Loading...
PL 11/28/1973 - 30387� i''1 �, �. CITY OF FRIDLEY SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 28, 1973 PAG� 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Fitzpatrick, Harris, Lindblad, Drigans, Bl�ir None Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm. Board of Appeals Members: Harry Crowder James Plemel Virginia Wahlberg " Patricia Gabel l. �CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #73-09, BY THE WALL CORPORATION: being a replat of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota; with exceptions. (Former Riedel property.) A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 45.073, lA, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE AREA REQUIREMENT FOR APARTMENT UNITS FROM 2,500 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT TO 1906.08 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 130 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THE SOUTH 698 FEET OF THE NORTH 1066 FEET OF THE'WEST 385 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST Q[JARTEkZ OF SECTION 14, T-30, R-24, ANOKA COUNTY, EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET TAKEN FOR STEET AND UTILITY PURPOSES, THE SAME BEING 6401 TH STREET N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY WALL CORPORATION 030 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH, BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA.) Mr.'�Rudolph Dan'te was present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Drigans said the Board of Appeals had tabled the request for a variance by the Wall Corporation from 2500 square feet per unit to 1906 square feet per unit for an apartment complex, at t.heir meeting of November 27, 1973 because the Planning Commission� had asked for two.alternate plans at their meeting of,November 21st. The Board of Appeals decided to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission so they could mak.e their recommendation on the same plat recommended by the Planning Commission. The plan presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 21st, had a cul-de-sac road to 8 lots fcr a total of 28 R-1 platted lots. We didn't consider this proposal too encouraging, so we asked the Wall Corporation to look at a couple of alternatives. The first alterna- tive was to have a large apartment complex on the R-3 area surrounded by all open area with no lots platted in the R-1 area. The second alternative was to take out the lots served by the cul-de-sac road /� Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commissi.on and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Pdge 2 and just_have 23 residential lots, with the addition R-1 open area being used to justify more than the 130 unit apartment complex originally suggested. The Planning Commission.said they were thinking of somewhere between 160 and 165 units. Mr. Drigans continued, that the Wall Corporation came back to the Board of Appeals meeting on November 27th with the proposal as we described with a request for 180 units with 23 residential lots. � Mr. Drigans said this brought everyone up to dat� as._to where �hey__we�e at the pre�ent time. � Mr. Dante said the preliminary plat he was presenting was the same plan they had presented at the Board of Appeals meeting: The plan presented at the last Planning Commission meeting had a cul- de-sac road to 8 lots off Mississippi Street. At the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting they had presented a plan with a cul-de-sac road off 5th Street to 5 lots. . It was determined "�� that meeting that�this cul-de-sac plan would �cost about $25,000 oi $5,000 per lot. Ae said the Wall Corporation had taken out the cul-de-sac proposal and have taken an area of 8.5 :_ acres, which is open area, and are asking for 180 apartment units which would make one unit for every 2,048 square feet of land per unit, which would all be built on the R-3 portion of the property. Mr. Drigans said the Board of Appeals can only consider thE: R-� portion of the proper�y for the variance request. He said that some of the R-3 property does extend in to the platted R-1 lots on the South side of this property, so there is an overlap of zor�ing. The figures have been a problem to us because the figures used by the Wall Corporation and the figure� used by the City staff do not agree, so we have had a problem in evaluating this proposal. Mr. Dante has said there is 368,725 sQUare feet of open space and the City staff says it is around 360,000 square f eet . . Mr. Dante said in using the R-3 only and allowing 130 units, the City says the square footage per unit comes out to 1906.08. This same variance r�otice gives the dimentions as 385' x 698', but because of the 30 foot right of way for 5th Street, the actual amount of buildable R-3 land is 355' x 698'. Chairman Fitzpatrick said as he understands this proposal, some of the R-3 i.s in the R-1 plats and the unplattec�.R�l is going to be used in conjunction with the apartment complex, although the actual construction of the apartment complex will all be in the R-3 zoning. � �'� ' Mr. Dante said the ponding area which is all R-1 zoning will - be owned and maintained by the apartment complex. The R-1 lots could have been larger�, but they were set at the code requirement, so �his.gives more open space that must be maintained by the apart- � ment complex. , � r� Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals � November 28, 1973 Page 3 Mr. Clark said if you use the code requirement of 2,500 square feet per apartment.unit, then they can only have 92 units on this R-3 property. If you want to rationalize the variance by using the vacant R-1 area to justify granting the variance, this is your decision. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there was any problem of platting a lot with two zones. Mr. Clark said there wasn't. Mr. Harris said that according ta our ordinance, you can use R-1 propFrty for parking lots for apartments. Mr. Clark said this would require a Special Use Permit being granted. Mr. Dante said that all the constructian for this apartment, including the parking, will be held to the R-3 portion of the property. � Mr. Fitzpatrick asked how many units could be constructed by using 2500 square feet per unit on•the R-3 portion.of the property and the unplatted R-1 property. Mr. Clark said he had prepared some information on this before the meeting and he gave each member of the Commission, and � Board.of Appeals a copy of this information. He explained that the R-3 land.ecuals 228,975 square feet and this divided by 2,500 square feet equals 92 units. The R-1 vacant land in the ponding area is 74,750 square feet and this devided by 2,500 square feet would equal 30 units. The R-1 vacant park land is 55,003 square feet divided by 2,500 s�xuare feet equals 22 units, for a total of 144 units. Our ordinance requires that.l0% of R-1 platted �and�be dedicated for park land. On this plat it is approximately 230,000 square feet, so the dedication would be Z3,000 square feet and this divided by 2,500 equals 9 units which would have to be subtracted from the 144 units, so that 135 units would be allowed if all the open space of the unplatted property were zoned R-3. If you are talking about 180 units on this same property, . it would make the square footage about 2,000 per unit. He said k�e had talked briefly with the City Attorney by telephone today, and he said he thought he could 'defend the City in a court of law for granting a variance based on the R-3 property and the vacant� • R-1 property to allow 144 units and he felt it might be difficult to defend the City if the units went beyond this amount, but he said he would like some more time to think about this. Mr. Lindblac3 said he favored using the entire 14 acres for figuring the density on the R-3 property, and having a 225 unit apartment building construct �d on the R-3, surrounded by all open space and park land, and not have any R-1 platted lots. He �� said he felt the open land was more of a buffer for the adjoining R-1 property across the street from this site than platting more R-1 property. There is heavy traffic in this area and with people backing out of driveways on 63rd Avenue, 7th Street and Mississippi Street� would only add to this traffic problem. The apartment complex could have controlled access. � Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 4 ,� . Mr. Dante said he had suggested this plan and thought it was a good orie. The construction of the apartment complex would be held to the area zoned R-3. Mr. Drigans said if you go back into the history of this property, it was all zoned R-1, and when part of it was zoned R-3, it was felt the balance of the property should be R-1 to create a buffer zone between the R-3,and the surrounding area. Mr. Drigans said he felt it was up to the developer of the R-1 area to determine what type of market there will be for the R-1 property with R-3 zoning behind it. Mr. Lindblad said if we go ahead with this plan the �ay it is being presented tonight, and in the future find that the R-1 lots cannot be sold because of the apartment complex, it will be too late then to change the apartment units; and the R-1 area could sit there undeveloped. Mr. Plemel said there had been a good market for property on Mississippi Street, and maybe with the.energy crisis, there coulc� be quite a few people who would like to live close to shopping, buses, etc. � . Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Dante if the Wall Corporation would be �, selling the R-1 lots individually. Mr. Dante said they plan to sell the entire p.latted R-1 to one builder. He said he has prepared a letter that is ready to go out which will be sent to developers of R-1 property: Mr. Crowder said he felt the problem seems to be that the City says they want 130 to 135 apartment units in this complex and the Wall Corporation says they want 180. Thi�s seems to me to be a major confrontation and if some compromise can't be worked out, all this discussion seems academic. Somewhere along the line an agreement must be reached on the number of apartment units which are going to be aYlowed on this site. Mr. Clark said the City p]_anning staff is not planning 130 units. T think any planne.r could design a building with 300 units for this site. What determines the amount of units is our code requirements. �If you used our code requirement on just the R-3 property they could only have 92 units. By using full credit for the open R-1 land, it gets the units up to 144. Mr. Crowder said his question to Mr. Dante is if 144 units are attractive to the Wall Corporation. Mr. Dante said not with �3 residential lots. Mr. Crowder asked how many units the Wall Corporation would'need to make it economically feasible to have 23 residential lots. Mr..Dante said 180 units. /"1�, � -- Mr. Dante said Calhoun. In three occupied. He said � development and he so all the view is they have just built 180 units off of Lake and a half months we have them 96 to 97% Mr. Utter had been over to look at this was impressed with it. He said it was designed to inside court�s. These units feature either r�. � � /�, �. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 5 a sunken living room or sunken master bedroom and fully electric kitchens. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the City Attorney has stated it might be difficult to defend more than 135 to 144 units on this property. Mr. Harris said he thought the City and the Wall Corporation had come to an agreement at their special meeting of October 17, 1973 and I think we should work within the guidelines set up at this meeting. Mr. Clark said that at this meeting many different figures were mentioned for the number of units for the apartment complex from 125 to 135. At the end of the meeting there was a summation of what was discussed but there was no motion made. He said this was an alternative to the Wall Corporation's proposal to have 155 rental townhouses that would be smaller than those originally proposed, with one car garages. Mr. Harris said at this meeting there was an agreement for 135 apartment units and 23 residential lots. Mr. Clark said he would have to say in defen�e of the Wall Corporation that they came into this meeting with a proposal for 155 townhouses and came out with this alternative. Mr. Dants said he did mention at that meeting having 225 apartment units with the balance of the property being used for a park-like area. The people representing the,Wall Corporation and the Riedel property were asked�to le�ve whil� the Council discussed this, and when we came back to the meeting this aiternate proposal was brought up. A very rough drawing was made to show what they were suggesting. I asked the City Engineer what the code requirement was for R-1 lots and this was just a guess as to how many residential lots there would be. Mr. Clark said the combination of the residential lots and the apartment units would come to about 155 units, which would keep the density on the property about the same as if it had been a townhouse development, and he thought perhaps the Council was trying to come up with an alternative so the units would be about the same. Mx�. Harris said there has been mention of a preliminary plat with 8�lots being served with a cul-de-sac road off Mississippi. This was not the preliminary plat•approved at the Plats & Subdivisions� Streets & Utilities Subcc�mmittee meeting of November 14, 1973. Mr. Dante said on the plat presented at that meeting, the cul-de-sac � was off 5th Street, but hecause the road was not wide enough, it had to be changed. The plan with the c�l-de-sac road off Mississippi made only one access to Mississippi instead of three. . Mr. Harris said this was not the plat approved_at the Plats & Subs meeting. � Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals �ovember 28, 1973 Page 6 Mr. Harris said h� likE:s the plan where the apartment complex would be built on the R-3 ar:d the balance would be open land, but he didn't think.the neighbors would stand for this. Mr. Clark said he didn't think that plan could be used without rezoning the entire property to R-3. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we are faced with making a recommendation that is beyond the number of units suggested by the City Council or below the number that the Wall Corporation says is economically. feasible. Mr. Drigans asked about the availability of City services and utilities if we recommend more units for this property. Mr. 'Clark said this would be no problem as far as water and sewer. Mr. Drigans said we also had a list of stipulations that some agreement had to be reached on also. Mr. Clark said these stipulations represent the original R-3 zoning stipulations and stipulations that came out of the October 17th Council meeting. Mr. Drigans said he asked the Wall Corporation to respond to these stipulations at his meeting. I� MOTION by B1air, seconded b� Lindblad, that the Planning Commis'sion receive the prepared statement by the Wa11 Corporation in answer to the stipulations by the City. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dante said he thought the�stipulation on what these units should rent for was way out of line because this should be.determ�_ned by the Wall Corporation. He said that limiting this building to 2 to 2� stories was out of line also, when the code said the building could be 6 stories, not that the WalT Corporation wanted a six story building,. Mr. Dante said that the recreational facilities would depend upan how many units they built, and as far as a tot lot, they weren't even sure they were going to rent to people with �hildren. He said as to,�he requFSt for preserving the large grove of trees, these were mostly Elms and scrub. Mr. Clark said r►e believed the rental rates were mentioned by Mr. Wall at the meeting of October 17th with the Council. Mr. Dante said this was take:n out of context and Mr. Wall was talking about the 180 unit apartment �uilding that Mr. Dante has already mentioned. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that where ever these�stipulations had come from, they are not stipulations that the Planning Commission has made on this plat. ^ • As the plan has changed, these stipulations would just be ' advisor.y to the Planning Commission, Mr. Fitzpatrick continued, � an2� as far as the outside recreational facilities, even if they were not needed for the apartment complex, we would still be faced with having facilities for the R-1 property. � , �'` �"`�,. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 7 Mr. Drigans said Mr. Clark has brought up the point that at the time of the rezoning to R-3, there were stipulations agreed to that wot�ld still hold on the R-3 property. Mr: Clark said there was a signed agreement at that time. Now we are having a different complex on property that was rezoned for another purpose. He said he didn't think the tennis courts had been part of the agreement. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Dante if the stipulations he had given to the Planning Commission this eveni�g were the one's tr�e Wall Corporation would agree to. Mr. Dante said they were. Chairman Fitzpatrick read the prepared s�atement by the Wall Corporation on the stipulations they would agree to. It is as follows: l. Provide a drainage pond on the said property as shown on the approved final plan which would receive the draina�e from the adjoining properties and drain the said property. The surface water will be stor.ed in the pond during the � � rain and will be let throught with an overflow into the existing storm sewer at Bennett and 7th Street slowly after the rain storm subsides. The location of the permanent portion of the pond would not be any closer than 100 feet from any road right-of-way lines. The design cf the permanent portion of' this pond would be based on the 5 year frequency :�8..2 acre feet) with the temporary expansion of the pond to be designed for 50�year frequency (12.0 acre feet). The water in the �:�ermanent pond would be pumped up to a fountain for aer.ation purposes to eliminate the stagnation effect of the water in the permanent pond. The bottom and the shoreline of the pond will be such that it is as maintenar:ce free as practical and the whole shoreline and the grounds around the ponding area will be landscaped. The design of the complete drainage and storm sewer system in this property shall be �:pproved by the City Engineering Department and storm sewer pip�.ng constructed to the City's specifications, but not to exceed mean specs now existing. City agrees thE: watershed area for this property shall not be increased. . 2. Provide a drainage easement to the City of Fridley for the ponding area which will be under water considering a 50 year design frequency. 3. Bear fully the cost of the total drainage system within the property. If in the future there is additional outlet construction necessary, this property will pay their share of the assessment for the improvement. Such assessment based on construction required for the Wall Corporation property only. � � Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board o� A�peals �ovember 28, 1973 Page 8 4.a) Keep the building within the R-3 zoned area. b) Provide about 80 garage stalls which is a little over one third of the total �eeded parking stalls. c) Provide recreational facilities, including swimming pool, sauna, party room and exercise room at the discre�ion of the Wall Corporation. d) Keep all the ponding and drainage facilities outside the proposed platted residential lots. The upkeep and � mainten«nce of these areas to be part of the apartment complex. e) f) Outdoor. rer.reational facilities will be at the discretion of the Wall Corporation. � If possible, preserve hE:avy grove of trees in the northerly area of the property. g) Provide.good landscaping. . h) Proper water circulation and upkeep of the ponding area. ;� Mr. Lindblad said that in another discussion, Mr. Dante said he felt they would want to provide more than 80 garage stalls. Were they now saying they would put in 80? Mr. Dante said he thought they would be providing more than this. Mr. Drigans said that at the Board of Appeals meeting the Wall Corporation did present a proposal that underground parking would be provided. He said in the prepared statement from the Wall Corporation they make�refer- ence to many of the stipulations that the City has proposed, only they are at the Wall Corporation.'s discretion. . r'"`, Chairman Fitzpatrick said we now have the job of comparing the stipulations of the rezoning and the stipulations by the City on the sheet dated November 13, 1973, and the stipulations presented by the Wall Corporation. Mr. Drigans said one stipulation that was missing from t�e Wall Corporation stipulations was 2C of the City stipt:lations. This reads "Waive any liability against the City for ponding the water on this property and drop any pending lawsuits against the City". Mr. Clark said the pending law suits were dropped at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Drigans asked where we stood as far as the original stipulations of the rezoning when the property was going to be used for a different purpose. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the rezoning stipulations still stand, but we can recommend changes. M�:. Harris said he would like to know the stipulations that w�re agreed to at the time of the rezoMing, by both parties. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning'Commission'and Board o� Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 9 ,�`; Mr. Clark said there was a stipulation to plat the land, which is what they are doing now. . The paragraph on drainage is the same on all three interpretations of the stipulations except the limits of the temporary ponding around the time of rain could extend beyond the 100 foot limits, and the Wall Corporation have added that the specs are not to exceed those existing in the City. Mr. Clark said this was no problem because he was sure the specs would be the same as in any othe:r part of the City, and it did have to be approved by the City EnginFering Department. Mr. Clark said the second paragraph" is the same except on the City stipulations they have added "including tr.e storm sewer inlet and outlet". Mr. Dante said he did not include this because he didn't know what it meant. Mr. Clark said that the intent was that the easement to:the City of Fridley would include the 12 acre foot pond plus the inlet pipe and outfall pipe. Mr. Dante said thE:y would agree to that. Mr. Dante said they omitted the next item that said "Waive . any liability against the City for ponding the water on this . �� property and drop any pending lawsuits against the City"e Mr. Clark said he thought the purpose of this�stipulatior1 was to insure the City that if this pond should malfunction, that the Wall Corporation would not place « new lawsuit against the City for any damage to the complex. Mr. Clark said that if we ha� � an excessive amount of rain and the ponds filled up and water came into th� basement of the apartment complex, even if this . was a City approved plan, we would consider this an Act of God and would not want to be blamed. Mr. Dante said he could see this but he wasn't agreeable for a blanket clause holdirig the � City blameless. Mr. Iiarris said he agreed with Mr. Dante. He was not in favor of blanket hold blameless clauses either. He said he would recommend that this stipulation be rewritten to hold the City harmless if the water levels exceed the designed expectations, . or something like that. If this is designed for the 50 year flood and we have a 150 year flood, this would hold the City harmless, expecially when flood in�urance is goi�g to be so cY�eap in the City of Fridley. Chairman Fitzpatrick said we can leave this stipulation in and ask to have it reviewed at the Council level and have the City Attorney decide on the exact wording. • •� Mr. Clark•said the next stipulation was D.. "Set the lowest floor elevation of the walkout type home at least 3 feet higher than the 50 year flood line. The lowest floor elevation of a non- walkout type home will be no more than 18" into the 50 year flood line with a grade elevation at least 3 feet higher than the 50 year flood line. The lowest grade elevation for the recreation bt�ilding will be no lower than 3 foot into the 50 year flood line with flood- �` proof construction up to the 50 year. flood. Rest of the structure must be water-resistant construction". Mr. Drigans said this doesn't sound like a stipulation of rezoning, more of development. Mr. Clark said this was for the townhouses that were part of the origi.nal plan in the rezoning request. � � . , Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 10 Mr. Fitzpatrick said this stipulation was not in the Wall Corporation stipulations and asked Mr. Dante if he would accept this stipulation. Mr. Dante said no. He said this would pr.etain to the R-1 portion of the property and�they were not going tc accept stipulations for the developer of this property. If the City wants stipulations on the R-1, they should be taken up with the developer. Mr. Drigans said we are being asked to approve a plat with R-1 lots. Mr. Clark said these stipulations could be placed on the R-1 lots at the time building permits were taken out but he felt strongly that this stipulation should pertain to the apartment comple� also. Mr. Harris said he thought we needed this stipulation on the R-1 lots, and whet�er its put on now, or later seems immaterial. Mr. Clark said the next stipulation was stipulation E, "Bear fully the cost of the total drainage system within the property. If in the future there is additional outlet construction necessary, this property will.pay their share of .the assessment for the �improvement". Mr. Dante said they have added to this stipulation that such assessment based on construction required for the Wall Corporation �`, property only. We felt that any additional construction that might be necessary for other homes in the area should not be assessed to the Wall Corporation. Mr. Clark asked if they would agree to the stipulation t�.at the Wall Corporation be responsible for any construction that was necessary to maintain or improve the outfall for this drainage district? Mr. Clark said we certainly are not gqing to ass�s�� the Wall Corporation for an outfall two miles from here, but if in a few years from now., the pipes would deteriorate for thi,s outfall and had �o be rebuilt, the Wa11�Corporation would be as��ssed as would anyone else in the same situation. The stipulation should say ' for this particular drainage district' which would include this property and quite a bit of the R-•1 area in the.surroun��ing area. Mr. Fitzpatrick said they would only be assessed for a portion of this improvement which is the p�����,� �City poli�cy. � r'o'' Mr. Drigans said that by adding ' for this partictilar drainage district' , I think we can ask that the statement added on to the Wall Corporation stipulation that such assessment based on construc- tion required for the Wall Corporation property only, can be removed. Mrs: Wahlberg said that in the event that the Wa3.1 Corporation should 5e1�-off the R-1 property prior to the development of the R-1 area, she questioned the statement that the Wall Corporation should "Bear full,y the cost of the total drainage system"y as this stipulation states now. Ntr. Clark said that when the R-1 lots are put up for sale, the Wall Corporation could add some of these costs to the sale of this property. Mr. Clark said maybe we should change this to read "At no cost to the City". Mayor Liebl sai� he agreed with this statement. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 11 ��� Mr. Clark said the next item on the stipulations from a year ago, was traffic. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this item was not on the copy of the sti�ulations that the Commission had. Mr. Clark �said he knew it wasn't but he would read�the stipulation anyway. "Pay the cost of putting an addition��l lane on 7th Street, starting 200 feet South of Mississippi Street to the Mississippi Street right of way, for a cost not to exceed $3,000." Mr. Clark said he believed this was deleted because on the original proposal, there would � have been a lot more traffic on 7th Street. The second item under traffic has already been done and that was to dedicate the Easterly half of the 5th Street right of way along the West boundary line and accept the assessment for the improvement of 5th Street in accordar:ce with normal City policy." Mr. Clark said Item 4 had to do with townhouses, which no longer applies, and Item 5 was on the old apartment complex. Item 6, Planned Developmer:t, states that "They follow all City setback requirements along the boundary streets of this develop��ent, but the setb�:ck requirement wi�hin the development along the R-1 and R-3 zoning lines will be set up on the basis of.a total development concept. He said he believed this had more to do with the inter- mixing of townhouses with thE: apartment complex, and certainly the apartment complex and the R-1 housing will have to meet the present zoning requirements for setbacks. r�``� Chairman,Fitzpatrick said as far as traffic is concerned, we may want to have something in the stipulations for thE: apartment complex. Mr. Clark said you could have this in the stipulations for the apartment complex, but the.R-3 property would only have ���ess on 5th Street. Mr. Clark said the next stipulation is to provide lighted walkways within the area. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this was � for the other proposal also, and would not apply now. Mr. Clark said they might want lighted walkways in the ponding area, or for the apartment complex, but we don't have a plan for the apartment complex as yet. Mr. Fitzgatrick said these could be stipulated on the building permit, rather than the plat. Mr. Clark said the next stipulation was tc� provide an under- ground sprinkling system and connect it to the City system with a� timing device to use water at low demand periods. This was also made �:t the time there was going to be townhouses and apartments. The next stipulation was to provide a 5 foot sidewalk along 7th Street, 63rd Avenue, and 5th Street, at least 10 feet from the street curb. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Clark ii this was a stipulation that would still apply now. Mr. Clark said �;;,� . he feels that sidewalks are still necessary on these streets, but � whether the Wall Corporation should have to put them in for the - R-1 area is another question. We had shown walkways going through this property on the R-1 lots, but the Plats & Subs Committee didn't think this was a good idea, so we do.need the sidewalks. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 P�ge 12 '�` Mr. Dante said he didn't think the Wall Corporation shou2d have to put in the sidewalks for the R-1 area. Mr. Drigans asked about the R-3 area along 5th Street. Mr. Dante said if the City required a sidewalk in the R-3 area, they would put it in. Mr. Clark asked if they would put it in for the one R-1 lot that abutted 5th Street also. He asked Mr. Dante if the Wall Corporation . would consider petitioning for the sidewalk for 7th Street and 63rd Avenue. This would then be a pending assessment on �the R-1 lots and the people who purchased these lots would be aware of • this assessment and it could be added to the financing of any - home being purchased. He said if this assessment was added after the homes were built, it could be a hardship on the new owners. Mr. Harris said he agreed with Mr. Dante that the R-1 lots would not be their responsibility as �far as the sidewalks were concerned, but the Planning Commission is considering the entire plat, not just the R-3. Mayor Liebl said he felt the Wall Corporation should be responsible for the sidewalk on 5th Street. Mr. Dante said he thought the developer could come to the City and find out the requirements for developing thi�s property. Mr. Harris said it was not in the code that every R-1 lot have a sidewalk, so this would have be a stipulation of the plat. �, Mr. Clark said we can make a stipulation for the sidewalks which would not be binding on the Wall Corporation, until they sign an agreemen�. Mr. Clark said the next 'stipulation has ta do with�screening, berms and plantings. He said this had to do with the original proposal also. Mr. Harris said there should be some screening between the apartment complex and the adjacent R-1 lots. Mr. Dante said they had the stipulation to provide good landscaping, but they have left the screening out. Mr. Liebl said they didn't want any metal fencing, but there.should be some screening with plantings, etc. � . Mr. Clark said this was all the stipulations of the rezoning. Chairman Fitzpatrick said there were additional stipulations on the City proposal. Mr. Drigans said they pertained to the present plan for this property. Mr. Clark said this is from a sheet prepared on November 13, 1973. Mr. Dante said they did not come out of a meeting held with the Wall Corporation. Mr. Clark said they came from the August 8th Planning Commission meeting, at the time you were getting approval of the townhouses. Mr. Dante said he thought they were a smattering of everything because at that time they were not discussing a 130 unit apartment �� building. Nlr. Clark agreed. � Chairman Fitzpatrick said we could go through these stipulations and see which ones stilT apply. 0 � � �. - .,l Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 13 Mr. Fitzpatrick said No. 3 states it would allow a 22 to 3 story apartment building having 130 units, etc., which is part of our problem because it hasn t been determined how many units will be allowed. Mr. Harris said that maybe we should discuss what type of apartment complex this will be and how many stories it will have. Mr. Dante said this would be determined by how many units they were allowed to have. Mr. Harris asked if there were 180 units, what kind of a building would it be. Mr. Dante said it would be a 3 story building with elevators. �• Mr. Dante said he thought this would be handled at the Building Standards meeting. Mr. Harris said this was a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, so they could ask for this information. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Commission could ask for this information, but it wouldn't have anything to do with approving the plat. Mr. Dante said the question is whether the number of units will support the _ amenities. Economics will dictate what goes into this apartment complex. . � Mr�. Drigans said they had agreed to these things when they wanted to have 155 townhouse units. Mr. Dante said it was the recreational facilities the City wanted that blew us out of the ball park on that proposal. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the first stipulation would be left out because the�number of units hadn't been determined. He� said the second stipulation was to keep the apartment building within the R-3 zoned area. Mr. Drigans said this included the apartment building, garages and outside parking. Mr. Dante agreed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next $tipulation was to provide about 80 garage stalls which is a little over 1/3 of the total needed parking stalls. Mr..Clark said he would su the number of stalls and just say 1/3 of the totalgneededhebecausee we don't know what 1�3 will be. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next item was for providing recreational. facilities in the building, including indoor swimmin party room and exercise room. Mr. Drigans said the differenceuin� the Wall stipulations is that they just say swimming pool and all this is at the discretion of the Wall Corporation. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Dante just where the discretion came in, as to what kind, or what. Mr. D<<nte said it is the same as he stated before. If the number of units will economically•support all the amenities here, they would be put in. We don't know if we want an indoor or outdoor swimming pool, or maybe just a whirlpool bath. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we can decide on the wording of this stipulation at the time we make our motion. _ Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next stipulation was for keeping all the ponding and drainage facilities outside the lots. The upkeep and maintenance of these areas�are toabeepartsofential the apartment complex. Mr. Dante said.they have the same stipulaticn Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals Navemlier 28, 1973 Pa e 14 �� r � on their proposal. Mr. Clark said he would suggest that the ponding be at the 5�0 year flood�level. Mr. Drigans said he thought this would depend upon the grading of the R-1 lots. Mr. Clark said this was probably the intent of the Wali Corporation anyway, but it wouldn't hurt to stipulate what pond we are talking about. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next item was that the outdoor recreational facilities will be two tennis courts, tot lot, � picnic facilities, skating area, walking paths with liyhts, water circulation system in ponds with fountain. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that many of these apply to the townhouse plan, but his .concern at this time is that we are talking about an area that we are including as open area for density purposes in the R-3 � area, and it seems to me we have to take into consideration that � there should be some facilities provided fcr the R-1 area. To say that there is no need for a tot lot for the apartment complex because you aren't going to rent to people with children does not mean that a tot lot wouldn't be ne•eded for the R-l.area. We are talking here about platting the entire block. We have an ordinance that l0a of any residential development should be set aside for recreational purposes, so maybe just what form this stipulation should take should be discussed. The Wall Corporation �"�, stipulation just said the outdoor recreational faciliti�s will be.at the discretion of the Wall Corporation. I am not so concerned about the specific facilities, as I am in having an area. set � aside for this purpose. Mr. Fitzpatrick said if we are talking about preserving that grove of trees, we�would have the area. Mr. Dante said this area is 55,000 square feet. Mr. Clark said that the R-1 lots were approximately 10,000 square feet, so 23 lots would be about 230,000 square feet and 10% of that is 23,000 square feet, which is smaller than the la�d occupied by the grove of tr�es. Mr. Fitzpatrick said then there is no big problem as far as area is concerned. Mr. Harris said he had a question on how all these recreational facilities could be provided and still preserve the heavy grove of trees in the same area. Mr. Clark said he didn't know if this was taken into consideration wheri the plan drawn by the City was made. There would have to be trees taken out for the tennis courts. There would also have to be some grading done, because where the tennis courts .would be lacated, .it is 'not Ievel. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked i� there were specifics the Planning Commission would want to discuss with Mr. Dante on these stipulations. . Mr. Clark said it would come back again to the amount of units that were going to be approved for the R-3. He questioned if 180 r`� � units were put in the R-3, where the parking would be. Even for ,� 130 units, the building area is pretty well filled up with the building and the parking lots. He said he would concede that parking could be put in the R-1 ponding area. The requirement is for�two stalls for.a two bedroom unit. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this would be one of the reasons for not having 180 units if the required Special Joint Meeting of the Planning•Commission'and Bo�.rd of Appeals November 28, 1973 Pa e 15 � parking could not fit into the R-3 area. Mr. Clark said he couldn't say it wouldn't fit when he hasn't seen a plan. . Mr. Dante said there would be more than enough land in the R-3. We have recreational facilitiES and a 180 unit apartment building on 4 acres by Lake Calhoun. The area in the R-3 here is 82 acres. Mr. Clark said 4 acres is 174,000 square feet and you have 228,000 square feet in the R-3 area here. Mr. Clark asked how many parking stalls tr�ey provide for this 180 unit apartment. Mr."Dante said there were 220 parking stalls. Mr. Clark � asked how many bedrooms there were in this complex. Mr. Clark said if they aver.aged out to two bedroom units, it would require 360 parking stalls in Fridley. Mr. Dante said these were efficiency apartment, one, two and three bedrooms, and it didn't average out to two stalls per apartment. Mr. Clark said he thought they would need about 270 stall here then, and you do have more room here, but without seeing a plan I can't commend on whether it would fit on this property or not. He said.he didn't expect the Wall Cor- poration to draw up a plan until they knew how many units they . could have. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we just want to make it clear to'everyone that we don't want encroachment on the R-1 area. Mr. Drigans said Mr. Dante has already agreed to keep the buildir,g and all the garages and parking stalls on the R-3 property. �'� Mr. Fitzpatrick said the outdoor recreational facilities will , be in the R-1 area. Ae said the next stipulation was if possible, preserve the heav� grove of trees in the northerly area of the property, and develop a picnic area and tot lot in this�location. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this is related to the previous stipulation and we have discussed it. � Mr. Drigans said this is not what the Wall Corporation has in their stipulation. Mr. nante said he would like to back up a little. He said the plan prese�tec�o the Board of Appeals was for 130 to 135 apartment units and 28 residential lots. The variance was from 2500 square feet per unit to 1906 square feet per unit. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the plan we are considering is for 23 . residential lots. . Mr. Dante said this was an alternate plan suggested by the Board of Appeals. There will be 130,000 square feet in the unplatted R-1 and dividing it by 2500 square feet you come up with �2 units, and adding this to the 130 allowed with the variance, you come up with 182 units. ��, Mr. Fitzpatrick said you are going to need the area where you had the additional lots, for density so there should be no problem in preserving the trees. � Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 16 Mr. Fitzpatr�ck said the next item is for providing a mFtal fence, if�necessary, to fence off the area which will be part of the apartment complex, which we have already had some discussion on. We talked about not having a metal fence,'but somF screening should be provided between the apartment complex and the adjoining R-1 lots. Mr. Drigans said this should be part of the Building Standards stipulations. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next item was for proper water circulation and upkeep of the ponding area with.the adequate. over.flow storage area to meet the drainage requirements. Mr. Clark said in making your motion, the things you feel strongly about could be recommendations, and the things you would just like to see'included in the plat, you could just ask that these things be encouraged, especially some of the things the Wall Corporation is rather touchy about. The Council can then do as they wish, and there will be another agreement drawn up for this proposal. , � Mr. Fitzpatrick said the reason the members of the Board of Appeals are present is because they have before them a request for a variance on the density of the R-3 property. � � Mr. Drigans said the reason for the joint meeting is because both the Commission and the Board felt we had to look at the entire plat before we could determine what our recommendation should be. He said Mr. Clark had explained and given all� the members copies of how the combination of the R-3 property and the unplatted R-1 property would allow a density of 144 units if the property had been al� zoned R-3. If you take out the 10% park dedication for park land, we are down to.135 units. r`"`, ... Mr. Harris asked Mr. CTark what was the lowest square footage requirement we had allowed before on apartment complexes that had over 90 units. Mr. Clark said it was on the 5 8ands complex of 295 units where a variance was granted�from 2,500 square feet per unit to 2,374. He said this variance was rationalized because�of the excessive right of way that was dedicated for East River Road and this property was all zoned R-3. MOTION by Harris, seconded by B1air; that the Planning Commission close .the.Public Hearing on the proposed preliminarg plat, P.S. #73-09, by the Wa11 Corporation. Upon a voice vote, aZl voting � aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said the density for the apartment complex is the overriding factor in the consideration of this plat because so many of the�stipulations depend on the the number of units that will be allowed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he felt that when we were going through the stipulations that if the density figure was now agreeable to the Wall'Corporation, it didn't.matter where we put the lights or the sidewalk. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 17 �, Mr. Har.ris asked Mr. Drigans if they had made any mation at all on the density the Wall Corporation would be allowed. Mr. Drigans said the� hadn't and had continued this request until tr.is ev.ening. He said the plat being presented by Mr. Dante was not the plat he had at tr�e Board of Appeals meeting, but was a sugge:ted alternative we asked for. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it was his understanding that the plat the Planning Commission was making their recommFndations on was the plan being presented this evening. Mr. Drigans said th9.s was not the plan the Board of Appeals 'tabled their motion on. Mr. Plemel said the way the variance request reads, I would say we would have to turn it down, because it specifically states it is for 130 �anits and the density was from 2,500 square feet per unit to 1,906 square feet. If we recommend something;different, the variance request will be changed. �He said his sympathies lie with the developer on_this to make the property pay off as much as it can. . �,�,, Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason this was tabled was because the City prepared the figures for the variance request, and Mr. Dante was not•ready to accept these figures. Mr. Dante said it was mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting that if the extra lots made by the cul-de-sac were taken out of the plat, that perhaps more density could be allowed in the R-3 area. Mrs. Wahlberg said in using'all the R-3 land and all the un- platted R-1 land and using a density of 1950 square feet per unit on all this property, they could have 184 units in the R-3 area. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the 1950 figures comes from a variance request for the R-3 property only, and it seems that our thinking is changing to figure the density on the combined R-3 and unplatted R-1 together, but whether we would want to increase the density by this much has to be deter.mined. Mr. Clark said the Board of Appeals can make any recommendation they want, but I question whether.the Council could approve a variance of more than 1,906 on the R-3 property�without sending out notices again. . Mr. Clark said you would have to arrive at a rationale that � � you were going to use to arrive at allowing this density. -_� Mrs. Wahlberg said at�the time they were considering this variance rec_,uest, it seemed like there were too many gray areas, so that it was impossible to make a determination on what area we were to use. �~� � Joint Special Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 18 Mr. Lindblad s.aid he thought we had to use the unplatted R-1 in our consideration because it is not going to be used for any other purpose but to belong with�the apartment complex. Mr. Harris said there had been agreement on 155 townhouses on this property and with the present proposal for 130 apartment units and 23 residential lots, we have about the same density as the townhouse proposal. Mr.�Drigans said on that pr.oposal the Council allowed more ' density than the Board of Appeals had recommended. Mr. Harris said if we are going to allow 180 ap«rtment units and 23 residential lots this will be 203 units on this property and what is that going to do to the traffic patterns when this area had heavy traffic now. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark how much vacant R-3 property was left in the City. Mr. Clark said there is some property that would probab�y be best used for R-3 that hasn�'t been rezone.d, but of the zoned R-3 there isn't too much left. Mr. Harris said if we allow too high a density on this property, we could be setting a prece�enee that we wouldn't want. Mr. Harris said this is why I think our recommendation should be based on our present zoning ordinance giving them credit for the vacant R-1. � Mrs. Wahlberg said the present figure for the R-3 property does not include the R-3 property included in the R-1 platted lots. Mr. Clark said this was correct. Mr. Drigans said he still felt that when the 155 townhouse units were approved for. this site, that was the density this propert� could have.' • Mr.. Dante said the original proposal was for a 108 unit apartment and 61 townhouses which would be 169 units. He said comparing the different proposals as to the number of units was like camparing apples and oranges. He said there would be a lot more profit in 155 townhouses than a 130 unit apartment building and 2.3 residential lots. • Mr. Drigans said he liked the concept of 130 apartment units with 23 residential lots with no cul-de-sac road. Mr. Dante said they would eliminate the cul-de-sac road and put 180 units on the R-3 property. � Mr. Fitzpatrick said it seems like the City is faced with the � question of what density it can bear on this property. Mr. Clark has reminded us that we should not vary too far from the ordinance requirements which we have made other builders in the City adhere to. �''� �^` Joint Special Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals Novem.ber 2$, 1973 Page 19 MOTION by Blair, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of proposed preZiminary p1at, P.S. #73-09, by the Wa1J Corporation as presented and a11ow a density of 2,300 square feet per unit on the R-3 proper�ty and include the vacant R-Z property, to aZlow 156 apartment units on the R-3 property. Mr. Clark said this motion would have to come from the Board of Appeals as it their function to recommend on the density. The Planning Commission would make the motion,on the plat. No vote was taken. Mr. Clark asked�Mr. Dante if he believed they could break ground before January l, 1974. Mr. Dante said they could if they could build 180 units because they already have the plans for this size complex. It would just be a matter of bringing in the elevations. Mr. Clark asked about getting financing that soon. Mr. Dante said this plan is a known quanity because they have already con- �tructed a building like this with success. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Planning Commission would recess and let the Board of Appeals make their recommendatian. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wah.Zberg, to take off the table the request fo�r a,variance of Section 45.073, lA, Fridley City Code, to reduce the area requirement for apartment units from 2,500 square feet per unit to .Z906.08 square feet per unit, to a11ow construction of a 130 units apartment complex, by the Wa11 Corporation. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. iKr. Drigans said this plat.was not�the plat they had tabled tr�e motion on. This is an alternate plan. Mr. Clark marked the plat presented tonight as Exhibit A, dated November 28, 1973, so it could be determined what�plan the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission based their recommendations upon. Mr. Plemel said because of the joint meeting, it has evolved � that the unplatted R-1 may be used along with the R-3, in considering the density of the apartment complex so I think we have to deny the original request. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if a denial of this request would mean that the Wall Corporation couldn't make a similar request for six months. Mr. Clark said he wasn't sure if this held true on a variance request, but to make sure, they shouldn't deny the request. They could make a different recommendation and let the Council and i',, • the City Attorney decide fhe legal aspects. ' Mr. Drigans said he was thinking about Mr. Clark's statement that the City attorney could support approximately 130 units using . the R-3 and the unplatted R-1 so.the density would be 2,500 square feet per unit, which is the code requiremertt if this property was �, Joint Special Meetinr of the Planning�Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 20 all zoned R-3, and t�at he would be hard presse� to support any additional uriits on this property, without rezoning. Mr. Plemel said if we recommend 156 units we are down to 1400 or 1500 square feet per unit on the R-3, and I don't see how we can recommend that. Mr. Drigans said we are legally bound to put the units on the R-3 area, and that's the only place we can put them. Mr. Clark said you can rationalize how you arrived at the number of.units you are recommending with the unplatted R-1 property. Mrs. Wahlberg said the recommendation that Mr. Blair gave us said we could use the vacant R-1 in our consideration for the density. Mr. Drigans said the variance can only be based on the R-3 property, so the more units we recommend, the higher density we are recommending regardless of how much property we are �nc7_udi�g in•our �consideration. • Mr. Clark said to let the Council and City Attorney decide on the legality of what you recommend and when you determine the ^ number of units you want to allow on this property and your rationale for your recommendation, let them decide on how this is to be handled. If it has to come back to the Board of Appeals, it has ' to come back. Mrs. Wahlberg said she thought the first thing,they should do is determine hovr many units they wanted to recommend. She �aid if we only a11ow ].30 units and we use the R-3 area plus the vac«nt R-1, we will be exceeding the code of 2,500 square feet per unit. I think we should use 2,500 square feet per unit on all this property that is not platted into R-1 lots and allow 144 units. This is based on the unplatted R-1 on Exhibit A, dated November 28, 1973. Mr. Clark said if you just used the zoned R-3 property, the Wall Corporation could only have 92 units. Mr. Plemel said there is a lot of R-1 property lying in limbo which we have to consider. He said he would like to go along with 156 units as a compromise between 130 units and 180 units. Mr. Drigans said he preferred 144 units, so it would be at the code requirement of 2,500 square feet per unit, if this property was all zoned R-3, and I think the City Attorney could defend this figure. � Mr. Drigans said he wanted it called to the Council's attention that this would be in excess of the original variance request and '- �they should determine if this required re-notification. 0 � � � � Joint Special Meeting of the Planning Comm�_ssion and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 21 MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by PZemel, that the Board of Appeals, in Zieu of the variance request to reduce the area requiremen� for apartment units�from 2,500 squ�.re feet per unit to 1,906.08 square feet per unit, to a11ow the construction of a 130 unit apartment complex, per Fridley City Code, Section 45.07s", ZA, recommend that the City Council consider that the Wall Corporation be aZlowed the: construction of a Z44 unit apartment complex using a density of 2,500 sqvare feet per unit, using the buildable R-3 property and a11 the unplatted vacant R-1 propert� in this consideration, based on Exhibit A, dated �November 28, 1973, and that the entire apartment complex and'parking be located on the property zoned R-3. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission returned and Mr. Drigans told the Commission what recommendation the Board of Appea�s had made to the City Council. MOTION by B1air, seconded by Lindblad, that the PZanning Comm�.ssion recommend to Council approv.al of the. propos.ed preliminar.y plat, P.S. #73-09, by tlie Wa11 Corporation, being a replat of the East Ha1f of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County or Anoka, Minnesota, with exception: being based on Exhibit A, dated November 28, 1973, with the following stipu2ations: .I. Provide a drainage pond on the said property as shown on t�e approved final plan which would receive the drainage from the adjaining properties and dra.in the said property. The surface water will be stored in the pond during the rain and will be 1et through with an overflow into the existing storm sewer at Bennett and 7th Street slowly after the rain storm subsides•. The location of the permanent. portion of the pond would not be any closer t1-�an 100 feet from an� road right of way lines. The design of the perm.anent portion of this�pond would be based on the 5 year frequency (8.2 acre feet) with the temporary expansion of the pond to be designed for 50 year frequency (12.0 acre feet: and the Iimits of the t�mporary ponding around the time of the rain could extend in to the R-1 platted 1ots. The water in the permanent pond would be pur►ped up to a� fountain for aeration purposes to eliminate the stagnation . affect of the water in the permanent pond. The bottom and the shoreline of the pond wi1Z be such that it is as maintenance free as practical and the whole sh�rqline and the grounds around the ponding area wi11 be landscaped. The design of the complete drainage and storm sewer syste'm in this property sha11 be ap.proved by the City Enginee�ing Department and storm sewer piping constructec? to the City's specifications. City agrees the watershed area for this property sha11 not be increased. 2. Provide a drainage easement to the City of Fridley for the - ponding area.which wi11 be under water considering a 50 year design frequency including the storm sewer'• inlet and outZet. /'�� Joint Special Meeting of the Plann�.ng Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 22 3.C�UNCIL PLEASE NOTE: PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS THAT THIS STIPULATION BE REWRITTEIV. Waive any liability against the City for ponding the water on this property and drop any pending lawsuits against the City. 4. 5et the Zowest flood elevation of the walkout type home at Zeast 3 feet higher than the 50 year fZood line. The .iowest floor eZevation of a non-waZkout type home wi11 be• no more than 18" into the 50 year flood line with a grade elevation at least 3 feet higher than the 50 year flood line. The 3owest floor elevation for the apartment building wi11 be no lower than 3 foot into the 50 year flood line with floodproof construction up to the 50 year flood. Rest of the stucture must be water-resistant construction. 5. At no cost to the City the total drainage system within the entire property wi11 be developed. If in the future there is additional outlet construction necessary for this drainage district this property wi11 pay their share of the assessment for the improvement. � n 6. Keep the apartment building including garages and parking with.in the R-3 zoned area. 7. Provide garage stalZs for I/3 of the total needed parking stalls. 8. Encourage recreation facilities in the apartment buildinc to include indoor swimming pool, sauna, party room and exercise room. - - 9. Keep a11 the 50 year 1evel pondinq and drainage facilities outside t.he proposed platted residentiaZ 1ots. The upkeep and maintenance of theseareas to be part�of the apartment complex. 10. Encourage outdoor recreationa.Z facilities such as two tennis courts, tot 1ot, picnic facilities, skating area, walking paths with lights. .I1. Encourage preserving the heavy grove of trees in the north�- erly area of the property, and encourage developing a picnic area and tot lot in this location. • 12. Required areas planned for pf�b.Zic Iand uses, including schools, parks, playgrounds and other public purposes � , sha11 be offered•for dedic.ation o'r shaZl be --- reserved for fut:ure public acquisition. Should such pZanned public areas be more than .i0 percent of the gross area of the Zand to be subdivided, IO percent of the area sub- � divided sha1l be offered to dedication and the remainder . reserved for a period of two years durir.g which time �oint 5pecial Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals �ovember 28, 1973 Page 23 �I � � the City or other public body may buy such land. Should planned public areas be Zess than 10 per cent of the gross area in the purposed subdivision, a cash payment equivalent to the difference in land value sha11 be paid into the park fund. 13. The Wa1.Z Corporation to install the sidewalk on 5fh Street for the R-3 property and R-1 Iot adjoining this property an� petition the City for sidewalk for the ba.Zance of 5th Street, 7th Street and 63rd Avenue. 14. The R-3 property and the unplatted R-1 property alI be platted as one Iot. . Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . Chairman Fitzpatrick adjou�ned the meeting at 1c20 A.M. Respectfully submittecl, i/✓� d��Z•- °'��°-�� �• i Dorothy Ev son, 5ecretary