Loading...
PL 06/01/2005 - 30877,--, CITY OF FRIDLEY . PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1. 2005 n ,� CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Savage called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL Members present: Members absent: Others present: Diane Savage, David Kondrick, Leroy Oquist and Dean Saba Brad Dunham Barbara Johns Larry Kuechle Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Scott Hickok, Community Development Director APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — April 20, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2005 meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #05-03 by Timothy Van Auken to subdivide two multi-family lots, generally located at 1475 and 1485 73�a Avenue NE. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Kondrick, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Jones stated the petitioner resides at 1475 73`� Avenue and is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for his properiy located at 1475 & 1485 73`� Avenue to allow construction of fin+o new twin homes. The petitioner is seeing to subdivide 1475 and 1485 73`d Avenue in half to create two new buildable lots on the northern portion. The purpose of the plat is to allow the creation of two new twin homes or four new housing units. The properties are zoned R-3, multiple unit residential. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 2 of 17 R � � Ms. Jones explained the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width of 75 feet and minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for two unit buildings. The new twin homes can � meet all necessary setback requirements. The lot coverage will be 25% which is below the minimum of 30%. All necessary utility / drainage easements are provided on the plat. The proposed lots would be too small for R-3 uses. However, if the two lots were combined into one parcel they would be large enough for a multi-family development similar to the one currently to the west of 1475 73`d Avenue. As for the Comprehensive Plan analysis, Ms. Jones stated the R-3 zoning is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan so a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment continuing R-3 zoning should be approved if the plat is approved. Ms. Jones stated the plat proposal submitted includes extending access from the 73'/2 Avenue cul-de-sac to 10' within the back of 1475 73�d Avenue lot. Staff had considered that it would be appropriate to extend the cul-de-sac further west to the new end of the street. However, there are other property owners involved to the north of this proposed plat, so that's not something staff could stipulate as a requirement. One of the affected property owners approached staff this morning and indicated he is in favor of such a proposal. So the petitioner and neighbors are considering this and plan to have it resolved by the time it reaches City Council. Staff recommends approval of Plat PS #05-03 as it provides additional home ownership opportunities. Staff also recommends the following stipulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. b. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. '� Any remaining debris from demolition of existing home and any brush piles on site shall be removed prior to granting of final plat. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $3,000 prior to issuance of building permits. Petitioner to pay all wrater and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. Petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. Twin homes shall meet all parking requirements. Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. The petitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. Chairperson Savage asked if staff had received any comments from neighbors. ^ CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 3 of 17 !"1 Ms. Jones stated the only contact was from the owner of the property affected by the possible cul-de-sac extension. Commissioner Kondrick asked why the cul-de-sac has to be there when there is street access. Mr. Hickok stated it could happen either way but the preferred route would be to put the cul-de-sac at the very end of the drive vvhich would allow for the elimination of people using private driveways to tum around. It also gives a more finished street. The city would also favor the cul-de-sac for snow removal concems. Commissioner Oquist asked who would be responsible for the construction of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hickok explained the developer would typically be responsible but this is an unusual situation. The other property owner affected talked to staff about moving the curb dimension down a couple of feet for the road would be perfectly centered and each would have the same amount of green space on the side of the road. That cost would be covered by this property owner. They're waiting for the pricing on this proposed extension. ^ Commissioner Kondrick asked if the neighbors are agreeable to the proposal. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner favors the dead-end rather than a cul-de-sac as he doesn't want to have his project held up if some of the neighbors oppose the cul-de- sac. He added that the fire department has viewed this proposal and they would favor the cul-de-sac. The design expectations don't need to be as great with only 5 homes taking access from the cul-de-sac. What is shown is only half of a typical right-of-way. Tim VanAuken, 1475 73`d Av. NE, the petitioner for this proposal was present and offered to answer questions. Commissioner Kondrick asked if Mr. VanAuken understands and agrees with all the stipulations recommended by staff. Mr. VanAuken responded affirmatively. He commented that Mary Jane Hanson, the property owner north of 1475, has indicated that she is not in favor of having the cul- de-sac in her back yard. Ms. Hanson has granted a 25 x 55 foot easement to Mr. VanAuken but she is not interested in losing that much of her property for the cul-de- sac. He stated he wants to work with all his neighbors and create a very nice development. �._ Commissioner Kondrick asked how much more property would be required from Ms. Hanson for the cul-de-sac. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 4 of 17 Mr. VanAuken believed the easement would have to double in size. � Mr. Hickok stated the City Engineer determined that an additional 900 square feet would be required for the cul-de-sac. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Av., stated the majority of that neighborhood is shown as single family residential in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated the inconsistency is the zoning, not the usage. Mr. Hickok stated as far back at the mid 80's this property was zoned R3 Multi- family. Staff double checked the zoning against the 1986 map and the zoning was R3. Ms. Reynolds commented that there is an ordinance requiring to make sure zoning is correct and she believed the "three little blurbs of R3" constitutes spot zoning. Mr. Hickok stated there is no requirement that the zoning be changed to match the Comprehensive Plan. Recently City staff brought a similar situation to the Council's attention and the Council did not want to do a wholesale rezoning of inconsistencies but preferred to look at projects as they came in. As far as spot zoning, this property is already zoned Multi-family and it's adjacent to like zoning. The zoning is correct for this proposal. � Sue Sherek, 1530 73'h Av NE, stated that there is single family homes along 73'/2 Av. and residents have been told that it would always be characterized that way. They were also told that if there were plat divisions done, they would be single family facing 73'/z Avenue. None of the apartment buildings along 73 Avenue enter onto the cul-de-sac at any point. Putting doubles on this property would change the character of the neighborhood. She added that she was present in 1986 when the Comprehensive Plan was made and it was intended that the single family neighborhoods stay single family. John Jackels, 1479 73'/2 Av NE, stated that finro double homes accessing the street in front of their home would be the least desirable. He stated he is a traffic operations engineer and a lot of the concems he has are with the street design. The first issue is the center line of the street should be on the property line. He would like to look at the option of moving the curb back knowing that the expense would be theirs. He is not in favor of having the dead end as he already has problems with people backing into his driveway to tum around. The best thing is for the cul-de-sac to go in but the size should be considered. Another consideration is the drainage because the nearest drain is almost 500 feet to the east of fhis location. He was concerned that putting two units on these lots would result in four double garage doors which he believes will change the nature of the property. He is concemed about how the double homes will appear from the street because their home faces the petitioner's property. He also stated he believes the announcement regarding ^ CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 5 of 17 ,...� this proposal that went out to property was too brief and did not contain enough details. Commissioner Kondrick questioned the suggestion Mr. Jackels made regarding reducing the circumference of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hickok stated it is possible to reduce the size but the question is whether or not that would be acceptable for snow removal and fire vehicles. The standard for cul- de-sacs is to build them with the 50 foot radius to the outside of the right-of-way and the 40 foot cul-de-sac. To build a cul-de-sac less than standards creates problems and the Council has taken a strong position in the past to not vary those standards. Jerry Sherek, 1530 73'/2 Av NE, questioned if the plows and fire equipment can handle a dead end, why they couldn't handle a reduced radius cul-de-sac. Mr. Hickok responded they do have a cul-de-sac that exists at the end of 73'/z. What is being considered is a cul-de-sac that would be moved back in lieu of that cul-de-sac. It would be preferable to put a cul-de-sac rather than a dead end street. One of the affected property owners wants to evaluate whether the cul-de-sac would limit her ability to develop her property and she will get back to City staff prior the Council meeting when this matter will be discussed. Mr. Hickok further stated that the petitioner has R3 zoned property adjacent to a public right-of-way and by law he ,..� can ask the City to improve that right-of-way and to develop his property. Commissioner Saba asked Mr. Sherek if he would prefer a cul-de-sac. Mr. Sherek responded that traffic going into a dead end street then backing up is a problem. Also the cars parked along the right-of-way would increase with the additional buildings which would be a hazardous situation without a cul-de-sac. Mr. VanAuken, peti#ioner, stated there are five double bungalows in that neighborhood already. What he's planning to construct is finrin homes which would be owner occupied and he will be living in one of the units. He added that he's lived on this property over ten years and in that time he's had many offers from developers to build multiple unit building, but he wanted to keep the property and develop it himself. He also stated he does not believe adding four homes will dramatically impact traffic in the neighborhood. He explained he spoke to Ms. Hansen and she is not in favor of the cul-de-sac but she does plan on being present at the Council meeting. Mr. Jackels stated the homes Mr. VanAuken is proposing will increase traffic because he will be increasing the housing units. The street in front of his home is a dead end street with little or no traffic so he would prefer the reduced radius cul-de- sac. A 40 foot radius cul-de-sac would make it necessary to move the fire hydrant �.,.� on his property. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 6 of 17 MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to close the public hearing. �"� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Savage asked if there will be opportunity for discussion on this matter at the Council meeting. Ms. Jones responded that Council will hold a public hearing. Mr. Hickok stated that because this is a�new wrinkle° for City staff, they will do an analysis before it gets to the City Council. The Planning Commission can simply pass along a recommendation to the Council. He added that either street design will work and fhe "new wrinkle" would be that the cul-de-sac would be the recommendation by the time it goes to the City Council. Commissioner Kondrick stated he has no problem with the petitioner's proposal but he does have concems about the street. Commissioner Saba also had concems about the street. Commissioner Oquist stated he has problems with the two twin homes in a residential area but without the extension of the cul-de-sac he does not see how this proposal ,--°� would work. He added that he's w�illing to vote for it to move it on to City Council but he does have some reservations. Chairperson Savage pointed out that the Commission must consider that the property does meet all the zoning requirements. Commissioner Oquist stated that would be the only reason he would vote for this proposal because the property is zoned R3, but he strongly believes that if the cul-de- sac isn't extended the property can't be developed even with single family homes. Commissioner Saba commented that the Council needs to look at the zoning issue. He also stated there should be a strong recommendation from this Commission to the Council regarding the street. Commissioner Oquist stated there seems to be a lot of things that need to be worked out, as Mr. Hickok explained. Before this came to the Commission, those matters should have been decided. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba seconded, to recommend approval of PS #05-03 with the stipulations recommended by staff and to strongly urge the City staff to come up with a workable cul-de-sac if this development occurs, and to have the Council review the R3 zoning. � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 7 of 17 ,.� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Consideration of a rezoning, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2� General Business, and R-1 Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District, generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Centrai Avenue NE. 3. Consideration of a preliminary plat, PS #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation to create one parcel out of five, generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Jones stated the petitioner, John DeMello, is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S- 2, which are located at 1314 & 1340 Mississippi St. and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central ,� Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the same property to allow construction of a mixed use development. The proposed project is a 3 story Italian Villa styled mixed use development with 10,492 square feet of retail space on the lower level at the comer of Mississippi and Old Central, and 70 senior condominium units in the bulk of the development. The 1, 2 and 3 bedroom condo units would be owrner-occupied and have underground parking. Access to the complex would be taken directly across from the anticipated Town Center development on Central and on Mississippi. Ms. Jones explained the petitioner brought forth a different proposal in 2004 for a larger development and that was denied. The 2004 proposal denial revolved around concems about density, traffic on 64"' Avenue, limited snow storage and landscaping opportunities. This proposal differs from the initial one in that there are not finro separate parcels; retail and housing are in the same building. Also the current proposal does not include the three properties on 64�' Avenue, includes less retail space, is 3 stories high instead of 4 and has 20 less condominium units. As far as the rezoning analysis, Ms. Jones explained the five parcels involved have a mixture of zoning classifications — C1, C2 and R1. 6441 and 642 Central has split zoning (C1 and R1). The rezoning to S2 makes it possible to have a mixed use development with retail and housing combined in one development. �..� Ms. Jones stated the S2 zoning requires the site to have a Master Plan approved by the City. The site plan becomes the Master Plan. Any modifications to the site plan CITY OF FRIDLEY PI�4NNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 8 of 17 following Council approval must be brought back to the Council for approval. The HRA also needs to review the redevelopment Master Plan which they are scheduled to do at � their June 2"d meeting. With regards to the rezoning as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Jones explained this rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed retail / housing complex meets several objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: • Provides more efficient land use. • Provides opportunity for senior housing. • Provides added tax base and newr jobs. Ms. Jones further stated this proposal also helps achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goals for this corner. Ms. Jones explained that the petitioner had a housing market study done in 2003 which was then updated in 2004 and 2005. This study indicated that senior housing was the best market for this site and that a market exists for 70 units, even with the Town Center development across the street. Updated figures indicate possible retail prices ranging from $156,000 to $279,000 depending on the size of the unit. This plat, Ms. Jones stated, would consolidate 5 parcels into one. Although the rezoning request is for S2, the site has been planned according to C2 General Business for the retail segment and R3 General Multiple Unit Housing regulations for the housing ^ segment of the development. Ms. Jones explained the retail area will include 10,492 square feet and meets the speculative parking requirements (if proof of parking is included) with 46 stalls provided plus proof of parking for 8 additional stalls. The proposal is short of ineeting the necessary parking setbacks due to the extensive right-of-way that the County is taking on the north and west side for potential future widening of Mississippi Street and Old Central. On the north side, their setback is 14 feet rather than the required 20 feet. They are meeting the lot coverage requirement at 28% which is below the lot coverage limit of 30%. For the housing portion of this development, Ms. Jones stated there witl be 120,199 square feet of housing with three floors. The 70 condo units require 129 parking spaces if the building were market. If classified as an assisted living facility, only 70 parking spaces would be required. Staff thought this facility falls somewhere between those requirements. The petitioner is providing 110 enclosed parking spaces with 122 parking spaces total so they're only 7 short of what would be required for a market rate multi- family development. Staff is comfortable with the amount of parking they're providing for the housing portion of the building. They are meeting the setback requirements on the south, east and west sides of the building. Ms. Jones stated there is some difficulty with the landscaping portion of the plat. They have met the requirement for the number of coniferous trees. They're required to meet �"� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 9 of 17 ,---, a requirement of 160 trees and they're 69 trees short of that requirement which is significant. They have proposed to put in some rain garden landscaped areas as an alternative. Staff feels they could allow the landscaped rain garden areas to compensate for about 10 trees but they're continuing to meet with the petitioner to determine how they can meet the rest of the landscaping requirements. As far as traffic, Ms. Jones stated there was significant discussion about traffic generated by the initial proposal submitted in 2004. In 2001 a Comp Plan report showed that the Old Central and Mississippi Street intersection was carrying 57% of the traffic for which it was designed. The petitioner hired a consultant to perform a traffic analysis in 2004 which was recently updated and TDI reports that a traffic signal is not warranted at this intersection now or after the development. There were also some storm water concerns so the petitioner has been working with the City Engineering staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to revise their plans and obtain all the necessary permits. It is Ms. Jones' understanding that all the major ponding and drainage concems have been met. Ms. Jones clarified again that the current proposal does not include the three lots along 64�' Avenue which is the area where there was the most concern about drainage during the original proposal. Ms. Jones stated staff has received very few calls on this current proposal. The � petitioner has held two neighborhood meetings. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it provides senior housing opportunities, provides additional retail opportunities and additional job opportunities. Staff also recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with the Master Plan as shown on the Site Plan dated (to be determined). 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8 titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's 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. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 10 of 17 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering stafF. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet). Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 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. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 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. 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. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., wrill be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access across the site for pedestrian connections at the north, west and south sides of the property. Commissioner Kondrick questioned if it would be possible to include any trees in the county right-of-way in an effort to meet the tree requirements for this development. Ms. Jones responded that it's her understanding the county does not allow that. Mr. Hickok explained staff's historic experience has been that the county would evaluate how they would use the right-of-way in the future and determine whether or not there's opportunity there. They would not allow trees close to tfie intersection of Mississippi and Central where they may be widening the street, but back further it may be possible. He further stated that in an S2 Master Plan the Council would be within their right to approve the Master Plan with something other than the standard requirements, such as the parking setback requirements. That is one of the features of S2 because it provides flexibitity and is much like the traditional planned unit developments where the standard r-� ,--, ,--� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 11 of 17 �--, performance factors can be shifted based on an approved Master Plan. Also, the petitioner has submitted ali the plans that are necessary, but the blank date in the first stipulation is to allow the petitioner to combine the site plan, the landsc�pe plan, and grading and drainage plan so that the Master Plan shows all of that. Commissioner Oquist questioned if this will all be done in one phase. Ms. Jones stated that is correct. Commissioner Saba asked Ms. Jones if the staff believes the petitioner will be able to meet the landscape plan when they're currently 69 trees short. � Ms. Jones responded it is going to be difficult for them to meet that requirement because of the excessive ponding required on this site. But one of the alternatives is to put in vegetation for screening so this may provide an opportunity on the south end with landscaping along the pond instead of putting in a fence. Commissioner Saba commented that trees add class to a development and he hopes that staff will take that into consideration when they review the final plat. Chairperson Savage asked for clarification on the Master Plan. � Mr. Hickok explained the elements of the Master Plan are the site plan, landscape plan and engineering plan now being considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Saba questioned if the concems regarding snow removal expressed during the original presentation for this property have been addressed in this new proposal. Mr. Hickok stated that has been addressed. The ponding areas to the north, south and along the southern edge of the building are situated so that a plow truck can take advantage of them and keep the area cleared without creating a visibility problem along the roadways. John DeMello, petitioner and president of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, stated he has worked diligently to accommodate the community's concems on this project, with regard to the size of the property and the drainage issues. They're going to provide some relief to some of the surrounding properties with some of their ponding. When you create a lot of ponds it's difficult to have the foliage required but they're working with the city staff on that issue. The building is well situated on the properiy but the parking setback on the north end is an issue because the county is requiring a large right-of-way. Commissioner Kondrick asked Mr. DeMello if they're in agreement with the stipulations ^ recommended by City staff. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 12 of 17 Mr. DeNlello responded they do have some concems with stipulations 15 and 21. The screening of the property is an issue as the movement is currently towards less fencing �'"� and more open area. That's not to say they won't embrace the stipulation but that also may be where they can make up some of the tree shortage. As far as stipulation 21, Mr. DeMello stated he's already giving a lot of land to the county for their right-of-way and he is concerned that if in the future it is determined that a signal is required at this intersection, the cost would be borne by the condo owners if this stipulation is open- ended. Peter Villard, Architectural Works Villard, stated he is one of the designers of the project and has worked with Mr. DeMello for two years on this project. He reviewed what this proposal does not have compared to the project presented in 2004. They've attempted to address issues that came up last year and in recent neighborhood meetings. The difference befinreen the 2004 design include a half of an acre less than they did in 2004; there's 20 less units and the density is down 2'/z units per acre from the original proposal. Even though they have less area, the lot coverage is 1.14% less coverage than the previous design. There's 7,000 square feet less of underground parking. There's 38,000 square feet less of housing area and 3,200 less square feet of retail area for a total of 49,500 square feet less area in this proposal than before. There's one less story, with 10 feet less in height. They also have 49 less parking stalls throughout including the retail and residential stalls. They addressed the density concerns as best they could. He has talked in depth with the landscape architect regarding the landscaping issue and has contacted the county regarding placing landscaping in the right-of-way but has not heard back from them. The landscape architect indicated that the rain gardens will have a lot of vegetation that will accommodate the court yards. All the storm waters coming onto the site will go into either the rain gardens or the sedimentation ponds before it leaves the site. The site is designed to address the snow removal concerns that were raised last year. They're also talking about including the cost for snow removal in the associatiQn fees for the project. Anoka County have preliminary commented that since the design is basically the same as last year's with regards to the intersection, they will probably not have any issues. Their concern was with 64�' Street and that is no longer an issue since those properties are not included in this proposal. The building setbacks are more than adequate on all sides. The north parking lot is about 4'/2 feet short of ineeting the 20 foot setback requirement. The west parking lot is a problem but they hope that will be approved as a part of the Master Plan. As far as the neighbors' concerns regarding sunlight to their property, the 35 foot high building is not nearly as high as the 45 to 60 foot trees currently on the site which already block sunlight for the neighbors. Mr. Villard reviewed the site plan for this proposal and stated they've kept the Italian Villa design with 40% brick around the perimeter building and stucco materials. They will also have some cultured stone and siding on the east and south elevation with color contrast and color designed with the rest of the building. Three-quarters of the building on the north and west will be face brick in a terra cote color. The retail area will be on the main level with two stories of residential units above. There will be rock-faced block that will wrap around the east face. ^ �--, CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 13 of 17 Commissioner Oquist questioned what type of retail they anticipate. Mr. DeMelio explained they anticipate having coffee shops and ice cream shops that the seniors can take advantage of. Commissioner Kondrick asked if the buildings will have elevators. Mr. DeMello responded there will be an elevator at each end of the building. Mr. Villard reviewed the drainage plan for this site. All the water is being captured on the property and will be directed into the catch basin, rain garden or sedimentation pond. The ponds and rain gardens will capture the run off from the property to be filtered before it leaves the site. The watershed district approval is pending. The road right-of-way and parking right-of-ways on the west are tvvo feet off the property line and is one of the variances they would be requesting with the S2 zoning. On the north the property line angles to the parking area which results in a four foot setback shortage. The snow removal areas are away from the intersections so there is not any site line interFerence. There's retail parking on the north and west. The trash area will be located to the north and will be hidden with terracing as will the mechanicals for the building. As far as the landscaping issues, they will continue to work with City staff to address those issues. Along the east there will be trees to screen the views and on the � south side there is a pond for water retention and control. They plan a series of retaining walls to hide the south elevation, the garage level of the south elevation and the garage level of the east elevation. These areas will be full of perennials, other plantings and trees and will be fully landscaped. The landscape architect has indicated that adding any other vegetation in this wet area would jeopardize the plantings. There are some minor spots where they can improve on the landscape plans but it will be a challenge to get all the trees required. Mr. DeMello stated the extensive ponding makes it difficult to save the trees that are currently on the property. Mr. Villard added they will save as many trees as possible and will work with staff on this issue. Commissioner Kondrick questioned if there is room for 7 to 10 more trees in the southwest corner. Mr. Villard stated they will work with the watershed district regarding the depth of the ponding in that area and will add vegetation if possible. Commissioner Kondrick questioned the building height. � Mr. Villard responded that last year the proposal was for four stories, 45 foot from grade level and currently it's three stories or 35 feet high from grade level. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 14 of 17 Marvel McNaughton, 6300 Pierce St. NE, stated that when the petitioner presented this ^ proposal last year the Commission recommended approval and the Council denied it. She stated she has to live in that area and does not want this development in their neighborhood. Virgil Okeson, 1423 64�' Av NE, stated he lives about 4 properties east of this proposed development. He read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64�' Av NE, dated June 1, 2005, conveying their �adamant opposition° to this proposal MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to receive the Schwartz letter into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UPIANIMOUSLY. Virgil Okeson questioned if the TDI traffic study included the development going up on the west side of Old Central. Mr. Hickok responded that the traffic study did include the Town Center development as well as the trafFc from this petitioner's proposal. Virgil Okeson stated when Mr. DeMello was before the Commission last year there was some discussion about spot zoning and he asked if that is still an issue. � Mr. Hickok explained the initial request was to develop the property all the way to 64�' Street with some concem about the fact that if they did not do so, it would be considered spot zoning. The record that was created made it very clear why it is that the redevelopment zoning line would stop at the northern property line of those properties along 64�' Street. Joan Olson, 6320 VanBuren, stated she is extremely concerned about spot zoning and stated this proposal does not stop at the northern property lines of the 64�' Street lots because a lot of those properties are double deep. She questioned how the Master Plan can be approved when it isn't even complete. She also questioned how the project can be approved when it's short on setbacks, landscaping and a number of other things. She asked if Stipulation 21 could be changed to require the developer to escrow sufficient funds to pay for the signalization at the intersection of Mississippi and Old Central. In addition, she questioned the height of the building from the street as height from grade level means nothing. She then presented a copy of the consultant's report based on the housing forums held by the City and that consultant repeatedly advised against "shoving this kind of thing in residential areas." Bernard Marihart, 1373 64�' Av NE, stated he attended the meetings held by Mr. DeMello and believes that this development will "obliterate the neighborhood." He is concerned about the fact that they plan to put in a 6 foot high berm along his fence line � C(TY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 15 of 17 ^ and the building will go up from that 6 foot height. There is no landscaping that can hide the view of this structure from his property. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 64�' Av NE, stated she purchased her property finro years ago because she wanted to live in an area that was not "city-like° with trees and an area to walk. This proposed development will take away from their life because the area will no longer be nature-like. She referred to problems with traffic on Central now. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, referred to the minutes of the March 29 Council meeting when this property was previously under consideration for development and the concems expressed by neighbors about the impact on their neighborhood. There was also discussion about retail property all around Fridley with �For Lease" signs. This project was denied by the Council based on its size and this new proposal is not any smaller. It's going to be directly across from another very large development. She questioned the accuracy of the traffic study and stated that all the arguments that were presented previously are still present today. She urged the Commission to look at this very carefully and consider whether it's what's best for Fridley. Putting two huge buildings in that neighborhood is not looking out for the vision of a small town. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to close the public hearing. �"'� Commissioner Oquist questioned the actual height of the building. Mr. Hickok explained the front of the building up to the mid point befinreen the eve and the ridgeline on the building is the standard for measuring the building height and that is the standard that was used. And that height is 10 feet less with this proposal than with the original. Mr. Villard, architect, stated the east side is being bermed up as the neighbors stated so there will be an additional 8 feet in height on the east side. That is necessary because of watershed requirements that structures be 2 feet above the high water mark. They would be more than happy to sink the building down but they're restricted by watershed requirements. The developer went through a considerable amount of cost to hide the wall of this structure with the berm,landscaping and retaining walls in response to the issue of height. From the centerline of Old Central to the peak of the building is another 10 feet, but it is 10 feet lower than the previous application. Mr. Hickok commented the width of this project would run to 64�' and beyond down to Rice Creek Road but the record for the previous request shows that the residents did not want to see this project go down to 64�'. The developer has responded by coming back with a proposal that doesn't take it to 64�'. That record serves as a basis as to why this is not spot zoning. The HRA is not obligated to approve the Master Plan for this project but will simply review it. Also, there is nothing missing from the ��'1 Commissioners' packets because the Master Plan is actually a compilation of the site plan, the landscape plan and the ponding and the Commissioners have all of those. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 16 of 17 Commissioner Kondrick disagreed with one of the comments made by an audience ^ member that this project is exactly the same as the previous proposal. He believes it is different in many ways. This is a pared down project. The traffic concems have been addressed whether or not some people doubt the expert's report. He commented that the traffic signal at 69th and University was paid for by many residents in the immediate area. He supported this proposal, likes the way it looks, but believes the developer needs to find a way to get more trees on the site. He thinks the City and the developer can work together to get the job done. Commissioner Saba stated he is concerned about preserving some of the trees in that area especially along the lot line. He agrees that this does impact the nature of the neighborhood. He believed the project is well designed and looks great from all directions except from the east. He stated he would like to have the City Councit take a hard look at what's being °crammed into this S2 development.° The developer has done an excellent job and is to be commended for paring down the project the way he has, but for the proposed and ponding and the rain gardens concept he hopes something can be done with the mature trees. The neighbors did an excellent job presenting their concems and he hopes the Council will take their concerns into consideration. Chairperson Savage commented that we must take into consideration that this property is zoned business as well as single family. Another thing to bear in mind is that there is � a need for senior housing in Fridley. She expressed her support for this proposal stating the developer has made a very large attempt to make changes to answer the concerns of the neighbors including reducing the building to 3 stories, utilizing only one parcel of land, reducing the retail and residential space. Commissioner Oquist stated he is also in favor of this project. While he appreciated Commissioner Saba's concem regarding the mature trees, at some point a development will go into this property and the trees will come down. There is an 8 foot berm and there will be 30 to 40 foot trees on the berm which will help. He doesn't believe there will be that much of a traffic increase because there will be seniors residing on this site. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to recommend approval of ZOA #05-02 and PS #05-02 with the stipulations presented by staff. Commissioner Oquist asked for clarification on Stipulation #4 as it requires Fire Marshall approval in the Commissioners' packet but staff presentation stated National Fire Code. Mr. Hickok stated the Fire Marshal requested the stipulation require compliance with National Fire Code. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 17 of 17 ��, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � 4. Receive the minutes of the April 19, 2005 Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kondrick, to accept the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the minutes of the April 4, 2005 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to accept the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the minutes of the April 7, 2005 Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to accept the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to adjoum. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted by, ����� ������ ^ Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary