02/09/2009 - 4531�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
�ffY �F
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 January 26, 2009
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
OLD BUSINESS:
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 #05-03, by JLT East River Road, LLC,
Generally Located at 5601 East River Road)
(Ward 3) (Tabled January 26, 2009) ................................................................ 1- 8
2. Resolution Approving Agreement with the State
of Minnesota Department of Transportation for
Replacement of the Existing Traffic Control Signal
at Trunk Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive (Ward 2)
(Tabled January 5, 2009) ................................................................................ 9- 10
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid
System Construction Funds for Construction
of a Traffic Control Signal System at Trunk
Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive (Ward 2) .................................................. 11
4. Receive the Minutes from the Planning
Commission Meeting of January 21, 2009 ....................................................... 12 - 41
5. Extension of Special Use Permit, SP #08-06,
by Joe Papa, on Behalf of Hitching Post
Motorsports, to Allow a Repair Garage
(Service Use) for the Motorcycles and
Recreational Vehicles that are Sold as Part
of the Business, Generally Located at
7651 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ..................................................................... 42 - 43
6. Resolution Ordering Improvement, Approval
of Plans, and Ordering Advertisement for
Bids: Sanitary Sewer Lining Project No. 383 ................................................... 44 - 52
7. Resolution Ordering Advertisement for Bids:
2009 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project
No. 384 ....................................................................................................... 53 - 54
8. Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropriations
for the 2008 Budget for November through December,
2008 ....................................................................................................... 55 - 57
9. Claims ....................................................................................................... 58
10. Licenses ....................................................................................................... 59
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009 PAGE 3
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda — 15 minutes.
NEW BUSINESS:
11. Special Use Permit Request, SP #09-01,
by Glenn Nelson on Behalf of Samir
Awaijane of 7570, Inc., for Automobile
Repair Uses Generally Located at
7570 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ...........
12. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #09-01,
by Select Senior Living, to Replat 5
Lots to Allow for the Construction of a
Senior Living Project, which will Consist
of Independent Living Units, Memory Care
Units, and Assisted Living Units, Generally
Located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street,
and 6461, 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue
.� ..
N. E. (Ward 2) ..................................................................................................... 67 - 82
13. Master Plan Amendment, MP #09-01, by
Select Senior Living, to Allow for the
Construction of a Senior Living Project,
which will Consist of Independent Living
Units, Memory Care Units, and Assisted
Living Units Generally Located at 1314 and
,
1340 Mississippi Street, and 6461, 6441 and
6421 Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) ...........
14. Informal Status Report ......................................................................................
ADJOURN.
83 - 92
93
CITY OF COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
JANUARY 26, 2009
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of January 5, 2009.
Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009.
BOTH MINUTES WERE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Extension of Variance Request, VAR #06-01, for Totino-Grace High School, to
Increase the Height of the School Building from 30 Feet to 48 Feet for the
Renovation of the School Auditorium, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue
NE (Ward 2).
William Burns, City Manager, stated the height variance for reconstruction of the high school
auditorium was initially approved in January 2006. Council gave them a one-year extension in
March 2007. Given the difficulties with fundraising, they are asking for an additional extension
of the variance until January 23, 2010. Staff recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 2
2. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other
Local Use (85t'' Avenue Trail Project) (Ward 3).
William Burns, City Manager, stated the MSAS funding will be used to pay for the local match
on this project estimated at $175,000. Staff recommends Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-06.
3. Resolution Approving and Authorizing Signing an Agreement with Sergeants of the
City of Fridley Police Department for the Years 2008 and 2009.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the City began contract negotiations with the police
sergeants in the fall of 2007. After failure to reach a final agreement on terms during
negotiations and at mediation, the Union filed for arbitration with the Bureau of Mediation
Services. The arbitration hearing was held on November 18, 2008. The arbitrator, Richard J.
Miller, upheld the City's position on nearly all disputed items in the contract. The wage and
benefit terms of the contract are the same as the terms in the current police patrol contract. They
also enable the City to maintain wage and benefit uniformity with other employee groups for
both 2008 and 2009. The cost of the contract for both years is $36,000. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2009-07.
4. Approve Revised Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
William Burns, City Manager, stated the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council (JLEC)
has been in existence since 1970. The multi jurisdictional body provides direction and oversight
for a variety of county-wide law enforcement functions that benefit from cooperative action. It
oversees the county-wide provision of dispatching services, joint records management, county-
wide law enforcement training, and emergency management. The amended agreement serves to
combine several separate j oint powers agreements into one comprehensive 7LEC agreement.
There are no additional Fridley funds or responsibilities associated with these changes. Staff
recommends Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
3. Claims (140137-140439)
APPROVED.
4. Licenses
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 3
5. Estimates
Shank Constructors, Inc.
3501 — 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Filter Improvements
Proj ect No. 379
Estimate No. 3 ................................................$49,293.00
Standard Sidewalk
10841 Mankato Street N.E.
Blaine, NIN 55434
2008 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
Proj ect No. 375
Estimate No. 6 ................................................$ 570.15
APPROVED.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to remove the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of
January 5, 2009; the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009; and Item
Nos. 1 and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of the minutes
and Item Nos. 1 and 4. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
Ryan Pobuda, 144 Satellite Lane NE, stated he is very concerned about speeding traffic on the
road. There are quite a few people who work in the area near Main Street, who tend to fly
through the neighborhood. He has small children and his neighbor has a small dog. They cannot
even be in their front yard. He put out a small "children at play" sign. It does not stop people.
He asked that either a speed bump be placed there or even a police officer watch the area.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 4
Mayor Lund asked if he had spoken with the Police Department.
Mr. Pobuda replied he had not.
Mayor Lund said he would mention it to the Police Department and have the neighborhood
resource officer contact him.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they can put the speed board out there.
Mayor Lund said Mr. Pobuda was not the first one who has complained.
PUBLIC HEARING:
8. Consideration of the 2009 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01.
MOTION by Commissioner Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and
open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:42.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated notice of the meeting was published in the last
two issues of the Sun Focus. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments from the
affected owners on the proj ect and future special assessments. In 2006, the City Council
approved a major maintenance financing policy for roadways and this guides our establishment
of special assessments for this resurfacing project.
Mr. Kosluchar stated it is the fourth year under the City's assessment policy for our major
maintenance of streets that have concrete curb and gutter. The project area is University Avenue
West Service Drive and local streets in Sylvan Hills. These locations were prioritized in 2008
upon recommendation of Engineering staf£ On January 21, 2009, a public workshop was held
and approximately 50 owners were in attendance. The program will continue to maintain our
streets. What we are trying to do by overlaying the streets is maintain them in such a way that
we do not have to reconstruct the base material and not get into a more expensive repair later.
This project has been initiated to rehabilitate the asphalt surface in these two locations. We have
targeted necessary water main repair on University Avenue West Service Drive.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the City inspects pavement quality annually and updates information and
uses this to select projects for major maintenance. The University Avenue West Service Drive
has commercial traffic and is our poorest state aid corridor. We are looking at water main
replacement from 73rd to Osborne Road. We do an open cut and replace cast iron with ductile
iron. We are also looking at alternatives in engineering, including pipe bursting and directional
borings which allow us to replace the main with less surface disruption. There are no special
assessments proposed for the water main work It is paid out of the utility fund.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 5
Mr. Kosluchar stated the feasibility report identified the costs and approximate budget that is
available. It is very close to being wholly funded. The proposed assessment has two different
calculations. One is for non R-1 and one for R-2 non-residential. This is for basically
commercial/industrial properties. The assessable footage is measured for each property. The
project non-assessable footage is deducted from the project costs, then all those assessable
footages are added together, and it is divided out. Basically the assessable construction is the
entire portion to center line from the abutting property. The cost per lineal foot for the project is
about $44. Under our policy, we assess 50 percent to the non R-1 and R-2 properties which is
approximately $22.
Mr. Kosluchar stated looking back at historic assessment rates for resurfacing projects, they
range from $20-$30 per lineal per foot. We are on the low end. Part of that is due to the width
of the street. Part of the reason that it is higher proportionately is because of current prices. We
are a little guarded on the estimates right now.
Mr. Kosluchar stated for the residential properties assessment, the project costs are totaled and
there is a deduction for public properties, parks, and those kinds of things. Corner lots are
assessed on one side only. The assessment is calculated dividing the total remaining project
costs by the number of residential property units. Twin homes and double bungalows contribute
the equivalent of two properties even if they only have one PIN.
Mr. Kosluchar stated basically each residential unit has an equal property assessment with the
exception of a few unique property assessments, 6348 and 6390 Satellite Boulevard are
recommended for partial assessments. This is pro-rated because a portion of those would be
reconstructed under the 2008 street reconstruction project. We would obviously deduct that
footage and prorate their assessment. The property at 6111 Star Lane is assessed as non R-1/R-2
property. It is an apartment complex, so it is commercial.
Mr. Kosluchar showed options for the City's special assessments. There can be a lump sum
payment within 30 days of the final assessment hearing; it can be added to the property taxes that
are paid over 10 years, including interest which is typically 6-7 percent; or there is an option for
seniors meeting certain criteria. They can have assessments deferred until the sale of their
property. Looking at a 10-year payment plan for the estimated $950 residential assessment at
6 percent interest, the payments would range annually from $152 to about $100 in the lOth year.
Mr. Kosluchar said they will be trying to do the bid letting on March 17 and will be
constructing during this summer.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what would happen if they waited to do this.
Mervin Herrmann, 278 Mercury Drive, stated he lived at his address when the first street went
in. At that time, they were told they would be assessed only one time and after that it would be
maintenance, even the replacement of another street. He felt this should come out of the street
fund which he thinks is supported by tax money. When it was first built, he worked for the City
and worked on the assessment. They were assessed for the street and curbing. It was one of the
first projects that went in with concrete curb. He said he talked to Mr. Otteson and Mr. Pribyl,
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 6
and it was agreed that they had actually been assessed for the blacktop streets and concrete.
Therefore, he feels this would be like maintenance more than rebuilding of the street. He said
they were told they would never be assessed.
Mayor Lund stated there are no assessments for any utility work, like the water main they are
talking about in certain areas. In 2008 they finalized the completion of the City's street
reconstruction program which included those older streets that did not have curb. Now we are
into the mill and overlays on the oldest streets built in 1962. Mr. Hermann's street has the status
of being in the worst condition of the streets in Fridley. This is not a new policy. It is the fourth
year of this special policy for this type of work.
Councilmember Barnette stated he thought he did tell Mr. Hermann the only thing he paid for
was curb and apologized if he misled him.
Mr. Kosluchar stated records they looked at showed that the street was assessed along with the
curb and gutter in 1962.
Mr. Hermann stated it may have been a year or so later, but the number of the job is "62."
There was no street of any kind, and because the developer had not done it, we had to pay for it.
William Burns, City Manager, asked Mr. Hermann if there was a record of the City promising
that there would never be another assessment.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, no.
Mayor Lund said you can either pay more each year to build up the street funds in Fridley or
reassess when the time arises. Now we are back to doing mill and overlays where we grind up
the asphalt and put in a new layer. If we do not do that, we will have deteriorating roads with
more potholes.
Mr. Hermann stated he realizes how the whole thing works, but the thing he looks at is he was
paying taxes and everybody else in his area for the other areas where they did not have to pay for
the street because they had it paved. Now he said they do not get help from taxpayers. We have
to pay the total bill on our own. He said he is not against the project.
Councilmember Bolkcom said he is getting help from taxpayers. State aid money is going
towards this project.
Mr. Hermann said after they initially did the job, it should have been charged to maintenance,
which should have been coming out of the street fund instead of special assessments to the
people who live on those streets.
Mayor Lund stated there is no exact science to this. This is the first year of the change in the
City's policy. We do not have the funds to continue perpetual maintenance or mill and overlay
for the 100 plus miles of street. Forty percent is coming from state aid and about fifty percent is
being assessed to the adjacent property owners. State aid money may not always be there.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 7
Greg Smith, 180 Sylvan Lane NE, stated he is for the proj ect. Fridley does a great j ob with the
streets. That is why he lives here. He said he thinks what most of the people here were really
trying to get at was why us and why now. Mr. Kosluchar had stated that Sylvan Lane was one of
the worst streets that needed to be done. He asked who was the worst. He asked if Sylvan Lane
was going to be the only project area?
Mayor Lund stated for 2009, yes. He showed the map and pointed out the red areas, and said
Mr. Smith's area was all red. The red areas are the worst. Staff does an annual review of the
streets to see conditions. There are a lot of little red areas and those people would pay a huge
extra cost because of the smallness of the project. We try to include a number of streets. Why
now? Because last year was the end of the reconstruction of the oldest streets in Fridley that did
not have curb. That was how it was easily identified. A lot of them had the old asphalt curb.
Now we are looking at projects that we have been postponing because we only get so much state
aid. There is a cap, and to best utilize the cap from the state aid is to not make the projects too
big.
Mr. Smith stated he thinks the main idea with people in Sylvan from what he has herd was the
issue of the economy. He asked if there was other ways to pay it rather than all at once.
Mayor Lund stated they could pay within 30 days or do the 10-year assessment at about a 6 to 7
percent interest rate. If you are a senior citizen with some restrictions on income, then you do
not have to pay the assessment but most of the interest does accrue until the assessment is paid.
The economy is down. He believes we are getting favorable contractor rates now.
Dr. Burns stated he spoke with Mr. Kosluchar about options. If Council is willing to consider it,
one option that sounds reasonable to him is to hold the assessment over unti12010. There would
be some City expense, some lost interest revenue of $7,000 to $8,000. However, above and
beyond that it is possible to do a project this year, not assess by November 30 or whenever the
County requires, and then implement the assessment the following year. That would give
property owners one year to come up with the first payment on the assessment.
Mayor Lund commented he is not against that option. He would have to think about. He is
apprehensive about two things. First, if we did postpone the assessments for a year and there is
about a$7,000 to $8,000 interest borne by the taxpayers, he does not necessarily know if he
wants to set a precedent for that although the economic times are probably somewhat unique. He
asked if the $7,000 to $8,000 the City incurred would be taxed onto the property owners'
assessments.
Dr. Burns replied he did not think so. The one down side is you are doing something different
than what they did with the Gardena people in 2008. However, maybe they could also justify it
by saying that conditions are different from what they were in 2008.
Mayor Lund stated this is the fourth year of these types of projects and this type of assessment.
Dr. Burns stated one of the things we really have to be careful of is consistency. We have to
treat people the same.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 8
Mr. Smith asked how about spreading the payment on it. Putting it on your first half taxes and
your second half taxes.
Mayor Lund stated it is being spread. It is a 10-year payback that will be split on the two
payments anyways.
Mr. Smith asked if it is going to be split onto two payments.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is if you do not pay it up front.
Mayor Lund said it would be for 10 years at a 6 percent approximate interest rate. The yearly
amount would be split in half, in six-month increments.
David Landes, owner of commercial property at 250 Commerce Circle, stated their address is
actually on the street that is parallel to University. He is not sure what part of their property
would have the new street.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed it is the back half of his property. He asked what the name
of the business was.
Mr. Landes replied, Custom Graphics. He asked whether it is not the part that is parallel to
University.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, it is just west of University.
Mr. Landes asked whether businesses are assessed at a higher rate per foot than residents?
Mr. Kosluchar replied that is correct.
Mr. Landes asked it their streets cost more than residential streets.
Mr. Kosluchar replied generally there is added width and added traffic due to it being
commercial property.
Mr. Hickok asked Mr. Landes what streets his business was between.
Mr. Landes replied between the park and the circle. He said they were being assessed
approximately $7,000.
Mr. Kosluchar stated he would be assessed for the east side of the property.
Mr. Landes stated they have a problem with access to their dock Their access is narrow.
Would this be a good time to look into getting the opening changed?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, absolutely, that is the connection to the existing street. Now is a good
time to talk about it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 9
Councilmember Barnette asked if it is Mr. Landes' or the City's responsibility.
Mr. Kosluchar stated any improvements that you do on your property is going to be at your
cost. He would want to change the cut of the driveway. There is an island that divides the in and
out and he would need the City to approve the narrowing of that island and widening of the
opening so trucks have an easier swing.
Mayor Lund stated it looks like that is something staff should probably look at.
Tom Doree, owner of the double bungalow at 6110 Star Lane, said Star Lane had been
resurfaced, not necessarily torn up and resurfaced, but some gravel has been put on it recently.
He knows we have had some upgrades on the curbs recently. When he drives around Sylvan
Hills and drives from 61st to 57th, there are extremely bad streets in any of those neighborhoods
with the exception of Third Street. He cannot figure out how Sylvan Hills can be in worse shape
than that neighborhood right now. If you drive Main Street from 61st to 57th the roads are in
tough shape. He disagrees with the assessment that Sylvan Hills is the worst neighborhood in
Fridley right now.
Mayor Lund stated 61st actually is in poor condition in his opinion, too, and so is Main Street.
The reason why they are not factored in on this project is because of the pending Northstar
station site there. He would hate to see to have that improved this year with the construction
traffic and things. Also, there may be some changes to the street that need to be made.
Mr. Doree said there were other streets from Main Street to University going south of 61st
Avenue.
Mayor Lund asked, so he is talking about 2"d Street and 2'/z Street.
Mr. Doree replied, yes. Those streets are all in worse shape than anything he has seen on
Sylvan Hills. He does not understand the logic of what constitutes poor condition vs. poorest
condition.
Mr. Doree said he was also concerned regarding the double assessment for the double
bungalows. He said he thought the only double bungalows in the Sylvan Hills area are on Star
Lane. There are three properties on Sunrise Drive that take up more linear feet than the first two
double bungalows which he and his brother own. He does not mind being assessed somewhere
but thinks it unfair they are being assessed twice as much as any one of those homes.
Mayor Lund asked how many families are living on Star Lane. There is one family in that
home yet they have a longer frontage. Mr. Doree has a double bungalow with two families in it.
It is probably reasonable to assume that there is probably more usage with two families using
those roads and, therefore, the benefit.
Mr. Doree stated across the street at 6111 which is being assessed as R-1/R-2, there are 24
families living in that building. He asked if they were being assessed 24 times.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 10
Mayor Lund asked if it was an apartment building.
Mr. Doree replied, yes.
Mayor Lund stated the apartment complex is paying the commercial rate and, as he heard from
another commercial property, they are paying a much higher assessment. He asked Mr.
Kosluchar if they had an amount.
Mr. Kosluchar stated on the mock assessment roll our estimated assessment is about $6,000 on
that property.
Mr. Doree replied his is $1,900 for his double bungalow. Between himself, his brother, and the
next neighbor, they have three properties for a total of six units. They are paying the same
amount as an apartment complex. That is where the assumption falls apart that there is that much
more usage. It is just not fair.
Mayor Lund stated if he thinks it is more fair to do the linear footage assessment on the three
properties.
Mr. Doree replied they would be getting a better deal than what they are already getting because
it costs $6,000 for an apartment complex that takes the entire half of Star Lane and the other half
is maybe half a dozen properties. He is just saying that with the amount of usage, that
calculation falls short with the apartment complex in his opinion. He would not mind and would
prefer it if the City would at least consider, instead of two times assessment for a double
bungalow or duplex, perhaps 1.5 times assessment to try and equal this out. If they are charged
1.5 times as a duplex it would actually be exactly the same amount as the property behind them
on Sunrise Drive. There are not many properties that would require that assessment.
Mayor Lund stated he has a point.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated after the neighborhood meeting she went away with the
thought, does it make it sense to do something like this, this year, considering that we may be
close to a depression. What is the cost of waiting and doing the proj ect next year?
Mr. Kosluchar stated the cost will be minimal to delay it a year as long as it is programmed in.
If you start falling behind one cycle, then it is going to build up and the cost will build up over
time. If you let it go a year and double it up with another year's project, then we are probably
pretty limited. We will have the maintenance again this year to do, and we did some expensive
maintenance, and did some skin patching.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked where the state aid came from.
Mr. Kosluchar replied that is gas tax funding.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there are any changes we would have to make going in and
out of that neighborhood related to the commuter rail.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 11
Mr. Kosluchar replied they had some discussions on that internally. He met with Mr. Hickok
and they talked about the rail station. Mr. Hickok gave him some history. It is his understanding
that there is some mitigation built in to try and keep traffic out of the neighborhood. One of the
things that came out of that meeting as well is the existing cut-through traffic. What it boils down
to with this project is we would not be implementing any of those measures over and above. In
other words, we would not narrow a street to make it one way. We would sign it one way, it
would be one way, and there would be parking on both sides. To go to the added cost to narrow
the street at this point would probably be excessive.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it would hurt to put in a median. We had a fair amount of
discussion years ago when we first started talking about commuter rail and that was one of the
biggest concerns that neighborhood had. Similar to the concerns when Christenson Crossing was
built. She asked Mr. Kosluchar if he felt there had to be any design changes to the road itself, and
are we not hurting anything by doing this? We sure would look foolish if we did something in
this neighborhood and then came back and changed the roads.
Mr. Kosluchar replied right offhand he did not think so. They would like some time to look at
that, too. There is some time. We will be into May before construction is started.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is amazed at how much a commercial property is assessed,
i.e., Bob's Produce and Dunn Brothers. They are looking at $16,000. She knows that $950 is
huge to a resident, too.
Mr. Kosluchar replied the $16,000 is actually two parcels. They spoke with Mike Schroer. He
understood the need for the project. His issue was more of time. At this time, it is not good for
him.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the idea Dr. Burns was talking about would include the
commercial properties.
Dr. Burns said that was for the whole proj ect.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated regarding the comments about Second and Third Street, she
asked if part of the reason for the delay on these streets is we were waiting for more homes to be
built there. We do not want to do a proj ect in a neighborhood where we are still building homes.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied, Third Street was completed up to 60tn
Avenue last year. The first part of the work was done and it was left that way while construction
was happening on the northern block so that construction equipment moving in and out would
not take a toll on a finished surface. Near the end of last summer the second lift got put down on
Third. As for 2'/z and Second Street, he is not really well-versed on those conditions.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated a couple of those streets are bad but, again, maybe some of the
traffic patterns related to the commuter rail might change what we are doing there. She asked if
staff had spoken with Bob's Produce and some of the other commercial properties about working
late at night. She asked if it would increase costs.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 12
Mr. Kosluchar stated they actually talked about it with Mike Schroer of Bob's Product, and the
cost is not excessive. They are talking with some contractor right now. They think it is a really
good option.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they are placing notices in mailboxes.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, as he understands it we place them in the mailbox when we cannot get
to a door conveniently.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is not legal. You cannot put political information or
anything in them so it might be a practice we want to stop doing. At the third hearing she heard
Mr. Otteson talk about an inch and a half of asphalt costs about $900 and an additional half inch
costs $300 more. They want to do this project and they want it to last. She asked if they were
putting two inches down.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we are working on that. Obviously we want to do what is right and what
is going to last for the neighborhood, but we also want to do it with sensitivity to the economy.
It is not a one size fits all for all the streets. Some of the streets are built thicker. Some have a
thicker base. We are going through a little more analysis to try and control costs.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if we are going to be spending the taxpayers' money, we
should at least look at whether they should be spending the extra for the additional asphalt. She
also asked if we have had any duplexes or double bungalows in any of the rest of our street
improvement proj ects.
Mr. Kosluchar replied not that he is aware of.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is truly spelled out in our roadway and major maintenance
financing policy. Does it address bungalows and duplexes?
Mr. Kosluchar replied it is more generic than that. It talks about the use. In other words, if the
property is used as two units, then it is assessed as two units. If Council wanted to get more
specific about amending the policy, we could do that.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like them to go back and see what we have done
and if there have been any double bungalows or duplexes.
Mayor Lund stated and it is always tough. He is not against looking at it. He thinks Mr. Doree
does bring up some valid points. He does not want to be making policy changes that now
become exceptions. We have to be very careful we have some consistencies in the policies and
are not changing them mid-stream.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated when she left the neighborhood meeting and someone came up
to her and said why this year, why not do anything this year, she could see their point. She is a
little concerned about delaying it for a year and then next year if the stock market goes down "X"
amount of points, do we then put it onto the next year. We have to be careful in that respect, too.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 13
Mayor Lund stated he agrees and understands the hardships for a lot people. Nobody knows
what the future will hold. He is a little apprehensive about delaying the project because we do
not know if things will come around in a year and what the price of oil will be. There are a lot
of "ifs."
Dr. Burns said we planned this project before the State decided to do University Avenue in
2009. The State will be coming in and doing milling and overlaying on University Avenue
between some point south in Columbia Heights and some point north around Northtown. He did
not think we want to do our project in conjunction with theirs. He asked Mr. Kosluchar whether
we are going to have enough leeway there to get our proj ect separated from the MnDOT proj ect.
Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed we will. At this time we do not have a firm schedule from
MnDOT. They are working with our contractor to get the contract approved and signed. At that
point they are going to sit down and work out a detailed schedule. His understanding of the
project is that it is going from 40th Avenue all the way to 610. The University segment we are
talking about here is probably a pretty small portion. They will probably be in that vicinity for a
month or so. He is confident we can work around that. If we do not believe it is feasible for us
to construct around them, then we will come back to Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when we would know. It would be great if they would tear
down the fence and start mowing at the same time.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we are hoping to know within the next month.
Mayor Lund stated Dr. Burns brought up a point. He was wondering if there would be any
potential cost savings for us in running the project in conjunction with the State's mill and
overlay. Have we spoken with the State engineer regarding any potential savings?
Mr. Kosluchar replied he thinks there are some issues of jurisdictional control, and he does not
think the State would want to be bothered, as this is a little project to them. He thinks the City
stands to have potential savings because the State project is ongoing and they receive better bids
not only from the contractor that is in line for that work but the other contractor.
Mr. Pobuda asked with this proj ect, next year, are 2"d Street and 2'/z Street going to be assessed
as well? Would it make sense to lump that in since it is basically a block away? If the City is
going to have a contractor bid, would it not be less money assessed to the taxpayers?
Mayor Lund asked whether staff has looked at this.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we have not yet analyzed our inspections from 2008. This project was
designated based on the 2007 inspections. We will be looking at it. He knows that basically all
the streets are on our radar. They have been concentrating on the MSA route, so he knows 61st
Avenue is designated for 2010 right now. It makes sense to connect some of those streets.
Mr. Pobuda asked regarding the Northstar station that is being built, how much are they picking
up as far as rebuilding Main Street and 61st Avenue?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 14
Councilmember Barnette replied none.
Mr. Pobuda stated so then it is back on the taxpayers.
Mayor Lund stated there are the MSA state aid monies. Regarding 61st Avenue west of
University, that was potentially earmarked in 2007, but we purposely delayed that because we
did not want to put a new street in and then have the contractor come in and tear it up if they
were bringing in the tunnel that way or East River Road. It may make good sense to look at 2"a
Street and 2'/z Street and other streets south of 61st Avenue since we are looking at north of 61st
Avenue now. As the Public Works Director mentioned, they have not looked at the reviews of
this past summer yet. They are identifying those here later on for 2010. If we do not keep up
with the streets it just means we get further behind.
Mr. Pobuda stated he is in agreement that it has to be done. He would rather pay now then later
because eventually paying later you are going to pay more money in the long run. As far as
owning a rental property, you are making income on that. In his eyes they could actually charge
more.
Councilmember Bolkcom said if state aid funds are cut, would this project go away? If they cut
our funding this year, would it stall this project?
Mr. Kosluchar stated it would be substantially cut back.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but we would still do it.
Mr. Kosluchar replied a portion of it could be done. If state aid funds were taken away
completely, probably very little.
Mayor Lund stated he doubts they would take it away this year, knowing cities have already let
their projects or assigned contracts.
Mr. Landes stated he is an advocate of not delaying this project. However, he has been listening
to a lot of the grand scheme the current administration has in place to revitalize the economy and
put money into infrastructure. If any money ever came to the State and was handed back to the
City of Fridley, would that assessment go away? Is there any chance that assessments like this
would get paid for by that kind of stimulus?
Mayor Lund replied, absolutely not. If there was any money given back it would be for public
works proj ects and state bridges. It is not going to come down to us.
Mr. Herrmann stated regarding putting the 2-inch overlay, he knows that is one-third more and
basically this thing is going to cost a third more. There are a lot of constant costs involved.
Therefore, he feels that it should not come up more than maybe $150 instead of the $300 because
of the constant costs that are in there. He wished Mr. Kosluchar would look into that. He will
not outlive the street as it is, but he feels this business is still good business. If it would cost like
$150 more, he would still be for it even though he would never benefit from it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 15
Mayor Lund replied we are going to try and get the best deal we possibly can get without
spending any more money on behalf of any of the taxpayers or ourselves.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks he is saying he is all for us doing 2 inches vs. 1'/z
inches if it only costs a little bit more money.
Mr. Hermann stated it may cost a little more. But that it would cost a third more, he cannot go
along with that.
Ray Lenzen, Housing Director at Banfill Crossing, a senior building at 8310 University Avenue,
stated they definitely are all for the project. They have a few concerns about safety of their
residents with driving while the work is being done on the Service Road as well as the work
potentially on University Avenue that the State already contacted them about. They are going to
have a meeting about more traffic being diverted onto the Service Road. One thing they are
concerned about with their residents is walking over to Wal-Mart. The curve is very dangerous
coming from Wal-Mart to their building. Last year there was a fatally accident that happened
there with a vehicle and a garbage truck Originally when Banfill had developed they had the
potential of having a sidewalk from Banfill all the way over to Wal-Mart. He does not know
what happened and was not there back then. They would like that looked into if possible.
Mayor Lund asked if they were willing to pay for the sidewalk?
Mr. Lenzen stated they are already being assessed $11,000. He knows that part of it was
Wal-Mart was not willing to pay for it.
Mayor Lund said they would look at it.
Mr. Lenzen stated Banfill Crossing is owned by a non-profit organization and they have already
put their budget in for approval. They did not get any of the information about the assessment
until after their budget was approved through the board. This year they told the residents they
were not going to raise rents because of the economy. That definitely was a burden to them but
yet they are still willing to do it. If they are able to defer it to the next year as was mentioned,
that would help them to not have such a big loss.
Mayor Lund confirmed their approved budget is for 2009?
Mr. Lenzen replied, yes.
Mayor Lund stated the actual assessment will occur in November. Then they have 30 days. It
is possible to defer it to the 2010 budget. They can pay it off early if they want to pay it in one
lump sum. They may pay for interest just going into 2010.
Dr. Burns stated the assessment does not apply unti12010.
Mayor Lund told Mr. Lenzen he could deal with staff on that payment issue.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 16
Mayor Lund stated we could certainly have a discussion and look at that possibility. It makes
sense, if nothing else, on the safety issue. We will do our best to try and make some type of
accommodation for the amount of pedestrian traffic coming from the apartment complex.
Councilmember Varichak asked what is done with the leftover asphalt? We used it from the
other street proj ect at Community Park.
Mr. Kosluchar replied we will not be generating nearly as much with this type of project. We
are going to be skimming off 1'/z to 2 inches of pavement. That asphalt actually gets trucked
back to the asphalt plant, recycled, and used again.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:09 P.M.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when they would have the discussion about the assessment,
costs, benefits and other issues raised.
Dr. Burns said some issues have been brought up. He asked if it would be appropriate to bring
it back in the pre-meeting on February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked but will that stop us from ordering the plans? That would
delay the proj ect.
Mayor Lund asked what the timeline was. Would it negatively impact the project if we delayed
taking action until the next Council meeting?
Mr. Kosluchar stated he would recommend to Council that they be allowed to continue on with
plans as they are going to be constructing and developing the two roadways, whether we do it
now or later.
Mayor Lund stated questions can still be brought up at the pre-meeting before the next Council
meeting on February 9. If Council wants to stop the project, we still have that out.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the whole discussion about delaying assessments is a huge
policy issue. She asked how the people at tonight's meeting would find out the results. We also
have issues regarding the 1'/z vs. 2 inches, deferred assessment and the cost to the City as a
whole, and duplex vs. the bungalow vs. the apartments.
Dr. Burns said if they could answer the question on the deferral of the assessment until 2010
perhaps we can wait until later to get the other questions answered.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she thought they needed to have a discussion.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 17
Dr. Burns asked Mr. Kosluchar what damage would be done to the timetable if they tabled the
resolution ordering final plans and postponed it until February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they needed to do that. The only thing we are going out for
are plans and specifications and estimates. That has nothing to do with the special assessment,
does it?
Dr. Burns replied, right, we are not getting committed to the proj ect; but we are getting
committed to the expense of going for the plans and specifications.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked she does not think anyone disagrees the project needs to be
done; but it is whether we defer the assessment and how we assess.
Mr. Kosluchar stated they are on two independent tracks. There is a design track and a
construction track If Council is entertaining proceeding with the project, then we will
recommend they pass the resolution regardless of how they want to handle the assessment. That
is something that can be discussed at a future meeting.
Dr. Burns asked if there is another step in the assessment process before awarding the bid for
the contract.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if letters could be sent out after this was discussed.
Dr. Burns replied that would make sense.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney if they were doing anything they should not
be doing, as long as we are going to eventually have the actual hearing on the assessment in
October or whenever it might be.
Attorney Knaak answered you are not doing any harm by doing this, because ultimately it is the
decisions you make at that latter meeting that would matter.
OLD BUSINES:
9. 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
#05-03, by JLT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East River Road)
(Ward 3) (Tabled January 5, 2009).
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated on September 12, 2005, Council
approved the first reading of the rezoning to C-3, General Shopping, from M-2, Heavy Industrial,
for the property at 5601 East River Road. At that time Council also approved this condition on a
24-month timeframe.
Mr. Hickok stated at Council's last meeting they did ask some very good questions of the
developer and staff and some assignments were given about things like the uniqueness of this
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 18
request relative to other rezoning requests that might occur. There was a question about an
easement with a neighboring property owner that Council expressed an interest in wanting to
know more about having an easement document in place by the time this came back.
Modifications to the architectural standards for the development were discussed and a parking
layout for the development.
Mr. Hickok stated the uniqueness to the request is very important. Council asked what made
this site different. This is the largest undeveloped parcel left in the City of Fridley. It is over 26
acres including the little entrance piece to the north. The parcel is zoned right now as M-2,
Heavy Industrial, and one is guided Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. In the Council's
recent amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Council did choose to amend this to
Commercial as opposed to Industrial as the guide plans for this property. Also the property is
being requested to be rezoned Commercial and by Council's first reading that did give an
indication, not only for the developer, but to the viewing public that there was an interest to bring
this forward as a Commercial development area as opposed to continuing it as an Industrial area.
Mr. Hickok stated part of that 24-month extension was to bring back the project, and economic
conditions, for one, caused the developer to ask for a number of extensions. To conclude on the
uniqueness of the request, this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial. It has
had its first reading for rezoning. It is the largest undeveloped parcel. Those conditions are hard
to match. Council has its broadest discretion to rezone, but boils down to the simplest question,
is it a proper Commercial district? From staff's perspective, this is a site that is best used as a
commercial site.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding the easement with an adj acent property owner, there was a question
about that and an easement document was included in Council's packet. It is an easement that is
drawn and an agreement between the two property owners.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding modifications to architectural standards, Council found there were
a number of pieces they wanted analyzed and changed. Staff went back and met with the
architect. The architect/developer went back and reviewed those and the changes were made.
Modifications were forwarded and a much improved, packet of criteria for the architecture was
forwarded to them.
Mr. Hickok stated regarding parking layout for the development, there are a couple different
types he thinks are important to show them. The parking lot would be at a 2.2 percent grade
between the base of the building down to an area towards East River Road. The parking lot then
planes out to an area that is just along the right-of-way before it gets to the roadway.
Mr. Hickok stated the developer has added a considerable amount of parking islands in the
parking lot to soften the effect of the hard surface. They also sent photographs of various sites
they have developed. Mr. Hickok presented the photographs. He showed a night-time view of
one of the projects, as he knows lighting is important. There was some interesting discussion
about lighting last time, and Council has a real good sense about what they would like to see
there. They did not want to see a glare and high intensity.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 19
Mr. Hickok presented an aerial view of the site. Previously there was a very large industrial
building that has been removed from the site. He provided more photos from the developer.
Mr. Hickok stated the stipulations have remained the same since staff reviewed this project.
One of the things he would like to note though and apologize for is, when they talked about the
stipulation about the architectural criteria, we should use that more recent date of January 23,
2009, and not the November date they have. Staff feels the petitioner has "passed the test" with
the criteria for rezoning and the stipulations that are included in their packet.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was an additional stipulation.
Mr. Hickok replied yes, Stipulation No. 10. It may be one of the most important additions. The
developer or successors shall agree to bring back the project for further review, if the project
substantially changes from the plan approved. "Substantial" can be defined as the change in the
number of buildings. Change in types of uses or modification of an individual building that adds
or subtracts 20 percent or more to the building's floor area.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok, on page 6 of the minutes from the Council
meeting of January 6, he mentioned there is a 24-month timeframe to allow them to bring back a
full plan for second reading. That is why she asked for the minutes to be pulled. To be honest
with him, if she had known back in August she would have never voted for the first reading
because she really felt they were going to go out and market and actually come back with an
actual use here. She does not see that tonight. She goes back to the minutes of August 2005.
We mention that they will come back with site information and they would be able to market it.
More than just this one but in September, give us that first reading as we know it is going to be
commercial, and we will come back with an actual site plan of an actual retail commercial
property here. She is not seeing that tonight.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked which Comprehensive Plan the City was using. She knows
that we approved the 2020 Plan, but asked if it had been approved by all the agencies.
Mr. Hickok replied it is before the Met Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were still dealing with the previous Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Hickok stated it is not 100 percent official until it comes back from the Metropolitan
Council and any changes they have made are addressed.
Councilmember Bolkcom said but in reality the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is really not our
bible at this point until it comes back from the Met Council.
Mr. Hickok replied Council took their action to designate land areas for the future and in that
they have described this as a commercial site.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 20
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disputing that she feels it should be a commercial
site. She asked if the DeMello proj ect was in our Comprehensive Plan as an S-2 redevelopment.
Mr. Hickok said it was.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak, even though they were asking for a rezoning,
did we not hold them to some very strict guidelines because they actually had a use--they had a
proposed project there. She asked the developer at the last meeting whether he has ever done
this anywhere else. Also, have we ever done it as a City? He gave the legal opinion that this is
unique. However, did we not in the DeMello proj ect have an actual use for that property and
hold them to some very strict guidelines related to their development.
Mr. Hickok stated in all due respect he would say that was not a fair comparison, because the
S-2 Redevelopment District not only is a rezoning request that they made, but their master plan
is predicated on the density, the footprints of the building, the landscape, the number of parking
stalls, etc. It was very much like a planned unit development where they are proposing
something that was basically locked down to a master plan. This zoning going from M-2 to
Commercial does not have that master plan. Essentially what the question before them is, is it or
is it not a commercial site, and have you typically, as a practice, had a land use before you where
you can actually look at and view the architecture. Yes, you have. Does that mean you could
not approve one. No, not at all. In a multi-tenant situation like this, it is not unusual at all for a
developer to not know his tenants are. These kinds of rezonings happen regularly.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they have happened in our City.
Mr. Hickok replied, we have not had that much. It is a large piece of property and it depends on
multi-tenants. This is not a Home Depot with a PetSmart. This is a larger site, and it depends on
a number of tenants and they do not know right now who they are. Staff did deal numerous
times with development prospects who were looking at this site. They did go to the market.
They did exactly what they said they were going to do in 2005. They marketed the proj ect. And
they brought development and there were people knocking on our door. There were a lot of
prospects interested in that site. The fact that they do not have a project for them tonight, does
not mean that they did not market the project.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is really sorry if any way she said they did not market it.
She guessed what she is trying to say is that she thought they said they would bring something
back to Council for the second reading with an actual use for this property. She does not see
that.
Mr. Hickok stated no one is more disappointed than them. They would have liked to have had a
real proj ect there. Staff would like to see a proj ect, but given the current economic market, they
are still interested in pursuing this as a commercial site, and they are acting on a first reading and
a Comprehensive Plan designation that says it is viewed as a future commercial site for Fridley.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she sees a lot of wonderful trees on this property. What would
prevent them to come back and say, you know what, trees are twice as high as they used to be.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 21
What would prevent them to say in this market we cannot put all that in because we had to
promise so much for this and this for these retail properties. She asked if he understands that her
concern is that not even one thing is identified here. She was excited when she saw the pictures.
Right now she sees a bunch of cars and a lot of asphalt in the front as you go down East River
Road. She hopes it is a gateway. We are going to have the commuter rail system. We could
possibly have cars on both sides. That is all people will see. It is hard for her to agree with the
second reading. Do we feel comfortable legally because we have been in court two times
recently related to rezoning issues, including a couple projects in the last couple years. Does the
City Attorney feel comfortable if someone else comes along with another so-called "unique"
property that is identified in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan that he can say that this project is
unique compared to some other property.
Attorney Knaak replied yes. The question that he was asked at the last meeting had to do with
that very issue. If we do it in this case, would we have to do it for someone else. The answer is,
the more similar it is to whatever a subsequent project is, the likelier it would be. Even if you
did not want that project to occur, someone could take you to court and essentially force you to
do it. So here the discussion he had with staff was what specific thing about this site in particular
would make this unique. The size of the site seems to be the primary issue that is involved.
There is no other comparably-sized site that is located as this one is right off the freeway that
makes it amenable to this kind of development. So based on the information and discussion he
had with the staff, he does believe that the City could take the position that this is in fact
sufficiently unique so that this would not get thrown back at them and they would find
themselves being compelled to rezone another parcel.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if the uniqueness was because of the size.
Attorney Knaak replied it has to do with the size and the particular location. It is the size and
the location by the freeway. Under the circumstances here, that is a reasonable assessment.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked so on page 14 of the minutes from the last meeting, the two
comments, does that depict what he said that night?
Attorney Knaak replied it does reflect what he said.
William Burns, City Manager, said he agrees with Councilmember Bolkcom, he sat here when
this came up the first time and it was clearly his understanding that we were going to be looking
at a project when we looked at the second reading. On the other hand, the economic climate has
changed an awful lot since the first reading was approved. The developer and the City had put
some time into reviewing the different proj ects. While we do not have a second reading, we do
not have the protection of a second reading if we agree to it tonight. We do have what he
considers to be a pretty strong stipulation that will under most circumstances allow us to see
what it is that is coming forward at the time that it comes forward when the economy straightens
out. This is not going to be a short-term effort. It is going to be something that is going to take
two or three years or maybe even more. It will take a while. He thinks Stipulation No. 10 gives
us a reasonable amount of protection. He would think that anything that comes back is not going
to be significantly different from what they have tonight. The key is, do you like what you see
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 22
tonight? If you do not like what you see tonight, then maybe you might want to turn it down.
Stipulation No. 10 gives us the ability to protect ourselves from something that is entirely
unacceptable to us at some later point in time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she reads Stipulation No. 10, it says, change in the number
of the buildings. Change in the types of uses. She asked what those types of changes were.
Dr. Burns replied, changes in the footprint of the building.
Mr. Hickok stated the buildings are labeled right now. Certain ones are labeled out as fast food
restaurant, banks, with a large box retailer on the site. Change in use would mean that they are
not having that mix of retail and other services on the site but they are doing something different.
That would come back before you. A rezoning does not just mean they are going to build what
they want there. It would mean they come in for a permit and by that stipulation, they have one
added with criteria and that is if it has changed, they are going to come back to you and you will
have an opportunity to look at it and understand what it is they are proposing.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, so in other words if they come back and instead of a fast food
restaurant they ask for a Dollar Store and a Fanstasy House, will it come back to us?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it would. He said he did not know if the earlier question about the
landscape piece was answered. That is what they are proposing right now. A big part of that is
protected by the ordinances that exist right now. On an enormous site, an enormous number of
trees are required on that site. Also, we have heard from the developer and they demonstrate
from their projects that they do have a strong desire to keep up their landscape and not just go
with the standard but increase the number and increase the size in many cases. The first step to
bringing a project back like that for us is them being able to go out and say we actually have the
zoning to do it.
Mayor Lund stated he has a concern about Stipulation No. 10 as well. He does think it will
allow us some latitude. His question for Attorney Knaak is does one paragraph really give us the
latitude that is being suggested here tonight. For instance, it says the developer's successors
shall agree to bring back the project for further review. So they bring it back for further review.
It does not really tell them clearly that we have the latitude to make changes if there is some
substantial differences.
Dr. Burns replied, what if we said "for review and approval"?
Attorney Knaak replied if you add "and approval" he thinks his concern would be taken care of.
"Re-approval" would be the appropriate term.
Mayor Lund stated he knows they have the required landscaping. The applicant has stated they
do more than the minimal we require. He asked if that should be added.
Mr. Hickok replied that was the distinct difference in the DeMello project, but Stipulation No.
10 brings you a master plan. He can count the trees on this site plan, and he can tell them that a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 23
modification to the site plan that brings you a different number of trees, it starts to look like a
difference to him, and the number of trees is enough that he would consider substantial, we can
go through it again. Even if the uses remain the same but they have shifted the site so that the
landscape gets diminished, he thinks it is worth seeing again. So this really is a master plan very
much like we had on Old Central.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she should move this into the record.
Attorney Knaak replied he does not know if it would necessarily help but it would not hurt.
You do not really have a development agreement. That he thinks is what they were looking for.
This is a little different than that which is why the protection. The development agreement
would provide many of the protections they were concerned about. You could certainly do that
and attach that or incorporate it as part of the minutes or something like that. But that would not
make it a development plan.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated going back to October 4, 2006, related to the agreement
between the City Council and the Met Council, is that all free and clear now or is there still some
work that needs to be done? Should that be made a part of this because the City should not be
paying for any of that and we were administrators of the fund. Does that make a change in any
way because of the plan? Mr. Hickok made some mention of that at the last meeting.
Mr. Hickok replied he thinks it is important that they mention that. Any obligation that we have
really is the conduit for them to obtain that financing and has been taken on by the developer.
Any new obligations that they would have relative to a change would be directly their
responsibility with the Metropolitan Council, and our role would be to make certain that they did
what was necessary here.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if that was inferred anywhere in these stipulations?
Mr. Hickok replied it is really like a neighborhood dispute if you want to put it in other terms. It
is a civil matter between them and the Metropolitan Council at this point. If the Metropolitan
Council asks something of them, including refund of $168,000 to them, then they would be
responsible for doing that. We would be the watchdogs to make sure that happens.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but right now because the City is an administrator of the funds,
are we under any obligation because we are the administrators? Is there an obligation as a City?
Mr. Hickok replied, he just wanted to be clear, he is not saying we have no obligation. Our job
would be to watchdog on behalf of the Metropolitan Council and make sure they are getting their
funds back if that is what is being asked. At this point it is speculation. He just brought it up
simply because when they made their application, they showed 2,000 square feet plus another
mixed retail development on this site, and that is not what we are seeing today. Does that mean
the Metropolitan Council will follow-up and have some administrative sanctions that they would
impose? He does not know of that ever happening. If it did, our role would be to make sure that
what is necessary happens. The developer in this case has taken on the responsibilities from the
City. They could obtain that grant without us but they have agreed to all obligations of that grant
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 24
including all the paperwork, all of the administration, all of the recording back on the expense
with what they did with the funds.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she just wanted to make sure legally in no way would we be at
all involved in trying to pay back some money should the Met Council request it. She asked
Attorney Knaak if he agreed with what Mr. Hickok said.
Attorney Knaak stated his response and understanding would be that the City would not have
any direct responsibility or liability, but given the circumstances he thinks it would be worth
some initial inquiry on his part.
Mark Anderson, civil engineer with McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., the item he was
going to speak to was the landscape plan. The impression he got was the City wants to ensure
that the level of landscaping is similar to this in the final development. His answer would be that
it will be because what you see is essentially the City requirements and it goes into detail on their
landscape plans. He would compliment the City Code in that is very good and it ensures a nice
landscaped site.
Mayor Lund stated it sounds like there needs to be further review on the one question about the
Met Council. He does not know what ultimately their liability would be. He asked if any of the
petitioners had anything to say.
Joe Meyer, JLT Group, asked if they can be on record here tonight saying they understand that it
is their responsibility. If there is anything. Mr. Hickok described it exactly the way they
understand it. Council can rest assured that there is nothing coming from the developer where
they are going to wash their hands of it and say, well, somehow that is the City's responsibility.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated her concern is that because the City Council did approve the
grant application, she thinks there is some obligation. Until they actually get something back
from our attorney, she is not comfortable about this.
Dr. Burns asked does the City's liability under the grant application increase or decrease or stay
the same depending on what we do with the second reading of the rezoning. Is there any
relationship between the rezoning and our liability? He thinks even if the rezoning is turned
down, there was a grant application that we helped and applied for to the Met Council and if the
obligations of that application have not been met and Met Council chooses to come back and
look for money, the liability is still there whether we are referring to rezoning or not. He is not
sure rezoning is relevant to the liability.
Attorney Knaak replied, he believed that was an accurate statement.
Mr. Hickok replied that was really one of the points of him putting that on the record is that it is
an issue that he cannot, and he does not know that the City can, reconcile. In their application to
the Metropolitan Council, they did indicate they would produce on this site, a certain number of
square feet and that it would be a mix of retail and office. So the point is just making it clear for
the record, that there may be an issue that they need to reconcile.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 25
Dr. Burns stated do we want to add a stipulation to protect ourselves regarding this? Is that
something we should consider?
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there could be an attorney out there that says, I do not care
what it says, you still made the grant application. Also,she did not really hear from our attorney
tonight saying there might be, and he needed to do some more research.
Attorney Knaak stated he would want to see the grant again. The question would be, what
would be the liability and if there was an agreement on the part of the developer that any liability
that the City incurred would be covered by the developer or owner.
Mr. Anderson asked is it not also true that anything you decide not to do even emphasizes it
more because there is nothing there today so if we do not get a new plan approved, we have to go
with an industrial site development which would clearly be less development on this site than
what we are proposing?
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to table this item until the next meeting so the
City Attorney can look at the grant application.
Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, stated she has had the pleasure for 25
years designing and master planning and working on many, many millions of square feet of
different retail commercial development. She thinks tonight what they are here for is rezoning
both the developer and the City is looking for on this particular site. Now, Met Council grants
and outside issues such as those are issues that are aside of the fact of this rezoning. She believes
that still we are here to look at rezoning this to commercial. So what they have prepared for
Council are guidelines that gives them kind of a snapshot and scenario. They have reviewed the
City Code and given you a plan; but the Met Council and decisions for the grant monies and
grant approvals are separate from the Council rezoning this property. Things like Arbor Lights,
for instance, that was a gravel pit and the vision was made. The City determined that would be a
good commercial area. However, first and foremost, the City and the developers agreed to work
at getting a commercial zoning, getting it rezoned, taking it to the market so the market will
know this is a commercial site.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked who owned the gravel pit was talking about.
Mr. Anderson replied, Tiller Companies.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was actually owned by the City of Maple Grove before
that.
Ms. Anderson stated Tiller Companies or Tamarack Village, a cow field, or Silver Lake Village,
a rezoning from what was a mall to a mixed use development. The first step though is, and she
thinks everyone was in agreement, we want to have the best and highest quality commercial
development on this site. The Met Council and the developer and that process is separate from
you as a community, and the developer going forward with the commercial development.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 26
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she disagrees with her. If she remembers back in 2005 part of
this whole thing was, to begin with, was to look at a grant application to get this cleaned up and
then rezone it so it is all part of the same process. She feels a little bit like Ms. Anderson is
berating her that she is asking these questions and wants to have this solved before going ahead
with the rezoning. Since we and the developer have been working on this since 2005, they saw
something a few weeks ago and she loves the changes that have come forward and the extra
stipulation, but to get that one other thing solved is what she is asking.
Ms. Anderson stated that is not what she is trying to say. She thought their goal was to get this
rezoned commercial.
Mayor Lund stated he thinks Ms. Anderson is trying to separate the issue. He said do we want
it rezoned commercial. If so, then we pass this and have them bring something final to us. If it
is something substantially different from this, they could end up with something a lot different.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disagreeing it should be commercial. She is just
saying why not figure it out. She heard the City Attorney say maybe we should figure that out
and find out what kind of liability is there.
Mayor Lund stated either we can pass, deny, or postpone it or put a condition on there. He
would like an added stipulation.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how many votes were needed to pass this.
Mr. Hickok said it would take a simple maj ority. Four.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to thank Pam Reynolds as she has done a lot of
work and looking at the minutes and some of the other discussion. She brought up a lot of the
minutes and she did ask Dr. Burns to give her those minutes because she was trying to refresh
her memory back to 2005. She really felt back in 2005 that they would actually see an actual
master plan like there was in the redevelopment such as in the DeMello proj ect and she
understands that this is different.
Mayor Lund asked the petitioner if timing was an issue.
Mr. Anderson replied, no. He is encouraging the Council to think of some way to protect itself
in this. Because he thinks what is going to happen is the City Attorney will look at the Met
Council documents and say, well, it says this, it says that, and you are going to end up saying,
well, we want some more assurance from the developer that we are not liable for the cost. He
thinks we are back to, as Dr. Burns suggested, putting a stipulation in the document that says the
City is not liable for those monies that were granted to the developer. He thinks it answers the
question. He is not trying to duck the question.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she guessed her whole point is it has been so long since that
application. She thinks we are going down the right path, she loves the new stipulations and the
new site plan. She is only one so anyone can certainly make the motion tonight to do it with a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 27
new stipulation that Dr. Burns or someone comes up with. She would definitely vote for it once
she has been reassured by our City Attorney in two weeks that he has looked this over and says it
is okay.
Mayor Lund said he likes the idea of the stipulation saying that they are saying right here,
holding us harmless in that particular case. We do not want to be embroiled in a lengthy lawsuit
if the Met Council asks for "X" amount of dollars.
Dr. Burns asked what the name of the grant was.
Mr. Hickok replied Tax Base Revitalization Grant.
Dr. Burns asked when was it received.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated June 28, 2006. She believed she is looking at a memo from
October 4, 2006, and it said on June 28 the City Council approved an agreement.
Councilmember Saefke stated he is going to agree with Councilmember Bolkcom. He does not
think it is going to hurt to wait two more weeks and get a legal opinion from our City Attorney.
It is not an issue that Council does not want to change this to commercial. As soon as Council is
satisfied that the City is protected, he does not think there will be a problem at all. At the last
meeting, he was terribly reluctant to set a precedent because the question had been asked whether
this City had ever rezoned something without some kind of a plan. His question was then what
makes it unique and, again, that was to protect the City in any future types of development. He
guessed he was kind of satisfied with it and having reread the minutes again, going back to 2005,
where some of the references were apparently it was the desire of the Council at that time to
change this to Commercial. To him there was no question about that. It was terribly unusual for
the first and the second readings to be so long apart. One of the things that kind of reassured him
about his feeling on changing the rezoning is that the Mayor asked the petitioner last time
whether they have funding and he said he had a bank willing to give them some money for
building, is that right?
Mr. Meyer replied he thinks he said the current lender designated a stipulation in their loan that
they have the first rights for funding the new project.
Councilmember Saefke asked so he is pretty sure that funding is available?
Mr. Meyer replied, yes.
Councilmember Saefke stated that was one of his concerns, too, during this economy that
everything would be changed and then all of a sudden the petitioner cannot get the money to do
what they need to do and you have half a project. It is a fabulous location for commercial. As
the development goes on and the rail line goes through and there are some other developments
there, he thinks it is going to be an ideal situation. As far as commercial, right across railroad
tracks is Home Depot so it is not like an isolated parcel. He would rather see commercial
development than industrial development.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 28
Mayor Lund stated as Attorney Knaak is going to be looking at this one condition, he is also
going to request that staff include a Sitpulation No. 11.
Councilmember Barnette stated he definitely wants this to be a commercial site. He thinks that
this could go ahead as it is, but he is willing to wait two weeks.
Councilmember Varichak stated she also is in agreement that we can wait two weeks and get
some answers from our City Attorney.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table the second reading of the Ordinance to Amend
the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts
(Rezoning Request, ZOA #OS-03, by 7LT East River Road, LLC, Generally Located at 5601 East
River Road) until the February 9, 2009, Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
Mayor Lund asked the City Attorney to review the question about the potential liability of
reimbursement potentially on Met Council and asked staff to add Stipulation No. 11 along those
same lines and bring it back for further discussion on February 9.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that they actually look at the grant application. She asked that
the date in Stipulation No. 7 be corrected.
Mayor Lund stated in the ordinance, it says 9 stipulations. He asked about Exhibit A.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they need to add the words "and re-approval" in Stipulation
No. 10.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, SAEFKE, VARICHAK
AND BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR LUND VOTING NAY, THE MOTION
PASSED ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE.
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Resolution Ordering Final Plans, Specifications and Calling for Bids: 2009 Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2009-08. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the discussion on the assessment would be.
William Burns, City Manager, replied he would anticipate at a pre-meeting on February 9.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 29
11. Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other
Local Use (2009 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST. 2009-01).
Mr. Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated the resolution is required to use state aid dollars.
Fridley is privileged to be one of four communities in Minnesota who has constructed all their
state aid roads to standard and that being such, is allowed to utilize some of this state aid funding
on local roads.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2009-09. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11A. City Council Meeting of January 5, 2009.
Councilmember Varichak pointed out that on Page 21, Item No. 13, it should say
Councilmember `Bolkcom" made the motion.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11B. Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2009.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the minutes. Seconded by Councilmember
Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. Extension of Variance Request, VAR #06-01, for Totino-Grace High School, to
Increase the Height of the School Building from 30 Feet to 48 Feet for the
Renovation of the School Auditorium, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue
N.E. (Ward 2).
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is hard to keep track of things when they go on and on and
on. She understands funding and it is a bad time of the year. This one started out in 2006. When
do you say enough is enough?
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied if they have not acted on their item
within one year and they have not requested an extension, their variance goes away and they
would need to come back and reapply.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 30
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she had a variance and said, Mr. Hickok, she does not have
any money right now, would she be able to get an extension on residential property.
Mr. Hickok replied he cannot think of one where they have done that administratively. Even
though residential does not come to Council, if there is no controversy about it, if they were
asking for an extension it would come to them.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, okay, so it is not any different from residential.
Mr. Hickok replied, no.
Councilmember Barnette asked if they have to go through the process again, a notice would go
out to all the neighbors again and it would start all over.
Mr. Hickok replied, that is their purpose in applying for the extension, not to have to go through
the process again.
Councilmember Barnette stated but we know the controversy that the other school had, and
here they are raising the height 18 feet. He thinks it pretty important to send notices to the
neighbors.
Mr. Hickok said on this one we had no feedback whatsoever.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thinks at some point do we look at these and say after "X"
amount of time they go away and they have to reapply. Things do change. The activity in this
neighborhood, the traffic and other things may affect something.
Mr. Hickok stated he would offer that he thinks if we suggest that right up front it really
weakens the integrity of the process to begin with. We want people to apply for, get a grant, and
do it within the first year. As we have now found we have had a streak of these where they are
coming back and not doing them within the first year. Tell them that you are not going to get
many extensions. You might get two historically. When they are granted a variance he does not
want to make any decision about extensions. If they need an extension we will deal with it at
that time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated what prevents them a year from now coming back.
Mr. Hickok stated there has to be a certain time they would have to stop and have them go
through the process again. Even though no one spoke on this to begin with, there may be new
owners in the neighborhood who have a different opinion. As we have done on the last ones that
they have approved, they would send them a letter saying that there would not be another
extension. After this if they were not able to complete it, they would have to come back through
the process.
Mayor Lund stated they are going through the economic downturn like everyone else. He does
agree though. What is too many.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 31
William Burns, City Manager, stated nationally private schools have taken a big hit.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but, again, it was requested in 2006. It seems to her that it is
fair to say this is it.
Dr. Burns asked if the big part was the $1,500 or $2,000 fee that is paid for the variance
application.
Mr. Hickok stated he would say that is not as big as the uncertainty of whether they get it
granted again. You would hate to have three-quarters of your funding raised and then have the
time clock tell you that you have to get another variance and you might not get it.
Mayor Lund stated they should really start giving us more detail about where their fundraising
is. We have to have some kind of evidence that they are actually progressing.
Mr. Hickok stated with this particular application they did invite him out. They have been as
forthright as they can be. They have gone through the plans, they have enlisted an architect, the
same one they had for the auditorium. Part of their issue is that the fundraising is only partly
related to what they need the variance for. The fundraising is to rework space inside the school
also.
MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to approve the extension of Variance Request, VAR
#06-01, for Totino-Grace High School. Seconded Councilmember Bolkcom.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she would like them to send a letter and say that we really are
looking at granting variances and extensions of variances and we really will need something
concrete to go forward because they have just a one-year extension. She asked if that sounded
reasonable.
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Approve Reviewed Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she was looking at the revised Joint Powers Agreement and it
says that we as a City Council appoint one person (Police) together with one other individual to
be appointed by the City Council.
Councilmember Barnette replied, that is him. Don Abbott goes and he goes when he is
requested.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the way she understands it he should be going any time he is
needed for any voting.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 32
Councilmember Barnette stated he is the alternate.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are two from each city and he really should be going on a
regular basis. If she is reading this right they have two votes.
Councilmember Barnette when he has gone before he has gone just as observer. If they have
law enforcement issues he is just listening and watching.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it says there is an appointment on an annual basis by each of
the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with other individual and it
goes on to say that each one has one vote and you can send someone else in place of one to vote
for a proxy.
Councilmember Barnette said he would talk to Mr. Abbott.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Revised Anoka County Joint Law
Enforcement Council Joint Powers Agreement. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Informal Status Report.
Councilmember Bolkcom mentioned the upcoming Winter Fest.
William Burns, City Manager, said the February newsletter will be coming out in two days.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated a recycling drop-off will be held on
Saturday, April 11, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and Saturday, October 10, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. This
year we are going back to a leaf dropoff on October 22 and October 29 from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The next paper shredding event is February 7.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is an Anoka County meeting related to 85th Avenue and
the widening of 85th at Springbrook.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated it is Wednesday from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the
Springbrook Nature Center. It has to do with the area east of the Springbrook entrance. They
are putting in turn lanes and widening the road to University Avenue.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated are they actually talking about putting a signal there?
Mr. Kosluchar stated they are talking about moving the existing signal at the University
frontage road.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009 PAGE 33
Councilmember Barnette stated he did not realize they are going to be working on Highway 47
this summer. He asked if Mr. Kosluchar can check with the state to see if there is any chance
they can take the fence along University Avenue down.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Saefke, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
February 6, 2009
Wlliam W. Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Second Reading of Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-03, by JLT East River Road LLC
M-09-02
INTRODUCTION
On January 26, 2009 Council held a public hearing and considered this rezoning item. After
taking testimony, Council closed the hearing and tabled the second reading until January 26,
2009. On January 26, Council tabled the second reading until February 9, 2009. The stated
intent for the additional time before action was to consider what impact Metropolitan Council
Tax Base Revitalization Grant requirements may have on the City's ability to allow a modified
site plan. Staff has received the legal opinions of both the City and JLT's attorneys, as well as a
confirmation from the Metropolitan Council staff that there will be no "claw back" by the
Metropolitan Council for this site plan modification, or rezoning.
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS
The Metropolitan Council has been contacted and their staff has indicated that the Grant was
closed out in June of 2008. Consequently, a good faith effort to develop the property is what the
Council asks of the City and developer. Paul Burns of The Metropolitan Council simply asks that
a copy of the revised plan be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their records.
Both attorneys, Fritz Knaak, City Attorney and 7LT's attorney, Jay Lindgren has provided legal
opinions on this matter. You will find that those opinions match the Metropolitan Council's
position articulated to staff this week Copies of those opinions have been attached for your
convenience.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance allowing the rezoning of the site from M-2,
Heavy Industrial, to C-3, Shopping Center District, with the following 11 stipulations. The
petitioner has agreed to have an eleventh stipulation added to provide the City with one
additional layer of protection with regard to the TBRA Grant.
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Easement agreement between JLT and US Corrugated to be filed allowing full access
and 57th Avenue improvements to be made according to plan submitted and dated 11-
26-2008
3. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and
landscaping details, prior to issuance of building permit for individual buildings.
4. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City for the corresponding site plan once specific
users are known.
5. All pertinent plats shall be applied for prior to issuance of building permit for
buildings in that portion of the development.
6. Developer to building in pedestrian access opportunities to serve the development.
These pedestrian plans shall be approved with each set of building plans, prior to
issuance of building permit for each building on site.
7. Architectural criteria submitted, prepared by: Kathy Anderson, Architectural
Consortium, dated 1-21-2009, shall be filed with the County and used as covenants
for each future building's design.
8. All Fire Department and Engineering Department concerns listed above shall be
addressed prior to issuance of building permits for building on this site.
9. Costs of any additional signal or infrastructure improvements deemed necessary to
serve commercial development on this site; by Anoka County, shall be borne by the
developer.
10. The developer or successors shall agree to bringing back the project for further
review and re-approval, if the project substantially changes from the plan approved
(Substantial to be defined as a change in the number of buildings, change in types of
uses, or a modification to an individual building that adds or subtracts 20% or more to
the building's floor area.).
11. The petitioner has agreed to indemnify the City of Fridley from any and all
Metropolitan Council action, defense costs related to, or financial impacts that may
be imposed as a result of the modification of the original site plan; that was included
in the Metropolitan Council Grant Application Number: SG2006-75.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS
The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Appendix D of the Fridley City Code is amended hereinafter as indicated.
SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and
described as:
5601 East River Road NE: The west 270 feet of Lot 4, Auditors
Subdivision No. 89, subject to easement of record.
Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District C-3 (General
Shopping).
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map
to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District M-2 (Heavy
Industrial) to C-3 (General Shopping).
SECTION 4. That Council's approval shall be predicated on the inclusion and
compliance with the 11 stipulations attached and found in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 2009.
SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN — CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: August 22, 2005
First Reading: September 12, 2005
Second Reading:
Publication:
EXHIBIT A
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Easement agreement between JLT and US Corrugated to be filed allowing
full access and 57t" Avenue improvements to be made according to plan
submitted and dated 11-26-2008
3. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage
and landscaping details, prior to issuance of building permit for individual
buildings.
4. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required
infrastructure enhancements, approved by the City for the corresponding site
plan once specific users are known.
5. All pertinent plats shall be applied for prior to issuance of building permit for
buildings in that portion of the development.
6. Developer to building in pedestrian access opportunities to serve the
development. These pedestrian plans shall be approved with each set of
building plans, prior to issuance of building permit for each building on site.
7. Architectural criteria submitted, prepared by: Kathy Anderson, Architectural
Consortium, dated 1-21-2009, shall be filed with the County and used as
covenants for each future building's design.
8. All Fire Department and Engineering Department concerns listed above shall
be addressed prior to issuance of building permits for building on this site.
9. Costs of any additional signal or infrastructure improvements deemed
necessary to serve commercial development on this site; by Anoka County,
shall be borne by the developer.
10. The developer or successors shall agree to bringing back the project for
further review and re-approval, if the project substantially changes from the
plan approved (Substantial to be defined as a change in the number of
buildings, change in types of uses, or a modification to an individual building
that adds or subtracts 20% or more to the building's floor area.).
11. The petitioner has agreed to indemnify the City of Fridley from any and all
Metropolitan Council action, defense costs related to, or financial impacts that
may be imposed as a result of the modification of the original site plan; that was
included in the Metropolitan Council Grant Application Number: SG2006-75.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS
The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Appendix D of the Fridley City Code is amended hereinafter as indicated.
SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and
described as:
5601 East River Road NE: The west 270 feet of Lot 4, Auditors
Subdivision No. 89, subject to easement of record.
Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District C-3 (General
Shopping).
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map
to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District M-2 (Heavy
Industrial) to C-3 (General Shopping).
SECTION 4. That Council's approval shall be predicated on the inclusion and
compliance with the 11 stipulations attached and found in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF , 2009.
SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN — CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: August 22, 2005
First Reading: September 12, 2005
Second Reading:
Publication:
EXHIBIT A
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Easement agreement between JLT and US Corrugated to be filed allowing
full access and 57t" Avenue improvements to be made according to plan
submitted and dated 11-26-2008
3. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage
and landscaping details, prior to issuance of building permit for individual
buildings.
4. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required
infrastructure enhancements, approved by the City for the corresponding site
plan once specific users are known.
5. All pertinent plats shall be applied for prior to issuance of building permit for
buildings in that portion of the development.
6. Developer to building in pedestrian access opportunities to serve the
development. These pedestrian plans shall be approved with each set of
building plans, prior to issuance of building permit for each building on site.
7. Architectural criteria submitted, prepared by: Kathy Anderson, Architectural
Consortium, dated 1-21-2009, shall be filed with the County and used as
covenants for each future building's design.
8. All Fire Department and Engineering Department concerns listed above shall
be addressed prior to issuance of building permits for building on this site.
9. Costs of any additional signal or infrastructure improvements deemed
necessary to serve commercial development on this site; by Anoka County,
shall be borne by the developer.
10. The developer or successors shall agree to bringing back the project for
further review and re-approval, if the project substantially changes from the
plan approved (Substantial to be defined as a change in the number of
buildings, change in types of uses, or a modification to an individual building
that adds or subtracts 20% or more to the building's floor area.).
11. The petitioner has agreed to indemnify the City of Fridley from any and all
Metropolitan Council action, defense costs related to, or financial impacts that
may be imposed as a result of the modification of the original site plan; that was
included in the Metropolitan Council Grant Application Number: SG2006-75.
FEB-�6-2��9 08:56 From: To:763S711287 P.2�3
r��d�,�� w. xl�����*
H. R.I��.n K�i.ntruc-i
Grc�* 1'. Kryi.Cr
Jessica �1.. 3ol�n5c>n
*,41�:�a I,ir,�<�rzei�d in
Z�a•c��elsnz di Cnluruelv
�'C�fl1:�d'j' �, 7��n�
T�a•. Willian�► Burns
Fridley +�ity M�.tt�.�,er
fi431 lJniver:;i�y Av�;nu�:, N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
KNAA_K. & .�.A►.NTRU.�, .P.A.
Attort�eys at Law
350U Willow Lake .Blvd., 5uite �t}Q
Vadnai� Heights, MN �511 U
Telepht�ne: (G51 } 49U-907�
H'�icsimile: (G51) 4t}U-15 $0
I�t1�: Ji..T EtYSt Rrve�• itoaci LLC .1�.4z�ni�ig .A.p��ii�atic�n
lle�r 1.7r. Fiuznw:
U/ C;uur���cl
]7errtald W Rohlcr
.TOS4'�1t1 �_ M3PSt13��
Thcnt7�s M. Dti.il�y, P,t1..
'lhcc,ciorc M, "Tc;tl" Tl�o2npsvn
At tlle tast C:ity C`uw�eil mec�.tin�, I was �sked ta investi��te t.he questioil c�l' whether t� ;5l GS,U(ff)
Tax Bas� Accour�t. �,rar�t awarded 1�y th� Metrc7�olilai� (�'cy�.�n�:il U�tse-c.l on �+ �onucspi �71an advanccd
by JLT would c.reate a��c>��ihle li�.bilit� to th� Ci�y in the; cvcnt it alloweii a rezaiiin� to ucclir au
the J�11'�f' site ��a4�;d on �� clif:l'cr�nt concept pJan.
I have con�.lu�ied there is nc? liahility ta the C'ity in tt�l<ing s����h an actioi�.
C'ity St�ff has i�4�1-wa�-ded tc� me �ic�th thc applicatiQn an�j grant lan�,uagc for my r�.view. Fl.fter
c:u•eful a��alysi;; cyI' �hcsc clucr,rncnts, it do�s not a.ppear tu itze tl�at tlle aw�l•d is e,�pressly
cc�nlingerit up�7n canti.nued use �f the ex�ct c.c�nce,}�t plan u5c:c� in Ubt�iining ilY� gr�itii, Mori.ovur,
it doc.'s ap��ear ll7�it thc; repr�s4r�t�a.ti��i�s t�f the C;ity w�7�ld r.•e��uir� it to i�ezon� the site as it h��d
�ri�,inally �greed to dc>.
A�; nc}ter� by JLT's lcg�l counsel, the ��rant �uid�lines„ �ppli�`alic�n anti ��;reem�nt rec�e��nire th�tti
C�ltiillF�iC(� LI4'VZI0�1Tl�ilfS tire witlzin th� �l�tnr�in�; si.�i��;, implicitly �tllowin� lor sorn� ad�litioiY��l
mc�diticatic�n_ Tri lot�l�in�, a# thc rvlcv�nt ciacumetzts ;�nd applic��le rul�s, tlzere is neiilzer �a�
express reyuir�iixer�t for ttic rcturc� of �.ny 4uc•h funds in t��e event caf project conc-CPl C��til�ll
rnc�clitic�tion, i�c�r a pru�'er�ttr� ft�r lh� r�:turn �7i`furids if t}tL prt7jcct is n1.c3diticc:! aftcr ��ruccccis arc
uti I iaec�.
III �l�Il�ltlpil t0 IIIy C(322(:.1Gi�i�n th��t therc is no liability tc.► t�ic City in apl�r�}viix� t�ic requcstcci
re.�cmin� ea5 t�ie result o� tkte i��ociificatic�n caf �he ��lan, i nc�t� ihat M�-, J4ty Lindgren, lhe �tic�rnt;��
rc��resentit.t� TT�T, has indi��Ued that JLT' is pre,p€ir�cl Cc� stipul��t� that, io thc �;�tunt any li�bility
wc7uld be incunccl b� the C.ity itl this in�tter, JL,':I' w�tald ii3cieii�nify and l�old the t�`ity har�l�les:�.
FEB-06-z�09 �8:56 From: To:7635711z8� P.3�3
1'his ���iclitional �ss�atci.I1C� �Ztl(�ti ;;1C�C�1Lt<)ilfil t'171�)Fi�isis �ca n�y c•uncl«si�m ihat ther� woul�i bc na
�asis fur ��ienia.l al.'l.l�i�; requey� basc:.d, irY �tty �t�ty, c7n the stztus ��f thc t�r�nt.
T'leas� Pe�l Ii-v� �it y�ur cc�nvcnicn�c; if 1 can �e of further assista�lce to yo« itl this Inatter.
5incercly,
� �t�,�� �_.
�� �
�
Frederic W. Kn�talc �%�
F�•idley C'ity 1ltkori3cy
�� � CaORSEY
DORSEY &. WHIT�EY LLP
JAY R. LINDGREN
Partner
(612j 492-6875
FAX (952) 516-5636
lindgren.jay@darsey.com
February 5, 2009
Frederic W. Knaak, Esq.
Knaak & Kantrud PA
3500 Willow Lake Boulevard
S�aite 8Q0
Vadnais Heights, MN 55110-5135
RE: ZOA #05-03, Tax Base Revitalization Account Grant Pro�eeds
Dear Mr. Knaak:
Dorsey & Whitney LLP serves as counsel to JLT East River Road LLC, the applicant for
the referenced rezoning. Second reading of JLT's rezoning request is currently scheduled far
the February 9, 2009 City Council meeting. JLT wished to encourage the Council to take final
action approving the rezoning on February 9. This letter is written to clarify .1LT's positi�n
regarding a question raised at the last Council meeting regarding the $168,000 Tax Base
Revitalizati�n Account grant (Metropolitan Councii Grant NO. SG006-075) which has been used
on the site f�r asbestos remediation.
JLT acknowledges that the current plan is revised from the conceptual development
which was included in the 2006 grant application. JLT believes ihat the current prbposed plan is
more realistic than the 20Q6 concept plan due to the dramatic market downturn which has
occurred. Our review of the relevant grant documents does not indicate any liability on the part
of the City or JL7 t� repay any portion of the grant funds due to the proposed revisions to the
project. The grant guidelines, application and agreement recognize that qualified developments
are within the planning stage and there is no specified procedure for return of any portion of the
funds if the project is adjusted after grant proceeds are utilized. In addition, I have personally
worked on many of these grants both as an attorney in private practice and as the former chief
administrat�r of the Metropolitan Council. While I don't speak for the Metropolitan Council, I
understand that Metropolitan Council policy clearly is to not seek any "claw back" of grant funds
�nce a remediation has been completed and a grant has been closed. That is the situation
here. More importantly, however, J�T is willing to stipulate that if the rezoning does cause a
repayment liahility on the part of the City, that JLT will fully assume the responsibility for
repaying those funds. JLT is willing to document this pledge in whatever reasonable format you
propose.
In conclusion, I wish t� point out that the TBRA program is designed to encourage
increased property taxes and the creation of jobs. The site ciarrently is vacant and within a M-2
zoning district. JLT attempted to market the previo�as inclustrial use and there was not a market
for the prior industrial plant or for a new use otherwise cansistent with M-2 zoning. Only through
a rezoning can a project be built that will achieve the tax base increase and jobs creation
objections of the TBRA program.
DORSEY & WHITNEY l�P • WWW.DORSEY.COM • T 612.340.26QQ • F 612,340.2868
SUITE 150Q • 50 SQUTH SIXTH STREET • MINNEAPOIIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498
LJSA GANAGIA ELJROPE ASIA
c� �� �I�RSEY
February 5, 2009
Page 2
JLT requests that this explanation be provided to the �ouncii and that the Cauncil give
fav�rabfe consideration to the rez�ning request at its February 9 meeting.
Best Regards,
�,`
y R. Lindgren
,1RL:gle
cc: Scott Hickok
Joe Meyer
DORSEY & WHITNEY llP
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
TO:
From:
DATE:
SUBJECT
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
February 9, 2009
PW09-012
Agreement Number 93872R with MNDOT for Trunk Highway 65 and West Moore
Lake Drive Traffic Control Signal Replacement
As we discussed most recently at the January 5, 2009 City Council meeting, MNDOT has programmed
replacement of the signal at Trunk Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive for 2009. The existing signal is 34
years old (installed in 1975) and is due for replacement before it becomes unreliable or maintenance costs
become prohibitive. The proposed project includes several upgrades to the traffic signal system described
at our previous meeting. MNDOT has requested that the City of Fridley approve
Maintenance responsibilities for the signals would remain the same as in the existing signal agreement.
MnDOT is responsible for operation and major maintenance, the City is responsible for minor signal
maintenance and luminaire maintenance, along with power costs. The standard cost share agreement for
reconstruction of these signals is 50% City, 50% MnDOT. Staff has been notified that its Municipal State
Aid System (MSAS) fund advance request has been approved. This will allow the City to use its 2010
MSAS funds to complete the project.
As the City Council directed, staff has reviewed whether the signal can be designed to accommodate
possible future widening of Trunk Highway 65, and has unfortunately determined this is not feasible. Staff
has also requested assurance from MNDOT that in the event of widening of Trunk Highway 65, that the City
is not required to contribute to relocation and reconstruction of the traffic signal. MNDOT has advised that
they prefer not to include this language in the agreement; however, a written response to our request is
expected from MNDOT that will satisfy this concern.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolutions that 1) approve execution of an
agreement for replacement of the Traffic Control Signal at Trunk Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive, to
include galvanized poles and internally lit signage, and 2) allow the use of 2010 MSAS funds to fund the
City's cost share amount.
JPK:jpk
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
AT TRUNK HIGHWAY 65 AND MOORE LAKE DRIVE
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1975, the City of Fridley passed Resolution No. 121-1975 approving an agreement with the
Minnesota Highway Department to for construction and maintenance of a new traffic control signal system at Trunk
Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive, and
WHEREAS, subsequent resolutions by the City of Fridley approved agreements for signal interconnection and
Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption System (EVP System), and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has determined that there is justification
and it is in the public's best interest to remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal
including street lights and interconnect, and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has requested and MNDOT agrees to the installation of internally lit signage and an
Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption System, and
WHEREAS, MNDOT has included this project in the 2009 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota as
follows:
That the City of Fridley enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 93872R with the State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation for the following purposes:
1. To remove the existing Traffic Control Signal and Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street
Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption, Interconnect and Internally Lit Signs on Trunk Highway
No. 65 at East and West Moore Lake Drive under State Project No. 0207-89 (T.H.65=005) and
State Aid Project No. 127-302-013 within the corporate City limits.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreement and
any amendments to the Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 2009.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -
RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM
AT TRUNK HIGHWAY 65 AND MOORE LAKE DRIVE
WHEREAS, The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) is proposing a project to remove the
existing traffic control signal at Trunk Highway 65 and Moore Lake Drive and install a new traffic control signal
including street lights and interconnect, and
WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Fridley to participate in this MNDOT
signal improvement, and
WHEREAS, said construction project has being submitted to the MNDOT State Aid Office and identified in its
records as S.P. No. 0207-89 and S.A.P. 127-302-013, and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has been notified that its request for advanced use of 2010 Municipal State Aid
System funds has been approved,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, County of Anoka, that the an
appropriation from the Municipal State Aid System funds in the estimated amount of $147,960.00 be made to
apply toward certain construction of said project and request the Commissioner of the Department of
Transportation approve this appropriation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 2009.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 21, 2009
Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, Jack Velin, Dean Saba, Marcy
Sibel, and Brad Sielaff
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brad Dunham
OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Glenn Nelson, 7570 Inc. (Petitioner)
Marc Headrick, DBA Architects
Joel Larson, Select Senior Living (Petitioner)
Angie Wagner, DBA Architects
Vicki VanDell, Foltz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
Virgil & Susan Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue.
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren Street
Mark Mattson, 6421 Central Avenue
Dan Levernz, 1340 Mississippi Street
Kurt Olson, 1385 64th Avenue
Approval of Minutes: October 1, 2008
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by
Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Stromberg stated that she would to congratulate Dave Kondrick on his appointment to Chair
of the Planning Commission. She also wanted to welcome Marcy Sibel to the Planning
Commission. She has been a member of the Park and Recreation Commission for several years
and now it their Chair, so as a result she will be serving on the Planning Commission.
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #09-01, by Glenn Nelson, on behalf of
Samir Awaijane, of 7570 Inc., (Sam's Auto World), for automobile repair for a
multi-tenant business, generally located at 7570 Highway 65 NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:04 P.M.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the petitioner, Glenn Nelson, on behalf
of the property owner, Samir Awaijane, of 7570 Inc., is seeking a special use permit to allow the
continuation of a repair garage use at 7570 Highway 65. The site had a special use permit for this
use, which was issued in 1989 but was revoked by the City Council this past November. The
petitioner is applying for a new special use permit for auto repair.
Mr. Hickok stated the subject property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial and is located southwest of
the corner of Osborne Road and Highway 65. The site contains two buildings and a billboard.
The building to the rear appears to have been constructed in 1967. In 1994, an addition was
added to the rear building for storage without a building permit. This posed a significant conflict
since the building was non-conforming in meeting the rear and side yard setbacks required. The
City Council did, however, grant a setback variance for that addition the same year.
Mr. Hickok stated building permit records refer to these buildings as "warehouses", which is a
very different use than the site is being used for today.
Mr. Hickok stated according to the petitioner, there are currently four tenants in the buildings
with one tenant space currently vacant. These are the same tenants that were located in the
buildings at the time of revocation of the previous special use permit last November, with the
exception of the towing company, which has moved out of the site, according to the petitioner.
Three of the four remaining tenants are automobile repair businesses. One is Blue Diamond Auto
Refinishing, which occupies the rear building on the site. The other two are Grand Central Auto
Repair and Rhino Auto Repair. Ronson Door Company also leases a tenant space in the front
building. Their use is primarily warehousing of garage door parts and an office associated with
the business.
Mr. Hickok stated warehousing is a principal use allowed in the M-1 zoning. Auto repair, which
includes auto bodywork, is allowed by special use permit in the M-1 zoning.
Mr. Hickok stated the lot is approximately 47,978 sq. ft. in size, less than one and one half acres,
which is the minimum lot size for an M-1 properiy in today's zoning code. The property is not
required to meet this minimum lot size, however, unless it is being replatted, which it is not. The
two buildings equal 13,800 square feet, which is 29% lot coverage and is well within the
permitted 40% lot coverage for one-story structures.
Mr. Hickok stated neither of the buildings meet side yard setback requirements. The rear
building also does not meet the rear yard setback and is placed directly up to the rear property
line. In addition, this property abuts residential to the south and west, which requires a 50'
setback. The setback on the west (rear) side is zero feet, and the building setback on the south
side is appro�mately 10'. This nonconformity is critical since these are the two sides of the
property which abut residential zoning. The Petitioner's survey shows that some manufactured
homes are less than 25' from the south edge of the front building, which is the section leased by
Grand Central Auto Repair.
Mr. Hickok stated the Petitioner's site plan shows that the site has 31 striped parking spaces.
Staff has calculated the number of parking spaces required for the current use, according to the
office/warehouse/manufacturing space totals provided by the petitioner. Based on the current uses
of the site (with the vacant space classified as manufacturing), 36 spaces are required. The
Petitioner is, therefore, five spaces short in providing adequate parking. In addition, staff has
identified the fact that Clear Channel's easement for their billboard company is across the entire
eastern portion of the property where that front parking lot is, and that may affect parking. We
did ask for additional information from Clear Channel as to what their easement language is, and
at this time we are still awaiting that information. They had sent back a legal description and, of
2
course, that is not what we were interested in. We really wanted to know if the easement
precludes them from for example having landscaping in front of the billboard or does it preclude
them from having certain sized trucks parked in this area or can they use the full front parking
area or would there be some limitations? If that is so, then they may be more than the five
parking stalls short. That information will be helpful to have and will be required as part of the
approval for this special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated the site plan submitted does not reflect how the site has been used for parking.
Since there isn't enough code required parking stalls for customer vehicles in the front parking
area, additional parking will need to be striped in the rear of the site. Once the outside storage is
removed in the back, there will be room for additional customer parking spaces.
Mr. Hickok stated the site is not compliant with current landscaping requirements. In
applications like this, however, where there is no building or hard surface expansion proposed,
staff has not typically recommended additional landscaping.
Mr. Hickok stated properiy maintenance has been a problem with this properiy in the past, so it
is important for the City to evaluate these requirements related to this application. Outside storage
is of utmost concern — particularly since this property is located within a few feet of living units at
Fridley Terrace Manufactured Home Park. Staff has consulted the records and finds no special
use permit for the existing outside storage area in the southwest corner of the property. In
addition, this area is immediately adjacent to residential units, so staff is recommending that this
outside storage of vehicle parts be removed.
Mr. Hickok stated the site currently has a solid screening fence along the residential sides of the
site, so no additional screening is needed. In fact, in order to prevent future outside storage, staff
is recommending removal of certain sections of fencing within the site. This will permit a safer
work environment for the multi-tenant users behind the building and allow better monitoring of
the cleanliness of the site.
Mr. Hickok stated the site plan does not show where garbage dumpsters are located, but all trash
and recycling receptacles need to be located in the side or rear yard and be properly screened.
Also, motor vehicles being serviced by any of the tenants on-site, need to be stored in the rear of
the site.
Mr. Hickok stated since no new impervious surface is being added in this proposal, there are no
storm water management requirements related to the application.
Mr. Hickok stated past experience has demonstrated difficulties related to regulating Fire and
Building Codes in this multi-tenant site. Tenants tend to point to other tenants when staff
investigates a complaint.
Mr. Hickok stated for example, last fall, while responding to a complaint about noxious fumes
getting into the front building, staff found evidence that employees at Rhino Auto Repair were
spray painting in the front building space they lease. They do not have a spray booth. The
Petitioner indicates in their application that Rhino Auto Repair sends out any paint bodywork
they need done, but past experience demonstrates otherwise.
Mr. Hickok stated staff is unsure if Blue Diamond Auto's paint spray booth in the back building
has proper ventilation. There are also questions about whether or not the building has proper fire
�
protection in place. The Fire Marshal has not forced this issue because last fall he was informed
by the tenant, Blue Diamond, that their lease was up and they were leaving in November. The
Petitioner, however, has indicated that Blue Diamond will continue to be leasing the rear
building.
Mr. Hickok stated as a result of these experiences, staff is recommending denial of any new
special use permit related to auto repair. If an SUP is approved, however, staff recommends
stipulating that proof be provided within a short time frame that all applicable building and fire
codes are being met.
Mr. Hickok stated City Staff recommends denial of this special use permit request. The current
owner and tenants have already proven their unwillingness to abide by City and State laws
regarding the auto repair use, which impacts public safety, particularly the safety of the residents
living next to this property.
Mr. Hickok stated he should point out that the owner has assigned responsibility to a new site
manager. If there is one compelling piece of evidence that they want to march in the right
direction, it is that they have brought on Mr. Nelson, the petitioner. The owner of the property,
until this time, has been here in the past but most recently lived out of state. When they were
before the Council in November he had no idea apparently that a lot of these things were
happening on his site. Assigning Mr. Nelson to the case is certainly a step in the right direction.
He would have liked to have seen compelling evidence that things are happening. It is those
kinds of concerns that cause staff to recommend denial and to say there is going to be more
oversight necessary. If an SUP is granted here, this is not just simply granting an SUP. There is
no evidence that things contrary to the Code have been happening and quite likely that trend will
continue. He would like to think that Mr. Nelson would be able to keep ahead of that for us, and
he is optimistic in meeting him that if there is anyone that could make that happen, he would.
However, he has to say it could be almost a daily thing of monitoring the site. If you are
repairing vehicles and the site manager does not happen to be there and you have the front end of
a car and the choice is either to paint it here or to send it out, it is a lot cheaper to paint it here,
although we do not have the ventilation and do not have the booth, but we can get this done
quick. That kind of thing our evidence shows has happened in the past and is probably the
greatest concern and cause for us to recommend deniaL If the Commission chooses to forward a
recommendation of approval, it would include the following stipulations:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. The petitioner shall maintain any necessary Federal, State, and County hazardous
waste permits.
3. No outdoor storage of materials shall e�st on the site.
4. Existing racking and structure on the south side of the rear building must be removed
within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
5. No sale of vehicles are allowed from this location.
6. Existing interior site fencing around previous outside storage area and on south side
of front building must be removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP. Fence on
southern and western boundary to remain to screen business from adjoining
residential property.
7. Area between front building and south property line fence needs to be landscaped
with vegetation and maintained. Fence at southeast corner of building to be removed.
8. All customer vehicles awaiting repairs need to be stored in the rear yard of the site.
�
a. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan reflecting the addition of at least five more
parking spaces in the rear of the building.
10. All parking stalls must be striped and vehicles to be kept in defined stalls only.
11. Frontage road cannot be used for parking related to this business.
12. All buildings shall be compliant with all applicable Fire and Building Codes within
30 days of issuance of SUP, including verification that spray booth and sprinkler
systems are functioning as designed.
13. Provide ventilation calculations for all tenant spaces in both buildings.
14. All structural lintels over garage door openings on front building shall be replaced
upon plan completion by a structural engineer and necessary permits issued within 30
days of issuance of SUP.
15. A revised sign plan, which incorporates both buildings and the existing free-standing
sign shall be submitted for City Council approval within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
The revised sign plan needs to include a requirement that each tenant leasing space
within either of the buildings on site needs to display exterior building signage
identifying the business to the public.
16. The petitioner will provide the City verification that Clear Channel's easement shown
on 7/12/07 survey does not prohibit parking or access
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has not yet satisfied staff's request for more information on the
easement's specifics so an additional stipulation will be required there, and the petitioner will
provide the City verification that Clear Channel's easement shown on 7/12/07 survey does not
prohibit parking or access. This will be added as stipulations no. 16.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he has questions on the violations. How far back do they go?
Mr. Hickok replied on and off from 1989 forward.
Commissioner Sielaff asked if this has been the owner the whole time?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes. Mr. Nelson represents the owner. He is the site manager, but the
owner he represents bought the property in 1989.
Commissioner Sielaff asked how many times has a special use permit been pulled?
Mr. Hickok replied it has been up for revocation a number of times. He believed it was up three
years ago, and conditions were met at that time to maintain and keep that special use permit.
Incidents then arose between that time and now which caused it to come back again. Finally, in
November it was staff's recommendation directly to the Council that because of the continuing
violations we were seeing, they should no longer allow that special use permit to continue but
instead to revoke it and the City Council did do that. Also, at that time staff recommended that in
the event they wanted to continue operations on this site that they move forward with a new
special use permit application. Staff hoped that if the petitioner decided to re-apply for a new
special use permit that they application would be compelling, that if the existing tenants
remained, there would be safety precautions put in place that would somehow protect us from
having those reoccurring violations. But for assigning Mr. Nelson as the site manager, and
basically making the application, there was not a lot of compelling evidence that things would
change. No tenants other than the towing company have moved from the site. The towing
company was asked to leave because the zoning classification doesn't allow for a towing business
to exist on the site. However, there are still some concerns regarding the auto repair shops in the
front that were doing painting. At least one of the two was doing painting without the proper
precautions.
Commissioner Sielaff asked if this past November was the first time all these code violations
were bought up to the property owner?
Mr. Hickok replied it has been very serious all along. Back in the mid-90's there were auto sales
going on at this site, and the owner of the property actually aptly addressed the issue they think
by buying a property up on Osborne Road. The property he purchased is zoned commercial,
which allowed the owner the opportunity to sell vehicles. It was close to this site, which was
convenient, but over time found that he was unable to run both. He had difficulty staffing the
commercial piece of the auto sales and he could not be at two places at one. As a result he sold
the auto sales place and then brought back his inventory and began to sell cars without a license at
this location. That continued for some time. There was then strict monitoring of the site on the
City's part. When this came back in November the State licensing division had contacted us that
six vehicles had been purchased at auction and brought back to that site. There was a change in
legislation that went into effect August 1, 2008 and it had to do with stamping vehicles that had
been severely damaged and how they had to label the titles in the future. That change meant
there were folks kind of racing to the State to get their vehicles stamped before the change of the
law so they could fix those vehicles up and sell them with the old kind of title. Six vehicles
registered to one of these businesses located on the site came to the State's attention listed back to
this property. That caused them to begin to watch the site, only to find that the vehicles were
being offered for sale with pictures on Craigslist right at this location with the buildings in the
background. One of the tenants that exists now was actually doing the auto sales. Again it is a
continuing issue that, frankly, he thinks is a bigger problem than this very good manager might
would be able to potentially handle. We have other site managers other than the owner before
who have not been successful in keeping these businesses in compliance.
Commissioner Sielaff asked when was the site manager hired?
Mr. Hickok in November, right before the revocation, is our understanding.
Commissioner Oquist asked, are there any issues in regards to the buildings and their setbacks
currently? Do they have to come and get a variance to allow their buildings to exist?
Mr. Hickok replied they are considered preexisting, and we are not at this time having them go
through the variance process. However, it does, have an impact that it is a preexisting condition
and, when you are talking about granting a special use permit, you do need to consider the
preexisting condition and ability to mitigate pieces about that use from surrounding uses. A SUP
really is on the books because, though it is a use that is permitted in that district, it is permitted
with certain mitigations/stipulations to protect it from surrounding properties. That factors in a
bit here when we are thinking about the uses. Had every other piece of compliance happened on
this site and we had not had any other history, the setbacks would not be an issue. We would not
on that fact alone be saying, do not grant the SUP. However, that combined with other non-
compliance issues is another cause for concern.
Commissioner Sielaff asked what scenario would they go through if there was no special use
permit granted tonight?
Mr. Hickok replied they would need to notify the property tenants, that they no longer have a
special use permit to allow those types of operations. Then you might ask what do you do with a
0
complex like this if you cannot have auto repair. They do have other industrial users in there.
They have a company called "Ronson Door Company," and in the past they have had a sheet
rocking company contractor in there. Other industrial uses, such as manufacturing and
warehousing would be allowed within the building.
Commissioner Saba asked since the new site manager has been there, has there been any
resolution to non-compliance issues?
Mr. Hickok replied, he has been very good to work with; and the towing company has been
asked to leave and there have not been any illegal signs there. All indications are that he is doing
a fine job with bringing some of those issues to the floor and getting them taken care o£ Again
he thinks unless somebody is there on a daily basis though, they do not know if painting or other
illegal activity is going on.
Commissioner Velin asked if the special use is permit is denied, what about the existing auto
repair shop? Would they still be allowed to be in business?
Mr. Hickok replied, no, they would need to find a new location. What this owner would need to
do is find tenants that do not need an auto repair special use permit.
Commissioner Velin stated he thought the request was to open up another repair business. It
does not say anything about an existing business, isn't he special use permit for a new business?
Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit allows any and all auto repair to function on this site.
There is no new auto repair that wants to go in. There is existing auto repair that wants to
continue to stay there. The special use permit for the three operations went away in November
and in order to continue to stay there they need to have a new special use permit granted. That is
what is being asked of the Planning Commission tonight, will you recommend to Council that a
new special use permit should be granted so they can stay there.
Commissioner Oquist asked whether it is for the whole property?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes.
Glenn Nelson, 1711 — 118t'' Avenue, Blaine, Minnesota, he was appointed to this property
management position on November 19, 2008.
Commissioner Sielaff asked if it is a part-time job or how much time does he spend at this job?
Mr. Nelson replied, actually it was going to be that but what has happened is it is taking more of
his time. His regular occupation is designing church buildings and church interiors. So he is very
used to working with cities and planning departments, planning commissions, and councils. He is
very used to following rules. To that end this has been an eye opening experience for him.
Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Nelson he can imagine what is going through their minds
considering the past performance of his employer.
Mr. Nelson replied, absolutely.
7
Chairperson Kondrick stated and we consider the time it takes for the city inspectors, police
chiefs, fire chiefs, City staff, council, etc. to monitor and review this site. It is a pain having to
deal with this, time and time again.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he guessed he would like to hear from him as to why he feels that
they should allow them to continue doing business there. How could they possibly be assured
that the mistakes in the past and in the very near recent past are going to be eliminated?
Mr. Nelson stated the first thing he wants to address is a term he calls, transparency. In other
words, he plan to be very transparent in his communication with the City, County, and State
departments in order to maintain the auto repair business or auto body shop.
Mr. Nelson stated, second, there are some existing conditions on that site that existed because of
the former owner operating his body shop and auto repair business that were operated in a rather
unusual way.
Mr. Nelson stated as a condition of his agreeing to manage this properiy, Mr. Awaijane had to
agree that after Mr. Nelson's studying this properiy for 60 days that he sit down with Mr. Nelson
and agree to what he felt were his findings. One of those findings was he had a pension for
buying vehicle parts and then wanting to save them and then adding a shelf here or there, in order
to make room for them. Mr. Nelson advised that if the City would see itself to approve a new
SUP, all of those parts will be removed from the premises within the 30-day requirement.
Mr. Nelson stated the enclosed fencing in the back that really limits how they can take and assign
additional parking to meet code requirements has to be removed. This is needed in order for
those new tenants to properly use the space and to leave the front space open as it should be for
customers to come. There is no reason in his mind for the overnight parking in that front space.
Mr. Nelson stated, third, he is in the process of re-tenanting the building. Since November 19,
2008 he has identified one additional tenant that is going to be leaving the premises and he does
not know if it is going to be friendly or has to be of a legal nature. They found that person was
selling vehicles from the property and telling them he was not painting vehicles. Mr. Nelson
cannot prove he was not painting vehicles, but since he has been around that has not happened.
He is still not comfortable with that tenant, and that tenant will be leaving.
Mr. Nelson stated what he proposes to the Commission is to allow Grand Central Auto to
continue in that space, and the remainder of the front space to be retail and warehouse space. In
his vision he wants to re-tenant that building. It is going to take some time because he will have
to repaint, clean the building, lay new carpeting, and then advertise and look for some new
tenants. They are looking for tenants that are not auto-related. The only place that he would want
auto on the premises is Grand Central Auto and maybe a body shop in the back building. As it is
right now he cannot live with the tenants of the back building. They are also not going to be
continue a lease with that tenant, Blue Diamond.
Chairperson Kondrick asked whether he had authorization from Mr. Awaijane to spend the
dollars necessary to renovate the building and get it rentable?
Mr. Nelson replied, yes, he does.
Mr. Nelson stated the stipulations that the Planning Department and the Community
Development Department have put forward he does not find unreasonable. They might have
:
been unreasonable for some new person coming in, but now with the history of the property, he
does not find them unreasonable. He understands why they were put into place, and he concurs
with them. He can only say that the proof is in the pudding what his record will be from
November 19, 2008 and forward. As they re-tenant that building, they want the signage to be
consistent. They have one tenant, Ronson Door, that has an existing sign. They would want all
the signs to line up and be of that same type, so they do not have 20 different signs there.
Chairperson Kondrick stated, yes, Ronson has been there for a long time.
Mr. Nelson replied, right, 25 to 30 years.
Commissioner Velin asked how many employees are on the property?
Mr. Nelson replied, 20. Of those 10 of them are part-time, 10 are full-time. There is very, very
limited retail. Ronson Door Company doesn't really sell retail, they tend to work with builders.
They do not have a stream of customers coming onto the site. Grand Central Auto has several
cars that come as a typical auto repair place would.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if the e�sting paint booth will remain?
Mr. Nelson replied, yes.
Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they would be looking for another auto repair business?
Mr. Nelson stated they are looking for an AABRA type auto repair.
Commissioner Oquist asked Mr. Nelson if Rhino Auto Body is in the front building?
Mr. Nelson replied, yes, and they are going to be leaving. They caused Mr. Awaijane a lot of
problems unbeknownst to him. That was Mr. Awaijane's responsibility to know, as it is his own
responsibility to know what is going on, on his site.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Hickok, are special use permits granted for a one-year period?
Mr. Hickok replied, they are granted and go with the properiy. On an annual basis we are to
review those and any contrary distinctions found would be brought back for review before the
Council.
Chairperson Kondrick stated we would not need to make that another stipulation to have this
SUP reviewed because it is a normal occurrence, is that correct?
Mr. Hickok stated, that is correct.
Commissioner Sielaff asked Mr. Nelson if he has a leasing plan that he has put together for the
tenants?
Mr. Nelson replied, he has put together a formal leasing plan that he would be more than happy
to share with the Community Development Director or the Planning office.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he is wondering if the City should review the leasing plan on an
annual basis to hopefully prevent unwanted tenants from locating within the building?
0
Mr. Nelson replied, he is very comfortable with that.
Chairperson Kondrick stated that would be a bit unusual but, quite frankly, we are nervous
about this.
Mr. Nelson replied, he understands that normally the property is reviewed on an annual basis.
He would be open to a six-month review and then go to an annual review just to keep in the state
of being transparent.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Nelson about the last stipulation, talking about the Clear
Channel thing. Can he shed some additional light on that?
Mr. Nelson replied he cannot shed any additional light on that item at this time. He has not had a
clear response from the surveying company because he has to have correct verbiage from both
Clear Channel and the surveyor.
Chairperson Kondrick stated we already have a parking problem on this site and that needs to
get cleared up. He asked Mr. Hickok if he had any ideas on how that be circumvented if this
were allowed to go through?
Mr. Hickok replied, yes, we do believe that this information is attainable; and he thinks that
Stipulation No. 16 really raises the importance of getting that and having it before it comes before
Council. Staff thinks that if the Commission feels so compelled to pass this, with that stipulation,
it would make certain that in communication with Mr. Nelson that we have that information
before Council reviews this.
Commissioner Oquist stated Mr. Nelson suggested a six-month review and another year after
that. Is there any problem with that?
Mr. Hickok replied, absolutely not. In fact if they want to make that Stipulation No. 17 and
suggest that we do that, we are perfectly alright with that. He is sure Council would see the logic
in that also.
Commissioner Oquist asked about the leasing plan, should that be in the stipulation to review
that as well?
Mr. Hickok replied, certainly, if they would like to. It sounds like there is an agreement here that
would happen but, if they would like to button that down through a stipulation, they could.
Chairperson Kondrick stated we do not want this SUP to come back to the City over and over
again. We want to stop this, and he is sure that Mr. Nelson and his employer want to have things
resolved too.
Commissioner Sibel stated regarding Mr. Nelson talking about removing the parts within 30
days, she assumed this is outside storage?
Mr. Nelson replied, actually as far as the City is concerned, that would be outside storage but
there are also some parts that are inside this building that will be gone, too.
Commissioner Sibel asked are those primarily for Blue Diamond and Grand Central?
10
Mr. Nelson replied, no, they were leftovers from Sam's Auto World.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Velin.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he watched the last Council meeting and did not like some of the
answers he heard regarding this request; however, Mr. Awaijane had the sense to hire this
gentleman to do a good job and Mr. Kondrick believes him. He thinks Mr. Nelson is sincere and
he will do all in his power to get the job done right if we can put the necessary constraints and
conditions on the request.
Commissioner Saba stated he really thinks things will be going in the right direction.
Chairperson Kondrick stated, he agrees. If he consents to the stipulations presented by staff
with a couple of new ones, and if we can learn more about the Clear Channel easement by City
Council time. When does this go to Council?
Ms. Stromberg replied, February 9, 2009.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he feels more comfortable now, talking with this gentleman, and
he thinks he is a man of his words, so he thinks we can be safe with this approval as long as we
can take a look at it in six months and then every year there after.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he thinks the owner still has to prove to him that he is serious about
all these code problems. That means there had to be a short leash and he thinks six months is a
short leash. However, in order to do it in the long term, Mr. Nelson is going to have to prove that
he is serious.
Commissioner Oquist stated he came in with the thought to not approve this, but after listening
to Mr. Nelson and his assurance that is has some of the items under control and the owner will let
him do what he needs to do, he's changed his mind of the request. He could recommend approval
of the request with the stipulations and the addition of the stipulation to review the leasing plans
and review the request in six-months and see how they are doing, and then every year after that.
Commissioner Saba stated, yes, he agrees with Commissioner Oquist's thoughts on this. Mr.
Nelson has done some right things already, he has a lot of things in the planning stages that will
make it even better, and he does believe that he will do a good job and take care of the issues.
With that he would recommend the Commission recommend approval to City Council of SUP
#09-01, with stipulations as printed with an addition of stipulation #16 and the addition of a
stipulation to review in six-months and to review the leasing plan by City staff.
Commissioner Velin stated for probably the last nine years they have had at least eight
violations. Mr. Nelson says he is going to keep on that. He hates to see anybody lose their job
because we sit here and say, well, you are not going along with us so we are going to shut you
down. He is willing to give them another shot at. He thinks a six-month review is the good way
to go. It gives the petitioner time to get his act together and give the City time to watch them.
11
Commissioner Sibel stated she thinks there has been demonstrated commitment for moving in
the right direction and given the stipulations she thinks there are enough barriers to make sure
those are kept in place and measured along the way.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving Special Use Permit, SP #09-01, by Glenn Nelson,
on behalf of Samir Awaijane, of 7570 Inc., (Sam's Auto World), for automobile repair for a
multi-tenant business, generally located at 7570 Highway 65 NE with the following stipulations:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and
Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. The petitioner shall maintain any necessary Federal, State, and County hazardous
waste permits.
3. No outdoor storage of materials shall e�st on the site.
4. Existing racking and structure on the south side of the rear building must be
removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
5. No sale of vehicles are allowed from this location.
6. Existing interior site fencing around previous outside storage area and on south
side of front building must be removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP. Fence
on southern and western boundary to remain to screen business from adjoining
residential property.
7. Area between front building and south property line fence needs to be landscaped
with vegetation and maintained. Fence at southeast corner of building to be
removed.
8. All customer vehicles awaiting repairs need to be stored in the rear yard of the
site.
9. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan reflecting the addition of at least five
more parking spaces in the rear of the building.
10. All parking stalls must be striped and vehicles to be kept in defined stalls only.
11. Frontage road cannot be used for parking related to this business.
12. All buildings shall be compliant with all applicable Fire and Building Codes
within 30 days of issuance of SUP, including verification that spray booth and
sprinkler systems are functioning as designed.
13. Provide ventilation calculations for all tenant spaces in both buildings.
14. All structural lintels over garage door openings on front building shall be
replaced upon plan completion by a structural engineer and necessary permits
issued within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
15. A revised sign plan, which incorporates both buildings and the existing free-
standing sign shall be submitted for City Council approval within 30 days of
issuance of SUP. The revised sign plan needs to include a requirement that each
tenant leasing space within either of the buildings on site needs to display
exterior building signage identifying the business to the public.
16. The petitioner will provide the City verification that Clear Channel's easement
shown on 7/12/07 survey does not prohibit parking or access
17. Six-month review of this Special Use Permit to ensure compliance and City staff
shall review the leasing plan before new tenants lease available space.
Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairperson Kondrick stated this will be before the Council on February 9 in this chamber.
12
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01, by Select Senior Living, to replat 5
lots, to allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist of
independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally
located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE.
3. Consideration of a Master Plan Amendment MP #09-01, by Select Senior Living, to
allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist of
independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally
located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Sibel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:55 P.M.
Ms. Stromberg stated Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is requesting two separate land use
actions from the City of Fridley in order to allow the construction of a 141 unit Senior-Housing
building, on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The 141 units will
consist of independent living, assisted living, and memory care units. The two actions being
requested are a Plat and a Master Plan Amendment.
Ms. Stromberg stated a Plat is being requested to create two new parcels from 1314 Mississippi
Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue (vacant), and 6461
Central Avenue (vacant). The two parcels will be occupied by the senior building.
Ms. Stromberg stated the Planning Commission and City Council may recall in 2005 John
DeMello and his company Family Lifestyle Development Corp., were granted a rezoning for the
subject properties to S-2, Redevelopment District. When any property is rezoned to S-2
Redevelopment District, it requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for
the site. Once the rezoning is approved by the City Council, any modification to that originally
approved master plan would require a Master Plan Amendment. A Master Plan Amendment
needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Since, the
proposed project is different than what was originally approved with the rezoning of these
properties in 2005, the petitioner is seeking a Master Plan Amendment. It should be noted that
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will also need to review this Master Plan Amendment
as the properties involved are zoned S-2, Redevelopment District.
Ms. Stromberg stated Joel Larson, with Select Senior Living, is proposing to construct a three
story 141 unit senior housing building with 60 independent living units, 27 memory care units,
and 54 assisted living units. All of the units will be between 470 sq. ft. and 1,003 sq. ft. The
smallest of the units are memory care apartments and are located on the secured main floor of the
south wing of the building. The second and third floors in the south wing will contain 54 assisted
living apartments, of which some will be studios, one bedroom, one bedroom with a den, or two
bedroom apartments. The second and third floors of the north wing will contain 60 independent
living apartments. Within the building there will be several shared amenities such as a shared
two-story lobby, a stone fireplace, an intimate cafe, and a sitting area. The mail room,
management office, nurses' office, and public restrooms are centrally located off of the lobby as
13
are the central dining room, sports pub, and kitchen. Other shared amenities include an activity
room with a small kitchen area and restroom, a media center, the activity director's office, an
overnight guest room, a library on the second floor, and a salon and grandparent room for visiting
children on the third floor.
Ms. Stromberg stated the development will include 84 underground heated garage parking stalls
and 32 surface parking stalls. The buildings architecture will consist of a hipped roof, with the
use of brick, veneer, and two colors of complimentary lap siding on the exterior, with balconies.
By designing the building to be located as close as code allows to the west property line, the
petitioner is proposing to keep as many of the existing mature trees as possible. The petitioner
also plans to install a 6 ft. wood privacy fence along the south and east sides of the property.
Additional landscaping of new deciduous, coniferous, and ornamental trees along with shrub,
perennial and annual plantings are also planned for the entire site to provide a welcoming
entrance and development.
Ms. Stromberg stated Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is seeking to replat the properties
located at 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central
Avenue, and 6461 Central Avenue to create two separate lots. Both lots will be combined to
accommodate the 141-unit senior housing development. The reason the development has 21ots is
because some of the land to be replatted is Torrens property while other portions of it are
Abstract. Anoka County does not allow the combination of these different types of property
without first getting a Registration ofLand Titles by District Court Order, which can be a lengthy
process. Instead, the developer is choosing to create 2 lots, which will be required to be
combined to allow for the development to occur.
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed replat will consist of two lots; Lot #1 and Lot #2, Block 1,
Select Senior Living of Fridley. Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District allows for
some degree of flexibility when designing a redevelopment project; however, City staff has asked
the petitioner to design their project to try to meet the zoning classification codes most similar to
its intended use. The proposed development of a 47,508 sq. ft. footprint senior housing
development would be most closely be aligned with a residential development in an R-3, Multi-
Family zoning district. The proposed project area is 142,857 sq. ft. (328 acres) in size. The
petitioner is proposing to construct 141-unit senior housing building, which will consist of 60
independent units, 54 assisted living units, and 27 memory care units. The development will
include 84 underground parking stalls and 32 surface parking stalls.
Ms. Stromberg stated R-3, Multi-Family zoning regulations states, the average lot area required
per dwelling unit is 2,500 sq. ft. for the units on the first (3) three stories with an additional
950 sq. ft. per unit from the fourth through sixth stories. National and regional development
trends for assisted living and memory care appear to point to a lesser lot size requirement. The S-
2 District classification will allow this land to unit ratio, without a variance. Though well-
maintained landscaped grounds are essential to project appeal and resident enjoyment, the size of
the lot in this situation can be smaller because the opportunity for residents to participate in larger
scale outdoor activities on the grounds is much smaller. Also, less land is required because of the
fact that the residents typically do not have cars, nor do they drive. Therefore, there is a lower
standard for the number of parking stalls required and less land area to accommodate that
automobile use. Consequently, this site size is adequate considering the ratio of assisted living
and memory care, to independent living. There will be a stipulation with the recommendation on
this project that requires that the building continue to be used with the resident population ratios
proposed. If not, purchase of additional land and a Master Plan amendment will be required, prior
to that resident ratio modification.
14
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed 3-story building will be 35 ft. high at the midspan, which
meets City code requirements. The proposed project is also in-compliance with lot coverage,
parking and all setback requirements, except the rear yard setback. The R-3 zoning code requires
a 25 ft. rear yard setback, and the proposed building is setback at 23 ft. 2 in. Discussions and
correspondence with Anoka County when the John DeMello project was before the City in 2005,
indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required
for future reconstruction purposes. The County anticipates that additional right-of-way will need
to be dedicated along both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street in order to provide the necessary
turn lanes for future safety and operational purposes. The County assumes when the Central
Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection is reconstructed, it would be centered in the 120 ft. right-
of-way corridor. Consequently, roadway right-of-way dedication needs for this site are 27-30 ft.
adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 ft. adjacent to Central Avenue.
Ms. Stromberg stated to be safe, staff has assumed that the County will be requesting the same
right-of-way dedication from this developer as they have with the past developer's proposal. A
letter from the Anoka County Highway Department on January 7, 2009, confirmed this to be an
accurate assumption. Consequently, the petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-
way dedication along both County Roads. Due to necessity of that right-of-way dedication, the
rear yard setback falls short of ineeting code requirements by 2 ft. 10 inches. With the flexibility
allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setback can be recognized under the
City's Master Plan Amendment approval, and no variance would be required.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is requesting a Master Plan Amendment to the original
Master Plan that was approved as part of the 2005 rezoning of the subject properties to S-2,
Redevelopment District. The original rezoning and master plan was approved to allow for the
construction of mixed used building, with a 10,492 sq. ft. retail complex that would occupy the
lower level of the northeastern corner of the building and have 70 owner-occupied condominium
units occupying the remainder of the building. Despite the fact that the preliminary plat and
rezoning and subsequent master plan were all approved for this site, the project never came to
fruition, because the final plat was never submitted for approval.
Ms. Stromberg stated as stated earlier, the properties involved in the Master Plan Amendment
are 1314 Mississippi Street (single family home and garage-welding shop), 1340 Mississippi
Street (single family home), 6421 Central Avenue (single family home), 6441 Central Avenue
(vacant lot), and 6461 Central Avenue (vacant lot). All properties involved are currently zoned
S-2, Redevelopment District.
Ms. Stromberg stated if the Master Plan Amendment being discussed in this report is approved
by the City Council, it should be noted that any major modification of the site plan would again
be required to go back to the City Council for review and approval.
Ms. Stromberg stated the City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms
that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2020
Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held
between 1998 and 2000 and is a"tool intended to help guide future growth and development of
the community while looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide
vision ". The rezoning was approved for the DeMello project since it was in line with the City's
vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan.
15
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed senior project meets several of the objectives that the
residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update.
This update is before the Met Council for approval at this time. One of the goals identified
through those meetings and the telephone survey was to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to
live." Ways to accomplish that goal are to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a
place where the aged can stay. Only about 8% of Fridley's housing is of the townhome or
condominium structure type, yet 23% of Fridley's residents were over age 55 in 2000, and that
percentage is growing. To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens desires to live in maintenance-
free housing (no yards/house exterior care), more types of senior housing needs to be constructed.
Types of senior housing to consider are one-level townhomes, independent living, assisted living,
nursing home/memory care facilities. It is also important to explore the availability of a private
maintenance service that would allow seniors to stay in their single-family homes.
Ms. Stromberg stated this area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road
is identified as an area for future redevelopment in both the existing 2020 Comprehensive Plan
and the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Economic and Redevelopment Plan chapter in
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, states that the City should continue to pursue high density senior
housing in this area due to the demand for this type of housing in Fridley. The purpose of
redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient
land uses and under-utilized parcels. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to meet
current market demands and desires of the community, creates new tax base, and creates
additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of
being met with the redevelopment of this area for a Senior Living facility.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc., to complete a Preliminary
Demand Estimate for Senior Housing in Fridley. The analysis done takes into account the
demand for independent living, assisted living and memory care senior housing by calculating
demographic, economic and competitive factors that would impact current demand for senior
housing units in the designated "Market Area." The "Market Area" in which Maxfield analyzed
includes the communities of Fridley, Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park and Hilltop. The
analysis done indicates that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 200 units of the above
reference nature. They note that over the next five years the level of units demanded now will
likely decrease due to other competitive developments in the area that are now in some stage of
planning or construction.
Ms. Stromberg stated the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of
Old Central adjacent to the proposed Senior Living project carried 8,900 vehicles per day. At this
traffic level it's carrying almost the exact amount of traffic the roadway was designed and
constructed to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan
anticipates that Old Central will be carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2030, based
upon increases in population for Fridley and surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment
and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles a day, Old Central will be at its capacity. As
a result, Anoka County is requiring that additional right-of-way be dedicated with this plat, to
ensure that the additional land needed is available to eventually expand the roadway.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner had Foltz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc., perform a traffic analysis
on the proposed use. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods
and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The consultants used the
Assisted Living Land Use category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed Senior
Project complex would generate a total of 433 trips per day if all 158 beds within the complex
16
were occupied. The Congregate Care Facility (Independent Living) land use would generate a
total of 340 trips per day if all 158 beds were occupied.
Ms. Stromberg stated the consultants used the numbers for the Assisted Living land use to
provide the worst-case scenario for traffic at this facility, because it generates more traffic than an
Independent Living land use. This can be attributed to the fact that an assisted living facility
requires the need for more staff and employees.
Ms. Stromberg stated it should also be noted, that according to the ITE manual, studies have
shown that less than 5% of residents in an assisted living facility own vehicles, and if they do,
they are rarely driven. Employees, visitors, and delivery trucks make up most of the trips to this
facility. The ITE manual also points out that the "peak hour" generator typically doesn't coincide
with the "peak hour" of the adjacent street traffic for an assisted living facility. This is primarily
related to the shifts of the employees beginning at 7:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. The
typical peak hours on most roadways are between 6:00-7:00 a.m. and 3:00-4:00 p.m.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner hired Graham Environmental Services (GES), Inc., to
complete a Wetland Evaluation Report for the project area. Based on GES's finding, no wetlands
exist on the site. The petitioner has submitted the proposed project to the Rice Creek Watershed
for the necessary approvals and permits. Once Rice Creek Watershed has reviewed and approved
the project, the City's Engineering staff will further review the project.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has stated that storm water management for the site will be
handled in an underground drainage system designed to meet the watershed's requirements for
rate, quality and volume control. The underground system will surround the building providing
infiltration and storage, while directing the water to an existing storm sewer system found on the
east boundary of the site. One of the reasons the petitioner is choosing to install an underground
drainage system instead of a typical above ground pond, is to try to save as many of the mature
trees as possible.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01 and
Master Plan Amendment, MP #09-01 with stipulations as it provides housing opportunities for
Fridley seniors, provides additional job opporiunities, and the proposed use meets the goals
highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the Preliminary Plat and Master Plan
Amendment are approved, the following stipulations be attached:
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan
A1.1 dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be
removed prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within
the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done
within the county right-of-way.
17
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall
provide necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to
issuance of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions
for residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage
treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water
and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the
proposed development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City
staff prior to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan
amendment will need to be obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic
improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the
development including signalization or other improvements, if determined
necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install
utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner
prior to final plat approval.
Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner how the meeting they had with the neighbors went?
Joel Larson, Select Senior Living, stated they currently have a facility going up in Coon Rapids
and roughly 30 people have moved into it. That is their first similar type project and they have
another project that just got approved in Mounds View which they will begin construction in
March or April. Regarding the neighborhood meeting, they did have approximately 20-25
people, which was a good turnout for a snowy night. Some of neighbors had concerns about
storm water. It sounds that at one time there was some kind of flooding a block or so away from
this location on a hundred year flood. From what he has been told the City has done some
corrections on the storm water in this area and the petitioner's engineer is present along with the
architects, if the Commission has any questions for them. From what their storm water
calculations, they are within the guidelines of what the City wants.
Mr. Larson stated one of the neighbors that is adjacent to the property asked what type of fence
we are proposing for the project. We would like to work with him and accommodate what he
would like to see.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Larson what did the neighbor recommend?
:
Mr. Larson replied he was open to the six-foot wood fence. We also brought up the possibility
of doing a maintenance free type fence. He was open to that and we are happy to sit down with
people on an individual basis and find out exactly what the neighbor want and get that into the
plan. Quite a few of the questions had to do with the services and what the building actually
provides for residents who live there. We went through some of that at the meeting. We are
actually building the kitchen a little bit bigger than what the needs are for the building. This is
under the pretense that possibly some of the Meals on Wheels that the County and State people
pay for may go away because of tough times, and we would be able to open some of those
services up to the community.
Mr. Larson stated a couple of concerns were about what type of building it will be and is there
an age restriction on the building? There is a 55 and older age restriction. We do have an
allowance for somebody who is less than 55 and has to go into a memory service type facility or
assisted type facility if they have a doctor or nurse order stating the need this type of care, then
we would allow for them to move in. It is for State reasons that we cannot discriminate based on
age. However, the independent units are for people 55 and older.
Commissioner Oquist asked if that would be for people who leave a hospital and go to this care
for a month because of a surgery or something and then they would leave?
Mr. Larson replied, they could, but that really is not what this facility is about. This facility is
for people when they get to a point where they cannot take care of themselves or a spouse who
was taking care of the other spouse needs assistance for medical reasons, then they would come
to live in this type of facility. This is a building you can age in. You can come in on the
independent end of it and you do not have to leave, you go to assisted living or memory type
assistance if you need it.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if he has the rent structure worked out? What are the numbers?
Mr. Larson asked, as far as cost goes?
Chairperson Kondrick replied, yes.
Mr. Larson stated he can give some approximates. Your independent, one-bedroom, would
roughly be around $1,200 -$1,300 a month. With that you also get one meal a day and you get
some other things. A one-bedroom plus den would be appro�mately $1,600. The two-bedrooms
you would be at $1,695-$1,650. That is for your independent apartments. For assisted living,
you would be at $2,500-$2,600 range and, depending on how much assistance you need, and
there maybe additional charge above that. For memory care, studios, you are looking at $2,500-
$2,600 and then there is an additional services with memory care which are $1,900 on top of that.
He does not think they have any one-bedrooms. That is based off their Coon Rapids facility
assuming Fridley's facility would be real close to these numbers.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Larson whether he has read the 22 stipulations? Does he or
his company have any problem with those stipulations?
Mr. Larson replied, none, whatsoever.
Commissioner Oquist asked about deliveries to the facility. Will they come in through the
garage?
19
Mr. Larson replied, some will come through the garage. The garage is underneath and comes in
off of Mississippi. The majority will come in through the front door off of Central Avenue.
Commissioner Oquist asked about food services, when they bring a semi?
Mr. Larson they deliver twice a week at our other facility. They usually are not the big full
semi's trucks, they are the middle-sized trucks. Some of the laundry is shipped out and some is
done in the facility. Garbage would be taken out through the garage. They personally restrict the
times deliveries are made so they are not having a truck beeping at 6 in the morning.
Commissioner Velin mentioned there is a letter in the packet.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if we need to accept this letter we received ahead of time?
Ms Stromberg replied, yes, that would be a good practice.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receiving a letter from Patricia Molroy at 1384 — 64tn
Avenue NE, dated January 12, 2009, addressed to the City of Fridley. Seconded by
Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren NE, stated she has lived there for 22 '/2 years.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Ms. Olson how far is her home from this project?
Ms. Olson replied maybe a mile as the crow flies. It is, however, around the corner and very
close to her son's house. She is against a project like this on general principles. It is cramming,
150 people minimum, into 5 city lots. On average 4 people to a house, that is 20 people vs. 158.
This is warehousing for senior citizens, and she is so against this type of housing. If her son ever
tried to put her into one of these places, she would come back and haunt him. Her mother was in
a nursing home, did not go in until she was 92 years old. She did not really get super skilled care
until she turned 99 and was over 100 when she died. She can understand at that point she needed
skilled care because her memory was starting to go. Ms. Olson just thinks this is cramming too
many people on a lot. It is certainly not the kind of thing she would want to live in. She does not
know why we do not get more senior townhouses that people could go into. She does not know
how anybody could live in 450 square feet. That is the size of four cells in Stillwater. She thinks
this is detrimental for the City and the neighborhood. There are only two things she can
guarantee them on this. The people who are building this are going to make money hand over fist
and they are going to destroy the neighborhood. There are houses on that block that are sitting
now for sale. She does not think this is what most people think of as being something they would
like to move into.
Kurt Olson, 1385 — 64t'' Avenue NE, stated he is one lot away from the proposed project.
Although he knows something has to go there, and he does not really care what it is, his concerns
are related to the lighting on the east side of the building. He has a large lot and has put a lot of
money into his house, and he bought the place because he wanted privacy. He really does not
want people looking into his backyard. The change in zoning is allowing that. He would like to
see something besides a six-foot privacy foot, and he would like to see some stipulations that the
lighting will not bleed off into his yard so when he wants to go out in the dark it is actually dark.
20
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Olson, in terms of a fence, was he the gentleman the petitioner
spoke to?
Mr. Olson replied, no. He would like some sort of a living fence. He knows they cannot plant
30-foot trees immediately but there are hybrid trees that will grow very fast, and he would like to
see some sort of dense screen.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Olson whether he saw the landscape plan when they put it on
the screen?
Mr. Olson replied he did and they are going to try to leave as many trees as possible but "try"
does not mean anything to him. He asked Mr. Hickok, how tall was the DeMello project?
Mr. Hickok replied, this building is the size as the building on the DeMello project.
Chairperson Oquist recalled the last one started out at four stories and then they came back and
reduced it to three stories.
Mr. Olson stated the petitioner had mentioned they are going to have underground parking. Mr.
Olson thought there were some issues last time where they actually had to build their
underground parking level with the street and berm up to it and then go up from there which is
not what the petitioner is saying this time.
Commissioner Velin replied information from the petitioner states that the site will have lights
along the east side of the building and they will result in zero foot candles along the east property
line. All lights have a 90-degree cutoff to direct light downward.
Mr. Olson stated he understands that but, still when he walks out in his yard at night, and he
looks up he is going to see light shining where there is no light shining now other than stars. If
there are 20-30 lights on the back of the building, he does not want to see that. Honestly he does
not want to see peoples' lights on in their windows that high up. He wants to be able to walk
around, do whatever he wants to do, and not worry about people watching him or having to look
at them.
Commissioner Saba asked for some response from the owner. There should be a way to
accomplish screening, through fencing and landscaping.
Mr. Larson stated our goal is to try and keep the big trees because it took many years to grow
them. He is one of the rare developers who actually owns a 90-inch tree spade that he can put in
some fairly good sized trees, not as big as what is there, but we can get some taller trees to plant
if they have to take some of those trees down. That is their intention to try and screen as much as
that as they can, along with the fence.
Mr. Larson stated as far as the lighting goes, we have designed the lighting so that it is not
leaking out off their property onto the neighbors' property. There will only be downward trends.
The lighting plan submitted meets code requirements. There are also no decks or patios on the
back of the building. We are trying to be good neighbors as we don't want people standing out
on a deck, overlooking someone else's backyard. They can look out a window but you also can
look out of a two-story house. We are also trying to be good neighbors by planting more trees to
act as a buffer. If there needs to be more trees added, we'll do that.
21
Chairperson Kondrick asked if they have figured out the water table issue?
Mr. Larson replied, yes, they have figured that out. He is not an engineer, so he cannot answer
the particulars on that, but they have figured it out; and the parking lot is not going to be under
water.
Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they have done borings on the site?
Mr. Larson replied, yes. We have done all the borings, and our civil engineers have gone
through all that. There was some debris that was dumped off there from when they built Old
Central or Central Avenue that has to be removed to dig the foundation but, yes, all the borings
are in place.
Ms. Olson asked Mr. Larson if he has sufficient financing for this project? She heard one time
that the City does not ask about the financing but she thinks Councilmember Bolkcom opened the
door the other night at the City Council meeting when she asked the developer of the 694/East
River Road project whether he had sufficient financing. We have gone through this all before
and the financing fell through and the one across the street fell through because the market
dropped out for the sale of condominiums.
Chairperson Kondrick stated that was a good point.
Mr. Larson replied, yes, they do have financing. They do not have a final commitment letter on
project as they are in the process of financing two other ones. He does have partners that have
really deep pockets. The banking world changes from week to week as and he can't guarantee
that something four or five months from now might change in the economy as far as the
financing, but he feels real confident. He would not be spending the money on plans and going
through the process if he didn't feel pretty confident he is going to get this done. He cannot speak
for the other gentleman who proposed the previous development on these lots and he has no
affiliation with him whatsoever.
Mr. Larson stated this is not a condominium project. Most condominium projects require that
50% of the units are sold before you can start construction. This type of facility doesn't require
that.
Chairperson Kondrick asked, assuming all goes as planned, when would he start construction?
Mr. Larson replied, late spring, early summer.
Commissioner Velin stated in Patricia Molroy's letter she is concerned that the petitioner will
end up putting Section 8 renters in the building. Mr. Larson has said the building will be for 55
and up seniors and only on certain occasions would they allow somebody under 55 to move in.
Are they going to consider Section 8 housing in this building?
Mr. Larson replied, no Section 8 people are allowed in this building. We do allow something
called an EW, or an Elderly waiver. Here is an example. You have an 85-year old mother who
runs out of money and has to move into this facility. The County comes in and pays a portion of
her rent. If she has a taxable income of $1,000 a month, including social security and she needs
to be in the memory care portion of the building, the County will pay a portion of that over and
22
above what she makes. It is County Assistance but it is a different type than Section 8. They will
allow a portion of their building to have EW residents.
Commissioner Saba asked Ms. Stromberg to put up the landscape plan again. He asked Mr.
Olson to show him approximately where his house is in relation to the development.
Mr. Olson pointed out his lot on the screen.
Chairperson Kondrick pointed out that Mr. Olson has one lot between him and the
development?
Mr. Olson replied, that is right.
Commissioner Saba stated he just wanted to make sure that the landscaping plan takes into
consideration sufficient height of trees, fencing, or whatever else is needed to address Mr.
Olson's concerns.
Mr. Hickok stated to Commissioner Saba that he is right on with staff's concern regarding the
needs for screening through landscaping. Staff would prefer a screening device that gets better
looking over time as opposed to some of the other alternatives. They have looked at this
landscape plan and are pleased that, one, they are going to try and preserve as many of the trees
as possible and, two, they have made a commitment to supplement the existing trees to try and
give Mr. Olson, and other neighbors, an opportunity to have a more natural softening of the edge.
Commissioner Saba stated his concern is that they try to keep as many trees as possible. He still
remembers when the Sears properiy was taken down and the health club was going to try and
preserve as many trees as possible and they just knocked down every tree. The beautiful oak
trees were gone. He knows that one of the things they have done in the past is mark trees that are
going to be removed and have a plan to replace those. They talked about a living fence, and he
would like to see this be done in this case, especially for the neighbors on the east side.
Mr. Hickok stated that petitioner's commitment to the underground storage, which is by far the
most expensive storm water treatment option, shows the petitioner's commitment to preserving
trees. It is the best way to not have to grade the site from corner to corner. When you are grading
so that the site will pitch property or pond, it is very different than putting something
underground that allows you to basically keep the contours roughly the same.
Virgil Okeson, 1423 — 64t'' Avenue, stated he is approximately three lots down to the east of the
property. The concern he has is related to the 25 ft. setback on the east side property. The height
and diameters of the trees would dictate how close you could plant them to the proposed building.
He is concerned about how much coverage would you get it that small area?
Chairperson Kondrick stated that is a good question.
Commissioner Oquist stated if you look at the landscape plan they are proposing to plat spruce
trees in the south corner.
Mr. Okeson stated he is concerned about the number of trees you can fit in that narrow 25-foot
strip on the east side for shading of any light that is coming off of the building. What if a few
years down the road, the trees die because of the root disturbance due to construction of the
building and they have to be removed, is there any stipulation to have that tree replaced?
23
Mr. Larson replied the closest spot the building will be to the east property line is approximately
46-47 feet.
Chairperson Kondrick asked, from the building to the lot line?
Mr. Larson replied, yes. It is not 20 feet, it is 46. If you look at the landscape plan some of
those trees are coming out of there; and they will have to put some new trees. Again, he has a
tree spade and to be a good neighbor to the neighbors who are on that side, if they let him come
onto their property and put a few trees in, he would be happy to do it. It is just tight with the
amount of ground that he has. Whatever it takes to make that buffer as attractive as they possibly
can - that is to their best interest. They own this building and are keeping the building. It is not
for sale. So if a tree dies, they will want to replace it with a nice tree. It will help the people who
live there.
Mr. Olson stated on the last project there was supposed to be some sort of a fire access going up
that east side? How does that affect the trees and things like that. Is fire access needed for this
project along the east side?
Mr. Hickok replied, the Fire Marshal has reviewed this plan and is comfortable with the layout
of the plan and the type of equipment they have for responding to a fire in this building, and the
fact that the building is fully sprinkled. He doesn't want to speak for the Fire Marshal in his
absence other than to say that they have seen the proposed plans. The original DeMello
project went all the way down to 64t'' Avenue, which is why fire access was required at that time.
They have not heard a comment from the Fire Marshal indicating this plan is not satisfactory nor
that they would try and put a truck behind the building. He thinks that the way the parking is laid
out on the west side, and the fact the building is fully sprinkled, they would fight a fire from the
west side.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner
Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CLOSED AT 8:56 P.M.
Commissioner Oquist stated to him this project seems to be more thought out. They have really
looked into everything and they seem to have covered all aspects of it. There are enough
stipulations to cover it. He thinks there is real need for this type of facility in Fridley. He thinks
the petitioner is ready to move on the project and since they already have one and are building
another, they seem to be in the business. On a personal not, his mother-in-law died in one of
these facilities at 94. She went in there probably 20 years earlier. They said she would never
leave her single-family home in South Minneapolis and then one day she decided she was ready
to move. She looked at a similar type facility in New Hope, moved in, and said why didn't you
tell me about this place sooner? She just thoroughly enjoyed it.
Commissioner Sielaff stated he didn't have any problems with it. He thinks the neighbors could
be far worse off than having this facility. He has seen that in Fridley many times where things
have not gone through and something else goes in there that has been worse. He thinks the
petitioner has been pretty good taking into account the homeowners and their concerns. He does
not see any problems with approving this.
24
Commissioner Velin stated he likes this. He thinks some people would like to get new trees in
their yard. He thinks that is a very nice offer. They are not going to be able to put in a 30 or 40
foot tree, but it will not take long. He thinks the owner has done an excellent job of presenting it.
It answers his questions and he thinks Mr. Larson answered some of the questions to the letter
from Ms. Molroy. He has no problem with this.
Commissioner Saba again his only concern is that City staff is going to review the landscaping
prior to issuing building permits. He would like to see some kind of teeth in there that the
landscaping will continue as planned. Other than that he sees this as an improvement to the last
plan.
Chairperson Kondrick stated, he agreed.
Commissioner Sibel stated the only concern she has had, and she is surprised it has not been
brought up, was the traffic pattern. They are going to be bringing in more traffic in than there is
now. It appears there is a plan in place to allow road expansion and to accommodate that traffic,
but she thought they might hear more concerns on that. Otherwise she supports it.
Chairperson Kondrick stated the County is probably concerned about that. Even widening
Central Avenue and making the developer take part of his land and have it ready in case the street
needs to be dug up. He is also in favor of this project. They have a well thought out plan
including a good landscape plan. He is in favor of this.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist Approving a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01, by Select Senior
Living, to replat 5 lots, to allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist
of independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally located at
1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE with the following
stipulations:
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan
A1.1 dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be
removed prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. The County prior to
planting shall approve any planting within the right-of-way.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done
within the county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall
provide necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to
issuance of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
25
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions
for residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage
treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water
and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the
proposed development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City
staff prior to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan
amendment will need to be obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic
improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the
development including signalization or other improvements, if determined
necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install
utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner
prior to final plat approval.
Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin Approving a Master Plan Amendment MP #09-01, by Select
Senior Living, to allow for the construction of a Senior Living Project, which will consist of
independent living units, memory care units, and assisted living units, generally located at 1314
and 1340 Mississippi Street, 6461, 6441 & 6421 Central Avenue NE with the following
stipulations:
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan
A1.1 dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan
A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be
removed prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within
the right-of-way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done
within the county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall
provide necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City
prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to
issuance of building permits.
26
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of
building permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,000.00 ($1,500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions
for residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage
treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water
and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the
proposed development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City
staff prior to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan
amendment will need to be obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic
improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the
development including signalization or other improvements, if determined
necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install
utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner
prior to final plat approval.
Seconded by Chairperson Oquist.
Chairperson Kondrick asked when will this be before the City Council?
Ms. Stromberg replied, February 9.
Receive the Minutes of the September 24 2008, Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Receive the Minutes of the December 10, 2008, Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Receive the Minutes of the August 12, 2008, Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
27
7. Receive the Minutes of the December 9, 2008, Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Receive the Minutes of the September 4, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Receive the Minutes of the October 2, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Receive the Minutes of the November 6, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Receive the Minutes of the December 4, 2008, Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Receive the Minutes of the September 8, 2008, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sibel to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Receive the Minutes of the October 6, 2008, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
:
MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Receive the Minutes of the November 3, 2008, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sibel to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
15. Approve Planning Commission meeting dates for 2009.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving the 2009 Planning Commission dates. Seconded
by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Review the Public Hearing Procedures Guidelines.
Ms. Stromberg stated this is something that they recently developed to give people when they
enter into the Council chambers, so they understand the public hearing process. She knows the
Chair describes it to them, but this helps give people a little cheat sheet in case they have never
been to a public hearing before. This is just to let the Commission know about it, see it, and
make sure they are okay with it.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he thinks that is a very good idea.
17. Nomination of Planning Commission Vice Chair.
MOTION by Commissioner Sibel nominating Commissioner Oquist as Vice Chair of the
Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Stromberg wanted to give them an update on the Sikh Society. The Planning Commission
will recall last year that the Sikh Society received a special use permit to construct their worship
facility at 5350 Monroe Street. They recently received a one-year e�tension from the City to
allow them additional time to work out their access issues. They are hopefully that construction
will start yet this year.
Ms. Stromberg stated Totino-Grace is going to be before the City Council on Monday to request
an extension. The Commission will recall it was two years ago Totino-Grace received a special
29
use permit and a variance to allow an auditorium addition. They are still pursuing some
fundraising efforts but hope to be in the ground this year, too.
Mr. Hickok stated we are very excited to announce that Northstar in Fridley is going to be on-
line and our riders will be getting off and on the train at the same time as the other riders up and
down the line from Minneapolis to Big Lake. There are so many people involved that we'd like
to thank and we would like to thank the Commissioners for their involvement in the planning
processes to this point. Staff promises to involve them in the planning processes as they move
forward. They will be talking to the HRA and the City Council in an upcoming joint meeting
about possible development around the station site. We'd like to Commission to watch for that as
it starts to evolve. We'll be looking at things such as pedestrian connections, infrastructure
improvements, and land patterns around the site.
Commissioner Velin asked regarding the Sikh Society, he thought they had worked out the
access easement?
Ms. Stromberg replied actually there was a stipulation that required that they work out access
issues with Petco and Target and as of late, Petco and Target has denied them access so they are
going to need traverse a wetland potentially in order to get into the site. So those are the issues
they have to work out before they start construction.
Commissioner Sielaff asked when is construction supposed to begin on the Northstar site?
Mr. Hickok replied the bid package went out in December and awarding of the bids will be
happening at the end of this month. Construction will start in February.
Chairperson Kondrick stated there was an article in the paper today in the North Extra section
talking about Mr. Erhart (county commissioner) and they still do not have all the funding from
the feds yet, although they feel pretty confident that those dollars are going to be coming.
Mr. Hickok replied our site is a bit different than that. We were cut out of that federal formula
so our station was not dependent on the federal dollars although Northstar generally was. So that
is not to say that the federal dollars are not important to us because that is what makes the whole
line work. We are so very thankful that folks from our legislative delegation, county
commissioners, council members, city commission members and our HRA — so many people
were involved to make this happen.
ADJOURN
MOTION by Commissioner Saba adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT
9:16 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise M. Johnson
Recording Secretary
30
31
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
February 3, 2009
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Consideration of an Extension for SP #08-06 for Hitching Post Motorsports at 7651
Hwv 65
ANALYSIS
On April 28, 2008, the City Council approved a special use permit to allow for a repair garage
use within the existing Hitching Post building for the service of motorcycles and recreational
vehicles that are sold as part of the existing business.
A condition of that special use permit was that the existing fenced in area used for outdoor
storage should be screened with a material that was approved by City staff by December 31,
2008. The petitioner contacted staff in late December to ask for an extension to get the outdoor
storage area screened due to issues they were having with a potential vendor and economic
issues. The petitioner has since stated that he believes he has worked out the issues with the
vendor and would have the screening installed this spring.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends granting the petitioner a 6-month extension until July 1, 2009 to have the
outdoor storage area screened with an appropriate screening material approved by the City.
TO: City of Fridley
Community Development
From: Hitching Post Motorsports
7651 Highway 65 N
Fridley, MN 55432
DATE: Dec 15, 2008
�` �
�,; �
�
RE: Special Use Application — Extension request
� �uul '
�:.: �
�" � . � , �. .�.. �.. .,:
As agree upon during a City Council meeting in spring of 2008, Hitching Post was granted time
to supply material for fencing material until the end of the year.
Hitching Post is making a request to grant an extension, as we will not meet the deadline. The
deadline is not being met for multiple reasons, which include:
❖ Vendor issues
❖ Economic
Hitching Post would propose a new deadline to be set. The understanding I have is that this
request must be approved and set by the City Council.
Please let me know what would be the next steps in this process would be.
I can be reached at 763-502-9400 extension 112 if additional information is needed.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joe Papa
General Manager
Hitching Post Motorsports Fridley
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Layne Otteson, Assistant Public Works Director
February 9, 2009
Sanitary Sewer Lining Project No. 383
PW09-013
The Capital Improvement budget has funds identified for rehabilitation of our sanitary sewer lines.
We will be doing this work in five areas in 2009. They are as follows:
Area A
This area has one segment of 12" pipe located under 3rd Street. The pipe traverses from
48th Avenue to Panorama Drive (1,515').
Area B
This area has two segments of 8" pipe. The first segment traverses east-west along 53rd
Avenue from the lift station to about 200' east of TH 65 (950'). The second segment
traverses north-south along an easement between 53rd Avenue and 52nd Avenue (770').
Area C
This area has one segment 8" pipe. The pipe traverses north-south along an easement
from 63rd Avenue into a commercial development (880').
Area D
This area has five segments of 10" pipe. The first segment traverses east-west under TH
47 at about the 5700 block (180'). The second segment traverses north-south under 7th
street from 57th Avenue to Medtronic Parkway (420'). The third segment traverses east-
west under 57th Place from 7th Street to Washington Street. The fourth segment traverses
north-south under Washington Street from 57th Place to 58th Avenue. The fifth segment
traverses east-west from Washington Street to Jefferson Street.
Area E
This area has one segment of 8" pipe. The segment traverses east-west under a backyard
easement extending 286' westerly from TH 47 between Sylvan Lane and Rainbow Drive
(286' ).
The 2009 budget for this project is $180,000. The cost of the work is estimated at $195,000 at this
time. The current bidding climate is quite unpredictable and the project quantities will be reduced
should the bid exceed the budgeted amount. This project is funded entirely from sanitary sewer
rates.
Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to advertise for the
Sanitary Sewer Lining Project No. 383.
LRO:Iro
Attachments
—U > > U� v I
PAN❑RAMA ��� �. I
� > >
DR NE
^ w
z
O > > O > >
�
GIBRALTAR RD NE �
^
I �
^ �
PIL❑T AVE NE °
> > O > > >
1, 515 �. �. 12" VC P
32 SER VI CES
� � � , , , �, � 0-
� 49 AV �
I
I
" w "
z I
I
� � ^
� �
� I
� �
� �
—>—
NE
z
�
�
�
��
��� �^�
Legend
� SAN SEWER TO BE LINED
o MH ALONG LINING
> EXISTING SAN SEWER
o EXISTING MH
> >
E N��
W
z
�
�
C��
�
�
� v
�
�w
�z „
W
i„
Q
�
�v
H
�
< O �
> „
H
z
�../ �/
�
�v
W �
z W
�
� �
�, z v
� _= �,
�
�
<
�
� SANITARY SEWER LINING PR❑JECT #383 DATE� JAN o9
3 R D S T R E E T SCALE i•= zoo�
AREA A DRAWN BY MRH
w
z
�
�
M
�w
�z
w
>
Q
�
�
�
�
�
��
�>
�
v
�
��
�
�
� z
I -
�
_ �
�
v� �
� v�
�
�
� � , �
� v�
� � 'C' ST, �
>
U
I�
I�
I
I�
��
� �
� �
�
v � �
< —< < —<
W I 9 AVE N
I Z
^ � � W �
� W Z
Z �
� �
�
� �
I �
�
�
C� <��— <
�
<
n
^ '� O
s� iiz A NE 1114 L. F. 10" VCP
10 SERVICES
�A 57 PL NE
o <—� < <—o < <
I
I
1 57 AVE NE
<-b <-�-<-o
� ni�^�
180 L. F. 10" VCP
0 SER VI CES W
~ Z
�
� � �
� �
�CG n�ir �ir
w
Z
420 L. F. 8" VCP
7 SERVICES
�egend
— SAN SEWER TO BE LINED
o MH ALONG LINING
> EXISTING SAN SEWER
a EXISTING MH
rt
W �
Z �
H I�
l� n
�
w
z
�
�
SANITARY SEWER LINING PR❑JECT #383
<
<—O
�z
�
� ^
�
z
a
�
�
z
� _
� �
Q
3
58 AV
w
z
�
�
z
a
�
�
z
HT
1
�
Q
3
< o <
57 AVE N
^
��—�— �
57TH PL/7TH ST/WASHINGT❑N ST/58TH AVE
AREA D
ME
DATE� JAN 09
SCALE 1"= 300'
�:- . ► : u:.
�
/ L'
/�
��—< < < v
�
�
� ����� ��—<o < o
�y �
DR NE
�
�
S y�
� � ��
,�� —<—� < O
� �N NE
�
��
�
NE
S YLVAN H I L�S _/
LIFT STATION '/���
�� NE
>--■� � �R
, .�Q �o
�� � �
,� �P�"i`� �
�egend
- SAN SEWER TO BE LINED
o MH ALONG LINING
> EXISTING SAN SEWER
a EXISTING MH
�
-
�
�
�
�
W
p4
�
�
z
� �
Q
3
_
� �
H
�, _
� <
F❑URMIES
<
—> U >
63 AVE NE
INGRESS�EGR
EASEM EN T
' 286 �.�. 8"
� 6 SER VI CES
�
J � �
v z
I �
� �
� �
� �.
W
� �
Q
�
� �
�v
S
AVE
>
VC P
� SANITARY SEWER LINING PR❑JECT #383 DATE� JAN o9
S Y L V A N H I L L S SCALE i•= zoo�
AREA E DRAWN BY MRH
L'
RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -
A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVAL OF PLANS AND ORDERING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: SANITARY SEWER LINING PROJECT NO. 383
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fridley has established a policy of lining sanitary sewers
when necessary, and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has presented a goal to the City Council of lining 50% of the
City's sanitary sewers by the year 2050, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has submitted a plan showing the sanitary sewers in need
of lining for the current year,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka
County, Minnesota, as follows:
That the sanitary sewers recommended for lining by the Public Works Department be lined,
and the work involved in said improvement shall hereafter be designated as: SANITARY
SEWER L1N1NG PROJECT NO. 3 83.
3rd Street from 48th Avenue to Panorama Drive.
53rd Avenue from the lift station to about 200' east of TH 65.
Easement from 53rd Avenue to 52nd Avenue at the 1000 block.
Easement from 63rd Avenue into East Moore Lake Commons.
East-west crossing under TH 47 at the 5700 block.
7th street from 57th Avenue to Medtronic Parkway.
Easement from 7th Street to Washington Street at the 5700 block.
Washington Street from 57th Place to 58th Avenue.
58th Avenue from Washington Street to Jefferson Street.
Easement extending 286' westerly from TH 47 between Sylvan Lane and Rainbow
Drive.
2. The plans and specifications prepared by the Public Works Department for such
improvement and each of them, pursuant to the Council action heretofore, are hereby
approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk.
The work to be performed under Sanitary Sewer Lining Proj ect No. 3 83 be performed under
one contract as may be feasible based on bids received.
The Director of Public Works shall accordingly prepare and cause to be inserted in the official
newspaper advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved
plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published at least 10 days prior to bid opening,
and shall specify the work to be done and will state that bids will be opened at 2:00 p.m. on
TLJESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, and that no bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the Director of Public Works and accompanied by a cash
deposit, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Fridley for five percent (5%) of the
amount of such bid. That the advertisement for bids for Sanitary Sewer Lining Proj ect No. 3 83 shall
be substantially standard in form.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9Tx
DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009.
SCOTT J LUND - MAYOR
Attested:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Layne Otteson, Asst Public Works Director
February 9, 2009
Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 384
PW009-14
Attached is a resolution ordering advertisement for bids for the 2009 Miscellaneous Concrete
Repair Project No. 384. This resolution is provided for execution by the City as mandated by State
law.
This project covers remedial sidewalk, pavement and curb repair and replacement in the City
whether due to utility repairs, deterioration, or driveway entrance permits. The project cost
estimate is $45,000, which is less than the amount budgeted for in 2009.
Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering advertisement for bid for the
2009 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Project No. 384.
JPK:jpk
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
RESOLUTION ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS:
2009 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 384
WHEREAS, the construction of certain improvements is deemed to be in the interest of the City of Fridley and the
property owners affected thereby.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota as
follows:
1. That the following improvements proposed by Council Resolutions are hereby ordered to be effected and
completed as required:
2009 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
2. The plans and specifications prepared by the Director of Public Works for such improvements are hereby
approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk.
The Director of Public Works shall accordingly prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper
advertisements for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published at least 10 days prior to bid opening, and shall specify the work to be done and
will state that the bids will be opened and considered at 10:00 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009, and that no bids
will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Director of Public Works. That the advertisement for bids for
2009 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 384 shall be substantially in the standard form.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 9TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 2009.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
T0:
FROM:
�
AGENDA ITEM
COUNCIL MEETING OF February 9, 2009
WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER
RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CRAIG A. ELLESTAD, ACCOUNTANT
SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2008 BUDGET
DATE: JANUARY 29, 2009
Attached you will find a resolution amending appropriations to the 2008 Budget in accordance with
the City Charter.
The adjustments listed have arisen as a result of various donations, unforeseen expenditures and
revenues, and reclassification of account codings. You have informally approved all adjustment
through the Budget Reappropriation form.
We request that the Council approve the amendment of the attached budgets.
RDP/ce
Attachment
Resolution No. 2009 -
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE 2008 BUDGET FOR NOVEMBER THRU DECEMBER, 2008
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has involved itself in initiatives that provide for future
charges and modifications that will allow for a better delivery of service, and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley had not incorporated these and other necessary changes
into the adopted budget for
2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fridley that
the following funds will be amended as follows:
GENERAL FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Police-Donation
Police-Reimbursement
Police-Reimbursement
Police-Reimbursement
Police-Reimbursement
Police-Donation
Police-Reimbursement
Fire-Reimbursement
Fire-Reimbursement
Park Main't Donation
Recreation-Donation
Recreation-Donation
Recreation-Donation
Recreation-Donation
Recreation-Donation
Recreation-Donation
APPROPRIATION
ADJUSTMENTS
Police-Supplies
Police-Other Services & Charges
Police-Personal Services
Police-Personal Services
Police-Supplies
Police-Supplies
Police-Personal Services
Fire-Personal Services
Fire-Personal Services
Fire-Other Services & Charges
Fire-Other Services & Charges
Park Main't Supplies
Recreation-Supplies
506
1,980
1,258
2,310
3,146
3,612
28,474
295
2,238
11, 326
300
700
1,545
1,613
4,493
5,000
68,796
506
1,980
1,258
2,310
3,146
3,612
28,474
295
1, 528
261
449
11, 326
300
Various Donations
Anoka County
Federal Grant
Medtronic
Federal Grant
Various Donations
City of St Paul
North Metro CAT
North Metro Fire
Youth Baseball
H.B. Fuller
MN Rec & Parks Foundation
Various Donations
HUMANA
Various Donations
Fridley Lions
Personal ID Kits Child/Adult
Detox Transportation
Safe & Sober Program
Medtronic Security
Bullet Proof Vests
Safety Camp
RNC Security
Full-Time OT
Full-Time OT
Utilities
Lawn Care & Satellite Services
Little League Fields
Cheer Program
Recreation-Supplies
Recreation-Supplies
Rec-Other Services & Charges
Rec-Operating Supplies
Rec-Other Services & Charges
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
SNC Donation
APPROPRIATION
ADJUSTMENTS
700
1, 545
1,613
4,493
5,000
68,796
SPRINGBROOK NATURE
CENTER FUND
3,000
3.000
"Wi Play for Wellness"
Chairs for Senior Dining
Senior Newsletter
Senior Program
Senior Holiday Lunch
SNC Foundation
SNC-Supplies 3,000 Memorial Benches
3.000
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009.
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
� �F CLAI MS
FRIDLEY
CLAIMS
140442 - 140626
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
��F LICENSES
FRIDLEY
Contractor T e A licant A roved B
B& D Plumbing Heating & A/C Gas Dennis Daleiden Ron Julkowski, CBO
Inc.
Cich 's Water & Sewer Excavatin Tim Cich Ron Julkowski, CBO
Kothrade Sewer, Water & Excavating Glen Kothrade Ron Julkowski, CBO
Excavating
Ostego Heating & Air Heating David Kolby Ron Julkowski, CBO
Conditionin
St Paul Construction Company Commercial or George R. A. Johns Ron Julkowski, CBO
S ecialt
Welsch Construction Commercial or William F. Krake Ron Julkowski, CBO
S ecialt
Westair Heatin Heatin Joe L nch Ron Julkowski, CBO
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
February 5, 2009
William Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Consideration of SP #09-01, Special User Permit for Auto Repair Use at 7570 Highway 65
Background
Last November, the City Council revoked a special use permit (SUP) for auto repair uses at 7570 Highway
65. This property is owned by Samir Awaijane. Since that time, Mr. Awaijane has hired Glenn Nelson to
manage the property. Two of the problem tenants, a towing company and an auto body repair shop, are no
longer leasing space on the site. Mr. Nelson has indicated that they are in the process of evicting another
tenant, which was the one selling cars from the site last year.
Mr. Nelson has applied for a new special use permit for 7570 Inc. On January 21, 2009, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the request. City Staff presented a recommendation for denial at the
public hearing. After hearing testimony from Mr. Nelson, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of this SUP with the sixteen stipulations recommended by staff and a seventeenth
stipulation recommended by the petitioner. The added stipulation gives the City Council the ability to review
the owner's compliance with codes in six months, as well as, the typical annual review.
Recommendation
Staff has changed its recommendation to approval since Mr. Nelson has demonstrated a willingness to meet
the proposed stipulations in a short time frame and has demonstrated progress in bringing the property under
compliance during the few weeks he has been involved in the project. In addition, the Petitioner has offered
Council the opportunity to revoke the SUP in six months if they do not remain in compliance.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
SP #09-01 February 5, 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Glenn Nelson
1711 118th Ave. N E
Blaine, MN 55449
Requested Action:
Special use permit to allow a repair
Existing Zoning:
M-1 (Light Industrial)
Location:
7570 Hwv. 65
Size:
48,280 sq. ft. 1.11 acres
Existing Land Use:
Auto repair, warehouse and office
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Light Industrial & M-1
E: Light Industrial & M-1
S: Manufactured Housing & R-4
W: Manufactured Housina & R-4
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Section 205.17.01.C.(9) requires a
special use permit for repair garages.
Zoning History:
1955 — 32' x 40' Building constructed.
1965 — 90' x 60' Building constructed.
1966 — 40' x 60' Warehouse addition.
1967 — 100' x 60' Warehouse
construction
1994 — 40' x 15' Storage addition.
Legal Description of Property:
That part of the E 46 acres of the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4
of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24 (full description
in case file if requested)
Public Utilities:
Building is connected.
Transportation:
Access to site from Hwy. 65 frontage
road off of Osborne Rd, and from Hwy
65 directly east of property.
Physical Characteristics:
One main building towards front of lot,
accessory building in rear of lot, and
remaining surface mostly paved with
very little landscaping.
SU M MARY OF PROJECT
SPECIAL INFORMATION
The petitioner, Mr. Nelson, on behalf of the
owner, Samir Awaijane, is seeking a special
use permit to allow multiple businesses,
including three repair garages to continue to
exist at 7570 Highway 65.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this special
use permit request with 17 stipulations.
Repair garages are a permitted special
use in the M-1, light industrial zoning
district, with stipulations, and the new
site manager has demonstrated a
willingness to meet the proposed
stipulations and has demonstrated
progress in bringing the property under
compliance with City Codes and State
laws regarding this type of business.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE
City Council — February 9, 2009
60 Day — February 16, 2009
7570 Inc. at 7570 Highway 65
Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones
SP #09-01
REQUEST
The petitioner, Glenn Nelson, on behalf of the property owner, Samir Awaijane, of 7570
Inc., is seeking a special use permit to allow the continuation of a repair garage use at
7570 Highway 65. The site had a special use permit for this use, which was issued in
1989 but was revoked by the City Council this past November.
ANALYSIS
The subject property is
zoned M-1, Light Industrial
and is located southwest of
the corner of Osborne Road
and Highway 65. The site
contains two buildings and a
billboard. A smaller building
was constructed in 1955.
Aerial photography indicates
that this building was
destroyed in the 1965
tornados. A larger building
was constructed in 1965. A
second building to the rear
appears to have been
constructed in 1967. In
1994, an addition was added
to the rear building for
storage without a building
permit. This posed a
significant conflict since the
building was non-conforming
in meeting the rear and side
yard setbacks required. The
)
l
�
.
.
�
l
�
+✓ �.. v +✓ � 1
City Council did, however, grant a setback variance for that addition the same year.
Building permit records refer to these buildings as "warehouses", which is a different use
than the site is being used for today.
Uses
According to the petitioner, only two of the five tenants preciously leasing space in the
buildings are going to remain as tenants. These are the auto repair business in the front
building, Grand Central Auto, and Ronson Door Company, also leasing space in the
front building. Blue Diamond Auto Refinishing and Sages Towing, which had occupied
the rear building on the site, have now vacated the premises, according to a report from
the Petitioner on February 4th. The Petitioner is in the process of evicting the Rhino Auto
Repair business. The Petitioner indicated that he is attempting to lease the remaining
tenant spaces in the front building to "office" uses only.
Warehousing is a principal use allowed in the M-1 zoning. Auto repair, which includes
auto body work, is allowed by special use permit in the M-1 zoning.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks
The lot is approximately
47,978 sq. ft. in size, less
than one and one half
acres, the minimum lot
size for M-1 property in
today's zoning code. The
property is pre-existing
non-conforming and
therefore is not required
to meet this minimum lot
size.
The two buildings equal
13,800 square feet, which
is 29% lot coverage and
is well within the
permitted 40% lot
coverage for one-story
structures.
Neither of the buildings meet side yard setback requirements. The rear building also
does not meet the rear yard setback and is placed directly up to the rear property line. In
addition, this property abuts residential to the south and west, which requires a 50'
setback. The setback on the west (rear) side is zero feet, and the building setback on
the south side is approximately 10'. This nonconformity is critical since these are the two
sides of the property which abut residential zoning. The Petitioner's survey shows that
some manufactured homes are less than 25' from the south edge of the front building,
which is the section leased by Grand Central Auto Repair.
Parking Requirements
The Petitioner's site plan shows that the site has 31 striped parking spaces. Staff has
calculated the number of parking spaces required for the current use, according to the
office/warehouse/manufacturing space totals provided by the petitioner. Based on the
current uses of the site (with the vacant space classified as manufacturing), 36 spaces
are required. The Petitioner is therefore five spaces short in providing adequate parking.
The site plan submitted does not reflect how the site has been used for parking. Since
code does not allow the storage of customer vehicles in the front parking area, additional
parking will need to be striped in the rear of the site. Once the outside storage is
removed in the back, there may be room for customer parking spaces.
Landscaping
The site is not compliant with current landscaping requirements. In applications like this,
however, where there is no building or hard surface expansion proposed, staff has not
typically recommended additional landscaping.
Property Maintenance and Other PerFormance Standards
Property maintenance has been a problem with this property in the past (see code
enforcement case report attached), so it is important for the City to evaluate these
requirements related to this application. Outside storage is of utmost concern —
particularly since this property is located within a few feet of living units at Fridley
Terrace Manufactured Home Park. Staff has consulted the records and finds no special
use permit for the existing outside storage area in the southwest corner of the property.
In addition, this area is immediately adjacent to residential units, so staff is
recommending that this outside storage of vehicle parts be removed.
The site currently has a solid
screening fence along the
residential sides of the site, so
no additional screening is
needed. In fact, in order to
prevent future outside storage,
staff is recommending removal
of certain sections of fencing
within the site. This will permit a
safer work environment for the
multi-tenant users behind the
building and allow better
monitoring of the cleanliness of
the site.
The site plan does not show where garbage dumpsters are located, but all trash and
recycling receptacles need to be located in the side or rear yard and be properly
screened. Also, motor vehicles being serviced by any of the tenants on site, need to be
stored in the rear of the site.
Since no new impervious surface is being added in this proposal, there are no storm
water management requirements related to the application.
Fire and Building Code Concerns
Past experience has demonstrated difficulties related to regulating Fire and Building
Codes in this multi-tenant site. Tenants tend to point to other tenants when staff
investigates a complaint. Blue Diamond Auto and Rhino Auto Repair have been the
source of these complaints. Since the Petitioner had indicated in their application that
these two tenants were remaining on the site, staff had recommended denial of any new
special use permit related to auto repair at the time of the public hearing before the
Planning Commission. Since the owner will likely lease the back building to another auto
body repair user and an auto repair business remains in the front building, however, staff
continues to recommend a stipulation regarding applicable building and fire codes being
met.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On January 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on SP #09-01. No
one besides the Petitioner appeared to testify. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to approve the special use permit request with two added stipulations,
number 16 and 17 below. Stipulation #16 has been satisfied by the Petitioner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission in light of the new
information received at and since the public hearing.
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be
attached.
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
and Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
2. The petitioner shall maintain any necessary Federal, State, and County
hazardous waste permits.
3. No outdoor storage of materials shall exist on the site.
4. Existing racking and structure on the south side of the rear building must be
removed within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
5. No sale of vehicles are allowed from this location.
6. Existing interior site fencing around previous outside storage area and on
south side of front building must be removed within 30 days of issuance of
SUP. Fence on southern and western boundary to remain to screen business
from adjoining residential property.
7. Area between front building and south property line fence needs to be
landscaped with vegetation and maintained. Fence at southeast corner of
building to be removed.
8. All customer vehicles awaiting repairs need to be stored in the rear yard of
the site.
9. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan reflecting the addition of at least
five more parking spaces in the rear of the building.
10. All parking stalls must be striped and vehicles to be kept in defined stalls
only.
11. Frontage road cannot be used for parking related to this business.
12. All buildings shall be compliant with all applicable Fire and Building Codes
within 30 days of issuance of SUP, including verification that spray booth and
sprinkler systems are functioning as designed.
13. Provide ventilation calculations for all tenant spaces in both buildings.
14. All structural lintels over garage door openings on front building shall be
replaced upon plan completion by a structural engineer and necessary
permits issued within 30 days of issuance of SUP.
15. A revised sign plan, which incorporates both buildings and the existing free-
standing sign shall be submitted for City Council approval within 30 days of
issuance of SUP. The revised sign plan needs to include a requirement that
each tenant leasing space within either of the buildings on site needs to
display exterior building signage identifying the business to the public.
16. The petitioner will provide the City verification that Clear Channel's easement
shown on 7/12/07 survey does not prohibit parking or access
17. This Special Use Permit will be brought back to the Fridley City Council for
review six months after issuance to ensure continued compliance, and City
staff shall be given the opportunity to review any new leases before new
tenants lease available space.
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
February 4, 2009
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Preliminary Plat Request, PS #09-01, Joel Larson, Select Senior Living
INTRODUCTION
Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of
Fridley in order to allow the construction of a 141 unit Senior-Housing building, on the southeast
corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The 141 units will consist of independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units. The two actions being requested are a Plat and a
Master Plan Amendment.
A Plat is being requested to create two new parcels from
1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421
Central Avenue (vacant), 6441 Central Avenue (vacant),
and 6461 Central Avenue (vacant). The two parcels will
be occupied by the senior building.
The Master Plan Amendment analysis is provided in a
separate cover memo.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the January 21, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, a
public hearing was held for PS #09-01. After receiving
public comment and a brief discussion, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of plat request, PS
#09-01, with the 22 stipulations as presented.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY.
, ,......
� �
. �'�� y � � z�.
�C'# 1M-0 'l i_�:;i . ,.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
�
g:
�.. _£ 1= � *:'.
el
.�t _ '�.s:, .�.��.
�'"- I�? i i
�. I
� � � .h.mrl � . , .
�s�
STIPULATIONS
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan A1.1
dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A3.1,
A3.2, andA3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of
a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-
way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall provide
necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to
issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance
of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3, 000.00 ($1, 500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for
residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment
systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and
sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the proposed
development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City staff prior
to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modi�ed to be used for units other than independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan amendment will need to be
obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic improvements
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including
signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc.,
will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat
approval.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
PS #09-01 & MP #09-01 January 21, 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Select Senior Living
Joel Larson
12415 55th Street N
Lake Elmo MN 55042
Requested Action:
Replat 5 lots
Master Plan Amendment
Location:
1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi
Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central
Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue
Existing Zoning:
All properties are zoned S-2, Redevelopment
District
Size:
Approximate size of entire area to be replatted
142,857 sq. ft. 3.28 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 & C-1 and R-1
W: Vacant land and Restaurant & S-2
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Future Land Use Map in the current
Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
Redevelopment.
Zoning History:
1314 Mississippi Street:
1941 — Lot is platted.
1952 — House is built.
1959 — Detached garage built.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
1340 Mississippi Street:
1941 — Lot is platted.
House and garage constructed pre-1949.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
6421 Central Avenue:
1941 — Lot is platted.
House and garage built prior to 1949.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
House fire in 2008 — house demolished.
6441 Central Avenue:
SPECIAL INFORMATION
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.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
6461 Central Avenue:
Vacant Lot
1941 — Lot is platted.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
Legal Description of Property:
1340 Mississippi Street:
Lot 15, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
1314 Mississippi Street:
Lot 16, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
6421 Central Avenue:
Lot 19, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
6441 Central Avenue:
Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
6461 Central Avenue:
Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
Council Action / 60 Day Date
City Council — February 9, 2009
60-Day Date — February 16, 2009
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The petitioner, Joel Larson, of Select Senior
Living, is requesting to replat the properties
located at 1314 Mississippi St., 1340
Mississippi St., 6421 Central Ave., 6441 Central
Ave., and 6461 Central Ave. The petitioner is
also seeking a Master Plan Amendment from
the original master plan that was approved
when these properties were rezoned in 2005.
Both the replat and the master plan amendment
will allow for the construction of a Senior Living
Project, which will consist of independent living
units, memory care units, and assisted living
units.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of the plat and
master plan amendment, with stipulations.
• Provides housing opportunities for Fridley
seniors.
• Provides additional job opportunities.
• Proposed use meets the goals highlighted
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
PS#09-01 & MP #09-01
OVERVIEW
The requests:
Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of
Fridley in order to allow the construction of a 141 unit Senior-Housing building, on the southeast
corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The 141 units will consist of independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units. The two actions being requested are a Plat and a
Master Plan Amendment.
i x �
A Plat is being requested to create two new parcels from i��� ��� �� � �:_� �� '"
1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421
Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue (vacant), and 6461 _�
� ���� �
Central Avenue (vacant). The two parcels will be occupied ,
by the senior building. �� --� ,='='
The Planning Commission and City Council may recall in �, I —
2005 John DeMello and his company Family Lifestyle
Development Corp., were granted a rezoning for the �j �_ ����}
subject properties to S-2, Redevelopment District. When _�, :��, _ I
any property is rezoned to S-2 Redevelopment District, it ���}, I I
requires that the accompanying site plan become the i ��� ��
master plan for the site. Once the rezoning is approved �� ��. --
by the City Council, any modification to that originally
approved master plan would require a Master Plan Amendment. A Master Plan Amendment
needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Since, the
proposed project is different than what was originally approved with the rezoning of these
properties in 2005, the petitioner is seeking a Master Plan Amendment. It should be noted that
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will also need to review this Master Plan Amendment
as the properties involved are zoned S-2, Redevelopment District.
Proposed Project:
Joel Larson, with Select Senior
Living, is proposing to construct a
three story 141 unit senior housing
building with 60 independent living
units, 27 memory care units, and 54
assisted living units. All of the units
will be between 470 sq. ft. and
1,003 sq. ft. The smallest of the
units are memory care apartments
and are located on the secured
main floor of the south wing of the
building. They will have their own
private living/dining area and
kitchenette as well as a private
bathing room, a community laundry
and a private fenced in yard. The
second and third floors in the south
wing will contain 54 assisted living apartments, of which some will be studios, one bedroom,
one bedroom with a den, or two bedroom apartments. Each floor of the assisted living area is
also provided with a private bathing room and laundry room. The second and third floors of the
north wing will contain 60 independent living apartments. Each of these units has their own
laundry hook-up as well as a shared laundry room. Wthin the building there will be several
shared amenities such as a shared two-story lobby, a stone fireplace, an intimate cafe, and a
sitting area. The mail room, management office, nurses' office, and public restrooms are
centrally located off of the lobby as are the central dining room, sports pub, and kitchen. Other
shared amenities include an activity room with a small kitchen area and restroom, a media
center, the activity director's office, an overnight guest room, a library on the second floor, and a
salon and grandparent room for visiting children on the third floor.
The development will include 84 underground heated garage parking stalls and 32 surface
parking stalls. The buildings architecture will consist of a hipped roof, with the use of brick,
veneer, and two colors of complimentary lap siding on the exterior, with balconies. By designing
the building to be located as close as code allows to the west property line, the petitioner is
proposing to keep as many of the existing mature trees as possible. The petitioner also plans to
install a 6 ft. wood privacy fence along the south and east sides of the property. Additional
landscaping of new deciduous, coniferous, and ornamental trees along with shrub, perennial
and annual plantings are also planned for the entire site to provide a welcoming entrance and
development.
ANALYSIS
Plat Request #09-01
Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is seeking to replat the properties located at 1314
Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, and
6461 Central Avenue to create two separate lots. Both lots will be combined to accommodate
the 141-unit senior housing development. The reason the development has 2 lots is because
some of the land to be replatted is Torrens property while other portions of it are Abstract.
Anoka County doesn't allow the combination of these different types of property without first
getting a Registration of Land Titles by District Court Order, which can be a lengthy process.
Instead, the developer is choosing to create 2 lots,
which will be required to be combined to allow for
the development to occur.
The proposed replat will consist of two lots; Lot #1
and Lot #2, Block 1, Select Senior Living of Fridley.
Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District
allows for some degree of flexibility when designing
a redevelopment project; however, City staff has
asked the petitioner to design their project to try to
meet the zoning classification codes most similar to
its intended use. The proposed development of a
47,508 sq. ft. footprint senior housing development
would be most closely be aligned with a residential
development in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district.
The proposed project area is 142,857 sq. ft. (3.28
acres) in size. The petitioner is proposing to
construct 141-unit senior housing building, which
will consist of 60 independent units, 54 assisted
living units, and 27 memory care units. The
development will include 84 underground parking stalls and 32 surface parking stalls.
R-3, Multi-Family zoning regulations states, the average lot area required per dwelling unit is
2,500 sq. ft. for the units on the first (3) three stories with an additional 950 sq. ft. per unit from
2
the fourth through sixth stories. National and regional development trends for assisted living and
memory care appear to point to a lesser lot size requirement. The S-2 District classification will
allow this land to unit ratio, without a variance. Though well-maintained landscaped grounds are
essential to project appeal and resident enjoyment, the size of the lot in this situation can be
smaller because the opportunity for residents to participate in larger scale outdoor activities on
the grounds is much smaller. Also, less land is required because of the fact that the residents
typically do not have cars, nor do they drive. Therefore, there is a lower standard for the number
of parking stalls required and less land area to accommodate that automobile
use. Consequently, this site size is adequate considering the ratio of assisted living and
memory care, to independent living. There will be a stipulation with the recommendation on this
project that requires that the building continue to be used with the resident population ratios
proposed. If not, purchase of additional land and a Master Plan amendment will be required,
prior to that resident ratio modification.
The proposed 3-story building will be 35 ft. high at the midspan, which meets City code
requirements. The proposed project is also in-compliance with lot coverage, parking and all
setback requirements, except the rear yard setback. The R-3 zoning code requires a 25 ft. rear
yard setback, and the proposed building is setback at 23 ft. 2 in. Discussions and
correspondence with Anoka County when the John DeMello project was before the City in 2005,
indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required
for future reconstruction purposes. The County anticipates that additional right-of-way will need
to be dedicated along both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street in order to provide the necessary
turn lanes for future safety and operational purposes. The County assumes when the Central
Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection is reconstructed, it would be centered in the 120 ft. right-
of-way corridor. Consequently, roadway right-of-way dedication needs for this site are 27-30 ft.
adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 ft. adjacent to Central Avenue.
To be safe, staff has assumed that the County will be requesting the same right-of-way
dedication from this developer as they have with the past developer's proposal. A letter from
the Anoka County Highway Department on January 7, 2009, confirmed this to be an accurate
assumption. Consequently, the petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-way
dedication along both County Roads. Due to necessity of that right-of-way dedication, the rear
yard setback falls short of ineeting code requirements by 2 ft. 10 inches. Wth the flexibility
allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setback can be recognized under the
City's Master Plan Amendment approval, and no variance would be required.
Master Plan Amendment Request MP #09-01
The petitioner is requesting a Master Plan Amendment to the original Master Plan that was
approved as part of the 2005 rezoning of the subject properties to S-2, Redevelopment District.
The original rezoning and master plan was approved to allow for the construction of mixed used
building, with a 10,492 sq. ft. retail complex that would occupy the lower level of the
northeastern corner of the building and have 70 owner-occupied condominium units occupying
the remainder of the building. Despite the fact that the preliminary plat and rezoning and
subsequent master plan were all approved for this site, the project never came to fruition,
because the final plat was never submitted for approval.
As stated earlier, the properties involved in the Master Plan Amendment are 1314 Mississippi
Street (single family home and garage-welding shop), 1340 Mississippi Street (single family
home), 6421 Central Avenue (single family home), 6441 Central Avenue (vacant lot), and 6461
Central Avenue (vacant lot). All properties involved are currently zoned S-2, Redevelopment
District.
�
If the Master Plan Amendment being discussed in this report is approved by the City Council, it
should be noted that any major modification of the site plan would again be required to go back
to the City Council for review and approval.
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
The City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City
achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan was
developed with resident input taken from several meetings held between 1998 and 2000 and is
a"tool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community while looking to
the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision" The rezoning was
approved for the DeMello project since it was in line with the City's vision laid out in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed senior project meets several of the objectives that the residents of Fridley
identified in the visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. This update is
before the Met Council for approval at this time. One of the goals identified through those
meetings and the telephone survey was to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to live." Ways
to accomplish that goal are to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a place where
the aged can stay. Only about 8% of Fridley's housing is of the townhome or condominium
structure type, yet 23% of Fridley's residents were over age 55 in 2000, and that percentage is
growing. To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens desires to live in maintenance-free housing
(no yards/house exterior care), more types of senior housing needs to be constructed. Types of
senior housing to consider are one-level townhomes, independent living, assisted living, nursing
home/memory care facilities. It is also important to explore the availability of a private
maintenance service that would allow seniors to stay in their single family homes.
This area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road is identified as an
area for future redevelopment in both the existing 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Economic and Redevelopment Plan chapter in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, states that the City should continue to pursue high density senior housing
in this area due to the demand for this type of housing in Fridley. The purpose of
redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient
land uses and under-utilized parcels. Redevelopment can a/so provide an opportunity to meet
current market demands and desires of the community, creates new tax base, and creates
additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of
being met with the redevelopment of this area for a Senior Living facility.
HOUSING STUDY
The petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc., to complete a Preliminary Demand Estimate for
Senior Housing in Fridley. The analysis done takes into account the demand for independent
living, assisted living and memory care senior housing by calculating demographic, economic
and competitive factors that would impact current demand for senior housing units in the
designated "Market Area." The "Market Area" in which Maxfield analyzed includes the
communities of Fridley, Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park and Hilltop. The analysis done
indicates that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 200 units of the above reference nature.
They note that over the next five years the level of units demanded now will likely decrease due
to other competitive developments in the area that are now in some stage of planning or
construction.
�
TRAFFIC
2030 Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Chapter
The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of Old Central adjacent
to the proposed Senior Living project carried 8,900 vehicles per day. At this traffic level it's
carrying almost the exact amount of traffic the roadway was designed and constructed to
function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan anticipates that Old
Central will be carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2030, based upon increases in
population for Fridley & surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment
within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles / day, Old Central will be at its capacity. As a result, Anoka
County is requiring that additional right-of-way be dedicated with this plat, to ensure that the
additional land needed is available to eventually expand the roadway.
Review of Traffic Study prepared by Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
The petitioner had Foltz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc., perform a traffic analysis on the proposed
use. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates
published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The consultants used the Assisted
Living Land Use category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed Senior Project
complex would generate a total of 433 trips per day if all 158 beds within the complex were
occupied. The Congregate Care Facility (Independent Living) land use would generate a total
of 340 trips per day if all 158 beds were occupied. The consultants used the numbers for the
Assisted Living land use to provide the worst case scenario for traffic at this facility, because it
generates more traffic than an Independent Living land use. This can be attributed to the fact
that an assisted living facility requires the need for more staff and employees.
Tri Generation
ITE Description
Land
Use
254 Assisted Living
Land Use
(141 units)
Daily AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
Trips (Mississippi (Central Ave)
St)
In Out
In Out
433 13 8 5
PM Peak Hour
(Mississippi
St)
��
��
PM Peak Hour
(Central Ave)
In Out
Out
11 16 19
It should also be noted, that according to the ITE manual, studies have shown that less than 5%
of residents in an assisted living facility own vehicles, and if they do, they are rarely driven.
Employees, visitors, and delivery trucks make up most of the trips to this facility. The ITE
manual also points out that the "peak hour" generator typically doesn't coincide with the "peak
hour" of the adjacent street traffic for an assisted living facility. This is primarily related to the
shifts of the employees beginning at 7:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. The typical peak
hours on most roadways are between 6:00-7:00 a.m. and 3:00-4:00 p.m.
WETLAND AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The petitioner hired Graham Environmental Services (GES), Inc., to complete a Wetland
Evaluation Report for the project area. Based on GES's finding, no wetlands exist on the site.
The petitioner has submitted the proposed project to the Rice Creek Watershed for the
necessary approvals and permits. Once Rice Creek Watershed has reviewed and approved the
project, the City's Engineering staff will further review the project.
The petitioner has stated that storm water management for the site will be handled in an
underground drainage system designed to meet the watershed's requirements for rate, quality
�
and volume control. The underground system will surround the building providing infiltration and
storage, while directing the water to an existing storm sewer system found on the east boundary
of the site. One of the reasons the petitioner is choosing to install an underground drainage
system instead of a typical above ground pond, is to try to save as many of the mature trees as
possible.
STAFF RECOMMEDATION
City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01 and Master Plan
Amendment, MP #09-01 with stipulations.
• Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors.
• Provides additional job opportunities.
• Proposed use meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that if the Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Amendment are approved, the
following stipulations be attached.
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan A1.1
dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A3.1,
A3.2, andA3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of
a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-
way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall provide
necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to
issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance
of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3, 000.00 ($1, 500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for
residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment
systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and
sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the proposed
development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City staff prior
to installation.
L•�
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan amendment will need to be
obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic improvements
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including
signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc.,
will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to �nal plat
approval.
7
�
�
CffY OF
FRIaLEI'
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
February 4, 2009
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Master Plan Amendment, MP #09-01, Joel Larson, Select Senior Living
INTRODUCTION
Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of
Fridley in order to allow the construction of a 141 unit Senior-Housing building, on the southeast
corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The 141 units will consist of independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units. The two actions being requested are a Plat and a
Master Plan Amendment.
The Planning Commission and City Council may recall in 2005 John DeMello and his company
Family Lifestyle Development Corp., were granted a rezoning for the subject properties to S-2,
Redevelopment District. When any property is rezoned to S-2 Redevelopment District, it
requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for the site. Once the
rezoning is approved by the City Council, any modification to that originally approved master
plan would require a Master Plan Amendment. A Master Plan Amendment needs to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Since, the proposed
project is different from what was originally approved with the rezoning of these properties in
2005, the petitioner is seeking a Master Plan Amendment. It should be noted that the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority will also need to review this Master Plan Amendment as the
properties involved are zoned S-2, Redevelopment District.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the January 21, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for MP #09-
01. After receiving public comment and a brief discussion, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of plat request, MP #09-01, with the 22 stipulations as presented.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
STIPULATIONS
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan A1.1
dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A3.1,
A3.2, andA3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of
a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-
way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall provide
necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to
issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance
of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3, 000.00 ($1, 500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for
residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment
systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and
sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the proposed
development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City staff prior
to installation.
20. If the proposed development is modi�ed to be used for units other than independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan amendment will need to be
obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic improvements
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including
signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc.,
will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat
approval.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
PS #09-01 & MP #09-01 January 21, 2009
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Select Senior Living
Joel Larson
12415 55th Street N
Lake Elmo MN 55042
Requested Action:
Replat 5 lots
Master Plan Amendment
Location:
1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi
Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central
Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue
Existing Zoning:
All properties are zoned S-2, Redevelopment
District
Size:
Approximate size of entire area to be replatted
142,857 sq. ft. 3.28 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 & C-1 and R-1
W: Vacant land and Restaurant & S-2
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Future Land Use Map in the current
Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
Comprehensive Plan designates this area as
Redevelopment.
Zoning History:
1314 Mississippi Street:
1941 — Lot is platted.
1952 — House is built.
1959 — Detached garage built.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
1340 Mississippi Street:
1941 — Lot is platted.
House and garage constructed pre-1949.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
6421 Central Avenue:
1941 — Lot is platted.
House and garage built prior to 1949.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
House fire in 2008 — house demolished.
6441 Central Avenue:
SPECIAL INFORMATION
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.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
6461 Central Avenue:
Vacant Lot
1941 — Lot is platted.
Rezoned to S-2 in 2005.
Legal Description of Property:
1340 Mississippi Street:
Lot 15, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
1314 Mississippi Street:
Lot 16, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
6421 Central Avenue:
Lot 19, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
6441 Central Avenue:
Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
6461 Central Avenue:
Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition
Council Action / 60 Day Date
City Council — February 9, 2009
60-Day Date — February 16, 2009
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The petitioner, Joel Larson, of Select Senior
Living, is requesting to replat the properties
located at 1314 Mississippi St., 1340
Mississippi St., 6421 Central Ave., 6441 Central
Ave., and 6461 Central Ave. The petitioner is
also seeking a Master Plan Amendment from
the original master plan that was approved
when these properties were rezoned in 2005.
Both the replat and the master plan amendment
will allow for the construction of a Senior Living
Project, which will consist of independent living
units, memory care units, and assisted living
units.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of the plat and
master plan amendment, with stipulations.
• Provides housing opportunities for Fridley
seniors.
• Provides additional job opportunities.
• Proposed use meets the goals highlighted
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
PS#09-01 & MP #09-01
OVERVIEW
The requests:
Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of
Fridley in order to allow the construction of a 141 unit Senior-Housing building, on the southeast
corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The 141 units will consist of independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units. The two actions being requested are a Plat and a
Master Plan Amendment.
i x �
A Plat is being requested to create two new parcels from i��� ��� �� � �:_� �� '"
1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421
Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue (vacant), and 6461 _�
� ���� �
Central Avenue (vacant). The two parcels will be occupied ,
by the senior building. �� --� ,='='
The Planning Commission and City Council may recall in �, I —
2005 John DeMello and his company Family Lifestyle
Development Corp., were granted a rezoning for the �j �_ ����}
subject properties to S-2, Redevelopment District. When _�, :��, _ I
any property is rezoned to S-2 Redevelopment District, it ���}, I I
requires that the accompanying site plan become the i ��� ��
master plan for the site. Once the rezoning is approved �� ��. --
by the City Council, any modification to that originally
approved master plan would require a Master Plan Amendment. A Master Plan Amendment
needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Since, the
proposed project is different than what was originally approved with the rezoning of these
properties in 2005, the petitioner is seeking a Master Plan Amendment. It should be noted that
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will also need to review this Master Plan Amendment
as the properties involved are zoned S-2, Redevelopment District.
Proposed Project:
Joel Larson, with Select Senior
Living, is proposing to construct a
three story 141 unit senior housing
building with 60 independent living
units, 27 memory care units, and 54
assisted living units. All of the units
will be between 470 sq. ft. and
1,003 sq. ft. The smallest of the
units are memory care apartments
and are located on the secured
main floor of the south wing of the
building. They will have their own
private living/dining area and
kitchenette as well as a private
bathing room, a community laundry
and a private fenced in yard. The
second and third floors in the south
wing will contain 54 assisted living apartments, of which some will be studios, one bedroom,
one bedroom with a den, or two bedroom apartments. Each floor of the assisted living area is
also provided with a private bathing room and laundry room. The second and third floors of the
north wing will contain 60 independent living apartments. Each of these units has their own
laundry hook-up as well as a shared laundry room. Wthin the building there will be several
shared amenities such as a shared two-story lobby, a stone fireplace, an intimate cafe, and a
sitting area. The mail room, management office, nurses' office, and public restrooms are
centrally located off of the lobby as are the central dining room, sports pub, and kitchen. Other
shared amenities include an activity room with a small kitchen area and restroom, a media
center, the activity director's office, an overnight guest room, a library on the second floor, and a
salon and grandparent room for visiting children on the third floor.
The development will include 84 underground heated garage parking stalls and 32 surface
parking stalls. The buildings architecture will consist of a hipped roof, with the use of brick,
veneer, and two colors of complimentary lap siding on the exterior, with balconies. By designing
the building to be located as close as code allows to the west property line, the petitioner is
proposing to keep as many of the existing mature trees as possible. The petitioner also plans to
install a 6 ft. wood privacy fence along the south and east sides of the property. Additional
landscaping of new deciduous, coniferous, and ornamental trees along with shrub, perennial
and annual plantings are also planned for the entire site to provide a welcoming entrance and
development.
ANALYSIS
Plat Request #09-01
Joel Larson of Select Senior Living is seeking to replat the properties located at 1314
Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, and
6461 Central Avenue to create two separate lots. Both lots will be combined to accommodate
the 141-unit senior housing development. The reason the development has 2 lots is because
some of the land to be replatted is Torrens property while other portions of it are Abstract.
Anoka County doesn't allow the combination of these different types of property without first
getting a Registration of Land Titles by District Court Order, which can be a lengthy process.
Instead, the developer is choosing to create 2 lots,
which will be required to be combined to allow for
the development to occur.
The proposed replat will consist of two lots; Lot #1
and Lot #2, Block 1, Select Senior Living of Fridley.
Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District
allows for some degree of flexibility when designing
a redevelopment project; however, City staff has
asked the petitioner to design their project to try to
meet the zoning classification codes most similar to
its intended use. The proposed development of a
47,508 sq. ft. footprint senior housing development
would be most closely be aligned with a residential
development in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district.
The proposed project area is 142,857 sq. ft. (3.28
acres) in size. The petitioner is proposing to
construct 141-unit senior housing building, which
will consist of 60 independent units, 54 assisted
living units, and 27 memory care units. The
development will include 84 underground parking stalls and 32 surface parking stalls.
R-3, Multi-Family zoning regulations states, the average lot area required per dwelling unit is
2,500 sq. ft. for the units on the first (3) three stories with an additional 950 sq. ft. per unit from
2
the fourth through sixth stories. National and regional development trends for assisted living and
memory care appear to point to a lesser lot size requirement. The S-2 District classification will
allow this land to unit ratio, without a variance. Though well-maintained landscaped grounds are
essential to project appeal and resident enjoyment, the size of the lot in this situation can be
smaller because the opportunity for residents to participate in larger scale outdoor activities on
the grounds is much smaller. Also, less land is required because of the fact that the residents
typically do not have cars, nor do they drive. Therefore, there is a lower standard for the number
of parking stalls required and less land area to accommodate that automobile
use. Consequently, this site size is adequate considering the ratio of assisted living and
memory care, to independent living. There will be a stipulation with the recommendation on this
project that requires that the building continue to be used with the resident population ratios
proposed. If not, purchase of additional land and a Master Plan amendment will be required,
prior to that resident ratio modification.
The proposed 3-story building will be 35 ft. high at the midspan, which meets City code
requirements. The proposed project is also in-compliance with lot coverage, parking and all
setback requirements, except the rear yard setback. The R-3 zoning code requires a 25 ft. rear
yard setback, and the proposed building is setback at 23 ft. 2 in. Discussions and
correspondence with Anoka County when the John DeMello project was before the City in 2005,
indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required
for future reconstruction purposes. The County anticipates that additional right-of-way will need
to be dedicated along both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street in order to provide the necessary
turn lanes for future safety and operational purposes. The County assumes when the Central
Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection is reconstructed, it would be centered in the 120 ft. right-
of-way corridor. Consequently, roadway right-of-way dedication needs for this site are 27-30 ft.
adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 ft. adjacent to Central Avenue.
To be safe, staff has assumed that the County will be requesting the same right-of-way
dedication from this developer as they have with the past developer's proposal. A letter from
the Anoka County Highway Department on January 7, 2009, confirmed this to be an accurate
assumption. Consequently, the petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-way
dedication along both County Roads. Due to necessity of that right-of-way dedication, the rear
yard setback falls short of ineeting code requirements by 2 ft. 10 inches. Wth the flexibility
allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setback can be recognized under the
City's Master Plan Amendment approval, and no variance would be required.
Master Plan Amendment Request MP #09-01
The petitioner is requesting a Master Plan Amendment to the original Master Plan that was
approved as part of the 2005 rezoning of the subject properties to S-2, Redevelopment District.
The original rezoning and master plan was approved to allow for the construction of mixed used
building, with a 10,492 sq. ft. retail complex that would occupy the lower level of the
northeastern corner of the building and have 70 owner-occupied condominium units occupying
the remainder of the building. Despite the fact that the preliminary plat and rezoning and
subsequent master plan were all approved for this site, the project never came to fruition,
because the final plat was never submitted for approval.
As stated earlier, the properties involved in the Master Plan Amendment are 1314 Mississippi
Street (single family home and garage-welding shop), 1340 Mississippi Street (single family
home), 6421 Central Avenue (single family home), 6441 Central Avenue (vacant lot), and 6461
Central Avenue (vacant lot). All properties involved are currently zoned S-2, Redevelopment
District.
�
If the Master Plan Amendment being discussed in this report is approved by the City Council, it
should be noted that any major modification of the site plan would again be required to go back
to the City Council for review and approval.
Comprehensive Plan Conformance
The City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City
achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan was
developed with resident input taken from several meetings held between 1998 and 2000 and is
a"tool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community while looking to
the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision" The rezoning was
approved for the DeMello project since it was in line with the City's vision laid out in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed senior project meets several of the objectives that the residents of Fridley
identified in the visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. This update is
before the Met Council for approval at this time. One of the goals identified through those
meetings and the telephone survey was to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to live." Ways
to accomplish that goal are to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a place where
the aged can stay. Only about 8% of Fridley's housing is of the townhome or condominium
structure type, yet 23% of Fridley's residents were over age 55 in 2000, and that percentage is
growing. To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens desires to live in maintenance-free housing
(no yards/house exterior care), more types of senior housing needs to be constructed. Types of
senior housing to consider are one-level townhomes, independent living, assisted living, nursing
home/memory care facilities. It is also important to explore the availability of a private
maintenance service that would allow seniors to stay in their single family homes.
This area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road is identified as an
area for future redevelopment in both the existing 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Economic and Redevelopment Plan chapter in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, states that the City should continue to pursue high density senior housing
in this area due to the demand for this type of housing in Fridley. The purpose of
redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient
land uses and under-utilized parcels. Redevelopment can a/so provide an opportunity to meet
current market demands and desires of the community, creates new tax base, and creates
additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of
being met with the redevelopment of this area for a Senior Living facility.
HOUSING STUDY
The petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc., to complete a Preliminary Demand Estimate for
Senior Housing in Fridley. The analysis done takes into account the demand for independent
living, assisted living and memory care senior housing by calculating demographic, economic
and competitive factors that would impact current demand for senior housing units in the
designated "Market Area." The "Market Area" in which Maxfield analyzed includes the
communities of Fridley, Columbia Heights, Spring Lake Park and Hilltop. The analysis done
indicates that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 200 units of the above reference nature.
They note that over the next five years the level of units demanded now will likely decrease due
to other competitive developments in the area that are now in some stage of planning or
construction.
�
TRAFFIC
2030 Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Chapter
The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of Old Central adjacent
to the proposed Senior Living project carried 8,900 vehicles per day. At this traffic level it's
carrying almost the exact amount of traffic the roadway was designed and constructed to
function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan anticipates that Old
Central will be carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2030, based upon increases in
population for Fridley & surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment
within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles / day, Old Central will be at its capacity. As a result, Anoka
County is requiring that additional right-of-way be dedicated with this plat, to ensure that the
additional land needed is available to eventually expand the roadway.
Review of Traffic Study prepared by Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.
The petitioner had Foltz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc., perform a traffic analysis on the proposed
use. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates
published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The consultants used the Assisted
Living Land Use category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed Senior Project
complex would generate a total of 433 trips per day if all 158 beds within the complex were
occupied. The Congregate Care Facility (Independent Living) land use would generate a total
of 340 trips per day if all 158 beds were occupied. The consultants used the numbers for the
Assisted Living land use to provide the worst case scenario for traffic at this facility, because it
generates more traffic than an Independent Living land use. This can be attributed to the fact
that an assisted living facility requires the need for more staff and employees.
Tri Generation
ITE Description
Land
Use
254 Assisted Living
Land Use
(141 units)
Daily AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
Trips (Mississippi (Central Ave)
St)
In Out
In Out
433 13 8 5
PM Peak Hour
(Mississippi
St)
��
��
PM Peak Hour
(Central Ave)
In Out
Out
11 16 19
It should also be noted, that according to the ITE manual, studies have shown that less than 5%
of residents in an assisted living facility own vehicles, and if they do, they are rarely driven.
Employees, visitors, and delivery trucks make up most of the trips to this facility. The ITE
manual also points out that the "peak hour" generator typically doesn't coincide with the "peak
hour" of the adjacent street traffic for an assisted living facility. This is primarily related to the
shifts of the employees beginning at 7:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. The typical peak
hours on most roadways are between 6:00-7:00 a.m. and 3:00-4:00 p.m.
WETLAND AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The petitioner hired Graham Environmental Services (GES), Inc., to complete a Wetland
Evaluation Report for the project area. Based on GES's finding, no wetlands exist on the site.
The petitioner has submitted the proposed project to the Rice Creek Watershed for the
necessary approvals and permits. Once Rice Creek Watershed has reviewed and approved the
project, the City's Engineering staff will further review the project.
The petitioner has stated that storm water management for the site will be handled in an
underground drainage system designed to meet the watershed's requirements for rate, quality
�
and volume control. The underground system will surround the building providing infiltration and
storage, while directing the water to an existing storm sewer system found on the east boundary
of the site. One of the reasons the petitioner is choosing to install an underground drainage
system instead of a typical above ground pond, is to try to save as many of the mature trees as
possible.
STAFF RECOMMEDATION
City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, PS #09-01 and Master Plan
Amendment, MP #09-01 with stipulations.
• Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors.
• Provides additional job opportunities.
• Proposed use meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that if the Preliminary Plat and Master Plan Amendment are approved, the
following stipulations be attached.
1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan A1.1
dated January 15, 2009.
2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A3.1,
A3.2, andA3.3, titled Elevations, dated 12-19-08.
3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements.
5. The buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street and 1340 Mississippi Street shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permit.
6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of
a building permit.
7. No signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-
way shall be approved by the County prior to planting.
8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the
county right-of-way.
9. The petitioner shall identify stormwater management area of site and shall provide
necessary easements.
10. Stormwater management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to
issuance of building permits.
11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits.
12. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance
of building permits.
13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building
permit.
14. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3, 000.00 ($1, 500 per lot)
15. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for
residency within the proposed building.
16. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment
systems located on the site are properly capped or removed.
17. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and
sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit.
18. The petitioner shall combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 for tax purposes and to allow the proposed
development to occur over both lots.
19. Screening through the use of a fence or landscaping shall be approved by City staff prior
to installation.
L•�
20. If the proposed development is modified to be used for units other than independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units, a master plan amendment will need to be
obtained.
21. The petitioner shall be responsible for their share of the cost of any traffic improvements
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including
signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County.
22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc.,
will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to �nal plat
approval.
7
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2009
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS