Loading...
PL 09/21/1994 - 30796� � pl CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Newman called the September 21, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, Dean Saba Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig LeRoy Oquist, Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michelle McPherson, Planning Assistant Michelle and Monte Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. John Rice, Jr., 8041 Riverview Terrace Chris Hamlin, Asst. Manager, Wal-Mart, 8450 University Avenue John Tiller, 1538 Gardena Avenue N.E. Bailey Tiller, 1535 Gardena Avenue N.E. Jerome Tiller, 1555 Gardena Avenue N.E. Dave Tiller Kathy O'Connell, Combs, Frank, Roos & Associates Paul Carlson, Close & Associates APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the September 7, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. � 1. (Tables 9/7/94) PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #94-12, BY MONTE AND MICHELLE MAHER: Per Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the flood fringe district on Lots 16 - 21 with exceptions, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public f,� hearing. T"1 PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 2 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. ; Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Cheryl Street and Riverview Terrace. The property is zoned R- 1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all of the surrounding parcels. The purpose of the special use permit is to allow construction of an addition to a dwelling located in the flood fringe district. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 26 foot x 40 foot addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. The petitioner also requested a reduction in the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 30 feet based on the depth of the property. The Appeals Commission reviewed the variance request at their August 23, 1994, meeting and approved the reguest. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed addition will contain three bedrooms and a bath, and is proposed to be one story in height. The existing dwelling is 1-1/2 stories. The flood fringe district requires the first floor elevation of all habitable living spaces be a minimum of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation which is 823.0 feet above sea level. An elevation certificate will be required by the petitioner prior to the foundation being capped. Basements are not permitted in this district; however, a crawl space under the addition would be permitted. Staff reviewed the �1 elevation certificate for 7995 Riverview Terrace, which is the property directly north of the subject parcel and which included the first floor elevation of existing dwelling of the petitioner. The petitioners' dwelling is currently 821.8 feet above sea level; therefore, the addition would need to step up 2.2 feet. The elevation certification is to verify the minimum first floor elevation. Ms. McPherson stated the flood fringe district regulations also require that any fill needed to elevate this addition extend a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed addition. This will change the existing grading and drainage patterns on the property. The petitioner will be required to submit a grading plan and a erosion control plan prior to the issuance of the building permit. Riverview Terrace is proposed to be upgraded in the future and is also used for flood control measures. The Engineering Department has requested a 15-foot flood control and street easement along the east side of Riverview Terrace adjacent to the existing westerly property line. Ms. McPherson stated staff's recommends approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the �� minimum first floor elevation is 824.0 feet. �'"� PLANNING COMMISSION NlEETING� SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 3 2. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. � 3. The petitioner shall dedicate a 15-foot flood control and street easement along the Riverview Terrace property line. Mr. Oquist stated, in looking at the footprint, there is 27 feet from Riverview Terrace to the addition. Is the City taking 15 feet of that distance? Ms. McPherson stated this will be an easement as opposed to dedicated right-of-way. It allows the City use, but it does not take it in fee simple. Mr. Oquist stated, at some point, the City can use it and that makes the distance 12 feet. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Because the front yard is actually Cheryl Street, this is the side corner which can be as short as 17.5 feet so it does not necessarily put the property into nonconformity. Mr. Maher stated he questioned the height of the property above sea level. He shot a line from the fire plug which indicated his '�� property was at the proper level. He is 4 inches above the level of the fire plug. Ms. McPherson stated, according to the elevation certificate submitted by the neighbor for his property, the existing dwelling for the petitioner is at 821.8 feet above sea level which is 2.2 feet lower than the 100-year requirement. The petitioner can have a surveyor come out and check the height. This is not a concern for the existing dwelling but rather concern about the addition. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any objections from the neighbors. Mr. Maher stated there were none of which he was aware. The neighbors know about their plans. The neighbor next door was at the meeting, but he was not aware they had done the survey. Ms. Savage asked if there were any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Maher stated they had no objections except showing the elevation. They had planned for the City to come by and inspect. They did not want to spend the additional dollars for a surveyor, but they will do it i� it is required. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any phone calls. ,� Ms. McPherson stated the City had received no calls. f'�, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 4 Ms . Maher stated she thought the neighbors who were at the last meeting attended out of curiosity because they are interested in the process. That was their only know�.edge of the people attending the meeting. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON lsi VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEAMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(i CLOSED AT 7t45 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he had no problems with the request. Mr. Kondrick agreed. The only area of concern is to learn for sure the correct elevation and to clarify the language as to how this will be done. Mr. Oquist stated, from the information we have at hand, he thought the stipulation would stand. Mr. Newman stated the�certificate is required by ordinance. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #94-12, by Monte and Michelle �"'� Maher, to allow construction in the�flood fringe district on Lots - 16 - 21 with exceptions, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum first floor elevation is 824.0 feet. 2. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The petitioner shall dedicate a 15-foot flood control and street easement along the Riverview Terrace property line. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item would be reviewed by the City Council on October 3rd. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-13, BY JOHN RICE JR : Per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet; and per �-� Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of an accessory structure in the flood fringe ;� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 3EPTEMBER 21. 1994 PAGE 5 district, on Lots 19 - 22, Block U, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8041 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:48 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel is located at the intersection of Riverview Terrace and Ely Street. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the surrounding parcels. The request is a two-part request. First, the petitioner wishes to build a second accessory structure measuring 26 feet x 30 feet. Second, the accessory structure is to be built in the flood fringe district. The petitioner also applied for a variance to reduce the set back from 30 feet to 19 feet in order to line up the proposed accessory structure with the side of the.existing dwelling. The Appeals Commission reviewed the request at its September 13, 1994, and unanimously approved the request. Ms. McPherson stated that located on the property is a single family dwelling with a 19 foot x 24 foot attached garage. The �`�� proposed accessory structure is over 240 square feet; therefore, a special use permit is required. The petitioner intends to store vehicles and miscellaneous items within the structure. Because vehicles will be stored in the structure, a hard surface driveway is required. Typically, the City required the structure be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated, in order to allow construction in a flood fringe district, accessory structures are permitted if a special use permit is issued. Unlike habitable living space, they are permitted to be constructed below the regulatory flood elevation if they are properly flood proofed in accordance with the current regulations. Ms. McPherson stated the City has typically required the petitioner to execute and record against the property a hold-harmless agreement to release the City from any liability as a result of the special use permit issuance. Ms. McPherson stated Riverview Terrace is currently used as a flood control structure and is anticipated to be reconstructed in the near future. The Engineering Department is attempting to acquire the necessary easements to accomplish this goal. In the 1960's, the City previously condemned easements along the westerly property lines of the properties adjacent to Riverview Terrace. There is �, a four-foot easement along the majority of the westerly property line already. The Engineering Department has requested an ""^ PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING� 3EPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 6 additional 11-foot flood control street and utility easement along the west property line. Ms. McPherson stated the City currently does not have on file a current survey showing the property and the location of dwelling plus the condemned and proposed easements. Staff is requesting that the petitioner submit a current property survey showing these items. Ms . McPherson stated the request does not adversely impact adj acent properties and it meets the requirements of the R-1 district with the exception of the variance granted by the Appeals Commission. Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by October 3, 1995. 2. The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. 3. The accessory structure shall be flood-proofed in accordance with current regulations. � 4. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property � a hold-harmless agreement indemnifying the City from liability should flood damage to the structure occur. 5. The petitioner shall dedicate a 11-foot flood control street and utility easement along the west property line. 6. The petitioner shall submit a current property survey showing the existing condemnation area, as well as the requested 11- foot flood control street and utility easement. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any objections from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated staff had not received any calls regarding this request. Mr. Rice stated stipulation #3 stated the structure shall be flood proofed in accordance with current regulations. Then the City wants him to execute a hold-harmless agreement against the property. The structure needs to be flood proofed. If it gets flooded, what does he need an agreement for? Mr. Newman stated the hold-harmless agreement is for the City. If something happens to it, then he or future owners cannot come back to the City and say, because the City allowed the structure to be built in a flood plain, the City should compensate the owner for ,� any loss. ;� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 7 Mr. Rice stated he cannot go along with the last stipulation to submit a current property survey. This is another expense that he �annot go along with. All the stakes are there on the property lines. He called the City and the reason they want the easement is to put in a north/south storm sewer. He just wants to make sure he does not have a road 10 feet from his window. Ms. Savage explained the Commission might not be able to approve the request unless he as petitioner is willing to abide by the stipulations. Mr. Rice stated he did not see why he has to spend additional money for a survey to build a garage. Mr. Kondrick asked what Mr. Rice felt was wrong with the stip�lation. Mr. Rice stated he felt he was being asked to spend excess dollars needlessly. The City is asking for an easement and also asking him to survey the property to show he is giving them the easement. And he has to spend the extra $500-$600. Ms. McPherson stated the last stipulation came as a request from the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department has a �� concern that the surve that is in the Y packet is not a true reflection of the conditions in the field today, and the City should have a current property survey on file. The City has old surveys in many address files. In some instances, there are no surveys. In that case, the City tells the property owners that they should acquire a survey. It is the purvitw of the Commission to decide if this request is reasonable or unreasonable. Mr. Saba asked, if the Engineering Department is concerned about the property lines, can the City go out with a transit and check the posts. Ms. McPherson stated this is correct. The City does have a survey crew that can go out and locate those posts. Mr. Rice stated he would think the City would survey before they put in a sewer. Ms. Dacy stated the property owners typically assume those responsibilities for the reason that the surveyor is certifying the lot lines are located in the right spot and they are signing off that this is an accurate representation of what is in the field. Staff are concerned that they do not have a registered surveyor on staff. If one of our employees made a mistake, the property owner and/or other owners could came back to the City. °`� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING SEPTSMHER 21, 1994 PAGE 8 Mr. Kondrick asked if is there is any way of knowing that, since this property is already recorded, there is an accurate survey of this already. Ms. Dacy stated she has not spoken specifically to the Public Works Department. The survey on file is dated March, 1959. She does not know if the irons are still there. With the condemnation, there was probably a description for that four-foot area. The Commission can eliminate that stipulation if they feel it is not appropriate. Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioner how long he had lived at this location. Mr. Rice stated he has lived there since 1989. The proposed garage is within the irons for the property. Mr. Newman asked if staff is concerned with where the structure is located. Ms. McPherson stated the concern is that the survey we are looking at does not accurately reflect the condemnation area. We do have an as built survey as we would typically require with new construction. The survey is not an up-to-date accurate survey �-.. truly reflecting the property changes since 1959. Mr. Oquist asked if that was true of all properties. His home was built approximately the same time so would he also have to have his property surveyed? Ms. McPherson stated staff would ask the property owner to verify that the property is accurate according to what is on file. Mr. Newman stated this request was not made of the last petitioner. It looks as the City wants the survey for the easements. He did not think it is proper to request this for an accessory structure. If there is an error, he thought they should throw all this out. It looks as t�ough the Public Works Department is looking for a survey to verify the easement. The petitioner is already providing the easement and he was not sure it was fair to ask the petitioner to also verify that easement. Mr. Rice agreed. The other stipulations make sense to him. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOld NEWMAN DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC $EARING CL03ED AT 8:07 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problem with the exception that we have agreed to eliminate the last stipulation. ,'�, PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING� SEPTEMBER 21. 1994 PAGE 9 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #94-13, by John Rice, Jr., to allow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet; and per Section 205.24.04 of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of an accessory structure in the floor fringe district, on Lots 19 - 22, Block U, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8041 Riverview Terrace N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by October 3, 1995. 2. The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. 3. i'The accessory structure shall be flood-proofed in accordance with current regulations. 4. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property a hold-harmless agreement indemnifying the City from liability should flood damage to the structure occur. 5. The petitioner shall dedicate a 11-foot flood control street and utility easement along the west property line. �� Ms. Savage stated she was concerned about the stipulation as to whether it is being asked for in other situations. If it is something that is consistently required, she felt it was okay. There are times the homeowner is required to incur extra cost for a variance or special use permit. If this is a consistent request of staff, she thought we should keep that stipulation. Ms. McPherson stated, typically, under new construction the building inspection department does require a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped. If a person comes in for a variance or special use permit and there is nothing on file, then staff inform the property owner they are required to have a survey so the City has an accurate representation to start from. If there is something on file, oftentimes if the petitioner can verify the conditions are close or accurate, staff allow that survey to stand. In this particular instance, this is the first time this has been requested. There is no precedent. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting on October 3rd. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATIOAT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-14, BY WAL-MART STORESs � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMB$R 21. 1994 PAGE 10 Per Section 205.14.01.C.(13) of the Fridley City Code, to allow the expansion of an existing garden center on Lot 1, Block 1, Wal-Mart in Fridley, the same being 8450 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:10 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated Wal-Mart is located at the intersection of 85th Avenue and University Avenue. The request is to allow the expansion of the existing garden center. The property is zoned C- 2, General Business District. In 1992, the City Council approved a special use permit to allow an outdoor garden center along the easterly facade of the Wal-Mart building. In 1994, the City Council again approved a special use permit to allow a garden center located in the parking lot. As a condition of the special use permit, SP #94-01, the City required Wal-Mart to submit building plans prior to the end of 1994 to expand the garden center which was originally approved in 1992. The original garden center has design elements which are to be included in the expansion. The �'� petitioner has submitted a plan showing a 50 foot x 68 foot expansion just south of the existing garden center. A portion of the existing garden center adjacent to the building wall is enclosed and used during the winter season for temporary storage. The enclosure is of plywood which is painted grey and which is not consistent with the exterior rock face block on the original building. When the City granted the original special use permit, the City did not authorize the use of the garden center space for storage for off-season materials and this activity needs to be discontinued. The proposed garden center expansion will displace four deciduous and one evergreen. These trees should be relocated on site and any needed repairs to the irrigation system should be taken care of. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed garden center does not adversely impact the lot coverage or setback requirements. Some additional items that came up as a result of staff's review include the fact that the petitioner has been using the trailer parking area for storage of pallets and baled cardboard. In addition, the area adjacent to the loading dock is also being used for outdoor storage via the use of 10 dropped trailers. Neither activities are permitted without the issuance of a special use permit. The petitioner was advised in February 1994 regarding similar activities and the petitioner was requested via letter to � discontinue these activities. If additional storage is required, the petitioner should consider expanding the building, which was included as part of the original building planse �� �, PLANNI_NG COMMI33ION MEETING 3EPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 11 Ms. McPherson stated, also as a result of the review, staff observed during the summer t�at the front sidewalk was being used for an outdoor display of products. This activit� is not authorized by code and should not be continued in the future. Ms. McPherson stated the garden center does not adversely impact the site, setback requirements or lot coverage. Staff recommends approved of the request with the following stipulations: 1. No garden center sales shall occur in the parking lot as conducted in 1993. 2. The displaced trees and irrigation shall be replaced/ relocated by the petitioner. 3. 4. The petitioner shall immediately cease the outdoor storage of pallets, baled cardboard, and dropped trailers. The petitioner shall not be permitted to display products on the front sidewalk. 5. The petitioner shall discontinue use of the garden center for storage of off-season merchandise. The garden center shall not be used for the storage of non-garden center items. Mr. Kondrick asked if the City had received a response from Wal- Mart to the City's written objections to those items that were not in compliance. Ms. McPherson stated staff did not have an opportunity this summer to address the display of products. There is a letter in the packet dated February 25, 1994, to Wal-Mart regarding their special use permit application for the parking lot garden center which indicated the City had observed the dropped storage trailers. Staff was informed by Mr. Woodley, the store manager, that these were used for seasonal storage for Christmas merchandise and they were having problems with the company owning the containers to move them in a timely fashion. At that time, they did remove the trailers. Staff has noticed that the trailers have now returned and also that pallets and baled cardboard were also being stored in the parking area where it can be seen from the street. Mr. Newman asked if he was correct in saying that, in summary, the issue is the storage of materials in the garden center and staff in essence is saying they would not do anything if Wal-Mart went through the process. Ms. McPherson stated, if to be a temporary measure �, center, the City would be approved. the garden center in the parking lot was while they expanded the existing garden inclined to recommend approval. This was -"� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 12 Mr. Newman stated the storage issue raised is then different from this. Has staff raised the storage issue with the petitioner? Ms. McPherson stated staff has raised the storage issue of the dropped trailers, pallets and baled cardboard in February. Staff did not realize there was storage in the garden center area until the site review for this request. Mr. Hamlin, Assistant Manager at Wal-Mart, stated he is concerned with the stipulation to cease outdoor storage of pallets, cardboard, and�dropped trailers. At the time they were going through the process for the special use permit, it �as mentioned about the trailers. They did remove the trailers and explained that this was a temporary situation during the Christmas season. At that time, it was their understanding that the trailers would not be allowed unless they were screened from the public right-of- way. They have parked a 6Ja1-Mart trailer first so they consider those to be screened from the public right-of-way when going down University. Last year, Wal-Mart had 28 trailers. This year they will not be receiving as much merchandise. They have committed to have no more than the ones they have now which are parked against the back of the building and which they consider to be screened. Mr. Hamlin stated the bales and pallets have always been outside. �` There is nowhere else to store them. He was not aware of that issue. Mr. Hamlin referred to the temporary wall in the garden center. This is something they had also done last year. This is a necessity for temporary storage for the Christmas season for excess merchandise. They did paint it gray so it matches the side of the store. He was not aware that this was an issue. Ms. Savage stated these are violations of the code and must be resolved. Mr. Hamlin asked what alternatives they had. Storage inside the building is not humanly possible during the Christmas season. Half of all sales are done in the three month Christmas season. It makes it very difficult to store enough merchandise inside. If they were to do that, they would not have enough room to receive new merchandise. Last year, all that merchandise was removed by Christmas. They did have a problem getting the trailers removed in a timely fashion. This year, the trailers will be removed and they have discussed this with the people who brought in trailers that they do need to be removed. Mr. Newman stated one alternative is to add on to the building. The petitioner may have a problem, but other merchants face the ;� same problems. The petitioner may have to face the fact that an addition may need to be constructed. �-.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMHER 21, 1994 PAGE 13 Mr. Hamlin asked the wording of the code. Ms. Dacy read those portions of the code pertaining to outdoor storage. Mr. Hamlin asked if it was possible to obtain a special use permit for that storage. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission has two options. The issue of the off-season storage in the garden center is germane to this request. In terms of the storage to the rear, if Wal-Mart wants to file another application to address that issue, that is fine. In the meantime, however, they must comply with the code. Mr. Newman asked if the special use permit allows the trailers to be stored to the rear of the building. Ms. Dacy stated the special use permit would be required if they are going to store the dropped trailers on an ongoing basis. Staff recommended as a stipulation with this request that they comply with the ordinance. Mr. Hamlin stated there are other trailers stored in the City and that, when they were initially built, had to build a retaining wall �""� to screen anything in the back area. That would be something they could do. Ms. Dacy stated that would be even better. If the company wants to file a special use permit and propose a permanent screen such as nice wall that is fine. Some of the issues are that staff has pointed out the issues to the company when they first went through the permitting process and tried to take extra care on landscaping and design issues on the garden area. Those types of suggestions would be welcome for a permanent screen. We also know that the company did plan for a building addition on the site plan. If these types of problems are occurring, perhaps this should be addressed as soon as possible. Mr. Hamlin stated financially an expansion would not be cost- effective for three months of the year. That is why they run into this issue for a short time of the year. The wall seems to be a good way to go. Mr. Newman stated Wal-Mart could also get a temporary special use permit for the trailers. Parking a Wal-Mart trailer at the end of other.trailers does not qualify as screening.. Mr. Hamlin stated he has a problem with stipulation #5 which addresses the temporary wall as far as storage requirements in the r,,• garden center. ;---. �, PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMHER 21, 1994 PAd$ 14 Ms. Dacy stated this is germane to this request because the special use permit is for the garden center. If he feels the wall is appropriate and wants to allow the storaqe, that is up to the Commission to decide. Mr. Hamlin stated their biggest obstacle is dealing with freight. they get on a daily basis and especially during the Christmas season. Right now, that whole inside area with the temporary wall is filled with toys to have on hand when the peak season hits. It is part of the business. They must have the merchandise on hand and it needs to be stored. They do this in other stores. There is a daily issue of what to do with the merchandise. They need the extra space and have screened the space with a temporary wall. Mr. Newman stated the Commission wants to support businesses. The City has spent a lot of money to enhance the appearance along University Avenue. The impression of people as they pass through the community has improved. Unfortunately, the way Wal-Mart is situated along the street, the loading docks are very visible from the street. The City wants businesses to be successful but are also.concerned about appearance. He recommended sitting down with staff to discuss how to meet the concerns of both. Mr. Hamlin stated he understands the City wanting to keep up appearances and would be happy to discuss this with staff. Mr. Newman suggested the public hearing be continued to the next meeting to allow the petitioner to work with staff. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPER30N NE�MAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:90 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to table discussion of Special Use Permit, SP #94-14, to the next meeting on October 5 to provide an opportunity for the petitioner and staff to discuss the issues further. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMADT DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 4. LOT SPLIT REOUEST L S #94-05 BY JOHN TILLER: To split Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 into two parcels: Parcel A That part of the ,—, Subdivision No. ` ' of the south 17 feet. south half of that part of Lot 20, Auditor's 92, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies north 8 feet of said Lot 20, except the westerly 20 r^`�., PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� SEPTEMBER 21,�1994 PAGE 15 Parcel B That part of the south 178 feet of said Lot 20 lying west of the east 75 feet of said Lot 20. This property is generally located at 1535 Gardena Avenue N.E. Mr. Hickok stated the lot referred to in the report is Auditor's Subdivision 92, Lot 20. In the report, Mr. Bailey Tiller and Mr. John Tiller are mentioned. The three properties are owned by members of the Tiller family. Mr. John Tiller is not a property owner but rather the spokesman for Mr. Bailey Tiller. Mr. Hickok stated the property is located at the northeast corner of Gardena Street and Oakwood Manor. The site was first subdivided in 1964. Prior to that subdivision, Mr. Bailey Tiller owned all of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision 92. Through the subdivision process and later in 1964 the property was divided into the north and south half. At that time, Oakwood Manor was planned but did not extend all the way down to Gardena Avenue so a 20-foot easement was taken from the northern property. In 1965, there was a further subdivision which created two additional lots in the southern half of the development. As staff reviewed the files, staff discovered there is a history that leaves some questions. �'"'� Mr. Hickok stated one question is that, at the time of the 1965 subdivision, these lots were clearly discussed in the minutes. There was not a discussion of A and B necessarily. Through a finding in 1987, staff discovered that the 1965 subdivision was not filed and therefore had run its course beyond the time limits to do so. Staff asked the City to reconsider and to solidify that subdivision. Mr. Hickok stated another question comes with the line between Lots B and C in 1965 and the legal description in 1987 that clearly shows Lot C as a free standing lot and Lot B as an "L" shaped lot. To further complicate matters, in 1966 a 30 foot x 30 foot concrete block garage was built. In 1976, a barn type structure, 10 feet x 12 feet, was also constructed on Lot B. With a legal description that shows Lot B as a contiguous lot, the structures were permitted to be constructed. There was a principal structure on Lot B which was Bailey Tiller's home at the time. Since then, there was a fire and a new home built on Lot B. The petitioner has asked to subdivide to clear up any inaccuracies in the legal description and go back to a free standing lot, as they thought they had in 1965. The subdivision would then appear as it was believed to be subdivided in 1965. Mr. Hickok stated staff reviewed and discussed the issue of the code requirement for accessory structures on a free standing lot. � The code requires that a lot not have accessory structures prior ' to a principal structure. Therein lies the difficulty. It is the petitioner's intent to leave the accessory structures on that site �� PL_ANNING COMMISSION MEETIN(3, SEPTEMBER 21 1994 PAGE 16 until there is a new owner, and it would be the new owner's decision to keep or tear down those structures. That does run contrary to the code, and staff feels there is the poten�ial of limiting the placement of the homes based on the setbacks. There is a stipulation where staff ask that those buildings be removed. Mr. Hickok stated, in light of the history, staff recommend approval of the lot split with the following stipulations: 1. Staff recommends approval of a variance to the lot width requirement of 75 feet to allow the creation of this 74.51 foot wide lot. 2. A verification survey will be required to determine setback distances. 3. All accessory buildings. shall be raised, from the newly created lot, prior to filing the lot split with Anoka County. 4. Lot split #94-05 shall be recorded by October 3, 1995, or prior to transfer of ownership, whichever occurs first. 5. A park dedication fee of $750.00 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for this parcel. i"`� 6. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation of separate sewer and water to accommodate a new residence on the newly created lot. 7. A 20 foot utility easement shall be dedicated, across the Oakwood Manor (west) end of the newly created lot and the lot at the corner of Oakwood Manor and Gardena Street, adjacent to the right-of-way. Mr. Newman asked if the verification survey in stipulation #2 is for the structures on Lot A. Mr. Hickok stated Lot A is a free standing lot and is now under separate ownership. Mr. Newman asked, if we do verification and there is encroachment inside the setback, granting the lot split will not create that. Mr. Hickok stated the verification would provide a very clear description of all four lots. The petitioners did believe that in going through the building permit process that this was the proper setback. With verification of where that structure is, we would also be able to determine a very clear distinction of the four lots and where the homes are placed on those four lots. This would be of benefit to the City and to future oraners. .�� PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING� 3EPTEMBER 21. 1994 PAGE 17 Mr. Oquist asked if the separate sewer and water would be for the lot to be created. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. John Tiller stated his father has been given approval for the lot split. He thinks he is asking for re-approval of something that was already given him. He does not want the stipulations. He just wants to sell the lot as it is. He wishes it would be more open ended. He would like three years to record the lot split so he can take it as his leisure and sell as he gets an opportunity. There would not be pressure to have this done in any specific time. It is his desire to waive the stipulations and approve the original split without the burden placed on him with the stipulations added after the fact. Mr. Oquist asked if the original lot split was approved. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Bailey Tiller came back in 1987 because the 1965 documents were not filed. The legal descriptions given were for the "L" shaped lot and the free standing lot. Mr. Oquist stated the City then did not approve a lot split such as currently being requested. �� Mr. John Tiller stated he believed the lot split was approved but not filed and the time span elapsed. Therefore, he wants to split the other portion facing south. He wanted it for the time that he was ready and he now is ready. Mr. Newman asked if this was consistent. Mr. Hickok stated, in 1964, the north/south split is clear. Discussion about splitting the south portion into C and D was in 1965 and action was taken to create Lots C and D. Historically, the north/south division in 1964 was correct. In 1965, Lots C and D were created and approved. This left B as a piece of property in the center which was later described in 1987 as two lots and the line did not appear. Our assessment data shows that the assessor had B and C as they were described in 1987 as the legal descriptions for those lots. Mr. Newman asked to clarify that the petitioner has the proper split for A, proper split for D, but the records are not clear that B and C were split. Mr. Hickok stated there was a north/south split. Lot A is now a free standing lot. That is what he considers a historical question mark. A building permit was issued for that home in 1965 and was ,,...� recognized as a free standing lot. The question is the recording of the 1965 southern half. In 1987, there was nothing on record ,� !"1 �-, � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 18 showing Lots C and D. That the way it is filed. The petitioner is asking for the description they believed they had in 1965. Mr. Newman asked if there was any record that the petitioner was made aware of the timeline in which the petitioner had to file. Mr. Hickok stated the minutes pertained to the split itself and not the number of lots and there was not a lot of discussion on the time allowed to do so. Basically, there was a split. Mr. Hickok stated he had to assume that when the petitioner went through the process and worked with staff, they would have walked him through the process much as staff does today. Mr. Tiller stated his father was not made aware that he had to do anything specific. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioners had received approval for the buildings. Mr. Hickok stated they received approval in 1966 and 1976 from the building staff. At that time, they looked at the legal description available and approved both on the upper portion of what is Lot B in the 1987 diagram. If a lot is created without a principal structure, then those accessory structures need to be razed. Mr. Tiller stated they received building permits for the accessory structures and the buildings were placed with full knowledge that a house would be built there in the future. Mr. Oquist stated, if the legal description was as seen in 1987, these are accessory structures to the house that was on Lot B. Mr. Tiller stated there was no intent to go that way and he did not know how it happened. Mr. Oquist stated, if the legal description would have been as shown for 1965, the petitioner would not have received a permit for the accessory structures. Mr. Jerry Tiller lives on Lot D on the 1965 drawing. When his father placed the accessory structures, he did so in such a way to leave room for a future house on that lot. Since he did at that time, he didn't think he would now be asked now to raze those same buildings placed strategically in 1965. He does not wish to remove them. The question mark in history is the issue. Mr. Oquist stated the concern is that, if those structures are not razed, someone could buy the lot, not build on it, and use those structures for something else. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The intent is to have a residential use in the R-1 district and not for something else. �, PLANNING_COMNlI83ION MEETING. 3EPTEMBER 21. 1994 PAGE 19 Mr. Oquist asked, if someone were to buy that lot and asked for a building permit, would they need a special use permit because they have those two accessory structures. Mr. Hickok stated he was not sure. Mr. Newman stated the Commission needs to be careful about setting a precedent. Ms. Dacy stated another reason for concern on the accessory buildings on Lot B is there is a bathroom in one of the structures which was conr�ected on one line•into the house. After the house burned about two years ago, they dealt with this. There should not be a separate water and sewer connection until the lot is c�eated. They are trying to resolve the situation and formally create the lot as the petitioner wants. Now, we need to problem solve to get the lot created and get the issue resolved. Mr. Newman asked the purpose for not allowing an accessory structure before the house. Mr. Hickok stated the principal use in the R-1 district is as a single family structure which must be there prior to the accessory structure being built. !"'� Mr. NeFaman asked if there was anything in the code that addresses this particular issue. At the time the accessory structure were authorized, the principal structure was in place. Is there anything that says you can have a lot split? Mr. Hickok stated staff concern is that it could happen that the principal use could be something other than single family. Future owners may not built there. Mr. Oquist asked, when those two accessory structures were granted building permits, were they also granted special use permits. Mr. Hickok stated he believed the accessory structures goes back to 1959 that these were accessory building to the principal structure. The 240 square feet was more recent. There was no special use permit for the structures. Mr. Newman stated, concerning the stipulation that the lot split be recorded, the petitioner desired to delay this for three years. What is the hardship? Mr. John Tiller stated his father does not want to split the property unless he sells it. He wants a reasonable amount of time to file. Mr. Newman asked if there was an economic hardship. Mr. John Tiller did not think that had a bearing. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� BEPTEA4BER 21, 1994 PAGE 20 Mr. Newman stated they want to try to avoid what happened in 1965 which was a lot split that was not recorded and now we are trying to figure out what happened 30 years later. Mr. John Tiller stated this might happen sooner but his father does not want to feel pressured if the lot does not get sold. Mr. Newman stated recording the lot split does not mean the lot must be sold. Mr. Oquist asked if the request could be approved with a stipulation that, when the lost is sold, it must be sold with the intent of building a house on the lot. The concern is someone would buy the property with the accessory buildings and use it for storage. Mr. Newman asked if it was permitted to buy a lot and use it for storage. Ms. Dacy stated the permitted'uses are one family dwellings and single family attached dwellings. Accessory uses are storage. Mr. Newman stated, if someone bought the property, they would not be able to buy it and use it for storage because storage is only �`'� allowed as an accessory use with a principal single family dwelling. � Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. As a word of caution, if the Commission were to allow the accessory structures to remain, one structure has a bathroom and there should not be occupaney in that building. If you want to leave the accessory buildings on the lot, you need to address that the building not be occupied as a home. Mr. Newman asked if the City records show any payment of a park dedication fee. Mr. Hickok stated he believed there was discussion of park fees in 1965. As far as payment, he believed they were waived in 1965 for the lot that was created. In creating a new lot now, the park dedication fee would be required because this is a new lot according to our records. Mr. Oquist asked if there was a statute of limitations if this is approved and not filed that the approval is then removed. Mr. Hickok stated there is a limitation, but he did not know the specific time. Mr. Oquist stated, in order to get this cleared up and get the lot � split taken care of, he would be in favor of leaving the accessory buildings with the stipulation they cannot be lived in, but the �`', �"`� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 21 other stipulations need to be adhered to in order to make sure we don't come back and go through this again in the future. Mr. John Tiller stated he would like to waive the survey because it was surveyed for the earlier lot split. Mr. Dave Tiller stated he built a house in 1963 and they did a survey at that time. There is a survey from 1964. Mr. Hickok stated the 1964 survey was in the City's files as well. Staff believes the action in 1964 was based on that survey. That survey showed up again in the materials from 1964 request when there was the subdivision of the north and south half. He believed that survey was done initially to show the future subdivision; therefore, action was taken in 1964 and 1965. Had that survey stood, they would not have come back in 1987. Mr. Newman asked if this survey accurately reflects the current request. Mr. Hickok stated it does not. When the southern portion was subdivided, the lot line would shift. Staff would really like to verify where the lot lines are in this subdivision. Mr. Newman stated there are going to be costs involved and there will be a mechanism by which to pay for the survey and the park fees. Mr. Oquist asked how much time is allowed. Mr. Newman stated that goes for the argument for three years rather than one. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve Lot Split, LS #94-14, by John Tiller, to split Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 into two parcels: Parcel A- That part of the south half of that part of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies north of the south 178 feet of said Lot 20, except the westerly 20 feet. Parcel B- That part of the south 178 feet of said Lot 20 lying west of the east 75 feet of said Lot 20. This property is generally located at 1535 Gardena Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. Staff recommends approval of a variance to the lot width � requirement of 75 feet to allow the creation of this 74.51 foot wide lot. �°"�, PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING� 3EPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 22 2. A verification survey will be required to determine setback distances. 3. All accessory buildings shall be permitted to remain on the newly created lot but shall not be occupied. 4. Lot split #94-05 shall be recorded by October 3, 1997, or when the property is sold, whichever occurs first. 5. A park dedication fee of $750.00 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for this parcel. 6. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation of separate sewer and water to accommodate a new residence on the newly created lot. 7. A 20 foot utility easement shall be dedicated, across the Oakwood Manor (west) end of the newly created lot and the lot at the corner of Oakwood Manor and Gardena Street, adjacent to the right-of-way. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. � Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this request at their meeting of October 3rd. 5. PRESENTATION BY DESIGN CONSULTANTS ON THE SOUTHWEST OUADRANT Ms. Dacy stated she would like the Commission to discuss with the consultants the general elements of what they would like to see on the site plan for the Southwest Quadrant. At the next meeting, the consultants will come back after incorporating the ideas from tonight and talk about the next phase which includes the exterior design. Ms. O'Connell, Site Planner, stated they have for the site are three diverse concept plans which were created in response to City direction and with the intent to create discussion. These are not final plans. Tonight, she and Mr. Carlson will listen, gather information and facilitate discussion about the plans. They have visited the site, looked at aerial photos, read the reports on housing, reviewed park and trail plans, looked at adjacent property values, etc. To achieve this discuss.ion after the Commission has seen the plans, she will show a matrix of site plan issues and elements. Right now they will be looking at the outdoor spacial elements - arrangement of the buildings, landscaping and berming combined with the architecture to create a sense of place. The Commission will not be looking specifically at architectural � elements, but rather whether the construction would be townhouses or villas, one or two story, etc. She reviewed the site as it currently exists including topographical information. They have � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 23 been asked to look at 10 acres. At this time, the plans do not directly show the 4 acres with the apartments as being part of the site but they will address how the site could be expanded. . Ms. Dacy stated there are currently buildings on the 10-acre site which will be razed. Mr. Kondrick asked what effect the apartments would have on the overall property in terms of the final cost of the units. Ms. Dacy stated this is an issue the HRA will decide. Something will be done at the apartments in combination with the development. Ms. O'Connell stated, when reviewing the site plans, they were also asked to achieve a density of 100 units. Ms. O'Connell reviewed Plan A. This plan has a 50-foot setback along Mississippi and University for a berm 7-8 feet high as a sound barrier. It does not need to be continuous. There is also a sound wall. The density of this plan is 102 units. The buildings are mostly two story with villa-type units. One-story units will decrease the density. The open space is broken up by clusters of buildings. The plan can be modified for additional acres if they are added. Third Avenue bisects the development and � open onto Mississippi across from the shopping center. The neighborhood wants access to Mississippi. Ms. O'Connell stated Plan B consists of two-story attached townhouses. The road goes around the outside of the site. There is a berm along Mississippi and along University. This plan has a pedestrian walkway to allow walking from one corner of the site to another without crossing the street. The density is 91 units. This plan allows for a private backyard that could be fenced in. This plan could also accommodate expansion if the apartment site were to be added in the future. Ms. O'Connell stated Plan C is situated in such a way that the houses are oriented toward a center "village green" area. The road in this plan bisects the site. The units would be townhouse units and can be one or two story. The density as presented is 102 units. In this plan, there is less setback to the street and they recommend a sound wall along Mississippi. The idea of the village green is to add distance between the houses. This is a public space in the center of the units. Mr. Oquist asked if they had taken readings on the property to see what the noise levels actually are. Ms. O'Connell stated they have not. They h�ve noise consultants ,�., in a subcontract arrangement, have talked with them to do get � accurate readings which is an additional cost beyond the scope of this contract. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 24 Mr. Kondrick stated Prior Lake and Eden Prairie are looking at a gate community. What if we walled this is? What happens to it? Does that make it more exclusive? Mr. Oquist thought this would isolate the area. Mr. Newman stated gates at the entrance would restrict vehicular traffic. They can put gates within the property. Mr. Carlson stated the units are intended to be owner occupied. The best way to keep the value up is for private ownership. Each unit should be owned and each neighborhood owned so there is a sense of community. Mr. Oquist asked the rationale for the density of 100 units. Ms. Dacy stated this was recommended to see what could go on the site and to see what could be expected for the tax increment costs This is one of the last sites that could take on a higher density. Mr. Oquist stated he was concerned about traffic for that amount of density. Mr. Saba stated access across Mississippi and University for ^ seniors is a problem. They are afraid to cross there even with the lights. Is it feasible to construct a ramp over the streets? Ms. O'Connell stated the.plan shows access to the bus stop. The down side of a ramp is to maneuver-it above the trucks. The berms would help achieve some of the height. Mr. Kondrick stated they have not discussed a separate building for seniors. Ms. O'Connell stated their direction was to look at owner occupied townhomes. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding Housing Type and Density. Mr. Saba stated he did not like the villa type homes. There were too many common walls. He had no preference of one or two story but felt there should be a mixture. He liked the open space on Plan B with the trail and vegetation. Mr. Kondrick stated he liked the idea of having 2/3 of the units two story and 1/2 one story. He liked Plan B better because there is less density, more green space, and the buffer is wider. �., Mr. Newman stated, if these units are for empty nesters and senior citizens, he would recommend units with a main floor master �+ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, BEPTEMHER 21. 1994 PAGE 25 bedroom. With that, the units could all be two story without a mixture. The villa-type construction would be lower priced. Ms. Savage stated she did not like the idea oi condos for aesthetic reasons. She also liked Plan B. She thought Plan C looked cluttered. Mr. Oquist agreed that he did not think villas or condos belonged there. He liked Plan B with the walkway through the site. He also thought Plan � could be very attractive if done right. He prefers Plan B having two-story units with a master bedroom on the main floor. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding Access. The site has two possible entrances from Mississippi - one across from the shopping center and the other near the residential area at 2nd Avenue. The consensus of the Commission is the 2nd Avenue access is preferred. Ms. O'Connell asked if they preferred a collector road or a buffer between the other land uses. �� Mr. Saba stated he likes the road on Plan B because it provides both - transition and buffer. Mr. Newman stated he liked Plan C with the village greens. He thought this more important than the transition road. However, traffic is less direct and should not be as high speed on Plan B. Ms. Savage stated she like B and also had interest in C. Mr. Carlson stated they could put the road around the outside of the complex and, with the village green concept, provide access along the west side of the site. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding Open Space. Mr. Oquist stated some plans show more detail. On other plans, will there be more trees than what is currently shown. Ms. O'Connell stated yes. Ms. Savage stated she liked the village green concept and also the pedestrian trail. Mr. Saba stated he liked the pedestrian trail with the vegetation. � Mr. Oquist and Mr. Kondrick liked Plans B and C. �1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 26 Mr. Newman liked Plan C with the village greens and having the road moved to the perimeter. The circular roads into the development could be one-way. Ms. O'Connell stated she could see where, using the village green concept, people would actually walk around the road. On Plan B, it is less visual. Mr. Oquist stated the pedestrian connection would be enhanced if it were connected to the bikeway/walkway system. Mr. Newman stated, if on Plan C they did an exterior roadway, they could change the circular drive to have only one access off the through street. Mr. Oquist stated having more of a curve would slow traffic. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding Buffers. Mr. Kondrick stated buffers would be a must for C. Ms. Savage and Mr. Saba did not like the idea of walls. They preferred berms and the road being used as a buffer. r''� Mr. Saba stated he was not opposed to an entry. Mr. Oquist stated he was not sure they needed anything from a sound standpoint. He agreed there is a need to separate those backyards that abut Mississippi and University perhaps with a fence. Ms. O'Connell stated she thought the area was quite noisy. From the rear of the property, the noise is less. Mr. Carlson stated it is possible to use a road with garages as a buffer. He was not sure how that would look. Mr. Kondrick stated he is concerned with noise on both Mississippi and University. Mr. Oquist stated he lives near I-694 and hears more noise from the highway with the sound wall than before. Mr. Newman stated he had no problem with a fence. There are ways to put up a fence that would be attractive. He wants the development to have a sense of exclusivity. A fence could be a benefit. University Avenue needs a fence. Along Mississippi, they could use vegetation. We need a way to delineate. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments on the View/Image from Mississippi � and University. Mr. Newman stated, in one word, prestige. There are a host of ways to do this, but he thought it would require heavy landscaping. �--� PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING, SEPTEMHER 21, 1994 PAGE 27 Mr. Kondrick agreed. A wall is necessary just as in other exclusive areas. It does not need to be completely enclosed except along the major thoroughfare. For those properties that are against the road, it make them more saleable and more secure. Mr. Oquist thought a wall gives the feeling that others should stay out and it isolates the area from the community. Ms. Savage stated she is concerned about the development. It is to add to the attractiveness of Fridley and to University Avenue. She wants it to look attractive when driving by and she did not want it to be walled off. She thought the site should look good. Mr. Saba stated he would like to see the design of what is put in this development carried out all the way to Holiday. Ms. O'Connell stated she would be surprised if the City would approve a wall or fence over six feet. A berm could be higher but requires more room. It is possible to do a combination. Mr. Oquist stated a berm with a small wall on top would not be as objectionable to him as just a wall. Along University, he would like to see more vegetation. � Ms. Savage stated her main concern is aesthetics. Ms. O'Connell stated using a wall allows for a smaller setback. Ms. Savage stated her personal choice would be to have a wider setback. The Commission members agreed. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding the Connection to the Neighborhood to the south. Mr. Saba stated there is also industry to the west and also the railroad tracks. Mr. Oquist thought the traffic should flow somewhat into the neighborhood. It has to blend into the neighborhood. There must be some continuity. The consensus was to have a transition into the neighborhood. Mr. Saba asked if there was a way to put green areas along the roadway. Not only does there need to be a transition, but there also needs to be a buffer. �..., Mr. Oquist stated, if the apartments are to stay, there will need to be something there to screen the site from the apartments. He r--� PLANNING CONIIdIISSION MEETING. BEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 28 would not want to look at garages. Without the apartments, they could put in a transition area. Ms. O'Connell stated, at a minimum, the HRA will spend some money on the apartments to upgrade. Mr. Oquist stated, even so, they will still have the back of the garages there. Mr. Saba stated he would be concerned about the people living there and if there would be vandalism. Mr. Newman stated at University and Mississippi you want to pull people in, have access to the park to the south and tie into the bikeway/walkway system. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments on Site Amenities, such as lighting, fencing, benches along the pedestrian walkway, entry monuments, etc. Mr. Saba stated there has been discussion to improve the University corridor with monuments to identify Fridley. He likes the idea and thought this may be the place to start. � �� Mr. Kondrick stated he had a feeling some don't want to be exclusive. He suggested globe lights and having this be a special place. Ms. Savage stated lighting is important. She would like to see examples of entry monuments. They must be tasteful. Mr. Newman stated he thouqht the amenities would depend on the design. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments about Expansion or ties into the additional four acres. Did they prefer access into the open space system? The Commission consensus was that they felt including the four acres was important. Mr. Newman stated that is dependent on the decision of the HRA. Mr. Oquist stated the apartments could be upgraded and used for senior housing. That could be done if the buildings were rehabbed and work the landscaping together into that area as well. Ms. Dacy stated that option is being evaluated. It comes down to a cost issue and a policy issue as to whether to acquire buildings ^ that are in fair condition as opposed to buildings in the City that are in worse condition. The four acres would add more flexibility but that decision is up to the City Council and HRA. e � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 3EPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 29 Mr. Carlson asked Commission members to call him and/or Ms. O'Connell if they had any additional comments. � ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTIOIJ CARRIED AND THE 3EPTEMBER 21, 1994, PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 11217 P.M. Respectfully submitted, c �'�j'Y'aL �+, � , Lavonn Cooper -"rr.. Recording Secr ar � � /"1 S I G N— IN S H E E T PI�NNING COMMISSION.MEETING, _ Sentember 21, �994 _ ____ �._.