Loading...
PL 04/05/1989 - 30699� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 __________________________�___________�___�______________________ CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the April 5, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Susan Sherek, Alex Barna Members Absent: Paul Dahlberg Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Landscape Intern Mark Nyberg, 1501 Rice Creek Road Todd Novitsky, 6211 Carol Drive N.E. Sandy Koskiniemi, 881 Pandora Drive N.E. Nancy Hoel, 11945 Unity Circle, Coon Rapids .-, APPROVAL OF MARCH 22 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the March 22, 1989, Planning Commission minutes with the following amendment: Page 16, paragraph 4, second sentence should read as follows: "The City Council would not like to see the Planning Commission go to five members." UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY AND THE MINIITES APPROVED AS AMENDED. 1. TABLED 3L22/89• CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT L.S. #89-01, BY MARK AND PAMELA NYBERG: To split off the north 151 feet of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, to create a separate parcel for a single family house, the same being 1501 Rice Creek Road N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. 5herek, to remove the item from the table. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 2 �� � Ms. Dacy stated this property is located on the north side of Rice Creek Road. The property is zoned R-1, single family. An existing home is located on the southern portion of the parcel at this time, and the applicant is proposing to split the lot with an east/west lot line to create another building pad to the north. Ms. Dacy stated staff has no concerns about this lot split; however, she would point out that the elevation of the property is lower than the street. There will be the necessity for some filling in order to get a building elevation pad so there can be a connection to city sewer. Also, staff has recommended that in conjunction with the building permit application, the driveway location be reviewed by the Public Works Department. There is a curve in the northwest corner of the property and there is a stand of very tall evergreen trees to the east, and they want to make sure there is adequate sight distance and a good intersection with the street. Ms. Dacy stated Nortel Cable Company had notified staff that they might need an easement, but they have not been able to define an exact location at this time. So, staff is recommending that the petitioner execute a utility easement as necessary by the cable company. �, Ms. Dacy stated this property has been assessed on the basis of two lots. That should not influence the Commission's decision one way or the other, because the land use and the zoning issues are to be considered separately from the assessment issue. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of this lot split subject to the following stipulations: 1. The certificate of survey shall indicate a suitable building elevation for connection to the city sewer. The elevation shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The driveway location must be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The petitioner shall execute appropriate utility easements as requested by the City or by the cable TV �, company. Mr. Kondrick asked if the new lot had the required square footage. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa, APRIL 5� 1989 PAGE 3 � Ms. Dacy stated it had. In fact, the lot is almost twice the size as the lots to the northeast of the property. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Nyberg if he had any problems with the stipulations as presented by staff. Mr. Nyberg stated he did not have any problems with the stipulations. He stated he realizes he will need some fill in order to hook up with city sewer. Mr. Betzold asked if Mr. Nyberg would be able to save some of the trees on the lot. Mr. Nyberg stated he plans to put the driveway where the tall stand of trees is on the east side. There are about 30 trees along there. He does not need a double width driveway so he might take down two trees. He wants to save as many trees as possible. Ms. Sherek stated she thought the City's concern is traffic safety and so more trees might have to be removed for proper visibility. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City r Council approval of Lot Split, L.S. #89-01, by Pamela and Mark Nyberg to split off the north 151 feet of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, to create a separate parcel for a single family house, the same being 1501 Rice Creek Road N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The certificate of survey shall indicate a suitable building elevation for connection to the city sewer. The elevation shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The driveway location must be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The petitioner shall execute appropriate utility easements as requested by the City or by the cable TV company. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ^� Mr. Betzold stated this item will go to City Council on Monday, April 17. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 4 ,^1 2. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT. L.S. #89-02. BY SUSAN AND TODD NOVITSKY AND WOODROW AND DEELORES LUBANSKI: To alter the existing side lot line between Lot 5, Block 3, Shorewood Addition, and Lot 6, Block 3, Shorewood Addition, in order for Lot 5 to obtain 20 feet of rear property and for Lot 6 to obtain 20 feet of front property, the same being 6211 and 6201 Carol Drive N.E. Ms. Dacy stated these properties are zoned R-1, single family. The petitioners are proposing what can be called a"land swap" of about a 20 foot wide triangle at the base of the triangle. Ms. Dacy stated staff has no problems with this lot split request and recommends approval with one stipulation: The owners of Lot 5 and Lot 6 shall combine the proposed parcels with the current legal descriptions. Mr. Betzold asked if there were any tax consequences for either property owner. Ms. Dacy stated she did not know. She could check on this with the City Assessors' office. She would think that they would look at !"�� the property in terms of an improvement to the property and the condition of the house, and the fact that it is such a small land area being added. Mr. Betzold asked why the petitioners were requesting this "land swap". Mr. Todd Novitsky stated he had purchased 6211 Carol Drive from the one time owner of that property. The owner, Ms. Lubanski, is the fourth owner of 6201 Carol Drive. Through a verbal agreement with previous owners of the properties, a fence was put up between the two properties in the location where they are proposing the "land swap". He stated he is selling his property and wants to clear up the matter of the lot lines. The new buyers also want the matter settled before they move in. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Council approval of Lot Split, L.S. #89-02, by Susan and Todd Novitsky and Woodrow and Deelores Lubanski, to alter the existing side lot line between Lot 5, Block 3, Shorewood Addition, and Lot 6, Block 3, Shorewood Addition, in order for Lot 5 to obtain 20 feet of rear property and for Lot 6 to obtain 20 feet of front property, the same being 6211 and 6201 Carol Drive N.E., with the stipulation that the owners of Lot 5 and Lot 6 shall combine the proposed parcels with the current legal descriptions. � IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. � PLANNING COMMISBION MEETINa� APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 5 Mr. Betzold stated this item will go to the City Council on Monday, April 17. 3. REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUNIlKARY OF SENIOR HOUSING STUDY: Ms. Dacy stated the Commission members had received the "Senior Housing Study for City of Fridley Executive Summary" and a cover memo from herself dated March 30, 1989. Ms. Dacy stated she met with the consultant this afternoon to discuss the survey results in more detail. She stated at this meeting she wanted to summarize a couple of points and review what she thinks the Planning Commission should be looking at in terms of the study. Ms. Dacy stated one of the major purposes of the study was to find out how many low and moderate income seniors they have in Fridley. The consultant sent out 1,136 surveys. She stated the consultant is confident that nearly all of the senior households age 65 and older were surveyed. There was a 55� response rate which is a tremendous response rate and indicates a high level of interest. !^, Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the breakdown of that total number, it appears that the number of low income seniors, moderate income seniors, and upper income seniors break out to about one-third each. For example, 198 respondents indicated an income of less than $15,000 (HUD cut-off for low income); 177 respondents indicated an income of $15,000-25,000; and 186 respondents indicated an income of $25,000 and greater. Ms. Dacy stated the other purpose of the study was to find out the housing preference. The majority of the respondents preferred a one-story townhouse with individual entrance (similar to "the Cottages" approach that was presented earlier this year). When sorted by income versus housing preference, there was no clear pattern for a housing preference. Ms. Dacy stated she had talked to Mr. Dahlberg, and he had asked her to state his opinions . She had not met with the consultant when she talked to Mr. Dahlberg, so he was not aware of the more recent information. Mr. Dahlberg wanted to test the assumption that if the wealthier senior households preferred the one-story townhomes, maybe the City should consider not assisting those types of projects that are going to attract the wealthier seniors. She stated the consultant told her that assumption is not the case according to the survey responses. ^ Ms . Dacy stated they have a good indication from the study that there is an immediate demand within 5 years for senior housing. The study also showed that in 1993, the age block of people age 55 ,�^� ,� � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 6 - 64 is still still going to the consultant years. fairly large so that ten years from now, they are see the demand for senior housing. Staff has asked to come back with an estimate of the demand in ten Ms. Dacy stated the implications for the Planning Commission would be in looking at the special use permit requests for elderly housing. There was a question about where seniors would like to be located. Does a particular site meet what was indicated in the survey? Is the location of senior housing meeting what the seniors wanted? Should they be actively looking at designating sites at this time and providing a list of potential sites to interested developers? She stated it is staff's feeling that they are going to get more interest from senior housing developers. Mr. Barna stated he thought the Planning Commission and City should be looking at this in a little bit longer term. People in their early 50's now will be turning 62-65 just after the turn of the century. This is a large number of people whose children no longer go to Fridley sahools, one or two or none might be living at home, and they are probably have another 10-15 years in their home before looking for a place to retire. They can use this study as a basis for what to do now, but they probably should be looking at the amount of available vacant property in a general overall plan and see where they are going to be in 10-15 years. Ms. Dacy stated originally when they started out, they were going to survey the age group of 55-65. The consultant's recommendation was not to do that, because it was their experience that they get a very poor response rate from that age group because it is these people's perception that they are not going to be a senior for 10- 15 years and do not want to deal with it. So, staff and the consultant, made the decision to focus on age 65 and older. She stated Mr. Barna was certainly correct in his statements, and, hopefully, with the ten year projection, they will be able to answer this question. Mr. Saba stated he thought the reasons a lot of the wealthier seniors prefer the one-story townhomes is because they do not live in Minnesota during the wintertime. A lot of seniors spend their winters in warmer climates. They want a home but not one that has any upkeep. Ms. Sherek agreed. She stated that in the situation of her parents, they are specifically looking for a place that is not apartment-like. They still want their own "home" but do not want all the maintenance that goes along with a home. Mr. Betzold asked what Ms. Dacy meant about lists of potential sites for senior housing developers. �� PLANNING CONIIyII86ION MEETING. APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 7 Ms. Dacy stated the seniors indicated preferences for locations-- close to church, shopping centers, available transportation, etc. Maybe they can use the information in the survey as a guide in evaluating whether or not a particular location is appropriate for a senior housing project. Mr. Saba stated one thing they have to keep in mind is that senior housing must conform to a neighborhood. They have to look at an area, see what is already there, and what type of impact senior housing would have on the neighborhood as a whole. Impact on an existing neighborhood is certainly one of his concerns. Ms. Dacy stated if the Commission has those concerns, it might be worthwhile for staff to review Fridley and look at specific sites for apartment complexes versus townhomes so they can tell developers up front what sites would have the least amount of impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kondrick stated the developer, the land available, and the dollars people have to spend on senior housing are all issues they have to deal with. Maybe a developer is not going to be looking at cluster homes because it is more cost effective to build high rise apartment complexes. �, Ms. Dacy stated the consultant pointed out that almost every senior housing project market rate in the Twin Cities area has some kind of subsidy from the community--either land write-down or housing revenue bonds--to help make the project work. Mr. Barna stated that in reviewing the study and Ms. Dacy's report, he felt the maj ority of the need for senior housing is in the lower income housing group and a small need for senior housing in the higher income group. Mr. Saba stated maybe some consideration should be given to turning existing apartments in the City into senior developments. An example is the Georgetown Apartments. Why can't the Housing & Redevelopment Authority purchase that property or a portion of it and do a planned unit development for senior citizens. Mr. Betzold stated he lives in the Black Forest apartments. Quite a few seniors have moved into that complex. These are small condominium apartments, and they are just the right size for seniors. They have even toyed with the idea that these buildings might better serve as senior housing. Mr. Saba stated there are not a lot of ideal places in Fridley for senior housing condominiums, and maybe the City should be looking ^ at existing buildings, rather than starting with a whole new development that is costly. .'� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 5. 1989 PAGE 8 Ms. Sherek stated she agreed, especially with the increased cost of new construction. Maybe they should be looking for developers to redevelop and upgrade existing property. They are now talking about the Central Avenue Corridor, and there are 4-8 apartment-type units along there. Ms. 5aba stated they really need to be improving the properties they have now instead of looking at building new senior housing. Ms. Dacy swnmarized the comments as follows: The Commission is recommending the City take a pro-active approach and inventory not only vacant sites, but also potential conversion sites for redevelopment to try to take advantage of existing amenities--to be more proactive instead of reactive. The Commissioners agreed. 2. REVIEW PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY: Mr. Robertson stated the Central Avenue corridor goes back in history about 100 years and has some historical significance. It certainly reflects the mixture since the County and the City started zoning in the early 1940's and early 1950's. The purpose � of the study is to look at the corridor from Mississippi Street to Osborne Road, and this first part looks at Central Avenue from Rice Creek Road to Mississippi Street. They have tried to identify what the City's options are. Mr. Robertson stated that in the recent past, they have had many applications or proposals for development in this area, such as Moore Lake Commons. He stated that Moore Lake Commons is really establishing a whole new identity and an anchor in the south end of this corridor. The Moore Lake Tax Increment District extends up from Moore Lake and the area around Hillwind north to the intersection of Mississippi Street. They have private development going on, even without HRA incentive, such as the old Midwest Van & Storage site. Mr. Robertson stated there have been other proposals. The Public Works Department suggested a median on Central Avenue between Mississippi and the intersection of Highway 65, and the residents did not want it. So, there has been an ongoing sequence of proposals and counter proposals. Obviously, there is some confusion. He stated staff has called it "the identity crisis". What is possible for Central Avenue's future? That is really the purpose for this study. Mr. Robertson stated Central Avenue was one of the first paved roads in the State of Minnesota. It was called the "Sportsmans' �` Highway" because it led to the hunting and fishing areas to the PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 9 �� north around Mille Lacs Lake. Supposedly, the original concrete pavement is buried under the asphalt. Mr. Robertson stated they divided the corridor study area into segments--the portion north of Mississippi and the portion south of Mississippi, and look for problems and opportunities. What needs could they use for unifying, trying to establish an identity? One of the things that is a problem right now, but might be a potential opportunity, is the fact that this right-of-way is extremely wide. It is 40 ft. wider than a normal 60 foot right- of-way, and this creates problems. They have made the assumption that no matter what alternative (predominantly residential, predominately commercial, or a rational mix) the Commission picks for an identity, there needs to be some kind of unifying element so that it gives some kind of identity and rationale and establishes some kind of visual continuity from Moore Lake to Osborne Road. Mr. Robertson stated they decided there were several things they could do. They could turn the problem of the wide right-of-way into an opportunity. If they use that wide right-of-way for a central median, they might get the same kind of objections as they got from the people across from Moore Lake. But, there are huge ,�, unused areas on the side, so maybe they should create some kind of additional landscaping by having wider boulevards on either side of the two-lane street. That is a way of providing some kind of visual continuity. Mr. Robertson stated that because the right-of-way is so wide, they could add a bikeway/walkway very easily. Mr. Robertson stated there are some isolated unsightly properties along the street and maybe they can identify those properties and key in on specific redevelopment or rehabilitation projects for these properties. Mr. Robertson stated Ms. McPherson and Ms. Dacy would give a more detailed description of the three alternatives they have identified: (1) predominately residential; (2) predominately commercial; and (3) a rational mix of residential and commercial. Ms. McPherson stated it had been her responsibility to do the graphics for this study area. She showed the graphic of the existing land use along the study. Predominately, they have two land uses: commercial and residential, including single family, duplexes, and multiple dwelling. According to the zoning, there are quite a few non-conforming uses in both residential and commercial. South of Mississippi there are quite a number of vacant lots, so they have the opportunity for new projects as well ^ as some potential ideas for redevelopment projects. �, PLANNING COAIIKI88ION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 10 Ms. McPherson stated Ms. Dacy, Mr. Robertson, and she discussed what could happen if they had a predominately residential, predominately commercial, or a predominately mixed use development scheme. ;� r"� Ms. McPherson stated she would first talk about the predominately residential scheme or scenario. She stated the area north of Mississippi is strongly residential already. There are many single family homes, multi-units, the new Creek Park Addition, to the east of Central Avenue. These are some problems that could be taken care of in some spot redevelopment. One would be to potentially redevelop the Findell site into large single family home lots. Bacon Electric and the automotive site are not necessarily in unity with the residential scheme. Bacon Electric would be relocated to a higher visible site as part of the commercial node on Moore Lake Drive. The area would then be developed with residential uses. Ms. McPherson stated the automotive site is not a unifying element in the residential scheme; therefore, it should be relocated to an industrial park or with other automotive developments in the City. That would allow this corner to be redeveloped in a residential theme, allowing this to become an entry point for the residential development located in the Creek Park Addition. Ms. McPherson stated on the south part of Mississippi, they have the identity crisis with all the non-conforming uses. In a residential scenario, these currently non-conforming uses would become conforming and integrated into a residential scheme. The satellite fire station was designed to reflect and enhance the residential feel so this a good neighbor to the residential alternative. Ms. McPherson stated that even though the Advance Companies is a commercial use, again it is more of a soft commercial use with a lot of landscaping. The wide landscaped boulevard promotes the soft commercial feel. Ms. McPherson stated in the residential scenario they then have the opportunity to potentially split some of the long deep lots and create a proposed right-of-way for some streets going north/south which would allow development on the back half of these lots which would increase the residential density in the area. On the corner of Rice Creek Road and Central Avenue they have another small commercial node that would tie in with the residential and Moore Lake Commons. Ms. McPherson stated Ms. Dacy was going to address the commercial and mixed use alternatives. Ms. Dacy stated that north of Mississippi under the commercial alternative, they would still propose the relocation of Bacon PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 11 ,� Electric and the removal of the automotive use because of the obsolete nature of the buildings and encourage redevelopment to a more appropriate commercial neighborhood use. Ms. Dacy stated south of Mississippi they have existing commercial zoning and industrial zoning by Ziebart and the vacant property to the west. So, under the commercial alternative, the existing land uses and the existing zoning almost promotes it. However, they would still recommend that on the east side of the street the rear of these properties could still be subdivided to access onto a new north/south street and maybe create a buffer between the existing single family neighborhood to the east. Ms. Dacy stated the disadvantage to the neighborhood commercial alternative is what type of commercial uses are going to be located here. Are they going to be retail strip center, or support commercial businesses for Moore Lake Commons, or would they be more of the office/showroom/semi-warehouse uses? She stated if the City is trying to promote a soft image for Central Avenue, those types of uses would not be consistent, and maybe the alternative is to encourage the "ma and pa" oriented commercial uses and the specialty retail. The impact of the Moore,Lake Commons project may also be a deciding factor. For several years, these vacant � properties have been zoned commercial, and they have remained vacant so that might be another disadvantage to the commercial alternative. Mr. Robertson stated that the unknown variable is the impact of Moore Lake Commons. With the increased traffic at Moore Lake Commons and more people coming into the bottom end of this corridor, is that going to create more traffic and potential for this lower part of Central, so that things like office/showroom would be feasible. Mr. Betzold stated there is also the "barrier" kind of thing, where people will go so far but will not turn the corner into an area they are unfamiliar with. People who drive to Moore Lake Commons are not necessarily going to turn the corner to these other businesses. He would never put a retail shop on the lower end of Central. Ms. Sherek stated she had a real problem "ma and pa" specialty shops. If they are trying to upgrade the image of Central Avenue, they do not want people converting the front of their houses to specialty shops. Ms. Dacy stated that with the mixed use alternative, on the southern portion, they are looking at in filling the vacant � properties on the east side with townhouses or twin homes, anything that might approach single family ownership situation. They would PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 12 � still subdivide the rear of the properties to create a residential mix and then have the nodes of commercial at the intersections. Ms. Dacy stated that on the west side, Mr. Brickner will be making an application for a multi-family project. Ms. Dacy stated the disadvantage to the mixed use alternative is it might be perpetuating a mixture of uses and the whole identity crisis. Ms. Dacy stated the advantage of the mixed use alternative is if there is no real market for the commercial, why not have multiple family housing in this location. It is located near neighborhood shopping, and would be a good buffer between Central Avenue and the neighborhoods to the west. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Dahlberg stated he would prefer the residential alternative, because of his concerns about increasing traffic on Central Avenue. He did not have a real problem with the mixed use alternative if the traffic issue can be controlled. He likes the boulevard/parkway concept but does not want a median, because it channelizes the traffic and may increase the speed. He does not see the necessity of commercial at every node, primarily at Rice --1 Creek Road. He feels the residential alternative is more in character with the entire area and better from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Barna stated on the east side between Rice Creek Road and Mississippi, he would like to see it all residential development- -take out the little welding shop on the corner of Mississippi and Central and the commercial complex on Rice Creek Road and Central. He would like to see light multiple, such as a townhouse development, on the vacant property. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Dahlberg had said he liked the boulevard/parkway approach but not the median. One of the reasons they would do the boulevard/parkway would be because historically it would be more correct. It was originally a narrow concrete road, and they would emphasize that original character by not constructing a median. Mr. Kondrick stated he really did not have a problem with medians. If they are not interesting, they can be a waste of time, but a creative median with trees and landscaping can be very interesting. Another thing is lighting. Lighting creates a whole different atmosphere, both during the daytime and evening. Lighting can draw people into an area and make them want to build here. ^ Mr. Robertson stated that is one of the reasons why staff thought the best way to use that wide right-of-way is to put that extra PLANNINd COMMI88ION MEETING� APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 13 � greenery and landscaping elements along the edge for uniting this mixture and confusion along the edge, rather than down the middle. Ms. Sherek stated medians are also very difficult in the winter for snowplows. Mr. Betzold stated he agreed that north of Mississippi Street should all be residential and that both Bacon Electric and the automotive business should be relocated. He would like to suggest another option for south of Mississippi Street that has not been discussed. Why not have one side commercial and the other side residential? An example is along Main Street south of I-694. On one side it is clearly all commercial activity, and on the other side it is all residential. It is just like two different worlds. Why not do the same thing in this area? Ms. McPherson stated that this issue was discussed. Mr. Robertson stated there is a basic sort of principle that they should try to follow in where they break land use. They should try to break it and make the change at the rear lot line, rather than at the center line of the street, and that having one use on one side of the street and another on the other side of the street contributes to the identity crisis. Also, there is the question of property ^ values and property assessments with residential and commercial. Ms. Sherek agreed with Mr. Betzold. There is no question that one side of Main Street is residential and one side is commercial. South of Rice Creek Road is going to be commercial with the health club and the shopping center. If the opportunity is there for commercial development, they should promote it. There is such a scarcity of land in Fridley. With the upgrading of the Midwest Van & Storage property and the development in Moore Lake Commons, there is going to be some fall-out from that development and redevelopment. She would hate to see another piecemeal development in there in the meantime. To her, there is no reason why they cannot have one zoning on one side of the street and another zoning on the other side of the street. Ms. Sherek stated she did not agree with Mr. Brickner's proposal to put an apartment building in this area. Townhouses or something like that might be "o.k.", but to stick an apartment building in there when there is no other real multiples in the area is j ust going to further confuse the area. They are not going to gain any kind of identity with that type of development, nor are they going to gain any kind of identity by turning it into residential with those two solid commercial properties on either side. Ms. Sherek stated it is great to discuss further development, but her whole point of continuing the corridor study all the way up to ^ Osborne is she felt the whole corridor should be viewed as a continuum. She felt they were lacking something discussing this ir � � � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 14 in depth before the whole study is done. From about Onondaga to Osborne, again they have residential on one side and industrial on the other side, but she did not think that area had as serious an identity crisis as Mississippi south with the mixture of houses and commercial uses on one side of the street. Ms. Dacy stated they just needed a place to start, and the north half of Mississippi Street to Osborne could be presented at a May meeting. Mr. Kondrick stated after hearing Ms. Sherek's comments, he does agree that the west side of Central Avenue south of Mississippi Street should remain commercial. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Dahlberg had also suggested they look at a treatment along the right-of-way by Moore Lake Commons as far as installing a walking path down to Moore Lake Beach. Mr. Barna stated this idea had been presented before, and neither the neighbors or the property owners want a walking path along there. Mr. Saba stated he thought it very important to do the boulevard treatment and landscaping along Central Avenue right away and tie it in with the Moore Lake Commons. Ms. Dacy stated another thing Mr. Dahlberg had stated was that there should be a traffic signal at 73rd Avenue/Central. Ms. Dacy stated staff will be including the Central Avenue study in the April 17th City Council meeting packets. The City Council will have the Planning Commission's minutes with their comments. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Brickner might be applying for a rezoning within two weeks. After hearing the Planning Commission members' comments about commercial on the west side, she would contact Mr. Brickner and inform him of these comments. She stated Mr. Brickner is intending to have a neighborhood meeting at the end of April. Maybe at this neighborhood meeting, staff can present the three alternatives and get the neighborhood's reaction to those alternatives, depending on the City Council's reaction. Mr. Betzold stated he and the Planning Commission members appreciated staff's work and all the thought and time that went into the presentation of this part of the Central Avenue study. 5. RECEIVE_MARCH 6. 1989. PARKS & RECREATION CONIMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the March 6, 1989, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. ,..� PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETINQ, APRIL 5, 19$9 PAGE 15 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the April 5, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Re�spectively submitted, I, �Is'LG�'.G l.� � �!� `�ie Saba Y Recording Secretary n �