The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/18/2004 - 30865CITY OF FRIDLEY ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the February 18, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Barb Johns, Larry Kuechle, Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, Dean Saba LeRoy Oquist, Brad Dunham Others Present: Stacy Stromberg, Planner � Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Rick Harrison, Site Design Studio, 8832 7th Ave. N., Golden Valley Pete Villard, Architectural Works-Villard, 5770 Blackshire Path, Inver Grove Heights Michael Spack, TDI Inc., 1313 5�' Street SE, Minneapolis Ken and Pat Christiansen, 7525 4th Street Steve Oltman, 7542 5�' Street Gregory Zelenak, 7526 4�' Street Barbara Edwards, 1403 64�' Avenue Kurt and Andrea Olson, 1385 64�' Avenue ,-� J& R Rusinak, 6412 Piece Street Jesse Colllard, 1426 64�' Avenue Aimee Stanford, 1426 64th Avenue Russell and Beverly Prior, 1340 Mississippi Street Herb and Judy Lennox, 1464 Rice Creek Road Joe and Linda Nelson, 1357 64�' Avenue Shanti Van Buren, 7550 4�' Street Roland and Karen Evans, 7558 4�' Street Virgil and Susan Okeson, 1423 64�' Avenue Mr. and Mrs. Frank DeMello, 6134 Woody Lane Robert Tumms, 1346 Hillcrest Drive Harold Johnson, 1334 Hillcrest Drive Garland and Jane Lagesse, 7951 Broad Avenue Tim Byrne, 6053 Woody Lane Mark and Jean Swartz, 1372 64�' Avenue Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren Street Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue Donna Reisner, 6424 Pierce Street Daryl Wolf, 6446 Arthur Street Doreena Aisewski, 7534 4�' Street Terry Miller, Vandias Heights Sue Rau, 1341 64�' Avenue Inge Eyler, 1456 64th Avenue Kevin and Paulette Holman, 571 79�' Way ,� Flo Jackson, Spring Lake Park School District John Zurek, Spring Lake Park School District John Kvidera, 7517 4th Street /"1 Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 2 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 7. 2004 MOTION made by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the January 7, 2004 minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA 04-01, by Profitmax Inc., to rezone multiple properties from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for the purpose of redevelopment, to allow for a Senior Housing Development and a Retail Complex, generally located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 and 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 and 1357 64�' Avenue, and finro vacant lots, Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #04-01, by Profitmax Inc., to replat six parcels into two parcels, for the purpose of constructing a Senior Housing Development and a Retail Complex, generally located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 and 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 and 1357 64�' Avenue, and two vacant lots, Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition. �--�, MOTION made by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open both public hearings. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated that John DeMello of Profitmax, Inc., is requesting finro separate land use actions from the City of Fridley in order to construct 71 senior owner-occupied condominium units and a retail complex on the southwest corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. Ms. Stromberg stated that John DeMello, is requesting to create finro new parcels, from 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6401 Central Avenue, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue (vacant), 6461 Central Avenue (vacant), 1341 64�' Avenue and 1357 64�' Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting a rezoning for the east side of Central Avenue befinreen Mississippi Street and 64�' Avenue. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. Ms. Stromberg stated that Mr. DeMello is proposing to construct a 13,420 square foot retail complex on the north portion of the development. Mr. DeMello envisions that this complex will house neighborhood retail businesses, which may include a pharmacy, a coffee shop, an ice cream/sandwich shop and a hair salon. The retail complex will include at least 67, 10 foot wide parking stalls for customers. The proposed 71 units will be owner-occupied and comprised of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. The development will include 73 underground parking stalls and 30 ^ surface parking stalls. The petitioner plans to model the exterior of both projects after an Italian villa. The site will include several ponds, a gazebo, and a trail system with landscaping that surrounds the property. Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 3 � Rezoninq Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner is requesting a rezoning and master plan approval for the east side of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street and 64�' Avenue. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. Ms. Stromberg stated that rezoning a property to S-2 Redevelopment District, requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for the site. If the rezoning and master plan were approved by the City Council any modification of the site plan would need to go back to the City Council for review and approval. Review of the master plan would also need to be completed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as the property is in a Redevelopment District. Ms. Stromberg 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. State Statute gives the City the authority to "rezone" property from one designated use to another, so long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held befinreen 1998 and 2000 and is a`�ool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community...lt is a plan because it contains goals, policies and strategies that all work together, looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision" In order for a rezoning to be viewed favorably, it must be in line with the City's vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. � Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed retail complex, senior owner-occupied condominium complex and rezoning of the properties meet several of the objectives the residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the Comprehensive Plan. The area of Old Central befinreen Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road was identified.as an area for future redevelopment. The purpose of redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate ine�cient land uses and under utilized parce/s. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to bui/d new facilities, meet current market demands and desires of the City, creates new tax base, and creates additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of these properties. Ms. Stromberg stated that the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that for this portion of Old 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 hea/th club may serve as an attractive residential location for move-up housing�'. Ms. Stromberg stated that the Comprehensive Plan also states that for projects in these redevelopment areas requiring rezoning that the S-2 zoning designation °would be the appropriate Zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project. The intent of the district is to provide 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". Ms. Stromberg stated that as Fridley's residents continue to age, demand will increase for "empty nester" and senior housing. There will be an increased demand for senior rental, senior owned condominium/town homes, and assisted living facilities. The proposed project, 71 senior �-:� owner-occupied condominium units, will meet some of the current demand for those seniors seeking altematives to their current housing type. ` Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 4 i"� Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request ZOA #04-01 and accompanying site plan for the senior building and retail complex, with the following stipulations. ■ Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ■ Provides housing opportunities for seniors. ■ Provides additional retail opportunities in Fridley. ■ Provides additional job opportunities in Fridley 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan to be submitted prior to the City Council meeting of March 8, 2004. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A-5, titled Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04 and architectural plan A-9, titled Retail Floor Plan and Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 64�' Avenue, and 1357 64�' Avenue to be removed prior to issuance of condominium building permits. 7. Petitioner to provide Certificate of Exemption for wetland or mitigate the wetland to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. �---� 10. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for stormwater run-off and management. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement for both platted lots must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 13. A perpetual cross-pond agreement to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits to assure continued pond access. 14. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 15. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $4,486.06. 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. 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. ,--� 22. 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. Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Pa e 5 �"'� Plat Ms. Stromberg stated that Mr. DeMello is also seeking to replat the properties located at 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6401 Central Avenue, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue, 1341 64�' Avenue and 1357 64�' Avenue to create finro separate lots. One of the newly created lots will accommodate the retail complex and the other lot will be used to allow for the construction of a 71-unit owner occupied senior condominium development. Ms. Stromberg stated that the proposed Lot #1 will accommodate the 13,420 square foot retail complex. Retail complexes like the one proposed are typically zoned C-2, General Business. Proposed Lot #1 is 62,690 square feet in size, which exceeds the minimum lot area requirement for the C-2, General Business District. Proposed Lot #1 also meets all the parking requirements for the number of parking stalls required for a retail use. Ms. Stromberg stated that the proposed Lot #2 is approximately 116,658 square feet (2.68 acres) in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct 71 senior owner occupied condominium units. The development will include 73 underground parking stalls and 30 surFace parking stalls. Because of the underground parking and the high water table in this area, the height of the building will be 45 feet at the midspan. Ms. Stromberg stated early discussions with Anoka County indicated they anticipate that a 120 ft. right-of-way corridor will be required for both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersections in order to provide the necessary tum lanes for future safety and operational purposes. �"^, Consequently, roadway right-of-way dedication needs for this site are 27-30 ft. adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 ft. adjacent to Central Avenue. Due to necessity of right-of-way acquisition, the parking setback for the retail space will be 2 feet from the north and west property lines. The parking setback on the senior condominium complex will also be 2 feet from the west property line. Due to the flexibility allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setbacks can be recognized under this rezoning master plan approval. Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner hired Ma�eld Research Inc., to complete a Market Feasibility Study for Senior Housing in Fridley. The demographic and competitive market analysis done by Ma�eld indicates that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 189 for-sale housing units. Ma�eld's research pointed out that given the competitive situation in the marketplace, the quality of the subject site, and the lack of for-sale product within three miles of the property, the senior condominium project would be the most marketable product for the site. Their research also showed that the subject site could best support an age-restricted owner- occupied development such as a condominium or cooperative of around 70 units. Ms. Stromberg stated the City's Comprehensive Plan indicated that in 2001, the portion of Old Central adjacent to the proposed senior condominiums carried 8,000 vehicles per day and, at this traffic level, was only carrying 57% of the traffic for which the roadway was designed and constructed to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Old Central carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020, based upon increases in population for Fridley & surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles / day, Old Central will be carrying 71 % if the maximum amount of traffic for which the roadway was designed. r"� Ms. Stromberg stated that Profitmax Inc., hired TDI, Traffic Data Incorporated, a Data Collection, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning firm to perform a traffic analysis. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 6 r"� in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7�' Edition, which was published in December 2003. The consultants used the SeniorAdu/t Housing Attached category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed senior complex would generate a total of 247 trips per day. The consultants used the Specialty Retail Center category from the ITE manual and determined that the proposed retail complex would generate a total of 598 trips per day. Ms. Stromberg stated that TDI developed traffic forecasts for the following 2005 scenarios: � No Build (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Elderly Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) ➢ Build Spring Valley Estates (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Elderly Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) The finding of these forecasts show that the level of service at both the Central Avenue/64�' Avenue intersections and the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersections would remain the same in the no-build or build scenarios. Ms. Stromberg stated that in order for TDI to complete the traffic study, the consultants also referred to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which govems the use of traffic control devices per Minnesota State Statute. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has eight criteria (called warrants) to consider when determining if a traffic signal should be installed at an intersection or not. These warrants are primarily based on the traffic volumes flowing through the intersection. A warrant analysis was conducted for the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. To complete this analysis, TDI staff performed a tuming movement count from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mississippi StreeUCentral Avenue intersection. None of the eight warrants are met under the existing conditions, nor will they be � met if the elderly housing and retail buildings are constructed on the proposed site. According , to this analysis, a traffic signal should not be installed at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue until at least one of the warrants is being met. Ms. Stromberg stated that the conclusions of TDI's analysis state that the stop controlled approaches at the Central Avenue/64�' Avenue intersection operate at LOS C or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic control. The intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue will operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. A traffic signal is not currently warranted at the intersection and a traffic signal will not be warranted at the intersection after the proposed development is completed. Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner has been working with the Rice Creek Watershed to determine in the project area has a wetland. The petitioner has hired Tom Bremen, with Acom Consulting, to delineate the site for any possible wetlands. Currently, both the petitioner and the Rice Creek Watershed are waiting for the delineators report. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has indicated that their intentions are to build the entire 71 unit senior owner-occupied condominium project in one construction phase. If the bank required unit pre-sales are slower than predicated, then they plan to phase the project in 2 phases. The first phase would be 35 units and the second phase would be the remaining 36 units. Phase one would commence upon selling the bank required percentage of units in the first half of the building, removal of the existing homes and soil corrections and would tentatively commence in August 2004. Phase finro would commence when the pre-sales are met for the � first part of the 2"d half of the building. In the meantime, sod, landscaping, and parking would be installed. Phase 3 involves the retail space which would simultaneously, work with the residential property. When the building is completely leased, the building will be constructed. Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Pa e 7 /"1 Ms. Stromberg stated that during the public hearings for the senior condominiums for Town Center Development, City staff heard many comments from neighboring property owners. Some of the concems raised were regarding traffic and a guarantee that the tenants of the complex would be 55 or older. To alleviate those concerns ahead of time, the petitioner has provided city staff with a traffic study and a copy of the proposed association documents upon submittal of the rezoning and plat request. Ms. Stromberg stated that staff also heard a concern regarding a drainage issue on properties south of 64th Avenue. Reviewin� history showed that improvements have been made to the storm sewer system north of 64 Avenue and that all the storm water from the north is diverted west to the much larger storm sewer system in Central Avenue. There is no connection befinreen the storm sewer system north and the problem identified from the resident south of 64�' Avenue. City Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat number PS#04-01, with the following stipulations. 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan to be submitted prior to the City Council meeting of March 8, 2004. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A-5, titled Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04 and architectural plan A-9, titled Retail Floor Plan and Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. ^ 4. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 64�h Avenue, and 1357 64�' Avenue to be removed prior to issuance of condominium building permits. 7. Petitioner to provide Certificate of Exemption for wetland or mitigate the wetland to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for stormwater run-off and management. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement for both platted lots must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 13. A perpetual cross-pond agreement to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits to assure continued pond access. 14. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 15. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $4,486.06. ^ 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 8 �'-� 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. 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. 22. 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 asked if the petitioner at some point wanted to convert to regular condominiums what would he have to do? Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner would need to go back to the Planning Commission and the City Council for an amendment to the master plan. Mr. DeMello stated there are 4 reasons that this project is good for the City of Fridley. 1. The site currently is not developed due to challenges in combining eight lots, correcting poor soil, dealing with a wetland, streamlining inconsistent zoning,. Removing existing housing and correcting incorrect survey information on each of the ^ lots. 2. The demand in this area only supports senior housing and retail they may patronize 3. Community that have implemented similar plans have experienced tremendous revitalization in both 4. The most compelling reason is that senior residents in Fridley deserve to own a state- of-the-art building that enables them to reduce costs and burden of home up-keep at a competitive price. Mr. DeMello introduced his dream team: Mr. Rick Harrison who is responsible for the site design, Mr. Charlie Scarpol a builder with years of experience assembling some of the most inviting senior housing, Mr. Tom Caesar with experience in all engineering aspects and especially important given the high water table in this area, Mr. Michael Speck, vice president of Traffic Data Inc. who analyzed the impact in traffic changes in the area, Mr. Paco and Umberto Cabello are theme design innovators and Mr. Peter Villard of Architectural Works. Mr. Villard listed a few of the challenges of the site such as groundwater levels, poor soils, fills, slope grading, zoning issues, neighborhood issues, Anoka County road right-of-way issues, Rice Creek Watershed District and traffic issues. Mr. Villard stated there will be finro entrances to the retail portion, one from Central Avenue on the West and from Mississippi Street which would loop the building. One of the amenities is a service area on the east side of the project which services the whole building. A fence would be built on the east side per the wishes of the neighborhood. ,-,.,, Mr. Villard stated that some of the amenities of the senior housing are the ponding on the west property line, a gazebo, a promenade entry and a porch that runs into the main entry way of the building and on the east side there will be a four-seasons porch. There will be meandering walkways that will hopefully connect to the city trails. There will be retaining walls with ` Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 9 �--ti landscaping. The existing trees will be removed and a double row of a mixture of evergreen trees will be added along the east property line to senre as screening for the neighborhood and as an attractive background for the senior housing residents. Mr. Villard stated the existing site is comprised of three drainage areas. There are currently no storm water quality treatment measures on the site. The proposed plan indicates a 35% reduction in the amount of storm water runoff on the site as compared to the present conditions. A large majority of storm water runoff is designed to flow to the south versus ponding along the east side of the property. There will be no negative impacts are anticipated for the adjacent property owners to the east. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Villard why they haven't considered completing the path around the structure as part of the site. Mr. Villard stated that initially they didn't want to have path but did put the path in to accommodate people coming from the southwest and not having to come up the roadside and meandering through the site to go to the retail area. It is not a problem to extend the path along the driveway to hook up with Mississippi Street. Mr. Saba urged Mr. Vallard to complete the path around the both structures. Mr. Kondrick stated that a good percentage of the 71 units might have two cars each and asked how the 73 underground stalls and 30 surface parking stalls compare to other senior structures. � Mr. Villard stated that they try to achieve between 1'/4 and 1-%2 cars per stall in independent living. There are a few one-bedroom and one-bedroom den units and usually people would have one car at that point. The 103 parking stalls averages about 1.45 car stalls per unit. Mr. Kondrick asked about visitor parking. Mr. Villard stated that visitor parking is included and is in front of the main entry way. The plan exceeds the city's district zoning requirements for parking which is 1 to 1. Mr. Villard stated there are nine different types of units from 825 square feet to 1,610 square feet. The unit prices would range from approximately $150,000 for the one bedroom unit to approximately $250,000 for the three bedroom units. Mr. Villard stated the retail building is a single story 13,000 square foot building with befinreen 1- 5 tenants. maximum. The interior space will have 14 to 16 foot high spaces. Mr. Harrison stated he was a suburban planner and his firm has done over 400 developments in 32 states and 5 countries. Mr. Harrison stated that all the units have a quality view. The retail building architect wraps around three sides creating a warm view from outside the senior units. Ms. Savage asked if and how the type of business would be controlled. �-.� Mr. Villard stated that the price of the retail dictates the level of retail companies that could afford the space. ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 10 � Mr. Saba stated that it had been mentioned that there would be no need for traffic control lights on the corner. For the safety of the individuals crossing the street would that not be a consideration in terms of providing signal lights. Mr. Spack, TDI Inc., stated that it is a controlled intersection with stop signs. Mr. Spack stated that traffic signals are great for controlling cars but are not friendly to pedestrians. Stop Signs are safer as everyone has to stop at the intersection. The more control there is the less safe it is. Ms. Johns asked that in working with the Rice Creek Watershed was there a need for plantings around the ponds discussed or would there be grass up to the ponds. Mr. Villard stated that plantings have not yet been discussed with the Rice Creek Watershed but that the ponding has been designed in accordance with the Watershed District's requirements. Mr. Virg Okeson of 1423 64�' Avenue stated he had concems regarding pedestrian traffic and if it had been considered in the automobile traffic pattem. Would the age of the senior citizens and the speed at which they will be able to cross the street cause traffic to back up on either Mississippi Street or Central Avenue and affect the egress from 64th Avenue going west. Another concem was on having enough parking spaces for visitors and residents, has the height of the building been considered. If the buildings were cut down, there would be less cars parked in the facility and open the spaces for visitors. Mr. Okeson stated he is concerned about the ponds and the safety of the children who live in the area or would come to visit a tenant. Mr. Okeson also asked what the plan for the business facility property would be if it is not pre- leased or built. Mr. Okeson stated he would rather see something that would go with the single family neighborhood and rezone it for single family housing versus zoning it for the proposed rezoning. Ms. Barbara Edwards of 1403 64th Avenue stated she has a problem with the height of the building and that most communities place senior buildings next to parks. She also stated that some of the proposed parking areas have only a 2-foot clearance from the easement. Ms. Edwards stated she had a problem with $200,000 homes on her block being torn down to put up a high rise in a mainly single family single story residential area and that a block and a half there is Moore Lake Plaza. Ms. Edwards stated she is totally against this project and wants it kept residential. Mr. Tim Byrne of 6053 Woody Lane stated the comprehensive plan for this area is a product of the city staff which is a recommendation not a law, ordinance or statute. Point finro was that this was spot rezoning as it is essentially turning a business strip and a single family residential into a business strip and R-3 high density residential. The developer does not own any property but has purchase agreements to purchase perFectly good homes in the name of redevelopment. If this project is approved it will set a policy where developers and city staff determine the ,,—� outcome of what is happening in the city. Mr. Kurt Olson of 1385 64th Avenue stated he is one lot away from this project and is putting on a large addition to his home. Had he known about this project he would not have considered Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 11 �"� putting on the addition. He does not want a tall building looking into his back yard and is not for this project. He stated the residents should have a say in what the comprehensive plan of Fridley should be. Mr. Mark Mattison of 6421 Central owns one of the lots being redeveloped. The property was purchased in 1992 because he knew the area would eventually be redeveloped. He had spoken to the City several times about constructing townhomes and that the city wanted to redevelop that area because it is a differently plotted area. He cannot split his one-acre lot even though the house sets on a C-1 and the back half of the lot is R-1. The house has no basement and does not fit into the building code where every house should have a basement. This is an excellent time for the city to consider redeveloping this area. Mr. Joe Nelson of 1357 64�' Avenue stated his home is one which will not be destroyed but moved. He stated he is about 16 months away from retirement and a couple of months away from being old enough to live in this development. Neither the city nor the developer forced me to sell my home but I openly negotiated with the developer for the sale of the home. Ms. Joan Olson of 6320 Van Buren stated this was spot zoning. It is doubtFul that the $500 fee for the rezoning application covers the cost of staff time and it is adding insult to injury to expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the balance for staff time not covered by the application fee. Ms. Jean Schwartz of 1372 64�' Avenue stated prior to purchasing their home 18 years ago, they had looked at other areas but when they checked the zoning around the homes, they chose their property because the homes they prefeRed had apartment buildings close by. They ^ were OK with the zoning as it currently is. She stated that the Commission is sending out the message that no neighborhood is safe from this happening to them. Ms. Andrea Olson of 1385 64�' Avenue stated that they were promised this would not happen. People are not in interested in this happening to their neighborhoods. When are you going to listen to the people of Fridley. Ms. Beverly Prior of 1340 Mississippi Street stated that her husband cannot mow the lawn or shovel anymore and a home like this would be perFect for them. This is a wonderFul deal to help the elderly people out. Ms. Susan Okeson of 1423 64�' Avenue stated she lives four houses from the proposed project. She agreed the area needed to be spruced up but stated they don't need to exchange residential areas and make them into high density housing and add additional retail space since there is retail space close by that is already struggling. This project is not a good fit for the neighborhood. The neighborhood no longer has trust in their civic government to be comfortable with rezoning the plot and let the City decide what will happen to this area. Mr. Mark Schwartz of 1372 64�' Avenue stated when he purchased his property it was zoned R- 1 and had Iooked at other zoning in the area. He has a passion for hockey and would like to put in a hockey rink on his land, would the rules be changed for that? Probably wouldn't but it is OK to change the rules for this project. That's not right, it is not good for the neighborhood. The core of the city is your neighborhoods and this breaks up that core. � Ms. Sue Rau of 1341 64�' Avenue stated they have lived in their home for 29 years and their home is one that has been purchased. John has done an excellent job in designing this and would be a great benefit for the area because it is getting run down. There are only finro homes ` Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Pa e 12 ,� on zoned residential; the other finro homes are already zoned commercial property. You can't stop developing an area otherwise it would start looking like lower East Minneapolis. Ms. Inge Eyler of 1456 64�' Avenue asked the Commission if they would like a five-story building in your back yard? Mr. Frank DeMello of 6134 Wood Lane stated he owns one of the properties his son is developing. He stated he had concems of his own because. When his wife suggested their moving to a condo after she saw him sweat mowing the grass or shoveling snow he was against it. He stated that after last summer and what he has seen this year, he feels he is the first candidate to move into a place like this. No one mentioned the seniors who live in this neighborhood that cannot shovel snow or cut grass and no one comes around to help them. They need a place like this and this building is not an eye sore, it is a tremendous building. Mr. DeMello stated he purchased this property 30 years ago to build a commercial office building but that the zoning was changed back and forth and he never had the chance for 25 years to build only to pay taxes for the rabbits, squirrels and trees that grow on it. He also stated that the city approached him years ago to do something about the machine shop on Mississippi because it is an eye sore, people didn't complain about that but now people complain about this beautiful project. Mr. Harrison stated that in constructing buildings lower than four stories, essentially the land is consumed with very little green space. Suburban land costs one-third of what this land would cost. To redevelop this land with single-family homes, you would have to build million dollar , � homes and no one is going to buy million dollar homes on that comer. He also stated that no upscale store would move into the area until this area was redeveloped or renovated. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded 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 9:58 P.M. Mr. Saba stated that the first issue before them is the rezoning and the plat which needs to be voted on. Mr. Kuechle stated he was in favor of the project and would recommend City Council approval. Mr. Oquist stated he would agree with Mr. Kuechle. We need to continue to try to improve and develop our community to stay ahead of what is happening within the inner city. It is a well thought out project and is in favor of the project. Mr. Saba stated that he was on the commission when the comprehensive plan was being developed and that they tried to get people to attend those meetings but very few attended. The comments received at the meetings were to protect our parks, schools and we want more senior housing. If people don't like the comprehensive plan, they need to attend meetings when the plan is being discussed. He urged the developer to construct the path all the way around the building. He is in favor of the plan. � Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Saba and is also in favor of this project and that it will be a great addition to the city. Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 13 i� Ms. Johns stated she also agreed with this project. The petitioner has tried to accommodate some of the issues that the neighborhood brought forward to them. Fridley needs to continue redeveloping areas to not remain stagnate. Ms. Savage stated she also agreed with this project and that it is good for the community. Mr. Dunham stated he liked the project but did not like the size of it. He stated he is not necessarily for the project because of the height and is also concerned about the parking. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle to recommend to City Council approval of Rezoning, ZOA #04-01 by Profitmax Inc., to rezone multiple properties from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District, for the purpose of redevelopment, to allow for a Senior Housing Development and a Retail Complex, generally located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 and 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 and 1357 64�' Avenue, and two vacant lots, Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, with the following stipulations: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan to be submitted prior to the City Council meeting of March 8, 2004. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A-5, titled Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04 and architectural plan A-9, titled Retail Floor Plan and E�erior Elevations, dated 2/6/04. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. ^ 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 64t" Avenue, and 1357 64�' Avenue to be removed prior to issuance of condominium building permits. 7. Petitioner to provide Certificate of Exemption for wetland or mitigate the wetland to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for stormwater run-off and management. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement for both platted lots must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 13. A perpetual cross-pond agreement to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits to assure continued pond access. 14. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 15. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $4,486.06. ,.� 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 14 �,-� 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the tra�c generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22. 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. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SIX VOTING AYE, ONE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A 6 TO 1 VOTE. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat PS #04-01, by Profitmax Inc., to replat six parcels into finro parcels, for the purpose of constructing a Senior Housing Development and a Retail Complex, generally located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 and 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 and 1357 64�' Avenue, and finro vacant lots, Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, with the following stipulations: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan to be submitted prior to the City Council meeting of March 8, 2004. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A-5, titled Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04 and architectural plan A-9, titled Retail Floor ^ Plan and Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 64�' Avenue, and 1357 64th Avenue to be removed prior to issuance of condominium building permits. 7. Petitioner to provide Certificate of Exemption for wetland or mitigate the wetland to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for stormwater run-off and management. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement for both platted lots must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 13. A perpetual cross-pond agreement to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits to assure continued pond access. 14. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. �...� 15. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $4,486.06. ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 15 �, 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. 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. 22. 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. �� 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Use Permit SP 04-02, by Kevin & Paulette Holman, to construct a detached garage in their rear yard, which is located in the Flood Fringe District, generally located at 571 79�' Way NE. MOTION made by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Johns, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTIOId CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:12 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated that Kevin and Paulette Holman, are seeking a special use permit to construct a detached garage in their rear yard which is located at 571 79�' Way. Their property is located in the CRP-2, Flood Fringe District. No structures or buildings can be constructed in the CRP-2, Flood Fringe District, without a special use permit. Ms. Stromber� stated the property is located east of the Mississippi River, with the home fronting on 79t Way. The property is zoned, R-1, Single Family as are the properties to the west, north and east. The property to the south of the subject property is a public park. The existing home was constructed in 1962. A garage has never existed on this site. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code states that no buildings or structures can be placed within the CRP-2, Flood Fringe District, unless a special use permit is granted. The proposed structure must be designed and certified by a registered engineer or architect as being in compliance with applicable building codes, including federal standards for flood proofing. The petitioner has submitted all the necessary information needed to meet these requirements, including a certificate of survey, and the elevations and structural notes on the proposed structure Ms. Stromberg stated that on this particular property, there can be no living area below 823.8 feet in elevation. The proposed garage slab will be located at 821 feet in elevation. A garage is allowed to be below the required elevation for living area because it's uninhabitable (not living space) space. The foundation, footing and garage slab have all been engineered to meet FEMA requirements. The garage floor is also designed to drain. The garage slab will be located at 821 feet in elevation, the top of the block elevation will be 823.8 feet, and the wood ,.�, garage structure will start above the 823.8 feet elevation. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed garage meets all setback and lot coverage requirements. The petitioners have also submitted a variance request to increase the size of a first accessory ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 16 �..� building from 1,000 square feet to 1,168 square feet and to exceed 100% of the first floor area of the dwelling unit. That variance request will go before the Appeals Commission next Wednesday. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, with stipulations as structures that are not elevated on fill are a permitted special use in the flood fringe district provided that all Federal and State flood proofing standards are met. Ms. Stromberg stated that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 3. Total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. 4. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with complementary siding, color scheme, roof pitch, and roofing materials. 5. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum garage floor elevation is 821 feet. 6. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with current Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. 7. Retaining wall needs to be approved by the City's engineering staff prior to construction and will require a separate building permit. 8. Driveway shall meet code requirements and be 3 feet from all property lines or written ^ approval from neighboring property owners must be filed with the City. Ms. Savage asked if any calls were received regarding. Ms. Stromberg stated that finro were received and that one neighbor who lives behind the petitioners was concemed about drainage onto their property. Ms. Stromberg stated she contacted Jon Haukaas, the City's Engineer, and she believed he has spoken with the concemed neighbors. Ms. Stromberg stated she also received an inquiry from a neighbor who asked where the garage was going to be located on the site and where the driveway was going to be located. They came in to city hall and reviewed the site plan. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Holman if he had any reservations about the stipulations. Mr. Holman stated he did not. Mr. and Mrs. Garland Lagesse of 7951 Broad Avenue stated he lives behind Mr. Holman on the other side of the creek. He had a question about the quantity of fill required to raise the elevation, where is the water going to go. Mr. Kuechle asked is Mr. Lagesse had spoken to Mr. Haukaas. Mrs. Lagesse stated she had spoken to him and that he didn't think there would be a problem �` but that it didn't satisfy her. Ms. Savage asked if they were opposed to the garage or only concemed. ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 17 � Mrs. Lagesse stated she only had concems about how the water would drain and if it would cause the creek to backup and go towards their property. Mr. Holman stated he also had spoken to Mr. Haukaas in the past because he has concerns every time the creek rises. Two years ago the City blocked the creek off so it would back up and with the 30-in. pump in there, Mr. Haukaas stated that it could pretty much keep up with the water in the creek. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a law that you could not change your property in such a way that it will change the water situation on someone else's property. Mr. Bolin stated that you cannot have a negative impact on neighboring properties. He also stated that with the facts known, there should not be any problems. It is difficult to say with all certainty that there will never be a problem but Mr. Haukaas feels there will not be a problem. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, 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 10:23 P.M. MOTION by Oquist, seconded by Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, PS #04-02, by Kevin and Paulette Holman, to construct a detached garage in their rear yard, which is located in the Flood Fringe District, generally located at 571 79�' Way NE, ^ with the following stipulations: 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 3. Total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. 4. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with existing home and finished with complementary siding, color scheme, roof pitch, and roofing materials. 5. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate as part of a verifying survey prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the minimum garage floor elevation is 821 feet. 6. The petitioner shall flood-proof the garage in accordance with cuRent Federal and State flood-proofing requirements to a minimum of the 100-year flood elevation. 7. Retaining wall needs to be approved by the City's engineering staff prior to construction and will require a separate building permit. 8. Driveway shall meet code requirements and be 3 feet from all property lines or written approval from neighboring property owners must be filed with the City. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage stated this item will go to City Council on March 8, 2004 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Use Permit #SP04-01, by Spring Lake Park School District, to ,� use the property as a classroom for the Life Skills Program, generally located at 7517 4�' Street NE. MOTION made by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 18 '� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:29 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated that Frank Herman, on behalf of Spring Lake Park School District, is requesting a special use permit to allow a classroom for the Life Skills Program to be operated out of the home, which is located at 7517 4th Street. Ms. Stromberg stated that in order for a program through the school district to be located within a residential home, all applicable building code and accessibility code requirements must be met. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are all surrounding properties. Private schools are a permitted special use in the R-1 Single Family zoning district. While private schools are required to obtain a special use permit and public schools are permitted by right, the school district has committed to go through the special use permit process, so like a private school, it can ensure neighborhood compatibility. Ms. Stromberg stated John and Susan Kvidera are the owners of the property and the Spring Lake Park School District will rent the property from the owners. The Life Skills Program works with students in the 9-12 grades. The program teaches students independent living skills that will enable them to function on their own when they graduate or leave the program. Students in this program have been placed in the special education program meeting criteria such as having a learning disability. The goal of the program is to create a small learning environment that focuses on academic skills, works skills, and living skills. The activities planned for the students included: • Leaming outside property maintenance • Planning and providing service leaming opportunities within the community � Learning to plan menus which will include shopping and preparing lunches � Providing academic program during school hours Ms. Stromberg stated the program at the subject property will accommodate 5-7 students and will be used during school hours of 7:30 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. Students will follow the District 16 calendar for the day's classes will be in session and there will be no students or staff staying over night. Students will not be allowed to drive to the property, but will be dropped off around 7:45 a.m. and will be picked up around 2:15 p.m. There are no weekend activities or classes planned. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner held a Community Meeting for the neighborhood surrounding the subject property on February 10, 2004. The intent of the meeting is to provide information about the Life Skills Program and answer any questions the neighborhood may have. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has indicated that parking will be limited to 2 school district staff, the property has adequate parking space for the finro vehicles needed to operate the program. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff has heard from finro neighboring property owners who have had ,-� concems about the eligibility requirements for the students, their property values, and smoking and loitering on the property and street. Staff will let the petitioner speak to the eligibility requirements of the students. The school has policies regarding smoking and loitering and staff has added a stipulation to ensure that the schools policies are being met on this property. Staff ° Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 19 � has also spoken with the City Assessor and she has stated that using this property for a Life Skills Program by the school district won't impact neighboring property values. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request. Ms. Stromberg stated the R-1 Single Family zoning district allows private schools through a special use permit. The uP", Public zoning district includes land area, waterways and water areas which are owned, controlled, regulated, used or proposed to be used by the City of Fridley or other govemmental body. The Public zoning district also states that a"P" district is automatically designated at the time of land purchases for the principal uses. It then goes on the state that a"P° district upon removal of public use, automatically reverts back to the original zoning that was on the property prior to the taking for such use. Ms. Stromberg stated a private party will own the subject property and the School District will be renting the property from them. According to the language in the �P" zoning district, if a piece of property is purchased by a public entity, the zoning would automatically become Public. The codes ambiguity makes it unclear if the property is leased, if the land would also automatically become Public. Nonetheless, the School District has agreed to make this request subject to the special use provisions of the R-1, Single Family zoning district to assure neighborhood compatibility, as a private school would be required to do. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff has met with the City Attorney regarding this request and he has agreed that due to the ambiguity of the code, requesting that the School District go through the special use permit process would provide the best outcome for the School District, City and the ,...� neighborhood. Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner shall meet all building code and accessibility code requirements prior to the house being used for the Life Skills Program. 2. Parking shall be limited to staff only, no students shall be allowed to drive to the property. 3. School district policies and procedures for loitering, smoking, etc., shall be enforced on the property and adjacent right-of-ways. 4. Use of the property for school activities will be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 5. Use of the property for school activities will follow the District 16 calendar for the day's classes will be in session. 6. Property shall be properly maintained. 7. A security system with an automatic fire detection system shall be installed in the home to reduce the risk of trespassers or catastrophe. Mr. Oquist stated that stipulation 6 states the property shall be properly maintained. He questioned who would be responsible for mowing and shoveling the snow. Ms. Stromberg stated the property owner would ultimately be responsible for it. Ms. Stromberg stated that the petitioner mentioned that she would like to see the fourth stipulation changed to allow a later evening activity only because it would be beneficial to have the parent meetings for the students at the house. She was requesting a change to 7:00 a.m. to �' 9:00 p.m. City staff doesn't have an issue with this change. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had indicated how often these meetings would occur. ` Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Pa e 20 �� Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner had indicated monthly at the most. Ms. Flo Jackson, a teacher for the Life Skills Transition Program, stated she was representing Mr. Frank Herman who was attending a school conference. Mr. John Zurek, on staff at Spring Lake Park High School Learning Altemate Program, and works with Ms. Jackson. Ms. Savage asked if they would regularly need to have activities restricted beyond 3:00 p.m. Ms. Jackson stated it would be once a month at the most and 7:00 p.m. would most likely be the latest that meetings would be held. She stated 7:00 p.m. would be sufficient. Ms. Johns asked if all parents were at the meeting once a month or just one at a time and if parking would be an issue. Ms. Jackson stated it would be one parent and possibly a county person so parking would not be an issue. Mr. Saba asked what would be done at this residential property that could not be done in a school building. Ms. Jackson stated that the special use permit request indicates grades 9-12 but they actually ,.� work with students from the age of 17 to 21. The special education law passed in 1997 called the IDEA, mandates transition activities to be provided for special education students. We work with these students on living skills, independent skills, trying to assist with their independence at age 21 when they will move on to the next level of their development. A kitchen is needed to assist students with leaming skills in the site in which they will be using them. Teaching them kitchen safety is difficult in a class room. Mr. Oquist asked if it could be set up in the classroom environment in the school where there is a kitchen rather than disturbing a neighborhood and creating a situation where people do not know their neighbors and who does or does not belong there. Ms. Jackson stated they do not come in to disrupt a neighborhood but that these are Fridley young people who are part of the school district. The intent is to help these students to learn how be a part of a neighborhood and the only way to do that is to make them part of a neighborhood. Ms. Savage stated that stipulation 3 states that school district policies and procedures for loitering, smoking, etc., shall be enforced on the property. Ms. Jackson stated school policy does not allowed students to smoke at any time even if they are going to or are on a job site. This rule applies to all school activities. Mr. Kuechle stated that to resolve the issue of time in stipulation 4, would 8:00 p.m. and 10 times a year. �, Ms. Jackson stated that 8:00 p.m. would be more than sufficient. ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 21 ,,.-.� Mr. Gregory Zelenak of 7526 4th Street, stated he had gone around the neighborhood and � collected a petition of approximately 30 signatures of residents and property owners who are against this special use permit. He understood the property is for sale and is being purchased by the spouse of a teacher in the Altemative Leaming Program and would be renting it the school district for $900 to $1,500 a month. This is a conflict of interest. Mr. Zelenak stated it was also unclear about the possibility of expansion of the program, there are no set time limits as to how long the program exists with the funding it may have and would like a stipulation as to how long the program would last if the permit is approved. Mr. Zelenak stated that the Life Skills Program is under an umbrella of leaming altematives and if the other programs would use these facilities. He is also concemed about the enforcement of the stipulations. He would also like inspections by either the city of school district either every 6 months or yearly to ensure they are following the stipulations. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick , to receive the petition. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Karen Evans, of 7558 4�' Street, stated that they already have transitional homes in the neighborhood. There were two and one was bumed by one of the children and also there is an alcohol treatment center and a half-way house for women. Purchase all of our properties or leave us alone. We would like to see something positive rather than negative in the ,,-� neighborhood. Mr. Ken Christianson, of 7525 4�' Street, stated he has lived in the house just north of this property for 40 years. The educators state all special education students should be main streamed but that the school does not have enough room. It is not up to a neighborhood to take care of the problem that should be in District 16. The property is located in District 16 and the decision should be made by District 16 and not residents who live in District 14. Mr. Christianson stated the city assessor said this would not devalue his property. He feels the school will lower the value of his property by $10,000 to $20,000 and would like a guarantee from the City that if he sells his property it will not go down in value. Mr. Christianson asked if Mr. & Mrs. Kvidera had already purchased the property or if it was contingent on the special use permit being granted. If there is a price attached to the lease it would give them a guaranteed investment not available to others purchasing a house. My wife and I are not in favor of this special use permit. Mr. Roland Evans of 7558 4th Street, stated he has the same concems. He feels their homes will be devalued. He feels that potential buyers would not be interested in his property if this school was located four houses away from his. Another concem is this house will not have to be renovated to accommodated handicapped children. He also had concern regarding how the school will be able to control the students as they are no longer kids. Juanita stated she has lived on 5�' Street for 32 years. She does not like the changes that are �..., happening in the area. There are a lot of unsubstantiated responses. She stated she has concern and there other options available. She is not in favor of this permit. ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 22 ,� Mr. John Kvidera, stated he is to purchase this property on March 16, 2004. He stated that these kids will not only be working in the kitchen but also doing laundry, house cleaning, etc. and feels the property will be cleaner than neighboring property. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Kvidera if he would be responsible for maintaining the property. Mr. Kvidera stated that it is his property and he would be responsible for all maintenance. As pa�t of the lease agreement, the school would be responsible for some of the maintenance work. Ms. Shanti Van Buren of 7550 4�' Street, stated that it was mentioned that a home setting is needed for the skills to be leamed but that these things can be found in the school. There is a lot of gray areas open to interpretation and has a concem about property values. Ms. Savage asked the petition about the type of disabilities these students have. Ms. Jackson stated that this is for all students with disabilities but the majority of students that are in the program have developmental disability. These students have lower IQ's and need extra time to develop those skills and the best setting is that in which they will be using those skills. Ms. Jackson stated that because of confidentiality issues, conferences would be held with only one student at a time. ^ Mr. Saba asked if the school had considered purchasing a home and having it moved to school property. He stated that Fridley students build a home, sell it and move it and discuss with the people who build the home and see if custom requirements built in and move the home close to Spring Lake Park school. Ms. Jackson stated that they have building and trades within the District program and that possibly some time in the near future they would be able to do that. Mr. Kondrick asked is they had considered the Fridley Community Center where they have class room settings. Ms. Jackson stated they are trying to get away from the classroom setting as these kids have already been through high school and that they are in the Spring Lake School District so they would not use the Fridley Community Center. Their community center is full and does not have enough space for the programs they already have. She stated there would be a transportation issue if they moved out of their school district. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 11:35 P.M. Mr. Kondrick asked if the permit could be pulled if there are problems in the future. ,� Ms. Stromberg stated the special use permit can be reviewed and could be revoked if they are not meeting their stipulations. � ' Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 23 �--� Mr. Kuechle stated that if a stipulation were to state that there could be no more than 10 kids, if that would be workable. Ms. Jackson stated it would be agreeable. Mr. Oquist stated that he wouldn't mind if this was done for a year, two or three while they develop something on the school site, but am opposed to this as it goes against everything we have leamed about neighborhood crime watch and cannot support the special use permit. Mr. Saba stated he also was not in favor of it as no one in the neighborhood seems to like it. Mr. Dunham stated he was also opposed to the permit. Ms. Savage stated she was in favor of the permit with the stipulations, there is a need to have a review after a year. Mr. Kondrick stated he would vote for it also for the same reason. I would add stipulations for the number of kids, the length of time on this special use permit and not be flexible on the hours. Mr. Kuechle stated it is a mandated program and we should do it. He is concemed that there are finro other similar situations in that neighborhood and need to keep an eye on it. Ms. Johns stated there is a need for it but not necessarily in a neighborhood. She stated she would be opposed to it only because it would be nice to rotate it into different neighborhoods ,� and not in one neighborhood for a long period of time. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit #04-01, by Spring Lake Park School District, to use the property as a classroom for the Life Skills Program, generally located at 7517 4�' Street NE, with the 7 stipulations as presented by staff, with a modification to stipulation #4, stating that the hours student activity would be 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.rri, except one day a month until 8:00 p.m, and for addition of stipulation #8, which requires this special use permit to be reviewed in one ear an an addition of stipulation #9 to limit the program to a maximum of 10 children. y' and Mr. Kuechle stated you cannot put a stipulation that it is good for only one year. Mr. Kondrick amended his motion to review the permit in a year's time, seconded b Mr. Kuechle. y Ms. Jackson asked if she was permitted to be at the facility after 3:00. Mr. Kuechle amended the stipulation of student activity from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 .m. and • p.m. once a month. P 8.00 UPON A VOICE VOTE, THREE VOTING AYE, FOUR VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSO SAVAGE DELCARED THE MOTION FAILED ON A 3 TO 4 VOTE. N MO— T� by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dunham to recommend denial of Special Use ^ #04-01, by Spring Lake Park School District to use the property as a classroom for th Pe��t Skills Program, generally located at 7517 4th Street NE. e Life s i e � Planning Commission Meeting, February 18, 2004 Page 24 � ,---� UPON A VOICE VOTE, FOUR VOTING AYE, THREE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 4 TO 3 VOTE. Ms. Savage stated this will go to the City Council on March 8, 2004. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 5. 2004. PARKS 8� RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MOTION made by Mr. Kondrick , seconded by Kuecle, to receive the January 5, 2004, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 20 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING• MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the January 20, 2004 Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 4 2003 HOUSING AND � REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: � MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the December 4, 2003 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission meeting minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Mr. Kuechle recognized the award received by Dave Kondrick from the Parks and Recreation Commission. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE FEBRUARY 18, 2004, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:38 P.M. ,� � �� - CITY OF FRIDLEY \ �...1 SIGN-IN SHEET �i � n � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - I DO Name Address/Business �� CC. ��i � �� -� � �_ �ol��,.�� — I �,�/� ` c ✓� _ � s � C� ZC� I�c1��L�i�� , 'V �:�� ' '� ��. � � .� . —� ie6a. d-� � � � `�� , �i�- i�- z� � � �-,� �� Z.. P,��. st ti �. �G� v , �/' � �r, ��.,� ' �,� �,�� t� rr. ; ._. � �` �_�1� � ,A , l ! F r � � � � �� ,� ,.. ; �'�• - /�� !' i / r° , i, - .�, � i � f L_�. /L ..� / G% t ` 7 �� e ��- �� . �%�� ,� e O'' �i� �_ `E � � �� 6� �G� � �'`r.c� �`�Y a _. rL: �e ._-. �— �. / r ' . .�� ,�"� � , CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Name Address/Business ///n1%�i,9A. J ��•. ��(f,� . _ le/�1'� /,f� � .,a � � P 5.�5�� CJ,� t �-,�� (� -1 qs \ '� (o V+- ^� � f �'1 � �✓1-�- �j�5�� 1/ .�� ` � 5�� 1 �7 � � � � �� '�� '�%.��'�,� ��/�f � I � '�' • '� f /. 1 . 0' l// � � �� L,�✓ fi� �� , � �� ;� �� _��.�. °� �'�I'� �`% �"��" N ° � ' '� e f� o ea � / / � � ��7z ?,� S _C � � �