Loading...
PL 05/06/2009 - 29942PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 6, 2009 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Dean Saba, Leroy Oquist, Jack Velin, Brad Sielaff, and Brad Dunham MEMBERS ABSENT: Marcy Sibel OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Gary Anderson, 413 Rice Creek Blvd. Dean & Bev Eberhard, 436 Rice Creek Blvd. Paul Gunderson, 412 Rice Creek Blvd. Jeannine Schlottman, 5720 Washington Street Dean Suda, 350 Northco Drive (International Paper) Debra Patchin, 280 Rice Creek Blvd. Rod Hogetvedt, 201 Sylvan Lane Jim Winkels, Amcon Construction (Petitioner) Mark Huus, Amcon Construction Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development Corp. Steve Dunbar, Ivy Properties Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects Collin Kaas, Kaas Wilson Architects Approval of Minutes: April 1, 2009 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a rezoning, ZOA #09-01, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial to R-3, Multi-Family, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-02, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the creation of two lots from one lot, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. 3. PUBLIC HEARING 1 Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #09-03, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of a medical clinic on the south half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of an independent living, memory care and nursing home facility on the north half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi- Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to waive the readings and open the public hearing for Item Number 1-4. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated Jim Winkels of Amcon Construction, on behalf of the petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners, is seeking four separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, which will allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site located at 7011 University Avenue. Ms. Stromberg stated the first land use action being requested is a Rezoning, ZOA #09-01. The current zoning of the subject property is M-2, Heavy Industrial. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the property to R-3, Multi-Family. Ms. Stromberg stated the second land use action requested is a Plat, PS #09-02. Currently, the site is one large, 14-acre parcel. The petitioner is seeking to subdivide the lot into 2 parcels. The northern parcel will be 7.65 acres and the southern parcel will be 6.48 acres after the replat. Ms. Stromberg stated the third land use action being requested is a Special Use Permit, SP #09- 03, to allow for the construction of a 50,000 square foot medical clinic on the southern lot. Ms. Stromberg stated the fourth land use action requested is Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, to allow the construction of a senior living facility on the northern lot. Both a medical clinic and a senior living facility are a permitted special use permit in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. Each of these requests will individually be examined in this report and will require separate actions. Ms. Stromberg stated Premier Properties is proposing to construct a four-story (over enclosed garage) senior living complex. As the developer describes their proposal they state: The proposed development consists of 176 total residential dwelling units for senior citizens, divided as follows: 35 skilled nursing care beds, 10 care suite beds (assisted living), 24 memory care units (assisted livin�, 47 general assisted living units, 57 catered living units, 2 guest units. A total of 58 parking stalls are planned within an enclosed garage below a portion of the senior residence building, and 58 surface parking stalls provide a total of 116 stalls on site. Drop-off 2 areas have been provided at the entry to the nursing home and at the entry to the senior residence. Ms. Stromberg stated this project provides a campus that serves a broad continuum of care for seniors, providing independent catered living, assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing care. Seniors can age in place, with services catered to their needed level of assistance. If they should need a significant increase in level of care, services are available within a community that they are already familiar with. Ms. Stromberg stated common areas are provided within the senior residence building for socialization, programmed activities, and congregate dining. Spaces such as the commercial kitchen, physical and occupational therapy, and resident storage would be shared between the senior residence and the attached nursing home. Ms. Stromberg stated the clinic will be a two-story, 50,000 square foot building, with a brick, glass and stucco-like exterior. Physician parking will be provided in a parking lot west of the proposed building, while patient parking will occur on the east side of the building. A parkway- type entrance drive is proposed to straddle the new property line between the clinic building and the senior complex to the north. Joint access and maintenance agreements will be required to assure perpetual cooperation. This joint drive will also serve as the fire access to the City's fire training site and replace a current fire-training site access easement that exists north and east of the arena. A replacement easement has been offered by the developer, but must be formalized through use of the appropriate descriptions, documentation and filing. Ms. Stromberg stated Columbia Arena was originally constructed in 1968. In 1974, a variance was granted to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 13 feet to allow the construction of an addition to the building that would allow for an additional sheet of ice. As a result of the variance approval, the addition was constructed in 1975. Several interior modifications have been made to the building over the years. Ms. Stromberg stated before the arena was constructed in 1968, the subject property was zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. When Anoka County purchased the property and constructed the ice arena in 1968, the property converted to a P, Public Facilities zoning. In 2005, Anoka County sold the property to the Minnesota Youth Sports Association (MYSA). In 2007, MYSA made a development deal with Kraus Anderson on the Columbia Arena property. Krause Anderson in turn sold the arena to a private investor named William Fogerty. Prior to the sale, the MYSA representative asked the City what they saw as future development potential for the site. Staff explained that the site is zoned P, Public Facilities, and that zoning will remain as long as the land is publicly owned. Once sold to a private entity, the zoning would revert back to its pre-public status. Ms. Stromberg stated since the property is now owned by a private investor the zoning is M-2, Heavy Industrial. As such, any development other than an M-2 development will require a rezoning. Staff's discussion with the sports association also used examples about what types of developments a site like this might be used for. Obviously, an M-2 use is a possibility, but development-wise, the City would need to determine whether M-2, Industrial, still makes sense in light of the development that has occurred since the late 1960's. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated Premier Central 65 Partners is requesting a rezoning for the Columbia Arena site from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to R-3, Multi- Family. As stated previously the property was zoned P, Public Facilities, when Anoka County purchased the property and constructed the arena in 1968. The zoning reverted back to M-2, Heavy Industrial, when a private investor purchased the property in 2007. The proposed rezoning is being sought to allow for the redevelopment of the site. Mr. Hickok, stated that the rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of the site. It would allow the proposed medical clinic and the senior project, and they meet several objectives that the citizens of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. One of the goals identified through the Comprehensive Plan meetings and a telephone survey that was done, was to maintain Fridley as a desirable place to live. Ways to accomplish this goal would be to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a place where the aged could stay. Only about 8 percent of Fridley's housing is of the town home or condominium structure type yet 23 percent of our population are residents over the age of 65. Of course that was in 2000 and that percentage is growing as folks stay in place and enjoy Fridley. To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens and desires to live in a maintenance-free housing setting, more types of senior housing were really desired to be constructed through that discussion. Mr. Hickok stated Premier development has chosen the R-3 classification to pursue for this development, and that is in accordance with zoning standards. This designation is acceptable since it would be an expansion of a district that already exists in that area. Woodcrest Baptist Church just to the south is R-3 multi-family residentiaL It is not unusual at all to have an R-3 separated by park and then additional R-3. This would be consistent with zoning characteristics in the City and certainly rezoning standards throughout. Council's discretion to rezone a property is broad. However, it must follow logic as it relates to the overall plan for future development as described in the Comprehensive Plan and either be identified as a redevelopment designation or its new zoning designation must represent an expanse of a zoning district that exists nearby. This request passes the test then for rezoning. It matches both the Comprehensive Plan visioning for redevelopment, and it does represent an expansion of that R-3. Ms. Stromberg stated Premier Central 65 Partners is seeking to replat the property located at 7011 University Avenue to create two separate lots. The proposed replat will consist of two lots; Lot #1 and Lot #2, Block 1, Columbia Addition. Since, the petitioner is seeking a rezoning to R- 3, Multi-Family; City staff has asked the petitioner to design their projects to meet the CR-1 standards for the medical clinic and the R-3 standards for the senior development. The petitioner has designed both projects to meet the criteria set forth within the City code and will be further analyzed within the separate special use permit reviews on this report. Each Parcel meets the minimum lot size required for the R-3 zoning district. Ms. Stromberg stated hospitals and medical clinics are a permitted special use in an R-3, Multi- Family zoning district, provided that code requirements related to building and site requirements and parking are met. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed medical clinic with be located on Lot 2, which will be the southern lot. The project area is 282,101 square feet (6.48 acres) in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 50,000 square foot medical clinic on this lot. A medical clinic of this size would require 300 parking stalls. The petitioner is proposed to construct 303 parking stalls on site, which will meet code requirements. All other code requirements, including but not limited to, setbacks and lot coverage are being met on this site. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code allows independent living, assisted living, and nursing homes as a permitted special use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, provided that code requirements related to building, site requirements and parking are met. 0 Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a four-story senior development along the west and north sides of Lot 1, with an attached one-story nursing home along the east side of the lot. The proposed four-story building will be 147,200 square feet in size and the one- story nursing home will be 25,840 square feet in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 176-unit senior housing complex, which will consist of 57 independent "catered" units, 39 assisted living units, and 24 memory care units, as well as 35 nursing care beds, 10 care suite beds and 2 guest units. The development will include 58 underground parking stalls and 58 surface parking stalls, for a total of 116 stalls. Ms. Stromberg stated the R-3, Multi-Family zoning regulations states that the average lot area required per dwelling unit is 2,500 square feet for the units on the first (3) three stories with an additional 950 square feet 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. Though well-maintained landscaped grounds are essential to project appeal and resident enjoyment, the size of the lot in this type of development 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 the automobile use. Mr. Hickok stated using the 2,500 square feet of land per unit for the 120 traditional independent or assisted living units, a land area of 6.89 acres is required. The developer has allowed 7.65 acres for that portion of the development. The units beyond the 120 traditional units are beds, bed suites, or 2 guest rooms; these are not typically calculated in the formula requiring 2500 square feet per unit, since they are not units that typically require unit owner cars or yards space. Instead these units share approximately an acre of land that remains, after the 120 units/2,500 square feet requirement has been met. Since this is an open common space development where individual yards are not defined, staff suggests that the land area provided for all residential portions is adequate for the common enjoyment of all residents. Mr. Hickok stated section 211 of the City's Subdivision ordinance states that if the Planning Commission or City Council upon finding any regulations or requirements of the Code that is not applicable to a proposed preliminary or final plat, it may permit variations that are not contrary to the intent and purpose of the applicable law. The R-3 regulations that require 2,500 square feet for each unit are clearly meant for an apartment complex or condo development and are not meant for a senior development that is occupied with small memory care units and nursing home beds. As a result, it is acceptable for the Planning Commission and City Council to endorse this interpretation of the Code for purposes of a senior living development such as this, through the platting process. Making this modification is not intended to set precedence for future requests that are not of a similar nature. Ms. Stromberg stated City code requires that buildings within the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district not exceed 65 feet in height, when measured from grade to the mid-span of the roo£ The petitioner's plans currently show the building at 60 feet to the peak, therefore, meeting code requirements. The petitioner just received the soil boring for the parcel and has discovered that there is a high water table in the area where the senior building will be located. As a result, they may need to increase the height of the building to compensate for the high water table. The petitioner has expressed to staff that they are confident they will be able to comply with the maximum 65-feet height limit. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed project is in-compliance with lot coverage, parking and all setback requirements. City code requires 115 parking stalls based on types of units within the building. The petitioner is showing 116 parking stalls, which exceeds code requirements. City staff would recommend that instead of installing parking stalls that are not required, that those additional spaces be used for additional green space, with proof of parking. Ms. Stromberg stated this petitioner has not submitted a formal housing study. However, a memorandum from a housing analyst has been submitted to this development group indicating that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 240 beds (skilled nursing beds) of the above- referenced 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. Mr. Hickok stated the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of University Avenue adjacent to the proposed Senior Living/Medical Facility project carried 34,000 vehicles per day. At this traffic level, it is carrying 3,000 less vehicles per day than its maximum design capacity. Using the State's range of 31,000 to 37,000 vehicle trips per day the roadway is within specifications to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan anticipates that University Avenue will be carrying over 38,000 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 38,000 vehicles per day, University Avenue would be above its design capacity. This project brings the roadway and its intersection at 69th and University Avenue closer to capacity, earlier than anticipated. As a result the State of Minnesota was asked to comment on the perceived or real impacts of the development. Mr. Hickok stated if this segment of University were to be modified to a divided six-lane roadway, the roadway widening would increase its capacity range from 31,000-37,000 to 55,000 to 61,000 vehicle trips per day. That improvement is not scheduled in the State's near capital improvement horizon and would not be necessary based on this project alone. Mr. Hickok stated trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7t'' Edition, shows the Assisted Living Land Use category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed Senior Project complex would generate a total of 363.5 trips per day if all beds within the complex were occupied. Based on the information provided, the senior building would create a slight increase to the traffic at the intersection of 69t'' Avenue NE and the Service Drive, but only during peak hours. During all other times there will be no perceptible increase in the volume of traffic. At no time will this project add a perceptible increase to University Avenue traffic volumes, according to Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects. This intersection was designed to handle traffic from the ice arena, and is consequently adequate to handle the traffic volumes of this proposed development. Mr. Hickok stated it should also be noted, that according to the ITE manual, studies have shown that less than 5 percent 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 does not 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. The � developer has indicated that the peak visitor time is on Sunday when the medical facility will be closed. Mr. Hickok stated traffic information from the developer regarding the clinic portion of the development is broken up in a different manner and does not use ITE numbers, but their experience as a basis. The Clinic indicates that it sees 6,500 patients per month. This is based on a schedule of 266 hours and 24.4 patients per hour. The employee count for that complex is 100 employees who work staggering shifts, throughout the day. The clinic will be open 7:30 am to 8:00 pm and on Saturdays 8:00 to noon. Mr. Hickok stated the Minnesota Department of Transportation engineers concur with the conclusions of the developer's traffic analysis. The combination of uses on this site will not cause the need for changes at intersections, including signals. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has illustrated that storm water management for the site will be handled using a standard pond/surface drainage system designed to meet the watershed's requirements for rate, quality and volume control. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner held a meeting with the neighborhood regarding this project on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. in Room 114 of the Fridley Community Center. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting and the comments and questions were very positive. It appeared there was much support for the project. A couple questions were asked regarding the choice to place the clinic south and the residence north. The developer indicated that both end users preferred the site plan as proposed. A resident inquired whether truck traffic could be directed north while cars continue to use the 69t'' intersection. This question's answer is something that cannot be controlled by the developer of this site, but instead is a larger issue. The City's response to that would be that the roadways and intersections were designed to handle both and signs likely would not be observed. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning ZOA #09-01, without stipulations. The rezoning accomplishes the following objectives: • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors. • Provides additional job opportunities. Proposed use meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Is consistent with historic rezoning practices in Fridley Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, PS #09-02, with stipulations as the plat meets the requirements of Chapter 211. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the Preliminary Plat, PS#09-02 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. An easement to provide perpetual access to the fire training facility have been discussed, and agreed to, but have not been shown on preliminary plat. An easement description and easement document must be prepared, approved by the City's Fire Chief and made ready for final signatures for filing, prior to approval of the final plat. 2. An easement to provide perpetual shared parking between the clinic, senior building and park, south of the clinic have been agreed upon, but have not been memorialized in an easement document. That document shall be prepared, approved by the County Parks and Recreation Director and made ready for signature and filing, prior to final plat approval. 7 Anoka County's Path shall be moved from the southern edge of the clinic parcel and ready for reinstallation in accordance with plans to be approved by Anoka County prior to final plat approval. A path connection plan allowing safe access from the clinic parking lot to the County path south of the clinic parking lot. A path along 71St to meet the specifications of the City engineering department shall be installed. All pathway and easements, once designated to City specification and installed, will eliminate the developer's need to contribute park dedication for this plat. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of both Special Use Permits. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if Special Use Permit, SP #09-03 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans EL.1, dated November 21, 2008. 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 building at 7011 University Avenue 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 right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water 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. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. 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. 16. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A500 (not dated, but submitted with packet). The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water 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. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency within the proposed building. 15. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 16. 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. 17. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Mr. Hickok stated the stipulation related to park dedication was removed. We have asked for a number of path connections, etc. and have done so in lieu of park dedication. As they Planning Commission knows the subdivision chapter of the Code, states that it's the City's discretion to ask for up 10 percent of the land or cash in lieu of land for park dedication. In this particular case we think it's more important to have the easements for the shared use and the path connections that would make the clinic and the senior building really connected and more vital to the park and able to use the park. Also, we have had parking at the Columbia Arena site for years for soccer, etc. at the park and conceptually the developer has agreed to allow that shared parking arrangement to continue to exist, however a formal easement will need to be drawn up. If the developer with grant the easement staff would recommend the easement in lieu of the park dedication. Commissioner Sielaff asked if NPDES was a storm water permit? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, a NPDES is the standard permit that is required of a State for storm water. It is managed internally here by our engineering staf£ It is something that is required on a project ofthis size. � Commissioner Sielaff asked how many senior facilities do we have in Fridley? This is just assisted living, correct? Do we have any other assisted facilities in Fridley? What exactly do we have? Mr. Hickok replied this is something that we really need and is a very good question. Right now we do not have a lot of assisted living. We have independent living units. We have some level of assisted living but not a great deal. We recently had a request approved for a project at Old Central and Mississippi that is a very similar project in terms of the mix. We really don't have the level of senior housing that the petitioner is proposing here with the memory care, the nursing care, and the levels of assisted living that they have built into this project. It takes us beyond where we are at with any other existing housing projects. Commissioner Sielaff asked what percentage without this project would we have for assisted living of the total housing we have in Fridley? Mr. Hickok replied, he would say it is less than 2 percent that is dedicated to seniors. Mr. Dunham asked when calculating the density requirements, it is 176 total but 120 takes up 6.4 acres and there really is no consideration for the remaining. We allow that discretion? Mr. Hickok replied, the 120 are using the standard R-3 requirements of 2,500 square feet per unit. That is really a match based on those being more of a typical unit. Those are more of the independent living. When there is a nursing bed situation, they are not apartments or dormitories or small studios but instead it is a different arrangement. Our Code would be considered weak in that area of the square footage requirements for nursing home type facilities like this. The code really does not recognize this type of living set-up. What we are pointing out to the Commission this evening is that, it does allow about another acre of land for those bed units that wouldn't be considered independent living or assisted living units. In this type of situation it is not similar to a townhouse or condominiums project where they would somehow break apart and identify private spaces for the units. It is all common area, so this was just a way for them to see the relationship between what would be a standard apartment or condominium type land-to-unit ratio and it is now land-to-bed unit ratio. Mark Kuus, Amcon Construction, stated he is the architect for the medical office building. Also, representatives for Multicare, the developer and the architect for the housing project, are here as well. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they have any problem with the stipulations? Mr. Kuus replied, from the medical clinic side of things he thinks the stipulations are just fine. Steve Dunbar, Ivy Properties, stated he is part of the development team for the senior housing portion and they agree to all the stipulations. Commissioner Velin stated he counts about 40 stipulations in this whole project, he asked Mr. Dunbar if all of them are fine with them and they do not object to anything? Mr. Dunbar replied, yes, they agree with the stipulations. 10 Commissioner Dunham referred to the two letters they received in their packet that a few member of the community would like to see the clinic moved to the north lot and the senior building on the south lot. What is the petitioner's opinion on that? Mr. Dunbar stated after the neighborhood meeting on April 29, 2009 they went back and spoke with the operators of the proposed facility and they just seem to feel the senior operation would better suit the northern portion of the site. They like having their front door to the southern light exposure, and that is a big component for them. Secondly, they felt that the commercial/industrial businesses to the north of the site would work better for the senior development when compared to the type of unpredictable evening activities that might take place at the park. Commissioner Velin asked regarding Stipulation No. 14 wherein it states they will provide a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency, he asked if they have an age requirement? Mr. Dunbar replied, 55 or better. Dean Suda, International Paper, stated they own the building just north of the Columbia Arena and have a couple of concerns. They were at the last meeting and talked about flip-flopping the buildings. They have two concerns: one is noise and one is traffic and they are both twofold. They obviously run a commercial building. Back in the middle 1990's they had a City resident complain about noise from some residents probably anywhere from a half to three-quarters of a mile away. They had the City come out and do some noise monitoring, and they were well within the limits. However, they honored the residents' concerns, spent some money, and put some enclosures around their machines. It cost about $250,000 back then. The concern is now this building is going to be a lot closer. He feels there is going to be much more concern especially with the units along the back of the building. The windows are going to be facing the commercial. The concerns will not only be with our machines, the railroad comes through there, and there is truck traffic noise. Not including the facility next to them, there are probably 40 trucks a day. These run 24 hours a day. The majority of them are during business hours anywhere from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m.; however, there are trucks that come in 2 or 3 a.m. He would prefer that the buildings be flip-flopped. He cannot imagine someone living in a senior living facility would want to look at commercial buildings instead of looking at a park with kids playing soccer. Mr. Suda stated the other issue is the traffic with those trucks coming in and out all day long. Even though the arena has been there for year, there hasn't been a lot of activity in many years. Since then the traffic on University Avenue has grown. Northco Drive has been more development as well. The other concern is walking traffic. The park is beautiful and people want to see it. He is concerned about people walking down the street in truck traffic going to the park. There are times he has to stop people walking through his facility to get to the park. There is a lot of truck traffic in their parking lot, and they ask them to go around their building to go to the park. With that construction of the new building, he feels there is going to be more truck traffic going to the park on 71St Avenue. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they are immediately north of the subject property? Mr. Suda replied, yes. 11 Chairperson Kondrick stated he is sure that these folks have considered these factors as well. He wondered if maybe there might be more noise from a park for longer periods of time especially in the evening than there would be from trucks. Mr. Suda replied he appreciates that but he guessed if he was elderly and living there he would rather look at kids playing in the park vs. a truck driver coming in at 6 or 7 o'clock at night. Commissioner Sielaff asked regarding the fire facility on the east side. Is there a lot of activity in that area from the City? Mr. Hickok replied it is a joint facility and he would say there is a fair amount of training activity that happens there. There are two other cities besides Fridley that shares the training facility. They have discussed that with the developer, and he thinks it is probably similar to the activity to the north and is an acceptable neighbor. He thinks the training activities are very typical of fire training though; and there would be hose use, ladder use, and fire trucks in and out of the site. Also, there will be fires in the training buildings that they operate and train within so they are skilled at their job when they get out to a real fire. However, this is something that is known. It is not a surprise to the developer. It is there and it exists. We tried to best of our ability to explain what that is and let them know that. Commissioner Oquist stated that the Fire Training facility is essentially east of the proposed clinic, not the nursing home/senior housing. So it will be buffered by the parking lot of the clinic? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it really is just due east of the parking lot for the clinic building. East of the one-story nursing home part of the senior project is where the City's recycling center used to be. Currently there is a large salt shed building there and some other public works uses. It is probably a quieter use today than it was at that time. Chairperson Kondrick referred to Mr. Suda obviously spending some time and effort at trying to make his operation quiet. The nature of his business is such whereby it is not always totally possible. The question is, do they think this is going to be a problem for this development? Mr. Kuus replied, speaking for the medical clinic he does not really think that is a problem for them. Mr. Dunbar stated our development team has built against railroad tracks and highways. We feel we produce a very-high quality development in the fact that we have very high-test windows that can knock down the sound. We have had these challenges before, and we have been able to handle them through the development process. Chairperson Oquist asked so they have taken that into consideration? Mr. Dunbar replied, yes, absolutely. Commissioner Sielaff asked if they have talked with Mr. Suda? Mr. Dunbar replied they had at the neighborhood meeting, but they would be happy to meet with him again and help address his concerns. 12 Commissioner Dunham asked about the medical building preferring the south? What is the thought process for that? Is there a reason? Mr. Kuus replied part of the reason was to allow the shared parking between the clinic and the park. Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development Corp., stated he is the over-55 member of the group and has been involved with a lot of senior projects. After the neighborhood meeting they met with some of the partners involved in this development. They took their team back to the site, walked around, and analyzed what kind of condition they had. He thinks the thing they have to keep in mind is that the senior customer they are going to house here has an average age of probably 85 years old. He does not think we are going to see them walking around on a regular basis. The residents are really there for the internal support system that is within the building. That is really the customer we are looking for. If you look at the product that we are building here, it is not independent senior although a very limited amount could be independent with catering as described in the staff report. They always say there are three types of seniors: go-go, slow-go, and no-go. He thinks this development would tend to target the slow-go and the no-go, who are going to need the support services in the building. He can tell the Commission from experience that the residents will prefer to watch the business activity over watching the park activity. Watching the grass grow is really not what they want to really see, so your businesses will have a lot of eyes on them. Mr. Dunbar stated they did one down in Shakopee and they premiumized units the one looking over the Minnesota River and lowered the one looking over Turtles Bar and Grill. The units over looking Turtles Bar and Grill beat out the units overlooking the Mississippi River, 10-1. The activity side of a senior is very important. After the neighborhood meeting they took researchers back out to the site and watched the operation. They think they are very, very comfortable with what they have. Based on the neighborhood meeting they increased the walking path all the way through the parking lot, reduced the amount of parking, and added more parking spaces with a gazebo in the middle. He really thinks the difference they are talking about from a customer's standpoint is the age of the customer and the services they are there for. The primary services they are there for are internal. Mr. Dunbar stated the one critical thing that was mentioned earlier is the need for the southern exposure which is very, very important for the front door. If they turn the building around and have a northern exposure, he thinks they will have more risks of ice building up and stuff like. When they looked at the site that is what they were drawn to. The fire training situation next door isn't that big of a deal. They understand what is there, and they recognize that they will build the building with windows and walls that will be upgraded. They really do not have the concerns that the business does. They respect that being brought forward in the neighborhood meeting and here tonight. Commissioner Velin asked Mr. Suda about his operation being 24 hours. Is his shipping and receiving is 24 hours also? Mr. Suda replied, yes, sir. Commissioner Velin stated if he is 85 years old and he takes his hearing aids off and he is ready to go to bed, he is not going to hear the trucks. He asked where the City is going to hold their recycling days? 13 Mr. Hickok replied, staff has discussed that. Certainly as they draw up the easement they will talk about that as well. MOTION by Commissioner Saba receiving a letter from Jerry Maeckelbergh (425 Rice Creek Boulevard) and a second letter from John Gohmann. Seconded by Councilmember Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Paul Gunderson, 412 Rice Creek Boulevard, which is three houses south of the ice arena. He was at the public meeting. After the meeting he checked into the organization that will be running the senior housing place, and he was very pleased with what he found out about them. He's in favor of the proposed project. Gary Anderson, 413 Rice Creek Boulevard. He attended the neighborhood meeting, and he like the concept but would like it reversed. There is heavy-duty industrial and the trains and you do hear the noise, and there is a lot of noise and the truck traffic. He felt the medical center would be better off closer to the noise and the truck traffic, and have the senior center on the south half because you have a park there. There is also the Baptist School and soccer fields which seems more compatible with the senior facility. When the fire training center is in operation on certain nights, he goes outside to see if the house next door is burning. There is quite a smell, and he assumes they have taken that into account. You cannot open your windows when that is going on. He thought logically it would make better sense to have them reversed since there is less traffic because getting out on University is just a nightmare. One of the neighbors timed it at four minutes. He does not go out 69t'' anymore, he goes up to 73rd and goes out because you have to wait and wait at 69t'', and that is not during construction. He has complained to the State several times, and they always come out and say they will check the light but it is timed for University and not for them to get out on 69t'' Avenue. They live quite a ways away, and they can hear the trains and the noise in the morning. The trucks going out 24 hours a day, and the traffic is a problem. Commissioner Oquist stated one reason to have the clinic where it is, in relation to the training center, is that it is parallel to the training center; but if you move the seniors down then they would be right up against the training center. Commissioner Sielaff stated that he wondered about the air quality, if Mr. Anderson can smell it from where he lives he wondered what it would be like to be right next to it. Mr. Hickok replied, it is managed. There are air quality standards for the training center that they need to meet. The fire folks have been involved with our development review committee, and it is anticipated their being a neighbor of this project. To this point there has not been any sort of fear that the two could not co-exist. Roger Nelson, 490 — 69t'' Avenue, stated that he thought Northco Road was built to handle some of the truck traffic. Also, he thought that there wouldn't be a problem for the recycling events, because 71St Avenue goes back at least a mile to the park. That area could be used for waiting vehicles. Mr. Anderson stated remember you have the church school here and at 8 a.m. you have a lot of parents driving the kids to school and picking up at 3 p.m. So you have that additional traffic that really jams up the intersection. 14 Mr. Suda stated 85 percent of their truck traffic won't use 73rd Avenue to get to University because they need to go south to 694. So there is no reason for them to head north. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:07 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he thinks the staff has done a very good job of anticipating objections. The petitioner also held a neighborhood meeting to get issues discussed. Personally he does not have a problem with this. He thinks it will be great. He is a member of the Park and Recreation Commission and was interested in the bikeway/walkway easement and access for parking for the park and he's happy to see those issues will be addressed. Commissioner Dunham stated he thinks it looks pretty good, and he understands the noise issue. He does not know how they can address Mr. Suda's concerns, but he thinks Mr. Dunbar answered the questions that he is not terribly worried about it with the age of the people within the senior building. He is going to be putting in a pretty substantial development there. Commissioner Oquist stated he agreed with Commissioner Dunham, and he thinks it is going to be a nice project for that development. He thinks they could probably have some other types of developments that could go on the site, that wouldn't be as favorable, so he thinks this will work well. The traffic is an issue but it would be an issue no matter what went in there. They addressed the noise and they are aware of the concerns about it. The only thing he wondered about was a consideration of some sort of a walkway to the park, rather than walking down the street. Mr. Hickok replied the developer has done a very nice job of taking, for example, the walkway that comes out from the one-level nursing facility or coming out of the senior complex and extending it through the parking lot of the medical clinic, so there is a connection to the park. That connection/walkway will also be lighted. Down in the southeast corner of the site there is even a pathway connection that takes them to the County's trail. Just as that stipulation talked about. They have anticipated that and tried to make that connection. They appreciate the gentleman's comment about folks walking down 71St. They stipulated they would like to see a sidewalk along there. That would help as they anticipate additional sidewalk made in front our public works facilities going back to the park. Until then he thinks this is the right way for folks to get back to the park. Commissioner Saba stated he does not have any problem with this. He thinks even if you reverse it, you will have some issues with traffic and noise. He likes the joint parking with the park. He thinks this is a great development. He thinks it is an improvement for the City of Fridley. He thinks there are a lot of other things that could go on this property that could be a lot worse especially if it was zoned commercial. There could be a lot of things going in there that could be a lot more problematic than this. He thinks this is really a good opportunity for the City of Fridley, and the development is well-planned and thought out. He supports this. Commissioner Sielaff stated he thinks this fulfills an important need for the City. He does not think there is any better places to put a facility like this. He is in favor of it. 15 Commissioner Velin stated he thinks it will be a great improvement along University and that it will really dress up the area. He thinks it is a good idea. MOTION by Councilmember Dunham approving the rezoning, ZOA #09-01, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial to R-3, Multi-Family, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Oquist approving a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-02, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the creation of two lots from one lot, generally located at 7011 University Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. An easement to provide perpetual access to the fire training facility have been discussed, and agreed to, but have not been shown on preliminary plat. An easement description and easement document must be prepared, approved by the City's Fire Chief and made ready for final signatures for filing, prior to approval of the final plat. 7. An easement to provide perpetual shared parking between the clinic, senior building and park, south of the clinic have been agreed upon, but have not been memorialized in an easement document. That document shall be prepared, approved by the County Parks and Recreation Director and made ready for signature and filing, prior to final plat approval. 8. Anoka County's Path shall be moved from the southern edge of the clinic parcel and ready for reinstallation in accordance with plans to be approved by Anoka County prior to final plat approval. 9. A path connection plan allowing safe access from the clinic parking lot to the County path south of the clinic parking lot. 10. A path along 71St to meet the specifications of the City engineering department shall be installed. 11. All pathway and easements, once designated to City specification and installed, will eliminate the developer's need to contribute park dedication for this plat. Seconded by Councilmember Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Saba approving the Special Use Permit, SP #09-03, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of a medical clinic on the south half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans EL.1, dated November 21, 2008. 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 16 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue 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 right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water 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. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. 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. 16. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Seconded by Councilmember Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Velin approving the Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of an independent living, memory care and nursing home facility on the north half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A500 (not dated, but submitted with packet). 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 building at 7011 University Avenue 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 right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 17 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water 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. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency within the proposed building. 15. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 16. 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. 17. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Seconded by Councilmember Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Kondrick asked when will this be going to City Council? Ms. Stromberg replied May 18, 2009. Receive the Minutes of the March 2, 2009, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Sielaff asked about the other senior project that was approved? Is there anything new on that development? Mr. Hickok replied today the City of Mounds View called to talk to him and Mr. Bolin about that development because that developer also had a project approved in Mounds View right before the one was approved in Fridley. They were just checking with us to see if we had heard anything because they were excited and waiting for their development to happen. They anticipate theirs will still happen but whether there is a finance issue or what is unknown. Last Mr. Hickok talked to the developer, he said that these things do take some time. They had negotiated the deal back in August of last year and in March of this year is when they actually closed on the Mounds View property. He anticipated that it would take about as long with the Fridley development. Commissioner Sielaff asked, so the Mounds View deal did close? Mr. Hickok replied, they did close in March. Beyond that Mounds View is every excited and waiting for their project to happen over there. : Mr. Hickok stated regarding the station site, where they are at today, they have done a major portion of the pile driving to stabilize the rails and keep them in place while they are excavating out for the head houses and the buildings that get you down in the elevators down to the tunnel below the track. One of the things that happened in the last few days is the storm ponds have started to be dug out and are taking shape on both the east and west sides of the tracks. It is going to be a very nice station site when it is done. We will have lots of landscaping and it is well bermed and well lit. Folks will be able to get on our platform to ride the train at the same time as all the other stations. Commissioner Sielaff asked when will station be open to riders? Mr. Hickok replied, in November. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Dunham adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:23 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 19