The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 06/02/1999 - 7031�'`� � � �! �`` CITY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999, 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MINUTES: May 5. 1999 1. PUBLIC HEARING: A rezoning request, ZOA #99-02, by the City of Fridley to rezone a parcel from R-2 — Two Family zoning to R-3 — General Muitiple Units zoning, legally described as Lot 11, Block 1, Melody Manor, generally located at 7411 University Avenue. 2. Y2K update for Public Safety 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 5, 1999. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 1 1999. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 20 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY � ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 28. 1999. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 28. 1999, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN � � ,� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5,1999 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the May 5, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Connie Modig, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, . Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Brad Sielaff Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant Tim Jawor, 9175107�' Street North, Stillwater Max Miller Anthony & Cynthia Schreiner, 7372 Symphony St. N.E. Lynn Hansen, 230 Rice Creek Boulevard � APPROVAL OF APRIL 7 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the April 7, 1999, Planning Commission minutes as presented in writing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF P.S. #99-02, BY TIMOTHY JAWOR: Consideration of a Plat, P.S. #99-02, by Timothy Jawor to create 8 separate lots from Lot 11, Block 1, Melody Manor, in order to construct a 7-unit townhome structure, generally located at 7411 University Avenue. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOULSY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:33 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner, Timothy Jawor, is requesting a replat of property located at 7411 University Avenue. This replat would allow for the construction of a 7- � unit owner-occupied townhome structure. The petitioner would like to split the existing lot into eight lots, providing for a separate lot for each townhome unit with a common area for the townhome associatione PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 2 n Mr. Bolin noted that this property is also under consideration for a variance request that would decrease the required rear-yard setback from 40 feet to 19.2 feet. The Appeals Commission approved this request at their last meeting. Additionally, the property is under consideration for re-zoning from an R-2 District to an R-3 District, which is required. Mr. Bolin explained that the property directly to the north and south of the property consists of apartment units. The property to the east is zoned R-1 (a church currently exists on that property) and to the west is University Avenue and commercial and industrial property further west. Mr. Bolin provided a brief history of the property. He noted that in 1970 a settlement was reached with owner Ed Chies to allow R-3 standards to be applied to the properly so that he could construct an 8-unit apartment building on the site. In 1986, the zoning maps were accidentally drawn to show the property at R-3 property; however, the action to formally change the zoning was never processed. At this time, the City is applying for a re-zoning of the property so that it is in conformance with the settlement and what the zoning maps have shown for the past ten years. Mr. Bolin noted that in 1994 there was a proposal for a 7-unit condominium project that was eventually withdrawn. A photograph was presented to depict how the properly exists today as well as a site plan� landscaping plan, elevation plans and floor plans for the proposed project. Each unit would have a double car garage as well as a service � door to the garage. The front entrance doors would actually be located on the south side of the building with a proposed concrete walkway around the property. Mr. Bolin stated staff is recommending denial of this plat request. The parcel is large enough to develop six units of the size proposed which would then meet all of the setback requirements. Additionally, the proposed layout does not provide enough green/open space. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Plat request, staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached: 1. The fence shall be extended along the entire east side of the property. 2. All elements of the building must meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 3. Concrete curbing be placed around parking lot and parking islands. 4. All parking spaces must be set back 20 feet from the front yard properly line. 5. Proposed screening berm on west side of property must meet zoning code requirements for height. 6. Proper elevations showing all 7 units must be provided to the City, to ensure that the elevations are architecturally symmetrical. 7. The City will approve all exterior materials. 8. The use of brick, amount to be approved by City Staff, shall be required to ensure that the buildings have similar character to nearby buildings. 9. Final�landscape plan will meet code requirements and must be approved by City � Staff. 10.The proposed walkway shall be concrete. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 3 ^ 11.The Plat is conditional upon City Council approval of the variances 8� rezoning requests. 12.A 12-foot utility and drainage easement to be granted along entire eastem edge of property. 13.A 10-foot utility and drainage easement to be granted along entire southem edge of property. 14.A storm pond maintenance agreement to be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. The Plat must comply with all state regulations regarding townhome associations. 16.A park dedication fee of $750/unit must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. � Ms. Savage noted that the 7-unit rental condominium development previously proposed for the property met all code requirements. This proposal, however, does not meet the requirements. She asked what the difference was. Mr. Bolin noted that the development� which was proposed in 1994, had single-car garages and was smaller. The variance request, if approved by the City Council, will allow the proposal to meet all of the city code requirements. Ms. Savage asked if staff had discussed the possibility of reducing the size of the development with the petitioner. Mr. Bolin stated this has been discussed, but they have not been able to reach an agreement. Mr. Kuechle asked if the re-zoning would only affect this particular parcel. Mr. Bolin stated, yes, at this #ime. Staff will look at the possibility of rezoning some of the surrounding properties as well; however, that will not take place until the Comprehensive Plan has been completed. Ms. Savage asked when the City Council would be considering the variance request. Mr. Bolin stated tMat the Council will be reviewing the replat request on May 24. Ms. Savage asked if the surrounding property owners have expressed any concerns. Mr. Bolin stated staff has not received any letters of concem. A representative from the church attended the Appeals Commission meeting, and addressed the church's concems as to this development and the problems they have had with existing tenants in other apartments using the church property. Mr. Kuechle stated he understood from the discussion at the Appeals Commission meeting that there does not seem to be any designated play area nearby. Therefore, � the church property has become a main attraction for children in the area. The general consensus of the Appeals Commission was that this appeared to be a good project and would not severely impact the area. Whether the development was constructed at six PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 4 units or at seven units did not have a big difference as to the impact it would have on ^ the church property, when combined with the other surrounding properties. Ms. Modig asked about stipulations #8 and #10. Mr. Bolin noted that stipulation #8 requires the use of brick on the exterior so that it will tie in with other nearby buildings. Stipulation #10 requires the walkways to be concrete. The walkways of the other two apartments also have concrete walkways. Mr. Oquist asked about Stipulation #4, which requires that the parking spaces be set back 20 feet from the front yard property line. He asked where the front yard property line was. Mr. Bolin stated this would be University Avenue. Ms. Modig asked what formula was used to determine that the proposed plan doe� not have enough green space. Mr. Bolin stated the city code requires that the rear yard be 25% of the lot depth. If this was applied, a 50 foot rear yard setback would be required; however, the code states that in no cases will the City require more than a 40 foot rear yard setback. The minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet. Ms. Modig noted that the Innsbruck Townhomes do not have a large rear yard. Mr. Bolin stated the rear yard setback is based upon the actual lot size. Mr. Hickok stated that the Innsbruck development is platted with common space around it and surrounding the block of units. That development does have the proper setbacks from the edge of the units to their property lines. Mr. Saba noted that in addition to aesthetic purposes, green space also provides for proper drainage. He asked if this has been taken into consideration. Mr. Bolin stated that the storm pond design and the calculations, which were submitted by the petitioner, have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and staff. Mr. Tim Jawor stated when this development plan was designed, they reviewed the 1994 7-unit plat and then met with various realtors and looked at other developments within neighboring cities to define what the market wanted. This information revealed that what people wanted were two-car garages, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a moderate price range. With this development proposed as owner-occupied units, the need for an exterior dumpster has been eliminated. Mr. Jawor explained that they must keep these units moderately priced. By reducing the number of units from seven to six, there will be a significant impact on the remaining six units as far as cost. Rough calculations indicate that it would add approximately ^, $5,000 to $6,000 in cost per unit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 5 � Mr. Jawor stated that regarding the church's concems, they are proposing to construct a 6-foot high cedar� board on board privacy fence along the east lot line, to be maintained by the townhome association. Mr. Lynn Hansen stated he has owned and lived on the property to the north of this proposed project for the past 20 years. He 6elieves it is inevitable that something will eventually be done with this property. The property has become a°dumping ground°. He stated he thinks this is a good plan, and it will enhance the area. Cindy Schreiner, 7372 Symphony Street. stated her husband attended the Appeals Commission meeting. They are concemed about the congestion in the area. A project was approved at the end of Symphony Street and 74�' Avenue. In that project, the garages are not even used for vehicles, as is the case with other properties near them. They have a major parking problem on Symphony Street now. She also stated that Melody Manor does not have a right-of-way out of their neighbofiood. The only park to service the residents of the development is approximately 1%Z miles away. Mr. Tony Schreiner, 7372 Symphony Street, stated he voiced his objection to this development at the Appeals Commission. His concem is the traffic issue. He stated if the City of Fridley continues to approve these developments, he sincerely hopes they will address the traffic issue before something seriously happens on 73`� Avenue. There are paths along the south side of 73`� Avenue which lead to the park; however, there are no pedest�ian crossings to allow people in Melody Manor to get across 73`� ''� Avenue. Mr. Hickok stated that the number of trips from the site, regardless of whether six or seven units are approved, are within what had been approved years ago and are within what the R-3 zoning would allow. There is a service drive along the front of the development, which will act as the primary access to the site from a public street. It is reasonable to expect that a higher density development will generate more traffic. Calculations indicate that approximately 49 trips to and from this townhouse development would occur on a daily basis. (A single family home would generate 10 to 11 trips daily.) Ms. Savage aske.d if any discussions have been centered around reducing the speed limit on 73`� Avenue. Mr. Hickok stated that he was not aware of any discussions, but that he will make note of the crosswalk issue addressed by Mr. Schreiner. Mr. Jawor noted that association documents can be drawn up requiring �hat all cars must be parked inside. Mr. Schreiner stated he would have concems that these requirements �uld be changed at a later date. � � MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mro Kuechleo to close the publi� h��ng �t �a�� p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 6 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE � DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve PS 99-02, with the following stipulations: 1. The fence shall be extended along the entire east side of the property. 2. All elements of the building must meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building OfficiaL 3. Concrete curbing shall be placed around parking lot and parking islands. 4. All parking spaces must be set back 20 feet from the front yard property line. 5. Proposed screening berm on west side of property must meet zoning code requirements for height. 6. Proper elevations, showing all 7 units, must be provided to the City to ensure that the elevations are architecturally symmetrical. 7. The City will approve all exterior materials. 8. The use of brick, amount to be approved by City Staff, shall be required to ensure that the buildings have similar character to nearby buildings. 9. Final landscape plan will meet code requirements and must be approved by City Staff. 10. The proposed walkway shall be concrete. 11.The Plat is conditional upon City Council approval of the variances & rezoning � requests. 12.A 12-foot utility and drainage easerrrent shall be granted along entire eastem edge of property. 13.A 10-foot utility and drainage easement shall be granted along entire southem edge of property. 14.A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 15.The Plat must comply with all state regulations regarding townhome associations. 16.A park dedication fee of $750/unit to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION: Mr. Hickok reopened the discussion on the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has hosted several neighborhood-planning sessions. He noted that Mark Koegler of the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., and Mary Bujold of Ma�eld Research, Inc., are present to discuss the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, trends, and how these trends impact the City of Fridley. Ms. Bujold presented information in regard to demographic/housing market trends that ,.� are being seen around the metropolitan area, which affect the City of Fridley. The metropolitan area is currently experiencing a housing growth. Construction continues at PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 7 � a rapid pace and housing resale values are increasing dramaticaliy. She stated that affordable housing continues to remain a key issue especially as construction and land costs continue to increase. Rental housing construction is very low in the Twin Cities — especially for moderate-income households where the demand is high. The tumover rate is abnormally low in many areas, which indicates that fewer households are moving around. Senior housing construction is escalating due to the strong demand for this type of housing. �She stated that communities are becoming more concerr�ed with providing a spectrum of housing designed to meet household life-cycle needs — from entry level to senior housing. Ms. Bujold stated that the rate of population growth is slowing. This is particularly true for communities such as Fridley where there is an aging population base. Households are increasing due to demographics and social trends such as later marriages, more divorces and fewer children in each household. Ms. Bujold stated employment is forecasted to grow substantially during the 2000's. Fridley's location within the metro area is very convenient with easy access to the major freeway nefinrork. She noted that Fridley is well placed in the midst of a sizeable labor force. Several of Fridley's major employers are growing significantly. Ms. Bujold stated other demographic characteristics are that older and younger senior households are increasing in the community. Households under age 35 are decreasing. Fridley's median household income by ag� of households is similar to those for the Twin Cities as a whole. The number of owner-occupied housing units has increased during the 1990's. There has been very little increase in the number of rental units in Fridley during the same time period. Ms. Bujold stated Fridley offers a variety of housing, but the majority is affordable to first-time homebuyers. Two issues of concem expressed by real estate agents include lack of move up housing and lack of market rate senior housing. The majority of single family homes in Fridley sold for between $70,000 and $149,000 in 1998. Housing values in Fridley have continued to increase by 6.5°/a annually since 1994 (this rate was at the top end of communities surrounding Fridley). Ms. Bujold stated.that some of the ongoing housing issues include the limited land available for new housing, localized areas of housing in poor condition, selected removal of housing for redevelopment or replacement, lack of a broad mix of housing to satisfy life-cycle housing needs, households skipping over Fridley to find housing that meets their needs or households moving out of Fridley to find suitable housing. Mr. Kuechle asked what Fridley can do to provide move-up housing. Ms. Bujold stated one example would be the proposed development at 74�' and University Avenues. These are homes that provide new features and amenities that are desirable. �'1 Ms. Modig wondered if the Cornprehensive Plan must speciflcally address what type of housing is needed in areas and will it require further changes in zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 8 Ms. Bujold stated the Comprehensive Plan must have enough flexibility to be able to � actively respond to market demands at the time. However, areas should be identified where changes may need to take place in the future. Mr. Kuechle stated he feels Fridley is still not addressing the life cycle housing. Most townhomes cater to a different demographic group. Additionally, most of the townhomes in Fridley are low-end price-wise. Mr. Oquist stated Fridley needs to address what happens in neighborhoods in general and what should be done with run-down properties within neighborhoods. This affects the entire area and is a problem that should be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bujold stated that under the criteria established by the Metro Council, Fridley either meets or exceeds the benchmark percentages for affordable housing in nearly every category. Mr. Koegler stated they have identified six categories of trends that affect govemment and how they apply locally on comprehensive planning issues. Not all of the areas have a substantial impact on the Comprehensive Plan; however, he believes social change, quality of life, and development play a significant role. Mr. Koegler stated that in looking at govemment/public participation, they have found an eroding trust in public officials and govemment, an increase in complexity in decision � making and issues, a growing NIMBYism with no desire to compromise, and lack of understanding on how to get involved in govemment processes. This affects the city by causing an increased interest in group demands, more contentious public hearings, and more legislation to protect taxpayers from local govemment. Mr. Koegler stated it has been found that the public perceives taxes as being too high. There is growing demand and expectations for services. The effect this may have on the city is levy limits, truth in taxation and fiscal disparities. There have been increased demands for service, staff resources, limited funds to maintain infrastructure and unfunded mandates. Social changes such as increased social diversity and multiculturalism and the aging population will increase the city's demand for human service programs and specialized housing. Mr. Koegler stated there is a growing demand for sense of place and identity and a demand for a clean environment. This will cause a growing increase in community facilities, greater emphasis on clean air and water, traffic meters, neighborhood traffic issues and a growing interest in public gathering spaces. Mr. Koegler stated the accelerating pace in technology and telecommunications has an impact on the way we do business. Information is increasingly available, growth in home offices and telecommuting. This will create a greater demand for information �o� Intemet. There may be less need for traditional large-scale retail, and less need for � more flexible office environments/less demand for office buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 9 � Mr. Koegler stated that the City of Fridley is approaching full development. Regional efforts are being made to contain sprawl. At the same time, there is a very strong and diverse regional economy. The effect this may have on the city is that growth will become more dependent on redevelopment, a greater city role will be required, additional investment in rebuilding infrastructure will be needed and there will be potential for more regional incentives and opportunities. Mr. Koegler stated some of issues which he feels will need to be addressed in the comprehensive plan include the following: 1) a community entrance at Central Avenue/694 and at University Avenue/694 2) housing quality — maintenance 3) Central Avenue and University Avenue — comdor appearance 4) junkyards within the city 5) the impact of the Medtronic's campus 6) lack of public transportation 7) commuter rail 8) trails and bike paths — improving ways of getting around 9) east/west traffic movement 10)the mix of housing 11)the role of the Mississippi River 12)the aging infrastructure � 13)the Hyde Park neighborhood area 14)the need for community gathering places 15)the concept of connected neighborhoods Mr. Koegler stated that they have found that people want the urban amenities in a suburban development. This will need to be looked at more closely to see how it can be obtained. Mr. Oquist stated that Fridley is really divided into three sections with University Avenue and Central Avenue. I-694 is another dividing line. This should be addressed as well. Mr. Saba stated he feels the bike paths do not provide continuity, allowing them to bike from their homes to specific areas of interest and relaxation. Additionally, Fridley does not have any pedestrian bridges or walkways over Highway 65 or University Avenue to connect areas of the city. This is something else he would like to see addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Savage stated Fridley does not have a main focal point such as a central area for plantings, etc. Mr. Koegler stated the information gathered and discussed will be put together and will be brought back for consideration. �� 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 'i. 1999. PARIC & RECREAiION COMMISSION MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 10 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechte to receive the Minutes of the March 1, 1999, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting. !� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 11, 1999, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig to receive the Minutes of the March 11, 1999 Human Resources Commission Meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 10. 1999. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist to receive the Minutes of the March 10, 1999, Appeals Commission Meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECL.ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UANIMOUSLY. �--� 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 1999. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba to receive the Minutes of the April 14, 1999, Appeals Commission Meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IiANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Hickok stated that the City Council considered and approved the five-foot utility easement vacation on the property located near 1015 Mississippi Street. A home is now under construction on the site on Brookview Drive just north of Mississippi Street. Mr. Hickok stated that finro of the items on the City Council agenda for the Medtronic project (the street vacation for Carrie Lane and the plat approval) were tabled at the April 26 meeting and will be considered again at the May 10, 1999, City Council meeting. The other items relating to this project were approved. The Planning Commission reviewed the Holiday gas station facility on Highway 65. That item will be coming back to the City Council on May 10, 1999. ,.-.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 5, 1999 PAGE 11 Mr. Hickok stated that the code enforcement program in Fridley has been very '�� successful. He noted that he would like to have Missy Daniels, Code Enforcement Officer, attend some of the upcoming Pianning Commission meetings to discuss the progress that has been made. ADJOURN: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 5, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. 3,gspectfuliy submitted, �am,� ,�� L� Tamara D. Saefke G, ` Recording Secretary � ,�, / � City of Fridley Land Use Application ZOA-99-02 - May 19, 1999 GENERAI. INFORMATION - SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Fridley Requested Action: Rezone property to R-3. Existing Zoning: R-2 Two Family Residential Location: 7411 University Ave. Size: 22,128 squaze feet .51 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Apt. Complex & R-2 E: Church & R-1 S: Apt. Complex & R-2 ^, W: HWY 65 & G2 Comprehensive Plan Conf�rmance: Use of property is consistent with Plan. Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Section 205.09.O1.A.(1) allows multiple dwellings including rental and condominium aparhnents. Zoning History: • 1961 - Melody Manor is platted • 1963 - Ed Chies obtains building permit for 8-unit apt., but never builds. • 1964 - City changes R-2 zoning, allowing only duplexes. • 1970 - Ed Chies sues City to obtain his original building permit. Settlement reached allowing R-3 standards to be applied to property. • 1986 - Zoning maps accidentally drawn to show the property as R-3. (presumably to cover the settlement) • 1988 - City attomey memo stated that n property should be rezoned to R-3, however9 this action has never beeri processed. • 1994 - Proposal for 7 unit rental condominium project is withdrawn. • 1998 - Timothy Jawor proposes 7 unit owner occupied townhomes. Legal Description of Property: Lot 11, Block 1, Melody Manor Council Action: May 24, 1999 Public Utilities: Located near property. Transportation: Town homes will be accessed by the University Avenue service road. Physical Characteristics: Relatively flat, grass covered lot. SUMMARY OF REQUEST Property has been zoned R-2 since the eazly 1960's. Court settlement in 1970 allowed R-3 standards to be applied to the property. Since 1986 property has been labeled as R-3 on the City Zorung maps. Rezoning to R-3 would allow the proposed owner occupied townhome units. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request. • would allow owner occupied townhome units • would allow multi-family units sunilar to neighboring properties • would meet terms of 1970 court settlement • would make the existing zoning on the property consistent with what is shown on the City's zoning maps StaffReport Prepazed by: Paul Bolin ZOA-99-02 ANALYSIS The vacant property located at 7411 University Avenue has been zoned R-2 since the early 1960's. A court settlement in 1970 allowed R-3 standards to be applied to the property, yet still the lot remains vacant. Since 1986 property has been improperly labeled as R-3 on the City Zoning maps. Rezoning the property to R-3 would be consistent with the court settlement anci would be necessary to allow the proposed owner occupied townhome units. This would also allow other multi-family units built on the site, in accordance with the court settlement, to be conforming uses. The proposed project by Timothy Jawor has received a variance from the appeals commission and preliminary plat approval from the planning commission. Even if this project were not proposed, or were to fail, the property should be rezoned to R-3 as suggested by the City Attorney in 1988 (see attached memo). � An R-3 zoning designation on this property would be consistent with the surrounding area, as the properties to the immediate North and South both contain 12 unit apartment buildings. Grace Lutheran Church owns the property immediately to the East and HWY 65 borders the property on the West. There are other apartment buildings and duplexes in the immediate vicinity. � PROPERTY HISTORY The following sections address the zoning classification of this property and the lawsuit by a previous property owner. I have also included a brief time line of the zoning history of this property. Zoning Classification Though this property has been incorrectly displayed on the City's zoning maps since 1986, this property currently is and always has been zoned R-2. In order to correct this error, conform with the settlement of a past law suit, and allow multi-family development, the City submitted this rezoning application for the property to becorne � R-3 district. Chies Lawsuit In 1963, multi-family units were a permitted use in the R-2 district when Ed Chies obtained building permits for an eight unit apartment complex. In 1964, the City changed the zoning code so that multi-family units were no longer permitted in the F2-� zoning district. Seven years after obtaining the building permits, Mr. Chies was fi��oE� ready to build. His original building permits had long expired and multi-family unif� �� no longer allowed in the R-2 zoning district. Mr. Chies filed a suit against the �ity $� make the original building permits valid. In the settlement that followed, Mr. ��i�� ^ �` the City agreed that he could build up to 8 units provided he met all the zoning requirements for the multi-family district. H�stor%al Timeline of Zoning History 8 Act�an • 1961 - Melody Manor was platted. • 1963 - Ed Chies obtains building permit for 8-unit apt., but never builds. • 1964 - City changes R-2 zoning. allowing only single family homes & duplexes. • 1970 - Ed Chies sues City to obtain his original building permit. Settlement reached allowing R-3 standards to be applied to property. • 1986 - Zoning maps accidentally show the property as R-3. • 1988 - City attomey memo stated that property should be rezoned to R-3, however, this action has never been processed. • 1994 - Proposal for 7 unit rental condominium project, which met all code requirements, is withdrawn. • 1999 - Variance & Plat request from Timothy Jawor. Rezoning request from City. While researching the current proposal from Mr. Jawor, current City staff became aware of the mistake on the zoning map and the 1988 memo from the City attomey. Though no action was taken in the past on the rezoning of this property, current City staff is working to correct all mistakes and inconsistencies on the current zoning map. n RECOMMENDATION Cify Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request. In order to correct the error on the zoning map, conform with the settlement of a past law suit, and allow owner occupied townhomes, staff recommends approval of this request. � •— — . � � ,� � � . . [v,,;� rr � � � J� �� ,`'� �u•::t � Zl �...�'' !! �! "' $J 6S�S.rrS�r :, f`s '�r''1 t �r`.k�.s..l►��•7/� • �• ��j.!:li.li :i � � ,SC�/G %'1%r:I� . � ] `d �� ,� .! �.-� 1�. 1 'a � : '� \l � ' 1 � �n�. .. �i.•t �c'') Cr.�! f 41 r.n:t�;l ' l:L;�•�: .�('.�� i• '�fti i ^i;, - • . • ' , � � • En9�ncci s . � Su�vc��nr,.y � 4 ;!° v �. - �fN1 T'.i i �� a i � � �� i /':� �!•;'7�{ !"• •t" (r; � " /��!� (� ` `�.ij� Lv�.fa:1��s�T a`��.i `':�/.Ar ��:.w�� C��a+� �'4"'�..� l+ �/_�i D�.1i'E�eaA{E!�r c��. "_� �, � �, f % 3 �. . t 4� r < � � 'LI 7 r� V � . `r'' ��-•'_.:.---•-•-------- -?=-`--�=�'� ------ •---= � � � 1, ��": � �. �. . -� a L� � � • _. Q� ' -� �I �� _ � _ � �� ;' �� _ -- Z c. c: � � 3 -- �,. Car�1"� �•!�1. RCe4� 'i .�. c..i�:t•: t'' �'�•il. ( � '. 1 I � L� I I I lj � � � . � I C ' dv a��`�c . ^ q.• . .1 � �� , a. ,c i ► �^, �1,�� ti. • l 0 � ( o DE��oZ-c�+ 1}_ar1 � – L�C'_Nr,l'E� t11'�t_IlK a. _,�,nl�i:. ! __ _ __ _ _ 4E f /�=,f.e�E.!�t •� t10 cc_ .— i. ELEV�.TIr3t•1_, n.�tF ��zc�o�r n 2, f{F ��T ti�� Oft c.t.�_.VAT�Gt� 'TO f'•r 7..5 :='CF T t.P.c+v:. G".o��:�C'i Ett.:/. ��►1!'.� t� T..o �__ ''._ �3L U C Z� f.__ Iv�� I: S__ c} 1� Y t�/t � 1�I ��: �?. i I � �. _ .� �; j k.� „ , ./�►�� • � � � � LCi • �:i :i �' -�j . �•' :� :S O � �.. C•/., ri�'. [i •:," . , .. �; 1 _f1: �� G . ..'�.'; f � . ..•=-7•-: . . y . . C.:•, - 1-,� .:.d i.:/ . 'ri •1 :e, • /• � ; � � • i�t� .�ti. ... ,� � �.^. �7_• � •!'.°:II � �'c![. •� ►'".%S. .. �/2 �i�.�s'1'."i J � :'j , f`Y': J: :J.'... i� �:' .� :i: . . ►'.:i r:.� ..l i/;f.. /L.. "_ __' iP• ^ I, _�-�� , ' �"u.-:�t��_'_' �.:� �'��?, ••, .• '� • '! A !•••, -' � ' ! �� \ ' •1U�IiJni�'J�I . ��J'�YC f.1tilv�� ftiC. !i�v:n::i: r' j.•. r.•.!-rs 5 G k�. � ��• � • ':: . t� ' T � _-- ------�`J - . : _,-- -�- j -� -�'.— -- - ' ;= .`_ _ ._ _ . ._ _. . _ -- ------- - ----- -� - --. .__- - -- -- — ---- --.._ _ _.....--- - - - . .a . f � � � .�/ .S� • : . HALL, SMITH, JUSTER. FEIKEMA AND HASKVITZ � � " • � ' ''�` - � � ' ' ' .. � �, :: . . : �'�� s�� - � � � .�. , � � ��/ � - - - -- �. � .�� -- - oouc�..s N..�� . W7M4N 9MITN , � � � � ��-• ' ' '" ' ' �OSO BU�IIDERS CXCM4NOE BIOG.. MINNCAPOl�B. MINNSSOT� lS�Q2 - - , � lCON4ROT..1N8tE%� ' � � � ' - " � /NONE O]9-! B1 • OFPICE9 IN: 0896G. /RIOIEr MCNq`/ M. fEIKEM4 ' ... _ ' ' ' ' ' . . . _ _._ RaNALO l. MA3KV�T2 ' '� �� . �, � „ . - • . •- _ - • • � JAMtS R. C488QALY _ ' " . ' ' ... .. . " ' June 24, 1970 . . _ . _ .: _ . . . . _. . Mr. Homer Ankrum � � - � -�� - - � � -- �-- � -- --� Manager, City of� Fridley - � � --- � - � � - � � _ . _.. _. ' .... ----�--:- 6431 University Avenue Pl.E. ' . � � -� � Fridley, Minnesota 55421 - Dear Nomer: � .. . . . .. . � . . ._ � . _ The P,noka County District Court c�se File 3]410-4392 entitle� --�� --- ; � Eda�tard A. Chi es vs . Ci ty of Fri dl ey and C1 arence 6e1 i s le cam� _' __ _ __ -� ��- on��for �triaT��6e�o"re-Judge Keyes on 4dedn�sday, June 24, at 10:00 a.m. As i s usual , Judge Keyes had mysel f and the attorney for N1r. Chi es � _. ___� _ come in�o his cham5ers and go over the entire matter: The facts� � arere pretty much agreed u�on. Chies bougnt tnese t�,�o lots as well - � . as ten m�rz from E& P�9 Development Company. in:October of 1963. Ne - - 15 1963 � - ��'i appl�ed for bu11d1ng per�m ts on all the lots on Nov�n�er , . He did build aFar*:r�r,t str�ct�res �n 411 of the lots exce�t the ta:� involved in chis la��rsuit. These are namely; Lots 8 and 11, in Block 1, P�elody Manor. He excavated for a basem�nt on one of tne lots. He did nothing on the other,g. He finished his final building of the buildings that vrere const•ructed in April of 1967. The City -�- adopted an am�ndment to its zoning code that became effectiv� about April 15, 1964, limitina the P.2 Zonin� to double dvr�llings. The � Code required building permits to be used �lithin-9a days or terninated. � It was our. contention_tha.t.the.building permit that he had taken out-en --- P�ovember 15, 19ti3 had expired before the change in the Zoning. It was Plaintiff's position that this aras e confiscation of his property in that the lots have no �easonable use as tu�ro-family u�•�ellings and n�ed multiple dr�rellings�on tFem:� Judae Keyes agreed arith tne Plaintiff's contention. He thought that these t�;o vacant 1 ots ��rere buri ed bet��een exi sti na apartnent buildin;s and tfiat the City, both througn its committee and by council � action, had approved the construction of a group of apartment buildings, including these t,•ro lots. He suggested that I recontimend to th� council � tiiat the building�per�nits be issued. The matter v:as continued to August 18, and at that tim� he +�ill issue an order if the City has not issued the bui 1 di ng permi ts .� � � �. �. ` . ... .. ' ' • . .. . . .. . .. , .. . . . , . • � � � ' '.. . ._ � , ., . .. _ . . . . .. •• _ _ _ .. _ . . , . -- . - - - -2- - ..�: -': . - ... . _: _� . � . e to make .some��rhat of a compromi se wi th t1r. e�� W� ��aves � �� . I was. abl a reed that the permits ��o long . � � attorney in �hat they g _ - _. .- the 6 units on Lot 8 and 11 unifis onnL8tunit buildint oneLot�ll w�I _ ._ -� - be reduced to 4 uni ts o�ll.o.t..8-�ni a . . - recommend that the cour-�issueebuildingap2h.�nitslfor thatunumher of units - -�_ � ` - inspection department to . . :� providing that th� applicant submits the usual o�her things that are __ �- requi re_d wi th bui 1 di ng -permi t appl i cati ons ..- ence Belisle and Nasim Qureshi appeared �ti�ith me in Court and . Both Clar ___ _ __ � each of them had their documents and papers in good,order. � -� � did et the Court to�agree that,if we had ��e°thatdthetbuildinghe _,_._ __ -____:_ I 9 . ._ t --� same circunstances that the Court would dete ___. � permi t had expi red and that there. WourtrsYrj udgm nt�wi 11 nnotcaffect�ar�y ;--�-��- � - ' the proper ty r i g h t s. I t h� n�'licat ions in the City. � �- other property or pending app Yours truly; - - � _ . . ^ . , --- "I kyman Smi th . � __ . . . . - - . . - - - � . /d9 . - . . .> �, . r--� .� .� „ ', . ,� '. ., � ��-.. _ . , -,,, � � / � CITY OF FRIDLEY I�IEI�IO RANDUM 1'0: JOHN FLORA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORRS G�,, FROM: RAY TISCEII,ER ERIQCSON, LEGAL INTERN �-� C DATE: MAR(�i 22, 1985 SUBJECT: APPROPRIATE OSE FOR LOT 11, BLOCR 1, MELODY MANOR, 7411 UATIVERSITY AVENiTE N. E. You requested that I give an opinion as to vhether the 1970 court ruling on the above property, statiag that the appiicable soning for the property vas that in effect ia 1963 (which allowed multi-family dwellings). ie applicable to subsequent cwaers or vhether rezoning ia necessary. I contacted the Aaoka County Clerk of Court who exaained the file lof Ed Cbiee v. The City of Fridley. On June 24, 1970, the partiea to the suit stipulated that a multi-family dwelling could be n built aad buildin permits for the same were to be issued to Chies, �-h2 asaigns and successors It is my underatanding that Chies and e a sequeat aan'Z!'haa represented to the next buyer that the applicable zoniag for the property alla+ed multi-faa�tly dwellings. It is my opinion that the right'to build�a nulti-family dwelling on this property belonge to subsequent wners based upon the stipulation agreed to in 1970. Hawever� the best approach would probably be to rezone the pzopertq so that other lando�aers and developere cannot queation the zoning , decision. IE rezoning entails a great deal of the City's time or moneq, or if there is lcnc�„in opposition to the reaoning, it vould be wise to get an opinioa from the City Attorney before proceediag. If I can be of further assiatance on this isaue, let me know. � '' �,� Ir..�.?` �`"` � r� �`' � �'I . , � - � Sb � � �, , ;, �;^ ,F�.,f :.� � �' �, ? 4 r-� f-- ' � ` , � f 0 '.�r'•• � r' " t.,,_ �' ° v r ( \ ` � ` � � . .. ,'�, - �, r -i-; r�' �`.� r �- `'_ +�.��• t� �'1 ° �i; >. !r � .r�- � a �L, j i : -- � ! i E.• '•.-d. . • �/` `•.-.' � MEMO T0: JIM ROBINSON, CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM: GREGG V. HERRICK DATE: MARCH 29, 1988 RE: REZONING OF LOT 11, BLOCK 1, MELODY MANOR As I understand the situation, the City poses the following question: Should a variance be granted to allow an apartment complex to be developed on the above described premises, currently zoned R2, or should the City rezone the area to conform with the use to which the property is currently being put. On June 24, 1970 the City entered into an agreement Chies in which the City of Fridley agreed to issue permits to construct an eight unit apartment building property in considerati�n of the withdrawal of the It is my understanding that the current owners of the wish to construct an apartment complex which, while R3 zoning requirements, because of its underground exceeds its eight unit apartment agreement signed by on June 24, 1970. with Mr. building upon the lawsuit. property it meets parking, Mr. Chies Because the area in question is predominantly occupied by apartment complexes, the R3 rezoning should be carried out regardless of how many units are finally approved. It is our opinion that the agreement providing for the construction of an eight unit apartment complex can be enforced against the new owners. It is our understanding of the situation, however, that the City has informed the current owners of the property that the larger apartment complex will be allowed on this site. Assuming the zoning requirements have been met, there would be no legal problem in granting a building permit on the current proposed.apartment complex. As far as the question as to who is responsible for initiating and paying for the re�oning procedure is a point which should be negotiated between the current owners and the City Council. � =-� -rJ � � .-� �, MEMO�.ANDUM PLArTNING DIVISION DATE: May 14, 1999 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator � SUBJECT: Y2K Discussion on Public Safety At one of the Planning Commission meetings it was asked if there could be an update on the Y2K Issue for Public Safety. Dave Sallman with the Police Department will be attending the May 19, Planning Commission meeting to present you with an update of the Y2K issue for Public Safety. SH\jt �