Loading...
05/15/1996 - 00003539CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: vice-chairperson Kondrick called the May 15, 1996, Planning commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: �ave Kondrick, �iane savage, �eROy oquist, �ean saba, connie Modig Members Absent: Brad sielaff Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director scott Hickok, Planning coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant �im Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates, 7301 ohms �ane, Edina, Minnesota Ed Farr, Edward Farr Architects, 8400 Normandale �ake Blvd., Bloomington, MN Jerry Cassidy, Focus News �ohn wall, 80 s. 8th street, Minneapolis, MN Martin waibel, 1584 oak, Arden Hills, MN Don Delich, 5284 Taylor street NE Elden & �averna Thompson, 5661-6th st NE Mary Matthews, 1259 skywood �ane NE Tom Arth, 5241 Fillmore street NE sara overby, 4229 Quincy street NE, Columbia Hei ghts, MN Dean Bliss, 5212 Fillmore street NE David Jellison, MEPC American Properties Inc. Leslie Jowett, MEPC American Properties Inc. s. A. Mortenson, 1389 skywood �ane NE �len �ouglas, 871 - 66th Avenue NE steve soltau, skywood Mall �ary colby, Menards Bruce Malkerson, Attorney at Law Bob Farrier �udy Engebretson, 5216 Taylor street NE APPROVAL OF MAY 1, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. oquist, to approve the May 1, 1996, Planning commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF THIRTY PERCENT (30%) OF THE CALCULATED FRONT YARD AREA FOR HARDSURFACE AREAS IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Mr. Hickok stated, at the March 6th Planning commission meeting, there was a discussion about lot coverage. At that time, the lot coverage issue was centered around driveways and hard surface driveways. This relates to discussion of the other requirements for hard surface drives and also some of the property conditions and property maintenance ordinances that the city is working towards for the beautification of the city. rn the discussion, staff inentioned that, based on an analysis of the study done by the Planning commission in 1993, staff further researched to determine what the final ordinances would look like relating to the issues of hard surface drives and, in this case, 30% lot coverage as a maximum for hard surface drives in residential areas. Mr. Hickok stated included in the agenda packet is a summary of the Performance standards modifications. Both the R-1, single Family, and R-2, Two Family, sections would have identical language stating that, "NO more than thirty percent (30%) of the front yard area of a lot shall be surfaced with blacktop, concrete or other hard surface material approved by the city for driveway or parking stall purposes." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 2 Mr. Hickok stated, at the time the Planning commission reviewed this proposal, they asked staff to evaluate some questions and the answers to those questions. The first question was if staff could evaluate the total lot coverage and impervious surface vs. the front lot coverage. staff can do that. staff reviewed residential lot coverages with general business district and provided a comparison of their findings. one example provided at the Planning commission was that of a limousine business where a resident may have hard surface in the rear yard to park these vehicles. rn reviewing this particular situation, staff found there are some administrative problems in terms of enforcement. when doing inspections without a complaint, it is quite often the case that staff cannot see the rear yard. There is no permit required for installation of driveway or patio hard surface on a residential lot. staff made the observation that, in the residential and commercial comparisons, the city code has a detailed process for hard surface on commercial properties. By comparison, there is little or no control over hard surface on a residential property with minor exceptions to setbacks, curb cuts, etc. Ms. Hickok stated the second question was, instead of restricting lot coverage in the front yard, should we restrict parking to the hard surface or driveway areas? The city code does require property owners to park all motor vehicles on a hard surface. The city council is now considering the second reading to a hard surface requirement saying that residential sites should have a driveway of either concrete or asphalt. This will control where the vehicles are parked. rt does not necessarily get at situations where a vehicle is parked on a basketball court or development of the front yard. This however is not a common occurrence. Mr. Hickok stated the third question asked to increase the percentage from 30% to 35%. At the meeting, a resident stated they had a 40-foot lot. she felt the 30% requirement might be difficult to stay within on such a narrow lot. staff provided a comparison of driveways and the resulting lot coverage. As staff looked at existing conditions in the community, they found a number of examples that would be contrary to the 35% coverage. one example is a single family home with a three car garage. The drive for that garage represents 39% lot coverage. They found other examples over 39% coverage. This finding brought staff to the conclusion that 30% to 35% was a standard throughout the metro area when three-car garages were not as prevalent. staff feels 35% may be punitive as a maximum. Mr. Hickok stated the fourth question asked if the language of an ordinance amendment could be structured where a person could be assured of a driveway of minimum specified width. Even at 30% coverage on a 40-foot lot, that would assure a 12-foot driveway for 35 feet. This would be a single car drive back to the garage. At 35% coverage, a 14- foot driveway would be allowed. Mr. Hickok stated the last question asked if the percentage should be tied to the total width of a lot. This benefits those property owners with wide lots. staff believes there should be a minimum drive width allowed regardless of lot width. Mr. Hickok stated the first option would be to incorporate the following statement into the driveway performance standards section of the city code considering that 30% to 35% may be a dated percentage. The statement reads, "Hard surface areas shall not however cover the full length and width of the front yard between the principal structure and the public right-of-way. Front yard areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping requirements specified in this section." This would go into the landscape section of the code which states that, for any other surface other than driveway, these shall be landscaped with sod and/or vegetation. one concern with this option is that a large tree in a base may be enough to satisfy this requirement. Mr. Hickok stated the second option is to elect not to amend the ordinance. rn evaluating the proposal, several concerns continue to surface. There is a growing trend of two and three-car garage additions which require additional front yard pavement. A coverage limitation may deter residential home improvement. Having no permit requirement for pavement installation, enforcement of this requirement would in all likelihood take place after the driveway has been installed or during the process of installation. This is a very difficult time for homeowners to find out they are in violation of the code. �etermining the exact coverage percentage while conducting a visual inspection could prove to be extremely difficult. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends the second option, not to amend the ordinance, due to the changing nature of residential properties, the beautiful examples of alternative landscape/drive solutions in front yards, and the difficulty of enforcement posed by not requiring permits for drives. Ms. savage asked what the ordinance is as it is now written. Mr. Hickok stated the ordinance as written requires vehicles be parked on a hard surface. rt does not now limit the percentage of lot coverage. rt is conceivable that someone could pave their entire front yard. Ms. savage stated with the second option, if someone wanted to pave their front yard, they would be able to do so. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. staff has not seen this to be a problem. Residents do not do this from a cost and aesthetic standpoint. The city would have to rely on a good sense approach. Ms. savage stated, if someone wanted to do so, the city has no control. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct in the front yard. The city has some control over work in the public right-of-way. Ms. Modig stated, when talking about requiring greenery, would that exclude landscape rock also. Mr. Hickok stated this reads that it would be sod and/or vegetation. we have some examples of primarily landscaping with rock. Again, that is atypical. �enerally, we see a combination of sod and plants or all sod. Mr. oquist asked if this could be approached requiring a certain percentage of green in the front yard. This could help control the complete surfacing of a front yard. Mr. Hickok stated staff debated this at length. The problem continues to be enforcement. This comes back to the hard surface and not requiring a permit for hard surface. rf we stated 50% hard surface/50% green space, at the point an owner violates that green space, they are putting down hard surface and that is a difficult time to approach that property owner. short of having a building permit requirement, we do not have a warning that people are doing this. Ms. Modig asked what would be the problem or logistics of requiring a building permit for improvements on a driveway. Mr. Hickok stated it is outside of the building code. staff would have to rely on the inspectors. rnspection coverage may be the issue. rt is outside of what inspectors look at on the site. Mr. saba stated he has seen many instances of landscaping with landscape rock but he thought it would be difficult to get a building permit. we see a lot of three-car garages and parking pads. He thought it was self-policing. Part of this is due to the cost which is prohibitive. Mr. saba stated he supported the second option to not amend the ordinance. His reasons include the three-car garage situations and the fact it is kind of self-policing. Trying to enforce coverage would be difficult. Also, we do not have a definition of what is and what is not hard surface and what is and what is not vegetation. He thought this was trying to create an amendment to an ordinance to police exceptions, and he did not know that this is something they should do. Ms. savage stated she did not see a problem with this option. she asked if this was separate from the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated staff wanted to keep the items close, but they are two separate issues. Mr. oquist stated he has a problem in that it does not give the city any control and that is what an ordinance is for. An ordinance is to enforce something when it becomes a nuisance. This leaves it wide open and he has a problem with that. They have talked PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 4 about concrete. Asphalt could be an alternative to concrete. He could go with it but he has reservations. He thought there should be a percentage of green area required. Ms. Modig stated she could go with the second option. she would like to have something because the city now has nothing for enforcement. After discussing the cost and the three-car garages, she did not know what other option they really have. How does this affect those who have no hard surface at all? Mr. Hickok stated the action by the Planning commission in March included a recommendation for a different section of the code where the interpretation of a non- hard surface driveway would be considered a nuisance and also to state that all drives should be concrete, asphalt, or other hard surface. Mr. oquist stated we have talked about the trend to two and three car garages. The city of Fridley is 90% to 95% built. There are few lots left where one could build a home with a three-car garage. some have an opportunity to expand. Few will build a new home with a three-car garage. Few can expand an existing garage to a three-car garage. Therefore, part of the argument is soft. Ms. savage stated this was a good point, but what is the alternative. Mr. oquist asked what happens if someone wants to concrete their front yard. Ms. Modig stated the city has no control. owners can do whatever they want. Mr. saba asked what percentage of the residents would want to concrete or asphalt all of their front yard. rt is cost prohibitive for one thing. He did not think there was a need for an ordinance for something that a very small percentage of residents might consider doing. Mr. Hickok stated, with the amount of development that we have in the community, those that exceeded 30% to 35% would be considered pre-existing non-conforming lots. From an enforcement perspective, it does become very difficult if that homeowner decides to do a driveway expansion. would we be able to determine if that was a pre-existing condition? He rather doubted it. while there may be an ordinance, it may be difficult to enforce it. on new homes, owners want to enhance their property with landscaping in proportion to the quality of the home. of the two options, he tends toward the second option because of the enforcement issue. Mr. �ouglas stated he felt an ordinance such as this would take away rights from the property owners. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. savage, to recommend option #2 electing not to amend the ordinance. Ms. savage asked if the violation of an ordinance was a misdemeanor. Mr. Hickok stated yes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR LAKE POINTE OFFICE PARK BY MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC.: The 5-2, Redevelopment District requires review and approval of a development plan in areas when redevelopment is proposed. The petitioner is proposing to construct 582,000 square feet of multi-story corporate office space and 90,313 square feet of supporting commercial uses, including a one-story restaurant, a four-story hotel, and 20,000 square feet for a bank/office. The site is located in the northwest corner of r-694 and Highway 65. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:04 P.M. Ms. �acy stated the �ake Pointe property is located in the northwest corner of r-694 and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 5 Highway 65. The site is approximately 41 acres and 32.77 acres without the outlots and ponds. The site is served by Highway 65 and the west Moore �ake and central Avenue intersection. �ake Pointe �rive rings the site along the south and links the site to 7th street on the west. Bridgewater �rive is to the north. There is a zoned area of R- 1, single Family, along the north of the site. The purpose for the zoning was for a buffer strip. The remainder is zoned s-2, Redevelopment �istrict. The purpose of the Planning Commission review is to review the proposed development plan for this property which is required by the zoning. A redevelopment district gives the city a maximum amount of control and flexibility in how to evaluate what goes on at the property. rt gives the City a say in what uses are or are not appropriate and gives the Planning commission, the city council and the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (H�,) the ability to approve or disapprove each project, building and/or use in this area. The master plan approval is the first step in the development process for this property. Ms. Dacy stated the project may take 8 to 10 years to complete. MEPC is the petitioner for this site. They have entered into a contract for exclusive negotiations with the H�,. Essentially, the contract states MEPC has the authority on the H�,'s behalf to try to bring development to the property. That contract also requires MEPC to submit a master plan. Ms. �acy stated the plan is similar in terms of concept and vision as the plan established by the city 10 years ago. The city and H�, have seen this site historically as an office park with supporting uses. The proposed plan is similar in vision and use but less intense than the original plan. what is being proposed on the site is a 582,000 square foot of office space in four buildings and 90,313 square feet of commercial use in three buildings. starting at the west portion of the site, the first two office buildings are proposed to be five-stories, the third building with six stories, and the fourth building having eight stories. A parking ramp is proposed to be located to the north of the office buildings. The first parking level would be below grade, the second level at grade, and the third level one story above grade. The types of uses proposed are office and corporate uses. The commercial uses include a restaurant, a four-story 130-room hotel, and a bank or other smaller type of office use. Ms. �acy stated a technical detail is that the property is not platted at this time. Prior to the developer coming in and receiving permission to construct a building, the petitioner must have a plat for every building or group of buildings they intend to construct. Ms. �acy stated architecture is something the Planning commission may want to discuss with MEPC. MEPC has submitted a written summary of the types of materials being evaluated. open areas are being proposed. There is also a plan for consistent landscaping, signage and lighting. Most of the signs proposed are already consistent with the ordinance. MEPC is proposing to construct two fairly large si gns which are bigger than what we have seen in Fridley. This will be discussed at a later time. Ms. �acy stated another issue is traffic. This is probably the most important issue pertaining to this development. The traffic consultant for the H�, is at the meeting. He has completed an updated analysis. The maJ'or findings were that the intersection at Highway 65, west Moore �ake �rive, and central Avenue needs to be improved. Additional turn lanes need to be provided into the development as well as alignment shifts to align west Moore �ake �rive and the development. The city is committed to completing the improvements. The city has applied for Federal funds to help fund these improvements. rt could take two to three years to get all the approvals required for this project. Traffic is also a concern of the neighborhood. Another thing to evaluate is a transportation demand management strategy. we would be trying to encourage transit into and out of the site (i.e. car pools, van pools, buses, etc.) to discourage single occupancy vehicles and to encourage high occupancy vehicles. with less cars on the roadway, there is less congestion. Ms. �acy stated staff worked with the developer on the lighting. They have agreed to reduce the lighting to 12 to 15 feet on Bridgewater �rive to minimize the impact to the residential area. Ms. �acy stated the developer is proposing substantial landscaping on the north side. The site now has 393 trees. The plan proposes an additional 405 trees which is in excess of the requirement of 672 trees. staff is working with the developer to install larger plant sizes north of the parking decks as well to establish a buffer from the residential area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 6 Ms. �acy stated the developer wants a nine-foot wide parking space which will require a special use permit. If that is proposed, they will have to come through the process. Ms. �acy stated the Parks and Recreation commission looked at this request. The commission recommended that the park fees be paid up front at the time prior to the first building permit. Ms. �acy stated the developer is adding five ponds to the five already on the site for storm pond management. one pond is in the northeast corner of the site. About 40% of the site runs into Moore �ake and is under the jurisdiction of Rice creek watershed. A permit from the watershed district is required. Ms. �acy stated staff recommends approval of the proposed master plan. The proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment obJ'ectives of the city. As a next step, the proposed plan will go to the H�, on 7une 13 for their recommendation. The plan will then go to the city council on �une 24. Then, if approved and MEPC is successful in bringing development to the site, they will then be back for the plat and special use permit. rf approved, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. Appropriate plat applications shall be submitted and approved prior to development of the property. 2. All uses in the development shall comply with the following list of permitted uses: office uses typically associated with corporate/class A office developments; hotel and conference facilities; banks/financial institutions; class rrr restaurants as defined in section 205.03.59 of the zoning code; daycare facilities; and other uses as specifically approved by the city. uses allowed in each individual building after construction will be the same or similar to those uses identified in this application. The city shall review and approve each use prior to occupancy. 3. �etailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the city. 4. A comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city council prior to issuance of the first building permit based on the plan dated March 29, 1996 and addressing the following issues: A. wall signs (building identification and tenant signage) shall meet the wall sign requirements of the sign code. B. No free-standing pylon signs are permitted. c. Height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified. �. Two free-standing project identifier (�) signs are permitted; the size and height to be approved by the city council. E. All free-standing signs shall be set back ten feet from property lines. F. The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation. 5. The petitioner shall work with the city in preparing transportation demand strategies to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property. 6. 12 to 15-foot light standards shall be installed shall be installed along Bridgewater �rive adjacent to the residential area. sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot lights and street lights. 7. rf the parking decks or parking areas ar within the R-1, single Family �welling zone, a special use permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. rf nine-foot wide parking spaces are to be proposed within the development, a special use permit as required by the s-2, Redevelopment �istrict, must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 7 Appropriate permits from the Rice creek watershed �istrict, six cities watershed Management organization, and the Minnesota Pollution control Agency for storm water management and grading shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. �etailed engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with plat applications and building permit applications for review and approval by the city. 10. when appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the rndirect source Permit from the H�,. 11. �etailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building permit applications. 10 to 12-foot evergreens shall be installed along the north wall of the parking deck. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at time of building permit issuance. 12. Park fees shall be paid prior to the initiation of construction of the first development on the site. Easements shall be dedicated at the time of plan approval over the existing bikeway/walkway areas. Mr. saba asked Ms. �acy to clarify the wetland mitigation required and the classification of the wetland on the site. Ms. �acy stated the consultant indicated there are no wetland areas within the project on the site. one pond constructed 10 years ago was constructed in a wetland area at that time. The wetland issues are going to be the responsibility of the city when the city evaluates the reconstruction of the Highway 65 intersection. Part of the reconstruction is to add a southbound right turn lane on Highway 65 into what will be �ake Pointe �rive. There is a small amount of the wetland areas that is adjacent to Moore �ake. Ten years ago, the city applied for and received a permit, but that permit has expired. The requirements since then have changed. we must comply with the current requirements. Mr. Farr stated he is an architect with Ed Farr and Associates. They have designed a master plan for a high quality, class A commercial development with mid-rise and low- rise office buildings on a 24.5-acre westerly portion of the site and low-rise commercial and hospitality uses on an 8.2-acre easterly parcel. The office buildings would have a freeway exposure. commons areas were created for enJ'oyment of a park-like area. rn addition to the walking paths proposed, an enclosed walkway between the office buildings is proposed to enhance the sense of community and to share services. Mr. Farr stated support services to the east include a restaurant, a hotel, and a bank near the entrance. These services are appropriately located near the entry to �ake Pointe. Mr. Farr stated the exterior materials were chosen to convey warmth, sensibility, and texture. Brick will be incorporated. Architectural precast concrete wall panels will be used as well. They do not intend to make all the buildings look alike. The glass used will be energy efficient, reflective, insulating glass in subdued shades. The architectural trim and detail will be incorporated in a human scale. Rooftop units will be architecturally concealed. The commercial buildings would have their own architecture but they still have control over the design. Mr. Farr stated the paved path would continue to serve the community. A climate- controlled walkway is proposed along the south side of the parking ramps for year around pedestrian access. The �ake Pointe commons areas will be a public space amenity. The central plaza would have a water feature and plants. They envision this area to be a lively experience with public concerts, etc. Mr. Farr stated the landscaping is in keeping with the previous developer's concept. similar plants are being proposed using deciduous and coniferous trees. shade trees will be used in and around the parking lot. coniferous trees will be used for screening with under story flowering trees for interest. coniferous trees and a berm along the parking ramp will be used to screen and provide a buffer strip. Trees in good condition will be transplanted on site to where they are needed. Trees in the buffer strip along the north will not be disturbed. The area will be sodded or seeded and an irrigation PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 8 system installed. Mr. Farr stated they are trying to achieve a minimal impact to the residential neighborhood. The parking takes a setback of 140-feet from the lot lines. The tall office buildings have been placed as far away as possible. No buildings are taller than what was previously approved. The buffer zone has been established and is also a sound barrier. A berm will be provided to screen the parking decks as much as possible. shared pathway systems are in place for circulation around the building area. The �ake Pointe commons is intended to provide an area for the community. New businesses will provide services to the community as well. Mr. oquist asked if they had started to discuss this proposal with the neighbors. Mr. Farr stated two neighborhood meetings have been held. Two items that resulted were the lower lights to minimize glare and to minimize the impact of the parking decks they are supplementing berms with plantings on top of the berms to buffer. Mr. oquist asked if the property to the north of the walkway will be as it is. Mr. Farr stated this was correct. There will be no grading outside of the loop. Mr. oquist asked if they would be responsible for all seven buildings. with one project manager involved, you get consistency of construction which is what he wants to see. Mr. Farr stated he would defer that question to MEPC. MEPC is controlling the development of the initial construction. Mr. �ellison, MEPC, stated they have two office parks in the cities today. rn the southwest corner of r-394, they have the Minneapolis west Business center. They are planning something similar here. They will put money into the office building and they also want all of the project to fit together. Mr. oquist asked if MEPC would also be managing the four office buildings. Mr. �ellison stated MEPC would construct, manage, lease, etc. Mr. oquist stated this project is smaller than the original one. How much different is this proposal? Ms. �acy stated the original plan had a total of nine buildings with a total of 749,000 square feet. This is a total of 672,000 square feet so it is approximately 80,000 square feet less. woodbridge also proposed alignment of the buildings east/west as opposed to this plan with the buildings north/south. Mr. oquist stated it is nice to think in terms of van pools, etc. what has been done about the traffic patterns through the neighborhoods and out on Highway 65? Ms. �acy stated there was a set of preliminary drawings 10 years ago that were evaluated by MnDOT. We are relooking at those plans, updating them according to the current standards, and looking at improvements to the ramps coming off r-694 as well. Anoka county has the central Avenue link at the intersection. Ms. �acy stated the city is speaking with MnDOT about a similar proposal for the ramps off university due to the construction of Home �epot. Home �epot also is looking at additional improvements to the west on 57th. Ms. Modig stated two houses were removed. will this require removal of any additional homes? Ms. �acy stated two houses were acquired and those are the only homes required to be removed. Mr. Kondrick stated a walkway had been discussed to connect the buildings. At what level would this walkway be constructed? Mr. Farr reviewed the elevation drawings showing a cross section of the site. The walkway would extend along the front of the parking deck, would be completed enclosed, and be climate controlled. while the buildings are office, there may be some supporting PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 9 services included in the office buildings as well. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a timetable. Mr. �ellison stated they anticipate 8 to 12 years. Much will be dependent on the market and how quickly they can find users for the facility. They now have a request for proposal for one user looking for a corporate headquarters. They have also had other users looking at the site. They are not prepared to build without tenants. Mr. �ellison provided a history of the company. Their company has offices and holdings throughout the world and have a regional office in the metropolitan area. Ms. �eslie �owett is the leasing coordinator for this project. Their company builds, leases, manages, and maintains their buildings. Mr. �im shunt, project manager, will oversee construction. Mr. oquist stated 8 to 10 years seems like a long time for a project to continue. what guarantee do we have that MEPC will stay with the project for that time? Mr. �ellison stated MEPC has a two-year window with the city to get something to happen or the city can ask MEPC to leave. MEPC's goal is to build and to have parks. rt does not work well to have one building by itself. with additional buildings and as companies grow, we can take them into one of our buildings and they can grow with us. our goal is to grow with our tenants. Much of what happens is based upon the market. Even during difficult times, MEPC has never lost a project. Mr. oquist stated they had mentioned a common area by the buildings for entertainment. He did not want loud music. Ms. �acy stated the same concern came from the neighborhood. staff will evaluate that along with the developer. The H�,'s intent in developing the site is to maintain as much control as possible. The contract states MEPC can market the site on behalf of the H�,. rf MEPC gets a user, the H�, will negotiate with MEPC for the land to get a building up and parking in. There is an incentive in a second building. rt will be a partnership type of approach. Mr. �ouglas stated at this time there is traffic in the morning that builds up on the entrance ramp to r-694 west. will reconstruction alleviate that problem? Ms. �acy stated they are adding capacity to the intersection so that should help somewhat. staff has talked to MnDOT about the eastbound ramp onto Highway 65. rt may help because there will be additional lane capacity. Mr. Benshoof stated they did a traffic study on the city's behalf. rntersection improvements will add capacity for the southbound traffic. we have no control over the ramp meter or the rate at which it works which is under the control of the state. Mr. oquist stated, if we do construction on the intersection, we need to take into consideration that it does not adversely impact the current traffic flow which is now bad at best. Ms. �acy stated this was a good point and she will bring that up with the state staff. Now that we have a plan that is up to date and recent, they can start to evaluate it for what they need to do for the intersection. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner, after reading the recommendation by staff and reviewing the 12 stipulations, had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Farr stated they generally agree with the 12 recommendations. on #8, they will be asked for the 9-foot wide parking stall which is consistent with most communities in the area and consistent with the low turnaround rate of this type of business. Mr. saba asked if they had any ideas of what they can do in that space to reduce traffic. Ms. �acy stated the developer and she have not had an opportunity to delve into that area. cities along r-494 have developed a coalition to find out where employees are coming from, where they are going, and developing a program around that. MTCO has a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 10 good program on car pooling. That would help on peak hour traffic. Mr. oquist asked if consideration has been given to have a bus route on the west side. They had also talked about a walkway over Highway 65 at the time of the original proposal. Ms. �acy stated she has not seen anything about a walkway. rt is a challenge across Highway 65 and university to make intersections safe for pedestrians. They have talked with MTCO staff and discussed what we can do to promote transit use to this site. Mr. Farrier asked how the interim maintenance was being addressed. Ms. �acy stated the H�, is responsible for taking care of the lawn. Mr. Farrier asked if that would continue. Ms. Dacy stated this would continue as long as we own the property. when the property is sold, MEPC will be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Farrier asked if a fence has been or should be considered to the north side of the development. Ms. �acy stated there are some properties who have chain link fences and some do not. They have not at this point discussed a typical screening fence. The intent has been to provide for as much vegetation and trees as possible. Mr. Kondrick asked the distance between the residential property lines and the parking ramp. Ms. �acy stated from the property line to the street is about 40 feet, then the street itself, and then another 50 to 60 feet to the edge of the parking deck. Ms. Modig asked if the property owners will be impacted mostly by the parking areas. Ms. �acy stated, if you go west to east, the elevation increases. some of the homes are below the buffer strip. There is a buffer there and there will be a berm in front of the parking ramp with trees on top of the berm. Mr. Farrier stated he thought a fence should be considered along the north side and also along Kerry Lane. Mr. Farrier asked if they had considered the effect on Moore �ake. rs an environmental impact study underway? Ms. �acy stated they have addressed the environmental impact on Moore �ake. Ten years ago, five ponds were constructed to handle run off from the parking lots and buildings. MEPC is proposing five additional ponds to contain water. The watershed district is to evaluate the impact. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:17 P.M. MOTION by Ms. savage, seconded by Mr. oquist, to recommend approval of the master plan for �ake Pointe office Park by MEPC American Properties, rnc., with the following stipulations: 1. Appropriate plat applications shall be submitted and approved prior to development of the property. 2. All uses in the development shall comply with the following list of permitted uses: office uses typically associated with corporate/class A office developments; hotel and conference facilities; banks/financial institutions; class rrr restaurants as defined in section 205.03.59 of the zoning code; daycare facilities; and other uses as specifically approved by the city. uses allowed in each individual building after construction will be the same or similar to those uses identified in this application. The city shall review and approve each use prior to occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 11 3. �etailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the city prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the city. 4. A comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city council prior to issuance of the first building permit based on the plan dated March 29, 1996 and addressing the following issues: A. wall signs (building identification and tenant signage) shall meet the wall sign requirements of the sign code. B. No free-standing pylon signs are permitted. c. Height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified. �. Two free-standing project identifier (�) signs are permitted; the size and height to be approved by the city council. E. All free-standing signs shall be set back ten feet from property lines. F. The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation. 5. The petitioner shall work with the city in preparing transportation demand strategies to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property. 6. 12 to 15-foot light standards shall be installed shall be installed along Bridgewater �rive adjacent to the residential area. sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot lights and street lights. 7. rf the parking decks or parking areas ar within the R-1, single Family �welling zone, a special use permit must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. rf nine-foot wide parking spaces are to be proposed within the development, a special use permit as required by the s-2, Redevelopment �istrict, must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Appropriate permits from the Rice Creek watershed District, six Cities watershed Management organization, and the Minnesota Pollution control Agency for storm water management and grading shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. �etailed engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with plat applications and building permit applications for review and approval by the city. 10. when appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the rndirect source Permit from the H�,. 11. �etailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building permit applications. 10 to 12-foot evergreens shall be installed along the north wall of the parking deck. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at time of building permit issuance. 12. Park fees shall be paid prior to the initiation of construction of the first development on the site. Easements shall be dedicated at the time of plan approval over the existing bikeway/walkway areas. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. �acy stated the H�, would consider this item on �une 13 and the city council will consider the request on 7une 24. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-10, BY GLEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 12 DOUGLAS: Per section 205.07.O1.c.(1) of the Fridley city code, to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on �ot 2, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition, generally located at 871 - 66th Avenue NE MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. oquist, 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 9:20 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this special use permit request is to allow a second accessory structure in excess of 240 square feet. The subject parcel is located on 66th Avenue north of Mississippi street and east of �ackson street. The property abuts Meadowlands Park. �ocated on the subject parcel is a single family dwelling unit with an attached garage. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 20 foot x 24 foot accessory structure in the rear yard. The rear yard does slope from the street level down toward the back of the property and towards Meadowlands Park. The lower level of the dwelling is a walk-out. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted plans for a metal accessory structure. The front would be wood. The request does not exceed the maximum structural coverage of 25% permitted by code and meets the setback requirements for accessory structures in a rear yard. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's request for a metal accessory structure is somewhat unusual when compared to similar cases the Planning commission has reviewed in the past. In similar cases, the City has typically granted a special use permit with the stipulation that states the accessory structure is to be architecturally compatible with the primary structure on the property. The property to the east of the petitioner has a structure of similar construction and materials. The city did permit construction of a metal building at 7738 Elm street but stipulated that either the residential structure or the metal structure be removed within 10 years of construction of the accessory structure. Elm street is located in the onaway rndustrial �istrict. rn that district, homes are a legal, non-conforming use. since the permit was issued, the residential structure has been removed and the property is now an industrial use. Also typical with these types of requests is a stipulation that no home occupation take place within the structure. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, and shall be constructed of similar materials. 2. The structure shall at no time be utilized for a home occupation. Mr. �ouglas stated he would appreciate approval for a steel building. He realizes it is an unusual request in that area. The building proposed is a steel Master building. He chose it because it is very substantial and can stand up to wind. He would like the commission to consider the steel building with a stipulation that, if the property is sold, the building would be removed. He could build a wood structure but the metal structure best fits his needs. rt has full capacity for storing projects and does not restrict the inside use. Mr. Kondrick asked if the building would be the same color as his home. Mr. �ouglas stated the building would be a metal color. rt is galvanized on the outside. Ms. Modig asked what he would be using this structure for. Mr. �ouglas stated it would be for a hobby shop. He now has a shop in his basement but he does not have room for his tools. Mr. Kondrick asked what type of tools he would use. Mr. �ouglas stated his tools include a lathe, saws, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 13 Mr. Kondrick asked if he thought there would be a problem with noise from the tools. Mr. �ouglas stated he has not yet had a complaint. This building would be insulated. Ms. savage asked, if he did not get approval for the metal building, what would he then do. Mr. �ouglas stated he would have to decide whether to go with the wood or forget it. He wants a shop. He will not be visible from the front yard. rt would be visible from the park. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated they have not received any comments. Mr. �ouglas stated he contacted some neighbors across the park. one stated they had not received a notice. Mr. oquist stated there is a problem with the notice in that it does not say the construction is metal. The notice does not tell the whole story. Mr. �ouglas stated the building is not to rust for 25 years. Mr. oquist asked if the report should have been required to say this is a metal building. Ms. McPherson stated the metal building is out of the norm but the code does not stipulate the material type. It stipulates accessory structure in excess of 240 square feet. MOTION by Ms. savage, seconded by Mr. saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:36 P.M. Mr. oquist stated he liked the stipulations. There is nothing wrong with nice construction for a workshop but he could not go along with a metal building. Ms. savage agreed. she thought it a dangerous precedent since the city has required the accessory structures be compatible with the main structure. Ms. Modig agreed. Mr. saba agreed. He has seen some good metal buildings but this does violate the intent to have structurally compatible accessory structures. Mr. Kondrick agreed. rt should be compatible with the current structure. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of special use Permit, sP #96-10, by �len �ouglas, to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on �ot 2, Block 1, Meadowlands Addition, generally located at 871 - 66th Avenue NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling, and shall be constructed of similar materials. 2. The structure shall at no time be utilized for a home occupation. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the city council would consider this item on �une 10. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF FOUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS PERTAINING TO MENARDS� PROPOSAL FOR EXPANSION: special use Permit, sP #96-02, by Menard rnc., to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 5207 central Avenue NE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 14 (presently the skywood Mall property). special use Permit, sP #96-05, by Menard rnc., to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles, boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue NE (the Menards property). special use Permit, sP #96-06, by Menard rnc., to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue NE (the Menards property). special use Permit, sP #96-07, by Menard rnc., to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles, boats, and marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 5207 central Avenue NE (presently the skywood Mall property). MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. savage, 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 9:40 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the proposal is to have Menards purchase the skywood Mall. rn reworking the area, Menards would eliminate the existing office structure and also a fence along the east boundary line starting behind the mall and continuing north behind the existing Menards storage area. on April 3, the Planning commission heard the staff report and comments from the public. The commission chose to continue discussion and directed the petitioner to work with staff and the neighborhood to address a number of issues. rssues regarding the skywood Mall property include: - Topography - �ack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor materials from adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri �ane, residential properties to the east - �ack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor merchandise from adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri �ane, residential properties to the east - Requires removal of existing office complex to be replaced with outdoor storage - No opportunity for rear inventory receiving for remaining tenants - rncreased noise in the rear retail area - rncreased noise to travel upward out of the bowl created by the building and hillside - �imited information regarding use of rear yard storage area - �imited information regarding rear building elevation and customer circulation. Mr. Hickok stated issues regarding the Menards property include: - Topography - �ack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor materials from adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri �ane, residential properties to the east - �ack of ability to successfully screen view of outdoor merchandise from adjacent properties: I-694, Cheri �ane, residential properties to the east - rncreased noise in the rear retail area - rncreased noise to travel upward out of the bowl created by the building and hillside - �imited information regarding use of rear yard storage area - �imited information regarding rear building elevation and customer circulation - Required gates around a petroleum pipeline - Traffic control (signs) at Menards access points Mr. Hickok stated Menards held two neighborhood meetings - one on April 25 and another on May 13. Many of the issues have been addressed as a result of these discussions. one of the issues related to the topography, increased noise, and the view from adjacent properties and centered around the topography and the standard wall's ability to cut off that site line. Menards had originally proposed a 14-foot storage fence with lighting facing inward toward the subject property. The petitioner had also proposed going back into the existing slope. rn response to the nei ghborhood, the petitioner is now proposing to use the existing curb line behind the mall area and follow the current fence line behind Menards. The fence proposed is now 20 feet in height. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 15 Mr. Hickok stated, at the April 25 meeting, there was concern from the neighborhood about the wall. There was discussion about the 1991 sound study and discussion at that time of a concrete wall 20 feet in height 19 feet from the property line. At that meeting, the petitioner indicated they would look at a 20-foot sound wall. shortly after, the petitioner contacted the city indicated they would work on a 20-foot wall. staff indicated this would require a variance because the current maximum height is 14 feet. Menards did apply for a variance for the additional height. The petitioner also hired a sound consultant to do a sound analysis. Mr. Hickok stated there is a question as to whether this should be a 20-foot or 28-foot wall. Reports indicate that the Kelso comments were related to a 20-foot concrete wall located 19 feet from the rear property line. rn the 1991 letter from Mr. Flora to the neighborhood regarding the design of the wall, he states it is the 20-foot wall that has the gradient effect that drops down to more of a standard fence height as it wraps around to the front of the building. The conclusion in the sound study is that construction of a 28-foot high, 2 x 8 tongue in groove plank wall without openings will have a similar effect as concrete and will have some effect in reducing the noise level. The roof at the top of the wall would have the effect of at least another foot in height. Mr. Hickok stated other concerns were related to the storage in the front and the display of inerchandise. The petitioner has addressed a number of those issues by indicating they would be redesigning the front of the Menards store to eliminate the existing patio shop at the front. They do plan to keep the fence display on the front elevation of the store. The accessory buildings now stored in the front are proposed to be set back in a recessed area along the north side of the building. There is a fence indicated behind the display. The fence exists in the drawing and has a gate for customers to come in at the north side of the building . Menards is proposing to close that gate and to have a controlled entrance and exit between the two buildings. The gate will be setback to allow the stacking of several vehicles. Mr. Hickok stated, regarding special use permit request, sP #96-02, staff recommends denial based on the reworking of the front of the skywood Mall would leave little or no space for merchandise in front of the mall. The petitioner expressed they would not be storing or displaying materials in this area. Mr. Hickok stated, regarding special use permit request, sP #96-05, staff recommended denial. staff was waiting for information on the wall and on the sound mitigation resulting from this wall. rf the commission chooses to recommend approval, staff recommends the following minimum stipulations: 1. Approval of vAR #96-10, allowing a 20-foot high (rather than 14-foot high) accessory structure in a C-3, shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be required surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point outside of the fenced area. 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. All emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will clock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 16 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the city Building official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends denial of special use permit request, sP #96-07, to allow Menards to sell or display merchandise. rf the commission chooses to recommend approval staff recommends the following minimum stipulations: 1. Approval of vAR #96-10, allowing a 20-foot high (rather than 14-foot high) accessory structure in a C-3, shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be required surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point outside of the fenced area. 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. All emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will clock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the city Building official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of special use permit request, sP #96-06, to allow unscreened storage of exterior materials on the Menards site with the following stipulations: 1. All outdoor storage and display of inerchandise (except yard barn/accessory buildings) on the north, west and south building faces shall be removed so not to be visible from the public right-of-way. 2. No future outdoor display of inerchandise shall be permitted without a review and approval of a special use permit by the city of Fridley. 3. All yard barns and accessory buildings shall be moved to an area north of the existing Menards storefront. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 17 4. No yard barn or accessory building shall extend further west than the front corner of the existing building. 5. All modification to fence and gate to accommodate the yard barn/accessory structure display shall be reviewed and approved by the city Building official prior to construction. 6. Any architectural detail of the display or modification shall be consistent with the architectural detail of the primary structure. 7. The yard barn/accessory building display shall be kept free of debris. Mr. Hickok stated a neighbor had asked for an additional stipulation, in the event the use changes for outdoor display of inerchandise, that the petitioner be requested to come back before the Planning commission. Mr. oquist asked, if we approve the special use permit as written, based on what it says, we have approved everything mentioned in the code. He thought this should be rewritten so they know what they are approving. Mr. Hickok agreed. The language provided is taken verbatim from the code. The stipulation suggested by the neighbor would be appropriate and would safeguard against unwanted items being displayed. Ms. savage stated asked if could be rewritten to eliminate those items because it does not pertain here. Mr. Hickok stated that is the language from the code. Any portion of that list of items can be eliminated by use of a stipulation. Mr. oquist asked what the Commission was allowing by approving this special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated they are approving lawn machinery and merchandise. He suggested a stipulation stating that they cannot display recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and/or manufactured homes. Mr. saba stated he would like to add to stipulation #12 that, "All exterior building surfaces be finished and maintained in an attractive manner ...' Mr. soltau stated he would like to thank staff for their involvement in this process. He has talked to many of the neighbors. Through the process, there have been a number of revisions to the plans. Mr. soltau stated he would characterize this as an opportunity to rehab and redevelopment the skywood Mall. The mall has had some challenges to its ability to redevelop. There are limitations in parking. The tremendous depth to the building makes it difficult to develop. The opportunity with Menards seemed the perfect fit. rt allows Menards to use the depth of the mall, reposition and restructure the retail to the front of the mall, and be more likely to keep the mall viable as well. This is also an opportunity to encourage the redevelopment of the Menards facility and to enhance their presentation to the community and to the city. Mr. soltau stated this is also an opportunity with a limited window. They have been under contract for an extended period of time and we also have leases that have expired. They continue to loose tenants as a result. rn the interest of the remaining tenants, they would be better off to move this forward as well. Mr. soltau stated, with the material submitted, the sound expert stated tongue and groove is a change from the original proposal. He would like to introduce into the record the opinion of the independent appraiser that they had hired. There was concern about potential diminution of value. The appraiser's report addresses that concern. He would also like to note the letter of support from the Kelly rnn. The owners and operators of the Kelly rnn are concerned about the continued decline in the mall and are encouraged by this proposal. They have also submitted a letter of support from Mr. and Mrs. Delich who live behind the mall. They live at the highest point of elevation behind the mall. They have a buffer of trees and a fence, but they are most affected. They see the mall as continuing to decline and believe this is an opportunity. To PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 18 demonstrate the fence height, he provided photos of a 20-foot 2 x 4 taken from different points. Mr. soltau stated, regarding sP #96-02, as pointed out in the discussion, we have had continued discussion. rt is the petitioner's intent not to display materials in front of the mall. This request could be withdrawn at this time. Mr. colby stated Menards had originally proposed a 14-foot fence. The fence is important to them. rt acts as a sound barrier, a screening measure, stores materials off the ground and keeps it more organized. Through conversation with the neighbors and staff, the consensus was that a 14-foot fence is not high enough so they are proposing a 20-foot fence around the perimeter. They will be working with staff to provide new landscaping along the north facing the freeway and the southeast portion of the fence to soften the lines. He thought one could see what kind of impact that fence would have on the rear portion of the mall. He provided a site line sketch of the site. Mr. colby stated they are proposing to raise one section of the fence to 24 feet to more effectively provide a sound barrier for that area. That section would be about 100 feet to 120 feet long behind the existing Menards facility. They will work with staff to see where that would be best placed. Mr. colby stated he differs with staff on a couple of items. The first under sP #96-06 and is the fence display and the yard barn display. Menards will be removing the vast majority of the outdoor display along the front of the building. They would still like to maintain the area to the north of the existing entrance against the building for display of fences and to the north of that the display of yard barns. They will be opening up the sidewalk in front of the entire store. Mr. colby stated they will remove the chain link fence area but they would like to sell christmas trees on the front sidewalk. stipulations 3 and 4 reference the yard barns and the fence displays. rf this read, "All yard barns and accessory buildings shall be moved to an area north of the existing Menards entrance", this would be acceptable. otherwise, they are in agreement and are willing to comply. some of the confusion has come over the wording. They are not asking to display anything other than what is on the plan and that is part of this overall project. Ms. Modig asked if Mr. colby had any problem with rewriting a stipulation not allowing boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Mr. colby stated no, as long as they are allowed to keep the yard barn and fence displays. Mr. oquist asked if there was a physical separation between the skywood Mall and Menards. Mr. soltau stated there is an existing demising wall they are following. There is a hallway that would remain, and there is a fire wall. Ms. Engebretson stated her property is adjacent to the skywood Mall property. rn a letter she has written, she states that, once again, the residents of Taylor street and nearby property owners to the skywood Mall are asked to become the sacrificial lambs in the save our investment campaign led by the current investors and owners of the skywood Mall. over the past 32 years, the names of the investors and owners have changed. Their requests for deviation to the present facility have varied slightly, but the reasoning or justification to the neighborhood for such deviations from the present zoning ordinances have always remained the same. This will save the mall from dying This will help the city gain control of a deteriorating and bad situation. This will only improve the property for the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Engebretson continued, during the same time, she has watched the mall erected with no plans for landscaping or screening for the surrounding residential area. she has watched a manmade steep hill take years to stop eroding. she has witnessed hundreds of seedlings planted and never watered. she has seen makeshift drains of sheet metal installed to help prevent soil erosion. she has watched her neighbor's fencing and hers slide down the hill not to mention the numerous phone calls made by neighbors and herself to the city to request the pick up of debris on the mall property and the cutting of weeds. Because there were no previous provisions in the original plans to provide a screened buffer zone, her neighbors and she have had to endure the expense of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 19 a erecting their own privacy fencing and landscaping to help filter the sound and the lights from the adjoining commercial property. Also, in the same 32 years, she and her neighbors have watched a beautiful skyline become cluttered with electrical wires, advertising si gns, and bright lights. The quiet of the neighborhood gives way to car doors and truck lids slamming, people talking and yelling, air conditioning units flicking on and off all night, and the sound of forklifts and semi trucks beeping when backing up. And here we are again. �ifferent investors. slightly different request. But the same bill of goods for justification is being offered. Ms. Engebretson states, if she has learned one thing over the years, it is that there is very little to be gained for the neighborhood in the business expansion of this property. she does not want to become an unwilling investor in the skywood Mall property. rt is unfortunate that the mall is dying and that it difficult to market, but she does not believe that out of desperation or the urgent need to make a quick profit, we should allow the further expansion of a seven-day a week lumber business that has already got a history of being difficult or indifferent to the community's needs. rf it is orderly containment you are seeking, you do not attain that by making the problem larger. she feels that the city truly believes you will be able to enforce the restrictions that will be tied to the granting of these outdoor use permits. But from her own personal experience in similar situations, good intentions are not enough. rt is difficult to enforce city guidelines on a non-cooperative business. rf they do not conform and the business is operational, you will find it difficult to shut them down or to get them to conform, especially when you weigh the large expense of pursuing legal proceedings. You truly cannot control their means of operation once you have granted the necessary permits. You can only hope they will abide by the rules. she does not want altered her quality of life for the financial investment she has made in her home on Taylor street and become the sacrificial lamb for a business who are between two strong competitors - Menards and Home �epot - to determine who the survivor will be in gaining the largest portion of the market share in the home construction marketplace in the northern suburbs. she and her nei ghbors have been committed to making Fridley their home and want to continue to do so. They did not come to this city to make a quick buck and leave nor did we want to join in a market share war between two competitors. rf you grant this permit, who will be the sacrificial lamb for the residents on Taylor street when they go to sell their homes and find out that the investment they made so many years ago is not what it should be? will the city make up the financial loss to our homeowners? will Menards offer to make up the difference or will the investors in the skywood property? Ms. Engebretson stated some questions have not been addressed. where will the entrance and exit points on the back portion of the mall be located? what will happen if the exhaust fumes spill out over into the hotel and businesses? �etting rid of those fumes means some kind of fan. There is noise from those fans that will go into the neighborhood. Has anyone addressed these issues? she knows that a special use permit does not give the city any authority to what happens under the roof. Mr. Kondrick asked how Ms. Engebretson felt about the 20-foot fence. Ms. Engebretson stated she would not be as impacted by the site as by the noise. while things may look good on paper, in reality they do not always really work. Mr. Kondrick asked if the fence as a noise barrier would help. Ms. Engebretson stated she did not know how much more noise this will generate. she can now hear normal conversations in the parking lot. Ms. Matthews stated the draft of the letter regarding the sound barrier states the height should be 28 feet. she has been in this battle for 22 years. she was advised to address the concerns. The purpose of a noise wall is to shield the adjacent neighborhood to the east. The height of the wall was intended to interrupt the site line along the mid-elevation. The height of 20-feet meets this condition for much of the area. when they met toni ght, they were taking pictures using the 20-foot piece of lumber. The height can cut the decibel level. when they held up the pole, it still did not shield the valley area. she thought they could handle this with an additional four feet. she has always been angry about the noise issue. This has gone on for a long time. rf we can negotiate four-feet to cover that hole, she would be more willing to cooperate. Mr. Kondrick asked if Ms. Matthews wanted the fence height raised from 20 feet to 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 20 feet. Mr. Matthews stated the hei ght should be 28 feet but it is not possible to go that high. she thought four additional feet would give more alleviation for the noise. The letter discussed consistent noise but it does not discuss impact noise of which we have a great deal. The additional sound barriers will reduce that impact noise. Mr. �ob stated his concern is the hours of operation for the open storage. rt will on the weekends. He purchased the property because it is in a quiet neighborhood. There will be more noise as Menards moves south. will there be some restrictions as when they start and stop? He would especially like to see weekend hours restricted. Mr. Kondrick asked what type of hours he would like to see. be to Mr. �ob stated he would prefer to see the hours after 9:00 a.m. and not after 2:00 p.m. rf they have guests, they cannot talk. rf they could restrict the outside hours, it would keep the neighborhood quiet. Mr. Arth stated he is not so much affected by the sound. He thought Menards was a very poor nei ghbor. For 27 years, they have had a bent tin fence with barbed wire across the front, the grass is not mowed on the outside of the fence, and there is trash. on weekends, you take your life into your hands to go home past the skywood Apartments because of the traffic that does not stop for the lights. To increase traffic would be a mistake. He does not think Menards has represented much responsibility to be a good neighbor in the past. You have talked about maintaining the fence but what rule to you have for maintaining the rest of the building. rn his opinion, it looks shabby. Mr. �elich stated he was in trouble with his neighbors because they think he supports the expansion. He is not for or against it. He is a businessman and he realizes you must grow or go out business. when he expressed his views on this expansion and any objections, his objection was not to the noise. They have screening which blocks some of the noise. The noise from the freeway is greater than anything else. when he is in the yard working, that is all he can hear so he does not hear the noise from Menards. He does not experience fumes. He doesn't hear things at night that they do. He is not saying that they are not disturbed, but for him this is not a problem. Mr. �elich stated he is not supporting Menards move. He has not changed his views except that he has expressed them more clearly. one is the unsi ghtliness and the second is to keep the promises they have made. one solution is the wall which will help with the sound. He feels in good conscience he cannot criticize the operation for the sake of criticism or because it may devalue his home. He knew that was commercial when he bought the property. He did not think it would change the value of his home. He thought it would be a plus for him to have the three-story building go down. He selected his lot because of the beautiful view. Mr. Kondrick stated Mr. �elich had mentioned that Menards is not a good neighbor and had not kept their promises. To what was he referring? Mr. �elich stated the area is not kept clean. He did not know how much was their responsibility and how much was litter. sometimes that is something we have to put up with. He has not had the problems that other neighbors have had. Ms. Matthews stated she would like to believe they can compromise and she wants to believe that this will happen. Menards has not been a good neighbor in the past. she has come to the conclusion that they will be there and she hoped they could reach a compromise. she wants a time line. she also hoped this will be a cleaner area. Mr. oquist stated he would like to have Menards address the issue of not being a good neighbor. Mr. colby stated he did not have an explanation. There has been a past history. From what has happened recently, there have been improvements. There is a new manager there who was brought in to improve the situation. Because it is a complex operation, it cannot happen overnight. This project does give Menards an opportunity for a fresh start. Mr. oquist stated he hoped this was true, but Menards can understand the perception. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 21 when dealing with this type of environment, it is important to keep the neighbors happy. Mr. oquist stated there is the issue of the fumes. rs the skywood Mall area going to be an indoor sales use? Mr. colby stated that area will be a drive-through, unheated warehouse that cars can access. Mr. Kondrick asked what their hours of operation were on weekends. Mr. colby stated the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on sunday. �uring the week, they are open at 7:00 a.m. Ms. Matthews stated she recommended the forklift hours in the yard be restricted. rf the sound wall makes a difference, this may not be an issue. The forklifts start early and run late. The trucks can come at any time. Mr. colby stated they can only control their own trucks. Ms. savage stated, since this must go before the Appeals commission, the hours of operation could be incorporated into the stipulations before the Appeals commission or city council reviews. Mr. Bliss stated he was far enough away so he was not impacted by the sound. rt is good to see compromise. His concern is the maintenance of the fence. The current fence looks poor. would that be covered by the current maintenance code? He does not want the same situation in the future. Mr. Hickok stated, as far as the current fence goes, fences are to be maintained in an appropriate manner. This is covered in one of the stipulations. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:12 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated sP #96-02 has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Mr. oquist stated he would like to delete some of the language from #96-07 so that it only includes machinery and merchandise. Mr. Hickok stated, because the wording shown is taken precisely from the code, he felt it should remain as such so that everyone is aware of the code requirements. He suggested to accomplish the same by adding a stipulation #14 on #96-07 and #8 on #96-06 which states: "Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by city staff, the Planning commission and approval by the city council." Mr. oquist asked if this would allow the christmas tree sales. Ms. McPherson stated the city has a separate license process for christmas tree sales lots. Typically, this is not governed under the zoning ordinance. Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with allowing the fence display on the building under sP #96-06, stipulation 1. rn sP #96-05 and sP #96-07, they had requested a change in stipulation 6. Mr. Hickok stated these standards are for all garden sales to make sure products are not rained on and result in pollution. Mr. saba and Ms. savage agreed that all others are required to comply and felt that Menards should comply also. Ms. Modig referred to sP #96-05 and sP #96-07, stipulation 4. They talked about materials being viewed from a vantage point outside of the fenced area. rs this vantage point considered to be at eye level and not above? Ms. Hickok stated there will be difficulty in the analysis of that. There is the topographic advantage to the east. on the north, west and south sides from an elevation PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 22 of six feet above the property, you would not see any materials. Along the east, it would be protected by the wall as best possible. He would add wording to indicate it is from north, west and south. Mr. saba stated some issues still need to be addressed including the ventilation; the hours of operation and restricting outside hours; and something to maintain the outside vegetation. Mr. Hickok stated they could require a performance bond to make sure the work is done and maintained for one year. As far as the exhaust, the special use permit addresses what is happening outside of the building. The stipulation about the building inspector approving modifications will address the issue of exhaust and vehicles travelling within a building. Ms. savage asked if there was anything they could do about the hours of operation. Mr. Hickok stated the city does not restrict hours. This is an issue between the neighbors and Menards. MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. savage, to recommend approval of special use Permit, sP #96-05, to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 5207 central Avenue NE (presently the skywood Mall property) with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of vAR #96-10, allowing a 20 to 24-foot high (rather than 14-foot high) accessory structure in a C-3, shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be required surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point from the north, west or south outside of the fenced area. 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. All emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will clock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed for building and code compliance and approved by the city Building official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished and maintained in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. saba, to recommend approval of special use Permit, sP #96-06, by Menard rnc., to allow unscreened exterior storage of materials and equipment, generally located at 965 - 53rd Avenue NE (the Menards property), with the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 23 following stipulations: 1. All outdoor storage and display of inerchandise (except yard barn/accessory buildings and fence display) on the north, west and south building faces shall be removed so not to be visible from the public right-of-way. 2. No future outdoor display of inerchandise shall be permitted without a review and approval of a special use permit by the city of Fridley. 3. All yard barns and accessory buildings shall be moved to an area north of the existing Menards entrance. 4. No yard barn or accessory building shall extend further west than the front corner of the existing building. 5. All modification to fence and gate to accommodate the yard barn/accessory structure display shall be reviewed for building and code compliance and approved by the city Building official prior to construction. 6. Any architectural detail of the display or modification shall be consistent with the architectural detail of the primary structure. 7. The yard barn/accessory building display shall be kept free of debris. 8. Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by city staff, the Planning commission and approval by the city council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of special use Permit, sP #96-07, by Menard rnc., to allow agencies selling or displaying recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment, machinery, manufactured homes, or other similar enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure, generally located at 5207 central Avenue NE (presently the skywood Mall property), with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of vAR #96-10, allowing a 20 to 24-foot high (rather than 14-foot high) accessory structure in a C-3, shopping Center District. 2. All light fixtures shall be of a downcast design and shall not create a horizontal glare. 3. Additional landscape shall be required surrounding the base of the new wall to soften the visual impact of the large structure on the surrounding landscape. Materials for this plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 4. No materials shall be stored in a manner that allows them to be viewed from a vantage point from the north, west or south outside of the fenced area. 5. The fence enclosure shall be properly maintained and kept in good repair. 6. There shall be no outdoor sales of fertilizer, pesticides, or other potential pollutants. 7. Emergency access knock down panels shall be incorporated into the rear yard area for emergency purposes. 8. All emergency access routes shall be kept free from materials, display and clutter that will clock or deter the safe passage of emergency vehicles. 9. All intercom devices shall be utilized in a manner and at a volume that does not negatively impact adjacent properties. 10. All building modifications shall be reviewed for building and code compliance and approved by the city Building official prior to commencement of construction. 11. Access into and out of the storage area shall be clearly marked for customer clarity. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 24 12. All exterior building surfaces shall be finished and maintained in an attractive manner that is architecturally compatible with the principal building. 13. The property shall be kept free of all debris. 14. Any sales of recreational vehicles, boats, marine equipment and manufactured homes shall require official review by city staff, the Planning commission and approval by the city council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. saba stated he thought Menards has done a good job in working with the neighborhood. He hopes they can keep up that dialogue with the neighbors. Mr. Hickok stated the city council would review this item at their meeting on �une 10. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF APRIL 11, MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. oquist, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of April 11, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. savage, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MAY 15, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:38 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �avonn Cooper Recording secretary