The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 11/05/2003 - 30913CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 2003 �� CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the November 5, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Barb Johns, Brad Dunham Members Absent: Larry Kuechle Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Tom & Dianna Marchiafava, 130 62"d Way NE Brett Bullock, Electric Motor Supply David Baillie, Furniture Outlets USA, Inc. Lee Coppy, Schoell & Madson Michael Diem, Archnet, Inc., 670 S. Broadway, Stillwater Richard Whinnery, Town Center Development LLC John Klick, Klick Interarch Design, 743 Brisbin St, Anoka APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15. 2003 MOTION made by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the October 15, 2003, minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a resolution for Lot Split, LS #03-01, by the City of Fridley, to configure the parcels into two buildable lots, generally located at Ely Street and Ashton Avenue MOTION made by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated that, along with the Ci�jr of Fridley, Tom & Dianna Marchiafava, 130 62"d Way NE, are the petitioners of this lot split request. The Marchiafavas own finro 30- foot wide lots at 130 Ely Street. These lots are not buildable as they do not meet the City's lot width requirement of 75 feet. The City owns a 60-foot wide buildable lot next to the Marchiafavas' lots, which has frontage on both Ely Street and Ashton Avenue. The Marchiafavas have proposed splitting their property and the City's property into finro buildable lots fronting on Ashton Avenue by swapping the property necessary to leave each party with a buildable lot. � i�\ ,� Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Bolin stated the Marchiafavas have proposed that they and the City split the lots north to south, and the City would give up the north half of its lot in exchange for the southem half of the Marchiafavas' two lots. The Marchiafavas would have a lot that is 100 feet wide along Ashton Avenue and 12,000 square feet in size. The City would have a lot that is 107 feet wide along Ashton Avenue and 12,840 square feet in size. Both these lots have the exact same buildable area. Lot B is a little bit larger because of the additional setbacks needed for a double frontage lot. Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the lot split request with stipulations. The lots do exceed the minimum lot size requirements, are both zoned R-1, Single Family, and would provide an opportunity to gain two single family homes in Fridley. If the lot split request is approved, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. All necessary permits shall be acquired prior to construction. 2. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved the City's Engineering staff prior to issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 3. The property owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay the required park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The properly owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. Savage asked the petitioners if they had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Tom Marchiafava stated they have no problems with the stipulations. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:39 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problems with this lot split request, assuming the petitioners comply with the stipulations recommended by staff. Ms. Savage agreed. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of Lot Split, LS #03-01, by the City of Fridley and Tom & Dianna Marchiafava, to reconfigure the parcels into two buildable lots, generally located at Ely Street and Ashton Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. All necessary permits shall be acquired prior to construction. 2. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved the City's Engineering staff prior to issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the �"`` surrounding properties. 3. The property owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay the required park fees prior to issuance of building permits. 2 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 3 i"'�� 4. The property owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this item will go to City Council for final action on November 24. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #03-18, by Electric Motor Company, to allow for limited storage, generally located at 4650 Main Street NE MOTION made by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAfdIMOUSLY, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Brett Bullock, Manager of Electric Motor Supply, is requesting a special use permit to allow limited outdoor storage at his business located at 4650 Main Street NE. He is requesting storage in the rear yard of the property for electrical equipment such as switch gear, electrical distribution panels, large electric motors, and dry type transformers. � Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. The properties to the west, � south, and north are also zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. The property to the east is zoned R-1, Single Family. Ms. Stromberg stated the City Code allows limited outdoor storage in an industrial district with a special use permit, as long as nine specific code requirements are being met. Those specific requirements relate to height, screening, parking, amount of outdoor storage, and the types of materials allowed to be stored outside. The petitioner is meeting or exceeding all those requirements. The petitioner has stated that he will be putting slats in the fence at the south entrance to allow proper screening of the storage area. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit as limited outdoor storage is permitted with a special use permit. Staff also recommends the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner is responsible for screening the limited outdoor storage area in order to comply with code requirements by June 1, 2004. 2. No outdoor storage other than the storage of items used for this business. Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any calls about this request. Ms. Stromberg stated staff has not received any calls. Mr. Brett Bullock, the petitioner, stated he has no problems with the stipulations. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Saba, to close the public hearing. �� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M. 3 � Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 4 The Commissioners had no problems with this special use permit request. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #03-18, by Electric Motor Company, to allow for limited storage, generally located at 4650 Main Street NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner is responsible for screening the limited outdoor storage area in order to comply with code requirements by June 1, 2004. 2. No outdoor storage other than the storage of items used for this business. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this item will go to City Council for final action on November 24. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #03-01, by Fumiture Outlets USA, Inc., Inc., to add language to the code for fumiture use parking requirement (to require a fumiture store use to have one parking stall for every 400 square feet of showroom space), generally located at 5353 East River Road NE 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #03-19, by David Baillie, Fumiture Outlets �, USA, Inc., to increase the lot coverage from 40 percent to 50 percent, generally located at 5353 East River Road NE MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:46 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated her presentation will include the analyses of Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #03-01, and Special Use Permit, SP #03-19, by Fumiture Outlets USA. Ms. Stromberg stated Mr. David Baillie of Fumiture Outlets USA is requesting a zoning text amendment to add language to the code which would allow a furniture store use to have one parking stall for every 400 square feet of showroom space. Fumiture Outlets USA is also requesting a special use permit to increase the lot coverage requirement from 40% to 48% to expand the existing building at 5353 East River Road to be used as additional fumiture warehouse space. Ms. Stromberg stated Fumiture Outlets USA has purchased the building at 5353 East River Road (formerly Wickes) and is planning to use the building for an Ashley Fumiture Store and warehouse. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are all surrounding properties, and receives access from the East River Road Service Road. The existing 141,986 square foot building was constructed in 1971. Zoning Text Amendment Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting the zoning text amendment from the general retail requirement of 1 stall for every 150 square foot because of the very low parking demands �' Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 5 �, of fumiture stores. Currently, the City Code requires that all retail uses meet a 1 parking stall for every 150 square feet of retail space. The proposed showroom including the clearance area, is 47,200 square feet. Current code requires the petitioner to have 315 parking stalls. The petitioner is requesting to change that requirement and use the 1 to 400 square foot ratio for fumiture store usage only which would only require 118 parking stalls. Using the 1 to 400 square foot ratio versus the 1 to 150 square foot ratio for general retail would reduce the amount of required parking stalls by 197 stalls. Ms. Stromberg stated that in order to prepare the zoning text amendment, Ashley Fumiture and Fumiture Outlets USA completed an intemal parking study of their 14 Midwest stores. The study required that the store managers make field observations on a hourly basis over a seven day period to see how many parking stalls were being occupied. The stores surveyed ranged from 11,250 square feet to 89,000 square feet in retail space. The required City parking ratios for the cities in which their other stores are located range from 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of retail space to 1 space for every 250 square feet of retail space. The research found that hourly parking counts ranged from 0 cars to a maximum of 76 cars which was at the Albertville store on a Saturday at 5:00 p.m. The Albertville store is 53,000 square feet in size. Ms. Stromberg stated the research of the 14 Midwest stores showed that a ratio of 1 parking stall for every 400 square feet of fumiture retail space was more than adequate to accommodate customer and employee parking. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner also hired RLK Kuusisto, Ltd., a private engineering and planning firm, to do a parking analysis. The analysis focused on the total parking demand for the �^� store and is estimated based on data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' _ (ITE) Parking Generation Table as well as data provided by Fumiture Outlets USA's 14 stores. RLK reviewed trip generation and parking demands to determine the highest hourly traffic demand for a facility of this kind using the methodology of the ITE. The study indicated that in the PM peak hour, this site is estimated to generate approximately 20 trips which is equal to 10 cars. The ITE also recommends that fumiture stores provide one-half of a parking space for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed retail space is 47,200 square feet which, according to the ITE requirements, would require 57 parking spaces. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner also surveyed a number of communities in the metro area to determine their parking requirements for fumiture retail uses. City staff surveyed cities in the metro area as well as cities around the United States. Of the 22 cities surveyed by the petitioner and City staff, 16 had specific parking requirements for fumiture sales uses that require 1 parking stall for every 400 square feet or more of fumiture retail space. Some of the neighboring communities that fall into that category are Blaine, Coon Rapids, Maple Grove, Osseo, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, Roseville, and New Brighton. Ms. Stromberg stated that if the zoning text amendment is granted, the properiy will be in compliance with all zoning code requirements. Showroom space is 47,200 square feet which requires 118 parking stalls at 1 stall per every 400 square feet. Existing warehouse space is 94,786 square feet and proposed warehouse space is 46,336 square feet which requires 71 parking stalls. Total parking stalls required on this site is 189 stalls. The petitioner shows 190 stalls on the site plan; therefore, the site is in compliance with parking requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment based on the !'� Institute of Transportation Engineers' analysis and the survey done of other cities' requirements. � Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 6 �"'� S�ecial Use Permit Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is also requesting a special use permit to increase the lot coverage requirement from 40% to 48% to expand the existing building for additional fumiture warehouse space. The existing property is 391,468 square feet, and the existing building is 141,986 square feet which meets the allowable 40% lot coverage requirement. The petitioner plans to construct an additional 46,336 square feet of warehouse space which increases the lot coverage to 48%, therefore, requiring a special use permit. Ms. Stromberg stated that a special use permit may be granted as long as the property is meeting all other code requirements. All landscaping, setback, and storm water management requirements are being met. The only requirement that isn't being met is the parking requirement. Granting the zoning text amendment would bring the property into compliance. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit request as an increase in lot coverage for a one story building from 40% to 50% is a permitted special use in the M-2 zoning district, provided all other code requirements are being met and subject to the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all required permits prior to the start of construction. 2. Final landscape plan showing size of plantings shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permits. 3. The parking lot shall be restored to code requirements for paving, curbing, and painting after the addition is completed. � 4. No outdoor storage of equipment or materials is permitted. 5. Screening of rooftop mechanical equipment shall be required. 6. The petitioner shall comply with all building, zoning, and fire code requirements. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff believes that there will be enough parking stalls for people who come to look at and buy fumiture. Ms. Stromberg stated staff believes there is adequate parking. Ms. Johns stated that since the building was built in 1971, are ponding requirements that may have changed over the years still being met? Is there a pond there now, or will one have to be constructed? Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner will have to comply with all existing zoning, building, and fire cod requirements. The petitioner will be constructing a pond at the rail spur. Mr. Kondrick asked if the parking stalls are the required 10 foot width. Mr. Paul Bolin stated the parking stalls are 10 feet wide. Mr. David Baillie, Fumiture Outlets USA, Inc., stated they have a Ashley Home Store in Albertville and in North Branch, a fumiture outlet store in North Branch, and three other proposals in the metro area, one in Shakopee, one in Maplewood, and one in Woodbury. This Fridley store would be servicing a number of those other stores. Their Medford, Minnesota, store is the largest store at about 224,000 square feet. e"� Ms. Savage asked Mr. Baillie if he had any problem with the stipulations recommended by staff. 0 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 7 �^� Mr. Baillie stated he had no problem with the stipulations; however, regarding the parking stall widths, he believed they are 9 feet wide on the plan. Mr. Lee Coppy, Schoell & Madson, the civil engineer on the project, stated the parking stalls as proposed on the submitted plan are 9 feet wide. The reason for the 9 foot wide stalls is they have a customer pickup area at the rear of the building so there is no loading/unloading in the front parking lot. Those front stalls would just be customer parking. Mr. Bolin stated the parking stalls need to be 10 feet wide. That is required by the City. He believed that there is enough room on the site to accomplish adding one foot for every stall width. Mr. Michael Diem, Archnet, Inc., stated he is the architect who prepared the site plan. By going to 10 foot wide stalls, he believed they would lose 10-15 stalls. They would lose a partial stall on every row, but they are pretty much maxed at 190 stalls right now. So, going to 10 foot wide stalls would bring them under the 189 parking stall requirement. Maybe there is a different parking ratio than 140 that could be considered. Even if they lost 10 stalls, they believe they would still have a lot more stalls than they need. According to all the studies they have done, even 1 to 500 square feet would be adequate. How does the City want to handle this? Mr. Bolin stated that since the building is in an industrial district, it may be possible to have some 9 foot stalls on this site. Mr. Kondrick stated the 9 foot wide stalls would be for employee parking. How many employees will there be? Mr. Diem stated that with total staff, there would be around 80 employees. The retail store will be open 10 a.m. — 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, Saturday and Sunday hours are usually 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. The customer pickup would be operating every day. Deliveries would not be every day. With a total of 80 employees, there would probably be around 50-60 at any one point in time. Mr. Diem stated that if they only have to put in 10 foot wide stalls in the triangular area to the east which is mostly customer parking, and the rest can stay at 9 feet for the employees, they may only lose about 5-8 spaces. Mr. Bolin stated staff will work with the petitioner on the parking stalls. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #03-01, by Furniture Outlets USA, Inc., Inc., to add language to the code for fumiture use parking requirement (to require a fumiture store use to have one parking stall for every 400 square feet of showroom space), generally located at 5353 East River Road NE �''� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 8 �� MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Dunham, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #03-19, by David Baillie, Fumiture Outlets USA, Inc., to increase the lot coverage from 40 percent to 50 percent, generally located at 5353 East River Road NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all required permits prior to the start of construction. 2. Final landscape plan showing size of plantings shall be submitted and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permits. 3. The parking lot shall be restored to code requirements for paving, curbing, and painting after the addition is completed. 4. No outdoor storage of equipment or materials is permitted. 5. Screening of rooftop mechanical equipment shall be required. 6. The petitioner shall comply with all building, zoning, and fire code requirements. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated these items will go to City Council on November 24 for final action. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #03-03, by Town Center Development, LLC, to rezone property from C-2, General Business, C-1, Loc�l Business, M-1, Light Industrial, and CR-1, General Office, to S-2, Redevelopment District, to accommodate redevelopment, generally located at 1281 Mississippi Street NE, 6490, 6400, 6352, and ^� 6300 Central Avenue NE, and 1271 East Moore Lake Drive NE 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Plat, PS #03-08, by Town Center Development, LLC, to construct a senior housing development, generally located at 1282 Mississippi Street NE and 6490 Central Avenue NE MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Johns, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARIIVG OPEN AT 8:12 P.M. Mr. Paul Bolin stated Town Center Development is requesting finro land use actions to construct 55 senior owner-occupied condominium units at 6490 Central Avenue. A plat is being requested to create finro new parcels from 1282 Mississippi Street (currently the Tamarisk House) and 6490 Central Avenue (currently Sandee's Restaurant), and the vacant lot just south of Sandee's. Sandee's Restaurant will occupy one parcel, and the other parcel will allow for the construction of the 55 senior owner-occupied condominiums Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is also requesting a rezoning for the west side of Central Avenue befinreen Mississippi Street and East Moore Lake Drive to S-2, Redevelopment District. Currently, there is a mix of commercial and industrial zones. The owners of Advance Companies, Ziebart, and the Housing & Redevelopment Authority have agreed to this rezoning request. �'� Mr. Bolin stated Town Center Development is proposing to construct a 4-story, 55-unit senior owner-occupied condominium complex south of Sandee's Restaurant. Sandee's Restaurant will remain but will be remodeled. The proposed 55 2-bedroom units will be owner-occupied. Thirty- � Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 9 r"� one of the units will be 1,138 square feet, eight of the units will be 1,185 square feet, and 16 units will be 1,255 square feet. The development will include 51 underground parking stalls, four garage stalls, and additional surface parking. A storm pond will be located on the south end of the project with a trail system and landscaping surrounding the property. Mr. Bolin stated the outdoor dining portion of Sandee's will be removed. As part of the plat request, Anoka County has requested that the petitioner give the County 30 feet of additional right-of-way along Mississippi Street and 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Central Avenue for future improvements. Mr. Bolin stated that in 1991, Tom Brickner requested a rezoning of the vacant property located just south of Sandee's Restaurant and west of Central Avenue from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, to allow multi-family dwellings. That rezoning would have created a stand-alone island of R-3 zoning surrounded by commercial and industrial properties. That request was denied based on the fact that it was spot zoning. Rezonina Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a rezoning for the entire block on the west side of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street and East Moore Lake Drive to S-1, Redevelopment District. Of all the parcels, the only parcels that are proposed to be redeveloped are 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490 Central Avenue; the others will remain as they exist today. ,^�� Mr. Bolin stated the City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The City has the authority to rezone property from one designated use to another as long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan developed with resident input between 1998 and 2000. The proposed senior owner-occupied condominium complex and rezoning meet several of the objectives the residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the Comprehensive Plan. The area of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road was identified as an area for future redevelopment. Mr. Bolin stated the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that for this portion of Central, °consideration should be made to replacing the current mix of single family residential and commercial uses with higher density residential development that together with the health club may serve as an aitractive residential location for move-up housing". The Comprehensive Plan also states that for projects in these redevelopment areas, requiring rezoning to the S-2 zoning designation °would be the appropriate zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project. The intent of fhe district is to provided the City with site plan review authority to determine if the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive and Redevelopment Plans." Mr. Bolin stated that as Fridley's residents continue to age, demand will increase for "empty nester" and senior housing. The proposed project will meet some of the current demand for those seniors seeking altematives to their current housing types. Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the rezoning request and the accompanying site plan for the senior building and Sandee's site as the proposed rezoning is consistent with the !��, Comprehensive Plan and provides additional housing opportunities for Fridley seniors. Staff also recommends the following stipulations: 0 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Pa e 10 �.� 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with site plan, sheet C2-1 dated October 29, 2003, by Loucks McLagan Engineering firm. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. The petitioner shall meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 4. The petitioner shall meet all building and ADA requirements. 5. Exterior remodeling plans for Sandee's shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The patio on the north side of Sandee's shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the senior complex. 7. The petitioner shall provide a clearance letter from the State Historical Preservation O�ce prior to the demolition of the Tamarisk building. 8. The existing Sandee's signs in the right-of-way shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting. 10. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. 11. Restoration of the bike path along Central Avenue will be required after completion of the senior complex. 12. The petitioner shall identify the ponding area and provide easements for storm water run- off and management. 13. A storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 14. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. r-4� 15. The City Engineering staff shall review and approve a grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. The petitioner shall pay any required park dedication fees. 18. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. The building shall be restricted to seniors, and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents. 20. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 21. The property owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. The petitioner shall provide a traffic study that is approved by the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 23. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary to Anoka County. 24. A development agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner prior to final plat approval. Plat Mr. Bolin stated Town Center Development, LLC, is also requesting to replat the properties located at 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490 Central Avenue to create the separate lots �'"` ; necessary to accommodate Sandee's Restaurant and the senior condominium development. Proposed Lot #1 where Sandee's is located is currently zoned C-1, Local business, and C-2, General Business, and is 24,500 square feet. That exceeds the minimum lot area for the C-2, 10 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 11 ,�, General Business district. Sandee's lot would also meet all the parking requirements for size and for a restaurant use. Mr. Bolin stated that in terms of the plat, Anoka County has reviewed the proposed project and has asked for additional right-of-way along Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. They figure a 120 foot right-of-way will be required for both Central Avenue and Mississippi Street at the intersections to provide the necessary tum lanes for future safety and operational purposes. Consequently, the dedication needs for this site are 30 feet adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 feet adjacent to Central Avenue. The County is requesting that those rights-of-way be dedicated on any plat. Due to the necessity of the right-of-way acquisition along both County roads, the Sandee's Restaurant building will be less than one foot from the north property line, three feet from the east parking line, and the parking setback will be five feet from the north property line. The additional land acquisition will require the petitioner to remove the existing patio/outdoor dining area from the north side of the building. Due to the flexibility allowed in the S-2 district, the diminished setbacks can be recognized as part of the rezoning master plan approval. Mr. Bolin stated Lot #2 is 126,075 square feet in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct the 55 senior owner-occupied condominium units on that site. Because of the underground parking and the high water table in the area, the height of the building will be 51 feet at the midspan. The parking setback will be 10 feet from the property line on the east side of the property, due to the additional right-of-way being acquired by the County. Mr. Bolin stated that regarding traffic, staff had discussions with Jane Pemble, Anoka County ,°� Traffic Engineering Manager, examined the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation, consulted the Transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed the traffic study supplied by Loucks & Associates. Mr. Bolin stated Jane Pemble has told City staff that the County currently has no plans or has allocated any funding to reconstruct, provide safety improvements, or signalize the Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection. Political and social pressures may determine when the intersection is reworked, and it is not clear whether or not this proposed development will have a significant impact on traffic volumes and/or tuming movements. Mr. Bolin stated the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation manual does not have a specific category for senior residential townhomes. Staff reviewed the generation numbers for residential condominiums which are not age specific. Seniors may have very different driving habits so the Trip Generation manual should be viewed as a worse-case scenario in the number of trips generated by the proposed development. Mr. Bolin stated the Trip Generation manual states that each unit in a residential condominium generates 5.85 trips per day. (A trip means any time a vehicle enters or leaves the site.) With 55 units, a total of 322 vehicles could enter or leave the complex per day. In analyzing the data by time, the impact of these vehicles on suROUnding roadways is negligible. During the moming rush hours of 7-9 a.m., an additional 24.5 vehicles are entering or leaving Central Avenue from the proposed senior condominium development. During the aftemoon rush hours of 4-6 p.m., an additional 30 vehicles are entering or leaving the proposed senior condominium development. Again, these numbers are not age specific. �"'�, Mr. Bolin stated that in 2001 in the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the portion of Central Avenue adjacent to the proposed senior condominium development carried 8,000 vehicles per day and, at this traffic level, was only carrying 57% of the traffic for 11 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 12 �� which the roadway was designed to function at a Level of Service D. D is considered the middle ground. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Central Avenue carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by 2020, based upon increases in population for Fridley and surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles per day, Central Avenue would be carrying 71 % of the maximum amount of traffic for which the roadway was designed. Mr. Bolin stated Town Center Development's engineering consultants, Loucks & Associates, provided the City with numbers for RETIREMENT COMMUNITY out of the Trip Generation manual and determined that a retirement complex would generate approximately 165 trips per day. As the condominiums are available for those over 55, a number of residents may still be working and the retirement community numbers may be low. The true number of trips per day more likely falls befinreen the 165 trips per day and the 322 trips per day. Mr. Bolin stated that City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plan with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with site plan, sheet C2-1 dated October 29, 2003, by Loucks McLagan Engineering firm. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. The petitioner shall meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 4. The petitioner shall meet all building and ADA requirements. 5. Exterior remodeling plans for Sandee's shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. ;�� 6. The patio on the north side of Sandee's shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the senior complex. 7. The petitioner shall provide a clearance letter from the State Historical Preservation Office prior to the demolition of the Tamarisk building. 8. The existing Sandee's signs in the right-of-way shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting. 10. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. 11. Restoration of the bike path along Central Avenue will be required after completion of the senior complex. 12. The petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and management. 13. A storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 14. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 15. The City Engineering staff shall review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. The petitioner shall pay any required park dedication fees. 18. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. The building shall be restricted to seniors, and policies to do such shall be outlined in �'°� association documents. 20. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 12 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 13 /"� 21. The property owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. The petitioner shall provide a traffic study that is approved by the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 23. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 24. A development agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner prior to final plat approval. Mr. Saba stated 120 feet of right-of-way is needed by the County in the future, 30 feet of which will come from the petitioner's property now. Where will the rest of the right-of-way come from, and will that be tied to stipulation #23 Mr. Bolin stated any additional right-of-way acquisition outside of this site would not be related to stipulation #23. That stipulation gives the County a lot of discretion to what they would require if these 55 units gravely impact that intersection. And, yes, additional right-of-way could be taken from the petitioner somewhere down the road. Mr. Saba stated that the bikeway/walkway path is going to be restored after construction. Will that right-of-way impact the bikeway/walkway path in any way? Mr. Bolin stated the bikeway/walkway is currently located within the right-of-way, and the additional 10 feet should accommodate a bikeway/walkway or sidewalk in addition to whatever �^'� is needed for an additional tum lane. Mr. Saba asked if the additional right-of-way takes into account any future or unknown plans for any future development. If there is more development in the future, will more right-of-way be needed? Mr. Bolin stated that any time the County has an opportunity to get additional right-of-way for something that may happen in the future, they can obtain that property now by demanding it through a plat. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Bolin to explain S-2 zoning to the Commission members and those in the audience. Mr. Bolin stated the S-2 zoning district itself functions similar to what some cities refer to as a "planned unit developmenY' where, rather than applying for a strict rezoning, there is some °give & take° through the S-2 rezoning. The S-2 allows for some flexibility in approving a master plan for the site and allows a lot of discretion for the Planning Commission and City Council in approving that master plan. Mr. Kondrick asked where other S-2 zoning has been used in the City of Fridley. Mr. Bolin stated that S-2 zoning has been used for the Medtronic intemational headquarters, the Gateway East project, and Christenson Crossing. Ms. Johns stated that when an area has become redeveloped within an S-2 district, does the �'"\ district ever become rezoned to what the development actually is? 13 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 14 � Mr. Bolin stated the area stays S-2. In the event a building is proposed to be used for a different use, the developer would need to come before the Planning Commission and City Council with a master plan amendment. At that time, the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing, take input from the public, and then the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council would determine if that change should be allowed to happen in that S-2 district. Mr. Saba asked if the Tamarisk house is on the National Historic Register. Mr. Bolin stated City staff has requested the petitioner to get a letter from the Historic Preservation Officer for clearance to tear down the house. The petitioner has to prove to the City that it is not listed on any historic register, and that the building should be saved. Mr. Saba asked if there was any wisdom in demolishing a site that is a historic landmark in Fridley. Maybe an effort should have been made to preserve that piece of property. Mr. Bolin stated that would be a policy decision that would need to come from the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mr. Richard Whinnery stated he is one of the owners of Town Center Development. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Whinnery if he had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Whinnery stated he did not. To add some information on the Tamarisk house, they found out it was moved to its current site. It wasn't originally built there. They do not plan to tear it ,^� down; it will be moved, possibly within the City of Fridley. Mr. John Klick, Klick Interarch Design, the architect for the project, showed a power point presentation of what the development would look like. Mr. Kondrick asked approximately how far the condominium building is from Central Avenue? Mr. Klick stated it is about 80 feet from Central Avenue. Ms. Paula Granroos, 1114 63`� Avenue, stated everyone has talked about the intersections of Mississippi Street, Central Avenue, and Rice Creek Road, but no one has said anything about how this development will affect the finro little blocks off Mississippi Street Dellwood Drive, Pierce Street, and 63'� Avenue. She is really concemed about additional traffic on her street, 63`� Avenue. At the west end of 63`� Avenue is the Fridley liquor store, and they already have a lot of traffic going to the liquor store. So, she is concemed about how this new development will affect the traffic on these streets. Mr. Tim Byme, 6053 Woody Lane, stated he was initially worried about the traffic. To go to work in the moming, he has to take a left from Hillcrest Drive onto Central Avenue which can be dangerous. Because there are no traffic lights and because the traffic is constant, it is very difficult. It would be beneficial to have some kind of controlled traffic light at Rice Creek Road & Central or Mississippi Street & Central, or perhaps even at Gardena and Central to break up the traffic. The parking lot at Moore Lake Beach is also a parking lot for Totino Grace students. Students park there and walk up Gardena to the school. He realized these are county roads, but why couldn't the City put on a little bit of pressure for some signalization? ,� Mr. Byme stated there is another developer buying properties along 64�' Avenue, Central Avenue, and Mississippi Street. So, this proposed development is just the beginning. 14 ^, Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Byme stated that with the S-2 zoning, what is to stop the owners of the properties south of the proposed development from selling their properties for another 100 unit development. The HRA property is not designated for any purpose at this time. Just with the proposed project alone, imagine in a neighborhood of single family homes that every house is tumed into a 4- plex. That is the kind of traffic they would have. Even though staff is saying that the affects of traffic is negligible, common sense says differently. Mr. Byme stated that regarding the parking, what senior is going to want to scrape ice off his/her car? The proposed one covered parking stall per unit is unacceptable. He has contacted other senior developments, and the average is 1.5 cars per unit. His parents have three vehicles, and they would not move out of their home into something like this. This may or may not be a good development for seniors. The median price for a Fridley home right now is $160,000, $10,000 below the starting cost of these units. If Fridley seniors are looking to move out of their homes, half of them could not afford these units. Mr. Byme asked why the City did not go with the regular procedure of having the developer go to the HRA and ask them if they would like to participate in this project and also invite the public for input? Mr. Bolin stated he believed Mr. Byme had already had a conversation with Scott Hickok, Community Development Director. He could also contact William Bums or Grant Femelius, staff directors for the HRA. The HRA is not endorsing this rezoning; the HRA has simply stated that they do not have an objection to their land being included in the S-2 zoning. It is not necessary ,� for the HRA or other property owners to participate. The Council can rezone all these properties with or without their permission. Mr. Byrne suggested that the Planning Commission continue this public hearing until such a time that the HRA can have a public hearing and hear from the neighbors. Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64�' Avenue, stated he has a concem about drainage in this area. They have had water drainage problems in the past. A storm sewer project was done that helped the north side of 64th Avenue; but, unfortunately, when the credit union building was built, that complicated the problems. Every time it rains, the HRA property gets about 6-8 inches of water on it. He realized the developer will have to have a drainage plan, but the credit union had a drainage plan, too, and that didn't work. Mr. Schwartz stated he is totally against the S-2 rezoning, because of more similar development that can happen in the future. He believed they should be very careful of this. Ms. Carrie Crandall, 6411 Pierce Street, stated her house will back up to the proposed development. How far away from her property line is this building going to be? Will there be some privacy fencing, and how high will that fencing be? Mr. Bolin stated the building itself will be 50 feet from the westerly property line, and a 7 foot high screening fence is required. A resident at 6423 Pierce Street stated he lives right behind the proposed building. He purchased this properly because of the beautiful back yard. He is also concemed about the ''"� privacy of their back yards. How can a 7 foot high fence provide privacy from a 50-foot high building? He is opposed to this project. 15 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 16 � Mr. Tom Myhra, 6360 Able Street, stated he is the chair of the Concemed Citizens of Fridley. He is also the past president of the Fridley Historical Society. As far as he knows, no one notified the Historical Society that a historical building could be demolished. He will bring that to the Society's attention. Could that be a stipulation that the Tamarisk building not be demolished and not be moved out of the City? He stated the Concemed Citizens of Fridley organization is very concerned about the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and if the goals truly represent the wishes of the people. He believed this constant move to make the City more dense in population is not particularly good. He stated the Concemed Citizens of Fridley organization is in the process of amending the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan to what they believe is more what the City wants. Mr. Myhra stated everyone has talked about this as senior housing, except the architect's sketch said °multi-family" housing. That leads him to believe that once the property is rezoned to S-2, there would be nothing except the Council to prevent this being made into regular multi- family housing. The proposal is for two bedrooms, and he would guess that most retired couples are not going to want finro bedrooms. Mr. Kurt Olson, 1385 64�' Avenue, stated he has lived in Fridley since 1966. He does not want to see Fridley become multi-housing. Even though this is senior housing, he is still concemed about multi-housing and how it can become rundown. He and his wife are in the process of putting about $100,000 into remodeling their home. The last thing they want to see at the end of their street is a 4-story building. That is not why he purchased this lot. They also don't want the extra traffic. � Mr. Jim Rusinak, 6412 Pierce Street, stated the view from his front window now is very nice. He does not want to see a 4-story building there either. They like the natural aesthetics of the woods. Was the 2001 traffic report done before or after Medtronic was developed and in full operation? Since Medtronic, there has been a big increase in traffic on Central and Mississippi. The study that says these roads are underutilized may be antiquated due to the traffic generated by Medtronic. Ms. Andrea Olson, 1385 64th Avenue, stated they have a beautiful wooded one-acre lot in a quiet neighborhood with a lot of tra�c on Central Avenue. Mr. Rusinak is right; Medtronic has greatly impacted traffic on Central Avenue. They don't need any traffic lights; they just need to keep the traffic down. She can't imagine adding more vehicles. She was concemed because the S-2 zoning just seems too open. What will happen to the other properties around this proposed development, especially the new housing development that is coming that will be in her back yard? Having this kind of development in a basically single family neighborhood just seems crazy. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, stated she has a major concem with the S-2 zoning. Her understanding of zoning is that when someone comes to the City with a specific zoning request, the burden of proof is on the developer of why the property should be rezoned. A development can more easily be denied than if the property is already zoned for that development. The S-2 zoning leaves them much more wide open. It makes more things allowable than would be otherwise allowed. It is shifting the burden of proof away from the developer, and now the City has to prove why it shouldn't go there. Ms. Schwartz stated she did not think there is any way the City can guarantee 100% that this /'� would be senior housing only. What happens if the units are not sold? Will they become rental? Right now two bedroom units in Fridley have the highest vacancy rates than they have in years. 16 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 17 � She did not think a lot of seniors will be able to afford these units. Fridley is not a high income community. She also did not think a 4-story building is going to fit very well in this neighborhood. Ms. Betty Carland, 6416 Dellwood Drive, stated she has lived here since 1965. They have seen the traffic grow every year, and it is getting pretty bad. With this new development, they are going to see more traffic, congestion, a landlocked area of small homes, and real estate values going down. They do need stoplights, because stop signs do not stop the traffic. She also agreed with what has been said about putting a tall building in the center of a single family area. Mr. John Klick, Interarch Design, stated he would like to address the concems about more development in the S-2 zoning south of their proposed development in the future. In this area, if another developer wanted to make a change in that S-2 area, that developer would have to come before the Planning Commission and City Council for a master plan amendment, so it is doubtful that more higher density housing would be allowed in there. Mr. Klick stated there was some concem about whether this would actually be a condominium project, or could it become a rental project? He stated that one of the stipulations recommended by staff is that the condominium documents be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. The condominium documents would contain the information with respect to the age requirements, owner-occupied units, etc. However, if a developer came to the City with a proposed 45-50 square foot office building that would generate an additional 175-200 cars for this area, that would be allowed with the existing C-1 and C-2 zoning. That type of project would create more density, more cars, more trips per day, and would create a bigger impact on Central Avenue than the senior condominiums. �`1 Mr. Klick stated there was a question about when a traffic study was completed, before or after Medtronic's completion. He would like to reiterate that those numbers indicated that the capacity today is 57%, and in 2020. it would be 71 %. That is without any highway improvements. Mr. Klick stated that one citizen stated that other senior developments were providing only 1.5 cars per unit. He stated they are providing 2 cars per unit in this development. Mr. Saba asked if there is anything that can be done to address the lack of privacy that some of these homeowners are concemed about, in terms of their back yards. Now, they have trees in their back yards, but soon they will have 4 stories of people who can look down into their yards. Mr. Klick stated there is a 50-foot wide strip between the condominiums and the neighbors' properties. The sanitary sewer comes through there. He definitely believed there are some landscaping materials that could be used in the back areas. 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 UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:35 P.M. Mr. Dunham stated that if a commercial building was built under the present zoning, what is the maximum height that building could be? Mr. Bolin stated that in a C-2 district, the height limit is 60 feet. ,''1 17 Pianning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Pa e 18 � Mr. Saba suggested adding a stipulation on landscaping/screening that would include some plants and adult trees along the back property line to address the privacy concems. That is his biggest concem with this development. Mr. Kondrick stated this looks like a nice development. He did not think the traffic is going to be that much of an issue considering that this is for seniors, 55 and older. He will vote in favor of the development. Mr. Saba asked if the City is setting any kind of precedence for future units that will be difficult to address in the future for other housing developments. Mr. Bolin stated, no, each project has to stand on its own merits. Ms. Johns stated one citizen expressed concern over the drainage issue. If the proposed ponding is inadequate, will anything be done to fix it? Mr. Bolin stated the City's engineers have worked extensively with the petitioner's engineers, and the petitioner's engineers have worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District to size the pond accordingly. There should actually be excess storage capacity within this storm pond to handle the rain events for which t was designed. There is an outlet on the storm pond that puts the water into the City storm sewer. The storm pond has been reviewed extensively and will be reviewed several more times before building permits are issued to make sure it will hold the needed capacity. In addition, there is a stipulation for a storm pond maintenance agreement. If the City sees a problem and the storm pond is not being maintained properly, the City will fix it � and assess the petitioner accordingly. Mr. Saba proposed the following wording for a new stipulation #25 regarding the screening befinreen the neighbors and the development: "The petitioner shall work with City staff and the neighbors to come up with a screening plan to provide adequate screening consisting of adult trees and other creative decorative screening between the proposed development and the neighboring properties prior to the City Council meeting on November 24.° Mr. Kondrick stated he would be in favor of that. Ms. Savage stated she realized that some of the people in the audience do not agree with the Comprehensive Plan that was developed by the residents of Fridley over several years. She stated State Statute 462.357 authorizes the City to rezone property for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the rezoning, that does achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and she would be in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Oquist stated he is in favor of this development in lieu of what could go in with the existing zoning, like an office building. He did not see a traffic pattem during rush hours with seniors 55 and older. He believed there will be traffic throughout the day but not during peak hours. He agreed with Mr. Saba that the developers should do whatever they can to screen this development from the neighboring properties. Mr. Dunham stated that with the present zoning, they could have higher buildings and more ,�"'� traffic issues. He is in favor of the rezoning. : Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 19 ,r-� Mr. Saba stated he would support the rezoning with the idea that they are not setting a precedent for future similar developments, and that they will look at each development with tight scrutiny. His real concem is not necessarily the traffic, but the screening. He is in favor of the rezoning with the added stipulation. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council approval of Rezoning, ZOA #03-03, by Town Center Development, LLC, to rezone property from C-2, General Business, C-1, Local Business, M-1, Light Industrial, and CR-1, General Office, to S-2, Redevelopment District, to accommodate redevelopment, generally located at 1281 Mississippi Street NE, 6490, 6400, 6352, and 6300 Central Avenue NE, and 1271 East Moore Lake Drive NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with site plan, sheet C2-1 dated October 29, 2003, by Loucks McLagan Engineering firm. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. The petitioner shall meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 4. The petitioner shall meet all building and ADA requirements. 5. Exterior remodeling plans for Sandee's shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The patio on the north side of Sandee's shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the senior complex. 7. The petitioner shall provide a clearance letter from the State Historical Preservation Office prior to the demolition of the Tamarisk building. 8. The existing Sandee's signs in the right-of-way shall be removed prior to issuance of a ^ building permit. 9. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting. 10. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. 11. Restoration of the bike path along Central Avenue will be required after completion of the senior complex. 12. The petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and management. 13. A storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 14. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 15. The City Engineering staff shall review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. The petitioner shall pay any required park dedication fees. 18. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. The building shall be restricted to seniors, and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents. 20. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 21. The property owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. ,''"� 22. The petitioner shall provide a traffic study that is approved by the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 19 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 20 � 23. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary to Anoka County. 24. A development agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner prior to final plat approval. 25. The aetitioner shall work with City staff and the neighbors to come up with a screenin4 plan to provide adequate screening consisting of adult trees and other creative decorative screening between the proposed development and the neighboring properties prior to the City Council meeting on November 24. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission members were in favor of the plat request as well. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council approval of Plat, PS #03-08, by Town Center Development, LLC, to construct a senior housing development, generally located at 1282 Mississippi Street NE and 6490 Central Avenue NE, with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with site plan, sheet C2-1 dated October 29, 2003, by Loucks McLagan Engineering firm. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 3. The petitioner shall meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. � 4. The petitioner shall meet all building and ADA requirements. 5. Exterior remodeling plans for Sandee's shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The patio on the north side of Sandee's shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the senior complex. 7. The petitioner shall provide a clearance letter from the State Historical Preservation Office prior to the demolition of the Tamarisk building. 8. The existing Sandee's signs in the right-of-way shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting. 10. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. 11. Restoration of the bike path along Central Avenue will be required after completion of the senior complex. 12. The petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run-off and management. 13. A storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 14. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 15. The City Engineering staff shall review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 16. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. The petitioner shall pay any required park dedication fees. ,� 18. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 2� Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 21 � 19. The building shall be restricted to seniors, and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents. 20. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 21. The property owner of record at the time of building permit application shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. The petitioner shall provide a traffic study that is approved by the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 23. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary to Anoka County. 24. A development agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner prior to final plat approval. 25. The petitioner shall work with City staff and the neighbors to come up with a screeniny plan to qrovide adequate screening consisting of adult trees and other creative decorative screening between the proposed development and the neighboringproperties prior to the City Council meeting on November 24. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated both the rezoning and plat requests will go to the City Council for final action on November 24. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15. 2003 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION made by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the September 15, 2003, Housing 8� Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2. 2003 HOUSING � REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the October 2, 2003, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 21. 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY $ ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the October 21, 2003, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE ,'"\ MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 21 Planning Commission Meeting, November 5, 2003 Page 22 � ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NOVEMBER 5, 2003, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. RespectFully submi ed, ,- � �L�C Saba Recording Secretary � �� 22 l - , i ! � I � ; � ; i n CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Name;` l � ��, ,�.�h�.e.�jd �,C. v ri�/',� `�1�1 l� ��, rr �� (Address/Business .�� ; � ��7� � 7� ��.� �.e �c� N�'� �yi7�d,,,1�/ �ci � �; - � �✓a� � ►� � r� � � s.� � L� � � �-tis �� , � � � �� r �,`�" ��LP � o�� -�i ��. �� l�r� s � � � � �G � ��-� � /1/�- li V�I S t 0 �-� 6 so ��'. h�. �� t �O� S, ��'�a►�� s% �� I �� 0 �D �2�le��a��i�l � /�� . ��D ,_i'�� r � 37 � � y� �e V1� � � . - - - 137z � y"� i1 � �� /�� . �h� � � — � �� n CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING _� / � � y _� � ., , , �,� 11 � ' ° � ' , � �� ;, � _ � �► , r � R� , ---------------------- ---------------------- � � �; �ddresslBusiness , yl� ��Q �� b �� _ '"�� A� � #� � i �f�� ril �sSi�� i 6��\ ��T �� I �Z, ��le� �/5;�a.� T3 �'S (��`C � ��- 5�z�3 � �� lso.� �3 s<<� �,f��7: �4�,� �l� ,��y,��. zo �� U '°"� f6�'�.Ai�l'� J�� { C.�'r � �(3 L\/ � �;ll G�� 90 ��'�I��v� �� _��( 3� ��