PL 04/25/1990 - 30718�"'�,
r-�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1990
MNtiM.YMw�YwMNMMMMIY�YMMMMMNIr�Y�Y�YIrIr�Y,YMNA►N�YIY�wMwMNM�YM�YMMMM�Y�YM�YMIrNIrMMMMMMM
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the April 25, 1990, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Don Betzold, Dave Rondrick, Dean Saba,
Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg
Alex Barna
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Leon Madsen, City Assessor
William Burns, City Manager
Steve Billings, Councilmember
Tom Schuette, UCD
Scott Erickson, UCD
Dave Koski, Barton-Aschman Associates
Kate Kemper, 7857 Alden Way N.E.
Phyllis Forsberg, 1404 West Danube Road
Roger and Myra Hanson, 6065 Central Avenue N.E.
(See attached lists)
APPROVAL OF APRIL 1_1. 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the April
11, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #90-02 BY
URBAN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS AND FRIDLEY TOWN SOUARE
ASSOCIATES:
To rezone three separate parcels as follows: Lot 9, Block 2,
Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling,
to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 355 Mississippi
Street N.E.; AND Lot 12, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2
from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment
District, the same being 368 - 66th Avenue N.E.; AND Lots 10,
il, and 12, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1, except the
South 30 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 2
�
on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder,
Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block
3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2, according to the recorded plat
thereof one file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-1, Single Family
Draelling, and C-1, Local Business, to S-2, Redevelopment
District, the same being 6525 University Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the
reading and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THT MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINd OPEN AT 7s35
P.M. '
Ms. Dacy stated this item was originally scheduled for the March
14, 1990, Planning Commission meeting; however, two primary
concerns were identified by the neighbors at the two neighborhood
meetings, and by members of the HRA and the City Council. Those
two concerns are: (1) The use itself--the proposed rezoning; and
(2) Traffic issues.
Ms. Dacy stated the vacant single family lots north of the 10,000
Auto Parts building and the two single family homes to the east of
^ the 10,000 Auto Parts building are zoned R-1, Single Family. The
10,000 Auto Parts building and property is zoned C-1, Local
Business. The rezoning request is to rezone all those parcels to
S-2, Redevelopment District, in order to construct a one-story
28,000 sq. ft. retail building. The S-2 district is a district
for redevelopment projects and permits site plan flexibility for
a redevelopment project. If the Council approves the rezoning, the
Council's approval is based on a specific site plan.
Mr. Robertson stated Center City Redevelopment District, which was
adopted in 1979, is one of several in the City of Fridley. In
1979, the City Council made findings that there were severe traffic
and safety problems with the existing layout of the entire
district, that the land north of 10, 000 Auto Parts had not been
intensely developed because of severe access and traffic problems,
small land area, and the location of abutting single family area.
The Redevelopment Plan noted that the land area had several
proposals for redevelopment, but because of the traffic problems
and small land area and location, each application has been denied.
Mr. Robertson stated that since 1979, the Fridley Office Plaza,
Target Northwest Operations Center, and the Fridley Plaza Clinic
have been constructed. There was also the renovation and expansion
of the Holly Shopping Center. However, this original 2.4 acre site
has remained essentially the same before 1979 due to the land
ownership patterns and the traffic patterns that prevented any
� redevelopment of the site. In the meantime, the County has
purchased access easements on this parcel, and the Minnesota
PLANNINa_COMMI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 25, 1990 PAaE 3
''� - -
Highway Department has purchased access easements on University
Avenue.
Mr. Robertson stated that in an attempt to develop this
intersection in accordance with the proposed plan, the HRA
considered the impact of this particular redevelopment proposal on
other potential redevelopment in the southwest quadrant.
Mr. Robertson stated that at the April 18, 1990, meeting, the HRA
concluded that for both of these proposals it would be appropriate
for some mixed use of residential office and retail. The HRA
concluded that if there were commercial development on this corner,
there would probably still be a mixed use on the 10 acre southwest
corner, but there would tend to be less retail and a higher
proportion of office or residential in the southwest quadrant. At
the conclusion of the meeting on April 18, the HRA recommended
approval of the UCD redevelopment plan based on the site plan for
this parcel.
Mr. Robertson stated the HRA discussed the question that was raised
earlier about how the proposed retail facility would affect
existing retail in the area. The developer presented their view
based on their experience. Essentially, this is a situation where
there has been no retail development, with the exception of the
� small expansion of the Holly Center, in this area for 30-40 years.
In the meantime, the City has grown in this area. When the
southwest quadrant is developed, there may be less retail in the
future, because the retail that is there may be displaced by other
office or housing uses.
Mr. Robertson stated Walgreen is the proposed anchor tenant, using
11,000 sq. ft. of the 28,000 sq. ft. The remaining 17,000 sq. ft.
will be added to the retail stock of the City. Staff believes this
is a relatively small amount of retail to add to the existing stock
of retail centers.
Mr. Robertson stated the HRA found the redevelopment proposal
primarily intended to serve both as a neighborhood facility and to
take advantage of the existing traffic on University Avenue. The
petitioners feel this facility will not significantly compete with
the other shopping center that is nearing completion at Moore Lake
Commons.
Mr. Robertson stated HRA Chairperson Larry Commers noted that the
proposed project is a modern facility which may attract existing
tenants from other less desirable centers around the area. Another
existing center in the Center City Redevelopment Area is Moon
Plaza, which is probably at the end of both its functional and
design life.
�"1 Mr. Robertson stated the HRA approved this particular redevelopment
- plan. They recommended staff initiate preparation of a pay-as-you-
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAaE 4
�� U
- go tax increment financing to the proj ect in which the proj ect will
be assisted with approximately $300,000 that will essentially come
from the taxes that the project pays after it is completed. There
is no up-front money and essentially no risk to the public for
financing. The purpose of the financing is to assist in the
assembling of the various pieces of land and to write down those
land costs so that the land costs of this project are comparable
to other existing open sites. The differential in the taxes that
would be paid on this site compared to what are paid now is in the
neighborhood of a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio. The taxes that are presently
paid on this proposed site are approximately $17,500, payable 1990
taxes. The most minimum tax revenue, using the worst case
approach, the income approach based on the rents of competing
retail centers in the area, indicate there would be a minimum of
$84,000 a year.
Ms. Dacy stated that despite the fact that the S-2 district does
not stipulate any setbacks, staff approached the site design
analysis to try to accomplish as much of the standards as would be
typically required if this was a vacant piece of property and the
entire property was zoned C-1. There are only two instances where
the site plan does not meet those standards. (1) The building on
the University Avenue side has a setback of 30 feet instead of the
required 35 feet; (2) Typically, parking lots have to be set back
� 20 feet from the public right-of-way. Along Mississippi and 66th
Avenue, the setback is 15 feet, and along University Avenue, the
setback is 5 feet. However, the proposed application does meet the
screening standards required by ordinance, which is a 15 foot
planting strip with some type of 6 foot screen, either a fence or
dense vegetation. In this case, the petitioner is proposing a 6
foot masonry wall matching the exterior of the building to be
located along 66th Avenue and then along the east lot line
separating the development from the two single family homes to the
east. Around the wall will be plantings of Boston ivy and lilac
bushes (5 ft.). She stated that staff is recommending six
additional Linden trees along 66th Avenue.
Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the LRT issue, the Commission
members had received a copy of a letter from Tim Yantos, of the
Anoka County Regional Rail Authority, who notes that this site is
part of the LRT design system plan. In the letter, Mr. Yantos
related the following: (1) If this site were to be developed, the
initial phase for LRT use would be that Mississippi Street would
have a special bus drop-off located near the intersection and that
the site would, in effect, operate as a��kiss and ride�� as opposed
to a"park and ride"; (2) If it is determined that the demand in
this area warrants it, Mr. Yantos is requesting that an easement
be reserved along Mississippi to install additional 30 parking
spaces for a small park and ride facility; (3) As a final phase,
if demand warrants it and as a long term option, the County would
r"', be looking at acquiring homes on the north side of the development
�- on the north side of 66th as well as 67th for a park and ride
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINa. APRIL 25. 1990 PA�E 5
!°� - -
facility. Access to the park and ride facility would be from the
driveway into the development, and the driveway would have to be
widened in the northeast corner of the site. At this time, there
is no indication that there would be any direct access from the
park and ride to the neighborhood, nor would staff recommend that.
Ms. Dacy stated she would like to introduce Dave Koski, Barton-
Aschman Associates, whose office conducted the traffic impact
analysis from this development onto the existing roads, as well as
the impact onto Mississippi and University Avenue after Anoka
County�s proposed improvement project. Both Mr. Koski's staff and
City staff conducted traffic counts during various times during the
last month to determine the existing traffic conditions.
Mr. Dave Koski stated they conducted observations of all turning
movement traffic count on the afternoon of April 10, 1990. They
wanted to test the worst case during the P.M. peak hour which is
basically from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Next they wanted to
determine what kind of traffic this development would generate.
They have conducted surveys of centers similar to this throughout
the metropolitan area. In addition, the Institute of Traffic
Engineers has collected data on traffic generation by various size
developments around the country.
�,.� Mr. Koski stated that using a combination of their own traffic
generation figures plus nation-wide statistics, they calculated
what they thought would be the traffic generation and the entry
and exit volumes for this center during the P.M. peak hours.
Mr. Koski stated that in both cases with the existing traffic
conditions, they came up with a level of service D. Traffic level
of service is rated on a scale from A(perfect) to F(failure), C
is average, and D is considered acceptable. Level of service D
really means that all the traffic clears the traffic signal phasing
in each cycle. Level D is not perfect. It means if there is
something that goes wrong (snowfall, accident, etc.), there can be
intermediate congestion at times. The existing level of service
at the University/Mississippi is level D, and with the added
traffic from the shopping center, the level of service remains at
D. The volume of traffic doesn't have much impact on traffic
operations at this intersection.
Mr. Koski stated they wanted to know how the eastbound left turn
from Mississippi Street into the shopping center could work. They
were interested in the longest backup of traffic to enter the site
during the peak hour period with the existing traffic plus the
shopping center traffic. The calculations indicate that the
longest backup within that P.M. peak hour period would be about 280
feet. The distance from University Avenue to the driveway of the
shopping center will be 340 feet. They found there would be
!1 sufficient gaps in the Mississippi Street traffic to allow the
eastbound left turn in to operate basically a level service A.
PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 6
� --
_- They do not see any problem with the left turning movement into the
site with the existing street configuration. That will be improved
somewhat with the improvements proposed by Anoka County for
Mississippi Street.
Mr. Koski stated, similarly, the left turn out of the site on
eastbound Mississippi Street seems to work alright. If there is
any backup that occurs at all, it would be within the shopping
center site waiting to turn left. They calculated that backup at
the peak period to be about three vehicles.
Mr. Koski stated they also looked at the intersection at 5th Street
and Mississippi. They determined there would be some delay, but
it would not be significant and really doesn't have any impact over
what exists today.
Mr. Koski stated Barton-Aschman's conclusions were that, assuming
the worst case scenario, of all the traffic being new traffic
during the P.M. peak hour, that the impact of the entry and exit
operation into the shopping center would not have significant
impact on the University/Mississippi intersection traffic
operations, and that Mississippi Street is able to accommodate the
left turn into the site from eastbound traffic without little or
no impact on Mississippi Street.
� Mr. Dahlberg stated that even though the traffic report does not
�� take into consideration potentially added traffic due to the LRT
in the future, could Mr. Koski make a guesstimate as to whether or
not that impact would adversely affect the level of service D
rating on this intersection, taking into account that there are
smaller vehicles as well as buses.
Mr. Koski stated the LRT is obviously going to have an impact.
They did not consider the LRt in their findings. They did review
with the consultant some of their ideas as to what the amount of
traffic might be. At this point in time, the consultant has a wide
range of figures as to how many people might park and what the
entry and exit movements might be during the peak hour. Total
entry and exit traffic could be as high as what they calculated for
the shopping center itself. However, they think it is mitigated
by the fact that P.M. peak hours would mostly be exiting traffic
and would be later than the 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. peak hour.
A video tape presentation was shown facing west on Mississippi
Street toward the University/Mississippi intersection. The video
tape was filmed on Monday, April 23, 1990.
Mr. Leon Madsen, City Assessor, stated he was asked to make
comments on the Assessing Department's reactions on this rezoning.
He stated there are two criteria they use to determine what to do
�"'� in a situation like this. They first need to look at the accepted
�- appraisal practice. That practice says that if an informed buyer
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, APRIL 25, 1990 PAGB 7
/'\
- has the choice of two identical properties, one next to commercial
and the other within a compatible neighborhood, the buyer will more
than likely choose the property located in the compatible
neighborhood, if the price is the same.
Mr. Madsen stated the other process is a practice they have
followed in past years. Throughout the City in locations similar
to this, they have consistently placed a lower value on the
properties that abut or are located directly across from commercial
development or commercially zoned property. In this particular
case, if the rezoning takes place within the area marked, the City
will probably reduce the property values of the properties that
abut the 10,000 Auto Parts property.
Mr. Madsen stated that properties that back up to Holly Shopping
Center have property values about $2,500 lower than those homes
across the street. These neighborhoods are quite similar, and the
property values are similar. The City is looking at a reduction
of approximately $2,500 in property values for the three properties
and one property facing 66th Avenue to the east of the proposed
development, if the rezoning goes through.
Mr. Betzold stated that if the County changed its position and
decided this property would be ideal for a park and ride, and the
,.� entire property became a parking lot, what kind of tax base would
there be?
Mr. Madsen stated he had not done any analysis of that scenario.
There is no other similar situation in Fridley. There are other
park and ride facilities throughout the Twin Cities, but he would
hesitate to make any kind of projection at this time.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if the assessed value of those six residential
properties decrease the same amount, more, or less intuitively if
this was a park and ride lot rather than a retail center.
Mr. Madsen stated that, again, he has not studied that scenario at
this time; however, it might be appropriate to do so.
Ms. Dacy stated that given the recommendation of the HRA that this
project is compatible with the redevelopment plans for Center City,
because of the positive conclusion from the traffic analysis, and
because the proposed site design meets a majority of the City's
standards and screening requirements, staff recommends the Planning
Commission approve the rezoning request from C-1 and R-1 to C-2,
Redevelopment District, subject to the following stipulations:
1. The development shall be constructed in accordance with
site plan dated March 8, 1990, as represented in ZOA #90-
02.
^
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 8
^
- 2. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include:
a. six American Lindens along the north lot line;
b. Honey Locust trees shall be replaced by Hackberry
trees;
c. Annabel Hydrangea species shall be replaced with
rosa rugose.
3. The petitioner shall pay park dedication fees prior to
issuance of the building permit.
4. Storm water management calculations shall be submitted
prior to issuance of the building permit.
5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from
the public right-of-ways.
6. The petitioner shall obtain development contract approval
from the HRA.
7. The petitioner shall execute a maintenance agreement for
the landscaping and parking areas.
�
8. No automotive service uses, car sales, or other outdoor
repair/display uses shall be permitted.
9. The City shall have the right to review each use within
the center to determine whether or not it is consistent
with the intent of the Center City Redevelopment Plan.
10. The site plan shall be revised to provide one 18 foot
entrance lane and two 12 foot exit lanes.
11. Shared parking and access easements shall be provided on
the property for LRT kiss-and-ride traffic, and
specifically along the east and south lot lines.
12. Al1 lighting shall be shielded such that the glare does
not adversely affect residential properties.
13. All parking and driving areas shall be lined with
concrete curb.
14. All dumpsters shall be screened in accordance with the
City�s ordinance.
15. Underground irrigation shall be provided to landscaped
areas.
�,
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 9
� -
� 16. A comprehensive sign plan for free-standing and wall
signs shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City Council.
Mr. Tom Schuette, UCD, stated the center is a 28,000 sq. ft.
building intended to be a neighborhood service retail center. It
is designed to service a 1-2 mile population. It is not intended
to bring people from distances farther than that. Some of the
proposed uses in mind are the Walgreen Store and other neighborhood
service type uses such as dry cleaning, hair salon, movie rental,
Chinese restaurant, framing gallery, small furniture store--
services aimed at uses which the local community would frequently
use. They feel the University/Mississippi intersection has long
been identified as an area that needs to be revitalized, yet not
much has happened.
Mr. Schuette stated that in addition to the Walgreen store, they
would have 17,000 sq. ft. of retail space. That would be 5-6
shops. Holly Shopping Center is approximately 75,000 sq. ft.
Moore Lake Commons is over 100,000 sq. ft. This 17,000 sq. ft. of
new retail after such a long period of time with no new retail in
this area is a mild and appropriate development.
Mr. Schuette stated he knows the City is very concerned about the
�,.� southwest quadrant. They have estimated that the southwest
quadrant has 30,00-40,000 sq. ft. of retail space today.
Redevelopment on the southwest quadrant certainly could include at
least that much retail without fattening the market of retail
space. In the event the southwest quadrant is developed without
a retail component, the intersection would see a net loss of retail
space, even with the addition of their new center.
Mr. Schuette stated the proposed a first class neighborhood
shopping center that will continue to be attractive and well
maintained and a service to the community.
Mr. Betzold stated the Commission has received petitions filed by
the neighborhood. It would be in order to receive these petitions.
MOTIOPT by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive Petition
No. 1-1990 and Petition 2-1990 signed by people opposed to the
proposed 28,000 sq. ft. retail shopping center at the northeast
corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Betzold stated he would like to go through the items of concern
expressed by the those who had signed the petition, and he asked
for Mr. Schuette's reaction to each one.
�
r"1
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 10
(1) It requires the removal of two existing homes and the erection
of a towering concrete wall along the perimeter of the
property. The sheer magnitude of the wall would be an eyesore
to residents in adjacent homes and would create resident
concern about maintenance of a graffiti-free wall.
Mr. Schuette stated they have a great deal of concern about the
wall and the immediate 6-7 neighbors. Throughout the process, they
have felt that the proposed wall would be the most acceptable
solution to the neighbor's concerns. Most of the oral comments he
has heard have not referred to a"towering" wall. Some have even
said the wall is too low. He stated the wall will be built of the
same attractive block as the shopping center. The color of the
block goes all the way through the block, so any graffiti can be
sandblasted off. They feel a 6 ft. high wall is best, and with the
expanded center 15 feet, they now have the ability to add some
berming in front of that wall in that 15 feet. To put a shorter
wall on top of a berm defeats some of the safety issues about
children.
(2) We recognize the fact that an underground sprinkler system is
to be installed, but that alone does not assure that the
grounds will be well manicured.
� Mr. 5chuette stated a maintenance requirement is one of the
stipulations. It is in their best interest and in the interest of
their retailers to maintain that landscaping professionally. They
expect to do that.
( 3) The same type of retail shops as are being proposed on the
10,000 Auto Parts site already exist at Holly Center just
across the street. Additional retail is not necessary in such
close proximity to Holly Center.
Mr. Schuette stated that it is their opinion that additional
retailers are not necessary; however, he would think everyone would
agree that not all their retail shopping needs are met on the
corner of Mississippi and University. If a similar shop exists in
Holly Center, it is nothing more than fair competition and the
normal evolution of a growing community.
(4) Residents are concerned about the negative impact increased
traffic along Mississippi Street will have on the safety of
children walking to and from Hayes School and on the increased
potential for accidents and bottlenecking due to the stacking
of cars making a left hand turn into the shopping center from
the eastbound lane on Mississippi Street.
Mr. Schuette stated Mr. Koski addressed many of the actual traffic
flow concerns. It is Mr. Koski's expert opinion that there will
^ not be a traffic problem. As far as the children walking to Hayes
School, the shopping center will not be located between the homes
�
�
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE il
and the school. Again, he has to rely on experts and City staff
who believe this proposal will not create a danger for the
children.
(5) Many residents in the neighborhood abutting this proposed
development have resided in their homes for years and years.
They take pride in their immediate neighborhood and consider
their residential area to be much more than just a home on a
street in Fridley.
Mr. Schuette stated that, obviously, the homes in this neighborhood
are nice, and they want to maintain the quality of their
neighborhood. Personally, he felt the existing use of the 10,000
Auto Parts property is unattractive, and they want to bring in a
shopping center that is as compatible as possible to the
neighborhood.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive a letter
dated February 23, 1990, from Diane and Peggy Hanson, 365 - 66th
Avenue N.E., stating they are opposed to the rezoning request.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. James Thayer, 377 - 66th Avenue, asked who is going to maintain
the right-of-way area 15 feet back from the curb to the property
line on both sides of the street.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he believed the City requires any property
owner within the City limits to maintain to the curb line, so it
would be the responsibility of this development to maintain all
the way to the street.
Ms. Dacy stated that is correct, and they can ensure that through
the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Lyle Olson, 376 - 66th Avenue, asked if the tax base remains
the same whether or not there are tenants in the shopping center.
Mr. Madsen stated part of the appraisal process is to assess the
income flow from the property, and the vacancy rate is an important
factor of that process. As the property rents up, the City will
be monitoring that and will adjust the values for that rent-up
period which typically lasts about 3 years. iiopefully, they will
be able to settle in on a vacancy rate that is typical in the
market. They will be looking at what the typical shopping center
of that size in Fridley or even a little bit larger area are
experiencing in terms of vacancy. So, if the center does have some
extreme vacancy rates, the City will have to reluctantly change the
tax base.
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa, APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 12
�
- Mr. Thayer asked Mr. Madsen if he had some vacancy percentages on
Holly Center, Moon Plaza, and other centers in the City.
Mr. Madsen stated Fridley has a decent ongoing record of vacancies
in retail centers. They try to check them out on an annual basis.
The vacancy rate right now is about 10-15�.
Mr. Thayer asked what Mr. Madsen considered the average life of
commercial property in Fridley.
Mr. Madsen stated he thought the renovation turn around is about
10-15 years, but that varies.
Ms. Brenda Tibbetts, 421 Mississippi Street, stated she did not
feel City staff has addressed the traffic problems correctly. They
are looking at cars, not pedestrians. They see children trying to
run across Mississippi Street to the library and across 5th Street
to Mississippi to go to Holly Center. There are no crosswalks or
stop sign at the corner of 5th and Mississippi. A better time to
video traffic would have been 3:30 - 4:30 p.m. Why wasn't the
video taken farther back from 7th Street or 5th Street? Again, why
wasn't the pedestrian issue addressed?
Ms. Dacy stated the concerns that staff heard from the neighborhood
� meeting was the amount of stacking on Mississippi would block the
traffic going into and out the site. So, they wanted to observe
exactly how far back the queue would occur on Mississippi. People
were concerned that drivers would rear end or back into people
wanting to turn left into the site. The video showed that a
majority of time the left hand lane was clear of traffic and the
majority of the traffic was in the right lane. As to the time,
4:30 - 5:30 p.m., the consultant has stated that is the peak hour
for shopping center activities, as many people combine a shopping
trip on their way home from work.
Mr. Koski stated that as far as pedestrians are concerned, they
did count pedestrians. There is no question that at times, it is
difficult to cross Mississippi Street without the benefit of a
traffic signal. They don't think the shopping center will have
any significant impact on pedestrian crossings.
Ms. Louise Bennethum, 368 - 66th Avenue, stated they have lived in
their home for 32 years. She stated this is the best proposal they
have seen in that 32 years. She lived there before either Holly
Center or Red Owl (a former tenant of the 10,000 Auto Parts
property). She stated that over the years, she has put up with
rats, smells, trespassing, snowmobiles through the yard, trash,
noisy vehicles, etc. They have put up with all this, because their
neighbors have voted down every other proposal that has been made
for this property. She has checked with people across the United
/1 States who have a Walgreen Store in their neighborhood, and she has
not received one negative response. She stated she wanted her
n
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING� APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 13
neighbors to realize that they have not lived next to these lots
and next to this horrible building and the things she just
mentioned. It is now time not to have to bear this anymore, and
they are in favor of this proposal.
Mr. Marbolez, 355 Mississippi Street, stated he agreed with Ms.
Bennethum. The 10,000 Auto Parts store is an eyesore, and there
definitely should be some consideration given to remodeling or
rezoning this property.
Mr. Clinton Tibbetts, 421 Mississippi Street, stated the traffic
on Mississippi Street backs up past his house. He and wife have
a daycare in their home, and they have seen cars almost run the
children over at 7th and Mississippi. He stated they do not need
any more traffic. They do not need another retail center. Holly
Shopping Center is just across University, and Moore Lake Commons
is only a mile away. If all the existing centers have a 10-15%
vacancy rate, then put the new retail shops in the 15� that are
already empty. He agreed that the 10,000 Auto Parts site should
be remodeled into something, but not another retail space.
Mr. Betzold encouraged anyone in the audience who opposed the
rezoning request to tell the Commission what they would prefer to
see on this site.
� Ms. Pat Anderson, 367 - 67th Avenue, stated it was her
understanding from listening to City staff that the light rail
transit issue was to be a kiss and ride and then maybe several
years down the road, there might be the need for a park and ride.
She stated late that afternoon, she had a conversation with Tim
Yantos from Anoka County, and he had told her that the proposed
light rail system will go in within 3-4 years, but that they will
only wait approximately one year before deciding whether or not
they need the park and ride. She stated she sees this whole issue
tied to the light rail issue. If they go ahead with this
development, it precludes them from using the existing space for
a park and ride; and then houses on 66th Avenue and 67th Avenue
would have to be removed.
Ms. Dacy stated she had spoken to Mr. Yantos on Thursday, April
19, and had received a letter from him dated April 19. She had
not spoken to him since that time.
Mr. Thayer stated that he is opposed to this proposal. He stated
the plan as submitted is marginal in that the developer already
recognizes the need for additional space. That is the reason for
purchasing and rezoning the two single family lots adjacent to the
property. It is just moving the problem to the next neighbors, and
it will just keep continuing until the whole block is gone. This
proj ect is not going to do a thing for the neighborhood, except its
�"1 downfall. It also concerned him that the plan did not quite meet
- the standards required by the ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 14
/�1
Mr. Thayer stated this is a difficult area to d�velop. It is a
very small area which is part of the problem.
Mr. George Meisner, 373 Mississippi Street, stated his objection
to the proposal is that he believes it is an inappropriate
development for the needs of the neighborhood. Holly Center is
right across the street. Everything proposed for this site is
already available either at Holly Center, Moon Plaza, or Rice
Plaza. He, too, questioned the traffic surveys done. The surveys
were done on Monday and Tuesday, and he did not think those were
the worst days of the week from a traffic standpoint. A better
view of the traffic might have been done on a Friday afternoon.
Last year, when Anoka County was using Mississippi Street as a
bypass for I-694, the traffic was miserable. Subsequent to that,
the traffic has not been so bad; however, there are many days when
he comes home from work that he is not been able to turn left into
his property going east without waiting for the traffic to clear.
This indicates to him that the traffic is worse than that indicated
by the study.
Mr. Meisner stated some type of senior housing might be a
suggestion for part of the property. He stated the LRT should be
strongly considered in conjunction with any development on this
^ property. He thought a park and ride facility would really benefit
the City of Fridley.
Ms. Janet Thayer, 377 - 66th Avenue, stated she would like to see
some type of community park on this corner that could be enjoyed
by everyone in the City of Fridley.
Ms. Marilyn Sullivan, 522 - 66th Avenue, stated she lived a little
outside the immediate neighborhood. She stated she has grown up
in Fridley. She would like to raise her family in Fridley. She
stated she has some problems with this proposal and rezoning
request:
1. The LRT issue. The idea of possibly removing eight
residential homes in the future was unconscionable. Even
removing two homes is unthinkable.
2. There is the possibility that 10 homes would be removed.
These people have paid a lot of taxes in the City of
Fridley, they are close to fine schools, yet this
development would eliminate those homes. She believed
these neighborhoods should remain strong and viable,
which means holding back on developments that are not
residential.
3. It was the direction of the Planning Commission in the
''� 80's to preserve affordable homes, and now why are they
- committing themselves to redevelopment that was proposed
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 15
back in the 70's? It might have been desirable back
then, but it is not now.
4. The increased traffic is a problem, and she had not heard
anything about a pollution control study or impact.
5. Noise has to be a serious consideration.
6. With the extended turn lane and the road line being so
close, the privacy and quality of life is being reduced,
which is also supported by the lower tax value on some
of these homes.
Ms. Sullivan stated they do not need a Walgreen Store. They have
a Snyder Drug Store which is a Minneapolis-based chain, and she
would hate to see it go out of business by Walgreen which is an
out-of-state chain. They should keep the neighborhoods intact.
They should not have development encroaching upon them and
potentially downgrading their quality of life. She thought the
citizens of Fridley deserve priority treatment.
Mr. Madsen stated he wanted to clarify that vacancy rates in
themselves are not entirely unhealthy situations for a shopping
center, because it does provide space for additional new and fresh
^ tenants. The vacancy rates in Fridley in the existing shopping
centers are fairly typical of vacancy rates in the local area.
Ms. Holly McGregor, 355 - 66th Avenue, stated she is opposed to
the shopping center because of the traffic. She agreed that the
traffic is heaviest on Friday and Saturday, not on Monday and
Tuesday when the traffic study and video were done.
Mr. Lowell McGregor, 355 - 66th Avenue, stated he is opposed to
the shopping center. He did not want to see them consider any
development on this site until they know more about the LRT,
because his home is one of the ones that would be removed for a
park and ride.
Mr. Ellsworth Hinz, 384 - 66th Avenue, stated 66th Avenue is one
of the best streets in Fridley and let�s keep it that way!
Ms. Brenda Tibbetts, 421 Mississippi Street, stated their property
values are going to go down. If the LRT is a big issue, then they
should just put in the park and ride lot.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:90 P.M.
�
PLANNING_COMMISSION MEETINQ APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 16
,� - -
Mr. Kondrick stated this property is an eyesore now, and he had to
believe that this proposal would certainly be an improvement over
what is there now. What concerned him the most was the light rail
issue.
Mr. Betzold stated he has also been troubled by the LRT issue ever
since they first discussed it quite awhile ago. He was concerned
that the City has made a strong commitment to try to develop this
whole area, and he did not think that the existing 10,000 Auto
Parts building is doing the neighborhood any good or the City any
good. His first reaction was, why do they need another shopping
center? Part of this property has been zoned commercial for many
years. This is the center of the city. The problem is that the
developer who developed this property 30-40 years ago could not
have possibly foreseen the development and the traffic of today.
Unfortunately, a park would not be economically feasible for the
City, and residential is also not realistic for this corner. The
wild card, of course, is the LRT.
Mr. Betzold stated the Planning Commission strongly encouraged the
County to look away from Columbia lce Arena as a park and ride site
because of poor access to it and had recommended the County look
at the corner of Mississippi/University. This is now a golden
opportunity for the County to step in and acquire this property for
^ a park and ride while there is the opportunity. The worst thing
that could happen is to put a shopping center in now and then have
the LRT come in later and need more space and tear out homes.
Mr. Betzold stated that from a tax base standpoint, maybe it is
not in the City's best interest to build a parking lot, but he
thought they should take the advantage now and acquire the land
for a park and ride. If a park and ride does not go in, the
property would be available and maybe there will be a good
proposal. For right now, they are just hemmed in with 30 years of
development that the City can't control and the neighborhood has
grown up around it, and they might be trying to put too much onto
this small piece of land.
Mr. Saba stated there are some very positive benefits from a
development such as this. One problem is with the elderly and
children trying to cross University to shop at Holly Center. A
development of this type would resolve that problem. However, he
is also very concerned about the light rail issue. It is really
stymieing development in the City. He would not want to see 6-8
homes taken because this was developed into a retail center with
light rail coming through. It is unfair to the neighbors to tear
out existing homes and replace them with a brick wall, even though
the developer will try to make it look nice with plantings. He
would like to see a Walgreen Store go into this area, but with the
rest of the shops, it just makes too big a development for this
i"� small piece of property. For these reasons, he would vote against
the rezoning.
�''�
PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING� APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 17
Ms. Sherek stated she agreed with Mr. Saba. The Commission has
struggled a number of times over the last few years about the issue
that the value of the land in Fridley is so high and the cost of
building and developing is so high, that there the need to cost
every square inch the City will allow on a piece of property in
order to make that piece of property financial feasible for
development. She feel this property is probably being
overdeveloped for its size, given the present proposal.
Ms. Sherek stated that the Planning Commission has also been
looking at the LRT issue for quite some time. The Commission
indeed did direct the County to look at this corner for a park and
ride. She was not sure that a park and ride was the most wonderful
thing for this corner, but light rail is certainly coming, but it
would be preferable to see a park and ride on a lot that is already
essentially a parking lot that would be upgraded, as opposed to
taking homes (to which she is opposed). For those two reasons, the
overdevelopment of the property and light rail transit coming in
later which might force the taking of homes, she would vote against
the rezoning also.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he is disappointed in the Anoka County Rail
Authority in its lack of response to this whole issue. He agreed
� with what has been said by the other Commissioners relative to the
LRT. One of the other aspects of LRT that the Commission has
advocated is that as part of any possible station location that
would occur at this intersection, there would also be constructed
a pedestrian bridge over University Avenue. He thought that
opportunity still exists. He had some concerns about the proposal
as presented. He thought the setback requirements being eased,
specifically on Mississippi Street and University Avenue, are a
little difficult to deal with, primarily from the standpoint that
if the 15 ft. setback along Mississippi Street is acceptable, an
easement for LRT parking will also have to be provided, with the
possibility that additional parking spaces would be constructed
along Mississippi Street which would bring the setback down to 5-
10 feet from the curb. He did not like the idea of all that
pavement and concrete, especially at this intersection.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he has visited and shopped at the Calhoun
Center that the developer has constructed and owns. It is a very
nice center. The company has done a nice job with their
properties. The center is maintained, and that center is leased
100%.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he is a little concerned about the additional
truck traffic to the service drive around the back of the building
and dumpsters that are located in back. He stated this is a good
project, and it would be well suited to this site if the LRT
� question was not a concern. But, it is a concern; and he felt it
might be prudent for the Commission to try to resolve the issue of
�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 18
the LRT before making a recommendation for the development of this
property for commercial/retail use.
Mr. Dahlberg stated the neighbors have responded both positively
and negatively to the idea of a park and ride lot; and it is his
interpretation that the neighbors would rather see a park and ride
lot than a retail center.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City
Council denial of rezoning request, ZOA #90-02, by Urban Commercial
Developers and Fridley Town Square Associates to rezone three
separate parcels as follows: Lot 9, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace
Plat 1 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment
District, the same being 355 Mississippi Street N.E.; AND Lot 12,
Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2 from R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 368 - 66th
Avenue AT.E.; AND Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace
Plat 1, except the South 30 feet thereof, according to the recorded
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16,
Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2, according to the recorded plat
thereof one file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, and C-1, Local Business, to S-2, Redevelopment District,
^ the same being 6525 University Avenue N.E.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, RONDRICR VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Dacy stated that on May 7, the City Council will set the public
hearing for May 21. Everyone will be renotified of that meeting.
Chairperson Betzold declared a 15 minute break at 10:00 p.m.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P.S.
#90-02. MICHAEL SERVETUS 2ND ADDITION BY KATE KEMPER FOR THE
MICHAEL SERVETUS UNITARIAN SOCIETY:
Being a replat of Outlot A, Michael Servetus Addition, to
create four separate lots, generally located at 980 - 67th
Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:15
P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated this request is being made by Kate Kemper and
Phyllis Forsberg who are co-chairing the building committee for the
°"� Michael Servetus Unitarian Church. The plat is just one of three
requests that are interrelated. The Planning Commission will also
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 19
- consider a vacation of an existing street right-of-way and a
special use permit for a church expansion in R-1 zoning.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located approximately at the
what would be the intersection of Oakley Drive and 67th Avenue.
The first Michael Servetus Addition was platted in 1973. At that
time, eight lots were created, four which abut 68th Avenue, and
four which abut 67th Avenue. At the same time, right-of-way for
67th Avenue was dedicated, although 67th Avenue is not extended
within the right-of-way at this time.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed plat will create three single
family residential lots adjacent to the 67th Avenue right-of-way
and will create one lot of approximately 47,000 sq. ft. for the
church expansion. In addition, the City is requesting that 60 feet
of right-of-way be dedicated to preserve any future extension of
Oakley Drive. This is relation to potential future Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) projects which will occur in
conjunction to the improvement of Highway 65. These potential
projects include the closing of the median crossing at 63rd Avenue
and 73 1/2 Avenue. At the same time, within their five year
capital improvement plan, MnDOT is planning to upgrade the
intersections at 73rd Avenue and Mississippi Street.
^ Ms. McPherson stated the Mississippi Street improvement will
include the improvement of the signals at Mississippi/Highway 65,
construction of a median on the left side of the intersection. If
MnDOT completes the median construction, this will prevent any
access from people traveling southbound on Brookview to access
Mississippi Street to go eastbound. The City Council could decide
not to use the right-of-way if it is determined that this entire
neighborhood can leave the area by other means. However, if the
City Council decides to connect Oakley Drive with 67th Avenue, it
would serve three purposes for the City:
(1) It would provide two means of access into and out of the
neighborhood, especially in emergency situations where
one street becomes blocked.
(2) It would provide easier maintenance. A through street
is easier to plow than two cul-de-sac streets.
(3) It would complete the overall traffic pattern for the
neighborhood.
Ms. McPherson stated that if the City Council deems it is not
necessary to preserve the right-of-way, they could choose to vacate
the right-of-way, and there would then be the opportunity to create
an eighth lot within the vacated right-of-way. Approximately 15
feet from the park land would be needed to allow the lot to meet
'� the minimum lot width.
''�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 20
-- Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to the street issues, the
utilities in the area will be installed to serve the three proposed
residential lots. The water main in the area will be looped within
the Oakley Drive right-of-way and through 67th Avenue. This will
prevent a stagnant water line and will provide water feed from two
directions for the new houses. In addition, sewer services will
be installed to serve both the three new lots and the four lots
previously platted in 1973, and 67th Avenue will also be extended
within the existing right-of-way to serve those new lots.
�
r--�
Ms. McPherson stated that within this area, there is an issue of
peaty soils. Staff has records of soil borings from 1958 and 1967.
Within the areas where there might be future houses, there is
between 2-5 feet of peat. Staff is recommending there be
restrictive covenants filed against the three new lots in order to
provide information to future buyers that there might be increased
costs in building homes on these lots because of soil correction
measures that will be required.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the P.S. #90-02 with four
stipulations:
1. A park fee of $1,500 per lot for three residential lots
shall be paid at the time of building permit ($4,500
total).
2. The petitioner
improvements (67t
sewer extension).
shall petition for the proposed
h Avenue extension, water main loop,
3. The vacation request, SAV #90-01, be approved.
4. Restrictive covenants regarding the need for soil
correction shall be recorded against Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Block 1, Michael Servetus, 2nd Addition.
Mr. Saba stated this area is a wetland area. Why isn't
environmental assessment statement needed?
Ms. Dacy stated the amount of lots to be created is below the
threshold required by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
Staff realizes that there are poor soils on the site. To the west
First Western Development, as part of their wetland mitigation
requirement for their development at 85th Avenue, is proposing to
create a wetland in Meadowlands Park. The City originally approved
a plat for eight lots in 1973. Staff has determined that the
creation of three additional lots is not going to have an adverse
impact as far as the environment is concerned; it is more of a
"buyer beware�� situation in that the buyers must be aware that they
will have to correct the soil problems prior to building homes.
�
n
n
PLANNINa CONIl�lI88ION MEETINa� APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 21
Mr. Saba stated the Comprehensive Plan talks extensively about
protecting the wetlands, and the creation of three more lots in a
wetland area is a concern ta him.
Ms. Sherek asked what impact a through street would have on
Meadowlands Park.
Ms. Dacy stated that cars going by on a street would not
significantly impact the wetland. The street would be well outside
the ordinary high water mark of the wetland that First Western is
considering. The other impact would be the run-off. Bad soils
would have be removed and replaced with good soils and the area
resodded and revegetated so it would be a one time intrusion if the
street is constructed.
Mr. Saba stated he is concerned that the City has lost enough
wetland areas in its natural state. And, now is another wetland
area that will be disrupted, and he had problems with that.
Mr. Betzold asked if the petitioner had any problems with the
stipulations.
Ms. Kemper stated the stipulations were acceptable to them.
Ms. Sandy Peterson, 6790 Brookview Drive, asked how the storm sewer
system would be assessed.
Ms. Dacy stated the storm sewer system will be constructed to
handle the run-off from 67th Avenue and from the parking lot for
the expansion of the church and the development of the three new
lots. Any utilities which directly benefit abutting properties are
the ones assessed.
Mr. Arthur Medeck, 6770 Brookview Drive, stated he is on the corner
of Brookview and 67th Avenue. He was concerned about whether he
would be assessed for the storm sewer system.
Ms. Christine Gerrety, 1051 - 67th Avenue, stated they have already
paid for a storna sewer system.
Ms. Dacy stated she would be glad to check and see if any of the
homeowners on 67th Avenue would be assessed �for the storm sewer
system.
Dr. Ken Vos, 990 - 68th Avenue, stated one month after he moved
into his home in 1974, the church wanted to assess all eight lots
in that first addition for a storm sewer. A public hearing was
held, and the neighbors convinced them not to do that. So, he did
not think they ever were assessed for a storm sewer system.
Dr. Vos stated that regarding the lot directly behind his house on
67th, the reason the lot did not sell is because there is the need
PLANNING_COMMISBION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 22
� -
� for a lift station for sewer, so there is the concern about how
much it is going to cost to develop this land.
Dr. Vos stated when he built his home, he had a buildable clause
in the contract. By the time, he finished building, he had dug
out 19 feet of peat, so 5 feet of peat might be a minimum.
Dr. Vos stated he felt this plat request is directly tied together
with the vacation request. The reason the church wanted to put the
lots in like that is to keep Oakley Drive open. He would recommend
the Planning Commission not recommend approval of this plat. He
just did not think this is the best plat for this property.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if any other arrangement for a plat had been
considered.
Ms. Kate Kemper stated that their architect, the City, and other
experts have concluded that this is the best arrangement to
maximize the best use of the property. This is not only the best
way to arrange the pieces, but also the only economical way,
because of the bad soil conditions.
Mr. Betzold agreed that because the plat request and vacation
request are tied so closely together, they should also discuss the
^ vacation request during this public hearing on the plat.
- 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REOUEST SAV #90 O1 BY KATE
KEMPER FOR THE MICHAEL SERVETUS UNITARIAN SOCIETY:
To vacate Oakley Drive as dedicated in the plat of Michael
Servetus Addition, generally located west of 980 - 67th Avenue
N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated this vacation request is to vacate the Oakley
Drive cul-de-sac (or bubble) that was originally dedicated within
the 1973 Michael Servetus addition. The vacation will eliminate
the extra pie shape, should the proposed Oakley Drive dedication
be platted over it. This will allow the church to use the standard
90 degree angle lot at that corner, instead of having the "bubble"
of right-of-way. By vacating the cul-de-sac, they can dedicate new
right-of-way as an extension of the existing Oakley Drive right-
of-way.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission
recommend approval of this vacation. Procedurally, the vacation
would be recorded by the County prior to the recording of the plat,
should be plat be approved.
Mr. William Doyle, 6551 Oakley Drive, stated the neighbors applaud
the Michael Servetus Church on their efforts to upgrade their
property. However, the neighbors� significant opposition to the
�^� plan focuses on one aspect, and that is the plan to extend Oakley
� Drive. Mr. Doyle presented to the Commission a petition stating
PLANNINa COI�IISSION MEETINa� APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 23
�
__ that Oakley Drive not be extended as requested by the Michael
Servetus Unitarian Society. He stated this petition was signed by
the residents on Oakley Drive, residents on Brookview Drive, and
relative residents on Mississippi Street.
�
Mr. Doyle stated it had not been too many years ago when the City
of Fridley was interested in extending Oakley Drive. At that point
in time, the residents unanimously opposed that plan. He believed
they were opposed then for the same reasons they are opposed to the
extension now, and he believed they would be opposed to any
extension in the future.
Mr. Doyle stated the primary issue is the extension of Oakley Drive
because of the potential impact to their residential environment.
Their primary concern is that if the street is extended
approximately 50 feet, that would dramatically increase the
probability that at a future time the street would be extended all
the way to the cul-de-sac at 67th.
Mr. Doyle stated the neighbors� concerns include the following:
1. The resulting increase in traffic will dramatically
change the neighborhood of Oakley Drive. Those who are
currently living there purchased the property because of
the quiet environment and cul-de-sac or dead end street.
The fundamental nature that is important to them and
their environment would be lost.
2. They believe that the increased traffic that will result
would lower the value of their properties. Again, they
purchased their properties because of that fundamental
nature of the neighborhood; and when that fundamental
nature is changed, the pool of potential buyers for these
properties shrinks, and the end result is the property
values go down for this particular neighborhood.
3. Their street is currently 30 feet wide. That meets the
minimum standard in the City of Fridley. Currently, if
there is a car parked on either side of the street, there
is not enough room for two-way traffic. So, if the
traffic increases dramatically, they predict that at some
point in time there will then be the need to widen Oakley
Drive. Because of their front yard setbacks, this again
would have a very negative impact on their environment.
Mr. Doyle stated they feel that the above changes are significant
and that there are no positives that would come out of extending
Oakley Drive. Consequently, they are opposing the extension of
Oakley Drive, even though they would like to see the church
�"`� property upgraded. If an extension of oakley Drive is required,
!"'�
�
PLANNINa COI��iISBION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 24
the door will be opened much wider for a future extension of Oakley
Drive to 67th Avenue.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive Petition
No. 4-1990.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(�i AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Jerry Burns, 6530 Oakley Drive, stated he is mainly concerned
about the increased traffic if Oakley Drive is extended.
Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated that about five
years ago, the City tried to open up Oakley Drive, and the
neighborhood was opposed to it. They are now back again with the
same argument. This is really not buildable land, and the
neighborhood should not have to put up with more grief than they
already have. He would like to see the church upgraded, but leave
Oakley Drive alone. He suggested the church use Lot 3 as a
driveway back to 67th Avenue. He did not want the church accessing
onto oakley Drive.
Mr. James Tauer, 6430 Oakley Drive, stated that looking at the
amount of peat that would have to be removed and the fact that this
r.,,� is a wetland area, he did not think it was practical for the City
T to pursue any kind of extension of oakley Drive.
Ms. Diane Miller, 953 Mississippi Street, stated that if Oakley
Drive does go all the way through, who would pay the taxes for the
widening and improvements?
Ms. Dacy stated the reservation of the 60 ft. right-of-way is
basically preserving options for the City Council to take. If it
is determined that the Council wants to connect the two cul-de-
sacs, they will have an assessment hearing to determine the
benefitting properties. At this point, that analysis has not been
done.
Mr. Doyle stated he did not think it is very astute to assess
homeowners who are radically opposed to the extension. He did not
see how the City Council can even consider the extension as a
feasible alternative.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND T8E PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT
11s05 P.M.
�"� Mr. Saba stated he has problems with abandoning the City's right-
- of-way. He agreed that it does create problems and disrupt the
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 25
,,,,,� -
- existing neighborhood on Oakley Drive. There doesn't appear to be
any easy solution. He is not totally against the replat, but he
did have some problems with it and would have to vote against the
vacation request.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would also vote against the vacation.
Ms. Dacy stated that if the Planning Commission recommends to deny
the vacation request to vacate the cul-de-sac, the cul-de-sac is
still there. But, if the Planning Commission recommends to approve
the plat, there would still be a reserved right-of-way and a cul-
de-sac. So, there could possibly still be a street connection with
or without the vacation.
Mr. Dahlberg agreed. He stated the plat could occur without the
vacation and allow the church access from 67th in the street right-
of-way, if that is something the church representatives would be
willing to accept. It would allow them to plat, get their three
single family lots, have access to their property over a City
right-of-way, and not make it necessary to extend Oakley Drive to
67th Avenue. So, the Commission has to look at these two requests
in the order presented to them--first the plat, then the vacation.
Ms. Sherek suggested that in the stipulations recommended by staff
,� for the plat, they should delete stipulation #3: "The vacation
_ request, SAV #90-01, be approved." They should then add a
stipulation that says: "Access to the church parking lot will be
from 67th Avenue."
Mr. Saba stated he is still concerned about the fact that any time
soil corrections are made, funny things happen to the filtering of
water and the flow of water. He would like to see the church be
able to make their improvements, and he had no major problems with
the plat, but he just did not like to see wetlands disturbed.
Ms. Dacy stated that if the Commission's action is to recommend
the driveway within the proposed street dedication area, then staff
would recommend a stipulation that the petitioner work out an
agreement with the City as far as liability and maintenance of that
driveway. •
Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought maybe there is a compromise that
can be reached relative to access to the church property from 67th
Avenue rather than from Oakley Drive to the south. However, he saw
more value in connecting Oakley Drive to 67th Avenue than not,
especially in light of the median construction proposed on
Mississippi Street. Not necessarily from the standpoint of
allowing the neighborhood to have access to Mississippi Street and
T.H. 65, but from the standpoint of allowing emergency vehicles to
get to residents more quickly.
�^�,
�,
n
/"1
a�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING� APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 26
Mr. Doyle stated that Jackson Street is two blocks to the west of
Oakley Drive, and it goes north from Mississippi to 67th Avenue.
Ms. Sherek stated she thought they need to reserve the right-of-
way but find an alternative means for access.
Ms. Kate Kemper stated that the church cannot afford to put in a
driveway from 67th Avenue. It is a long piece of property, and it
has bad soils. Access from Oakley Drive to the south is much
shorter.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that legally the City cannot deny the church
access to Oakley Drive because their property fronts on the public
right-of-way.
Mr. Betzold stated that Mr. Dahlberg certainly raised a valid point
that because the church fronts public right-of-way, it would be
pretty difficult for the City to deny them access.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City
Council approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #90-02, Michael Servetus
2nd Addition, by Kate Kemper for the Michael Servetus Unitarian
Society, being a replat of outlot A, Michael Servetus Addition, to
create four separate lots, generally located at 980 - 67th Avenue
N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. A park fee of $1,500 per lot for three residential lots
shall be paid at the time of building permit ($4,500
total).
2. The petitioner shall petition for the proposed
improvements (67th Avenue extension, water main loop,
sewer extension).
4. Restrictive covenants regarding the need for soil
correction shall be recorded against Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Block 1, Michael Servetus, 2nd Addition.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to recommend to
City Council denial of Vacation Request, SAV #90-01, by Kate Kemper
for the Michael Servetus Unitarian Society, to vacate Oakley Drive
as dedicated in the plat of Michael Servetus Addition, generally
located west of 980 - 67th Avenue N.E.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD DOTING NAY, CHAIRPER30N BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED.
PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETINa� APRIL 2S. 1990 PAGE 27
�", —
�- 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#90-05, BY KATE KEMPER FOR THE MICHAEL SERVETUS UATITARIAN
SOCIETY:
Per Section 205.07.01.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code to allow
the expansion of a church in a residential district, on Outlot
A, Michael Servetus Addition, generally located at 980 - 67th
Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLAR�D
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC BEARING OPEN AT 11:25 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the Michael Servetus Unitarian Society is
proposing to extend their existing facility. In addition to the
church expansion, the church is planning to construct a 50-car
parking lot which will form an "L" around the buildings, and they
are proposing to relocate the access to Oakley Drive from 67th
Avenue.
Ms. McPherson stated the relocation of the driveway will impact,
instead of approximately six homes as it does now on 67th Avenue,
approximately 10 homes on Oakley Drive. Since the church has a
� small membership of approximately 43 members, the potential Sunday
service traffic which occurs at 10:30 a.m. will be minimal.
� Approximately 20-30 cars would use Oakley Drive to get to the
church. They are proposing to expand the sanctuary from its
current seating of 54 to approximately 84.
Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to the Sunday services, they
do have occasional evening meetings during the week at which 2-3
cars may be in the parking lot. They sometimes rent their
facilities for weddings, funerals, etc.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a landscape plan
to which staff has recommended some minor changes. Staff has
recommended that a grading and drainage plan be approved in order
to ensure that there is adequate detention and retention on site
of stormwater. The relocation of the access to the church will be
an impact; however, it will be a minimal impact as the church is
not a very large entity within the neighborhood, and the proposed
expansion of the church will improve and enhance the existing
building. The parking facilities will be more than adequate to
handle the proposed use of the site.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request
with two stipulations:
� l. A grading plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance
- of a building permit.
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 28
2. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that since the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the vacation request, that cul-de-sac remains in its
existing state; therefore, any proposed modifications in terms of
the parking lot will have to meet setback requirements to the cul-
de-sac. That means the plan as submitted does not conform.
Ms. McPherson stated that is correct. The plan will have to be
modified in order to meet the zoning code requirements.
Mr. Dahlberg stated it is possible to make those modifications with
some minor adjustments. They could eliminate a few parking spaces
and still access the cul-de-sac in the same location.
Ms. Kemper stated she thought they would be comfortable with that.
She stated it is their desire to make the sanctuary handicapped
accessible, more Sunday School space and fellowship space, preserve
the historic part of the building, and make their building more
attractive. She stated they have a membership of 43 families so
the impact in terms of traffic will be minuscule.
r,� Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated that it seems
their petition is not even being considered. The church is being
� allowed to do whatever they please, and the church does not even
pay taxes. Who will pay for the extension of Oakley Drive to their
property?
Ms. Kemper stated the church will be paying for the water main loop
and the extension to Oakley Drive.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE PIIBLIC BEARING CLOSED AT
11545 P.M.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he felt it is impossible for the City to not
allow a property owner to access a street if the property fronts
on a public right-of-way; however, he would still encourage them
to consider access from 67th Avenue. With some minor modifications
to the parking lot, they can meet the setback requirements. The
neighbors did seem to be in favor of the church making
improvements, and he saw this as a definite improvement to the
overall neighborhood. He stated he thought the Michael Servetus
Unitarian Church will continue to be a good neighbor, and he could
see no reason to deny the special use permit.
,�
- Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Dahlberg.
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 29
,�
Mr. Betzold stated it is regrettable that this special use permit
had to get wrapped up in some other issues. He stated the Michael
Servetus Church has certainly been a good citizen�of Fridley, and
he would vote to recommend approval of the special use permit.
MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to
City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #90-05, by Kate
Kemper for the Michael Servetus Unitarian Society, per Section
205.07.01.C.(2) of the Fridley City Code to allow the expansion of
a church in a residential district, on Outlot A, Michael Servetus
Addition, generally located at 980 - 67th Avenue N.E., with the
following stipulations:
1. A grading plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
2. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
3. The site plan be modified to reflect the requirements
for parking setbacks and number of parking stalls as
required by City code.
� IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY.
Ms. Dacy stated that on May 7, the City Council will establish a
public hearing for the plat, vacation, and special use permit for
May 21, 1990.
4. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REOUEST L.S. #90-01 BY ROGER
AND MYRA HANSON•
To split off the southeasterly 90 feet of Lot 8, Block 2,
Moore Lake Hills Addition, to create a separate single family
lot, generally located at 6065 Central Avenue N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are requesting that
approximately 94 feet of Lot 8, Block 2, be split off to create a
buildable single family lot. The property is currently zoned R-1,
Single Family Dwelling, and there is an existing single family home
on the lot. Mr. and Mrs. Hanson reside in this home at the present
time. The new lot will front on Woody Lane.
Ms. McPherson stated that there are some drainage issues staff has
asked the petitioners to consider, and they have submitted a
preliminary drainage plan. The existing lot changes dramatically
in topography across the width of the lot and across the depth of
the lot. Staff is concerned with the drainage issue for the new
lot on Woody Lane, as the run-off from the new dwelling unit will
/'� impact the adjacent neighbor to the south. The preliminary
- drainage plan would create a swale along the south property line
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 25. 1990 PAGE 30
�
- along the existing dwelling which will allow the drainage to be
directed toward Central Avenue instead of to the adjacent neighbor.
In conjunction with the lot split, there would be a drainage and
utility easement reserved along the south property line for
maintenance of the swale.
Ms. McPherson stated another issue staff is concerned about is that
by allowing the lot split, a nonconforming lot would be created for
the existing dwelling unit. The rear yard setback has been
calculated at 25� of the lot depth. For the new lot for the
existing home, the lot depth would be approximately 36 feet. As
proposed, the new lot line would create a year yard setback of 29
feet, which would create a nonconforming situation.
Ms. McPherson stated that due to the fact that this lot split would
create a nonconforming lot, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend denial of the lot split. However, if the
Planning Commission does choose to approve the lot split and
acknowledges the setback variance for the existing dwelling, staff
recommends the following five stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall move the existing chain link fence
from its current location to a location closer to the new
lot line.
�~ 2. The petitioner shall install erosion control structures
- (silt fence with hay bales) while the new dwelling is
under construction.
3. The swale to be constructed along the south property line
of the existing house shall be revegetated as c�,uickly as
possible.
4. The petitioner shall maintain the swale for one year
after construction.
5. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time of the
building permit issuance.
Mr. Roger Hanson stated he and his wife moved to Fridley three
years ago from Texas. They like Fridley and want to stay in
Fridley. His wife works at Totino Grace High School, so this is
an ideal location for them. He stated his wife has health problems
and cannot climb stairs. Their present house has stairs, and that
is why they want to build a new house on the new lot. They have
no objections to any of the stipulations. He has done a lot of
work terracing the property now to help stop erosion problems. He
stated he has polled all the neighbors who adjoin their property,
and no one has objected to this lot split.
�
��
PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEETINa� APRIL 25, 1990 PAGE 31
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City
Council approval Lot Split request, L.S. #90-01, by Roger and Myra
Hanson, to split off the southeasterly 90 feet of Lot 8, Block 2,
Moore Lake Hills Addition, to create a separate single family lot,
generally located at 6065 Central Avenue N.E., with the knowledge
that by approving this lot split, they are creating a nonconforming
use on the original lot, and subject to the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall move the existing chain link fence
from its current location to a location closer to the new
lot line.
2. The petitioner shall install erosion control structures
(silt fence with hay bales) while the new dwelling is
under construction.
3. The swale to be constructed along the south property line
of the existing house shall be revegetated by November
1, 1990.
4. The petitioner shall maintain the swale for one year
after construction.
� 5. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time of the
building permit issuance.
IIPON A DOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
5. RECE_IVE THE APRIL 5. 1990 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSIOld MINUTES•
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
April 5, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
6. RECEIVE THE APRIL 10 1990 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the
April 10, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING APRIL 25. 1-990 PAGE 32
�
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the
meeting. IIpon a voice vote, Chairperson Betzold declared the
motion aarried and the April 25, 1990, Planniaq Commission meetinq
adjourned at 12s15 a.m.
Respectfully submi ed,
���
yn Saba
Recording Secretary
%�,
�
�'^,
F�
n
�
8 I a N- IN B H 8 E T
PLANNING COMMIf38ION MEETIN(3, APril 25, 1990
-c��
�j-i��
7 -°�
i - �� �
>�
�
%',
�
B I Q N- IN 8 H E E T
PLANNING COMMISBION MEETIN(�i, April 25, 19J0
�
�
�
8 I G N- IN 8 H$ E T
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING, April 25, 1990
8 I Q N- IN B H E E T
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETIN(3, April 25, 1990
�
/"`�