Loading...
05/01/1996 - 00003512CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: vice-chairperson Kondrick called the May 1, 1996, Planning commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: �ave Kondrick, �iane savage, �eROy oquist, �ean saba, Brad sielaff, connie Modig Members Absent: None others Present: scott Hickok, Planning coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant �arry Paige, sirny Architects Richard �avelle, sirny Architects �oris Murawski, us Federal credit union �oe Perkowski, us Federal credit union �ucille �ahlberg, 1384 64th Avenue N.E. �ean & Mark schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue N.E. vallie A. �abandz, 1356 64th Avenue N.E. Nikki �abandz, 1356 64th Avenue N.E. APPROVAL OF APRIL 3, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. savage, to approve the April 3, 1996, Planning commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-09, BY SIRNY ARCHITECTS: Per section 205.13.O1.c.(6) of the Fridley city code, to allow a bank or other financial institution in a c-1, �ocal Business zoning district, on �ots 17 and 18, Block 2, spring valley, generally located at 6303 central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit is by sirny Architects who are the petitioners representing the us Federal Credit union. The petitioners are proposing to construct a bank facility at property generally located at 6303 central Avenue. The subject parcel is located north of Rice creek Road and east of central Avenue. satellite Fire station #1 is located north of the subject parcel and the �ray star office complex is located south of the subject parcel. The subject parcel is currently vacant. Ms. McPherson stated the property was previously owned by Mr. Richard Mochinski. The property has historically been wet. There is a jurisdictional wetland which has been delineated in accordance with the wetland conservation Act of 1991. The wetland occupies approximately the easterly 1/3 to 1/2 of the site. In 1986, a rezoning request was filed by Mr. Mochinski to rezone the property from c-1, �ocal Business, to R-3, �eneral Multiple Family �welling for a 19-unit detached townhome development. This request was denied by the City Council. In 1990, a special use permit was petitioned to allow a lodge facility to be constructed on the site. That request was withdrawn by the petitioner, Moose �odge #38. Ms. McPherson stated this request proposes a one-story, 7,950 square foot bank facility with five drive-through lanes. The site is designed to facilitate one-way traffic. There is a driveway entrance on the south portion of the site. Traffic would flow east and then north through the drive-through lanes and exit to central Avenue on the north side of the site. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the request in terms of the zoning district PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 2 requirements. The building setbacks are all met as are the parking setback requirements. The c-1 district requires one parking space for every 250 square feet of office space or, in this case, 32 parking spaces. The petitioner is proposing 37 parking spaces, 2 of which are handicap. �ue to the one-way traffic circulation, the parking spaces are striped at 60 degree angles. rn addition to the 37 spaces striped on the site, there is approximately an additional 19 stacking spaces within the drive- through lanes themselves. This provides a total of 56 parking spaces on site. Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of street access, the access would be from central Avenue with an entrance on the south and an exit on the north. The county reviewed this request and stated that their policy is to have one access per development when entering a county road. central Avenue is a county road. The city disagrees with the county in this instance due to the site constraints including the wetland on the eastern portion of the site and the setback requirements. rt is staff's opinion that the parking and traffic circulation as proposed actually minimizes the county's traffic concerns. with one access point into the site, there would be approximately four movements into and out of the site for that access point. The proposed design splits those movements into two locations thereby reducing the number of cars at any one access point and reducing the number of movements per access point. The county indicated that, if the proJ'ect were approved as proposed, they would condition the permit to allow work within the county right-of-way but they would not deny a permit to the petitioners. while the county prefers one access point, staff recommends the traffic plan as suggested. Ms. McPherson stated staff reviewed the possibility of noise from the intercom activity from the drive-through portion of the facility. The city code has established appropriate decibel levels for residential districts and which would cover the public address system in use by the us Federal credit union. A stipulation states the decibel level cannot exceed those as established by the city code. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has proposed a lighting standard for the parking lot. They did some li ghting analysis which shows the extent of the lighting as it covers the site. At the farthest point, you would receive a 1/2 foot candle of light which passes onto the fire station property and the office complex building . The lighting is proposed to be shielded downcast lighting so the source of light would not be seen by adjacent properties. Ms. McPherson stated the landscape plan submitted by the petitioner needs an additional 13 trees which has been stipulated by staff and 30% of which would need to be evergreen which is required by the code. Toward the wetland area and the detention facilities located on the grading and drainage plan, the petitioner is proposing a variety of wet and dry native plant materials. staff requested, and the petitioner has already submitted, a list of species for review to eliminate the possibility of exotic species being introduced into the wetland. staff has recommended the wetland plants be maintained for a period of three years to ensure their viability. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing three signs for the site - one entry sign, one exit si gn, and a free-standing main identification or monument sign. staff has recommended that the entry and exit signs be reduced to 4 square feet to comply with code. The monument sign meets the code requirements. Ms. McPherson stated there is a jurisdictional wetland located on the east portion of the site. As required by the 1991 wetland conservation Act, the petitioner is avoiding impacts to that wetland. This proposal is therefore exempt from the requirements of the wetland conservation Act. Ms. McPherson stated the last item is the utility connections. There are two options in order to connect to the sanitary sewer and water supply. one option is that the sanitary sewer and water can be obtained from the front of the property. There is also a sanitary sewer main line along the rear portion of the property. Either connection will be difficult due to the hi gh water tables in the area. rn order to avoid impact to the wetland, staff recommends the petitioner pursue connection to the front of the facility which will require work on the fire station site in order to connect to the sanitary sewer. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a preliminary grading and drainage plan. The drainage calculations need to be submitted to the Engineering �epartment in order to verify the hydrologic calculations. The petitioner has received preliminary approval of the project from the Rice creek watershed �istrict so that permitting process is underway and is almost complete. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 3 Ms. McPherson stated the proposed development meets the requirements of the c-1, �ocal Business, district regulations. staff recommends 12 stipulations as part of the approval, as follows: 1. The petitioner shall provide an additional 13 trees to the landscape plan, 30% of which shall be evergreen. 2. The petitioner shall submit the specifications for staff review on prairie plant varieties. 3. The petitioner shall change the indicated honey locust on the landscape plan to crab apple or an equal alternate. 4. The petitioner shall provide maintenance of the prairie plants for a minimum of three years to insure proper growth. 5. The entry and exit signs shall be reduced to four square feet in area. 6. The petitioner shall submit hydrologic calculations to the Engineering �epartment in order to review the grading and drainage plan. 7. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond in the amount of 3% of the construction cost to insure completion of the outdoor improvements. 8. The landscape plan shall indicate inclusions of underground sprinkling. 9. The noise level from any intercom system shall not exceed the decibel level set forth in the Fridley city code. 10. The petitioner shall install a 6- 8-foot screening fence along the north and east lot lines, abutting the R-1 zoning, starting at the southeast corner of the fire station. 11. Any expansion of the facility or extension of hours of operation must be reviewed and approved by the Planning commission and city council. 12. �arbage hauling from the site shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted for the Planning commission's review a letter in response to the stipulations. The petitioner would like to discuss stipulations 10 and 11 for public comment. The petitioner and staff have discussed stipulation #7. The language could be amended to indicate an assurance. Typically, the city will accept performance bonds, letters of credit, escrow accounts, or dedicated c�'s on behalf of the city to insure completion of the outdoor improvements. staff can accept another means of assurance. The petitioner's comment regarding stipulation #10 is that they would like to do a combination of fencing and everg reen plantings if that would be acceptable. on stipulation #11, the petitioner would like to establish an acceptable "window" in which they can establish their business hours so that they would not need to come back before the Planning commission and city council each time they wish to change their hours. Mr. sielaff asked, on the plant materials, the prairie plants are not required but are being proposed by the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. sielaff stated the petitioner is then going beyond what is required. rs the drainage from the parking lot and stormwater runoff to go into the wetland. Ms. McPherson stated the water goes into the detention facilities indicated on the plan and there is an outlet to allow the water to go into the ditch to the south of the site. Ms. Modig asked if the water would go into Harris �ake. Ms. McPherson stated the water would eventually end up in that system. rt will first end up in the system ahead of Harris. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. sielaff asked, because this is a designated wetland, does the character have to stay that way. Ms. McPherson stated yes. However, there is nothing in the statutes saying they cannot release stormwater into a wetland if it has gone through a detention facility previously. That is a permitted use of a wetland. Mr. sielaff stated theoretically you could change the character of the wetland. Ms. McPherson stated it could happen if the detention facilities were to fail. Ms. sielaff stated the detention facilities would then take that into account. rf constructed properly, the detention facilities would preserve the character of the wetland? Ms. McPherson stated yes. Mr. oquist stated stipulation #11 refers to the hours. what are the hours the petitioner is planning to be open? Ms. McPherson stated she did not know. The petitioner is present to discuss that. Ms. Modig asked if the city could limit the hours of operation. Ms. McPherson stated the city on a permitted use typically does not do that. with a special use, if it does have an impact, the city can look at the hours of operation and stipulate a certain amount of time if it is deemed those hours of operation impact adjacent properties. Ms. Modig asked if staff had discussed a window with the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated staff has talked preliminarily with the petitioner. As an example, if their hours are 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and they wanted to change it to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., could they do that by having the ability to change their hours by 1/2 hour in the morning or a 1/2 hour in the evening. would this be acceptable? rf the stipulation as now worded was maintained and if they were to change their hours by 15 minutes, they would have to come back for approval. Mr. Paige reviewed the various elevations. The building is to have a traditional brick exterior with cast stone above the windows and for the window sills. The proposed entrance and exit signs and the monument sign will be of brick to match the building. The garbage enclosure will also be brick. Mr. Paige stated his firm worked with environmental educational centers around the site. That is why they planned the planting the prairie grass mix to provide a natural transition in to the wetland. They have proposed individual plant and prairie flowers to provide color. Their civil engineer worked with Barr Engineering on the water and drainage issue. They were before the Rice creek watershed �istrict a week ago and passed with one or two conditions. The concept is in keeping with the no increase in the rate of runoff within the first 10 year storm period. The rate of discharge is designed so it is not more than what is currently there. The building's roof area will be entirely drained and taken out to the storm sewer. Mr. oquist asked where the screening fence is proposed to be. Mr. Paige stated the fence would start where the fire station property stops and then run along the back of the property. Rather than just have a fence, they are proposing evergreen plant materials as well and stagger it with the fence so it is opaque. Mr. sielaff asked if this needed to be approved by the county. Ms. McPherson stated she met with the county today. They said the city is the permitting authority. If we approve the proposal as presented with two driveway access points, we have to live with any consequences that may occur. They would not deny the permit to the petitioner to do the construction for the driveways, but they may put certain stipulations on the permit and they will definitely ask for certain traffic control measures at the driveways. rf the petitioner were to not to pursue the development, the site is comprised of two legally platted lots. Therefore, potentially PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 5 two individual developments could occur each with their own driveway. Therefore, the city's position of having two driveways for this one site is really not much different than have two developments each with their own driveway. Ms. Modig stated the welding shop has two driveways as does the restaurant in that area. Mr. Paige stated, from a safety standpoint and a traffic standpoint, he did not understand the logic. By separating the traffic in this manner, they are taking the access points and making it easier and more identifiable. rn looking at the average daily trips (ADT's), that would not warrant a single access point. There is about 140 to 150 feet between the driveways. Ms. McPherson stated staff made these points to the county but it is their policy to require one access point per development and they are holding firm to their policy. Mr. sielaff asked what kind of consequences could we be responsible for. Mr. Hickok stated one example would be if the median were extended and would create restricted movement. This may come to be if traffic backs up. Mr. Paige stated they have considered this. rn terms of the additional traffic, the area around is very well developed. Traffic will be very localized. He did not think the traffic would be much different than what is there today. Ms. Modig stated the only time there is a traffic problem in that area is in the morning and afternoon when the employees from onan and Medtronic get off of work. Mr. Kondrick asked what their intent was concerning the hours of operation. Mr. Perkowski stated, regarding stipulation #7, they have no problem with the idea of assurances. They think there may be a better way of providing assurance than with a performance bond. Regarding stipulation #11, he thought their position was explained. Their first thought was if the Planning commission and city council wanted to get involved in their business. They would to propose a window, such as 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., within which they can set their hours of operation. Their current hours are 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday and Friday; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, wednesday and Thursday; and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on saturday. rf business increases and customers demand longer hours, they would like to increase their hours to serve their customers. Mr. Perkowski stated on occasion they invite members to their facility to conduct seminars. Members will come in at 7:00 p.m. and it ends about 9:00 p.m. or so. There would be approximately 35 to 40 people coming in and out. Mr. Kondrick stated most drive-in banking facilities are open at 7:00 a.m. Ms. savage stated she would be more concerned with the evening hours. Ms. Modig asked what the hours of operation were for some of the other businesses, such as ziebart. Ms. McPherson stated she did not know. she thought this business would close relatively early. Mr. saba suggested they consider restricting the drive-through hours because that is where the traffic would be. Ms. Modig asked what the current hours were for the drive-through facility. Mr. Perkowski stated they currently do not have a drive-through they want their own building is to provide drive-up service. Ms. Modig asked what they would propose for drive-through hours. one of the reasons Mr. Perkowski stated they would start with the hours they currently have and then consider extending those hours if necessary depending on the demand. The idea is to serve the members but they also want to respect the neighborhood and be good neighbors. Mr. saba stated he would not be opposed to 9:00 p.m. but 9:30 seems to be stretching PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 6 into the time where people want quiet in the neighborhood. Mr. Perkowski stated the facility would have four drive-up lanes. The fifth lane is to pass around. The fourth lane is an ATM that they would like to keep open all night. rt would have little use at night. Mr. schwartz stated residential properties abut this parcel starting at the property line behind the fire station and along the rear of the property. His property is along the back corner of the lot. c-1 is supposed to have traffic with a minimal impact to the neighborhood. A bank is a special use because of the high volume of traffic of which 75% is probably the drive through. He asked the credit union how many transactions they have on a typical Friday. Their response was about 1,100 transaction. This would mean about 700 cars on Fridays. rt has been said that a bank building itself without a drive-though is a high impact to c-1. He does not have a problem with the building. The parking lot is fine but there might be some problems with the drive- through. The elevation of the building is 885 feet which is one foot above the fire station elevation and three to four feet above the surrounding properties. rt is roughly three feet above central Avenue. rt may be hard to get effective screening for the headli ghts, etc. The code states that in c-1 the headlights cannot shine on residential property. He would want the screening fence all the way around with no breaks. He was not sure about the height. rf the elevation goes down three or four feet to the edge of the property and a six foot fence is installed, you effectively loose three feet. Many vehicles are utility vehicles with headlights up high. He wants to make sure there is effective screening. Mr. schwartz stated, as far as the drainage plan, they have had a lot of trouble with water problems. rn the staff report packet is a letter from the Assistant Public works �irector that states that it doesn't appear that the detention ponds will result in enough detention to meet the city code. He knew that would probably be worked out. rt could enhance the water problems on his and his neighbors properties. They know from experience that everything on paper does not always work. Mr. schwartz stated the drive-through would handle approximately 75% of the business with approximately 750 cars on a busy day going through there. The credit union does not have an ATM at their current facility. The ATM will be located there. when they asked about the use of the ATM at the Bloomington facility, they stated they have about 2,000 uses per month which is an average of about 65 uses per day. He thought most of the uses would be on weekends and nights. According to code, all commercial equipment not kept in a building shall be fully screened and not be visible from adjoining property. The machinery in the drive-though goes back to the screening issue. with the elevation at the edge of the property three feet lower than the drive-through and the machines above that, he wondered if a 6-foot fence would screen the equipment. The code also states the headlights are to be screened. The drive-through has the potential of creating noise from the intercom and the cars. certainly, the impact on the residential area is from the drive-through. Ms. savage asked Mr. schwartz's opinion about the hours of operation. Mr. schwartz stated he felt comfortable with the current hours. He did not like the idea of extending those hours. He asked them if they would change hours. At that time, they said they would not. He felt 9:00 p.m. was too late. Having a meeting is different. That is not the drive-through. He likes the way it is set up to have to talk to the city and the neighbors if they want to extend the hours. Mr. oquist stated the credit union has indicated the hours in their current location but they have not established operating hours for this facility. Ms. Modig asked what he felt about restricting the drive-through hours and extend the bank building hours. Mr. schwartz stated he would like that better. But the problem is that they still have to drive around the building to get out of the site. There may not be any problems. This gives the neighbors an opportunity to discuss the hours at a future meeting. Mr. saba stated he would like to give a cushion. Perhaps limit the drive through but not the hours in the building itself. He can see problems arising if the drive-through is open later in the evening. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 7 Ms. savage asked if Mr. schwartz was saying that only a screening fence would be adequate. Mr. schwartz stated he is not in favor of the broken-up design. This is commercial against residential. rt is in the code that this must be there. security for the residents is a big thing You can walk ri ght through this area now that it is completed, and there will be more people who will be able to see the residential properties during the day. Mr. Kondrick asked the difference in elevation from the drive-through lanes to the area of the fence line. Ms. McPherson stated the elevation at the bituminous level of the drive-through is 884.6 feet. The elevation of the parking lot corner at the bituminous is 882.5 feet. At the top of the curb, the elevation is 883 feet. out in the grassy area, the elevation is 882.5 feet. Along the rear property line, the elevation is 882 feet. The fire station is at 884 feet. The area near the ditch is at 879 feet. Ms. schwartz stated, regarding the hours, they have asked the bank staff about the hours and the staff stated the hours are planned to be the same as the hours at the current facility. You are looking at an incredibly high use for a c-1 area, especially adjoining single houses. she has no opposition to a window occurring one hour either side of their current hours, but beyond that she would not want to see the hours extended without another meeting. she drastically opposes long hours on a saturday. she would want to leave the hours as they are for saturdays. she would not like to see the bank open at 7:00 a.m. she does not get up until 8:00 a.m. and this is a lot of traffic additional traffic. she could see one hour either way of what they have now. she thought this was adequate leeway. rf they want more, she wants a meeting to discuss it. she has no problem with meetings or seminars because that is not normal business. Her concern is primarily with the drive-through but she is also concerned about the building itself. Ms. schwartz stated she also understands the ATM will be open at all hours. she is surprised the ATM is located in the back for security reasons. They have had on more than one occasion had people in the woods hiding from the police. rf putting a bank there, it seems a high risk place. unless there is some type of fencing to separate the properties then you are looking at more of a security risk for the ATM users. she thought there was a security risk for people running from the bank over to the houses. she is extremely concerned with the screening and the way that it sits now. rf an eight-foot fence is constructed, that may not be adequate to meet the codes for what they have there now. Mr. oquist stated the limit for a fence is eight feet. Mr. schwartz asked if they could be given approval to berm up the fence area by one-foot to add to the elevation of the fence to insure screening of the residential properties. The fence is to start at the edge of the fire station property so the fence would be strictly along residential property. Mr. oquist stated he did not think lights from cars in the drive-through would shine on their house. rt is a considerable distance away. Ms. schwartz stated, if cars turn, they will be scanning on the houses. Nei ghbors headlights will scan her property but this is commercial. The code states the screening will prevent headlights from beaming onto adJ'acent residential properties. The materials and commercial equipment shall be kept in a building or fully screened from property of a different district. she is not talking about the canopy but the drive- through component. Their van's headlights are 38 inches off the ground. with the elevation at the fence line three feet lower and adding to the vehicle hei ght is already six feet. she did not think a six-foot fence would effectively screen. That is why she thought berming would help. she asked if there was anything they could reduce the elevation of the drive-through. Mr. Pai ge stated he thought that has to do with drainage. They would prefer to keep it lower if they could but, in terms of getting the site to drain, that is where it needs to be. These are all inter-related. They have no problem with complying with the screening requirements. Ms. schwartz stated she thought they should berm the fence line. she thought a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 8 stipulation should be added that, if the project is built and effective screening is not achieved, more provisions could be added at that time to achieve it. Mr. sielaff stated, if the lights get on the neighbors property, this would not be in compliance with the code. we would then have to go back and bring it up to code. Ms. schwartz stated, when they discussed this with staff, staff stated the eight-foot fence would probably be marginal. Mr. sielaff asked if an eight-foot fence would keep the lights from shining on the property. Mr. Hickok stated they talked about the fence along that line and the requirement being six to eight feet as outlined in the code, that the code requires a maximum of eight feet of screening hei ght. He thought the point in the discussion was to make it clear that eight feet is all we can require and beyond that we would also be concerned about the imposition of what is now essentially a building wall. They were talking about the six to eight feet. They talked about the drop in elevation between the drive-through and the rear of the bank, and relationship of that drive-through to an eight-foot fence. with the drop in elevation at the side lot line, staff did talk about an eight-foot fence possibly being more appropriate because of the height of the lights and the height of the drive surface. Beyond that, he was not sure if he understands what question was being asked of staff. Ms. schwartz stated they had asked what would happen if the building was constructed with an eight-foot fence and it still does not meet the screening requirements. staff indicated an eight-foot fence is the maximum. rf an eight-foot fence proves to be inadequate, can there be a stipulation added that they can still come back and have the petitioner add trees where it does not screen. Mr. sielaff asked what takes precedence - the maximum eight-foot fence or the light that goes onto the property if the eight-foot fence does not screen adequately. Ms. McPherson stated somehow a determination is going to be made. she would suggest the petitioner, between this meeting and the city council meeting, do an elevation or a cross-section of the property showing the elevation of the drive-through and the residential properties in question with the fence and showing a typical car so a true relationship can be graphically displayed as to the proposal. Perhaps a better evaluation of the screening could occur. unless the city council wants to arrange a variance as part of the special use permit process and go through the Appeals commission, we can at this point only require an eight-foot fence. until we do an elevation study, they would have to go back and visit the fence issue. At that point, unless the city wants to grant a variance, we would have to look at some other type of vegetative plant materials to provide screening. That is something staff can do. Mr. Hickok stated he thought a combination of fencing and screening plant material was until this evening viewed as a victory and a good compromise solution. Knowing we cannot go above eight feet in height, this combination would break the imposition of a solid fence and give the opportunity at certain strategic points for added elevation where trees can grow much higher than an eight-foot fence. Mr. sielaff asked what recourse is there if this does not work. Ms. McPherson stated the first recourse is the standards are set forth in the code for the c-1 district. Administratively, staff can receive a phone call from a resident indicating there is a problem. staff can then call the petitioner to take care of the problem. Because it is special use permit, if the petitioner continues to fail to meet performance standards, the city council can start revocation hearings on the special use permit in which case the business would pretty much cease on the site. Ms. schwartz asked if the petitioner would consider berming. Mr. Paige stated they could look at that. Mr. saba stated he thought the only time the residents would have a problem with headlights was if a person were driving with their bright lights on. Most cars are focused downward. The hours would restrict the headlights except in the winter and fall. Mr. and Mrs. schwartz have brought up some good points that can be addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 9 Ms. schwartz stated she would like to see the drive-through screened. she thought the fence would also reduce noise. she would like to see the fence all the way around for noise and for security. she is also concerned about the drainage. Their property is one of the properties that is being flooded out as a result of the storm sewer project. Anytime you put any dirt in this area, it impacts others. when the former owner dumped the load of dirt there in 1990 and 1991, it increased the water on their property. rf the drainage is worse, would this have to be revisited? Mr. Kondrick stated yes. Ms. �abandz stated she did not want a full fence behind her house. she would prefer trees. Regarding the hours, she did not agree that a drive-through should be open until 9:00 p.m. she did not care if they had meetings until 9:00 p.m. but not the drive- through. she would prefer that 7:00 p.m. be the latest the drive-through is open. Ms. �abandz stated she did not want a fence. They have a view of the wetland behind their property. she would like to still see the wetland in the back. Mr. sielaff asked if she had an objection to the lights. Ms. �abandz stated they get headlights from central as it is, but she did not know that they will come to their house. They already have some trees in the back and, once they get full, it would screen and block a lot of li ght in the summer. she welcomes the bank in the neighborhood but she does not want a full fence in her backyard. she would rather see trees. As far as the hours, she thought 7:00 p.m. should be the latest. Ms. �ahlberg stated she is concerned about the drainage. she has had ducks swimming in her backyard since they put in the storm sewer. she thought this would make it worse. rf they can come up with some way to get rid of the water so she can have her garden back, then it would be okay. Ms. McPherson stated any existing water that is currently on these properties that may or may not be attributed to the stormwater improvement that was done adJ'acent to Rice creek Road is not the responsibility of the petitioner. This needs to be worked out with the Engineering Department. All staff can assure is that the proposed stormwater from this project is not going to exceed what is permitted by the ordinance. Ms. �ahlberg stated they did not have water until they put the storm sewers in, and she does not want any more. Ms. McPherson stated she understands. The Engineering �epartment is responsible for the flow not exceeding what is required by the ordinance. Ms. �ahlberg asked who she can go to in order to work on this. she has talked with Mr. Flora and Mr. Burns but they have not gotten back to her. Mr. Kondrick stated her comments would be part of the public record and suggested she contact Mr. Flora and/or Mr. Burns again. Mr. schwartz asked if the building roof would be drained into the storm sewer system. Mr. Paige stated yes. The front of the property would drain in to the street as well. Ms. �ahlberg stated she would like to have a fence around the property for privacy. she was not so concerned about the trees because she has woods behind her. Ms. schwartz stated her objection is that trees do not provide screening except in the summer. They put in evergreens five years ago. They are now eight feet tall. unless you plant 10 to 15-foot trees, it will be about 10 years before you would get coverage. Ms. schwartz stated their neighbor, �oe Nelson at 1357 - 64th Avenue, was unable to attend the meeting due to a prior commitment. He asked them to state that he is concerned about the drive-through and adequate screening of that. He is also concerned that an eight-foot fence is not enough. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. savage, to close the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:10 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated it is not the role of staff to be argumentative, but it is the role of staff to point out a segment of the code that is being referred to about headlights. under the special use section of the code, it talks about different types of special use permits allowed in this district. Number 7 is motor vehicle, oil and fuel dispensing service as an accessory use to a convenience store. rt goes on to talk about specific elements if a special use permit were to be granted under #7. rt is under that where you will find the language about a required buffered, screening area being constructed to obstruct headlight beams on the property from beaming into adjacent residential properties. His point in bringing this up is not to minimize the impact of headlights on this site; but from an integrity standpoint, our code is specific about screening for uses in this district in general and gets even more specific when certain uses is occurring on a site. That is an important distinction. staff are concerned about the headlights from this facility and believe the rest of the statements are valid. Ms. savage stated stipulations #10 and #11 seem to be the issues. Mr. sielaff stated, concerning the hours, he cannot project what the problems are going to be. He does not see any problems in approving the current hours. He understands the argument for a window but he thought they could come back and do it a second time. At that time, the city would have more information on any problems as to whether there are any problems occurring especially in light of the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Kondrick asked what he thought about the suggestion of adding one hour to either end. Mr. sielaff stated he heard that comment but he also heard to stay with the current hours. He would tend to err on the side of being conservative. Mr. oquist stated he thought they would need to include the exact hours of operation. Any deviation from that requires them to come back to us. He does not agree with that. He thought the commission needed to have some tolerance. He did not think it was their position to dictate business hours. Mr. sielaff stated he thought the residents made a valid argument that this is a c-1 next to a residential area. The main concern is the drive-through. rf we show flexibility, he thought they could allow the bank to be open longer but restrict the drive-through. Mr. oquist stated, as he understands it, if it weren't for the drive-through, they would not be talking about this tonight. Ms. Modig stated she would have more sympathy if they were putting a bank into the middle of a residential area. However, we are talking about putting in a building in an area where there is a restaurant, a welding shop, a carpet shop, a shopping center with a bar across the street, another shopping center next door to that, and office buildings; and we do not restrict any of the hours for those businesses. she did not know how they can logically do that. Because of where this property sits and the fact that there are houses there, we are not talking about lights shining in because they are not directly across the street. They face another street. she used to live in that area. There were lights coming from some of the businesses into her property. she did not know how they could say this to a bank. This did not come up when the other businesses came in. Her personal opinion is that she does not think it is her business to tell the bank or any other business in an area surrounded by businesses what their hours of operation should be. This is only coming up because of the special use permit. Her recommendation is that they do not include restrictions. Mr. saba stated, if we are talking about this situation, he has no concern about the building itself and the hours of operation of the building. They are talking about the drive-through and the concerns the neighbors have with the drive-through. He recommends they establish a window to allow an extension of the hours of operation up to one hour beyond the current hours. They will probably go ahead with their existing hours and they may never expand. He did not see a problem with 8:00 p.m at a drive-through. He understands Ms. Modig's concern but he also understands the neighbors concerns. A drive-through situation is different than a commercial operation. He did not think the neighbors would have a problem with headlights but just to be on the safe side he would like to go ahead with the one hour. As far as the screening, he would like to see the combination of the fence and the evergreens. He would like to see some taller PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 11 evergreens. Trees provide screening and reduce the sound. with a fence, the sound tends to go right over. He understands the concern about security, but he thought the combination of the fence and the evergreens is a good plan. Ms. Modig stated the proposal in the letter from sirny Architects is then acceptable to you. Mr. saba stated yes. Mr. oquist stated he agreed with Mr. saba. He also agrees with Ms. Modig that they should not restrict hours. He thought, after hearing the concerns, that extending one hour is okay but the ATM will remain open. He did not see a problem with headlights. He thought they would be deflected. He hears that residents have trees in the area. He could go with a fence but, if he lived there, he would prefer everg reens. He believes the code, if there is a problem in the future, will take care of that problem. He would vote for approval of the request with the stipulations, deleting stipulation #3, leaving stipulation #10, and amending to #11 to add one hour of operation to the existing hours of operation. He thought this was a good plan for the property. Ms. savage stated she agreed that this is a nice plan. she agrees with Mr. sielaff. she does not have a big opposition to the hours. she can live with a one-hour extension of hours. rf she was living there, she would be more concerned with the hours. under stipulation #10, she would prefer to see an eight-foot fence. Mr. sielaff stated he would be willing to go along with a compromise of allowing one- hour each way on the hours from existing. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with the one-hour extension. He would prefer to see a combination fence and tree design. Trees would be more of a sound barrier. Mr. oquist stated the only other issue is stipulation #7 to change that they submit other assurances. Ms. McPherson suggested the following wording ,"The petitioner shall submit an acceptable form of assurance in the amount of 3% of the construction costs to insure completion of the outdoor improvements." MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of special use Permit, sP #96-09, by sirny Architects, to allow a bank or other financial institution in a c-1, �ocal Business zoning district, on �ots 17 and 18, Block 2, spring valley, generally located at 6303 central Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide an additional 13 trees to the landscape plan, 30% of which shall be evergreen. 2. The petitioner shall submit the specifications for staff review on prairie plant varieties. 3. The petitioner shall provide maintenance of the prairie plants for a minimum of three years to insure proper growth. 4. The entry and exit signs shall be reduced to four square feet in area. 5. The petitioner shall submit hydrologic calculations to the Engineering �epartment in order to review the grading and drainage plan. 6. The petitioner shall submit an acceptable form of assurance in the amount of 3% of the construction costs to insure completion of the outdoor improvements. 7. The landscape plan shall indicate inclusions of underground sprinkling. 8. The noise level from any intercom system shall not exceed the decibel level set forth in the Fridley city code. 9. The petitioner shall install an eight-foot screening fence along the north and east lot lines, abutting the R-1 zoning, starting at the southeast corner of the fire station. 10. Any expansion of the facility or extension of hours of operation beyond one hour in the morning or one hour in the evening must be reviewed and approved by the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 1, 1996 PAGE 12 Planning commission and city council. 11. �arbage hauling from the site shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the city council would consider this request at their meeting of Mdy 20. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1! MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. saba, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation commission meeting of April 1, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 1, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �avonn Cooper Recording secretary