Loading...
04/19/2000 - 00008147CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMISSION MEETING, APRIL 19, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the April 19, 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: Larry Kuechle Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planner AI Thoreson, 1314 Hillcrest Drive, NE Howard Tappe, 2601 East River Road Paul Klein, 5974 4t" Street, NE Kais Guiga, Vice-President Islamic Center Ray McAfee, 1360 Hillcrest Drive APPROVE THE APRIL 5, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the April 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INTRODUCTION OF BARBARA JOHNS. NEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER: Mr. Hickok stated that he would like to introduce the newest Planning Commission Member, Barbara Johns. The City would like to welcome her and thank her for her interest in the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is an important role in the processing of land use action items in the City. Ms. Johns is also the Chairperson of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a special use permit, SP #00-07, accessory structure (garage) over 240 square feet, Rice Creek Road. Ms. Savage stated that this hearing was withdrawn. by Jim Kiewel, for a second generally located at 1631 Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a special use permit, SP #00-05, by Howard R. Tappe Jr., for a second accessory structure (garage) over 240 square feet, generally located at 7601 East River Road NE. MOTION by Mr. Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Kondrick. 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 Mr. Tappe is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 720 square foot accessory building to be used strictly for vehicle parking and storage. Second accessory buildings over 240 square feet are a permitted special use in the R-1 zoning district, provided that the total square footage of all accessory buildings does not exceed 1,400 square feet. Mr. Bolin stated that the property is zoned R-1 single family. The properties to the north and south of the property are also R-1, single family. To the east are the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. To the west across East River Road are more single family homes. This lot was platted in 1941, and the home was built sometime prior to 1949. The proposed drawings provided by the petitioner and the builder indicate that with the existing garage and a small storage shed that is also located on the property, the proposed accessory structure will total 1,350 square feet, well within the acceptable square footage. Mr. Bolin stated that the proposed garage will be located east of the current garage location. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall install the code required hard surface driveway. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City. 5. Total square footage of all accessory structures must not exceed 1,400 square feet. 6. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the existing home. Mr. Bolin stated the actual size of the lot is different than the size the builder submitted, which was 120 feet wide by 500 feet deep. In reality, the lot is only 100 feet wide and 360 feet deep on the northern edge and 340 feet deep along the southern edge of the property. The property is still 35,000 square feet. It is not the 60,000 square feet as originally thought. Because of that, an additional stipulation is added requiring the petitioner to have the property surveyed before it goes to the Council to identify and eliminate the need for any variances. There is enough of a difference between the builder's site plan and the actual size of the lot that they are not sure if the garage is set back 15 feet or 10 feet. Mr. Bolin stated that prior to Council approval, there is some recommended wording for a 7th stipulation as follows: "The petitioner shall submit a professional prepared and signed survey prior to City Council review of the item. Further, City staff points out that inclusion of stipulation #6 shall serve as notice to the petitioner that an additional 60 days will be required and the City will be compelled to act on the item within 120 days of the original application date. The survey will be completed on time for proper review and scheduling for City Council action within the 120-day period." Mr. Kondrick stated that is for the property owner's protection as well. Mr. Bolin stated that is correct. Ms. Savage stated that there was a discrepancy in the written materials, stipulation #5, and the stipulations in the Staff's presentation. Mr. Bolin stated that was a typo on his part, and staff would like to keep the written report's stipulation #5. Mr. Kondrick asked if the first stipulation regarding the required hard surface driveway had a time frame for completion. Mr. Bolin stated that would be an excellent idea. They would suggest perhaps 12 months. By City Code, the petitioner would be required to install the hard surface driveway by January 1, 2002. Ms. Modig asked if he meant 12 months after the completion of the construction or just straight 12 months from the time it is approved. Mr. Bolin stated that he meant 12 months from the date of the building permit. Mr. Howard Tappe, the petitioner, stated that Mr. Bolin explained things well. He has nothing to add and had no problems with any stipulations. Mr. Kondrick asked if he understood the surveying process so he could make sure he is not building on someone else's property. Mr. Tappe stated that he understood. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Kondrick. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:42 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated that it was pretty straightforward. Mr. Kondrick stated he has no problem with this. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve SP #00-05, by Howard Tappe Jr., for a second accessory structure over 240 square feet with the amended stipulations as follows: 1. Petitioner shall install Code required hard surface driveway within 12 months of issuance of the building permit. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface as approved by the City. 5. Total square footage of all accessory structures must not exceed 1,400 square feet. 6. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the existing home. 7. The petitioner shall submit a professionally prepared and signed survey prior to City Council review of this item. Further, City staff points out that inclusion of stipulation #7 shall serve as notice to the petitioner that an additional 60 days will be required, and the City will be compelled to act on the item within 120 days of application. The survey shall be completed in time for proper review and scheduling for City Council action within 120 days. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a lot split, LS #00-02, by Earl Weikle & Son's, to split the lot, generally located at 5925 University Avenue NE. 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 7:45 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that the property is currently owned by the ALANO Society. The petitioners, Earl Weikle & Sons, are seeking to split lot 26, block 13 of the Hyde Park addition in order to create a lot of over 24,000 square feet to construct a new commercial building for Van-O-Lite, a lighting fixture store. If the lot split is granted, the lot would be legally described as the north 20 feet of lot 26, and all of lots 27, 28, 29, and 30, lot 13, Hyde Park, together with that part of the west half of the vacated alley lying adjacent thereto. The proposed location is on the corner of 60t" Avenue and the University Avenue service drive. Mr. Bolin stated that this property is zoned C-2, commercial. Across University to the west is S-1, the Hyde Park area. To the east is an R-2, two-family dwelling zoning district. Mr. Bolin stated both lots will meet the City code requirements for lot size. Once the vacated alleyway is properly recorded with lots 25, 26, 29. and 30. The petitioner's surveyor indicated that when they went through the title search process and were putting together the drawings for the lot split, they found that lots 25, 26, 29, and 30, the alley vacation, were never recorded at the County because they are Torrens property, whereas all the other properties on this block were recorded as abstract property had the alleyway vacation been recorded with them. In January 1962, Ordinance #201 was passed vacating that alleyway. This will require the petitioner to work with Anoka County to get the alleyway vacation recorded with the Torrens property in order to keep the property over the 24,000 square foot requirement for lot size. Mr. Bolin stated that City staff recommends approval with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall be responsible for any actions required to transfer fee title to the vacated alley. This action must be completed prior to issuance of any building permits due to the fat that the lot is substandard in size without inclusion of the vacated alleyway. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. Mr. Kondrick asked if the recording of the vacation of the alleyway could be included in stipulation #1. Mr. Bolin stated that the stipulation was written with the intent of recording the alleyway in mind. Mr. Kondrick asked if any neighbors called regarding this. Mr. Bolin stated that they have had no comments. Mr. Earl Weikle, petitioner and CEO of Earl Weikle & Sons, a general construction company, stated they have been commissioned by Van-O-Lite to help them obtain the property and construct a building. They are an old established business in the neighborhood. They have outgrown their facility and want to build a new attractive facility to enhance their business. Ms. Savage asked if there were any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Weikle stated there were no problems at all. Mel Peters, representative of the Board of Trustees for the ALANO Society, stated that they feel that Van-O-Lite would be a great neighbor to them, and they have been working together to get this resolved so they can get that property. Paul Klein, 5974 4t" Street, stated that he is the neighbor directly behind this piece of property. He has a pretty good track record with this property. The previous owner of this property, Skip Stewart of Stewart Homes, brought in over 100 trucks full of dirt to level this piece of property after the fire department had burned off the house that was previously on this piece of property. His property covers the last half of the parking lot of the ALANO Society and the other half is the vacant, so it must be the lot that is being split. Mr. Klein stated the builder did not meet all of the recommendations when that building was built. He subsequently had damage to his property due to the City of Fridley signing off on the building permit, giving back the contract to the bonds, and so forth. He was flooded out by rainwater due to the storm sewer problem with the ALANO property and the field drain associated with the piece of property they are discussing this evening. The previous builder did not put in the three-foot high berm, and the field drain was 6-8 feet higher than it was supposed to have been. Mr. Klein stated there have been major ponding and runoff problems from the ALANO property across their parking lot with major storm water. He and his neighbor have had major water damage. He has documentation of these occurrences since this has happened. He has received payment from the ALANO Society for the water damage. He has major concerns regarding the storm water runoff and the berm situation. He has not had a lot of problems with the ALANO Society as a neighbor. The fence is not maintained at 100%. Curbing is not 100% all the way around the parking lot, so his first assumption is that ALANO Society was expanding the parking lot. The berm of dirt separates the asphalt from the dirt. Ms. Savage asked if he has had recent problems with flooding. Mr. Klein stated that he has not had any once it was resolved. There is a field drain in the middle of the piece of property. Mr. Hickok stated sounds like the issue was resolved after discussion in the early 1990s. To assure the Commission and the speaker that any new development on this site will be required to maintain and hold its own water, the City is very careful to make certain that the on-site ponding requirements meet all the State guidelines. As a result of the catch basin, there will be no runoff detrimental to an adjacent property owner. There is a fence requirement any time a commercial project is developed next to residential. This fence stops at the edge of the existing parking and a new fence will be required to carry on and separate that residential area from this new project. Ms. Johns asked Mr. Hickok if there are requirements to have curbs on the parking lot. Mr. Hickok stated that there are. Curbs are required and variances were granted to the ALANO Society for their location for parking, and it was anticipated that in the future they would be expanding their parking to the north if necessary. When that happens in the City, there have been short-term agreements through the process that the curb is required at the time of expansion. This will finish off both the ALANO's parking area and the new projects parking area and they will expect that all parking curb requirements are met as the project is finished off. Ms. Modig asked if it requires the curb to go all the way around the back. Mr. Hickok stated that they would need to finish their curbing requirements now that the parking is going to be completed. Ms. Johns asked Mr. Klein if that would help him out with the curbing. Mr. Klein asked if they were talking about a buffer between parking lots. Mr. Peters stated that as far as the overflow parking, Van-O-Lite would allow Fridley ALANO to utilize their parking lot after 5:00 p.m. for any overflow parking. The drain system that was placed in some years ago has been working. The sound barrier fence will be rebuilt, along with Van-O-Lite's fence, making one fence all the way across. They plan to put in lighting where the 24 strips will be in the middle where the split will take place facing north and south of the parking lot. They would appreciate it if any of the neighbors would let them know if this causes any problems so they can deal with it when the time comes. As far as the strip goes, they have agreed it would be pavement all the way straight across to eliminate the curbing. Mr. Klein asked if there could be a site lighting plan that is part of the documentation to this pertaining to how high the ballards would be and would there be wall packs on the back of the building. He does not want his back yard lit up by commercial lighting after the business is closed. Mr. Hickok stated that Code requires shielded downcast lighting to eliminate the horizontal glare to adjacent properties. They also do require that no lighting would have an impact of greater than three-foot candles at the property line. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, 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 8:10 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated that it seems to be pretty straightforward. Some of the things will be discussed again in the construction stage. Mr. Kondrick stated that he agrees. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of SP #00-02 by Earl Weikle & Son's to split the lot with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall be responsible for any actions required to transfer fee title to the vacated alley. This action must be completed prior to issuance of any building permits due to the fat that the lot is substandard in size without inclusion of the vacated alleyway. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this will go to the City Council on May 8. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a lot consolidation, LS #00-03, by Kais Guiga, Islamic Center of Minnesota, to consolidate parcels, generally located at 1413 Gardena Avenue NE. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a special use permit, SP #00-06, by Kais Guiga, Islamic Center of Minnesota, to allow temporary (modular) classrooms, generally located at 1413 Gardena Avenue NE. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Johns, 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 8:14 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this is a combination lot split and special use permit request for the Islamic Center at 1401 Gardena Avenue. The Islamic Center is requesting a special use permit to allow the installation of an 83 foot by 68 foot classroom building at the northeast corner of their existing building. The Islamic Center is also requesting a lot combination to allow the residential site at 1413 Gardena to be added to the Islamic Center school property. Mr. Hickok stated the Islamic Center has evaluated a number of different options on this site for a classroom building. It is a site that has many interesting aspects. The site was originally designed as a public elementary school site and is neatly situated on the north side of Gardena and is surrounded by residential. Immediately to the north is the edge of a woodland fringe surrounding a wetland area. Mr. Hickok stated the school and City staff wanted to make sure that area was not detrimentally impacted by an expansion or a temporary classroom. There were two options initially considered. One was to put the classroom to the west putting the classroom on top of existing parking. This created the need to expand parking to make up for the loss. One was to move the classroom to the northeast corner. There is a classroom building centrally located on the site and straight to the north between the woodland fringe and the building is a jungle gym playground area and then to the west is a large open field and parking area. There is a slope and another portion to the playground area that serves the school's outdoor activities needs. The location picked was the northeast corner. The slope considerations had to be given to make sure that the building was going to be properly situated and that enormous detrimental impact would not be made on the hillside or playground. Mr. Hickok stated that the classroom building would be linked to the larger building. A classroom link would be ten feet wide. The classroom building itself needs to be 20 feet away from the building by Code to provide a fire safety separation. This can be linked with a weather-tight and temperature control link. This works with the contours of the hill and is positioned to cross the property line. To the east is a home with a detached garage. West of the home is a vertical dashed line representing the property line for this project. The Islamic Center now owns that residential property where the home and garage exists providing flexibility to put the classroom off from the slope as much as possible and saves as many trees as possible on the residential site. Mr. Hickok stated the site is over ten acres in area with the addition of the classroom and residential property to the east at ten and a half acres. Smaller lots surrounding this site are R-1, single family residential. The Code requires a special use permit for a private school in an R-1 zoning district. Tonight the Commission is considering a special use permit based on the expansion of the existing private school in this district. The building itself sites on piers because of its temporary nature instead of a full foundation. Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations: 1. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 2. The special use permit shall be for a 3-year period. 3. The building shall be located in accordance with the Site Plan dated 3-17-00, by Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. 4. All necessary protection devices shall be provided to protect children around the retaining wall on the northeast corner of the building. 5. Staff recommends that the Islamic Center file a special use permit application for a day care center in a residential district if they intend to utilize the home at 1413 Gardena Avenue in that manner. Staff recommends the following stipulations for the Lot Split/Combination, LS #00-03: 1. A lot combination form shall be filed with the Anoka County upon approval by the City Council. 2. Approval of Special Use Permit, SP #00-05. Mr. Oquist asked if the Islamic Center has a special use permit now for a school in an R-1 district. Mr. Hickok stated that they do not. This school evolved from a public school to a private school through a real estate transaction. The expansion of the private school is what has triggered the special use permit. Mr. Oquist stated they should have had a special use permit when that became a private school. Mr. Hickok stated that it is very much like Totino Grace's situation. They went through a special use permit process earlier this year when they were redoing their football field and athletic area. Totino Grace also existed prior to having a special use permit. Mr. Oquist stated that a special use permit allows these temporary classrooms for three years. Is this the length of the temporary modular classroom and what happens after three years. Mr. Hickok stated that they would need to have it revisited by the Commission and Council at that time. If it were to be extended beyond three years, it would take Commission recommendation and Council concurrence that it could happen. Staff has made it very clear to the school that they want it to be a temporary structure if approved. They have plans for a permanent school expansion, and this bridges the gap for the capital improvement planning they are doing to put a permanent structure on the building. Mr. Oquist asked if stipulation #5 could be reworded to state that they will apply for a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated that would be fine. Ms. Modig stated she lives right behind this property. Where will the new addition be? Mr. Hickok stated that he is not certain that the school is 100% sure of that at this time. They wanted to make it clear that the temporary location does not interfere with the permanent expansion of the school so they can continue with the building in this location as their permanent expansion happens. The permanent addition will not likely be the northeast corner of the building. Ms. Modig asked how high the temporary structure would be. Mr. Hickok stated that it will be sitting a bit higher than the first floor level of the adjacent house, but it is the equivalent of a one-story residential structure. Ms. Modig stated the playground is well used. Who determines the size of the playground? If there is an additional daycare center, is there any criteria that determines the size of the playground? Mr. Hickok stated that lot coverage in an R-1 district makes certain that no more than 25 % of a site is covered. This would apply in this situation. Daycare centers have certain requirements for indoor and outdoor muscle-building activity areas for State licensing. Schools also have an outdoor requirement for certain outdoor activity areas through grade 12. Ms. Modig stated that she is concerned for the wetlands back there. Many years ago there was a plan to build back there and a problem pertained to storm drains because of the runoff into wetlands. With the addition, would there be any more requirements or is that part of that plan? Mr. Hickok stated that they have an internal review by the Engineering Department, Buiding Inspection, Fire Department, and Police Department staff for all those elements that would cause concern. The question has been asked of the Engineering Department, and they analyze what the new roof area and hard surface runoff will do to a site. They cannot detrimentally impact the surrounding environment with the runoff here. If the runoff causes a problem to the wetland, they will need to validate how this storm water is going to be handled and where it needs to be directed. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any fencing requirements to shield the kids from the wetland area. Mr. Hickok stated that it is a discretionary call on the part of the school. At this point, they have not required that the wetlands be fenced. Ms. Modig stated that even when there was a public school, there was not a fence there. Ms. Johns asked for more information regarding the retaining walls. Mr. Hickok stated that there is a stipulation with this approval to require that the retaining wall be treated as if there is no building there. The retaining wall is built and a fence be placed there. Even if the building is pulled away for a short period, they do not want the surprise drop for children. Ms. Johns stated that stipulation #4 does not say anything about a fence, only that protective devices shall be provided. Mr. Hickok stated that they kept it broad to include any and all of the things that may be required. Mr. Oquist stated that the lot where the house is will be consolidated into a big lot so it is all one. If for some reason in the future they decide to sell it, can the lot be split again and made into a separate lot? Mr. Hickok stated that is correct. Mr. Oquist asked if the permanent structure will not be located where the temporary lot is. Mr. Hickok stated that is correct. It is conceivable that once the temporary building goes away, they get their configuration of the lot back and it could be severed off again and sold as a single family parcel. Mr. Naeem Qureshi, President of the Islamic Center, stated that he could answer any questions the Commission might have. Ms. Modig asked if the new addition would be kept in a one-story design. Mr. Qureshi stated that is the plan now. They are still working on it and do not have any definite answer at this time. Ms. Modig stated that concerns her. Mr. Hickok stated that a two story temporary building would be unusual with the accessibility requirements to date. Ramps or elevators would have to go to the second story as well. Ms. Modig stated her question was regarding the permanent building. Mr. Hickok stated that he could not answer that question. Mr. Qureshi stated that he cannot foresee that they would have a two story building because of the cost, but they are still in the planning stages. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problem with the stipulations. Mr. Qureshi stated there is a retaining wall that is being planned. They may be able to put bushes there instead of a retaining wall and do it in one slope. Mr. Hickok stated that the permanent addition will require a review again under the special use permit provisions. Mr. AI Thoreson, 1314 Hillcrest Drive, stated that he would like to know where the parking would go with the temporary structure and get an idea where the permanent structure might be. Mr. Hickok stated that an assumption is that if the addition to the school does not go out to the northeast corner but goes directly east, then it would leave the parking in its current configuration. There is not a lot of land to go north and if the addition does not go east, it raises some additional questions about how the parking lot would be configured. The same type of concerns and consideration would be given as we analyze this and make recommendations in the future about parking. There is potential for moving the parking west because of the fairly level ground. Mr. Oquist asked if they own property to the west of the parking. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. Ms. Modig asked if the strip of land that has a sidewalk that is between the property and Hillcrest Drive is part of the school's property or part of the City's. Mr. Hickok stated that it part of this property that provides access from the neighborhood to the school property and initially was part of the public school district property and was conveyed to the school as part of the package. Ms. Modig asked if that leaves the property open to be used as a driveway in the future for access to this. Mr. Hickok stated that any of those types of impacts would have to be analyzed and it would not happen by surprise to the Commission. Mr. Spencer Meneer, 1291 Gardena, stated that about four years ago, the current owners came with a request for a special use permit for a daycare. As part of that discussion, there were a number of stipulations that were mutually worked out and assessed dealing with the maintenance of the property and separation of the property from the adjoining lots to the west. They decided to not go forward to the daycare. They did not go through the agreements of the daycare center four years ago, but started a school and he would respectfully request that the minutes to those meetings be found to look at the privacy issues that were agreed upon for a daycare center. Mr. Hickok stated that the school went through a special use permit process for a daycare. There were standard stipulations that they would place on a daycare. One stipulation was the fence requirement to separate this school property from the adjacent properties. The Islamic Center did not move forward with that permit and after 12 months the permit was null and void. The Islamic Center school predated the requirements for a special use permit for a private school in an R-1 district and the R-1 district is now very clear about that and the City needs to get a special use permit for any sort of expansion to that. A fence is at the Commission's discretion. If they want to recommend that as part of the approval to this, however the City looks at what is being requested and what kind of impacts to the site. It is not the City's understanding that the additional classrooms will cause additional parking demands and additional activity in the parking lot. Mr. Ray McAfee, 1360 Hillcrest Drive, stated that he is concerned about the length of time that this is going to be on the properties. He would be ashamed of his yard if it was kept in the way the Islamic Center lot is kept in the portion of the lot that goes down from the school property to Hillcrest. He would cut the length of time from three years to one and a half years to make sure that it did not become a permanent building. He is concerned as to where the water runoff of the temporary building would go because there is no outlet down to Woody Lane or Hillcrest to allow that water to end up in Moore Lake. He would like to see the temporary building to match up to the building that is there now. Ms. Johns asked what caused the three year length of time for temporary buildings. Mr. Hickok stated that is the amount of time Staff felt would be appropriate under this permit. Three years is about what it takes to plan something like an addition. Mr. McAfee stated that the present playground area is like a brushfield. He is wondering about the people whose property abuts the school property and playground pertaining to the school paying for a fence for their properties. He thinks they deserve privacy. Ms. Olga Palmer, 1329 Gardena, stated that she lives next to the lot that was sold to the Islamic Center. When they brought the property the school was operating five days a week. Now the school is operating 7 days a week early in the morning to late at night. At 11:00 at night, the gymnasium doors are open and there is hollering and screaming and playing basketball. The neighborhood needs a buffer. A modular unit is not appropriate in a residential area. The property in back of them is never maintained. There are tree branches laying along the fence line and excessive brush. Mr. Charles Pearson, 1310 Hillcrest Drive, stated that he is Mr. Thoreson's neighbor. His concern is that the lot is not well maintained. They decided not to mow the fenced part by himself and Mr. Thoreson. Mr. Thoreson has been mowing it for the last few years. His concern is that with a permanent structure that it not impact the driveway that goes past the side of the school. Ms. Savage stated that it does not sound like there is any possibility of a road. Mr. Hickok stated that there is not a road planned at this time. They are not certain about the future of the property and his sense is that a road would not make sense for access to a parking lot. Mr. Oquist stated that a road to the parking lot would not be a City road, it would have to be some type of driveway. A parent of a student of the Islamic Center, stated that the neighbor's concerns are taken into consideration and they want to be good neighbors. A teacher at the Islamic Center, stated that the teachers maintain the playground and they ask the kids to clean up the playground also as part of the social studies grade. Mr. Marc Doherty, 1423 Gardena Avenue, stated that the members of the Islamic Center have always been very polite and friendly to him and he supports their efforts to enhance their program. It is a concern that the lot at 1413 Gardena would no longer be zoned residential. Mr. Hickok stated that the lot at 1413 Gardena would remain R-1 single family residential. By consolidating the lots just recognizes for City purposes that this is a consolidated campus now and it will not change the zoning status but provides an overlay of the special use permit applying to that property as well. It may become the candidate site for the new addition to the school, but he does not know that for sure. Mr. Oquist stated that they could tear that house down and build eastward. Mr. Thoreson stated that he mows the grass on the portion of the lot but does not feel comfortable doing that anymore because of the wear and tear on his mower. He is not going to continue to do that anymore. Mr. Oquist asked if they have as part of the ordinance that the grass cannot be higher than 10 inches. Mr. Hickok stated that was correct and he is glad to have the information about the grass so they can watch that. A parent of Islamic Center students, stated that the addition would certainly help the children's education. They would be very happy to accommodate the neighbors with any problems. Mr. Qureshi, President of the Islamic Center, stated that they have a program of improving the landscaping. Last year they spent about $25,000 landscaping in front of the building. There must be a misunderstanding with the person who is cutting the grass about where the property line is and he will take note of it and show him where the property line so the grass gets mowed. They would like to be good neighbors and try their best to address concerns from the neighborhood. They encourage children to come to the gym but will put a limit on their time. Mr. Richard Palmer, 1329 Gardena, stated that his concern is the parking lot runoff. What is the environmental impact statement on that property? Mr. Hickok stated that the runoff will be analyzed and have calculations for runoff to satisfy the City engineering folks for a storm water management plan that will not affect adjacent properties. The environmental impact statement (EIS) is not a tool to be used on a project of this size. Parking stalls in a shopping center will cause an EIS statement. Other mechanisms are in place for protecting wetlands and other natural areas. Ms. Johns asked if there were any additional requirements because of the additional temporary building. Mr. Hickok stated that it is their understanding that it has not triggered parking problems. Mr. Kais Guiga, the Vice-Principal of the Islamic School, stated that they need the space for their classrooms. This temporary facility will only be housing students who are not driving cars. They will be happy to take care of any concern of the neighbors. It is not feasible to have the temporary facility due to the cost. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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 9:20 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated that he does not see anything wrong with the project itself. There has been a lot of discussion on maintenance issues which he hopes will be corrected now and that the City should monitor. They have expressed willingness to do that. They need the three year versus the year and a half permit. Mr. Saba stated that his concern is regarding the neighbor's comment about noise. Is there a limit about what kinds of things that can go on in school districts? Mr. Hickok stated that there is only the nuisance section of the City ordinances. They would not be consistent if there was a condition put on this school and not on other schools. Ms. Modig stated that they have been good neighbors and she has not heard a lot of noise. She cannot find any fault with the project and they have covered all of the bases and it is well thought out. Ms. Johns stated she does not have a lot of problems with this request. Her question is regarding the fence between the house that may be used for a daycare facility on the adjacent property. Ms. Savage stated that they would have an opportunity to revisit that. If there are continuing problems with maintenance and noise the Islamic Center should be contacted. She does not have any problem with this request. Mr. Kondrick stated that he does not have a problem with the request. He hopes the Islamic Center continues to work hard at being a good neighbor. Mr. Saba stated that the Islamic Center could have a spokesperson to help communicate with neighbors regarding their concerns and to let the neighbors know what is going on. Anytime there is a lot of construction neighbors have questions. He does not have a problem at all with this. He thinks they have been good neighbors and it is a good center. Ms. Modig stated that her concern is that the house out there that may be turned into a daycare center would require fencing and equipment and other requirements but she knows that it would be addressed at the application. Mr. Oquist stated that he hopes that everybody can kind of keep this meeting going and it is a good idea to have a spokesperson for the neighborhood. MOTION by Ms. Modig to approve the lot consolidation LS #00-03 and the special use permit SP #00-05 with stipulations amended as follows: S P #00-05: 1. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 2. Special Use Permit shall be for a 3-year period. 3. Building shall be located in accordance with the Site Plan dated 3-17-00, by Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. 4. All necessary protection devices shall be provided to protect children around the retaining wall on the northeast corner of the building. 5. The Islamic Center will file a special use permit application for a day care center in a residential district if they intend to utilize the home at 1413 Gardena Avenue in that manner. LS #00-03: 1. A lot combination form shall be filed with the Anoka County upon approval by the City Council. 2. Approval of Special Use Permit, SP #00-05. Seconded by Mr. Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 2000, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick to receive the minutes. Seconded by Mr. Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 22, 2000, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Mr. Oquist to receive the minutes. Seconded by Mr. Kondrick. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bolin stated that on April 10 Council approved the special use permit by Gary Bannochie requiring three trees to be planted rather than five. On April 24 City Council will review Tim Jawor's application for a multi-unit townhome development and Mr. Steies' application for the former Moose Club. They also will review Metal-Tek's application that the Planning Commission previously recommended approval for. ADJOURN 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 19, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Signe L. Johnson Recording Secretary