The URL can be used to link to this page

06/27/2005 - 6086� . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 � � � CfTY OF FRIDLEY The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of June 13, 2005 � �, � NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 15, 2005 .................. 1- 7 �-��'��e�c�.� 2. Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Design Contract with SEH, Inc., for the 2005 Neighborhood Street Improvement Project No. ST 2005 —1 ................................ 8 -10 3. Claims 4. Licenses 5. Estimates Gf' .. ................................. 11 ��.-�'`U`� �. ii ................................... 12 -13 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. G�� ............................ 14 � OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items not on Agenda —15 Minutes OLD BUSINESS: 6. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03, by Timothy Van Auken, to Subdivide Two Multi-Family Lots, Generally Located at 1475 and 1485 — 73�' Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) (Tabled June 13, 2005) ...........�...... 15 - 40 NEW BUSINESS: ��`� �� 7. First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA#05-02, From C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for Property Located on Lots 15-19, Spring Valley, Generally Located at the Corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central, Fridley, Minnesota (By Family Lifestyle Development Corporation) (Ward 2) ................................... 41 - 80 � �,�-.� ` (�(/�(�" / ! 8. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-04, by �1 Target Corporation, to Subdivide a Commercial Lot into Two Commercial Lots, Generally Located at 755 — 53�d Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) .. 81 - 90 ��. 9. Variance Request, VAR #05-07, by Target Corporation, to Reduce the Off-Street Parking Space Requirements ftom 1,100 Spaces to 700 Spaces with Proof of Parking for an Additional 163 Spaces, Generally Located at 755 — 53`d Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) ...... 91 -115 ! � �� 10. Variance Request, VAR #05-08, by Target Corporation, to Increase the Height of a Free-Standing Sign from 25 Feet to 35 Feet; to Increase the Allowable Total Square Footage of Free-Standing Signs from 80 Square Feet to 330 Square Feet; and to Increase the Square Footage of the East (Front of Store) Wall Signage from 359 Square Feet to 744 Square Feet, Generally Located at 755 — 53ro Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) .................................. 116 - 138 r.�. � v . . K . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 PAGE 2 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 11. Variance Request, VAR #05-09, by Target Corporation, to Decrease the Front Yard Setback on a Commercial Building from 80 Square Feet to 24 S�uare Feet, Generally Located at 755 — 53� Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) ................................... 139 - 164 C 12. Informal Status Reports ..................... 165 ADJOURN. �� June 27, 2005 TO: Fridley City Council City of Fridley 6431 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 �\ , � SLJ�JECT: Petirion to amend Liquor Ordinance to allow tournaments or contests of "Social Skills Games" such as Texas Hold'em. As you are aware, Governor Pawlenty signed a bill on 6/3/OS legalizing Texas Hold'em tournaments in establishments serving intoxicating beverages. The bill amends Minnesota statute 2004, section 609.761 allowing tournaments or contests of certain card games of chance including Te�s Hold'em providing the organizer receives no direct financial benefit and the total of a11 prizes awarded per day does not �c,eed $200. In orden' that we may compete with businesses in the cities sunounding Fridley, we respectfully request that the Fridley Liquor ordinance chapter 603.10.7 be amended to allow us to hold tournamems or corrtests of"Social Skill Games" such as Texas Hold'em and give prizes not to exceed $200 per day. We also request that the Fridley Liquor ordina.nce cha.pter 603.11 stating that "no sale may be made on Christmas d�.y, December 25; or after 8:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve, December 24" be aunended to only r�uire a 24-hour period of no sales from 6:OOpm on December 24�' to 6:OOpm on December 25�`. � �^''` �� .�—vu�� —..-a��'-� J,. t L , /�%/-y S% � � ► %� . . ��' �,,, nh �Gd�J � � /�� , � � CffY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers Attendance Sheet ALFASF AR/NT MAM�, AflflRFSS AND /TFM MUMB�'R YOU ARF /Ni�'RFS'TFD /M. Fr�at: Name (Clearly) Address I�em No. ' , . . �� l�' �y�7s �3`a1 �1-v� , N� (o ` (l�C� 75�� h/+�c �� - � � �� ' �s � � ' �l � . P� r� � 'I . � L �i� . c�� C�c� vf��Cv-�� , � � � � �t� �°� �� ; - �� ,� � L � , Y � z Th Avt � �"`^-�` � �--� m 2 � c ��-c �-- S i . �1.(� ? � �� , _ C� �o �Z�fs-"�,�� S �a� ►' C�- I�x� ��, I le! i`�al I �- �� -t' o o � �J �.�..�� (�,� �'' - �l � � C:ITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers Attendance Sheet ALFASF AR/MT MAMF, AflDRFSS ANU /TFM NUMBFR YOU ARF /NTFRFST�'D /N. Print Name (Clearlp) Address It�m No. , _ �— � �� /3 r ^ � - �S ^ I � �/ / �,c-- /S3� �� ,�-�s lU� ,� � /'" � � �' � 7 ' �9 ` � � � !J �✓ _:�'v�i l/�s �� S � • �"-�/� �� ` `� ) � e� ;�-�- �3 �-` e � �- e w� e )� � lc << � � i c , � — � �� ¢� � � ;� ,� � � � i��3 �� , � � , � - � �� t �3 � ' , ., � � CffY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or acrivities because of race, color, creed, religion, narional origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, seaual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activiries. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of June 13, 2005 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 15, 2005 .................................................................................. 1- 7 2. Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Design Contract with SEH, Inc., for the 2005 Neighborhood Street Improvement Project No. ST 2005 — 1 .................................................... 8- 10 3. Claims 4. Licenses 11 12-13 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 5. Estimates ....................................................................................................... 14 ADOPTION OF AGENDA. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items not on Agenda — 15 Minutes OLD BUSINESS: 6. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03, by Timothy Van Auken, to Subdivide Two Multi-Family Lots, Generally Located at 1475 and 1485 — 73rd Avenue N. E. (Ward 2) (Tabled June 13, 2005) ..................................................................................... 15 - 40 NEW BUSINESS: 7. First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, From C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for Property Located on Lots 15-19, Spring Valley, Generally Located at the Corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central, Fridley, Minnesota (By Family Lifestyle Development Corporation) (Ward 2) ....................................................................................................... 41 - 80 8. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-04, by Target Corporation, to Subdivide a Commercial Lot into Two Commercial Lots, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue N. E. (Ward 1) .................................................................. 81 - 90 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 PAGE 3 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 9. Variance Request, VAR #05-07, by Target Corporation, to Reduce the Off-Street Parking Space Requirements from 1,100 Spaces to 700 Spaces with Proof of Parking for an Additional 163 Spaces, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue N. E. (Ward 1) ...................................................................... 91 - 115 10. Variance Request, VAR #05-08, by Target Corporation, to Increase the Height of a Free-Standing Sign from 25 Feet to 35 Feet; to Increase the Allowable Total Square Footage of Free-Standing Signs from 80 Square Feet to 330 Square Feet; and to Increase the Square Footage of the East (Front of Store) Wall Signage from 359 Square Feet to 744 Square Feet, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue N. E. (Ward 1) ..................................................... 116 - 138 11. Variance Request, VAR #05-09, by Target Corporation, to Decrease the Front Yard Setback on a Commercial Building from 80 Square Feet to 24 Square Feet, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue N. E. (Ward 1) ...................................................... 139 - 164 12. Informal Status Reports ..................................................................................... 165 ADJOURN. CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY J U N E 13, 2005 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Billings Councilmember Wolfe Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Don Abbott, Public Safety Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary PRESENTATION OF VALUES FIRST 2005 COMMUNITY RECOGNITION AWARDS: Councilmember Barnette presented the following recognition awards: Individual: Gretchen Hanson Business: Joe DiMaggio's Community Organization: Banfill-Locke Center for the Arts High School Sportsmanship: Amy Lindstrom and Stashie Mack APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of City Council minutes of May 23, 2005. APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 2 of 38 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Extension of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #03-18, by Town Center Development, Generally Located at 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490 Central Avenue NE. Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained that since the developer, Richard Whinnery of Town Center Development, has been unable to close on these properties due to legal challenges, he is asking for a six-month extension of the preliminary plat. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 2. Approve Metropolitan Council Section 8 Housing Assistance Program Contract for Administrative Services between the City of Fridley and the Metropolitan Council. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City has been providing Section 8 administrative services since 1976. Due to Federal budget cutbacks in this program, the Metro HRA lost some of their funding and is pulling back services that they once contracted out. Since Fridley has taken on a number of extra services in past years, the City is facing some cutbacks and other changes in its contract with Metro HRA. These include screening of waiting list selections and the screening of applicants who are moving to Fridley from other communities. We expect to lose $2,000 to $3,000. The City is also losing the administration of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, a program that creates an incentive for Section 8 recipients who become employed full-time over a five-year period. The City has 10 FSS clients at $26.16 per month administration fee resulting in a loss of $261.60 per month. These take-aways have been replaced, at least partially, by new funding for conducting informal hearings for those who due to their abuse of the system have lost their Section 8 funding. The City also expects to potentially benefit from the removal of the $10,000 cap that Metro HRA has imposed on the City's use of surplus money. This will enable the City to use any administrative reserve funding from Metro HRA that it has not used to pay for its cost of administration. Since there have been some program reductions, the City does expect that any amounts over $10,000 will be minimal. City staff estimates the total revenue from this contract for 2005 will be $10,080. Staff recommends Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 3. Approve the Anoka County Community Development Block Grant Program Agreement between the City of Fridley and the County of Anoka. Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the contract with Anoka County and the various exhibits attached to it provide the terms and conditions that govern the City's use of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 3 of 38 $164,876 in CDBG funding. The money will be used for demolition and removal of blighted properties in the Gateway West project area. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. 4. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-3, 6-7 and 9-17, Creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 18 and Approval and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff recommends Council's adoption of this resolution to set a public hearing for August 8 on this matter. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 5. Resolution Authorizing Final Changes in Appropriations for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds and Capital Improvement Fund for the Year Ended 2004. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this re-appropriation moves money from line items where the budget allocation was not used to other line items where it was exceeded. It also seeks to align revenues for the various funds with expenditures. For the General Fund, the City used $58,104 of the $100,000 anticipated for unexpected expenditures. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-29. 6. Motion Withholding Sale of Tax Forfeit Land Identified in Anoka County PIN No. 24-30-24-31-0111 and Directing Staff to Initiate a Request for an Application to Acquire a Tax ForFeit Parcel for Right-of-Way Purposes (Generally Located at the Corner of Regis Lane and Fillmore Street) (Ward 2). Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the subject parcel is under a street at the intersection of Regis Lane and Fillmore Street. The action tonight requests that Anoka County withhold the parcel from their sale of tax forfeit properties. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 4 of 38 7. Appointments — City Employees. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff recommends the appointment of Steve Monsrud to the Sergeant's position recently vacated by Michelle Gease. Steve has a Bachelor of Science degree in Law Enforcement from Mankato State University. Steve has worked as an intern, a CSO and a police officer for the Fridley Police Department, and most recently, finished first in a multi-faceted testing process for this position. Staff recommends Council's approval. Dr. Burns stated staff is also recommending the appointment of Robert Larson to the police officer vacancy. Robert has a Bachelor of Science degree in Law Enforcement from Minnesota State University in Mankato. He has been a part-time police officer for the Hudson, Wisconsin, Police Department since September 2004. He has also worked for the Hudson Parks Department and as a bouncer at Dick's Bar and Grill in Hudson. He has been working as an officer recruit for the Fridley Police Department since May. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED THE APPOINTMENTS OF STEVE MONSRUD AND ROBERT LARSON. 8. Claims (121737 — 122038). APPROVED. 9. Licenses. APPROVED. 10. Estimates. APPROVED. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Items 1, 2 and 4. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to adopt the agenda with the addition of Items 1, 2 and 4. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 5 of 38 OPEN FORUM: Consideration of items not on agenda (15 minutes) Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated the City has spent over $270,000 repairing storm sewer problems at the Springbrook Nature Center. He's had a drainage problem in his yard for over 15 years and has not received any assistance from the City to resolve this problem. Councilmember Bolkcom explained that a majority of the money spent at Springbrook was from grants from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Springbrook improvements were made not only to control drainage but to improve the quality of water that leaves the Springbrook property and ends up in the Mississippi River. PUBLIC HEARING: 11. Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, to Rezone Property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, Generally Located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE (Ward 2). MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to open the public hearing and waive the reading. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:55 PM. Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner, John DeMello, is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S-2. These lots are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the same property to allow construction of an Italian Villa style mixed use development. There will be 10,492 square feet of retail space on the lower level at the corner of Mississippi and Old Central, and 70 senior condominium units in the bulk of the development. The 1, 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units will be owner- occupied and have underground parking. Access to the complex would be directly across from the anticipated Town Center development on Central and Mississippi. The petitioner submitted a different proposal for a larger development in 2004 and that was denied. The 2004 denial revolved around concerns about density, traffic on 64tn Avenue, limited snow storage area, and landscaping opportunities. Ms. Jones explained the current proposal differs from the 2004 submission in that there are not two separate parcels; the retail and housing are in the same building on the current plan. Also this proposal does not include the three properties on 64t" Avenue, contains less retail space, is three stories high rather than four, and has 20 less condominium units. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 6 of 38 Ms. Jones stated there is currently a mixture of zoning classifications on this site, C-1, C-2 and R-1. The properties at 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning with C-1 along Old Central and R-1 on the east portion of the property. The rezoning to S-2 makes it possible to have a mixed use development with retail and housing combined in one development. The S-2 zoning requires the site to have a Master Plan approved by the City. The site plan becomes the Master Plan and any modifications to the site plan following Council approval must be brought back to Council for review. The HRA must also review the redevelopment Master Plan, which they did at their June 2 meeting. Ms. Jones said that In relation to the City's Comprehensive Plan, such a rezoning needs to be consistent. The proposed retail/housing complex does meet several objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: • Provides more efficient land use. • Provides an opportunity for senior housing. • Provides added tax base and new jobs. Ms. Jones further stated this rezoning helps achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goals for this corner. Ms. Jones said petitioner had a housing market study done in 2003 and then updated in 2004 and 2005. This study indicated that senior housing was the best market for this site and that a market exists for 70 units, even with the Town Center development proposed for the opposite corner. Updated figures indicate the retail prices for the condominium units should range from $156,000 to $279,000, depending upon the size of the unit. The plat analysis reveals that the plat would consolidate five parcels into one. Although the petitioner is requesting S-2 zoning, the site will be planned according to C-2, General Business, and R-3, General Multiple Unit Housing regulations. The 10,492 square foot retail area meets speculative parking requirements, if proof of parking is included. There will be 46 stalls provided (52 are required) plus proof of parking for 8 additional stalls. The retail parking will not meet the setback requirement due to the County's request for additional right-of-way. The lot coverage for this development is at 28% which is below the code limit of 30%. The housing portion of this plat is 120,199 square feet and there will be three levels. The 70 condominium units would require a total of 129 market rate parking spaces or 70 spaces for assisted living facilities for the elderly. The petitioner is proposing 122 spaces with 110 of those spaces provided in underground parking. Staff is comfortable that they are meeting the parking requirements. The potential County right-of-way acquisition is what is creating problems with the parking setback requirements but the building setbacks are being m et. Ms. Jones stated the landscape plan has been revised since the Planning Commission hearing on this proposal. The petitioner's landscape plan now provides 152 of the160 trees required. Staff has decided to set a policy where they would provide a 15% credit for developments utilizing rain garden areas in lieu of trees. Petitioner would get credit for 10 trees in exchange for the rain garden areas they have proposed. This proposal FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 7 of 38 would then meet the landscape requirements. The change from the Planning Commission hearing is that petitioner is adding a landscape buffer in lieu of fencing on the south side of the property. Ms. Jones said the 2001 City Comprehensive Plan reports that the Old Central and Mississippi intersection is carrying 57% of the traffic for which it was designed. The petitioner hired TDI to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. This was recently updated and TDI found that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection either pre or post development. This includes the impact of the development proposed for across the street. TDI continues to report that the existing roadway network will accommodate this development. Ms. Jones explained that the petitioner is working with the City's engineering staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to refine necessary plans and obtain all necessary permits for storm water on this site. The major ponding and drainage concerns have all been met. The current proposal does not include the three lots on 64t" Avenue where there had been drainage concerns in the 2004 proposal. Ms. Jones said staff has received some calls from the public regarding this proposal. The petitioner held two neighborhood meetings which staff did not attend. Several residents spoke at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting. Their comments were mostly related to a disagreement with the Comprehensive Plan, traffic concerns, and the S-2 zoning. At the Planning Commission hearing, the landscape plan was short 69 trees. A subsequent discussion regarding the fencing requirement in Stipulation 15 resulted in a proposed change to the landscape plan. The petitioner feels there is a movement toward less fencing and more open area so they are proposing to make up some of the tree shortage and provide screening by providing landscaping rather than fencing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZOA #05-02 and PS #05-02 with the stipulations presented by staff. Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve ZOA #05-02, as the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it will provide additional senior housing, retail opportunities and job opportunities. Staff also concurs with the Planning Commission regarding approval of PS #05-02 with the following stipulations: 1) Property to be developed in accordance with the Master Plan as shown on the site plan dated June 8, 2005. 2) Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4) Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5) Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 8 of 38 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's regulations prior to issuance of a building perm it. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planning within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. (A letter from Anoka County was presented to the Council this evening in which they are requesting a right turn-in and right turn- out only from this site onto Old Central.) Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permit. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G91) of the Fridley Zoning Code. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square foot). Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with the final plat. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development, including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. A development agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the petitioner prior to final plat approval. The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of the property. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 9 of 38 Councilmember Wolfe questioned if the right turn-in and turn-out requirement will result in a lot of U-turns. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained that entry into the site from southbound traffic would best be accomplished by turning east on Mississippi and then entering this site from that location. Anoka County is trying to eliminate a lot of left turn movements with this requirement and those left turn movements cause more confusion and accidents than the right turn-in. Councilmember Wolfe asked how many rental properties there would be in the residential building. Ms. Jones responded that it is her understanding the entire development is proposed to be owner-occupied. Councilmember Barnette stated some of the calls he received expressed concern over the number of rental units. He asked what assurance the neighbors have that these units will remain owner-occupied. Councilmember Wolfe expressed concern that the association rules for this development could change at some point in the future to allow rental units. City Attorney Knaak stated it is true that association by-laws can be amended, but they would not supersede restrictions placed on the property by the City. Councilmember Billings commented that if a percentage of the units do not sell, the developer would still be the owner of those units and would be paying the association fees on those units. Oftentimes as such associations get started, the developer is the association. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there have been questions raised about the notification process for this meeting and asked Ms. Jones to review that process. Ms. Jones responded that code requires that property owners within 350 feet be notified of the public hearing for such a project. City staff did meet that requirement and went one step further by notifying individuals who had attended previous public hearings on this matter. The public hearing notice goes out before the Planning Commission public hearing. Public notice for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings are published in the Fridley Focus newspaper. She added that her telephone number is on the public hearing notice and residents are always encouraged to call with questions. Mr. Knaak indicated that staff did follow the correct notification procedure for this matter. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that a couple of months ago, when it was discussed that this proposal would be coming before Council, a statement was made at FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 10 of 38 that time that residents within 350 feet would receive a letter advising of the date. To her knowledge, that letter did not go out. Ms. Jones stated she is not familiar with the meeting Councilmember Bolkcom is referring to but there was not a separate notice mailed for Council's public hearing. At Councilmember Bolkcom's request, Ms. Jones reviewed the site plan, specifically the setback requirements. The building setback along Old Central is being met, but the drive aisle setback is not. Along the north end of the property on Mississippi, the parking setback will be approximately 8 feet short. Those setback shortages are due to the amount of land the County is taking along Old Central and Mississippi for the possibility of future expansion of those roadways. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification on the parking requirements for this site. Ms. Jones responded they are meeting the parking requirements for the housing and retail sections. They have proof of parking for 8 additional stalls in the retail area. If the housing area is treated as market rate rather than a senior building, the parking space requirement would be higher. Since this is restricted to seniors, the parking requirement is lower. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the change from a fence to landscaping. She asked if the landscaping will provide as much privacy for the adjoining properties as a fence would. Ms. Jones stated that would be a matter of personal preference. City code gives the developer the option of either putting in a fence or opaque landscaping (coniferous trees that will be full year round). On the east end, in addition to the landscape screening, the developer is proposing a retaining wall and berm to help screen that side of the development. The trees will be located on top of the berm. Along the south end, the developer is proposing 60 arborvitae which will be spaced together as close as they can. Along the east there will be a couple of different kind of spruce trees. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if staff has looked into the rain garden option and how other cities are handling this. She asked how staff arrived at a 15% credit towards landscaping trees in exchange for the rain gardens. Ms. Jones responded that staff is not aware of what other cities are doing with respect to rain gardens associated with developments. Other cities are utilizing rain gardens in relation to street construction projects. The types of plants in a rain garden are important for it to function properly for storm water filtration. Staff looked at the shortage of trees and considered setting this as policy, not just for this development, but for other such proposals. It is difficult with the storm ponding requirements new developments face to have enough space to meet the tree-planting requirement. To take 15% of the amount of trees required and allow them to make up for that with rain garden areas is a reasonable compromise. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 11 of 38 Councilmember Bolkcom asked about Stipulation #7. Ms. Jones stated that is actually out-dated because the developer has obtained the exemption for the wetland. Staff has received the paperwork from the Rice Creek Watershed on this matter. To her knowledge, the petitioner is in compliance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas to explain the relationship between the height of this building and the watershed concerns. She asked if there is any other option as far as the height of this building. Mr. Haukaas responded he does not see a relationship between the watershed district and the height of the building. He stated the concern would be the depth of the basement in relation to the water table in that area. The watershed district concerns would be related to water run-off which is affected by the surface area, not the building height. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that what Mr. Haukaas is saying is whether the building is one story or three stories high, it is basically the same as far as storm water. Mr. Haukaas stated that is correct. Councilmember Wolfe questioned the age of the statistics used to determine that people 55 and older do not drive as much as those 55 and younger. Ms. Jones stated she was not referring to any study but the City requirements for parking. The code gives an allowance for assisted living senior facilities. Staff is happy that this petitioner is exceeding the requirement of 70 parking stalls because staff does not believe that would be adequate for this age group. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the Planning Commission minutes where the petitioner's architect stated that the watershed district requires that structures be two feet above the high water mark. Mr. Haukaas responded that the watershed district does have a requirement similar to flood plain requirements that the base level of a building be at a certain elevation above the high water mark of any ponding or storm water features or creek or river in the area. By calculating what their storm water is going to be and how high the storm water ponds may be that sets a minimum for where the building will be constructed. Mr. John DeMello, petitioner, stated he is the president of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation. To address some of the questions regarding rental property, he explained most banks require 50% of the project to be filled prior to ground-breaking. In addition, they will limit the amount that will be rented to the 5% figure that Town Center has proposed. They hope, however, that the building will fill up immediately so that rental units are not a concern. He stated they do have a very high water table on this site which is a major reason why a lot of land has to be brought in and the building has to be FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 12 of 38 constructed basically on top of the ground. Their project will actually provide relief for drainage issues on some of the surrounding property. Mr. Peter Villard, Architectural Works Villard, Inc., explained the major issues in the initial proposal were density, traffic, building height, snow removal, sunlight, and setbacks. They have tried to address those concerns by coming back with a smaller building, a smaller site, one parcel instead of two, 20 less units, 2'/ less units per acre. There are 22 less parking stalls for housing and 27 less stalls for the retail area for a total of 49 less parking stalls on site. The building itself has 7,500 less square feet of underground parking, 38,000 less square feet of housing and 3,000 less square feet of retail, for a total of 49,000 less square feet.. The building height is ten feet lower. They added the landscape screening on the east and south as well as major snow removal areas. They do have the conditional approval and wetland exemption from the Rice Creek Watershed District. They also received county approval for the right-of-way on June 8. The building setbacks are pretty extensive; 140 feet on the north, 104 feet on the west, and 18 feet on the east and 40 feet on the south. To address the sunlight issue, they are proposing 10 less feet in building height which allows for more sunlight to the properties east of this location. Mr. Villard further explained that the high water mark has been established on this site by their engineering consultants and the watershed district. The garage floor must be two feet higher than that high water level. The water table on this property is up so high they could not sink the building any further. They are adding the features required to accommodate the high water table on this site. He reviewed the landscaping proposed for this development. He stated along the east property line there is an 18-foot setback from their balcony to the property line and an 8-foot City easement. There will be spruce trees along the east as well as a retaining wall. On the south elevation, there will be 60 seven foot high arborvitae. All of the surface water coming from the south towards this site will be draining into this proposal's retaining area. Mayor Lund questioned who commissioned the study that determined the best use for this site. Mr. DeMello responded that his company commissioned Maxfield Research to do a feasibility study; including a demand analysis. Town Center development was included in that study. Maxfield Research typically tries to error on the conservative side and they think this project will be consumed at a rate of 4 units per month. As to comments that the developer paid the researcher to say what he wanted to hear, he said that would not be in the best interests of the developer, the banker or the investment group who will be risking millions of dollars. Mayor Lund commented that he believes the owners of the condominium units would work to keep the rentals to a minimum to protect their investment. He stated the association documents will set the standard for the number of rental units and stated he would like to see some limitation on rental units added to Stipulation #17. He added FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 13 of 38 that he realizes it is not uncommon for such developments to allow perhaps 5% of the units to be rental on a short-term basis. Mr. DeMello responded that his father will be purchasing one of these condo units. It is difficult to not allow rentals at all, but he believed a small percentage would be reasonable. He added that he does not want to see this become a rental property. Mayor Lund stated he would like to see that in writing; a limitation on the rental units in this property. He also asked if there will be a cement median in the entrance of Old Central that will restrict the right-in and right-out. Mr. Villard presented a copy of the County's right-in right-out and it does include a median. Mayor Lund asked if Council is being asked to rezone those single family homes along 64t" that are no longer in this project. Ms. Jones responded that during the initial presentation on this property last year, staff recommended including the three properties along 64t" to avoid spot zoning because they typically rezone to a physical boundary, such as a street. However, in the public hearings held last year there was a public record created by the surrounding neighborhood indicating they did not want those parcels on 64t" Avenue to be included for reasons of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. Because that record has been created it is within the City's legal authority to rezone only to 6421 Central Avenue and not have it considered as spot zoning. Mr. Knaak concurred with Ms. Jones' statement. Spot zoning tends to be an island that is being created to accommodate a specific development, but if the uses are consistent in the rezoning with the contiguous parcels, for the most part it is not a problem. Councilmember Billings asked who determines what spot zoning is. Mr. Knaak responded that ultimately that would be determined by the courts. Councilmember Billings added the court would only determine it to be spot zoning if it is inconsistent with the surrounding zoning. It is up to the City Council to determine what appropriate zoning is for the City of Fridley and what appropriate zoning is for specific sites as long as Council considers the other elements that surround it. Rezoning to S-2 is an opportunity for the City to be able to maximize their zoning districts and create a mixed use on a specific site. Determination as to whether or not five, eight or ten lots are adequate to create an S-2 district is up to Council to determine. If Council does something that another party vehemently objects to, that party can go to court and it becomes their responsibility to prove to the court that what was done was without adequate foundation. Staff's preference and prior preference has been not to have a portion of a block one zoning and another portion of the block a different zoning. Council has tried aggressively to correct those kinds of situations. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 15 of 38 Mr. Haukaas stated the right-of-way shown includes the additional right-of-way requested by the County. Mr. Villard explained that petitioner has agreed to give 10 feet on Old Central and 30 feet on Mississippi. Councilmember Billings stated if the developer were not donating land to the County there would not be any setback issues. Mr. Villard responded that is correct. Councilmember Billings commented that Council could fix that by removing any stipulations that the petitioner give this property to the County and the County and the taxpayers can pay for the land when they want to condemn it in the future. Ms. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 - 64t" Avenue, questioned if a building of this size could be constructed in the existing zoning. She asked that this property be developed with care so that it does not change the character of the neighborhood. She was concerned that people will miss the right turn in to this site and then use 64t" to turn around. She stated that she and her family spend a great deal of time in their backyard and fear that this proposed development will take away from their enjoyment of their property. Mr. Virgil Okeson, 1423 - 64t" Avenue, expressed his concern about the City setting a precedent for other developers to request this type of zoning change and side-stepping the zoning requirements. This should be taken into consideration. The shortages of parking, setbacks, and trees are all important issues to adjoining property owners. He is also concerned about 64t" Avenue being used as a u-turn street because of the right turn-in requirement. The residents of the condominium units will have visitors, yet there are only 12 parking spaces provided for guest parking. There will also be vendor trucks and repair trucks needing to access this area. There may also be an issue with flooding in this area based on the history of drainage concerns in this area. He was also concerned about the developer's ability to influence the amount of rental property allowed. This should be considered by the Council. He also referred to the effort by organizations, including the City's Chores and More program, to keep seniors in their homes. He took issue with the comments that a lot of people in the City want to move into facilities like this one being proposed. Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 - 64t" Avenue, stated he is very disappointed that he did not receive written notification of this hearing before Council. There was no publication of this meeting in the local paper. He believes this would constitute spot zoning. The record would reflect that the neighbors did not want S-2 zoning in this area at all, not just to 64t" Avenue. Due to the problems with the water table and the fact that this is the same plan as presented previously with the same problems, this is too much of a development for this piece of land. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the character of a neighborhood should not be changed as a result of a redevelopment. He expressed his opposition to this proposal. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 16 of 38 Ms. Jones presented a copy of the notice of this hearing which was published in the June 2, 2005, issue of the Fridley issue of the Sun Focus. Mr. Steve Williams, 1357 - 64t" Avenue, stated he moved to this property 10 months ago in an effort to escape the density of the city neighborhood where he previously resided. The trees in the woods behind his property are 50 to 60 feet high and provide a good buffer. It would be a shame to clear-cut those trees just to create this new development. The proposed landscaping will not provide adequate screening. He asked that the existing trees remain. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64t" Avenue, stated there were two neighborhood meetings held by the developer but the notices for those meetings were inadequate, which she believed showed total disregard for the residents. The initial proposal on this site was for 71 units with general retail. The Council indicated that was too large. This current proposal is only one less unit and the density appears higher. The building height will be, in reality, four stories. There is no allotment for an alley easement on this plot even though there is an existing easement off of 64t" Avenue. The driveway on the west side is only two feet from the property line. The required walkway would be close to the property line. The east setback is only 18 feet and a 7-foot fence and trees will do nothing to screen the view from the surrounding homes. The proposed landscaping will take 30 years before it has any effect on screening. The traffic count is estimating 845 total trips should be compared to the traffic from the existing three houses and one small business. Ms. Schwartz said the Comprehensive Plan states that the character of a neighborhood should not be changed. The parking spaces along Mississippi are within the 35 foot setback, much the same as they were last year. She questioned staff referring to any senior housing as an assisted living facility with regards to parking requirements. A senior condominium should not be referred to as assisted living unless there are facilities and staff that makes it assisted living. Many recent studies done on senior driving habits show that those driving habits have changed and are much the same as the general public. They still propose to remove single family homes and rezone R-1 land. The residents do not want this and do not believe this type of housing is appropriate for this area. Nothing has changed. She stated she is not opposed to redevelopment, but they need to be appropriate uses. There is no reason to place a big apartment building in the middle of single family homes. She pointed out an error on the preliminary plat for Spring Valley Estates in that one of the homes is missing and questioned what else is missing. S-2 zoning calls for all performance standards for uses in the district to be comparable or similar to uses allowed in other districts. This does not meet the standards in other zoning districts in many ways. To allow this to be built would be setting a precedent that allows every zoning code law to be thrown out. She understands there is latitude with the S-2 zoning, but thought there should not be as much latitude allowed. Looking at the 71-unit original proposal, the density was 26% and this proposal is 28%. She referred to a petition circulated last year with approximately 400 signatures of those residents opposed to the 71-unit housing development, against the rezoning, the retail, and the traffic and noise. She stated as FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 17 of 38 far as she is concerned, this petition is still valid. The overall discussion of the issue of zoning was that the neighbors did not want the S-2 zoning at all. It totally defies logic to stick an apartment building on property with single family homes and which abuts single family homes on two sides. There are a lot of open retail spaces in Fridley now. This was denied last year in a way that a lawsuit to challenge it would hold up. If Council looks at the reasons for denial, they are basically the same for this proposal. Talking to people in the community, she claimed that Fridley residents feel there is a need for more nice, single family homes, not more apartments. Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, referred to the minutes of the original meeting in March 2004 when the proposal was for 71 units. The consultant for the housing forums stated the City needs to give particular care to the integration of redevelopment projects when located adjacent to single family neighborhoods. She stated this proposal will drastically change the character of that neighborhood. The neighbors understand that sooner or later this site will be developed but not with two behemoth buildings. Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street NE, referred to the 64t" Avenue storm and sanitary sewer project that was necessary due to some significant drainage issues. That project tried to correct some of those drainage problems. Developing what are now two large vacant properties will significantly change the storm water flow. She asked that staff inembers look at the material related to the 64t" Avenue drainage problems. Mr. Kurt Olson, 1384 - 64t" Avenue, asked if this petitioner will be the only benefactor of the change in the City's policy regarding rain gardens. Councilmember Billings responded that the Rice Creek Watershed District made a presentation to Council earlier this year and requested that Council allow the rain gardens in such developments as well as in conjunction with street projects. The proposal before Council tonight would be the first development where the rain garden concept will be tried and if it is successful then it will be utilized in future developments. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are many other communities, such as Maplewood and Woodbury, where rain gardens are being used. It is not a new concept, but it is new to the City of Fridley. Ms. Marvel McNaughton, 6300 Pierce Street, asked if staff had located the proof of publication for this hearing. Mayor Lund responded that Ms. Jones does have a copy of the notice of this hearing and it was published in the June 2 edition of the Sun Focus. Ms. Susan Okeson, 1423 - 64t" Avenue, expressed her concern about the landscaping for this proposal, particularly the planned rain gardens, because they will not offer the screening of mature trees. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 18 of 38 Ms. Andrea Olson, 1385 - 64t" Avenue, stated there is one clear theme; if there is not enough room for this development to meet setback requirements on the north and east side or for all the tree requirements or trees and a sidewalk on the south side, there is just not enough room on this site for this proposal. There are many people in that area with a uniform, consistent message of opposition. Underground parking is not underground if you have to push dirt up. If the underground parking is higher than the homes around this site, it is not underground, which makes this a four-story building. She questioned why the neighbors should be forced to accept this structure because the petitioner purchased property with a high water table. The height of this structure will have to have a negative impact on the surrounding properties and drainage issues. It makes sense that this petitioner build a development that is appropriate for this site. The petitioner should not ask the City and the residents to make exceptions just so he can make a profit from this site. She believed the way the petitioner handled the neighborhood meetings was "deceitful" and that the neighbors were not advised of this hearing even though they had been given the assurance they would be. She also stated that this is spot zoning because it is an island to accommodate a specific project. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to accept into the record the ordinance presented by Ms. Jones with the new stipulations and the letter from Anoka County (regarding the access to this development.) UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive the unapproved Planning Commission minutes of June 1, 2005. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to accept into the record the letter dated June 8, 2005 from Marvel McNaughton. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to other S-2 developments approved in an area of mixed zoning, including Medtronic and Christianson Crossing. She then asked about the alley easement. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated there is right-of-way provided which still exists and will continue to exist. There is no distinction between alley and street right- of-way. Councilmember Billings asked for clarification as to the City's policy regarding alleys. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 19 of 38 Mr. Haukaas responded that the general direction he has been giving is that the City wants to vacate unused alleys and return the area to adjacent property owners. The right-of-way in this development, however, does need to be preserved because of the storm sewer project in that area. He does not believe there is any interest by the developer or the neighborhood to put a street through the right-of-way in question, so he does not see the need to take additional right-of-way at this time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if he is comfortable with the drainage plan for this development. Mr. Haukaas stated the developer's engineer, BKBM, has submitted storm water plans and calculations that show they are reducing the run-off to the east. In addition, the building plans include a piping system to collect the roof run-off and direct it into their ponds. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the traffic studies that have been done and how it relates to the traffic study performed by the City. Mr. Haukaas stated the City runs traffic studies on a four-year cycle and the County does them on a two-year cycle. There has not been an appreciable increase in those counts for a long time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. Haukaas is aware of any plans to increase Mississippi or Old Central in the next five years. Mr. Haukaas responded he does have a copy of the County's written five-year plan and proposed plans for the next ten to fifteen years and there is no intersection improvement included for Mississippi and Old Central. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what height a structure could be erected in the C-2 or C-1 zoning currently on this site. Ms. Jones stated she would have to research that and get back to the Council. Councilmember Bolkcom stated at a recent joint meeting with the HRA, three developers who participated in that meeting indicated that there is an over-abundance of condominium units in the Minneapolis and St Paul areas, but not in the suburban areas. They also indicated there are a lot of people at all age levels who are looking for town homes or condominiums. She asked Councilmember Wolfe if, as a realtor, he sees a negative impact on surrounding single family homes when a condominium development goes in nearby. Councilmember Wolfe responded that every house is worth what you can sell it for. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to close the public hearing. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 20 of 38 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:35 PM. OLD BUSINESS: 12. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-01, by Har-Mar Incorporated, for Property Generally Located at 7110-90 University Avenue NE) (Ward 3). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated this is the second reading of the ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their April 20 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. Council held a public hearing on this matter on May 9, and the first reading of the ordinance was held on May 23. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning. The next item on the agenda pertains to this property as well because in rezoning this property, staff recommends Council approve a resolution to remove the four special use permits that exist on this property which will no longer be necessary after the rezoning. Staff received no calls regarding this matter after the first reading. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the tenants currently on this property fit the commercial zoning better than the existing zoning. Ms. Jones added that another factor is Billiard Street Cafe is seeking to obtain a liquor license which they cannot do in an M-1 zoning. Many of the special use permits are related to Billiard Street Cafe. She concurred with Councilmember Bolkcom's comment that the proposed rezoning fits the current uses better than the M-1 zoning. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt Ordinance No. 1203 on second reading. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 13. Resolution Eliminating Four Special Use Permits for the Property at 7110 — 7190 University Avenue, legally described as Lots 4-6, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park, except the North 35 feet of Lots 4, Anoka County, Minnesota (Ward 3). Ms. Jones explained two of the special use permits allowed expansion of the Billiard Street Cafe; one to reduce the parking setback and one to allow the use of office space. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to eliminate the four special use permits for the property located at 7110-7190 University Avenue. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 21 of 38 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2005-30. 14. Approve Liquor License to Greg Asproth for Billiard Street Cafe, Generally Located at 7178 University Avenue NE. (Ward 3). Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the Billiard Street Cafe has been in business in the same location for 17 years. A public hearing was held May 9 regarding the liquor license. The Police Department reviewed the backgrounds of the owner and manager and found no reason to deny this request. Staff recommends approval. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Greg Asproth, owner, if he will be applying for the 2:00 a.m. closing license and if he was aware of the requirements for that license. Mr. Asproth responded he will be applying for the late close and is aware of the restrictions related to that. He further stated they have worked closely with the police to address concerns regarding minors. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she forwarded to Public Safety Director, Don Abbott, an e-mail she received from a resident regarding this issue. Mr. Abbott stated he received the e-mail expressing concerns that minors would be allowed in the building where liquor is served. He explained that is not correct as the City ordinance prevents anyone under the age of 18 from entering the business except to eat, perform work, or in the presence of a parent or guardian. The entire establishment will be licensed. There will not be separate areas. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve the liquor license for Greg Asproth for Billiard Street Cafe located at 7178 University Avenue NE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, to Create One Parcel Out of Five, Generally Located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461 Central Avenue NE (Ward 2). Mayor Lund repeated his concern to limit the amount of rental units to 5% or 10% in this development in the association agreement with the intent that it be for short-term only. The spot zoning concerns have been discussed at length and have been clarified. He questioned how the berm along the east side of the property will affect run-off. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 22 of 38 Mr. Haukaas responded the berm along improvement that was put in for the 64tn drainage will still get to that drain. the eastern edge is west of the drainage Avenue drainage project. The residential Ms. Jones suggested the architect review the drainage plans for this proposal. Mr. Villard stated they have addressed all of the surface water and it will be collected and filtered on site. All of the hard surface drainage from the roof is being collected with a series of downspouts into underground drainage pipes that go into the north catch basin, then to the collecting pond, and finally into a sedimentation pond. The proposed rain gardens will also drain to the sedimentation pond. All of the water from around the site collects from a number of areas and drains into the filtration pond. From that pond, it leaves the site at the southeast corner and goes into the storm sewer. They will also be collecting about 30% of the water from the properties to the south that drains toward their site. Ms. Schwartz commented that the pipe this entire site drains to already backs up and floods her back yard. Mr. Haukaas explained that the pipe Ms. Schwartz referred to goes into the ditch that comes from Harris Pond, then into a small ponding area off Rice Creek Road, then eventually goes to Moore Lake. Moore Lake drains to the north, back to Rice Creek, along Highway 65. The engineers for this development have designed a system to retain the surface water on site; the ponds are as much infiltration ponds as they are sedimentation ponds. The intent is to put the run-off back into the ground on site rather than allow it to run off to Moore Lake or Rice Creek. The outlet to that pond is 6 to 8 feet higher than the bottom of the pond so there would have to be about 8 feet of standing water in the pond before it would even go into the outlet and leave the site. They have shown that it would be at a lesser degree than prior to this development, so under most conditions there should be less water going into the pipe on 64t" Avenue than in a pre-developed state. Mayor Lund questioned what provisions have been made for guest parking for the condominium units. Mr. DeMello responded they would hope some of the retail spaces would be available, particularly on the weekends. In similar facilities, there is typically not a parking problem. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that what she has seen of senior housing units is that parking is not usually a problem. Mayor Lund stated in the original presentation snow storage was a concern and he asked if that has now been addressed. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 23 of 38 Mr. DeMello responded that they have specifically set aside large portions of the area to address the snow storage. Mayor Lund stated that since the Planning Commission meeting, it appears the developer has made an effort to comply with the landscape requirement of 160 trees. He stated he thinks the rain gardens will work well for absorption of surface water. Had it not been for the County requesting the right-of-way dedication, there would be no setback concerns for the parking. He commented that he has some concerns regarding the sensitivity to redevelopment in residential areas. He believes this proposal fits in this residential area and he liked the idea of combining the different zonings. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there appears to be a fair amount of difference between this proposal and the previous one. The snow storage concerns have been addressed; the setback issues are not nearly as significant; the lot coverage is about the same; and the landscaping is better in this proposal. Mr. DeMello stated he reduced the size of the building from four to three stories. There had been two lots with separate retail and residential areas with more of a setback encroachment. Councilmember Bolkcom stated another issue raised last year was the traffic on 64tn Avenue. This proposal has addressed those concerns by eliminating the access to 64tn Avenue. Councilmember Wolfe referred to the section of the Comprehensive Plan regarding drastic changes in the character of a neighborhood. He stated he has a problem when he hears from so many of his constituents who do not support such a project. He was also concerned with the removal of the existing mature trees to be replaced by new landscaping. He understood that the size of the building being proposed is a problem for surrounding neighbors. Councilmember Barnette stated he voted for this project originally and with all due respect to the surround neighbors, he believes the developer has made some significant changes since the original proposal, particularly how it affects those along 64t" Avenue. He believes more traffic will be generated by this development but other than peak hours, the surrounding roads are not that busy. Some of the neighbors would prefer that nothing be allowed on this site. Still others would prefer nothing but single family homes. This property could be developed commercially and he would prefer housing to commercial. All of the neighborhoods have gone through changes over the years. Council has a legal obligation to consider this petitioner's proposal and a moral obligation to consider the constituents concerns. Will Fridley continue to redevelop? He stated he hopes it does. Fridley has gotten older and needs redevelopment areas. Councilmember Billings pointed out that what is on the agenda tonight is the plat approval only. The rezoning will be voted on at the June 27 Council meeting. He FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 24 of 38 commented that it would be foolish to vote for the plat if they did not intend to vote for the rezoning. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to approve Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-02, for the properties located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461 Central Avenue NE with twenty-three stipulations. Councilmember Billings questioned Stipulation #21. He stated the surrounding roads are designed to carry far more traffic than this development will generate and he questioned how the City can require this developer to pay for signals at the intersection of Mississippi and Old Central at some point in the future. He did not believe that is a fair stipulation. The development across the street will generate even more traffic. Ms. Jones stated Town Center has the same stipulation in their approval, but if the signals do go in at some point in the future, the costs will be shared. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to amend Stipulation #21 to read "The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing in the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development, including signalization or other improvements if determined necessary by Anoka County." UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO AMEND STIPULATION #21 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT, PS #05-02, WITH THE FOLLOWING 23 STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED CARRIED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY. 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan-Landscape and Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan-Utility and Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 8, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building perm it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 25 of 38 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet). 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with the final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing in the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically 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. 23. The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. 16. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03, by Timothy Van Auken to Subdivide Two Multi-Family Lots, Generally Located at 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue NE (Ward 2). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner is requesting to subdivide his property at 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue to create a total of 6 lots to allow for the construction of two new twin homes. The properties are zoned R-3, multiple unit residential. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet and the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for two unit buildings. The new twin homes FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 26 of 38 will meet all the necessary setback requirements. The lot coverage is shown at 25% which is below the minimum of 30%. All necessary utility/drainage easements are provided on the plat. The proposed lots would be too small for R-3 uses or construction of single family detached housing units in the future. The continued R-3 zoning is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, so a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment continuing the R-3 zoning should be completed if this plat is approved. Ms. Jones further explained the proposed plat includes extending access from the 73'/ Avenue cul-de-sac to 10 feet within the back of the 1475 - 73rd Avenue lot. The ideal access design option would include moving the cul-de-sac west. Staff is analyzing the possible design and costs for this proposal. Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03, as it provides additional home ownership opportunities. If approved, staff recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Any remaining debris from demolition of existing home and any brush piles on site shall be removed prior to granting of final plat. 3. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 4. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6. Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $3,000 prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. 8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Twin homes shall meet all parking requirements. 10. Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. 11. The petitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. Councilmember Barnette asked Ms. Jones to review the site plan. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained the two properties are on 73rd Avenue with the back of the properties extending almost to 73'/. There is a cul-de-sac at the west end of 73'/ with a half street currently constructed that extends farther to the west. Mr. Van Auken is proposing to split the north half of his two lots and create 4 lots with 2 twin homes. Staff would prefer to see the cul-de-sac at the west end of the petitioner's lots, but they have never forced a petitioner to purchase additional property from their FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 27 of 38 neighbors. Mr. Van Auken is proposing to make the half street a whole street and he did reach an agreement with the property owner to the northwest who is willing to provide an easement to extend the half street all the way to the western edge of Mr. Auken's properties. This would allow a full width street past the new twin homes and allow driveways to come out onto that street and would provide snow storage area and turn-around area. In this case, there is a clear definition between the street and the driveways and the City already plows the existing half street. This proposal would create another dead-end street and the staff would prefer to have the cul-de-sac. Staff has looked at other options and has had discussions with the neighbors but some of them are not interested in a full size cul-de-sac. He recommends against putting in less than a full size cul-de-sac. Staff also looked at offsetting the cul-de-sac on Mr. Van Auken's property but that creates setback problems. Because there is already a half street there, there must have been some plan to develop it into a full street at some point in the future, so it would not be reasonable to deny this request just on that basis. He added that without full buy-in from the properties to the north, this seems to be the best plan and staff can support it. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned staff's objections to installing a smaller radius cul- de-sac. Mr. Haukaas stated the smaller radius is a concern for snow removal and emergency vehicles. Also the old cul-de-sac would have to be removed and a new one installed. The fire vehicles need a certain size to turn around. Staff can live with extending the dead-end street because it is already there and it would be a short extension. The Fire Department has a minimum distance they will go into a dead-end street and this would still fall within their minimum. Eliminating the existing cul-de-sac and putting in a smaller radius cul-de-sac at the west end would result in too great a length for the fire trucks. Also, Council has always been concerned about setting a precedent, so if we go to a smaller cul-de-sac for this petitioner they would have to do the same for the next. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the City should not set a precedent for dead-end streets either. Councilmember Billings stated his understanding is that if a reduced radius cul-de-sac were installed, staff would recommend removal of the existing full size cul-de-sac which means emergency vehicles would have to back all the way out to Pinetree Lane. He then questioned why the full size cul-de-sac would have to be removed. Mr. Haukaas responded if the full-size cul-de-sac remains, there is no need to install the smaller cul-de-sac. Councilmember Billings questioned if there is an easement for the road on the property to the east. Mr. Haukaas responded that easement exists. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 28 of 38 Councilmember Bolkcom commented that single-family homes could be placed on this site. Ms. Jones responded that is correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there does not seem to be a very good solution for handling the traffic out of these properties. Mayor Lund questioned how much more of this area is zoned R-3. Ms. Jones stated there is still large area with R-3 zoning, which would allow for the construction of an apartment building. Councilmember Billings questioned what is currently on the property immediately to the west and what is on the northern edge of that lot. Mr. Haukaas explained that apartment building was built about 6 or 7 years ago and their storm pond is along the northerly edge. Councilmember Billings stated he is concerned that the owners of that property, once the street goes in, will want to have access across that so they come in from 73'/. Mr. Haukaas responded that would take a significant amount of redevelopment of their lot to be able to restore the ponding someplace else and make that connection. He also explained that the road as proposed would stop short of that property for storage purposes. Councilmember Billings suggested we stop the dedicated plat and get an easement for the last ten feet so someone else can not connect to the roadway. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this property is zoned R-3 how did it appear as a different zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. She also questioned the difference between a twin home and a double bungalow. Ms. Jones explained she assumes that this occurred because even though the property is zoned R-3, they contain single family homes, so the Comprehensive Plan reflected the zoning that would be consistent with the existing use. A twin home would be an attached single family home where each owner owns the property around their housing unit and is responsible for caring for that property. She added that the petitioner plans to live in one of the units. Councilmember Billings commented that a double bungalow is typically owned by one person. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 29 of 38 Mr. Haukaas stated staff did require the petitioner to extend the proposed roadway 20 feet beyond the last driveway so they could back up onto the street and drive straight out. Petitioner Timothy Van Auken, 1475 - 73rd Avenue, stated he respects Council's concerns. He initially planned to proceed with this project and finish the existing dead- end street. He has owned the properties over ten years and knew when he purchased the property there was a risk associated with the R-3 zoning. Six to seven years ago, a 20-unit apartment building was constructed right next to his home. At that time, he had an opportunity to buy his neighbor's property. A lot of developers have been interested in purchasing his property for the construction of an apartment complex. He has also looked into building single-family homes but the cost of extending the sewer and water and finishing the roadway made that prohibitive. There is water and sewer available at the back of 1485 with the intent of having that area developed. Also 1-'/ feet of the roadway easement is on his property. He initially proposed extending the half street but staff wanted him to share a driveway for the two proposed units, which he did not feel was feasible as far as curb appeal. He contacted his neighbor and obtained a roadway easement across her property to finish the half street. He is not closed to the cul-de-sac option but knows there is some concern about the size of the cul-de-sac. He stated he believes a precedent has been set with an unfinished dead-end street and he is just asking to be allowed to finish that dead-end street. He plans to be an owner-occupier with the intention of leasing out the one side--hopefully executive leasing to Medtronic employees. He is educated in residential property management. He would appreciate the opportunity to exercise his legal rights to develop his property in accordance with the City ordinances. He cares what his neighbors think and he does not want to create bad feelings. Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, stated there is R-1 zoning around the R-3 and if allowed to develop as R-3, it would bring R-3 uses into a single family neighborhood. The decisions the Council makes today could affect what happens to this single-family neighborhood in the years to come. Ms. Sue Sherek, 1530 73 '/ Avenue, stated the present zoning is R-3; however single- family homes have been on this property since 1951. The R-3 zoning is not consistent with the current or previous Comprehensive Plan. The future land use for the parcel in 2020 also shows single family. The west cul-de-sac on 73'/ is all R-1. The first R-3 property to the east is another single-family residence. At the Planning Commission, meeting the members suggested that Council address the issue of whether this property should be rezoned to R-1 to match the existing uses. The multi-unit apartment building to the west of the petitioner is completely fenced off with a 6 to 7 foot high fence. She asked Council to take action necessary to bring the zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and with the uses in the neighborhood. This also meets the second goal of the plan to provide single-family lots for residential construction. Mr. John Jackels, 1479 - 73'/ Avenue, presented a petition requesting that Council make the zoning on this property in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 30 of 38 neighbors feel strongly about the single-family characteristic of the neighborhood. The other R-3 zoned properties do not have access onto 73'/ Avenue. Mayor Lund commented that the petitioner could sell the properties and a large apartment building could be constructed on the site because it is already zoned R-3. Mr. Jackels stated this proposal is the least attractive alternative for this property. The apartment building has been a good neighbor. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if Council can legally change the zoning on this property when what is before the Council is a plat approval. Mr. Knack, City Attorney, stated what the Council is considering is a replatting and the question is whether or not this is appropriate in this zoning district. If the replatting is appropriate for the existing zoning and Council denies this, Council could face some difficulties if they do not have a concrete, factual basis for doing so. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if the neighbors' opposition could be considered a factual basis for denial. Dr. Burns, City Manager, commented that the petitioner has applied for a replat and that is the question Council has to answer at this point. Ms. Sherek stated the second matter is the extension of the cul-de-sac which staff has stated cannot be constructed and still have buildable lots. With the entire square footage of the two properties, the lines to replat can be moved in such a way to have buildable lots. Mr. Van Auken's plan does not create an equal split between the north and south lots. If he moved those lines to the south he would create enough area to put the cul-de-sac on his own property. The City Code, Section 211.07.12 provides for dead-end or cul-de-sac streets and it does not say that a dead end street does not need to have this. Staff stated at the Planning Commission meeting that a precedent was set when the half street was done in 1986. No one determined the reason behind that action. That unusual extension occurred in anticipation of further subdivision of the remaining property to the west. It was assumed that a cul-de-sac would be placed at the end or the street would go all the way through to Hayes. Subsequent development to the west of the petitioner means it cannot be extended to Hayes but it does not mean the cul-de-sac can not be moved there. In fact, the existing cul-de-sac was done in bituminous in anticipation that eventually the whole thing would move. Also, members of the Planning Commission stated they could not vote for this proposal with the dead end option and they asked staff for the cul-de-sac options. If the development proposal goes forward, they would request that Council direct staff to work with the petitioner on the cul-de-sac proposal. Mr. Jackels stated he prepared a drawing showing the cul-de-sac at the west end with the standard 40-foot radius centered on the property line. His calculations show that in order to complete the cul-de-sac approximately, 500 square feet of his property would FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 31 of 38 be lost including a large tree. He is not in favor of losing the tree. He met with staff members to discuss the reduced radius cul-de-sac option. With the reduced radius cul- de-sac, Mr. Van Auken would still be able to make two 10,000 square foot lots. He also worked on drawing an offset cul-de-sac option in which he would not have to lose his tree but a fire hydrant would have to be relocated. His main point is that two buildable lots are possible on the petitioner's property with the cul-de-sac installed. As a traffic engineer, he believed that backing in and out of a dead end street would be very problematic at best, which is why he would like to see the reduced radius cul-de-sac. He further stated he would rather see a 34-foot dead end street width rather than the 30-foot width being proposed by staff. He also suggested the existing curb be relocated to center that street on the property line. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to accept the petition and the letter from Sue Sherek into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALLVOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Lund stated he is inclined to agree with Mr. Jackels that a cul-de-sac would be best. He did not see that the Council can now rezone the property to R-1. Mr. Van Auken agreed about the cul-de-sac, but the issue is the affected property owners being willing to dedicate the right of way from their property. He also stated he cannot move the property line to the south as suggested by the neighbors. He is willing to work with the neighbors but if Mr. Jackels does not take some of the setback on his property to allow the cul-de-sac, the petitioner will have problems. Mayor Lund suggested the petitioner try and work out some of these issues prior to the next meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she cannot support the dead end street and asked if staff can reach some resolution regarding the cul-de-sac prior to the next meeting. Mr. Haukaas agreed that the cul-de-sac is the best option. If Council is not in favor of the dead end street, he agreed that the matter should be tabled until the next meeting. Ms. Debra Jackels, 147 73'/ Avenue. stated if this is approved, the petitioner will be putting up four homes the size of their home in less property which will change the neighborhood. Mr. Michael Tippler, 1667 73rd Avenue, stated this is an R-1 neighborhood. His back yard looks onto the east end of 73'/. He has lived there since 1992 and he agreed that this proposal is too much development in too small an area. Earlier this year he wanted to improve his home by creating an enclosed garage where a dilapidated carport existed. City staff indicated he could not do this because the lot he purchased has FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 32 of 38 1,470 square feet of accessory structure. He asked for an explanation why he was not allowed to proceed with his plans. Councilmember Billings asked what accessory structures are currently on Mr. Tippler's property. Mr. Tippler responded there is a four-car detached garage and a 12' x 16' shed. All he was trying to do was get rid of the flat-roofed carport and build a garage in the same amount of square footage. Mayor Lund asked that Mr. Tippler work with City staff to resolve his concerns regarding the garage. Mr. Tippler stated he thinks it would be a mistake to add more rental property when the current rental areas are already creating problems. Mr. Jackels stated he could not find a definition for "twin home" in the code and he questioned whether they will be owner occupied or rental. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to table this matter to the June 27 Council meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Fridley City Charter, Chapter 7, Taxes, Section 7.03.A, Pertaining to Utility Fees. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated earlier this evening, he handed out a corrected ordinance to Council members. As a result of the 2005 City Council and Commission Survey, it was determined that the City should limit its losses in the water and sanitary sewer utility funds due to increasing costs and the limitation of the City Charter, by holding a special election to amend this section of the Charter. Minnesota statutes allow an amendment by ordinance subject to the Charter Commission review. The ordinance before the Council is proposing a charter amendment that would begin the public discussion on this issue. If Council wishes to proceed, this would be the first reading and then it would be forwarded to the Charter Commission for review. The Charter Commission has a 60-day review period for approval or denial of the proposed amendment and that date would be August 12, 2005. If more time is needed for the review, the Charter Commission may adopt a resolution requesting a 90-day review period which would actually take the matter to November 10, 2005. The ordinance would need to be forwarded to the Charter Commission on June 14 for their review. State law requires that charter amendments that are to be placed on the ballot for a general election be forwarded to the county 12 weeks before the general election, which would require the City to notify the Anoka County by August 16, 2005. When forwarding the ordinance, the City Council may wish to express an urgency and request the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 33 of 38 Charter Commission try to make their recommendation to the City Council by August 8 to allow enough time for the City Clerk to notify Anoka County of the special election. Mr. Pribyl said in 2000, there was a successful initiative petition which amended the City Charter. In 2000-2001 an Ad Hoc work group met to remedy confusing language and recommended an amendment to the Charter Commission to review. In 2001, the charter was amended by Ordinance 1152. In 2004, the Charter was amended by ordinance and a successful referendum petition was circulated resulting in a defeat of the amendment at the general election. During the 2006 budget preparation and planning, it was discovered that we were unable to recover the costs for providing water and sanitary sewer services to customers due to the language in the charter. Some of the costs incurred were due to Federal mandates regulating higher water standards, higher sewage disposal rates imposed by MCES and ongoing repairs and maintenance of infrastructure. This proposed charter amendment would help eliminate the potential for long-term subsidy from the general fund. The Charter review and recommendation should be returned to Council by August 3 so the second reading can be held at the Council meeting on Monday, August 8. If the second reading is held, the proposed special election would be held Tuesday, November 8, 2005, in conjunction with School Districts 13, 14 and 16. Staff's recommendation would be to discuss this item and pass the first reading of this ordinance and forward it to the Charter Commission. Councilmember Barnette commented the biggest reason for the failure of this issue during the last election was that the ballot question was very difficult to understand. Mr. Knaak explained that the ballot question has to be laid out by Council and must be "sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot." The closer you get to the actual language the less likely there would be a challenge to the ballot. Councilmember Barnette commented that the summary is fairly clear and the more words that are added, the more confusing it becomes. Mayor Lund commented that the Council could pass this on the first reading since it would then go to the Charter Commission who could further clarify the language. Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street N.E., Charter Commission member, stated the Charter Commission does not meet again until September 26. However, they are going to attempt to meet in July to review this recommendation. They have discussed this matter several times. At its last meeting, the Charter Commission decided that the ballot question needed to be simplified and time was needed to educate residents on the issue. The Charter Commission, therefore, recommends that there not be a special election this year and that they work with the City Council to amend Chapters 7 and 11 at the same time. There are a number of reasons for this recommendation. There will be levy referendum issues for School Districts 13 and 14 on the ballot this year. It is very difficult when the City comes up against a School referendum, as most voters will support the increase for the children but not for the City's ballot question. She stated FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 34 of 38 she will call a special meeting of the Charter Commission in July and pass their recommendation on to Council. Mayor Lund stated Council could proceed with passing this on the first reading because in 2005 alone the City is looking at about half a million in losses that have to be pulled out of the storm water/sewer fund reserves. Ms. Jorgenson stated the Charter Commission believes the City should operate as a business. Also, they are aware that the City cannot charge more for water and sewer than the actual cost to maintain those services. They do believe the City should be able to make up those losses. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Council did hold a joint meeting with the Charter Commission related to this survey and she thought there was support at that meeting from some of the Charter Commission members. Ms. Jorgenson stated at the last Charter Commission meeting, only three of the members present wanted to go forward with this ballot question this year. The others did not. One of the issues the Charter Commission has discussed was not only looking at the fees for the cost of services but also having charges for the product consumed or post consumed wastes. She will inform Council members of the July meeting date. Mr. Bill Holm, 7424 Melody Drive N.E., Charter Commission member, stated he would like to applaud Council for bringing this item back for consideration. There may be some advantages to bringing this ballot question to the voters this year because there are fewer issues on the ballot which may result in more focus by the voters. However, there may be less turn-out than there would be in 2006. The key point is this needs to be on the ballot and the public needs to be informed as to how critical this issue is. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the reading of the corrected copy of the ordinance and approve the ordinance on first reading. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18. Resolution Supporting the Improvements to Springbrook Nature Center Associated with the SPRING (Sanctuary Protection & Renewal into the Next Generation) Project and Supporting the Request to the State of Minnesota for Financial Assistance. Mr. Jack Kirk, Recreation and Natural Resources Director, explained that Council has before it a preliminary grant application to the State of Minnesota and a resolution supporting improvements to the Springbrook Nature Center. A joint committee with representatives from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Springbrook Foundation has worked on this application and continue to refine the overall plan for this FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 35 of 38 project. The estimated overall cost for this improvement project is $5,000,000 and the grant application seeks half of that from the State of Minnesota. The remaining half will come from private sources. The preliminary application deadline with the State is June 15. A more detailed application is due the end of September. The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the application and the resolution and passed a motion in support of the application and the resolution. The application would be from the City of Fridley for a City of Fridley park. The application requires an accompanying resolution of support from the governing body. Staff recommends Council's approval. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if passing this resolution obligates the City in any way to extend funds to this project. It is her understanding that there would also be funds set aside for ongoing maintenance of improvements made as a result of this project. Mr. Kirk responded as stated in the application, the funds will come only from the State grant and private sources and will not involve City tax dollars. As part of the detailed plans, there will be a business plan that sets forth the maintenance dollars required which will be generated by fundraising dollars and increased revenues. Councilmember Wolfe stated grant money is taxpayer's money. It needs to be stressed that if by some miracle the foundation raises $2.5 million, they have to have enough money in escrow to run the Nature Center at no more cost to the City of Fridley. The Springbrook Nature Center is a beautiful place, but he has a problem with spending more tax dollars and he cannot support this. He would like to see the Foundation raise the $2.5 million first and then request grant dollars. He asked if by supporting this, the City is making a guarantee that they will come up with the $2.5 million. Mr. Kirk said no. It is in the application that the matching funds will be raised from private sources. The City is not committed at all. They also state in the application that the additional operating dollars will come from a combination of increased revenues and fundraising by the Foundation. All these issues will be addressed in detail in the business plan that will be submitted as a part of the final application. Mayor Lund reviewed the wording in the application and stated he believes it is very clear that the City is not committing dollars to this project or future maintenance. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to adopt Resolution No. 2005-31. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY. 19. Receive Proposal and Award Contract for the Installation of RediNolt Surge Protection Devices to Wells 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated they worked with a company called enterTECH to provide a performance contract that installs energy saving devices that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 36 of 38 and surge protection systems on major electrical sources. They are guaranteeing a 20% savings in energy costs by reducing the transient voltage and other stray voltages that go through the meter and are essentially wasted. State Statute 471.345, the Uniform Municipal Contracting Code, allows cities to enter into performance-based contracts for energy efficiency projects such as this one without going through a full competitive bidding, generally because there are not enough companies for competitive bids. This case falls under Subsection 13 which states "A guaranteed energy savings contract that includes written guarantees that savings will meet or exceed the cost of energy conservation measures is not subject to competitive bidding requirements of this section or other law or City charter." They have been given such a guarantee. They have also spoken with the City of Coon Rapids and the City of New Brighton who have had these devices installed. This contract totals $58,000, and includes installing these devices on six sites covering about eight wells with a rate of return of about 35 months. Staff recommends Council's approval. Mayor Lund questioned what the guarantee is if the City does not realize the minimum 20% return. Mr. Haukaas responded that the company would cut a check to the City. They are guaranteeing 20%, but they expect the City to see a greater savings than that. The City of Coon Rapids exceeded the 20% mark, Crooked Lake Lodge saw a 22% savings, and Hampton Inn realized a 23% savings. These devices have consistently hit at or above the 20% range. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to award a contract in the amount of $58,000 to enterTECH of Minneapolis for the installation of Redi/Volt surge protectors to wells 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Approve Metropolitan Council Section 8 Housing Assistance Program Contract for Administrative Services between the City of Fridley and the Metropolitan Council. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to enter into the record an item received from Dr. Burns during the Council's pre-meeting related to this item. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom explained the main reason she removed this from the consent agenda is she would like to know if this will negatively impact the Section 8 recipients and how much funding the City will lose. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 37 of 38 Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated he discussed this with the City's Section 8 Administrator, Pat Wolfe, and her main concern is the loss of the incentive program. She was responsible for investigating the properties and making sure the rates were fair and that will now be turned over to the Metropolitan HRA. Her experience has been that she is much more familiar with the conditions of rental property in our city and with the appropriate rates. However, the City has no choice but to hand that program over to the Metropolitan HRA. The City's role with the HRA has been to administer what essentially is a Federal program that passes through the Metro HRA. We have contracted with the HRA to provide certain administrative services. The Metro HRA has faced cutbacks in Federal funding housing assistance program and as a result, some of the added services the City has voluntarily taken on for Section 8 housing clients are now being recaptured by Metro HRA so they are not paying us for administering that part of the contract. We are losing some services, but on the positive side, they are eliminating the $10,000 cap on the City's ability to keep revenues that exceed the amount of costs that we have for providing the service. This should help the City to lay claim to some balances the City has, which is approximately $98,000. Anything the City is able to save on will be the City's to use for housing programs. The housing forums the City held last year were funded in part by the Section 8 surplus money. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve the contract for administrative services with the Metropolitan Council for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. Extension of Preliminary Plat Request, PS #03-18, by Town Center Development, Generally Located at 1282 Mississippi Street and 6490 Central Avenue NE. (Ward 2). Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, explained that she requested this item be removed from the consent agenda because she believes a year and seven months should have been long enough for the developers to get their business straightened out. She originally questioned how the zoning could be changed on this site when the petitioner did not own the property. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the petitioner is expecting a decision from Anoka County courts soon. The intent is to bring back the final plat once the legal issues have been resolved in the petitioner's favor. This request is for a six-month extension and if it is not resolved during that time, it will have to be considered again. Councilmember Bolkcom commented the judge just received the Court record last week and has 90 days to respond, so the Council has to give the petitioner 90 days. Councilmember Billings stated another thing to keep in mind is it is not the developer who has created this problem but the current owner of the property who entered into the CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION J U N E 15, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Savage called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present Others present: Barbara Johns Leroy Oquist David Kondrick Diane Savage Dean Saba Brad Dunham Larry Kuechle Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — June 1, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes of the June 1St meeting as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of a preliminary plat PS #05-04 by Target Corporation to subdivide a commercial lot into two commercial lots, the legal description is on file and available at Fridley Municipal Center, generally located at 755 53rd Avenue NE. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Harris explained that this request is for the replat of one general shopping lot to accommodate the redevelopment of the existing Target and Petco stores. The property as it exists contains a general shopping district with a C3 zoning. The petitioner proposes no changes to the current zoning. The existing structure is a shared CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 15, 2005 Page 2 of 7 commercial retail building for Target / Petco with the southern and eastern side of the lot for parking. Target plans to replat the property and construct two separate stores, each with its own site. Fridley code requires that lots in the C3 district be a minimum of 35,000 square feet total lot area under one owner. The proposed lot #1 will be 753,566 square feet or 17.3 acres in size after the replat. The proposed lot #2 will be 85,955 square feet or 1.97 acres in size after the replat. The minimum lot area requirement has been met. The newly created commercial sites would obtain access off of 53rd Avenue. Code allows up to 35% lot coverage for a two story building and the building footprint shown for this site is 25%. All necessary utility and drainage easements have been provided on the plat. The proposed new commercial buildings will meet all of the necessary setback requirements except for the Petco front yard setback for which a variance has been requested. Ms. Harris stated staff recommends approval of this plat as it does provide redevelopment opportunities for Fridley consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. If approved, staff recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1) Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Any remaining debris from demolition of existing buildings on site shall be removed prior to granting of final plat. 3) Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 4) The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 5) During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6) Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $.023 per square foot for a total of $19,308.98 for both plats prior to issuance of building permits. 7) Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. 8) Petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new construction shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 9) Commercial building shall meet all parking and setback requirements, unless abated by a variance as approved by City Council. 10) Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. 11) Petitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. Ms. Harris presented a letter from Wesley Grandstrand, 5431 Madison St. NE, expressing his concerns about this proposed redevelopment. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to enter this letter into the record. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 15, 2005 Page 3 of 7 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Kondrick asked if there will be an increase or decrease in the number of parking spaces with this redevelopment. Ms. Harris replied that there will be a decrease in parking spaces and a variance has been approved for this change. There will be 700 hundred total spaces which is more than the traffic study Target conducted determined would be needed for a Super Target. Commissioner Johns asked if the pylon signs meet code as far as height and size. Ms. Harris stated both the pylon signs received a favorable recommendation for a variance from the Appeals Commission. Ms. Jones explained that Target has done an extensive study of their sales on their busiest day and found that they need only 600 parking spaces for a Super Target. They are proposing 700 spaces. The variance they requested was from the required 1100 to 700 parking spaces. They are also providing proof of parking for an additional 160 parking spaces. Staff is comfortable with Target's determination of their parking needs. Commissioner Johns questioned if the existing trees along the west side will remain. Ms. Jones explained the trees along the west side are not on the Target site and will not be affected by this project. Target also plans to add trees and they do meet the requirements for their landscaping proposal. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Kondrick, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Richard Wiebe, Westwood Professional Services, stated they listened intently at the public hearing and have taken those concerns into consideration in further refining their plans. Reviewed the site plan for this project and explained that the new Target store will be shifted to the south by 30 feet and to the east approximately 20 feet. The loading dock for the Super Target will be recessed which moves it further to the west than the current dock. The site is being proposed to be split into two lots with Super Target occupying the 17 acres in the north portion and the smaller 2 acre portion being split off for the Petco building as a stand alone facility. As to the pylon signs, he explained the new sign to the north is ten feet taller than code allows but is within 6 inches of the current sign height. Also, scale-wise, the sign is relatively small with relation to the entire property. The sign on the north is quite some distance away from the existing, tall trees. As to the light from the sign, he explained it is tied into the parking lot lighting which is cut off one-half hour after the store closing. The north side of the building will CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 15, 2005 Page 4 of 7 have the Target logo and there will be no signage or graphics on the 53rd Avenue side of the Target building. Commissioner Kondrick asked how tall the pylon sign on 53rd Avenue will be and if it will be lighted. Mr. Wiebe responded that the sign will be 20 feet high and will be tied in with the parking lot lighting. He stated the entrance from 53rd will be redesigned for a greater radius. In addition they are proposing additional planting to provide screening of the dock area from Cherry Lane. The proof of parking area will be used for green space at this time. They feel it would be "improper stewardship" to build more parking spaces than needed as it increases run-off and storm water issues and results in increased maintenance. Target has compiled data on the number of shoppers by hour from which they're able to project sales and parking needs. Based on that data, they have determined they will need 600 parking spaces at a Super Target during peak hours. The balance of the time the parking need is substantially less. So Target is proposing 700 parking spaces for this location as well as proof of parking for 160 spaces. He further explained that by combining the three uses (groceries, pharmacy and department store) into the Super Target, there will be fewer trips to the site than if the three uses were individual. A photometric plan was submitted to staff with their presentation package and shows a proposed lighting level of three to five foot candles across the parking areas. With the new plan, the nearest light pole to the residents will be in the island in the parking lot on the north which is quite a distance further away from the existing light pole along the western side of the property. There will be lighting on the building that will be downward directed. All the photometric lighting levels along the western side are at zero. The dock area will be further away from the residents than it is currently. The hours of operation for truck traffic will remain the same as they are today. There will be 8 to 10 additional delivery vans and an increase of 1 to 2 tractor trailer deliveries. The small delivery truck hours are from 8:00 a.m. to noon and tractor trailer delivery hours are from 4:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Chairperson Savage asked how the northern pylon sign compares in height with other Target signs. Mr. Wiebe responded each site is considered independently. Target sign specialists visit each site and come up with a recommendation for the appropriate height and size for visibility. The current sign on the north is 34'/ feet in height and the proposed sign will be 35 feet. Ms. Jones stated the height restriction per City Code for a pylon sign is 25 feet and Target is requesting 35 feet. Jim Miller, design project architect for Target, provided a brief overview of the architecture for this newly designed Super Target store. This Super Target will be one of two of its kind to be opened in the Twin Cities. They've attempted to break down the apparent mass of these stores by doing a series of ins and outs and changes in colors CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 15, 2005 Page 5 of 7 and planes. Two significant changes for this store is the raising of the canopy at the entrances and brought in more glass to give a larger field of view for the guests and increasing the sense of security. The difference with this Super Target is the two, one thousand square foot district offices proposed for the northern portion of the building. Commissioner Kondrick questioned the number of employees in the district offices. Mr. Miller responded there will be 12 to 15 employees per office with many of those employees doing a significant amount of traveling. Commissioner Kondrick questioned the height of the building in the front and on the south. Mr. Miller stated the tallest mass is 34 feet high and on the south it's 26 feet. Chairperson Savage questioned if the petitioners have any problem with the staff's stipulations. Mr. Wiebe responded they are concerned about #6 regarding the park dedication fee. This fee is typically levied for a new use, but these are both existing businesses simply being redesigned. They're not creating a major subdivision with multiple tenants, but are simply splitting the lot and separating the existing uses. Stipulation #11 regarding the development agreement is a concern because they have not seen the agreement. They're willing to work together and negotiate the terms of that agreement but are hesitant to accept a"blank check." Stipulation #9 on the parking, they concur with the parking based on the variance they proposed. Ms. Jones stated she was not aware of Target's concern until just now. She did not believe this is something the Planning Commission needs to act on as any waiving of park dedication fees can only be done by the City Council. Commissioner Kondrick commented that the past practice has been that every time a lot split or replatting occurs there is a park dedication fee. Mr. Wiebe stated this is the first time they were aware of this particular stipulation and they're immediate reaction is that these are existing uses and not adding to the need for parks. He then asked if it has been the practice that the park fee is paid on the new lot only. Commissioner Kondrick responded that the fee is paid on the entire replat. Mr. Wiebe referred to Stipulation #9 explaining that Target has requested a setback variance on the Petco building. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 15, 2005 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Jones explained that Mr. Wiebe is correct and that stipulation was a mistake in their staff report that they forgot to change. The Appeals Commission recommended approval on that setback variance. Commissioner Oquist suggested Stipulation #9 be changed to refer to the approved variances. Mr. Wiebe reviewed the site plan for the Petco building to further explain the setback variance. He also presented photos of the tree line along the west of their property and explained that Target plans to preserve those trees. Commissioner Johns referred to Stipulation #11 and asked if it is staff's intent to provide the petitioner a copy of the development agreement prior to the Council meeting. Ms. Jones explained the development agreement will be worked out and reviewed by the developer prior to final plat approval. Michael Lefande, architect for Petco, stated Petco and his architecture firm are very supportive of this project. An independent building is a good thing for Petco as it provides a separate identity. Westwood and Target have done an excellent job addressing all the Petco design and operational concerns. As far as truck deliveries, Petco gets only one or two trucks a week. He also explained that the Petco facility would only require 75 parking spaces and 95 have been provided. They also support the site lighting plan presented. Petco is promoting more of destination-type retail and he stressed that this is a pet supply store, but Petco does work with the local humane society and animal shelters to bring cats and dogs into their stores on the weekend to promote adoption. There will continue to be a grooming shop at this site. Commissioner Kondrick asked if Mr. Lefande believes the amount of parking provided for Petco is sufficient to meet their high-point needs. Mr. Lefande responded the parking is above and beyond what they need. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 PM. Commissioner Kuechle suggested Stipulation #9 be changed to read: "Commercial building shall meet all parking and setback requirements unless abated by a variance." Commissioner Oquist commented that Stipulation #6 regarding the park dedication fees should remain and any concerns can be addressed by the Council. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 15, 2005 Page 7 of 7 MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to recommend approval of PS #05-04 with the stipulations as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: MOTION by Commissioner Oquist, seconded by Commissioner Kondrick, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary � � CffY OF FRIDLEY T�: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 William W. Burns, City Manager Jon Fi. Fiaukaas, Public Works Director June 24, 2005 Change Order to SEI1 Design Contract for ST 2005 - 1 PW05-039 The City"s contract with SEFi for design of the 2005 I`ieighborhood Street Improvement project was completed early this spring prior to bidding out the construction contract. During the design process, we needed SEFi to complete several additional services including revision of our electronic right-of-way files to survey quality, assist with additional right-of-way acquisition on Glen Creek Road and the Railroad Service Drive, and assist with the neighborhood questionnaire process. Subsequent to design completion, the City requested some additional assistance and several minor additions and revisions to the plans including our changes to satisfy the Watershed District requirements. The total for this work is �14,938 for a revised contract amount of �140,938. Recommend the City Council approve Change Order I`io. 1 to the design contract with SEFi, Inc., for the 2005 I`leighborhood Street Improvement Project I`lo. ST 2005 - 1. Jtiti:cz CITY OF FRIDLEY EI`IGII`IEERII`IG DEPARTMEI`IT 611-31 UI`INERSITY AVEI`IUE I`I.E. FRIDLEY, MI`I 5511-32 Short Elliott 1lendrickson, Inc. 10901 Red Cirde Drive, Ste 200 Minnetonka MI`I 55343-9301 SUBJECT: Change Order I`lo. 1. 2005 I`leighborhood Street Improvement Project I`lo. ST 2005-1 Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the 2005 I`leighborhood Street Improvement Project I`lo. ST 2005 - 1 by adding the following work: Addition: Work Item 1`Io. Item Additional Fees 1 Revise electronic right-of way files � 3,150.00 2 Assist Evergreen Land Services with right-of way acquisition � 800.00 documents 3 Compile resident questionnaire � 700.00 4 Revise the total number of storm and sanitary sewer � 1,326.00 structures needing adjustment versus reconstruction 5 Raise the proposed storm sewer profiles along Plaza Curve � 1,460.00 0.5 to 1.0 feet 6 Revise the total number of proposed fire hydrants based on � 610.00 their distances from the back of curb 7 Add PVC Schedule 40 storm sewer pipe into the proposed � 825.00 drainage network 8 Modify the alignments of the existing storm sewer and water � 774.00 main along Main Street per City instructions 9 Prepare for and attend a pre-bid meeting � 1,677.00 10 Prepare for and attend a°pre pre-construction meeting° � 573.00 11 Revise the contract documents to satisfy the requirements � 3,043.00 of the Rice Creek Watershed District in Phase I TOTAL � lll-,938.00 Short Elliott 1lendrickson, Inc. Change Order I`lo. 1 2005 I`leighborhood Street Improvement Project I`lo. ST. 2005 - 1 Page 2 Submitted and approved by Jon 11. 1laukaas, Public Works Director, on the 24th day of June, 2005. Approved and accepted this Approved and accepted this Jon 11. 1laukaas, P.E. Director of Public Works day of , 2005 by Short Elliott 1lendrickson, Inc. day of , 2005 by CITY OF FRIDLEY Scott J. Lund, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager � � CffY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 CLAIMS 122041 - 122233 � � C,fTY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 LICENSES LIGENSE RENEWALS Type of License By FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Godfather's Pizza 7910 University Av NE Fridley, MN 55432 Old Country Buffet 6540 University Av NE Fridley, MN 55432 NEW LiCENSFS �� AUCTION Michael Servetus Unitarian Society 548 Rice Creek Terrace Fridley, MN 55432 Approved By John Todd Public Safety Director Community Development Director Fire Inspector Ronald M. Johnson Public Safety Director Community Development Director Fire Inspector Barbara Hughes Public Safety Director � AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF �TM °F June 27, 2005 FRIDLEY CONTRACTOR TYPE APPLICANT APPROVED BY: Advance Companies, Inc. Residential Contractor Larry J. Trapp State of MN Amtech Lighting Services Sign Erector Duane Downey Ron Julkowski, CBO Beaver Plumbing & Excavating Plumbing' Bob Paulno State of MN J Becher & Assoc., Inc Electrical Bob Welle State of MN Budget Exteriors Residential Contractor Kenneth Thompson State of MN The Carpenters Contracting, Inc Residential Contractor Dean W. Bailey State of MN Dalbec Roofing Roofing Kevin Krolczyk Ron Julkowski, CBO Demars Si n, Inc Si n Erector Dennis Demars Ron Julkowski, CBO Erickson Plumbing Heating & Plumbing Caron Foriuna State of MN Cooling Fore Mechanical Heating Greg Dustin Ron Julkowski, CBO Fore Mechanical Gas Services Kevin Grell Ron Julkowski, CBO G& H Heatin Heatin Michael Gromle Ron Julkowski, CBO H P Pipeworks Plumbing Kris Olen State of MN Halliburton Handyman Services Residential Contractor Rich Halliburton State of MN Krantz, D.J. Co., Inc Commercial or Lawrence Elsen Ron Julkowski, CBO S eciali Meadow View Homes Residential Contractor Jeff Cruz State of MN Midland Heating & Air Heating Tom Snuggerud Ron Julkowski, CBO Midland Heating & Air Gas Services Tom Snuggerud Ron Julkowski, CBO Minnesota Exteriors Inc. Residential Contractor Jim Heidemonn State of MN Northrid e Plumbin Co. Plumbin Darwin Boack State of MN Northwest Sheetmetal Co of St Heating Diane Goetz Ron Julkowski, CBO Paul Novak-Fleck Inc. Residential Contractor Dave Bryne State of MN P& H Services Gas Services Jim Steffens Ron Julkowski, CBO Twin Cit Mechanical Heatin Bruce Welkenman Ron Julkowski, CBO Twin City Mechanical Gas Services Bruce Welkenman Ron Julkowski, CBO Window Concepts of MN Residential Contractor Greg Ramel State of MN � � CffY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 ESTI MATES Northwest Asphalt 1451 Stagecoach Road Shakopee, MN 55379 73rd Avenue Improvement Proj ect No. ST. 2005 — 2 FINAL ESTIMATE ............................................................................ $ 9,185.35 BCG Construction, Inc. 3117 Salem Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN 55416 2005 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Proj ect No. 3 59 Estimate No. 2 ....................................................................................... $10,231.51 G. L. Contracting, Inc. 4300 Willow Drive Medina, MN 55304-9701 Springbrook Creek Restoration Proj ect No. 3 5 8 Pay Voucher 3 ........................ ... $27,331.74 � � CffY OF FRIQLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Date: June 23, 2005 To: From: William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Subject: Van Auken Plat PS #OS-03 Background On June 13, the Fridley City Council held a public hearing regarding PS#OS-03, a preliminary plat for Timothy Van Auken at 1475 and1485 — 73rd Avenue NE. The plat involves dividing two lots containing two existing single family homes into six total lots. The petitioner's plan is to keep the existing single family homes on the property and build two new twin homes, creating four new housing units. This property is zoned R-3, multi-family residential. This zoning would allow the petitioner to build a multi-story apartment building on his land similar to the 21-unit apartment building next door at 1461 73rd Avenue. However, the petitioner has indicated that he would like to build a new home for himself and others on the property. Access As the proposed plat meets all of the setback and lot coverage requirements, the key item of concern at the City Council public hearing on June 13, was the cul-de-sac design. The City Council tabled action on the plat request until their next meeting to allow staff and the petitioner time to develop an access design which would satisfy the concerns expressed by Council and the public. The petitioner has met with staff and his surveyor to design a cul-de-sac access to the newly created lots without further impacting the adjoining properiy owners to the north. The revised plat also maintains all of the required setbacks and lot coverage (details in attached staff report) requirements. The petitioner will need to file a perpetual easement, however, on lots 2 and 3 for access to lots 1 and 4. This is because lots 1 and 4 do not have 25' of street frontage on the new cul-de-sac. This has been added as a new stipulation # 12. Comprehensive Plan Amendment It was noted by staff at the June 1 and June 13 public hearings that the City's Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended if this plat request is approved. This is because the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan shows 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue as R-1 single family zoning. This occurred because the current use of the property is single family housing. However, the property has always been zoned as R-3, according to old City zoning maps. It is not uncommon for property to be used for a purpose other than the current zoning. At the time of the Comprehensive Plan update, the City Council decided not to change the land use map to reflect the current zoning, but rather to deal with each conflicting situation on a case-by-case basis. Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this preliminary plat on June 1, 2005. There was much discussion at the June 1, meeting regarding extension of the cul-de-sac west. There was also some discussion regarding the zoning of the property. The Planning Commission did unanimously approve a motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the attached stipulations, urging the City staff to develop a workable cul-de-sac design and have the City Council review the R-3 zoning. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of PS #OS-03 as shown in the revised preliminary plat drawings dated 6-21-OS with the 12 stipulations in the attached report. If approved, staff will plan to bring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment before Council at the next meeting. M-OS-52 City of Fridley Land Use Application PS-05-03 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Timothy Van Auken 1475 73rd Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Replat of two multiple unit residential lots to accommodate two twin homes. Existing Zoning: R-3 Multi-Family Residential Location: 1475 73rd Ave NE and 1485 73rd Ave NE Size: 20,821 square feet .50 acres Existing Land Use: 1475 73rd Ave NE -- Single Family 1485 73rd Ave NE — Single Family Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: R-1 Single Family E: R-1 Single Family S: 73rd Ave NE and Heavy Industrial W: R-3 Multible Unit Residential Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Proposed use is inconsistent with Plan. Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Multiple dwelling complexes, including rental and condominium apartments, are a permitted use in R-3 zonin� districts. Zoning History for 1475 & 1485 - 73rd Ave NE: • 1951 — Both parcels platted. • 1951 — Building permit issued for homes. • 1955 —Building permit issued for garages • 1971 —Building permit for garage at 1475. Legal Description of Property: Lot 27/29, Aud. Sub. #129 Public Utilities: Located near property. Sanitary sewer extension is necessary. Transportation: Twin homes will be accessed by 73 '/2 Ave. Physical Characteristics: Relatively flat, grass covered lot with mature trees and some shrubs. SUMMARY OF REQUEST June 23, 2005 SPECIAL INFORMATION Timothy Van Auken, petitioner, seeks to replat and subdivide the properties located at 1475 73rd Ave NE and 1485 73rd Ave NE for the purpose of building two (2) twin homes. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of this plat request, with stipulations: • Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. • Any remaining debris from demolition of existing str�uctures and any brush piles on site shall be removed prior to granting of final plat. • Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staffprior to the issuance ofany building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. • Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. • During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. • Petitioner to pay required park fees of $3, 000 ($750 x 4) prior to issuance of building permits. • Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. • The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staffprior to issuance of building permi ts. • Twin-homes shall meet all parking requirements. • Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code • The petitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. City Council Action/60 Day Date City Council — June 13, 2005 60 day Date — June 27, 2005 Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones PS #05-03 — Van Auken Plat Proiect Summarv Timothy Van Auken, petitioner, seeks to replat and subdivide the properties located at 1475 73rd Ave NE and 1485 73rd Ave NE. to allow the creation of two new multi-unit lots. Petitioner plans to build two new twin homes on the newly created parcels. The property as existing contains a residential single family home on the southern end of each lot with the northern ends undeveloped. Mr. Van Auken proposes to building the new homes on the northern portion of the lots at 1475 and 1485 73ra Avenue. The current zoning is R-3. The petitioner proposes no changes to the current zoning. �� Zoning map of area surrounding proposed plat Analysis Per zoning code Section 205.09.3 B(3) for R-3: •"Lot requirements of this Section are for three (3) or more dwelling units. Two-family dwellings in this district shall be subject to the R-2 District regulations and one-family dwellings shall be subject to the R-1 District regulations." Fridley requires that lots in the R-2 district be a minimum of 75' in width with a minimum total lot area of 10,000 square feet. • The proposed Lots #1 & 2 will be 82.5' in width and 10,781 square feet in size after the replat. • The proposed Lots #3 & 4 will be 82.5' in width and 10,690 square feet in size after the replat. The minimum lot area requirement of 10,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling unit has been met on the proposed plat. Ariel map of the area surrounding the proposed plat The newly created home sites would obtain access off of 73 '/z Avenue. A minimum of 25' in street frontage is provided for access. The petitioner has obtained written agreement (enclosed) from the property owner at 1476 Onondaga Street to provide an easement to the City for roadway access across her property. This will allow access to both the proposed lots and will allow access to 1476 Onondaga, if the owner chooses to subdivide her property in the future. The proposed new homes meet all of the necessary setback requirements for R-2 zoning, which is the guideline the City uses when two-unit dwellings are being constructed in an R-3 zoning. The front, side, and rear yard setbacks are all being met for each proposed lot on the plat. The amount of lot coverage for the building footprints on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 ranges from 23.8 - 24.1%. Up to 30% would be permitted, so the proposed redesign of the plat still meets the lot coverage and set back requirements. All necessary utility and drainage easements are also provided for on the plat. As subdivided in the proposal only an attached single family home would be permitted on each of the four lots, since the lot is too small to stand independently for other R-3 uses. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The future land use map in the City's Comprehensive Plan lists 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue as zoned R-1, single family housing. This is due to the fact that at the time of creation on the plan, single family housing was the use for the property, and the use was not expected to change. However, the property has always been zoned R-3, multi-family residential and the property owner has the legal right to use it as such unless the zoning is changed. If the plat is approved, the City will need to process a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to maintain the current zoning. Access The plat is designed to provide access for the new homes off of an extension of the dead end cul-del- sac on 73 '/z Avenue. The Petitioner has obtained an easement from the adj oining property owner on 1476 Onondaga Street to allow extension of the dead end access to the new homes. Staff and the property owner at 1479 — 73 '/z Way would prefer, however, to see a cul-de-sac at the end of the new street extension. This would allow for a more safe service access to the new homes. Staff Recommendation City Staff recommends approval of this plat request, with stipulations. • Does provide additional homeownership opportunities for Fridley residents. Stipulations City Staff recommend that the following stipulations be placed upon approval of this request: 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Any remaining debris from demolition of existing structures and any brush piles on site shall be removed prior to gr�anting of final plat. 3. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 4. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. S. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6. Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $3, 000 prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. 8. The petitioner shall agr�ee to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Twin homes shall meet all parking requirements. 10. Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. 11. The petitioner shall agr�ee to the terms of a development agr�eement that shall be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. 12. The petitioner shall file a perpetual easement for access to Lot 1 on the records of Lot 2 and a perpetual easement for Lot 4 on the records of Lot 3. CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 1475 and1485-73�d Avenue NE. CASE NUMBER: Preliminary Plat, PS #05-03 APPL/CANT: Timothy Van Auken Petitioner or re resentative must attend the Plannin Commission meetin . PURPOSE: To subdivide two multi-family lots. LOCATION OF 1475 and 1485-73` Avenue PROPERTY AND LEGAL L.egal description is on file and available at Fridley Municipal DESCRIPTION: Center. DATE AND TIME OF Planning Commission Meeting: HEAR/NG: Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEAR►NG: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTIC/PATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 763-572-3599. Publish: May 19, 2005 21 Hickok, Scott From: Burns, Bill Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 5:19 PM To: 'jon.jackels@dot.state.mn.us' Cc: City Council; Hickok, Scott Subject: FW: Pfat Request PS #05-03 -----Original Messaqe----- From: Hickok, Scott Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:35 PM To: Burns, Bill Subject: RE: Plat Request PS #05-03 Jon, here are Scott Hickok's answers to your questions. Bill: I have included the answers below. Scott J. Hickok, AICP Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3590 hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Burns, Bill Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:40 AM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 Scott, I thought I forwarded this earlier. If not, here it is. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Jon Jackels [mailto:jon.jackels@dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:53 PM To: Burns, Bill Cc: debrajackels@hotmail.com; jdjackels@msn.com; jerry@sherek.com; ssherek@yahoo.com Subject: Plat Request PS #05-03 We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion regarding the priliminary plat in Plat Request PS #05-03, at 1475 and 1485 73rd Ave NE. We have the following requests for information from you or your staff regarding this request: 1. What part of the city code applies to the proposed development of the property located on 73-!/2 Avenue NE? ANSWER: Code Section 205.09, R-3, General Multiple Dwelling District. The land is currently zoned R-3, and as such, this section of the City Code applies. 2. Where is the definition of a"twin home" in the city code and what is that definition? 0 � Twin home is a building industry term that simply refers to a side-by-side two family dwelling. The R-3 Section of the Code allows: Multiple dwellings and multiple dwelling . complexes including rental condominium apartments; Single Family attached development as per conditions under Section 205.11 of this Code; Two-family dwellings; and One-family 2�2 dwellings. Mr. Hickok told us that it was a"single family attached". Therefore, I am assuming Fridley City Code 205.11 applies. If this is incorrect please advise. ANSWER: This is incorrect. These are two sets of two attached single family dwelling units in an R-3, General Multiple District. Though they are attached single family units, Section 205.11 refers to a type of development that calls for 5 acres or more and is allowed in the R-1, Single Family district, and requires other special caveats to exist there. In this case, each unit would be situated on its own real estate and would be able to be either rented or owner occupied. The R-3 district permits 2 family dwellings and greater densities as well. Therefore, unless dealing with an R-1, Single Family District, the application of the provisions of 205.11 is not necessary. 3. On June 1, 2005, Jon Jackels met with staff and we attended the Planning Commission Meeting. We have been waiting for a response from the City of Fridley staff regarding the cost of relocating the existing curb and gutter and cul-de-sac options since these meetings. To date, the staff has not contacted us with this information. When can we anticipate receiving this information. I have attached a pdf of the drawing shown to the City Council at their June 13, 2005 meeting. ANSWER: The engineering staff has worked with the developer and the planning staff to design a solution that addresses the majority concerns of the neighborhood, without requiring the removal (or movement) of the existing curb in the existing location. However, City Engineer, Jon Haukaas is preparing a cost estimate for the removal/movement of curb. He anticipates he will have that price by this time tomorrow (Thursday). .4. The agenda item for the City Council meeting of June 13, 2005, appears to contain errors and omissions. The City of Fridley Land Use Application attached to this agenda item states "use of this property IS consistent with the Comprehensive _Plan." In staff's own report it states that it is NOT consistent with the plan. These two statements are in conflict. Please advise as to which of these is correct. ANSWER: As mentioned in the staff presentation. Once this plat is approved, a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment will be required. Currently the zoning is R-3, General Multiple and the Comprehensive Plan indicates the plan for 2020 as single family. 5. The zoning history for 1475 73rd Avenue NE on the Land Use Application shows the last building permit was for a garage in 1971. That garage was added to by Mr. Van Auken since we moved into our home in 1987. Was this an oversight on the Land Use Application? ANSWER: The address file/permit record for the property shows that the last garage permit was issued for 1475 73rd in 1971; staff is researching further this garage question. 6. The Land Use Application states the combined lot sizes for the existing lots at 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue is 20,821 sq. ft., the Preliminary Plat states the lot sizes as 49,692 sq. ft. Is this an error in the application? ANSWER: No. The entire area of the plat is 49,692, while the proposed remaining area for 1475 and 1485 73rd (after platting) would be 20,821. Please respond by email at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Jon Jackels Deb Jackels Sue Sherek Jerry Sherek �3 Hickok, Scott From: Burns, Bill Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 5:23 PM To: Hickok, Scott Cc: City Council Subject: RE: Plat Request PS #05-03 Thanks, Scott -----Original Message----- From: Hickok, Scott Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:38 PM To: Burns, Bill Subject: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 Bill. Here is Jon's Answer (below) to the question about cost to moving 73 1/2 Avenue 2' south in front of the Jackel's home. Scott J. Hickok, AICP Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3590 hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Haukaas, Jon Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:58 PM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: RE: Plat Request PS #05-03 Here is the answer regarding street relocation costs: Cost for construction of the new cul-de-sac was not calculated due to the opposition to the design and because the final layout has not been approved to date. We are not going to spend the staff time to calculate construction costs until a final design is known. The cost to relocate the curbing can be estimated based on past street construction projects. Since the existing half street drains and connects to the existing driveway as currently constructed, it is possible to simply add a south half to the street. Due to these elevation and drainage constraints, the curb cannot be simply cut off and moved two feet south. To make the street drain properly, moving that curb will require reconstruction of that half of the street. Our historic costs to reconstruct streets have been approximately $120 per lineal foot for a 30 foot wide street. To move and reconstruct the existing 127 feet of half width-street will cost approximately $7620. -----Original Message----- From: Hickok, Scott Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:02 PM To: Haukaas, Jon Subject: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 ��"..i � � 0 Scott J. Hickok, AICP Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3590 hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Burns, Bill Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 5:20 PM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: RE: Plat Request PS #05-03 Thanks, Scott -----Original Message----- From: Hickok, Scott Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:35 PM To: Burns, Bill Subject: RE: Plat Request PS #05-03 0 . Bill: I have included the answers below. Scott J. Hickok, AICP Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3590 hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Burns, Bill Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:40 AM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 Scott, I thought I forwarded this earlier. If not, here it is. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Jon Jackels [mailto:jon.jackels@dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:53 PM To: Burns, Bill Cc: debrajackels@hotmail.com; jdjackels@msn.com; jerry@sherek.com; ssherek@yahoo.com . Subject: Plat Request PS #05-03 - We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion regarding 25 the priliminary plat in Plat Request PS #05-03, at 1475 and 1485 73rd Ave NE. We have the following requests for information from you or your staff regarding this request: 1. What part of the city code applies to the proposed development of the property located on 73-!!2 Avenue NE? ANSWER: Code Section 205.09, R-3, General Multiple Dwelling District. The land is currently zoned R-3, and as such, this section of the City Code applies. 2. Where is the definition of a"twin home" in the city code and what is that definition? Twin home is a building industry term that simply refers to a side-by-side two family dwelling. The R-3 Section of the Code allows: Multiple dwellings and multiple dwelling complexes including rental condominium apartments; Single Family attached development as per conditions under Section 205.11 of this Code; Two-family dwellings; and One-family dwellings. Mr. Hickok told us that it was a"single family attached". Therefore, I am assuming Fridley City Code 205.11 applies. If this is incorrect please advise. ANSWER: This is incorrect. These are two sets of two attached single family dwelling units in an R-3, General Multiple District. Though they are attached single family units, Section 205.11 refers to a type of development that calls for 5 acres or more and is allowed in the R-1, Single Family district, and requires other special caveats to exist there. In this case, each unit would be situated on its own real estate and would be able to be either rented or owner occupied. The R-3 district permits 2 family dwellings and greater densities as well. Therefore, unless dealing with an R-1, Single Family District, the application of the provisions of 205.11 is not necessary. 3. On June 1, 2005, Jon Jackels met with staff and we attended the Planning Commission Meeting. We have been waiting for a response from the City of Fridley staff regarding the cost of relocating the existing curb and gutter and cul-de-sac options since these meetings. To date, the staff has not contacted us with this information. When can we anticipate receiving this information. I have attached a pdf of the drawing shown to the City Council at their June 13, 2005 meeting. ANSWER: The engineering staff has worked with the developer and the planning staff to design a solution that addresses the majority concerns of the neighborhood, without requiring the removal (or movement) of the existing curb in the existing location. However, City Engineer, Jon Haukaas is preparing a cost estimate for the removal/movement of curb. He anticipates he will have that price by this time tomorrow_(Thursday). 4. The agenda item for the City Council meeting of June 13, 2005, appears to contain errors and omissions. The City of Fridley Land Use Application attached to this agenda item states "use of this property zS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." In staff's own report it states that it is NOT consistent with the plan. These two statements are 26 0 0 in conflict. Please advise as to which of these is correct. ANSWER: As mentioned in the staff presentation. Once this plat is approved, a minor Comprehensive Plan amendment will be required. Currently the zoning is R-3, General Multiple and the Comprehensive Plan indicates the plan for 2020 as single family. 5. The zoning history for 1475 73rd Avenue NE on the Land Use Application shows the last building permit was for a garage in 1971. That garage was added to by Mr. Van Auken since we moved into our home in 1987. Was this an oversight on the Land Use Application? ANSWER: The address file/permit record for the property shows that the last garage permit was issued for 1475 73rd in 1971; staff is researching further this garage question. 6. The Land Use Application states the combined lot sizes for the existing lots at 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue is 20,821 sq. ft., the Preliminary Plat states the lot sizes as 49,692 sq. ft. Is this an error in the application? ANSWER: No. The entire area of the plat is 49,692, while the proposed remaining area for 1475 and 1485 73rd (after platting) would be 20,821. , Please respond by email at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Jon Jackels Deb Jackels Sue Sherek Jerry Sherek 0 27 Hickok, Scott From: Burns, Biii Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:07 AM To: Hickok, Scott Subject: RE: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 Additional Questions Thanks, Scott. -----Original Messaqe----- From: Hickok, Scott Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 7:47 AM To: Burns, Bill Subject: FW: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 Additional Questions Bill: FYI - this is Fritz's response back on my responses to the jackel's questions. Scott Scott J. Hickok, AICP Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3590 hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Hickok, Scott Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 7:38 AM To: Knaak, Fritz Subject: RE: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 Additional Questions Thanks Fritz Scott J. Hickok, AICP Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 572-3590 hickoks@ci.fridley.mn.us -----Original Message----- From: Knaak, Fritz Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:12 PM To: Hickok, Scott Cc: Burns, Bill Subject: Re: FW: Plat Request PS #05-03 Additional Questions On 23 Jun 2005 at 16:33, Hickok, Scott wrote: > E'ritz : > > Bill again asked me to forward you these answers _i a to these questions to > make sure you concur with my answers. You'll _note that I have > embedded my answers in the text of Mr. Jackel's original questions. > I concur, Scott. Very succinct, correct and to the point. Frederic W. ("Fritz") Knaak, Esq. (MN., WI., C0.) Knaak & Kantrud, P.A. 3500 Willow Lake Blvd. - Suite 800 Vadnais Heights, MN. 55110 Tel: 651.490.9078/Fax: 651.490.1580 Mailto: fknaak@klaw.us / Website: http://www.klaw.us � 0 0 �9 123024140067 123024140066 123024140071 ALPERT LAWRENCE I WICKMAN GERALD J& MARTHA J WAZWAZ AIDA 1500 ONONDAGA ST NE 1494 ONONDAGA ST NE 1533 73 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140072 SANFORD DAVID 1523 73 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130043 CURRENT RESIDENT 7371 HAYES ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 123024130042 HINRICHS JAMES G& KARYL J 7355 HAYES ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140065 KRASKA DANIEL & LAUREEN M 1488 ONONDAGA ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130033 DUNHAM BRADLEY G& JULIE A 1427 N DANUBE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140080 NORDIN REUBEN T& DONNA E 1540 73 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY; MN 55432 123024140077 HOESCHEN KENNETH R& K E 1510 73 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140081 HACHEY JOHN L& JUDY B 1545 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130030 SEGER MARGARET A 1401 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140073 LARSON LEROY A & MIEKO 1503 73 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140070 KOROSCHETZ KURT J& TRUDY C 7350 PINETREE LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130039 VANAUKEN TIMOTHY J 1485 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130035 EQUITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES 4555 ERIN DR #250 EAGAN, MN 55122 123024130033 CURRENT RESIDENT 1441 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 123024140079 SHEREK GERALD J& SUSAN M 1530 731/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130027 GROSSMAN SHAWN 7343 HAYES ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140082 LUNDAHL KATHRYN K 1535 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140084 FAGERWOLD DOUGLAS A 1505 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 30 123024130043 SIMON JOHN E& PENNE L 801 TORCHWOOD DR NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112 123024130088 JACKELS JON V& DEBRA J 1479 73 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130037 VAN AUKEN TIMOTHY J 1475 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130035 CURRENT RESIDENT 1461 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 123024130028 MORANO JOSEPH M SR 7345 HAYES ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140078 PACKEY JOSEPH A& JILL A O 1520 73 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130090 YOUNG DAVID A 1482 ONONDAGA ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140083 KEPULIS ROBERT & EVA 1525 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024410003 ONAN CORP 1400 73RD AVE NE MPLS, MN 55432 123024130090 123024130036 123024130034 CURRENT RESIDENT HANSON GEORGE A& MARIJANE SABA STEVE R 1482 ONONDAGA PL NE 9476 ONONDAGA ST NE 1470 ONONDAGA ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130031 KALLROOS THOMAS L & SANDRA 1466 ONONDAGA ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130032 HJORT HARRIET W 1434 ONONDAGA ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 31 123024140069 NALEPKA STEVEN MICHAEL 7360 PINETREE LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140068 123024140067 123024140069 KLICK JOYCE ADELE ALPERT �AWRENCE I NALEPKA TEVEN MICHAEL 1506 ONONDAGA ST NE 1500 OI�NDAGA ST NE 7360 PI TREE LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDL Y, MN 55432 123024140071 WAZW AIDA 1533 7 1/2 AVE NE FRIDL Y, MN 55432 123024140070 KOROS�HETZ KURT J& TRUDY C 7350 PI ETREE LN NE FRIDLE MN 55432 1230 130037 VAN KEN TIMOTHY J 1475 D AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024 40066 WICKM GERALD J& MARTHA J 1494 ON DAGA ST NE FRID�EY, 55432 123024140028 EWER CHESTER W JR & ARLENE 1565 73RD AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140078 PACK Y JOSEPH A& JILL A O 1520 7E�/2 AVE NE FRIDLE MN 55432 123024�0082 LUNDA KATHRYN K 1535 73 D AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024140084 FAGE OLD DOUGLAS A 1505 73 AVE NE FRIDIEY, N 55432 123024130090 CURREf�RESIDENT 1482 ONC'�pAGA PL NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 123024140072 SANFQ RD DAVID 1523 ]3 1/2 AVE NE FRIDtEY, MN 55432 123024130088 JACKE� JON V& DEBRA J 1479 7 1/2 AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024130035 EQUITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES 4555 ERIP� DR #250 EAGAN,�AN 55122 123024130033 DUNHAM BRADLEY G& JULIE A 1427 N�ANUBE FRIDL , MN 55432 123024140080 NORDI EUBEN T& DONNA E 1540 73�2 AVE NE FRIDLE , MN 55432 123024140077 HOESCHEN KENNETH R& K E 1510'731/2 AVE NE FRID�EY, MN 55432 12302.140083 KEPU S ROBERT & EVA 1525 7 D AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 123024410003 ONAN RP 1400 73 AVE NE MPLS, MN 55432 123024130036 HANSOi�GEORGE A & MARIJANE 1476 ON�IVDAGA ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 32 123024140073 LARSO �ROY A & MIEKO 1503 73 2 AVE NE FRIDLE MN 55432 123024130039 VANA�KEN TIMOTHY J 1485 3RD AVE NE FRID EY, MN 55432 123024130035 CURRENT RESIDENT 146�RD AVE NE FRI Y, MN 55304 123024130033 CURRE T RESIDENT 1441 7 D AVE NE FRI EY, MN 55304 123024140079 SHER GERALD J& SUSAN M 1530 �1/2 AVE NE fRIDI�EY, MN 55432 123024140081 HAQ� EY JOHN L& JUDY B 154��73RD AVE NE FRID'�.EY, MN 55432 123024,140065 KRAS DANtEL & LAUREEN M 1488 ONDAGA ST NE FRIDLE , MN 55432 123024130090 YO G DAViD A 1482 NONDAGA ST NE FRIDL Y, MN 55432 12 024130034 SA STEVE R 1470 NONDAGA ST NE FRIDL MN 55432 � �e�s �� T .:. .: "��'9, ...f.,,f�_.. ; Cfty of Fridiey,� � 5 S= ::: � - (OHIcIaIPublicatton) ,•. �A:` PUBLIC HEARING ,:;,-" .;'� - • .`;`" gEFORE THE •°'• ` � PLANNING COMMISSION ' Notice is hereby;giyeri thet<there will be a , puWic hearing ol the Frldiey. P.lanMng Commisslon at the F�idley Municipei CeMer, - 6431 . Unlyersiry r Avenue _• N.E. ., on '� Wednesday,'Juns 1. z005, at 7,30 p.m,for the. purpose oi t, � t :�4 ,K.•=.�Y,� ,..:.� �`� X�t�.ri••...:.� Consideratf�on tof aJ�relimtnary. Pl�t, PS #Q5-03...b.K T'mathy Van Auken.`. tQ sub� "` divide fwo multi=family lots;'the' legal ";•description is'on`-file and'available at ,;;,;;F[idley.;,M.,uriicipal:,�enter,. generally. , ': located at 1475 and 1485 73rd;Avenue �; � NE. r � -� , ; Any and all persons desiring to be, heard , '� shall be given an oPPo��tY et th9 above � stated tlme ar�d�place•',q�Y quesdons:relat- , ed to;this ltem may be referred to Jul(e : f�Jones; Plan�j�g;Cpp�iinator�:at;763-572- . 3599 ' 1 . '_.. .�, �w[Y�>Ir r ,:_y... .'� . ' Hearing irt�►aired Persons:plaming to anend who need an interpreter or otheF persons :with,disabilttles who require auxiliary alds shou�d ca►tact Roberta Cpllins at 763-572- �`00 �o later lhen May 25, 2005.. The TDD: 'mber is 763572-3534. ; . • _. ' DIANE SAVAGE � � • �CHAIR --` 'l�LANNINa COMMISSION �. ;. PubNshed,?May 19� 2005 �.. .,. '(May 79; 2005)i2lps•O5-p3-vanauken 33 -5�-� ��as o .� -� � •�' 0 o � �i L � Q. � � �� :� � - � � O O � W � � cM Z �- o � C � � .�+ > � � N a � O Q � � v � L M � �N., Q- � � 0 � L �,v�. °`�° � � o � T "'� • � ai � ��•� ca � _ 0 � j � N 1` � � C '� a ,C N � � L �,�j a � � O M � V �C! ~ �° � M � k � r ~ N r C O °- � o '�, � �� •�� a � Q� N.. � � \ � � � � o. � �n c� ��, ° �°�m o ,�. � �L� � �— •� o � o � w .� 3 m Z � � a � �� I � � � > > 3 � o Q ° o L � � Q � M O .� � � � � � � �' � O O C � ►E � O O � � � � Q`+-� L � C � � C ca cB vi N � 3 � ;� � � 0 � �- fif i � � � � 0 � ' � .� o � N � N � � Y N t6 � � � O � U .(a (a L.L _ � •� � U � �� U� >. o � � � L U � � .� 3 � � N N � � � � � A J � �' U � � � Q � � � � � � � > �i � o � � � U � o .... U 0 0 �o � N � Q� � � N � '� � C C � � •L � � •� � � � o � U N .0 � � �o Q L � � I a r o , 1 ` L � � � c a� N � �{ � ^ � , � � � { � �- � L � � � M a .r- ' ..n W d � ��i Z � � /� ��.J.r � Y o � � � � � � � 1 � � � � � � � `� � � v � � � � 4 � � 4� � � o � j � ,� . i N � " °�, \ � �' � � � � I � � � � � � \� �� iJ�� v � � c� r�' '� � � � � D �� _ � � � �� V � � � � �C �!j C�1 � � "" tn � N M tt � tD I� oD Q� � e— s- r r' 34 G W Z d � C d a a M ti I � � d� T � c c� � �j V T M O � � .� a. . N m 7 a a� � �V c� a ° � .� � d a I ca > O L ti. Q. �4 � t4 a � ° .� �, � .� �C o Q � ca 0 oti � � � � .� � N � O O � � � M � O � (� � .A � � � � N ��o L � � Q � O tA N�'� � �c � .c o � .c � c ca .� � � o � � N C N � � � � a' �- L � 'a � U M � i� �° L �n � F- � s�— � O � o •�, �`�a�i Ca � ��a�i �' � \ � �� 0 M i�ti ��c� a� � o � � t� 3 c' � o � � W •X �, Z � ca a� a� � � � y � � N � � o � � C ~ N � �7' � O O �— �� 0 0 Q � � � � O p � ca ca �n N � 3 N ;� � � 0 � � f� L � � � � 0 rn � .� N V t N +" -� Y N (� � � � O � U •f� �� U � � � U� a� }. � U� � o '� tn �L � � U � � � � N � N N �� N = >+ J � � U � Q� � �i � L (� �� a� -o > ti � o� � Q U � � o �.. U � o �o � N � � N "r � � � � c c �� .� vi � C � o � U N .0 � N � O Q i� � � a� � � � � 1 � i � � ca c a � u u L z z a , �.� � j� ► � � � -� o "� �n 1.� � a �o � O � � � N '1i � � � � rv _. la,�.�� s �' � � x� � � � > � � �� ` , S � -�- � d � � Z 'a .� C .� a N cr1 � tc� CO I� 00 Oi � � � � 35 � � � � o •� � � �, � o �� 3 c� 0 0� � � vi � •Q- -��,� p O � W � � M Z �3� � � O N � `- (a •— C (6 .a A Q � O Q .o � � O M � ,aN,, Q- ti � O cn � � d- � � � �c � � .c o r- -� .c a� � c cB .� � c��c � � � N � � � � _ � � �t � t N � a �' L �� c�i � � � � M N � �� i� ��~ a� �� N N � � � d � C � : � � .� � .. � � � \ � �� M � L O r, a `_' �, � .� .�Q°�� , � � � '= 3 � � �`� °N3 � w 'x �. a Z �"� i �� t N c " � � � o � O Q — O c6 � �6 � � � M �•— � � � a � o 0 � cfl c+,a Y a o ��c� • Q .�' L (6 C � � C (a c6 vi N � � � � � � 0 � � (B .� � � � 0 � � .� o � N U L � ..- � Y � � � � � O •� � Ll.. �U � C � O �— U� a� U� � o '� N � U �� 3 N � N N �� a a� � L � >+ J � � U � Q� � �� a ;a > � �� o � � Q U � o r.. U o� �o � N � � N � � � � �3 c c �� .� �i � � � o � U � � � � Q � o Q � � �� v� ! � � 1 +� � � I � `� N � i ► � V t�� , � � ' i �� , _� � ��, � 4 �1 �. � � � S.� � � a d � 'a � _ a �I �J t� � V � � �� rJ p � Q � .� �v \ � oi � N r� � � I.� �1 � \ � �3 �� S • �� V '� � � � � r C� � ''� �A\ � • � . � � � • �# -L . . . � � ri ri � �ri co t� ao oi ° � � 36 d' � � �ri s— I 0 � Preliminary Plat #05-03 Timothy VanAuken 1475,1485 73rd Ave NE The petitioner proposes to subdivide two large lots into four or six lots and build two twin homes on the northern lots on the properiy, leaving the existing single family residences on the southern lots. To provide a.ccess, he proposes to extend the dead-end street, and widen it from 17 feet to 30 feet. We, as neighbors who will be directly impacted by the proposal, have specific concerns which we have addressed. to staff and the Planning Commission. Our concerns have not been adequa.tely addressed to date. First request to the Council: Resolve the conflict between the current zoning for the property and the desired usage shown in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. • The present zoning for the property is R-3, Multi-family Residential. • The existing use of the property, as shown in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, and historically since initial construction in 1951, is single family residential. • The 2020 Future Land Use for the parcel, as shown in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, is Single Family Residential. • The same plan also cites the need to identify additional parcels for single family residential construction, and for move-up housing. • In their report to the Planniiig Commission, staff stated, "R3 zoni.ng is inconsistent wif,h the Comprehensive Plan." • The west cul-de-sac on 73 1/z Avenue NE, where the proposed lots will face, is zoned Rl and, contains eight single family residences, each on lots of at least 10,000 square feet. • The proposed plat specifies twin homes, or single faxnily atta.ched homes, to be placed on lots of just over 5000 square feet each. • At the�ublic heari.ng before the Planning Commission on June 1, 2005, staff stated in their report that the proposal was to create "two new builda.ble lots on the northem portion of the property", and that the lots "meet the minimum lot width of 75 feet" and the "minimum lot size of 10, 000 square feet. " We believe this was deliberately misleading to the commission and the audience since the proposed lots aze in fact 41.25 feet wide and between 5100 and 5300 square feet each in area. • At the public hearing on June 1, 2005, the Plannuig Commission instructed staff to request that the Council review the R3 zoning. This statement was not included in the staff report to the City Manager, where it was simply noted that the Coxnmission's vote was unanimous. • Staff points to the multi-unit aparhnent building on the property to the west of the subject parcel in an effort to support the multi-family zoning, but tlus property is completely fenced off from access to 73 %Z Avenue, and has its access solely via 73'� Avenue. The occupants and traffic have virtually no impact on the properties on 73 11� Avenue. We request that the Council take action as necessary to bring the zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, designating the lots as RI Single Family Residential. This will meet a second goal of the plan, to provide lots for single family residential construction, and preserve the character of the neighborhood as it presently exists. Prc�sared by Sue She:rek (763-78�-6�4�} an.d Jon lackels (76i-'8t�-8�13} Jun�� 2�0� Second request to the Council Direct staff and the developer to develop their plan to place a cul-de-sac at the end of the extended city street, instead of the dead end as currently proposed. • Staff analysis indicates that a cul-de-sac cannot be constructed and still leave buildable lots for the petitioner, yet the drawing presented to the Planning Commission had one draum in. In addition, since the petitioner owns the property to the south of the proposed parcels, he has the option of altering the plat lines in such a way as to create more equal north-south division of the property, thereby permitting development of the property including addition of a pmper cul-de-sac. We've brought one example of a cul-de-sac which provides for an area of 10,000 square feet and 75 foot lot width for both lots. This could even more easily be done for a single family lot, which requires minimum area of 9,000 square feet. • The zoni.ng code, at 211.07.12, provides for dea.d-end or cul-de-sac streets to have "a turn around at the closed end having property line and curb-line diameters of not less than 100 feet and 80 feet respectivel�'. It is the responsibility of city staff to try to make this use conform to the ordinauce. • Staff sta.ted at the Planning Commission meeting that a precedent was set as a 125 foot long, seventeen foot wide "half street" was constructed when a single lot to the north was subdivided in 1986. No one determined the history behind that action. That unusual extension occurred in anticipation of further subdivision by other property owners along 73'� Avenue to the south and/or Onondaga Street to the north. The intent was that the road would eventually end at the last property developed or go all the way through to intersect with Hayes Street. The original curbing on the existing cul-de-sac was done with bituminous in anticipation of future development. Previous development west of Mr. Va�A�.ken's property prevents the through street option, but a proper cul-de-sac is still possible. • Members of tlie Planning Commission, in discussing the proposal, sta.ted they "could not vo�e_for this proposal with the dead-end option". In voting to send the matter forwazd to the City Council, they added that "we strongly urge staff to work out a cul-de-sac option". This detail was not included in the staff recommendation to the City Manager in preparation for the council meeting. • Staff stated they "plan to have suggestions resolved by the ti.me this reaches council," but no such plan has been shared by staff with the neighbors who called to address the issue with staff after the meeting. If a development proposal goes forward for this property, we request that the Council direct staff to work with the petitioner to develop a working cul-de-sac proposal. �Ye oppose extension or expansion of the existing dead-end street, which will become more problematic with the addition of several additional driveways having access. Pre��red by Sue Sberek (iG3-78�-f�} and Sou Jackels f7(33 'SO-8�1i3} June 12, 200� 38 saoz �o •��n'v�� • �i n iBG9—EBi� �Xtl,� i8�.9—E8i �3NOHd 'V'f'N{ -A8 NMYiia S9—i0f � Y 'vaue[s �?1�9i9!]N 3IDOB Q7.TI.�I o/s»/so :v.rey 896'89 V,LOS�NNIW �O�SSO /" f � S°/�'�+° `°"n•" �VMH`JIH NOS213,1,13f OOGB �uawnuoW uo�� ea�ou�p — o / Rw LI �141 �^ R4 V�M+^i '� �,*, s .� p -a .� � ,�.�, s�o��n�ns aNV� S t L'BL ,pun � �" `p,wne i�e.',iw'�"�.°:pa �•a �' �w. i i � SZl 'ON 8115 S,aOl10fIV '6L aP LZ S,lOI �NOI1dRl�530 �1V�J31 :a�g�� 0� �� d �t�II��12�II1S QMb'7—�H � � � � � � � � � r l � � � a�Q � ~ � � � � � � r_ H w � � � H � � � 1� � � a �' � � � � � �,N � � �w �� 0 � � �� 2 U � Z M laJ J O V � I I � � � J i� � � � � ` („1 1 V I (�'� \ .:�J1Y1.._J \ 1 I W i �W ZN n � �� Z �Q� � nS r Z n g F�� te O � s} �� N � vi o a' � �O� �-Q .� p � � �'? � Z�� d �� <�$ �o o� Q � � r Y =�� NU .��i� a � Q �r .. oly� $� � �� i� ,. ��i am N �WF � m Z � Z $�`>�+{ ^ I— � vr � tn �i Z^ N . • • � . � W . N s HY-LAND SURVEYING, P.A. o LAND SURVEYORS INVOICE N0. 28715-2 8700 Jefferson Highway F.B. N0. Osseo, Minnesota 55369 SCALE 1"= 40' E ' PHONE (763)493-5761 FAX (763)493-5781 �urur��rs �rr�ifirtttP ONONDAGA STREET � PROPOSEO ROADWAY DRAINAGE At U1ILITY EASEMENT�-_� � � � �� 1 � I � \\ i 55.0 _ i � ;T-- N�' �.--PROP09ED r'' � COIICREfE CURI � � � lu .►: , l 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my dtrect auperviaion� and thot I am a duly Regiatered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Survey�ed by us this 5th day of M°Y � 20 05 � � 0 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 26, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION No. 1�9, Anoka County, Minnesota. , PROPOSED ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEM�SNT �ir.- ea��:n�n� fa� rc,,auway, dr•ainage and utility purposes over, under and across the following described property: The South 25.00 feet of the East 55.00 feet of Lot 26, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION No. 129, Anoka County, Minnesvta. Signed Milton E. Hyland� Mir�rt'. Ij�g. No. 20262 ' � � �. � � � � CffY OF FRIQLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Date: June 22, 2005 To: From: Subj ect: William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Spring Valley Estates Rezoning ZOA #OS-02 Background On June 13, 2005, the Fridley City Council held a public hearing regarding the rezoning request from John DeMello for the Spring Valley Estates project. This rezoning includes five parcels of land that have a mixture of zonings, which are proposed to be redeveloped into a mixed use development to S-2, Redevelopment District zoning. The subject properties are located at the intersection of Mississippi and Old Central Avenue. The project will include commercial space and senior condominiums. The City Council also considered a plat request for the same project that evening, and approved the plat request by a 4-1 vote. The Planning Commission also held a public hearing on the Spring Valley Estates Plat and Rezoning on June 1, 2005. The Planning Commission recommended approval on both actions with 23 stipulations. Public Notification Following the June 13 Council meeting, there appeared to be two unresolved points of dispute on the project. Members of the audience voiced concern about the City's public hearing notification process. During the meeting, staff produced all of the verification requested regarding direct mail and newspaper public hearing publication. In addition, following the meeting, staff obtained the attached legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the City's public notification requirements under State Statutes and City Code. Staff had made a good faith effort to notify not only property owners of the June 1 public hearing within 350', but extended the radius of mailing area beyond the 350' and also mailed the public hearing notice to other people (many living no where near the project area) who had previously indicated an interest in the project. The City Council was not required to mail a second public hearing notice, because the City Council is not required to hold a public hearing in addition to the Planning Commission hearing. There were also complaints regarding the dates of the petitioner's neighborhood meetings. However, the petitioner is not legally required to hold such meetings. Spot Zoning Discussion occurred at the June 13 public hearing regarding concerns that this rezoning could be considered "Spot Zoning" if the rezoned area does not include property to 64t'' Avenue. This area was identified in the City's 2001 re-write of the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning of all or a portion of the land guided for redevelopment would be consistent with the City's guide plan and not subject to spot zoning critique. Both staff and the City Attorney concurred that the public record established during the 2004 public hearings on a previous proposal by this petitioner demonstrated public concern regarding traffic impacts and residential character impacts to the surrounding R-1 neighborhood if the project included land along 64t'' Avenue. This public record gives the City Council justification to rezone only the area under consideration without inclusion of the property south to 64t'' Avenue. In addition, City staff has obtained a second (attached) legal opinion on the spot zoning question from John Baker, an attorney representing the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Redesigned Access In addition, the petitioner had just received a response from the County at the time of the Council meeting stating that the County would require a right-in-right-out-only access redesign on the Old Central entry point into the new development. The Petitioner has had their engineer redraft the Master Plan documents (attached) to reflect the new entry design. There are now, however, some concerns regarding fire truck access that we should be able to resolve before the 2"d reading of the ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of ZOA #OS-02 to rezone five parcels located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue to zoning S-2 Redevelopment District by conducting the first reading of the attached ordinance. Approving the ordinance includes language that also approves the Master Plan documents. The stipulations that were amended and approved by Council at the June 13 meeting for the preliminary plat for this project are also listed as an e�ibit. M-OS-49 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, June 27�' , 2005 Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford, 1426 64�` Ave NE, Fridley 1VIN. We have been residents of Fridley for a little over 5 yrs. We are very concerned about what is bein� proposed in our neig�borhood, By Profitmax inc.a�}d Mr. Demello. We are against this project and the rezoning of these parcels of land, we feel it will be very detrimental to ow neighborhood, we purchased our home Syrs. Ago because of the bea.utiful and quiet neighbor hood, the large lots and the closeness to the city but not feeling like you were in the city. Now we are looking at a situation that could possibly put two very large buildings, one bein� the Town Center Development , which has already been approved and STII.,L has yet to be built, if it ever will be??? And a proposal by Mr, Demello and ProfitMax INC. Our concern in the rezoning of these parcels of land to an S-2 is that we �already have the whole block across the street rezoned for a similar building that has yet to be built. And is now in court over ownership of part of this land what happens if it isn't built ?? Now we ha.ve open S-2 property that you can basically put what ever a builder wants on it. What happens if Mr. Demello and Profitmaa� fa11 through with their plans? Now we have pretty much rezoned a am�-around a residential neighbor S-2 and anything � can go around it. If you ask us that doesn't sound like the nice residential neighborhood we moved into Syrs. Ago. Profitmax the na.me should sa.y it a11, who profits from this project the residents of the neighborhood that it is going into NO! ! Mr.Demello YES i! He says he wants to give Fridley a gift, well it isn't much of a gift if no one wants to receive it, now is it. The only gift he wants to give is to himself in his wallet. Just as one neighbor cannot detrimentally effect any of their Neighboring properties according to City Code, won't this project and the rezoning be detrimentally changing the whole nei�hborhood a.nd especially the adj�cent properties?? If you think this project is �oing to beneflt any one other than MR. Demello and Profitmax please let me know WHO? My farnily,is one of the youngest on the block and will probably be one of the first to move if this is approved. If you have driven down 64�` Ave you will notice that 80% of the residents are 55 or a1m�t 55, and they have no intension on moving from these homes into condos like the ones b�ng proposed. So if redevelopment is supposed to help turn these neighborhoods over and brir�g in ��c;, younger families but keep the older residents in town it will not happen here i� �is = neighborhood. We will just be opening the door for elderly people from other cities, �=; Fridley will be the same And lastly YOU CANNOT PUT 10 LB OF ANYTHING IN A 2LB BAG!!!r! IT NST DOESN'T FIT!!!!! We are totally against this project and the rezoning that comes with it!?! , f �/ , e � � ' ` � � - �, � ;', �/ �� June 26, 2005 Mr. Mayor and City Council members, There are several issues with the 2005 DeMello proposal for a 70-unit condominium and retail project we would like you to consider. When you denied the 90-unit condominium and retail proposal last year, you listed 11 findings of fact for denial. 1. The applications for the rezoning and re platting of the Parcel are complete and all required public hearings on the matter have been concluded. The modified development plan provides for 90 units of residential condominium dwelling and 13,750 s. f. of commercial retail space, which is 19 residential units more and 330 s. f. more that the previous development proposal. While the 90 condo units have been reduced to 70 and the retail s. f. is back to approximately what is was with the 71-unit proposal, the land area involved in the project is almost 1 acre less of land. Therefore, the per unit land density for this project is the same as what it was for the 90 unit proposal. In fact the lot coverage has actually increased. 2. The proposal represents a very significant increase in population density in that location over the density currently at that site. This denial reason is probably even more valid now, since the current site contains 3 single-family homes and 1 small business. 3. The proposal, when added to the units already approved in an unrelated development across the street, would significantly increase traffic rates in the neighborhood and would change the character of the neighborhood from a mix of single family residential and low density to high density residential. This denial reason is still completely valid. 4. Anoka County raised objections regarding traffic access to and from the site on county- maintained roads and highways. While the applicant has made meaningful efforts to address the concerns raised, the City has received no written statement from the County indicating that it has no further traffic-related objections to the proposed development on the site. Anoka County's letter dated 6/8/O5, states that they want a right in/right out to this development. They also state that all other comments pertaining to this site in their previous reviews still apply. The County's letter from 1/27/04 states, "with increasing traffic volume and congestion, the importance of limited access to County Roads cannot be overstated. Limiting access is critical in minimizing highway congestion and is the single most important factor in reducing accidents on highways." Adding 2 new access sites would affect the safety of pedestrians and motorists in the area. Anoka County's letter also states, "it should be noted that residential Iand use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed noise standards." 5. Increases in traffic at the site and in the neighborhood would decrease the safety of pedestrians and motorists in the immediate vicinity of the site. This denial reason is still completely valid. 6. The Development plan provides for setbacks of the parking areas proposed for the property that are near the property lines of the parcel and provide a diminished landscape opportunity, as well as provide for a very limited opportunity for on-site snow storage. The parking for the new proposal still has major problems. The parking to the north of the project is still partially within 10 feet of the property line and all of the 10 actual parking stalls and 8 proof of parking stalls are completely within the building's front yard setback. The 1 S parking stalls on the west of the parcel and 1 of the corner parking stalls are all encroaching a great distance into the side yard setback. The entire driveway on the west of the proposal is within 2 feet of the property line. When Anoka County widens the roads, the entire driveway will be close to the street as will the parking areas. Per zoning codes, all hard surface areas must be no closer than 20 feet from any street right of way. This will allow for very limited sidewalk and landscaping area again. This again leads to limited snow storage on the northern pond site without irnpeding the vision safety zone. 7. The nearness of the building and likely snow storage areas to the roadways would likely impede sight lines of motorists and pedestrians, resulting in an increased safety hazard to those individuals. The building is still near Old Central on the west. The north snow removal area is very near the corner and could impede the vision safety zone. If there is a lot of snow the southern snow removal area would potentially also impede sight lines for pedestrians and motorists. 8. The nearness of the building and likely snow storage areas to the roadways would have a negative aesthetic impact to the neighborhoods. This denial reason is still valid. 9. The height of the proposed structure on the Parcel in the Development plan, particularly in the 4 story portion of the development, would significantly block sunlight to and impede the view of adjoining residential development more than what they currently enjoy. The height of the proposed structure is still the same height on the north and south ends of the building as it was in the 90-unit proposal. T'he water table for this land is at 877 feet. The floor of the "underground garage" is going to be approximately level with 64�' Ave. (which sits at 882 feet) or slightly above it. In reality the height of the building will be 50 feet from the bottom of to the roofs peak, thus it will in essence be a 4-story structure still on the 2 sides of the proposal that abut single family homes. The developers stated the sunlight is blocked now by trees, however trees still provide filtered sunlight in the summer, which this will not allow for. Due to the trees not having leaves many months of the year, sunlight would still be significantly blocked much of the year. The views of adjoining residential development would still be impeded more than they presently enjoy. 10. The development would adversely affect the quality of life and health of surrounding residents by blocking direct access to sunlight during much of the daylight hours. This denial reason is still completely valid. 11.The screening and plantings proposed in the development would not be sufficient to provide the modest degree of privacy currently enjoyed by the adjacent land owners once the Development were to occur. This denial reason is still completely valid. It further reads, Based, therefore upon the foregoing, the City further resolves that: 1. It concludes the modified development proposal represents a density and intensity of such a degree as would adversely impact the character of the neighborhood in which it would be located. 2. 2. It concludes that the modified development proposal would adversely impact the health and safety of the neighborhood surrounding, as well as the City residents and members of the public that would be using the adjoining highways and roads. Both of these are still completely valid. It seems clear that most if not all the reasons for denial have NOT been resolved with the new proposal. The 70-unit proposal is still far to large of a building for the now smaller parcel of land it will be set on. In fact, it is still proportionately the same size project as it was in the 90-unit proposal due to the decrease in land area. We again ask you to deny the 2005 DeMello proposal for the above mentioned reasons. Thank you for your consideration. City of Fridley Land Use Application ZOA #05-02 & PS #05-02 May 25, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation John DeMello 2872 17th Terrace N W New Brighton MN 55112 Requested Action: Rezone property from C-1, C-2, and R-1 to S-2. Reqlat Location: 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6441 Central Avenue, 6421 Central Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue Existing Zoning: 1314 Mississippi St. — C-2, General Business 1340 Mississippi St. — R-1, Single Family 6421 Central Avenue — C-1, Local Business & R-1, Single Family 6441 Central Avenue — C-1, Local Business & R-1 Single Family 6461 Central Avenue — C-2, General Business Size: Approximate size of entire area to be rezoned and replatted: 159,460 sq. ft. 3.66 acres Existing Land Use: Single Family homes, small commercial building (garage), and vacant land Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Commercial building & C-2 E: Single Family & R-1 S: Single Family homes & C-1 and R-1 W: Vacant land and Restaurant & S-2 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Future Land Use Map designates this area as Redevelopment. Zoning History: 1314 Mississippi Street: 1941 — Lot is platted. 1952 — House is built. 1959 — Detached garage built. 1340 Mississippi Street: 1941 — Lot is platted. House and garage constructed pre-1949. 6421 Central Avenue: 1941 — Lot is platted. House and garage built prior to 1949. 6461 Central Avenue: SPECIAL INFORMATION Vacant Lot 1941 — Lot is platted. 6441 Central Avenue: Vacant Lot. 1941 — Lot is platted. 1969 — Proposal to build a Tastee-Freez. 1998 — Rezoning request from C-1 to R-1, withdrawn prior to Planning Commission. Legal Description of Property: 1340 Mississippi Street: Lot 15, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 1314 Mississippi Street: Lot 16, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6461 Central Avenue: Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6441 Central Avenue: Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6421 Central Avenue: Lot 19. Block 1. Sprina Vallev Addition Council Action / 60 Day Date: City Council — June 13, 2005 60-Day Date — June 27, 2005 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The petitioner, John DeMello, of Family Lifestyle Development Corp., is requesting to replat and rezone the properties located at 1314 Mississippi St., 1340 Mississippi St., 6421 Central Ave., 6441 Central Ave., 6461 Central Ave. from C-1, Local Business, C-2 General Business, and R-1 Single Family to S-2 Redevelopment District for the purpose of redevelopment, to allow for a Senior Housing Development/Retail mixed-use develoment. SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of this plat, rezoning and subsequent master plan request. • Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors. • Provides additional retail opportunities in Fridley. • Provides additional job opportunities. Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones � � AGENDA ITEM ��F CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 FRIDLEY INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS ZOA#05-02 & PS#05-02 Spring Valley Estates Overview Summary of Applications John DeMello of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of Fridley in order to construct a mixed use retail/senior housing complex on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The two actions that have been requested are a Plat and a Rezoning. Both of these applications, and the master plan approval, will be examined individually in this report. A Plat has been requested to create one new parcel, combining existing lots located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, and 6461, 6441 (vacant), and 6421 Central Avenue. A 10,492 square foot retail complex will occupy the lower level of the northeastern corner of the building with 70 condominium units occupying the remainder of the building. The petitioner is also requesting a rezoning for the newly created parcel. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. ��1��[�� ,� � .,��' � i�� ' � � �' � � �� x � ' � � .: _` ' , �� x� ' �� : ' � : ` �; � � � *,�� m� ��: Proposed Project The petitioner is proposing to construct a 3-story complex, which incorporates a 10,492 square foot retail area on the lower level of the northwestern corner of the development. The petitioner has stated that he envisions that this complex will house neighborhood retail businesses, which could include businesses like a pharmacy, a coffee shop, an ice cream/sandwich shop or a hair salon. The retail complex will include 45 - 9 foot wide parking stalls for customers. The housing portion of the complex will have 70 condominium units for seniors. The proposed 70 units will be owner-occupied and comprised of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. There are a variety of unit styles and sizes with some including a den. The residential development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. The petitioner plans to model the exterior of both projects after an Italian villa. The site will include a storm water pond with landscaping that surrounds the property. Site History The proposed development area is located on the southeast corner of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. The area consists of 2 vacant lots, which are located on Central Avenue and 4 homes that were constructed prior to 1952, 2 of which are located on Mississippi Street and the other 2 are located on Central Avenue. The petitioners' father, Frank DeMello purchased the vacant parcel located 6461 Central Avenue, 25 years ago. When the property at 1314 Mississippi Street came up for sale over the summer of 2003, the petitioner purchased it with the hope of developing the land. The petitioner then contacted surrounding property owners to see if they would be interested in selling their properties. When the neighboring property owners became interested in selling their properties, the petitioner came forward with a redevelopment proposal in the spring of 2004. The previous plat and rezoning applications were denied. The 2004 proposal included the creation of two separate parcels and included three additional lots down to 64th Avenue with the retail portion of the development being a separate building and parcel. The housing portion of the proposal was to build a 90-unit, four-story, senior condominium complex. The retail portion of the development included plans for 13,750 sq. ft. of commercial retail space. The City Council denied this proposal, citing that the density was too high, creating potential traffic problems with traffic existing onto 64th Avenue, limiting landscaping opportunities, and limiting the possibility of adequate snow storage areas. Analysis Rezoning Application ZOA #OS-02 The petitioner is requesting a rezoning and master plan approval for the east side of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street south to and including 6421 Old Central Avenue. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. The properties requesting to be rezoned are 1340 Mississippi Street (single family home, zoned R-1, Single Family), 1314 Mississippi Street (single family home and garage (welding shop), zoned C-2, General Business), 6461 Central Avenue (vacant lot, zoned C-2, General Business), 6441 Central Avenue (vacant lot, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family), and 6421 Central Avenue (single family home, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family). The petitioner is proposing to redevelop these five parcels. Zoning Map — Shows mix of zoning and properties to be replatted and rezoned. As the properties exist today, 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning between C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family. While both of the lots are rather large in size, conflicts arise when the zoning is split between a commercial and residential zoning at an arbitrary point in the lot. Rezoning a property to S-2 Redevelopment District, requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for the site. If the rezoning and master plan were approved by the City 2 Council any modification of the site plan would need to go back to the City Council for review and approval. Review of the master plan also needs to be completed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as the property is in a Redevelopment District. Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use and Housing Chapters The City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. State Statute gives the City the authority to "rezone" property from one designated use to another, so long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held between 1998 and 2000 and is a"tool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community...lt is a plan because it contains goa/s, policies and strategies that all work together, looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision". In order for a rezoning to be viewed favorably, it must be in line with the City's vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed retail complex, senior owner-occupied condominium complex and rezoning of the properties meet several of the objectives the residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the Comprehensive Plan. The area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road was identified as an area for future redevelopment. The purpose of redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient land uses and under utilized parcels. Redevelopment can a/so provide an opportunity to build new facilities, meet current market demands and desires of the City, creates new tax base, and creates additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of these properties. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states that for this portion of Old Central, "consideration should be made to replacing the current mix of single-family residential and commercial uses with higher density residential development that together with the health club may serve as an attractive residential location for move-up housing". The Comprehensive Plan also states that for projects in these redevelopment areas requiring rezoning that the S-2 zoning designation "would be the appropriate Zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project. The intent of the district is to provide the City with site plan review authority to determine if the proposed project meets the goa/s and objectives of the City's Comprehensive and Redevelopment Plans". The Comprehensive Plan, in both the Future Land Use & the Housing chapters, addresses the desire for a variety of housing types in a number of goals listed below. • Ensure that adequate opportunities exist for the development of a variety of housing types at a range of affordability levels including low, low-moderate and high cost housing to meet the life-cycle needs of Fridley residents. • Create sustainable, self-reliant, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods that contribute positively to the quality of life and image of Fridley. • Ensure a variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. • Strengthen neighborhoods and improve upon the quality of the City's housing stock. • Diversify the housing supply to include move up housing both in the form of rental and owner occupied housing. As Fridley's residents continue to age, demand will increase for "empty nester" and senior housing. There will be an increased demand for senior rental, senior owned condominium/town homes, and assisted living facilities. The proposed project, 70 senior owner-occupied condominium units, will meet some of the current demand for those seniors seeking alternatives to their current housing type. Rezoning these properties helps to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goal for this area. � Housing Market Study The petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc. in 2003 to complete a Market Feasibility Study for Senior Housing in Fridley. The demographic and competitive market analysis done by Maxfield was updated in March 2004, and, again in March 2005. The latest updated remarks from Maxfield indicates that there continues to be a demand in the Fridley area for senior condominium housing units. Maxfield's research is taking into account the planned Town Center project across Central Avenue, which is yet to begin construction. The original, base housing market study pointed out that given the competitive situation in the marketplace, the quality of the subject site, and the lack of for-sale product within three miles of the property, the senior condominium project would be the most marketable product for the site. Their research also showed that the subject site could best support an age-restricted owner- occupied development such as a condominium or cooperative of around 70 units. Maxfield's updated figures indicate suggested sale prices to be $156,000 for the smallest one- bedroom unit to $279,000 for the largest three-bedroom unit. They expect the entire housing portion of the project to sell out in 22 months. Plat Application #OS-02 John DeMello, Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, is seeking to replat the properties located at 1340 Mississippi Street, 1314 Mississippi Street, 6461 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, and 6421 Central Avenue to create one new consolidated lot. The proposed plat will consist of one lot; Lot 1, Block 1, Spring Valley Estates. This is different than the 2004 proposal which created two new lots, one accommodating the retail portion of the development and one containing the housing portion of the project. Looking south on Old Central toward project area Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District allows for the maximum flexibility for a redevelopment project. The petitioner has designed their project to meet the zoning classification codes most similar to their intended use. This would be C-2, General Business, zoning for the retail portion of the project and R-3, General Multiple Unit Housing, for the residential portion of the project. The retail portion of the proposed development is 10,492 square feet and meets all the parking requirements for the number of parking stalls required for a retail use under the speculative parking ratio requirements. Proof of parking for an additional 8 parking stalls is also provided. Staff is satisfied with this amount of parking for the commercial part of the development. � The housing portion of the project is 120,196 square feet in size with all three floors combined. This is a density of 21 units per acre. The petitioner is proposing to construct 70 senior owner- occupied condominium units. The development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. This amount of parking meets the requirement for an independent living facility. However, staff considers this project to fall somewhere in between the category of senior assisted living and market rate housing parking requirements. Market rate parking requirements would be for a total of 129 parking spaces. The petitioner is proposing at total of 122 parking stalls, which is 7 units shy of the market rate requirements. Staff believes the amount of stalls provided should be adequate since some households occupying this complex would be expected to have only one vehicle. Staff finds the lot coverage proposed to be reasonable for a mixed use development. Code requires no more than 30% lot coverage for multi-unit residential and commercial properties. The proposed project shows 28% lot coverage, meeting requirements for both zoning types. Early discussions with Anoka County indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required for future reconstruction purposes. They anticipate that a 120 ft. right-of-way corridor will be required for both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersections in order to provide the necessary 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. Therefore, staff assumes that the County will be requesting that at this time, both of the right-of-ways be dedicated. The petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-way acquisition along both County Roads. Due to necessity of right-of-way acquisition, the drive lane on the west side of the development will be only two feet from the west property line. The parking setback on the north side of the development, which is considered the front yard of this site layout, meets the minimum 35' setback. The building is 34' in height to the mid-span of the roof line. Therefore, the building only requires a 15' side yard setback on the east side, but an 18' setback is provided. The additional 3' of side yard setback was provided on the east side of the project, because fire truck access may be required. The 18' setback, combined with an 8' public right of way that runs along the east property line, would provide 26' of clearance for the possibly required fire truck access. The rear yard setback of 40' on the south side has also been met. As stated above, due to the flexibility allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setbacks can be recognized under this rezoning master plan approval. The proposal as submitted does not meet the landscaping requirements of City Code, however. According to code, 160 trees will be required for this development. The petitioner is proposing to provide 91 trees. Code also requires at minimum that 30% of the trees be coniferous. This would be 48 of the 160 trees required. The petitioner has met this requirement in the proposal by providing 49 conifers. The petitioner is proposing to add rain garden plantings to the ponding areas in lieu of some of the tree landscaping requirement. Staff would like to encourage the rain garden plantings, but would like to see more trees planted on the property as well. There currently is very little landscaping proposed on the south end of the plat. There are also possibilities to save some of the existing trees that could reduce the 160 tree requirement. Traffc Study Staff utilized a number of sources to determine the possible impacts that 70 senior owner occupied condominium units and the commercial complex may have on the local traffic patterns. Staff consulted the Transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed the traffic study supplied by TDI, Traffic Date Incorporated. � Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Chapter The City's Comprehensive Plan indicated that in 2001, the portion of Old Central adjacent to the proposed senior condominiums carried 8,000 vehicles per day and, at this traffic level, was only carrying 57% of the traffic for which the roadway was designed and constructed to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Old Central carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020, based upon increases in population for Fridley & surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles / day, Old Central will be carrying 71 % if the maximum amount of traffic for which the roadway was designed. Review of Traffc Impact Report Prepared by TDI, Inc. Family Lifestyle Development Corporation hired TDI, Traffic Data Incorporated, a Data Collection, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning firm to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. The analysis was regarding the proposal for more housing units and more retail space than the current proposal. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, which was published in December 2003. At that time, the consultants used the SeniorAdult Housing Attached category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed senior complex would generate a total of 247 trips per day. The consultants used the Specialty Retail Center category from the ITE manual and determined that the proposed retail complex would generate a total of 598 trips per day. Trip Generation ITE Description Land Use 252 814 Senior Adult Housing — Attached (71 units) Specialty Retail Center — (13,500 sq. ft.) Daily Trips AM Peak Hour In Out 247 3 3 598 n/a n/a PM Peak Hour In Out 5 3 16 21 TDI developed traffic forecasts for the following 2005 scenarios: ➢ No Build (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) ➢ Build Spring Valley Estates (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) The finding of these forecasts show that the level of service at both the Central Avenue/64tn Avenue intersections and the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersections would remain the same in the no-build or build scenarios. The only change seen is during the AM Peak Hour at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue eastbound intersection, where the level of service would change from LOS B to LOS C. Central Avenue/64T" Avenue Westbound & Eastbound Approach LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Scenario Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound 2005 No-Build A B C C 2005 Build A C C C Mississi i Street/Central Avenue Intersection LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2005 No-Build 2005 Build C C D D L•� To complete the traffic study, the consultants also referred to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which governs the use of traffic control devices per Minnesota State Statute. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has eight criteria (called warrants) to consider when determining if a traffic signal should be installed at an intersection or not. These warrants are primarily based on the traffic volumes flowing through the intersection. A warrant analysis was conducted for the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. To complete this analysis, TDI staff performed a turning movement count from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. None of the eight warrants are met under the existing conditions, nor will they be met if the senior housing and retail buildings are constructed on the proposed site. According to this analysis, a traffic signal should not be installed at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue until at least one of the warrants is being met. The conclusions of TDI's analysis state that the stop controlled approaches at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue intersection operate at LOS C or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic control. The intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue will operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. A traffic signal was not currently warranted at the intersection and a traffic signal was not be warranted at the intersection after the previously proposed development would have been completed, according to the 2004 traffic study. The traffic study consultant was asked to submit comments regarding the traffic impacts of the current redevelopment proposal for less retail space and housing units. Their comments were summed up by the following statement: "As long as the proposed number of units and amount of retail space remains below the amount 1 initially studied, the roadway network will accommodate the seniorhousing development."A complete copy of the 2004 traffic study is available upon request. Wetland/Drainage The petitioner is still working with the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to finalize an agreement regarding the necessary permits needed for the project. The wetland that was of concern in last year's proposal has been exempted by the RCWD, so no replacement or mitigation is required. Revised storm water management plans are expected to resolve concerns that the City Engineering Department had over the initial set of plans submitted with the application. Comments Received During the public hearings for this development proposed last year, there was a great deal of Public input. Some of the concerns raised were regarding traffic and a guarantee that the tenants of the complex would be 55 or older. To alleviate those concerns ahead of time, the petitioner provided city staff with a traffic study and a copy of the proposed association documents upon submittal of the rezoning and plat request. Much of the concern, however, revolved around traffic onto 64th Avenue. The current development proposal no longer includes the properties along 64th Avenue and will not have access onto 64th Avenue. The petitioner held a neighborhood meeting on April 27 and is holding a second neighborhood informational meeting on May 27. Staff was not in attendance at either of these meetings. However, we have heard that concerns raised have mostly been about crime or traffic. Staff has received only a couple of calls to date in response to the public hearing notice, inquiring about the property. These callers were seeking information about the project, but did not exhibit any objections. Staff has also received a call from someone interested in buying a condominium unit. 7 Staff Recommendation City Staff recommends approval of this Rezoning ZOA #05-02 and accompanying site plan for the senior building and retail complex, with stipulations. • Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Provides housing opportunities for seniors. • Provides additional retail opportunities in Fridley. • Provides additional job opportunities in Fridley City Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for PS#05-02, with stipulations. Stipulations Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to the approval of the above land use requests: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan - Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan - Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically 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. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. � ORDINANCE NO. -2005 ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING ZOA #OS-02, FROM G1, LOCAL BUSINESS, C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS AND R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO S-2, REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 15 —19, SPRING VALLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAHING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1 SECTION 2 Appendix D of the Fridley City Code is amended hereinafter as indicated, including stipulations as shown in E�ibit A. LOTS 15-19, BLOCK 1, SPRING VALLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL, FRIDLEY Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District S-2 (Redevelopment District) and shall comply with Master Plan as depicted in E�ibit B, MP-1, Master Plan- Landscape and Grading, and E�ibit C, MP-2, Master Plan-Utility and Grading, both dated June 22, 2005. SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or areato be rezoned from Zoned District G1 (Local Business), C-2 (General Business District), and R-1, (Single Family Residential) to S-2, (Redevelopment District). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY OF , 2005. SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN — CITY CLERK Public Hearing: June 13, 2005 First Reading: June 27, 2005 Second Reading: July 11, 2005 Publication: July 21, 2005 EXHIBIT A STIPULATIONS FOR ZOA #05-02-SPRING VALLEY 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan - Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan - Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically 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. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. f� � � x � W � � � �j • F � �� 5 s�' e�= 6 =1 i�.. u"� �, � _ �� `�� E�`� i ��g �; 2 W '' � I � fa $ Es1s � � `;;` _ �t�� :i s a Q 2 O `�` �� ,� � e��€ � : ��'� �� s:Ee� {} � c� e �; d � > ie C $,i "-`: ;°� .�1 � ti O � � � i C7 E�E! � `.1 `� :`t: '` _ �6 � � i h 2 C9 a Z� z �"'a t� €�it if�? E� °� !l� � s $ � } � � e a � d � � `{° � 1 �� m a� � t i � 3 ' �� ! � � � � 0 �� I � t �� il33!!! 3t! hk`�!!�b 'sb'� 1 1�:�#f� iaj i ��1I1i� �� t ��p�'�,� ��p�� p i�frrB EEi g �......� �s...� :€ � �� #� �i �i `i fe� ��` ��`�� i'+ � �� .. '�� #ii�;�j i�;� ?"�I �� i 11�� /l��f—iE�i �� ; � ��; �. �`��i�l¢,�;�{�� !;�� ff��f��ii#�i�� I3i 13 FlifEFlFiFttlFiii aFIF :}. .: !1ltY3ly1YY31t1lY �tl1 .... .........•• . � �Fj � iI# �i �iE� �fi � �� S ��4f:t Rt�� `��[��fl�s�� i�#��e��t�l�� I�� €��,� •��, ��#i� �a��i �i�iEi[7ii98E:xEcc eCla ..�.f.R.4pII.RRiL! iRfA � � � � �� g � �� ; T � � �� s � E �� s�� `'� �� .� � � sas �: �� y � J �� R 0 �� v Z sZ sg� ��a �m � ��N e � � � �� . � �� ;�. r �� .� �� sj ° 4 E� �� .� t � � �� it�= �i ,�� i ,� � � � LJ � � � � � w ;� 6 H O� 6 iid. �iic �€ � !t 2 Eir. � W � � :� `�E� � �<;� i ��q� ;� g c A § �sl� s � .s:: �( � .i s � p `� � � x i �i�, � : ;36; � 41[r: tl � � � N > � � � a i E �':` ��E: � '` �i v�i � a Z`� z �� 8+�# ��g �� j � Q J a � . 70. � � ` � es§" € : � j ii m� °}� 1 ; � � $R � � f H E v°", �� ` i g A � � Z . i�� ; � �� ' 11 � � t �'!� g ��e � ` �°� ' �� ii�� t EE� xd�` R � .91�eE� � t� EY1 � �. r�l� 1! 9��t�tlf�t� z-o—�-� e n $ �� f � ��- - �� Qr!j:� s� � E �a�s�6�� e!�l�� M � � � � t �i� ��. � � �� E�� Q � �� tE �� '�� . . �� '� ,�`� �s � �� KNAAK & KANTRUD, P.A. Attorneys at Law Frederic W. Knaak* H. Alan Kantrud** *Also Licensed in �sconsin & Colorado **Rule 114 Qualified ADR Civil Neutral June 20, 2005 Dr. William Burns City Manager, City of Fridley 6431 University Ave., N.E. Fridley, MN. 55432 3500 Willow Lake Blvd., Suite 800 Vadnais Heights, NIlV 55110 Telephone: (651) 490-9078 Facsimile: (651) 490-1580 RE: Publication and Notice Requirements for Zoning Amendments Dear Dr. Burns: � . .C�(� ��c`c�-�f ; R �f � �.s Of Counsel Donald W. Kohler Joseph B. Marshall Thomas M. Dailey, P.A. Recently, a development proposal in the City of Fridley has required the City to consider an amendment to its zoning code. One of the City's elected officials has inquired as to the number and kinds of public hearings tha.t may be required to effect a zoning change under the requirements of State law, as well as the City's own Charter. The statutory procedural requirements for zoning code amendments can be found in Minnesota Statutes §462.357, Subd. 3, which provides, in part: � Public Hearings. No zaning ordinance ar amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similaz notices shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendments relates...... The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceeding provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. (Emphasis added). The statute only contemplates single hearing which can be, in the discretion of the City, before either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Nothing in the statute would necessarily preclude additional public meetings being conducted, provided the additional hearings did not result in any inconsistency with the prompt consideration contemplated in the State statute. The City of Fridley has expressly, in its Municipal Code, provided for two public hearings. The first, that contemplated by the statute, is conducted by the Planning Commission under the provisivn of Fridley City Code §§205.05.4C-E. The Code then provides that: 57 "(a)11 petitions for amendment shall be forwarded to the City Couucil from the Planning Coxnmission. The City Council shaU hold an official public hearing, with adequate time given to prepaze the minutes of the hearing, and follow the process for approval of an ordinance as required under the Fridley City Charter. (Emphasis added.) Chapter 3.05 of the Fridley City Charter requires two public readings o f the ordinance sepazated by at least one week. There is no express additional requirement of public hearings. Based on the fore�oins, it is our oninion that anv urouosed amendment to the Fridlev zonins code as aart of a pronosed development would require two uublic heari.n�s. The first would before the Planning Conunission, the second, as soon after the first as praeticable, before the City CounciL No other hearings are contemplated or required. While this procedure has long been the established practice within the City of Fridley, an interesting question---and possble future problem--- could present itselfbased on the additional requirement of a public hearing before the City Council under the Fridley procedure. As a general rule of law, any municipal ordinance or charter provision tha.t is inconsistent with state law is superceded by that state law. To the extent that provisions of a city's ordinances can be construed to be in harmony with state law, the presumption is that they are to be read in that manner. Our conclusion here, for example, tha.t a second hearing is required, is based on the assumption that a second hearing is not prohibited by state law and that the City of Fridley's additional requirement is a permissible extension of the public hearing process. The City should be awaze, however, that an azgument could be raised that the additional public hearing is beyond the City's grant of authority in dealing with zoning code changes under state law. While the specific question of whether a city can require an additional public hearing in zoning amendment cases has not been raised judicially, the Minnesota Attorney General recently opined that a City could not adopt a more restrictive voting requirement than provided for under this same statute. Op. Mn. Att. Gen,, 59a-32, Jan. 25, 2002. If a court were to hold that a city is without authority to adopt any additional requirements or restrictions to those provided for in the statute, the City's council hearing requirement would be found to be invalid. Please let me know at your convenience if I can be of any other assistance to you in this matter. Sinc ely, , / .� �� ; �,.� i � rederi� w. xnaak Fridley City Attorney : GREENE ESPEL MEMORANDUM PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SUITE1200 200 SOVTti StxTIi STxEET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 (612) 373-0830 Fnx (612) 373-0929 PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor Scott Lund and Members of the Fridley City Council C: Scott Hickok, Bill Burns, Fritz Knaak FROM: John M. Baker, Greene Espel P.L.L.P. DATE: June 24, 2005 RE: Spot zoning and the DeMello Property Our File No: 2043-279 I understand that one or more opponents of the modified DeMello proj ect has characterized the rezoning necessary for the project as "spot zoning." Under the circumstances I thought it would be useful to explain how courts have defined the phrase "spot zoning," because its legal meaning is much narrower than many people expect. For the following reasons we think that the proposed rezoning does not constitute "spot zoning," and that its legality is quite clear. The role of the comprehensive plan. An important ifnot essential element ofunlawful spot zoning is a disregard of an existing comprehensive guide plan. Most recently, in the context of billboard regulation, the Minnesota Supreme Court has defined spot zoning as "zoning that is not part of a comprehensive zoning plan and is done primarily to permit outdoor advertising." In re Denial of Eller A�fedia Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in eaty of Mounds View, 664 N.W.2d 1, 7(Minn. 2003). As a leading authority on land use law has stated, the phrase spot zoning "refers to an arbitrary zoning or rezoning of a small tract of land that is not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and primarily promotes the private interest of the owner rather than the general welfare." Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 1:39 (4th ed.). "In determining whether a specific rezoning constitutes illegal spot zoning, courks generally determine whether the rezoning reasonably promotes the general welfare and is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan." Id., § 41.1. In the situation before the Council, by contrast, the proposed rezoning implements specific language in your comprehensive guide plan. Regarding this area, the Plan states that "considerarion should be made to replacing the current mix of single-family residential and commercial uses with higher density residential development that together with the health club may serve as an attractive residential location for move-up housing." It also indicates that, for projects in these redevelopment 59 areas requiring rezoning, that the S-2 zoning designation "would be the appropriate Zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project." Other dimensions to "spot zoning." If a particular rezoning reasonably furthers the general welfare, then for another reason it does not constitute illegal spot zoning. In 1978 the Minnesota Supreme Court described spot zoning this way: "Spot zoning" is a label applied to certain zoning amendments invalidated as legislative acts unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting public welfare. [citation omitted.] The term applies to zoning changes, typically limited to small plots of land, which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district, and which dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. State, by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 89i (Minn. 1978). In that case the Supreme Court concluded that a rezoning did not constitute "spot zoning" because it did not create an "island of nonconforming use" and because the rezoning constituted a proper exercise of legislative power for the public welfare. Id. at 891-92. In considering whether the proposed rezoning rationally furthers the general welfare, it's important to compare the present zoning and the proposed rezoning. The current zoning of these parcels is an awkward combination of three categories. For two of the parcels, one end carries a local business designation (C-1) while the other end carries a residential designation (R-1). There are already areas within this block in which conflicting zoning designations abut, so a denial of the rezoning would cause that situation to persist. This proposed rezoning takes a block on which there are already abutting residential and commercial zoning designations on the parcel, and for most of the block, uses a new designation that allows residential and commercial uses to be blended in a coherent fashion. Because the developer has heeded the City's direction to reduce the size of the project, the size of the proj ect in its current form does not include the entire block. As a result, there continue to be parcels on the southern end of the block, facing away from the development and toward 64�' Avenue, that are zoned C-1 or R-1. However, preservation of that zoning makes sense, and does not cause the proposed rezoning to constitute "spot zoning" in any respect. The status of the pending litigation. In case questions remain regarding the relationship of this application to the pending litigation, I hope this clariiication is useful. If the Council approves the applications necessary for the proposed project, the settlement framework agreed to by the parties will require the Plaintiff to dismiss with prejudice its lawsuit. If, however, one or more of those applica�tions is unsuccessful, then I expect that the litigation will once again become active. We may not only be required in that setting to defend the City's conclusion that the previous applications should be denied because the project was too dense, but to defend a potential new claim arising from any failure of any of the new applications. The failure of the City to approve the rezoning for a less dense version of the project may impair our ability to defend the City's sta.ted justifications for its actions. •1 Name: Legal Address: Daytime Phone: �`�r.� �'� � � �-�� s4�-t �- FEE OWNER INFORMATION TO RE-ZONE Russell and Beverlv Prior (pin #13-30-24-42-0019) 1340 Mississinpi St. Fridlev, MN 55432 (Lot 15, Block 1, Snring Vallev Estates) (763)571-4364 Signature:�_��,�J.e.�4/� �.��'tit'J`G Date• �� D�J Signature: Name: Address: LI / �S �a� John And Alezandra Demello (nin # 13-30-24-42-00201 1314 Mississipui St. Fridlev, MN 55432 (Lot 16,BIock 1, Suring Vallev Estates) Daytime Phone: (651) 493-4882 Signature: � Date: a 5 d� Signature: � Date: � �' > v S .Name: Address: Daytime Phone: Signature:� Name: Address: Daytime P ne: Signature:� Name: Address: Daytime Phone: Dr. Frank J. Demello (pin # 13-30-24-42-0021) (Vacant Lotl (Lot 17. Block 1, Snring Vallev Estates) 1iI (763) 786-1218 Mark Mattison (uin # 13-30-24-42-0023) ' G�Date: ��.� � �� 6421 Central Av. Fridlev, MN 55432 (Lot 19, Block 1, Suring Vallev Estates) Signature: '�� 61 y'"��'� �.� � � (��a-dS U I� � C �1.� City,,of Fridiey = . �+�: �(Officisl Publication) -.; _:, n PUBUC HEARING :�' , ' z ^r;u;..BEFORETHE°� . ^ tY, :� CIT1f.COUNCIL Notice`I� here6y'gi4en that there,will be.a• puWic=hearing of the `Fridley Council at tha : Fridley�'Munlcipal CeMe[; 6431;University ' Avenue.N.E: on Monday, June 13, 2005, at •: � 7 30 p m: f,ot the pulpose of ;: ;.. i „�� .: -. < � - { ; , Co"r�eideration.ot e Rezoni�g ZOA NO5- �' _ 02,�4y=farr�fly_ Lifestyle• Development ;; ' Corporatbn;; to rezone the propeAy from . C-1'; LoCal Business, G2; General ' ,.. ` BuSiness",'�d R=1; Single Fatnily ro S-2; `' --�"�'�.R9'dBVelbpinent=''?'D'istrict;",'s legaily � -' �deacribed:as Lots.15-19� Block,l, Spring:- ' Valley,'generally located aY1314 and„� 1340 Mississipp Street`and 6421,,6�41; ` and 6461' Central Avenue NEf >; ,..;: � :�:: a: 'Any and al( persons desiring to be,'heard. � `. shall be given an opportunity at the above �' stated tlme and place. MY q�esNons relat '.. ed.to ;this item may be refened~to'ilulie ' -; Jones;P.lanrlin� Coordmator at 763,�572--; 3599 .. . , �, ,r ` c ". � im�+,,,`f° Y 11" r1r,,y�+„k ,— �'':' � Hearing'impaved persbne`p187�ning to attend;° .o who need an:Jnterp(eter or oiher persons •i;' with disebilities who require auxfliary aids'� , ghp�id� contact, qpbgria Collins at 763-572- . ---:-�.__ � s` ,.' r_; .-. . _ "�--t;-•.,:_ �. 3500 no later than June 8, 20p5 . The TpD j ' number is 763=572r3534. '- . - I' ' ; SCOTT J. LUND, F �,z '� ''�MAYOR ' PuWished;•�June 2, 2008 , i: , 1 `-,� � � - - fJune.2, 20p5)f2/ZOA OS-02-demello-cC - . .�„- 62 -- =l9-�� , -� S � � �� .__ ... ��Cityof;Fr,idley . ��„ . �omciarPuw�mon) • PUBUC HEARING, „ _ " BEFORETHE° • , � � PLANNING.COMAAtSSION NOUce' is heieby gfven ihat �there wfll �be a• public hear.ing of the F[idley Plannfng Gommission af the Fridley Munidp2f CeMer, . 6431.:: Universiry ;; Avenue' N.E.' � on Wetlnesday, June,1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m; for ' the Pu!Pcse of - .*. Consideratlon oj a Rezoning, ZOA k05- . 02, by' Family'.Lifestyle. Development Corpo►apon; to rezone;the property from ' C-1,' Local, Business; C-2, General `"' Business, and R-1. Single Fatnily'to S-2.. ' �Redevelopme�t District, -=-legally `" d6scribed as l:ots 15-18� Bbck t, Sp►in9 ,. ' Valley, generally located at 1314 and . ' 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, pnd 6461 Cenital Ayenue,NE. . Any and�all persons desiring.to be hearcl : "shall be given an:oPP4rtuMty'af ihe�above: stated tlme .and plgce: ' MY questlons.crelat^ .:-ed to this item may be referred to Julie , Jones,�Piari�irig Coordina�or.at'i63-572- w x •; . .3J.� .p��.�..b: �'r5 tf . v 4 1:Y %1Z'1.S '!f Nearfng imPeired Peraon$ P�a��9 to attetld • who nsed an i�terpreteY or other persons., wlth�disabiflUes.wha require .auxi�ary afds� �'• �should qoMed Roberta Comns'at 763-572- '3500 no`Iater iharr�MeY 25 2005 The TDD �.:. : .. ,;.: �urMiet Is 763-57.2-3534 , ; � . '- ,DIANE SAVAGE _ '`CHAIR .:.. . . _ . _ ... -- ^ •-pL"ANNING COMMISS(ON. ' ;; : Published: May 19, 2005 5 •' ''(May 19. 2005)f?lzoa-05-02-demelb • . 63 �� . �� v� �-� w��-�`S °S--1 �--�5 - 4 City of Fridley ��' � y , ,; (OHICIN PubliCetlon)= ' t '� PUBLIC HEARING-, . ' BEFORETHE �• ' ` PLANNING COAI�.MISSION Notice is, hereby given d�af'there'will be a pubiic hearing of the Fridley PlanMng Cortunission at 1he;Frfdley Municipal Center, ' 643T•"University Avenue � ` N.E; ' on . Wsdnesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m, for. � dte, purpose ot: �. .. ,.,. r :, � ,.. •- Consideratfon of a Preliminary Plat,`PS.. #05-02, by Family Lifestyle DeVelopment� Corporation, ro•crpate one,.patcel'ou� o}' five,-legaliy described as Lots 1.5r19,, �.. sioc,� �, sPr�ng va��ey, 9eneraNy.lorated �': at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and , -r -6421, 6441, and 6461 •Central Averwe NE r:'. �.Any and all+persone desiring,to. be heard . shall be glven an opportunity at ihe`aboves> :stated Ume and pl8ce. MY questions relat.'. ed io fhis item may be referred°to.JuUe". Jones;. Planning Coordinator:�at 763-572r, 3599 , Hearing fmpaired peraons planning to akend � who need an i�terpreter oc other persons i' with.'tlisabiNties who requ�re auxiliary aiil�s:� stwuld contaCt Roberta Collins�at 763-572- 3500 rw later than May 25�: 2005:, The TDD;.� rNlmber:is763-572-3534 w ,� _ ;°,` `"I' DIANESAVA(iE';''''� ''' j; ' CHAIR ' � � •." PLANNING COMMISSION. ' .. . . ...:.: Published:.. May.19� 2005 :.; ;, : . , _ , : (May.'18� 2005)Y2/ps-05-02=demeilo .: . � � 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. CASE NUMBER: Rezonin , PS #05-02 APPLICANT: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Petitioner or re resentative must attend the Plannin Commissiorr meetin . PURPOSE: To rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District. LOCATION OF 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 PROPERTY AND Central Avenue. LEGAL DESCR/PTION: Legally described as Lots 15-19, Btock 1, Spring Valley DATE AND T/ME OF Planning Commission Meeting: HEAR/NG: Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council �Chambers HEARING: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTIC/PATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 763-572-3599. Publish: May 19, 2005 65 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. CASE NUMBER: Prelimina Plat, PS #05-02 APPLICANT: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Petitioner or re resentative must attend the Plannin Commission meetin . PURPOSE: To create one parcel out of five. LOCAT/ON OF 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 PROPERTYAND Central Avenue. LEGAL DESCR/PTION: Legally described as Lots 15-19, Block 1, Spring Valley DATE AND TIME OF Planning� Commission Meeting: HEAR/NG: Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEAR/NG: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTIC/PATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPEC/AL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 763-572-3599. Publish: May 19, 2005 .. . :� City of Fridley -I LEGEND Community Develoment Department Public Hearing Notice w Q � � � z w U � { .; � j I �" MISSISSIPPI ST • ��:IG\�I � Preliminary Plat Request N Plat- PS #05-02 and � Rezoning Request ZOA #05-02 Petitioner - Family Lifestyle Development Corp 1314 & 1340 - Mississippi St 6421, 6441 & 6� Cetnral Ave i■ sources: Fridley Engineering Fridley GIS Anoka County GIS � Map Date: 5/20/05 ADDISON BETTY A 1315 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 AUER JOHN R 1399 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BECCHETTI STEPHEN D & DARRI 6361 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BERGLUND ERWIN R & SUZANNE 6565 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BJORKLUND ERIC T& HJORDIS L T 1360 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ALJAFFERY YOCOUB 1340 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 AWAIJANE SAMtR & MINDY 5096 HUGHES AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BEIX TERESA A 1490 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BERGMAN LEONARD E& DORIS L 6435 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BLEICHNER SUSAN L 6449 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ARCHER-KATH JULIE A 1348 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BARSNESS CURTIS A 6581 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SERGANINI RICHARD L & DIANE 6596 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BERQUIST STANLEY J 6619 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 A BLISCHOK THOM 8� SHARLA TRUS�EE 4244 E DESERT CREST DR , PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 . BOGDAN ALLA & POTAPENKO V 6532 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BRAAM GARY L& CYNTHIA J 1436 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BROOS MICHAEL & HOAGBERG MIA 656 LUCIA LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BULTMAN JEAN 6537 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BONA DAVID L& CHARLOTTE C 6548 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BRICKNER MARGARET A TRUSTEE 6260 HIGHWAY 65 NE #308 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BRYTOWSKI MICHAEL J& LAURA A 6378 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BURDICK ROBERT M& DORA M 1316 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BONDOW BRUCE A 66'16 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BRIDGEMAN ROBERT F& MARY E 1375 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BUIRGE THOMAS R& LINDA J 6312 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 BURKHOW JON R& ALLISON R 6300 SHINGLE CR PKWY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 0 BURMIS DELLA M BURNS DEBORAH J 8� KING WILLIAM CALDERON BOB JR & JACKIE A 6459 PIERCE ST NE 1371 CREEK PARK LN NE 6401 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 � 68 CARLAND JOHN A& B D CARLSON DENNIS A CARLSON RICHARD S 6416 DELLWOO� DR NF 6491 ARTHUR ST NE 7691 OLD CENTRAL NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CARNEY JAMES C 8� DE ARLYN 6441 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 COUGHLIN CORY J 6411 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CUDD MELISSA A& LOVEN JEFFREY 1311 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 1271 E MOORE LAKE DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1314 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1380 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1441 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6303 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CEBULA DONALD J& SANDELIN R K 1427 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 COGLE MARIE C 8� GEORGE L R 1376 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 COUNTRY HOUSE INC PO BOX 818 STILLWATER, MN 55082 CURRENT RESIDENT 1131 E MOORE LAKE DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1299 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1358 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1400 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1491 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6315 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 r�� CHRISTENSON CARL E& M A 1327 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 COLLARD JESSE J 1426 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 COVERSTON CLEM Z 8� EVA A 1424 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 1250 E MOORE LAKE DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1310 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1376 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 1415 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6301 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESiDENT 6325 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6330 ARTHUR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6345 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6361 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6381 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6441 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6490 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6501 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6533 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6550 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6335 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6352 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6367 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CIJRRENT RESIDENT 6400 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6452 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6500 CFiANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6525 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 8534 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6552 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6565 LUCIA LN NE FR�DLEY, MN 55304 7� CURRENT RESIDENT 6343 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6360 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6373 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6421 CENTRA� AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6461 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6501 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT REStDENT 6531 CHANNEL RD NE FRiDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESfDENT 6544 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 � r CURRENT RESIDENT 6554 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT _ 6571 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 c CllRRENT RESIDENT 6572 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT 6634 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 DAVIS TERRANCE A& JENNIFER J 6548 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 DEMELLO FRANK 8� SHARON 6134 WOODY LANE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 DiSCHINGER ROBERT D & PEARL 6529 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EISCHENS JILL M 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE #4 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ERICKSON ALLAN T 8� B ELAINE 1400 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FEMRITE ROGER N& FAYE M 4773 MANITOU ROAD TONKA BAY, MN 55331 FINDELL DONALD 6850 SIVERTS LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 6586 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 DAHLMEIER BETH A 1358 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 DEMARS ROY H JR 8� LYNN M 1464 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 DEMELLO JOHN R & ALEXANDRA 2872 77TH TERRACE NW NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112 EASON JAMES P 6360 ARTHUR ST FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EISCHENS JILL M 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE #4 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EVANGELIST PAUL A 6378 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FEMRITE ROGER N& FAYE M 4773 MANITOU ROAD TONKA BAY, MN 55331 FLICKINGER P M 8� FLICKINGER M 6580 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 6600 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55304 DAVENPORT RUTH A 1489 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 DEMARS RUTH H 1442 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 DEUSER THOMAS E& KAREN A PO BOX 32187 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EDWARDS DENNIS B& BARBARA J 1403 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ENNIS RONALD M& SHIRLEY A 6601 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 EYLER INGE 1456 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FIGUEROA MILTON I 8 MARQUEZ R 6423 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FREEMAN JON L& SANDRA F 6440 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIV AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 , 71 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GARMAN KATHLEEN R 6366 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GLOPPEN TOR J 8� BETH A 1421 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GOULD FLORENCE M& JEAN E 6448 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HALL DAVID C& HENRY SUSAN M 1491 RICE CRK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HART HERBERT N& SYLVIA E 1450 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HINZ GREGG C 6715 ASHTON AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HOFFMAN CATHY J& GREGORY R 6631 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GAYNOR STEVEN L & BARBARA 1414 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GOLUBOWICZ ANNE E 1220 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GRITTNER MARK A& BRENDA L 1351 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HALVORSON KIMBERLY J 6555 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HASSAN ASSIA 6599 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HITCHCOCK W & I TRUSTEES 6532 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HOLLAND RICHARD E 8� WENDY K 6536 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 72 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY HRA 6431 UNIV AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GIBSON TERESA J 1255 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GOTTWALD GRRY G 1415 MISS ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 GWIAZDON MITCHELL L & MARY 6350 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HALVORSON LARRY D � JAYNE 6461 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HICKS JANIS K 1320 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HJ11 LLC PO BOX 270311 VADNAIS HEIGHTS, MN 55127 HOLLISTER DOROTHY M 1466 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ► + HOLMGREN ENTERPRISES INC HORNER JACQUELYN A HORTON CHARLES L& PHYLLIS �323 RICE CREEK RD NE 2463 17TH AVE NW 10761 181ST CIRCLE NW MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112 ELK RIVER, MN 55330 HORTON CHARLES L & PHYLLIS 10761 181ST CIRCLE NW ELK RIVER, MN 55330 HUIE CHOCK S& LAI C 1328 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ISAACSON LINDA J 6535 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 JAPS RUSSELL & BONNIE TRUSTEES 1422 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 JOHNSON JON G & MARY 1400 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KEANE JAMES W& SUSAN K 900 NINE MILE COVE S HOPKINS, MN 55343 KENDALL MARGARET A 6481 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KING JOHN K& ARCHER LISA M 1425 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KNUTSON ORVIS D 3723 POLK ST NE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55421 HOUCHINS CHRISTINE D& ROY E 1465 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 HYBBEN LANCE S& JOLYNN O 1489 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 JAEGER DAVID J& CHEVRE CARYL 6564 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 JOHNSON CHRISTINE R 1379 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 JOHNSON RANDOLPH E 6336 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KEITA AMINATA 6617 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KERN BRUCE N& CATHY A 6471 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KITTERMAN FRANK 13892 RIVER FORREST DRIVE FT MEYERS, FL 33905 KOCOUREK CHARLES & MARLYS E 6330 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 73 HRA CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 IMBERTSON MARTIN B & ARDIS 6564 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 JANKOWSKI JOHN M 1400 RICE CREEK RD FRIDLEY, MN 55432 JOHNSON DOUGLAS E 6388 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KACHINA PHYLLIS M 6476 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KELLS ALFRED J& DORIS E 6400 PIERCE ST NE � FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KESTNER ELIZABETH A 6580 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KLUCSAR YOAVA 1420 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KOTCHEN SCOTT A 8� MARY K 6381 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KOZER JACK D& KAREN P 860 86TH AVE NW COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 KRIENS BERNARD J & LORALEE 1362 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LABANDZ FRANK & VALLIE 1356 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LANDRY DONALD J& MARY K 6597 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LEKANG RICHARD E& JOYCE E 6517 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LIEB WILIIAM JR & KIMBERLY 6390 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MAHOWALD KELI R 8� PAIGE TROY A 6389 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MARIHART BONNIE J 1443 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MARTINSON TERRY L& MARY JANE 6568 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MATTISON MARK JON 6421 OLD CENTRAL AVE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 KOZER JACK D& KAREN P 860 86TH AVE NW COON RAPIDS, MN 55433 KRUSE RICHARD & JOAN TRUSTEES 1383 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LABANDZ FRANK A& VALLIE R 1356 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LARSON GRACE M 1340 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LENNO BERT W III 1461 CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LIND LEANN V 1410 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MALONE DAVID J& JOSIE D 6283 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MARIHART BONNIE J 1443 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MARTI S TERRY L& MARY JANE 6568 C TRAL AVE NE FRIDL , N 55432 MCCLOSKEY WILLIAM O& J A 6620 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 74 KRAMBER KATHRYN L 2013 29TH AVE NW NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112 KWONG ANDREW & SELINA 1321 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LABANDZ FRANK A& VALLIE R 1356 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LARSON ROGER C& B K YUNKER- 1339 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LENNOX HERBERT W 111 & JUDITH 1461 1461 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 LUKE KENNETH W& KATHLEEN M 1341 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MARIHART BERNARD J 1373 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MARTIN GREGORY D 6549 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MASON JOHNNY E& JILL L 1361 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 . � � MCCULLOCH K M& M L TRUSTEES _ 1454 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MGGINNIS RYAN G& THORESON J J MCNAUGHTON MARVEL MEHTA ROBERT 6630 CHANNEL RD NE 63�0 PIERCE ST NE 6500 CHANNEL ROAD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MPLS, MN 55432 MELCHER HENRY T 8� ROSEMARIE 6500 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MILSTEN ROBERT W& MARY A 1487 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MULROY PATRICIA S 1384 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 NAYMASTER S J& WOLDEN LOIS K 6625 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 NIKOLOV ILIAN S 6350 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OKESON VIRGIL A 8� SUSAN M 1423 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OLSON HENRIETTA A 6425 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OSTLUND ARNOLD F JR & F M 1453 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PALMER LOREN C& SHIRLEY M 6596 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MENTH JOSEPH R 8� JOAN M 1386 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MIRANDA LARRY B& SKIBA L J 6581 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MULROY PATRICIA S 1384 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 NELSON ROBERT O& DORIS L 1439 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 NORGAARD DIRK L& LISA K 6401 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OLSON BRUCE R& AUDREY A 1442 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OLSON KURT E& ANDREA R 1385 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OUELLETTE EUGENE L & ANN 6343 DELLWOOD RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PAPILLON MICHAEL T& LINDA D 6421 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 75 MILES DOROTHY M 1370 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MOELLMAN RHONDA R& SEARS R E 6609 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MULROY PATRICIA S 1364 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 NEWPORT RONALD L 8� NANCY G 1494 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 NYGREN BYRON N 1363 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OLSON CAROLYN M TRUSTEE' 1430 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OPSAL JON M& BLOOD ANN B 1405 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PAINTER DANIEL R& JOYCE D 6451 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PAQUETTE LEON J & VIRGINIA 1479 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PARKS CAMILLES R 1341 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PEEK GEORGE H& ZITA T 6633 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PETERSON MARLENE M 6550 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PHILLIPS JON S& DIANE M 1361 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 , PRATT MARGUERITE E 1428 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 RAAEN IOIS E 6501 LUCIA LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 RAMSEY SHARYN R 1340 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 REDEPENNING DARREL 8� DONNA 6391 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 RUSNACKO JOHN M & BARBARA 6476 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SCHWALBACH RICHARD O 6501 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PAULSON MARIAN 1425 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PEHL GERALD A& DOROTHY T 1250 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PETERSON THOMAS R 6401 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PODVIN CAROLE E 1391 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PRIOR RUSSELL L& BEVERLY Y 1340 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 RAD JOHN R 1200 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 RANDALL JOE M& VIVIAN M 1210 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 REISNER DONNA M& JAMES W 6424 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SCHAEFER TARA R 8� LANE KEELY J 6391 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SCHWARTZ MARK A& JEAN D 1372 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 76 PAYNTER GARY 6436 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PERRON CAROLYN D 6610 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PHILLIPS GARY P& PA'fRICIA M 6519 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 PORTZLINE GERALD & JOYCE 1310 RICE CREEK ROAD FRIDLEY, MN 55432 QUALfTY GROWTH LTD 3002 ELM ST FARGO, ND 58102 RAMSEY SHARYN R 1340 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 RAU JOHN D& SUSAN M 1341 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 RUSINAK JAMES J& RHONDA L 6412 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SCHLEIF KATIE K 1476 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SEGER LYNN A& DEBRA H 1475 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 a Y , SEVERTSON JILL E& RICHARD D SHEA RICHARD J SHiMANSKI ROBERT D& MARY LOU 6367 NE DELLWOOD DR 2132 150TH AVE NW 8025 GARFIELD ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ANDOVER, MN 55304 SPRING LAKE PARK, MN 55432 SKYHAWK MARIAN E 6580 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SOLIS TRACY L& KEVIN A 1381 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 STEINBERG SANDRA J 6533 LUCIA LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 TAMARISK RESOURCES INC 1�82 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 TIMO ELVINA J 6517 LUCIA LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 7YRA KARIN K 1501 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 US FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 6303 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 VANDER HART GARY W& FERN L 6401 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 VOGT JAMES A& DARLENE S 6315 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SMITH CYNTHIA & STOLPE ROBERT 6428 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SPAETH WARREN T & SHERRILL 6516 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 STEWART DONALD D 1482 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 THAKE CAREY G 8 JUDITH K 1441 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 TOURVILLE ROBERT B 8� J M 6379 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ULVE GERALDINE 6552 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 US FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 6303 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 VANG CHOU TONG & THAO BAO 6516 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 VUGTEVEEN CHAD W& SHERYL L 4142 AVONDALE ST MINNETONKA, MN 55345 77 SMITH MARY V 6437 DEL•LWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 SPOONER CALEB J 6271 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 STONE THOMAS D 1400 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 THOMAS RICHARD S& JO ANN 1391 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDlEY, MN 55432 TRACZYK ROBERT 8� PATRICIA 1455 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ULVE GERALDINE 6552 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 V{�NAUGH ERNEST D& K L 6449 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 VIRDEN LAWRENCE A& M F 6413 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 WARDSP&AP&PARKKH 6560 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 WAZWAZ TAHANI &ISMAIL MOHAMMAD WILLIAMS JAMES S WILLIAMS JON J fi329 DELLWOOD DR NE 1357 64TH AVE NE 6355 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 WILLIAMS JOSEPH J& RACHEL L 6554 OLD CENTRAL AVE #3 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 WOLF DARYL M& LINDA L 6446 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ZACHARIAS BETTY & ROLAND 1387 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ZIMMERMAN THOMAS JR 8� JUDITH M 7518 TEMPO TERR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 WILLIAMS JOSEPH J 8� RACHEL L 6554 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE #3 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 YANG JAMES V& EMILY C 6420 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ZERBY D MICHAEL & JUDITH A 1400 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 i WIND GERARD P& CATHERINE A 6545 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 YOUNG JACKIE R& G M 6549 LUCIA LN NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 ZiEBART OF MINNESOTA INC 6300 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 0 . TOM MYHR.A SCOTT LUND ROBERT BARNETTE 6360 ABLE STREET NE 580-69TH AVENUE NE 541 RICE CREEK BLVD. FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY NIN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 STEVEN BILLINGS 5215 LINCOLN STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55421 TIM BYRNE 6053 WOODY LANE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOHN SCHWARTZ 6694 FRIDLEY STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MARY KATCHEN 6381 ARTHUR STREET NE � FRIDLEY MN 55432 BERNARD MARIHART 1373-64� AVENLTE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 GREGORY ZELENCK 7526-4"� STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SHANTIVANBUREN 7550-4TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 HAZEL JOHNSON 1334 HILLCREST DRIVE - FRIDLEY MN 55432 RICHARD WOLFE 960 HATHAWAY LANE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOANNE ZMUDA 6051-4� STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 STEVE RANALTA 6684 FRIDLEY STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 WALLY SQUIER 6701 CHANNEL ROAD NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MARY VASECH 6909 HICKORY DRIVE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JESS COLLARD & AIMEE STANFORD 1426-64� AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ROLAND & KAREN EVANS 7758-4� STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MR. & MRS. LAGESSE 7951 BROAD AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 79 ANN BOLKCOM 6821 HICKORY STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOAN OLSON 6320 VAN BUREN STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ROY & LYNN DEMARS 1464 MISSISSIPPI STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CLIFF JACOBSON 6240-6� 5TREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 STEVE OLTMAN 7542 -5� STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOE & LINDA NESLON 1357-64'� AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 1346 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DOREENA CISEWSKI 7534-4� STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DENNIS DEWING RANDY JOHNSON SHERYL COYLE 1501 CAMELOT LANE 6336 PIERCE STREET NE 7859 LJNIVERSITY AVE NE #208 . FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 SPRING LAKE PARK MN 55432 JIM REISNE 6424 PIERCE STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 SUE RAU 1341-64TH AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 KEN & PAT CHRISTIANSEN 7525-4� ST NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 MARVEL MCNAUGHTON 6300 PIERCE STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 DENNIS & BARB EDWARDS 1403-64'� AVE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 ROBERT MOSEMAN 7533-4� STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 :1 LESLIE & JEAN COYLE 6271-6�' STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 PAT MULRAY 1384-64'� AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 0 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Date: June 23, 2005 To From Subj ect William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator PS #OS-04 Target Super Store Plat Background Target Corporation has applied to the City of Fridley to re-plat their property at 755 — 53rd Avenue. The plat would allow Target to sell off a separate parcel of land in the southwest corner of their property to Petco Inc. so that Petco could have their own, free-standing store. In addition, Target plans to build a new Super Target Store on the site, which is the type of Target store that sells groceries in addition to the standard merchandise sold at all Target stores. Target is on an aggressive timeline on this proposed project, with construction of the new Petco Store and demolition of the existing Target Store to be complete by December 31, 2005. Their plan is to have the new Super Target Store open for business in October 2006. Because of Target's need to rebuild quickly, they plan to apply for building permits for the Petco Store before Council approval of the final plat. Target will bear the risk that if the final plat is not ever approved they will end up owning one large parcel of land, including the Petco Store and the Target Store. City Code does allow one property owner to have two stores on one parcel. Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding PS #OS-04, the Target plat, on June 15, 2005. No one from the public was in attendance at that meeting. However, one written list of comments was received into the public record. Following discussion of each of the concerns raised, the Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion to approve PS# OS-04 with the 11 stipulations recommended by staff. The petitioner did voice concerns regarding stipulation 6, park fees, and stipulation 11, regarding the development agreement. It is the desire of the petitioner to have the language of the development agreement resolved as soon as possible. In addition, they do not feel that they should have to pay the park fee as they are redeveloping an existing plat. Staff has not agreed to waive the park fees since none were paid to our knowledge at the time of the original plat nor was park land dedicated. Staff has agreed to prepare the development agreement and meet with the petitioner as soon as possible following approval of the preliminary plat. Stipulations Because of pedestrian access and screening concerns at the Cheri Lane cul-de-sac raised by the surrounding neighborhood at the Planning Commission public hearing, staff has investigated possible solutions to these concerns. Staff has concluded that it is important to the neighborhood to maintain a pedestrian access in this vicinity. Although some residents want to close the existing pedestrian access, when that was attempted years back, people kept reopening the fence. It has also been concluded that landscape screening is not a realistic option due to the easements and utilities in the area. Therefore, staff has added an additional stipulation (# 12) that requires a coated chain link fence (for security and safety reasons) with vines planted at its base. The stipulation requires Target to maintain an opening for pedestrian access. Recommendation Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission's approval of PS #OS-04 with the 12 stipulations in the attached report. M-OS-54 City of Fridley Land Use Application PS-05-04 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55403 Requested Action: Replat of one general shopping lot to accommodate redevelopment of existing Target and PETCO stores. Existing Zoning: G3, General Shopping Location: 755 53rd Avenue NE Size: 869,022 sq. ft. 19.95 acres Existing Land Use: Target/PETCO Store Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: I-694 & S-2 (Medtronic Headquarters) E: G3 Retail & Gen. Business S: Medtronic W: R-1, Daycare Center & City Park Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan for redevelopment Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Commercial laundry and dry cleaning establishments and all uses allowed under G 1 Principal Uses and G2 Principal Uses are a permitted use in G3 zoning districts. Zoning History: 1953 — Lot is platted. 1967 — Target Store constructed. 1985 — Interior alterations permit Legal Description of Property: Parts of lots 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, Auditor's Subdivision #155 as on file at Citv Hall Public Utilities: Building is connected. Transportation: The property receives access from 53rd Ave. NE Physical Characteristics: Lot is fully developed, contains buildings, parking, & landscaped areas. SUMMARY OF REQUEST Target Corporation, petitioner, seeks to replat the property located at 755 53rd Ave NE for the purpose of June 24, 2005 SPECIAL INFORMATION redeveloping the existing Target and PETCO stores into two buildings; each with its own site. vicw a� �� r�vc l�r, ciiuniicc ii�iii cicva�cu �ci��ccuvc. Image courtesy of Westwood Professionals. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of this plat request, withl2 stipulations in attached report. • Project provides redevelopment opporiunity in the City as guided in the Comprehensive Plan for this site CITY COUNCIL ACTION / 60 DAY DATE City Council — June 27, 2005 60 Day Date — July 11, 2005 Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones PS #05-04 — Target Plat Proiect Summarv Target Corporation, petitioner, seeks to replat the property located at 755 - 53rd Ave NE to allow the creation of two general shopping lots. The Petitioner plans to build one new commercial retail building on each of the newly created parcels. The property, as existing, contains a general shopping district on the lot with the southern end and eastern side developed as parking. Target proposes to replace the existing shared Target/PETCO building with a Super Target and build a separate building for PETCO on the southern portion of the lot at 755 - 53rd Avenue. The current zoning is C-3. The petitioner proposes no changes to the current zoning. Zoning map of area surrounding proposed plat Analysis Per zoning code Section 205.15.3.B.(1)(d) •"Lot requirements of this Section are for commercial laundry and dry cleaning establishments. All uses allowed under G1 Principal Uses and C-2 Principal Uses of this Chapter, provided they meet the following conditions: (a) All uses are located within a shopping center building or a cluster of three (3) or more uses using common or shared parking facilities, or (b) The use facilities require a minimum of 100 parking spaces. (c) Sexually oriented businesses as defined and regulated in Chapter 127 of the Fridley City Code. (Ref. 966). •(3) Pawn shops, pawn brokers as regulated by Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code, and secondhand goods dealers as defined in Minnesota State Statute 471.925. (Ord. 1104)" Fridley requires that lots in the C-3 district be a minimum of 35,000 square feet total lot area under one owner. • The proposed Lot #1 will be 753,566 square feet or 17.3 acres in size after the replat. • The proposed Lot #2 will be 85,955 square feet or 1.97 acres in size after the replat. The minimum lot area requirement of 35,000 square feet for a general shopping district under one owner has been met on the proposed plat. Ariel map of the area surrounding the proposed plat The newly created commercial sites would obtain access off of 53rd Avenue. A minimum of 25' in street frontage is provided for access. The proposed new general commercial buildings shall meet all of the necessary setback requirements. The amount of lot coverage for the building footprint shown is 25%. Up to 40% for a one story and 35% for a two (2) story building would be permitted. All necessary utility and drainage easements are also provided for on the plat. As proposed, both subdivided lots meet the minimum criteria of 35,000 square feet under one ownership for lot size in a general shopping district. Staff Recommendation City Staff recommends approval of this plat request, with stipulations. • Does provide redevelopment opportunities for Fridley. Stipulations City Staff recommend that the following stipulations be placed upon approval of this request: 1. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Any remaining debris from demolition of existing buildings on site shall be removed prior to gr�anting of final plat. 3. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City 's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 4. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. S. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6. Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $0. 023 per square foot for a total of $19, 308.98 for both plats prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. 8. The petitioner shall agr�ee to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new construction shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Commercial building shall meet all parking and setback requirements unless abated by a varzance. 10. Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. 11. The petitioner shall agr�ee to the terms of a development agr�eement that shall be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. 12. Petitioner shall replace existing west fence from the southern edge of the adjoining City park to the northwest corner of their property with 7' high vinyl coated chain link fence, including installation of Engleman ivy planted 2' on center along the fence base along the Cheri Lane cul-de-sac, leaving a pedestrian-only access opening in the fence. If the fence opening location is moved for safety reasons, Petitioner with be responsible for the expense of paving a new pathway on the City right-of-way from the cul-de-sac to the fence opening. 0 � V �.l" �/ `� ! `� � i '' ;��-� ��►�� , . � �� I M��S� f� s � � ; � ; �-�-� . � �-, �� i � �� 7 2 �'�� 1 z �'�y �� C�� ; �� . ;; . . . ;1; � ��I�6 �� - ��,. C� 1 N�o�,��; �.;i '. \Vs�� c 1�C�e� �tv(1� ��-+/ I4� ��,�J '._V .. � � I l �� N"� � C� �-? �1 �U �2� � 2d J�I 1 N t�lt?h��t N�t ��( , � '�, ;,, . ,. ' l,�j� S 1 � � S � � � � ��( (� t �j� �'12C� � t N�;N�j- _ ViSI/�9- - , _ �� ; . ��; �4M . I �-}� t��Sr �I �l�f�-1,,, �,� _ . . _ � 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . , __ i! ,� _ � ( __ _. _ - �'-�P I�' .S ��C' �� j�1. +� � � �V �i _ ;# _ _._ ii_ � -_ I � t2� U�1 �1 `� . l � ��c� � �2�'� _ j__ , , _ _ _ '; � �N G f i �f� �--� � _/��%}� d � ?� . �� n � _ w�,—r ��/�-�� ,��,� � ��_ . a;. ,�; �a; _ `�°� N � �- � 0�2� ��9�v s��-�� j __ ji;� �S-11NC� G�f� � �v�. ��UC� .—`�:��c� � � ,, . _ __ � �-c T�c/v _ �� W t�t � �' (�� _ _ 1'' _ `� � f � _ , � t �� N'l -�=(V.� O �` S�V Il/� (�(l�'1/l✓ �� . ,�� o � _ � � 1 `l� �� u�i�z. ,e� ; ._ �� -v _ , ; ; � � �'�/ � .,f�' '' � r� ��I ��'�:� _ ;;� r�� ' - �:;; , j�;� � . . ; . � Dd�� t�'�--(. �� (�'�� _ ��-r , i ; i �� ' � r-z, � � �V i� � ��; �� ( �� .�� 1�1c �C� I�� ., .. .. ,� . __ _ __ _ �� - �� S �' �� 1�S' fS �%if�l, � � n-- � ?; � _ � /� � � I�� g��s� r�,�- �� I�0 U � - ;;; � M( , 7�UltrJ'' dl� ' ' ` � 1� c� �'�,�(� C � � i�t � ', 1 ��7 1�� . �� 1�7�� . ��, . ��, 87 � _ . __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _._ _. . _�' .L�r'r�-ifOf� _�� '�� _ _� (��GG2. .sf�}-(�_ �°�' _ __.. _ _ l`�1o.v� ��.� .�� -_ �� sf�� , _ __ _ c� �s �- �v�rs� _ __ _ _ _ . ��.,� _ , _� .�=� _ _ �C%�I -�t�( _i Q. U C�. li d Gi�__ (�V � ��f _ D %=� � ��_ _ _ __ _ _ .. ______ __. � � �ul _ i�t1 f�ii �,1�-� v�� _ _d� �Utc�_INC _ _�� _ : _ _. __ _ . _ _ _f ��-� � � �.�.. � G I� d� � .. . t.-1 K�. f�- b�r9-c��_ c�l �LL_. c� (�._ .. ^ _ _ _ _1. t�, 1 � _ vS� �r �i-�- ��:n�� G� ��-1� _� _ ��?-1�. _ _ - - _ _ __ /�M� _ t3 � _�� ('�1'7�. � ,�� __ 'T �-f�-'. (N�2�(� _ _ _ . _ �� !p :_ --�oU �-� � �--(1� 2_ ._ _ . _: . ___ __ - .___ __ _ __ . __ . . . �. __ �!1 i� �� _ 2� S o � P�s �-f�' p� � � c ._ NU,?-?%� _ - _ _ � � �'d �N�- _v t=- rE�_ _� H--r�l c.,� _ _ � � _ _� --- _ _. . - . __ _ ( � � � _ �� 41I Tt-� ._��' _ � <S �1/?� � 6� - _ _ _ d�=- _ c��2t L� N� G(��-._ ��-.S� �-5� r9- __ __ _ _ � � �v � �v.�. _ _ _ . _ ___ _ . _ _ _ __ __ �� C tS�tNC� ��.-(�i �6 l� i U�� iN No�-r�f � � _ W�1 � 2(�l L�. � t' T�g-_ S� ��' cll.f�' �� _5�I L�__ . � �� -� a N �c� �:� ��'r ��-�. . _ p�� .2,5 � ' �� T-t� J-�?l��f-�" b � . Tt?��_�'rt�� L..�-�`'_. . . c�-� f�-7 � ��/"��dJU �f�-7" _ �_ _ �BJ�ON'�r�_ �D� �� _ ��. �r�z ��'�- , �J I�c,� _ ��_ � . , . s� � �-�- i ��C � � `�-�--�. s� . � �.� � a� �s�r�_ � :: . , '� _. _ _.__. __ :. __ __ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ ' j .._�� :_ .� 4 1 S _�'�� i3�i 1�_ �O.s� 6�F='-_ f`�'�G�'-�' �_ � . _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ � _ __ _T��-��7_ -�'_-�� 6 t� c,�� _ � s,� . � 7 ,��NS!�!v?�. j , , . _ _.. _._ _ _ __ �_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ►l��- 7��16� T� _ R'�ip _�. _� i�-t� l��?�. ___ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ �-�1 � _ _�� s i-1�o�1tN C� _ C�4�-� �7�' �'�i�t_ _ rt� _ __ _ _ __ ._��___�o� s� � ►�-� ��-�-, ��-[_�?��_ ____ _ ___ . _ _ � _ � _. . _ _ __ _ __I-�-v� _�� v �_ ��v�c� _��_ �,��-rNr_ _ � , __ _ __ ___. � _ . q� _ �_�� t�S: W I_r�-�� _r t� �(��, ._ _ _ __ - __ � _. _ . __ _ , ___ _ _ __ __ � _ _ __ _ _. � ___ _ ___ _____ _ ____ ___ . . _ _ _ � __ _ _ _ _ _ _ , __ . _ _ _ . _ � _. - _ - � . _ _ _ __ _ -- __. __ __ _. _ ____ . . _ _ . _ _ __ . : _ _._ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ____ _ ___ ,� .__ _ __ . __ _ . � _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ __ _ � __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ __ __�-- �� _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ � _ __ _ �__ _ � . ., _ ._ . a . � . ,a _ . _ . _. � ._ . __. _ 9 . � . ._. . . . : . .. . .3 .._ . .. � . � . � . , j . . ... . .. . . _.� . . . j . .. . _ _. .. . .._ . f .._. ._ . . . . _ . . .._. ...:.�..._ . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .... . . .�. . ��.3. . _. _ . . . _ . �;'1 • � � $�� <�� s��$ ��f� � � � 4�� °� � � � Uy� y q O �� N�� W� n� O �� n4� 17l � �z xF'6ya � �"rul �q �� L:"a Z�3 l � S� .. a� a=�� a s z� `� 3� � ��ges� �� € _ �� m � �<�� s�� s3 � ��-°�� "�� Q�� ° �a �� o��F � � „ � �� g�� h�b�� $t�fx �� A�� =4� ��a � �g� �� z �g=o�� o�oo�� = a�� _� �� `�� s �� ; •0 8 �_�� b�� R��Yl� � s � s� �� 8�b� 4 ��o� �o�€�� a�� Na �� , ea��€s a��a� � -�� ;� �� „�� a�� _� a =�� aa�� <�w�a�� <ga�� °� �xq � °��" N 3.°+'b��€Wq��o� J"a°°'�� ' $8� � °7��' �s. � � .ffi �� ba�3 �k��a ��w��=�aW �;g�� W �WaW�� a�<�€�� w�� ^ � ��-�b � S�oga$�H�� c $�<a � �� x�as�`�a��°�"�k�r �� iurcn<a�< ��$ �~ �� F �}�N6�^ � �aa��-a�� s �a �� a �� e ��a�� W� �� t�s ��a� ��< a$$tl � � �� A��uv � �� ' 1 -' , � � , , � . � ' � 1 / �i ' � - -- / � b �^p��"J : � M ♦s ,�y o i � � --- / d � i �i / � o � / �� o� , I / �g � � ! , ' � � �� r' , f �� , ��,a�,� . � � �'�o � d °g : �p� � 6 1 / v�'�� IbS � °�/ ! -�� / ,. � � � ( � ;'� � / .: � � � I� mmw� . i � n� � � � �� a , , -- „" �.a� .-""-�d Y � / e�.9 .�� V 1 / �� O , o �� Ml �$ ° W r� --„ — ' � �� . bi� """ � �� .� � � \ �� I �p, \ 1�'. � � a �� \'�,, ; ' •-�,._ v � � . � - co•�u a.er,sto - � _,Y,1' • I-- --- —�„ — — -- � � i �- — -��. I —` '— �J/ I I �� I � � I L1 I � .. r J '� � � r C� � I u� a � I �> � C - �. �I e �e � � �� 8� � � �� a �� a� � � � �� , � �� ss•eae* �� • �� / (\ \ / �J/ 1� r I� s �� a�� g��R ��=g� ��a a�=� �� ; i , , _._ _. _ _ _ _ . ___ � . �� o � � � �� 8 � �. - � �� z � � I� I� �� I� I� � I I I I I�� °�� yF�f� � � � � � �_6 W �� "�,� ��W��i� Q � �� i �i �E g� O ��i �'�i �'�i ��i �'�i �� ---- � �n�°�_� ^. �f �._ I----------- _ .c.,acwe.veoen t ` . nx'�eu ,.a nnw.e3 ,wx,r � � � m� � � �� a$ �F �t � � ''� . I I I � 1 ti O (`� �VIM r �9i, �� K' W M N I C7 n W F �� ~^� �� I`� � �� , �� _ L e= � �..� A� _ �_ U� >� �� ;�� c �� i �� I I _,. , sF" �� ( � �;� $a I � �s I � �\. 4 � i — � � e '� \ g � �� Yu `PM R4 �--$---- —_ -�— -- 98'96Y � M.SS,L9o00N� ./ua w� w nM��u� e �� I �� U�t�p } WN II a�� j �� 'S..k .MSi��i�' t � � -� .; `__. M.��f�N _ _ �3`J' ��.a� w � �� ' '•�� . , ` � , �� I � K � �. � 7 4 \ �. \ � \ ` � �I � �� . . � � ro�� J L r�.;�,�D��.�, � I __, C_> � - �._ —r =�aer.: 36 — — — ~ — — —' — — —I ,-� �— I � I-- — — — — — Z`sa� o--�• , — — — �_ C � n ��i i inn�_� lJ ��-. n�ni i inn�_� rll.l� _"I��J\I\I—1 i -�-� yini-, i, <` [] I I ivvii.i��v i il-� ��ui�i�vv vivC� _7.�v<�t]_�i _� IC�vv_�.�. ^�i-�n-,in��71 -,-,�_�nn� ��, � C� �C I ``(�! I L I I 1 1 1`1 _J I V V I V/\ I � � � I � C � m u; i� i,i :� � it1 . � � ♦ 10� In 22�2W1 !WE/EIK e•moaaaaeo�sooa�e.wcenwoa�d • � � , � � F�r C7 � � � � �: �� "� F � I � �I..I..I I �� I 1� � . �i� � i�� ; f �i 3» � L � � � � �� 3 ki� � - � � CffY OF FRIQLEY Date To: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 June 23, 2005 William Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #05-07, Target Corporation, Parking Reduction M-05-53 INTRODUCTION Target Corporation is seeking a variance to decrease the required number of parking stalls for their facility in the C-3, General Shopping Center District, from 1100 to 700, with 163 proof of parking stalls in addition to the 700 proposed. ELEMENTS Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepares correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. The sales per hour are also correlated to the gross volume of sales in terms of dollars. This allows Target to correlate the number vehicles parked on an hourly basis to the current and project sales of each store. Based on the historical experience at the Fridley store and the projected volume after redevelopment, Target has calculated a future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the anticipated maximum sales hour (occurs the day after Christmas). Target Corporation is proposing to build 700 spaces to allow for added convenience to their Guests. CODE REQUIREMENTS City Code Defines parking in a manner that provides adequate direction to the general public, business owners, and developers, while allow some discretion on the part of the City Council. For example, Council can allow a reduction in parking, require additional parking, or can allow a speculative ratio for parking in a multi-tenant building to compensate for overlapping parking and various high-demand times for various uses........ Target VAR #05-07 June 23, 2005 PAGE 2 A development must however have adequate space for proof of parking, if a reduced number is installed at the time of site improvements. CITY-WIDE PARKING ANALYSIS Historically, staff has heard from Commercial developers that the City's parking ratio is too high. You may recall that in 1996, Holiday Companies were asked to remove their unused asphalt and replace it with maintained pervious surface, such as sod, or an alternative acceptable ground cover. In 1996 Home Depot asked the City to be allowed to reduce the number of stalls believing that with their experience a ratio of 1:150 is too high. Because Home Depot was not certain who they would sell their attached adjacent site to at the time, they were allowed to use a speculative ratio of 1:200. Recently, Ashley Furniture asked for a reduction in the number of stalls that they were to provide. If we are to observe the largest retail operations in Fridley including: Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Bachman's Home Depot, and Target, we would find on a daily basis that the parking lots are less than 50% full. On busy weekends, that percentage of occupied stalls climbs somewhat. However, at no time does it appear that all 100% are occupied. At their busiest times it appears as though they may have as much as 40% unoccupied stalls. Later this year, staff will be asking Council to consider a text amendment to the Retail portion of Code Section 205 to adjust the number of parking stalls required, downward to better match the real demands of the retail market. At a time when storm water run- off is such a concern, and a time when critiques speak of over-paving our developed community, a reduced number of required parking stalls may be appropriate. As a result, staff would recommend approval of this request, based on Target Corporation's statistics for real parking demands. Staff also would recommend approval due to a desire to have the City encourage additional green-space and landscape where possible, instead of unused parking. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS At the June 3, 2005, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #05-07. After a brief discussion, the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance, with 8 stipulations as recommended by staff. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #05-07 June 2, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55403 Requested Action: Variance to reduce the number of parking stalls required from 1,100 to 700 (plus169 proof of parking, or 869 total) Existing Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Location: 755 53�d Avenue NE Size: 869,022 sq. ft. 19.95 acres Existing Land Use: Target/Petco Store Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: I-694 & S-2 (Medtronic Hdqrtrs) E: C-3 Retail & Gen. Business S: Medtronic W: R-1 Daycare Center & City Park Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan for redevelopment Code Conformance: Code Section 205.15.5.C, states: At least one off-street parking space shall be provided for each 150 square feet of building floor area in the C-3 District... Target's proposal would not meet the standard Code requirement. Zoning History: 1953 — Lot is platted. 1967 — Target Store constructed. 1985 — Interior alterations permit Legal Description of Property: Parts of lots 8, 9, 10, 11. & 12, Auditor's Subdivision #155 as on file at City Hall Public Utilities: Building is connected. Transportation: The property receives access from 53�d Ave. NE Physical Characteristics: Lot is fully developed, contains buildings, parking, & landscaped areas. SU M MARY OF PROJECT SPECIAL INFORMATION Target Corporation is seeking a variance to decrease the number of parking stalls required for their facility in the C-3, General Shopping Center District. Code requires 1,100. Target would provide 700 spaces plus 169 "proof of parking" spaces. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP ". . .. Target corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepare correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. .... Target has calculated a future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the maximum sa/es hour (occurs the day after Christmas." [Fridley's Code requires 1,100 stalls, which is 500 more than what is necessary for the busiest hour of the busiest day.] —see attached letter. SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of this request. • Petitioner has demonstrated hardship in the City Code's inability to adapt to current commercial parking demands. CITY COUNCIL ACTION / 60 DAY DATE City Council — June 27, 2005 60 Day Date — July 4, 2005 Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones/Scott Hickok VAR #05-07 — Target, Parking Variance REQUEST The petitioner, Target Corporation, is seeking a variance to Code Section 205.15.S.C., which requires 1 parking space per 150 SF of building floor area. The current Target Store is the redevelopment site that will result in a Super Target to be located at 755 53rd Avenue. SITE DESCRIPTOIN AND HISTORY Target Corporation Purchased this site in the mid 60's and built T8, which means it is Target's 8tn store in their corporate history. The site his important from many different perspectives apart from its history: it has good visibility, it is situated for ease of access from Highway 694, to Central, to 53rd Avenue NE and there are 20 acres of land to accommodate store needs, which have allowed customer convenience through the past 3 8 years. TARGET STATEMENT / ANALYSIS Target Corporation is proposing to redevelop their existing site into a Super Target site. The Super Target will include two district offices for a total square footage of approximately 176,376. Also, a new detached Petco facility will be comprised of 15,260 square feet. Through a plat request (that will run simultaneous with other Target and Petco land use reviews) the Petco building will be situated on a separate site, in the southwest corner of the existing Target site, and will have its own dedicated parking. The Petco facility can be divided into 12,831 SF retail sales, 643 SF storage and 1,742 SF support facilities (restrooms, break room, vestibule, animal grooming and handling). Based on current City Standards for parking, the Petco facility requires 95 parking spaces. Ninety-five spaces are provided. Based on current City Standards of lspace per 150 square feet, the Target Store would, however, be required to have in excess of 1,100 spaces. Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepares correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. The sales per hour are also correlated to the gross volume of sales in terms of dollars. This allows Target to correlate the number vehicles parked on an hourly basis to the current and project sales of each store. Based on the historical experience at the Fridley store and the projected volume after redevelopment, Target has calculated a future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the anticipated maximum sales hour (occurs the day after Christmas). Target Corporation is proposing to build 700 spaces to allow for added convenience to their Guests. Target Corporation believes in a balance between sound stewardship, Guest convenience and compliance to standards. In the case of the Fridley project, Target Corporation has indicated that it is committed to providing an appropriate number of parking spaces to achieve this balance. Target believes that building excess spaces will create additional storm water run-off that it will increases heat sink effect during summer months that it reduces vegetative cover and increases maintenance activities. Target firmly believes that 700 spaces will provide the necessary convenience to their Guests and would not recommend fewer spaces than would be appropriate for sound business purposes. Target is not proposing to develop excess property that would otherwise be used for parking. Instead, the proposed plans indicate additional green space. We have provided a graphic which illustrates a proof of potential parking for an additional 169 spaces. Existing Building CODE REQUIREMENTS City Code Defines parking in a manner that provides adequate direction to the general public, business owners, and developers, while allow some discretion on the part of the City Council. For example, Council can allow a reduction in parking, require additional parking, or can allow a speculative ratio for parking in a multi-tenant building to compensate for overlapping parking and various high-demand times for various uses. Code Section 205.15.S.0 states: A. Reduction of parking stalls may be allowed when the provisions of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the total number of required parking stalls. B. When the provisions for parking space required for specific district uses is inadequate, the City may require that additional off-street parking be provided. 2 C. Parking Ratio. (1) At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 150 square feet of building floor area in the C-3 District except: (a) At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 250 square feet of building floor area for office use. .. (d) At least one (1) off-street parking stall shall be provided for each 200 square feet of speculative building floor area. (e) The speculative parking ratio will be used for all mixed uses unless the owner agrees to enter into a written agreement, in recordable form, with the City, in which the owner represents to the City what the ratio of all uses in the building will be. Upon this happening, the parking ratio for the building will be determined on a promote basis by the parking ratio per the number of square feet for each type of use which the owner represents will be located in the building. After execution of this agreement, any changes to the specified uses will require a special use permit from the City. (2) Accessible parking spaces will be provided in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 134L (Re£ Ord. 1155) Analysis of Petitioner's Request Based on Code Requirements: A. Target argues that strict application of the Code would not provide adequate space for both parking and the new proposed building and that to modernize this site and meet the known demands for parking, a much smaller number of parking stalls could be used. B. The petitioner has prepared a statistical analysis of its precise parking demands based on enormous amounts of data and over 39 year experience on this site. C. Other property in the vicinity of I-694 has been granted similar parking reduction consideration, such as Home Depot being given the opportunity to use a speculative ratio to somewhat reduce the demands of stall numbers otherwise required by Code. A Super Store would not fit on this site with the 1,100 stalls that are required by Code. If all 1,100 were proven to be necessary, Target would need to comply. History and staff observation contradict the numbers of stalls required under the current language of the City's Code of Ordinances. A larger number of stalls beyond what is proven to be necessary can actually be more detrimental to the public in that it requires an over abundance of impervious surface, thereby increase the demands on the storm sewers and increasing the potential of surface water pollutants. � TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic patterns in and out of the Target store do not in and of themselves create any undesirable conditions. Staff has made several on-site inspections since beginning to discuss this redevelopment with Target. The current parking area provided is typically between 35 and 40% occupied at various times throughout the typical work day. Keeping in mind that this is not when peak shopping demands occur, staff has also observed weekend and evening parking activities. Most recently, the Saturday prior to the Mother's Day holiday resulted in a staff observation of approximately 45 - 50% of the stalls occupied. This represents 495 -550 cars on another extremely busy holiday. Target's proposal would be to provide 700 stalls, plus 169 proof of parking stalls. At the proposed rate, without the proof of parking stalls installed, 150 additional stalls would still remain unoccupied during a typical Mother's Day peak-time and an additional 100 additional stalls would remain unoccupied for the busiest hour of Targets busiest day, the day after Christmas. Historically staff has heard from Commercial developers that the City's parking ratio is too high. You may recall that in 1996, Holiday Companies were asked to remove their unused asphalt and replace it with maintained pervious surface, such as sod, or an alternative acceptable ground cover. In 1996 Home Depot asked the City to be allowed to reduce the number of stalls believing that with their experience a ratio of 1:150 is too high. Because Home Depot was not certain who they would sell their attached adjacent site to at the time, they were allowed to use a speculative ratio of 1:200. Recently, Ashley Furniture asked for a reduction in the number of stalls that they were to provide. If we are to observe the largest retail operations in Fridley including: Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Bachman's Home Depot, and Target, we would find on a daily basis that the parking lots are less than 50% full. On busy weekends, that percentage of occupied stalls climbs somewhat. However, at no time does it appear that all 100% are occupied. At their busiest times it appears as though they may have as much as 40% unoccupied stalls. Staff will be asking Council to consider a text amendment to the Retail portion of Code Section 205 to adjust the number of parking stalls required, downward to better match the real demands of the retail market. At a time when storm water run-off is such a concern, and a time when critiques speak of over-paving our developed community, a reduced number of required parking stalls may be appropriate. RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends approval of this variance, due to the undue hardship created by strict compliance with the standard parking requirements and due to a desire to foster additional gr�een-space when possible and a desire pervious surface area in our community to reduce run- off and surface water pollutants. City Staff recommends approval with stipulations. � STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3. Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7. Petitioner to provide landscaped hedges along the west and south side property lines, when abutting a single family residence. 8. All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot candles at the property line. � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kuechle called the Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Brad Sielaff, Kenneth Voss, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter Members absent: Larry Kuechle Others present: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 9, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Zinter, to approve the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Variance Request VAR #05-07 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to reduce the off-street parking space requirements from 1,100 spaces to 700 spaces with proof of parking for additional 169 spaces, generally located at 755 53�d Av NE. 2. Variance Request VAR #05-08 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to increase the height of a pylon sign by 10 feet to 35 feet above grade; to increase the square footage of a pylon sign from 80 square feet to 145 square feet; to increase the square footage of a pylon sign from 80 square feet to 213 square feet; to increase the amount of wall signage from 338 square feet to 744 square feet on the front of the new building, generally located at 755 53�d Avenue NE. 3. Variance Request VAR #05-09 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to decrease the front yard setback on a commercial building from 80 square feet to 24 square feet generally located at 755 53�d Avenue NE. .. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 2 of 14 MOTION by Commissioner Voss, seconded by Commissioner Zinter, to open the public hearing at for all three variances. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 PM. Mr. Hickok reviewed variance request VAR #05-07 explaining that the Target Corporation purchased this property in the mid 1960's and it is the eighth corporate store. This site is important to the City because the City has a long-standing relationship with the petitioner, the site has good visibility, there is ease of access from Hwy 694, Central Avenue and 53�d Avenue NE and there `s 20 acres of land to accommodate the store needs in this location. The current Target store is the redevelopment site for the Super Target store. He reviewed a panoramic view of the existing parking on this site. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is seeking a variance to Code Section 205.15.5.0 which would allow them to reduce the number of required parking stalls. Code requires at least one off-street parking space for each 150 square feet of building floor area in the C3 district. Target's proposal would not meet the code requirement. Super Target will include two district offices for a total square footage of approximately 176,367. City standards require 1 space per 150 square feet which means the Target Store would be required to have in excess of 1,100 spaces. On the new redeveloped site the Petco building will be detached and will be comprised of 14,260 square feet requiring 95 parking spaces. Petco will meet that requirement. Target submitted a hardship statement, Mr. Hickok stated, which in summary states: "Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepares correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. Target has calculated the future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the maximum sales hour of the maximum business day which occurs the day after Christmas. Fridley's code requires 1,100 stalls which means there would be 500 more stalls than necessary for the busiest hour of the busiest day at the Target store." Traffic patterns in and out of the Target Store do not create undesirable conditions presently nor is it anticipated in the future. The drive aisles and entrances onto 53�d line up with entrances from Medtronic to the south and that is the optimum design so that there's not confusion for traffic. Referring to the hardship statement again, Mr. Hickok read "Target is not proposing to develop excess property that would otherwise be used for parking. Instead, the proposed plans indicate additional green space. We have provided a graphic which illustrates a proof of potential parking for an additional 169 spaces." Mr. Hickok further explained there are four code conditions staff reviews when looking at hardship in recommending approval of a variance: 100 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 3 of 14 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Mr. Hickok explained that the petitioner has prepared a statistical analysis of its precise parking demands based on enormous amounts of data and over 39 years experience on fhis site. Staff made an observafion on the Mother's Day holiday weekend and their lot did not reach 50% capacify. Staff has heard frequently from retailers that the parking ratio is foo high and many of the City's large retail areas have less than half full parking lots on any given day. Home Depot and Ashley Furniture are just two examples of retailers who requested a reduction in the parking requirement for their Fridley locations. Staff will be asking the Council to consider a text amendment to the parking code fo adjusf the parking demand downward to beffer match the rea! demands for retail parking. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. Mr. Hickok explained that other property in the vicinity of /694 has been granted similar consideration, such as Home Depot being given the opportunity to use a speculafive ratio to somewhat reduce the demands of stall numbers otherwise required by code. A Super Sfore would not fif on this site with the 1,100 stalls that are required by Code. If all 1,100 were proven to be necessary, Target would need to comply. History and staff observation contradict the numbers of stalls required under the current language of the City's code. Staff will be asking the City Council to take a look at the code because this is not the �rst time that staff has had developers say the parking requirements are too high for refail. 3. That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Hickok stated fhat Target argues that strict application of the Code would not provide adequate space for both parking and fhe new proposed building and that to modernize fhis site and meet the know demands for parking, a much smaller number of parking stalls could be used. 4. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. Mr. Hickok stated that a larger number of stalls beyond what is proven to be necessary can actually be more detrimenfal to the public in that it requires an over abundance of impervious surface, thereby increasing the demands on the storm sewers and increasing fhe pofential of surface water pollutants. 101 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 4 of 14 Staff recommends approval of this variance due to the undue hardship created by strict compliance with the standard parking requirement; due to a desire to foster additional green space when possible; and due to a desire to increase the pervious surface area in the community to reduce run-off and surface water pollutants. Staff recommends that if the variance is granted the following stipulations be attached: 1) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3) Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4) City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7) Petitioner to provide landscaped hedges along the west and south side property lines when abutting a single family residence. 8) All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot candles at the property line. Commissioner Zinter asked for clarification on the district offices proposed for this site. Mr. Hickok explained that Target has chosen this site for the location of two district offices each approximately 1,000 square feet in size. These offices will be on the north side of the site with windows and an enlivened building elevation facing I-694. The office site will have a separate entrance from the front of the store itself and allows the users of that office space to enter the office without going through the retail area. At approximately 2,000 square feet, the office area is a very small portion of the 176,000 square feet of building. It does provide something other than a blank north facing of the building. Commissioner Sielaff questioned what parking ratio staff ended up with at Holiday, Home Depot and other retail sites where a reduction in parking had been requested. Mr. Hickok responded that the majority of the City's retailers are at the 1 to 150 ratio. Home Depot requested a ratio of 1 to 250. Ashley Furniture has a 1 to 400 ratio which resulted from a text amendment process for language specific to furniture stores. Commissioner Jones questioned if there will be adequate space for snow removal. Mr. Hickok explained if the variance is approved there will be less square feet of asphalt to plow and the green space becomes an excellent snow storage space. The green space also offers a filtering effect for the run-off before it reaches the storm sewer. Commissioner Sielaff questioned what other communities require for retail parking. 102 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 5 of 14 Mr. Hickok responded that there is a wide spectrum of requirements but developers claim that 1 to 250 is more typical in the metro area. But this is something staff will have to research. Ms. Harris stated Target is also requesting three variances to the City's sign code requirements: 1) Increase the height of a free-standing sign from 25 to 35 feet. 2) Increase the allowable total square footage of free-standing signs from 80 to 330 square feet. 3) Increase the square footage of the east (front of store) wall signage from 359 to 744 square feet. For the variance VAR #05-08, Ms. Rachel explained that Target is proposing to place a new pylon sign along I-694 near the northwest corner of the property. A second free- standing sign is proposed for Petco and Target at the main entrance on 53�d. Petco is allowed a free-standing, 80 square foot sign of their own but they have chosen to incorporate their sign with the Target entrance sign. The wall sign variance will increase the square footage from 359 to 744 square feet and will be placed on the front of the Target store which faces Hwy 65. There will be no wall signage on the 53�d Avenue side of the store and only a 10 x 10 foot Target symbol on the north side of the store. The petitioner is willing to stipulate that this would be the limits of their signage on the north and south elevations in exchange for the additional signage where they believe it is better situated. Ms. Harris reviewed the code allowances signage explaining that the maximum square footage of total free-standing signs is 80 square feet per development; the height of a free-standing sign is limited to 25 feet above finished grade; the wall signage maximum is 15 times the square root of the wall length. In analyzing sign variance requests, Ms. Harris explained the following four code conditions are required: 1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the properly or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property ir� the same vicinity and district. 2) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. 3) That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. 4) That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. Ms. Harris stated the Target lot does have an odd shape on the north property line with a depressed elevation in relation to both I-694 and Hwy 65. Those conditions are unique to the Target site. Other property in the vicinity of I-694 has been granted similar variances for all three of the variances requested. She then reviewed the following 103 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 6 of 14 � summary of the petitioner's hardship statement: "Because of the odd shape of the north property line, the desire to maintain a good aesthetic environment to I-694 and the residential neighborhood, the site being depressed significantly lower than I-694 and the building orientated to face Central Avenue, Target is requesting three variances from the City of Fridley for signage." Ms. Harris further stated that code would not provide enough physical signage to allow I-694 drivers to adequately identify the property and exit safely in time from the freeway which is why the petitioner is requesting the increase in square footage for the free-standing sign. Regarding the first variance, the petitioner states that placement of the I-694 pylon sign at a higher elevation close to the west property line will offer the best notification to drivers that they need to exit the freeway at Central Avenue. A larger entry monument sign on the east entrance will direct traffic into the site away from Monroe Street and will also serve as a delivery entrance for both Target and Petco. The taller / larger pylon sign along the freeway may have an impact on nearby residential properties, though no more than lights from cars on the freeway which is at a higher elevation. The larger wall signage will not be detrimental to surrounding commercial property. Ms. Harris stated sign variances similar to each of Target's sign variance requests have been recently issued, such as the wall sign variance for Ashley Furniture Store, and the pylon and wall sign variance for HomeValu. The existing Target store has received a variance in the past for a larger free-standing sign. Other businesses along major thoroughfares who received sign variances in the past include Bachman's, the University Avenue Business Center, and Cummings Power Generation (Onan). According to past variances granted, none of Target's three sign variance requests are in excess of sign variance requests approved for similar situations. Ms. Harris stated staff recommends approval of all three variances with stipulations as the petitioner has demonstrated statutory defined hardship and there are several comparable variances that have been granted over recent years for similar situations / sections of code. Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1) All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2) Any existing sign variances will be null and void with approval of the new variances. 3) The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25 feet back from all property lines. 4) No additional free-standing signs shall be allowed on .this site besides the two approved. 5) The variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. 104 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 7 of 14 d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Nofinrithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. Commissioner Jones questioned the height of the proposed sign along the freeway and whether it will be above the treetops. Mr. Hickok stated that the height of the trees is one of the hardships Target has sited. The proposed sign will be 35 feet high. Regarding variance VAR #05-09, Ms. Harris explained the petitioner is requesting this variance to construct a building that will be set back 24 feet on the front (53�d Avenue NE side). This is a 56 foot variance to the required front yard setback for a building in the General Shopping Center District. The site plan design calls for the removal of the parking area on the existing southwest corner of the property and the construction of a 15,260 square foot building. Landscaping will be installed and the view of parking will be screened by the building itself and landscaping to be provided. Ms. Harris reviewed the code requirements as follows: "General Shopping Front Yard Setbacks of the City Code states that permitted buildirags and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be closer to any public right-of-way than eighty (80) feet." Ms. Harris stated there are three code conditions reviewed for variance approval: 1) The public policy which is served by requirement. (City Code) 2) The practical difficulties or unique circumstance of the property that cause undue hardship in the strict application of the requirement. (Hardship statement) 3) In recommending or approving a variance, the Commission and/or Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance to protect adjacent properties. (Stipulations) Ms. Harris stated with regards to public policy, City Code states that an 80 foot setback is required by code in shopping center zones. The Comprehensive Plan states existing commercial sites should be targeted for aesthetic improvements and for la�d use efficiency improvements. In addressing the practical difficulties or unique circumstances of this petition, Ms. Harris read from Target's hardship statement as follows: "The setback would create a hardship to Petco in that it would not allow for an efficient and reasonable use of the property. In order to comply with the parking requirements for the new Petco facility and create a viable visual perspective of the building, we need to locate the building closer to 53�d Avenue. The area befinreen the 53�d Avenue right-of-way and the building would be a parking lot if the site plan was developed according to the specific section of the City code. When a parking lot abuts a city street, landscape screening is required between the right-of-way and the parking lot. As a result of a jet fuel gas line along the west end of the site prohibiting any 105 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 8 of 14 significant plantings in the area between the street and the parking lot, we are unable to meet the code requirement." Ms. Harris stated staff recommends approval of this variance because the petitioner has statutory defined hardship and the proposed variance meets redevelopment principles of our comprehensive plan. Staff also recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner shall create a four-sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit.) 3) The petitioner shall work with Metro Transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco buitding. 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53�d Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. Commissioner Voss questioned the stipulation for a four-sided building. Mr. Hickok explained what this relates to is that no portion of the building should look like it's the back of the building thereby causing a neighbor on one side of the building to feel that they've been somehow forgotten. The four-sided building is balanced so that from any perspective there is a pleasant-looking building. Dale Beckman, Wesfinrood Professional Services (design firm for Target Corporation), stated there are representatives present from Target Real Estate and Development Services, from Petco and Ryan Construction representatives. He explained since the store was originally developed a couple of things have occurred; I-694 and Hwy 65 were uniquely different and the traffic counts are substantially higher now. Aesthetic and safety improvements have been added to I-694. There had been no center barrier so visibility from westbound traffic to the site was possible. Also a sound wall has been erected and extends to the ramp so that eastbound traffic cannot see the Target store until they're past the ramp connection. The intent of the code, he believes, is to provide a structure of business that is compatible with other uses in the area. Target has tried to meet the specific guideiines, but the challenge of trying to meet al! of these on a site design basis is nearly impossible, thus the request for variances. The demands in the community are both for a Target store and a grocery store. They've tried to meet the intent of the code by increasing their setbacks where they can; on the west side the new building will be 60 feet from the property line which is almost double the code requirement. The building orientation is east-facing which results in three frontages; 53�d Avenue, I-694 and the private road that serves businesses along Hwy 65. Along I- 694, they want to alert eastbound traffic of the Target location so they don't have to make an abrupt lane change. To that end they plan #o erect their sign closer to I-694; going from a current sign height of 34 feet to 35 feet and a square footage of 212 square feet to 213 square feet. Along Hwy 65 they want to allow cars an opportunity to see and recognize the front of the store. So rather than putting a substantial amount of 106 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 9 of 14 signage on the north side of the building or on 53�d Avenue which is really a gateway to a residential community, they have focused their sign square footage on the east side of the building where there is no residential views and will improve visibility from Hwy 65. The third sign is the entry monument off 53`d Avenue which will guide people to their site. They tried to comply with the intent of the code by minimizing the overall square footage of their signs and keeping the signs away from residential areas. Mr. Beckman stated the parking variance request stands alone. Target is not in the business of being a landlord and do not typically like to have subleases on their property, Mr. Beckman explained, so they have carved out a specific piece of land that meets the requirements of the code to allow for a free-standing building. Traffic into this site works well because there is a substantial amount of stacking space, so they have oriented the front entrance of the Petco store facing the northeast. Normally there would be an 80 foot setback line for the proposed Petco building, but that results in a substantial amount of asphalt in that area. They considered how they could make the new Petco building look better and determined if they moved it closer to the street the parking can then be tucked between the Petco store and the Target store so it's not creating an unsightly transition into the residential neighborhood. This will also allow them to provide the four-sided building staff referred to. Another issue is a jet fuel high pressure line that runs in the right-of-way in that area and crosses over 53`d Avenue. If they were to meet the required setback for the Petco building, a substantial amount of screening would be required to screen the parking lot from the traveling public and because of the fuel line they could not comply with the screening portion of the code. Commissioner Zinter asked if Target's parking need of 600 spaces is based on the current store or on the Super Target. Richard Wiebe, Wesfinrood Professional Services, explained that Target has data on all their stores where they know the number of shoppers by the number of cash register receipts each hour. Part of this data collection was triggered by those communities which are mandating not to build (parking spaces) in excess of three spaces per thousand square feet. Target wanted to get a tighter handle on the correlation of parking spaces to shoppers. Last November a by hour traffic count was conducted at a large number of Target stores in the metro area and they were able to determine how many cars were parked in each area during the peak hours the day after Thanksgiving. They then did a correlation analysis between the number of cars and the number of cash register receipts for the same period of time and they found a tight correlation. In determining that they have data that tells them that at the absolute peak hour of parking is between noon and 1:00 p.m. the day after Christmas which can be translated into the number of parking spaces required. In analyzing this particular site, they found that the absolute maximum number they would need would be less than 600 for that peak hour the day after Christmas. Target will build 700 spaces for the added convenience of their shoppers. In addition to that, there's a proof of parking for another 160 spaces. The 700 spaces is approximately 1 space for every 250 square feet of retail area. 107 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 10 of 14 Commissioner Sielaff questioned the appearance of the south side of the Petco building. Mr. Wiebe stated instead of having a plain facing along 53�d they plan to enhance it with awnings with fixtures that appear to be windows. This gives it more of a store-front appearance. To make this more pedestrian friendly they also plan to move the bus stop further west so they get off the bus in an area with more of a residential feel and they would not have to cross the entrance to Target as they currently do. Wes Grandstrand, 5431 Madison St., stated he has some issues that need to be considered. He wants to make sure that the parking proposed is based on the proposed Super Target rather than on the existing store. The proposed landscaping for the parking area is a step in the right direction and an improvement over the "sea of asphalt" that currently exists at this site. He believes landscape hedges along the western property line would be inappropriate and should be a mature landscape barrier because of the homes in that area. He questioned the elevation of the Petco building as it relates to 53�d Avenue, particularly when the setback is narrow. The Super Target will not be visible from Hwy 65 because of the existing businesses along Hwy 65 in front of the Target property. He has no problem with the sign being proposed for the east side of the property but he is concerned about the pylon sign planned for the northwest corner of the site as that sign should not be visible from the residential area. There is also an issue with the sound barrier wall because Target obtained a variance from the state not to run the barrier wall along a portion of the freeway which results in a wrap- around sound situation into the residential area. He requested that Target provide mature landscaping to help block some of that noise from the residential area. He also questioned where the dock area will be located for the new store. Mr. Wiebe explained the dock will in the same location as the current dock but the north end of the new building is 30 feet further south than the existing building. Also, they will be providing additional landscaping near the dock area with trees to soften the effect. Mr. Grandstrand pointed out that the dock area is currently a source of noise in the residential neighborhood and he woutd appreciate efforts to reduce that noise. There is currently pedestrian access off Cherry Lane through the fence that's around the cul-de- sac. That pedestrian access is there at Target's demand. The neighborhood managed to get that access closed up but it was subsequently reopened. He would like to see that access permanently closed because it is a huge generator of unwanted foot traffic through Cherry Lane. Bob Hessman, 5381 Madison St. questioned if the wooded area to the west of the Target site will remain as natural land. He was also concerned about what type of landscaping will be provided and whether or not there would be any limitation on the hours for delivery trucks to this site. The pylon sign in the northwest corner, if high enough and lit 24 hours a day, will affect the residential area. 1: CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMM{SSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 11 of 14 Mr. Beckman stated the parking study was based on the largest volume Super Targets in the metropolitan area. There is extensive landscaping proposed to enhance the entrances. The signs will be turned off 30 minutes after the store closes. The typical Target store would have a truck turn around in the dock area but that has not been proposed for this location in an effort to reduce the noise on Cherry Lane. They will also raise the area to the west with landscaping on the top to maximize the protection for the home closest to the Target site. There is no change proposed for the wetland area west of the Target site. The Petco building will be raised approximately three feet for aesthetics and to eliminate drainage concerns. As far as the concerns over lighted signs, Mr. Beckman pointed out that the signs will be turned off at the end of business hours each day. They tried to seek a compromise between the visibility of their sign from the highway and the impact of that sign on the neighborhood by sliding the sign as far to the east as possible. As far as noise from the loading dock area, the new dock will be depressed four feet in the ground and a retaining wall will be erected along the west side of the dock. Also the new building will be approximately 30 feet south of the existing store. Mr. Beckman also stated they have no objection to closing off the pedestrian access to Cherry Lane and would defer to staff's recommendation. They don't have any plans for the property they own west of the site and plan to leave it as a wetland area. He was not aware of the specific hours for deliveries to this site but will be happy to provide that information at the City Council hearing on this matter. Mr. Hickok stated staff heard from Mr. John Harrington, the owner of the property along the western edge of the Target site, and he is concerned about the variances. His property is currently landlocked. He does have 25 feet of frontage along a right-of-way which would allow him to do something with the property. He has no specific development plans that staff is aware of. Mr. Harrington wants it on the record that these variances would only serve to make Target uninterested in his lot and he believes his lot may offer an opportunity to expand without requiring variances. Mr. Hickok stated he indicated to Mr. Harrington that his property would not solve the problems that necessitate the variances being requested and that those variances have little or no impact on his property or the future development of his site. Commissioner Zinter asked how the proposed sign compares to other Target stores. Mr. Beckman responded that Target looks at each sign specific to the location, so there's no specific or typical sign. Mr. Grandstrand reiterated his request that the Commission pay particular attention to the type of landscaping in the area on the west side of this site. There may be an opportunity for some additional mature landscaping that would help provide a better buffer, specifically in the truck dock area. Commissioner Jones questioned Mr. Grandstrand what he considers "mature landscaping." - �. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Grandstrand responded it should be trees in the range of 20 feet high to help offset the noise being generated. Mr. Hickok explained City code calls for a much sma(ler tree but staff will discuss this issue with Target. On the landscape plan, staff will discuss the specific areas about which the neighbors have expressed concern. Mr. Grandstrand added that for the 30 years he's lived in his home, Target has been a good neighbor and he expects they will continue to be a good neighbor. Mr. Beckman stated Target is looking at this as an overall redevelopment and they're trying to continue being a good neighbor, so they will work with City staff in an effor� to adjust their plans to be considerate of the neighbors within the property constraints. Mr. Hessman expressed concern that the trucks will generate more noise as they attempt to pull out of the graded area. He also asked if there will be any widening of 53�d Avenue and whether or not the entrance to the Target lot will be configured differently. Mr. Hickok responded there are no plans to change the configuration of 53�d Avenue as it is currently designed for a capacity well beyond what it carries. The access to the Target site from 53�d Avenue will be new and well designed. Mr. Beckman responded to Mr. Hessman's concerns and explained that it is only a 2% grade coming up out of the dock area so there should not be a significant increase in the truck noise. � MOTION by Commissioner by Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to enter into the record the letter from John Harrington dated June 8, 2005. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAlRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AT 9:18 PM. Commissioner Sielaff commented that he'd like to see a change in Stipulation # 7 requiring that there be input from residents adjacent to the property regarding the landscape planning. Mr. Hickok suggested that the landscape plan be made available at the counter in City Hall and that residents stop in and review the plan and provide feedback to staff prior to the City Council meeting. 110 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 13 of 14 After some discussion, the Commission members agreed to strike the word "hedges" from Stipulation #7. Commissioner Jones commented that there is a lot of space around the City taken up for unused parking. He believes the Target proposal is a good move in the right direction. Commissioner Zinter stated he believes this proposal is a good balance of residential, retail and environmental. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval of VAR #05-07 by Target Corporation with the stipulations as modified. 1) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3) Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4) City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7) Petitioner to provide landscaping along the west and south side property fines, when abutting a single family residence. 8) All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot candles at the properiy line. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to recommend approval of VAR #05-08 by Target Corporation with stipulations. 1) All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2) Any existing sign variances will be null and void with approval of this new variance(s). 3) The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25 feet back from all property lines. 4) No additional free-standing signs shall be allowed on this site besides the finro approved. 5) This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. 111 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 14 of 14 c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph a. above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Zinter, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval of VAR #05-09 by Target Corporation with stipulations. 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner shall create a four sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit). 3) The petitioner shall work with metro transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco building. 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53�d Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAWIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Zinter, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 PM. RespectFully submitted by, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary 112 Request for Parking Variance City of Fridley Super Target May 5, 2005 Target Corporation is proposing to redevelop their existing site in Fridley, Minnesota. The site cunrently consists of approximately 20 acres and includes a Target store and attached PETCO store. The site will be subdivided with a separate building and site for PETCO and a Super Target. The Super Target will include two district offices for a total square footage of approximately 176,400. The PETCO facility will be comprised of 15,216 square feet. The PETCO building will be on a separate site with its own dedicated parking. The PETCO facility breaks down at 12,831 SF retail sales, 643 SF storage and 1,742 SF support facilities (restrooms, break room, vestibule, animal grooming and handling). Based on current City Standards for parking, the PETCO facility requires 95 parking spaces. Ninety-five spaces are provided. Based on current City Standards of 1 space per 150 squaxe feet, the Target Store would be required to have in excess of 1,100 spaces. Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepares correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. The sales per hour aze also correlated to the gross volume of sales in terms of dollars. This allows Target to correlate the number vehicles parked on an hourly basis to the current and project sales of each store. Based on the historical experience at the Fridley store and the projected volume after redevelopment, Target has calculated a future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the anticipated maximum sales hour (occurs the day after Christmas). Target Corporation is proposing to build 700 spaces to allow for added convenience to their Guests. Target Corporation believes in a balance between sound stewardship, Guest convenience and compliance to standards. In the case of the Fridley project, Target Corporation is committed to providing an appropriate number of parking spaces to achieve this balance. Building excess spaces creates additional storm water run-off, increases heat sink effect during summer months, reduces vegetative cover and increases maintenance activities. Target firmly believes that 700 spaces will provide the necessary convenience to their Guests and would not recommend fewer spaces than would be appropriate for sound business purposes. 113 Target is not proposing to develop excess property that would otherwise be used for ' parking. Instead, the proposed plans indicate additional green space. We have provided a graphic which illustrates a proof of potential parking for an additional 169 spaces. We respectfully request that the City of Fridley provide a variance to the parking requirements and allow for the development of the site at 700 spaces for Target and 95 spaces for PETCO. � 0 114 � L � �'7 _ � AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 � CIIY OF �; FRlDLEY ' `' I, Date: To: From: S Subject: June 23, 2005 William Burns, City Manager �� Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinatar Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner Variance Request, VAR #OS-08, Target Signs � !# M-OS-51 Background The petitioner, Target Corporation, is seeldng three variances to the Gity's sign code requirements. ' The petitioner currently owns the Fridley Target Store at 755 53'� Avenue that was built in 1967 Tlieir ; success in this location has resulted in an interest to redevelop their property to include a Target Super Store, which will sell groceries. � The petitioner and its various tenants have been granted 18 sign permits in the past. The petitioner is proposing to (1) increase the height of a free standing sign from 25' to 35'; (2) increase the allowable total square footage of free standing signs from 80 square feet to 330 square feet; (3) increase the square footage of the east (front of store) wall signage from 359 sq. ft. to 744 sq. ft. ,The petitioner has met the statutory defined hardship due to the extreme change in grade from the freeway and the elevation of the site. There have also been similar variances granted for all three of the variances in the past. Appeals Commission Action At the June 8, 2005, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #OS-08. After a brief discussion, the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance. The motion cariied : unanimously. The only concern raised by the public at the public hearing was about the visibility of the lighted pylori sign along I-694 at night. Target explained that the sign would be timed to turn off orie half hour `after store closing nightly. Recommendation � City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. 116 � 0 City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #05-08 June 2, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55403 Requested Action: Variance to exceed sign code size and heiaht reauirements Existing Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Location: 755 53�d Avenue NE Size: 869,022 sq. ft. 19.95 acres Existing Land Use: Target/Petco Store Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: I-694 & S-2 (Medtronic Hdqtrs) E: C-3 Retail & Gen. Business S: Medtronic W: R-1 Daycare Center & City Park Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan for redevelopment Sign Code Conformance: Section 214.11.2.B limits the maximum sq. ft. of total free standing signs to 80 sq. ft. per development. Section 214.11.2.0 limits the height of a free standing sign to 25' above finished ground grade. Section 214.11.5 limits the total sq. ft. of wall signage to 15 times the sq. root of the wall length Zoning History: 1953 — Lot is platted. 1967 — Target Store constructed. 1985 — Interior alterations permit Legal Description of Property: Parts of lots 8, 9, 10, 11. & 12, Auditor's Subdivision #155 as on file at City Hall Public Utilities: Building is connected. Transportation: The property receives access from 53�d Ave. NE Physical Characteristics: SPECIAL INFORMATION Lot is fully developed, contains buildings, SU M MARY OF PROJECT Target Corporation is seeking a variance to increase the height & sq. footage of free standing signs, and the maximum sq. footage of wall signage. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "Because of the odd shape of the north property line, the desire to maintain a good aesthetic environment to 1-694 and the residential neighborhood, the site being depressed significantly lower than /-694 and the building orientated to face Central Avenue, Target is requesting three variances from the City of Fridley for signage."—see attached letter. SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of this variance request. • Petitioner has demonstrated hardship. • Similar variance requests have been granted to businesses in the past. CITY COUNCIL ACTION / 60 DAY DATE City Council — June 27, 2005 60 Day Date — July 4, 2005 Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones VAR #05-08 REQUEST Target Corporation is seeking three variances to the City's sign code requirements. One variance is to increase the height of a free standing sign from 25' to 35'. Another variance request is to increase the allowable total square footage of free standing signs from 80 square feet to 330 square feet. The third variance is to increase the square footage of the east (front of store) wall signage from 359 sq. ft. to 744 sq. ft. No sign variances are requested for the proposed separate Petco Store building. The petitioner is proposing to place a new pylon sign along I-694 near the northwest corner of the property (see the site plan for location). This is the free standing sign for which they are requesting a height variance. Target is proposing a second free standing sign at the main 53rd Avenue entrance, which would include Petco and Target signage combined. Once a new separate building is constructed for the Petco Store, they would be permitted to have an 80 sq. ft. free standing sign. Instead of having their own 80 sq. ft. free standing sign, as code allows, Petco is choosing to have their sign incorporated into the Target entrance sign. Wall signage in excess of the sq. footage allowed by code is proposed for the front (facing Hwy. 65) of the Target Store. There will be no wall signage on the 53rd Avenue side of the store and only a 10' x 10' target symbol on the north (freeway) side of the store. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Fridley Target Store was built in 1967 and has proven to be a very successful location for Target Corporation. Their success has resulted in an interest to redevelop their property to include a Target Super Store, which will sell groceries. As currently developed, the Target Store site is vastly underutilized with much of the land area consumed with parking areas which are only partially used. In addition, Target wants to depart from a lease arrangement from Petco and sell off a part of their properiy to Petco so that Petco may have their own free standing store. Target Corporation has submitted a preliminary plat application to the City to accomplish this goal, which is being processed simultaneously with their three variance applications. There is a great deal of sign permit history on the Target property. The following sign permits have been issued for the Target Store and their varying tenants over the years: 1971 — Sign Permit issued for a 46 sq. ft. pylon sign 1973 — Sign Permit issued for a 282 sq. ft. wall sign 1975 — Sign Permit issued for an 86 sq. ft. wall sign 1976 — Sign Permit issued for a 282 sq. ft. wall sign 1976 — Sign Permit issued for a 99 sq. ft. wall sign 1980 — Sign Permit issued for a 144 sq. ft. pylon sign 1982 — Sign Permit issued for a 12 sq. ft. wall sign 1982 — Sign Permit issued for a 12 sq. ft. wall sign 1983 — Sign Permit issued for a 72 sq. ft. pylon sign 1984 — Sign Permit issued for a 216 sq. ft. pylon sign 1995 — Sign Permit issued for a 204 sq. ft. and a 36 sq. ft. wall sign 1996 — Sign Permit issued for a 156 sq. ft. wall sign 1996 — Sign Permit issued for a 72 sq. ft. pylon sign 1996 — Sign Permit issued for a 70 sq. ft. wall sign 1997 — Sign Permit issued for a 69 sq. ft. pylon sign and a 145 sq. ft. wall sign In addition, in 1967, when the Target Store was built, the City issued a permit to the Target property to allow a 310 sq. ft. free standing (pylon) sign. This sign size did not require a variance at the time, as the 80 sq. ft. maximum for free standing signs did not become code in Fridley until 1977. In 1980, a sign permit was issued by the City to replace the non-conforming existing pylon sign. No variance was considered necessary as the new sign was reducing the sized from 310 sq. ft. to 144 sq. ft. In 1982, however, Target was granted a variance for expansion of the legal non-conforming sign to add an additional tenant sign to the existing 144 sq. ft. pylon sign, which brought the total sq. footage of the free standing sign to 216 sq. ft. The existing pylon sign in the Target parking lot today is 34' tall and 212 sq. ft. in size. The current Target/Petco store has 464 sq. ft. of total wall signage. A spreadsheet is attached detailing the size of the existing wall signage. View of the current Target pylon sign CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 214.11.2.B of the Fridley sign code limits the maximum sq. ft. of total free standing signs to 80 sq. ft. per development. Section 214.11.2.0 limits the height of a free standing sign to 25' above finished ground grade. Section 214.11.5 limits the total sq. ft. of wall signage to 15 times the sq. root of the wall length. The petitioner is seeking a variance to Section 214.1128 to have 330 sq. ft. of total free standing signage. This would include (see drawings) one 213 sq. ft. pylon sign along I-694 and one monument- styled sign at the main store entrance on 53rd Avenue. The entrance monument sign would include signage for Target at the top and Petco at the bottom. Both free standing signs are proposed to meet the necessary setbacks. The reason the petitioner gives for needing larger free standing signs is that eastbound drivers on I-694 do not have view of the store's wall signage, which faces Hwy. 65, so larger sign would help provide adequate notification to encourage safe freeway exits. The petitioner is also seeking a variance to Section 214.112.0 to exceed the free standing sign height by 10'. This means they are proposing a 35' high pylon sign. The reason they provide for their variance request is that the low elevation of the site compared to the elevation of visibility from this particular section of I-694 creates a unique situation and hardship for sign visibility. They explain that westbound I- 694 driver's sightlines are blocked by concrete dividers in the median for most of the width of the site. In addition, the petitioner is seeking a variance to Section 214.11.5 to increase the amount of wall signage on the front of the Target Store. The need for more signage comes primarily from Target's Super Store design of including clear entrance signage for the retail, grocery, and pharmacy sections of the store. They also like to incorporate their new logo "Expect more. Pay less." Because of the distance from Hwy. 65, Target wants to increase the front exposure of the new Target Super Store. Therefore, they are proposing to not place any wall signs on the south (53rd Ave.) side of the new Target building and minimal signage on the north (freeway) side of the building. If they chose to place wall signs on each side of the building, the maximum amount of signage they would be allowed would tota1910 sq. ft. The petitioner is proposing a total of 823 sq. ft. of wall signage. Currently, the store has 464 sq. ft. of wall signs on the Target/Petco Store. In addition, if the grocery section of the Target Super Store was a leased section of the building with the same wall length, the site (Petco included) would be permitted to have 2,042 sq. ft. of wall signage. View of current wall signs PREVIOUS CASES There are sign variances that the City of Fridley has issued fairly recently in similar situations for each of Target's sign variance requests. In addition, the current Target Store has received a variance in the past for a larger free standing sign. Their current pylon sign is only one foot lower than the height they are requesting and one foot smaller in size than the pylon sign proposed to be located along the freeway. In 1995, the City issued a sign variance to Home Depot/Petsmart to increase their wall signage from the 321 sq. ft. allowed to 445 sq. ft. They were also provided a sign variance for a 247 sq. ft. free standing sign and a variance to have a 32' high pylon sign. In 1997, the Bachman's store was granted a sign variance for a 121 sq. ft. free standing pylon sign. The University Avenue Business Center at 7920-7990 University Avenue was given a sign variance for a 130 sq. ft. pylon sign in 1997. Cummings Power Generation (Onan) also had a sign variance approved by the City in 1997 for 161 sq. ft. of total free standing signs. Most recently, the City approved a sign variance for the Ashley Furniture Store for 1,347 total sq. ft. of wall signs. Another property along the freeway, HomeValu, also has been granted a sign variance for a 160 sq. ft. pylon sign. According to past variances granted, none of the petitioner's three sign variance requests are in excess of sign variance requests approved for similar situations. FOUR CODE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SIGN VARIANCE APPROVAL Before the Commission shall grant a variance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to meet the four conditions required to be met in Section 214.21.02 of the City Sign Code. All four of the conditions required have been met by the petitioner. Therefore, by Code, the sign variance should be granted. The four requirements and an explanation of how the petitioner has met these mandatory requirements are listed below. 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to The intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. The petitioner argues that the odd shape of the north property line and the depressed elevation of their site in relation to both I-694 and Hwy. 65 is an extraordinary circumstance unique to their property, which demonstrates a hardship in allowing them to adequately sign their new building and meet the City's sign code requirements. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. Other properiy in the vicinity of I-694 has been granted similar sign variances in similar situations for all three sign variances requested. 3. That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Target argues that strict application of the sign code would not provide signage that would be visible enough to allow I-694 drivers to adequately identify their property and exit safely in time from the freeway. 4. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. A larger entry monument sign at the Target property located on the east entrance will be important on this site to direct a majority of the traffic into the site away from Monroe Street, which is shared by the daycare and also will serve as the delivery entrance for both Target and Petco. Larger signage will not be detrimental to surrounding commercial property. The taller/larger pylon sign along the freeway may have an impact on nearby residential properties; however, the lighting from the sign would be no more distracting than the headlights of freeway traffic, which is at an even higher elevation. Target makes a valid point that placement of the I-694 pylon sign at a higher elevation close to the west property line will offer the best notification to drivers that they need to exit the freeway at Central Avenue. RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends approval of all three variances requested: • Petitioner has demonstrated statutory defined hardship. • There are several comparable variances have been granted over recent years for similar situations/sections of code. STIPULATIONS City Staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached if any of these variance requests are granted: 1. All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2. Any existing sign variances will be null and void with approval ofthis new variance(s). 3. The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25' back from all property lines. 4. No additional free standing signs shall be allowed on this site besides the two approved. 5. This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: A. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. B. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. C. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. D. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. E. Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on this sign. Signage Variance — Hardship Statement Because of the odd shape of the north property line, the desire to maintain a good aesthetic environment to I-694 and the residential neighborhood, the site being depressed significantly lower then I-694 and the building oriented to face Central Avenue, Target is requesting three variances from the City of Fridley for signage. Three specific requests are being made. One is for the overall square footage of signage on the building, the second for the height and size of the Super Target pylon sign and the third is for the monument sign to be located along 53rd Avenue. Our recommended signage package provides Target and Petco with the necessary visibility for the success of their businesses and also provides a means for the traveling public to safely amve. We recognize this site has many challenges when it comes to visibility. Experience has shown that vehicle operators who are traveling to a destination will disrupt traffic less if they have the ability to recognize the route to the entrance to the business. The sign package provides easily recognizable route from I-694, to Central Avenue and to the entrance on 53� Avenue. All three variance requests are meant to help both with site visibility and safety. The attached table for building signage provides comparisons of the existing building signage, the zoning code requirements, Target's proposed signage and a hypothetical comparison of signage allowed if the existing Target store remained and a grocery store was added to the site. The building signage which is shown in the building elevations attached as part of our variance request increases the amount of signage allowed along the front side of the building. Since the building faces Central Avenue, Target would like to increase the building front exposure to traffic along Central Avenue. We have increased this square footage, but to compensate, have eliminated any building signage along the south elevation facing 53`� Avenue and marginally increased the building signage facing I-694 over what exists today. Overall, Target has met the intent of the code to limit the overall square footage of building signage. The zoning code allows a total of 910 square feet of building signage and Target is requesting approval for 823 square feet of building signage. The second request for a variance on signage is the pylon sign. As mentioned earlier, the Super Target site is significantly lower then I-694. We are requesting a variance to increase the square foota.ge of the pylon sign face and to increase the height of the pylon sign from the code allowed 25 feet to 35 feet. The proposed pylon sign will be 35' tall and 213 square feet per side located along the I-694 frontage as shown in the e�ibits attached. Drivers in cars westbound on I-694 will have sightlines blocked (to wall signs) by the concrete dividers in the median for most of the width of the site. The 35' pylon sign on this frontage is intended to help idenrify the site for these drivers and to help direct customers back to the site. The additional ten feet in overall height is needed to allow the message to be readable above the concrete barriers and to make up for the lower grade of this site. T'he existing pylon sign in the Target parking lot is 34 feet tall and is approximately 212 square feet in area. In comparing the proposed sign to the existing, the two are very comparable. The third requested sign variance is to allow for a 20' monument sign on 53'� Avenue at the main entry point. As discussed above, visibility from Central Avenue is essential for the traveling public to first see the Super Target/Petco development and to safely arrive. We have positioned a monument sign along 53� Avenue for drivers to easily find the entrance. The sign needs to be large enough for customers turning off of Central Avenue to see. This sign will promote safe traffic flows for the additional traffic expected for the larger store. Our understanding of the City Code allows one freestanding sign per frontage per development. Each development is allowed a total of eighty (80) square feet for their freestanding signage. Target and Petco are proposing a total of two freestanding signs on the site plan we have developed. Our interpretation is the monument sign is allowed for this plan. We are requesting and increase in the total square footage from eighty (80) square feet to one hundred seventeen (117) square feet. The sign size and location is required to provide for better visibility for drivers on safely navigate from Central Avenue. Visibility, as a result of the site being lower then Central Avenue, is the requested hardship. _ 123 +' y M �, ��I� °�N�� cW a � � a 3u oon� MMr�a � � � �� IN a � d N� O n O� OI n �C � W C. '� � 3 u o� o rn � �Qy��a �� d s— � �� n�nu� p " � � � � � Z 3 � �OIN� NN� � � � � � � � t l0 3 mNa��- NN� J � d oD CD w O OI O O O �� N p � � � w a` � �o v a W'ma � ti � m � u� u� m�o d Q a C�-°y�N�� NN�� o J tA a y d ,C O O � Y� tl'J tf� YY LL9 � � �- � � r �N +.. � y � m � y � w � R Z o�o�� rnr v�"' � W� �I �.�- .�- � � 3 O. C � � � w M Iff M M �t1 O y Z !6 � OD � OD OD � t d � � JNe~- NNa��- C O m � a _ � m cos�net �o�o�o A a, u, o� o ai oi 3 d XN e- �'1 � p� � C�D � w W d O w M+ � � ��IO�OOf ��pap OL V Q f/i� M � N N N a�- � � a`- 16 V C m � 10 O m LL ?P T r l" r L� C � ` � t � � � � � � � G � ��I M � �� W d � N r r r r ui y v _ � CO�I�r NNr � p J � � � d m ..�. t�1 � N Gf V O � � C � m .. c OC t � � Ec cc°� �m L � � a+ d �. W ��c i`�i! � O•� � d W F- 0f � d m O 61 « 3 a+ Q� d m m t Vi �� ,p w m� j Z+ i0 m N Cl Ol R ('% �' y +� � �� y '.,�-. N O G� 0 �� N C'�'' 4f t� 'p •` , W � y t0 � Q, w .W., - m � �. O = a '� {6 7 �X 10 G) O � 7 N O {0 h•� � F Q LL>m W 1-CF- amaF 1- s� C1TY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kuechle called the Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m ROLL CALL Members present: Brad Sielaff, Kenneth Voss, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter Members absent: Larry Kuechle Others present: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 9, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Zinter, to approve the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Variance Request VAR #05-07 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to reduce the off-street parking space requirements from 1,100 spaces to 700 spaces with proof of parking for additional 169 spaces, generally located at 755 53�d Av NE. 2. Variance Request VAR #05-08 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to increase the height of a pylon sign by 10 feet to 35 feet above grade; to increase the square footage of a pylon sign from 80 square feet to 145 square feet; to increase the square footage of a pylon sign from 80 square feet to 213 square feet; to increase the amount of wall signage from 338 square feet to 744 square feet on the front of the new building, generally located at 755 53�d Avenue NE. 3. Variance Request VAR #05-09 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to decrease the front yard setback on a commercial building from 80 square feet to 24 square feet generally located at 755 53�d Avenue NE. 125 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 2 of 14 MOTION by Commissioner Voss, seconded by Commissioner Zinter, to open the public hearing at for all three variances. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 PM. Mr. Hickok reviewed variance request VAR #05-07 explaining that the Target Corporation purchased this property in the mid 1960's and it is the eighth corporate store. This site is important to the City beeause the City has a long-standing relationship with the petitioner, the site has good visibility, there is ease of access from Hwy 694, Central Avenue and 53�d Avenue NE and there `s 20 acres of land to accommodate the store needs in this location. The current Target store is the redevelopment site for the Super Target store. He reviewed a panoramic view of the existing parking on this site. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is seeking a variance to Code Section 205:15.5.0 which would allow them to reduce the number of required parking stalls. Code requires at least one off-street parking space for each 150 square feet of building floor area in the C3 district. Target's proposal would not meet the code requirement. Super Target will include two district offices for a total square footage of approximately 176,367. City standards require 1 space per 150 square feet which means the Target Store would be required to have in excess of 1,100 spaces. On the new redeveloped site the Petco building will be detached and will be comprised of 14,260 square feet requiring 95 parking spaces. Petco will meet that requirement. Target submitted a hardship statement, Mr. Hickok stated, which in summary states: "Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepares correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. Target has calculated the future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the maximum sales hour of the maximum business day which occurs the day after Christmas. Fridley's code requires 1,100 stalls which means there would be 500 more stalls than necessary for the busiest hour of the busiest day at the Target store." Traffic patterns in and out of the Target Store do not create undesirable conditions presently nor is it anticipated in the future. The drive aisles and entrances onto 53`d line up with entrances from Medtronic to the south and that is the optimum design so that there's not confusion for traffic. Referring to the hardship statement again, Mr. Hickok read "Target is not proposing to develop excess property that would otherwise be used for parking. Instead, the proposed plans indicate additional green space. We have provided a graphic which illustrates a proof of potential parking for an additional 169 spaces." Mr. Hickok further explained there are four code conditions staff reviews when looking at hardship in recommending approval of a variance: 126 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 3 of 14 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Mr. Hickok explained thaf the petitioner has prepared a sfatistical ana/ysis of its precise parking demands based on enormous amounts of data and over 39 years experience on this site. Staff made an observation on fhe Mother's Day holiday weekend and fheir lot did not reach 50% capacity. Staff has heard frequently from retailers fhat the parking rafio is too high and many of the City's large retail areas have less than half full parking lots on any given day. Home Depot and Ashley Furniture are just fwo examples of retailers who requesfed a reduction in the parking requiremenf for fheir Fridley locafions. Staff will be asking the Council to consider a fext amendment to the parking code to adjust fhe parking demand downward to befter match the real demands for retail parking. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. Mr. Hickok explained that ofher property in the vicinity af /694 has been granfed similar consideration, such as Home Depof being given the opportunity to use a speculative ratio to somewhat reduce the demands of stall numbers otherwise required by code. A Super Store would not fit on this site with the 1,100 stalls that are required by Code. If all 1,100 were proven to be necessary, Target would need to comply. History and staff observation contradict the numbers of stalls required under the currenf language of the City's code. Sfaff will be asking the City Council fo take a look at the code because fhis is not the first time that staff has had developers say the parking requirements are too high for retail. 3. That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Hickok stafed that Target argues that strict application of the Code would not provide adequate space for bofh parking and the new proposed building and fhat fo modernize this site and meet the know demands for parking, a much smaller number of parking stalls could be used. 4. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. Mr. Hickok stated that a larger number of stalls beyond what is proven to be necessary can actually be more detrimental to the public in that it requires an over abundance of impervious surface, thereby increasing the demands on the storm sewers and increasing the potential of surface water pollutants. 127 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 4 of 14 Staff recommends approval of this variance due to the undue hardship created by strict compliance with the standard parking requirement; due to a desire to foster additional green space when possible; and due to a desire to increase the pervious surface area in the community to reduce run-off and surface water pollutants. Staff recommends that if the variance is granted the following stipulations be attached: 1) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3) Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4) City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7) Petitioner to provide landscaped hedges along the west and south side property lines when abutting a single family residence. 8) All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot canc�les at the property Nne. Commissioner Zinter asked for clarification on the district offices proposed for this site. Mr. Hickok explained that Target has chosen this site for the location of two district offices each approximately 1,000 square feet in size. These offices will be on the north side of the site with windows and an enlivened building elevation facing I-694. The office site will have a separate entrance from the front of the store itself and allows the users of that office space to enter the office without going through the retail area. At approximately 2,000 square feet, the office area is a very small portion of the 176,000 square feet of building. It does provide something other ihan a blank north facing of the building. Commissioner Sielaff questioned what parking ratio staff ended up with at Hotiday, Home Depot and other retail sites where a reduction in parking had been requested. Mr. Hickok responded that the majority of the City's retailers are at the 1 to 150 ratio. Home Depot requested a ratio of 1 to 250. Ashley Furniture has a 1 to 400 ratio which resulted from a text amendment process for language specific to furniture stores. Commissioner Jones questioned if there will be adequate space for snow removal. Mr. Hickok explained if the variance is approved there will be less square feet of asphalt to plow and the green space becomes an excellent snow storage space. The green space also offers a filtering effect for the run-off before it reaches the storm sewer. Commissioner Sielaff questioned what other communities require for retail parking. 128 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 5 of 14 Mr. Hickok responded that there is a wide spectrum of requirements but developers claim that 1 to 250 is more typical in the metro area. But this is something staff will have to research. Ms. Harris stated Target is also requesting three variances to the City's sign code requirements: 1} Increase the height of a free-standing sign from 25 to 35 feet. 2) Increase the allowable total square fiootage of free-standing signs from 80 to 330 square feet. 3) Increase the square footage of the east (front of store) wall signage from 359 to 744 square feet. For the variance VAR #05-08, Ms. Rachel explained that Target is proposing to place a new pylon sign along I-694 near the northwest corner of the property. A second ftee- standing sign is proposed for Petco and Target at the main entrance on 53�d. Petco is allowed a free-standing, 80 square foot sign of their own but they have chosen to incorporate their sign with the Target entrance sign. The wall sign variance will increase the square footage from 359 to 744 square feet and will be placed on the front of the Target store which faces Hwy 65. There will be no wall signage on the 53� Avenue side of the store and only a 10 x 10 foot Target symbol on the north side of the store. The petitioner is willing to stipulate that this would be the limits of their signage on the north and south elevations in exchange for the additional signage where they believe it is better situated. Ms. Harris reviewed the code allowances signage explaining that the maximum square footage of total free-standing signs is 80 square feet per development; the height of a free-standing sign is limited to 25 feet above finished grade; the wall signage maximum is 15 times the square root of the wall length. In analyzing sign variance requests, Ms. Harris explained the following four code conditions are required: 1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. 2) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. 3) That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. 4) That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. Ms. Harris stated the Target lot does have an odd shape on the north property line with a depressed elevation in relation to both I-694 and Hwy 65. Those conditions are unique to the Target site. Other property in the vicinity of I-694 has been granted similar variances for all three of the variances requested. She then reviewed the following 129 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 6 of 14 summary of the petitioner's hardship statement: "Because of the odd shape of the north property line, the desire to maintain a good aesthetic environment to I-694 and the residentia! neighborhood, the site being depressed significantly lower than I-694 and the building orientated to face Central Avenue, Target is requesting three variances from the City of Fridley for signage." Ms. Harris further stated that code would not provide enough physical signage to allow I-694 drivers to adequately identify the property and exit safely in time from the freeway which is why the petitioner is requesting the increase in square footage for the free-standing sign. Regarding the first variance, the petitioner states that placement of the I-694 pylon sign at a higher elevation close to the west property line will offer the best notification to drivers that they need to exit the freeway at Central Avenue. A larger entry monument sign on the east entrance will direct traffic into the site away from Monroe Street and will also serve as a delivery entrance for both Target and Petco. The taller / larger pylon sign along the freeway may have an impact on nearby residential properties, though no more than lights from cars on the freeway which is at a higher elevation. The larger wall signage will not be detrimental to surrounding commercial property. Ms. Harris stated sign variances similar to each of Target's sign variance requests have been recently issued, such as the wall sign variance for Ashley Furniture Store, and the pylon and wall sign variance for HomeValu. The existing Target store has received a variance in the past for a larger free-standing sign. Other businesses along major thoroughfares who received sign variances in the past include Bachman's, the University Avenue Business Center, and Cummings Power Generation (Onan). According to past variances granted, none of Target's three sign variance requests are in excess of sign variance requests approved for similar situations. Ms. Harris stated staff recommends approval of all three variances with stipulations as the petitioner has demonstrated statutory defined hardship and there are several comparable variances that have been granted over recent years for similar situations / sections of code. Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1) All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2) Any existing sign variances wifl be null and void with approval of the new variances. 3) The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25 feet back from all property lines. 4) No additional free-standing signs shall be allowed on .this site besides the finro approved. 5) The variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. 130 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 7 of 14 d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of br-inging it into compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of the business being dispfayed on the sign. Commissioner Jones questioned the height of the proposed sign along the freeway and whether it will be above the treetops. Mr. Hickok stated that the height of the trees is one of the hardships Target has sited. The proposed sign will be 35 feet high. Regarding variance VAR #05-09, Ms. Harris explained the petitioner is requesting this variance to construct a building that will be set back 24 feet on the front (53`� Avenue NE side). This is a 56 foot variance to the required front yard setback for a building in the General Shopping Center District. The site plan design calls for the removal of the parking area on the existing southwest corner of the property and the construction of a 15,260 square foot building. Landscaping will be installed and the view of parking will be screened by the building itself and landscaping to be provided. Ms. Harris reviewed the code requirements as follows: "General Shopping Front Yard Setbacks of the City Code states that permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be closer to any public right-of-way than eighty (80) feet.° Ms. Harris stated there are three code conditions reviewed for variance approval: 1} The pubfic policy which is served by requirement. (City Code) 2) The practical difficulties or unique circumstance of the property that cause undue hardship in the strict application of the requirement. (Hardship statement) 3) In recommending or approving a variance, the Commission and/or Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance to protect adjacent properties. (Stipulations) Ms. Harris stated with regards to public policy, City Code states that an 80 foot setback is required by code in shopping center zones. The Comprehensive Plan states existing commercial sites should be targeted for aesthetic improvements and for land use efficiency improvements. In addressing the practical difficulties or unique circumstances of this petition, Ms. Harris read from Target's hardship statement as follows: "The setback would create a hardship to Petco in that it would not allow for an efficient and reasonable use of the property. In order to comply with the parking requirements for the new Petco facifity and create a viable visual perspective of the building, we need to locate the building closer to 53�d Avenue. The area befinreen the 53`� Avenue right-of-way and the building would be a parking lot if the site plan was developed according to the specific section of the City code. When a parking lot abuts a city street, landscape screening is required befinreen the right-of-way and the parking lot. As a result of a jet fuel gas line along the west end of the site prohibiting any 131 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 8 of 14 significant plantings in the area between the street and the parking lot, we are unable to meet the code requirement." Ms. Harris stated staff recommends approval of this variance because the petitioner has statutory defined hardship and the proposed variance meets redevelopment principles of our comprehensive plan. Staff also recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner shall create a four-sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit.) 3) The petitioner shall work with Metro Transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco building. 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53`d Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. Commissioner Voss questioned the stipulation for a four-sided building. Mr. Hickok explained what this relates to is that no portion of the building should look like it's the back of the building thereby causing a neighbor on one side of the building to feel that they've been somehow forgotten. The four-sided building is batanced so that • from any perspective there is a pleasant-looking building. _ Dale Beckman, Westwood Professional Services (design firm for Target Corporation), stated there are representatives present from Target Real Estate and Development Services, from Petco and Ryan Construction representatives. He explained since the store was originally developed a couple of things have occurred; I-694 and Hwy 65 were uniquely different and the traffic counts are substantially higher now. Aesthetic and safety improvements have been added to I-694. There had been no center barrier so visibility from westbound traffic to the site was possible. Also a sound wall has been erected and extends to the ramp so that eastbound traffic cannot see the Target store until they're past the ramp connection. The intent of the code, he believes, is to provide a structure of business that is compatible with other uses in the area. Target has tried to meet the specific guidelines, but the challenge of trying #o meet all of these on a site design basis is nearly impossible, thus the request for variances. The demands in the community are both for a Target store and a grocery store. They've tried to meet the intent of the code by increasing their setbacks where they can; on the west side the new building will be 60 feet from the property line which is almost double the code requirement. The building orientation is east-facing which results in three frontages; 53� Avenue, I-694 and the private road that serves businesses along Hwy 65. Along 1- 694, they want to alert eastbound traffic of the Target location so they don't have to make an abrupt lane change. To that end they plan to erect their sign closer to I-694; going from a current sign height of 34 feet to 35 feet and a square footage of 212 square feet to 213 square feet. Along Hwy 65 they want to allow cars an opportunity to - see and recognize the front of the store. So rather than putting a substantial amount of 132 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 9 of 14 signage on the north side of the building or on 53�d Avenue which is really a gateway to a residential community, they have focused their sign square footage on the east side of the building where there is no residential views and will improve visibility from Hwy 65. The third sign is the entry monument off 53`d Avenue which will guide people to their site. They tried to comply with the intent of the code by minimizing the overall square footage of their signs and keeping the signs away from residential areas. Mr. Beckman stated the parking variance request stands alone. Target is not in the business of being a landlord and do not typically like to have subleases on their property, Mr. Beckman explained, so they have carved out a specific piece of land that meets the requirements of the code to allow for a free-standing building. Traffic into this site works well because there is a substantial amount of stacking space, so they have oriented the front entrance of the Petco store facing the northeast. Normally there would be an 80 foot setback line for the proposed Petco building, but that results in a substantial amount of asphalt in that area. They considered how they could make the new Petco building look better and determined if they moved it closer to the street the parking can then be tucked befinreen the Petco store and the Target store so it's not creating an unsightly transition into the residential neighborhood. This will also allow them to provide the four-sided building staff referred to. Another issue is a jet fuel high pressure line that runs in the right-of-way in that area and crosses over 53�d Avenue. If they were to meet the required setback for the Petco building, a substantial amount of screening would be required to screen the parking lot from the traveling public and because of the fuel line they could not comply with the screening portion of the code. Commissioner Zinter asked if Target's parking need of 600 spaces is based on the current store or on the Super Target. Richard Wiebe, Westwood Professional Services, explained that Target has data on all their stores where they know the number of shoppers by the number of cash register receipts each hour. Part of this data collection was triggered by those communities which are mandating not to build (parking spaces) in excess of three spaces per thousand square feet. Target wanted to get a tighter handle on the correlation of parking spaces to shoppers. Last November a by hour traffic count was conducted at a large number of Target stores in the metro area and they were able to determine how many cars were parked in each area during the peak hours the day after Thanksgiving. They then did a correlation analysis between the number of cars and the number of cash register receipts for the same period of time and they found a tight correlation. In determining that they have data that tells them that at the absolute peak hour of parking is befinreen noon and 1:00 p.m. the day after Christmas which can be translated into the number of parking spaces required. In analyzing this particular site, they found that the absolute maximum number they would need would be less than 600 for that peak hour the day after Christmas. Target will build 700 spaces for the added convenience of their shoppers. In addition to that, there's a proof of parking for another 160 spaces. The 700 spaces is approximately 1 space for every 250 square feet of retail area. 133 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 10 of 14 Commissioner Sielaff questioned the appearance of the south side of the Petco building. Mr. Wiebe stated instead of having a plain facing along 53�d they plan to enhance it with awnings with fixtures that appear to be windows. This gives it more of a store-front appearance. To make this more pedestrian friendly they also plan to move the bus stop further west so they get off the bus in an area with more of a residential feel and they would not have to cross the entrance to Target as they currently do. Wes Grandstrand, 5431 Madison St., stated he has some issues that need to be considered. He wants to make sure that the parking proposed is based on the proposed Super Target rather than on the existing store. The proposed landscaping for the parking area is a step in the right direction and an improvement over the "sea of asphalt" that currently exists at this site. He believes landscape hedges along the western property line would be inappropriate and should be a mature landscape barrier because of the homes in that area. He questioned the elevation of the Petco building as it relates to 53�d Avenue, particularly when the setback is narrow. The Super Target will not be visible from Hwy 65 because of the existing businesses along Hwy 65 in front of the Target property. He has no problem with the sign being proposed for the east side of the property but he is concerned about the pylon sign planned for the northwest corner of the site as that sign should not be visible from the residential area. There is also an issue with the sound barrier wall because Target obtained a variance from the state not to run the barrier wall along a portion of the freeway which results in a wrap- around sound situation into the residential area. He requested that Target provide mature landscaping to help block some of that noise from the residential area. He also questioned where the dock area will be located for the new store. Mr. Wiebe explained the dock will in the same location as the current dock but the north end of the new bui(ding is 30 feet further south than the existing building. Also, they will be providing additional landscaping near the dock area with trees to soften the effect. Mr. Grandstrand pointed out that the dock area is currently a source of noise in the residential neighborhood and he would appreciate efforts to reduce that noise. There is currently pedestrian access off Cherry Lane through the fence that's around the cul-de- sac. That pedestrian access is there at Target's demand. The neighborhood managed to get that access closed up but it was subsequently reopened. He would like to see that access permanently closed because it is a huge generator of unwanted foot traffic through Cherry Lane. Bob Hessman, 5381 Madison St. questioned if the wooded area to the west of the Target site will remain as natural land. He was also concerned about what type of landscaping will be provided and whether or not there would be any limitation on the hours for delivery trucks to this site. The pylon sign in ihe northwest corner, if high enough and lit 24 hours a day, will affect the residential area. 134 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 11 of 14 Mr. Beckman stated the parking study was based on the largest volume Super Targets in the metropolitan area. There is extensive landscaping proposed to enhance the entrances. The signs will be turned off 30 minutes after the store closes. The typical Target store would have a truck turn around in the dock area but that has not been proposed for this location in an effort to reduce the noise on Cherry Lane. They will also raise the area to the west with landscaping on the top to maximize the protection for the home closest to the Target site. There is no change proposed for the wetland area west of the Target site. The Petco building will be raised approximately three feet for aesthetics and to eliminate drainage concerns. As far as the concerns over lighted signs, Mr. Beckman pointed out that the signs will be turned off at the end of business hours each day. They tried to seek a compromise befinreen the visibility of their sign from the highway and the impact of that sign on the neighborhood by sliding the sign as far to the east as possible. As far as noise from the loading dock area, the new dock will be depressed four feet in the ground and a retaining wall will be erected along the west side of the dock. Also the new building will be approximately 30 feet south of the existing store. Mr. Beckman also stated they have no objection to closing off the pedestrian access to Cherry Lane and woufd defer to staff s recommendation. They don't have any plans for the property they own west of the site and plan to leave it as a wetland area. He was not aware of the specific hours for deliveries to this site but will be happy to provide that information at the City Council hearing on this matter. Mr. Hickok stated staff heard from Mr. John Harrington, the owner of the property along the western edge of the Target site, and he is concerned about the variances. His property is currently landlocked. He does have 25 feet of frontage along a right-of-way which would allow him to do something with the property. He has no specific development plans that staff is aware of. Mr. Harrington wants it on the record that these variances would only serve to make Target uninterested in his lot and he believes his lot may offer an opportunity to expand without requiring variances. Mr. Hickok stated he indicated to Mr. Harrington that his property would not solve the problems that necessitate the variances being requested and that those variances have little or no impact on his property or the future development of his site. Commissioner Zinter asked how the proposed sign compares to other Target stores. Mr. Beckman responded that Target looks at each sign specific to the location, so there's no specific or typical sign. Mr. Grandstrand reiterated his request that the Commission pay particular attention to the type of landscaping in the area on the west side of this site. There may be an opportunity for some additional mature landscaping that would help provide a better buffer, specificatly in the truck dock area. Commissioner Jones questioned Mr. Grandstrand what he considers "mature landscaping." 135 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Grandstrand responded it should be trees in the range of 20 feet high to help offset the noise being generated. Mr. Hickok explained City code calls for a much smaller tree but staff will discuss this issue with Target. On the landscape plan, staff will discuss the specific areas about which the neighbors have expressed concern. Mr. Grandstrand added that for the 30 years he's lived in his home, Target has been a good neighbor and he expects they will continue to be a good neighbor. Mr. Beckman stated Target is looking at this as an overall redevelopment and they're trying to continue being a good neighbor, so they will work with City staff in an effort to adjust their plans to be considerate of the neighbors within the property constraints. Mr. Hessman expressed concern that the trucks will generate more noise as they attempt to pull out of the graded area. He also asked if there will be any widening of 53`� Avenue and whether or not the entrance to the Target lot will be configured differently. Mr. Hickok responded there are no plans to change the configuration of 53�d Avenue as it is currently designed for a capacity well beyond what it carries. The access to the Target site from 53�d Avenue will be new and well designed. Mr. Beckman responded to Mr. Hessman's concerns and explained that it is only a 2% grade coming up out of the dock area so there should not be a significant increase in the truck noise. � MOTION by Commissioner by Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to enter into the record the letter from John Harrington dated June 8, 2005. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI�2PERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOlCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AT 9:18 PM. Commissioner Sielaff commented that he'd like to see a change in Stipulation # 7 requiring that there be input from residents adjacent to the property regarding the landscape planning. Mr. Hickok suggested that the landscape plan be made available at the counter in City Hall and that residents stop in and review the plan and provide feedback to staff prior to the City Council meeting. 136 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 13 of 14 After some discussion, the Commission members agreed to strike the word "hedges" from Stipulation #7. Commissioner Jones commented that there is a lot of space around the City taken up for unused parking. He believes the Target proposal is a good move in the right direction. Commissioner Zinter stated he believes this proposal is a good balance of residential, retail and environmental. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval of VAR #05-07 by Target Corporation with the stipulations as modified. 1) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3) Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4) City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building perrnits. 5) Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7) Petitioner to provide landscaping along the west and south side properiy lines, when abutting a single family residence. 8) All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot candles at the property line. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to recommend approval of VAR #05-08 by Target Corporation with stipulations. 1) All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2) Any existing sign variances will be null and void with approval of this new variance(s). 3} The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25 feet back from all property lines. 4) No additional free-standing signs shall be allowed on this site besides the two approved. 5) This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodefed. 137 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 14 of 14 c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph a. above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAlRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Zinter, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval of VAR #05-09 by Target Corporation with stipulations. 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner sha(f create a four sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit). 3) The petitioner shall work with metro transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco building. 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53`d Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Zinter, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary 138 � � cmr aF FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Date: June 23, 2005 To: William Burns, City Manager l�� From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #05-09, PETCO Setback M-05-50 INTRODUCTION The petitioner, PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., is seeking a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 80 feet to 24 feet. The petitioner currently operates in a leased space attached to the existing Target store on 53�d Avenue. Target is proposing a redevelopment of the property to accommodate a Super Target and provide for a separate lot for PETCO to build a new store. The petitioner is proposing to place the new freestanding building 24 feet back from the south property line. City Code for C-3 (general shopping districts) states that permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be closer to any public right-of-way than eighty (80) feet. The petitioner is requesting to be able to construct a building that would only be setback 24 feet on the front (53`d Ave NE side). This is a 56 foot variance to the required front yard setback for a building in the General Shopping zone. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS At the June 8, 2005, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #05-09. After a brief discussion, the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Appeals Commission. 139 City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #05-09 June 1, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. 9125 Rehco Rd San Diego, CA 92121 Requested Action: Variance to exceed building front yard setback requirements Existing Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Location: 753 53�d Avenue NE Size: 869,022 sq. ft.19.95 acres Existing Land Use: TargeUPetco Store Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: I-694 & S-2 (Medtronic Hdqtrs) E: C-3 Retail & Gen. Business S: Medtronic W: R-1 Daycare Center & City Park Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan for redevelopment Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Front Yard Setback. Section 205.15.C-3.C(1). Permitted buildings and uses shall not be closer than eighty (80) feet to any public right-of-way. Zoning History: 1953 — Lot is piatted. 1967 — Target Store constructed. 1985 — Interior alterations permit Legal Description of Property: Parts of lots 8, 9, 10, 11. & 12, Auditor's Subdivision #155 as on file at City Hall Public Utilities: Building is connected. Transportation: The property receives access from 53�d Ave NE Physical Characteristics: Lot is fully developed, contains buildings, parking, & landscaped areas. SUMMARY OF PROJECT PETCO is seeking a variance to decrease the front yard setback from 80 feet to 24 feet at 753 53'� Street SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "The area between the 53'°' Avenue right of way and the building would be a parking lot if the site plan was developed according to the specific section of the city code. When a parking lot abuts a city street, landscape screening is required between the right of way and the parking lot. As a result of a jet fuel gas line along the west end of the site prohibiting any signifrcant plantings in the area between the street and the parking lot, we are unable to meet the code requirement."-see attached letter. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approva/ of this variance request. • No similar variance requests for this size lot have been approved in general shopping districts in the past. • However, the proposed variance is in-line with redevelopment principles in our comprehensive plan. • The proposed variance results in a move toward pedestrian orientation of commercial centers. • The City and neighborhoods may be able to connect these shopping centers with residential neighborhoods. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ! 60 DAY DATE City Council — June 27, 2005 60 Day Date — July 4, 2005 Staff Report Prepared by: Rachel Harris �� VAR #05-09 REQUEST PETCO is seeking a variance to decrease the front yard setback at 753 53rd Street for a 15,260 square foot general shopping district building. The petitioner currently operates in a leased space attached to the existing Target store on 53ra Avenue. Target is proposing a redevelopment of the property to accommodate a Super Target and provide for a separate lot for PETCO to build a new store. The petitioner is proposing to place the new freestanding building 24 feet back from the south property line. The petitioner states that while an 80 foot setback may be appropriate for a larger scale shopping center building, it creates a hardship for development of the PETCO site. The petitioner further requests to move the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the PETCO building. PETCO proposes to provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53rd and a similar connection could be provided to the front of Target. Target is proposing a green space along the south side of the PETCO building. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The property is zoned C-3, General Shopping District. Surrounding properties to the west are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and P, Park. Surrounding properties to the north are zoned S- 2, Redevelopment District. Surrounding properties to the east are zoned C-3, Retail and General Shopping. PETCO is located at 753 53rd Street, a half block west of Central Avenue NE. The original building was constructed in 1967 as Target's eighth store. There have been no additions to the property since then. In 1985 and 1996, the building underwent interior alterations for tenant occupancy. The last interior alteration occurred in 2003 for the current tenant, PETCO. This property has had no front yard set-back variances in the past. CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 205.15.C-3.C(1). General Shopping Front Yard Setbacks of the City Code states that permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be closer to any public right-of-way than eighty (80) feet. The petitioner is requesting to be able to construct a building that would only be setback 24 feet on the front (53rd Ave NE side). This is a 56 foot variance to the required front yard setback for a building in the General Shopping zone. Proposed Site of PETCO Store (Existing Target Parking Lot) HARDSHIP STATEMENT The petitioner's hardship statement reads as follows: "The area between the 53Yd Avenue right of way and the building would be a parking lot if the site plan was developed according to the specific section of the city code. When a parking lot abuts a city street, landscape screening is required between the right of way and the parking lot. As a result of a jet fuel gas line along the west end of the site prohibiting any signifzcant plantings in the area between the street and the parking lot, we are unable to meet the code requirement. " "The setback would create a hardship to PETCO in that it would not allow for an efficient and reasonable use of the property. In order to comply with the parking requirements for [the newJ PETCO facility and create a viable visualperspective of the building, we need to locate the building closer to 53Yd Avenue. " PREVIOUS CASES There are no similar front setback variance requests for this size lot that have been approved in general shopping districts in the past. However, the proposed variance is in-line with redevelopment principles in Fridley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variance results in a move toward pedestrian orientation of commercial centers. Whereas an 80 foot setback is required by code in shopping center zones, but existing commercial sites should be targeted for aesthetic improvements and for land use efficiency improvements according to the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, staff considered that in order to build in an urban context, building must screen parking from the right-of-way and determine whether the site has efficient building mass for the amount of parking. Lastly, staff thought of the pedestrian orientation in relation to commercial centers. Moving the PETCO store closer to the street allows for a more appealing pedestrian access, creating a walking environment to link pedestrian-friendly residential neighborhoods and mass transit (bus) passengers to a commercial district. RECOMMENDATIONS City Staff recommends approval of this variance request, with stipulations. • Petitioner has statutory defined hardship. • The proposed variance meets redevelopment principles of our comprehensive plan. STIPULATIONS , City Staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached if this variance request is granted: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall create a four sided building, (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit). 3. The petitioner shall work with metro transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the PETCO building. 4. The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along S3rd Avenue NE, S. The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed PETCO building. 143 Re��aest f�r Setback Variance City of Fridley PETCO May 6, 2005 PETCO currently operates in a leased space attached to the existing Target store on 53ra Avenue. Target is proposing a redevelopment of the property to accommodate a Super Target and provide for a separate lot for PETCO to build a new store. After an extensive site study, the only viable orientation for the new Tazget store is in an east facing configuration in the general area of the existing store. The configuration of the Super Target prototype results in an appropriately sized lot for PETCO between the south wall of Target and 53rd Avenue with one limiting factor—the 80 foot build setback established in the shopping center zoning. This setback would create a hardship to PETCO in that it would not a11ow for an efficient and reasonable use of the property. In order to comply with the parking requirements for PETCO's facility and create a viable visual perspective to the building, we need to locate the building closer to 53rd Avenue. The attached plans illustrate a new urbanist type approach to this issue. We have located the building in an urban context, adjacent to 53rd Avenue and shielded the bulk of PETCO's parking with the building. This allows for a more balanced relationship between the two buildings, an aesthetically pleasing entrance located on the entry drive off of 53rd Avenue, and a safe and efficient configuration of parking. Attached are illustrations of some potential enhancements to the south facade of our building that is closest to 53rd Avenue. We would further suggest that consideration be made to locating the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the PETCO building. We will be providing a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53rd and a similar connection could be provided to the front of Target. Target is also proposing a generous green space to the east of the PETCO property along 53� Avenue. The combination of this green space, and the enhancements to the PETCO building will provide an extremely attractive street scape along 53rd Avenue. While an 80 foot setback may be appropriate for a larger scale shopping center building, it creates a hardship for development of the PETCO site. We are respectfully requesting a vaxiance to the setback and have illustrated our desired building location in the attached plans. 144 Fridley Target Variance Request Target Corporation has had a presence in the Ciry of Fridley since 1966. Target is proud of the relationship they have with the City of Fridley and the residents served by the Target store at 53ra Avenue and Central. Two businesses are currently in the same building. Target is the major tenant on the north end of the building and Petco occupies the south end of the building. In an effort to accommodate the needs of the residents of Fridley, Target proposes to split the two businesses and build a new Super Target on the current site and sub-divide the property to allow Petco to have their own pazcel of land and building adjacent to 53'� Avenue. Target and Petco have been working with the City of Fridley staff to develop an overall site plan which meets the majority of the city zoning codes. The location, shape and elevation of the lot creates several challenges and hardships which impact the overall design process and requires several variances from the City of Fridley. Visibility from area roadways is crucial for a retail business success. The Super Target and Petco visibility from the major roadways in the area is difficult because the site is significantly lower then Central Avenue or I-694. In addition, the site is adjacent to a residential neighborhood west of the site. The iwo problems together have been the primary challenge in developing a site plan which will meet the intent of the code. To overcome the visibility issue several options were reviewed. We believe the plan proposed meets the intent of the City of Fridley Codes but will require variances to meet the specific criteria of the code. As discussed below, one of the significant reasons Target is requesting variances is that technically the site has three frontages. I-694 to the north, 53� Avenue on the south and a private road on the east serves Taxget and three businesses east of the property. The site does not have access to Central Avenue, which is the primary route Target Guests will travel to enter the Super Target. The businesses east of the Super Target site and the businesses which have access from Central Avenue significantly ixnpact the visibility of the site from Central Avenue. Our request for the sign variances outlined below is driven by the fact that the site needs better visibility and one way to achieve this, without compromising the residential neighborhood to the west or the "Gateway Image" from I-694 is to have an enhanced signage package which will provide the visibility. Target reviewed several options to improve the visibility of the site. The first would be to rotate the building 90 degrees so it would face 53ra Avenue. Rotating the building did very little to improve the visibility from Central Avenue or I-694. Rotating the building diminishes the opportunity for drivers traveling southbound on Central Avenue to see the Super Target or Petco. In addition, the buildings facing 53id Avenue, would not provide a good transitional site plan from the commercial area to the residential neighborhood. The Super Target site is also directly across I-694 from the new Medtronic Campus. In an effort to continue to enhance the City of Fridley's "Gateway to the City" image, rota.ting the two buildings would expose the back side of the building to the traveling public. Because of the odd shape of the lot as a result of the I-694 "off-ramp" it would have required Target to 14� move the building significantly further south to fit on the lot. This would have exposed the back of the building and the loading dock area to I-694 traffic. The second option would have been to raise the building and the site so there would be better visibility from Central Avenue and from I-694. Raising the site will make the building more visible not only from the adjacent roadways, but also to the residential neighborhood to the west of the site. In addition, the cost of raising the site to provide the desired visibility is cost prohibitive. The third option is the site plan we are proposing with the requested sign and setback variances. We believe the plan proposed is the best solution to solving the site planning challenges listed above and meeting the intent of the code. The plan does not significantly change the traveling public's view of the site from I-694. The plan proposed also minimizes the impact to the residential neighborhood and provides a reasonable transition from commercial zoning to residential. Target is sensitive to the location of the building relative to the residents west of the site and to the resident along Cheri Lane. The building has been moved further to the east and south to provide additional distance from the neighbors. Although no development currently exists directly west of the proposed Super Target location, Target is providing a sixty foot setback from the building to the west property line. The northwest comer of the building is approximately thirty feet further south then the existing building. Also, locating the smaller Petco building closer to 53� Avenue and eliminating paxking along the 53Td Avenue side of the building as well as providing the enhanced "green space" along the remained of 53ra Avenue, greatly enhances the transition from commercial to residentiaL The third request variance is for the number of parking spaces required for the Super Target and Petco developments. The City of Fridley Code for parking is significantly greater then what Target has found necessary. The requested variance outlined below proposes adequate pazking to meet the needs of a Super Target on the busiest day of shopping. By not providing the code required parking, Target was able to provide enhanced "green space" along 53rd Avenue and reduce the amount of impervious surface by more then ten (10) percent from the existing conditions. We recogniZe that city codes are guidelines for developments and to protect the interests of existing community. The City of Fridley encourages the redevelopment of older existing sites such as Target so they provide both enhanced services and positive image to the commuriity. We believe for the reasons outlined in this variance request, the site plan we are proposing meets the overall intent of the code by requesting variances for the specific code requirements. Signage Variance Because of the odd shape of the north property line, the desire to maintain a good aesthetic environment to I-694 and the residential neighborhood, the site being depressed significantly lower then I-694 and the building oriented to face Central Avenue, Target is requesting three variances from the City of Fridley for signage. Three specific requests are being made. One 1462 is for the overall square footage of signage on the building, the second for the height and size of the Super Target pylon sign and the third is for the monument sign to be located along 53ra Avenue, Our recommended signage package provides Target and Petco with the necessary visibility for the success of their businesses and also provides a means for the traveling public to safely amve. We recognize this site has many challenges when it comes to visibility. Experience has shown that vehicle operators who are traveling to a destination will disrupt traffic less if they have the ability to recognize the route to the entrance to the business. The sign package provides easily recognizable route from I-694, to Central Avenue and to the entrance on 53rd Avenue. All three variance requests are meant to help both with site visibility and safety. The attached table for building signage provides comparisons of the existing building signage, the zoxring code requirements, Target's proposed signage and a hypothetical comparison of signage allowed if the existing Tazget store remained and a grocery store was added to the site. The buildi.ng signage which is shown in the building elevations attached as part of our variance request increases the amount of signage allowed along the front side of the building. Since the building faces Central Avenue, Taxget would like to increase the building front exposure to traffic along Central Avenue. We have increased this square footage, but to compensate, have eliminated any building signage along the south elevation facing 53rd Avenue and marginally increased the buildi.ng signage facing I-694 over what exists today. Overall, Target has met the intent of the code to limit the overall square footage of building signage. The zoning code allows a total of 910 square feet of building signage and Target is requesting approval for 823 square feet of building signage. The second request for a variance on signage is the pylon sign. As mentioned eazlier, the Super Target site is significantly lower then I-694. We are requesting a variance to increase the square footage of the pylon sign face and to increase the height of the pylon sign from the code allowed 25 feet to 35 feet. The proposed pylon sign will be 35' tall and 213 squaze feet per side located along the I-694 frontage as shown in the exliibits attached. Drivers in cars westbound on I-694 will have sightlines blocked (to wall signs) by the concrete dividers in the median for most of the width of the site. The 35' pylon sign on this frontage is intended to help identify the site for these drivers and to help direct customers back to the site. The additional ten feet in overall height is needed to allow the message to be readable above the concrete barriers and to make up for the lower grade of this site. The existing pylon sign in the Target parking lot is 34 feet tall and is approximately 212 square feet in area. In comparing the proposed sign to the existing, the two are very comparable. The third requested sign variance is to allow for a 20' monument sign on 53'� Avenue at the main entry point. As discussed above, visibility from Central Avenue is essential for the traveling public to first see the Super Target/Petco development and to safely arrive. We have positioned a monument sign along 53'� Avenue for drivers to easily find the entrance. The sign needs to be large enough for customers turning off of Central Avenue to see. This sign will promote safe traffic flows for the additional traffic expected for the larger store. Our understanding of the City Code allows one freestanding sign per frontage per development. Each development is allowed a total of eighty (80) square feet for their freestanding signage. Target and Petco are proposing a total of two freestanding signs on the site plan we have 14�' developed. Our interpretation is the monument sign is allowed for this plan. We are requesting and increase in the total square footage from eighty (80) square feet to one hundred seventeen (117) square feet. The sign size and location is required to provide for better visibility for drivers on safely navigate from Central Avenue. Visibility, as a result of the site being lower then Central Avenue, is the requested hardship. Petco Building Setback Variance A variance is being requested for the Petco building setback requirement along 53rd Avenue. As mentioned earlier, the Super Tazget and Petco site plan has been developed primarily to accommodate a significant visibility constraint, but also to provide a transitional plan from commercial to residential along 53rd Avenue. We have also looked at safety as one of our primary design criteria. A significant number of vehicles will be entering and leaving the development. As a result of providing a significant "stacking" area for vehicles exiting the Super TargetJPetco site, Petco's parking lot entrance to safely function needs to be at the northeast corner of the site: Since this entry acts like a street, the building has been setback 62 feet from the east lot line. Although the entrance to the Super Tazget/Petco is like a street serving several businesses, the official front setback would be interpreted to be 53rd Avenue. The area between the 53rd Avenue right of way and the building would be a parking lot if the site plan was developed according to the specific section of the city code. When a pazking lot abuts a city street, landscape screening is required between the right of way and the parking lot. As a result of a jet fuel gas line along the west end of the site prohibiting any significant plantings in the area between the street and the parking lot, we are unable to meet the code requirement. To offset these hardships, Petco proposes to relocate the buildin� 22 feet from the right of way line of 53rd Avenue and create an"urban design" along 53T Avenue. By moving the building to the right of way line, the Petco building provides a transition area from the C-3 Commercial Zoning to the R-1 Residential Zoning directly west of their property. There would not be parking in the area between the building and the street, much like a residential area. The south elevation of the Petco building has been modified to provide a less commercial feel. In addition, we propose to relocate the bus stop from its current location between the two main entrances to the area directly south of the Petco building. Pedestrian circulation from this location to Petco and Super Target buildings will be provided by sidewalk. Although our primary hardship is the lack of visibility and the need to provide safe access in and out of the site, we believe our plan meets the intent of the code while not meeting the specific code requirement for a front setback. Request for Parking Variance Target Corporation is proposing to redevelop their existing site in Fridley, Minnesota. The Super Target will include two district offices for a total square footage of approximately 176,376. The Petco facility will be comprised of 15,260 square feet. 148 4 The Petco building will be on a separate site with its own dedicated parking. The Petco facility breaks down at 12,831 SF retail sales, 643 SF storage and 1,742 SF support facilities (restrooms, break room, vestibule, animal grooming and handling). Based on current City Standards for parking, the Petco facility requires 95 parking spaces. Ninety-five spaces are provided. Based on current City Standards of lspace per 150 square feet, the Target Store would be required to have in excess of 1,100 spaces. � Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of paxking utilization at their stores and prepares correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. The sales per hour are also correlated to the gross volume of sales in terms of dollars. This allows Tazget to correlate the number vehicles parked on an hourly basis to the current and project sales of each store. Based on the historical experience at the Fridley store and the projected volume after redevelopment, Target has calculated a future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the anticipated maximum sales hour (occurs the day after Christmas). Target Corporation is proposing to build 700 spaces to a11ow for added convenience to their Guests. Target Corporation believes in a balance between sound stewardship, Guest convenience and compliance to standards. In the case of the Fridley project, Target Corporation is committed to providing an appropriate number of parking spaces to achieve this balance. Building excess spaces creates additional storm water run-off, increases heat sink effect during summer months, reduces vegetative cover and increases maintenance activities. Target firmly believes that 700 spaces will provide the necessary convenience to their Guests and would not recommend fewer spaces than would be appropriate for sound business purposes. Target is not proposing to develop excess property that would otherwise be used for parking. Instead, the proposed plans indicate additional green space. We have provided a graphic which illustrates a proof of potential parking for an additional 169 spaces. We respectfully request that the City of Fridley provide a variance to the pazking requirements and allow for the development of the site at 700 spaces for Tazget and 95 spaces for Petca Summary The Super Target/Petco site plan has been developed with� a significant number of challenges and hardships outlined. above. We have worked diligently with staff to develop a site plan which meets the overall intent of the code and minimizing the number of requests for specific variances. The redevelopment of the site as a Super Target provides the city an opportunity to have a significant upgrade made to one of the long-term members of the community. We respectfully request your consideration of our variance requests. 14�J CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING .lUNE 8. 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kuechle called the Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Brad Sielaff; Kenneth Voss, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter Members absent: Larry Kuechle Others present: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Rachel Harris, Environmental Planner Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 9, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Zinter, to approve the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Variance Request VAR #05-07 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to reduce the off-street parking space requirements from 1,100 spaces to 700 spaces with proof of parking for additional 169 spaces, generally located at 755 53�d Av NE. � 2. Variance Request VAR #05-08 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to increase the height of a pylon sign by 10 feet to 35 feet above grade; to increase the square footage of a pylon sign from 80 square feet to 145 square feet; to increase the square footage of a pylon sign from 80 square feet to 213 square feet; to increase the amount of wall signage from 338 square feet to 744 square feet on the front of the new building, generally located at 755 53�d Avenue NE. 3. Variance Request VAR #05-09 by Target Corporation. Consideration of a variance to decrease the front yard setback on a commercial building from 80 square feet to 24 square feet generally located at 755 53�d Avenue NE. 150 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 2 of 14 MOTION by Commissioner Voss, seconded by Commissioner Zinter, to open the public hearing at for all three variances. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 PM. Mr. Hickok reviewed variance request VAR #05-07 explaining that the Target Corporation purchased this property in the mid 1960's and it is the eighth corporate store. This site is important to the City because the City has a long-standing relationship with the petitioner, the site has good visibility, there is ease of access from Hwy 694, Central Avenue and 53�d Avenue NE and there `s 20 acres of land to accommodate the store needs in this location. The current Target store is the redevelopment site for the Super Target store. He reviewed a panoramic view of the existing parking on this site. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is seeking a variance to Code Section 205:15.5.0 which would allow them to reduce the number of required parking stalls. Code requires at least one off-street parking space for each 150 square feet of building floor area in the C3 district. Target's proposal would not meet the code requirement. Super Target will include two district offices for a total square footage of approximately 176,367. City standards require 1 space per 150 square feet which means the Target Store would be required to have in excess of 1,100 spaces. On the new redeveloped site the Petco building will be detached and will be comprised of 14,260 square feet requiring 95 parking spaces. Petco will meet that requirement. Target submitted a hardship statement, Mr. Hickok stated, which in summary states: "Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepares correlation analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis. Target has calculated the future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the maximum sales hour of the maximum business day which occurs the day after Christmas. Fridley's code requires 1,100 stalls which means there would be 500 more stalls than necessary for the busiest hour of the busiest day at the Target store." Traffic patterns in and out of the Target Store do not create undesirable conditions presently nor is it anticipated in the future. The drive aisles and entrances onto 53`d line up with entrances from Medtronic to the south and that is the optimum design so that there's not confusion for traffic. Referring to the hardship statement again, Mr. Hickok read "Target is not proposing to develop excess property that would otherwise be used for parking. Instead, the proposed plans indicate additional green space. We have provided a graphic which illustrates a proof of potential parking for an additional 169 spaces." Mr. Hickok further explained there are four code conditions staff reviews when looking at hardship in recommending approval of a variance: 151 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 3 of 14 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or- to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Mr. Hickok explained thaf the petitioner has prepared a statisfical analysis of ifs precise parking demands based on enormous amounts of data and over 39 years experience on this site. Sfaff made an observation on the Mother's Day holiday weekend and fheir !ot did nof reach 50% capacity. Staff has heard frequently from retailers that the parking ratio is too high and many of fhe City's large retail areas have less than half fuU parking lots on any given day. Home Depof and Ashley Furniture are just fwo examples of retailers who requested a reduction in the parking requirement for their Fridley locations. Staff will be asking the Council to consider a text amendment to the parking code to adjust fhe parking demand downward to better match the real demands for retail parking. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the properiy in question. Mr. Hickok explained fhat other property in the vicinity of 1694 has been granted similar consideration, such as Home Depot being given the opportunify to use a speculative ratio to somewhat reduce the demands of stall numbers otherwise required by code. A Super Store would not �f on this site with the 1, 900 sta//s fhat are required by Code. If aN 1,100 were proven to be necessary, Target would need to comply. History and staff observation confradicf the numbers of stalls required under fhe current language of the City's code. Staff wil! be asking fhe City Council to take a/ook at the code because this is not the first fime that staff has had developers say the parking requirements are too high for retail. 3. That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Hickok stated that Target argues that strict application of the Code would not provide adequate space for both parking ar�d the new proposed building and that to modernize this sife and meet the know demands for parking, a much smaller number of parking sfalls could be used. 4. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. Mr. Hickok stated that a larger number of stalls beyond what is proven to be necessary can actually be more detrimental to the public in fhaf it requires an over abundance of impervious surface, thereby increasing the demands on the storm sewers and increasing the potential of surface water pollutants. 152 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 4 of 14 Staff recommends approval of this variance due to the undue hardship created by strict compliance with the standard parking requirement; due to a desire to foster additional green space when possible; and due to a desire to increase the pervious surFace area in the community to reduce run-off and surFace water pollutants. Staff recommends that if the variance is granted the following stipulations be attached: 1) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3) Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4) City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7) Petitioner to provide landscaped hedges along the west and south side property lines when abutting a single family residence. 8) All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot candles at the property line. Commissioner Zinter asked for clarification on the district offices proposed for this site. Mr. Hickok explained that Target has chosen this site for the location of two district offices each approximately 1,000 square feet in size. These offices will be on the north side of the site with windows and an enlivened building elevation facing I-694. The office site will have a separate entrance from the front of the store itself and allows the users of that office space to enter the office without going through the retail area. At approximately 2,000 square feet, the office area is a very small portion of the 176,000 square feet of building. It does provide something other than a blank north facing of the building. Commissioner Sielaff questioned what parking ratio staff ended up with at Holiday, Home Depot and other retail sites where a reduction in parking had been requested. Mr. Hickok responded that the majority of the City's retailers are at the 1 to 150 ratio. Home Depot requested a ratio of 1 to 250. Ashley Furniture has a 1 to 400 ratio which resulted from a text amendment process for language specific to furniture stores. Commissioner Jones questioned if there will be adequate space for snow removal. Mr. Hickok explained if the variance is approved there will be less square feet of asphalt to pfow and the green space becomes an excellent snow storage space. The green space also offers a filtering effect for the run-off before it reaches the storm sewer. Commissioner Sielaff questioned what other communities require for retail parking. 1�3 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 5 of 14 Mr. Hickok responded that there is a wide spectrum of requirements but developers claim that 1 to 250 is more typical in the metro area. But this is something staff will have to research. Ms. Harris stated Target is also requesting three variances to the City's sign code requirements 1) Increase the height of a free-standing sign from 25 to 35 feet. 2) Increase the allowable total square footage of free-standing signs from 80 to 330 square feet. 3) Increase the square footage of the east (front of store) wall signage from 359 to 744 square feet. For the variance VAR #05-08, Ms. Rachel explained that Target is proposing to place a new pylon sign along I-694 near the northwest corner of the property. A second free- standing sign is proposed for Petco and Target at the main entrance on 53'�. Petco is allowed a free-standing, 80 square foot sign of their own but they have chosen to incorporate their sign with the Target entrance sign. The wa11 sign variance will increase the square footage from 359 to 744 square feet and wifl be placed on the front of the Target store which faces Hwy 65. There will be no wall signage on the 53`� Avenue side of the store and only a 10 x 10 foot Target symbol on the north side of the store. The petitioner is willing to stipulate that this would be the limits of their signage on the north and south elevations in exchange for the additional signage where they believe it is better situated. Ms. Harris reviewed the code allowances signage explaining that the maximum square footage of total free-standing signs is 80 square feet per development; the height of a free-standing sign is limited to 25 feet above finished grade; the wall signage maximum is 15 times the square root of the wall length. In analyzing sign variance requests, Ms. Harris explained the following four code conditions are required: 1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applieable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property ir� the same vicinity and district. 2) That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. 3) That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. 4) That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the properiy in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. Ms. Harris stated the Target lot does have an odd shape on the north property line with a depressed elevation in relation to both I-694 and Hwy 65. Those conditions are unique to the Target site. Other property in the vicinity of I-694 has been granted similar variances for all three of the variances requested. She then reviewed the following 154 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 6 of 14 summary of the petitioner's hardship statement: "Because of the odd shape of the north property line, the desire to maintain a good aesthetic environment to I-694 and the residential neighborhood, the site being depressed significantly lower than I-694 and the building orientated to face Central Avenue, Target is requesting three variances from the City of Fridley for signage." Ms. Harris further stated that code would not provide enough physical signage to allow I-694 drivers to adequately identify the properly and exit safely in time from the freeway which is why the petitioner is requesting the increase in square footage for the free-standing sign. Regarding the first variance, the petitioner states that placement of the I-694 pylon sign at a higher elevation close to the west property line will offer the best notification to drivers that they need to exit the freeway at Central Avenue. A larger entry monument sign on the east entrance will direct traffic into the site away from Monroe Street and will also serve as a delivery entrance for both Target and Petco. The taller / larger pylon sign along the freeway may have an impact on nearby residential properties, though no more than lights from cars on the freeway which is at a higher elevation. The larger wall signage will not be detrimental to surrounding commercial property. Ms. Harris stated sign variances similar to each of Target's sign variance requests have been recently issued, such as the wall sign variance for Ashley Furniture Store, and the pylon and wall sign variance for HomeValu. The existing Target store has received a variance in the past for a larger free-standing sign. Other businesses along major thoroughfares who received sign variances in the past include Bachman's, the University Avenue Business Center, and Cummings Power Generation (Onan). According to past variances granted, none of TargeYs three sign variance requests are in excess of sign variance requests approved for similar situations. Ms. Harris stated staff recommends approval of all three variances with stipulations as the petitioner has demonstrated statutory defined hardship and there are severa! comparable variances that have been granted over recent years for similar situations / sections of code. Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached: 1) All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2) Any existing sign variances will be null and void with approval of the new variances. 3) The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25 feet back from all property lines. 4) No additional free-standing signs shall be allowed on .this site besides the two approved. 5) The variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. 155 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 7 of 14 d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compfiance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. Commissioner Jones questioned the height of the proposed sign along the freeway and whether it will be above the treetops. Mr. Hickok stated that the height of the trees is one of the hardships Target has sited. The proposed sign will be 35 feet high. Regarding variance VAR #05-09, Ms. Harris explained the petitioner is requesting this variance to construct a building that will be set back 24 feet on the front (53�d Avenue NE side). This is a 56 foot variance to the required front yard setback for a building in the General Shopping Center District. The site plan design calls for the removal of the parking area on the existing southwest corner of the property and the construction of a 15,260 square foot building. Landscaping will be installed and the view of parking will be screened by the building itself and landscaping to be provided. Ms. Harris reviewed the code requirements as follows: "General Shopping Front Yard Setbacks of the City Code states that permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be closer to any public right-of-way than eighty (80) feet." Ms. Harris stated there are three code conditions reviewed for variance approval: 1) The public policy which is served by requirement. (City Code) 2) The practical difficulties or unique circumstance of the property that cause undue hardship in the strict application of the requirement. (Hardship statement) 3) In recommending or approving a variance, the Commission and/or Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance to protect adjacent properties. (Stipulations) Ms. Harris stated with regards to public policy, City Code states that an 80 foot setback is required by code in shopping center zones. The Comprehensive Plan states existing commercial sites should be targeted for aesthetic improvements and for land use efficiency improvements. In addressing the practical difficulties or unique circumstances of this petition, Ms. Harris read from Target's hardship statement as follows: "The setback would create a hardship to Petco in that it would not allow for an efficient and reasonable use of the property. In order to comply with the parking requirements for the new Petco facility and create a viable visual perspective of the building, we need to locate the building closer to 53`d Avenue. The area between the 53`d Avenue right-of-way and the building would be a parking lot if the site plan was developed according to the specific section of the City code. When a parking lot abuts a city street, landscape screening is required between the right-of-way and the parking lot. As a result of a jet fuel gasline along the west end of the site prohibiting any 156 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 8 of 14 significant plantings in the area between the street and the parking lot, we are unable to meet the code requirement." Ms. Harris stated staff recommends approval of this variance because the petitioner has statutory defined hardship and the proposed variance meets redevelopment principles of our comprehensive plan. Staff afso recommends the following stipuiations be attached: 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner shall create a four-sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit.) 3) The petitioner shall work with Metro Transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco building. 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53�d Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. Commissioner Voss questioned the stipulation for a four-sided building. Mr. Hickok explained what this relates to is that no porkion of the building should look like iYs the back of the building thereby causing a neighbor on one side of the building to feel that they've been somehow forgotten. The four-sided building is balanced so that from any perspective there is a pleasant-looking building. Dale Beckman, Westwood Professionaf Services (design firm for Target Corporation), stated there are representatives present from Target Real Estate and Development Services, from Petco and Ryan Construction representatives. He explained since the store was originally developed a couple of things have occurred; I-694 and Hwy 65 were uniquely different and the traffic counts are substantially higher now. Aesthetic and safety improvements have been added to I-694. There had been no center barrier so visibility from westbound traffic to the site was possible. Also a sound wall has been erected and extends to the ramp so that eastbound traffic cannot see the Target store until they're past the ramp connection. The intent of the code, he believes, is to provide a structure of business that is compatible with other uses in the area. Target has tried to meet the specific guidelines, but the challenge of trying to meet all of these on a site design basis is nearly impossible, thus the request for variances. The demands in the community are both for a Target store and a grocery store. They've tried to meet the intent of the code by increasing their setbacks where they can; on the west side the new building will be 60 feet from the property line which is almost double the code requirement. The building orientation is east-facing which results in three frontages; 53`d Avenue, I-694 and the private road that serves businesses along Hwy 65. Along I- 694, they want to alert eastbound traffic of the Target location so they don't have to make an abrupt lane change. To that end they plan to erect their sign closer to I-694; going from a current sign height of 34 feet to 35 feet and a square footage of 212 square feet to 213 square feet. Along Hwy 65 they want to allow cars an opportunity to see and recognize the front of the store. So rather than putting a substantial amount of 157 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 9 of 14 signage on the north side of the building or on 53�d Avenue which is reaily a gateway to a residential community, they have focused their sign square footage on the east side of the building where there is no residentia! views and will improve visibility from Hwy 65. The third sign is the entry monument off 53`d Avenue which will guide people to their site. They tried to comply with the intent of the code by minimizing the overall square footage of their signs and keeping the signs away from residential areas. Mr. Beckman stated the parking variance request stands alone. Target is not in the business of being a landlord and do not typically like to have subleases on their property, Mr. Beckman explained, so they have carved out a specific piece of land that meets the requirements of the code to allow for a free-standing building. Traffic into this site works well because there is a substantial amount of stacking space, so they have oriented the front entrance of the Petco store facing the northeast. Normally there would be an 80 foot setback line for the proposed Petco building, but that results in a substantial amount of asphalt in that area. They considered how they could make the new Petco building look better and determined if they moved it closer to the street the parking can then be tucked befinreen the Petco store and the Target store so iYs not creating an unsightly transition into the residential neighborhood. This will atso allow them to provide the four-sided building staff referred to. Another issue is a jet fuel high pressure line that runs in the right-of-way in that area and crosses over 53�d Avenue. If they were to meet the required setback for the Petco building, a substantial amount of screening would be required to screen the parking lot from the traveling public and because of the fuel line they could not comply with the screening portion of the code. Commissioner Zinter asked if Target's parking need of 600 spaces is based on the current store or on the Super Target. Richard Wiebe, Westwood Professional Services, explained that Target has data on all their stores where they know the number of shoppers by the number of cash register receipts each hour. Part of this data collection was triggered by those communities which are mandating not to build (parking spaces) in excess of three spaces per thousand square feet. Target wanted to get a tighter handle on the correlation of parking spaces to shoppers. Last November a by hour traffic count was conducted at a large number of Target stores in the metro area and they were able to determine how many cars were parked in each area during the peak hours the day after Thanksgiving. They then did a correlation analysis between the number of cars and the number of cash register receipts for the same period of time and they found a tight correlation. In determining that they have data that tells them that at the absolute peak hour of parking is between noon and 1:00 p.m. the day after Christmas which can be translated into the number of parking spaces required. In analyzing this particular site, they found that the absolute maximum number they would need would be less than 600 for that peak hour the day after Christmas. Target will build 700 spaces for the added convenience of their shoppers. In addition to that, there's a proof of parking for another 160 spaces. The 700 spaces is approximately 1 space for every 250 square feet of retail area. , 158 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 10 of 14 Commissioner Sielaff questioned the appearance of the south side of the Petco building. Mr. Wiebe stated instead of having a plain facing along 53�d they plan to enhance it with awnings with fixtures that appear to be windows. This gives it more of a store-front appearance. To make this more pedestrian friendly they also plan to move the bus stop further west so they get off the bus in an area with more of a residential feel and they would not have to cross the entrance to Target as they currently do. Wes Grandstrand, 5431 Madison St., stated he has some issues that need to be considered. He wants to make sure that the parking proposed is based on the proposed Super Target rather than on the existing store. The proposed landscaping for the parking area is a step in the right direction and an improvement over the "sea of asphalt" that currently exists at this site. He believes landscape hedges along the western property line would be inappropriate and should be a mature landscape barrier because of the homes in that area. He questioned the elevation of the Petco building as it relates to 53`� Avenue, particularly when the setback is narrow. The Super Target will not be visible from Hwy 65 because of the existing businesses along Hwy 65 in front of the Target property. He has no problem with the sign being proposed for the east side of the property but he is concerned about the pylon sign planned for the northwest corner of the site as that sign should not be visible from the residential area. There is also an issue with the sound barrier wall because Target obtained a variance from the state not to run the barrier wall along a portion of the freeway which results in a wrap- around sound situation into the residential area. He requested that Target provide mature landscaping to help block some of that noise from the residential area. He also questioned where the dock area will be located for the new store. Mr. Wiebe explained the dock will in the same location as the current dock but the north end of the new building is 30 feet further south than the existing builtling. Also, they will be providing additional landscaping near the dock area with trees to soften the effect. Mr. Grandstrand pointed out that the dock area is currently a source of noise in the residential neighborhood and he would appreciate efforts to reduce that noise. There is currently pedestrian access off Cherry Lane through the fence that's around the cul-de- sac. That pedestrian access is there at Target's dema�d. The neighborhood managed to get that access closed up but it was subsequently reopened. He would like to see that access permanently closed because it is a huge generator of unwanted foot traffic through Cherry Lane. Bob Hessman, 5381 Madison St. questioned if the wooded area to the west of the Target site will remain as natural land. He was also concerned about what type of landscaping will be provided and whether or not there would be any limitation on the hours for delivery trucks to this site. The pylon sign in the northwest corner, if high enough and lit 24 hours a day, will affect the residential area. 159 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMiSSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 11 of 14 Mr. Beckman stated the parking study was based on the largest volume �Super Targets in the metropolitan area. There is extensive landscaping proposed to enhance the entrances. The signs will be turned off 30 minutes after the store closes. The typical Target store would have a truck turn around in the dock area but that has not been proposed for this location in an effort to reduce the noise on Cherry Lane. They will also raise the area to the west with landscaping on the top to maximize the protection for the home closest to the Target site. There is no change praposed for the wetland area west of the Target site. The Petco building will be raised approximately three feet for aesthetics and to eliminate drainage concerns. As far as the concerns over lighted signs, Mr. Beckman pointed out that the signs will be turned off at the end of business hours each day. They tried to seek a compromise between the visibility of their sign from the highway and the impact of that sign on the neighborhood by sliding the sign as far to the east as possible. As far as noise from the loading dock area, the new dock will be depressed four feet in the ground and a retaining wall will be erected along the west side of the dock. Also the new building will be approximately 30 feet south of the existing store. Mr. Beckman also stated they have no objection to closing off the pedestrian access to Cherry Lane and would defer to staff s recommendation. They don't have any plans for the property they own west of the site and plan to leave it as a wetland area. He was not aware of the specific hours for deliveries to this site but will be happy to provide that information at the City Council hearing on this matter. Mr. Hickok stated staff heard from Mr. John Harrington, the owner of the property along the western edge of the Target site, and he is concerned about the variances. His property is currently landlocked. He does have 25 feet of frontage along a right-of-way which would allow him to do something with the property. He has no specific development plans that staff is aware of. Mr. Harrington wants it on the record that these variances would only serve to make Target uninterested in his lot and he believes his lot may offer an opportunity to expand without requiring variances. Mr. Hickok stated he indicated to Mr. Harrington that his property would not solve the problems that necessitate the variances being requested and that those variances have little or no impact on his property or the future development of his site. Commissioner Zinter asked how the proposed sign compares to other Target stores. Mr. Beckman responded that Target looks at each sign specific to the location, so there's no specific or typical sign. Mr. Grandstrand reiterated his request that the Commission pay particular attention to the type of landscaping in the area on the west side of this site. There may be an opportunity for some additional mature landscaping that would help provide a better buffer, specifically in the truck dock area. Commissioner Jones questioned Mr. Grandstrand what he considers "mature landscaping." 160 CfTY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Grandstrand responded it should be trees in the range of 20 feet high to help offset the noise being generated. Mr. Hickok explained City code caUs for a much smaller tree but staff will discuss this issue with Target. On the landscape plan, staff will discuss the specific areas about which the neighbors have expressed concern. Mr. Grandstrand added that for the 30 years he's lived in his home, Target has been a good neighbor and he expects they will continue to be a good neighbor. Mr. Beckman stated Target is looking at this as an overall redevelopment and they're trying to continue being a good neighbor, so they will work with City staff in an effort to adjust their plans to be considerate of the neighbors within the property constraints. Mr. Hessman expressed concern that the trucks will generate more noise as they attempt to pull out of the graded area. He also asked if there will be any widening of 53`d Avenue and whether or not the entrance to the Target lot will be configured differently. Mr. Hickok responded there are no plans to change the configuration of 53`� Avenue as it is currently designed for a capacity well beyond what it carries. The access to the Target site from 53� Avenue will be new and well designed. Mr. Beckman responded to Mr. Hessman's concerns and explained that it is only a 2% grade coming up out of the dock area so there should not be a significant increase in the truck noise. � MOTION by Commissioner by Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to enter into the record the letter from John Harrington dated June 8, 2005. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIFtPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANtMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AT 9:18 PM. Commissioner Sielaff commented that he'd like to see a change in Stipulation # 7 requiring that there be input from residents adjacent to the property regarding the landscape planning. Mr. Hickok suggested that the landscape plan be made available at the counter in City Hall and that residents stop in and review the plan and provide feedback to staff prior to the City Council meeting. 161 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 13 of 14 After some discussion, the Commission members agreed to strike the word "hedges" from Stipulation #7. Commissioner Jones commented that there is a lot of space around the City taken up for unused parking. He believes the Target proposal is a good move in the right direction. Commissioner Zinter stated he believes this proposal is a good balance of residential, retail and environmental. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approva� of VAR #05-07 by Target Corporation with the stipulations as modified. 1) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3) Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4) City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7) Petitioner to provide landscaping along the west and south side property lines, when abutting a single family residence. 8} All lighting on the properiy shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot candles at the property line. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to recommend approval of VAR #05-08 by Target Corporation with stipulations. 1) All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2) Any existing sign variances will be null and void with approval of this new variance(s). 3) The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25 feet back from all property lines. 4) No additional free-standing signs shall be allowed on this site besides the iwo approved. 5) This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. 162 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 8, 2005 Page 14 of 14 c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph a. above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Zinter, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval of VAR #05-09 by Target Corporation with stipulations. 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner shall create a four sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit). 3) The petitioner shall work with metro transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco building. 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53�d Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Commissioner Zinter, seconded by Commissioner Sielaff, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON VOSS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary 163 FROM �x?:'iEr�.T WES'T i3�4KE�tS, INC fi' )une 8, 2005 City of F�dley By FAX 763-571-12$7 � Vasiance Requests 0�5-07, 05-08 and 05-09 T� Corporatinn Attn: Ju]ie Janes and Scott Hitchcock, Plarining D�partn�ent This FAX is se�t p�us�*ar�t xo the r�otice Y recei��ed re�ding t�.e V'ariances reqe�ested by the � Ta`rget i.orpa.ratior,, r°qu�sting a change in setbacbs, a reducrion in parkin.g spaces and an inre3se :r: si�r, oe or, the �roperty immediatelq adjacent to ours in Fridley. Suice our ]and is virn�al�p land lock�ed by �ie. present Tatget Store and a v�zy hig� h� it� the rea� and since the Gitp wi]1 not pe�cnit anpthing but s'si�e family residPnces an the property, anp fi�.er expartsion or change in the permits given �to t�e Targ�et smr�e arill hav� . 13�e practi:cal effect of re,ndering our 2.2 acse tract virwally valueiess and undeveiopable as v�e � be bioc.}sed by a new store in the front and a hill in the back wher� the nei�bors have object�d to any rezonir�g of our property. P3:e�ase aote our objection tA ti�e �Tariances aaid oiu request that t�ey be d,enied. � Target could eas�Iy �et cc+hat they aaaated by e�pansioa to the west as avell as contcaction to the Fas� and w�e would be �g co negotiate wi� them. �?.1� � �� . - „ r,� � I'res3dent, Great West Bro�ers 6105 �DE�T �R.�4ZRIE �tOAD, #27, EDINA M�F. 55436 9��-988-5�O�S OR CELL PHONE b12-991-1271 164 :