PL 01/21/2009 - 29940PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 21, 2009
Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, Jack Velin, Dean Saba, Marcy
Sibel, and Brad Sielaff
MEMBERS ABSENT:Brad Dunham
OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Glenn Nelson, 7570 Inc. (Petitioner)
Marc Headrick, DBA Architects
Joel Larson, Select Senior Living (Petitioner)
Angie Wagner, DBA Architects
Vicki VanDell, Foltz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
Virgil & Susan Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue.
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren Street
Mark Mattson, 6421 Central Avenue
Dan Levernz, 1340 Mississippi Street
Kurt Olson, 1385 64th Avenue
Approval of Minutes: October 1, 2008
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Stromberg stated that she would to congratulate Dave Kondrick on his appointment to Chair
of the Planning Commission. She also wanted to welcome Marcy Sibel to the Planning
Commission. She has been a member of the Park and Recreation Commission for several years
and now it their Chair, so as a result she will be serving on the Planning Commission.
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #09-01, by Glenn Nelson, on behalf of
Samir Awaijane, of 7570 Inc., (Sam's Auto World), for automobile repair for a
multi-tenant business, generally located at 7570 Highway 65 NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:04 P.M.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner, Glenn Nelson, on behalf
of the property owner, Samir Awaijane, of 7570 Inc., is seeking a special use permit to allow the
continuation of a repair garage use at 7570 Highway 65. The site had a special use permit for this
use, which was issued in 1989 but was revoked by the City Council this past November. The
petitioner is applying for a new special use permit for auto repair.
Mr. Hickok stated the subject property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial and is located southwest of
the corner of Osborne Road and Highway 65. The site contains two buildings and a billboard.
The building to the rear appears to have been constructed in 1967. In 1994, an addition was
added to the rear building for storage without a building permit. This posed a significant conflict
since the building was non-conforming in meeting the rear and side yard setbacks required. The
City Council did, however, grant a setback variance for that addition the same year.
Mr. Hickok stated building permit records refer to these buildings as "warehouses", which is a
very different use than the site is being used for today.
Mr. Hickok stated according to the petitioner, there are currently four tenants in the buildings
with one tenant space currently vacant. These are the same tenants that were located in the
buildings at the time of revocation of the previous special use permit last November, with the
exception of the towing company, which has moved out of the site, according to the petitioner.
Three of the four remaining tenants are automobile repair businesses. One is Blue Diamond Auto
Refinishing, which occupies the rear building on the site. The other two are Grand Central Auto
Repair and Rhino Auto Repair. Ronson Door Company also leases a tenant space in the front
building. Their use is primarily warehousing of garage door parts and an office associated with
the business.
Mr. Hickok stated warehousing is a principal use allowed in the M-1 zoning. Auto repair, which
includes auto bodywork, is allowed by special use permit in the M-1 zoning.
Mr. Hickok stated the lot is approximately 47,978 sq. ft. in size, less than one and one half acres,
which is the minimum lot size for an M-1 property in today's zoning code. The property is not
required to meet this minimum lot size, however, unless it is being replatted, which it is not. The
two buildings equal 13,800 square feet, which is 29% lot coverage and is well within the
permitted 40% lot coverage for one-story structures.
Mr. Hickok stated neither of the buildings meet side yard setback requirements. The rear
building also does not meet the rear yard setback and is placed directly up to the rear property
line. In addition, this property abuts residential to the south and west, which requires a 50'
setback. The setback on the west (rear) side is zero feet, and the building setback on the south
side is approximately 10'. This nonconformity is critical since these are the two sides of the
property which abut residential zoning. The Petitioner's survey shows that some manufactured
homes are less than 25' from the south edge of the front building, which is the section leased by
Grand Central Auto Repair.
Mr. Hickok stated the Petitioner's site plan shows that the site has 31 striped parking spaces.
Staff has calculated the number of parking spaces required for the current use, according to the
office/warehouse/manufacturing space totals provided by the petitioner. Based on the current uses
of the site (with the vacant space classified as manufacturing), 36 spaces are required. The
Petitioner is, therefore, five spaces short in providing adequate parking. In addition, staff has
identified the fact that Clear Channel's easement for their billboard company is across the entire
eastern portion of the property where that front parking lot is, and that may affect parking. We
did ask for additional information from Clear Channel as to what their easement language is, and
at this time we are still awaiting that information. They had sent back a legal description and, of
2
course, that is not what we were interested in. We really wanted to know if the easement
precludes them from for example having landscaping in front of the billboard or does it preclude
them from having certain sized trucks parked in this area or can they use the full front parking
area or would there be some limitations? If that is so, then they may be more than the five
parking stalls short. That information will be helpful to have and will be required as part of the
approval for this special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated the site plan submitted does not reflect how the site has been used for parking.
Since there isn't enough code required parking stalls for customer vehicles in the front parking
area, additional parking will need to be striped in the rear of the site. Once the outside storage is
removed in the back, there will be room for additional customer parking spaces.
Mr. Hickok stated the site is not compliant with current landscaping requirements. In
applications like this, however, where there is no building or hard surface expansion proposed,
staff has not typically recommended additional landscaping.
Mr. Hickok stated property maintenance has been a problem with this property in the past, so it
is important for the City to evaluate these requirements related to this application. Outside storage
is of utmost concern — particularly since this property is located within a few feet of living units at
Fridley Terrace Manufactured Home Park. Staff has consulted the records and finds no special
use permit for the existing outside storage area in the southwest corner of the property. In
addition, this area is immediately adjacent to residential units, so staff is recommending that this
outside storage of vehicle parts be removed.
Mr. Hickok stated the site currently has a solid screening fence along the residential sides of the
site, so no additional screening is needed. In fact, in order to prevent future outside storage, staff
is recommending removal of certain sections of fencing within the site. This will permit a safer
work environment for the multi-tenant users behind the building and allow better monitoring of
the cleanliness of the site.
Mr. Hickok stated the site plan does not show where garbage dumpsters are located, but all trash
and recycling receptacles need to be located in the side or rear yard and be properly screened.
Also, motor vehicles being serviced by any of the tenants on-site, need to be stored in the rear of
the site.
Mr. Hickok stated since no new impervious surface is being added in this proposal, there are no
storm water management requirements related to the application.
Mr. Hickok stated past experience has demonstrated difficulties related to regulating Fire and
Building Codes in this multi-tenant site. Tenants tend to point to other tenants when staff
investigates a complaint.
Mr. Hickok stated for example, last fall, while responding to a complaint about noxious fumes
getting into the front building, staff found evidence that employees at Rhino Auto Repair were
spray painting in the front building space they lease. They do not have a spray booth. The
Petitioner indicates in their application that Rhino Auto Repair sends out any paint bodywork
they need done, but past experience demonstrates otherwise.
Mr. Hickok stated staff is unsure if Blue Diamond Auto's paint spray booth in the back building
has proper ventilation. There are also questions about whether or not the building has proper fire
protection in place. The Fire Marshal has not forced this issue because last fall he was informed
by the tenant, Blue Diamond, that their lease was up and they were leaving in November. The
Petitioner, however, has indicated that Blue Diamond will continue to be leasing the rear
building.
Mr. Hickok stated as a result of these experiences, staff is recommending denial of any new
special use permit related to auto repair. If an SUP is approved, however, staff recommends
stipulating that proof be provided within a short time frame that all applicable building and fire
codes are being met.
Mr. Hickok stated City Staff recommends denial of this special use permit request. The current
owner and tenants have already proven their unwillingness to abide by City and State laws
regarding the auto repair use, which impacts public safety, particularly the safety of the residents
living next to this property.
Mr. Hickok stated he should point out that the owner has assigned responsibility to a new site
manager. If there is one compelling piece of evidence that they want to march in the right
direction, it is that they have brought on Mr. Nelson, the petitioner. The owner of the property,
until this time, has been here in the past but most recently lived out of state. When they were
before the Council in November he had no idea apparently that a lot of these things were
happening on his site. Assigning Mr. Nelson to the case is certainly a step in the right direction.
He would have liked to have seen compelling evidence that things are happening. It is those
kinds of concerns that cause staff to recommend denial and to say there is going to be more
oversight necessary. If an SUP is granted here, this is not just simply granting an SUP. There is
no evidence that things contrary to the Code have been happening and quite likely that trend will
continue. He would like to think that Mr. Nelson would be able to keep ahead of that for us, and
he is optimistic in meeting him that if there is anyone that could make that happen, he would.
However, he has to say it could be almost a daily thing of monitoring the site. If you are
repairing vehicles and the site manager does not happen to be there and you have the front end of
a car and the choice is either to paint it here or to send it out, it is a lot cheaper to paint it here,
although we do not have the ventilation and do not have the booth, but we can get this done
quick. That kind of thing our evidence shows has happened in the past and is probably the
greatest concern and cause for us to recommend deniaL If the Commission chooses to forward a
recommendation of approval, it would include the following stipulations:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. The petitioner shall maintain any necessary Federal, State, and County hazardous
waste permits.
3. No outdoor storage of materials shall exist on the site.
4. Existing racking and structure on the south side of the rear building must be removed
within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
5. No sale of vehicles are allowed from this location.
6. Existing interior site fencing around previous outside storage area and on south side
of front building must be removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP. Fence on
southern and western boundary to remain to screen business from adjoining
residential property.
7. Area between front building and south property line fence needs to be landscaped
with vegetation and maintained. Fence at southeast corner of building to be removed.
8. All customer vehicles awaiting repairs need to be stored in the rear yard of the site.
0
a. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan reflecting the addition of at least five more
parking spaces in the rear of the building.
10. All parking stalls must be striped and vehicles to be kept in defined stalls only.
11. Frontage road cannot be used for parking related to this business.
12. All buildings shall be compliant with all applicable Fire and Building Codes within
30 days of issuance of SUP, including verification that spray booth and sprinkler
systems are functioning as designed.
13. Provide ventilation calculations for all tenant spaces in both buildings.
14. All structural lintels over garage door openings on front building shall be replaced
upon plan completion by a structural engineer and necessary permits issued within 30
days of issuance of SUP.
15. A revised sign plan, which incorporates both buildings and the existing free-standing
sign shall be submitted for City Council approval within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
The revised sign plan needs to include a requirement that each tenant leasing space
within either of the buildings on site needs to display exterior building signage
identifying the business to the public.
16. The petitioner will provide the City verification that Clear ChannePs easement shown
on 7/12/07 survey does not prohibit parking or access
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has not yet satisfied staff's request for more information on the
easement's specifics so an additional stipulation will be required there, and the petitioner will
provide the City verification that Clear Channel's easement shown on 7/12/07 survey does not
prohibit parking or access. This will be added as stipulations no. 16.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he has questions on the violations. How far back do they go?
Mr. Hickok replied on and off from 1989 forward.
Commissioner Sielaff asked if this has been the owner the whole time?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes. Mr. Nelson represents the owner. He is the site manager, but the
owner he represents bought the property in 1989.
Commissioner Sielaff asked how many times has a special use permit been pulled?
Mr. Hickok replied it has been up for revocation a number of times. He believed it was up three
years ago, and conditions were met at that time to maintain and keep that special use permit.
Incidents then arose between that time and now which caused it to come back again. Finally, in
November it was staff's recommendation directly to the Council that because of the continuing
violations we were seeing, they should no longer allow that special use permit to continue but
instead to revoke it and the City Council did do that. Also, at that time staff recommended that in
the event they wanted to continue operations on this site that they move forward with a new
special use permit application. Staff hoped that if the petitioner decided to re-apply for a new
special use permit that they application would be compelling, that if the existing tenants
remained, there would be safety precautions put in place that would somehow protect us from
having those reoccurring violations. But for assigning Mr. Nelson as the site manager, and
basically making the application, there was not a lot of compelling evidence that things would
change. No tenants other than the towing company have moved from the site. The towing
company was asked to leave because the zoning classification doesn't allow for a towing business
to exist on the site. However, there are still some concerns regarding the auto repair shops in the
front that were doing painting. At least one of the two was doing painting without the proper
precautions.
Commissioner Sielaff asked if this past November was the first time all these code violations
were bought up to the property owner?
Mr. Hickok replied it has been very serious all along. Back in the mid-90's there were auto sales
going on at this site, and the owner of the property actually aptly addressed the issue they think
by buying a property up on Osborne Road. The property he purchased is zoned commercial,
which allowed the owner the opportunity to sell vehicles. It was close to this site, which was
convenient, but over time found that he was unable to run both. He had difficulty staffing the
commercial piece of the auto sales and he could not be at two places at one. As a result he sold
the auto sales place and then brought back his inventory and began to sell cars without a license at
this location. That continued for some time. There was then strict monitoring of the site on the
City's part. When this came back in November the State licensing division had contacted us that
six vehicles had been purchased at auction and brought back to that site. There was a change in
legislation that went into effect August 1, 2008 and it had to do with stamping vehicles that had
been severely damaged and how they had to label the titles in the future. That change meant
there were folks kind of racing to the State to get their vehicles stamped before the change of the
law so they could fix those vehicles up and sell them with the old kind of title. Six vehicles
registered to one of these businesses located on the site came to the State's attention listed back to
this property. That caused them to begin to watch the site, only to find that the vehicles were
being offered for sale with pictures on Craigslist right at this location with the buildings in the
background. One of the tenants that exists now was actually doing the auto sales. Again it is a
continuing issue that, frankly, he thinks is a bigger problem than this very good manager might
would be able to potentially handle. We have other site managers other than the owner before
who have not been successful in keeping these businesses in compliance.
Commissioner Sielaff asked when was the site manager hired?
Mr. Hickok in November, right before the revocation, is our understanding.
Commissioner Oquist asked, are there any issues in regards to the buildings and their setbacks
currently? Do they have to come and get a variance to allow their buildings to exist?
Mr. Hickok replied they are considered preexisting, and we are not at this time having them go
through the variance process. However, it does, have an impact that it is a preexisting condition
and, when you are talking about granting a special use permit, you do need to consider the
preexisting condition and ability to mitigate pieces about that use from surrounding uses. A SUP
really is on the books because, though it is a use that is permitted in that district, it is permitted
with certain mitigations/stipulations to protect it from surrounding properties. That factors in a
bit here when we are thinking about the uses. Had every other piece of compliance happened on
this site and we had not had any other history, the setbacks would not be an issue. We would not
on that fact alone be saying, do not grant the SUP. However, that combined with other non-
compliance issues is another cause for concern.
Commissioner Sielaff asked what scenario would they go through if there was no special use
permit granted tonight?
Mr. Hickok replied they would need to notify the property tenants, that they no longer have a
special use permit to allow those types of operations. Then you might ask what do you do with a
�
complex like this if you cannot have auto repair. They do have other industrial users in there.
They have a company called "Ronson Door Company," and in the past they have had a sheet
rocking company contractor in there. Other industrial uses, such as manufacturing and
warehousing would be allowed within the building.
Commissioner Saba asked since the new site manager has been there, has there been any
resolution to non-compliance issues?
Mr. Hickok replied, he has been very good to work with; and the towing company has been
asked to leave and there have not been any illegal signs there. All indications are that he is doing
a fine job with bringing some of those issues to the floor and getting them taken care o£ Again
he thinks unless somebody is there on a daily basis though, they do not know if painting or other
illegal activity is going on.
Commissioner Velin asked if the special use is permit is denied, what about the existing auto
repair shop? Would they still be allowed to be in business?
Mr. Hickok replied, no, they would need to find a new location. What this owner would need to
do is find tenants that do not need an auto repair special use permit.
Commissioner Velin stated he thought the request was to open up another repair business. It
does not say anything about an existing business, isn't the special use permit for a new business?
Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit allows any and all auto repair to function on this site.
There is no new auto repair that wants to go in. There is existing auto repair that wants to
continue to stay there. The special use permit for the three operations went away in November
and in order to continue to stay there they need to have a new special use permit granted. That is
what is being asked of the Planning Commission tonight, will you recommend to Council that a
new special use permit should be granted so they can stay there.
Commissioner Oquist asked whether it is for the whole property?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Glenn Nelson, 1711 — 118t'' Avenue, Blaine, Minnesota, he was appointed to this property
management position on November 19, 2008.
Commissioner Sielaff asked if it is a part-time job or how much time does he spend at this job?
Mr. Nelson replied, actually it was going to be that but what has happened is it is taking more of
his time. His regular occupation is designing church buildings and church interiors. So he is very
used to working with cities and planning departments, planning commissions, and councils. He is
used to following rules. To that end this has been an eye opening experience for him.
Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Nelson he can imagine what is going through their minds
considering the past performance of his employer.
Mr. Nelson replied, absolutely.
7
Chairperson Kondrick stated and we consider the time it takes for the city inspectors, police
chiefs, fire chiefs, City staff, council, etc. to monitor and review this site. It is a pain having to
deal with this, time and time again.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he guessed he would like to hear from him as to why he feels that
they should allow them to continue doing business there. How could they possibly be assured
that the mistakes in the past and in the very near recent past are going to be eliminated?
Mr. Nelson stated the first thing he wants to address is a term he calls, transparency. In other
words, he plan to be very transparent in his communication with the City, County, and State
departments in order to maintain the auto repair business or auto body shop.
Mr. Nelson stated, second, there are some existing conditions on that site that existed because of
the former owner operating his body shop and auto repair business that were operated in a rather
unusual way.
Mr. Nelson stated as a condition of his agreeing to manage this property, Mr. Awaijane had to
agree that after Mr. Nelson's studying this property for 60 days that he sit down with Mr. Nelson
and agree to what he felt were his findings. One of those findings was he had a pension for
buying vehicle parts and then wanting to save them and then adding a shelf here or there, in order
to make room for them. Mr. Nelson advised that if the City would see itself to approve a new
SUP, all of those parts will be removed from the premises within the 30-day requirement.
Mr. Nelson stated the enclosed fencing in the back that really limits how they can take and assign
additional parking to meet code requirements has to be removed. This is needed in order for
those new tenants to properly use the space and to leave the front space open as it should be for
customers to come. There is no reason in his mind for the overnight parking in that front space.
Mr. Nelson stated, third, he is in the process of re-tenanting the building. Since November 19,
2008 he has identified one additional tenant that is going to be leaving the premises and he does
not know if it is going to be friendly or has to be of a legal nature. They found that person was
selling vehicles from the property and telling them he was not painting vehicles. Mr. Nelson
cannot prove he was not painting vehicles, but since he has been around that has not happened.
He is still not comfortable with that tenant, and that tenant will be leaving.
Mr. Nelson stated what he proposes to the Commission is to allow Grand Central Auto to
continue in that space, and the remainder of the front space to be retail and warehouse space. In
his vision he wants to re-tenant that building. It is going to take some time because he will have
to repaint, clean the building, lay new carpeting, and then advertise and look for some new
tenants. They are looking for tenants that are not auto-related. The only place that he would want
auto on the premises is Grand Central Auto and maybe a body shop in the back building. As it is
right now he cannot live with the tenants of the back building. They are also not going to be
continue a lease with that tenant, Blue Diamond.
Chairperson Kondrick asked whether he had authorization from Mr. Awaijane to spend the
dollars necessary to renovate the building and get it rentable?
Mr. Nelson replied, yes, he does.
Mr. Nelson stated the stipulations that the Planning Department and the Community
Development Department have put forward he does not find unreasonable. They might have
been unreasonable for some new person coming in, but now with the history of the property, he
does not find them unreasonable. He understands why they were put into place, and he concurs
with them. He can only say that the proof is in the pudding what his record will be from
November 19, 2008 and forward. As they re-tenant that building, they want the signage to be
consistent. They have one tenant, Ronson Door, that has an existing sign. They would want all
the signs to line up and be of that same type, so they do not have 20 different signs there.
Chairperson Kondrick stated, yes, Ronson has been there for a long time.
Mr. Nelson replied, right, 25 to 30 years.
Commissioner Velin asked how many employees are on the property?
Mr. Nelson replied, 20. Of those 10 of them are part-time, 10 are full-time. There is very, very
limited retail. Ronson Door Company doesn't really sell retail, they tend to work with builders.
They do not have a stream of customers coming onto the site. Grand Central Auto has several
cars that come as a typical auto repair place would.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if the existing paint booth will remain?
Mr. Nelson replied, yes.
Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they would be looking for another auto repair business?
Mr. Nelson stated they are looking for an AABRA type auto repair.
Commissioner Oquist asked Mr. Nelson if Rhino Auto Body is in the front building?
Mr. Nelson replied, yes, and they are going to be leaving. They caused Mr. Awaijane a lot of
problems unbeknownst to him. That was Mr. Awaijane's responsibility to know, as it is his own
responsibility to know what is going on, on his site.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Hickok, are special use permits granted for a one-year period?
Mr. Hickok replied, they are granted and go with the property. On an annual basis we are to
review those and any contrary distinctions found would be brought back for review before the
Council.
Chairperson Kondrick stated we would not need to make that another stipulation to have this
SUP reviewed because it is a normal occurrence, is that correct?
Mr. Hickok stated, that is correct.
Commissioner Sielaff asked Mr. Nelson if he has a leasing plan that he has put together for the
tenants?
Mr. Nelson replied, he has put together a formal leasing plan that he would be more than happy
to share with the Community Development Director or the Planning office.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he is wondering if the City should review the leasing plan on an
annual basis to hopefully prevent unwanted tenants from locating within the building?
�
Mr. Nelson replied, he is very comfortable with that.
Chairperson Kondrick stated that would be a bit unusual but, quite frankly, we are nervous
about this.
Mr. Nelson replied, he understands that normally the property is reviewed on an annual basis.
He would be open to a six-month review and then go to an annual review just to keep in the state
of being transparent.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Nelson about the last stipulation, talking about the Clear
Channel thing. Can he shed some additional light on that?
Mr. Nelson replied he cannot shed any additional light on that item at this time. He has not had a
clear response from the surveying company because he has to have correct verbiage from both
Clear Channel and the surveyor.
Chairperson Kondrick stated we already have a parking problem on this site and that needs to
get cleared up. He asked Mr. Hickok if he had any ideas on how that be circumvented if this
were allowed to go through?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes, we do believe that this information is attainable; and he thinks that
Stipulation No. 16 really raises the importance of getting that and having it before it comes before
Council. Staff thinks that if the Commission feels so compelled to pass this, with that stipulation,
it would make certain that in communication with Mr. Nelson that we have that information
before Council reviews this.
Commissioner Oquist stated Mr. Nelson suggested a six-month review and another year after
that. Is there any problem with that?
Mr. Hickok replied, absolutely not. In fact if they want to make that Stipulation No. 17 and
suggest that we do that, we are perfectly alright with that. He is sure Council would see the logic
in that also.
Commissioner Oquist asked about the leasing plan, should that be in the stipulation to review
that as well?
Mr. Hickok replied, certainly, if they would like ta It sounds like there is an agreement here that
would happen but, if they would like to button that down through a stipulation, they could.
Chairperson Kondrick stated we do not want this SUP to come back to the City over and over
again. We want to stop this, and he is sure that Mr. Nelson and his employer want to have things
resolved too.
Commissioner Sibel stated regarding Mr. Nelson talking about removing the parts within 30
days, she assumed this is outside storage?
Mr. Nelson replied, actually as far as the City is concerned, that would be outside storage but
there are also some parts that are inside this building that will be gone, too.
Commissioner Sibel asked are those primarily for Blue Diamond and Grand Central?
10
Mr. Nelson replied, no, they were leftovers from Sam's Auto World.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he watched the last Council meeting and did not like some of the
answers he heard regarding this request; however, Mr. Awaijane had the sense to hire this
gentleman to do a good job and Mr. Kondrick believes him. He thinks Mr. Nelson is sincere and
he will do all in his power to get the job done right if we can put the necessary constraints and
conditions on the request.
Commissioner Saba stated he really thinks things will be going in the right direction.
Chairperson Kondrick stated, he agrees. If he consents to the stipulations presented by staff
with a couple of new ones, and if we can learn more about the Clear Channel easement by City
Council time. When does this go to Council?
Ms. Stromberg replied, February 9, 2009.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he feels more comfortable now, talking with this gentleman, and
he thinks he is a man of his words, so he thinks we can be safe with this approval as long as we
can take a look at it in six months and then every year there after.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he thinks the owner still has to prove to him that he is serious about
all these code problems. That means there had to be a short leash and he thinks six months is a
short leash. However, in order to do it in the long term, Mr. Nelson is going to have to prove that
he is serious.
Commissioner Oquist stated he came in with the thought to not approve this, but after listening
to Mr. Nelson and his assurance that is has some of the items under control and the owner will let
him do what he needs to do, he's changed his mind of the request. He could recommend approval
of the request with the stipulations and the addition of the stipulation to review the leasing plans
and review the request in six-months and see how they are doing, and then every year after that.
Commissioner Saba stated, yes, he agrees with Commissioner Oquist's thoughts on this. Mr.
Nelson has done some right things already, he has a lot of things in the planning stages that will
make it even better, and he does believe that he will do a good job and take care of the issues.
With that he would recommend the Commission recommend approval to City Council of SUP
#09-01, with stipulations as printed with an addition of stipulation #16 and the addition of a
stipulation to review in six-months and to review the leasing plan by City staff.
Commissioner Velin stated for probably the last nine years they have had at least eight
violations. Mr. Nelson says he is going to keep on that. He hates to see anybody lose their job
because we sit here and say, well, you are not going along with us so we are going to shut you
down. He is willing to give them another shot at. He thinks a six-month review is the good way
to ga It gives the petitioner time to get his act together and give the City time to watch them.
11
Commissioner Sibel stated she thinks there has been demonstrated commitment for moving in
the right direction and given the stipulations she thinks there are enough barriers to make sure
those are kept in place and measured along the way.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving Special Use Permit, SP #09-01, by Glenn Nelson,
on behalf of Samir Awaijane, of 7570 Inc., (Sam's Auto World), for automobile repair for a
multi-tenant business, generally located at 7570 Highway 65 NE with the following stipulations:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. The petitioner shall maintain any necessary Federal, State, and County hazardous
waste permits.
3. No outdoor storage of materials shall exist on the site.
4. Existing racking and structure on the south side of the rear building must be
removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
5. No sale of vehicles are allowed from this location.
6. Existing interior site fencing around previous outside storage area and on south
side of front building must be removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP. Fence
on southern and western boundary to remain to screen business from adjoining
residential property.
7. Area between front building and south property line fence needs to be landscaped
with vegetation and maintained. Fence at southeast corner of building to be
removed.
8. All customer vehicles awaiting repairs need to be stored in the rear yard of the
site.
9. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan reflecting the addition of at least five
more parking spaces in the rear of the building.
10. All parking stalls must be striped and vehicles to be kept in defined stalls only.
11. Frontage road cannot be used for parking related to this business.
12. All buildings shall be compliant with all applicable Fire and Building Codes
within 30 days of issuance of SUP, including verification that spray booth and
sprinkler systems are functioning as designed.
13. Provide ventilation calculations for all tenant spaces in both buildings.
14. All structural lintels over garage door openings on front building shall be
replaced upon plan completion by a structural engineer and necessary permits
issued within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
15. A revised sign plan, which incorporates both buildings and the existing free-
standing sign shall be submitted for City Council approval within 30 days of
issuance of SUP. The revised sign plan needs to include a requirement that each
tenant leasing space within either of the buildings on site needs to display
exterior building signage identifying the business to the public.
16. The petitioner will provide the City verification that Clear ChannePs easement
shown on 7/12/07 survey does not prohibit parking or access
17. Six-month review of this Special Use Permit to ensure compliance and City staff
shall review the leasing plan before new tenants lease available space.
Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairperson Kondrick stated this will be before the Council on February 9 in this chamber.
12
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01, by Select Senior Living, to replat 5
lots, to allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist of
independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally
located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE.
3. Consideration of a Master Plan Amendment MP #09-01, by Select Senior Living, to
allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist of
independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally
located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Sibel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:55 P.M.
Ms. Stromberg stated Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is requesting two separate land use
actions from the City of Fridley in order to allow the construction of a 141 unit Senior-Housing
building, on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The 141 units will
consist of independent living, assisted living, and memory care units. The two actions being
requested are a Plat and a Master Plan Amendment.
Ms. Stromberg stated a Plat is being requested to create two new parcels from 1314 Mississippi
Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue (vacant), and 6461
Central Avenue (vacant). The two parcels will be occupied by the senior building.
Ms. Stromberg stated the Planning Commission and City Council may recall in 2005 John
DeMello and his company Family Lifestyle Development Corp., were granted a rezoning for the
subject properties to S-2, Redevelopment District. When any property is rezoned to S-2
Redevelopment District, it requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for
the site. Once the rezoning is approved by the City Council, any modification to that originally
approved master plan would require a Master Plan Amendment. A Master Plan Amendment
needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Since, the
proposed project is different than what was originally approved with the rezoning of these
properties in 2005, the petitioner is seeking a Master Plan Amendment. It should be noted that
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will also need to review this Master Plan Amendment
as the properties involved are zoned S-2, Redevelopment District.
Ms. Stromberg stated Joel Larson, with Select Senior Living, is proposing to construct a three
story 141 unit senior housing building with 60 independent living units, 27 memory care units,
and 54 assisted living units. All of the units will be between 470 sq. ft. and 1,003 sq. ft. The
smallest of the units are memory care apartments and are located on the secured main floor of the
south wing of the building. The second and third floors in the south wing will contain 54 assisted
living apartments, of which some will be studios, one bedroom, one bedroom with a den, or two
bedroom apartments. The second and third floors of the north wing will contain 60 independent
living apartments. Within the building there will be several shared amenities such as a shared
two-story lobby, a stone fireplace, an intimate cafe, and a sitting area. The mail room,
management office, nurses' office, and public restrooms are centrally located off of the lobby as
13
are the central dining room, sports pub, and kitchen. Other shared amenities include an activity
room with a small kitchen area and restroom, a media center, the activity director's office, an
overnight guest room, a library on the second floor, and a salon and grandparent room for visiting
children on the third floor.
Ms. Stromberg stated the development will include 84 underground heated garage parking stalls
and 32 surface parking stalls. The buildings architecture will consist of a hipped roof, with the
use of brick, veneer, and two colors of complimentary lap siding on the exterior, with balconies.
By designing the building to be located as close as code allows to the west property line, the
petitioner is proposing to keep as many of the existing mature trees as possible. The petitioner
also plans to install a 6 ft. wood privacy fence along the south and east sides of the property.
Additional landscaping of new deciduous, coniferous, and ornamental trees along with shrub,
perennial and annual plantings are also planned for the entire site to provide a welcoming
entrance and development.
Ms. Stromberg stated Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is seeking to replat the properties
located at 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central
Avenue, and 6461 Central Avenue to create two separate lots. Both lots will be combined to
accommodate the 141-unit senior housing development. The reason the development has 21ots is
because some of the land to be replatted is Torrens property while other portions of it are
Abstract. Anoka County does not allow the combination of these different types of property
without first getting a Registration ofLand Titles by District Court Order, which can be a lengthy
process. Instead, the developer is choosing to create 2 lots, which will be required to be
combined to allow for the development to occur.
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed replat will consist of two lots; Lot #1 and Lot #2, Block 1,
Select Senior Living of Fridley. Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District allows for
some degree of flexibility when designing a redevelopment project; however, City staff has asked
the petitioner to design their project to try to meet the zoning classification codes most similar to
its intended use. The proposed development of a 47,508 sq. ft. footprint senior housing
development would be most closely be aligned with a residential development in an R-3, Multi-
Family zoning district. The proposed project area is 142,857 sq. ft. (3.28 acres) in size. The
petitioner is proposing to construct 141-unit senior housing building, which will consist of 60
independent units, 54 assisted living units, and 27 memory care units. The development will
include 84 underground parking stalls and 32 surface parking stalls.
Ms. Stromberg stated R-3, Multi-Family zoning regulations states, the average lot area required
per dwelling unit is 2,500 sq. ft. for the units on the first (3) three stories with an additional
950 sq. ft. per unit from the fourth through sixth stories. National and regional development
trends for assisted living and memory care appear to point to a lesser lot size requirement. The S-
2 District classification will allow this land to unit ratio, without a variance. Though well-
maintained landscaped grounds are essential to project appeal and resident enjoyment, the size of
the lot in this situation can be smaller because the opportunity for residents to participate in larger
scale outdoor activities on the grounds is much smaller. Also, less land is required because of the
fact that the residents typically do not have cars, nor do they drive. Therefore, there is a lower
standard for the number of parking stalls required and less land area to accommodate that
automobile use. Consequently, this site size is adequate considering the ratio of assisted living
and memory care, to independent living. There will be a stipulation with the recommendation on
this project that requires that the building continue to be used with the resident population ratios
proposed. If not, purchase of additional land and a Master Plan amendment will be required, prior
to that resident ratio modification.
14
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed 3-story building will be 35 ft. high at the midspan, which
meets City code requirements. The proposed project is also in-compliance with lot coverage,
parking and all setback requirements, except the rear yard setback. The R-3 zoning code requires
a 25 ft. rear yard setback, and the proposed building is setback at 23 ft. 2 in. Discussions and
correspondence with Anoka County when the John DeMello project was before the City in 2005,
indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required
for future reconstruction purposes. The County anticipates that additional right-of-way will need
to be dedicated along both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street in order to provide the necessary
turn lanes for future safety and operational purposes. The County assumes when the Central
Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection is reconstructed, it would be centered in the 120 ft. right-
of-way corridor. 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.
Ms. Stromberg stated to be safe, staff has assumed that the County will be requesting the same
right-of-way dedication from this developer as they have with the past developer's proposal. A
letter from the Anoka County Highway Department on January 7, 2009, confirmed this to be an
accurate assumption. Consequently, the petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-
way dedication along both County Roads. Due to necessity of that right-of-way dedication, the
rear yard setback falls short of ineeting code requirements by 2 ft. 10 inches. With the flexibility
allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setback can be recognized under the
City's Master Plan Amendment approval, and no variance would be required.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting a Master Plan Amendment to the original
Master Plan that was approved as part of the 2005 rezoning of the subject properties to S-2,
Redevelopment District. The original rezoning and master plan was approved to allow for the
construction of mixed used building, with a 10,492 sq. ft. retail complex that would occupy the
lower level of the northeastern corner of the building and have 70 owner-occupied condominium
units occupying the remainder of the building. Despite the fact that the preliminary plat and
rezoning and subsequent master plan were all approved for this site, the project never came to
fruition, because the final plat was never submitted for approval.
Ms. Stromberg stated as stated earlier, the properties involved in the Master Plan Amendment
are 1314 Mississippi Street (single family home and garage-welding shop), 1340 Mississippi
Street (single family home), 6421 Central Avenue (single family home), 6441 Central Avenue
(vacant lot), and 6461 Central Avenue (vacant lot). All properties involved are currently zoned
S-2, Redevelopment District.
Ms. Stromberg stated if the Master Plan Amendment being discussed in this report is approved
by the City Council, it should be noted that any major modification of the site plan would again
be required to go back to the City Council for review and approval.
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. The 2020
Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held
between 1998 and 2000 and is a"tool intended to help guide future growth and development of
the community while looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide
vision ". The rezoning was approved for the DeMello project since it was in line with the City's
vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan.
15
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed senior project meets several of the objectives that the
residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update.
This update is before the Met Council for approval at this time. One of the goals identified
through those meetings and the telephone survey was to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to
live." Ways to accomplish that goal are to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a
place where the aged can stay. Only about 8% of Fridley's housing is of the townhome or
condominium structure type, yet 23% of Fridley's residents were over age 55 in 2000, and that
percentage is growing. To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens desires to live in maintenance-
free housing (no yards/house exterior care), more types of senior housing needs to be constructed.
Types of senior housing to consider are one-level townhomes, independent living, assisted living,
nursing home/memory care facilities. It is also important to explore the availability of a private
maintenance service that would allow seniors to stay in their single-family homes.
Ms. Stromberg stated this area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road
is identified as an area for future redevelopment in both the existing 2020 Comprehensive Plan
and the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Economic and Redevelopment Plan chapter in
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, states that the City should continue to pursue high density senior
housing in this area due to the demand for this type of housing in Fridley. The purpose of
redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient
land uses and under-utilized parcels. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to meet
current market demands and desires of the community, creates new tax base, and creates
additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of
being met with the redevelopment of this area for a Senior Living facility.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc., to complete a Preliminary
Demand Estimate for Senior Housing in Fridley. The analysis done takes into account the
demand for independent living, assisted living and memory care senior housing by calculating
demographic, economic and competitive factors that would impact current demand for senior
housing units in the designated "Market Area." The "Market Area" in which Maxfield analyzed
includes the communities of Fridley, Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park and Hilltop. The
analysis done indicates that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 200 units of the above
reference nature. They note that over the next five years the level of units demanded now will
likely decrease due to other competitive developments in the area that are now in some stage of
planning or construction.
Ms. Stromberg stated the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of
Old Central adjacent to the proposed Senior Living project carried 8,900 vehicles per day. At this
traffic level it's carrying almost the exact amount of traffic the roadway was designed and
constructed to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan
anticipates that Old Central will be carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2030, based
upon increases in population for Fridley and surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment
and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles a day, Old Central will be at its capacity. As
a result, Anoka County is requiring that additional right-of-way be dedicated with this plat, to
ensure that the additional land needed is available to eventually expand the roadway.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner had Foltz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc., perform a traffic analysis
on the proposed use. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods
and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The consultants used the
Assisted Living Land Use category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed Senior
Project complex would generate a total of 433 trips per day if all 158 beds within the complex
16
were occupied. The Congregate Care Facility (Independent Living) land use would generate a
total of 340 trips per day if all 158 beds were occupied.
Ms. Stromberg stated the consultants used the numbers for the Assisted Living land use to
provide the worst-case scenario for traffic at this facility, because it generates more traffic than an
Independent Living land use. This can be attributed to the fact that an assisted living facility
requires the need for more staff and employees.
Ms. Stromberg stated it should also be noted, that according to the ITE manual, studies have
shown that less than 5% of residents in an assisted living facility own vehicles, and if they do,
they are rarely driven. Employees, visitors, and delivery trucks make up most of the trips to this
facility. The ITE manual also points out that the "peak hour" generator typically doesn't coincide
with the "peak hour" of the adjacent street traffic for an assisted living facility. This is primarily
related to the shifts of the employees beginning at 7:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. The
typical peak hours on most roadways are between 6:00-7:00 a.m. and 3:00-4:00 p.m.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner hired Graham Environmental Services (GES), Inc., to
complete a Wetland Evaluation Report for the project area. Based on GES's finding, no wetlands
exist on the site. The petitioner has submitted the proposed project to the Rice Creek Watershed
for the necessary approvals and permits. Once Rice Creek Watershed has reviewed and approved
the project, the City's Engineering staff will further review the project.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has stated that storm water management for the site will be
handled in an underground drainage system designed to meet the watershed's requirements for
rate, quality and volume control. The underground system will surround the building providing
infiltration and storage, while directing the water to an existing storm sewer system found on the
east boundary of the site. One of the reasons the petitioner is choosing to install an underground
drainage system instead of a typical above ground pond, is to try to save as many of the mature
trees as possible.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01 and
Master Plan Amendment, MP #09-01 with stipulations as it provides housing opportunities for
Fridley seniors, provides additional job opportunities, and the proposed use meets the goals
highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the Preliminary Plat and Master Plan
Amendment are approved, the following stipulations be attached:
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan
A1.1 dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be
removed prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within
the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done
within the county right-of-way.
17
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall
provide necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to
issuance of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions
for residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage
treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. 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.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the
proposed development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City
staff prior to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan
amendment will need to be obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of 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.
Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner how the meeting they had with the neighbors went?
Joel Larson, Select Senior Living, stated they currently have a facility going up in Coon Rapids
and roughly 30 people have moved into it. That is their first similar type project and they have
another project that just got approved in Mounds View which they will begin construction in
March or April. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, they did have approximately 20-25
people, which was a good turnout for a snowy night. Some of neighbors had concerns about
storm water. It sounds that at one time there was some kind of flooding a block or so away from
this location on a hundred year flood. From what he has been told the City has done some
corrections on the storm water in this area and the petitioner's engineer is present along with the
architects, if the Commission has any questions for them. From what their storm water
calculations, they are within the guidelines of what the City wants.
Mr. Larson stated one of the neighbors that is adjacent to the property asked what type of fence
we are proposing for the project. We would like to work with him and accommodate what he
would like to see.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Larson what did the neighbor recommend?
:
Mr. Larson replied he was open to the six-foot wood fence. We also brought up the possibility
of doing a maintenance free type fence. He was open to that and we are happy to sit down with
people on an individual basis and find out exactly what the neighbor want and get that into the
plan. Quite a few of the questions had to do with the services and what the building actually
provides for residents who live there. We went through some of that at the meeting. We are
actually building the kitchen a little bit bigger than what the needs are for the building. This is
under the pretense that possibly some of the Meals on Wheels that the County and State people
pay for may go away because of tough times, and we would be able to open some of those
services up to the community.
Mr. Larson stated a couple of concerns were about what type of building it will be and is there
an age restriction on the building? There is a 55 and older age restriction. We do have an
allowance for somebody who is less than 55 and has to go into a memory service type facility or
assisted type facility if they have a doctor or nurse order stating the need this type of care, then
we would allow for them to move in. It is for State reasons that we cannot discriminate based on
age. However, the independent units are for people 55 and older.
Commissioner Oquist asked if that would be for people who leave a hospital and go to this care
for a month because of a surgery or something and then they would leave?
Mr. Larson replied, they could, but that really is not what this facility is about. This facility is
for people when they get to a point where they cannot take care of themselves or a spouse who
was taking care of the other spouse needs assistance for medical reasons, then they would come
to live in this type of facility. This is a building you can age in. You can come in on the
independent end of it and you do not have to leave, you go to assisted living or memory type
assistance if you need it.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if he has the rent structure worked out? What are the numbers?
Mr. Larson asked, as far as cost goes?
Chairperson Kondrick replied, yes.
Mr. Larson stated he can give some approximates. Your independent, one-bedroom, would
roughly be around $1,200 -$1,300 a month. With that you also get one meal a day and you get
some other things. A one-bedroom plus den would be approximately $1,600. The two-bedrooms
you would be at $1,695-$1,650. That is for your independent apartments. For assisted living,
you would be at $2,500-$2,600 range and, depending on how much assistance you need, and
there maybe additional charge above that. For memory care, studios, you are looking at $2,500-
$2,600 and then there is an additional services with memory care which are $1,900 on top of that.
He does not think they have any one-bedrooms. That is based off their Coon Rapids facility
assuming Fridley's facility would be real close to these numbers.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Larson whether he has read the 22 stipulations? Does he or
his company have any problem with those stipulations?
Mr. Larson replied, none, whatsoever.
Commissioner Oquist asked about deliveries to the facility. Will they come in through the
garage?
19
Mr. Larson replied, some will come through the garage. The garage is underneath and comes in
off of Mississippi. The majority will come in through the front door off of Central Avenue.
Commissioner Oquist asked about food services, when they bring a semi?
Mr. Larson they deliver twice a week at our other facility. They usually are not the big full
semi's trucks, they are the middle-sized trucks. Some of the laundry is shipped out and some is
done in the facility. Garbage would be taken out through the garage. They personally restrict the
times deliveries are made so they are not having a truck beeping at 6 in the morning.
Commissioner Velin mentioned there is a letter in the packet.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if we need to accept this letter we received ahead of time?
Ms Stromberg replied, yes, that would be a good practice.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receiving a letter from Patricia Molroy at 1384 — 64tn
Avenue NE, dated January 12, 2009, addressed to the City of Fridley. Seconded by
Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren NE, stated she has lived there for 22 '/2 years.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Ms. Olson how far is her home from this project?
Ms. Olson replied maybe a mile as the crow flies. It is, however, around the corner and very
close to her son's house. She is against a project like this on general principles. It is cramming,
150 people minimum, into 5 city lots. On average 4 people to a house, that is 20 people vs. 158.
This is warehousing for senior citizens, and she is so against this type of housing. If her son ever
tried to put her into one of these places, she would come back and haunt him. Her mother was in
a nursing home, did not go in until she was 92 years old. She did not really get super skilled care
until she turned 99 and was over 100 when she died. She can understand at that point she needed
skilled care because her memory was starting to go. Ms. Olson just thinks this is cramming too
many people on a lot. It is certainly not the kind of thing she would want to live in. She does not
know why we do not get more senior townhouses that people could go into. She does not know
how anybody could live in 450 square feet. That is the size of four cells in Stillwater. She thinks
this is detrimental for the City and the neighborhood. There are only two things she can
guarantee them on this. The people who are building this are going to make money hand over fist
and they are going to destroy the neighborhood. There are houses on that block that are sitting
now for sale. She does not think this is what most people think of as being something they would
like to move into.
Kurt Olson, 1385 — 64t'' Avenue NE, stated he is one lot away from the proposed project.
Although he knows something has to go there, and he does not really care what it is, his concerns
are related to the lighting on the east side of the building. He has a large lot and has put a lot of
money into his house, and he bought the place because he wanted privacy. He really does not
want people looking into his backyard. The change in zoning is allowing that. He would like to
see something besides a six-foot privacy foot, and he would like to see some stipulations that the
lighting will not bleed off into his yard so when he wants to go out in the dark it is actually dark.
20
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Olson, in terms of a fence, was he the gentleman the petitioner
spoke to?
Mr. Olson replied, no. He would like some sort of a living fence. He knows they cannot plant
30-foot trees immediately but there are hybrid trees that will grow very fast, and he would like to
see some sort of dense screen.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Olson whether he saw the landscape plan when they put it on
the screen?
Mr. Olson replied he did and they are going to try to leave as many trees as possible but "try"
does not mean anything to him. He asked Mr. Hickok, how tall was the DeMello project?
Mr. Hickok replied, this building is the size as the building on the DeMello project.
Chairperson Oquist recalled the last one started out at four stories and then they came back and
reduced it to three stories.
Mr. Olson stated the petitioner had mentioned they are going to have underground parking. Mr.
Olson thought there were some issues last time where they actually had to build their
underground parking level with the street and berm up to it and then go up from there which is
not what the petitioner is saying this time.
Commissioner Velin replied information from the petitioner states that the site will have lights
along the east side of the building and they will result in zero foot candles along the east property
line. All lights have a 90-degree cutoff to direct light downward.
Mr. Olson stated he understands that but, still when he walks out in his yard at night, and he
looks up he is going to see light shining where there is no light shining now other than stars. If
there are 20-30 lights on the back of the building, he does not want to see that. Honestly he does
not want to see peoples' lights on in their windows that high up. He wants to be able to walk
around, do whatever he wants to do, and not worry about people watching him or having to look
at them.
Commissioner Saba asked for some response from the owner. There should be a way to
accomplish screening, through fencing and landscaping.
Mr. Larson stated our goal is to try and keep the big trees because it took many years to grow
them. He is one of the rare developers who actually owns a 90-inch tree spade that he can put in
some fairly good sized trees, not as big as what is there, but we can get some taller trees to plant
if they have to take some of those trees down. That is their intention to try and screen as much as
that as they can, along with the fence.
Mr. Larson stated as far as the lighting goes, we have designed the lighting so that it is not
leaking out off their property onto the neighbors' property. There will only be downward trends.
The lighting plan submitted meets code requirements. There are also no decks or patios on the
back of the building. We are trying to be good neighbors as we don't want people standing out
on a deck, overlooking someone else's backyard. They can look out a window but you also can
look out of a two-story house. We are also trying to be good neighbors by planting more trees to
act as a buffer. If there needs to be more trees added, we'll do that.
21
Chairperson Kondrick asked if they have figured out the water table issue?
Mr. Larson replied, yes, they have figured that out. He is not an engineer, so he cannot answer
the particulars on that, but they have figured it out; and the parking lot is not going to be under
water.
Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they have done borings on the site?
Mr. Larson replied, yes. We have done all the borings, and our civil engineers have gone
through all that. There was some debris that was dumped off there from when they built Old
Central or Central Avenue that has to be removed to dig the foundation but, yes, all the borings
are in place.
Ms. Olson asked Mr. Larson if he has sufficient financing for this project? She heard one time
that the City does not ask about the financing but she thinks Councilmember Bolkcom opened the
door the other night at the City Council meeting when she asked the developer of the 694/East
River Road project whether he had sufficient financing. We have gone through this all before
and the financing fell through and the one across the street fell through because the market
dropped out for the sale of condominiums.
Chairperson Kondrick stated that was a good point.
Mr. Larson replied, yes, they do have financing. They do not have a final commitment letter on
project as they are in the process of financing two other ones. He does have partners that have
really deep pockets. The banking world changes from week to week as and he can't guarantee
that something four or five months from now might change in the economy as far as the
financing, but he feels real confident. He would not be spending the money on plans and going
through the process if he didn't feel pretty confident he is going to get this done. He cannot speak
for the other gentleman who proposed the previous development on these lots and he has no
affiliation with him whatsoever.
Mr. Larson stated this is not a condominium project. Most condominium projects require that
50% of the units are sold before you can start construction. This type of facility doesn't require
that.
Chairperson Kondrick asked, assuming all goes as planned, when would he start construction?
Mr. Larson replied, late spring, early summer.
Commissioner Velin stated in Patricia Molroy's letter she is concerned that the petitioner will
end up putting Section 8 renters in the building. Mr. Larson has said the building will be for 55
and up seniors and only on certain occasions would they allow somebody under 55 to move in.
Are they going to consider Section 8 housing in this building?
Mr. Larson replied, no Section 8 people are allowed in this building. We do allow something
called an EW, or an Elderly waiver. Here is an example. You have an 85-year old mother who
runs out of money and has to move into this facility. The County comes in and pays a portion of
her rent. If she has a taxable income of $1,000 a month, including social security and she needs
to be in the memory care portion of the building, the County will pay a portion of that over and
22
above what she makes. It is County Assistance but it is a different type than Section 8. They will
allow a portion of their building to have EW residents.
Commissioner Saba asked Ms. Stromberg to put up the landscape plan again. He asked Mr.
Olson to show him approximately where his house is in relation to the development.
Mr. Olson pointed out his lot on the screen.
Chairperson Kondrick pointed out that Mr. Olson has one lot between him and the
development?
Mr. Olson replied, that is right.
Commissioner Saba stated he just wanted to make sure that the landscaping plan takes into
consideration sufficient height of trees, fencing, or whatever else is needed to address Mr.
Olson's concerns.
Mr. Hickok stated to Commissioner Saba that he is right on with staff's concern regarding the
needs for screening through landscaping. Staff would prefer a screening device that gets better
looking over time as opposed to some of the other alternatives. They have looked at this
landscape plan and are pleased that, one, they are going to try and preserve as many of the trees
as possible and, two, they have made a commitment to supplement the existing trees to try and
give Mr. Olson, and other neighbors, an opportunity to have a more natural softening of the edge.
Commissioner Saba stated his concern is that they try to keep as many trees as possible. He still
remembers when the Sears property was taken down and the health club was going to try and
preserve as many trees as possible and they just knocked down every tree. The beautiful oak
trees were gone. He knows that one of the things they have done in the past is mark trees that are
going to be removed and have a plan to replace those. They talked about a living fence, and he
would like to see this be done in this case, especially for the neighbors on the east side.
Mr. Hickok stated that petitioner's commitment to the underground storage, which is by far the
most expensive storm water treatment option, shows the petitioner's commitment to preserving
trees. It is the best way to not have to grade the site from corner to corner. When you are grading
so that the site will pitch property or pond, it is very different than putting something
underground that allows you to basically keep the contours roughly the same.
Virgil Okeson, 1423 — 64t'' Avenue, stated he is approximately three lots down to the east of the
property. The concern he has is related to the 25 ft. setback on the east side property. The height
and diameters of the trees would dictate how close you could plant them to the proposed building.
He is concerned about how much coverage would you get it that small area?
Chairperson Kondrick stated that is a good question.
Commissioner Oquist stated if you look at the landscape plan they are proposing to plat spruce
trees in the south corner.
Mr. Okeson stated he is concerned about the number of trees you can fit in that narrow 25-foot
strip on the east side for shading of any light that is coming off of the building. What if a few
years down the road, the trees die because of the root disturbance due to construction of the
building and they have to be removed, is there any stipulation to have that tree replaced?
23
Mr. Larson replied the closest spot the building will be to the east property line is approximately
46-47 feet.
Chairperson Kondrick asked, from the building to the lot line?
Mr. Larson replied, yes. It is not 20 feet, it is 46. If you look at the landscape plan some of
those trees are coming out of there; and they will have to put some new trees. Again, he has a
tree spade and to be a good neighbor to the neighbors who are on that side, if they let him come
onto their property and put a few trees in, he would be happy to do it. It is just tight with the
amount of ground that he has. Whatever it takes to make that buffer as attractive as they possibly
can - that is to their best interest. They own this building and are keeping the building. It is not
for sale. So if a tree dies, they will want to replace it with a nice tree. It will help the people who
live there.
Mr. Olson stated on the last project there was supposed to be some sort of a fire access going up
that east side? How does that affect the trees and things like that. Is fire access needed for this
project along the east side?
Mr. Hickok replied, the Fire Marshal has reviewed this plan and is comfortable with the layout
of the plan and the type of equipment they have for responding to a fire in this building, and the
fact that the building is fully sprinkled. He doesn't want to speak for the Fire Marshal in his
absence other than to say that they have seen the proposed plans. The original DeMello
project went all the way down to 64t'' Avenue, which is why fire access was required at that time.
They have not heard a comment from the Fire Marshal indicating this plan is not satisfactory nor
that they would try and put a truck behind the building. He thinks that the way the parking is laid
out on the west side, and the fact the building is fully sprinkled, they would fight a fire from the
west side.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CLOSED AT 8:56 P.M.
Commissioner Oquist stated to him this project seems to be more thought out. They have really
looked into everything and they seem to have covered all aspects of it. There are enough
stipulations to cover it. He thinks there is real need for this type of facility in Fridley. He thinks
the petitioner is ready to move on the project and since they already have one and are building
another, they seem to be in the business. On a personal not, his mother-in-law died in one of
these facilities at 94. She went in there probably 20 years earlier. They said she would never
leave her single-family home in South Minneapolis and then one day she decided she was ready
to move. She looked at a similar type facility in New Hope, moved in, and said why didn't you
tell me about this place sooner? She just thoroughly enjoyed it.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he didn't have any problems with it. He thinks the neighbors could
be far worse off than having this facility. He has seen that in Fridley many times where things
have not gone through and something else goes in there that has been worse. He thinks the
petitioner has been pretty good taking into account the homeowners and their concerns. He does
not see any problems with approving this.
24
Commissioner Velin stated he likes this. He thinks some people would like to get new trees in
their yard. He thinks that is a very nice offer. They are not going to be able to put in a 30 or 40
foot tree, but it will not take long. He thinks the owner has done an excellent job of presenting it.
It answers his questions and he thinks Mr. Larson answered some of the questions to the letter
from Ms. Molroy. He has no problem with this.
Commissioner Saba again his only concern is that City staff is going to review the landscaping
prior to issuing building permits. He would like to see some kind of teeth in there that the
landscaping will continue as planned. Other than that he sees this as an improvement to the last
plan.
Chairperson Kondrick stated, he agreed.
Commissioner Sibel stated the only concern she has had, and she is surprised it has not been
brought up, was the traffic pattern. They are going to be bringing in more traffic in than there is
now. It appears there is a plan in place to allow road expansion and to accommodate that traffic,
but she thought they might hear more concerns on that. Otherwise she supports it.
Chairperson Kondrick stated the County is probably concerned about that. Even widening
Central Avenue and making the developer take part of his land and have it ready in case the street
needs to be dug up. He is also in favor of this project. They have a well thought out plan
including a good landscape plan. He is in favor of this.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist Approving a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01, by Select Senior
Living, to replat 5 lots, to allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist
of independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally located at
1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE with the following
stipulations :
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan
A1.1 dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be
removed prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. The County prior to
planting shall approve any planting within the right-of-way.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done
within the county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall
provide necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to
issuance of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
25
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions
for residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage
treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. 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.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the
proposed development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City
staff prior to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan
amendment will need to be obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of 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.
Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin Approving a Master Plan Amendment MP #09-01, by Select
Senior Living, to allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist of
independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally located at 1314
and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE with the following
stipulations :
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan
A1.1 dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be
removed prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within
the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done
within the county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall
provide necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to
issuance of building permits.
26
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions
for residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage
treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. 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.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the
proposed development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City
staff prior to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan
amendment will need to be obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of 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.
Seconded by Chairperson Oquist.
Chairperson Kondrick asked when will this be before the City Council?
Ms. Stromberg replied, February 9.
Receive the Minutes of the September 24 2008, Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Receive the Minutes of the December 10, 2008, Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Receive the Minutes of the August 12, 2008, Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
27
7. Receive the Minutes of the December 9, 2008, Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Receive the Minutes of the September 4, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Receive the Minutes of the October 2, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Receive the Minutes of the November 6, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Receive the Minutes of the December 4, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Receive the Minutes of the September 8, 2008, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sibel to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Receive the Minutes of the October 6, 2008, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
:
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Receive the Minutes of the November 3, 2008, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sibel to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
15. Approve Planning Commission meeting dates for 2009.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving the 2009 Planning Commission dates. Seconded
by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Review the Public Hearing Procedures Guidelines.
Ms. Stromberg stated this is something that they recently developed to give people when they
enter into the Council chambers, so they understand the public hearing process. She knows the
Chair describes it to them, but this helps give people a little cheat sheet in case they have never
been to a public hearing before. This is just to let the Commission know about it, see it, and
make sure they are okay with it.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he thinks that is a very good idea.
17. Nomination of Planning Commission Vice Chair.
MOTION by Commissioner Sibel nominating Commissioner Oquist as Vice Chair of the
Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Stromberg wanted to give them an update on the Sikh Society. The Planning Commission
will recall last year that the Sikh Society received a special use permit to construct their worship
facility at 5350 Monroe Street. They recently received a one-year extension from the City to
allow them additional time to work out their access issues. They are hopefully that construction
will start yet this year.
Ms. Stromberg stated Totino-Grace is going to be before the City Council on Monday to request
an extension. The Commission will recall it was two years ago Totino-Grace received a special
29
use permit and a variance to allow an auditorium addition. They are still pursuing some
fundraising efforts but hope to be in the ground this year, too.
Mr. Hickok stated we are very excited to announce that Northstar in Fridley is going to be on-
line and our riders will be getting off and on the train at the same time as the other riders up and
down the line from Minneapolis to Big Lake. There are so many people involved that we'd like
to thank and we would like to thank the Commissioners for their involvement in the planning
processes to this point. Staff promises to involve them in the planning processes as they move
forward. They will be talking to the HRA and the City Council in an upcoming joint meeting
about possible development around the station site. We'd like to Commission to watch for that as
it starts to evolve. We'll be looking at things such as pedestrian connections, infrastructure
improvements, and land patterns around the site.
Commissioner Velin asked regarding the Sikh Society, he thought they had worked out the
access easement?
Ms. Stromberg replied actually there was a stipulation that required that they work out access
issues with Petco and Target and as of late, Petco and Target has denied them access so they are
going to need traverse a wetland potentially in order to get into the site. So those are the issues
they have to work out before they start construction.
Commissioner Sielaff asked when is construction supposed to begin on the Northstar site?
Mr. Hickok replied the bid package went out in December and awarding of the bids will be
happening at the end of this month. Construction will start in February.
Chairperson Kondrick stated there was an article in the paper today in the North Extra section
talking about Mr. Erhart (county commissioner) and they still do not have all the funding from
the feds yet, although they feel pretty confident that those dollars are going to be coming.
Mr. Hickok replied our site is a bit different than that. We were cut out of that federal formula
so our station was not dependent on the federal dollars although Northstar generally was. So that
is not to say that the federal dollars are not important to us because that is what makes the whole
line work. We are so very thankful that folks from our legislative delegation, county
commissioners, council members, city commission members and our HRA — so many people
were involved to make this happen.
ADJOURN
MOTION by Commissioner Saba adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT
9:16 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise M. Johnson
Recording Secretary
30
31