Loading...
04/05/2000 - 00008127CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the April 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Larry Kuechle, Barbara Johns, Connie Modig, Dean Saba, Dave Kondrick Members Absent: Leroy Oquist Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planner Timothy Jawor, 7411 University Ave. Kenneth James Steies, 8298 University Ave Chris Clos, 7300 Old Central Tom Rafferty, 148 Horizon Circle Clayton Hicks, 106 Hartman Circle Dave Phillips, Metal -Tek Marilyn Wegscheider, 7875 East River Road Jerri Lynn, Fridley Terrace Mobile Home Park Max Miller Jack Kirkham APPROVE THE MARCH 15, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the March 15, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Plat, PS #00-01, by Timothy Jawor, to accommodate a 6-unit townhouse, generally located at 7411 University Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:34 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner,Timothy Jawor, Is seeking to create seven separate lots from Lot 11, Block 1, Melody Manor, in order to construct a six-unit owner-occupied townhome complex at 7411 University Avenue. This property is rezoned to R-3, which PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 2 allows multi-dwelling complexes including rental and owner-occupied condominium type units. Existing identical apartment buildings are located on the south and north sides of the property. A church is located to the east and a mixture of commercial buildings are located across University Avenue. There are six lots for each of the units and the remainder of the property is the seventh lot. Mr. Bolin stated that in 1963, Mr. Ed Chies owned the property and obtained a building permit for an eight-unit apartment building, but he never constructed the building. In 1964, the City rezoned the property to R-2, which allows duplexes but not apartment buildings. In 1970, Mr. Chies sued the City to obtain his original building permit. A settlement was reached allowing R-3 standards to be applied to the property. In 1986, the zoning maps were accidentally drawn to show the property as R-3, but the property was never properly rezoned until the past summer. In 1994, someone proposed a seven-unit rental condominium project that required many variances, and the request was withdrawn. Mr. Bolin stated Mr. Jawor purchased the property last year and applied for a variance and replat to put in a seven-unit townhome project. The request was denied due to the variance for a rear yard setback from 40 feet down to 17 feet. By eliminating the seventh unit, the new proposal does not need any variances. Last June, the City rezoned the property to R-3 for the zoning maps to be consistent with the court settlement as well. Mr. Bolin stated that with the previous plat request, staff and the petitioner debated how much brick should be placed on the building. In the past week, the petitioner submitted two different elevations. Elevation option A is the option Staff feels most architecturally ties the building together and gives the appearance that all four faces are equally finished and would tie in with the buildings to the north and to the south. Both of those apartment buildings are over 30 years old but are in good shape due to the brick. Staff would like to see this building last as long as the buildings to the north and to the south. Option B, the petitioner's preferred option for brick, has only brick on the corners and a little bit on the north side in the two alcoves where the garage service doors are located. The brick is banded across both elevations. Staff recommends approval of the plat request with the following stipulations: 1. Grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2. The parking lot shall be constructed to Code standards. 3. The amount of brick used on building shall resemble Option A(as attached), submitted on March 28, 2000, to give the building a four-sided finished appearance. 4. Code-required fence shall be extended along the entire east side of the property. 5. All elements of the building must meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 6. The screening berm on the west side of property must meet zoning code requirement for height. 7. The petitioner shall submit a utility plan prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. The petitioner shall pay applicable park dedication fees of $750/unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 3 9. The final landscape plan must meet code requirements for number and sizes of plantings and must be approved by City staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. All green space must have irrigation installed and be sprinkled. 11. The proposed walkway shall be concrete. 12.A 12 feet utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire eastern edge of the property, prior to final plat. 13.A 10 feet utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire southern edge of property, prior to final plat. 14.A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. The plan shall comply with all State regulations regarding townhome associations. Ms. Savage asked if staff preferred option A because there is more brick. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct. Ms. Savage asked if the Christianson Crossing homes had brick. Mr. Bolin stated that all of the units had some brick. There are a few that do not have quite as much brick. The interior set of units is brick all the way around, has brick bollards, and is a reddish colored brick. Ms. Savage asked if the property has been vacant for a long time. Mr. Bolin stated that it has been vacant a long time. Ms. Modig asked if the seventh lot includes all of the area in front. Mr. Bolin stated that the seventh lot is all of the common property owned by the association. Ms. Modig asked how this green space is different than how it was proposed in 1999. Mr. Bolin stated that there is 23 feet more green space from the rear property line. Ms. Modig asked if that was by eliminating one townhouse. Mr. Bolin stated that was correct. The petitioner, Mr. Jawor, stated that the only concern he has is with stipulation #3 regarding the brick. One of the things they look at is cost. They thought option B was a good compromise. That is the one they intended to submit for the City. They were not required to submit building elevations for the site plan, and there was a mix-up with the architect who drew option A. They came to retrieve option A, but the City already had it. Option B has a lot of brick to go down in the front and back of the building. The back of the building is where the gas and electric meters and air conditioning units will be. There are planting areas in front of the brick areas where they will have shrubs. Those will be open to each individual unit to what they want for a planting area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 4 Mr. Jawor stated that he and his partner talked about originally having most of the brick on the University Avenue side. Staff wants to have the building balanced. They agreed to put brick on the far end of the building that will be screened with a six-foot high fence from the church. Nobody will be able to see that, but it will balance the building. Staff has mentioned that they want the building to look the same down the road as it does now. The building is still part siding and part brick. That argument is really irrelevant. The siding is maintenance-free with vinyl aluminum siding and aluminum soffits. Some day that needs to be replaced. What they are dealing with here is what looks better. The brick is decorative. These are single-family owner-occupied homes. Most of those do not have brick all the way around them. The Rottlund homes across the street do not have brick on the back of the buildings. He is asking that they can look at option B. They are trying to avoid putting brick all the way across the building on the front and back. Ms. Savage asked what the color would be. Mr. Jawor stated that they have not picked out that color yet, but staff can make that determination. It will be a neutral brick type. Ms. Savage asked if he has any problem with any other stipulations. Mr. Jawor stated that he did not. Ms. Modig asked what the cost differential would be per unit with or without the brick. Mr. Jawor stated that the additional brick would run somewhere around $6,000, $1,000 per unit. Fridley requires the concrete curbing around the parking lot and sprinkler systems when many cities do not. These things add to the cost, and it does get a little expensive. Mr. Kondrick stated that the east-west elevations in terms of the brick are not an issue. Mr. Jawor stated that was correct. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Jawor if the "bone of contention" was with the south face of the building for the brick. Mr. Jawor stated that is the one side where the air conditioning would go so that is where the brick will not be seen. It is more labor intensive to add the brick to all of the edges. The small panels by the garage doors are probably as expensive as the larger panels in the back. Mr. Kondrick stated that there is very little brick on the garage door side from one option to the other. It is the other south side where the bone of contention is. Mr. Jawor stated that both of those long elevations face the apartment buildings as well. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 5 Mr. Kondrick stated he understands that. Are the air conditioning units going to be on the south elevation side or on the garage door side? Mr. Jawor stated the air conditioning units would be on the south elevation as well as the gas and electric meters. Ms. Johns asked if the air conditioning units would be underneath the patio part of the elevation or by the doors. Mr. Jawor stated that they would probably be underneath the decks against the brick panels. Ms. Johns asked if he looked at any other options as far as putting the brick into the building without running the full span. Mr. Jawor stated that there were other ideas that came up. His original plan included putting brick only on the University Avenue side. Staff wants it to be on both ends of the building to balance it. He wanted the brick to be on the backside by the church and the fence where nobody can see it, to balance the building. That is the point where they want to stop, but staff is recommending that they go front and back. Ms. Johns stated she would think that if he were to balance the building by wrapping the corners from the short ends of the building, that would make more sense than running along the whole exterior face. Coming from when you turn the corner, you can see the end of the buildings with the brick, but then all of a sudden there is nothing when you turn the corner. Mr. Jawor stated that was what they tried to do. They came around the corner two feet both ways and the soffit by the garage doors carried it up. Ms. Johns asked why there were windows in option B and no windows in option A. Mr. Jawor stated these elevations were drawn purely to show the brick and rooflines. The architect missed the windows in option A, but the windows will be there. Mr. Kuechle asked what color the garage door would be. Mr. Jawor stated that the garage doors would be painted to match the siding. It would be tan basically. Mr. Kondrick stated that he is an advocate of having more brick; however, he also understands Mr. Jawor's proposal. Supposing the brick was eliminated in option B underneath the six windows and the brick was carried on everywhere except for under the windows. He likes the north elevation just the way it is. Mr. Kuechle stated that in option B, the north elevation is really broken up with the garage doors and the outpost for the garage entrances. Putting those narrow pieces of brick in between the garage doors will not make it that visible. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 6 Mr. Jawor stated that the parking area will be in front of those garage doors. Ms. Savage stated that the most visible part is going to be in the south elevation. Ms. Savage asked if anybody else in the audience wished to address this request. Mr. Jack Kirkham, a member of the church next door to the property, stated that he would like to see Mr. Jawor get a break. Option B looks a lot better than any of the duplexes that exist on University, and they would welcome the development of the property that has been vacant for a long time. They understand the savings if he can go without the brick and he believes that option B looks very nice. Mr. Lynne Hanson, owner of the building to north of the property, stated Mr. Jawor put together a good plan, and he hopes the City will approve it. He has been picking up garbage and junk on the lot for years and he thinks this will really improve the property. Mr. Kuechle stated that he wanted to discuss the brick issue and try to come up with some sort of plan. How would it be if they looked at a combination of options A and B and not including the area under the deck on the south elevation for the brick? How would it be to not to require any additional brick on the north elevation? Mr. Jawor asked if he meant no brick on the garage side. Mr. Kuechle stated that he meant no more brick other than what is shown on option B. The north elevation would stay as it is. Mr. Jawor stated that he would be agreeable to that. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Kuechle is he was suggesting that the brick (option A) under the windows would be left out. Mr. Kuechle stated that was correct and all of the brick on the north elevations would be as shown on option B. Mr. Jawor stated that he did not have a problem with that. Mr. Miller, the petitioner's partner in this development, asked what they were trying to accomplish by doing that. Do they feel they want to tie in the building better? By option B, they thought they brought the brick in to tie the building together and keep it at the price they have to consider in this process. By putting those extra panels in the back, what are they truly accomplishing? Is it an aesthetic look that they think is going to help the community or are trying to please staff? They are trying to get the best possible housing at the best possible price and that is the reason for option B. Mr. Kondrick stated that aesthetics are important. They are more important to staff than to the Commission. He is thinking how they can compromise. He would brick the whole thing if he had his way. He feels brick means a little more to the minds of most people and that is why he thinks he would prefer to have this compromise. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 Mr. Miller stated that is what he is trying to understand. PAGE 7 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:12 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated this is a good project, it adds to their community, and currently it is an eyesore. It would be great if they can compromise on the brick. Ms. Savage stated she understands where the other Commission members are coming from. She personally believes that there are many beautiful buildings that do not have brick. She does not have enough of an architectural vision to know what is being proposed is really good and looks good. It is a very worthwhile project and great asset for Fridley. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of the Plat, PS #00-01, by Timothy Jawor, to accommodate a 6-unit townhouse, generally located at 7411 University Avenue with stipulation #3 amended as follows: 1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2. The parking lot shall be constructed to Code standards. 3. The amount of brick used on building shall resemble Option B on the north elevation and modified option B on the south elevation with the four panels of brick between the decks, unless another is negotiated with City staff. 4. A code-required fence shall be extended along the entire east side of the property. 5. All elements of the building must meet the current building code and be approved by the City Building Official. 6. Screening berm on west side of property must meet the zoning code requirement for height. 7. The petitioner shall submit a utility plan prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8. The petitioner shall pay applicable park dedication fees of $750/unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. Final landscape plan must meet code requirements for number and sizes of plantings and must be approved by City staff prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. All green space must have irrigation installed and be sprinkled. 11. The proposed walkway shall be concrete. 12.A 12 feet utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire eastern edge of property prior to final plat. 13.A 10 feet utility and drainage easement shall be granted along the entire southern edge of property, prior to final plat. 14.A storm pond maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. The plat shall comply with all State regulations regarding townhome associations. Mr. Kuechle stated that he would like to keep stipulation #3 open so the builder and staff can agree on an alternative. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 8 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated that this would go to City Council on April 24. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a special use permit, SP #00-03, by Maertens-Brenny Construction Company, to increase the allowable lot coverage from 40% to 50% to accommodate a proposed new building for Metal-Tek, Inc., generally located at 7901 Main Street NE. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:16 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that Maertens-Brenny is requesting a special use permit to allow a proposed manufacturing building for Metal-Tek, Inc., to occupy 47% of the lot located at 7901 Main Street. The lot is over 107,000 square feet in size. The proposed building will be 50,561 square feet in size. City code does allow a one-story building in an M-2 district to cover up to 50% of the lot with the special use permit. That same section of code also requires the petitioner to meet all other ordinance requirements. Mr. Bolin stated the property is located on the corner of 79t" Avenue and Main Street. The building takes up nearly half of the site. In 1998, a special use permit was approved to allow a building on the site at 49% lot coverage, with some condtions. Some variances were needed prior to construction. Those were never obtained and the special use permit lapsed one year later since construction had not started. The new plan meets all the setbacks, parking stall numbers, and landscaping requirements. Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations. 1. All proper permits shall be obtained prior to start of construction. 2. Final drainage calculations and plan shall be approved by City Engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Due to lack of space on site, snow must be trucked off site and properly disposed of. 4. The petitioner and property owner shall meet with City Planning, Building, and Engineering staff for a pre-construction meeting prior to issuance of a building permit. The petitioner shall contact Planning staff to coordinate the meeting. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, or product. 6. Any propane tanks located on site shall be stored in accordance with State and Federal standards. Mr. David Phillips, architect for the project, stated that after they obtained the special use permit in 1998, they did over $100,000 worth of soil correction. They believe they did substantial construction work in preparing the site for use of the building by the soil correction. Stipulation #3 is the only one they take exception to. Many shopping centers and his office building all store the snow in the parking lot and on the grass area. The ordinance is already written to allow the shrinkage of the parking lot in the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 9 winter and it is common practice. There is a very large drainage pond that they could put snow into. When they cannot handle the snow on the lot, as with any other business, they would truck it out. They feel it is unreasonable to single out this site. What determines how many inches of snow there can be before it is trucked out? The business owner will take good care of the new facility. They have met all of the ordinances. They respectfully request approval without stipulation #3. Ms. Savage stated that stipulation #3 is pertaining to the fact that this property is different because there is a lack of space. Mr. Bolin stated that this stipulation came from the Development Review Committee. Planners, engineers, Fire Department staff, and Public Works Department staff get together to review these applications. The Public Works Department was concerned because there really is not much green space on the site. It will be hard to get rid of the snow because of the way the site is laid out. The petitioner's architect has mentioned the possibility of pushing the snow into the existing pond. That may be a solution for them. The engineering staff would be willing to look at some other alternatives. Another possibility may be for the petitioner to work out something with the neighboring properties. The property to the north has a large pond. A curb cut would allow the snow to be pushed through there easily. Ms. Modig asked Mr. Bolin if he was saying that the City of Fridley allows businesses to plow their parking lots (which contain oil, cans, and paper) into a holding pond. Mr. Bolin stated that the pond would need a catch basin. That filters out papers, bottles, and cans. Ms. Modig asked if all the ponds in the City of Fridley had catch basins. Mr. Bolin stated he would guess the ones that have been installed in the last 15 - 20 years do. Mr. Kondrick stated that, unfortunately, it all goes there anyway. Ms. Johns asked Mr. Bolin if the number of parking stalls required for this building are because of the size of the building or because of the amount of employees. Mr. Bolin stated that it goes by the square footage of the building. There is a little over 4100 square feet so they need 17 spaces for the office space. The manufacturing space has approximately 14,000 square feet and requires 34 parking spaces. Mr. Kondrick asked how many they actually have. Ms. Johns stated that they have 72 spaces and 3 handicap spaces. Mr. Saba stated that they possibly could plow the snow into the extra parking spaces. There are plenty left. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 10 Mr. Phillips stated that they meet all setbacks, and provide all the green area that any other commercial property is required to provide. They have exceeded the code on parking at the request of staff, they have 52 employees that work on three different shifts. On one shift they have approximately 40 stalls occupied. During the winter, that leaves 20 unoccupied stalls. His own office building in Fridley on East Moore Lake Drive has piles of snow on the rear edge of the property on parking stalls in January and December. This is not unusual. Most property owners of large commercial properties in the City of Fridley only truck the snow when there are unusual snow conditions. They will truck it when they need to depending on the snow conditions. Mr. Kuechle stated it is fairly obvious looking at the building site that there is going to be a snow removal problem because on the east and north side there is really no place to put snow. The only place to put snow is on the west side. It is going to be a problem. Most building sites have some maneuverability for moving snow around. Mr. Phillips stated that this is an operational problem. To say that they have to truck the snow off-site as opposed to having a loader put it in the pond or store it in other areas, is an unusual requirement. You do not enforce an ordinance in Holly shopping center when there is a big pile of snow right across the street there. The snow pile gets bigger and bigger and then melts in the spring. This owner is a responsible businessman in the City of Fridley. They will not violate the law with respect to putting the snow on the boulevards and will not diminish the parking. They will clear the lot so they can park all the employees on the site. Beyond that, the question is why the City needs to be spending any time inspecting snow removal when necessary. Mr. Tom Rafferty, 148 Horizon Circle N.E., stated he does not see how the City can make a stipulation like that. Any snow is going to be a bigger pain to him than it is to anyone else. The City does not comply with this. He has seen snow stacked out in the parking lot. The snow is being dumped in City parks. He does not see why they take one business in the City and tell him to move the snow. How much snow is too much? MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she did not think there was any question that they would approve the request. There is just a problem with stipulation #3. One possibility is that they could have the petitioner and staff work on resolving this problem. Ms. Dacy stated that she would like to suggest that the Commission and the petitioner consider that this is a special use permit to allow a bigger building on this site. This company may occupy the site for a number of years. Once the permit is approved, the building will be on there for the next 50 years at least. They have to plan ahead and accommodate all types of situations. Commissioner Kuechle captured the spirit of what staff was suggesting. There are not a lot of opportunities for the site plan, and the petitioner took offense to that. They respect the petitioner's opinion, but the City's intent is to point those issues out. Frankly, they would not inspect every snowfall so she is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 11 going to suggest language that is consistent with the spirit of what the petitioner wants. Stipulation #3 could read as follows: 3. The petitioner shall comply with the City ordinances regarding snow, plowing, and snow storage. If the snow cannot be properly stored on-site, the petitioner is responsible to find a suitable option without causing on-street parking. Ms. Dacy stated this puts the responsibility onto the petitioner to make those types of decisions as he must now. There is a cause and effect there. They are trying to make sure that everything can be contained on the property, and the snow is not being plowed on the street. The petitioner complies with the ordinances right now, but this establishes for the record, for this use, and for future use, what the expectations are for the property. Mr. Phillips stated that he was trying to say the same thing. They have no objection to providing parking for employees on site. The stipulation could say "If the amount of snow requires off-site parking of the employees, it should be hauled to a different spot." They do not want to be in technical violation of the ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated that the language permits the situation. It puts the responsibility in the property owner's court. If they are not causing on-street parking, then they are okay. Mr. Phillips stated that he agrees wholeheartedly. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the special use permit, SP#00-03, by Maertens-Brenny Construction company, to increase the allowable lot coverage from 40% to 50% to accommodate a proposed new building for Metal-Tek, Inc., with the following stipulations: 1. All proper permits shall be obtained prior to start of construction. 2. Final drainage calculations and plan to be approved by City Engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The petitioner shall comply with City ordinances regarding snow plowing and snow storage. If the snow cannot be properly stored on site, the petitioner is responsible to find a suitable option without causing the necessity for on-street parking by the petitioner's employees. 4. The petitioner and property owner shall meet with City planning, building, and engineering staff for a pre-construction meeting prior to issuance of a building permit. The petitioner shall contact planning staff to coordinate meeting. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, or product. 6. Any propane tanks located on site shall be stored in accordance with State and Federal standards. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 12 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a special use permit, SP#00-04, by Kenneth James Steies, to accommodate a restaurant and a bar, generally located at 8298 University Avenue (Old Moose Lodge). MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:45 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that Mr. Steies, the petitioner, is seeking a special use permit to allow a bar in the proposed restaurant in the existing Moose Lodge, located at 8298 University Avenue. City code requires a special use permit for bars and taverns prior to the issuance of a liquor license. The existing building is located at the intersection of 83rd Avenue and University Avenue service road. Across the service drive from the property is the orthopedic clinic. To the south is Bachman's. To the north across 83rd is Banfill Crossing and Springbrook Apartments. To the west is a multi-tenant industrial building. The building was originally constructed in 1976 as a bar and restaurant. The building came with a number of different bars and restaurants until the Moose Lodge purchased it in 1990. The Moose Lodge occupied the facility until 1999. City Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations. 1. All proper permits shall be obtained prior to start of remodeling. 2. Petitioner shall remove existing horseshoe pits and return to parking area or revert to green space. Restoration shall include creating a clean edge to the broken asphalt in this area, or removal of the asphalt entirely. 3. The petitioner shall repair potholes, overlay, and restripe parking lot. Parking lot shall be restriped to meet all handicap stall requirements. 4. All retaining walls must be properly engineered and reconstructed. 5. Proper guard rails and proper handrails shall be installed where required. 6. Wooden steps on south side of building, going down to parking lot, shall be designed to not have open risers or storage below stairway. These stairs must be certified to meet weight requirements. 7. Engineering to be provided to certify load capacity of existing deck. In addition any rotted, broken, or cracked decking shall be replaced. The existing shed shall be removed or code-required firewall installed. 8. The existing shed shall be removed or code-required firewall installed. 9. Irrigation shall be installed to all green space area, including boulevard, as required by City Code. 10. A code-required garbage dumpster enclosure shall be provided on site. 11. No outdoor storage shall be allowed on this site. All existing garbage, scrap, junked appliances, and lumber shall be removed from the site. 12. The petitioner shall certify that all HVAC and replacement air equipment meet required standards. Mr. Kondrick asked if it was possible that the petitioner could make the decks larger than they are. Is the lot able to handle a larger building? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 13 Mr. Bolin stated that he believes it would be. It is a large lot and they are nowhere near the allowable lot coverage. There is ample room to the south of the building without having any setback issues. Mr. Kuechle asked if the number of parking stalls were over the amount needed. Mr. Bolin stated that the number is way over. He believes that they have 179 and are about 75-80 stalls over what they need. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner has any idea of the seating capacity. Mr. Bolin stated that he could not answer that question, but the upstairs will be a grill and bar type setup and the basement will be more of a banquet facility. Ms. Savage stated that it sounds like they are planning to keep the building pretty much as is. Mr. Kenneth Steies, the petitioner, stated that they are going to add three windows to the south side. They have no problem with the stipulation, although they need to renegotiate some things like the retaining walls. He can see how it needs those, but that would be the only thing for them at the time. Ms. Savage asked if they were going to keep the interior pretty much the same way. Mr. Steies stated that it would be kept the way it is, but they are going to extend the bar approximately 20 feet using some seating space that is there now. It will be mostly cosmetic changes. Mr. Saba asked if it would be a sports bar type restaurant. Mr. Steies stated, yes. The menu would be mostly steaks, chicken, ribs, hamburgers and some specialty sandwiches. They intend to have wedding receptions and that type of thing also. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba to recommend approval of SP #00-04, by Kenneth Steies, to accommodate a restaurant and a bar, generally located at 8298 University Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. All proper permits shall be obtained prior to start of remodeling. 2. The petitioner shall remove existing horseshoe pits and return to parking area or revert to green space. Restoration shall include creating a clean edge to the broken asphalt in this area, or removal of the asphalt entirely. 3. Petitioner shall repair potholes, overlay, and restripe parking lot. Parking lot shall be restriped to meet all handicap stall requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 14 4. All retaining walls must be properly engineered and reconstructed. 5. Proper guard rails and proper handrails shall be installed where required. 6. Wooden steps on south side of building, going down to parking lot, shall be designed to not have open risers or storage below stairway. These stairs must be certified to meet weight requirements. 7. Engineering to be provided to certify load capacity of existing deck. In addition any rotted, broken, or cracked decking shall be replaced. The existing shed shall be removed or code required firewall installed. 8. The existing shed shall be removed or code required fire wall installed. 9. Irrigation shall be installed to all green space area, including boulevard, as required by City Code. 10. A code-required garbage dumpster enclosure shall be provided on site. 11. No outdoor storage shall be allowed on this site. All existing garbage, scrap, junked appliances, and lumber shall be removed from the site. 12. The petitioner shall certify that all HVAC and replacement air equipment meet required standards. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this item will go to the City Council on April 24. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the current draft of the year 2020 Comprehensive Plan to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Dacy stated that the purpose of the hearing is to receive the comments on the current draft of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This is the second hearing in the process and there is still some time to go. The Commission has the prerogative to have any types of changes, additions, or deletions. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff suggests that the Commission make a motion to recommend that the current draft of the plan be forwarded on to the City Council. The City Council will then authorize staff to forward the draft to the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Dacy stated that they have been into this process a number of years now. Staff and Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., worked on the draft plan during 1999. In 1998, two vision meetings were conducted to identify what Fridley should be doing in 10-15 years from now. Prior to that, the Planning Commission hosted meetings and solicited comments from the seven planning areas within the City at the time. In December, the Commission looked at the drafts of the land use, housing, transportation chapters, and a summary of the vision issues. Ms. Dacy stated there is a draft now of the surface water management plan for the runoff in the City from development and suggestions to properly control that and protect Rice Creek and the Mississippi River. There is now a chapter on the current water supply status and its future. There is now a sewer service chapter and a critical area chapter. The critical area refers to the land that abuts the Mississippi River. There is also the implementation chapter that attempts to take all of the various aspects together and tries to put together a feel for how the City will move on from here. They are PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 15 suggesting some additional text in the land use section this evening about community livability. In December there was some testimony from a resident about what makes a community livable and strong and vital. There are a lot of things in the City that contribute to that. It is important to keep this language out in front of the policy makers. Ms. Dacy stated that there is additional text about aviation issues. State law says that they have to relate how Fridley sits in the flight patterns compared to Minneapolis and St. Paul International Airport. Ms. Dacy stated that in the past couple of months they have taken another look at the bikeway/walkway connections. They suggested additional language to the parks and open space chapter to suggest that over the next 5-10 years they take a look at these additional types of connections. They also created a section about the nature center and its entry area. Ms. Dacy stated that the plan tries to address concerns that came up in the vision meetings. There is concern about the need to improve Fridley's image and a need to improve the housing stock and maintain a safe image and a safe community. There were also suggestions that they try to build the commercial base and attract different commercial uses. They needed to look at the transportation systems to try to improve that somehow. One way to address image and new development is redevelopment. There is less than five acres of vacant commercial land and less than 60 acres of vacant industrial land. They are definitely in a redevelopment mode. Ms. Dacy stated the plan suggests three areas. The first is north of 73rd Avenue and goes all the way up to Osborne Avenue. The second area is between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road along Old Central. The third area is along I-694 because of the Medtronic Development. The plan also states that they need to look at other ways of transportation than the automobile. It suggests working on all aspects of transit in all its forms. This includes bikes, walking, or trying to create better bus service to Fridley, commuter rail proposal, or light rail. The plan also proposes that they try to connect the various aspects of the City together by bikeways/walkways, design types of connections of streets that add identity. Ms. Dacy stated that there is a strong desire to maintain the livability of the neighborhoods within the community. The best way is to continue with the housing rehabilitation programs, scattered site acquisition program, and continue with the systematic code enforcement program. There is a very strong desire and need to make sure our current park and open space areas are adequately maintained. They are well maintained now and there are some areas to make certain improvements. They need to preserve the natural resources including Mississippi River and Rice Creek. The local water management plan helps to do that. They have to do the wellhead protection plan and try to strike the balance of what they are doing to the environment as they go ahead and develop. Ms. Dacy stated the Metropolitan Council has written a letter to all communities along the commuter rail route to initiate a station area plan process and adopt that plan as part of its comprehensive plan. Fridley at 61 St Avenue and Main Street, on the east and west side of the tracks west of the Hyde Park area, is being evaluated for a potential PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 16 station stop. There will be a separate process for this starting in May or June. Once this process is concluded, the City will have to evaluate an amendment. The Northstar Corridor Development Authority is sponsoring the planning process. Ms. Dacy stated that the plan should pay some attention to the future of telecommunication in the community. They have not had time to do that and it is appropriate to spend some more time with the Cable Commission. They also have not been able to address some human resource issues. The plan is trying to tie together all of the physical elements and meet State law and the mandate to get that into Metropolitan Council. They then have to figure out what the social issues are that provide the social fabric that makes the community tick. The other challenge is as they evaluate some redevelopment areas and look at specific properties, they will have to look at land use and the zoning to make sure those two are consistent. The plan suggests a number of studies in different parts of the City they should take a look at and maybe evaluate a redevelopment in certain areas. Staff recommends the Commission conduct a hearing and, after that, staff would like to receive feedback about the plan. Ms. Jerri Lynn, resident of Fridley Terrace Mobile Home Park, stated that there are three areas identified for potential redevelopment in the plan. She asked for clarification. Ms. Dacy stated the plan specifically states the following: "The mobile home park provides a source of affordable housing and should be maintained and enhanced where possible. Existing multiple family properties in the area may be eligible for available rental rehab programs." The plan acknowledges that the 400 units on the east side of TH 65 and the west side provide a valuable source of affordable housing. There are no plans to acquire or redevelop. Ms. Lynn stated that she is getting a mixed message. Ms. Dacy stated that the term "future redevelopment area" could be a rehab program, acquisition, or streetscape program improving the appearance of the street. Ms. Lynn stated they are being told by the City that the City of Fridley cannot intervene in private parks because it is private property. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. She was referring to a public street. Ms. Lynn stated that she hopes that the City of Fridley and the park residents and owners can get together very soon to connect a park closing ordinance that is much needed in the City of Fridley. Ms. Modig asked what kind of ordinance she was talking about. Ms. Lynn stated that a park closing ordinance is allowed by State statute. It allows for displaced mobile home owners to be compensated in the event that their parks close down. Without the ordinance, the residents would receive nine months notice and told to get out at their own expense. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 17 Ms. Dacy stated that Ms. Lynn submitted a packet of ordinances from other communities, and staff is initiating an analysis of the request she has made. Ms. Lynn stated that she will give a copy of the Apple Valley park closing ordinance that was enacted on March 23. Ms. Marilyn Wegscheider, 7875 East River Road, stated she is concerned about the community and praises all the work that has been put into the plan. She is concerned about community livability and is wondering what systems criteria they are using. Ms. Dacy stated that the additional text they are suggesting is regarding community livability and includes a strong safety program, a crime watch program, well-maintained City streets, and public infrastructure. The plan also suggests a look at a diversity of housing types at different points in the life cycle. That gets to the hard part of what will happen in the future because they are almost fully developed and they have to initiate redevelopment for new housing. Gateway East is an example of this. Ms. Wegscheider stated that she is concerned about inclusionary housing and she wonders how much that is included in the plan. This housing includes owner-occupied housing as well as rental property. She appreciates the fact that there is a lot of rental property in Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated that the housing chapter states that there is a demographic need and a market for rental apartments with three bedrooms. While the community has about 3,500 rental units, most are in the age range of being built in the late 1950s or 1960s. They are beginning to reach their 30 or 40 year life cycle in terms of maintenance or need for improvement. Rental rehab programs are now provided for owners but the suggestion is maybe they need to be more aggressive with that and possibly new construction. Ms. Wegscheider asked if the possible new station for the commuter rail will displace some people in the affordable housing area. She is advocating for continuing affordable housing in that area and wants to also have support for services of the folks waiting for the commuter train such as including coffee shops,.etc. Ms. Dacy stated that the potential park and ride site on 61 St Avenue is being proposed on vacant land, and there will be no acquisition of developed properties as currently proposed. The Hyde Park area between Main and University, as well as the neighborhood to the north, will benefit from the service of the park and ride site. Mr. Kondrick asked if Ms. Wegscheider feels a need for more or less of a certain type of housing for senior citizens. Ms. Wegscheider stated that she knows that housing for senior citizens is a huge need in the whole county. Fridley has made some good strides in that area with the Banfill housing and Norwood Square. She loves Fridley very much and this will be where she may retire possibly. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 18 Mr. Rafferty asked if there was anything in the plan that stabilizes the City in any way. He lived in the City five years and then moved away for 17 years and then moved back and the City changed very much. He did not know his way around the City for the first two years. He would like to see something in the plan that states that certain things will not be changed so anyone who has left the City and comes back will recognize it. Ms. Dacy stated that the plan does make a statement that there is a preference to keep University Avenue as four lanes. There is enough right-of-way to go six lanes and support transit type projects and bus service. The growth north is incredible; and, at some point, the policymakers and the City Council are going to have to decide at what point do you stop building roads. Mr. Chris Clos, owner of Fridley Auto Parts, stated that whenever a survey is done about their recycling, they are always referred to as junkyards. This is upsetting because they are not. They follow all ordinances and try to keep it clean and remodel. Is there anyone who can change the wording of his business to automotive recyclers in the surveys instead of salvage yards and junkyards? Residents may stop and think that it is something the community needs. What are people of Fridley going to do when their car breaks down and they buy a new car? Is the redevelopment of the salvage yards something that is being discussed in the City of Fridley? Ms. Dacy stated that the plan does suggest that the automotive recycling uses in that area be redeveloped. There will be more meetings involving the owners about this topic. She cannot answer when this is going to happen. This is not a notice to vacate but the intent is to take a close look at that and make a decision. The text of the plan refers to them as salvage yards. Through the benefit of Microsoft and wordsearch they can easily plug in the automotive term. Mr. Clos stated they are constantly trying to make their business look nice. They even got an award from the City for their business. He feels that they are not really treated as a real business but an eyesore as a junkyard. Mr. Saba asked if the plan addresses the fact of what Medtronic will be doing pertaining to how it affects the whole city. Ms. Dacy stated that, no, the plan does not address the full impact. This is a major recommendation of the plan to spend time to do that. The City Councils of Columbia Heights and Fridley are looking at establishing a joint task force for this. Mr. Kondrick asked about the money they need to do these things. Is the City making efforts to get money from the State and federal governments? If they had a master plan to change some areas, how do they get that money? Ms. Dacy stated that a couple things that are going on with the automotive recycler people is that in the last three or four years the state has finally provided pollution clean- up funds through DTED and Metropolitan Council. The City has taken advantage of that with the Onan-Murphy project and another company on Main Street. That has provided about $1,500,000 in clean-up funds. There is more of an environment at the legislature and the regional agencies to fund those types of projects. The Metropolitan PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 PAGE 19 Council has had the Livable Communities Program to fund redevelopment types of projects that marry the transit with the housing and jobs. That is a resource that has not been there for a while. The City has a resource with the tax-increment funds and the salvage yards are right in an existing district, but how much do you spend and how much do you get in return? A master plan does help to identify the cost. This year the City Council is coming to the Planning Commission to talk about some of those priorities. The HRA will also have a meeting on April 17 to talk about that. Mr. Kondrick stated that he thinks that Fridley needs more character and they need to find ways to make Fridley more attractive than it is. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of the year 2020 Comprehensive Plan to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 21, 2000, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the March 21, 2000, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting with the correction of a spelling error. Ms. Johns' name was typed as Ms. Johnson on page 3. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Dacy stated that the Joint Task Force with the City of Columbia Heights will be an 11 member task force that will consist of a City Council member from each community, a Planning Commission member, an HRA member and a member of the business community, as well as representatives from the school districts. Councilmember Barnette is the appointed Council member and she wanted to ask the Commission to appoint Diane Savage as the Chairperson to also serve in that capacity on that task force. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to appoint Ms. Savage to the Joint Task Force. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage reminded the Commission members of the April 17 meeting with the City Council at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 2000 ADJOURNMENT: PAGE 20 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 5, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary