with the appraisal on the Dairy Queen to acquire that piece of property so that they can convey the necessary road easements back to the Anoka County for the improvements. After the property is acquired, they would then execute a lease agreement with Mr. Fitch to allow him to continue to operate his business. All of these issues would have to be approved by the HRA. Mr. Commers asked what is the HRA's responsibility in terms of the temporary road. Ms. Dacy stated the road costs will not be part of the HRA's costs. The HRA costs will be the landscaping and all the improvements that were part of the University Avenue Corridor project. Mr. Burns stated the road costs are $20, 000, and it is the City's responsibility. 9. STATUS OF PROPOSED FRIDLEY TOWN SQUARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Mr. Burns stated there are two parts to this discussion. The first part is to include a Burger King drive-through as part of this development. The second part has to do with Jim Casserly's Equity Participation Agreement. Ms. Dacy stated staff has scheduled a meeting with Scott Erickson for Tuesday, December 18, 1990, to look at all the potential impacts of this proposal. Mr. Erickson wants to HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 8 locate a Burger King at the west end of the building toward University Avenue. This particular Burger King tenant is the same owner that operates across University Avenue in the southwest quadrant now. They want to have a drive-through window at the rear of the building, and the traffic, as it enters the site, would have to go to the rear-end of the site, go around the rear of the building, customers would place their orders at the west end of the building, pick up their food, and then go all the way down to the Mississippi side and • exit that entrance. Ms. Dacy stated staff has a number of concerns about the Burger King drive-through. Staff has advised Mr. Erickson that if he intends to pursue the drive-through, because it is a substantial change to the originally approved development plan by the Planning Commission, HRA, and Council, he will have to back through the process. The surrounding property owners would have to be renotified, a public hearing would be conducted by the Planning Commission, the HRA would review the new plan to see if it is consistent with its redevelopment objectives, and the Council would review it in terms of their rezoning decision. Ms. Dacy stated that the HRA might have to consider this as early as the January meeting. Staff is very concerned about the traffic pattern because of the drive-through activity, the noise from the by er box the to take Burger King customers'facility.orders, and The the odors generated neighbors were also very concerned about these things. Mr. Commers stated he believed this proposed change would have a significant impact on Mr. Casserly's Equity Participation Agreement. Mr. Prairie asked if the HRA has ever seen a financial statement for the developer. He would be interested in knowing the strength of the developer. Mr. Burns stated staff can have a financial statement available for the HRA at the January meeting. Mr. Burns stated that because of the HRA's high level of participation, which is around 10%, Mr. Casserly is recommending the HRA should expect to benefit in any windfall profit which the developer might make as a result of selling this project in the future. In order to do that, Mr. Casserly has developed an equity participation formula that is very similar to formulas used for multi-family housing projects that have been built in places like White Bear Lake, Shakopee, Inver Grove Heights, North St. Paul, St. Paul, and Minneapolis. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 9 Mr. Burns stated that in order to arrive at the end result, which is the City's share in windfall profits, you first multiply the net appreciation of the project by the ratio of HRA equity participation to the developer's equity participation. In this case, the HRA's equity participation is $250, 000. The developer's equity participation is $350, 000. That ratio is 71% based on $250,000 to $350,000. As a result of negotiations between Mr. Casserly and Mr. Erickson, there is a minimum return to the HRA that is specified as $100, 000 and a maximum return is specified as $250,000. There is also an agreement that there will be no sale of the project by the developer until two years after the issuances of the certificate of occupancy. It is also agreed that the project will be sold by the end of the seventh year. If it is not sold by the end of the seventh year, then the HRA will retrieve its money based on an appraisal of the project at the end of the seventh year. So, again, the HRA's return is based on the current appraisal. Mr. Burns stated net appreciation is determined by looking at the sale price and then subtracting from the sale price the developer's investment, which is $350, 000, and the developer's return on investment, which is anticipated at 15% per year. Mr. Burns stated the idea is not necessarily that the HRA is an equity partner that shares equally in the profit. Staff realizes that the developer has taken much of the risk himself and is in the business of developing and deserves a reasonable cash on cash return. What the HRA is trying to ensure that if there is a windfall profit above and beyond the reasonable rate of return that the HRA participate in it, since the original participation was higher than normal. There is no sharing of any losses by the City. There is no participation in any negative situations. Mr. Commers stated that it seemed to him that at a minimum any excess payments that the HRA is making over their normal increment should come off first. The HRA has established a guideline in terms of what they will contribute to a project, and they have tried to enforce that guideline uniformly. If, in this project, they are giving more than what they uniformly give, then he thought at least that portion should come back off before the developer gets all his profit and his return on investment. Mr. Commers stated that he wondered if the developer would be willing to give the HRA's investment back without any return on it; then take his return on investment and give the HRA some lesser amount in the appreciation. That then puts the HRA more in the position of a mortgage, because it gives the HRA priority in the project before the developer. 1 1 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MTG. , DEC. 13, 1990 PAGE 10 Mr. Burns stated he will relay these comments and questions to Mr. Casserly so they can be addressed at the next meeting. This is strictly an informational item at this time. Mr. Commers stated the HRA should see the proformas put together for the shopping center. It would be interesting to see what the developer expects the projected income for the project to be 2-5 years from now. Mr. Burns stated Mr. Casserly has that information, and they will bring that to the January meeting. 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Burns stated that Ms. Dacy and he have been trying to assess all the HRA's projects; and as they do that, to develop their thoughts about the work program for the next few months. At the meeting, the HRA members had received a copy of the 1991 BRA workplan listing all the projects and some of the steps they are anticipating taking at the staff level in the near term future. This is for the HRA's review. Ms. Dacy stated the workplan is divided into three parts: Economic Development Activities the HRA has underway; Housing issues, and Administration issues. She stated this workplan helps staff to organize their work tasks and, therefore, to organize the HRA's agendas and to make sure that things are done on time. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Commers declared the motion carried and the December 13 , 1990, HRA meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Res ctfully subm tt1ed, ynaba Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 18, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Sielaff called the December 18, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Paul Dahlberg (7:42) , Bruce Bondow, Susan Price, Dean Saba, Bradley Sielaff, Steve Stark, Rich Svanda Members Absent: None Others Present: Lisa Campbell, Planning Associate APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 20, 1990, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Bondow, to approve the November 20, 1990, minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. NEW BUSINESS: a. Election of New Officers Mr. Dahlberg declared the nominations open for Chairperson of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission. Mr. Svanda nominated Mr. Sielaff for Chairperson. Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Dahlberg declared the nominations closed. MOTION by Mr. Svanda, seconded by Mr. Saba, to cast a unanimous ballot for Mr. Sielaff for Chairperson of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission for 1991. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND - PAGE 2 ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 UPON A VOTCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Dahlberg declared the nominations open for Vice- Chairperson of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission. Mr. Bondow nominated Mr. Dahlberg for Vice-Chairperson. Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Dahlberg declared the nominations closed. MOTION by Mr. Bondow, seconded by Mr. Saba, to cast a unanimous ballot for Mr. Dahlberg for Vice-Chairperson of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission for 1991. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Review of 1990 Workplan Mr. Dahlberg stated the Workplan would be reviewed to see what progress has been made during 1990. Mr. Campbell stated that in many ways the Commission has been doing this for the last few months and reviewed the Workplan. Goal 1 has been done on an on-going basis. Goal 2 was completed in July. Under Goal 3, a better job has been done of using the City Newsletter, but this also changed with the City Council's priorities. This quarter the Newsletter had a full page article which came about as a part of the budget meeting. In 1991, the distribution of information needs to be worked on. Mr. Dahlberg stated another part was to work with the Springbrook Nature Center as was done for Earth Day. Ms. Campbell stated that Goal 4, Action #1, was completed. Mr. Dahlberg stated this should be on-going and additional action items should be identified for 1991 with a priority listing. Ms. Campbell referred to Goal 4, Action #3 , stating the City will be taking steps to purchase recycled paper for the photocopiers and computers. This will result in about a $200 increase in cost. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 PAGE 3 Mr. Saba stated there are a number of products labelled as recycled, but that Ms. Campbell should look for "post consumer recycled paper". Ms. Campbell, referring to Goal 5, stated that Action #1 was completed. She has ordered the first 3,234 sets of containers. Action #2 was completed, and .she is now working on a new brochure. Action #3 was completed in October. Action #4 was completed. Mr. Saba asked what had taken place regarding soliciting civic contributions. There is money available in the community for civic functions. Ms. Campbell stated this was discussed when they first looked at funding for bins because there was no other source for funds at that time. Mr. Bondow stated he would like to keep this option open if it should be needed in the future. Ms. Campbell stated that Goal 6 had been completed. Mr. Dahlberg stated the biggest issue is whether the City could retain the transfer site program. Ms. Campbell stated she is looking at a different system called an "end dump" system, which is similar to a truck bed that would hold more materials at a lower cost. Mr. Sielaff asked if the objective in doing this is to improve the site and reduce costs. Ms. Campbell stated yes. She will also recommend a 2- tier fee. If you take the cost and the fee for the time the fee was in place and project it for a full year, there would be a surplus. For this reason, she felt there could be a 2-tier fee of $2 .00 per car and $3.00 per truck or trailer, and a return trip for a car on the same day up to a 10-bag limit. Mr. Bondow asked if the goal is for the transfer site to pay for itself or break even. Ms. Campbell stated this iscorrect. She is looking for a way to make it more equitable and reduce costs. She has received many complaints. Residents have been more friendly to the utility fee than to the gate fee. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND PAGE 4 ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING. DECEMBER 18. 1990 Mr. Sielaff asked how would one track a surplus. Ms. Campbell stated there was not a surplus for the year. However, if the fees collected and the costs for the six week period were projected, all factors being the same, there would have been a surplus. Mr. Sielaff asked if it would make sense for the payment of services to come out of the Solid Waste Abatement Program Fund. Ms. Campbell stated that fund should be primarily set aside for contract costs. She anticipated problems in funding from the County in 1992. The Fund should be for contract services and, if money is left over, then do something else. Mr. Dahlberg stated it is also a matter of monitoring the financial status of the site. He asked Ms. Campbell if she would be recommending this fee structure right away. Ms. Campbell stated yes. The biggest criticism is "why does a truck get to come in at the same price when I can't get 10 bags in my car". This could work with a dated receipt. The City Council prefers a permit system. Cash being handled at the site seemed to work out all right. If a permit is issued, it would be for the season. Mr. Saba stated he thought the permit system has more potential for abuse. Mr. Bondow stated this should be addressed as a single issue targeted for the site to break even. Mr. Stark stated that, whatever the system, it should promote leaf composting and not grass composting. With a permit, residents would have more of a tendency to bring in grass clippings. Mr. Saba suggested the use of a punch card. Ms. Campbell stated this could be a problem when staff are not available at the site. Mr. Bondow stated there will be some people who do not get a card and are stopped at the gate. The punch card could be an option. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 PAGE 5 Mr. Sielaff stated that with a card, the resident would know exactly how much quantity they have left. Ms. Campbell stated she could see a punch card per trip. The idea of a punch card per bag may require more trips to pick up a card. Mr. Stark stated he liked the idea of a punched card per trip. People would be less likely to bring in grass compost. Mr. Dahlberg requested this be discussed further at a future meeting. Ms. Campbell stated Goal 7 was completed last week. She suggested inviting Carolyn Smith, Anoka County Solid Waste Coordinator, to a meeting to discuss household hazardous waste with the Commission, perhaps during January or February. Mr. Saba stated he would like to keep people informed on what they can do for disposal of hazardous items. Ms. Campbell stated discussion was held about having an article on household hazardous waste in the newsletter. Since the City does not have a household hazardous waste program, information can be provided. Mr. Dahlberg stated this goal is on-going. Mr. Dahlberg referred to Goal 8 and stated that the Commission had not done much in this area. Mr. Sielaff asked if there is an energy policy for the City. Mr. Saba stated that a number of years ago the Commission developed an energy policy, but at that time it was not well received. An alternative may be to put together some energy guidelines that could be presented to the City. Mr. Dahlberg referred to Goal 8, Action #1, and asked if radon was still an issue. Ms. Campbell stated she had seen a billboard in North Minneapolis stated that radon is a danger in this area and gave a number to call if there were questions. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND PAGE 6 ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 Mr. Saba, referring to Goal 8, Action #2, stated that utility companies are now doing energy audits as are independent contractors. Ms. Campbell, referring to Goal 8, Action #3, stated she could discuss asbestos abatement concerns with Mr. Clark. Mr. Dahlberg stated this is an item to be concerned about and aware of, but the owners of existing buildings are the ones who have to make a commitment. Mr. Saba, referring to Goal 8, Action #4, stated he thought this should be on-going. Ms. Campbell, referring to Goal 8, Action #5, stated this first came about when fuel prices went up quickly last year. Prices were also affected this year. Mr. Saba stated he thought this is something the Commission could do nothing about. Mr. Saba stated that perhaps this could be integrated into decisions the City is making, i.e. purchasing more fuel efficient cars, promoting bikeways, public transportation, etc. Mr. Dahlberg thought this might also include information on caulking and weatherstripping, etc. Ms. Campbell stated Goal 9 is not completed. Mr. Sielaff asked if anyone from the Rice Creek Watershed had come to a Commission meeting. Ms. Campbell stated, no, but stated that this could be done in the first quarter of 1991. Mr. Dahlberg felt this should be on-going. Mr. Sielaff stated the City is in the Rice Creek Watershed District. One of the things coming out of the Minnesota State Statute 509 Plan is that they are going to want cities to start implementing what is proposed for implementing programs on water resources. The City should know what is going on in the watershed district. The 509 Plan covers water resource planning in the metro area counties. Sometime in the next six months, there will be some rules on how to implement the 509 statute. Someone from the staff should have been involved with the ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 PAGE 7 watershed district in the planning process; and the Commission should be aware of the implications. Mr. Dahlberg stated, in terms of direction regarding water resource management, the Commission should get • information from the Watershed District as well as City staff on how to deal with water issues in the community; then try to decipher that information and distribute to residents as an educational documentation to inform residents living near the watershed of potential problems. Mr. Sielaff stated Locke Lake and Dam is another item. Mr. Stark stated residential items are a small area is part of a larger picture, such as street run-off. Mr. Svanda stated another meeting was taking place that affected wetlands within the City and thought the Commission should have been notified. When issues have an environmental impact, the Commission should be informed. Ms. Campbell stated the reason the Commission was not notified is that this is a land use permit and the Commission does not deal with land use permits. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Commission should probably find out how to get into this loop. These are things that the Commission should be either informed about or involved in. Mr. Stark stated the Commission is now finding out about environmental issues through the newspaper or after the fact. Ms. Campbell stated the Commission is interested in these issues and can state that they would like this to be done. Mr. Sielaff stated that Ms. Campbell is part of the planning process. The staff involved with this are part of the Public Works Department. There are many ways to plan for these items that have environmental implications. Mr. Dahlberg stated the issues the Commission feels are important are becoming more diverse and members have many interests. They should get these things on their list and have discussions with City staff and the City Council • ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND PAGE 8 ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 regarding the Commission's involvement in some of these areas. Mr. Svanda stated the Commission's charter is much broader than what the Commission is now doing. Ms. Campbell stated she will be meeting with Ms. Dacy the following day and she will discuss this with her at that time. Ms. Campbell stated Goal 10 has been completed. Mr. Sielaff stated the Commission should keep up on GIS and promote it. Ms. Campbell stated she is hearing a shift in focus to environmental resource management. Mr. Saba stated there is a shift toward a more encompassing role. If there is something going on in the City environmentally, the Commission wants to know about it, not necessarily to get involved, but to be informed. Ms. Campbell stated she could develop a report around these types of issues. Mr. Dahlberg suggested that Mr. Winson develop a status report for the Commission to keep members informed. Mr. Sielaff stated that on Goals 3 and 4 he would like to see the Commission promote solid waste abatement on a legislative basis. Perhaps they could talk with legislators on State levels. Mr. Svanda stated the Commission could work through regional organizations such as the Association of Metro Municipalities. Mr. Saba stated this was included in the resolution to the City Council as part of the solid waste abatement program. Mr. Sielaff stated he has seen information on an environmental coalition and thought this could be part of the Workplan. Mr. Svanda stated the coalition consists of sixteen cities that are going to get together to discuss certain issues. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 PAGE 9 Mr. Saba asked how the Commission could get involved. Mr. Stark stated he has a copy of an article with that information that he could provide to the Commission. Mr. Bondow stated he thought the subject of plastics recycling should also be addressed, such as being aware of what others are doing, the costs involved, alternatives, etc. Mr. Saba stated that at one time it was mentioned that the phone company should be responsible for recycling telephone books. Ms. Campbell stated U.S. West is working with Target to establish drop off bins, but only in Minneapolis/St. Paul which she can get more information on. At the same time, the County is promoting city drop-offs for phone books. She thought they should wait and see what U.S. West does. Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like to see the issue of multi-family unit recycling included in the workplan on an on-going basis. Mr. Campbell stated that the City uses 11 cities which they contact to see what they are doing as a program initiative. Mr. Saba would like to add a goal that addresses the issue of bikeway/walkways in the City. Ms. Campbell stated the Parks and Recreation Commission would like to form a subcommittee with one or two persons from this Commission. Mr. Kirk is the likely staff person for the subcommittee. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought someone from the Planning Commission should also be involved in the subcommittee. Ms. Campbell stated she would discuss this with Ms. Dacy. Mr. Dahlberg stated this should include not only paths in the parks, but also development and redevelopment issues. Ms. Campbell stated they would need to work out how the subcommittee would report back. Mr. Dahlberg stated they should report to both commissions. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND PAGE 10 ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 Mr. Saba suggested contacting Mary Gliliany to participate. He stated he is interested in being part of the subcommittee. Mr. Svanda stated he would participate. Mr. Bondow stated he would consider participation. Mr. Dahlberg thought this should fall under Energy Conservation, Goal 8. Mr. Bondow stated the goals could be broader. Mr. Saba suggested a separate goal to develop a plan for a bikeway/walkway system in the City. Mr. Dahlberg suggested that Ms. Campbell see if there is a opportunity for the Commission to meet with the City Manager or City Council and talk about direction. Ms. Campbell stated she felt the Commission had more ideas for them at this time. Ms. Campbell stated she would provide a revised copy of the workplan at the next meeting. 2 . OLD BUSINESS: a. Updates: Container Distribution and Container Promotion Ms. Campbell stated the City Council approved the contract for bin distribution by Super Cycle. She thought the difference in cost between the two contractors is routing and familiarity with the City. The City Council also discussed promotion. Mayor Nee stated he wanted broader ownership of the containers, which could have been accomplished if the Scouts or other civic group had done the distribution. The next best thing was to establish a meeting with the block captains. The City Council has also stated they want a separate letter on the containers saying they are coming and here is what to do if the homeowner wishes to keep or not to keep them. Mr. Saba asked what would happen if residents don't want the containers. Ms. Campbell stated the bins can be brought back to the City. In her memo of December 13 to Mr. Burns, she has ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 PAGE 11 completed: (1) the article for the Fridley Focus, and (2) an article for the winter newsletter. She is working on the final draft on the program brochure which will be distributed with the containers. Mr. Svanda stated that, if #5, a letter explaining the need for a fee, referred to the utility fee, then it this is redundant. Ms. Campbell stated this is being done as a matter of information. The perception remains that recycling will pay for itself. Ms. Price asked if anything had been done to show Super Cycle's budget. The question often asked is why should residents pay for pick-up when they can get money by using the drop-off site. Ms. Campbell stated she wants to develop a public information piece to address that question. Mr. Dahlberg asked if #5 was something that needed to be done. Ms. Campbell stated it has been decided that a letter will be sent on the fee and on the containers. She is waiting for direction on the letter explaining the fee. Each time a promotion item is added, the date for distribution seems to be put back a little. At this time, the date for distribution is January 28. She is planning to stage delivery over three days. Shamrock will deliver a portion of the containers each day and they will be distributed. Mr. Bondow asked if it would make sense to have Super Cycle pick up the containers at Shamrock, which would save the time to load and unload. b. 1991 Anoka County Funding Ms. Campbell stated City staff will be meeting with Anoka County staff. This resulted after a phone call to the Solid Waste Coordinator on November 13 regarding another issue. At that time, the Coordinator asked Ms. Campbell 's opinion of a funding proposal which was a $10, 000 base rate + $5,000 per household or $64,000 for the whole year. Ms. Campbell stated she did not like it. Shortly thereafter, the Coordinator found $17,000. Mr. Svanda asked the reason for the reduction. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 PAGE 12 Ms. Campbell stated that the initial reason was the County does not have as much money as last year. The County's revenue sources are not generating the expected level of revenue. They have gone to a per household payment rather than a tonnage payment, and this was done without consulting the cities. The issues are that they will meet with the County for: the County to re-organize 1991 funding, make for new funding proposal which is $6, 140 base rate + $7.00 per household X 10,899 households or $82,433. The 1991 Anoka County grant will be about $2, 000 off what they projected, about $50, 000 less but $5. 00 per household was not going to be given again. The issue is that the funding formula has changed without input from the Cities. They have used this formula since 1987. Another is why are they talking about 1991 funding so late in the year? They should respond much earlier. If the County's revenue sources are not generating the expected levels of revenues, what are they going to do about it to meet adequate funding mandates and their own mandates? In the process of these two discussions, County staff asked when the City could raise the S.W.A.P. fee. She thought Mr. Burns will be tough on this issue. Mr. Saba stated the problem is that the County thinks the City is generating their own funding and as a result cut County funding. He agreed it is very late to be changing the funding scenario for 1991. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there were any earlier indications. Ms. Campbell stated the indication was $86,000 in June or July, which was a $6,000 base rate and $40 per ton with an increased tonnage goal. As part of 1991 funding proposal, the Coordinator walked through pounds/household as an efficiency measure for the recycling program and how she developed the 1991 tonnage goal. Using pounds/ household, Fridley scores poorly at 12.5 pounds per household throughout the City. Scores varied greatly according to city size, program, etc. When using pounds/person/year, the Fridley goal for 1991 goes down, but staff has been telling the City Council that the goals will go up. Mr. Stark asked what difference the County goal made. Can the City have their own goals? ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 18, 1990 PAGE 13 Ms. Campbell stated this is used as a basis for the City Council to make decisions. The City can develop their own. Mr. Saba suggested publishing in the newspaper the County goals and City goals so that everyone can see the difference. Part of the problem is that the County has committed a certain tonnage to the RDF. When recycling goes down, the garbage that gets burned goes up, and their costs go down. Mr. Bondow asked if staff could put together a composite cost or increment cost for 1 ton of material if it is recycled or if burned at the RDF. Ms. Campbell stated there is a new person at the County who has charge of the RDF. She will try to get that information for the next meeting. Mr. Bondow stated they should know what is needed to make electricity at the most economical cost. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Svanda, seconded by Ms. Price, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DAHLBERG DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE DECEMBER 18, 1990, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:22 P.M. Respectfully submitted, off° aol0e/C),Lavonn Cooper ,1.:1/ Recording Secretary M. / V • CITY OF FRIDLEY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 3, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Sherek called the January 3, 1991, Human Resources Commission meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Sue Sherek, Sue Jackson, Marija Netz, Jack Velin Members Absent: LeRoy Oquist Others Present: Steven Barg, Planning Assistant Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 1, 1990, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Velin, seconded by Ms. Netz, to approve the November 1, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHEREK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Ms. Netz, seconded by Mr. Velin, to approve the agenda as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SHEREK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. OLD BUSINESS: a. Update on Issues Pertaining to Persons with Disabilities Mr. Barg stated that Mr. Roger Blohm, National Organization of Disabilities, was at the last meeting to discuss issues regarding the American Disabilities Act and issues pertaining to persons with disabilities. Mr. Barg stated that earlier in 1990, the City newsletter printed information on the program the Fire Department has in place where disabled persons can m. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 3, 1991 PAGE 2 notify the Fire Department of their disability in case of an emergency. This information will also now be publicized on the municipal channel. He would give this information to Mr. Erickson for possible publication in the Fridley Focus. Mr. Barg stated he had copied materials for the Commission as requested by Mr. Blohm. Those materials deal with the American Disabilities Act of 1990, what other communities have done to get awards, etc. Mr. Barg stated he had information from Shirley Haapala, City Clerk, on the accessibility of polling places in Fridley. There are 13 polling places. All of Fridley's polling places were found to be fully accessible with the exception of the Knights of Columbus and AllTemp Distributing Company. These two were deemed to be accessible, but inconvenient due to certain architectural features. Mr. Barg stated the process is proceeding to try to get a panel formed to review all City facilities for accessibility to the disabled. He and Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director, met with the City Manager, Mr. Burns, to discuss this. Mr. Burns wanted the Human Resources Commission to be aware that the budget this year is tight and if the recommendations from the panel involve a significant amount of money, the recommendations will need to be well prioritized. Mr. Burns said he would like the panel to break its recommendations into the following areas: improvements necessary to meet minimum code requirements, if there are any not being met; improvements in excess of minimum requirements that can be made at little or no cost; and improvements that can be considered desirable but can carry significant cost. Mr. Barg stated he hoped the Council has taken action to establish this panel by the Commission's next meeting. A member of the Human Resources Commission will be a member on that panel . Mr. Velin stated he would be interested in serving on the panel. Ms. Sherek asked about what is going to be done about the improvements to the front door of the Municipal Center. Mr. Barg stated Mr. Burns is aware of the problems with the door. Again, Mr. Burns wanted the Commission to be aware that right now there is a lot of financial HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 3, 1991 PAGE 3 pressure to keep the City budget in line, so that is a constraint regarding the cost of the pushplate. Ms. Sherek stated there is another option that is less costly than a pushplate, and that is a power assisted door. A power assisted door also does not require any architectural changes like the pushplate does. b. Discussion/Consideration of Issues Pertaining to Discrimination Mr. Barg stated that he has talked to Mr. Erickson earlier about this subject and the possibility of putting together some information to be published in the Fridley Focus--general information about types of discrimination, how persons being discriminated against can react, what their avenues are for responding, etc. Ms. Sherek stated this might be an appropriate time for a general basic article about the Human Rights Act of Minnesota, what it covers, and what a person's recourse is who feels his/her rights have been violated in the area of employment, housing, and public accommodations. She stated some synopsis-type information is available from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Ms. Jackson stated she agreed, especially at this time when people are very concerned about their employment. Ms. Sherek stated one big area of discrimination is the harassment of employees by their employers--sexual or racial harassment, and harassment based on disabilities. People in these situations are often afraid to raise the issue, because they need their jobs. Mr. Velin stated that a lot of people who are being discriminated against also do not know where they can go for help. Mr. Erickson stated an explanation of the Human Rights Act and the grievance process would make a good news article. It might also be good to interview someone who has been involved in the process. Ms. Sherek stated it might be a good idea to do a profile on the No Fault Grievance process and the No Fault Grievance Committee. Ms. Sherek stated she will contact the State Department of Human Rights and get some information for Mr. Erickson. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 3, 1991 PAGE 4 Mr. Barg stated he would pull together information on the No Fault Grievance process and the No Fault Grievance Committee and the Human Rights Act of Minnesota. c. Children's Activities Ms. Jackson stated the Fridley Community Education Department did a survey of elementary children and parents. There was a very high return of the surveys, and transportation was found to be the key issue. Community Education is now in the process of developing some programming for some after school programs at Hayes and Stevenson Elementary Schools in Fridley, with supervision from 5: 00-6:00 p.m. for those parents who cannot pick up their children at 5: 00 p.m. Ms. Jackson stated Councilmember Nancy J. Jorgenson has expressed concern about the other schools in Fridley which are not in School District 14 , such as North Park, which is in the Columbia Heights School District. The City of Fridley is co-sponsoring programming that is not accessible to a majority of the children in the City of Fridley, and this is a problem. Ms. Jackson stated Karen Schaub, Director of Community Education, will be contacting Columbia Heights and Spring Lake Park to see if something can be done about this problem. Ms. Jackson stated that Community Education is working on a summer program that will be for every age group. They are going to have programming for the older children who are beyond the playground-type programs. They realize transportation is a critical issue, and they will be working on that. They will try to keep the programs low cost, with some financial aid available to those who need it. Ms. Jackson stated what the Commission can do is continue to support the School District' s efforts to get activities for Fridley youth and to also encourage the cooperation of all the school districts in Fridley. She would not like to see boundary issues become an impediment in programming for Fridley' s children. 2 . NEW BUSINESS: a. CDBG Funding HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 3, 1991 PAGE 5 Mr. Barg stated he has still not gotten confirmation on the allocation for this year. Ms. Sherek stated that when the City Council meets to determine the human services allocation, he would like them to consider that the Commission is anticipating funding requests for programs, both summer and after- school, that will benefit school age children and child care programs. Ms. Jackson stated she would like an article in the Fridley Focus before the end of January regarding the CDBG funding application process. This will give any new applicants enough time to formulate their requests before the application deadline. She would like the article to stress the concept that the CDBG monies provide seed money for new programs designed to help low and moderate income people of all ages. Ms. Sherek stated that at the next meeting, she would like the Commission members to review the questionnaire that is mailed out to applicants to see if they can make some changes that will make the process easier for the applicants and the City. b. 1991 Workplan Mr. Barg stated that last year, instead of putting together a workplan, the Commission prepared a list of goals/issues they would like to address during 1990. The Commission might want to consider doing the same thing for 1991. He will put this on the February agenda. Ms. Sherek asked staff to provide the Commission members with a copy of the minutes where the Commission listed the issues they wanted to address in 1990. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Ms. Netz, seconded by Mr. Velin, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Sherek declared the motion carried and the January 3 , 1991, Human Resources Commission meeting adjourned at 8: 55 p.m. Respectfully sub itted, Ly Saba Reco ding Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the January 8, 1991, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Cathy Smith Members Absent: Ken Vos Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Denny Phenow, 6875 Hwy. 65 Viola and Brian Porter, 6870 Channel Road APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 4. 1990. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the December 4, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST. VAR #90-33. BY THE INSURANCE MART/TWO P.C. PARTNERSHIP: 1. Per Section 214.09 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a free- standing sign of 48 square feet in an R-3, General Multiple Family Zoning District; 2. Per Section 214.09.02.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow wall signs using the formula fifteen times the square root of the wall length; 3. Per Section 214.09 of the Fridley City Code, to construct a free-standing sign 7 feet in height; 4. Per Section 214.09.O1.0 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the setback (from the property line) of a free-standing sign from 10 feet to 4.9 feet; To allow the construction of a free-standing sign and wall signage on the South 95 feet of the North 190 feet of Lots 14 and 15, Brookview Addition, Anoka County EXCEPT the West Twenty-two (22) feet of the South 95 feet of the North 190 feet of Low 14 AND the North 95 feet of Lots 14 and 15, Brookview Addition, Anoka County, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 2 EXCEPT the West Twenty-two (22) feet of the North 95 feet of Lot 14, the same being 6875 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:04 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting four variances: 1. To allow a free standing sign of 48 square feet in an R- 3, General Multiple Family Zoning District; 2. To allow wall signs using the formula fifteen times the square root of the wall length in an R-3 General Multiple Family Zoning District; 3. To increase the height of a free-standing sign from 6 feet to 7 feet; and 4. To reduce the setback from the property line from 10 feet to 4.9 feet. Approval of this variance request would allow construction of a free standing sign at 6875 Highway 65 N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of 68th Avenue and the east Hwy. 65 service road. Directly across the street is the Sunliner Motel and directly to the south is the Knights of Columbus building. The property is currently zoned R- 3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, and has been since 1958. The building was constructed in 1960. At that time, the zoning code allowed office and assembly uses as permitted uses in the R-3 zoning district. The property has not been rezoned since 1958. The petitioner is requesting the variances to allow construction of this particular sign. Ms. McPherson stated the first variance request is to allow a free- standing sign of 48 sq. ft. in an R-3, General Multiple Family, zoning district. The R-3 zoning district sign code only allows area identification signs of 24 sq. ft. and wall signs of a maximum 3 sq. ft. for all types of developments. The first condition that must be proven is that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended uses that do not apply to other property in the vicinity or district. The property is currently zoned R-3, but currently the building use is an office use which was permitted at the time that the building was constructed. The zoning code was changed which eliminated office and assembly uses in the R-3 district which rendered this particular use nonconforming. No other property in the City has this particular hardship or nonconformity. Most property is zoned properly for their intended use. Staff is taking the interpretation that it would be appropriate to use the CR-1, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 8. 1991 PAGE 3 General Office District, regulations in order to regulate signage for this property. This is an exceptional case, and staff have no knowledge of this ever occurring in the City. Ms. McPherson stated the second condition is that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied to the property in question. Using the two properties to the north and to the south of this particular site, the Knights of Columbus, which is an assembly use and is also zoned R-3, currently has a projecting sign which projects from the west side of the building and is approximately 60 sq. ft. in area. This sign received a permit in 1970. There is also a small wall sign on south face of the building which is 20.25 sq. ft. in area which was granted in 1980. Granting the variance for 48 sq. ft would allow this particular tenant to have similar signage as do the adjacent properties in the vicinity. In addition, information has been provided to the Commission regarding the Sunliner Motel which has an 84 sq. ft. sign and the variance history for that sign is also included in that information. Ms. McPherson stated the third condition is that the strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Strict application of the Chapter, in this case, would eliminate any option that this particular tenant would have for visible signage for the property. Ms. McPherson stated the fourth condition is that the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. This particular sign would be located on the west side of the building between two existing mature trees. The sign would be placed perpendicular to the building and would be buffered by the building from the adjacent single family residences, which are along the east property line. Although it may be illuminated, the illumination would be blocked by the building itself from impacting the adjacent property to the east. Ms. McPherson stated the second variance request is to allow wall signs using the formula 15 times the square root of the wall length in an R-3 zoning district. The R-3 district only allows wall signs of approximately 3 sq. ft. in area. This would be adequate for a small home occupation; however, for a commercial tenant, 3 sq. ft. is not adequate. In discussing the variance, the City has not received a sign plan for future tenants, and the building owner does not have any additional tenants other than themselves in the building at this time. However, staff stated that this variance should be processed. Staff has indicated to the petitioner that a comprehensive sign plan would be required under the City Code if the building was to have 3 tenants or more. • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. JANIIARY 8. 1991 PAGE 4 Ms. McPherson reviewed the variance according to the four conditions. Under the first condition, - this is an exceptional circumstance. Under the second condition, the office users in districts zoned appropriately or CR-1 General Office have the opportunity to use wall signage and to deny the petitioner the right at this property would be to deny the petitioner a substantial property right. Under the third condition, strict application would eliminate any wall signage for future tenants. Under the last condition, wall signage would not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the property or general public. Ms. McPherson stated the third variance is to increase the height of a free-standing sign from 6 feet to 7 feet. This is the one variance for which staff recommends denial. The General Office zoning district regulations for signs allows signs 6 feet in height. The petitioner is proposing a sign that is 7 feet in height and the petitioner has indicated that 7 feet is needed to provide adequate visibility. However, in reviewing the sign plan, it does appear that 12 inches could be removed from the sign height and the building numbers could be put on the building. The property does have a change in topography where the sign is to be placed. The sign could be redesigned to take into account the one foot difference. To deny this portion of the variance does not deny the property owner or tenants to have signage, just a smaller sign than what is being proposed. Strict application would not constitute a hardship as there is still opportunity for signage, but it would be smaller than what the petitioner is currently proposing. Granting or denying the variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the property or the general public. Ms. McPherson stated the fourth variance is to reduce the setback from the property line of a free-standing sign from 10 feet to 4.9 feet. The petitioner is requesting this variance in order to preserve two very large and mature trees on the front portion of the site and maximize the available visibility of the sign from both north and southbound Hwy. 65. The elevation shows that a portion of the east end of the sign, as it is proposed, will be blocked slightly by one of the trees. Under the first condition, there are site conditions that prevent the petitioner from meeting the required setback. The property itself does not meet the setback requirements as outlined in the zoning code. The building is set 20.5 feet from the property line. The variance is necessary to locate the sign where it is visible from the public viewpoint. Strict application would require that the trees be removed and could prevent the sign from being seen from Highway 65. Granting the variance to reduce the setback would not adversely impact traffic visibility or the view from adjacent properties, whether it be residential or commercial in nature. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. JANQARY 8. 1991 PAGE 5 Ms. McPherson stated that staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council approval of three of the four variances: to allow construction of a 48 sq. ft. free- standing sign in the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling district; to allow wall signs using the formula fifteen times the square root of the wall length in an R-3 district; and to reduce the setback from 10 to 4.9 feet with the following stipulation which pertains to the wall signs; that the wall signs shall be placed only on the south side of the building and shall not be illuminated in order to reduce the impact to residential properties to the east. Staff recommends denial of the variance to increase the sign height from 6 feet to 7 feet for reasons stated in the staff report. Ms. Savage stated that, on page 3, it states the property to the north, south, and west is zoned R-3. The property to the west across Hwy. 65 is single family residential. Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-3, but the use is single family residential. Ms. Savage asked the height of the Sunliner Motel sign. Ms. McPherson estimated the height to be 20 to 25 feet. Ms. Smith asked if wall signs were now being requested. Ms. McPherson stated wall signs were not now being requested. Ms. Smith asked what would be the matter with lit wall signs on the west side of the building. Ms. McPherson stated that, if that was included, illuminated signs on the west wall would be fine; but the south wall is the only visible wall that could be used for signage. Mr. Kuechle asked the length of the building and the size of the wall sign that could be used. Ms. McPherson stated the north wall is approximately 72 feet; therefore, about 127 sq. ft. of wall signage could be placed on the south face of the building. Mr. Kuechle asked if the owners have three or more tenants in the building, does that include the owners themselves. Ms. McPherson stated yes, and they would need a comprehensive sign plan. The building design itself does constrain the height of the letters that could be put on the building on the south side. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANIIARY Si 1991 PAGE 6 Ms. Smith asked if multiple tenants were in the building, there would have to be wall signs, but the Commission is approving only a free-standing sign. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the sign that is being proposed is a free-standing sign and that is what they would be limited to. If, in the future, they wanted to include ether tenants' names to the sign face, they could as long as they did not increase the square footage of the free-standing sign. Ms. Savage stated that, on page 4, she would like to address the issue of granting a variance for wall signs because it would not be materially detrimental. Staff is saying the wall signs would be buffered to the single family residences to the east, but it would be visible to those single family residences on the west across Hwy. 65. Ms. McPherson stated there is an expanse of pavement and State right-of-way that would lessen the distance to those to the west as opposed to those who are directly east of the site. Mr. Phenow stated he was one of the owners of the Insurance Mart. The business was previously located in Columbia Heights for 17 years. This fall they had the opportunity to buy this building and formed a separate partnership to do so. The main tenant will be the Insurance Mart. They hope someday to occupy both floors. They have not only purchased the building but also have improved the upper floor and hope to be there a long time. Initially they may, for the first three years, rent some of the lower square footage, but do not intend to use the south wall at all or have some type of distraction for the neighbors. He hopes to be there a long time and become participants of the community. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with the stipulations for the wall signage. Mr. Phenow stated he had no problem with the wall sign stipulations. He would like to see the 7 foot sign variance granted rather than the 6 feet. Ms. Smith stated asked the hardship for requesting the 7 foot sign. Mr. Phenow stated to provide adequate signage for the travelling public on Highway 65. One foot less will reduce the visibility. It is an odd situation based on the topography and the setback of the building. The sign is necessary to properly advertise the business. The sign will sit perpendicular to the highway and building, so it should not impact the neighbors. Ms. Smith asked, if the Appeals Commission denied the 7 foot variance, how would the petitioner reduce the sign. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 8. 1991 PAGE 7 Mr. Phenow stated he did not know the answer. He assumes they would cut off the bottom portion where the building numbers are. The sign will have a rectangular base with timbers to make it aesthetically appealing. Mr. Kuechle asked its size. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed sign is 8 feet across, the wide part is 4 '6", and has an average height of 7 feet. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he was in favor of granting all the variances. The signs in the area, the Sunliner Motel sign in particular, are much higher. He thought the Knights of Columbus sign was attached to the building. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. The sign projects at a 90 degree angle from the building and sits above the canopy at the west door. Mr. Kuechle stated this sign was also higher than 7 feet. If you look at the fact that they are using the average height with one end at 6 feet and the other at 8 feet, he would be in favor of all of them but include the stipulation of no illumination of wall signs on the south wall. Ms. Smith agreed. While she understands the reasons for denial, she would prefer to see the numerals on the sign. On a busy highway, she likes to see numbers on the sign, as they make a building more easily identified. In talking about 12 inches on the free-standing sign, there are other larger signs on the businesses to the north and south. Ms. Savage stated the Commission should be very careful about granting sign variances. A good example of this is the Sunliner Motel sign. There is nothing that makes a city look worse than large signs and billboards. She believed the Commission should be very careful about the variance. She agreed, given the special circumstance, to recommend approval of variances 1, 2, and 4, but would have to recommend denial of variance 3. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Variance #90-33, #1. Per Section 214.09 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a free-standing sign of 48 square feet in an R-3, General Multiple Family Zoning District. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE 8 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend approval of Variance #90-33, #2. Per Section 214.09.02.B of the Fridley City Code, to allow wall signs using the formula fifteen times the square root of the wall length; with the stipulation that wall signs be placed on the south wall only and not be illuminated. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Variance #90-33, #3. Per Section 214.09 of the Fridley City Code, to construct a free-standing sign 7 feet in height. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MR. KUECHLE AND MS. SMITH VOTING AYE, AND MS. SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 2-1. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend approval of Variance #90-33, #4. Per Section 214.09.02.0 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the setback from the property line of a free- standing sign from 10 feet to 4.9 feet. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider the variance request at their meeting on January 28. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE JANUARY 8, 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, r,4ft-6 Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary Community Development Department flE:::1 PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: January 18, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: 1990 Accomplishments and 1991 Workplan In January of 1990, staff proposed the following items for consideration by the Commission: 1. Initiation of the Comprehensive Plan review process. 2 . Continue monitoring and review of LRT. 3. Discuss revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Discuss revisions and "housekeeping" amendments to the zoning ordinance. The status of these items are as follows: 1. Basic research data is being prepared by staff. Work has begun on the Socio-Economic chapter. 2. Ongoing. 3. This item was not addressed due to other ordinance amendments. 4. Several amendments to the zoning ordinance were discussed by the Commission: A. Landscaping. B. Parking stall sizes. C. Increase in lot coverage in industrial zoning districts. D. "Mother-in-Law" apartments. In addition, the Commission heard various land use permits (see attached memo from Michele McPherson) . The Commission should 1990 Accomplishments and 1991 Workplan January 18, 1991 Page 2 develop a 1991 workplan. Staff proposes the Commission consider the following tasks: 1. Continuation of the Comprehensive Plan review process, including review by the City Council and other commissions. A. Completion of the Transportation and Sewer and Water chapters to meet the legislative deadline. 2 . Continue monitoring and review of the LRT process. A. Neighborhood meetings regarding station locations and design for 53rd and 57th Avenues. B. Public comment on the EIS documents. C. Public review of the preliminary design plan. 3. Complete mother-in-law apartment zoning ordinance amendment. 4. Complete housekeeping amendments to the sign ordinance. 5. Discussion of staff analysis of various housing programs. For the Commission's information, we have attached our Department's workplan. The Commission should discuss any issues which occurred in 1990 and suggest any changes. MM/dn M-91-41 DATE: December 27, 1990 TO: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: 1990 Summary of Appeals and Planning Commission Cases The following is a summary of the number of cases the Appeals Commission and Planning Commissions heard, those that are completed, and those that have outstanding stipulations. Please note that "completed" cases include denials and approvals, with no stipulations or completed stipulations. APPEALS COMMISSION: Variances Completed Outstanding 31 23 7 (VAR #90-32 & 33 (3 withdrawn) to be heard in 1991) PLANNING COMMISSION: Vacations Completed Outstanding 3 1 1 (1 withdrawn) Rezonings Completed Outstanding 5 3 2 (ZOA #90-06 & 07 (both are waiting for to be heard in second and final 1991) reading) Appeals/Planning Summary December 27, 1990 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION (Conti ) : Special Use Permits . Completed Outstanding 18 9 7 (SP #90-19 to be (1 not used; 1 heard in 1991) withdrawn) Lot Splits Completed Outstanding 3 1 2 Plats Completed Outstanding 6 1 4 (P.S. #90-07 to be heard in 1991) I will be completing inspections by January 11, 1991 to insure compliance by outstanding cases. MM/dn M-90-913 .l 1.1 t, . a a l0 -4 0! tri rii 0 rf +'I N 0 el N I 0 4.I •-1 0 O1/4 O - .i rl 0% O r1 01 .i 4 4 E n g 3 0 001 .1 0 4) 4.) ..1 +1 C G CC i O G $.4 14 00% U U o ri O•.O 01 iy W01 0g -\•l 4.4 \ Of c 0 0rI ••IN a am 030N Ad 000) 0 14110 I Cl.a: t000. a.W 0 N01 el 0 01 0•.S ••4 0 1l • \ C.) 0 0 W el Do4 as .a • • ri N 1 1 0 .•1 H .-4 •.l 1 OmN)01 01 0 \ ON 0 0% K to R1 U\ \ U to el rI \ d .a+ \ 10 >I IA 0 0 co 0 co {; 0 N 01 0% 0% 01 r4 •-1 .•I C 0 14 N ••i i0 A \ \ \ \ r a a t0 O .0 aL\ r♦ I O el el N el N 11 10 I 0••I 1J co .0 e4 •.I 0 I t0 0.•l 0 N W 0 O+ 7 19+ 01 'd+I 0 I I 0 I I 0 1.1 0 > 0 .0 0 I O.a: \ 14 -.I 0 0 iI v1 W i. .0•.l •.I W to rl 01 1+r� t0 1.1 rf O y •• 11 C) C.) C.) C.) a: 0••UI 0 0 0% ••l ro Co Fl 10 \ 0 g 0 0 • al of1l 0 4JW\ 00N. FA0 11 .1.) (1) 10 .0 11. C) .•I 4. CU r,b aI.4 .0 m 0.i Z.0 ra G A 0010 4$ O 4) 00)o+ 0 E I .•I'0 •14 0 — •.. R! •� 0113'el\ $4 •� •• el 0• tri O z .-1 N 4 el N 'd.'I 10 N rl N- el • \ U A O. oc c0 U U 00 r) •• l el N 0'0 O+ O 0 0 •.1+1 +i O 0 0 0••I 0 O > 0 r1•.l e-1 O.as a N W og a 'i ON . 'i el N 'i ,-e eT .i 0 'i .i 0. 0 el 01 1 .-I K. O, 'i E g O 3 0 C > 'i 0 0 i) •l 1e'i 0 ON \ v0.o, s el ) 0.0 e+ 0 NO , .-4 cDU 4.1•i I CO.0• �HC o0i 1ro ro i.0 >, 0 O \ E+UA V)U 'i • \ • .-IN V' 1 I 14 I I 0 I 0 0 C C JO1 0 0 > t4 > A 3.4 0 qqa o a 0 oC 0 oC o l a ro'i Id +1 ro4) 0 ♦) 0 11 4) 0 1i 00 C 11 0-'i ♦) .0 C-•i ti •i W I. •i O. +-1.0 ,-► .'i 0 0 U 0 0 0 4.1 0) 0 0. 0 4•1 m 0. U 0 al0C - 40 i) C0 0 4.) C0 0 0 ,\•I ,�-1 a'i 0 0 0 W 1.4-'i'i 0 0 'i •'i 3 0-'i'i •'i rA-el el 0 w ON 10•i 0. tel Cu R o+ \ 0 E al 0 a• 0 in o+ 0 o+ .0 0 \ 14 0\ 4.1 4) 0 14 0\ 14 14 0\ \ 1I 0\ •\ 0 0 eh A.'0en 0•i CC CIwUen 0IN UN Uen 0 C►• 0•i UN •4G04 00 3 -'i ON I ,y In E-I Ll. •-i (.0 'i N N ,i N k,W.0 'i • cn U • 02 A W .-I 'i 1a CT O 0on -.i -,•I- 10 04) -.1 C 0 .>i .-I U - 4 a�- w a .PI O, \ .l eh \ N .-1 O+ PI 0 .-1 .-1 O+ O e1 ON .-0 P eT y \ E+ n co a) 3 1 - Li .0 0 di > o 4) 0 a 4)0 a 0+ \ a el a+ C 1.4i 0 Gm 0 � \ C 0 a U 0-.4 a 00 0 0 0 a0% U o+ U Ua •ma a 0a U .-1 in 0 C .-1 ✓ .I .1 N 1 1 1 C O N m ) A O 2T>, w Oa .0 0 -•O+ 1 00 0 U C O W 0 C .0 4.) 0 O. 10 y 0 N -.I C a a) •-1 4.) C ++ 0) -.4 0. .4 a m a a a a► w�0 .-1 0 o 0 1.e > 4) y tO a o+ m 4i C0.1a 0 04 3 RU 0 m CtO a . \ m of 01 0 ON 0 Le 0 4) H a 0••1 ., al .0000 NO 0 00 0UC 3y 00•.4 •-4 en U ••+ 0 1a -.1 W 0 3 a) 0) •.•1� 0) 0 0 0 o+ U ON \ 0 C) .♦ Cr Oa) C 0a a•.+ ma+ (0. • 0 .00 1.e0\ \ eh 1.4 4) .a a.) U r1 C a. a 0 .a C ••1 0. a O N 0 e. a a) C .4•4 a) m 0+to 4.1 1 -•4•••1 ++ (0 0 O+ a .-4 Q 1 .-1 0 a s••-1 >, 1+ a 0 C .0 > -•1 0 k\ C 0 0 .-. a... +1 O la.-1 0 4) 0-.-4 Le-.e OF� 0.i* .-1 co 0 .1 N 04i C C 14 a 0v A mw\ V O0i O 00 WOWO 0 0 0 >,Cr1 1+ • U 0 a) C4 0 0.0 eC o0 U a V)N W 0 .0 .t .\-0 e•1 ..I N eh .1 N yJ C 01 b+ 10 (0 • eao0 Oa �� • a� x0a� U°w sr w c, 4 a U ..I W 0, Cl) - e, e, , N na •-1 al 44) .-I m at El 0 011 \i C.) WI 0 • .1 •i CO a, U U W -.a Cl) t .44 y 0. e, co 0 (4 Ce, 01 4) W 11 C) = , I ab 4.)0. ?4 \ U rt x U E4 N ,-.1A I cu 0 14 3 •O w I 0 U 0A to O C O Cl) m S. - Q. en 0 •U 00 e, 0 m 0 N14 m-4�, ) O a al 0•00 U at W I Off. U v U 4•i 0 0 o+ 0 14 10i�0 \ 4 00 U IC 0. 0 11 4-1 \ .i • ✓ - • 0 w 0 1i C y 1 C• m aa)i, 4) w C C i0 -I 0 U 1 m E 0.Oi CO 00 1.40 0 1+ > al 0 0 m .•-• m IC••• 0••+ 0 0 0 U >, 0 04 4) ••+ o, 004) > 140 wC 1, 14 4,) 4J11 co (1) U-.40 C 0 a 0 •••I 0 01 >, .-1• 14 14'd O w 0.O 4.1••4 GL 0 •i > ,..4e, ro 011 CO 0•.+ CV a m ••+ U d ro w 4 •iv a1U C) .0a1 •v C e •\, •i C 0 .1) 41) 0 m C) i o4 ,a O U••+ Cl) 4 aa1 >, mp, >V a114 U•0, co Li 1 ••1 It ••• >, 0 C 11••1 •\ C ••� 0 0.. ..... 0b X av G 0 wV U•i itI 6 CI 4. .-1 N in .� l 0% im] UO 4 U 01 O x • V 4 .\i e, v C 0 C' H O al.... .� U m 1a� •i 0OC -•>+ 0CU q U 14— In W U 04 a 0 0 11 0 awo et a pC 4 .- c0 in 0 0 0 \ U b 10 , N el 0 0 O 11 -44 A 0 0. 101 b ro 1 o, E' z-4 \ 0 e•1 N el 0 e•1 4) 0 0 U yet O 301 1+ 34.4) e0 O.0 34 e4 10 U 0 on 4.) .0 01 .I.1 \ e-1 03 C 01 U e•1 to CO 3 •.•1 0 I 0 0 C !Ae-i Z N AG � E .-4n e� • N g 0 3 w ii 0 O b 14 444 00 43w 0 .41 0 O o Oi+A N 0 0en 'O 14y 4. C C 0 0 0 I 00 l0) 4Uo to 3 03 0 4-4 0.C 0 RI u x In•e1 e 3 e4 \ • , er ,..i d N to I -.1 14 0 0 0 .0 11 •e1.-. ..e•1 01 I . I 0 C 0 e•I 01 •.1 w 0 0 1], <r O 0 o 0, A o k' p•`w y w ei 1)•e0i v. ••0 W 0 4.144 0.) 7m 4 14.0 34 0 34 0 a O C C 0 UW 01 law U A .C3 030► v 0 0 3 \ 0 0 1e 0 C 0 W ,-1 0 0 0 4)N ew 0C 41 11 U] e4 q .4 O. • 19 N 0 Z 0 0 1+ •.•I 1. ••a C •-1 0 4.) 0 eel ?411 10 +1 v •.•1 11 el 11 3 7,el •.1 V.0 e•1 0 13 11 \ 0 0 C 13 14 0 14 0 W 13 A•e1 1) at \C A el 0 C eh e400 CIVIC 00 4.) C.) CO, 10 g 11C\ 0•4 C • U3 A 0 4,4•1•e1 •el O 0 43 0 0 0 C 4) 0 0 0,0 yb O U 3 •.4 13 I A 40 4) 0 1e 0 O-., •e1 C 'o•,a o O 0 0\ 0 1+ U • 0 14 0) -4 +1e0 hLL1J 00 •.4iA 00 W U 3UN OO,'O 0 Z 0 O. N •PI ci U14 H0 aA • ai a1°1+ 0 .e as c H e•1 , .\I In .O 5 el N eel 04) C m 0 0O 0 3 1. 4.1 ,d e'i 0Oc •.4 •p e•i -.,4 O C U 0 01 0W.� 0] • Io w A. 01 \ e1 \ N .d •-I 01 ••1 O ••I ••1 01 O In 01 .-1 O1 N E E C a 3 .i 01 \ 0 P1 \ 10 •a 01 \ \ v I >, 0 4)0 14 C I W m0014 .!1 +I-.I 0 gip „ -.Oi 00 O'WO 0 > 0 aa))4) 4.) 0 CO '0 3 o O O H >,to C 10 0 W-•I CO lb C 0-•+ C 0•-I 0 1a 44.-4L1-.4 0 0 +I'0'0 W U 0) '0 O<j 0 0 111 -•I A a 0 -•4 b-•I 11 4) 0 1a 41 1a 01 0 H ••I ON p J)0 0 W A AC•a ••I 0W 0 41 C) 100 .-I0 o. ••I R cC o10 UoUa) o U 0 010 Cv-•1+� 0-•1 C a \ '0 w 10 0 CJ 0 0 4 C) 14 0 4) U 0••+ 0 0 4.1 s C • 'o 4.1-•1 0.-1 C W W a0 0 C >r o+.)4 -I0 •1 C U -. 14 O 0 0 010 4) e•1 104) 14 I I > 0 W tT 3 0 W 044 W 0 k 3 W 0 0 0 g+1 14 o W a 14 C.-4 • 0 W••I 14 0 it 0 W-4 0) 0 0 en 00 •-I ••I • .-I .1 0 0 C./-•+ 0 0 W W 0-••I 0 • 4.) W a 4) 0 W W 1+ 3 01 o, U 1+•Cr a, wW 0C 000 0 > 10 0 0030.0 al040'0 I 0 \ \ • \O.0 14W 011+ 0.-1 W o1+ CW 0 W 000••1 00Cle4 O.V .a N U e•1 Io+•I -I 04A1) 0. 104.) 014344-•+ 7E X A-•4 0 3•" O > ch w >, .s as 0 w 0o •t m C 0 .1 \i v in ai 4 CO <a 3�1.7.: W '0 -•I .•1 0 > •-I 0 -•I 0 0 4 CAS N w LI � a .a co \ .i 1h \ N .-4 ,I Co .•I 0 .-1 0) W 0) W I 0 w O V 0 O 00 0.-I y w u3i-.C4 A H p 0 01 0 .0 1w 0%% W O C 0 ri• W�-•1 I ,4 v 4 GL 4H) ••-1 0C h toOC� pi p \ 0)w4)) 000 CO0000+ 10CC E N .0 N I>5 U 0 43A C +1 0 0 E ato 01 a 14.1 0 0 10 0 O. 0 H Cr)01 0b- g 1 .-1 U @ 6 1J ••+ 010, 30 co A.0 U \v ..1 C 0 C 0 co 43 I 0 Ol >, C a1 4J I 0.0 H A >1 010 IT 0 0 C 3 H H 3 0 0 3 U C C\ • C 0 0 °i0N -000+>,0 0 • A 0) y•.1 > � H -4 d C-0 C U.� H 10 .•1 0 10 4 +1 > 41 0 H >, 0• C 4.1 C 0-•4 C 0 H 0) .-I A4I U10 00 H 0'd 43HC 0.•1 4) 10•41A10 >, 0H rn 3 a) 0 4.) C H >, 0.0 CO-0 00 H .a > C CL••1 0 10 \ >1\•'-1 '0 C 4) 10 1n RI 0 4.) ,-1 Y•1'0 el �•+ a••1 0) 0 0 H .0Q .0 H CI 0 .0 0 C W 0 41 oUUC AC 1'► ofX 0 0 X 10 0) 0 -4 cr 0 •n V 0 w >1,4 .c ••1 U 0 '0 U 30 0 0) 11 HP C 4) '0 1) C w 10 A 43 H >, 43 0•4 0 C 0 el x U m A.0 O. 10 M ate'. 4 COC � 0 >, m 0 14 w'O 3•.4.-).4 11W W WI p U I -4 0 0Elk 04 0 .-4 of CI El 004J \•0to C0+ Ie�`v 10 0H 10C co Ell 3••+ O. U U W a-• >10 00) C .0U14 0) H0 0'00• 10C 14'0CC o 4) 0 00 X0+0 • CO .•1+1 000CH .-I.•1 4 D. 0 x I-1 10O w10u ci0.-1 a.-1 % 0Hroa 00 .•I • • ,O .0 I� CO co 1 N 4) lI m ac 0.o a-- C 0 'o 43 '0 0 C-., 44 C > A > .4 .) �.q 0...Co N•• f co '•I m N '•1 ••1 0.' '•1 O '•I 'i C.' O c'1 O% A4 O' E � '•I o' O n �o '•1 o. 01 O 4) G1.0-••1 +1 'I 1 +► 10 W '1C +-1 0 '+ @ mA �-- rn •\, 040 11 C C w roO M 4 MI W C • RI 414-+ 3 U- 1 1 0 0 O GI C+ +1 U'O'O C C 0% C ro•••1 O O \ i-i 0 ' '4 4-1 (; a ' •o 'i• 7 03 j