Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes04_0622City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2004 Chair Pamela Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed the visitors present and the cable viewing audience. PRESENT: Commissioners DeLeo, Harris, Heideman, Lageson, Maher, Ryan, Ziebarth, Council Member Lindstrom. Also present was City Administrator Heather Worthington, City Attorney Joel Jamnik and Staff Liaison Deb Jones. ABSENT: Lukermann (with notice), Tracy The minutes of the May 25, 2004, meeting were approved. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE FOR THE B-3 ZONE PROPOSED BY T.I.E.S. TO ADD RENTAL OF STORAGE SPACE AS AN INTERIM USE. Preliminary to the public hearing, Staff Liaison Jones presented the staff report on matter before the commission this evening, an application from T.I.E.S., 1667 N. Larpenteur Avenue, to add as an interim use in the B-3 Zone (Snelling Larpenteur Community Business District) the rental of storage space in existing buildings. The proposed interim use is as follows: Private storage of vehicles, small trailers, recreational vehicles, equipment or tools, community theatre equipment, materials and similar items, when stored within existing accessory structures. If the Council were to approve this ordinance, an interim permit would be required, as stated in Chapter 9, Section 15.08, with procedures similar to those for a Conditional Use Permit. It is the City’s understanding that it is the intent of TIES, if this ordinance is adopted and a permit is granted, to rent or lease storage space to businesses and private individuals. City Staff does not support the proposed amendment, said Ms. Jones, in view of the following findings: The proposed use does not fit the purpose and intent of the Snelling and Larpenteur Community Business District, as set forth in Section 9-10.01 Subdivision 1. The proposed use would apply to all properties in the B-3 zone, not just the TIES property, and would enable any property owner in B-3 to consider a similar use. The proposed use is not the “highest and best” use of land in the central commercial district of the City. Owners of other properties at Snelling and Larpenteur have invested and will invest millions of dollars to redevelop their properties and to enhance the appearance and quality of existing development. This proposed use does not complement those efforts. The proposed use is vaguely worded enough to include the possible storage of items and materials which could have a negative impact on neighboring residential and commercial properties and on public health and safety. Even if specific conditions and limits were included in the actual permit, enforcement would be costly and difficult for the City. Staff is not confident that effective enforcement would even be possible. There are security risks related to the storage of materials, especially vehicles, in a location immediately adjacent, not only to a residential neighborhood and to the commercial core of the City, but to one of the busiest intersections in the Metro area. All of the above objections apply, whether the proposed use were to be interim, conditional, accessory or permitted. In addition: The proposed use does not fit the purpose and intent of the Interim Use Permit, as defined in 9-15.08 Subdivision 1. The applicant is not presenting this as a temporary use (paragraph a), a presently acceptable use that is expected to become unacceptable or to be replaced in the future by a permitted or conditional use in the district (paragraph b), or a use in anticipation of long range change to the area (paragraph c). In consideration of all the above, Staff’s recommendation was that the Planning Commission deny approval of the proposed amendment to the City Code. The public hearing was opened by the Chair. Tom Bertz, facilities manager for T.I.E.S. spoke first. He asked if he would be able to respond to questions from other speakers later if he spoke first. On being assured by the Chair that he would, he said he wished to address the Commission. He said that, as he had not been aware that Staff did not support the application, he was not prepared with answers to the findings. The issue came up in March, he said, when a tenant came to the City to get permission for a sidewalk sale. When it was found that the tenant was not using the property legally, T.I.E.S. was required by the City to cancel existing storage leases and move stored material off the site. This caused a loss of $12,000 revenue for the non-profit. Mr. Bertz distributed a site plan showing the areas that T.I.E.S. proposes to use for leased storage. All are in existing buildings, and the stored items were mostly boats, snowmobiles and some “Back to the 50s” cars. Space was also leased to Rosetown players, who lost their former home in Roseville City Hall. He said he did not know it would be a problem to use the property for storage. Most of the site is not adjacent to a residential area. If the amendment is approved, T.I.E.S. would offer six-month contracts, October through April and April through October. There should not be a lot of additional traffic. There would be no new construction; only existing accessory structures would be used, and the use would cease when the buildings come down. There are long term plans to eliminate both the old firehouse and the pole barn, which are included in the plan for interim storage. There would be no outside storage. Mr. Bertz pointed out that the buildings were being used up until March, with no one even being aware, so the impact would be minimal. He added that Hollywood Court residents use the parking lot for access to their neighborhood, and they don’t want obstruction to that. In response to a question from Commissioner Maher, Mr. Bertz said that when T.I.E.S. bought the building they knew there was more space than they needed and that they would rent space to associated organizations. He listed the present tenants, which include several organizations, such as the National Youth Leadership Council and Rosetown Players, which are headed by Falcon Heights residents. Jim Bykowski of St. Marys Avenue said he came because of the notice published in the newspaper. He thought it was vague. He asked if the City has any ordinances regulating storage and whether this amendment would allow future expansion of storage into the current parking lot. He is concerned that a future owner might turn the property into a permanent ministorage facility. Ms. Jones replied that the City Code does not presently have any definition of leased storage (this use is not allowed in any zone at present) as differentiated from storage that is accessory to a permitted use (which is legal), that the proposed amendment was accepted verbatim from the applicant on the advice of the City Attorney, and that the applicant had not offered a definition. She explained that if a use is not specifically mentioned in the code as permitted, accessory, conditional or interim, then it is not allowed at all. Mark Harrington of Hollywood Court asked if it is T.I.E.S. intention to “ramp up” to more storage. Other than being waked up early one morning when they were getting a boat out, he has had no problem with T.I.E.S. and considers them a good neighbor. Mr. Bertz replied that TIES, at this point, has no intention of increasing the storage. They simply want to make legal what they were already doing. Mr. Harrington said, in that case, he had no objection, but if there is an increase he would ask for limits on the hours of access. Frank Meah of Hollywood Court asked about the area “D” on the map. He understood it was used last year for storage of furniture and asked if the City knew about it. City Administrator Worthington replied that the City did enforce on TIES for an illegal tenant, and they did comply. She told the Commission that the matter came to light when that tenant inquired about holding a sidewalk sale and it was found that the tenant did not have a business license and, further, that the tenant was using the space illegally. After subsequent meetings with TIES it came to light that all the space in question was being used illegally. Mr. Bertz responded that the tenant in question was licensed to do business in Roseville and used the TIES space for cold storage and a location for accepting deliveries. The business does redecorating and installs carpet.1 Ms. Worthington said that it is immaterial that the tenant has a business license in Roseville. He intended to carry on retail sales in Falcon Heights, and is required to have a Falcon Heights business license to do business in the City. Mr. Meah said that TIES is a good neighbor and he is glad they are there. Hollywood Court is a small neighborhood of only eighteen houses. Last year an occupied recreational vehicle was parked at TIES. Is it TIES intention to do more of this? Mr. Bertz said that the vehicle in question was owned by a TIES employee who lives in Mora, who asked permission to park there to avoid driving back and forth to Mora. Mr. Meah also expressed concern about the gas pump on the TIES site. Mr. Bertz said the pump is used for the TIES fleet of seven cars. If they did not use it they would be required to remove the tank at a cost of $85,000; it is not for public use. The tank is tested every year and has a monitoring system installed by Harvest States, former owner of the facility. Rita Smith of Hollywood Court spoke next, noting that the neighborhood was well represented. When she first received the notice of the hearing she imagined the back parking lot would be fenced and full of stored vehicles. However, she sees that the request is to use the out buildings as they were intended. She asked if vehicles would be coming and going and if there is a time frame. Mr. Bertz said TIES had not asked for a specific interim at this stage. Also, vehicles would typically not be coming and going; they would be stored for several months at a time. Bob Skundberg of 1624 Hollywood Court wanted to back up some of the things his neighbors had said and to share their concerns. As worded, the application says “structures,” which is not the same as building and could include parking lots. He repeated that TIES has been a good neighbor, but he said Hollywood Court residents have all had a “good lesson in incrementalism” from the fairgrounds” and that is why they are “gun shy” about changes. When he moved in eleven years ago, all the residents had to deal with was the State Fair. Now, there’s traffic and crowds every weekend and difficult access. “We’re constantly under assault,” he said. He has no objection to the current use, but once you change the zoning laws you open the door to other things. Mr. Skundberg asked who would be renting the storage space. Mr. Bertz said that at present the leases only go to TIES employees and their families and to tenants and their families, and that would be their policy. When asked about the Old Town business, he admitted the owner was a close friend of his who needed the space. Mr. Skundberg reiterated that TIES has been a good neighbor and he didn’t see any objection as long as there are no changes. Judy Baldwin, Hollywood Court resident, said that the neighborhood was particularly vulnerable when Harvest States left and the property was vacant for three years. They hoped to find a good neighbor, and TIES had been that. Rita Smith spoke again, saying that she favored the interim use on a trial basis for a year. She supports the company’s educational mission and suggested a coffee shop on the site. Mr. Bertz said this has been considered but he doesn’t know if it would be allowed.2 Jim Bykowski returned to the podium to say that, if the Commission chooses to override the Staff’s recommendation, it is the Commission’s responsibility to develop ordinances defining and regulating leased storage as an ongoing business in the City, what that means and what would be acceptable. We have a very small business community and we want to support them, but, he said, that does not mean we can let businesses define how they use their space and how we live in our neighborhoods. He challenged the Commission to write the ordinances for this use before they offer this use or make any agreement with TIES. Ms. Worthington responded that storage is not addressed in the code because it is not a legal use anywhere in the City. She stressed that if a use is not listed, it is prohibited. City Attorney Jamnik confirmed this. What the TIES owner seeks to do tonight is to establish this as an interim use in the B-3 zone. It would be tightly defined, and then an interim use permit would be required that would even further confine and describe the particular use being requested. Only the amendment to allow the potential use is under consideration tonight, not the actual permit. Ms. Worthington added that when TIES purchased the property the City had a comprehensive discussion with them about what uses are legal on the site and had requested that TIES keep the City informed about its lessees to make sure their uses of the site were legal. Until now they had done so. The City had been thorough in informing TIES what is legal on their property. Commissioner Ziebarth asked how many vehicles were being stored. Mr. Bertz said that in Garage A (see map attached) there was one vehicle in summer, three in winter. In the fire barn there is space for ten; in the last two years, typically, 5 or 6 have been stored there, winter only. In area A, there is only winter storage, room for 7 vehicles; this past year was the time it was used. The pole barn has never been used for storage, but there is room for four vehicles. In response to a question from Commissioner Lageson, Mr. Bertz confirmed that TIES owns the blacktop area south of the buildings in question. Mr. Lageson also asked what constitutes “family members,” in application of the above stated rental policy. Mr. Bertz said “immediate family,” but he is not sure how far that would spread out, but in practice it would be, for instance, staff and their immediate household. Commissioner Harris reminded the Commission and audience that TIES has not actually made an application, so the question of who could rent is not under consideration at this time. Only the code amendment as stated is being considered. Mr. Bertz offered as a change to the proposed amendment that the name TIES be inserted so the amendment would be the only allow this use in existing TIES buildings. Councilmember Lindstrom then asked if the amendment could be written to apply only to the TIES property. Commissioner Ziebarth said that this would create a “subzone” for that property and would be a much larger task than an amendment. Commissioner Harris pointed out that TIES has no intention of this use being temporary, and Mr. Bertz affirmed that. He said that his discussion with the City led him to feel that proposing this as an interim use rather than a conditional use would be “more palatable,” giving the Farmer’s Market as an example. Ms. Jones gave clarification that Staff did not suggest the interim use option to Mr. Bertz. This was his suggestion; Staff merely told him what the procedure was for applying to amend the code. She listed several dissimilarities between the TIES proposal and the Farmer’s Market interim use. Farmer’s Market is on site for a period of five hours or less, one day per week, five months of the year. Storage at TIES would be round the clock, seven days a week, all year. Farmer’s Market is a public service and community amenity provided by Twin City Co-op Credit Union without charge to the City, the community or to the Market. Storage at TIES is intended as a revenue-producing business unrelated to the nonprofit organization’s educational mission. Farmer’s Market is located in the B-2 zone, which is dissimilar to B-3, both by location and by use. Mr. Bertz acknowledged that parking is not directly related to TIES mission, but if it is not allowed they will have to draw that revenue away from their funding for their educational mission, so it does directly affect their mission. There being no other persons who wished to speak, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Heideman offered the observation that Mr. Bertz had characterized Staff objection as being about appearance and potential blight, but in fact appearance was not mentioned in Staff findings or given as an objection. Rather, security and safety were issues raised. Commissioner DeLeo concurred. He said it is pretty clear storage is not allowed in this district, but there may be a more creative solution. Heideman asked the City Attorney if restricting the use to existing accessory structures wouldn’t, in fact, keep the use to the TIES property. Ms. Worthington said she was not aware of any other detached accessory structures in B-3. She made a distinction between storage as an accessory use to the principle use in the principle structure and the storage as a primary use in an accessory (detached) structure, which is under consideration here. Mr. DeLeo asked if Staff has information about how other cities handle this kind of situation. Ms. Worthington said that she is not well acquainted with what might be the case in other cities, but stressed that citizen participation in the Falcon Heights comprehensive plan and in the careful crafting of the zones were meant to guide future use. She is concerned about “mission creep” distorting that carefully worked out comprehensive plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Harris, Ms. Worthington said continuing enforcement of restrictions on storage would be a major burden on the city. The City does not have the staff resources to carry out the inspections and enforcement that would be necessary to address the security concerns that would have to be addressed in the permit. In response to a question from Mr. DeLeo, the attorney reminded the Commission of the 60-day limit on consideration of this matter. Mr. DeLeo, sympathizing with the plight of the business person offered a motion to table the matter and call a special meeting in about a week to work on a passable solution. Ms. Jones pointed out that the application was dated May 7; it was received 24 hours too late to be included on the May agenda.3 The motion was withdrawn for lack of a second. Commissioner Ryan expressed sympathy for TIES and acknowledged they are a good neighbor, but said he agrees with the City Administrator that this does not harmonize with the comprehensive plan. He does not think we should go in that direction and change the code just to accommodate what one business would like to do. Commissioner Ziebarth added that a code applies generally; it is difficult to limit it to a specific case. There are other strategies for a business to generate revenue within that site, but coming up with those is not the task of the Planning Commission. In response to a questions from Commissioner Heideman, the City Attorney said that to restrict this use to this particular property a new subzone would be required with its own uses defined, and pulling out exceptions like this could violate the comprehensive plan. Heideman raised the precedent of the gun shop and adult business exceptions in the code. Worthington affirmed that these exceptions were “carved out” by a State mandate, and that is not the case here. Harris summed up her objections to the amendment: fragmentation of the comprehensive plan for the benefit of one business, security issues, costs to the City. Mr. DeLeo asked noted that basement storage is allowed as a conditional use in B-3. He says he doesn’t see the harm in allowing use of the space that it was built for. Attorney Jamnik informed the Commission of the history of the interim use permit legislation in Minnesota as giving a durational limit on what is, in effect, a conditional use permit. Commissioner Ziebarth asked Staff if an interim use is designed to be temporary until, say a building is torn down, or if it is a trial. Ms. Worthington said that the Farmer’s Market was instituted as an interim use so the City would have the option of terminating or changing the use if the Market created problems for the neighborhood: it was a try-out. Commissioner Heideman said that when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1991, Harvest States was still in the building and had a much greater impact on traffic and the surrounding neighborhoods than TIES will ever have. The property is unique; she is not sure the conditions that would allow storage their could be duplicated anywhere else in the City. She does not know how to reconcile this with the comprehensive plan and the security issues. Ziebarth says she reconciles it by asking what are the benefits, what are the risks, who gains, what is the cost? Harris asked if TIES could let the space be used without charging. Worthington answered that it is the use that is at question, not the revenue; the use was still be illegal. Heideman asked how these same concerns were addressed when Harvest States occupied the property. Worthington replied that Harvest States’ use of the space was accessory to their primary business – storage of their vehicle fleet, etc. The City’s concern is that there would be no way to know what the lessees are storing on a day to day basis. The frequent inspection necessary would be a burden to the city. She agreed that Harvest States could have stored hazardous materials there without the knowledge of the City. Commissioner Ryan moved that the application be denied, Lageson seconded. The motion passed, 5 in favor, 2 opposed. This could be included as part of the Commission’s ongoing review of the zoning ordinance Commissioner Ziebarth moved that the Commission look at the question of leased storage space in detail at some future time. DeLeo seconded. Motion passed. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Lindstrom gave the Commission an update on the ordinance on cars for sale. The Council did pass the ordinance with one modification. Larpenteur was taken off the list of streets named. The reason is because Larpenteur provides the only parking for apartments along the only piece of Larpenteur where parking is allowed. Commissioner Harris added that the Council had also authorized no parking sign on the frontage road for the recent car event, which was much appreciated. She asked Staff if there has been any enforcement on the parking ban. Ms. Worthington said the City has enforced a couple of times. As a public service the City put notices on the cars to let the owners know about the change, and for a while the cars were gone, but a few trickled back. Harris said residents are happy about the change. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison End Notes This was the first time City Staff had heard the Old Town business described this way. The business card originally given to Staff by the owner of Old Town says “Old Town Services, Restoration and Preservation, Shop Finishing and Refinishing, Lawn Furniture, Outdoor Plant Stands, Yard Art, Decorative Painting, Irritating Paint Jobs.” One of Staff’s original concerns, in addition to the lack of a business license and the illegal use, was the possibility of hazardous chemicals being used on the site. It was in response to this concern that Mr. Bertz and Mr. Coil, owner of Old Town, assured Staff at a meeting on April 2, 2004, that the business was only using the TIES site for storage, which was also an illegal use. Although the code enforcement case was the reason for TIES zoning application being initiated, the code enforcement issues played no part in Staff findings on the zoning application. Questions on the code enforcement case should be addressed to City Administrator Worthington or Zoning & Planning Liaison Jones. A coffee shop would be a legal use in B-3. The City has never been approached by TIES about the possibility. In fact, Ms. Jones was understating the amount of time by which the application missed the deadline for consideration in May. The application would have to have been received by Tuesday, May 4, in order to allow time to prepare the legal notice for the publishing deadline of noon on Thursday, May 6. Mr. Bertz was informed of this by telephone and email on April 12 following his meeting with City Staff on that date. The May 4 deadline was also stated in a letter sent April 12, copied to Lee Whitcraft, co-owner of TIES. It should also be noted that, upon receiving the application on May 7, the City immediately notified TIES in writing of its intention to extend the time limit to 120 days, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 15.99. A copy of both letters and the email are attached.