Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
ZOA05-02
CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 572-3592 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATI"N FOR: 1.7- Rezoning Zoning Text Amendment X i PROPERTY INFORMATION: (certificate of survey required for submittal, see attached) Address: C-C d A mI v1 1--- Property "Property Identification Number: Legal Description: Lot Block Tract/Addition Current Zoning: C9 I / Cgi RI Square footage/acreage: 1f/lustS Requested Zoning: S-p. Reason for Rezoning: Pe cj.c/Y(apry-4or" Or; Section of Zoning Code to be Changed: (Attach requested language) Reason for Change: Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No — If Yes, which City? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this for prior to processing.) NAME: 4- T?ar C h er-411 J ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE: P<c 5T 4.7`T'/ ,2),),-7 ,ge t-rt Z(b PETITIONER INFORMATION yy]]� _ NAME: FQr1 l 4-;)4 0.7It a opky-t) 61 4 ADDRESS: g t 0). 17A 'Y-r,r 1 X/). ,�Y�j' 41) c // DAYTIME PHONE: (S/ .1 - SIGNATURE/DATE: A-,„� 1► i/V - v�' 4,s i- 7 -a ZZ. - a& h, ,c,9-') FEES �----- ,b--i - s3-003*, j c Fee: 41,500.00 Rezoning $1,500.00 Zoning Text Amendment Applicata umber: 2e.9-o5"--QA Receipt#: Received By: Scheduled Planning Commission Date: ( -/-cz5 Scheduled City Council Date: (a-13--45 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: S-'-t_S 60 Day Date: 4,-,27- c=c- CITY OF FRIDLLY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432 May 9, 2005 (763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • TTD/TTY(763)572-3534 John DeMello, President Family Lifestyle Development Corp. 2872 17th Terrace NW New Brighton,MN 55112 Dear Mr.DeMello: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99,local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 10 working days if their land use applications are complete. We officially received your subdivision(plat) and rezoning applications on April 29, 2005. This letter serves to inform you that your applications are both complete. Hearings and discussion will take place for both land use change requests at the City of Fridley Planning Commission meeting on June 1,2005 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue NE. The City of Fridley City Council will consider action on both of your subdivision requests on June 13,2005 at 7:30 P.M.You should plan to be in attendance at both of these meetings. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process,please feel free to contact me at(763)572- 3599. Sincerely, Julie Jones Planning Coordinator C-05-25 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E . on Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7 :30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District, legally described as Lots 15- 19, Block 1, Spring Valley, generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE . Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place . Any questions related to this item may be referred to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator at 763-572-3599. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005 . The TDD number is 763-572-3534 . DIANE SAVAGE CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: May 19, 2005 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. CASE NUMBER: Rezoning, PS #05-02 APPLICANT: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Petitioner or representative must attend the Planning Commission meeting. PURPOSE: To rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District. LOCATION OF 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 PROPERTY AND Central Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Legally described as Lots 15-19, Block 1, Spring Valley DATE AND TIME OF Planning Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEARING: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 763-572-3599. Publish: May 19, 2005 Cityof Community Develoment Department r Public HearingNotice j Fridley -,4:::x.orrs;-;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;";;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-"--;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;;-"' MISSISSIPPI ST z uJ U : 64TH AVE LEGEND Preliminary Plat RequestN Fridley GIS Sources: Plat- PS #05-02 and Y//�\`A Fridley Engineering Rezoning Request ZOA#05-02 Anoka County GIS Petitioner - Family Lifestyle Development Corp 1314 & 1340 - Mississippi St 6421, 6441 & 6461 Cetnral Ave Map Date: 5/20/05 • ADDISON BETTY A ALJAFFERY YOCOUB ARCHER-KATH JULIE A 1315 66TH AVE NE 1340 CREEK PARK LN NE 1348 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 AUER JOHN R AWAIJANE SAMIR&MINDY BARSNESS CURTIS A 1399 66TH AVE NE 5096 HUGHES AVE NE 6581 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BECCHETTI STEPHEN D&DARRI BEIX TERESA A BERGANINI RICHARD L&DIANE 6361 ARTHUR ST NE 1490 64TH AVE NE 6596 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BERGLUND ERWIN R&SUZANNE BERGMAN LEONARD E&DORIS L BERQUIST STANLEY J 6565 PIERCE ST NE 6435 PIERCE ST NE 6619 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BJORKLUND ERIC T&HJORDIS L T BLEICHNER SUSAN L BLISCHOK THOM&SHARLA TRUSTEE 1360 CREEK PARK LN NE 6449 PIERCE ST NE 4244 E DESERT CREST DR FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 85253 BOGDAN ALLA&POTAPENKO V BONA DAVID L&CHARLOTTE C BONDOW BRUCE A 6532 CHANNEL RD NE 6548 CHANNEL RD NE 6616 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BRAAM GARY L&CYNTHIA J BRICKNER MARGARET A TRUSTEE BRIDGEMAN ROBERT F&MARY E 1436 66TH AVE NE 6260 HIGHWAY 65 NE#308 1375 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BROOS MICHAEL&HOAGBERG MIA BRYTOWSKI MICHAEL J&LAURA A BUIRGE THOMAS R&LINDA J 656 LUCIA LN NE 6378 DELLWOOD DR NE 6312 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 • BULTMAN JEAN BURDICK ROBERT M&DORA M BURKHOW JON R&ALLISON R 6537 CENTRAL AVE NE 1316 66TH AVE NE 6300 SHINGLE CR PKWY FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BROOKLYN CENTER,MN 55430 BURMIS DELLA M BURNS DEBORAH J&KING WILLIAM CALDERON BOB JR&JACKIE A 6459 PIERCE ST NE 1371 CREEK PARK LN NE 6401 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 GARLAND JOHN A&B D CARLSON DENNIS A CARLSON RICHARD S 6416 DELLWOOD DR NE 6491 ARTHUR ST NE 7691 OLD CENTRAL NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CARNEY JAMES C&DE ARLYN CEBULA DONALD J&SANDELIN R K CHRISTENSON CARL E&M A 6441 ARTHUR ST NE 1427 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1327 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CITY OF FRIDLEY COGLE MARIE C&GEORGE L R COLLARD JESSE J 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 1376 66TH AVE NE 1426 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 COUGHLIN CORY J COUNTRY HOUSE INC COVERSTON CLEM Z&EVA A 6411 PIERCE ST NE PO BOX 818 1424 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 STILLWATER,MN 55082 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CUDD MELISSA A&LOVEN JEFFREY CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1311 CREEK PARK LN NE 1131 E MOORE LAKE DR NE 1250 E MOORE LAKE DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1271 E MOORE LAKE DR NE 1299 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1310 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1314 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1358 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1376 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1380 CREEK PARK LN NE 1400 RICE CREEK RD NE 1415 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1441 RICE CREEK RD NE 1491 RICE CREEK RD NE 6301 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6303 CENTRAL AVE NE 6315 PIERCE ST NE 6325 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6330 ARTHUR NE 6335 PIERCE ST NE 6343 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6345 PIERCE ST NE 6352 CENTRAL AVE NE 6360 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6361 PIERCE ST NE 6367 DELLWOOD DR NE 6373 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6381 CENTRAL AVE NE 6400 CENTRAL AVE NE 6421 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6441 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6452 DELLWOOD DR NE 6461 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6490 CENTRAL AVE NE 6500 CHANNEL RD NE 6501 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6501 CHANNEL RD NE 6525 CENTRAL AVE NE 6531 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6533 PIERCE ST NE 6534 CENTRAL AVE NE 6544 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6550 CENTRAL AVE NE 6552 CENTRAL AVE NE 6554 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE 6565 LUCIA LN NE 6571 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6572 CENTRAL AVE NE 6588 CENTRAL AVE NE 6600 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT DAHLMEIER BETH A DAVENPORT RUTH A 6634 CENTRAL AVE NE 1358 66TH AVE NE 1489 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 DAVIS TERRANCE A&JENNIFER J DEMARS ROY H JR&LYNN M DEMARS RUTH H 6548 PIERCE ST NE 1464 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1442 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 DEMELLO FRANK&SHARON DEMELLO JOHN R&ALEXANDRA DEUSER THOMAS E&KAREN A 6134 WOODY LANE NE 2872 17TH TERRACE NW PO BOX 32187 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 NEW BRIGHTON,MN 55112 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 DISCHINGER ROBERT D&PEARL EASON JAMES P EDWARDS DENNIS B&BARBARA J 6529 ARTHUR ST NE 6360 ARTHUR ST 1403 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 EISCHENS JILL M EISCHENS JILL M ENNIS RONALD M&SHIRLEY A 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE#4 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE#4 6601 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ERICKSON ALLAN T&B ELAINE EVANGELIST PAUL A EYLER INGE 1400 66TH AVE NE 6378 PIERCE ST NE 1456 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FEMRITE ROGER N&FAYE M FEMRITE ROGER N&FAYE M FIGUEROA MILTON I&MARQUEZ R 4773 MANITOU ROAD 4773 MANITOU ROAD 6423 PIERCE ST NE TONKA BAY,MN 55331 TONKA BAY,MN 55331 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FINDELL DONALD FLICKINGER P M&FLICKINGER M FREEMAN JON L&SANDRA F 6850 SIVERTS LN NE 6580 CENTRAL AVE NE 6440 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIV AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY HRA 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIV AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 GARMAN KATHLEEN R GAYNOR STEVEN L&BARBARA GIBSON TERESA J 6366 PIERCE ST NE 1414 CREEK PARK LN NE 1255 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 GLOPPEN TOR J&BETH A GOLUBOWICZ ANNE E GOTTWALD GARY G 1421 66TH AVE NE 1220 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1415 MISS ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 GOULD FLORENCE M&JEAN E GRITTNER MARK A&BRENDA L GWIAZDON MITCHELL L&MARY 6448 PIERCE ST NE 1351 66TH AVE NE 6350 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HALL DAVID C&HENRY SUSAN M HALVORSON KIMBERLY J HALVORSON LARRY D&JAYNE 1491 RICE CRK RD NE 6555 CENTRAL AVE NE 6461 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HART HERBERT N&SYLVIA E HASSAN ASSIA HICKS JANIS K 1450 64TH AVE NE 6599 CHANNEL RD NE 1320 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HINZ GREGG C HITCHCOCK W&I TRUSTEES HJ11 LLC 6715 ASHTON AVE NE 6532 PIERCE ST NE PO BOX 270311 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 VADNAIS HEIGHTS,MN 55127 HOFFMAN CATHY J&GREGORY R HOLLAND RICHARD E&WENDY K HOLLISTER DOROTHY M 6631 CHANNEL RD NE 6536 ARTHUR ST NE 1466 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HOLMGREN ENTERPRISES INC HORNER JACQUELYN A HORTON CHARLES L&PHYLLIS 1323 RICE CREEK RD NE 2463 17TH AVE NW 10761 181ST CIRCLE NW MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55432 NEW BRIGHTON,MN 55112 ELK RIVER,MN 55330 HORTON CHARLES L&PHYLLIS HOUCHINS CHRISTINE D&ROY E HRA CITY OF FRIDLEY 10761 181ST CIRCLE NW 1465 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE ELK RIVER,MN 55330 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HUIE CHOCK S&LAI C HYBBEN LANCE S&JOLYNN 0 IMBERTSON MARTIN B&ARDIS 1328 66TH AVE NE 1489 64TH AVE NE 6564 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ISAACSON LINDA J JAEGER DAVID J&CHEVRE CARYL JANKOWSKI JOHN M 6535 ARTHUR ST NE 6564 CHANNEL RD NE 1400 RICE CREEK RD FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 JAPS RUSSELL&BONNIE TRUSTEES JOHNSON CHRISTINE R JOHNSON DOUGLAS E 1422 66TH AVE NE 1379 CREEK PARK LN NE 6388 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 JOHNSON JON G&MARY JOHNSON RANDOLPH E KACHINA PHYLLIS M 1400 CREEK PARK LN NE 6336 PIERCE ST NE 6476 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KEANE JAMES W&SUSAN K KEITA AMINATA KELLS ALFRED J&DORIS E 900 NINE MILE COVE S 6617 CENTRAL AVE NE 6400 PIERCE ST NE HOPKINS,MN 55343 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KENDALL MARGARET A KERN BRUCE N&CATHY A KESTNER ELIZABETH A 6481 ARTHUR ST NE 6471 ARTHUR ST NE 6580 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KING JOHN K&ARCHER LISA M KITTERMAN FRANK KLUCSAR YOAVA 1425 CREEK PARK LN NE 13892 RIVER FORREST DRIVE 1420 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FT MEYERS,FL 33905 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KNUTSON ORVIS D KOCOUREK CHARLES&MARLYS E KOTCHEN SCOTT A&MARY K 3723 POLK ST NE 6330 ARTHUR ST NE 6381 ARTHUR ST NE MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55421 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 I . KOZER JACK D&KAREN P KOZER JACK D&KAREN P KRAMBER KATHRYN L 860 86TH AVE NW 860 86TH AVE NW 2013 2911-1 AVE NW COON RAPIDS,MN 55433 COON RAPIDS,MN 55433 NEW BRIGHTON,MN 55112 KRIENS BERNARD J&LORALEE KRUSE RICHARD&JOAN TRUSTEES KWONG ANDREW&SELINA 1362 66TH AVE NE 1383 CREEK PARK LN NE 1321 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LABANDZ FRANK&VALLIE LABANDZ FRANK A&VALLIE R LABANDZ FRANK A&VALLIE R 1356 64TH AVE NE 1356 64TH AVE NE 1356 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LANDRY DONALD J&MARY K LARSON GRACE M LARSON ROGER C&B K YUNKER- 6597 PIERCE ST NE 1340 66TH AVE NE 1339 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LEKANG RICHARD E&JOYCE E LENNO BERT W IA LENNOX HERBERT W III&JUDITH 6517 PIERCE ST NE 1461 CREEK RD NE 1461 1461 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LIEB WILLIAM JR&KIMBERLY LIND LEANN V LUKE KENNETH W&KATHLEEN M 6390 DELLWOOD DR NE 1410 66TH AVE NE 1341 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MAHOWALD KELI R&PAIGE TROY A MALONE DAVID J&JOSIE D MARIHART BERNARD J 6389 PIERCE ST NE 6283 CENTRAL AVE NE 1373 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MARIHART BONNIE J MARIHART BONNIE J MARTIN GREGORY D 1443 64TH AVE NE 1443 64TH AVE NE 6549 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MARTINSON TERRY L&MARY JANE MARTI S TERRY L&MARY JANE MASON JOHNNY E&JILL L 6568 CENTRAL AVE NE 6568 C TRAL AVE NE 1361 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDL Y, N 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MATTISON MARK JON MCCLOSKEY WILLIAM 0&J A MCCULLOCH K M&M L TRUSTEES 6421 OLD CENTRAL AVE 6620 CHANNEL RD NE 1454 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MCGINNIS RYAN G&THORESON J J MCNAUGHTON MARVEL MEHTA ROBERT 6630 CHANNEL RD NE 6300 PIERCE ST NE 6500 CHANNEL ROAD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MPLS,MN 55432 MELCHER HENRY T&ROSEMARIE MENTH JOSEPH R&JOAN M MILES DOROTHY M 6500 PIERCE ST NE 1388 66TH AVE NE 1370 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MILSTEN ROBERT W&MARY A MIRANDA LARRY B&SKIBA L J MOELLMAN RHONDA R&SEARS R E 1487 64TH AVE NE 6581 PIERCE ST NE 6609 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 MULROY PATRICIA S MULROY PATRICIA S MULROY PATRICIA S 1384 64TH AVE NE 1384 64TH AVE NE 1384 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 NAYMASTER S J&WOLDEN LOIS K NELSON ROBERT 0&DORIS L NEWPORT RONALD L&NANCY G 6625 CHANNEL RD NE 1439 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1494 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 NIKOLOV ILIAN S NORGAARD DIRK L&LISA K NYGREN BYRON N 6350 ARTHUR ST NE 6401 ARTHUR ST NE 1363 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 OKESON VIRGIL A&SUSAN M OLSON BRUCE R&AUDREY A OLSON CAROLYN M TRUSTEE * 1423 64TH AVE NE 1442 64TH AVE NE 1430 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 OLSON HENRIETTA A OLSON KURT E&ANDREA R OPSAL JON M&BLOOD ANN B 6425 DELLWOOD DR NE 1385 64TH AVE NE 1405 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 • OSTLUND ARNOLD F JR&F M OUELLETTE EUGENE L&ANN PAINTER DANIEL R&JOYCE D 1453 64TH AVE NE 6343 DELLWOOD RD NE 6451 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PALMER LOREN C&SHIRLEY M PAPILLON MICHAEL T&LINDA D PAQUETTE LEON J&VIRGINIA 6596 CHANNEL RD NE 6421 ARTHUR ST NE 1479 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PARKS CAMILLES R PAULSON MARIAN PAYNTER GARY 1341 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1425 RICE CREEK RD NE 6436 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PEEK GEORGE H&ZITA T PEHL GERALD A&DOROTHY T PERRON CAROLYN D 6633 CENTRAL AVE NE 1250 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6610 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PETERSON MARLENE M PETERSON THOMAS R PHILLIPS GARY P&PATRICIA M 6550 ARTHUR ST NE 6401 PIERCE ST NE 6519 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PHILLIPS JON S&DIANE M PODV1N CAROLE E PORTZLINE GERALD&JOYCE 1361 CREEK PARK LN NE 1391 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1310 RICE CREEK ROAD FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PRATT MARGUERITE E PRIOR RUSSELL L&BEVERLY Y QUALITY GROWTH LTD 1428 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1340 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 3002 ELM ST FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FARGO,ND 58102 RAAEN LOIS E RAD JOHN R RAMSEY SHARYN R 6501 LUCIA LN NE 1200 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1340 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 RAMSEY SHARYN R RANDALL JOE M&VIVIAN M RAU JOHN D&SUSAN M 1340 64TH AVE NE 1210 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1341 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 REDEPENNING DARREL&DONNA REISNER DONNA M&JAMES W RUSINAK JAMES J&RHONDA L 6391 DELLWOOD DR NE 6424 PIERCE ST NE 6412 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 RUSNACKO JOHN M&BARBARA SCHAEFER TARA R&LANE KEELY J SCHLEIF KATIE K 6476 ARTHUR ST NE 6391 CENTRAL AVE NE 1476 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 SCHWALBACH RICHARD 0 SCHWARTZ MARK A&JEAN D SEGER LYNN A&DEBRA H 6501 PIERCE ST NE 1372 64TH AVE NE 1475 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 k SEVERTSON JILL E&RICHARD D SHEA RICHARD J SHIMANSKI ROBERT D&MARY LOU 6367 NE DELLWOOD DR 2132 150TH AVE NW 8025 GARFIELD ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ANDOVER, MN 55304 SPRING LAKE PARK,MN 55432 SKYHAWK MARIAN E SMITH CYNTHIA&STOLPE ROBERT SMITH MARY V 6580 PIERCE ST NE 6428 DELLWOOD DR NE 6437 DEL•LWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 SOLIS TRACY L&KEVIN A SPAETH WARREN T&SHERRILL SPOONER CALEB J 1381 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6516 CHANNEL RD NE 6271 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 STEINBERG SANDRA J STEWART DONALD D STONE THOMAS D 6533 LUCIA LN NE 1482 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1400 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 TAMARISK RESOURCES INC THAKE CAREY G&JUDITH K THOMAS RICHARD S&JO ANN 1282 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1441 RICE CREEK RD NE 1391 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 TIMO ELVINA J TOURVILLE ROBERT B&J M TRACZYK ROBERT&PATRICIA 6517 LUCIA LN NE 6379 DELLWOOD DR NE 1455 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 TYRA KARIN K ULVE GERALDINE ULVE GERALDINE 1501 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6552 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6552 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 US FEDERAL CREDIT UNION US FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VANAUGH ERNEST D&K L 6303 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6303 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6449 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 VANDER HART GARY W&FERN L VANG CHOU TONG&THAO BAO VIRDEN LAWRENCE A&M F 6401 DELLWOOD DR NE 6516 PIERCE ST NE 6413 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 VOGT JAMES A&DARLENE S VUGTEVEEN CHAD W&SHERYL L WARD S P&A P&PARK K H 6315 DELLWOOD DR NE 4142 AVONDALE ST 6560 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MINNETONKA,MN 55345 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 1 WAZWAZ TAHANI&ISMAIL MOHAMMAD WILLIAMS JAMES S WILLIAMS JON J 6329 DELLWOOD DR NE 1357 64TH AVE NE 6355 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 WILLIAMS JOSEPH J&RACHEL L WILLIAMS JOSEPH J&RACHEL L WIND GERARD P&CATHERINE A 6554 OLD CENTRAL AVE#3 6554 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE#3 6545 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 WOLF DARYL M&LINDA L YANG JAMES V&EMILY C YOUNG JACKIE R&G M 6446 ARTHUR ST NE 6420 ARTHUR ST NE 6549 LUCIA LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ZACHARIAS BETTY&ROLAND ZERBY D MICHAEL&JUDITH A ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC 1387 66TH AVE NE 1400 64TH AVE NE 6300 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ZIMMERMAN THOMAS JR&JUDITH M 7518 TEMPO TERR FRIDLEY,MN 55432 g TOM MYHRA SCOTT LUND ROBERT BARNETTE 6360 ABLE STREET NE 580-69TH AVENUE NE 541 RICE CREEK BLVD. FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 STEVEN BILLINGS RICHARD WOLFE ANN BOLKCOM 5215 LINCOLN STREET NE 960 HATHAWAY LANE NE 6821 HICKORY STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55421 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 TIM BYRNE JOANNE ZMUDA JOAN OLSON 6053 WOODY LANE NE 6051-4TH STREET NE 6320 VAN BUREN STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOHN SCHWARTZ STEVE RANALTA ROY &LYNN DEMARS 6694 FRIDLEY STREET NE 6684 FRIDLEY STREET NE 1464 MISSISSIPPI STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 MARY KATCHEN WALLY SQUIER CLIFF JACOBSON 6381 ARTHUR STREET NE 6701 CHANNEL ROAD NE 6240-6TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 BERNARD MARIHART MARY VASECH STEVE OLTMAN 1373-64TH AVENUE NE 6909 HICKORY DRIVE NE 7542 -5TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 GREGORY ZELENCK JESS COLLARD&AIMEE STANFORD JOE &LINDA NESLON 7526-4TH STREET NE 1426-64TH AVENUE NE 1357-64TH AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 SHANTI VANBUREN ROLAND &KAREN EVANS CURRENT RESIDENT 7550-4TH STREET NE 7758-4TH STREET NE 1346 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 HAZEL JOHNSON MR. &MRS. LAGESSE DOREENA CISEWSKI 1334 HILLCREST DRIVE 7951 BROAD AVENUE NE 7534-4TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 • Y v n DENNIS DEWING RANDY JOHNSON SHERYL COYLE 1501 CAMELOT LANE 6336 PIERCE STREET NE 7859 UNIVERSITY AVE NE#208 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 SPRING LAKE PARK MN 55432 JIM REISNE MARVEL MCNAUGHTON LESLIE&JEAN COYLE 6424 PIERCE STREET NE 6300 PIERCE STREET NE 6271-6TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 SUE RAU DENNIS &BARB EDWARDS PAT MULRAY 1341-64TH AVENUE NE 1403-64TH AVE NE 1384-64TH AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 KEN&PAT CHRISTIANSEN ROBERT MOSEMAN 7525-4TH ST NE 7533-4TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 • PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Planni g Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Aven 'e N.E. on Wednesday, June 1 , 2005, at 7 :30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideratio of a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business C-2, General Business, and R-i, Single Family to S-2, Redevel.pment District, legally described as Lots 15- 19, Block 1, Spr ' ng Valley, generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Stree , and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE. Any and all persons desi ' ng to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above tated time and place . Any questions related to this item may b- referred to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator at 763-572-3599. Hearing impaired persons plann' ng to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilit' es who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins a 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005 . The TDD number is 763- ,72-3534 . DIANE SAVAGE CHAIR 'LANNING COMMISSION Publish: May 19, 2005 r , j Orki CI1YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E. NI DLEY,MN 55432 May 9, 2005 (763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • TTD/TTY(76 572-3534 John DeMello,President Family Lifestyle Development Corp. 2872 17`h Terrace NW New Brighton, MN 55112 Dear Mr. DeMello: Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local governme units are required to notify land use applicants within 10 working days if their land use applications e complete. We officially received your subdivision(plat) and rezoning applications on April 29, 20 . This letter serves to inform you that your applications are both complete. / Hearings and discussion will take pl ce for both land use change requests at the City of Fridley Planning Commission meeting on June 1,005 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue NE. The City of Fridley City Council will consider action on both of your subdivision requests on June 13,2005 at 7:30 P. You should plan to be in attendance at both of these meetings. If you have any questions -garding this letter or the process,please feel free to contact me at(763) 572- 3599. Sincerely, Julie Jones Planning Coo i inator _ C-05-25 AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11 , 2005 CITY OF FRIDLEY DATE: April 7, 2005 TO: William W. Burns, City Manager FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Settlement Agreement for Demello Case Introduction In January Council reviewed the substantial redesign of an age-restricted senior development proposed by John Demello, ProfitMax, Inc. The redesign sought to address the comments made by neighbors in the area and concerns expressed by the City Council. Subsequent to that meeting, the developer's attorney worked with John Baker, our attorney on this matter. The result of their work is a settlement agreement that is attached for Council's review and approval. Elements Prior to the informal January review by the City Council, John Demello's attorney filed a petition in Federal Court for a summary judgment ruling regarding his failed land use requests in Fridley. Magistrate Judge Raymond Erickson was assigned to the case. An agreement at this point gives assurance and direction to both parties as to the disposition of those proceedings, once the new development has again been acted upon by Council. The agreement states that IF: A. The plaintiffs submit to the City new applications for a rezoning and preliminary plat approval that are the same or substantially identical to the design depicted in drawings of the redesign provided to the City on or about January 21, 2005, and the textual information submitted to the City in January 2005; and B. If the City Council approves those applications upon the completion of the procedures required by state law and local ordinance for such approval; Then: Within 30-days of the final City approvals of such applications, the parties through their counsel, will execute a stipulation for dismissal of the Pending Federal Action, and will execute mutual releases intended to release the parties and their agents and officials from all claims known or unknown arising from the subject matter of the Pending Federal Action. 1 Parties will jointly request that Judge Erickson modify the pretrial scheduling order in the Pending Federal Action and postpone or cancel the hearing presently scheduled for April 14, 2005; and If the condition to dismissal and release set forth above in Section 1(A) does not occur by April 1, 2005 (or by some later date agreed to by the parties), or if the condition of dismissal and release does not occur within 60 days of the plaintiff's submission of the complete set of applications within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 15.99, or by June 14, 2005 (or some later date agreed upon by the parties), then active litigation between the parties shall resume, and one or both of the parties may then schedule with the court a hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment on the first mutually available date more than 55 days after the date on which active litigation resumes. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize signature of the agreement. 2 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA John DeMello and ProfitMax, Inc., Case No. Civ No. 04-4171 (PAM/RLE) Plaintiffs, AGREEMENT v. City of Fridley, Defendant. Whereas John DeMello and ProfitMax, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") and the City of Fridley ("the City") are presently parties to an action venued in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, arising from the 2004 denial by the City Council of applications for rezoning and preliminary plat approval ("the Pending Federal Action"); Whereas the parties, through their counsel, have engaged in discussions intended to resolve their disagreements; Whereas, in January 2005 the Plaintiffs informally provided the City with information depicting a proposed redevelopment of a portion of the area where their original development was proposed, reflecting a substantial redesign ("the Redesign") from the development proposed at the time of the City Council's 2004 denial, including reductions in the number of units, the area occupied by of the development, and the height of the development; Whereas, after review of the Redesign as depicted by Plaintiffs in drawings and in text, the staff of the City and its counsel have indicated that the appropriate next step should be for Plaintiffs to formally submit new applications reflecting the Redesign, so that they may be considered by the City in the manner required by state law and local ordinance; 151605-1 3 Whereas, the parties believe it would be appropriate to place continued litigation on hold while the application process occurs, and to agree at this time regarding a course of action if the Council approves the applications for the Redesign; Accordingly,the Plaintiffs and the City, through their counsel, agree as follows: I. If A. the Plaintiffs submit to the City new applications for a rezoning and preliminary plat approval that are the same or substantially identical to the design depicted in drawings of the Redesign provided to the City on or about January 21, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit A and the textual information submitted to the City in January 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and B. the City Council approves those applications upon the completion of the procedures required by state law and local ordinance for such approval; then within 30 days of the final City Council vote approving such applications, the parties, through their counsel, will execute a stipulation for dismissal of the Pending Federal Action, and will execute mutual releases intended to release the parties and their agents and officials from all claims known or unknown arising from the subject matter of the Pending Federal Action. II. To allow the parties to focus on efforts that, if successful, will resolve the litigation without unnecessary added expense to the parties, counsel for the parties agree that within 14 days of the execution of this agreement, they will jointly request Magistrate Judge Raymond Erickson to modify the pretrial scheduling order in the Pending Federal Action to extend the remaining deadlines by three months, and jointly request the calendar clerk for Judge Paul Magnuson to postpone or cancel the summary judgment hearing presently scheduled for April 14, 2005. III. If the condition to dismissal and release set forth above in Section I (A) does not occur by April 1, 2005 (or by some later date agreed to by the parties), or if the condition to dismissal and release set forth above in Section I (B) does not occur within 60 days of Plaintiffs' submission of 2 151605-1 4 a complete set of applications within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 15.99, or by June 14, 2005 (or by some later date agreed to by the parties), then active litigation between the parties shall resume, and one or both of the parties may then schedule with the court a hearing on cross- motions for summary judgment on the first mutually available date more than 5.5<days after the date on which active litigation resumes pursuant to this paragraph. Dated: February 22, 2005 MESSE r4 I & ' :4 ER P.A. By Cheryl A. Sta rion, Reg. No. 027950X John Lang, 'lg. No. 143327 150 S. Fi ' treet, Suite 1800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 672-3795 Attorneys for Plaintiffs John DeMello and ProfitMax Inc. JOHN DEMELLO AND PROFITMAX INC. ) it By John j Mello Plaintiff and President of Plaintiff ProfitMax Inc. 3 151605-1 5 G' NE ESP _ , .L.P. By 11� I �✓ John M. Baker, Reg.No. 174403 Stacy Lynn Bettison, Reg. No. 315886 200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 373-0830 Attorneys for Defendant City of Fridley CITY OF FRIDLEY By Its 4 151605-1 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING • CITY OF FRIDLEY APRIL 11, 2005 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Billings Councilmember Wolfe Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Scott Hickok, Community Development Director • Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • City Council Meeting of March 28, 2005. APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Approve Agreement between the City of Fridley and John DeMello and ProfitMax, Inc. Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained that in January, John DeMello provided the City with drawings depicting a redesigned senior condominium project for the east side of Old Central Avenue. The new design purported to address the concerns raised by neighbors in the area when the original plan was denied by Council. Staff and Council subsequently met in a conference meeting in January with Attorney John Baker to discuss the project and Mr. DeMello's pending litigation against the City. In the aftermath of that meeting, Mr. Baker and Mr. DeMello's attorney have worked out the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2005 PAGE 2 agreement currently before Council. While the agreement does not in any way obligate Council to give favorable consideration to the January proposal, it does maintain that should Council approve the land use applications for this project, within thirty days of • the approvals, Mr. DeMello will ask the Federal Court to dismiss his pending legal action against the City. On the advice of Attorney John Baker, staff recommends Council's approval. REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 2. Receive Bids and A and Contract for the 2005 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2005-1. Dr. Burns, City Manager, explai ed that seven bids were opened for this project on April 8. The low bidder is Palda and .ons, Inc. of St. Paul in the amount of $2,403,644.45. Staff recommends that Council aw.rd the bid to the low bidder. APPROVED. 3. Receive Bids and Award Contr.ct for the Sanitary Sewer Lining Project No. 360. APPROVED. 4. Claims (121034- 121221). • APPROVED. 5. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND S ON FILE. Councilmember Billings requested Item 1 be remove from the consent agenda for further discussion. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Counci ember Wolfe, to adopt the consent agenda with the removal of Item 1. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND D LARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Ife, to adopt the agenda with the addition of Item 1. • 1 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2005 PAGE 4 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Approve Agreement between the City of Fridley and John DeMello and 4111 ProfitMax, Inc. Councilmember Billings stated it is his understanding that after the City denied Mr. DeMello's original proposal, he began legal proceedings against the City. He also stated he understands that City staff and the City attorney do not believe that the City is under "tremendous jeopardy" from this lawsuit. The agreement that is on the agenda resulted when Mr. DeMello presented a revised proposal, and City staff indicated Mr. DeMello would have to go through the application process again. This agreement merely states that if Mr. DeMello submits a new application and if that application is approved by the City, Mr. DeMello will drop his lawsuit. The City is not agreeing to any new project at this point in time. The City is agreeing that Mr. DeMello has the right to bring a new proposal, which he could have done with or without the lawsuit. It is not binding the City to do anything but accept his application. Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, agreed with Councilmember Billings' comments and added that staff is very comfortable with the terms of the agreement. Councilmember Billings further stated that Council's approval of this agreement does nothing more than indicate to the Court that Council is giving Mr. DeMello an opportunity to bring his project to us. Councilmember Wolfe added that it also means that the City is not approving the • project. He stated the lawsuit does not affect his vote on this project. Mayor Lund said he believes this agreement is an attempt by Mr. DeMello to ease Council's minds about the lawsuit. Councilmember Bolkcom added that Mr. DeMello's new proposal will have to go through the public hearing process and his plans will have to be submitted for review. Mr. Hickok stated there is a benefit in the agreement in that the City will want to know that the expenses associated with Mr. DeMello's lawsuit will also be gone. He is not going to come back to the City for those expenses. Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue N.E., stated she printed the DeMello agreement off the City's website. She asked if Council had seen the revised plans and if Mr. DeMello will have to go through the whole hearing process again. Councilmember Billings stated Council has seen the revised plans and Mr. DeMello will have to go through the hearing process as he did the first time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. DeMello will be holding a neighborhood meeting to let the residents review his new proposal. • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2005 PAGE 5 Mr. Hickok stated this process will be identical to any other development process in spite of its history. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember to approve the agreement between the City of Fridley and John DeMello and ProfitMax, Inc., and direct the appropriate staff to sign the agreement. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Informal Status Report. Mayor Lund stated he re•-ived a telephone call from a Fridley resident indicating that Metro Mobility is proposin• severe cuts in service. For those interested there is a meeting scheduled on April 11 at 6:30 p.m. at the Fridley Community Center. Mayor Lund announced a Bloc Captains meeting will be held April 20 at 6:30 p.m. in the lower level of City Hall. The Fridley Historical Society is hold g their annual spaghetti dinner fundraiser April 30 at the Fridley Community Center. The are also asking for nominations for their second annual awards presentation to honor t *se individuals who have given significantly to the City. • ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconde by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYO LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING AD URNED AT 8:00 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Rebecca Brazys Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor • City of Fridley Land Use Application ZOA#05-02 & PS #05-02 May 25, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: 6461 Central Avenue: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Vacant Lot John DeMello 1941 — Lot is platted. 2872 17th Terrace NW 6441 Central Avenue: New Brighton MN 55112 Vacant Lot. Requested Action: 1941 — Lot is platted. Rezone property from C-1, C-2, and R-1 to S-2. 1969— Proposal to build a Tastee-Freez. Replat 1998— Rezoning request from C-1 to R-1, Location: withdrawn prior to Planning Commission. 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Legal Description of Property: Street, 6441 Central Avenue, 6421 Central 1340 Mississippi Street: Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue Lot 15, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 1314 Mississippi Street: Existing Zoning: Lot 16, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 1314 Mississippi St. — C-2, General Business 6461 Central Avenue: 1340 Mississippi St. — R-1, Single Family Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6421 Central Avenue—C-1, Local Business & 6441 Central Avenue: R-1, Single Family Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6441 Central Avenue — C-1, Local Business & 6421 Central Avenue: R-1 Single Family Lot 19, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6461 Central Avenue— C-2, General Business Council Action /60 Day Date: Size: City Council —June 13, 2005 Approximate size of entire area to be rezoned 60-Day Date—June 27, 2005 and replatted: SUMMARY OF REQUEST 159,460 sq. ft. 3.66 acres The petitioner, John DeMello, of Family Existing Land Use: Lifestyle Development Corp., is requesting to Single Family homes, small commercial replat and rezone the properties located at building (garage), and vacant land 1314 Mississippi St., 1340 Mississippi St., 6421 Surrounding Land Use &Zoning: Central Ave., 6441 Central Ave., 6461 Central N: Commercial building & C-2 Ave. from C-1, Local Business, C-2 General E: Single Family & R-1 Business, and R-1 Single Family to S-2 S: Single Family homes & C-1 and R-1 Redevelopment District for the purpose of W: Vacant land and Restaurant & S-2 redevelopment, to allow for a Senior Housing Development/Retail mixed-use develoment. Comprehensive Plan Conformance: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Future Land Use Map designates this area as Redevelopment. City Staff recommends approval of this plat, ZoningHistory: rezoning and subsequent master plan request. • Proposed rezoning is consistent with the 1314 Mississippi Street: Comprehensive Plan. 1941 — Lot is platted. • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley 1952— House is built. seniors. 1959— Detached garage built. • Provides additional retail opportunities in 1340 Mississippi Street: Fridley. 1941 — Lot is platted. • Provides additional job opportunities. House and garage constructed pre-1949. Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones 6421 Central Avenue: 1941 — Lot is platted. House and garage built prior to 1949. f r ZOA#05-02 & PS#05-02 Spring Valley Estates Overview Summary of Applications John DeMello of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of Fridley in order to construct a mixed use retail/senior housing complex on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The two actions that have been requested are a Plat and a Rezoning. Both of these applications, and the master plan approval, will be examined individually in this report. A Plat has been requested to create one new parcel, combining existing lots located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, and 6461, 6441 (vacant), and 6421 Central Avenue. A 10,492 square foot retail complex will occupy the lower level of the northeastern corner of the building with 70 condominium units occupying the remainder of the building. The petitioner is also requesting a rezoning for the newly created parcel. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. MISSISSIPPI ST LY`t • t •64TH AVE Proposed Project The petitioner is proposing to construct a 3-story complex, which incorporates a 10,492 square foot retail area on the lower level of the northwestern corner of the development. The petitioner has stated that he envisions that this complex will house neighborhood retail businesses, which could include businesses like a pharmacy, a coffee shop, an ice cream/sandwich shop or a hair salon. The retail complex will include 45 - 9 foot wide parking stalls for customers. The housing portion of the complex will have 70 condominium units for seniors. The proposed 70 units will be owner-occupied and comprised of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. There are a variety of unit styles and sizes with some including a den. The residential development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. The petitioner plans to model the exterior of both projects after an Italian villa. The site will include a storm water pond with landscaping that surrounds the property. 1 Site History The proposed development area is located on the southeast corner of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. The area consists of 2 vacant lots, which are located on Central Avenue and 4 homes that were constructed prior to 1952, 2 of which are located on Mississippi Street and the other 2 are located on Central Avenue. The petitioners' father, Frank DeMello purchased the vacant parcel located 6461 Central Avenue, 25 years ago. When the property at 1314 Mississippi Street came up for sale over the summer of 2003, the petitioner purchased it with the hope of developing the land. The petitioner then contacted surrounding property owners to see if they would be interested in selling their properties. When the neighboring property owners became interested in selling their properties, the petitioner came forward with a redevelopment proposal in the spring of 2004. The previous plat and rezoning applications were denied. The 2004 proposal included the creation of two separate parcels and included three additional lots down to 64th Avenue with the retail portion of the development being a separate building and parcel. The housing portion of the proposal was to build a 90-unit, four-story, senior condominium complex. The retail portion of the development included plans for 13,750 sq. ft. of commercial retail space. The City Council denied this proposal, citing that the density was too high, creating potential traffic problems with traffic existing onto 64th Avenue, limiting landscaping opportunities, and limiting the possibility of adequate snow storage areas. Analysis Rezoning Application ZOA #05-02 The petitioner is requesting a rezoning and master plan approval for the east side of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street south to and including 6421 Old Central Avenue. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. The properties requesting to be rezoned are 1340 Mississippi Street (single family home, zoned R-1, Single Family), 1314 Mississippi Street (single family home and garage (welding shop), zoned C-2, General Business), 6461 Central Avenue (vacant lot, zoned C-2, General Business), 6441 Central Avenue (vacant lot, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family), and 6421 Central Avenue (single family home, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family). The petitioner is proposing to redevelop these five parcels. .ik 84TH AVE fait le le :4 Zoning Map—Shows mix of zoning and properties to be replatted and rezoned. As the properties exist today, 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning between C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family. While both of the lots are rather large in size, conflicts arise when the zoning is split between a commercial and residential zoning at an arbitrary point in the lot. 2 Rezoning a property to S-2 Redevelopment District, requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for the site. If the rezoning and master plan were approved by the City Council any modification of the site plan would need to go back to the City Council for review and approval. Review of the master plan also needs to be completed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as the property is in a Redevelopment District. Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use and Housing Chapters The City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. State Statute gives the City the authority to "rezone" property from one designated use to another, so long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held between 1998 and 2000 and is a "tool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community...lt is a plan because it contains goals, policies and strategies that all work together, looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision': In order for a rezoning to be viewed favorably, it must be in line with the City's vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed retail complex, senior owner-occupied condominium complex and rezoning of the properties meet several of the objectives the residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the Comprehensive Plan. The area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road was identified as an area for future redevelopment. The purpose of redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient land uses and under utilized parcels. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to build new facilities, meet current market demands and desires of the City, creates new tax base, and creates additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of these properties. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states that for this portion of Old Central, "consideration should be made to replacing the current mix of single-family residential and commercial uses with higher density residential development that together with the health club may serve as an attractive residential location for move-up housing". The Comprehensive Plan also states that for projects in these redevelopment areas requiring rezoning that the S-2 zoning designation "would be the appropriate Zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project. The intent of the district is to provide the City with site plan review authority to determine if the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive and Redevelopment Plans". The Comprehensive Plan, in both the Future Land Use &the Housing chapters, addresses the desire for a variety of housing types in a number of goals listed below. • Ensure that adequate opportunities exist for the development of a variety of housing types at a range of affordability levels including low, low-moderate and high cost housing to meet the life-cycle needs of Fridley residents. • Create sustainable, self-reliant, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods that contribute positively to the quality of life and image of Fridley. • Ensure a variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. • Strengthen neighborhoods and improve upon the quality of the City's housing stock. • Diversify the housing supply to include move up housing both in the form of rental and owner occupied housing. As Fridley's residents continue to age, demand will increase for"empty nester" and senior housing. There will be an increased demand for senior rental, senior owned condominium/town homes, and assisted living facilities. The proposed project, 70 senior owner-occupied 3 condominium units, will meet some of the current demand for those seniors seeking alternatives to their current housing type. Rezoning these properties helps to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goal for this area. Housing Market Study The petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc. in 2003 to complete a Market Feasibility Study for Senior Housing in Fridley. The demographic and competitive market analysis done by Maxfield was updated in March 2004, and, again in March 2005. The latest updated remarks from Maxfield indicates that there continues to be a demand in the Fridley area for senior condominium housing units. Maxfield's research is taking into account the planned Town Center project across Central Avenue, which is yet to begin construction. The original, base housing market study pointed out that given the competitive situation in the marketplace, the quality of the subject site, and the lack of for-sale product within three miles of the property, the senior condominium project would be the most marketable product for the site. Their research also showed that the subject site could best support an age-restricted owner- occupied development such as a condominium or cooperative of around 70 units. Maxfield's updated figures indicate suggested sale prices to be $156,000 for the smallest one- bedroom unit to $279,000 for the largest three-bedroom unit. They expect the entire housing portion of the project to sell out in 22 months. 7'1 10 Plat Application #05-02 John DeMello, Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, is seeking to replat the properties located at 1340 Mississippi Street, 1314 Mississippi Street, 6461 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, and 6421 Central Avenue to create one new consolidated lot. The proposed plat will consist of one lot; Lot 1, Block 1, Spring Valley Estates. This is different than the 2004 proposal which created two new lots, one accommodating the retail portion of the development and one containing the housing portion of the project. f r ;:er* . - : is:E', r 3 ,,p' , `, 4 '' PITh 47 g, �' s�sr �r � a� � Y ,t,0„„...,::„.... ,- . ,,,,5:,,,,„6.10,417vv_ ,,,,:,,, - , „.„;<:,:--,q. �x t d .,..a tea �%l o .wx.„,,,,,,,,,2..vItil,,,,, .. ' ev'" Looking south on Old Central toward project area Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District allows for the maximum flexibility for a redevelopment project. The petitioner has designed their project to meet the zoning classification codes most similar to their intended use. This would be C-2, General Business, zoning for the retail portion of the project and R-3, General Multiple Unit Housing, for the residential portion of the project. The retail portion of the proposed development is 10,492 4 square feet and meets all the parking requirements for the number of parking stalls required for a retail use under the speculative parking ratio requirements. Proof of parking for an additional 8 parking stalls is also provided. Staff is satisfied with this amount of parking for the commercial part of the development. The housing portion of the project is 120,196 square feet in size with all three floors combined. This is a density of 21 units per acre. The petitioner is proposing to construct 70 senior owner- occupied condominium units. The development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. This amount of parking meets the requirement for an independent living facility. However, staff considers this project to fall somewhere in between the category of senior assisted living and market rate housing parking requirements. Market rate parking requirements would be for a total of 129 parking spaces. The petitioner is proposing at total of 122 parking stalls, which is 7 units shy of the market rate requirements. Staff believes the amount of stalls provided should be adequate since some households occupying this complex would be expected to have only one vehicle. Staff finds the lot coverage proposed to be reasonable for a mixed use development. Code requires no more than 30% lot coverage for multi-unit residential and commercial properties. The proposed project shows 28% lot coverage, meeting requirements for both zoning types. Early discussions with Anoka County indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required for future reconstruction purposes. They anticipate that a 120 ft. right-of-way corridor will be required for both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersections in order to provide the necessary turn lanes for future safety and operational purposes. The County assumes when the Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection is reconstructed, it would be centered in the 120 ft. right-of-way corridor. Consequently, roadway right-of-way dedication needs for this site are 27-30 ft. adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 ft. adjacent to Central Avenue. Therefore, staff assumes that the County will be requesting that at this time, both of the right-of-ways be dedicated. The petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-way acquisition along both County Roads. Due to necessity of right-of-way acquisition, the drive lane on the west side of the development will be only two feet from the west property line. The parking setback on the north side of the development, which is considered the front yard of this site layout, meets the minimum 35' setback. The building is 34' in height to the mid-span of the roof line. Therefore, the building only requires a 15' side yard setback on the east side, but an 18' setback is provided. The additional 3' of side yard setback was provided on the east side of the project, because fire truck access may be required. The 18' setback, combined with an 8' public right of way that runs along the east property line, would provide 26' of clearance for the possibly required fire truck access. The rear yard setback of 40' on the south side has also been met. As stated above, due to the flexibility allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setbacks can be recognized under this rezoning master plan approval. The proposal as submitted does not meet the landscaping requirements of City Code, however. According to code, 160 trees will be required for this development. The petitioner is proposing to provide 91 trees. Code also requires at minimum that 30% of the trees be coniferous. This would be 48 of the 160 trees required. The petitioner has met this requirement in the proposal by providing 49 conifers. The petitioner is proposing to add rain garden plantings to the ponding areas in lieu of some of the tree landscaping requirement. Staff would like to encourage the rain garden plantings, but would like to see more trees planted on the property as well. There currently is very little landscaping proposed on the south end of the plat. There are also possibilities to save some of the existing trees that could reduce the 160 tree requirement. 5 Traffic Study Staff utilized a number of sources to determine the possible impacts that 70 senior owner occupied condominium units and the commercial complex may have on the local traffic patterns. Staff consulted the Transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed the traffic study supplied by TDI, Traffic Date Incorporated. Comprehensive Plan —Transportation Chapter The City's Comprehensive Plan indicated that in 2001, the portion of Old Central adjacent to the proposed senior condominiums carried 8,000 vehicles per day and, at this traffic level, was only carrying 57% of the traffic for which the roadway was designed and constructed to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Old Central carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020, based upon increases in population for Fridley& surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles/day, Old Central will be carrying 71% if the maximum amount of traffic for which the roadway was designed. Review of Traffic Impact Report Prepared by TDI, Inc. Family Lifestyle Development Corporation hired TDI, Traffic Data Incorporated, a Data Collection, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning firm to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. The analysis was regarding the proposal for more housing units and more retail space than the current proposal. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, which was published in December 2003. At that time, the consultants used the Senior Adult Housing Attached category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed senior complex would generate a total of 247 trips per day. The consultants used the Specialty Retail Center category from the ITE manual and determined that the proposed retail complex would generate a total of 598 trips per day. Trip Generation ITE Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out In Out 252 Senior Adult Housing — 247 3 3 5 3 Attached (71 units) 814 Specialty Retail Center— 598 n/a n/a 16 21 (13,500 sq. ft.) TDI developed traffic forecasts for the following 2005 scenarios: No Build (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) Build Spring Valley Estates (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) The finding of these forecasts show that the level of service at both the Central Avenue/64th Avenue intersections and the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersections would remain the same in the no-build or build scenarios. The only change seen is during the AM Peak Hour at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue eastbound intersection, where the level of service would change from LOS B to LOS C. Central Avenue/64TH Avenue Westbound & Eastbound Approach LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Scenario Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound 2005 No-Build A B C C 2005 Build _ A C C C 6 Mississippi Street/Central Avenue Intersection LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2005 No-Build C D 2005 Build C D To complete the traffic study, the consultants also referred to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which governs the use of traffic control devices per Minnesota State Statute. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has eight criteria (called warrants) to consider when determining if a traffic signal should be installed at an intersection or not. These warrants are primarily based on the traffic volumes flowing through the intersection. A warrant analysis was conducted for the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. To complete this analysis, TDI staff performed a turning movement count from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. None of the eight warrants are met under the existing conditions, nor will they be met if the senior housing and retail buildings are constructed on the proposed site. According to this analysis, a traffic signal should not be installed at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue until at least one of the warrants is being met. The conclusions of TDI's analysis state that the stop controlled approaches at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue intersection operate at LOS C or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic control. The intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue will operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. A traffic signal was not currently warranted at the intersection and a traffic signal was not be warranted at the intersection after the previously proposed development would have been completed, according to the 2004 traffic study. The traffic study consultant was asked to submit comments regarding the traffic impacts of the current redevelopment proposal for less retail space and housing units. Their comments were summed up by the following statement: "As long as the proposed number of units and amount of retail space remains below the amount I initially studied, the roadway network will accommodate the senior housing development."A complete copy of the 2004 traffic study is available upon request. Wetland/Drainage The petitioner is still working with the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to finalize an agreement regarding the necessary permits needed for the project. The wetland that was of concern in last year's proposal has been exempted by the RCWD, so no replacement or mitigation is required. Revised storm water management plans are expected to resolve concerns that the City Engineering Department had over the initial set of plans submitted with the application. Comments Received During the public hearings for this development proposed last year, there was a great deal of Public input. Some of the concerns raised were regarding traffic and a guarantee that the tenants of the complex would be 55 or older. To alleviate those concerns ahead of time, the petitioner provided city staff with a traffic study and a copy of the proposed association documents upon submittal of the rezoning and plat request. Much of the concern, however, revolved around traffic onto 64th Avenue. The current development proposal no longer includes the properties along 64th Avenue and will not have access onto 64th Avenue. The petitioner held a neighborhood meeting on April 27 and is holding a second neighborhood informational meeting on May 27. Staff was not in attendance at either of these meetings. However, we have heard that concerns raised have mostly been about crime or traffic. 7 Staff has received only a couple of calls to date in response to the public hearing notice, inquiring about the property. These callers were seeking information about the project, but did not exhibit any objections. Staff has also received a call from someone interested in buying a condominium unit. Staff Recommendation City Staff recommends approval of this Rezoning ZOA #05-02 and accompanying site plan for the senior building and retail complex, with stipulations. ■ Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ■ Provides housing opportunities for seniors. • Provides additional retail opportunities in Fridley. • Provides additional job opportunities in Fridley City Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for PS#05-02, with stipulations. Stipulations Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to the approval of the above land use requests: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan as shown on the site plan dated 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the requirements from the Fire Marshall. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 8 • 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for 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. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access around the site for pedestrian connections at the north, west, and south sides of property. 9 Narrative Family Lifestyle Development Corp. (formerly known as Profitmax Inc.) is proposing a 70 unit 3 story Italian style building, with retail bays on the ground floor for the corner of Mississippi and Old Central Avenue in Fridley. Dr. Frank J. Demello, my father, settled here over 30 years ago and has owned one of the parcels for the better part of that time. I am a 1985 graduate of Fridley high school who went on to serve my country for four years in the United States Army. After the Military, I completed the demanding Carlson School of Management business program. I went on to work for some fortune 100 companies and eventually started several small businesses. Successful in my own right, I want to go back to the community I love, to create something that would significantly benefit its citizens. The City determined that the former proposal did not incorporate enough of the communities concerns to warrant approval, this project is now designed to address these concerns. The Spring Valley Estates current design incorporates every concern listed in previous discussions within the financial constraints of the project. Quite simply, we implemented every viable change into the project to benefit the community. By creating Senior condos on this site, the community would realize the following benefits. First, our marketing research indicates that seniors in Fridley have been forced to search outside their community to find this type of housing, so they have had to leave their friends within their community to have the benefits of this type of housing. Second,the condo purchase price in Fridley will provide the best value for the dollar when compared to similar projects within the Twin Cities. Third, if existing housing stock in Fridley is made available, young families will purchase these homes increasing the tax basis on the updated value of these homes, thereby reducing the need for property tax increases. Fourth, it has been proven in similar communities that when a senior project is developed, that nearby property values escalate 20-25%in value. Fifth, other side effects of creating new development within this community will be increased tax revenue on the building itself to provide for city services for the surrounding area. Finally,when this project is completed, the surrounding area will also improve to create a more vibrant community creating more safety,jobs, services, and park like settings with more young families to support local retail facilities. Pte, . P A FEE OWNER INFORMATION TO RE-PLAT7--e. ,tr- 7"cxr t .,,,,A)---- Name: Russell and Beverly Prior (pin #13-30-24-42-0019) Legal Address: 1340 Mississippi St.Fridley,MN 55432 (Lot 15,Block 1, Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: (763) 571-4364 Signature: 1?l,(44L.G c ;/i�=1�--v Date: 0--570 IS Y / as I0 6 Signature: /3 ,7 G?....,,,...._, Date: Name: John And Alexandra Demello (pin# 13-30-24-42-0020) Address: 1314 Mississippi St. Fridley,MN 55432 (Lot 16,Block 1,Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: 051 493-488 Ac_..t...%_,_ Signature: l Date: 5 oS � �.r � , � Signature: /4 Date: 2 / S Name: Dr. Frank J.Demello (pin # 13-30-24-42-0021) Address: (Vacant Lot) (Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: (763)208-2026 Signature: J 7 ; 2 r_4: _Di:;),I tart-- Date: 4//„(' C /:.r Name: Richard rlson i in# 13-30-24-42-00221 Address: acant Lot 1 t 18 Block 1 S I rin' Valle Estates Daytime one: (763)786-121: Signature: Date: L) / 2-/ / o Name: Mark Mattison (pin # 13-30-24-42-0023) Address: 6421 Central Av. Fridley,MN 55432 (Lot 19,Block 1, Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: (763) 458-8218 Signature: �� s /r� Date: 's | ______ _ _-_____ __—___- --- SPRING VAILDY ESTATES John DeMello ' Phone e-mail _ _____°^,_ ~~^^^^^"`^"°"^ _____.,,,- WORKS»DLAuo' -�= �~~"�~�____ nil ^ -��~-~~ ` , �N�i /v -- FWASTiarialt4,4 +.~~= ����l� 0111111'011111ClEti Nal RI EE) ___ -------------- _____________ IMAGE PERSPECTIVE 0WEST PERSPECTIVE ~~~~ X...1 0.4 °~by A.iha �V�`m�A.0 • ____ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- -_' _ - .. ____ _ __ _. - -_ __ �-_-_ � ______ _______ ' r r. .• d'i .. .lir — ` c.s �' -!:�% E "..s�- Q ':"w�: li.. ~y-a.-I_ •, Ili o` _\ ; ' - i- — ill • • • —7..-.1.--....-...71.7.1r.wN l 8i �...a w�,'l' i _ ...�.: ,� �._•. 7_ , i iii - Da so.Ca:;_... _ • �--� --- ice_._ w _;' • , _ 7 I• "' "` it f Errs®r.sem- 1 i • ,.mss . ,I—:—...771:. ,771M._ .} i so.:•••••••.1••••••5*II lo/0...13 Wm.*/O. i 1 1.3. • ...Y"' -a.a..�..••..• o te ¢ y�AN Q�:. :^3 _ - - a= i }( --,2- ............P.two,...m Vol*ft • 'i:m w ^.+��'- �� a3�V ,�.:VF.�.._ .......,..r IA- I fF(� II "w moi-.ma a+r.nw.awe wn. �j f� Qom.. _ J�1 I� : ....!, . • ,...0. AnMA,1..°16/.a M..tp C( Cb..�, , w�,.— ., `,?�'•, ,, 1 'KY' o • a rz+�u+�er a oe�M,/..... I , y V. ...0 -+sb 1 m - SI 0croxammarrauszr � -...-s a Via, - -o- -� -Qs� e � "--1. I� = ate . - I I , u M��......,..... iii € _ sltal iDt slaw \ \ Ir. ..,-;•,, ..-..t.k-_,,t.... •,,,, . ,.- e.‘,.. ,, _o_____...,.. .., : , 1, e ,, -- , , i. 6--i /2-6-.. Z FL, --..." -6 3,,..., ll i. h!N,si re ._---------- y",'oma= ; =W..,.......r i . +MX .."4,1-.....• II. ---••• *"..$ , .:71.:1::=...1......"-*.....:......."=...T7.......... ........., .1.53.3.00r i. ••••----- • . I 1 I. , .7!7 7-..,.., F ..,..-...V -,,.••••- I "......1. ...... I ..-15.." ..q....i.. .i.1---...?. . 1 ; , --- , , ,....-:,,,, , .. •J 1,, i, :::. i,, .......-- -1..- -11`-•-. I I. -?-." ....- -... .....----?'-;-7-----• .'-1-' I . ..... ... ,. - • , ....„, dr.o...- - ' zr--2-in„o ....• p,.: .... ; ..,..14... '• ‘ :i.: '• ,-,....., •... _.; %.,—. ...-1.------..... . ,...:!. -.. .......... . ." -.. ---.. , ..;..31"----..it-- ; • 1 • .= '' = , o13' ' '"..:6. '"- ;'' •1'. '1,.- ' *,.'•',' t ..,... „, t. -3—.3-...... 3. I I ;- _ ••-. ', I A ...,. ...•.........4.....> 0... I i -'11---1 t.-.V." i I *. t.,, :,: :: ........./-s....1,.....a o 1 i i al t......_—.: 1 .., wow..0.1.Ams••••••<, V. I:2i I., .--:-......_,- ,--/ 3. i" 1 \ ...AI...ad mo•IA, S. 0-4-.--- '3 .., ..f rrsiT _ 3.,,,fte,reas:;::-.."-..„--.1 -,.r 7.4-, , ,,,,,,,....... „y f'. • • -_-, - . ,• li , ...,........,-,..,,-; ' , , • • ; ... / i .--. , ...........-== ... ....,...........„... , / ,-- ,..-.--- --• i J 1 t71 F..*••••••2 O.,01.mm.0..,2[6-- :!: . / :I .....- r 10...••••J••••••,*4 t..4..ct--rte.— ...........)v0.0., / arrow ‘,Ei / .• .41 -• " I/ ..".... ''• ....,„/ a tr 0 f r Iti . 4 , / , ............... ...,..........,..-,...—...z....... ___,.....1. _,...,,. .... .... ,..,..........._. , tri,:: , ,.., ,,, .,, ... _.,............. ,........,- , 1 , ..; 74 " - • -1 , , , .„ , , • , , 1.... , - .....-$2,4,1.1.........tt,•0•••••14.0••10•••••S.- ..„...' ...• =VA . ,. , -115/.1 ---'''' ..:" .... -- .. j, i'.1 7. (,. L-..., ..-- ., II .0 is. - ......... ---*---------- sa-rotr,90.,:g--:---,,---- -„z.:_:.:::,____-7.7-------=[..--;---- 0-aindils.4.1..ridard .•,c11 --------7,:-.....-r"--` ' : •t".: .---,...F*.11*-'"--------- ,..----rvv--. -1, 1( _ •.,..:,.7.- ...., - ____:x •---7 , ....---- ---;-4-- ..•-------, ''.: :Z:•+. .."':----'---=-----,7----7 t'itrii r. ____„. •t."4,... pe.a oi ow .. '-'•1:, ,"--',:.', ---T ,-------••••:` •...'::-..;:-...;•;471/ I 65 ....-reci-n..s. .11"M LLINION ‘ )'•,.' .''''' --- --., ::' ta•4 1--- - -1 4.:.„,..-- '.....,I:, 0 •-...,,,,_ NI --,...... : •': , T, ---.... -rm-,,,i, ,. 1 , . , Iv: I ;,:s. --- • .....4——4__--_:„. , _....t • i , , , • I r L d ,..v.•:—• . 1 i L..., ..; . • --::---: ..----. .._ .._ .."' —I ..r.-, .- -.. ,-..:.;. '....r.". lT VoT -- \ '.. " 1 ' ' C --— •,I. '1 ' 'N a• 1.0 t / ''; • :".• ..-.... V.. . . I Fl\ ' / t t._.• ... ) .'. ..1 .. -, ,,I ..I'll.11. 1 ,i- i ,--. ' , I EF• 1 t., -,. . ': T,l-a7---1 fl Z f•:11',, i ' ,4 -'2 :,,, .,..,:ava.OgrkargA303$2.-S VfliNOZ Ctsod!.., t,1 .••••• "'Soot avosia ;:::-. • , ,... ; --,-- , ,, ittgii t ...3 0.k- t , .1 ... , ----- tt ..,,„„\ ,.....--, i , •— ; r,..„N'' .., :i..: --, -;,., F.,:•,.., i , r: I I r .. • ::: .;..i.7 .1.; ...._ 1 ......,•sso•r nem / 3..: ver.-21Z(MO l'Orrs•.v......... ..........rug 1....1 1 -.....: I i. ;---- • I / s........v MI 1...rrn OrrAarrnr t .t: I f ..... ,,.., . -47 '+.• -r,---°-5------------i- ''.:' — -TN———22-lit 17.-: - 1 i i I‘. ..,_Jr-,-,,,,--, --,... ‘,.. aerh'ia' II'' .. .... .... -' ''' ,. -'....." ' I' ',.‘ \ r' , — - A 1 I s.• -:=;;6.-.•-•-.4 '. ,, -‘, I E -.4.1,-,,,,„,,,. --,..--n -4,-,;,L.-„zo...... - \ / 1. „,,• „„„,,I,I, „:„ 71.-4..'rvl. ••.s. - " - - • -v - /- ' v-1----., 1 , • -..1.f..ill:-:. p0,40::',„=:;:,,....•-.., : :• ;:„.• .„.•.1, 4111 i i ,\ . v..V....tern agner..10 t •-• .....s...p...* a sa.a.u.r, 1 str.. II jii ,9 Iii'''''' , i j/ - -1-rIT-r--,-,,,-.4:-.--- ----.L---- Ziar '-, - ' 1 i \ , 1war-itn.-05.1 I $ l'i ,7 , , VIM rem.1.910... 4i ...„__ .....2'V.V., vtadorlarrir sy, lizybrIS-e-F i Icldf.1.S:$11f -7 PR-544044- -' '-. ' ; I 1 „ , , ,..,_•,,,,.....„.„, ..... ,..„.... ,, ,......• ........., . ..., ,... • L......_ .., Si r ?misname/-- , -- • - — . ! rr..--,-;,-, -• - 7.4.-:..-.—. -- ------ / ...--,...=-. :.., , .... ." 1111 .. 4*,_ --,,,,, ,4-_, • ___, ____—_____ _:.-_-,_.. -..,,, -.. .• _ , , _ __ .,. ....,.....4-- II _pl., ..... -- :,- 1,--,-,- IN„.78e .LIS -I IdSSI cPISSIA")., . -...`• It ,I 4.....'''''72....li'S -.•--... ' ' 1 . \ • ,V .L'. — -in.sly Meal.••••••••••• I i I- ... _ -.1 - !" v,.L. 7 (--,1:., .1•••••••In•ft.....•1.••werida.me , I . •r• i I -.:1 -'- ....'!•11. .72".:.--i:7.-'1 .•:.:-/..,::Wit?..... ••••,-...,.. I fi:;ii " . I 71,::: F "...: ..".:-..-1-i.'i:',.." 1 I • -,• I I 1 1 3"0"24 251.11,S$ I I I I 07731412U "U NHOf t§1 _rod SaLVISS. AH77VA DNIgarS JO IV7c1 A.YVNIPITI.Vgcl • 0.1FDSUD FWIFIIICxp Iry PNVISIGIV, FNOMPW OF Ifr /( (n.10,01 1 COMP.eNOUIIro WAWA!! PAOPINIV ME UM �µERiva ebsF /40'PROPERTY LINE -_- - /--'1r91UEYAP1 SETBACK { 110/.1110.01.11 G.`/`/` dc-- �, \✓ \/., `\/ \. 11- I (-14_ j ,,_ { b \ /1 I fs a /> / I 1111111116 _ i-40 REAR I __ __ YARD { \ b SETBACK SPR[NG VALLEY f I ESTATES \I\ i: Ak.. Min 1I , ,-w-r-,, loir.r / Ir.r { _ _ Ii < / � I John DeMello I ,I I Phone i\> IV I e-mail -T' ii w.a R.O.W. '--1.- 11 4 \ ' ' I 1 1., 18 / I I IAa. 0111,11S ( ARCH[T'ECTUI2A[. f2 WORKS V[LLARD E { ! I 0 le 12 ENC. i , 1 I I .YRk,,„..l•b•:..4 I I ' Wolf F.,,.„N.y:A Al,111,11nM, I IB IA P/// \\\ , / j I fY�i 3 , X ;,r. q I I a 6 , WA1N { � �nrr9�r j 2 6. iB { Preliminary Site titan I / / ! ,---b SIDEYARU CORNED SET I ACE �/ 1 w•r 6 R L 1 �A$ ., .. .........._......_._._.__._..........-,,_—,1. ._._....._........_._._._.—._._....____,....... I PROPERTY LINE /NM.* Dw XXIK \ 1}lir 1 a.My AulDa ItLiwdodie OLD CENTRA.AVENUE EB.O Al ,-..vemPen..ww.....,v eemmia Any l - - 5.[0.M NR.f-"H -�+t y G�-! .S .IwWeA! ,,,,x I..9 .aur I 5 .V iSS AS A Ja912idS . r sm.n.m�ymm'ur[weNHenmfw•w. {\ + a DNI Q2I 'iZI� ; < i' ,1 r ssrao11� Da..IH Ia V- 1 s 1 ; I . " It U e d =1/'7. 6-.4c.,.: ON .03:ti I 0209-999-:59 3NC're 1 C2l SS Nn'NY-)Y3 '�^% 1am°:�OItl6t+1bONI A.Jeuiwileici 869 1 I 1'111 tee°.. 1i .5°e,-.0 9NIi1fSNC3 CNSCON9 lI I 1I �..aw�,w J i I wW',7, I ,y_4c ! It 67-7,1 Yf-W O*-2f...1,.2 1Ii I m a -1 - i31i1 1 a , omi N^ IW � smm p G9 •% 0 t?... e oAce4OvC syn m gip, 3� C.3•'oIX -'s 5 - 3a*` o ami=m a9_".43� t t g 1 .m 422 ,/ ,.0 ' g��I 33.2:111,1 e mm m mm 3 X03 3's����'s ���; c I . t g 'i 7 a; 6i i - S r .7. Y' i a _ ,, 4 `n ss II :, .. f h .ii .1 .ets `� _ i , " x : 33ai ¢ .9 3 Sa •frb 3 A i 31 d �W i:aut _. _ ,. £ate .1 si -- �,..4j a' 3$a , i35as b: g ml ' '.i _ 'x` 5g3• a iyi it ; in ' i '. ea 11 ate• � _ 0 2:7 g ta; ;s ' �;a s 34 2 , y123 b ari2 ' if a Ii .1'-rr= i1.3:: ata LI 4. 14- 1i144.to -.- ..as. 0g it 2/ 1 - - ail i -F 'y 3 ,3 - is. s x'21 -i _• 12£ s a 8 3 a s ' S 1 o- .y3 :a 1 ' �¢"c^ ' ¢ 's a •s 1`" n 3.8a i l 'a s- 5 j - 3 % 7 _3 5. v 7, , r a & 5 .2 m 2 y m i.. -.. =31 4 : 3$ 3 . 3 $ . - a. B'3u - x • i` e a s _.I a =1 o L i l i a a s a 5...0i S€•I'2 .41.- a y§ a i l s 7 : s- 11. .3s h a . . i1ias1gi4'7 i J4 ; !; I Sppa - kY ie 4•57 ti It: aiA 8i M m m ''�^^ li VJ T_ .� ".ter—..• :may.., — .�1..csse..na� r!s' _ ---~r `; �. .moi=mos.. �, . ate Vii i �'441; lir ab I ///✓�� .6(4 ••••R. m ,6= �W y . _____:;:i !k 1 .,--,..*.r._ a1 I I rr � w ) i e�—' 77 1 - I lu �l; s. Agror ,& q'vi Q i ---''q vim' v E ----alit 9Q'� btow.� 32 3 k. is Lt ... w, _0= o , � - -r t -�� . H y7 .I \6I / 1�+'y ,moi` r v �� ".` —r -�5�+ 1`{ \•`� _ � '� i is ; `? 3 A..-- Ir }��' -• Wit% "1 l /`�Z'�II _ i ' ' j /1% �' ���'I� �) i am �� �• $��/ Irl( $�1I/'� S 1 ) ; i ili Iii. s - i i Im .` i 3 n NSA V' 7 P N ,L N .7 .7 Q 7 0 1 . . . . 0 I,•r .. .--IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,. . 111 i 1,!‘ 11/1 i _..... .".....y i 1 I I I 30 1 1 1 ,,,-- . . • IIII 1 SPRING VALLEY 1 , , , ESTATES • r 1 I John DeMello 1 I ,...- ..., if•11. .1 i W•e. 2.11. ,... 1 i ': Phone 1 i P i e-mail i 1 1 I I 1 1 .1) i / i 1 1 r 1 . MI.1 ,a ii'' ..._.. ____ t '0.5, I , i . I , ARCHITECTURAL i i WORKS VILLARD, 1 1 1 , 1 INC. 1 1 I i !Jill mq,.011.AIXII X Ixx.,xx.xs.4;x•••• .11 4.... IliffIM II; % 1 X • ' s 11 \ \ \ --.---.....— '‘,7' fa ''- 1 \ ;la 1 I .! f i t . 4...4...-0.4s- • , • 4 I \ ! , II-.:. \ i i • BUILDING PLAN GARAGE LEVEL ._-. -) i = E:-1 r '—'w r k i =. -.......0 _ i i ... '',. i oar•tig. HAMM•le,OTALS .4“1 nonbor 1001‘ 1/18',1..0 ...r AW, au..., l(S 0 A2 I 11 A-1.' , .. / DUNIT/' ', CUNIT in h"1" 1 CUNIT EE:F71�1 �- . �, r` ouNlr 77-1 IN COMMUNITY /111 EUNIT Di! .�/ -__111 L �. . . EUNIT 41 " � „�,� l 10 ► ► �) SPRING VALLEY _ r pp. .... T OFF.` OFF. HALL`!M BUIIIT ���• i ESTATES ...M iltC UNIT C UNIT 1 _ Ell �.l.. LouN `IIIII WN1 r oUN1T ' John DeMello 911 q� L at Phone PP PORCH OUNIL ' e-mail IA o�n o / o o , 4 jW euxtt L-...) BUNtt ' / , l�l BUIUi L 0 � J Ars I i� " PitilliMmlil mei 4161” 11 J CUNIT ' / opal,iiii ill a..r ARCHITECTIURAL e % WORKS VILLARD, s►,�►, t INC. Tt.l [ r / I•i ` r Y T'\\ RETAIL '.?OB Y / j ..7.....F." BUILDING PLAN r RETAIL GROUND LEVEL PATIO\\ q / a \\ ___ - /"/f-! EE - \ ....J " t.....r / Frcka.a. uu. o.i. LIM911 a•^"4 AuMo( 0 IIN'•P°0' rh.l.eer . A3 n J NI �- -a t UNIT .t.IIkI ' BUN11 BUJR , CUNw D , w _ _ CUNIT f - .7 L ii It 2 1----' 7;g' r • ,, , ,--::IniktouT9„r- . Alif ra -N, hi E UNIT 2 E UNIT �— MIL g1 . rix _ _ ; 1 a SPRING VALLEY `., \\�� .` \ , GUEST LOFT 3 MIMIGST AZ ES ME lu B UNIT CUNIT CUNIT BUIUT MINI ' 1111 m� 1 BUN1T John DeMello Ell Ill aN I J ; Phone d i1 e-mail _ BUNIT C , BUNIT L STAIR B UNIT -' :I1 Ilpliittioiti _ IF,q6 . U ARCHITECTURAL �B ./ CUNIT ' .4111 "� WORKS VILLA1tLl, w I INC. T F UNIT A UNi I 1 OE -3y,,11 - FI Ni, O UNIT, ----- \ f ( "' . MJ•�' "0.-I �'UNIT '� CARO © ' F UNIT — DINT ROOM , ,Thti Tii BUILDINGLEV L 2PLA� WELLNESS \ FITNESS I! fi'L UNIT r \ AUNR ill ."'') a_ 1 14,4.41 rau. Tau Q..Ls�El2 P.A., A.0010,1116`.1,0. tMxrN A4 am am Nil NIL =Fall yam AUO UNIT CUNIT N UNIT B UNIT „ C UNIT , . t 4. OUNIT .i] lip 61y lit ' __ . r illicit r ., 7 Ni ( Dltf� t EUNIT ui t,.. , ! r3ELVBT��. �� AL! ; BurBT ESTATES CUNIT CUNIT all ` NilJohn Delle}lo 1 M FI r ! J IN 1 Phone CI UNIT ~ e-mail 'I BUNIT I aum I I BUNR tr61� �■d1 (Oil ----_.--- : 1 1 ✓ CUNT , wr ARCHITECTURAL 7 NI II `� WORKS VILLARD, INC. EL rt% Ill 111111a14ral F UNIT JF UNIT OF 4 lit .:0( /F/ N, OUNITIlk F UNIT el*. ' „-_ .. r:., rEt� LIBMBY © tPy�r'fyV„/,/� �' 9, ,A UNIT`L D �i BUILDING PLAN Si* r in _ �r LEVEL 3 COMPUTER i,um^ • BUSINESS �y Li,OFFICE A UNIT � ff\;\-)1 D.0 ®1 Du.oe, *dila 1116'•I T' rpn.ecr A5 . . --4004141001F t pi AN(: 'LIT ffiCr.P1.11.Z.AL NA1()1,:. KS • 'VII J I JA 1)1' INC. _ 5770 Blackshire Path liver Grove Heights, MN. 55076 _ ' , _....... --[A1 17.---ip,-;,2?\,,,i-ti4----6- 7,--- ,,,- -,.,,2 j 1.,-.. '......... ---- Pil-21641-1 . 11 . ri-fro?f; , YH fl t..Tr5/ ..-. A•-1 rr ' 11-Ck 'ri ..(-ii. rt-12. fiv tki- 0012.CI • 7ii,.19,. ..._ ow;e-igirrior-i _ . . icez ; .)Z""c --I-- .....5 •.-5. ,c,„ (,) 7 t-,) , .1 „,,,,, . _ _ .._.. ... . t_. . _ .5 ... _ . . . 0,,.1 /4-2,9 ••\1 \ 1 ib ,....; t-a,;11 ..„ ,- 1-4, 1,9,,r .- ..,... .. .- ... ... ..._ ..... _.-\--, ak . . _ . ...... . .- ,,,,,„ •• -. - t • _Tit;VisIk\,.\-.... .2...._.......k.,.. a. . .... . .. .12,52 .... ... .,.2,. !„:4-• 4. • . : .. i • 1 , 5" , h, vi 0 ,$ _ I t • I ---- , ,---- 1 r :17,1....h.u.e . 1:1 10 Qcr 9, -.:41r.'.. ' ' ' „' F-42,4/76,444c-iktr.' tz.601,1,1.49.5.(79 vt't rf,) . .:.--..1_ kkA Yr t,1 > t- ri:h<'.,V; °-- . " ° . 0 --,>, ..1 - ety) it .t:45.i.t'. ,t,?,1,..‘,./.Aq't-A= 'Z'126 7Q-'-------)t.Il 70.- — ....._ .k,),ki\r.t C.,:,.. .f$'Gt 32---O'i,'7;1;2::, • - "a•(9"utA Vte.i:,--711 ,' .1f°./(4 .--..'-':),.44 ,0 . - . ---7/-131:re,--47) ....—........4. 2„..110)471761.n cl• rirc-....7...- v..::: -_-,.....:.........:...-.-.-,a]...v.R.tr..e.?.._=. ...? „6.-.7.ep......-4. • 10-1.-.,1c (..,..,,. • - . • - _........................_ • . .... ... . . . . . . _.—- i 0 7 I--‘ •fliv Krrt••4 , , . • .,. wit- *norm ,,,sr • rimn) iblfr al PAO ,,r) PWA 0 " VII L — • 1 PIN4144 '" O111/,t( f I. CLac ,--> KO, {AVIA No ,... ,,,a,Deo 1.stioc. SPRING VALLEY A Liaitic ESTATES I am.caof Eat I toa.tdoy John DeMello Phone 0 uro...0. i-varexo,,,A ®eiv:a:b. I-egg)Ow 0°IV.' ..o. 2'd° e-mail =111 -- —le ARCHITECTURAL 042 v al- . illirS11211 WORKS V ILLARD, 1.0.4., , a 111116110r, 15411M, ' — al is a.c ur.. r le 0 , im. .1. 0 ro... i 0,0,..<.. • \ Km, , ....,. Ili f raw hi,d,1 1 00". 6 . 11111 (6.6r ael. waves/ ... ., 0;al.:T.D. ...1.' ' RN) wait% 0411 )kunt, 1,4. 4t1 ''''aria..fr(4 t')• 1.7. tAte i \ . e UNIT PLANS I tag ow,:.0. ;0,0 ou,r7...,. 2-"P D.D.r. DIDID D. D.041 MN: ...I AG , , ..,0 noi a • ii In gg 10 L ' uii lilii A :;1' C •11,,ee ■. np. (u,(�'�j ■ii ■i Y9 !I! iia .a dill Ilii ■• a ■• (;,�. �.I{�,� 'A"�� .w�. I I dIETIIFEFFEIKEF.M. QRfyl t�,l 0ASPNMT 9N990u8 --.--^.• �A ` a� .1400}1110.01.00.„�„ .......�„ ` I • PREfNl16NED ALUMINUM'REMAND SOFFIT SPRING VALLEY l'.• 10, 1 .R •'. ;' 111i •,•. ■■ 01411 110111 Ip-1!111 !I!III!I! . 0 LwLDEOMBtwquL DENTAL PRIEEEBOARD ESTATES 0 STUCCO APPLIED OVER CEMETIOUS PANELS O NORINEI.EVATpN • 0-FACE BRICK tne.r S. MOLDED STUCCO NM John DeMe to • • 0 MOLOEOSTUCCO SILL Phone 0 BRICK SOLDER COLKISE e-mail 9. ERICK ROW LOCK BEL NAT NOSES TO APPLY U.N.O. 0 ORNAMENTAL MLR* ,-., 0 MOLOEO!SUWOAKLOWER ...14116/..._ ..yrs ...41111_ -.411% —, ..,. 13 PREMIERED VwYL eNUT/8R8 —t„ II T �1 ��('�1 Tom" .-.: ®M0LOE0 MILLWORK PEGMENT iile .R .I! •• •. .i •I RN ;1( • .a •. .Ii i■ L..J4d Urn -SIR .. rn QO ■t Wu; ;Ili 0 MU$1 WUM STOREPRON?OV2WO8Y8LEM tam •■ M■ R• •w iR .EI. ■• .. .. .■ LLL......••IttttLLLL....IIII ■. ,... R. VIE •i •• ■• ®FABRIC CANOPY URAL D • ,• �Q • .,. �Q N, A� .. Qmac WORKS VARCHITEILLARD, iii iiii � .. .. u. imp= it ! iw'Iii ww i.. r �» a ;I uw" n i �4 .. wi ii ,' ®ROG(FACEBLOCK INC, 0 IURO$OARDSONO P0011....A..,u., K../c«,wp.a owl 19. METAL ORD 81ONROE SAND so.n,.nauu OEAnrV NN --- -----_----- —__ 0Evat NEYNOTEB ..•..•...,•...<�.. PN.k....p...4 Ma.•g.Nan MMPI l an a IMT NOTES TO dion NMMAMu toMtlYmlga APPLY U.N.O.J 'X. 1we•, ‘;Tzar-®, A EXTE IOR It'.: 1111 ���� .. �_._ u !.• �...�. .ra .iii) a� u .. u. •. aA I• „ -ell.. :''_ ELEVATIONS '• �i i111 ».I .. L4�n 9 1 Klee ht.9 L.;. � f1 I 1 .f f! . �f A�._� � 4i ■PER u.. ii. �.��. L . i ���' i■ .R alB,u �I� ii -���•rEi ii � !I! —111111-1!1-11_iii ISI!--11! .. ■iii Iwii ii r i L • . ....I,. iii a •il w .. .0 . POO hom,.*!RR a L. 0NORTNW$ *LEVATION 8�•BQUTNELEVATION 9a ll'U$.1'd 1f16'•Y-0• a».. A.EIC, wawa A7 1,ALS NoleS To APPLYUN,O, Oi////////IIr '?iMill-IIr •t ±: III ::41 l . ii: i4I ' .1�Mi I r r e �:� lit (lII'��I i1l 111�Ii !'!'II ittill �`'1""'` �i '•, n •�1.... �T. �I �i §PPNa$MDA&U2AIUMMCMAND$0FI1 ASPHALT;WALES • e. SPRING VALLEY MOLOEO MRLWORK DENTAL PRIM BOARD ESTATES 4, STUCCO APPLrOOVERCEMEMOS PANELS OWE&TeLEYATNNI _� ®weSTCOURTELEVATICN ,^ I. FACE BRICK NI .ra ulr•I a e. AIME°STUCCO HEAD John DeMello • MOLDED STUCCO SU. Phone T.S.BRICKSOLDER COURSE a-mall AM NOTES TO e. BRICK ROW LOCK SRL APPLY U.N.O ,IM NOTES TO 0 ORNAMENTAL RARUA APPLY U.N.O. - ®MOLOEOMRLWORKLOWER rS"...- -ah.- BBr,.011rrr,B.1 6". 0 PRENNRNED VINYL SHUTTERS :, - --- -- i� O. MOLOBO MILLWORKPp01NlNT IIIA wi r■i'i ii ^I= rr �� ■� . �a UM ■■ ■r glaj r bil �uN AsIC RONTaAIBIOBYBTEM ARCHITECTURAL ...r .,,., I. PAM/INUMSPY WORKS NIGGARD, 111 LI ■riffliffl al •■ i ■■ .a rr .i. elm ■ . 1 f. BRICK UdPKL INC. 011 ill If :i rw' w•I� it ��� a. t�l Int■. r: iw sag I ®ROCK PACE BCOCK �� Ii1a.r h1�.1� ■ w .---- `---- - --� 1..HARD BOARD SONO11,41,44.144,..G.4 0 METAL CLAD SIONA00 SANGAaw.Je11,141TJ' r1NQRTHCOURTe4EVATfON S 60URfC011Rj ELONATKW .,,___ .~•�••�,u�. lJ �T o �v p.l'O. )RIN KEYNOTES VAS NOTES TO o.ar.«AAs..Jw a.sa..s...w.. APPLYU,N.O. VM NOTES TO Away.• :,ii.W..Oa.WPM1 r. APPLY UM,O, A.A.M..AtAaaaruA..soma. Mrd T4-7717-11:111.— , .!.7 . ... .+a.. MIS rr (11`_I i__,_j".I. go .. ri ■i■ rr■ ■i ® EXTERIOR _ PROPERTY APPRox LCCA TION OP 8 88 . 00 ■r 111 ifl aE p II OQ Fig ! 1 LIRE eKE{TwORESOENCe ELEVATIONS I1 a rill MI �,I.ul I I .:ISI Ir :„;111; as • a 1P.r ■.P .0 r.w w ■r Ito 1�� ■11 81 MO 4.1.. AmIPIII M.rr� w w■ Mir■ ria ■■' + ...-.4---4—....—.--.-1.----- 0 ..-.4-- –14 BZ MT eLEVATION ,. �,J 0 WflB.E OVATIOHORAT/ARAOEDOiilt PP ^rx....a, Nu. NV A..a* ;Aix; A8 luald-831A '3"d ` edS"d I9 U3M '0 1 vivo 3Idd'Ei1 `Apie3u!S •auawdolaaep 6utsnoq_clues atp alepoww000e ppm 3uovti.eu AteMpeoa etri`pa!pns Amp! 1 lunowe Molaq sulswaa weds Iielei 40 wunowe pue spun lo aegwnu pesodold sip se 6uol sic( "vow nuer uI MEP PoPoItoo am ueqm se ewss 944 AIe31ll eae suoq!lxxx►6ugslxe 04leuomppe Aw paredaad I soups ewe e.g up 4uewdolaAepea;ueoglutts ueeq 40u s'eq alai}eAappeq i pue AIS ainiew s sI Aelppd 'sAennpew ata U0 pedal IewIUIw emq IItM}uawdolahap 941 t penali0DO well u!peiedaJd I s!sfqeus peuopmaps aq pue tag Aaenuer uI patedaad I prt s otimq ail •pasodoad Alsnou+aad uegl eoeds mai ssat pue spun 6ulsnoq seep trtpm AeIpud pA40941 o peppwgnseei 6uuleq sI pefaid Bupsnoq aquas s,xspry Wald XV ow peuuoju!n0A -Aepoi uolssnaslp euolldalel ano esuodsaa u!sI iepef sluj JeaQ NVV `JOIPlad sem,s3 AelfeA 6uudS 104 ApnU pedwl 3Wal :ea 92.0 99 NVK 14161oH eACOD haul V GIPS uteri eiii4ZIOned©LLS 'OUI'PIMA S'Ii0M leinloo41143Pri VW'PIMA wed 'aW SOOE`81 ludy W'31gt ! 043edsut W00-0UlelepOppirisAva - laulumeid ua OdSu , '6LS'ZLS spangeug l i► 'S# ZI-9 amid iPeil MSS NW lod uunyy 3S SLSL Prr • TM mnw_i rcrt 5178E61.6Z19 £Z"OZ 500Z/81/170 4"�+&-,�,q6(Z i s'.i.;u"g,'£=ZI 1 +.£;tc?3>,,ia T•3 i3ri - am-r .-711s cic u .aAj#'"'ci Jo-43r3€ 01sialWe 4:1-4 i•7 €�a'irr:s aAril sfgrAFA fiw=:;-RAW '14003.L=3q13 r="ji1 1 q$UOQt z1 1ter zApqr HOAX pS•.LTUSI d 3LL'> a t ` #a .- ENO$ kic NON +S.: 1+ t uui int. 2A s3 i iuiojzd ;^a isiz j1 oJi quom v4.1 3 wT---cwoq soma .0 plf -.mut:All "d3Es 'rJfn•Stg.3} nii RI Rr:sW$:t.3?1=1.ID SUIAIZZa4 Omdsori pJ _a,0 J allow_t 2111 s - ssc.r rya.id An 1__ ' ter---`°PTP 'U 0_•O} — s'.q mr rn c 4 n z‘t::0-047=lf 77M T T �__s_;m-`=� �--� :—i z:3��-xy •{3'�$ sr�_a �' �='•-�:�' s i' a -Timm +sr t+ r n r �n nan �+1 moss S;:i l�ti YYt#t Tp tD �'��s'-�nap 3� i c,.<.__ a�'a.',-.i�r..��`•�Y���.����i §a�'�.: _rte,� �_.T,7: __,�s:-.rs.'��_.,-.F�1��-3- racca— falio p€sii*�:3e3 ?a poi Ntriico:j .� 'F`"=q`stpc-i`-..."nl .--C-p4Btalxuickivit=stwOrtfriz A; =_" iTitO f, towd'.x imp wt.'wing),r '." u tiv ,or ':F pus aciu r ; T'; E tt_? i3; ti ' rriori .am zsp ea m •£c c s 3 _ip; 1C areribz Ski i' i tura j Ft an .4.M > -1/i �� >£ 34 20. 3 e=+'=_a �?:5�.:� ��! K3=.�,� �€t't_ a �2ts: s�s.a�;'c.ns�..phi;.��:.��.i-� ;,•��->j---a�_�>t_ritt.) -el sip Jo ruip flopti pt!nt.: Fira'i `ttom:"d itoci geTpwd orama.g.s.-43s 5— 2r `--'1'i'arep.*i-alri* —01. «i Rim alp 1J ogonU*inA_V ism-20 PlO ssom AIPGJ'p evrnaI ryztfoid ^_Fnc' aoi g&Tuws p� 'Rpm.to�1w.n? tp 1. - `��� tt raw�� :::=T-ryirnti.=r{=? f`#�� ,�.f'J'..i-_-_'�'s€'�$�.T4`'L 74yWrWy"i mil in relreitrIsury.,Tittnoitp ?'T''I'Q:tuo_g 3 n O.s; vrlat,3fc 6.7 r9 s_'_r i3-o a f ds a-q t *.izA0:ham -3)I",:i-1 zip`LIOTr ra^druo,locum a i Trur UU/4If 4?PT1 s -1 _� ���ys;�sz 3tii-`� S s s- -c�3 yaLe :r--=- - _ �•-����' �fii+�;S_. r am a33:9riq i:miY ra.3oT pug 3'1n :ztE}. z� [���a-�b;SM.On:sYyad 04 is pun 09;$ i:3IN_—otlF` u -id Teta p wcr i its+r519tr>!7..s__ir2r-i?j 3=3 T�� 'fn�s}rs3�s's�li-a.S 3`yF,, t�djtii3`.•''-�I u_palls !ad rJJ-£sa I pi>am;3AS pi �S.0;MILK-1:3#SzQ—_t i> of'-?3¢' i€t ='3 n!ulut ice' 'I, 11;m S Bea q' cuoRdl p '&71 svir-A;Trm {1 2rE'Z? yi S_,-=-°psmosmurce�*popprin ltrostsid f? ?mai sump w.odxrld OLS i _tllpta,Ys"+is _3ik::En NW yA er� 4:7 -S+- L: I � 01_1=gia T73lor'11N coot''i_7 RonlAt i€£'-= -2.554,8 4 - -d GCa -.-ms's: :3 ;1S_ I"ice= -uuw ooi w»B e8:ap tadsJapLtO1di. --4-'.`-JO-Jag w, 3 uz pLo:t tj s, •{?o jt}v u a, 3 -= o; s"p s luzdami Inn sminsee..-;apri spa • oor T' ac-44s. ZaT1 pa eq uuL_ F-"il=3 t iF3"V'i. =.. ic-4 look.-r,s`,'� 5.pis pug a c i li-�',�-- cis'. SF's"mow...--tp .a= u"off,'. t au z�+,��s TFF u v iy�ii-yujwt-i—m I z�. i ms.�.:x9g ou ore i Us;o3 exp III 4: a'<.i �a=.'zd '-s;pm. i'_vi. -iia U&'v ii4.i aZ �+ i3 &gads s t� icy hi gig201.100j r u} 1 Wit+ ea"l �r� '-; ���u�,s;�b�:�,s�sr"�i z:.mi.s`��3#f��y-"-".�a�.vt:�`.3z��:�1'�,� �.�rx `.-�md , a-a-liti sziT�,,', :p la14 Q-11 r.C.Itoplpio vap -.�Qpi_A':.ra+u oil*yifm asci?slim.-ctui i.I','_=.7,4''B-SS fi::aa_ iF4 -.4 rtly's t -: r .. ie.I -... 3q/# "'-". 3S._ 3 1 1pi; '- .;stt;r,';in at p` ? MS piA4115 W-13=md .S 3s'*' aF --N s F : tea. `e-Nisf-11:143W.1 i!b.�F.3#g 41-' al -kti =tz-g'cs A .'F'la+.�s`-testi'_;:744z3raz tall � i 3qa z gli ; goy n, K,r'i;a_ - i ams 7.,s} . z —"=a _ 1 I 1 ki— 0. A_; ii f I OSIS 060%8 IS I 5....0't 5.6€ Z ii rG�' "ai i..L.L MY= L31'1 l=am V1 mitt 3 1 i OM ` § 1V ! I *W1 a-``'iv.`n§-`i i'.1 amu: :'f2-a a= ?=°;ar1�=a ar-7.Ila: 4- ,s r 1 S- !3 - t i. .'--'-_--r3 awa 3-, Q2-`. 7-S i 1.4 11:0i=:3 ._1333 t i T i I Y !li�i33. i iaS3-Ty=TI#,.'fW 0£A=.0-1 1 z3'ti3 ua-w? 3Y'i i iivvi .i Fia 3,314,:t-•tv= "i f-c f"r =;3Wq q4 {ii'�i Ips��--'1F�i��:}Iiaf''�a��3jisar �y �+i`.3i� �:''aii'a'-�.."s='�a�_ - ��-y"'.F-':E.'-=.L"93�ti�"t".-_3 r..� _�"3'_-L+rte: g:i$t==' ;psi;_,'."F'= 3>' ujeow.fiX1 s]a'ag.-_=5-7:z-- E40==' • °1`a£I"ti u€p.fatu`�u° =3�==-itu-,=.:i `'STRICT. '�� 1, s1 11'�ii tyto JiatitrFi i 10 SUOW 6 L g lit-B.lxeda i3%qo .r-To a'g.m - _ 01 lint_ piw-id."N Il (it')s uut jo w..3-z46--:1 fs# a s a ri gE- g3Ba €T;.i`0::a -i=ce .'rac I j3t"sa3a-=":`atrt'en}tc warar svpuota 7z iyi,oz ma;I`g;mTts�'.?'•-� AA £ d8 ,i+=304 t ip=xs 9.34Ct?mr.fy 111101 ar41 4A0Spq atm t;a'sIV.a03 Wia. ,a: aaft?ld akl Ul au�;p =z 14---cup '._$.:a.; �'.- -,..n031 F `_tz;�,..--.r'„ --s-,_-- 5_71 :41 .t, r.:F=.-Y�`z_i��#.3a a i;�bias , =�" _ r3..� - 3 1 a - ' p...icOu'cSF3ii4-eq-1:Q rslulmoza.t ue's7.--7.1.,s i i -fal:Tat'.9y'i `-'in alp sketzisip all-ed. i'-1t.-to .4 3d�'-i F_ '4;riy'•-e -10:104-4 eas'sa��'�3�"a'�s3s{i��s"i..37':,-1e3�.F�.f�+,.o:1::�1L-23: "4*'�=rasa-.�=t3:� � �"�_==�€�-_. s,,_._ ;ige._. L•0!.:sir P W y i Ls -R.7.711-;:`-Pi._TQ-0. -o 7 7 aqa aaFT -v -t:3i31-33-,- rset5-3 T �`ss OT _ ++i"i 'DM Ha 3S n-raaxviv g ZP!SJzr$ZviA /3, 1.41 ker ii D!'. XVasri CrWXYri raw :s-tdo.:3:s -N;-4isY�cta3a}-. :,�u -5ti.o=A�•=-za QA-g€i o/.js 4V T - S 211- ci_, U T i eaiki.�rt: Mar 25 04 22:49p Profi tmax Inc_ G514930225 p. tscE—cJ� c is=31 MiLt WRIt.E2 *J 651 766 4195 P.92,03 Rice Creek Watershed District 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive, Suite 611 Blame, 55449 Office Phone: 763-398-3070 Office Fax: 763-398-3088 NOTICE OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DECISION Name of Applicant: John Desiellow Application Number: 04-001 Project Name: Spring Valley Estates Project Location: Fridley Tylie of Application(check one): X Exemption Decision No Loss Decision Replacement Plan Decision Banking Plan Decision Date of Decision: March 25,2004 Check One: X Approved Approved with conditions Denied List of Addressees: MN Board of Water and Soil Resources,ATTN: Lynda Peterson(mi./enclosure) HQ,MN/Department of Natural Resources,ATTN: Doug Norris(w/enclosure) Metro HQ,MN/Department of Natural Resources,ATTN: Wayne liarstad(w/enclosure) U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,ATTN:Tim Fell(w/enclosure) Arm Soil and Water Con nation District,ATTN: Becky Wozrtey (w/enclosure) Applicmit tty of Fridley RCWD File/Engineer/Inspector You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above-referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Finings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Miuen.R 1420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty(30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. Date of mailing of this Notice: Rice Creek Watershed District March 25 ,2004 By: Steve Hobbs Title: Administrator Mar. 25 04 12:49p Profitmax Inc- 6514930229 F- alai-.-ea"alma 1e=3e Ka& LKI:LK WRILii"SHED 651 766 4196 P.33133 s .. Local Govcsnment Unit's Findings and Conclusions The entire site is covered with debris and the topography suggests that large amount of fill have been deposited on the site. There is one depression on the site that could possibly have wetland characteristics. The plant community consists of medium sized green ash trees and very little other vegetation. It is too early in the season to determine if the depression has hydric soils or evidence of wetland hydrology. tithe depression n does have wetland characteristics it is very poor quality. The applicant presented aerial photos and climatic data for the project. The 1938 aerial photo shows that depression being cultivated in row crops and the climatic data indicates that 143E had normal rainfall. The 1964 aerial photo clearly shows fill being brought onto site just west of the depression. The topography of the site indicate that the depression was likely filled and re-excavated or had fill placed aft around it artificially creating a depression. The aerial photo evidence along with the extensive amount of disturbance that is apparent on the site provide enough evidence that the depression within the project was incidentally created. Please call Karl Hammers at 763-398-3072 for f usher details. TOTAL P.03 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (763) 572-3 :2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATInN FOR: Rezoning Zoning Text Amendment PROPERTY INFORMATI r N: (certificate of survey required for submittal, see attached) Address: C:(4- Property r{ -Property Identification Num er: Legal Description: Lot Block Tract/Addition Current Zoning: 61 / C ,/ R1 Square footage/acreage: if Acycs Requested Zoning:, X Reason for Rezoning: a cic/Ylaprv^«`f1 Or; Section of Zoning Code to be Chan• •d: / (Attach requested language) Reason for hange: Have you operated a business in a city which •quired a business license? Yes No If Yes, which City? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the prop=rty title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this for . for to processing.) NAME: A chwin) ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE: PETITIONER INFORMATIONPr'5ra �s�7-- &� lb NAME: Fca i JI CW� /t a of Opwi . 64 4 ADDRESS: d 7 / /11h " t'el'' ‘'`✓1) , - s,/IC ' DAYTIME PHONE:(c/) f9_ YP Y SIGNATURE/DATE: .".r, 710 FEESf---- / x � Fee: c�1,500.00 V Rezoning $1,500.00 Zoning Te t Amendment A lica umber:N2ea- 1)5-oa Receipt#: Received By: pPP Scheduled Planning Commission Date: t,-/-1)S- Scheduled -/-t)SScheduled City Council Date: 6,-13-45 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 5-y-t5 60 Day Date: cc 1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,JUNE 1, 2005 Page 7 of 17 UPON A VOICE VOTE, A VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIE UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Consideration of a rezoning, ZOA#05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1 Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District, generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE. 3. Consideration of a preliminary plat, PS #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation to create one parcel out of five, generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Jones stated the petitioner, John DeMello, is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S- 2, which are located at 1314 & 1340 Mississippi St. and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the same property to allow construction of a mixed use development. The proposed project is a 3 story Italian Villa styled mixed use development with 10,492 square feet of retail space on the lower level at the corner of Mississippi and Old Central, and 70 senior condominium units in the bulk of the development. The 1, 2 and 3 bedroom condo units would be owner-occupied and have underground parking. Access to the complex would be taken directly across from the anticipated Town Center development on Central and on Mississippi. Ms. Jones explained the petitioner brought forth a different proposal in 2004 for a larger development and that was denied. The 2004 proposal denial revolved around concerns about density, traffic on 64th Avenue, limited snow storage and landscaping opportunities. This proposal differs from the initial one in that there are not two separate parcels; retail and housing are in the same building. Also the current proposal does not include the three properties on 64th Avenue, includes less retail space, is 3 stories high instead of 4 and has 20 less condominium units. As far as the rezoning analysis, Ms. Jones explained the five parcels involved have a mixture of zoning classifications— Cl, C2 and R1. 6441 and 642 Central has split zoning (C1 and R1). The rezoning to S2 makes it possible to have a mixed use development with retail and housing combined in one development. Ms. Jones stated the S2 zoning requires the site to have a Master Plan approved by the City. The site plan becomes the Master Plan. Any modifications to the site plan CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 8 of 17 following Council approval must be brought back to the Council for approval. The HRA also needs to review the redevelopment Master Plan which they are scheduled to do at their June 2nd meeting. With regards to the rezoning as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Jones explained this rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed retail / housing complex meets several objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: • Provides more efficient land use. • Provides opportunity for senior housing. • Provides added tax base and new jobs. Ms. Jones further stated this proposal also helps achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goals for this corner. Ms. Jones explained that the petitioner had a housing market study done in 2003 which was then updated in 2004 and 2005. This study indicated that senior housing was the best market for this site and that a market exists for 70 units, even with the Town Center development across the street. Updated figures indicate possible retail prices ranging from $156,000 to $279,000 depending on the size of the unit. This plat, Ms. Jones stated, would consolidate 5 parcels into one. Although the rezoning request is for S2, the site has been planned according to C2 General Business for the retail segment and R3 General Multiple Unit Housing regulations for the housing segment of the development. Ms. Jones explained the retail area will include 10,492 square feet and meets the speculative parking requirements (if proof of parking is included) with 46 stalls provided plus proof of parking for 8 additional stalls. The proposal is short of meeting the necessary parking setbacks due to the extensive right-of-way that the County is taking on the north and west side for potential future widening of Mississippi Street and Old Central. On the north side, their setback is 14 feet rather than the required 20 feet. They are meeting the lot coverage requirement at 28% which is below the lot coverage limit of 30%. For the housing portion of this development, Ms. Jones stated there will be 120,199 square feet of housing with three floors. The 70 condo units require 129 parking spaces if the building were market. If classified as an assisted living facility, only 70 parking spaces would be required. Staff thought this facility falls somewhere between those requirements. The petitioner is providing 110 enclosed parking spaces with 122 parking spaces total so they're only 7 short of what would be required for a market rate multi- family development. Staff is comfortable with the amount of parking they're providing for the housing portion of the building. They are meeting the setback requirements on the south, east and west sides of the building. Ms. Jones stated there is some difficulty with the landscaping portion of the plat. They have met the requirement for the number of coniferous trees. They're required to meet CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 9 of 17 a requirement of 160 trees and they're 69 trees short of that requirement which is significant. They have proposed to put in some rain garden landscaped areas as an alternative. Staff feels they could allow the landscaped rain garden areas to compensate for about 10 trees but they're continuing to meet with the petitioner to determine how they can meet the rest of the landscaping requirements. As far as traffic, Ms. Jones stated there was significant discussion about traffic generated by the initial proposal submitted in 2004. In 2001 a Comp Plan report showed that the Old Central and Mississippi Street intersection was carrying 57% of the traffic for which it was designed. The petitioner hired a consultant to perform a traffic analysis in 2004 which was recently updated and TDI reports that a traffic signal is not warranted at this intersection now or after the development. There were also some storm water concerns so the petitioner has been working with the City Engineering staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to revise their plans and obtain all the necessary permits. It is Ms. Jones' understanding that all the major ponding and drainage concerns have been met. Ms. Jones clarified again that the current proposal does not include the three lots along 64th Avenue which is the area where there was the most concern about drainage during the original proposal. Ms. Jones stated staff has received very few calls on this current proposal. The petitioner has held two neighborhood meetings. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it provides senior housing opportunities, provides additional retail opportunities and additional job opportunities. Staff also recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with the Master Plan as shown on the Site Plan dated (to be determined). 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8 titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 10 of 17 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet). 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for 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. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access across the site for pedestrian connections at the north, west and south sides of the property. Commissioner Kondrick questioned if it would be possible to include any trees in the county right-of-way in an effort to meet the tree requirements for this development. Ms. Jones responded that it's her understanding the county does not allow that. Mr. Hickok explained staffs historic experience has been that the county would evaluate how they would use the right-of-way in the future and determine whether or not there's opportunity there. They would not allow trees close to the intersection of Mississippi and Central where they may be widening the street, but back further it may be possible. He further stated that in an S2 Master Plan the Council would be within their right to approve the Master Plan with something other than the standard requirements, such as the parking setback requirements. That is one of the features of S2 because it provides flexibility and is much like the traditional planned unit developments where the standard CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,JUNE 1, 2005 Page 11 of 17 performance factors can be shifted based on an approved Master Plan. Also, the petitioner has submitted all the plans that are necessary, but the blank date in the first stipulation is to allow the petitioner to combine the site plan, the landscape plan, and grading and drainage plan so that the Master Plan shows all of that. Commissioner Oquist questioned if this will all be done in one phase. Ms. Jones stated that is correct. Commissioner Saba asked Ms. Jones if the staff believes the petitioner will be able to meet the landscape plan when they're currently 69 trees short. Ms. Jones responded it is going to be difficult for them to meet that requirement because of the excessive ponding required on this site. But one of the alternatives is to put in vegetation for screening so this may provide an opportunity on the south end with landscaping along the pond instead of putting in a fence. Commissioner Saba commented that trees add class to a development and he hopes that staff will take that into consideration when they review the final plat. Chairperson Savage asked for clarification on the Master Plan. Mr. Hickok explained the elements of the Master Plan are the site plan, landscape plan and engineering plan now being considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Saba questioned if the concerns regarding snow removal expressed during the original presentation for this property have been addressed in this new proposal. Mr. Hickok stated that has been addressed. The ponding areas to the north, south and along the southern edge of the building are situated so that a plow truck can take advantage of them and keep the area cleared without creating a visibility problem along the roadways. John DeMello, petitioner and president of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, stated he has worked diligently to accommodate the community's concerns on this project, with regard to the size of the property and the drainage issues. They're going to provide some relief to some of the surrounding properties with some of their ponding. When you create a lot of ponds it's difficult to have the foliage required but they're working with the city staff on that issue. The building is well situated on the property but the parking setback on the north end is an issue because the county is requiring a large right-of-way. Commissioner Kondrick asked Mr. DeMello if they're in agreement with the stipulations recommended by City staff. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 12 of 17 Mr. DeMello responded they do have some concerns with stipulations 15 and 21. The screening of the property is an issue as the movement is currently towards less fencing and more open area. That's not to say they won't embrace the stipulation but that also may be where they can make up some of the tree shortage. As far as stipulation 21, Mr. DeMello stated he's already giving a lot of land to the county for their right-of-way and he is concerned that if in the future it is determined that a signal is required at this intersection, the cost would be borne by the condo owners if this stipulation is open- ended. Peter Villard, Architectural Works Villard, stated he is one of the designers of the project and has worked with Mr. DeMello for two years on this project. He reviewed what this proposal does not have compared to the project presented in 2004. They've attempted to address issues that came up last year and in recent neighborhood meetings. The difference between the 2004 design include a half of an acre less than they did in 2004; there's 20 less units and the density is down 2 1/2 units per acre from the original proposal. Even though they have less area, the lot coverage is 1.14% less coverage than the previous design. There's 7,000 square feet less of underground parking. There's 38,000 square feet less of housing area and 3,200 less square feet of retail area for a total of 49,500 square feet less area in this proposal than before. There's one less story, with 10 feet less in height. They also have 49 less parking stalls throughout including the retail and residential stalls. They addressed the density concerns as best they could. He has talked in depth with the landscape architect regarding the landscaping issue and has contacted the county regarding placing landscaping in the right-of-way but has not heard back from them. The landscape architect indicated that the rain gardens will have a lot of vegetation that will accommodate the court yards. All the storm waters coming onto the site will go into either the rain gardens or the sedimentation ponds before it leaves the site. The site is designed to address the snow removal concerns that were raised last year. They're also talking about including the cost for snow removal in the association fees for the project. Anoka County have preliminary commented that since the design is basically the same as last year's with regards to the intersection, they will probably not have any issues. Their concern was with 64th Street and that is no longer an issue since those properties are not included in this proposal. The building setbacks are more than adequate on all sides. The north parking lot is about 4 '/2 feet short of meeting the 20 foot setback requirement. The west parking lot is a problem but they hope that will be approved as a part of the Master Plan. As far as the neighbors' concerns regarding sunlight to their property, the 35 foot high building is not nearly as high as the 45 to 60 foot trees currently on the site which already block sunlight for the neighbors. Mr. Villard reviewed the site plan for this proposal and stated they've kept the Italian Villa design with 40% brick around the perimeter building and stucco materials. They will also have some cultured stone and siding on the east and south elevation with color contrast and color designed with the rest of the building. Three-quarters of the building on the north and west will be face brick in a terra cote color. The retail area will be on the main level with two stories of residential units above. There will be rock-faced block that will wrap around the east face. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 13 of 17 Commissioner Oquist questioned what type of retail they anticipate. Mr. DeMello explained they anticipate having coffee shops and ice cream shops that the seniors can take advantage of. Commissioner Kondrick asked if the buildings will have elevators. Mr. DeMello responded there will be an elevator at each end of the building. Mr. Villard reviewed the drainage plan for this site. All the water is being captured on the property and will be directed into the catch basin, rain garden or sedimentation pond. The ponds and rain gardens will capture the run off from the property to be filtered before it leaves the site. The watershed district approval is pending. The road right-of-way and parking right-of-ways on the west are two feet off the property line and is one of the variances they would be requesting with the S2 zoning. On the north the property line angles to the parking area which results in a four foot setback shortage. The snow removal areas are away from the intersections so there is not any site line interference. There's retail parking on the north and west. The trash area will be located to the north and will be hidden with terracing as will the mechanicals for the building. As far as the landscaping issues, they will continue to work with City staff to address those issues. Along the east there will be trees to screen the views and on the south side there is a pond for water retention and control. They plan a series of retaining walls to hide the south elevation, the garage level of the south elevation and the garage level of the east elevation. These areas will be full of perennials, other plantings and trees and will be fully landscaped. The landscape architect has indicated that adding any other vegetation in this wet area would jeopardize the plantings. There are some minor spots where they can improve on the landscape plans but it will be a challenge to get all the trees required. Mr. DeMello stated the extensive ponding makes it difficult to save the trees that are currently on the property. Mr. Villard added they will save as many trees as possible and will work with staff on this issue. Commissioner Kondrick questioned if there is room for 7 to 10 more trees in the southwest corner. Mr. Villard stated they will work with the watershed district regarding the depth of the ponding in that area and will add vegetation if possible. Commissioner Kondrick questioned the building height. Mr. Villard responded that last year the proposal was for four stories, 45 foot from grade level and currently it's three stories or 35 feet high from grade level. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 14 of 17 Marvel McNaughton, 6300 Pierce St. NE, stated that when the petitioner presented this proposal last year the Commission recommended approval and the Council denied it. She stated she has to live in that area and does not want this development in their neighborhood. Virgil Okeson, 1423 64th Av NE, stated he lives about 4 properties east of this proposed development. He read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64th Av NE, dated June 1, 2005, conveying their "adamant opposition" to this proposal MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to receive the Schwartz letter into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Virgil Okeson questioned if the TDI traffic study included the development going up on the west side of Old Central. Mr. Hickok responded that the traffic study did include the Town Center development as well as the traffic from this petitioner's proposal. Virgil Okeson stated when Mr. DeMello was before the Commission last year there was some discussion about spot zoning and he asked if that is still an issue. Mr. Hickok explained the initial request was to develop the property all the way to 64th Street with some concern about the fact that if they did not do so, it would be considered spot zoning. The record that was created made it very clear why it is that the redevelopment zoning line would stop at the northern property line of those properties along 64th Street. Joan Olson, 6320 VanBuren, stated she is extremely concerned about spot zoning and stated this proposal does not stop at the northern property lines of the 64th Street lots because a lot of those properties are double deep. She questioned how the Master Plan can be approved when it isn't even complete. She also questioned how the project can be approved when it's short on setbacks, landscaping and a number of other things. She asked if Stipulation 21 could be changed to require the developer to escrow sufficient funds to pay for the signalization at the intersection of Mississippi and Old Central. In addition, she questioned the height of the building from the street as height from grade level means nothing. She then presented a copy of the consultant's report based on the housing forums held by the City and that consultant repeatedly advised against "shoving this kind of thing in residential areas." Bernard Marihart, 1373 64th Av NE, stated he attended the meetings held by Mr. DeMello and believes that this development will "obliterate the neighborhood." He is concerned about the fact that they plan to put in a 6 foot high berm along his fence line CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 15 of 17 and the building will go up from that 6 foot height. There is no landscaping that can hide the view of this structure from his property. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 64th Av NE, stated she purchased her property two years ago because she wanted to live in an area that was not "city-like" with trees and an area to walk. This proposed development will take away from their life because the area will no longer be nature-like. She referred to problems with traffic on Central now. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, referred to the minutes of the March 29 Council meeting when this property was previously under consideration for development and the concerns expressed by neighbors about the impact on their neighborhood. There was also discussion about retail property all around Fridley with "For Lease" signs. This project was denied by the Council based on its size and this new proposal is not any smaller. It's going to be directly across from another very large development. She questioned the accuracy of the traffic study and stated that all the arguments that were presented previously are still present today. She urged the Commission to look at this very carefully and consider whether it's what's best for Fridley. Putting two huge buildings in that neighborhood is not looking out for the vision of a small town. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to close the public hearing. Commissioner Oquist questioned the actual height of the building. Mr. Hickok explained the front of the building up to the mid point between the eve and the ridgeline on the building is the standard for measuring the building height and that is the standard that was used. And that height is 10 feet less with this proposal than with the original. Mr. Villard, architect, stated the east side is being bermed up as the neighbors stated so there will be an additional 8 feet in height on the east side. That is necessary because of watershed requirements that structures be 2 feet above the high water mark. They would be more than happy to sink the building down but they're restricted by watershed requirements. The developer went through a considerable amount of cost to hide the wall of this structure with the berm, landscaping and retaining walls in response to the issue of height. From the centerline of Old Central to the peak of the building is another 10 feet, but it is 10 feet lower than the previous application. Mr. Hickok commented the width of this project would run to 64th and beyond down to Rice Creek Road but the record for the previous request shows that the residents did not want to see this project go down to 64th. The developer has responded by coming back with a proposal that doesn't take it to 64th. That record serves as a basis as to why this is not spot zoning. The HRA is not obligated to approve the Master Plan for this project but will simply review it. Also, there is nothing missing from the Commissioners' packets because the Master Plan is actually a compilation of the site plan, the landscape plan and the ponding and the Commissioners have all of those. 4 4 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,JUNE 1, 2005 Page 16 of 17 Commissioner Kondrick disagreed with one of the comments made by an audience member that this project is exactly the same as the previous proposal. He believes it is different in many ways. This is a pared down project. The traffic concerns have been addressed whether or not some people doubt the expert's report. He commented that the traffic signal at 69th and University was paid for by many residents in the immediate area. He supported this proposal, likes the way it looks, but believes the developer needs to find a way to get more trees on the site. He thinks the City and the developer can work together to get the job done. Commissioner Saba stated he is concerned about preserving some of the trees in that area especially along the lot line. He agrees that this does impact the nature of the neighborhood. He believed the project is well designed and looks great from all directions except from the east. He stated he would like to have the City Council take a hard look at what's being "crammed into this S2 development." The developer has done an excellent job and is to be commended for paring down the project the way he has, but for the proposed and ponding and the rain gardens concept he hopes something can be done with the mature trees. The neighbors did an excellent job presenting their concerns and he hopes the Council will take their concerns into consideration. Chairperson Savage commented that we must take into consideration that this property is zoned business as well as single family. Another thing to bear in mind is that there is a need for senior housing in Fridley. She expressed her support for this proposal stating the developer has made a very large attempt to make changes to answer the concerns of the neighbors including reducing the building to 3 stories, utilizing only one parcel of land, reducing the retail and residential space. Commissioner Oquist stated he is also in favor of this project. While he appreciated Commissioner Saba's concern regarding the mature trees, at some point a development will go into this property and the trees will come down. There is an 8 foot berm and there will be 30 to 40 foot trees on the berm which will help. He doesn't believe there will be that much of a traffic increase because there will be seniors residing on this site. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to recommend approval of ZOA#05-02 and PS #05-02 with the stipulations presented by staff. Commissioner Oquist asked for clarification on Stipulation #4 as it requires Fire Marshall approval in the Commissioners' packet but staff presentation stated National Fire Code. Mr. Hickok stated the Fire Marshal requested the stipulation require compliance with National Fire Code. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 1, 2005 Page 17 of 17 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the minutes of the April 19, 2005 Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kondrick, to accept the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the minutes of the April 4, 2005 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to accept the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the minutes of the April 7, 2005 Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to accept the minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted by, � //��//,,��7 ifte G� .�®I'd Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Council at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Monday, June 13, 2005, at 7 :30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District, legally described as Lots 15- 19, Block 1, Spring Valley, generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place . Any questions related to this item may be referred to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator at 763-572-3599 . Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than June 8, 2005 . The TDD number is 763-572-3534 . SCOTT J. LUND MAYOR Publish: June 2, 2005 Fr AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OFJUNE 13, 2005 CnY OF FRIDLEY Date: June 9, 2005 To: William Burns, City Manager . From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Subject: Public Hearing for Rezoning, ZOA#05-02, John DeMello, Family Lifestyle Development Corporation. M-05-47 INTRODUCTION John DeMello of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation is requesting a plat to create one new parcel from 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue (vacant), and 6461 Central Avenue (vacant). Mr. DeMello is also requesting a rezoning for the east side of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street and the north property line of the adjacent properties along 64th Avenue. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the June 3, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for ZOA #05-02. After receiving public comment and a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZOA, #05-02, with 23 stipulations as presented. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission. Anoka County City staff and the petitioner met with Anoka County to review the comments and concerns the County had and to review the revised site plan for Spring Valley Estates. The County has stated that they are amenable to this redesigned plan and would permit access on Central Avenue as a right in and right out, as well as allow an access on to Mississippi Street as proposed by the developer. The County stated that currently there are no imminent plans for reconstruction of either Central Avenue or Mississippi Street, nor are there any imminent plans to signalize the 61 intersection. However, it is still important to plan for the future conditions as development plans are considered for approval. Please see letter from Anoka County included in your packet. Rice Creek Watershed- wetland The petitioner and his consultant met with the Rice Creek Watershed District City staff received a notice of exemption from the Rice Creek Watershed, on March 25, 2004. The exception was approved as it appears that the wetland was incidentally created and is not protected under the Wetland Conservation Act. The developer met with interested neighbors to discuss the revised plan. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Like, the Town Center Development proposal, this master plan has been modified to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission, City Council and the neighborhood. City Staff recommends approval of the new site plan, and the rezoning request, with the subsequent master plan. STIPULATIONS Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to the approval of all land use requests above: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan to be submitted prior to the City Council meeting of March 8, 2004. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A-5, titled Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04 and architectural plan A-9, titled Retail Floor Plan and Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 64th Avenue, and 1357 64th Avenue to be removed prior to issuance of condominium building permits. 7. Petitioner to provide Certificate of Exemption for wetland or mitigate the wetland to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10.Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for storm water run- off and management. 11.Storm pond maintenance agreement for both platted lots must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12.Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 62 13.A perpetual cross-pond agreement to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits to assure continued pond access. 14.City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 15.Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 16.Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$4,486.06. (195,046.02 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17.Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18.Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19.Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20.Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21.The petitioner shall be responsible for 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. 23.The Developer shall provide walkway access across the site for pedestrian connections at the north, west, and south sides of the property. 63 ORDINANCE NO. -2005 ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING ZOA#05-02, FROM C-1,LOCAL BUSINESS,C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS AND R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO S-2, REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 15— 19,SPRING VALLEY,GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA 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. LOTS 15-19,BLOCK 1, SPRING VALLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District S-2 (Redevelopment District). SE CTION 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 C-1 (Local Business), C-2 (General Business District), and R-1, (Single Family Residential)to S-2, (Redevelopment District). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE,2005. SCOTT J. LUND—MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN—CITY CLERK Public Hearing: June 13, 2005 First Reading: June 27,2005 Second Reading: July 11,2005 Publication: July 21,2005 64 ATTACHMENT 1 Stipulations for Rezoning Request ZOA#04-01, John DeMello, Profitmax, Inc.: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan to be submitted prior to the City Council meeting of March 8, 2004. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A-5, titled Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04 and architectural plan A- 9, titled Retail Floor Plan and Exterior Elevations, dated 2/6/04. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the attached comments from the Fire Marshall. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Buildings at 1314 Mississippi Street, 6421 Central Avenue, 6401 Central Avenue, 1341 64th Avenue, and 1357 64th Avenue to be removed prior to issuance of condominium building permits. 7. Petitioner to provide Certificate of Exemption for wetland or mitigate the wetland to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10.Petitioner shall identify ponding area and provide easements for stormwater run-off and management. 11.Storm pond maintenance agreement for both platted lots must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12.Petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permit and provide NURP ponding for entire site. 13.A perpetual cross-pond agreement to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits to assure continued pond access. 14.City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 15.Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 16.Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$4,486.06. (195,046.02 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17.Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18.Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19.Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20.Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 65 21.The petitioner shall be responsible for the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23.The Petitioner shall provide walkway access around the site for pedestrian connections at the north, west, and south side of property. 66 City of Fridley Land Use Application ZOA#05-02 & PS #05-02 May 25, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: 6461 Central Avenue: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Vacant Lot John DeMello 1941 — Lot is platted. 2872 17th Terrace NW 6441 Central Avenue: New Brighton MN 55112 Vacant Lot. Requested Action: 1941 — Lot is platted. Rezone property from C-1, C-2, and R-1 to S-2. 1969—Proposal to build a Tastee-Freez. Replat 1998— Rezoning request from C-1 to R-1, Location: withdrawn prior to Planning Commission. 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Legal Description of Property: Street, 6441 Central Avenue, 6421 Central 1340 Mississippi Street: Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue Lot 15, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition ExistingZoning: 1314 Mississippi Street: Lot 16, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 1314 Mississippi St. —C-2, General Business 6461 Central Avenue: 1340 Mississippi St. — R-1, Single Family Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6421 Central Avenue— C-1, Local Business & 6441 Central Avenue: R-1, Single Family Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6441 Central Avenue—C-1, Local Business & 6421 Central Avenue: R-1 Single Family Lot 19, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6461 Central Avenue—C-2, General Business Council Action /60 Day Date: Size: City Council —June 13, 2005 Approximate size of entire area to be rezoned 60-Day Date—June 27, 2005 and replatted: SUMMARY OF REQUEST 159,460 sq. ft. 3.66 acres The petitioner, John DeMello, of Family Existing Land Use: Lifestyle Development Corp., is requesting to Single Family homes, small commercial replat and rezone the properties located at building (garage), and vacant land 1314 Mississippi St., 1340 Mississippi St., 6421 Surrounding Land Use &Zoning: Central Ave., 6441 Central Ave., 6461 Central N: Commercial building & C-2 Ave. from C-1, Local Business, C-2 General E: Single Family& R-1 Business, and R-1 Single Family to S-2 S: Single Family homes & C-1 and R-1 Redevelopment District for the purpose of W: Vacant land and Restaurant & S-2 redevelopment, to allow for a Senior Housing Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Development/Retail mixed-use development. Future Land Use Map designates this area as SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Redevelopment. City Staff recommends approval of this plat, Zoning History: rezoning and subsequent master plan request. 1314 Mississippi Street: • Proposed rezoning is consistent with the 1941 — Lot is platted. Comprehensive Plan. 1952 — House is built. • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley 1959— Detached garage built. seniors. 1340 Mississippi Street: • Provides additional retail opportunities in 1941 — Lot is platted. Fridley. House and garage constructed pre-1949. • Provides additional job opportunities. 6421 Central Avenue: Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones 1941 — Lot is platted. House and garage built prior to 1949. 67 ZOA#05-02 & PS#05-02 Spring Valley Estates Overview Summary of Applications John DeMello of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of Fridley in order to construct a mixed use retail/senior housing complex on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The two actions that have been requested are a Plat and a Rezoning. Both of these applications, and the master plan approval, will be examined individually in this report. A Plat has been requested to create one new parcel, combining existing lots located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, and 6461, 6441 (vacant), and 6421 Central Avenue. A 10,492 square foot retail complex will occupy the lower level of the northeastern corner of the building with 70 condominium units occupying the remainder of the building. The petitioner is also requesting a rezoning for the newly created parcel. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. MISSISSIPPI ST 1314 J 1340 (-) 6441 6421 j 64TH AVE Proposed Project The petitioner is proposing to construct a 3-story complex, which incorporates a 10,492 square foot retail area on the lower level of the northwestern corner of the development. The petitioner has stated that he envisions that this complex will house neighborhood retail businesses, which could include businesses like a pharmacy, a coffee shop, an ice cream/sandwich shop or a hair salon. The retail complex will include 45 - 9 foot wide parking stalls for customers. The housing portion of the complex will have 70 condominium units for seniors. The proposed 70 units will be owner-occupied and comprised of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. There are a variety of unit styles and sizes with some including a den. The residential development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. The petitioner plans to model the exterior of both projects after an Italian villa. The site will include a storm water pond with landscaping that surrounds the property. 68 Site History The proposed development area is located on the southeast corner of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. The area consists of 2 vacant lots, which are located on Central Avenue and 4 homes that were constructed prior to 1952, 2 of which are located on Mississippi Street and the other 2 are located on Central Avenue. The petitioners' father, Frank DeMello purchased the vacant parcel located 6461 Central Avenue, 25 years ago. When the property at 1314 Mississippi Street came up for sale over the summer of 2003, the petitioner purchased it with the hope of developing the land. The petitioner then contacted surrounding property owners to see if they would be interested in selling their properties. When the neighboring property owners became interested in selling their properties, the petitioner came forward with a redevelopment proposal in the spring of 2004. The previous plat and rezoning applications were denied. The 2004 proposal included the creation of two separate parcels and included three additional lots down to 64th Avenue with the retail portion of the development being a separate building and parcel. The housing portion of the proposal was to build a 90-unit, four-story, senior condominium complex. The retail portion of the development included plans for 13,750 sq. ft. of commercial retail space. The City Council denied this proposal, citing that the density was too high, creating potential traffic problems with traffic existing onto 64th Avenue, limiting landscaping opportunities, and limiting the possibility of adequate snow storage areas. Analysis Rezoning Application ZOA #05-02 The petitioner is requesting a rezoning and master plan approval for the east side of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street south to and including 6421 Old Central Avenue. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. The properties requesting to be rezoned are 1340 Mississippi Street (single family home, zoned R-1, Single Family), 1314 Mississippi Street (single family home and garage (welding shop), zoned C-2, General Business), 6461 Central Avenue (vacant lot, zoned C-2, General Business), 6441 Central Avenue (vacant lot, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family), and 6421 Central Avenue (single family home, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family). The petitioner is proposing to redevelop these five parcels. 1 C) 1 EV. w, 644# 171 i 64TH AVE I � Zoning Map—Shows mix of zoning and properties to be replatted and rezoned. As the properties exist today, 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning between C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family. While both of the lots are rather large in size, conflicts arise when the zoning is split between a commercial and residential zoning at an arbitrary point in the lot. Rezoning a property to S-2 Redevelopment District, requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for the site. If the rezoning and master plan were approved by the City 2 69 Council any modification of the site plan would need to go back to the City Council for review and approval. Review of the master plan also needs to be completed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as the property is in a Redevelopment District. Comprehensive Plan —Future Land Use and Housing Chapters The City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. State Statute gives the City the authority to "rezone" property from one designated use to another, so long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held between 1998 and 2000 and is a "tool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community...It is a plan because it contains goals, policies and strategies that all work together, looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision". In order for a rezoning to be viewed favorably, it must be in line with the City's vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed retail complex, senior owner-occupied condominium complex and rezoning of the properties meet several of the objectives the residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the Comprehensive Plan. The area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road was identified as an area for future redevelopment. The purpose of redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient land uses and under utilized parcels. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to build new facilities, meet current market demands and desires of the City, creates new tax base, and creates additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of these properties. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states that for this portion of Old Central, "consideration should be made to replacing the current mix of single-family residential and commercial uses with higher density residential development that together with the health club may serve as an attractive residential location for move-up housing". The Comprehensive Plan also states that for projects in these redevelopment areas requiring rezoning that the S-2 zoning designation "would be the appropriate Zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project. The intent of the district is to provide the City with site plan review authority to determine if the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive and Redevelopment Plans". The Comprehensive Plan, in both the Future Land Use &the Housing chapters, addresses the desire for a variety of housing types in a number of goals listed below. • Ensure that adequate opportunities exist for the development of a variety of housing types at a range of affordability levels including low, low-moderate and high cost housing to meet the life-cycle needs of Fridley residents. • Create sustainable, self-reliant, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods that contribute positively to the quality of life and image of Fridley. • Ensure a variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. • Strengthen neighborhoods and improve upon the quality of the City's housing stock. • Diversify the housing supply to include move up housing both in the form of rental and owner occupied housing. As Fridley's residents continue to age, demand will increase for"empty nester" and senior housing. There will be an increased demand for senior rental, senior owned condominium/town homes, and assisted living facilities. The proposed project, 70 senior owner-occupied condominium units, will meet some of the current demand for those seniors seeking alternatives to their current housing type. Rezoning these properties helps to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goal for this area. 3 70 Housing Market Study The petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc. in 2003 to complete a Market Feasibility Study for Senior Housing in Fridley. The demographic and competitive market analysis done by Maxfield was updated in March 2004, and, again in March 2005. The latest updated remarks from Maxfield indicates that there continues to be a demand in the Fridley area for senior condominium housing units. Maxfield's research is taking into account the planned Town Center project across Central Avenue, which is yet to begin construction. The original, base housing market study pointed out that given the competitive situation in the marketplace, the quality of the subject site, and the lack of for-sale product within three miles of the property, the senior condominium project would be the most marketable product for the site. Their research also showed that the subject site could best support an age-restricted owner- occupied development such as a condominium or cooperative of around 70 units. Maxfield's updated figures indicate suggested sale prices to be $156,000 for the smallest one- bedroom unit to $279,000 for the largest three-bedroom unit. They expect the entire housing portion of the project to sell out in 22 months. Plat Application #05-02 John DeMello, Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, is seeking to replat the properties located at 1340 Mississippi Street, 1314 Mississippi Street, 6461 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, and 6421 Central Avenue to create one new consolidated lot. The proposed plat will consist of one lot; Lot 1, Block 1, Spring Valley Estates. This is different than the 2004 proposal which created two new lots, one accommodating the retail portion of the development and one containing the housing portion of the project. 11, --, ,--"---;: ,--:; _____ — ,...,,,r .,.,::::.,A IT„.:„.4::- :::;::::ENt 4 a dt d 7 n , e STOP ;� � � r _ ra `, .R Looking south on Old Central toward project area Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District allows for the maximum flexibility for a redevelopment project. The petitioner has designed their project to meet the zoning classification codes most similar to their intended use. This would be C-2, General Business, zoning for the retail portion of the project and R-3, General Multiple Unit Housing, for the residential portion of the project. The retail portion of the proposed development is 10,492 square feet and meets all the parking requirements for the number of parking stalls required for a retail use under the speculative parking ratio requirements. Proof of parking for an additional 8 parking stalls is also provided. Staff is satisfied with this amount of parking for the commercial part of the development. 4 71 The housing portion of the project is 120,196 square feet in size with all three floors combined. This is a density of 21 units per acre. The petitioner is proposing to construct 70 senior owner- occupied condominium units. The development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. This amount of parking meets the requirement for an independent living facility. However, staff considers this project to fall somewhere in between the category of senior assisted living and market rate housing parking requirements. Market rate parking requirements would be for a total of 129 parking spaces. The petitioner is proposing at total of 122 parking stalls, which is 7 units shy of the market rate requirements. Staff believes the amount of stalls provided should be adequate since some households occupying this complex would be expected to have only one vehicle. Staff finds the lot coverage proposed to be reasonable for a mixed use development. Code requires no more than 30% lot coverage for multi-unit residential and commercial properties. The proposed project shows 28% lot coverage, meeting requirements for both zoning types. Early discussions with Anoka County indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required for future reconstruction purposes. They anticipate that a 120 ft. right-of-way corridor will be required for both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersections in order to provide the necessary turn lanes for future safety and operational purposes. The County assumes when the Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection is reconstructed, it would be centered in the 120 ft. right-of-way corridor. Consequently, roadway right-of-way dedication needs for this site are 27-30 ft. adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 ft. adjacent to Central Avenue. Therefore, staff assumes that the County will be requesting that at this time, both of the right-of-ways be dedicated. The petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-way acquisition along both County Roads. Due to necessity of right-of-way acquisition, the drive lane on the west side of the development will be only two feet from the west property line. The parking setback on the north side of the development, which is considered the front yard of this site layout, meets the minimum 35' setback. The building is 34' in height to the mid-span of the roof line. Therefore, the building only requires a 15' side yard setback on the east side, but an 18' setback is provided. The additional 3' of side yard setback was provided on the east side of the project, because fire truck access may be required. The 18' setback, combined with an 8' public right of way that runs along the east property line, would provide 26' of clearance for the possibly required fire truck access. The rear yard setback of 40' on the south side has also been met. As stated above, due to the flexibility allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setbacks can be recognized under this rezoning master plan approval. The proposal as submitted does not meet the landscaping requirements of City Code, however. According to code, 160 trees will be required for this development. The petitioner is proposing to provide 91 trees. Code also requires at minimum that 30% of the trees be coniferous. This would be 48 of the 160 trees required. The petitioner has met this requirement in the proposal by providing 49 conifers. The petitioner is proposing to add rain garden plantings to the ponding areas in lieu of some of the tree landscaping requirement. Staff would like to encourage the rain garden plantings, but would like to see more trees planted on the property as well. There currently is very little landscaping proposed on the south end of the plat. There are also possibilities to save some of the existing trees that could reduce the 160 tree requirement. Traffic Study Staff utilized a number of sources to determine the possible impacts that 70 senior owner occupied condominium units and the commercial complex may have on the local traffic patterns. Staff consulted the Transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed the traffic study supplied by TDI, Traffic Date Incorporated. 5 72 Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Chapter The City's Comprehensive Plan indicated that in 2001, the portion of Old Central adjacent to the proposed senior condominiums carried 8,000 vehicles per day and, at this traffic level, was only carrying 57% of the traffic for which the roadway was designed and constructed to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Old Central carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020, based upon increases in population for Fridley& surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles/day, Old Central will be carrying 71% if the maximum amount of traffic for which the roadway was designed. Review of Traffic Impact Report Prepared by TDI, Inc. Family Lifestyle Development Corporation hired TDI, Traffic Data Incorporated, a Data Collection, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning firm to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. The analysis was regarding the proposal for more housing units and more retail space than the current proposal. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, which was published in December 2003. At that time, the consultants used the Senior Adult Housing Attached category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed senior complex would generate a total of 247 trips per day. The consultants used the Specialty Retail Center category from the ITE manual and determined that the proposed retail complex would generate a total of 598 trips per day. Trip Generation ITE Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out In Out 252 Senior Adult Housing — 247 3 3 5 3 Attached (71 units) 814 Specialty Retail Center— 598 n/a n/a 16 21 (13,500 sq. ft.) TDI developed traffic forecasts for the following 2005 scenarios: No Build (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) Build Spring Valley Estates (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) The finding of these forecasts show that the level of service at both the Central Avenue/64th Avenue intersections and the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersections would remain the same in the no-build or build scenarios. The only change seen is during the AM Peak Hour at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue eastbound intersection, where the level of service would change from LOS B to LOS C. Central Avenue/64TH Avenue Westbound & Eastbound Approach LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Scenario Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound 2005 No-Build A B C C 2005 Build A C C C Mississippi StreetJCentral Avenue Intersection LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2005 No-Build C D 2005 Build C D 6 73 To complete the traffic study, the consultants also referred to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which governs the use of traffic control devices per Minnesota State Statute. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has eight criteria (called warrants) to consider when determining if a traffic signal should be installed at an intersection or not. These warrants are primarily based on the traffic volumes flowing through the intersection. A warrant analysis was conducted for the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. To complete this analysis, TDI staff performed a turning movement count from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. None of the eight warrants are met under the existing conditions, nor will they be met if the senior housing and retail buildings are constructed on the proposed site. According to this analysis, a traffic signal should not be installed at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue until at least one of the warrants is being met. The conclusions of TDI's analysis state that the stop controlled approaches at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue intersection operate at LOS C or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic control. The intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue will operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. A traffic signal was not currently warranted at the intersection and a traffic signal was not be warranted at the intersection after the previously proposed development would have been completed, according to the 2004 traffic study. The traffic study consultant was asked to submit comments regarding the traffic impacts of the current redevelopment proposal for less retail space and housing units. Their comments were summed up by the following statement: "As long as the proposed number of units and amount of retail space remains below the amount I initially studied, the roadway network will accommodate the senior housing development."A complete copy of the 2004 traffic study is available upon request. Wetland/Drainage The petitioner is still working with the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to finalize an agreement regarding the necessary permits needed for the project. The wetland that was of concern in last year's proposal has been exempted by the RCWD, so no replacement or mitigation is required. Revised storm water management plans are expected to resolve concerns that the City Engineering Department had over the initial set of plans submitted with the application. Comments Received During the public hearings for this development proposed last year, there was a great deal of Public input. Some of the concerns raised were regarding traffic and a guarantee that the tenants of the complex would be 55 or older. To alleviate those concerns ahead of time, the petitioner provided city staff with a traffic study and a copy of the proposed association documents upon submittal of the rezoning and plat request. Much of the concern, however, revolved around traffic onto 64th Avenue. The current development proposal no longer includes the properties along 64th Avenue and will not have access onto 64th Avenue. The petitioner held a neighborhood meeting on April 27 and is holding a second neighborhood informational meeting on May 27. Staff was not in attendance at either of these meetings. However, we have heard that concerns raised have mostly been about crime or traffic. Staff has received only a couple of calls to date in response to the public hearing notice, inquiring about the property. These callers were seeking information about the project, but did not exhibit any objections. Staff has also received a call from someone interested in buying a condominium unit. 7 74 Staff Recommendation City Staff recommends approval of this Rezoning ZOA #05-02 and accompanying site plan for the senior building and retail complex, with stipulations. • Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Provides housing opportunities for seniors. • Provides additional retail opportunities in Fridley. • Provides additional job opportunities in Fridley City Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for PS#05-02, with stipulations. Stipulations Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to the approval of the above land use requests: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with master plan as shown on the site plan dated . 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for 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. 8 75 22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access around the site for pedestrian connections at the north, west, and south sides of property. 9 76 June 1, 2005 1372 64th Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Commission City of Fridley Planning Commission Members, We are unable to attend tonight's meeting due to the concurrently scheduled Fridley High School graduation ceremony. We wish to convey our adamant opposition to the latest DeMello apartment building proposal and request for rezoning. DeMello's new proposal is in essence very similar to DeMello's ProfitMax proposal that the City Council overwhelmingly denied last year. It was widely expressed last year that this location was NOT an appropriate place for an apartment building to be located, and nothing has changed. Thank you for your cons . ratio Mark Schwartz Jean Schwartz 77 May 26,2005 Scott Lund, Mayor City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Mayor, I am opposed to the plan to rezone five parcels into one for the sole purpose of high density housing. Why doesn't it seem to matter what the citizens of Fridley really want? Our property is valuable to us and who would want to buy any of the houses that are in view of the project that is on the agenda. This is nothing more than greed for the developer and the City of Fridley. Not all people who retire can afford to live in the units that are proposed. Does that mean we are to be penalized not once,but twice,because the value of our home will depreciate. When the units are completed and are not rented out, what are your plans for filling the units? I've seen it happen many times when the units aren't being rented they take alternate routes such as Section 8, etc. It is a known fact that once anything like that is built they manage to change the rules of how it can be filled. If the city is so concerned over tax revenue why didn't the city put in a gold course that was purposed instead of Spring Brook Nature Center? Now the people of Fridley are paying for the park to stay open. Also, how convenient that Demello chose to hold this meeting on a holiday weekend when most people have plans and will be out of town. His other meetings were received on the day of the meeting or the day after. It's beginning to look like Fridley will not be happy until the city is paved from one end to the other. There seems to be hidden interest for somebody other than the City of Fridley. I guess if it isn't near your property it doesn't matter what they stick in. City officials are elected into office to oversee what is best for the city and the citizens who reside there. I for one, along with others, don't thinks they're doing their job in our best interest. Sincerely, CI),a 2—A L2-f2- 7,6e - 7-) Patricia Mulroy 1384 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 78 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 5 of 38 OPEN FORUM: Consideratio► of items not on agenda (15 minutes) Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, • 35 Oakley Drive, stated the City has spent over $270,000 repairing storm sewer ► oblems at the Springbrook Nature Center. He's had a drainage problem in his yard f•r. over 15 years and has not received any assistance from the City to resolve this pro. em. Councilmemb- Bolkcom explained that a majority of the money spent at Springbrook was from g :nts from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Springbrook improvemeis were made not only to control drainage but to improve the quality of water that eaves the Springbrook property and ends up in the Mississippi River. PUBLIC HEARING: 11. Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, to Rezone Property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, Generally Located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE (Ward 2). MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to open the public hearing and waive the reading. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:55 PM. Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner, John DeMello, is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S-2. These lots are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the same property to allow construction of an Italian Villa style mixed use development. There will be 10,492 square feet of retail space on the lower level at the corner of Mississippi and Old Central, and 70 senior condominium units in the bulk of the development. The 1, 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units will be owner- occupied and have underground parking. Access to the complex would be directly across from the anticipated Town Center development on Central and Mississippi. The petitioner submitted a different proposal for a larger development in 2004 and that was denied. The 2004 denial revolved around concerns about density, traffic on 64th Avenue, limited snow storage area, and landscaping opportunities. Ms. Jones explained the current proposal differs from the 2004 submission in that there are not two separate parcels; the retail and housing are in the same building on the current plan. Also this proposal does not include the three properties on 64th Avenue, contains less retail space, is three stories high rather than four, and has 20 less condominium units. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 6 of 38 Ms. Jones stated there is currently a mixture of zoning classifications on this site, C-1, C-2 and R-1. The properties at 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning with C-1 along Old Central and R-1 on the east portion of the property. The rezoning to S-2 makes it possible to have a mixed use development with retail and housing combined in one development. The S-2 zoning requires the site to have a Master Plan approved by the City. The site plan becomes the Master Plan and any modifications to the site plan following Council approval must be brought back to Council for review. The HRA must also review the redevelopment Master Plan, which they did at their June 2 meeting. Ms. Jones said that In relation to the City's Comprehensive Plan, such a rezoning needs to be consistent. The proposed retail/housing complex does meet several objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: • Provides more efficient land use. • Provides an opportunity for senior housing. • Provides added tax base and new jobs. Ms. Jones further stated this rezoning helps achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goals for this corner. Ms. Jones said petitioner had a housing market study done in 2003 and then updated in 2004 and 2005. This study indicated that senior housing was the best market for this site and that a market exists for 70 units, even with the Town Center development proposed for the opposite corner. Updated figures indicate the retail prices for the condominium units should range from $156,000 to $279,000, depending upon the size of the unit. The plat analysis reveals that the plat would consolidate five parcels into one. Although the petitioner is requesting S-2 zoning, the site will be planned according to C-2, General Business, and R-3, General Multiple Unit Housing regulations. The 10,492 square foot retail area meets speculative parking requirements, if proof of parking is included. There will be 46 stalls provided (52 are required) plus proof of parking for 8 additional stalls. The retail parking will not meet the setback requirement due to the County's request for additional right-of-way. The lot coverage for this development is at 28% which is below the code limit of 30%. The housing portion of this plat is 120,199 square feet and there will be three levels. The 70 condominium units would require a total of 129 market rate parking spaces or 70 spaces for assisted living facilities for the elderly. The petitioner is proposing 122 spaces with 110 of those spaces provided in underground parking. Staff is comfortable that they are meeting the parking requirements. The potential County right-of-way acquisition is what is creating problems with the parking setback requirements but the building setbacks are being met. Ms. Jones stated the landscape plan has been revised since the Planning Commission hearing on this proposal. The petitioner's landscape plan now provides 152 of the160 trees required. Staff has decided to set a policy where they would provide a 15% credit for developments utilizing rain garden areas in lieu of trees. Petitioner would get credit for 10 trees in exchange for the rain garden areas they have proposed. This proposal FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 7 of 38 would then meet the landscape requirements. The change from the Planning Commission hearing is that petitioner is adding a landscape buffer in lieu of fencing on the south side of the property. Ms. Jones said the 2001 City Comprehensive Plan reports that the Old Central and Mississippi intersection is carrying 57% of the traffic for which it was designed. The petitioner hired TDI to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. This was recently updated and TDI found that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection either pre or post development. This includes the impact of the development proposed for across the street. TDI continues to report that the existing roadway network will accommodate this development. Ms. Jones explained that the petitioner is working with the City's engineering staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to refine necessary plans and obtain all necessary permits for storm water on this site. The major ponding and drainage concerns have all been met. The current proposal does not include the three lots on 64th Avenue where there had been drainage concerns in the 2004 proposal. Ms. Jones said staff has received some calls from the public regarding this proposal. The petitioner held two neighborhood meetings which staff did not attend. Several residents spoke at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting. Their comments were mostly related to a disagreement with the Comprehensive Plan, traffic concerns, and the S-2 zoning. At the Planning Commission hearing, the landscape plan was short 69 trees. A subsequent discussion regarding the fencing requirement in Stipulation 15 resulted in a proposed change to the landscape plan. The petitioner feels there is a movement toward less fencing and more open area so they are proposing to make up some of the tree shortage and provide screening by providing landscaping rather than fencing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZOA #05-02 and PS #05-02 with the stipulations presented by staff. Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve ZOA #05-02, as the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it will provide additional senior housing, retail opportunities and job opportunities. Staff also concurs with the Planning Commission regarding approval of PS #05-02 with the following stipulations: 1) Property to be developed in accordance with the Master Plan as shown on the site plan dated June 8, 2005. 2) Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4) Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5) Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 8 of 38 6) Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7) Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8) No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planning within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9) Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. (A letter from Anoka County was presented to the Council this evening in which they are requesting a right turn-in and right turn- out only from this site onto Old Central.) 10) Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11) Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permit. 12) Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13) City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14) Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15) Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G91) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16) Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square foot). 17) Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18) Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with the final plat. 19) Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20) Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21) The petitioner shall be responsible for 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. 23) The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of the property. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 9 of 38 Councilmember Wolfe questioned if the right turn-in and turn-out requirement will result in a lot of U-turns. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained that entry into the site from southbound traffic would best be accomplished by turning east on Mississippi and then entering this site from that location. Anoka County is trying to eliminate a lot of left turn movements with this requirement and those left turn movements cause more confusion and accidents than the right turn-in. Councilmember Wolfe asked how many rental properties there would be in the residential building. Ms. Jones responded that it is her understanding the entire development is proposed to be owner-occupied. Councilmember Barnette stated some of the calls he received expressed concern over the number of rental units. He asked what assurance the neighbors have that these units will remain owner-occupied. Councilmember Wolfe expressed concern that the association rules for this development could change at some point in the future to allow rental units. City Attorney Knaak stated it is true that association by-laws can be amended, but they would not supersede restrictions placed on the property by the City. Councilmember Billings commented that if a percentage of the units do not sell, the developer would still be the owner of those units and would be paying the association fees on those units. Oftentimes as such associations get started, the developer is the association. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there have been questions raised about the notification process for this meeting and asked Ms. Jones to review that process. Ms. Jones responded that code requires that property owners within 350 feet be notified of the public hearing for such a project. City staff did meet that requirement and went one step further by notifying individuals who had attended previous public hearings on this matter. The public hearing notice goes out before the Planning Commission public hearing. Public notice for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings are published in the Fridley Focus newspaper. She added that her telephone number is on the public hearing notice and residents are always encouraged to call with questions. Mr. Knaak indicated that staff did follow the correct notification procedure for this matter. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that a couple of months ago, when it was discussed that this proposal would be coming before Council, a statement was made at FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 10 of 38 that time that residents within 350 feet would receive a letter advising of the date. To her knowledge, that letter did not go out. Ms. Jones stated she is not familiar with the meeting Councilmember Bolkcom is referring to but there was not a separate notice mailed for Council's public hearing. At Councilmember Bolkcom's request, Ms. Jones reviewed the site plan, specifically the setback requirements. The building setback along Old Central is being met, but the drive aisle setback is not. Along the north end of the property on Mississippi, the parking setback will be approximately 8 feet short. Those setback shortages are due to the amount of land the County is taking along Old Central and Mississippi for the possibility of future expansion of those roadways. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification on the parking requirements for this site. Ms. Jones responded they are meeting the parking requirements for the housing and retail sections. They have proof of parking for 8 additional stalls in the retail area. If the housing area is treated as market rate rather than a senior building, the parking space requirement would be higher. Since this is restricted to seniors, the parking requirement is lower. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the change from a fence to landscaping. She asked if the landscaping will provide as much privacy for the adjoining properties as a fence would. Ms. Jones stated that would be a matter of personal preference. City code gives the developer the option of either putting in a fence or opaque landscaping (coniferous trees that will be full year round). On the east end, in addition to the landscape screening, the developer is proposing a retaining wall and berm to help screen that side of the development. The trees will be located on top of the berm. Along the south end, the developer is proposing 60 arborvitae which will be spaced together as close as they can. Along the east there will be a couple of different kind of spruce trees. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if staff has looked into the rain garden option and how other cities are handling this. She asked how staff arrived at a 15% credit towards landscaping trees in exchange for the rain gardens. Ms. Jones responded that staff is not aware of what other cities are doing with respect to rain gardens associated with developments. Other cities are utilizing rain gardens in relation to street construction projects. The types of plants in a rain garden are important for it to function properly for storm water filtration. Staff looked at the shortage of trees and considered setting this as policy, not just for this development, but for other such proposals. It is difficult with the storm ponding requirements new developments face to have enough space to meet the tree-planting requirement. To take 15% of the amount of trees required and allow them to make up for that with rain garden areas is a reasonable compromise. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 11 of 38 Councilmember Bolkcom asked about Stipulation #7. Ms. Jones stated that is actually out-dated because the developer has obtained the exemption for the wetland. Staff has received the paperwork from the Rice Creek Watershed on this matter. To her knowledge, the petitioner is in compliance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas to explain the relationship between the height of this building and the watershed concerns. She asked if there is any other option as far as the height of this building. Mr. Haukaas responded he does not see a relationship between the watershed district and the height of the building. He stated the concern would be the depth of the basement in relation to the water table in that area. The watershed district concerns would be related to water run-off which is affected by the surface area, not the building height. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that what Mr. Haukaas is saying is whether the building is one story or three stories high, it is basically the same as far as storm water. Mr. Haukaas stated that is correct. Councilmember Wolfe questioned the age of the statistics used to determine that people 55 and older do not drive as much as those 55 and younger. Ms. Jones stated she was not referring to any study but the City requirements for parking. The code gives an allowance for assisted living senior facilities. Staff is happy that this petitioner is exceeding the requirement of 70 parking stalls because staff does not believe that would be adequate for this age group. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the Planning Commission minutes where the petitioner's architect stated that the watershed district requires that structures be two feet above the high water mark. Mr. Haukaas responded that the watershed district does have a requirement similar to flood plain requirements that the base level of a building be at a certain elevation above the high water mark of any ponding or storm water features or creek or river in the area. By calculating what their storm water is going to be and how high the storm water ponds may be that sets a minimum for where the building will be constructed. Mr. John DeMello, petitioner, stated he is the president of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation. To address some of the questions regarding rental property, he explained most banks require 50% of the project to be filled prior to ground-breaking. In addition, they will limit the amount that will be rented to the 5% figure that Town Center has proposed. They hope, however, that the building will fill up immediately so that rental units are not a concern. He stated they do have a very high water table on this site which is a major reason why a lot of land has to be brought in and the building has to be FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 12 of 38 constructed basically on top of the ground. Their project will actually provide relief for drainage issues on some of the surrounding property. Mr. Peter Villard, Architectural Works Villard, Inc., explained the major issues in the initial proposal were density, traffic, building height, snow removal, sunlight, and setbacks. They have tried to address those concerns by coming back with a smaller building, a smaller site, one parcel instead of two, 20 less units, 2 % less units per acre. There are 22 less parking stalls for housing and 27 less stalls for the retail area for a total of 49 less parking stalls on site. The building itself has 7,500 less square feet of underground parking, 38,000 less square feet of housing and 3,000 less square feet of retail, for a total of 49,000 less square feet.. The building height is ten feet lower. They added the landscape screening on the east and south as well as major snow removal areas. They do have the conditional approval and wetland exemption from the Rice Creek Watershed District. They also received county approval for the right-of-way on June 8. The building setbacks are pretty extensive; 140 feet on the north, 104 feet on the west, and 18 feet on the east and 40 feet on the south. To address the sunlight issue, they are proposing 10 less feet in building height which allows for more sunlight to the properties east of this location. Mr. Villard further explained that the high water mark has been established on this site by their engineering consultants and the watershed district. The garage floor must be two feet higher than that high water level. The water table on this property is up so high they could not sink the building any further. They are adding the features required to accommodate the high water table on this site. He reviewed the landscaping proposed for this development. He stated along the east property line there is an 18-foot setback from their balcony to the property line and an 8-foot City easement. There will be spruce trees along the east as well as a retaining wall. On the south elevation, there will be 60 seven foot high arborvitae. All of the surface water coming from the south towards this site will be draining into this proposal's retaining area. Mayor Lund questioned who commissioned the study that determined the best use for this site. Mr. DeMello responded that his company commissioned Maxfield Research to do a feasibility study; including a demand analysis. Town Center development was included in that study. Maxfield Research typically tries to error on the conservative side and they think this project will be consumed at a rate of 4 units per month. As to comments that the developer paid the researcher to say what he wanted to hear, he said that would not be in the best interests of the developer, the banker or the investment group who will be risking millions of dollars. Mayor Lund commented that he believes the owners of the condominium units would work to keep the rentals to a minimum to protect their investment. He stated the association documents will set the standard for the number of rental units and stated he would like to see some limitation on rental units added to Stipulation #17. He added FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 13 of 38 that he realizes it is not uncommon for such developments to allow perhaps 5% of the units to be rental on a short-term basis. Mr. DeMello responded that his father will be purchasing one of these condo units. It is difficult to not allow rentals at all, but he believed a small percentage would be reasonable. He added that he does not want to see this become a rental property. Mayor Lund stated he would like to see that in writing; a limitation on the rental units in this property. He also asked if there will be a cement median in the entrance of Old Central that will restrict the right-in and right-out. Mr. Villard presented a copy of the County's right-in right-out and it does include a median. Mayor Lund asked if Council is being asked to rezone those single family homes along 64th that are no longer in this project. Ms. Jones responded that during the initial presentation on this property last year, staff recommended including the three properties along 64th to avoid spot zoning because they typically rezone to a physical boundary, such as a street. However, in the public hearings held last year there was a public record created by the surrounding neighborhood indicating they did not want those parcels on 64th Avenue to be included for reasons of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. Because that record has been created it is within the City's legal authority to rezone only to 6421 Central Avenue and not have it considered as spot zoning. Mr. Knaak concurred with Ms. Jones' statement. Spot zoning tends to be an island that is being created to accommodate a specific development, but if the uses are consistent in the rezoning with the contiguous parcels, for the most part it is not a problem. Councilmember Billings asked who determines what spot zoning is. Mr. Knaak responded that ultimately that would be determined by the courts. Councilmember Billings added the court would only determine it to be spot zoning if it is inconsistent with the surrounding zoning. It is up to the City Council to determine what appropriate zoning is for the City of Fridley and what appropriate zoning is for specific sites as long as Council considers the other elements that surround it. Rezoning to S-2 is an opportunity for the City to be able to maximize their zoning districts and create a mixed use on a specific site. Determination as to whether or not five, eight or ten lots are adequate to create an S-2 district is up to Council to determine. If Council does something that another party vehemently objects to, that party can go to court and it becomes their responsibility to prove to the court that what was done was without adequate foundation. Staff's preference and prior preference has been not to have a portion of a block one zoning and another portion of the block a different zoning. Council has tried aggressively to correct those kinds of situations. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 14 of 38 Mr. Bernard Marihart, 1373 64th Avenue, stated he owns the property directly east of this proposal. He questioned if the developer made an effort to find property that was already properly zoned for this development or if the City offered some guidance to find appropriately zoned property. Mr. DeMello stated he owns this parcel of land and he is asking to develop this property. Mr. Marihart stated there are real estate investment companies that have a reasonable expectation that developers will at least look at their properties before the City rezones property for such a development. He presented digital pictures he created in an attempt to show how the building proposed for this site would look in relation to the buildings on his property. He explained that the 8 to 12 foot berm would be higher than the fence on his property and the building will be started above his fence. The proposed building will be 26 feet from his property line. He added that they will be knocking down most of the existing trees that would help shield some of the view of the new building from some of his neighbors. Mayor Lund and Councilmember Bolkcom commented that any property owner has the legal right to approach the City and request approval for rezoning. Mr. Marihart stated existing commercial property values would be negatively impacted if developers are not encouraged to develop those properties rather than seek rezoning. Councilmember Billings stated there is no property within the City of Fridley that is specifically zoned for this development. The current zoning on the petitioner's property is C-2, General Business; R-1, Single Family; and C-1, Local Business. There are 5 pieces of property with 3 different zonings involved in this proposal. The petitioner owns this property and is asking to develop it. He does not believe Council is working negatively towards the interest of any commercial property owner. This is 80% of what the City Council does; work on land use issues. Council and City staff work with people to try and accommodate the current and future needs of single family, business and industrial owners. There is nothing that gives the City Council the authority to tell a property owner that he must look into property already properly zoned. Council is obligated to hear proposals from individuals who own property they wish to develop. Mr. Burns, City Manager, said the City's zoning ordinance requires that a petitioner have site control over the property they are planning to develop. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated this project has been going on for about two years. It originally had 70 units. Council then asked the petitioner to revise their plan and the petitioner returned with a proposal for 90 units. Now they are back before Council with 70 units which he does not see as a compromise. They are putting a lot on a small area. If the County decides to widen Mississippi and Old Central, they will need the land for that expansion. He expressed his opposition to this proposal. Councilmember Billings asked for clarification on the right-of-way lines. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 15 of 38 Mr. Haukaas stated the right-of-way shown includes the additional right-of-way requested by the County. Mr. Villard explained that petitioner has agreed to give 10 feet on Old Central and 30 feet on Mississippi. Councilmember Billings stated if the developer were not donating land to the County there would not be any setback issues. Mr. Villard responded that is correct. Councilmember Billings commented that Council could fix that by removing any stipulations that the petitioner give this property to the County and the County and the taxpayers can pay for the land when they want to condemn it in the future. Ms. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 - 64th Avenue, questioned if a building of this size could be constructed in the existing zoning. She asked that this property be developed with care so that it does not change the character of the neighborhood. She was concerned that people will miss the right turn in to this site and then use 64th to turn around. She stated that she and her family spend a great deal of time in their backyard and fear that this proposed development will take away from their enjoyment of their property. Mr. Virgil Okeson, 1423 - 64th Avenue, expressed his concern about the City setting a precedent for other developers to request this type of zoning change and side-stepping the zoning requirements. This should be taken into consideration. The shortages of parking, setbacks, and trees are all important issues to adjoining property owners. He is also concerned about 64th Avenue being used as a u-turn street because of the right turn-in requirement. The residents of the condominium units will have visitors, yet there are only 12 parking spaces provided for guest parking. There will also be vendor trucks and repair trucks needing to access this area. There may also be an issue with flooding in this area based on the history of drainage concerns in this area. He was also concerned about the developer's ability to influence the amount of rental property allowed. This should be considered by the Council. He also referred to the effort by organizations, including the City's Chores and More program, to keep seniors in their homes. He took issue with the comments that a lot of people in the City want to move into facilities like this one being proposed. Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue, stated he is very disappointed that he did not receive written notification of this hearing before Council. There was no publication of this meeting in the local paper. He believes this would constitute spot zoning. The record would reflect that the neighbors did not want S-2 zoning in this area at all, not just to 64th Avenue. Due to the problems with the water table and the fact that this is the same plan as presented previously with the same problems, this is too much of a development for this piece of land. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the character of a neighborhood should not be changed as a result of a redevelopment. He expressed his opposition to this proposal. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 16 of 38 Ms. Jones presented a copy of the notice of this hearing which was published in the June 2, 2005, issue of the Fridley issue of the Sun Focus. Mr. Steve Williams, 1357 - 64th Avenue, stated he moved to this property 10 months ago in an effort to escape the density of the city neighborhood where he previously resided. The trees in the woods behind his property are 50 to 60 feet high and provide a good buffer. It would be a shame to clear-cut those trees just to create this new development. The proposed landscaping will not provide adequate screening. He asked that the existing trees remain. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue, stated there were two neighborhood meetings held by the developer but the notices for those meetings were inadequate, which she believed showed total disregard for the residents. The initial proposal on this site was for 71 units with general retail. The Council indicated that was too large. This current proposal is only one less unit and the density appears higher. The building height will be, in reality, four stories. There is no allotment for an alley easement on this plot even though there is an existing easement off of 64th Avenue. The driveway on the west side is only two feet from the property line. The required walkway would be close to the property line. The east setback is only 18 feet and a 7-foot fence and trees will do nothing to screen the view from the surrounding homes. The proposed landscaping will take 30 years before it has any effect on screening. The traffic count is estimating 845 total trips should be compared to the traffic from the existing three houses and one small business. Ms. Schwartz said the Comprehensive Plan states that the character of a neighborhood should not be changed. The parking spaces along Mississippi are within the 35 foot setback, much the same as they were last year. She questioned staff referring to any senior housing as an assisted living facility with regards to parking requirements. A senior condominium should not be referred to as assisted living unless there are facilities and staff that makes it assisted living. Many recent studies done on senior driving habits show that those driving habits have changed and are much the same as the general public. They still propose to remove single family homes and rezone R-1 land. The residents do not want this and do not believe this type of housing is appropriate for this area. Nothing has changed. She stated she is not opposed to redevelopment, but they need to be appropriate uses. There is no reason to place a big apartment building in the middle of single family homes. She pointed out an error on the preliminary plat for Spring Valley Estates in that one of the homes is missing and questioned what else is missing. S-2 zoning calls for all performance standards for uses in the district to be comparable or similar to uses allowed in other districts. This does not meet the standards in other zoning districts in many ways. To allow this to be built would be setting a precedent that allows every zoning code law to be thrown out. She understands there is latitude with the S-2 zoning, but thought there should not be as much latitude allowed. Looking at the 71-unit original proposal, the density was 26% and this proposal is 28%. She referred to a petition circulated last year with approximately 400 signatures of those residents opposed to the 71-unit housing development, against the rezoning, the retail, and the traffic and noise. She stated as FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 17 of 38 far as she is concerned, this petition is still valid. The overall discussion of the issue of zoning was that the neighbors did not want the S-2 zoning at all. It totally defies logic to stick an apartment building on property with single family homes and which abuts single family homes on two sides. There are a lot of open retail spaces in Fridley now. This was denied last year in a way that a lawsuit to challenge it would hold up. If Council looks at the reasons for denial, they are basically the same for this proposal. Talking to people in the community, she claimed that Fridley residents feel there is a need for more nice, single family homes, not more apartments. Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, referred to the minutes of the original meeting in March 2004 when the proposal was for 71 units. The consultant for the housing forums stated the City needs to give particular care to the integration of redevelopment projects when located adjacent to single family neighborhoods. She stated this proposal will drastically change the character of that neighborhood. The neighbors understand that sooner or later this site will be developed but not with two behemoth buildings. Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street NE, referred to the 64th Avenue storm and sanitary sewer project that was necessary due to some significant drainage issues. That project tried to correct some of those drainage problems. Developing what are now two large vacant properties will significantly change the storm water flow. She asked that staff members look at the material related to the 64th Avenue drainage problems. Mr. Kurt Olson, 1384 - 64th Avenue, asked if this petitioner will be the only benefactor of the change in the City's policy regarding rain gardens. Councilmember Billings responded that the Rice Creek Watershed District made a presentation to Council earlier this year and requested that Council allow the rain gardens in such developments as well as in conjunction with street projects. The proposal before Council tonight would be the first development where the rain garden concept will be tried and if it is successful then it will be utilized in future developments. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are many other communities, such as Maplewood and Woodbury, where rain gardens are being used. It is not a new concept, but it is new to the City of Fridley. Ms. Marvel McNaughton, 6300 Pierce Street, asked if staff had located the proof of publication for this hearing. Mayor Lund responded that Ms. Jones does have a copy of the notice of this hearing and it was published in the June 2 edition of the Sun Focus. Ms. Susan Okeson, 1423 - 64th Avenue, expressed her concern about the landscaping for this proposal, particularly the planned rain gardens, because they will not offer the screening of mature trees. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 18 of 38 Ms. Andrea Olson, 1385 - 64th Avenue, stated there is one clear theme; if there is not enough room for this development to meet setback requirements on the north and east side or for all the tree requirements or trees and a sidewalk on the south side, there is just not enough room on this site for this proposal. There are many people in that area with a uniform, consistent message of opposition. Underground parking is not underground if you have to push dirt up. If the underground parking is higher than the homes around this site, it is not underground, which makes this a four-story building. She questioned why the neighbors should be forced to accept this structure because the petitioner purchased property with a high water table. The height of this structure will have to have a negative impact on the surrounding properties and drainage issues. It makes sense that this petitioner build a development that is appropriate for this site. The petitioner should not ask the City and the residents to make exceptions just so he can make a profit from this site. She believed the way the petitioner handled the neighborhood meetings was "deceitful" and that the neighbors were not advised of this hearing even though they had been given the assurance they would be. She also stated that this is spot zoning because it is an island to accommodate a specific project. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to accept into the record the ordinance presented by Ms. Jones with the new stipulations and the letter from Anoka County (regarding the access to this development.) UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive the unapproved Planning Commission minutes of June 1, 2005. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to accept into the record the letter dated June 8, 2005 from Marvel McNaughton. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to other S-2 developments approved in an area of mixed zoning, including Medtronic and Christianson Crossing. She then asked about the alley easement. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated there is right-of-way provided which still exists and will continue to exist. There is no distinction between alley and street right- of-way. Councilmember Billings asked for clarification as to the City's policy regarding alleys. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 19 of 38 Mr. Haukaas responded that the general direction he has been giving is that the City wants to vacate unused alleys and return the area to adjacent property owners. The right-of-way in this development, however, does need to be preserved because of the storm sewer project in that area. He does not believe there is any interest by the developer or the neighborhood to put a street through the right-of-way in question, so he does not see the need to take additional right-of-way at this time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if he is comfortable with the drainage plan for this development. Mr. Haukaas stated the developer's engineer, BKBM, has submitted storm water plans and calculations that show they are reducing the run-off to the east. In addition, the building plans include a piping system to collect the roof run-off and direct it into their ponds. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the traffic studies that have been done and how it relates to the traffic study performed by the City. Mr. Haukaas stated the City runs traffic studies on a four-year cycle and the County does them on a two-year cycle. There has not been an appreciable increase in those counts for a long time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. Haukaas is aware of any plans to increase Mississippi or Old Central in the next five years. Mr. Haukaas responded he does have a copy of the County's written five-year plan and proposed plans for the next ten to fifteen years and there is no intersection improvement included for Mississippi and Old Central. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what height a structure could be erected in the C-2 or C-1 zoning currently on this site. Ms. Jones stated she would have to research that and get back to the Council. Councilmember Bolkcom stated at a recent joint meeting with the HRA, three developers who participated in that meeting indicated that there is an over-abundance of condominium units in the Minneapolis and St Paul areas, but not in the suburban areas. They also indicated there are a lot of people at all age levels who are looking for town homes or condominiums. She asked Councilmember Wolfe if, as a realtor, he sees a negative impact on surrounding single family homes when a condominium development goes in nearby. Councilmember Wolfe responded that every house is worth what you can sell it for. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to close the public hearing. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 20 of 38 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:35 PM. OLD BUSINESS: 12. Secon• Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-01, by Har-Mar Incorporated, for Property Generally Located - 7110-90 University Avenue NE) (Ward 3). Ms. Jones, Planni ,g Coordinator, stated this is the second reading of the ordinance. The Planning Corn 'ission held a public hearing on this matter at their April 20 meeting and unanimously rec•mmended approval. Council held a public hearing on this matter on May 9, and the first reading of the ordinance was held on May 23. Staff recommends approval if this rezoning. The next item on the agenda pertains to this property as well becaus_ in rezoning this property, staff recommends Council approve a resolution to remove the •ur special use permits that exist on this property which will no longer be necessary afte the rezoning. Staff received no calls regarding this matter after the first reading. Councilmember Bolkcom co ented that the tenants currently on this property fit the commercial zoning better than e existing zoning. Ms. Jones added that another fa or is Billiard Street Café is seeking to obtain a liquor license which they cannot do in a M-1 zoning. Many of the special use permits are related to Billiard Street Café. She incurred with Councilmember Bolkcom's comment that the proposed rezoning fits the cur -nt uses better than the M-1 zoning. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, se onded by Councilmember Wolfe, to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt Ordina ce No. 1203 on second reading. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, YOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 13. Resolution Eliminating Four Special Use Pe its for the Property at 7110 — 7190 University Avenue, legally described -s Lots 4-6, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park, except the North 35 feet ,,f Lots 4, Anoka County, Minnesota (Ward 3). Ms. Jones explained two of the special use permits allowe• expansion of the Billiard Street Café; one to reduce the parking setback and one to allo the use of office space. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmemb:r Wolfe, to eliminate the four special use permits for the property located at 7110-7190 U 'versity Avenue. a' .,efeWAAltcc-kek KNAAK & KANTRUD, P.A. Attorneys at Law CPU 9011-1a"'° Frederic W.Knaak* 3500 Willow Lake Blvd.,Suite 800 Of Counsel H.Alan Kantrud** Vadnais Heights,MN 55110 Donald W.Kohler *Also Licensed in Telephone:(651)490-9078 Joseph B.Marshall Wisconsin & Colorado Facsimile:(651)490-1580 Thomas M.Dailey,P.A. **Rule 114 Qualified ADR Civil Neutral June 20, 2005 Dr. William Burns City Manager, City of Fridley 6431 University Ave., N.E. Fridley, MN. 55432 RE: Publication and Notice Requirements for Zoning Amendments Dear Dr. Burns: Recently, a development proposal in the City of Fridley has required the City to consider an amendment to its zoning code. One of the City's elected officials has inquired as to the number and kinds of public hearings that may be required to effect a zoning change under the requirements of State law, as well as the City's own Charter. The statutory procedural requirements for zoning code amendments can be found in Minnesota Statutes §462.357, Subd. 3, which provides, in part: Public Hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notices shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendments relates The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceeding provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. (Emphasis added). The statute only contemplates single hearing which can be, in the discretion of the City, before either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Nothing in the statute would necessarily preclude additional public meetings being conducted, provided the additional hearings did not result in any inconsistency with the prompt consideration contemplated in the State statute. The City of Fridley has expressly, in its Municipal Code, provided for two public hearings. The first, that contemplated by the statute, is conducted by the Planning Commission under the provision of Fridley City Code §§205.05.4C-E. The Code then provides that: "(a)11 petitions for amendment shall be forwarded to the City Council from the Planning Commission. The City Council shall hold an official public hearing, with adequate time given to prepare the minutes of the hearing, and follow the process for approval of an ordinance as required under the Fridley City Charter. (Emphasis added.) Chapter 3.05 of the Fridley City Charter requires two public readings of the ordinance separated by at least one week. There is no express additional requirement of public hearings. Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that any proposed amendment to the Fridley zoning code as part of a proposed development would require two public hearings. The first would before the Planning Commission, the second, as soon after the first as practicable, before the City Council. No other hearings are contemplated or required. While this procedure has long been the established practice within the City of Fridley, an interesting question---and possible future problem--- could present itself based on the additional requirement of a public hearing before the City Council under the Fridley procedure. As a general rule of law, any municipal ordinance or charter provision that is inconsistent with state law is superceded by that state law. To the extent that provisions of a city's ordinances can be construed to be in harmony with state law, the presumption is that they are to be read in that manner. Our conclusion here, for example, that a second hearing is required, is based on the assumption that a second hearing is not prohibited by state law and that the City of Fridley's additional requirement is a permissible extension of the public hearing process. The City should be aware, however, that an argument could be raised that the additional public hearing is beyond the City's grant of authority in dealing with zoning code changes under state law. While the specific question of whether a city can require an additional public hearing in zoning amendment cases has not been raised judicially, the Minnesota Attorney General recently opined that a City could not adopt a more restrictive voting requirement than provided for under this same statute. Op. Mn. Att. Gen., 59a-32, Jan. 25, 2002. If a court were to hold that a city is without authority to adopt any additional requirements or restrictions to those provided for in the statute,the City's council hearing requirement would be found to be invalid. Please let me know at your convenience if I can be of any other assistance to you in this matter. Sinc rely, ; Frederic W. Knaak Fridley City Attorney June 26,2005 Mr. Mayor and City Council members, There are several issues with the 2005 DeMello proposal for a 70-unit condominium and retail project we would like you to consider. When you denied the 90-unit condominium and retail proposal last year,you listed 11 findings of fact for denial. 1. The applications for the rezoning and re platting of the Parcel are complete and all required public hearings on the matter have been concluded. The modified development plan provides for 90 units of residential condominium dwelling and 13,750 s. f. of commercial retail space, which is 19 residential units more and 330 s. f. more that the previous development proposal. While the 90 condo units have been reduced to 70 and the retail s. f. is back to approximately what is was with the 71-unit proposal,the land area involved in the project is almost 1 acre less of land. Therefore,the per unit land density for this project is the same as what it was for the 90 unit proposal. In fact the lot coverage has actually increased. 2. The proposal represents a very significant increase in population density in that location over the density currently at that site. This denial reason is probably even more valid now, since the current site contains 3 single-family homes and 1 small business. 3. The proposal,when added to the units already approved in an unrelated development across the street,would significantly increase traffic rates in the neighborhood and would change the character of the neighborhood from a mix of single family residential and low density to high density residential. This denial reason is still completely valid. 4. Anoka County raised objections regarding traffic access to and from the site on county- maintained roads and highways. While the applicant has made meaningful efforts to address the concerns raised,the City has received no written statement from the County indicating that it has no further traffic-related objections to the proposed development on the site. Anoka County's letter dated 6/8/05, states that they want a right in/right out to this development. They also state that all other comments pertaining to this site in their previous reviews still apply. The County's letter from 1/27/04 states, "with increasing traffic volume and congestion,the importance of limited access to County Roads cannot be overstated. Limiting access is critical in minimizing highway congestion and is the single most important factor in reducing accidents on highways." Adding 2 new access sites would affect the safety of pedestrians and motorists in the area. Anoka County's letter also states, "it should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed noise standards." 5. Increases in traffic at the site and in the neighborhood would decrease the safety of pedestrians and motorists in the immediate vicinity of the site. • This denial reason is still completely valid. 6. The Development plan provides for setbacks of the parking areas proposed for the property that are near the property lines of the parcel and provide a diminished landscape opportunity, as well as provide for a very limited opportunity for on-site snow storage. The parking for the new proposal still has major problems. The parking to the north of the project is still partially within 10 feet of the property line and all of the 10 actual parking stalls and 8 proof of parking stalls are completely within the building's front yard setback. The 15 parking stalls on the west of the parcel and 1 of the corner parking stalls are all encroaching a great distance into the side yard setback. The entire driveway on the west of the proposal is within 2 feet of the property line. When Anoka County widens the roads, the entire driveway will be close to the street as will the parking areas. Per zoning codes, all hard surface areas must be no closer than 20 feet from any street right of way. This will allow for very limited sidewalk and landscaping area again. This again leads to limited snow storage on the northern pond site without impeding the vision safety zone. 7. The nearness of the building and likely snow storage areas to the roadways would likely impede sight lines of motorists and pedestrians,resulting in an increased safety hazard to those individuals. The building is still near Old Central on the west. The north snow removal area is very near the corner and could impede the vision safety zone. If there is a lot of snow the southern snow removal area would potentially also impede sight lines for pedestrians and motorists. 8. The nearness of the building and likely snow storage areas to the roadways would have a negative aesthetic impact to the neighborhoods. This denial reason is still valid. 9. The height of the proposed structure on the Parcel in the Development plan, particularly in the 4 story portion of the development,would significantly block sunlight to and impede the view of adjoining residential development more than what they currently enjoy. The height of the proposed structure is still the same height on the north and south ends of the building as it was in the 90-unit proposal. The water table for this land is at 877 feet. The floor of the`underground garage"is going to be approximately level with 64th Ave. (which sits at 882 feet)or slightly above it. In reality the height of the building will be 50 feet from the bottom of to the roof's peak,thus it will in essence be a 4 -story structure still on the 2 sides of the proposal that abut single family homes. The developers stated the sunlight is blocked now by trees, however trees still provide filtered sunlight in the summer, which this, will not allow for. Due to the trees not having leaves many months of the year, sunlight would still be significantly blocked much of the year. The views of adjoining residential development would still be impeded more than they presently enjoy. 10. The development would adversely affect the quality of life and health of surrounding residents by blocking direct access to sunlight during much of the daylight hours. This denial reason is still completely valid. 11.The screening and plantings proposed in the development would not be sufficient to provide the modest degree of privacy currently enjoyed by the adjacent land owners once the Development were to occur. This denial reason is still completely valid. It further reads, Based,therefore upon the foregoing, the City further resolves that: 1. It concludes the modified development proposal represents a density and intensity of such a degree as would adversely impact the character of the neighborhood in which it would be located. 2. 2. It concludes that the modified development proposal would adversely impact the health and safety of the neighborhood surrounding, as well as the City residents and members of the public that would be using the adjoining highways and roads. Both of these are still completely valid. It seems clear that most if not all the reasons for denial have NOT been resolved with the new proposal. The 70-unit proposal is still far to large of a building for the now smaller parcel of land it will be set on. In fact, it is still proportionately the same size project as it was in the 90-unit proposal due to the decrease in land area. We again ask you to deny the 2005 DeMello proposal for the above mentioned reasons. Thank you for your consideration. r N Bums, Bill From: WIPPICH, DELLAYNE[dwippich@valspar.com] Sent: Sunday, June 26,2005 10:39 PM To: Lund, Scott; 'bamietterrci.fridley.mn.us'; 'bolcom©ci.fridley.mn.us; Billings, Steve; "wolfr©ci.fridley.mn.us; Burns, Bill Subject: Proposed DeMello rezoning and development plan Dear Council Members, A flyer we recently received outlining the proposed rezoning and development at the east side of Old Central and Mississippi is of great concern to us . We are four blocks from the proposed site and we are concerned that this development will create an unnecessary and unwelcome volume of foot and vehicle traffic to the area as well as creating an eye sore that does not fit in to the surrounding area. In the years we have lived here our residence has been vandalized three times by passing foot traffic. We fear that this development will only increase the likelihood of such occurrences . In addition the foot traffic has been of such a nature that we do not feel comfortable in our own yard. Our street is the main walk from apartments close by to a local convenience store and the people that frequent that route have used vulgar and profane language on several occasions . We fear that this volume will increase based on the types of dwellings that are being offered and by the unknown retail occupants that may be established. The amount of traffic on Mississippi Street is already at a high volume . So much that the City of New Brighton frequently monitors that thoroughfare . This new development can only mean an increase of traffic in an area that would like to retain a quiet neighborhood. The amount of traffic on Old 1 Jr Central is also on the rise and slows the commute to our neighborhood greatly. This development will only make the situation worse . We are curious to know why another retail location is needed with the overwhelming number of vacant retail locations in the immediate and surrounding area . I do not see how this location is even remotely close to being better than any of those sitting vacant . We ask that you take all concerns into consideration and how this proposed project will adversely affect an otherwise quiet and family oriented neighborhood that is struggling to stay that way even without the addition of this development . We are unable to attend the open forum due to prior obligations but we invite any questions or requests for further input . Thank you, DeLlayne & Kristine Wippich 763-572-8859 2 Page 1 of 1 Burns, Bill From: Mark A Schwartz[mjjsch@juno.com] Sent: Sunday,June 26,2005 4:38 PM To: Lund,Scott Cc: Barnette, Robert; bolcoma@ci.fridley.mn.us;Billings,Steve;wolfr@a.fridley.mn.us; Bums, Bill Subject: URGENT: Incorrect density and lot coverages Mr Mayor, Council Members and Dr.Bums, If my supposition is correct,the reason we seem to primarily be hearing comparisons made between DeMello's 90 unit proposal and his 70 unit proposal(instead of the 71 unit)is due to the pending lawsuit.While the Council directed staff to draw up papers to deny the 71 unit proposal, it was the 90 unit that was actually officially denied. The comparisons in density and lot coverage that have been stated at the June 1st Planning Commission meeting and the June 13th City Council meeting are very misleading. In addition there are incorrect figures given for the square feet of land and amount of acreage. In fact, if you compare the density it is the same and the lot coverage is higher. The City of Fridley Land Use Application,dated May 25,2005,lists the square footage of the area to be re platted as 159,460 Sq. ft and the site as being 3.66 acres. If you look at the Preliminary Plat map done by Midwest Surveyors,they list the total square feet of the area to be re platted as 142,924 square feet and the site as being 3.28 acres. This is the actual property survey map. Mr Villard at the Planning Commission meeting stated, "the difference includes a half acre less than they did in 2004." In fact they have .96 of an acre less, or almost 1 acre less land. At both the Planning and City Council meetings this year the developer and the planning staff refer to the project now being 1 parcel instead of 2. The 71 unit proposal was 2 parcels,the 90 unit proposal was already combined into 1 parcel. The developers and planning staff state that there are now 2 1/2 less units per acre density. This information is based on the 71 unit proposal on 2 plats of land. Using the 90 unit proposal which was on 1 parcel,the site density was 21.53 units per acre of land. Using the correct land area the site density for the 70 unit proposal,the new site density is 21.34 units per acre of land. They are virtually the same density. The developers also states that the lot coverage is now less. It was less in the 71 unit proposal due to the retail being located on a separate parcel. On the 90 unit proposal in the lawsuit the lot coverage provided was 26.67%. The total lot coverage for the 70 unit proposal is 28%. The lot coverage is higher with the new proposal. We have heard the lawsuit referred to as "frivolous" and the City not being under any "tremendous jeopardy" from it. Mr. John Baker's letter dated 6/24/05 talks about the developer heeding the City's direction to reduce the size of the project. It appears that in fact the project is essentially the same size in density and larger in lot coverage, due to the reduced land area. This is not a less dense project and has more lot coverage so it should not impair the City's ability to defend litigation. Since this seems to be critical information,I wanted to make you aware of it as soon as possible. Mark Schwartz 6/27/2005 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, June 27th, 2005 Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford, 1426 64th Ave NE, Fridley MN. We have been residents of Fridley for a little over 5 yrs. We are veryconcerned about what is being proposed in our neighborhood, By Profitmax inc.arid Mr.bemello. We are against this project and the rezoning of these parcels of land, we feel it will be very detrimental to our neighborhood, we purchased our home 5yrs. Ago because of the beautiful and quiet neighbor hood, the large lots and the closeness to the city but not feeling like you were in the city. Now we are looking at a situation that could possibly put two very large buildings, one being the Town Center Development, which has already been approved and STILL has yet to be built, if it ever will be???And a proposal by Mr, Demello and ProfitMax INC. Our concern in the rezoning of these parcels of land to an S-2 is that we already have the whole block across the street rezoned for a similar building that has yet to be built. And is now in court over ownership of part of this land what happens if it isn't built??Now we have open S-2 property that you can basically put what ever a builder wants on it. What happens if Mr. Demello and Profitmax fall through with their plans? Now we have pretty much rezoned a area around a residential neighbor S-2 and anything can go around it. If you ask us that doesn't sound like the nice residential neighborhood we moved into 5yrs. Ago. Profitmax the name should say it all, who profits from this project the residents of the neighborhood that it is going into NO!! Mr.Demello YES!! He says he wants to give Fridley a gift, well it isn't much of a gift if no one wants to receive it, now is it. The only gift he wants to give is to himself in his wallet. Just as one neighbor cannot detrimentally effect any of their Neighboring properties according to City Code, won't this project and the rezoning be detrimentally changing the whole neighborhood and especially the adjacent properties?? If you think this project is going to benefit any one other than MR. Demello and Profitmax please let me know WHO?My family.is one of the youngest on the block and will probably be one of the first to move if this is approved. If you have driven down 64th Ave you will notice that 80% of the residents are 55 or almost 55, and they have no intension on moving from these homes into condos like the ones being proposed. So if redevelopment is supposed to help turn these neighborhoods over and bring in new younger families but keep the older residents in town it will not happen here in this neighborhood. We will just be opening the door for elderly people from other cities, and Fridley will be the same And lastly YOU CANNOT PUT 10 LB OF ANYTHING IN A 2LB BAG-um IT JUST DOESN'T FIT? We are totally against this project and the rezoning that comes with it!!! Sincerely yours, e ,1 Jones, Julie From: Messer, Ralph Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:19 PM To: Jones, Julie Cc: Berg, John; Crelly, John Subject: Access to Proposed Project This concerns the proposed Spring Valley Estates issues with Fire Depaitment apparatus access. The Minnesota State Fire Code, Section 503.2,requires fire apparatus access roads to have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty feet. Overhead clearance must also be unobstructed and not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Fridley City Code Chapter 108.11.2 establishes a minimum turning radius of twenty-eight feet. With respect to the proposed Spring Valley Estates project access,Mr.DeMello must ascertain whether or not Anoka County will deem it compliant to construct surmountable curbs at the Central Avenue,N.E.entrance to the proposed project. If so,the surmountable curbs will require maintenance on a year-round basis to maintain unobstructed entry to the site especially during the winter months. If they will not approve surmountable curbs,the driveways to and from the site shall be a minimum of twenty feet in unobstructed width as required by the Minnesota State Fire Code. Turning radii throughout the project must also conform to the minimum requirement of 28 feet as established by Fridley City Code. Ralph Messer,Fire Marshal City of Fridley Fire Depai tiuent cc Chief J Berg Asst Chief J Crelly 1 06/27/05 09:54 FAX 763 843 0421 BKBM ENGINEERS a001 • 5930 Brooklyn Boulevard BKBM - Minneapolis,MN 55429-2518 ENGINEERS j (763)843-0420 Fax: (763)843-0421 E-mail: bkbm@bkbm.com LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: John Haukaas City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley,Minnesota 55432 Fax: (763)571-1287 FROM: Dan Christensen DATE: June 27,2005 PROJECT: Spring Valley Estates PROJECT NO.: 05305.00 We are sending: COPIES DATED DESCRIPTION 1 Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision x Attached Under Separate Cover Via: Courier US Mail x Fax: 3 Pages REMARKS: The following items: John: Tracings Attached is the Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision for the Spring Valley Specifications Estates Project. Please contact me with any questions. Shop Drawings Copy of Drawings Thanks, Letter Dan x Other These are transmitted: For Approval COPY: Torn Cesare,P.E.—BK13M Engineers x As Requested For Review and Comment • • BKBM ENGINEERS An Equal Opportunity Employer 06/27/05 09:54 FAX 763 843 0421 BKBM ENGINEERS 0 002 Rice Creek Watershed District 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive, Suite 611 Blaine, MN 55449 • Office Phone: 763-398-3070 Office Fax: 763-398-3088 NOTICE OF WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT DECISION Name of Applicant: John Demellow Application Number: 04-001 Project Name: Spring Valley Estates Project Location: Fridley Type of Application (check one): X Exemption Decision No Loss Decision Replacement Plan Decision Banking Plan Decision Date of Decision: March 25, 2004 Check One: X Approved Approved with conditions Denied List of Addressees: iviN Board of Water•and Soil Resources, ATTN: Lynda Peterson (w/enclosure) HQ, MN/Department of Natural Resources, ATTN: Doug Norris (w/enclosure) Metro HQ, MN/Department of Natural Resources, ATTN: Wayne Barstad (w/enclosure) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,ATTN: Tim Fell (w/enclosure) Anoka Soil and Water Conservation District, ATTN: Becky Wozney (w/enclosure) Applicant City of Fridley RCWD File/Engineer/Inspector You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above-referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice. Date of mailing of this Notice: Rice Creek Watershed District March 25 _-- ,2004 By: Steve Hobbs Title: Administrator 06/27/05 09:55 FAX 763 843 0421 BKBM ENGINEERS 1003 Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions The entire site is covered with debris and the topography suggests that large amount of fill have been deposited on the site. There is one depression on the site that could possibly have wetland characteristics. The plant community consists of medium sized green ash trees and very little other vegetation. It is too early in the season to determine if the depression has hydric soils or evidence of wetland hydrology. If the depression does have wetland characteristics it is very poor quality. The applicant presented aerial photos and climatic data for the project. The 1938 aerial photo shows that depression being cultivated in row crops and the climatic data indicates that 1938 had normal rainfall. The 1964 aerial photo clearly shows fill being brought onto site just west of the depression. The topography of the site indicate that the depression was likely filled and re-excavated or had fill placed all around it artificially creating a depression. The aerial photo evidence along with the extensive amount of disturbance that is apparent on the site provide enough evidence that the depression within the project was incidentally created. Please call Karl Hammers at 763-398-3072 for further details. flinj CI1YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432 (763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • TTD/TTY(763)572-3534 June 27, 2005 John DeMello Family Lifestyle Development Corporation 2872 17th Terrace NW New Brighton MN 55112 Attention: John DeMello NOTIFICATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME OF AGENCY ACTION RE: Fridley Rezoning Request ZOA#05-02 Fridley Plat Request PS #05-02 Dear Mr. DeMello: The City Council approved your Plat request during its regularly scheduled meeting on June 13, 2005 but still need to complete a first and second reading on the ordinance approving your rezoning request for the Spring Valley Estates project. The first reading of the ordinance is scheduled to be heard tonight. However, the second reading will not occur until July 11, 2005. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §15.99, Subd. 3(f), the City hereby extends the time for agency action until July 11, 2005 for your Rezoning Plat request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-572-3599. Sincerely, Julie Jones Planning Coordinator cc: Russell &Beverly Prior Frank &Sharon DeMello Richard Carlson 1340 Mississippi Street 6134 Woody Lane NE 7671 Central Avenue NE Fridley MN 55432 Fridley MN 55432 Fridley MN 55432 Mark Mattison 6421 Central Avenue NE Fridley MN 55432 C-05-43 AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 CRY OF FRIDLEY Date: June 22,2005 To: William Burns,City Manager 4 A-- From: Scott Hickok,Community Development Director Julie Jones,Planning Coordinator Subject: Spring Valley Estates Rezoning ZOA#05-02 Background On June 13, 2005,the Fridley City Council held a public hearing regarding the rezoning request from John DeMello for the Spring Valley Estates project.This rezoning includes five parcels of land that have a mixture of zonings,which are proposed to be redeveloped into a mixed use development to S-2, Redevelopment District zoning.The subject properties are located at the intersection of Mississippi and Old Central Avenue.The project will include commercial space and senior condominiums. The City Council also considered a plat request for the same project that evening, and approved the plat request by a 4-1 vote. The Planning Commission also held a public hearing on the Spring Valley Estates Plat and Rezoning on June 1, 2005.The Planning Commission recommended approval on both actions with 23 stipulations. Public Notification Following the June 13 Council meeting,there appeared to be two unresolved points of dispute on the project.Members of the audience voiced concern about the City's public hearing notification process. During the meeting, staff produced all of the verification requested regarding direct mail and newspaper public hearing publication. In addition, following the meeting, staff obtained the attached legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the City's public notification requirements under State Statutes and City Code. Staff had made a good faith effort to notify not only property owners of the June 1 public hearing within 350',but extended the radius of mailing area beyond the 350' and also mailed the public hearing notice to other people(many living no where near the project area)who had previously indicated an interest in the project. The City Council was not required to mail a second public hearing notice,because the City Council is not required to hold a public hearing in addition to the Planning Commission hearing. There were also complaints regarding the dates of the petitioner's neighborhood meetings.However,the petitioner is not legally required to hold such meetings. Spot Zoning Discussion occurred at the June 13 public hearing regarding concerns that this rezoning could be considered "Spot Zoning"if the rezoned area does not include property to 64th Avenue.This area was identified in the City's 2001 re-write of the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning of all or a portion of the land guided for redevelopment would be consistent with the City's guide plan and not subject to spot zoning critique.Both 41 staff and the City Attorney concurred that the public record established during the 2004 public hearings on a previous proposal by this petitioner demonstrated public concern regarding traffic impacts and residential character impacts to the surrounding R-1 neighborhood if the project included land along 64th Avenue.This public record gives the City Council justification to rezone only the area under consideration without inclusion of the property south to 64th Avenue.In addition, City staff has obtained a second(attached)legal opinion on the spot zoning question from John Baker, an attorney representing the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Redesigned Access In addition,the petitioner had just received a response from the County at the time of the Council meeting stating that the County would require a right-in-right-out-only access redesign on the Old Central entry point into the new development. The Petitioner has had their engineer redraft the Master Plan documents (attached)to reflect the new entry design.There are now,however, some concerns regarding fire truck access that we should be able to resolve before the 2nd reading of the ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of ZOA#05-02 to rezone five parcels located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue to zoning S-2 Redevelopment District by conducting the first reading of the attached ordinance.Approving the ordinance includes language that also approves the Master Plan documents. The stipulations that were amended and approved by Council at the June 13 meeting for the preliminary plat for this project are also listed as an exhibit. M-05-49 42 City of Fridley Land Use Application ZOA#05-02 & PS #05-02 May 25, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: 6461 Central Avenue: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Vacant Lot John DeMello 1941 — Lot is platted. 2872 17th Terrace NW 6441 Central Avenue: New Brighton MN 55112 Vacant Lot. Requested Action: 1941 — Lot is platted. Rezone property from C-1, C-2, and R-1 to S-2. 1969— Proposal to build a Tastee-Freez. Replat 1998— Rezoning request from C-1 to R-1, Location: withdrawn prior to Planning Commission. 1314 Mississippi Street, 1340 Mississippi Legal Description of Property: Street, 6441 Central Avenue, 6421 Central 1340 Mississippi Street: Avenue, 6461 Central Avenue Lot 15, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 1314 Mississippi Street: Existing Zoning: Lot 16, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 1314 Mississippi St. — C-2, General Business 6461 Central Avenue: 1340 Mississippi St. — R-1, Single Family Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6421 Central Avenue— C-1, Local Business & 6441 Central Avenue: R-1, Single Family Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6441 Central Avenue— C-1, Local Business & 6421 Central Avenue: R-1 Single Family Lot 19, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition 6461 Central Avenue — C-2, General Business Council Action /60 Day Date: Size: City Council —June 13, 2005 Approximate size of entire area to be rezoned 60-Day Date—June 27, 2005 and replatted: SUMMARY OF REQUEST 159,460 sq. ft. 3.66 acres The petitioner, John DeMello, of Family Existing Land Use: Lifestyle Development Corp., is requesting to Single Family homes, small commercial replat and rezone the properties located at building (garage), and vacant land 1314 Mississippi St., 1340 Mississippi St., 6421 Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: Central Ave., 6441 Central Ave., 6461 Central N: Commercial building & C-2 Ave. from C-1, Local Business, C-2 General E: Single Family& R-1 Business, and R-1 Single Family to S-2 S: Single Family homes & C-1 and R-1 Redevelopment District for the purpose of W: Vacant land and Restaurant & S-2 redevelopment, to allow for a Senior Housing Development/Retail mixed-use develoment. Comprehensive Plan Conformance: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Future Land Use Map designates this area as Redevelopment. City Staff recommends approval of this plat, Zoning History: rezoning and subsequent master plan request. • Proposed rezoning is consistent with the 1314 Mississippi Street: Comprehensive Plan. 1941 — Lot is platted. 1952— House is built. • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors. 1959— Detached garage built. ■ Provides additional retail opportunities in 1340 Mississippi Street: Fridley. 1941 — Lot is platted. •House and garage constructed pre-1949. Provides additional job opportunities. 6421 Central Avenue: Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones 1941 — Lot is platted. House and garage built prior to 1949. 43 ZOA#05-02 & PS#05-02 Spring Valley Estates Overview Summary of Applications John DeMello of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation is requesting two separate land use actions from the City of Fridley in order to construct a mixed use retail/senior housing complex on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The two actions that have been requested are a Plat and a Rezoning. Both of these applications, and the master plan approval, will be examined individually in this report. A Plat has been requested to create one new parcel, combining existing lots located at 1340 and 1314 Mississippi Street, and 6461, 6441 (vacant), and 6421 Central Avenue. A 10,492 square foot retail complex will occupy the lower level of the northeastern corner of the building with 70 condominium units occupying the remainder of the building. The petitioner is also requesting a rezoning for the newly created parcel. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. MISSISSIPPI ST Ili 1314 > at ( 8 z L 64TH AVE Proposed Project The petitioner is proposing to construct a 3-story complex, which incorporates a 10,492 square foot retail area on the lower level of the northwestern corner of the development. The petitioner has stated that he envisions that this complex will house neighborhood retail businesses, which could include businesses like a pharmacy, a coffee shop, an ice cream/sandwich shop or a hair salon. The retail complex will include 45 - 9 foot wide parking stalls for customers. The housing portion of the complex will have 70 condominium units for seniors. The proposed 70 units will be owner-occupied and comprised of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. There are a variety of unit styles and sizes with some including a den. The residential development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. The petitioner plans to model the exterior of both projects after an Italian villa. The site will include a storm water pond with landscaping that surrounds the property. 44 Site History The proposed development area is located on the southeast corner of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. The area consists of 2 vacant lots, which are located on Central Avenue and 4 homes that were constructed prior to 1952, 2 of which are located on Mississippi Street and the other 2 are located on Central Avenue. The petitioners' father, Frank DeMello purchased the vacant parcel located 6461 Central Avenue, 25 years ago. When the property at 1314 Mississippi Street came up for sale over the summer of 2003, the petitioner purchased it with the hope of developing the land. The petitioner then contacted surrounding property owners to see if they would be interested in selling their properties. When the neighboring property owners became interested in selling their properties, the petitioner came forward with a redevelopment proposal in the spring of 2004. The previous plat and rezoning applications were denied. The 2004 proposal included the creation of two separate parcels and included three additional lots down to 64th Avenue with the retail portion of the development being a separate building and parcel. The housing portion of the proposal was to build a 90-unit, four-story, senior condominium complex. The retail portion of the development included plans for 13,750 sq. ft. of commercial retail space. The City Council denied this proposal, citing that the density was too high, creating potential traffic problems with traffic existing onto 64th Avenue, limiting landscaping opportunities, and limiting the possibility of adequate snow storage areas. Analysis Rezoning Application ZOA #05-02 The petitioner is requesting a rezoning and master plan approval for the east side of Central Avenue between Mississippi Street south to and including 6421 Old Central Avenue. Currently, there is a mixture of commercial and residential zonings and the petitioner is seeking to rezone the entire block to S-2 Redevelopment District. The properties requesting to be rezoned are 1340 Mississippi Street (single family home, zoned R-1, Single Family), 1314 Mississippi Street (single family home and garage (welding shop), zoned C-2, General Business), 6461 Central Avenue (vacant lot, zoned C-2, General Business), 6441 Central Avenue (vacant lot, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family), and 6421 Central Avenue (single family home, split zoning, zoned C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family). The petitioner is proposing to redevelop these five parcels. -y' 1 64TH AVE tim ' i 171, Zoning Map—Shows mix of zoning and properties to be replatted and rezoned. As the properties exist today, 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning between C-1, Local Business and R-1, Single Family. While both of the lots are rather large in size, conflicts arise when the zoning is split between a commercial and residential zoning at an arbitrary point in the lot. 2 45 Rezoning a property to S-2 Redevelopment District, requires that the accompanying site plan become the master plan for the site. If the rezoning and master plan were approved by the City Council any modification of the site plan would need to go back to the City Council for review and approval. Review of the master plan also needs to be completed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as the property is in a Redevelopment District. Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use and Housing Chapters The City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. State Statute gives the City the authority to "rezone" property from one designated use to another, so long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held between 1998 and 2000 and is a "tool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community...lt is a plan because it contains goals, policies and strategies that all work together, looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision" In order for a rezoning to be viewed favorably, it must be in line with the City's vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed retail complex, senior owner-occupied condominium complex and rezoning of the properties meet several of the objectives the residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the Comprehensive Plan. The area of Old Central between Mississippi Street and Rice Creek Road was identified as an area for future redevelopment. The purpose of redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient land uses and under utilized parcels. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to build new facilities, meet current market demands and desires of the City, creates new tax base, and creates additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of these properties. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states that for this portion of Old Central, "consideration should be made to replacing the current mix of single-family residential and commercial uses with higher density residential development that together with the health club may serve as an attractive residential location for move-up housing". The Comprehensive Plan also states that for projects in these redevelopment areas requiring rezoning that the S-2 zoning designation "would be the appropriate Zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project. The intent of the district is to provide the City with site plan review authority to determine if the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive and Redevelopment Plans". The Comprehensive Plan, in both the Future Land Use & the Housing chapters, addresses the desire for a variety of housing types in a number of goals listed below. • Ensure that adequate opportunities exist for the development of a variety of housing types at a range of affordability levels including low, low-moderate and high cost housing to meet the life-cycle needs of Fridley residents. • Create sustainable, self-reliant, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods that contribute positively to the quality of life and image of Fridley. • Ensure a variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. • Strengthen neighborhoods and improve upon the quality of the City's housing stock. • Diversify the housing supply to include move up housing both in the form of rental and owner occupied housing. As Fridley's residents continue to age, demand will increase for"empty nester" and senior housing. There will be an increased demand for senior rental, senior owned condominium/town homes, and assisted living facilities. The proposed project, 70 senior owner-occupied 3 46 condominium units, will meet some of the current demand for those seniors seeking alternatives to their current housing type. Rezoning these properties helps to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goal for this area. Housing Market Study The petitioner hired Maxfield Research Inc. in 2003 to complete a Market Feasibility Study for Senior Housing in Fridley. The demographidi and competitive market analysis done by Maxfield was updated in March 2004, and, again in March 2005. The latest updated remarks from Maxfield indicates that there continues to be a demand in the Fridley area for senior condominium housing units. Maxfield's research is taking into account the planned Town Center project across Central Avenue, which is yet to begin construction. The original, base housing market study pointed out that given the competitive situation in the marketplace, the quality of the subject site, and the lack of for-sale product within three miles of the property, the senior condominium project would be the most marketable product for the site. Their research also showed that the subject site could best support an age-restricted owner- occupied development such as a condominium or cooperative of around 70 units. Maxfield's updated figures indicate suggested sale prices to be $156,000 for the smallest one- bedroom unit to $279,000 for the largest three-bedroom unit. They expect the entire housing portion of the project to sell out in 22 months. Plat Application #05-02 John DeMello, Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, is seeking to replat the properties located at 1340 Mississippi Street, 1314 Mississippi Street, 6461 Central Avenue, 6441 Central Avenue, and 6421 Central Avenue to create one new consolidated lot. The proposed plat will consist of one lot; Lot 7, Block 1, Spring Valley Estates. This is different than the 2004 proposal which created two new lots, one accommodating the retail portion of the development and one containing the housing portion of the project. if ' �, , y._.._ W / 'Will' sk - - . Looking south on Old Central toward project area Rezoning a property to S-2, Redevelopment District allows for the maximum flexibility for a redevelopment project. The petitioner has designed their project to meet the zoning classification codes most similar to their intended use. This would be C-2, General Business, zoning for the retail portion of the project and R-3, General Multiple Unit Housing, for the residential portion of the project. The retail portion of the proposed development is 10,492 47 4 square feet and meets all the parking requirements for the number of parking stalls required for a retail use under the speculative parking ratio requirements. Proof of parking for an additional 8 parking stalls is also provided. Staff is satisfied with this amount of parking for the commercial part of the development. The housing portion of the project is 120,196 square feet in size with all three floors combined. This is a density of 21 units per acre. The petitioner is proposing to construct 70 senior owner- occupied condominium units. The development will include 110 underground parking stalls and 12 surface parking stalls. This amount of parking meets the requirement for an independent living facility. However, staff considers this project to fall somewhere in between the category of senior assisted living and market rate housing parking requirements. Market rate parking requirements would be for a total of 129 parking spaces. The petitioner is proposing at total of 122 parking stalls, which is 7 units shy of the market rate requirements. Staff believes the amount of stalls provided should be adequate since some households occupying this complex would be expected to have only one vehicle. Staff finds the lot coverage proposed to be reasonable for a mixed use development. Code requires no more than 30% lot coverage for multi-unit residential and commercial properties. The proposed project shows 28% lot coverage, meeting requirements for both zoning types. Early discussions with Anoka County indicated that additional right-of-way on Central Avenue and Mississippi Street will be required for future reconstruction purposes. They anticipate that a 120 ft. right-of-way corridor will be required for both Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersections in order to provide the necessary turn lanes for future safety and operational purposes. The County assumes when the Central Avenue/Mississippi Street intersection is reconstructed, it would be centered in the 120 ft. right-of-way corridor. Consequently, roadway right-of-way dedication needs for this site are 27-30 ft. adjacent to Mississippi Street and 10 ft. adjacent to Central Avenue. Therefore, staff assumes that the County will be requesting that at this time, both of the right-of-ways be dedicated. The petitioner has drawn the site plan to illustrate right-of-way acquisition along both County Roads. Due to necessity of right-of-way acquisition, the drive lane on the west side of the development will be only two feet from the west property line. The parking setback on the north side of the development, which is considered the front yard of this site layout, meets the minimum 35' setback. The building is 34' in height to the mid-span of the roof line. Therefore, the building only requires a 15' side yard setback on the east side, but an 18' setback is provided. The additional 3' of side yard setback was provided on the east side of the project, because fire truck access may be required. The 18' setback, combined with an 8' public right of way that runs along the east property line, would provide 26' of clearance for the possibly required fire truck access. The rear yard setback of 40' on the south side has also been met. As stated above, due to the flexibility allowed in the S-2, Redevelopment district, the diminished setbacks can be recognized under this rezoning master plan approval. The proposal as submitted does not meet the landscaping requirements of City Code, however. According to code, 160 trees will be required for this development. The petitioner is proposing to provide 91 trees. Code also requires at minimum that 30% of the trees be coniferous. This would be 48 of the 160 trees required. The petitioner has met this requirement in the proposal by providing 49 conifers. The petitioner is proposing to add rain garden plantings to the ponding areas in lieu of some of the tree landscaping requirement. Staff would like to encourage the rain garden plantings, but would like to see more trees planted on the property as well. There currently is very little landscaping proposed on the south end of the plat. There are also possibilities to save some of the existing trees that could reduce the 160 tree requirement. 5 48 Traffic Study Staff utilized a number of sources to determine the possible impacts that 70 senior owner occupied condominium units and the commercial complex may have on the local traffic patterns. Staff consulted the Transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and reviewed the traffic study supplied by TDI, Traffic Date Incorporated. Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Chapter The City's Comprehensive Plan indicated that in 2001, the portion of Old Central adjacent to the proposed senior condominiums carried 8,000 vehicles per day and, at this traffic level, was only carrying 57% of the traffic for which the roadway was designed and constructed to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates Old Central carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020, based upon increases in population for Fridley& surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 10,000 vehicles /day, Old Central will be carrying 71% if the maximum amount of traffic for which the roadway was designed. Review of Traffic Impact Report Prepared by TDI, Inc. Family Lifestyle Development Corporation hired TDI, Traffic Data Incorporated, a Data Collection, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning firm to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. The analysis was regarding the proposal for more housing units and more retail space than the current proposal. The consultants performed a trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, which was published in December 2003. At that time, the consultants used the Senior Adult Housing Attached category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed senior complex would generate a total of 247 trips per day. The consultants used the Specialty Retail Center category from the ITE manual and determined that the proposed retail complex would generate a total of 598 trips per day. Trip Generation ITE Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out In Out 252 Senior Adult Housing — 247 3 3 5 3 Attached (71 units) 814 Specialty Retail Center— 598 n/a n/a 16 21 (13,500 sq. ft.) TDI developed traffic forecasts for the following 2005 scenarios: No Build (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) Build Spring Valley Estates (with traffic forecasted from the Town Center Senior Housing project approved across from the site on Central Avenue) The finding of these forecasts show that the level of service at both the Central Avenue/64th Avenue intersections and the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersections would remain the same in the no-build or build scenarios. The only change seen is during the AM Peak Hour at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue eastbound intersection, where the level of service would change from LOS B to LOS C. Central Avenue/64TH Avenue Westbound & Eastbound Approach LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Scenario Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound 2005 No-Build A B C C 2005 Build A C C C 6 49 Mississippi Street/Central Avenue Intersection LOS Results Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2005 No-Build C D 2005 Build C D To complete the traffic study, the consultants also referred to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which governs the use of traffic control devices per Minnesota State Statute. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has eight criteria (called warrants) to consider when determining if a traffic signal should be installed at an intersection or not. These warrants are primarily based on the traffic volumes flowing through the intersection. A warrant analysis was conducted for the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. To complete this analysis, TDI staff performed a turning movement count from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mississippi Street/Central Avenue intersection. None of the eight warrants are met under the existing conditions, nor will they be met if the senior housing and retail buildings are constructed on the proposed site. According to this analysis, a traffic signal should not be installed at the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue until at least one of the warrants is being met. The conclusions of TDI's analysis state that the stop controlled approaches at the Central Avenue/64th Avenue intersection operate at LOS C or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic control. The intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue will operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios with the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. A traffic signal was not currently warranted at the intersection and a traffic signal was not be warranted at the intersection after the previously proposed development would have been completed, according to the 2004 traffic study. The traffic study consultant was asked to submit comments regarding the traffic impacts of the current redevelopment proposal for less retail space and housing units. Their comments were summed up by the following statement: "As long as the proposed number of units and amount of retail space remains below the amount I initially studied, the roadway network will accommodate the senior housing development."A complete copy of the 2004 traffic study is available upon request. Wetland/Drainage The petitioner is still working with the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) to finalize an agreement regarding the necessary permits needed for the project. The wetland that was of concern in last year's proposal has been exempted by the RCWD, so no replacement or mitigation is required. Revised storm water management plans are expected to resolve concerns that the City Engineering Department had over the initial set of plans submitted with the application. Comments Received During the public hearings for this development proposed last year, there was a great deal of Public input. Some of the concerns raised were regarding traffic and a guarantee that the tenants of the complex would be 55 or older. To alleviate those concerns ahead of time, the petitioner provided city staff with a traffic study and a copy of the proposed association documents upon submittal of the rezoning and plat request. Much of the concern, however, revolved around traffic onto 64th Avenue. The current development proposal no longer includes the properties along 64th Avenue and will not have access onto 64th Avenue. The petitioner held a neighborhood meeting on April 27 and is holding a second neighborhood informational meeting on May 27. Staff was not in attendance at either of these meetings. However, we have heard that concerns raised have mostly been about crime or traffic. 50 Staff has received only a couple of calls to date in response to the public hearing notice, inquiring about the property. These callers were seeking information about the project, but did not exhibit any objections. Staff has also received a call from someone interested in buying a condominium unit. Staff Recommendation City Staff recommends approval of this Rezoning ZOA #05-02 and accompanying site plan for the senior building and retail complex, with stipulations. • Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Provides housing opportunities for seniors. • Provides additional retail opportunities in Fridley. • Provides additional job opportunities in Fridley City Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for PS#05-02, with stipulations. Stipulations Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to the approval of the above land use requests: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan - Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan - Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 8 51 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22.A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. 9 52 ORDINANCE NO._-2005 ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING ZOA#05-02, FROM C-1,LOCAL BUSINESS,C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS AND R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO S-2, REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 15—19, SPRING VALLEY,GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA 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, including stipulations as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. LOTS 15-19,BLOCK 1, SPRING VALLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District S-2 (Redevelopment District) and shall comply with Master Plan as depicted in Exhibit B,MP-1,Master Plan- Landscape and Grading, and Exhibit C,MP-2,Master Plan-Utility and Grading, both dated June 22,2005. SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District C-1 (Local Business), C-2 (General Business District), and R-1, (Single Family Residential)to S-2, (Redevelopment District). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS_ DAY OF ,2005. SCOTT J. LUND—MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN—CITY CLERK Public Hearing: June 13,2005 First Reading: June 27,2005 Second Reading: July 11, 2005 Publication: July 21,2005 53 EXHIBIT A STIPULATIONS FOR ZOA#05-02-SPRING VALLEY 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan - Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan - Utility& Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building pen-nit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. 54 EXHIBIT B • l m../.5 :t/ S PP R \ - ,_ rum us1 nwwww 01. PROPOSED PLAN moms N A4EeRFvl.4nO Ns I \ m.a.P.Pa w- ,a.....s SRAM '_ PRIMMIPM RWR•r1lr. MC 1 d _= f G' II 8`.I},'I` :..' w_...""�". a•""'.r ..°."`m.Jr.... v w L.. /r , _- ..-,. ....„ „. _ m� malmor - M:"� wWw�er�W - C�- I.I y Y err n:a.: Le IMO ar W r e�►. . r. a.r.,ar,air ..,. f .. la• ., t.- /,..,.,,-..t,,,„ a Trio virwewN:, warm•omo..u. .ter w me Om "'" —' •\.1C���� ��� i , 10' i w Ma Imo s..•..e.r Ir W •t, i \o` .,„, SPRING VALLEY ESTATES FRIDLEY,MN \1 ; %% 1 i a►16t:. ..! .I' V'714. ..• E•'AIVEt11'MEM P. Om V' wry I? i i at mom , ow n:. a...om eo W 30 1S 0 30 80 I, ila°51 8808114,44 112081 ,y •w \j ,f \1� III .I� t I I.yo " v-....e. ,u..w. r-r w rurrme•otes .'"1=====t1 `M.r.. '"' t. ej: ..:.. ..u...7IT-t....;,..s,I��I�� • e.d..-....:...+ 447....;""....`""m,. .vaM •..,.•........_,-.... "" SPRING VALLEY ESTATES • I y\ i.we4wM•MMq M./ iM M w wM '\ , 1 ' \ / ovri I. C'r �, ; '�:y:w..�""�".:.•."".... 9 ora^" Ia. / r.....r.,..... i.:"..:\ � .+..�`". ir..M. ..m.. wm amw..m.••..r m...a :�,{'U' •�®',r,'Ir�, 6POSED/ IJ I i., 1 1 % wu.w•:..'w".w.me w+..n....s.:. Soma rMu ammo m mr ammo r w....wr.:..:r r mt. 7 ! NIC Moms lAem Mo. w�.r w Uma:.....,�,n w m m..w.n.�.r. C J••,...,,'�UILOINdr ; ; /"' l i l f n.n i...•...+•aw maw.::.• os.r •... • a x I. .s.w•..... �� f R Far-w.�.rw...W..An•w 4Mt i\ 1 • gm 4.. `I,LEEFE 894.6 / ' C•- ,l i' i u MI s...mos. ..am.PM ... K ti �..waa..w..rr..•.w..wa.a..+.. ..,t, 1 ., I GIN mol N. LFE•03A I I I 't .....a..w i MAI‘ P� s\ I IH Mow M.T..w.MY MO* Y. M M L II X M MM..*ro..:M_ Sondl Amor .a M m....w..mo,-..r....•.,..a. `` � .../ / `.O. ' I �-~, ti"..J i a.« +n•.w..wlel.w.. .sr mote .4. K M ..m...,�....�..m....ary a+.:.,.+,w.a,.. 'II I l E Q ! l ! .e tt .............0 o.1.TM s M mm.m. Mom.w agaitalTEM W•I�; I'I �� ' /` </ Bt �r �� \ - II lali l ,'S - m¢ss9auas n.....a...w..e.:. ixM "M"—�:a' �.v.-wAAO tr.-=1.=: .:r-ea.+ir moPIO w .w r:a•a•.r••.•rw OM IOW OMR !`. I - -7:"'..- _ i_ ‘,' I ,..r.mwr.M M...w.wM.aa r-r W "'a" ixaawwto + iit -i t t ''\ P.i aa.....•.w ma...' aa.a..a.•. K M 'N....w •i ii°• R.a.a•.Pa yy �, �1J -� [.sI i« ! _. I '\ .�M.".°.w...a".`.'w:..ww ....w ".'$Raw 4 �I(4 # \/ jf rg.!!! 7.,.,,L /ii'l .r. ....r•r�r " ......... On.No.:w.r f.wwY..w.mr•%MYlow i _\ -4a � I��� K1', ilI II r, 1 �w41.=.1f,�,.�.:. -,.._...•...... ARCHITECTURAL WORKS 1 ���� I. \ ��� � � 1� ..,. � -III 1� 1.p •....maw....... �... VILLARD, INC. � p�1 �s.>miQl m v i"�� / I `C�� I�1 ii.7 Law/mope MP 11,0 .` • �'f 1, ._ I, I I .� ���= 'X U®R s SNWea IS /SD..S Rm.M f ',`�i1 r ��; •,., r 1 I 9 ..\.w �I�; ".��-004:..4 Iola ISA/m XS ewr.r Moo 1 "� -�; g ' i11 , .`a.. awawea MSNm.a.7 OMfeM ,•...I I@: Lm mor ® \ �����/. �� - 1 I ', _. . I MK OM.imom MUM/toxo.100.40wp••h•.• ...•.,�,�.„..,..... `-.. tti , /p••.�) I,.n.r aM b awd Mal bre IM 0 //• L{. t J sitar MOM OF i `� �"����h., ,,. . f:1 � . - - ]�, w.. ., 10_4-10 OmOla,0.40 1 7 \ , b i$ III �, tram w Mar velarnnnw•mw•.w48 " .,,...- W �. 1 ' - ! �. `-/ • ) ' nw Um 00 a.aelr we.New n..Nr // Iawm..OO CO w.•a s..m•n(PM Mk pram ammo M Wary obis M..a••.1PI t 1,1 ; �\ 4,4.. m..i 1 ; , _..eux.rciiNOO t II .'"(l .I RAO,M,aaa,./30,61...a1,a.w.a. —., .. C\ f d SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL mom" I _ j FEB894.0/� F � 1 �. :,.J S LF883.0/ �M-1. I e.»aoeww+ II't 1 '�f I f li: d � BKBM .•.a,-1/d a1 M1ea i • � 1 !`^•� L.d i:il1 , ` �. ;r�-"+e.°Rw"1-.`p ••• M"C.T`Mi 0PH IOW 30 ORIrt ORM T�•.••w .mow."". ® .... J .. .".‘7--.-‘,.,,,,,,,,,. !°'i55F10&11.iF•lyr- I""'YIMER .Praa ...:.........w,dtw•.�:�. ', I e.•/r� � X111 I `'� .r IRO w RIR PURR r wR..ER ...1w•RAM,w moa ..„,,,00 m w...rx S.ai.Ora.._ wn..u...........,..�. -��_ -..va.r-- .MAR K• 4 ' -r•w' ori eneo wrUenP°°i a 9 zea 7" °"°w"mr Qfgi�^ �P t?1$19A81'T.a 7. f MR moi..u III / ffi , lii ' _ �� Y 6a N1S1 T•R I' � `o:+a.'a"-a. " MASTER PLAN• i 'I LANDSCAPE& II' I •-• , .-'IM.•_ .._..I.........., _ I(t)I we...•.1 1-io YTR.E ORO.a 1R SPAM aw... I t II J " * . /.. 11 d'>•a t i t ,� .wlWa. amw•awP.a 10 VMS R.• - GRADING _AIM PUN-IAMOCIPE R Q8101110 w�ear�lo0.. 111111 ,r°.aa"'araw°M '41a•a91C.•�wrwat,m..w."'r�an.1°..RaRA1C0Aw. WWI WO MOS mwR WINOS CO as NOM r•seat sra I K AMMOaIM a MAMA MOS I 53 ..... ... ....r....147.77.77.4."..:".4.."'. " n alai 1mewR•Feme1..•nu10ONI"o'ww..we r�ue1°11iw nwa"�"wd1awn P3 PLR n rt•1 MM..a1'a..e 05705.00 4w11311.OAMArNaerwww*. CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL KG _231349 Dari 00 05 TREE PLANTING DETAIL MP-1.0 EXHIBIT C • PROPOSED PLAN SYMBOLS •ot1.•nON•' N' airimma0010.000100110 MI ---- �,_� NI= initt i . -�.. I -?w0'.�yl� w,ipp 7� wr 101,0 000 MN MUM OM ili.07'41`�■ ~_A NM 011110101111111 RMI M Mi. r -� \� Rte_ MM 1.110 0101100000001 M. w s o SO ' (77.--- '---7:"-'-.7. -__7---1110.:: ...-_- �,il��� �� IEWSPRING VALLEY ESTATES i :' 1 I / �� -Lir 1� i�! I FRIDLEY.MN 1 I t. / :.i OP x'' , I ••Frs..,WLLwMMV000OMNI?InMOM1eMwMIIMAMRb00M0M00000110ww &IVOOM1s000 0w1.MONOM oa ax MI11 • MIMI 1011 no OFOONVOLV Mt MAN 1011 IR NM= • '• `...^'•.'1 0010100 M.011101000 MOI x0wglg01M ar emO um w10M00@ yotw 001000» waKx M»00m amvasomw.moo •�: 1 I r '-.- ���ml`,.• I vsODOM 0011101 Mx NOM at 0000 i MMOA.M 016»000 \1�' f �9 �q0 ■■ .01100 WM 0110001001 MINT t•K 10010000 M x 000 M1 x COMM 011080000 MN M1Ma M Mk 0000110w0R ILL 09000MOM M0a -.. 1 I�.- % i�, . `wMM�-as���l.., .1q ,ID I 1 rwwwnawanMwwwc rooms M0101Mi00-O-M�R 0w001-MMO.RYN 0v IMP w10sx 0•'aORRwW!{aM 0R 0104 0011000 aR MI0a Mw0l{600.1! �" -Taff'IT= -�I " I „w SPRING VALLEY ESTATES ' I �. � •.•. ,,.. • ••• ( 't ,••- _• _ . `1 commara..111w0 M IT L1�'mC1°MaS, 0/01...70Mora w0.1INT10.411111:1, X10: IM1MP0~.MMOL $ E r .M01CIM 0WLa10lOMLIM IIL M00MK M.>11HL 00118 MR MIgUOIpOxi .00,00 i: S6.0111/010...111040010100 MIM a m w 100001R•,Ow OM MNAMMLL MM MU M OM 010 0101/01111 IMAM 0001 w 000016M1aw M Mt -� .-OPOSEDi I ^`.i ? 1 i ,, M1wLNaM1iLNN1ar R:'»q°aalMaia qi 111O11 K eu.wRaleL �. •..• I / KM.0M�N1» ONI00 I o,ma 11M11R0M MO1011111r10a M1MV 00L 0100 1011011011,0 00MOM1 M.as 0N0Ma 00 x00MON. `j �UILDINLLf /, f f / 001 I�1MWM 10011 000110 l,.LeFE 886.6 ,Iai i 1 000100 OM 101aa 01iswaw1101i w-MIN wi MrM MUM w°mws x voMlea „w„ III ORM LIM 11001 LFE o • . IL MIMI.Mu moo.090E 11000 M mos x raw wow os I11a em.K Kworn coma 0100 w ORM Ma mor.II x 1.0101 mom MOW" I Imo, `„ly I mo` • ~• - �' I iI1 1t om II MOMRV MILLO xsoma 0110 MOM RIM 01NtefgaM00gM011 MOM ORM MOM a ON rust AMIm Mt MOM K 10000999 01110. l , '� . • ., Iw1M0xMOSMMMc0M000.swaK llgewt1MM11a MOON 0101 00 11100 MK 000000111 MOW ria.l...0000100 M.01w0MI0ROIMM y,/ ■ ;,010 t�., • {/. i I0p[ 'I � 1�1• , I .1 i W101 w1001100f 0010tY Mw aw011 OMMIw16 `W I �� 9 fk.L ^'�` 1 `'•,•• Ma ,_•I w saw1�MM01IMI MM11�w MOM niNOlrw moors M Ma sumo PN-**+M/,MIAMI Mw M.so, 0.6.0900 wL.MM1 as 001E ROM \ I .I ‘1' , / lI/ _ \ 1 , *000100MxlIa1.1owm.w10a0 RMNRe000w0Ra K0aMe .1 • , •:l; • r, i -`' '1 �I _�t : 1`' 00L IKa 00 0000010.MINIM N COMM MR01.110er MOM a M MMM MI IMO 10 MIMOM NMwaK w,V \ 1140�' 'j `r 1� III I I 1:,j', ..i •.�111 \ MMa keltNT 00010 w N°':�0.IpNerr ma vs M.woo oseIM Or ICR. :RM=" M ARCHITECTURAL WORKS a �� -1\11-. Li. #:, � �� t �, pt 10m.:W.11.001=21411114...0.11..11111400 10 wwMNlamei 1agx1M10ts"Mt VILLARD, INC. 10. 1 �� I � �1 �® mss. I� \ MIN1100M is ow NYxewaaw00Mw 1 �, � � .p. .10Ma0Rg01.-A�yp NxNa Mw1800 ro x0001 rM00WwOz&-..z....vr w ONNN.-a 111.-0mt00w 01,Aa1:0 �. 1 ! +p, tt 0wM0M>IM110 r1901M1R0 x0011000 RID00 YaIaM wW0wx011M wdM®000 N11011000NMa Ire w 1iL1^. '11111.1 ® \''\I; 1 /„'� :son woo M 40101113 es menoonorr atv Vaos00o0o 000 iw 0010 wvs romojt ossonvaso owes an os mow mow, Omown w rmos so ovum `.. ..; 11 OM�L • 11 'y,. •, \ .. /��. I'I I� \: a AI KKMq®a-uMltNnpY NINP O1 MR�MMOL IM00 g0104011�-Mnw oosvvono lo 1r ay now soma ws•..1 aM>R1IN0MM R Ma lwaw11 xK0wAR • i 1! i l! ► /� 00000 . ... ��4' .. _ - :0 mum M'!LR00000M mamma MN .1010000 g10MIa DAMN.. r 0 'y1 �_ �� 01.0E Alu w Ow.M roomer oll:r0ovial 00rma ►001101010N...00.00 a wok sons mos a mow so owe ms aawa II iO 'a/Logii � 0 1� .11ii00 `l 10 K1611M wrta 0w 10001O0w M011NNxMON011 01Y0000gMO00900001110 Oww. �J�� i At t1+�,��`-i \�T.ankr: .!".._ S. .�''e'li• .10., .901000�w..a°01101M-010v....7.3 3.eo 1ro..../001-60YL a1M0vorpw0.,wwL0t00MgO llw.weM"rrzsg 1IMt OM10010i 000A 1»MA NN 011100MORN 10010000 Mw .000.0.0�1{yry[ �11 l''' 1.•I ':"---,--,1=7,--,,,,---\��-iill'100►-w r,-__... i AAL a0N.1I RILT Ox wOr. 1:0'000wM 1010:40"11."10 mow IMMO.000090.MOM OM 111110 011110-0001110 Cel i r"........ , '^\- �� Vmil I1."•• r,,•; ,,11 M00m g010w km swarm.yam no 1019 100 moa 0000189100 M Mum t I .; } :,�\�� � :`1:1 M OxNO NM00wI11a w 011011000ANOM 0Ml m www 101MAaMMOp wows Ower mow O mom 00001000.MRNOIN vows t + 11 nwq•wss> x10. ..� 000 on mow Mw sowv mums mows arm co oft loos wm0lM..v•low s MMM rag tom 1 �� �,� '^"•'�r 1 a r 0110•a NL°aaase mor ' MwM M 0006•N•rr m �'.� �ti': _ !! `•��� 00.00 N, Mx 1.0019 ovum mono 0001 M°.�M rrN.Nq•wx OOMMOO am I .. I l \ \ .' ,•� 011•\/••• , I,I1t 0001 4 rM1NM0MrwMgom AMOrws�xwl4�MLs wMlmoms pw.Lww.wwMMa0Ma0Ms 000 MM[ 0it •.� ;Of Y.: 1 l• E"\1 \ � .il ILO oL moms no. il0101101 we sow k Imo- own 010mom x.Aa NROMN MwxTOMx11100B 00000010N MAIMw 000 W iI \ . , aM»100.4-OtON awa oen 0101.rnrMna a 1 \,. \��, w 0000 q.01M ON,IMI 610100 JIM,. qaO�Mar 001.4110..10=11CMOAwM vu10 11.60114171.10e0:10.4%.74.112.1%.1.1%NLM .0...,0010..... V 'L% .. :„-ito.(FDlorill'i. I I4PL;a A:.l1N wut 0000iiii'.O NM=1,0 )w a1 N0wAM00w 0000,aMwNON•Rw10I0i1\\. •wS1... DBI 10.vMa.w1aR 11.00 MwM www. ^•••^•^-•.a•\\\ \�.A/`. L� I� I w 00800906 aM1OMaNMOW M 1100000 AM 10 MO MOM MO MO000N1M 0000 MgMO w x MA ID VCO NMIC AK IM011wx1,,,." 0 f�! r F 884 0 / I INC rM Mwane a101000. MIL IS OMNI RIK__00�As pw0R1001.0010MOpL«x I + I_ nm �' -. ,• LF 8881Q! I +_ I iso woe.or Lim ww.OMiMd IWm moo& ORM10 IC 1 Ma1M0MOw aaNLwO-NO�0-mo MY 00001006 Ma'Mww�ya.° ..101+ ..,...,, 01.00 I'q �- 7i�11�1' �I PIM NnrFa BKBM .„ o,�«..,.a. 1 .,_..-=1•,•�A�.�� »- .•• -�II� 6,11rwsasw e1•Moan tzar-'-iazz.w.A.a 100.1»0.0 1 ' ��� \ -1' ■awNK0N1111611110110MM01111M.0100118 wefts wa 1 I _ e' ^e � I a MOM M NM MOMMMw 010101RM 1000.M111so.02 sI yw�-:ir��:.MjI�i Nei- ,. _BIZ M m001a mono co 0 Mt sum K raw wow000m a010 w �' S. • -^�w1 A.{::O�y�R.ra fit-�0 18 `aaaMwR,1pA001MO N»1a'wAOMMfMIwNwllas MO 0, t -';misa T'S.7'r1 4i`� 0 00Y010011i ry 10000-Oa0%11Ygw101"s'fi Nti0000 sS vow ....Ow' .ew IX 1,11 -ti l 0.MAC 5ayaMO0 MUM 00111 RR 10117111000 100101111100100. � w s .'I 1 1 .... fi �• ,1 Y�MIS 110=10100NNi011O MOM 10 OM 0000001 CV ai ,per M110,010 1111RN00 i , I r-01, /VIS'^ - ' \... . ' le MASTER PLAN- VII UTILITY&GRADING t \I III ' A.\ / ;)-1WV � ikAAM-D1U1Y 4 4N10p0 05305.80 MP-2.0 (1: J c ko KNAAK & KANTRUD, P.A. Cioce_k Attorneys at Law Frederic W.Knaak* 3500 Willow Lake Blvd.,Suite 800 Of Counsel H.Alan Kantrud** Vadnais Heights,MN 55110 Donald W.Kohler *Also Licensed in Telephone:(651)490-9078 Joseph B.Marshall Wisconsin & Colorado Facsimile:(651)490-1580 Thomas M.Dailey,P.A. **Rule 114 Qualified ADR Civil Neutral June 20, 2005 Dr. William Burns City Manager, City of Fridley 6431 University Ave.,N.E. Fridley, MN. 55432 RE: Publication and Notice Requirements for Zoning Amendments Dear Dr. Burns: Recently, a development proposal in the City of Fridley has required the City to consider an amendment to its zoning code. One of the City's elected officials has inquired as to the number and kinds of public hearings that may be required to effect a zoning change under the requirements of State law, as well as the City's own Charter. The statutory procedural requirements for zoning code amendments can be found in Minnesota Statutes §462.357, Subd. 3,which provides, in part: Public Hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notices shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendments relates The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceeding provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. (Emphasis added). The statute only contemplates single hearing which can be, in the discretion of the City, before either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Nothing in the statute would necessarily preclude additional public meetings being conducted, provided the additional hearings did not result in any inconsistency with the prompt consideration contemplated in the State statute. The City of Fridley has expressly, in its Municipal Code, provided for two public hearings. The first, that contemplated by the statute, is conducted by the Planning Commission under the provision of Fridley City Code §§205.05.4C-E. The Code then provides that: 57 "(a)11 petitions for amendment shall be forwarded to the City Council from the Planning Commission. The City Council shall hold an official public hearing, with adequate time given to prepare the minutes of the hearing, and follow the process for approval of an ordinance as required under the Fridley City Charter. (Emphasis added.) Chapter 3.05 of the Fridley City Charter requires two public readings of the ordinance separated by at least one week. There is no express additional requirement of public hearings. Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that any proposed amendment to the Fridley zoning code as part of a proposed development would require two public hearings. The first would before the Planning Commission, the second, as soon after the first as practicable, before the City Council. No other hearings are contemplated or required. While this procedure has long been the established practice within the City of Fridley, an interesting question---and possible future problem--- could present itself based on the additional requirement of a public hearing before the City Council under the Fridley procedure. As a general rule of law, any municipal ordinance or charter provision that is inconsistent with state law is superceded by that state law. To the extent that provisions of a city's ordinances can be construed to be in harmony with state law, the presumption is that they are to be read in that manner. Our conclusion here, for example, that a second hearing is required, is based on the assumption that a second hearing is not prohibited by state law and that the City of Fridley's additional requirement is a permissible extension of the public hearing process. The City should be aware, however, that an argument could be raised that the additional public hearing is beyond the City's grant of authority in dealing with zoning code changes under state law. While the specific question of whether a city can require an additional public hearing in zoning amendment cases has not been raised judicially, the Minnesota Attorney General recently opined that a City could not adopt a more restrictive voting requirement than provided for under this same statute. Op. Mn. Att. Gen., 59a-32, Jan. 25, 2002. If a court were to hold that a city is without authority to adopt any additional requirements or restrictions to those provided for in the statute,the City's council hearing requirement would be found to be invalid. Please let me know at your convenience if I can be of any other assistance to you in this matter. Sinc rely, /asefi ; 1 rA / Frederic W. Knaak Fridley City Attorney 58 GREENE ESPEL MEMORANDUM PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SUITE 1200 200 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 (612)373-0830 FAX(612)373-0929 PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION TO: Mayor Scott Lund and Members of the Fridley City Council C: Scott Hickok, Bill Burns, Fritz Knaak FROM: John M. Baker, Greene Espel P.L.L.P. DATE: June 24, 2005 RE: Spot zoning and the DeMello Property Our File No: 2043-279 I understand that one or more opponents of the modified DeMello project has characterized the rezoning necessary for the project as"spot zoning." Under the circumstances I thought it would be useful to explain how courts have defined the phrase"spot zoning,"because its legal meaning is much narrower than many people expect. For the following reasons we think that the proposed rezoning does not constitute"spot zoning," and that its legality is quite clear. The role of the comprehensive plan.An important if not essential element of unlawful spot zoning is a disregard of an existing comprehensive guide plan. Most recently, in the context of billboard regulation, the Minnesota Supreme Court has defined spot zoning as "zoning that is not part of a comprehensive zoning plan and is done primarily to permit outdoor advertising." In re Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in City of Mounds View,664 N.W.2d 1,7(Minn.2003). As a leading authority on land use law has stated,the phrase spot zoning "refers to an arbitrary zoning or rezoning of a small tract of land that is not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and primarily promotes the private interest of the owner rather than the general welfare." Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 1:39 (4th ed.). "In determining whether a specific rezoning constitutes illegal spot zoning, courts generally determine whether the rezoning reasonably promotes the general welfare and is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan." Id., § 41.1. In the situation before the Council,by contrast,the proposed rezoning implements specific language in your comprehensive guide plan. Regarding this area,the Plan states that"consideration should be made to replacing the current mix of single-family residential and commercial uses with higher density residential development that together with the health club may serve as an attractive residential location for move-up housing." It also indicates that,for projects in these redevelopment 59 areas requiring rezoning,that the S-2 zoning designation"would be the appropriate Zoning district to implement for the redevelopment project." Other dimensions to"spot zoning."If a particular rezoning reasonably furthers the general welfare, then for another reason it does not constitute illegal spot zoning. In 1978 the Minnesota Supreme Court described spot zoning this way: "Spot zoning" is a label applied to certain zoning amendments invalidated as legislative acts unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting public welfare. [citation omitted.] The term applies to zoning changes,typically limited to small plots of land,which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district, and which dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. State, by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891 (Minn. 1978). In that case the Supreme Court concluded that a rezoning did not constitute"spot zoning" because it did not create an"island of nonconforming use" and because the rezoning constituted a proper exercise of legislative power for the public welfare. Id. at 891-92. In considering whether the proposed rezoning rationally furthers the general welfare, it's important to compare the present zoning and the proposed rezoning. The current zoning of these parcels is an awkward combination of three categories. For two of the parcels, one end carries a local business designation(C-1)while the other end carries a residential designation(R-1). There are already areas within this block in which conflicting zoning designations abut, so a denial of the rezoning would cause that situation to persist. This proposed rezoning takes a block on which there are already abutting residential and commercial zoning designations on the parcel,and for most of the block, uses a new designation that allows residential and commercial uses to be blended in a coherent fashion. Because the developer has heeded the City's direction to reduce the size of the project,the size of the project in its current form does not include the entire block. As a result,there continue to be parcels on the southern end of the block, facing away from the development and toward 64th Avenue,that are zoned C-1 or R-1. However,preservation of that zoning makes sense,and does not cause the proposed rezoning to constitute "spot zoning" in any respect. The status of the pending litigation. In case questions remain regarding the relationship of this application to the pending litigation,I hope this clarification is useful. If the Council approves the applications necessary for the proposed project, the settlement framework agreed to by the parties will require the Plaintiff to dismiss with prejudice its lawsuit. If,however, one or more of those applications is unsuccessful, then I expect that the litigation will once again become active. We may not only be required in that setting to defend the City's conclusion that the previous applications should be denied because the project was too dense,but to defend a potential new claim arising from any failure of any of the new applications. The failure of the City to approve the rezoning for a less dense version of the project may impair our ability to defend the City's stated justifications for its actions. do FEE OWNER INFORMATION TO RE-ZONE Name: Russell and Beverly Prior(pin #13-30-24-42-0019) Legal Address: 1340 Mississippi St. Fridley,MN 55432 (Lot 15,Block 1,Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: (763)571-4364 Signature: ,/4—,e.;ce4,d/j '�i� Date: >1/AV(15-. Signature:/3._,2,. .4.1 ,? 6)- - Date: ,,.. ,(Pi-- Name: John And Alexandra Demello (pin # 13-30-24-42-0020) Address: 1314 Mississippi St.Fridley,MN 55432 (Lot 16,Block 1,Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: (651) 493-4882 . a Signature: /e Date: ° 5./°-5-S g Si nature: 41Y/2- 510 A Date: c Name: Dr. Frank J. Demello (pin # 13-30-24-42-0021) Address: (Vacant Lot) (Lot 17,Block 1, Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: (763)208-2026 Signature: , r..i €1/ At iird t '- Date: 4i/'9N r/c c Name: ' 'char s arlson (pin# 13-30-24-42-0022) Address: (Vacant Lot) (L t t 18,Block 1, Spring Valley Estates) Daytime P' i ne: (763) 786-1218 Signature: Date: Li /2---) /o- Name: Mark Mattison (pin # 13-30-24-42-0023) Address: 6421 Central Av. Fridley,MN 55432 (Lot 19,Block 1, Spring Valley Estates) Daytime Phone: (763) 458-8218 Signature: 1' �/'.- V '''''G -) Date: fir`d 61 (4,_ -C)5 SUI() (J) City,of Fridley (Official Publication) il PUBLIC HEARING.• JwS,mla. BEFORE'THE"14 CITY-COUNCIL Notice'le hereby given that there,will be.a, public-hearing of.the'Fridley Council at the Fridleyl'Munlcipal Center,6431 University Avenue N.E.'on Monday,June 13,2005,at 7:30 p.m.for the purpose of , Coneideratlontof a Rezoning ZOA#05- ,"02by+argily,Lifestyle Development Corporation;to rezone the property from , ' C-1,`Local Business, C-2 General ' `Business;1#nd R-1;Single Family to S-2;' ' RadeVelt ment-?'E7istrict,'; legally described:as Lots 15-19,Block Spring Valley, generally located at'1314 and ; 1340 Mississippi Street;and 6421;6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE:' , Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions relat-', ed to this item may be referred'to Julie Jones,,Planning Coordinator at;763,572- 3599 ,'' r Hearing'impaired persOne'alarming to attend;-. who need am;interpreter or other persons .! with disabilities who require auxiliary aids' should Contact Roberta Collins at 763.572- . 3500 no later than June$,2pp5. The TDD number is 763=572-3534, SCOTT J.LUND. ,, .,i 'MAYOR Published: June 2,2008 , ;'": x ;• (June,2,2005)f2/ZOA 05-02-demello-cc 62 n res City of Fridley (Official Publication) •PUBLIC HEARING - BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice'is hereby given that there will{be a public hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 ".University',;Avenue'' N.E. -,on Wednesday,June 1,2005,at 7:30 p.m.for the purpose of : Consideration of a Rezoning,ZOA#05- 02, by Famiiy'Lifestyle Development Corporation,to rezone Oe property from C-1, Local Business;C-2, General Business,and R-1,Single Family to S-2,. 'Redevelopment District,'! legally described as Lots 15-19,Block 1,Spring Valley,generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street,and 6421,6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE. Any and all persons desiringto be heard shall be given an opportunity: at the"above, stated time and.place: Any'questionsrelat- ed to this item may,be referred to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator at 763-572- 3 DI, ., it_ Hearing impaired persons planning to attend • who need an interpreter or other persons, with disabilities.who require auxiliary aids F'' should contact Roberta Collins'at`763-572- 3500 no'later than-May 25;2005. The TDD , number is 763.5'2-3534 .•- DIANE SAVAGE CHAIR. • --PLANNING COMMISSION Published: May 19,2005:,. (May 19,2005)f2lzoa-05-02-demello 63 Sun fv �si,g4�-ers ,s__19-os City of Fridley,- (Official ridley(Official Publication) `�> PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431'-'University Avenue 'N.E. on Wednesday,June 1,2005,at 7:30 p.m.for. the purpose of: f ' Consideration of a Preliminary Plat,`PS' #05-02,by Family Lifestyle Development'_ Corporation,to crate one.parcel out of five, legally described as Lots 15-19,. Block 1,Spring Valley,generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street,and 6421,6441,and 6461 Central Avenue NE. Any and all persons desiring to be heard_ shall be given an opportunity at the above statedtime and place. Any questions relat•`' ed to this item may be referred'to.Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator at 763.57 3599 Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids' should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572- 3500 no later than May 25,2005. The TDD,. number 18.763-572.3534 DIANE SAVAGE",`• ` `t CHAIR '' PLANNING`COMMISSION Published;May 19,2005 (May 19,2005)f2/ps-05-02:demello 64 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. CASE NUMBER: Rezoning, PS #05-02 APPLICANT: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Petitioner or representative must attend the Planning Commission meeting. PURPOSE: To rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District. LOCATION OF 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 PROPERTY AND Central Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Legally described as Lots 15-19, Block 1, Spring Valley DATE AND TIME OF Planning Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEARING: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 763-572-3599. Publish: May 19, 2005 65 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO: All property owners/residents within 350 feet of property generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. CASE NUMBER: Preliminary Plat, PS #05-02 APPLICANT: Family Lifestyle Development Corporation Petitioner or representative must attend the Planning Commission meeting. _ PURPOSE: To create one parcel out of five. LOCATION OF 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 PROPERTY AND Central Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Legally described as Lots 15-19, Block 1, Spring Valley DATE AND TIME OF Planning Commission Meeting: HEARING: Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Meetings are televised live the night of the meeting on Channel 17. PLACE OF Fridley Municipal Center, City Council Chambers HEARING: 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN HOW TO 1. You may attend hearings and testify. PARTICIPATE: 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, MN 55432 or FAX at 763-571-1287. SPECIAL Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an ACCOMODATIONS: Interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 763-572-3500 no later than May 25, 2005. The TDD # is 763-572-3534. ANY QUESTIONS: Contact Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator, at 763-572-3599. Publish: May 19, 2005 66 `r Community Develoment Department ,: ::, City of I Fridley Public Hearing Notice 1III11,,,:,-,,..,--1,--..„-_,_,„,_'..._-_„_,_-_-_-_:,I „ l :1„,,.i,,,,..:..,,...1..,..,:......i..:4;i:.:!.:::.....:.....1:!...i,..,:.:(.,..::i...!,!?...,::_,IE,iii..i. •;.;.":-i.:5 ;:ir:,.::,:,.;:i..,::;',..]::::;,1:::„..,'31!:.,:7Zr:.'el.,:.''--l•,-:::::i.'-'-::•••-',:::'-',',"-.?:,.•--'',....''''''.''...•!--:,”': MI : 5 EHIIIUI1 MISSISSIPPI ST d Q H z : W :> U ':.: 64TH AVE <E ftliiii,..1:1:-::::11::::::11;1-1',1:1: -..i.:-...i.f.:1-•:,:::,:1:::::::::!1:- .-.1::::A..;:,1-1:.!,.::::.1.- , „ ft.,-,_::::J::::,.-:::::::.::::::::_,,i.1,:::.H.,„:::,',,,_•.„.„-_•,;',,-„,:::... .,::::::,:::,„.:::,:, - , „ „„ LEGEND Preliminary Plat RequestN Sources: Plat- PS #05-02 and Fridley Engineering Fridley GIS Rezoning Request ZOA#05-02 Anoka County GIS Petitioner - Family Lifestyle Development Corp 1314 & 1340 - Mississippi St 6421, 6441 & 6197 Cetnral Ave Map Date: 5/20/05 ADDISON BETTY A ALJAFFERY YOCOUB ARCHER-KATH JULIE A 1315 66TH AVE NE 1340 CREEK PARK LN NE 1348 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 AUER JOHN R AWAIJANE SAMIR&MINDY BARSNESS CURTIS A 1399 66TH AVE NE 5096 HUGHES AVE NE 6581 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BECCHETTI STEPHEN D&DARRI BEIX TERESA A BERGANINI RICHARD L&DIANE 6361 ARTHUR ST NE 1490 64TH AVE NE 6596 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BERGLUND ERWIN R&SUZANNE BERGMAN LEONARD E&DORIS L BERQUIST STANLEY J 6565 PIERCE ST NE 6435 PIERCE ST NE 6619 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BJORKLUND ERIC T&HJORDIS L T BLEICHNER SUSAN L BLISCHOK THOM&SHARLA TRUSTEE 1360 CREEK PARK LN NE 6449 PIERCE ST NE 4244 E DESERT CREST DR FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 85253 BOGDAN ALLA&POTAPENKO V BONA DAVID L&CHARLOTTE C BONDOW BRUCE A 6532 CHANNEL RD NE 6548 CHANNEL RD NE 6616 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BRAAM GARY L&CYNTHIA J BRICKNER MARGARET A TRUSTEE BRIDGEMAN ROBERT F&MARY E 1436 66TH AVE NE 6260 HIGHWAY 65 NE#308 1375 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BROOS MICHAEL&HOAGBERG MIA BRYTOWSKI MICHAEL J&LAURA A BUIRGE THOMAS R&LINDA J 656 LUCIA LN NE 6378 DELLWOOD DR NE 6312 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BULTMAN JEAN BURDICK ROBERT M&DORA M BURKHOW JON R&ALLISON R 6537 CENTRAL AVE NE 1316 66TH AVE NE 6300 SHINGLE CR PKWY FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 BROOKLYN CENTER,MN 55430 BURMIS DELLA M BURNS DEBORAH J&KING WILLIAM CALDERON BOB JR&JACKIE A 6459 PIERCE ST NE 1371 CREEK PARK LN NE 6401 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 68 CARLAND JOHN A&B D CARLSON DENNIS A CARLSON RICHARD S 6416 DELLWOOD DR NE 6491 ARTHUR ST NE 7691 OLD CENTRAL NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CARNEY JAMES C&DE ARLYN CEBULA DONALD J&SANDELIN R K CHRISTENSON CARL E&M A 6441 ARTHUR ST NE 1427 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1327 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CITY OF FRIDLEY COGLE MARIE C&GEORGE L R COLLARD JESSE J 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 1376 66TH AVE NE 1426 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 COUGHLIN CORY J COUNTRY HOUSE INC COVERSTON CLEM Z&EVA A 6411 PIERCE ST NE PO BOX 818 1424 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 STILLWATER,MN 55082 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 CUDD MELISSA A&LOVEN JEFFREY CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1311 CREEK PARK LN NE 1131 E MOORE LAKE DR NE 1250 E MOORE LAKE DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1271 E MOORE LAKE DR NE 1299 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1310 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1314 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1358 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1376 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1380 CREEK PARK LN NE 1400 RICE CREEK RD NE 1415 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 1441 RICE CREEK RD NE 1491 RICE CREEK RD NE 6301 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6303 CENTRAL AVE NE 6315 PIERCE ST NE 6325 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 69 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6330 ARTHUR NE 6335 PIERCE ST NE 6343 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6345 PIERCE ST NE 6352 CENTRAL AVE NE 6360 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6361 PIERCE ST NE 6367 DELLWOOD DR NE 6373 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6381 CENTRAL AVE NE 6400 CENTRAL AVE NE 6421 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6441 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6452 DELLWOOD DR NE 6461 WOODY LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6490 CENTRAL AVE NE 6500 CHANNEL RD NE 6501 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6501 CHANNEL RD NE 6525 CENTRAL AVE NE 6531 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6533 PIERCE ST NE 6534 CENTRAL AVE NE 6544 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6550 CENTRAL AVE NE 6552 CENTRAL AVE NE 6554 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE 6565 LUCIA LN NE 6571 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 70 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6572 CENTRAL AVE NE 6588 CENTRAL AVE NE 6600 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55304 CURRENT RESIDENT DAHLMEIER BETH A DAVENPORT RUTH A 6634 CENTRAL AVE NE 1358 66TH AVE NE 1489 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55304 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 DAVIS TERRANCE A&JENNIFER J DEMARS ROY H JR&LYNN M DEMARS RUTH H 6548 PIERCE ST NE 1464 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1442 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 DEMELLO FRANK&SHARON DEMELLO JOHN R&ALEXANDRA DEUSER THOMAS E&KAREN A 6134 WOODY LANE NE 2872 17TH TERRACE NW PO BOX 32187 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 NEW BRIGHTON,MN 55112 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 DISCHINGER ROBERT D&PEARL EASON JAMES P EDWARDS DENNIS B&BARBARA J 6529 ARTHUR ST NE 6360 ARTHUR ST 1403 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 EISCHENS JILL M EISCHENS JILL M ENNIS RONALD M&SHIRLEY A 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE#4 6556 CENTRAL AVE NE#4 6601 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ERICKSON ALLAN T&B ELAINE EVANGELIST PAUL A EYLER INGE 1400 66TH AVE NE 6378 PIERCE ST NE 1456 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FEMRITE ROGER N&FAYE M FEMRITE ROGER N&FAYE M FIGUEROA MILTON I&MARQUEZ R 4773 MANITOU ROAD 4773 MANITOU ROAD 6423 PIERCE ST NE TONKA BAY,MN 55331 TONKA BAY,MN 55331 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FINDELL DONALD FLICKINGER P M&FLICKINGER M FREEMAN JON L&SANDRA F 6850 SIVERTS LN NE 6580 CENTRAL AVE NE 6440 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIV AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 71 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY OF FRIDLEY HRA 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE 6431 UNIV AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 GARMAN KATHLEEN R GAYNOR STEVEN L&BARBARA GIBSON TERESA J 6366 PIERCE ST NE 1414 CREEK PARK LN NE 1255 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 GLOPPEN TOR J&BETH A GOLUBOWICZ ANNE E GOTTWALD GARY G 1421 66TH AVE NE 1220 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1415 MISS ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 GOULD FLORENCE M&JEAN E GRITTNER MARK A&BRENDA L GWIAZDON MITCHELL L&MARY 6448 PIERCE ST NE 1351 66TH AVE NE 6350 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HALL DAVID C&HENRY SUSAN M HALVORSON KIMBERLY J HALVORSON LARRY D&JAYNE 1491 RICE CRK RD NE 6555 CENTRAL AVE NE 6461 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HART HERBERT N&SYLVIA E HASSAN ASSIA HICKS JANIS K 1450 64TH AVE NE 6599 CHANNEL RD NE 1320 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HINZ GREGG C HITCHCOCK W&I TRUSTEES HJ11 LLC 6715 ASHTON AVE NE 6532 PIERCE ST NE PO BOX 270311 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 VADNAIS HEIGHTS,MN 55127 HOFFMAN CATHY J&GREGORY R HOLLAND RICHARD E&WENDY K HOLLISTER DOROTHY M 6631 CHANNEL RD NE 6536 ARTHUR ST NE 1466 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 72 HOLMGREN ENTERPRISES INC HORNER JACQUELYN A HORTON CHARLES L&PHYLLIS 1323 RICE CREEK RD NE 2463 17TH AVE NW 10761 181ST CIRCLE NW MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55432 NEW BRIGHTON,MN 55112 ELK RIVER,MN 55330 HORTON CHARLES L&PHYLLIS HOUCHINS CHRISTINE D&ROY E HRA CITY OF FRIDLEY 10761 181ST CIRCLE NW 1465 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE NE ELK RIVER,MN 55330 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 HUIE CHOCK S&LAI C HYBBEN LANCE S&JOLYNN 0 IMBERTSON MARTIN B&ARDIS 1328 66TH AVE NE 1489 64TH AVE NE 6564 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ISAACSON LINDA J JAEGER DAVID J&CHEVRE CARYL JANKOWSKI JOHN M 6535 ARTHUR ST NE 6564 CHANNEL RD NE 1400 RICE CREEK RD FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 JAPS RUSSELL&BONNIE TRUSTEES JOHNSON CHRISTINE R JOHNSON DOUGLAS E 1422 66TH AVE NE 1379 CREEK PARK LN NE 6388 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 JOHNSON JON G&MARY JOHNSON RANDOLPH E KACHINA PHYLLIS M 1400 CREEK PARK LN NE 6336 PIERCE ST NE 6476 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KEANE JAMES W&SUSAN K KEITA AMINATA KELLS ALFRED J&DORIS E 900 NINE MILE COVE S 6617 CENTRAL AVE NE 6400 PIERCE ST NE HOPKINS,MN 55343 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KENDALL MARGARET A KERN BRUCE N&CATHY A KESTNER ELIZABETH A 6481 ARTHUR ST NE 6471 ARTHUR ST NE 6580 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KING JOHN K&ARCHER LISA M KITTERMAN FRANK KLUCSAR YOAVA 1425 CREEK PARK LN NE 13892 RIVER FORREST DRIVE 1420 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FT MEYERS,FL 33905 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 KNUTSON ORVIS D KOCOUREK CHARLES&MARLYS E KOTCHEN SCOTT A&MARY K 3723 POLK ST NE 6330 ARTHUR ST NE 6381 ARTHUR ST NE MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55421 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 73 KOZER JACK D&KAREN P KOZER JACK D&KAREN P KRAMBER KATHRYN L 860 86TH AVE NW 860 86TH AVE NW 2013 29TH AVE NW COON RAPIDS,MN 55433 COON RAPIDS,MN 55433 NEW BRIGHTON,MN 55112 KRIENS BERNARD J&LORALEE KRUSE RICHARD&JOAN TRUSTEES KWONG ANDREW&SELINA 1362 66TH AVE NE 1383 CREEK PARK LN NE 1321 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LABANDZ FRANK&VALUE LABANDZ FRANK A&VALLIE R LABANDZ FRANK A&VALLIE R 1356 64TH AVE NE 1356 64TH AVE NE 1356 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LANDRY DONALD J&MARY K LARSON GRACE M LARSON ROGER C&B K YUNKER- 6597 PIERCE ST NE 1340 66TH AVE NE 1339 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 LEKANG RICHARD E&JOYCE E LENNSCBERT W III LENNOX HERBERT W III&JUDITH 6517 PIERCE ST NE 1461 CREEK RD NE 1461 1461 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 • LIEB WILLIAM JR&KIMBERLY LIND LEANN V LUKE KENNETH W&KATHLEEN M 6390 DELLWOOD DR NE 1410 66TH AVE NE 1341 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MAHOWALD KELI R&PAIGE TROY A MALONE DAVID J&JOSIE D MARIHART BERNARD J 6389 PIERCE ST NE 6283 CENTRAL AVE NE 1373 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MARIHART BONNIE J MARIHART BONNIE J MARTIN GREGORY D 1443 64TH AVE NE 1443 64TH AVE NE 6549 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MARTINSON TERRY L&MARY JANE MARTI S TERRY L&MARY JANE MASON JOHNNY E&JILL L 6568 CENTRAL AVE NE 6568 C TRAL AVE NE 1361 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDL Y, N 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MATTISON MARK JON MCCLOSKEY WILLIAM 0&J A MCCULLOCH K M&M L TRUSTEES 6421 OLD CENTRAL AVE 6620 CHANNEL RD NE 1454 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 74 MCGINNIS RYAN G&THORESON J J MCNAUGHTON MARVEL MEHTA ROBERT 6630 CHANNEL RD NE 6300 PIERCE ST NE 6500 CHANNEL ROAD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MPLS,MN 55432 MELCHER HENRY T&ROSEMARIE MENTH JOSEPH R&JOAN M MILES DOROTHY M 6500 PIERCE ST NE 1388 66TH AVE NE 1370 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MILSTEN ROBERT W&MARY A MIRANDA LARRY B&SKIBA L J MOELLMAN RHONDA R&SEARS R E 1487 64TH AVE NE 6581 PIERCE ST NE 6609 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MULROY PATRICIA S MULROY PATRICIA S MULROY PATRICIA S 1384 64TH AVE NE 1384 64TH AVE NE 1384 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 NAYMASTER S J&WOLDEN LOIS K NELSON ROBERT 0&DORIS L NEWPORT RONALD L&NANCY G 6625 CHANNEL RD NE 1439 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1494 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 NIKOLOV ILIAN S NORGAARD DIRK L&LISA K NYGREN BYRON N 6350 ARTHUR ST NE 6401 ARTHUR ST NE 1363 66TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 OKESON VIRGIL A&SUSAN M OLSON BRUCE R&AUDREY A OLSON CAROLYN M TRUSTEE 1423 64TH AVE NE 1442 64TH AVE NE 1430 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 OLSON HENRIETTA A OLSON KURT E&ANDREA R OPSAL JON M&BLOOD ANN B 6425 DELLWOOD DR NE 1385 64TH AVE NE 1405 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 OSTLUND ARNOLD F JR&F M OUELLETTE EUGENE L&ANN PAINTER DANIEL R&JOYCE D 1453 64TH AVE NE 6343 DELLWOOD RD NE 6451 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PALMER LOREN C&SHIRLEY M PAPILLON MICHAEL T&LINDA D PAQUETTE LEON J&VIRGINIA 6596 CHANNEL RD NE 6421 ARTHUR ST NE 1479 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 75 PARKS CAMILLES R PAULSON MARIAN PAYNTER GARY 1341 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1425 RICE CREEK RD NE 6436 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PEEK GEORGE H&ZITA T PEHL GERALD A&DOROTHY T PERRON CAROLYN D 6633 CENTRAL AVE NE 1250 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6610 CHANNEL RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PETERSON MARLENE M PETERSON THOMAS R PHILLIPS GARY P&PATRICIA M 6550 ARTHUR ST NE 6401 PIERCE ST NE 6519 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PHILLIPS JON S&DIANE M PODVIN CAROLE E PORTZLINE GERALD&JOYCE 1361 CREEK PARK LN NE 1391 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1310 RICE CREEK ROAD FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 PRATT MARGUERITE E PRIOR RUSSELL L&BEVERLY Y QUALITY GROWTH LTD 1428 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1340 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 3002 ELM ST FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FARGO,ND 58102 RAAEN LOIS E RAD JOHN R RAMSEY SHARYN R 6501 LUCIA LN NE 1200 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1340 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 RAMSEY SHARYN R RANDALL JOE M&VIVIAN M RAU JOHN D&SUSAN M 1340 64TH AVE NE 1210 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1341 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 REDEPENNING DARREL&DONNA REISNER DONNA M&JAMES W RUSINAK JAMES J&RHONDA L 6391 DELLWOOD DR NE 6424 PIERCE ST NE 6412 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 RUSNACKO JOHN M&BARBARA SCHAEFER TARA R&LANE KEELY J SCHLEIF KATIE K 6476 ARTHUR ST NE 6391 CENTRAL AVE NE 1476 64TH AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 SCHWALBACH RICHARD 0 SCHWARTZ MARK A&JEAN D SEGER LYNN A&DEBRA H 6501 PIERCE ST NE 1372 64TH AVE NE 1475 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 76 SEVERTSON JILL E&RICHARD D SHEA RICHARD J SHIMANSKI ROBERT 0&MARY LOU 6367 NE DELLWOOD DR 2132 150TH AVE NW 8025 GARFIELD ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ANDOVER,MN 55304 SPRING LAKE PARK,MN 55432 SKYHAWK MARIAN E SMITH CYNTHIA&STOLPE ROBERT SMITH MARY V 6580 PIERCE ST NE 6428 DELLWOOD DR NE 6437 DEL•LWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 SOLIS TRACY L&KEVIN A SPAETH WARREN T&SHERRILL SPOONER CALEB J 1381 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6516 CHANNEL RD NE 6271 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 STEINBERG SANDRA J STEWART DONALD D STONE THOMAS D 6533 LUCIA LN NE 1482 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1400 MISSISSIPPI ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 TAMARISK RESOURCES INC THAKE CAREY G&JUDITH K THOMAS RICHARD S&JO ANN 1282 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 1441 RICE CREEK RD NE 1391 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 TIMO ELVINA J TOURVILLE ROBERT B&J M TRACZYK ROBERT&PATRICIA 6517 LUCIA LN NE 6379 DELLWOOD DR NE 1455 CREEK PARK LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 TYRA KARIN K ULVE GERALDINE ULVE GERALDINE 1501 MISSISSIPPI ST NE 6552 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6552 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 US FEDERAL CREDIT UNION US FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VANAUGH ERNEST D&K L 6303 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6303 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE 6449 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 VANDER HART GARY W&FERN L VANG CHOU TONG&THAO BAO VIRDEN LAWRENCE A&M F 6401 DELLWOOD DR NE 6516 PIERCE ST NE 6413 DELLWOOD DR NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 VOGT JAMES A&DARLENE S VUGTEVEEN CHAD W&SHERYL L WARD S P&A P&PARK K H 6315 DELLWOOD DR NE 4142 AVONDALE ST 6560 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 MINNETONKA,MN 55345 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 77 WAZWAZ TAHANI&ISMAIL MOHAMMAD WILLIAMS JAMES S WILLIAMS JON J 6329 DELLWOOD DR NE 1357 64TH AVE NE 6355 PIERCE ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 WILLIAMS JOSEPH J&RACHEL L WILLIAMS JOSEPH J&RACHEL L WIND GERARD P&CATHERINE A 6554 OLD CENTRAL AVE#3 6554 OLD CENTRAL AVE NE#3 6545 ARTHUR ST NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 WOLF DARYL M&LINDA L YANG JAMES V&EMILY C YOUNG JACKIE R&G M 6446 ARTHUR ST NE 6420 ARTHUR ST NE 6549 LUCIA LN NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ZACHARIAS BETTY&ROLAND ZERBY D MICHAEL&JUDITH A ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC 1387 66TH AVE NE 1400 64TH AVE NE 6300 CENTRAL AVE NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 FRIDLEY,MN 55432 ZIMMERMAN THOMAS JR&JUDITH M 7518 TEMPO TERR FRIDLEY,MN 55432 78 TOM MYHRA SCOTT LUND ROBERT BARNETTE 6360 ABLE STREET NE 580-69TH AVENUE NE 541 RICE CREEK BLVD. FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 STEVEN BILLINGS RICHARD WOLFE ANN BOLKCOM 5215 LINCOLN STREET NE 960 HATHAWAY LANE NE 6821 HICKORY STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55421 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 TIM BYRNE JOANNE ZMUDA JOAN OLSON 6053 WOODY LANE NE 6051-4TH STREET NE 6320 VAN BUREN STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 JOHN SCHWARTZ STEVE RANALTA ROY&LYNN DEMARS 6694 FRIDLEY STREET NE 6684 FRIDLEY STREET NE 1464 MISSISSIPPI STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 MARY KATCHEN WALLY SQUIER CLIFF JACOBSON 6381 ARTHUR STREET NE 6701 CHANNEL ROAD NE 6240-6TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 BERNARD MARIHART MARY VASECH STEVE OLTMAN 1373-64TH AVENUE NE 6909 HICKORY DRIVE NE 7542 -5TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 GREGORY ZELENCK JESS COLLARD&AIMEE STANFORD JOE&LINDA NESLON 7526-4TH STREET NE 1426-64TH AVENUE NE 1357-64TH AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 SHANTI VANBUREN ROLAND &KAREN EVANS CURRENT RESIDENT 7550-4TH STREET NE 7758-4TH STREET NE 1346 HILLCREST DR NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 HAZEL JOHNSON MR. &MRS. LAGESSE DOREENA CISEWSKI 1334 HILLCREST DRIVE 7951 BROAD AVENUE NE 7534-4TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 79 DENNIS DEWING RANDY JOHNSON SHERYL COYLE 1501 CAMELOT LANE 6336 PIERCE STREET NE 7859 UNIVERSITY AVE NE#208 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 SPRING LAKE PARK MN 55432 JIM REISNE MARVEL MCNAUGHTON LESLIE&JEAN COYLE 6424 PIERCE STREET NE 6300 PIERCE STREET NE 6271-6TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 SUE RAU DENNIS &BARB EDWARDS PAT MULRAY 1341-64TH AVENUE NE 1403-64TH AVE NE 1384-64TH AVENUE NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 KEN&PAT CHRISTIANSEN ROBERT MOSEMAN 7525-4TH ST NE 7533-4TH STREET NE FRIDLEY MN 55432 FRIDLEY MN 55432 80 FRIDLEY CITY sOUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27 2005 Pa.e 10 of 31 8) The p-titioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and appr. ed by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 9) Twin omes shall meet all parking requirements. 10) Add -ppropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. 11) The •etitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall be pr-pared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their inal plat approval. 12) The i►etitioner shall file a perpetual easement for access to Lot 1 on the recon's of Lot 2 and a perpetual easement for Lot 4 on the records of Lot 3. Councilmember Billings stated the property is zoned R-3 and could develop into something with 18 to 20 units or more with access to 73 1/2 Avenue, in which case instead of havi g four families driving in and out, there could be 18 to 20 or more. There is somew at of an inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, but what is being proposed is 4 si gle family units that happen to be two 0 lot line units. He questioned whether that rea ly is inconsistent with the Comp Plan because the homes that are going to be there will be single family, 0 lot line homes. If the City were to rezone it to R-1, the City wou • be looking at the possibility of a taking in which case the City would have to pay mone to the landowner for depriving him of something he already has. UPON A VOIC VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBE" BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILME BER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. Councilmember Bolk om stated she would like staff to look at the possibility of taking out the existing cul-. --sac at the same time the new cul-de-sac is being constructed and do the proper hearings and notices. NEW BUSINESS: 7. First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for Property Located on Lots 15-19, Spring Valley, Generally Located at the Corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central, Fridley, Minnesota, (by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation) (Ward 2). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated petitioner is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S-2 Redevelopment District. The lots are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461 Central Avenue. City Council approved the preliminary plat to subdivide these five parcels into one at their June 13, 2005 meeting. The lots on 6441 and 6421 Central have both residential and commercial zoning. The rezoning to S-2 makes it possible for the developer to build a mixed use development on this site with retail and housing combined in one development. There was some discussion at FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 11 of 31 the public hearing on June 13 regarding spot zoning. Staff has looked into this and determined that this property is designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. A lengthy public record was established with this petitioner's original development request in which there was significant opposition to including the property along 64th Avenue. The area on the other side of Central Avenue has been recently rezoned to S-2. Ms. Jones explained that approving this rezoning is also approving the Master Plan for this project. The S-2 zoning requires the City to approve a Master Plan. That Master Plan document has been modified since the last meeting to reflect the right-in and right- out entrance being required by Anoka County. Any modifications to the Master Plan following the second reading of the ordinance must be brought back to Council for approval. The ordinance before Council refers specifically to the revised Master Plan documents dated June 22, 2005. In analyzing the rezoning, staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed retail/housing project does meet several objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan, one being to provide more efficient land use in this area, one to provide senior housing and one to provide additional tax base and new jobs. A public hearing on this matter was held June 13, 2005, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing June 1, 2005. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with stipulations. Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-02, because the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, provides senior housing opportunities, provides additional retail opportunities, and provides additional job opportunities. Stipulation #1 has been modified to reflect the correct date of the new Master Plan document as June 22. Stipulation #21 has been modified to reflect the change requested by Councilmember Billings. After reviewing the right-in and right-out modifications to this plan requested by Anoka County, staff was concerned about the access to this property for fire equipment. After discussions and review by the Fire Department, it was determined that the turning radius should be fine. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that not only does Council have a legal opinion from the City attorney but also from John Baker, the attorney that represents the League of Minnesota Cities. She asked Ms. Jones to review Mr. Baker's findings. Ms. Jones read a portion of Mr. Baker's comments as follows: ". . . the phrase, spot zoning 'refers to an arbitrary zoning or rezoning of a small tract of land that is not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and primarily promotes the private interest of the owner rather than the general welfare." She stated the S-2 zoning being proposed for this site is consistent with the Comp Plan and consistent with the surrounding area. This proposed rezoning also solves existing zoning problems. Councilmember Bolkcom pointed out that Council's packet for this meeting includes a copy of the public hearing notice as well as a listing of individuals who were notified via mail of the public hearing for this proposal. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 12 of 31 Ms. Jones added that in addition to the Planning Commission public hearing on such rezonings, the City of Fridley chooses to hold a public hearing at the Council level which is not required by State statutes. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Knaak the City is required to mail written notices of public hearings to surrounding property owners for both the Council meeting and the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Knaak responded the notification required by statute is for the first public hearing at the Planning Commission level. Even in that case, the law provides that if the City makes a good faith attempt, even if there is a mistake or if half of the notices do not reach the intended recipients, that in and of itself does not invalidate the public hearing. Mayor Lund asked if the 18 foot setback on the east side of the development is west of the alleyway easement. Mr. Jones stated the setback is 18 feet from the property line and there is an additional 8-foot right-of-way to the east of the property which provides a 26-foot setback from the single family property line to the east. Mayor Lund asked if the east side is considered the rear or side yard and what the required setback would be. Ms. Jones responded that is considered the side yard and a 15 foot setback is required. Councilmember Barnette asked about the question a resident had regarding the lift station on Central Avenue and how the drainage from this site and the Town Center Development project will impact that station. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, responded that the lift station is for sanitary sewers, not ground water, so it has nothing to do with the drainage from either development. However, that lift station can handle the additional sewerage as recent upgrades have been completed and there is plenty of capacity. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that she received an email from a resident who is concerned about this proposal because she lives in an R-1 zoning district and was concerned that the City may eventually rezone her property. Mr. Hickok stated he is not certain where this resident's property is, but if her property is surrounded by R-1 zoning, she is not on the edge where the S-2 redevelopment is defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The City guided this area as S-2 development in the Comprehensive Plan revisions in 2001 and as a result, S-2 zoning is the perfect match. The resident in the R-1 zoning is guided to be R-1. Further to the east of the petitioner's property, the area is guided and zoned as R-1, Single Family. There is no plan at this time to take S-2 further to the east. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 13 of 31 Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated he received the same email and one of that resident's concerns stemmed from the recent Supreme Court case on eminent domain. The project before Council is not a "taking." It is not a City project, but a private development. Councilmember Wolfe commented that there are instances where municipalities have redeveloped and rezoned property. Mr. Hickok stated it is important to point out that even if the City were to do such a change, there would be a process required including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning process. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the City would legally be hard pressed to go into an R-1 area and rezone it without strong reasons. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, presented a letter from Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford expressing their opposition to this proposal. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to receive the June-27 letter from Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Schwartz asked if this proposal meets fire code regulations. He thought there was too much building on this property. The density for this proposal is virtually the same as the original and the lot coverage is actually greater. Ms. Jones stated the Fire Department has been involved in reviewing this proposal from the beginning and this building and the site meet all fire code regulations. Barb Edwards, 1403 64th Avenue, questioned why she did not receive a notice regarding the public hearing. Mayor Lund reviewed the procedure followed by the City to provide a public hearing notice for both hearings and a direct mailing for the Planning Commission hearing. Susan Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue, stated half of the property being discussed is zoned single family. The block of Central Avenue and Mississippi is all single family homes except for the welding shop. The whole block is wooded area with most homes on one acre lots. The Planning Commission recommended saving as many mature trees as possible and now the developer is proposing rain gardens with no mature trees remaining. Something more appropriate would be to develop the front lots along Central as they are zoned and subdivide the back of those lots in single family as it is currently zoned. She expressed her opposition to this proposal as it changes the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 14 of 31 characteristic of the neighborhood and is not consistent with the existing single family homes. Ray McAfee, 1360 Hillcrest Drive, stated he has lived at this address for nearly 50 years. Central Avenue is a two-lane highway and Mississippi is a two-lane street with excessive peak hour traffic. He stated this development is too much for the area and will disrupt the neighborhood. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 64th Avenue, said this proposal will change the surrounding properties. She pointed out that there are two dead strip malls in the area and questioned if the proposed retail will really be adding jobs or just moving them from another site. Many of the residents purchased property in this neighborhood because of the green space, and they do not want it to change. Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren, stated she is extremely concerned that the City may, at some point in the future, change her neighborhood to S-2. The price of the smallest condominium unit for this proposal would require an income in excess of $24,000 annually which is not affordable for most seniors. Jean Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, stated she and her husband checked the zoning around their property before they purchased. She did not think it was fair to change rules mid-stream. They live in R-1 zoning and have done extensive remodeling under the R-1 restrictions. She re-presented the petition opposing the original proposal on this site. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to receive this petition dated February 11, 2004, into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schwartz presented copies of three emails she sent to Council. She stated the density for this proposal is the same as the original and the lot coverage is greater. She also referred to the 11 reasons the Council denied this proposal originally, most of which she believed to still be valid. She further stated that there are many areas in the Comprehensive Plan that this project does not follow. The average residential density in Fridley is 3.5 per acre for single family and 9 units per acre for multi-family. Following that, this petitioner should only be allowed 38 units on this property. In this particular neighborhood, she believed the single family density would actually be 1.1 per acre. As far as the claim that this proposal provides needed housing, the Town Center Development project across the street provides the same housing. Also, the Town Center development is on vacant land that was zoned commercial and industrial and adjoins R2 land, not R1 land. Town Center was also required to be set back 50 feet from the residential property, not 18 or 40 as this proposal is on the east and south. Also, when the Town Center rezoning was approved, the Council promised that it would not set a precedent for this area. She also referred to traffic concerns and long- FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 15 of 31 standing drainage issues in this area. Some of them have been corrected and some of them have not. She stated the neighbors are not opposed to redevelopment on this site; particularly some of the property is in poor condition. But they want the development to be appropriate for the neighborhood. She would like to see single family or cottage/village type development. With land at a premium, she stated it seems unreasonable for Council to think that if they do not approve this project, nothing will be built there soon. She urged Council not to settle for this project because it is inappropriate for the area. Virgil Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue, stated the road easement east of the proposed development is currently green space. There is no division between the R-1 zoning and the proposed rezoning. He also believes this proposal would significantly change the neighborhood. Kurt Olson, 1385 64th Avenue, asked what happens to the alley right-of-way if this property is developed. He also questioned if this will impact his ability to split his property and sell-off parts of his lot and if so, he believed that would be an infringement on his rights as a property owner. Mr. Haukaas stated there are no plans to do anything different; there's a storm sewer in that right-of-way and it will remain as is. As far as the future development of Mr. Olson's property, he stated he would have to review the site. Since the project before the Council this evening will not change that right-of-way, he does not see how it would impact Mr. Olson's property. Councilmember Billings commented there currently is no way to access the back of Mr. Olson's property from 64th Avenue or Arthur Street and the proposal before the Council will not change that in any way. Mr. Olson stated all the Council has heard from is the many residents opposed to this project and the only person in support is the petitioner himself. Councilmember Barnette stated he has received calls from people in favor of this proposal. Andrea Olson, 1385 64th Avenue, stated what the neighbors are asking for is fairness. She could not understand how the City can allow a developer to proceed with a plan that has so many shortages just because of an overwhelming financial burden. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Olson to clarify her remarks. Ms. Olson stated the residents have heard that sacrifices have to be made with this proposal, such as County easement, on parking, on height, on planting in order for this project to go through as proposed. If the petitioner cannot afford to develop this property correctly, that is not the burden of the surrounding residents. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 16 of 31 Councilmember Bolkcom stated she has never heard the comment related to a financial burden for the developer. In fact, the developer is granting easements to Anoka County which he does not have to do. Ms. Olson stated in order to make a profit, the developer has to have a certain density and that density means a large building that does not fit on this property and taking out single family homes in order to be able to fit this project into the limited acreage. It means that if you have to throw in retail to make a profit then you have certain parking requirements that do not fit on this property. It means that because the water table is too high, the property has to be bermed up. Every time the residents have questions, they get soft answers, mixed words, and picking and choosing pieces out of the Comprehensive Plan. There were a number of reasons why the original proposal was denied and she is not hearing how this proposal is any different. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that has been discussed at this meeting and the previous meeting. There are differences. Ms. Olson stated the density is higher per acre now than it was originally. Mr. Hickok stated the density is not higher on this project. In the findings of fact for the denial of the 90-unit project for this site, the reference was to population density. As a result, the developer dropped the proposal by 20 units. Councilmember Bolkcom said that in response to the residents' concerns about traffic on 64th Avenue; those parcels along 64th were not included in this new proposal. Ms. Olson asked if the right-in and right-out proposal will create more traffic on 64th as people use that roadway to turn around. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the same concerns were expressed about the Christianson Crossing proposal and there have been no problems that she is aware of. Ms. Olson asked what recourse the residents have if they start counting additional cars on 64th Avenue after this development goes in. Mayor Lund stated that issue has been adequately addressed. Councilmember Billings reminded those present that there have already been two public hearings on this matter and there is no public hearing scheduled for this item on tonight's agenda. There are other items on the agenda and other people present for those items and in fairness to them, he did not believe Council should continue to go over and over things that have already been discussed. Ms. Olson stated Denial #6 of the previous proposal talked about inadequate setback for parking and diminished landscape and on-sight snow storage. She stated there are still a considerable number of parking areas outside the parking setback. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 17 of 31 Mr. Hickok stated that only 3 stalls on the north are less than the required setback, and that is due to the additional right-of-way Anoka County is requiring along Mississippi and Central. He further stated that City staff has reviewed this plan and it meets snow storage requirements. It is an S-2 development that includes flexibility in the site plan and those are non-issues from a staff recommendation perspective. Ms. Olson stated the flexibility Mr. Hickok refers to equates to variances to the residents because that is what they would have to seek in order to have those flexibilities. She asked about Denial #7 which referred to snow storage impeding site line in the corners of the property. Mr. Hickok explained that there are locations on the site itself for snow storage and those areas to the north are in broad right-of-ways. Further, in City and County projections going out as far as anyone can tell, there is not going to be development east on Mississippi or north and south on Central adequate enough to broaden that intersection and take the right-of-way the County has asked for. This is not viewed as an impediment to the site or visibility on the roadway. Ms. Olson stated Denials #9 and #10 address sunlight issues, yet this proposal is for the same height building. Mr. Hickok stated that is incorrect. This proposal dropped the building height an entire story (10 feet) and the building has been moved north, farther away from the residential areas that expressed those concerns. He also pointed out, if the intention is to kill the recommendation for this 70-unit building, the litigation on the table is to go back to a 90- unit building. Ms. Olson asked how this proposal is going to address the screening concerns. Mayor Lund stated those issues were addressed at the Planning Commission meeting and again at the Council's public hearing. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, waive the first reading and deny the ordinance on first reading. Mayor Lund asked if there is any further action required by Council on this issue after tonight's meeting. Ms. Jones stated the second reading of the ordinance on the rezoning will be held July 11 and approval of the final plat at a later date. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 18 of 31 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the first reading of the ordinance and approve the ordinance on first reading with the following 23 stipulations: 1) Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan — Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan — Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2) Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A- 3 titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4) Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5) Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6) Demolition permits shall be obtained shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7) Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8) No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9) Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10) Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11) Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12) Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13) City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14) Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15) Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16) Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$3,2887.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet). 17) Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18) Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19) Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20) Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of building permit. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 19 of 31 21) The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvement necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development, including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22) A Development Agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23) The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of the property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated this is a different project than the 71-unit proposal from last year. A lot of the issues for that denial have been addressed. Councilmember Wolfe commented that he was frustrated with the threat of legal action. Mayor Lund stated that while the petitioner has made considerable concessions, he still has concerns about storm water drainage, the density, and the quality of life for the area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 3 TO 2 VOTE. 8. Preliminary Pla 'equest, PS #05-04, by Target Corporation to Subdivide a Commercial Lot i o Two Commercial Lots, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue NE (Ward 1 Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinato stated this request is to replat one shopping center lot to accommodate redevelopment if the existing Target and Petco stores. The site description contains a C-3 zoning a • there is no proposal to change that zoning. The existing commercial retail building inc . des Target and the Petco store. The southern end and eastern side of the lots are d- eloped as parking. The petitioner seeks to replat the property and redevelop the existi • store into two separate buildings with their own parcels. This is a permitted use in this z• ing district. Fridley City Code requires a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet in a C-' district. As proposed, Lot 1 would be 750,000 square feet and Lot 2 will be 86,000 squa feet after the replat. A minimum of 25 feet of street frontage is provided for access as = I for each of the parcels and they will both take access off 53`d Avenue as they do now. • to 40% lot coverage would be allowed for this proposal. The Petco building is at 17% et coverage and the Target building is 25% lot coverage. All necessary utility and draina• - easements are provided for on the plat and the necessary building setbacks are being -t with the exception of a variance for the Petco front yard setback from 53rd Aven. -. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15 and unanimously appr• ed this proposal with the stipulations recommended by staff. Staff recommends concu -nce with the ItirjAGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11 , 2005 CITY OF FRIDLEY Date: July 5, 2005 To: William Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones,Planning Coordinator Subject: Second Reading for Spring Valley Estates Rezoning ZOA#05-02 Background On June 13, 2005,the Fridley City Council held a public hearing regarding the rezoning request from John DeMello for the Spring Valley Estates project. At the last Council meeting on June 27, the City Council took action on the first reading of the attached resolution regarding this rezoning request. The resolution was passed on a 3-2 vote. The plat for this project was also passed by the City Council by a 4-1 vote on June 13. This rezoning includes five parcels of land that have a mixture of zonings,which are proposed to be redeveloped into a mixed use development to S-2,Redevelopment District zoning. The subject properties are located at the intersection of Mississippi and Old Central Avenue. The project will include commercial space and senior condominiums. The Planning Commission also held a public hearing on the Spring Valley Estates Plat and Rezoning on June 1,2005. The Planning Commission recommended approval on both actions with 23 stipulations. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the second reading of ZOA#05-02 to rezone five parcels located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441,and 6461 Central Avenue to zoning S-2 Redevelopment District by conducting the second reading of the attached ordinance. Approving the ordinance includes language that also approves the Master Plan documents discussed at the June 27 Council meeting. The stipulations that were amended and approved by Council at the June 13,meeting for the preliminary plat for this project are also listed as an exhibit. M-05-60 17 Second Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning , ZOA #05-02 Spring Valley Addition Mississippi Street at Old Central July 11 , 2005 Spring Valley Addition ➢ June 1 , 2005 , Planning Commission Public Hearing ➢ June 13 , 2005 , City Council Hearing ➢ June 27 , 2005 , City Council heard additional testimony and approved the first reading of the ordinance ➢ July 11 , 2005, City Council to consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance to rezone property Spring Valley Addition ➢ Staff Recommends approval of the 2nd reading of the ordinance found on page 18 of tonight's City Council 's packet, rezoning ZOA #05-02 , to S-2 Redevelopment District. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 4 OLD BUSINESS: 8. Second Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2 Redevelopment District, for Property Located on Lots 15-19, Spring Valley, Generally Located at the Corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central, Fridley, Minnesota (by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation) (Ward 2). Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this is the fourth time this item has been discussed, so he briefly reviewed the proposal. This project is located in the southeast quadrant of Mississippi Street and Old Central. What are proposed are a 70- unit, owner-occupied senior condominium building as well as limited commercial opportunity on the first level. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 1. On June 13, Council held a public hearing and heard additional testimony. The first reading was held at their June 27 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the second reading of this ordinance. Mayor Lund referred to Stipulations 17 and 18 Mr. Knaak reviewed his recommendation to add Stipulation 24 as follows: "Developer shall provide the necessary governing association documents that will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time." After some discussion, Mr. Knaak also proposed the following be added to Stipulation 18 after the word "seniors": (meaning persons 55 years or older). Councilmember Barnette questioned if a spouse under age 55 and children of a senior would be permitted to reside in this building. Mr. Knaak responded that with the language proposed, no one under 55 could reside in the building. Councilmember Billings commented that the building is restricted to seniors. Mayor Lund questioned if Council is getting involved in civil liberties. Mr. Knaak stated Council can impose reasonable conditions on these kinds of developments. Councilmember Wolfe asked why fire access to the back of this proposed building was required last year but not this year. Mr. Hickok said the Fire Marshal has reviewed this proposal and the International Fire Code, much more is known about the fire protection plans for this project, and it was determined they do not need to access the east side of the building as a result of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 5 sprinklering and access to all other sides of the building. There are a number of differences with this plan also. The project does not go all the way to 64th Avenue, the building is situated differently on the property, the building is sprinklered through the rafters, and designed access is allowed to three of the four sides. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, questioned why the Council denied this proposal last year and approved it this year. He also stated the Planning Commission should act themselves rather than passing a development on to Council and expecting Council to make all the determinations. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue, stated in 2004 it took a four-fifths vote to deny the original proposal from this petitioner. The statute changed in 2001 to require a three-fifths vote. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated the statute overrides provisions of the City Code that might be contrary and the statute does provide for a three-fifths vote. That change in the law was more recent than 2001. The issue did not present itself until quite recently because most votes are unanimous. This should be brought to the attention of the Charter Commission for change. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the second reading and deny the ordinance for the same reasons as stated last time. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance and 23 stipulations on second reading and order publication. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to amend the stipulations as follows: Add Stipulation 24 to read "The petitioner shall provide that the necessary governing association document will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time." Revise Stipulation 18 as follows: After the word "seniors", insert "55 years or older." Councilmember Billings requested the motion be split so that each amendment could be voted on separately. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO ADD STIPULATION 24 CARRIED UNAMINOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 6 Councilmember Billings was concerned that adding the words "55 years or older" to Stipulation 18 may create problems; such as the spouse of a resident being under age 55 or a younger live-in nurse for a qualified resident. He believed the owners' association would make adequate regulations to cover this issue. John DeMello, petitioner, suggested the stipulation require that the principal owner of the condominium be 55 and older. Mr. Knaak stated if Council were to limit this to the principal owner, the principal owner would have to be defined. He believed the concept of senior housing is widely understood and if Council allows for some flexibility, they might be able to avoid these kinds of questions which could limit the marketability of the units. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. DeMello if Stipulation 24 is acceptable. Mr. DeMello responded affirmatively. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO AMEND STIPULATION 18 ADDING THE WORDS "55 YEARS OR OLDER" FAILED TO CARRY ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Mayor Lund commented that after reviewing the meeting minutes, he believes the developer has met the burden of proof. He realized this is not a perfect situation for the residents. Councilmember Wolfe believed that all of the eleven reasons for the original denial are still there. The new project looked no different. He also referred to the statement in the Comprehensive Plan that if redevelopment changes the character of a neighborhood, it should not be allowed. He stated his obligation is to his constituents and that is how he will vote. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 1204 WITH THE FOLLOWING 24 STIPULATIONS CARRIED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan — Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan — Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with the architectural Plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural Plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 7 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square foot). 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with the final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The Petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. 24. The Petitioner shall provide that the necessary governing association document will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time. CI1YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER•6431 UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432•(763)571-3450•FAX(763)571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE July 13, 2005 John Deivlello Family Lifestyle Development Corporation 2872-17th Terrace NW New Brighton MN 55112 Dear Mr. Demello: On Monday, July 11, 2005, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a rezoning, ZOA#05-02, Ordinance #, to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family to S-2, Redevelopment District, to replat for the construction of a senior housing complex, legally described as Lots 15-19, Block 1, Spring Valley generally located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street, and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE. Approval of this rezoning is contingent upon the following stipulations: 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan - Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan - Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. Action Taken Letter– Family Lifestyle Development Corp. Page 2 July 13, 2005 14. Final Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of$3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet) 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the buildings' association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. 24. The Petitioner shall provide that the Building Association documents will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time. If you :ve any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 763-572-3590. Sincei;077(1 y, 0Hickok, AICP munity Development Director SH/jb cc: Address File Rezoning File GIS Dept. Assessing Dept. Julie Jones Mary Hintz Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by July 25, 2005. —‘'–c'4j()( 4 o.'° 1 /()Concur with action taken. C-05-51 ORDINANCE NO. 1204 ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING ZOA#05-02, FROM C-I,LOCAL BUSINESS,C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS AND R-1,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO S-2, REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 15— 19,SPRING VALLEY,GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY 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, including stipulations as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. LOTS 15-19, BLOCK 1, SPRING VALLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL, FRIDLEY Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District S-2(Redevelopment District)and shall comply with Master Plan as depicted in Exhibit B,MP-1, Master Plan-Landscape and Grading, and Exhibit C, MP-2,Master Plan-Utility and Grading, both dated June 22, 2005. SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District C-1 (Local Business), C-2 (General Business District), and R-1,(Single Family Residential)to S-2,(Redevelopment District). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY,2005. E ' SC ft TJ. L D— + 'YOR ATTER: Ls DEB' A. SKOGEN—CI.' CLERK Public Hearing: June 13,2005 First Reading: June 27,2005 Second Reading: July 11, 2005 Publication: July 21,2005 So ' 7z /- ô City of Fridley (Official Publication) ORDINANCE NO.1204 ORDNANCE APPROVING A REZONING ZOA 405-02, LOCAL BUSINESS,C-2,GENERAROM L BUSINESS AND R-1,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO S-2,REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, - FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 15 —19,SPRING,VALLEY,GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA BY 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 indicat- ed,including stipulations as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. LOTS 15-19, BLOCK 1, SPRING VALLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District S-2(Redevelopment District) and shall comply with Master Plan as depicted in Exhibit B, MP-1, Master Plan-Landscape and Grading, and Exhibit C,MP-2,Master Plan-Utility and Grading,both dated June 22,2005 SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administra- tor is directed to change the official zoning I map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District C-1 (Local Business),C-2 (General Business District), and R-1,(Single Family Residential)to S-2, (Redevelopment District). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY,2005. SCOTT J.LUND-MAYOR ATTEST: • DEBRA A.SKOGEN—CITY CLERK Public Hearing: June 13,2005 First Reading: June 27 2005 Second Reading: July 11,2005 ruolicittion: Judy 21,2005 (July 21,2005)f2/2nd Read 20A 05-02 Ord 111111 11111 IIIII III II IIIII IIIII 11111 IIII Illi Record ID 1618056 484919 . 003 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS REZONING COUNTY OF ANOKA ) CITY OF FRIDLEY ) In the Matter of: A Rezoning, ZOA#05-02 Owner: Frank Demello and Sharon Demello The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 11th day of July, 2005, on a petition for a rezoning pursuant to the City of Fridley's Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property: To rezone from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential to S-2, Redevelopment District, legally described as Lot 17, Block 1, Spring Valley, subject to easement of record, generally located at 6461 Central Avenue NE. IT IS ORDERED that a rezoning be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approval with 24 stipulations. See City Council meeting minutes of July 11, 2005, June 27, 2005, and June 13, 2005. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF FRIDLEY ) I, Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk for the City of Fridley, with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order granting a rezoning with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I ye hereunto sut, scri hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the Countyof Anoka on the I dayof , 2005. DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. �t J Fridley, MN 55432 Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk • (SEAL) • ORDINANCE NO. 1204 ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING ZOA#05-02, FROM C-1,LOCAL BUSINESS,C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS AND R-1,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO S-2, REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 15— 19,SPRING VALLEY,GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA 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,including stipulations as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. LOTS 15-19,BLOCK 1, SPRING VALLEY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT CORNER OF MISSISSIPPI STREET AND OLD CENTRAL,FRIDLEY Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District S-2(Redevelopment District)and shall comply with Master Plan as depicted in Exhibit B,MP-1, Master Plan-Landscape and Grading, and Exhibit C,MP-2, Master Plan-Utility and Grading,both dated June 22, 2005. SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District C-1 (Local Business), C-2 (General Business District), and R-1,(Single Family Residential)to S-2, (Redevelopment District). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY,2005. • f..0 SC T J. L:UND— •YOR ATTE : VAIs DEB' • A. SKOGEN—CI' CLERK Public Hearing: June 13,2005 First Reading: June 27,2005 Second Reading: July 11, 2005 Publication: July 21,2005 • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 4 OLD BUSINESS: 8. Second Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2 Redevelopment District, for Property Located on Lots 15-19, Spring Valley, Generally Located at the Corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central, Fridley, Minnesota (by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation) (Ward 2). Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this is the fourth time this item has been discussed, so he briefly reviewed the proposal. This project is located in the southeast quadrant of Mississippi Street and Old Central. What are proposed are a 70- unit, owner-occupied senior condominium building as well as limited commercial opportunity on the first level. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 1. On June 13, Council held a public hearing and heard additional testimony. The first reading was held at their June 27 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the second reading of this ordinance. Mayor Lund referred to Stipulations 17 and 18 Mr. Knaak reviewed his recommendation to add Stipulation 24 as follows: "Developer shall provide the necessary governing association documents that will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time." After some discussion, Mr. Knaak also proposed the following be added to Stipulation 18 after the word "seniors": (meaning persons 55 years or older). Councilmember Barnette questioned if a spouse under age 55 and children of a senior would be permitted to reside in this building. Mr. Knaak responded that with the language proposed, no one under 55 could reside in the building. Councilmember Billings commented that the building is restricted to seniors. Mayor Lund questioned if Council is getting involved in civil liberties. Mr. Knaak stated Council can impose reasonable conditions on these kinds of developments. Councilmember Wolfe asked why fire access to the back of this proposed building was required last year but not this year. Mr. Hickok said the Fire Marshal has reviewed this proposal and the International Fire Code, much more is known about the fire protection plans for this project, and it was determined they do not need to access the east side of the building as a result of • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 5 sprinklering and access to all other sides of the building. There are a number of differences with this plan also. The project does not go all the way to 64th Avenue, the building is situated differently on the property, the building is sprinklered through the rafters, and designed access is allowed to three of the four sides. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, questioned why the Council denied this proposal last year and approved it this year. He also stated the Planning Commission should act themselves rather than passing a development on to Council and expecting Council to make all the determinations. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue, stated in 2004 it took a four-fifths vote to deny the original proposal from this petitioner. The statute changed in 2001 to require a three-fifths vote. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated the statute overrides provisions of the City Code that might be contrary and the statute does provide for a three-fifths vote. That change in the law was more recent than 2001. The issue did not present itself until quite recently because most votes are unanimous. This should be brought to the attention of the Charter Commission for change. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the second reading and deny the ordinance for the same reasons as stated last time. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance and 23 stipulations on second reading and order publication. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to amend the stipulations as follows: Add Stipulation 24 to read "The petitioner shall provide that the necessary governing association document will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time." Revise Stipulation 18 as follows: After the word "seniors", insert "55 years or older." Councilmember Billings requested the motion be split so that each amendment could be voted on separately. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO ADD STIPULATION 24 CARRIED UNAMINOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 6 ,r Councilmember Billings was concerned that adding the words "55 years or older" to Stipulation 18 may create problems; such as the spouse of a resident being under age 55 or a younger live-in nurse for a qualified resident. He believed the owners' association would make adequate regulations to cover this issue. John DeMello, petitioner, suggested the stipulation require that the principal owner of the condominium be 55 and older. Mr. Knaak stated if Council were to limit this to the principal owner, the principal owner would have to be defined. He believed- the concept of senior housing is widely understood and if Council allows for some flexibility, they might be able to avoid these kinds of questions which could limit the marketability of the units. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. DeMello if Stipulation 24 is acceptable. Mr. DeMello responded affirmatively. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO AMEND STIPULATION 18 ADDING THE WORDS "55 YEARS OR OLDER" FAILED TO CARRY ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Mayor Lund commented that after reviewini the meeting minutes, he believes the developer has met the burden of proof. He realized this is not a perfect situation for the residents. Councilmember Wolfe believed that all of the eleven reasons for the original denial are still there. The new project looked no different. He also referred to the statement in the Comprehensive Plan that if redevelopment changes the character of a neighborhood, it should not be allowed. He stated his obligation is to his constituents and that is how he will vote. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 1204 WITH THE FOLLOWING 24 STIPULATIONS CARRIED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. 1. Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan — Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan — Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with the architectural Plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural Plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2005 PAGE 7 5. Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6. Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7. Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9. Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. 10. Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11. Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14. Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15. Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16. Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square foot). 17. Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with the final plat. 19. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. The Petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvements necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23. The Petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of property. 24. The Petitioner shall provide that the necessary governing association document will not permit more than 5% of the units to be rented at any one time. 11 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 10 of 31 8) The petitioner shall agree to preserve mat re trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the ew homes shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance '.f building permits. 9) Twin homes shall meet all parking req irements. 10) Add appropriate address and markin.- requirements per Fire Code. 11) The petitioner shall agree to the ter s of a development agreement that shall be prepared by City staff and app oved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. 12) The petitioner shall file a per•etual easement for access to Lot 1 on the records of Lot 2 and a perpet .I easement for Lot 4 on the records of Lot 3. Councilmember Billings stated the •roperty is zoned R-3 and could develop into something with 18 to 20 units or ore with access to 73 1/2 Avenue, in which case instead of having four families dr' ing in and out, there could be 18 to 20 or more. There is somewhat of an inconsi --ency with the Comprehensive Plan, but what is being proposed is 4 single family unit that happen to be two 0 lot line units. He questioned whether that really is inconsis -nt with the Comp Plan because the homes that are going to be there will be singl; family, 0 lot line homes. If the City were to rezone it to R-1, the City would be lookin% at the possibility of a taking in which case the City would have to pay money to the la downer for depriving him of something he already has. UPON A VOICE VO E, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BIL INGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMB - WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 0 A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. Councilmember Bolk••m stated she would like staff to look at the possibility of taking out the existing cul-•a-sac at the same time the new cul-de-sac is being constructed and do the proper hearings and notices. NEW BUSINESS: 7. First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for Property Located on Lots 15-19, Spring Valley, Generally Located at the Corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central, Fridley, Minnesota, (by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation) (Ward 2). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated petitioner is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S-2 Redevelopment District. The lots are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461 Central Avenue. City Council approved the preliminary plat to subdivide these five parcels into one at their June 13, 2005 meeting. The lots on 6441 and 6421 Central have both residential and commercial zoning. The rezoning to S-2 makes it possible for the developer to build a mixed use development on this site with retail and housing combined in one development. There was some discussion at FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 11 of 31 the public hearing on June 13 regarding spot zoning. Staff has looked into this and determined that this property is designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. A lengthy public record was established with this petitioner's original development request in which there was significant opposition to including the property along 64th Avenue. The area on the other side of Central Avenue has been recently rezoned to S-2. Ms. Jones explained that approving this rezoning is also approving the Master Plan for this project. The S-2 zoning requires the City to approve a Master Plan. That Master Plan document has been modified since the last meeting to reflect the right-in and right- out entrance being required by Anoka County. Any modifications to the Master Plan following the second reading of the ordinance must be brought back to Council for approval. The ordinance before Council refers specifically to the revised Master Plan documents dated June 22, 2005. In analyzing the rezoning, staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed retail/housing project does meet several objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan, one being to provide more efficient land use in this area, one to provide senior housing and one to provide additional tax base and new jobs. A public hearing on this matter was held June 13, 2005, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing June 1, 2005. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with stipulations. Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-02, because the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, provides senior housing opportunities, provides additional retail opportunities, and provides additional job opportunities. Stipulation #1 has been modified to reflect the correct date of the new Master Plan document as June 22. Stipulation #21 has been modified to reflect the change requested by Councilmember Billings. After reviewing the right-in and right-out modifications to this plan requested by Anoka County, staff was concerned about the access to this property for fire equipment. After discussions and review by the Fire Department, it was determined that the turning radius should be fine. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that not only does Council have a legal opinion from the City attorney but also from John Baker, the attorney that represents the League of Minnesota Cities. She asked Ms. Jones to review Mr. Baker's findings. Ms. Jones read a portion of Mr. Baker's comments as follows: ". . . the phrase, spot zoning `refers to an arbitrary zoning or rezoning of a small tract of land that is not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and primarily promotes the private interest of the owner rather than the general welfare." She stated the S-2 zoning being proposed for this site is consistent with the Comp Plan and consistent with the surrounding area. This proposed rezoning also solves existing zoning problems. Councilmember Bolkcom pointed out that Council's packet for this meeting includes a copy of the public hearing notice as well as a listing of individuals who were notified via mail of the public hearing for this proposal. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 12 of 31 Ms. Jones added that in addition to the Planning Commission public hearing on such rezonings, the City of Fridley chooses to hold a public hearing at the Council level which is not required by State statutes. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Knaak the City is required to mail written notices of public hearings to surrounding property owners for both the Council meeting and the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Knaak responded the notification required by statute is for the first public hearing at the Planning Commission level. Even in that case, the law provides that if the City makes a good faith attempt, even if there is a mistake or if half of the notices do not reach the intended recipients, that in and of itself does not invalidate the public hearing. Mayor Lund asked if the 18 foot setback on the east side of the development is west of the alleyway easement. Mr. Jones stated the setback is 18 feet from the property line and there is an additional 8-foot right-of-way to the east of the property which provides a 26-foot setback from the single family property line to the east. Mayor Lund asked if the east side is considered the rear or side yard and what the required setback would be. Ms. Jones responded that is considered the side yard and a 15 foot setback is required. Councilmember Barnette asked about the question a resident had regarding the lift station on Central Avenue and how the drainage from this site and the Town Center Development project will impact that station. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, responded that the lift station is for sanitary sewers, not ground water, so it has nothing to do with the drainage from either development. However, that lift station can handle the additional sewerage as recent upgrades have been completed and there is plenty of capacity. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that she received an email from a resident who is concerned about this proposal because she lives in an R-1 zoning district and was concerned that the City may eventually rezone her property. Mr. Hickok stated he is not certain where this resident's property is, but if her property is surrounded by R-1 zoning, she is not on the edge where the S-2 redevelopment is defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The City guided this area as S-2 development in the Comprehensive Plan revisions in 2001 and as a result, S-2 zoning is the perfect match. The resident in the R-1 zoning is guided to be R-1. Further to the east of the petitioner's property, the area is guided and zoned as R-1, Single Family. There is no plan at this time to take S-2 further to the east. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 13 of 31 Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated he received the same email and one of that resident's concerns stemmed from the recent Supreme Court case on eminent domain. The project before Council is not a "taking." It is not a City project, but a private development. Councilmember Wolfe commented that there are instances where municipalities have redeveloped and rezoned property. Mr. Hickok stated it is important to point out that even if the City were to do such a change, there would be a process required including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning process. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the City would legally be hard pressed to go into an R-1 area and rezone it without strong reasons. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, presented a letter from Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford expressing their opposition to this proposal. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to receive the June 27 letter from Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Schwartz asked if this proposal meets fire code regulations. He thought there was too much building on this property. The density for this proposal is virtually the same as the original and the lot coverage is actually greater. Ms. Jones stated the Fire Department has been involved in reviewing this proposal from the beginning and this building and the site meet all fire code regulations. Barb Edwards, 1403 64th Avenue, questioned why she did not receive a notice regarding the public hearing. Mayor Lund reviewed the procedure followed by the City to provide a public hearing notice for both hearings and a direct mailing for the Planning Commission hearing. Susan Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue, stated half of the property being discussed is zoned single family. The block of Central Avenue and Mississippi is all single family homes except for the welding shop. The whole block is wooded area with most homes on one acre lots. The Planning Commission recommended saving as many mature trees as possible and now the developer is proposing rain gardens with no mature trees remaining. Something more appropriate would be to develop the front lots along Central as they are zoned and subdivide the back of those lots in single family as it is currently zoned. She expressed her opposition to this proposal as it changes the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 14 of 31 characteristic of the neighborhood and is not consistent with the existing single family homes. Ray McAfee, 1360 Hillcrest Drive, stated he has lived at this address for nearly 50 years. Central Avenue is a two-lane highway and Mississippi is a two-lane street with excessive peak hour traffic. He stated this development is too much for the area and will disrupt the neighborhood. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 64th Avenue, said this proposal will change the surrounding properties. She pointed out that there are two dead strip malls in the area and questioned if the proposed retail will really be adding jobs or just moving them from another site. Many of the residents purchased property in this neighborhood because of the green space, and they do not want it to change. Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren, stated she is extremely concerned that the City may, at some point in the future, change her neighborhood to S-2. The price of the smallest condominium unit for this proposal would require an income in excess of $24,000 annually which is not affordable for most seniors. Jean Schwartz, 1372 64th Avenue, stated she and her husband checked the zoning around their property before they purchased. She did not think it was fair to change rules mid-stream. They live in R-1 zoning and have done extensive remodeling under the R-1 restrictions. She re-presented the petition opposing the original proposal on this site. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to receive this petition dated February 11, 2004, into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schwartz presented copies of three emails she sent to Council. She stated the density for this proposal is the same as the original and the lot coverage is greater. She also referred to the 11 reasons the Council denied this proposal originally, most of which she believed to still be valid. She further stated that there are many areas in the Comprehensive Plan that this project does not follow. The average residential density in Fridley is 3.5 per acre for single family and 9 units per acre for multi-family. Following that, this petitioner should only be allowed 38 units on this property. In this particular neighborhood, she believed the single family density would actually be 1.1 per acre. As far as the claim that this proposal provides needed housing, the Town Center Development project across the street provides the same housing. Also, the Town Center development is on vacant land that was zoned commercial and industrial and adjoins R2 land, not R1 land. Town Center was also required to be set back 50 feet from the residential property, not 18 or 40 as this proposal is on the east and south. Also, when the Town Center rezoning was approved, the Council promised that it would not set a precedent for this area. She also referred to traffic concerns and long- . • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 15 of 31 standing drainage issues in this area. Some of them have been corrected and some of them have not. She stated the neighbors are not opposed to redevelopment on this site; particularly some of the property is in poor condition. But they want the development to be appropriate for the neighborhood. She would like to see single family or cottage/village type development. With land at a premium, she stated it seems unreasonable for Council to think that if they do not approve this project, nothing will be built there soon. She urged Council not to settle for this project because it is inappropriate for the area. Virgil Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue, stated the road easement east of the proposed development is currently green space. There is no division between the R-1 zoning and the proposed rezoning. He also believes this proposal would significantly change the neighborhood. Kurt Olson, 1385 64th Avenue, asked what happens to the alley right-of-way if this property is developed. He also questioned if this will impact his ability to split his property and sell-off parts of his lot and if so, he believed that would be an infringement on his rights as a property owner. Mr. Haukaas stated there are no plans to do anything different; there's a storm sewer in that right-of-way and it will remain as is. As far as the future development of Mr. Olson's property, he stated he would have to review the site. Since the project before the Council this evening will not change that right-of-way, he does not see how it would impact Mr. Olson's property. Councilmember Billings commented there currently is no way to access the back of Mr. Olson's property from 64th Avenue or Arthur Street and the proposal before the Council will not change that in any way. Mr. Olson stated all the Council has heard from is the many residents opposed to this project and the only person in support is the petitioner himself. Councilmember Barnette stated he has received calls from people in favor of this proposal. Andrea Olson, 1385 64th Avenue, stated what the neighbors are asking for is fairness. She could not understand how the City can allow a developer to proceed with a plan that has so many shortages just because of an overwhelming financial burden. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Olson to clarify her remarks. Ms. Olson stated the residents have heard that sacrifices have to be made with this proposal, such as County easement, on parking, on height, on planting in order for this project to go through as proposed. If the petitioner cannot afford to develop this property correctly, that is not the burden of the surrounding residents. • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 16 of 31 Councilmember Bolkcom stated she has never heard the comment related to a financial burden for the developer. In fact, the developer is granting easements to Anoka County which he does not have to do. Ms. Olson stated in order to make a profit, the developer has to have a certain density and that density means a large building that does not fit on this property and taking out single family homes in order to be able to fit this project into the limited acreage. It means that if you have to throw in retail to make a profit then you have certain parking requirements that do not fit on this property. It means that because the water table is too high, the property has to be bermed up. Every time the residents have questions, they get soft answers, mixed words, and picking and choosing pieces out of the Comprehensive Plan. There were a number of reasons why the original proposal was denied and she is not hearing how this proposal is any different. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that has been discussed at this meeting and the previous meeting. There are differences. Ms. Olson stated the density is higher per acre now than it was originally. Mr. Hickok stated the density is not higher on this project. In the findings of fact for the denial of the 90-unit project for this site, the reference was to population density. As a result, the developer dropped the proposal by 20 units. Councilmember Bolkcom said that in response to the residents' concerns about traffic on 64th Avenue; those parcels along 64th were not included in this new proposal. Ms. Olson asked if the right-in and right-out proposal will create more traffic on 64th as people use that roadway to turn around. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the same concerns were expressed about the Christianson Crossing proposal and there have been no problems that she is aware of. Ms. Olson asked what recourse the residents have if they start counting additional cars on 64th Avenue after this development goes in. Mayor Lund stated that issue has been adequately addressed. Councilmember Billings reminded those present that there have already been two public hearings on this matter and there is no public hearing scheduled for this item on tonight's agenda. There are other items on the agenda and other people present for those items and in fairness to them, he did not believe Council should continue to go over and over things that have already been discussed. Ms. Olson stated Denial #6 of the previous proposal talked about inadequate setback for parking and diminished landscape and on-sight snow storage. She stated there are still a considerable number of parking areas outside the parking setback. • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 17 of 31 Mr. Hickok stated that only 3 stalls on the north are less than the required setback, and that is due to the additional right-of-way Anoka County is requiring along Mississippi and Central. He further stated that City staff has reviewed this plan and it meets snow storage requirements. It is an S-2 development that includes flexibility in the site plan and those are non-issues from a staff recommendation perspective. Ms. Olson stated the flexibility Mr. Hickok refers to equates to variances to the residents because that is what they would have to seek in order to have those flexibilities. She asked about Denial #7 which referred to snow storage impeding site line in the corners of the property. Mr. Hickok explained that there are locations on the site itself for snow storage and those areas to the north are in broad right-of-ways. Further, in City and County projections going out as far as anyone can tell, there is not going to be development east on Mississippi or north and south on Central adequate enough to broaden that intersection and take the right-of-way the County has asked for. This is not viewed as an impediment to the site or visibility on the roadway. Ms. Olson stated Denials #9 and #10 address sunlight issues, yet this proposal is for the same height building. Mr. Hickok stated that is incorrect. This proposal dropped the building height an entire story (10 feet) and the building has been moved north, farther away from the residential areas that expressed those concerns. He also pointed out, if the intention is to kill the recommendation for this 70-unit building, the litigation on the table is to go back to a 90- unit building. Ms. Olson asked how this proposal is going to address the screening concerns. Mayor Lund stated those issues were addressed at the Planning Commission meeting and again at the Council's public hearing. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, waive the first reading and deny the ordinance on first reading. Mayor Lund asked if there is any further action required by Council on this issue after tonight's meeting. Ms. Jones stated the second reading of the ordinance on the rezoning will be held July 11 and approval of the final plat at a later date. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 18 of 31 . MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the first reading of the ordinance and approve the ordinance on first reading with the following 23 stipulations: 1) Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan — Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan — Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2) Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A- 3 titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4) Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5) Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6) Demolition permits shall be obtained shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7) Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8) No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9) Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10) Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11) Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12) Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13) City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14) Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15) Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16) Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,2887.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet). 17) Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18) Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19) Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20) Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of building permit. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Page 19 of 31 21) The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvement necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development, including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22) A Development Agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23) The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of the property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated this is a different project than the 71-unit proposal from last year. A lot of the issues for that denial have been addressed. Councilmember Wolfe commented that he was frustrated with the threat of legal action. Mayor Lund stated that while the petitioner has made considerable concessions, he still has concerns about storm water drainage, the density, and the quality of life for the area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 3 TO 2 VOTE. 8. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-04, by Target Corporation to Subdivide a Commercial Lot into Two ommercial Lots, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue NE (Ward 1). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, state• this request is to replat one shopping center lot to accommodate redevelopment of the -xisting Target and Petco stores. The site description contains a C-3 zoning and the is no proposal to change that zoning. The existing commercial retail building includes arget and the Petco store. The southern end and eastern side of the lots are develo t ed as parking. The petitioner seeks to replat the property and redevelop the existing s •re into two separate buildings with their own parcels. This is a permitted use in this zoni • district. Fridley City Code requires a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet in a C-3 t istrict. As proposed, Lot 1 would be 750,000 square feet and Lot 2 will be 86,000 squar_ feet after the replat. A minimum of 25 feet of street frontage is provided for access as .ll for each of the parcels and they will both take access off 53rd Avenue as they do now. p to 40% lot coverage would be allowed for this proposal. The Petco building is at 1 '0 lot coverage and the Target building is 25% lot coverage. All necessary utility and dr.'nage easements are provided for on the plat and the necessary building setbacks are b-' g met with the exception of a variance for the Petco front yard setback from 53 ' Avenue. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15 and unanimou ly approved this proposal with the stipulations recommended by staff. Staff recommenc s concurrence with the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 5 of 38 OPEN FORUM: Consideration •' items not on agenda (15 minutes) Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 65 Oakley Drive, stated the City has spent over $270,000 repairing storm sewer pro, ems at the Springbrook Nature Center. He's had a drainage problem in his yard for • er 15 years and has not received any assistance from the City to resolve this proble . Councilmember B• corn explained that a majority of the money spent at Springbrook was from grants from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Springbrook improvements w-re made not only to control drainage but to improve the quality of water that leave- the Springbrook property and ends up in the Mississippi River. PUBLIC HEARING: 11. Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-02, by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation, to Rezone Property from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, Generally Located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue NE (Ward 2). MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to open the public hearing and waive the reading. UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:55 PM. Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner, John DeMello, is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S-2. These lots are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441, and 6461 Central Avenue. The petitioner is also requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the same property to allow construction of an Italian Villa style mixed use development. There will be 10,492 square feet of retail space on the lower level at the corner of Mississippi and Old Central, and 70 senior condominium units in the bulk of the development. The 1, 2 and 3 bedroom condominium units will be owner- occupied and have underground parking. Access to the complex would be directly across from the anticipated Town Center development on Central and Mississippi. The petitioner submitted a different proposal for a larger development in 2004 and that was denied. The 2004 denial revolved around concerns about density, traffic on 64th Avenue, limited snow storage area, and landscaping opportunities. Ms. Jones explained the current proposal differs from the 2004 submission in that there are not two separate parcels; the retail and housing are in the same building on the current plan. Also this proposal does not include the three properties on 64th Avenue, contains less retail space, is three stories high rather than four, and has 20 less condominium units. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 6 of 38 Ms. Jones stated there is currently a mixture of zoning classifications on this site, C-1, C-2 and R-1. The properties at 6441 and 6421 Central Avenue have split zoning with C-1 along Old Central and R-1 on the east portion of the property. The rezoning to-S-2 makes it possible to have a mixed use development with retail and housing combined in one development. The S-2 zoning requires the site to have a Master Plan approved by the City. The site plan becomes the Master Plan and any modifications to the site plan following Council approval must be brought back to Council for review. The HRA must also review the redevelopment Master Plan, which they did at their June 2 meeting. Ms. Jones said that In relation to the City's Comprehensive Plan, such a rezoning needs to be consistent. The proposed retail/housing complex does meet several objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: • Provides more efficient land use. • Provides an opportunity for senior housing. • Provides added tax base and new jobs. Ms. Jones further stated this rezoning helps achieve the Comprehensive Plan's goals for this corner. Ms. Jones said petitioner had a housing market study done in 2003 and then updated in 2004 and 2005. This study indicated that senior housing was the best market for this site and that a market exists for 70 units, even with the Town Center development proposed for the opposite corner. Updated figures indicate the retail prices for the condominium units should range from $156,000 to $279,000, depending upon the size of the unit. The plat analysis reveals that the plat would consolidate five parcels into one. Although the petitioner is requesting S-2 zoning, the site will be planned according to C-2, General Business, and. R-3, General Multiple Unit. Housing regulations. The 10,492 square foot retail area meets speculative parking requirements, if proof of parking is included. There will be 46 stalls provided (52 are required) plus proof of parking for 8 additional stalls. The retail parking will not meet the setback requirement due to the County's request for additional right-of-way. The lot coverage for this development is at 28% which is below the code limit of 30%. The housing portion of this plat is 120,199 square feet and there will be three levels. The 70 condominium units would require a total of 129 market rate parking spaces or 70 spaces for assisted living facilities for the elderly. The petitioner is proposing 122 spaces with 110 of those spaces provided in underground parking. Staff is comfortable that they are meeting the parking requirements. The potential County right-of-way acquisition is what is creating problems with the parking setback requirements but the building setbacks are being met. Ms. Jones stated the landscape plan has been revised since the Planning Commission hearing on this proposal. The petitioner's landscape plan now provides 152 of the160 trees required. Staff has decided to set a policy where they would provide a 15% credit for developments utilizing rain garden areas in lieu of trees. Petitioner would get credit for 10 trees in exchange for the rain garden areas they have proposed. This proposal FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 7 of 38 would then meet the landscape requirements. The change from the Planning Commission hearing is that petitioner is adding a landscape buffer in lieu of fencing on the south side of the property. Ms. Jones said the 2001 City Comprehensive Plan reports that the Old Central and Mississippi intersection is carrying 57% of the traffic for which it was designed. The petitioner hired TDI to perform a traffic analysis in 2004. This was recently updated and TDI found that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection either pre or post development. This includes the impact of the development proposed for across the street. TDI continues to report that the existing roadway network will accommodate this development. Ms. Jones explained that the petitioner is working with the City's engineering staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to refine necessary plans and obtain all necessary permits for storm water on this site. The major ponding and drainage concerns have all been met. The current proposal does not include the three lots on 64th Avenue where there had been drainage concerns in the 2004 proposal. Ms. Jones said staff has received some calls from the public regarding this proposal. The petitioner held two neighborhood meetings which staff did not attend. Several residents spoke at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting. Their comments were mostly related to a disagreement with the Comprehensive Plan, traffic concerns, and the S-2 zoning. At the Planning Commission hearing, the landscape plan was short 69 trees. A subsequent discussion regarding the fencing requirement in Stipulation 15 resulted in a proposed change to the landscape plan. The petitioner feels there is a movement toward less fencing and more open area so they are proposing to make up some of the tree shortage and provide screening by providing landscaping rather than fencing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZOA #05-02 and PS #05-02 with the stipulations presented by staff. Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve ZOA #05-02, as the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and it will provide additional senior housing, retail opportunities and job opportunities. Staff also concurs with the Planning Commission regarding approval of PS #05-02 with the following stipulations: 1) Property to be developed in accordance with the Master Plan as shown on the site plan dated June 8, 2005. 2) Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A3, titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4) Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5) Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 8 of 38 6) Demolition permits shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7) Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District's regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8) No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planning within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9) Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the County right-of-way. (A letter from Anoka County was presented to the Council this evening in which they are requesting a right turn-in and right turn- out only from this site onto Old Central.) 10) Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11) Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permit. 12) Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13) City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14) Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15) Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G91) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16) Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication fee of $3,287.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square foot). 17) Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18) Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with the final plat. 19) Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20) Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 21) The petitioner shall be responsible for 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. 23) The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of the property. • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 9 of 38 Councilmember Wolfe questioned if the right turn-in and turn-out requirement will result in a lot of U-turns. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, explained that entry into the site from southbound traffic would best be accomplished by turning east on Mississippi and then entering this site from that location. Anoka County is trying to eliminate a lot of left turn movements with this requirement and those left turn movements cause more confusion and accidents than the right turn-in. Councilmember Wolfe asked how many rental properties there would be in the residential building. Ms. Jones responded that it is her understanding the entire development is proposed to be owner-occupied. Councilmember Barnette stated some of the calls he received expressed concern over the number of rental units. He asked what assurance the neighbors have that these units will remain owner-occupied. Councilmember Wolfe expressed concern that the association rules for this development could change at some point in the future to allow rental units. City Attorney Knaak stated it is true that association by-laws can be amended, but they would not supersede restrictions placed on the property by the City. Councilmember Billings commented that if a percentage of the units do not sell, the developer would still be the owner of those units and would be paying the association fees on those units. Oftentimes as such associations get started, the developer is the association. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there have been questions raised about the notification process for this meeting and asked Ms. Jones to review that process. Ms. Jones responded that code requires that property owners within 350 feet be notified of the public hearing for such a project. City staff did meet that requirement and went one step further by notifying individuals who had attended previous public hearings on this matter. The public hearing notice goes out before the Planning Commission public hearing. Public notice for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings are published in the Fridley Focus newspaper. She added that her telephone number is on the public hearing notice and residents are always encouraged to call with questions. Mr. Knaak indicated that staff did follow the correct notification procedure for this matter. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that a couple of months ago, when it was discussed that this proposal would be coming before Council, a statement was made at • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 10 of 38 • that time that residents within 350 feet would receive a letter advising of the date. To her knowledge, that letter did not go out. Ms. Jones stated she is not familiar with the meeting Councilmember Bolkcom is referring to but there was not a separate notice mailed for Council's public hearing. At Councilmember Bolkcom's request, Ms. Jones reviewed the site plan, specifically the setback requirements. The building setback along Old Central is being met, but the drive aisle setback is not. Along the north end of the property on Mississippi, the parking setback will be approximately 8 feet short. Those setback shortages are due to the amount of land the County is taking along Old Central and Mississippi for the possibility of future expansion of those roadways. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification on the parking requirements for this site. Ms. Jones responded they are meeting the parking requirements for the housing and retail sections. They have proof of parking for 8 additional stalls in the retail area. If the housing area is treated as market rate rather than a senior building, the parking space requirement would be higher. Since this is restricted to seniors, the parking requirement is lower. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the change from a fence to landscaping. She asked if the landscaping will provide as much privacy for the adjoining properties as a fence would. Ms. Jones stated that would be a matter of personal preference. City code gives the developer the option of either putting in a fence or opaque landscaping (coniferous trees that will be full year round). On the east end, in addition to the landscape screening, the developer is proposing a retaining wall and berm to help screen that side of the development. The trees will be located on top of the berm. Along the south end, the developer is proposing 60 arborvitae which will be spaced together as close as they can. Along the east there will be a couple of different kind of spruce trees. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if staff has looked into the rain garden option and how other cities are handling this. She asked how staff arrived at a 15% credit towards landscaping trees in exchange for the rain gardens. Ms. Jones responded that staff is not aware of what other cities are doing with respect to rain gardens associated with developments. Other cities are utilizing rain gardens in relation to street construction projects. The types of plants in a rain garden are important for it to function properly for storm water filtration. Staff looked at the shortage of trees and considered setting this as policy, not just for this development, but for other such proposals. It is difficult with the storm ponding requirements new developments face to have enough space to meet the tree-planting requirement. To take 15% of the amount of trees required and allow them to make up for that with rain garden areas is a reasonable compromise. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 11 of 38 Councilmember Bolkcom asked about Stipulation #7. Ms. Jones stated that is actually out-dated because the developer has obtained the exemption for the wetland. Staff has received the paperwork from the Rice Creek Watershed on this matter. To her knowledge, the petitioner is in compliance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas to explain the relationship between the height of this building_and the watershed concerns. She asked if there is any other option as far as the height of this building. Mr. Haukaas responded he does not see a relationship between the watershed district and the height of the building. He stated the concern would be the depth of the basement in relation to the water table in that area. The watershed district concerns would be related to water run-off which is affected by the surface area, not the building height. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that what Mr. Haukaas is saying is whether the building is one story or three stories high, it is basically the same as far as storm water. Mr. Haukaas stated that is correct. Councilmember Wolfe questioned the age of the statistics used to determine that people 55 and older do not drive as much as those 55 and younger. Ms. Jones stated she was not referring to any study but the City requirements for parking. The code gives an allowance for assisted living senior facilities. Staff is happy that this petitioner is exceeding the requirement of 70 parking stalls because staff does not believe that would be adequate for this age group. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the Planning Commission minutes where the petitioner's architect stated that the watershed district requires that structures be two feet above the high water mark. Mr. Haukaas responded that the watershed district does have a requirement similar to flood plain requirements that the base level of a building be at a certain elevation above the high water mark of any ponding or storm water features or creek or river in the area. By calculating what their storm water is going to be and how high the storm water ponds may be that sets a minimum for where the building will be constructed. Mr. John DeMello, petitioner, stated he is the president of Family Lifestyle Development Corporation. To address some of the questions regarding rental property, he explained most banks require 50% of the project to be filled prior to ground-breaking. In addition, they will limit the amount that will be rented to the 5% figure that Town Center has proposed. They hope, however, that the building will fill up immediately so that rental units are not a concern. He stated they do have a very high water table on this site which is a major reason why a lot of land has to be brought in and the building has to be FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 12 of 38 • . - constructed basically on top of the ground. Their project will actually provide relief for drainage issues on some of the surrounding property. Mr. Peter Villard, Architectural Works Villard, Inc., explained the major issues in the initial proposal were density, traffic, building height, snow removal, sunlight, and setbacks. They have tried to address those concerns by coming back with a smaller building, a smaller site, one parcel instead of two, 20 less units, 2 '/z less units per acre. There are 22 less parking stalls for housing and 27 less stalls for the retail area for a total of 49 less parking stalls on site. The building itself has 7,500 less square feet of underground parking, 38,000 less square feet of housing and 3,000 less square feet of retail, for a total of 49,000 less square feet.. The building height is ten feet lower. They added the landscape screening on the east and south as well as major snow removal areas. They do have the conditional approval and wetland exemption from the Rice Creek Watershed District. They also received county approval for the right-of-way on June 8. The building setbacks are pretty extensive; 140 feet on the north, 104 feet on the west, and 18 feet on the east and 40 feet on the south. To address the sunlight issue, they are proposing 10 less feet in building height which allows for more sunlight to the properties east of this location. Mr. Villard further explained that the high water mark has been established on this site by their engineering consultants and the watershed district. The garage floor must be two feet higher than that high water level. The water table on this property is up so high they could not sink the building any further. They are adding the features required to accommodate the high water table on this site. He reviewed the landscaping proposed for this development. He stated along the east property line there is an 18-foot setback from their balcony to the property line and an 8-foot City easement. There will be spruce trees along the east as well as a retaining wall. On the south elevation, there will be 60 seven foot high arborvitae. All of the surface water coming from the south towards this site will be draining into this proposal's retaining area. Mayor Lund questioned who commissioned the study that determined the best use for this site. Mr. DeMello responded that his company commissioned Maxfield Research to do a feasibility study; including a demand analysis. Town Center development was included in that study. Maxfield Research typically tries to error on the conservative side and they think this project will be consumed at a rate of 4 units per month. As to comments that the developer paid the researcher to say what he wanted to hear, he said that would not be in the best interests of the developer, the banker or the investment group who will be risking millions of dollars. Mayor Lund commented that he believes the owners of the condominium units would work to keep the rentals to a minimum to protect their investment. He stated the association documents will set the standard for the number of rental units and stated he would like to see some limitation on rental units added to Stipulation #17. He added • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 13 of 38 that he realizes it is not uncommon for such developments to allow perhaps 5% of the units to be rental on a short-term basis. Mr. DeMello responded that his father will be purchasing one of these condo units. It is difficult to not allow rentals at all, but he believed a small percentage would be reasonable. He added that he does not want to see this become a rental property. Mayor Lund stated he would like to see that in writing; a limitation on the rental units in this property. He also asked if there will be a cement median in the entrance of Old Central that will restrict the right-in and right-out. Mr. Villard presented a copy of the County's right-in right-out and it does include a median. Mayor Lund asked if Council is being asked to rezone those single family homes along 64th that are no longer in this project. Ms. Jones responded that during the initial presentation on this property last year, staff recommended including the three properties along 64th to avoid spot zoning because they typically rezone to a physical boundary, such as a street. However, in the public hearings held last year there was a public record created by the surrounding neighborhood indicating they did not want those parcels on 64th Avenue to be included for reasons of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. Because that record has been created it is within the City's legal authority to rezone only to 6421 Central Avenue and not have it considered as spot zoning. Mr. Knaak concurred with Ms. Jones' statement. Spot zoning tends to be an island that is being created to accommodate a specific development, but if the uses are consistent in the rezoning with the contiguous parcels, for the most part it is not a problem. Councilmember Billings asked who determines what spot zoning is. Mr. Knaak responded that ultimately that would be determined by the courts. Councilmember Billings added the court would only determine it to be spot zoning if it is inconsistent with the surrounding zoning. It is up to the City Council to determine what appropriate zoning is for the City of Fridley and what appropriate zoning is for specific sites as long as Council considers the other elements that surround it. Rezoning to S-2 is an opportunity for the City to be able to maximize their zoning districts and create a mixed use on a specific site. Determination as to whether or not five, eight or ten lots are adequate to create an S-2 district is up to Council to determine. If Council does something that another party vehemently objects to, that party can go to court and it becomes their responsibility to prove to the court that what was done was without adequate foundation. Staffs preference and prior preference has been not to have a portion of a block one zoning and another portion of the block a different zoning. Council has tried aggressively to correct those kinds of situations. • FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 14 of 38 - Mr. Bernard Marihart, 1373 64th Avenue, stated he owns the property directly east of this proposal. He questioned if the developer made an effort to find property that was already properly zoned for this development or if the City offered some guidance to find appropriately zoned property. Mr. DeMello stated he owns this parcel of land and he is asking to develop this property. Mr. Marihart stated there are real estate investment companies that have a reasonable expectation that developers will at least look at their properties before the City rezones property for such a development. He presented digital pictures he created in an attempt to show how the building proposed for this site would look in relation to the buildings on his property. He explained that the 8 to 12 foot berm would be higher than the fence on his property and the building will be started above his fence. The proposed building will be 26 feet from his property line. He added that they will be knocking down most of the existing trees that would help shield some of the view of the new building from some of his neighbors. Mayor Lund and Councilmember Boikcom commented that any property owner has the legal right to approach the City and request approval for rezoning. Mr. Marihart stated existing commercial property values would be negatively impacted if developers are not encouraged to develop those properties rather than seek rezoning. Councilmember Billings stated there is no property within the City of Fridley that is specifically zoned for this development. The current zoning on the petitioner's property is C-2, General Business; R-1, Single Family; and C-1, Local Business. There are 5 pieces of property with 3 different zonings involved in this proposal. The petitioner owns this property and is asking to develop it. He does not believe Council is working negatively towards the interest of any commercial property owner. This is 80% of what the City Council does; work on land use issues. Council and City staff work with people to try and accommodate the current and future needs of single family, business and industrial owners. There is nothing that gives the City Council the authority to tell a property owner that he must look into property already properly zoned. Council is obligated to hear proposals from individuals who own property they wish to develop. Mr. Burns, City Manager, said the City's zoning ordinance requires that a petitioner have site control over the property they are planning to develop. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated this project has been going on for about two years. It originally had 70 units. Council then asked the petitioner to revise their plan and the petitioner returned with a proposal for 90 units. Now they are back before Council with 70 units which he does not see as a compromise. They are putting a lot on a small area. If the County decides to widen Mississippi and Old Central, they will need the land for that expansion. He expressed his opposition to this proposal. Councilmember Billings asked for clarification on the right-of-way lines. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 15 of 38 Mr. Haukaas stated the right-of-way shown includes the additional right-of-way requested by the County. Mr. Villard explained that petitioner has agreed to give 10 feet on Old Central and 30 feet on Mississippi. Councilmember Billings stated if the developer were not donating land to the County there would not be any setback issues. Mr. Villard responded that is correct. Councilmember Billings commented that Council could fix that by removing any stipulations that the petitioner give this property to the County and the County and the taxpayers can pay for the land when they want to condemn it in the future. Ms. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 - 64th Avenue, questioned if a building of this size could be constructed in the existing zoning. She asked that this property be developed with care so that it does not change the character of the neighborhood. She was concerned that people will miss the right turn in to this site and then use 64th to turn around. She stated that she and her family spend a great deal of time in their backyard and fear that this proposed development will take away from their enjoyment of their property. Mr. Virgil Okeson, 1423 - 64th Avenue, expressed his concern about the City setting a precedent for other developers to request this type of zoning change and side-stepping the zoning requirements. This should be taken into consideration. The shortages of parking, setbacks, and trees are all important issues to adjoining property owners. He is also concerned about 64th Avenue being used as a u-turn street because of the right turn-in requirement. The residents of the condominium units will have visitors, yet there are only 12 parking spaces provided for guest parking. There will also be vendor trucks and repair trucks needing to access this area. There may also be an issue with flooding in this area based on the history of drainage concerns in this area. He was also concerned about the developer's ability to influence the amount of rental property allowed. This should be considered by the Council. He also referred to the effort by organizations, including the City's Chores and More program, to keep seniors in their homes. He took issue with the comments that a lot of people in the City want to move into facilities like this one being proposed. Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue, stated he is very disappointed that he did not receive written notification of this hearing before Council. There was no publication of this meeting in the local paper. He believes this would constitute spot zoning. The record would reflect that the neighbors did not want S-2 zoning in this area at all, not just to 64th Avenue. Due to the problems with the water table and the fact that this is the same plan as presented previously with the same problems, this is too much of a development for this piece of land. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the character of a neighborhood should not be changed as a result of a redevelopment. He expressed his opposition to this proposal. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 16 of 38 - Ms. Jones presented a copy of the notice of this hearing which was published in the June 2, 2005, issue of the Fridley issue of the Sun Focus. Mr. Steve Williams, 1357 - 64th Avenue, stated he moved to this property 10 months ago in an effort to escape the density of the city neighborhood where he previously resided. The trees in the woods behind his property are 50 to 60 feet high and provide a good buffer. It would be a shame to clear-cut those trees just to create this new development. The proposed landscaping will not provide adequate screening. He asked that the existing trees remain. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue, stated there were two neighborhood meetings held by the developer but the notices for those meetings were inadequate, which she believed showed total disregard for the residents. The initial proposal on this site was for 71 units with general retail. The Council indicated that was too large. This current proposal is only one less unit and the density appears higher. The building height will be, in reality, four stories. There is no allotment for an alley easement on this plot even though there is an existing easement off of 64th Avenue. The driveway on the west side is only two feet from the property line. The required walkway would be close to the property line. The east setback is only 18 feet and a 7-foot fence and trees will do nothing to screen the view from the surrounding homes. The proposed landscaping will take 30 years before it has any effect on screening. The traffic count is estimating 845 total trips should be compared to the traffic from the existing three houses and one small business. Ms. Schwartz said the Comprehensive Plan states that the character of a neighborhood should not be changed. The parking spaces along Mississippi are within the 35 foot setback, much the same as they were last year. She questioned staff referring to any senior housing as an assisted living facility with regards to parking requirements. A senior condominium should not be referred to as assisted living unless there are facilities and staff that makes it assisted living. Many recent studies done on senior driving habits show that those driving habits have changed and are much the same as the general public. They still propose to remove single family homes and rezone R-1 land. The residents do not want this and do not believe this type of housing is appropriate for this area. Nothing has changed. She stated she is not opposed to redevelopment, but they need to be appropriate uses. There is no reason to place a big apartment building in the middle of single family homes. She pointed out an error on the preliminary plat for Spring Valley Estates in that one of the homes is missing and questioned what else is missing. S-2 zoning calls for all performance standards for uses in the district to be comparable or similar to uses allowed in other districts. This does not meet the standards in other zoning districts in many ways. To allow this to be built would be setting a precedent that allows every zoning code law to be thrown out. She understands there is latitude with the S-2 zoning, but thought there should not be as much latitude allowed. Looking at the 71-unit original proposal, the density was 26% and this proposal is 28%. She referred to a petition circulated last year with approximately 400 signatures of those residents opposed to the 71-unit housing development, against the rezoning, the retail, and the traffic and noise. She stated as FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 17 of 38 far as she is concerned, this petition is still valid. The overall discussion of the issue of zoning was that the neighbors did not want the S-2 zoning at all. It totally defies logic to stick an apartment building on property with single family homes and which abuts single family homes on two sides. There are a lot of open retail spaces in Fridley now. This was denied last year in a way that a lawsuit to challenge it would hold up. If Council looks at the reasons for denial, they are basically the same for this proposal. Talking to people in the community, she claimed that Fridley residents feel there is a need for more nice, single family homes, not more apartments. Ms. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, referred to the minutes of the original meeting in March 2004 when the proposal was for 71 units. The consultant for the housing forums stated the City needs to give particular care to the integration of redevelopment projects when located adjacent to single family neighborhoods. She stated this proposal will drastically change the character of that neighborhood. The neighbors understand that sooner or later this site will be developed but not with two behemoth buildings. Ms. Nancy Jorgenson, 5730 Polk Street NE, referred to the 64th Avenue storm and sanitary sewer project that was necessary due to some significant drainage issues. That project tried to correct some of those drainage problems. Developing what are now two large vacant properties will significantly change the storm water flow. She asked that staff members look at the material related to the 64th Avenue drainage problems. Mr. Kurt Olson, 1384 - 64th Avenue, asked if this petitioner will be the only benefactor of the change in the City's policy regarding rain gardens. Councilmember Billings responded that the Rice Creek Watershed District made a presentation to Council earlier this year and requested that Council allow the rain gardens in such developments as well as in conjunction with street projects. The proposal before Council tonight would be the first development where the rain garden concept will be tried and if it is successful then it will be utilized in future developments. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are many other communities, such as Maplewood and Woodbury, where rain gardens are being used. It is not a new concept, but it is new to the City of Fridley. Ms. Marvel McNaughton, 6300 Pierce Street, asked if staff had located the proof of publication for this hearing. Mayor Lund responded that Ms. Jones does have a copy of the notice of this hearing and it was published in the June 2 edition of the Sun Focus. Ms. Susan Okeson, 1423 - 64th Avenue, expressed her concern about the landscaping for this proposal, particularly the planned rain gardens, because they will not offer the screening of mature trees. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 18 of 38 Ms. Andrea Olson, 1385 - 64th Avenue, stated there is one clear theme; if there is not enough room for this development to meet setback requirements on the north and east side or for all the tree requirements or trees and a sidewalk on the south side, there is just not enough room on this site for this proposal. There are many people in that area with a uniform, consistent message of opposition. Underground parking is not underground if you have to push dirt up. If the underground parking is higher than the homes around this site, it is not underground, which makes this a four-story building. She questioned why the neighbors should be forced to accept this structure because the petitioner purchased property with a high water table. The height of this structure will have to have a negative impact on the surrounding properties and drainage issues. It makes sense that this petitioner build a development that is appropriate for this site. The petitioner should not ask the City and the residents to make exceptions just so he can make a profit from this site. She believed the way the petitioner handled the neighborhood meetings was "deceitful" and that the neighbors were not advised of this hearing even though they had been given the assurance they would be. She also stated that this is spot zoning because it is an island to accommodate a specific project. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to accept into the record the ordinance presented by Ms. Jones with the new stipulations and the letter from Anoka County (regarding the access to this development.) UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive the unapproved Planning Commission minutes of June 1, 2005. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to accept into the record the letter dated June 8, 2005 from Marvel McNaughton. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to other S-2 developments approved in an area of mixed zoning, including Medtronic and Christianson Crossing. She then asked about the alley easement. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated there is right-of-way provided which still exists and will continue to exist. There is no distinction between alley and street right- of-way. Councilmember Billings asked for clarification as to the City's policy regarding alleys. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Page 19 of 38 Mr. Haukaas responded that the general direction he has been giving is that the City wants to vacate unused alleys and return the area to adjacent property owners. The right-of-way in this development, however, does need to be preserved because of the storm sewer project in that area. He does not believe there is any interest by the developer or the neighborhood to put a street through the right-of-way in question, so he does not see the need to take additional right-of-way at this time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if he is comfortable with the drainage plan for this development. Mr. Haukaas stated the developer's engineer, BKBM, has submitted storm water plans and calculations that show they are reducing the run-off to the east. In addition, the building plans include a piping system to collect the roof run-off and direct it into their ponds. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the traffic studies that have been done and how it relates to the traffic study performed by the City. Mr. Haukaas stated the City runs traffic studies on a four-year cycle and the County does them on a two-year cycle. There has not been an appreciable increase in those counts for a long time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. Haukaas is aware of any plans to increase Mississippi or Old Central in the next five years. Mr. Haukaas responded he does have a copy of the County's written five-year plan and proposed plans for the next ten to fifteen years and there is no intersection improvement included for Mississippi and Old Central. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what height a structure could be erected in the C-2 o'r C-1 zoning currently on this site. Ms. Jones stated she would have to research that and get back to the Council. Councilmember Bolkcom stated at a recent joint meeting with the HRA, three developers who participated in that meeting indicated that there is an over-abundance of condominium units in the Minneapolis and St Paul areas, but not in the suburban areas. They also indicated there are a lot of people at all age levels who are looking for town homes or condominiums. She asked Councilmember Wolfe if, as a realtor, he sees a negative impact on surrounding single family homes when a condominium development goes in nearby. Councilmember Wolfe responded that every house is worth what you can sell it for. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to close the public hearing. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 13, 2005 Paqe 20 of 38 • t UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:35 PM. OLD BUSINE:S: 12. Second "eading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, innesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, :OA #05-01, by Har-Mar Incorporated, for Property Generally Located at '110-90 University Avenue NE) (Ward 3). Ms. Jones, Plannin• Coordinator, stated this is the second reading of the ordinance. The Planning Commi- ion held a public hearing on this matter at their April 20 meeting and unanimously reco mended approval. Council held a public hearing on this matter on May 9. and the i st reading of the ordinance was held on May 23. Staff recommends approval o this rezoning. The next item on the agenda pertains to this property as well because i rezoning this property, staff recommends Council approve a resolution to remove the fo special use permits that exist on this property which will no longer be necessary after t' e rezoning. Staff received no calls regarding this matter after the first reading. Councilmember Bolkcom comm-nted that the tenants currently on this property fit the commercial zoning better than th- existing zoning. Ms. Jones added that another facto is Billiard Street Café is seeking to obtain a liquor license which they cannot do in an -1 zoning. Many of the special use permits are related to Billiard Street Café. She co urred with Councilmember Bolkcom's comment that the proposed rezoning fits the curre t uses better than the M-1 zoning. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt Ordinan•e No. 1203 on second reading. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 13. Resolution Eliminating Four Special Use Pe its for the Property at 7110 -- 7190 University Avenue, legally described -s Lots 4-6, Block 1, Paco Industrial Park, except the North 35 feet ,f Lots 4, Anoka County, Minnesota (Ward 3). Ms. Jones explained two of the special use permits allowed expansion of the Billiard Street Café; one to reduce the parking setback and one to allow he use of office space. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmemb- Wolfe, to eliminate the four special use permits for the property located at 7110-7190 Un ersity Avenue. ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA Document No.: 484919.003 TORRENS I hereby certify that the within instrument was filed in this office for record on: 10/18/2005 1:35:00 PM Fees/Taxes In the Amount of: $46.00 MAUREEN J. DE VINE Anoka County Property Tax Administrator/Recorder/Registrar of Titles TAP, Deputy Record ID: 1618056