Loading...
PLM 02/18/2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 18, 2015 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Tim Solberg, Leroy Oquist, and Dean Saba MEMBERS ABSENT: Todd Olin and Brad Sielaff OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Stacy Stromberg, Planner Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design Ashley Smith, Wish Medical th Homer Melton, 5350 4 Street th Dave Pallies, 5253 4 Street, Columbia Heights th Randy Kuchera, 5301 4 Street th Katrina Iwen, 5301 4 Street Bruce Carlson, Doran Companies Joe Rickenbach, Owner of Embers Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2015 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP # 14-07, by TCO Design, the petitioner has modified the original special use permit request, for a comprehensive home health care use that will utilize both the 5300 and 5310 4th Street Properties. The addition of this land area will provide more opportunities for parking without increasing the size of the building generally located at 5300 and 5310 4th Street NE. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:05 P.M. Stacy Stromberg , Planner, stated the petitioner, Todd Ofsthun, with TCO Design, on behalf of A. P. Ventures is seeking a special use permit to allow the construction of a comprehensive home care building. The petitioner originally was before the Planning Commission on November 19, 2014, to allow this use th on the property at 5310 4 Street. Because of neighborhood and Planning Commissioners concerns specifically related to parking, the petitioner waived Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.99, which requires the City to get the land use item through the process in 60 days, to do further analysis. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 2 of 22 Ms. Stromberg stated since the November Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner and representatives for the project have negotiated a purchase agreement with the owner of the property th directly south at 5300 4 Street. The additional land area will allow for more on-site parking. Ms. Stromberg stated the neighbors also expressed concerns about the operation of the facility and types of staffing needed for the patients. The operator of the facility is present tonight to further answer those questions. Ms. Stromberg stated the properties are zoned R-3, Multi-Family, and convalescent home type uses are allowed in this zoning district with a special use permit. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed facility will have a Comprehensive Home Care Provider License through the Minnesota Department of Health. Ms. Stromberg stated the owners of this project have affiliations with Allina, Fairview, and the University of Minnesota to offer the use of the proposed facility to potential patients. The patients using the facility will be recovering from surgery, transplant (pre-op and post-op) or another type of medical procedure that leaves them needing extensive rehab and medical services. This type of use is needed for patients, who for medical reasons, cannot be on their own and do not have family or friends who can care for them. th Ms. Stromberg stated the new site plan incorporates (2) parcels of land – 5310 and 5300 4 Street. The actual square footage of the building has been reduced in size from 2,920 square feet to 2,486 square feet. The reason for this change is the (2) indoor garage stalls have been removed from the plan. The existing th garage on the 5300 4 Street property will remain in place, which will provide parking as well as room for garbage and recycling containers. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed building will still be 3-stories, with a maximum height of approximately 35 feet. Each level will have (5) separate bedrooms for patients and a common area, with a great room, kitchen, bathroom, storage, and laundry. The building will have an elevator and will be have a fire suppression system. The new site plan allows for 12 surface parking stalls and 2 garage stalls, for a total of 14 parking stalls. The previous plan had a total of 8 parking stalls. The petitioner has also submitted a landscape plan showing new tree, shrub and perennial plantings and will be required to construct storm water treatment on site to ensure that drainage is maintained on site. th Ms. Stromberg stated the existing house on the lot at 5300 4 Street is currently being rented. Staff understands from the petitioner that the lease is up on the house in May. At that time, the residents could sign a month to month lease, until the new building is completed. Upon completion of the new building, the existing house will be required to be removed from the property within one year of building permit issuance. The lot will then need to meet landscaping requirements and be properly maintained. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family and has been since the City’s first rd zoning map. The majority of this neighborhood (east of University Avenue, north of 53 Avenue, and th west of 7 Street) is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, with some parcels in the middle of the neighborhood zoned R-2, Two-Family and parcels on the east edge zoned R-1, Single Family. Within this neighborhood is a mix of single family homes, duplexes, 4-plexes and larger unit buildings. The Bona Brothers property on rd the corner of University Avenue and 53 Avenue was rezoned from R-3, Multi-Family to C-2, General Business in 1971 and 1999 to allow that use to exist. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 3 of 22 Ms. Stromberg stated hospitals, clinics, and convalescent/nursing homes are a permitted special use in the R-3; Multi-Family zoning district provided that the proposed project complies with the requirements for the special use permit, subject to the stipulations. The proposed use as a comprehensive home care use is most comparable to a convalescent home or rehab facility use and therefore staff has determined that a special use permit would be required for the proposed use to exist on this site. Ms. Stromberg stated based on the slope of the lot, the building will look like a 3-story building from the th alley and more like a 2 ½ -story building from 4 Street. Each floor will have 5 separate bedrooms, so the building has the ability to house a total of 15 patients. Due to the medical conditions the patients have, they are unable to drive. As a result, parking needs for this use will be for the staff and visitors to the site. The petitioner has articulated that the maximum number of staff on site at any one time will be 6. Any staff meetings for employees will either occur off-site or through electronic media. The new site plan th shows 12 surface parking stalls and 2 garage stalls within the detached garage on the 5300 4 Street rd property. The garage and the (2) stalls in front of the garage will be accessed off 53 Avenue. Ten parking stalls will be accessed from the alley. The new design of the parking area will allow a one-way loop through the parking area, so vehicles won’t have to back into the alley to leave the property and it also provides better circulation for staff, visitors, delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles. The building th will only be accessed from 4 Street through the use of a sidewalk. Ms. Stromberg stated based on Code requirements for a nursing home, which is the most similar use to the comprehensive home care use, 8 parking stalls are required. The previous site plan did comply with code requirements. The neighbors, the Planning Commissioners and staff did have some concerns as to whether this would be enough based on 6 employees potentially being on-site at any one time, plus visitors, and any other specialized staff needed for the patients. As a result, the plan has been updated to provide a total of 12 parking stalls, plus 2 garage stalls. When approving a request like this, staff wants to make sure there is adequate parking provided on-site and that the use is not dependent upon on-street parking. The 12 parking stalls will be adequate for staff and visitors, however since the street isn’t signed “no parking”, it is likely that from time to time visitors will park on the street. This is acceptable, provided it doesn’t start becoming a problem. Staff will keep the stipulation previously placed on the special use permit that states if on-street parking becomes an issue for this site, the special use permit will need to go back before the City Council for further review. Ms. Stromberg stated the special use permit will also need to go back before the Council for review if in the future the use of the building is changed. The building as designed couldn’t work if people residing in it didn’t have health conditions that didn’t allow them to drive. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed expansion meets lot coverage and setback requirements. The petitioner has submitted a landscape plan and a grading and drainage plan. Both of those plans will be further reviewed by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as hospitals, clinics and convalescent and nursing homes are a permitted special use in the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: (1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. (2) The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 4 of 22 (3) City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to issuance of a building permit. (4) Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. (5) If on-street parking becomes an issue as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council at the owner’s expense. (6) If the comprehensive home health care use changes, the special use permit shall be further reviewed by the City Council. (7) The petitioner shall file the necessary documents with Anoka County to combine both of th the lots involved in this project, 5300 and 5310 4 Street, prior to issuance of a building permit. th (8) The house at 5300 4 Street shall be removed within one year of issuance of a building permit for the new building. Commissioner Oquist stated he has a couple of questions. They still have not added that much more parking. He still has a real concern about parking. Also, what are they going to do with that lot when they take that house down? That is an opportunity to get more parking spots. Plus they are going to find if the only way to get to the parking stalls is through the alley, a lot of visitors are going to park out on the street. He has some real concerns. Ms. Stromberg stated the previous plan had 8 stalls. This is 14 stalls, and 8 stalls met Code requirements so they have gone above and beyond the Code requires. She does agree visitors will likely park on the street if they do not know there is a parking lot behind the building that they can park in. The City is okay with having some on-street parking unless it is becoming an issue with cars up and down the street. Commissioner Oquist asked, what about the length of time on the street? He can see employees parking there for their shift, and they are going to be there for 6-8 hours. Ms. Stromberg replied, the City would not want the employees parking on the street. Commissioner Oquist asked, how do they restrict that? Ms. Stromberg replied, that would be something the City would definitely have to inspect and keep an eye on. Commissioner Oquist stated it would have to be monitored very closely. What are they planning on doing with the rest of that lot once they tear the house down? Ms. Stromberg replied, she believed in their packet there is a landscape plan that is part of the drawings the Commission has. The plan for now is to landscape the rest of the lot. Commissioner Oquist stated it seems to him they could run some more parking stalls probably east and west on that property next to that building. Scott Hickok , Community Development Director, replied, the City has gotten a lot smarter about parking over time. There was a time where in Planning the City would have more parking than was necessary. They might recall staff has gone back and modified Codes to make certain there is not more hard surface Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 5 of 22 than the City actually needs. The folks here who are closest to this type of business will tell the City their experience is they do not get a lot of guests. This would be adequate parking for the amount of guests that they would get at a facility this size. Mr. Hickok stated, also, the petitioner has taken an enormous step. They purchased the property next door to provide a buffer. If they find their experience did not tell them the correct thing, and they need to expand the parking, now they have the land area to do it. They are not boxed in. He would agree with the strategy, do not put in more parking if you do not need it. There is no need to have a lot of hard surface that is not used. This is an opportunity for them basically to provide themselves an out if they need it. Otherwise it provides a lot of nice green open space where there was a building in bad need of maintenance. Mr. Hickok stated the City is getting a vastly improved product here and there is the buffer for parking. The other thing, and he is hearing the concern in Commissioner Oquist's voice, but remember this is a special use permit; and special use permits are there by virtue of meeting mitigating stipulations. Over the course of time, if the City finds there is an issue and if stipulations need to be modified or added, that is the beauty of a special use and why it is not just a permitted use to begin with. If it becomes a problem, it comes back and it is reviewed again. A special use permit can be revoked, but more likely in that situation there would be a requirement for additional parking because demand has been demonstrated. Mr. Hickok stated it is not staff's expectation they would be parking on the street. First-time visitors might because they do not realize there is a nice parking spot that is going to be well lit behind the building. In the architectural elevations, they will notice the best entrance (a double entrance) off from that back parking area is really probably the most inviting opportunity to enter the building. Commissioner Oquist stated he agrees in the past the City probably required too much parking in some instances, but he still has a concern on this one because once again you have to get through the alley. Visitors are going to park out in the front. Mr. Hickok replied staff has made it clear to the developers that sites are supposed to take care of their own parking on site. He does not expect they are going to put in more parking than this to begin with because experience tells them that is what they are going to need. Chairperson Kondrick stated it is obvious, too, that the owner, realizing the City's complaints about parking and the neighbors' concerns about parking, purchased that piece of property for parking purposes. There will be landscaping, etc. th Homer Melton, 5330 4 Street stated he lives two houses north of the project. Three concerns he has, and he has talked to his neighbors are: this would put two health care centers within one-half block of his home. There is one right now on the corner of 54th and 5th Street. They are talking about property values being affected. Also, apparently Ms. Stromberg has not been in that alley which is very small and very narrow because it is an old existing Fridley alley. His back yard faces that alley. Now with Bona Brothers driving up and down there it is like a freeway because they use it to test vehicles that are worked on. Now there is going to be more traffic in that alley. Mr. Melton stated he also disagrees with the parking on the street because Bona Brothers parks on 4th Street all the time because they get too many cars in their lot. He would not like a parking lot two houses from him when he goes to sell his house. It is really hard to get onto 53rd during a busy time. He talked Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 6 of 22 to the neighbors about this, and they all feel the same way about it. Dave Pallies, 5253 4th Street, stated he has some concerns here. First of all he really would like to know what the building is going to be used for. They keep saying, a special use permit. A medical building. Correct him if he is wrong but, if you look at the plans, where is the nurse's station? There is no nurse’s station. He has been asking other people, what type of building is this going to be? They said a medical building. Some people said, well, it is going to be for people with transplants. Where are the nurses' stations, where is the doctor's station for doctors who are going to come in and talk to these people or whatever? They said, well, it is going to be on the phone. Are the nurses going to be on the phone? Are the doctors going to be on the phone? Are the patients just going to be alone there? Are they going to give themselves their own medication? Because when you have transplants, you do not give yourself your own medication, your rejection pills, do you? Chairperson Kondrick asked, do you? Mr. Pallies replied, no. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Pallies, he really does not know, does he? Mr. Pallies replied, Ms. Stromberg told him they are going to be coming out of the hospital, and that is where they will be recovering until they go home. Where is the nurse's station at? Two nurses per floor. Where is the nurse's station at. Where are the drugs going to be locked up because people who have transplants have to have rejection drugs. They are going to have to have that medication locked up. What is the building going to actually be? He has heard so many different stories. Is it going to be a nursing home? He does not have any problem with the building being built. He just wants to know what the building is going to be used for? Is it going to be for like drug and alcohol rehab? They are not telling the truth what the building is actually going to be for. Is it going to be for sex offenders? Nobody is saying. Chairperson Kondrick is not even saying. Does he know? Chairperson Kondrick replied, no. He does not. Mr. Pallies stated then the building should not be built until we know exactly what the building is going to be used for. Chairperson Kondrick replied, if it agrees with the Codes, it would be according to Code. It will have to comply with what is required by the Code. Mr. Pallies stated he is saying it could be sex offender place. Chairperson Kondrick stated if it is built and it is zoned and complies with the Code, then it is legal and requires adequate protection for people. For neighbors and the residents of the facility. Mr. Pallies replied, he is against the building being built with what Chairperson Kondrick is saying. He is against it. Chairperson Kondrick asked, why is that? Mr. Pallies replied, because it could be a sex offender building. For sex offenders. Because Chairperson Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 7 of 22 Kondrick does not know what it is going to be. What is going to be housed there? Chairperson Kondrick replied, perhaps staff can answer that better than he can. Ms. Stromberg stated what the City has been told is it will be a home health care use. Patients coming out of the hospital having some kind of a need, like a nursing home where they need extra care and they cannot go home. The operator of the facility is here tonight, and she would be able to answer many more questions than staff can answer. What they understand is this is a home health care use. Nursing homes, convalescent homes, clinics, and hospitals are a permitted special use in this district. The Code does not address the other uses the gentleman was talking about. Chairperson Kondrick stated now, they are okay so far until they hear from the petitioner. Is Mr. Pallies okay at least with that? Mr. Pallies replied, no, not really. Ms. Stromberg still did not explain it. She just said it was a special use. Chairperson Kondrick replied, just a moment, they will learn more as they go along this evening. Mr. Pallies' concerns are well expressed, and they appreciate it. Mr. Pallies stated he has others, too. The renters for that house. Ms. Stromberg said they are going to be going by a month-to-month lease? They are done in June. Why not tear the house down and get rid of it? Why keep renting that house out? Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Pallies why would he imagine that would be the case? Mr. Pallies asked, why would you leave the house? Chairperson Kondrick replied, the owner does not want to sell it that quick. Mr. Pallies stated, sell it? He has to sell that part of that property for them to build on that property. They cannot buy it afterwards. Then there are other reasons that he is saying this because Ms. Stromberg told him they were going to use two stalls inside that garage. It is a two-car garage for two cars that park in there and two on the path, correct? Chairperson Kondrick replied, yes. Mr. Pallies stated Ms. Stromberg said they are going to put the dumpsters in there. That is going to eliminate two cars in the garage and put two cars on the parking pad. They are going to rent the house out month to month. Where are the renters going to park? Out on the street. The workers will be parking in that driveway. Commissioner Oquist stated the petitioner is going to get a license to operate this facility, and that license is very restrictive as to what they can run in there. Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. Commissioner Oquist stated to Mr. Pallies, they will need a license to actually operate there. That is Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 8 of 22 through the State, and it is not going to be a halfway house or for sex offenders. It is a medical facility, by the license. If they do anything other than what that license provides, they could get shut down. Ms. Stromberg stated as to the question about the renters, they will need to be out before the new building is occupied. They will not have any issues with renters needing to park there when the new use is open. Why they are going to allow the tenants to sign a month-to-month lease after their lease expires in May, she is not sure. The petitioner could answer that question. Mr. Pallies stated but she did say, up to a year, so it is going to take up to a year to build that building? Chairperson Kondrick replied, good question. They will find out. However, it does not really make a lot of difference. The fact is they have to go through the motions first before things happen. Mr. Hickok replied, the stipulation is that it will be a year from the date of the issuance of the building permit. That does give adequate time to have the primary building itself built. It allows a renter some time to make some plans for their next move. It would be a bit of a surprise if you are renting a house and now you are going to have a much shorter stay than you might have planned. It is going to take some time to get this building built. It is not a simple building. It has a commercial elevator in it. It is three stories. It has a lot of commercial aspects about it. It may take a better part of a year to build the building. They are allowing themselves enough time. They are not boxing themselves in. Meanwhile they are allowing a resident to continue to live there but understand at a certain point they are going to need to be out and start making plans. Mr. Hickok stated the City does, with the issuance of a building permit, allow one year for landscape to be done, installed, completed, because there are seasonal issues. There are all sorts of other things that you might get done at a time when it is not good to be putting down seed or sod, and you wait until that cure core point to put it down. There is a strategy behind it. It was not just giving them a year to leave this as a question mark. It is meant to be logical and strategic in terms of somebody who is living there who needs to move and somebody who needs to landscape once the foundation and everything have been taken out. Mr. Pallies asked where are the renters going to park? Out on the street? Chairperson Kondrick replied, nothing is going to happen until after they move out. The garage is still there. Mr. Pallies stated they will have the garage and the driveway. There won't be construction stuff there to block them. He does not care if they park in the street. It does not bother him a bit. Mr. Pallies stated he is still concerned about the medical use because there are no nurses’ stations or nothing like that. Chairperson Kondrick replied, it is going to be according to Code and what the State feels is necessary. They cannot operate unless it is according to what is necessary. They can let that be where it is. Mr. Pallies replied, what concerns him is they are not saying, you know, is it going to be a nursing home? Fine. It is a nursing home. Is it going to be for transplant patients? And his concern is on that, is if it is transplant patients, how are they going to get in there? That alley is very skinny. If they are going to be driving an ambulance, how are they going to get it in there? Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 9 of 22 Chairperson Kondrick replied, hopefully that will be addressed. Mr. Pallies asked, well, are they not going to address that? Chairperson Kondrick stated they can address that as they go along. Randy Kuchera , 5301 4th Street, asked as to this building being built, what kind of affect will it have on property taxes or property value and on top of that, parking meters. If people want to park on the street, would they have to pay for it. Would that have any affects on those three topics? Chairperson Kondrick replied, good question. He cannot imagine parking meters anywhere in Fridley. Mr. Kuchera stated a friend of his lived on a street which was repaved, and he ended up paying for part of that cost. When they usually do some kind of renovation to that neighborhood, does the neighborhood have to pay? Chairperson Kondrick replied, he did not think that affects him at all. Mr. Hickok stated as to parking on the street, meters would not be an alternative there. You could still continue to have your guests park on the street. He pointed out on the aerial photo, to the north of the yellow box there is a four-plex and a car parked on that street. Right now you can drive down it any day and there is parking on that street. This site combined within those two lots within the yellow box with the star on it, that would adequately accommodate eight units of residential with a building permit, up to three bedrooms each unit. If there were eight units of three-bedroom apartments, 20 parking spaces would be required. Just to put it in perspective, this could be an eight-unit, three-bedroom per unit complex with 20 parking stalls required. There is enough land area to accommodate that. Guests to that eight-unit building likely would park on the street. They may park just like they are at the four-plex north of here. Are there things that can be done if this use becomes an issue. In this case there is a special use permit that could be brought back, reviewed, and even revoked if they are not operating under proper standards. This is an R-3 neighborhood. If there is an eight-unit building that has three bedrooms or even if it had two bedrooms a piece that would still be 16 parking stalls, that could be built without any special permit. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is not overtaxing this site in terms of use because it is a convalescent facility, the folks do not come on their own power. They do not park their cars in the parking lot. They do come by virtue by transport vans. Ambulance is probably going to be less likely, although the petitioners are here and can speak to that. Remember this alley is being described as something as a cart path. Garbage trucks use this alley also. The double doors on the back of this facility open to an elevator core for the building that would allow folks to go to each of the three levels that are in there. Mr. Hickok replied, as to taxes, he always thinks it a bit ironic when folks worry about the tax value when they are taking down an $85,000 house that is badly in need of maintenance; and the house that stood on the lot before was in terrible shape. They are probably adding $2 to $2.5 million of investment to the neighborhood and is something that is well-maintained and managed as a commercial entity there but really has a residential character that fits. One should not worry about lowering their tax value in the neighborhood. If they are worried about increased tax value, their property is really based on its own merits. For example, a three-bedroom property with two baths would be compared to three-bedroom Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 10 of 22 properties with two baths in that same general area. Would the affect of this across the street automatically raise their values? The answer to that is "no". Would the affect of the overall feel of the neighborhood change because of the new investment in the neighborhood? Yes, it would. They would benefit from the value of this new, properly maintained property that has landscaping that is professionally maintained and is a building that has a lot of value to it. They should not worry about a diminished value in taxes. What they are going to feel is a very positive influence of new investment in their neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated as to improving streets, likely there needs to be a cut made for a utility connection, unless all utilities are outside of the existing roadway and they are able to connect out in the public right- of-way where the private utility would connect to the public utility. However, that is cost borne entirely by the development itself. Any fix to the roadway would have to be done in compliance with the right-of- way ordinance. Any modification to the roadway has to be done to an engineering standard that basically leaves the road in as good of a condition it was prior to the cut being made. Very good question by the gentleman but not something they would need to be concerned about because that road will be repaired and in a condition that basically leaves the fix invisible to the others. Mr. Kuchera asked what about the noise for the construction itself and height of the building. Some people have gardens in their front yard. By blocking the sun it could kind of screw up some nice plants. Mr. Hickok replied, this construction is pretty standard. Typically they have found sandy soils, and it would be a typical concrete foundation and not driven in on piers. Construction will happen during the daytime. They have Code-mandated work hours. They cannot start before, and they cannot after. Although a third-shift person would be sleeping when construction is happening on this site. There are no extraordinary types of construction techniques that will be used on this. It is a fairly straightforward and very typical type of construction that happens. Mr. Hickok replied, as far as the height of the building, R-3 would allow up to six stories; 35 feet is the cut off for the R-1 district. You could have a single-family home that is 35 feet tall. This is in a district that would allow up to six stories. This one really is comparable in height to a single-story house. Mr. Kuchera asked, that would not block the sun coming across the skyline or anything like that? Mr. Hickok replied, it would be the equivalent of a two and one-half story on this lot set back at a standard setback dimension. Would it affect the sunset? On a treed lot such as this has been, he thinks the effect will be negligible. Mr. Pallies stated that alley is narrow and the problem is, come up there when the garbage trucks go through. It is real interesting because, he lives in Columbia Heights side. The garbage truck goes through their alley on the Columbia Heights side and goes straight across 53rd to get in there because it cannot make the turn. They got semi's that come through their alley and go straight across 53rd into that alley because they cannot make that turn. Go there some time when it is real busy. Chairperson Kondrick replied, he drove through and he knows. Mr. Pallies stated try and drive during rush hour. You will not turn in there. They will not let you. Mr. Hickok stated, two things at a matter of reference, he has driven his motor home through that alley. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 11 of 22 It is probably more about scheduling of pickups that a garbage truck driver would drive straight from the Columbia Heights side into the Fridley side. He has made the turn in his motor home, and it is no small vehicle. This is a standard size alley. Rest assured when Bona's improved it, the City made sure that snow plow trucks, etc. could get through it in order to service it. Mr. Hickok stated in reference to Mr. Pallies saying that no one is being honest here, nothing would frustrate them more than that. In the staff report and articulated in earlier presentations are the types of recovering that happens in a facility like this. One disadvantage and it was unfortunate is that although the builder/petitioner was here, they did not have somebody from the medical side to talk about what it is at the last meeting. There has never been any attempt to keep facts that are known from the public. Being painted that way is a frustrating way to ask a question and make statement. Mr. Hickok stated they have a letter to be entered into the record that describes more about the specifics of the facility, and he would encourage the petitioner's spokesperson to talk about the medical side to answer some of the questions that seem to be of concern here. Mr. Ofsthun stated they actually did increase the parking by six which is a significant number, almost double from when they first started. As to the extra land, ultimately he thinks they want to have attached parking. The building is positioned for a number of reasons, and that is one of them. If they need it for parking, they have that buffer. That is a nice thing. He does not anticipate it. It would be a waste of pavement to continue to go more than 12, not counting the 2 in the garage yet. The garbage cans could take up more than one space. In the future also if they need a dumpster and they have to come back and provide a dumpster for more adequate and efficient garbage for the building itself, they have that space as well. That could be another potential use for that. Ultimately the existing garage would be nice to not be there and have an attached facility. Again, they have the chance to redo the parking. If they have a garbage dumpster they will have an approach for that. All that would be done on their site. Mr. Ofsthun stated, yes, they will be using the alley but the ambulance, as indicated, would have plenty of space to get in the alley. Their parking lot is designed as a standard parking lot. Any ambulance has to go through anywhere in the City so all of the dimensions are per Code. The parking is more than Code. He thinks they really are there. Meanwhile it is a nice landscaped area. That is another plus, too. Mr. Ofsthun stated at the last meeting a big part of the problems were Bona's parking problems. He hopes at this meeting their problems do not continue to be the petitioner's problem. If they are driving their vehicles up and down the alley to test them, that should not be on the petitioner. Mr. Ofsthun stated the employees will not be parking on the street. The back of the building has a much better entrance and it has an elevator. To him if he knew there is a parking lot there, he is going to go down that alley to park. As to visitors, since this is long-term care, they will find that parking lot and park in there. It is more convenient, it is lit, etc. Mr. Ofsthun stated as to the building itself, there is some fine-tuning that needs to go on with the design. The concerns of locking up the drugs, the nurses stations, etc., there is space near the kitchen. The great room kitchen area will get a little more fine tuned as they go through this process. They do have space where there will be small nursing stations on each level. Mr. Ofsthun stated the use of the building is a high-tech medical facility using telemedicine connected through the University of Minnesota and Fairview Hospitals. It will be staffed with nurses, the Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 12 of 22 comprehensive home care license will dictate. In a full facility the minimum number of nurses will be six, two per floor. That is dictated by them by the State. They have elevators and a sprinkler system. This building is set up very much as a high-tech medical facility. If they simply wanted sex offenders in this building, they would just put up a three-unit building and would not be standing in front of them. They would just go get a permit and build it. They are investing a lot of money and time with this for that purpose. It will be run by Wish Medical. Mr. Ofsthun stated as far as the extension for the renters, that was more of a courtesy for them. Initially they were not sure what they were going to do with that building either, and staff was quite clear that building will not stay. They just wanted to make sure they were not kicking out the renters who have a lease which is up either April or May. Potentially they will find their own place. It is a non-issue. It will be torn down when it is convenient. When the big trucks are there will be the most convenient. Mr. Ofsthun stated the manager of the construction project will make sure the renter has a spot, the construction workers have a spot. They set up the site for toilet, dumpsters, drop of materials. That is mostly on site but, unfortunately, there may be some construction workers parked on the street. That will be tough not to do. Mr. Ofsthun stated it is going to be a huge improvement. It is going to look nice. It is going to be well kept. It will be a buffer from two gas stations and an auto repair. Commissioner Oquist stated as to part of his concern with the parking situation, how many employees will be on a different shift? Mr. Ofsthun replied, six is the maximum. Commissioner Oquist asked, what do they do when they have a shift change? Mr. Ofsthun replied, obviously there is going to be some juggling going on. If they have a shift change and then all of a sudden they are all gone, then they have an empty parking lot. Commissioner Oquist stated or you have six people parking there and then six more people trying to park there along with maybe some visitors. Mr. Ofsthun replied, and they added 6 spots to help with that. At what point do they stop? They are beyond City Code which he presumes was set up to take those things into consideration. They have gone beyond with the same consideration of a shift change. Commissioner Oquist asked if the people who are currently leasing that house move out in May, what happens? Does it just stay empty then? Mr. Ofsthun replied, it would probably depend on the construction manager. They might be gone before they start. Commissioner Oquist stated that is the point he was making. If they should move out, for example, the end of May, then it will remain empty. Mr. Ofsthun replied, then it will probably be removed. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 13 of 22 Commissioner Oquist asked, but they would not try and re-lease it to someone on a month-to-month basis? Mr. Ofsthun replied, he has not even thought of it so he would say, no. That was not a consideration. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:58 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist receiving letter from Susan McDonough dated February 18, 2015. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg receiving letter from Katrina Iwen. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg approving Special Use Permit, SP # 14-07, by TCO Design, the petitioner has modified the original special use permit request, for a comprehensive home health care use that will utilize both the 5300 and 5310 4th Street Properties. The addition of this land area will provide more opportunities for parking without increasing the size of the building generally located at 5300 and 5310 4th Street NE with the following stipulations: (1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. (2) The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. (3) City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to issuance of a building permit. (4) Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. (5) If on-street parking becomes an issue as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council at the owner’s expense. (6) If the comprehensive home health care use changes, the special use permit shall be further reviewed by the City Council. (7) The petitioner shall file the necessary documents with Anoka County to combine both of th the lots involved in this project, 5300 and 5310 4 Street, prior to issuance of a building permit. th (8) The house at 5300 4 Street shall be removed within one year of issuance of a building permit for the new building. Seconded by Commissions Saba. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 14 of 22 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Kondrick stated this item will go before the City Council on March 9, 2015, at 7 o'clock. This will be rediscussed then by the City Council. The City Council will have had a chance to review their meeting tonight. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #15-01, by Alliant Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the property owners of 5300 and 5400 Central Avenue is requesting to have the 2 properties rezoned from C-3, General Shopping to C-2, General Business. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:04 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated Alliant Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the property owners of 5300 Central Avenue (Super Stop) and 5400 Central Avenue (Embers) is requesting to rezone their properties from C- 3, General Shopping to C-2, General Business. The impetus for the rezoning request at this time is to allow the potential redevelopment of the property at 5300 Central Avenue. Ms. Stromberg stated the current zoning of C-3, General Shopping imposes several requirements that makes redevelopment of the site difficult. The minimum lot size required for a C-3 district property is 35,000 square feet, whereas the minimum lot size required for a C-2 district is 20,000 square feet. The property at 5300 Central Avenue has a lot size of 29,441 square feet; and the property at 5400 Central Avenue has a lot size of 31,423 square feet. Both parcels are more suitable for the C-2, General Business zoning than its current non-conforming zoning of C-3, General Shopping. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject properties are located on the northwest corner of Central Avenue and rd 53 Avenue, on the southern edge of the City. They are zoned C-3, General Shopping. The existing gas station was constructed in 1966 and the restaurant building, which is now Embers, was constructed in 1965. At that time, both properties were zoned C2-S, which was also called a General Shopping zoning district. When the properties were developed in the 1960’s, both uses were allowed by right, where current code standards would require a special use permit for a gas station use. The properties have consistently been used as a gas station and restaurant since they were constructed. Ms. Stromberg stated in 1981 the State of Minnesota filed a quit claim deed to the City of Fridley for an 80-foot piece of right-of-way directly east of the 5300 Central Avenue that was right-of-way for Central Avenue. The State determined at that time that they no longer needed it; so as a result, it became City right-of-way. Ms. Stromberg stated the City’s zoning ordinance and official zoning map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The law 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’s 2030 future land use map designates this area as Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 15 of 22 “Redevelopment”. Ms. Stromberg stated the property owner of 5300 Central Avenue Ali Hussain and representatives for him have been working to get this property redeveloped for some time. Periodically over the last year, they have met with City staff to go over code requirements and to give staff updates on potential clients. They have recently secured a tenant, Starbucks Coffee Shop, and as a result, have submitted the rezoning request. Ms. Stromberg stated staff suggested to the property owner and petitioner that since this property is non- conforming in relation to lot size, the best option for redevelopment would be to seek a rezoning from C- 3, General Shopping to C-2, General Business. The other option to allow redevelopment of this site would be to ask for several variances, such as lot size and setbacks, to be granted. In order to grant variances, practical difficulties need to be identified on the site. Rezoning of these parcels based on their location and size, is the most practical approach in this case. The C-2, General Business zoning allows for smaller lots sizes, reduced setbacks, and a variety of retail type uses. Whereas, the C-3, General Shopping zoning district is more fitted for large box type retailers, like Target and Walmart, or shopping centers that require larger lot sizes and setbacks. Ms. Stromberg stated in order to accomplish a successful rezoning and avoid “spot zoning”, it was determined that Embers needed to also be part of the request. The petitioner and staff talked with Embers and, since their lot is also non-conforming, they determined it would be beneficial for them to ask for the rezoning at the same time as the 5300 Central Avenue property. Ms. Stromberg stated all the turn-back type parcels within the City, which are those lots along major corridors; that have roadway all around them are zoned C-2, General Business. Though these lots do not have roadway all around them, they are small parcels located along a major right-of-way, with a frontage road to provide access. The small lot sizes of these parcels tend to require a commercial zoning of C-2, General Business, to allow development on smaller lot sizes. The rezoning of these properties is consistent with the trends already seen along the major corridors of Hwy 65 and University Avenue within Fridley. Ms. Stromberg stated with Starbucks on board to lease retail space on the subject property, Mr. Hussain and his representatives have designed a site plan that will allow for the construction of a new retail building. The existing gas station, fuel pumps, canopies and underground tanks will be removed, per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. The new multi-tenant building is proposed to be 6,048 square feet in size. Starbucks will occupy 2,200 square feet of the building space, and the remainder of the building will be shell retail space for additional users. The Starbucks will have a drive-thru that allows stacking room for 13 vehicles, which was designed to not interfere will people entering/exiting and parking on site. The Starbucks national average for drive-thru stacking is 11 cars, so this lane should provide adequate space to not impact other users on the site. Ms. Stromberg stated the new multi-tenant building will be a wood framed structure with aluminum storefronts and multiple exterior finishes, including glass, thin brick, decorative CMU block and EIFS. The exterior will also include decorative and functional wall lighting. Canopies will cover the entrances and a comprehensive sign plan will be adopted to allow a consistent sign package. An outdoor patio will be provided on the southeast end of the building for the Starbucks and new landscaping will be installed. The project will also be required to meet any storm water regulations set forth in Chapter 208. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 16 of 22 Ms. Stromberg stated the project as designed will require the City to deem the 80 ft. right-of-way east of the 5300 Central Avenue property, excess and authorize sale to that property owner. The City’s Public Works Director has indicated that this short segment of right-of-way isn’t needed and has been problematic for maintenance and snow-plowing, so sale of it to the owner of 5300 Central Avenue, would be the best way to approach redevelopment of this site, provided a perpetual (permanent) cross access agreement is filed to allow Embers full access through the site. Ms. Stromberg stated the City hired Bolton & Menk Engineers and Surveyors Inc., to do a traffic rdrd analysis of the 53 Avenue and Central Avenue intersection as well as a segment of 53 Avenue down to the intersection of Target and Medtronic. This section of right-of-way is scheduled to be resurfaced within the next few years, so the City determined it was beneficial to complete the analysis at this time. rd What came out of that analysis is that the Central Avenue and 53 Avenue intersection performs at a failing level of service in the PM peak hour. In addition, while the crash rate is slightly lower than the rd statewide average for 53 Avenue, the crash severity rate is roughly four times what would be expected in a typical similar roadway. This means that most crashes are likely side-on collisions and include left turning movements. Commissioner Oquist asked Ms. Stromberg to expand on "failing level of service". Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a term that engineers use when evaluating intersections and they can operate at a Level A to F. They typically like to see intersections operating at a Level C or D, and this intersection currently operates at a Level F. However, the new development will not make that worse or better. It will stay the same. Ms. Stromberg stated based on the completed traffic analysis, the site plan as designed which allows (2) access points in and out of the site, where vehicle movements can enter and exit from both points on the site is discouraged. Though this entering/existing situation exists today, when the City is looking at allowing redevelopment of a property, we need to do our best to correct a bad traffic pattern. As a result, both the traffic analysis and City staff are suggesting that the proposed (2) access points remain, however, a one-way loop through the site, that will also allow access through Embers. Commissioner Oquist asked it would be a one-way on the east side, one going north, and one-way on the west side going south. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. You would enter in on the east side and then out on the west side. They realize this arrangement is not perfect, it will still continue to function at a Level F. However, short of constructing a center median all along 53rd Avenue to restrict left turn movement completely, this was the best option staff felt they could approve for redevelopment of this site. Ms. Stromberg stated over the last several years, different property owners and developers have come to the City to consider redevelopment of other parcels within the northwest quadrant of Central Avenue and rd 53 Avenue. Some of them have contacted the adjacent property owners to see if there was interest in selling their property, so the quadrant as a whole could be redeveloped at the same time. Redevelopment of the whole quadrant at the same time would be the most ideal situation as it would help resolve the traffic congestion for the intersection and access issues for the subject properties. Ms. Stromberg stated there has not been enough interest from all the property owners to make this redevelopment option happen. As a result, the City has to consider the request for redevelopment that is Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 17 of 22 before us at this time, and determine the best way to accommodate the redevelopment without creating further impacts. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends the rezoning of these two properties to C-2, General Business because it is an overall better fit for the size and location of the properties. Ms. Stromberg stated when a site plan is developed that all parties can agree on, specifically related to access in and out of the site, then staff will initiate before the City Council an action to declare the 80-foot right-of-way excess and authorizing the sale of the excess right-of-way to the 5300 Central Avenue. If a site plan cannot be agreed upon, ownership of the City land area will not be transferred and redevelopment of this property will not likely happen. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request as Rezoning brings both lots in compliance with lot size requirements and rezoning will allow redevelopment of the gas station site. Bruce Carlson , Vice President of Business Development for Doran Companies, he is the team leader and owner's representative of 5300 Central and he does not represent 5400 Central although they have been working in collaboration together with City staff for about a year. When he first started on the project he was with Mid-America Real Estate acting as an owners representative. In June he took a new position with Doran Companies and has just continued his position. His main role here though is team leader as far as selecting and assisting with civil engineering, architecture, working with City staff, representing the owner. The owners of 5300 Central were approached by Starbucks Coffee. They did not have the property for sale or lease. Representatives of Starbucks identified the site and approached them to go there which was fortuitous and exciting, and they were all ears to hear about it. That is when he was engaged to represent the owner. Mr. Carlson stated at that point they started looking at the site as to how they accommodate Starbucks. He should also mention there is no intent on the part of the property owners at 5300 to sell the property. They intend to continue to own it. They would become a landlord, and Starbucks would become a tenant along with a couple of other tenants the site could accommodate. Mr. Carlson statedthey are in support of the site plan they see before them right now. The owner of Embers is here also. They also have to remember they are accommodating two properties here and have to make it all work together. Everyone would admit that no one would want to have an access point so close to a stoplight but it is what it is. City staff has worked very closely with them, always accepted their calls to try and figure this puzzle out. Mr. Carlson stated the Embers is very successful and busy. The two property owners are neighbors and want to be successful on this together. They have their architect here, Cathy Anderson from Architectural Consortium, if they have any questions. Their civil engineer is Alliant Engineering. They used them to make the application for the rezoning. Both owners are here as well. Commissioner Oquist asked the petitioner whether they had considered turning that whole property around so the back of the buildings are facing 65 so the driveway could be further down from 65. Mr. Carlson replied that blocks Embers and takes away its access. It looks a lot better with a beautiful front face to Central with beautiful landscaping. They have yet to make the back of a building look like a Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 18 of 22 front of a building. This is being driven by Starbucks. Much like building a custom home for somebody they are really accommodating Starbucks. If it does not meet all of their requirements, they are not coming. Mr. Carlson stated just to reiterate again, all the tanks will be removed on this site. They have been working all year with the MPCA. They have been in full compliance and cooperation with the MPCA. That is looking all very good as well. Chairperson Kondrick asked if there were folks there from Embers who would like to talk with them? Joe Rickenbach , Owner of Embers, stated he totally agrees with what Mr. Carlson said. They were tentative at first. The main concern they have and have had for many years is access for their customers. The plan they agreed on which is up on the screen right now is something they can deal with. His overall main concern is changing the route of his customers coming and leaving and possibly losing potential customers. Also, down the road, if he ever chose to sell the place that would be adequate for future use. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Rickenbach, he is happy with the plan? Mr. Rickenbach replied, he is happy with the current plan on the screen that has (2) access points and allows people to enter and exit from both points. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:26 P.M. Commissioner Saba stated the safety will be improved. Mr. Rickenbach stated he wanted to reiterate as to the couple of plans that were presented. The staff wanted the certain plan with the one way in and one way out. It is different than what was up on the screen. He just wanted to clarify that and asked Mr. Hickok to touch on that. Mr. Hickok stated the Commission has now seen two plans. The petitioner has presented the last plan the Commission saw and that was really the first plan Ms. Stromberg had in her presentation that had the two yellow highlighted areas shown. The staff's recommendation was that they take out the exit where the current frontage road is so that cars come in, if you are eastbound or westbound, you can come in at that spot then you would circulate counterclockwise at the site and exit closest to the building going east or west. It is a counterclockwise loop that would feed into Embers and would allow folks to come out of Embers on a one-way coming out in front of the store; and it puts that decision to move east further away from the intersection and would give you frankly, staff thinks, an easier way out. This pulls it back at least far enough where you have a better chance of turning left from the site (going westbound). Mr. Hickok stated when the Commission considers this, at least articulate their thoughts on access, and ultimately Council will need to decide. Between now and then staff and these property owners are going to come together again and see if there is anything in between that is a solution. However, as they all want, no harm done by any decision that is made. Thankfully the traffic analyst even said that the amount of traffic in and out of this site can be managed, and they can likely end with a do no harm solution that does not make them any better than an F but certainly not worse. Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 19 of 22 Chairperson Kondrick stated you would need property signage. Mr. Hickok replied, proper directional signage would be one thing needed. He knows Mr. Rickenbach has said that in their meetings; and certainly the petitioners, Mr. Carlson, etc. would agree that signage is going to be key especially when you have long-term users of a site like Mr. Rickenbach has who are accustomed at doing things a certain way. Sometimes just changing it a bit can cause a little anxiety, but proper signage will help that a lot. Ultimately, when you show people how to circulate through a site you can eliminate a lot of internal conflicts in the site and also out on the roadway. Mr. Hickok stated imagine somebody coming out that east frontage road going west while somebody coming out of the western one wants to go east. They find themselves in the same lane, now with cars coming southbound on Central, rounding the corner at a fairly good clip, and you have two cars making a decision out on the roadway. They are trying to avoid that simply by having an easy decision. You hook on, you go counterclockwise through the site, and then you exit whatever direction you want. Mr. Rickenbach stated what he is really worried about the one-way entrance/exit. Right now his customers have a clean in and out. If he has a say in the matter, his definite response to this would be "no" because of the way his customers have to exit. They are going to have to come around and turn, then go through (this is when there is no snow on the ground) the entrance of the drive-thru during early business (as is Embers with early morning breakfast), then they are going to navigate a parking lot (where right now they do not have to do as there is a straight-in driveway). Also, you have the exit of the drive- thru again. It is quite the navigation for his customers where right know they don’t have to. His main fear is that it is going to cause trouble for his business. Mr. Rickenbach stated when Allied first came out they were obviously very excited to have something new on the corner. His only stipulation was that their driveway stays relatively the same. It has changed some so it curves in now and there are drive-thru parking spots so there is a little bit more action there, but they were okay with that because it had an entrance and an exit. The one-way is a major issue that he has. Mr. Hickok stated he thinks it leaves the Commission in a good position to make a decision and a recommendation on the zoning and, any comments they want to offer on circulation would be helpful. They will become part of the record. Obviously there will be more discussion between now and the Council meeting; and they will have to come to a decision before the Council meeting as they will not want them in a position to have to referee a decision. If there is some sort of mid-ground solution between Plan A and Plan B for circulation, they will try and find it. They do not want to, again, put the Council in a corner so they would not have the land sale, that deems the land access and authorizes the land sale action on the Council's agenda, until they work that piece out. Mr. Hickok stated they will likely have to ask for a waiver from the petitioner to State Statute Section 15. 99 that has them acting on this within 60 days simply because they need additional time to consider access in and out of the site. Tonight all the Commission really has to focus on is making their recommendation on the zoning. Ultimately offering their recommendation on circulation which is important to the minutes. Staff really values the Planning Commission's position on that as well. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist Approving Rezoning, ZOA #15-01, by Alliant Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the property owners of 5300 and 5400 Central Avenue is requesting to have the 2 properties Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 20 of 22 rezoned from C-3, General Shopping to C-2, General Business but for the traffic circulation issue must be resolved before the item comes before the City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Kondrick stated this goes before the City Council on March 9. 3. Receive the Minutes of the January 5, 2015, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the Minutes of the October 28, 2014, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated they are going to be having some public meetings to talk about potential redevelopment of the Columbia Arena. They did something similar to this when the City was looking at the redevelopment of Gateway Northeast, which is now the Cielo project. This is very exciting, staff wants as many people to attend as we can get. There will be four meetings. The first one is March 11 and they are all on a Wednesday from 6 to 8 o'clock at the Community Center. The information is also on the City's website and coming out in utility bills as well. Commissioner Saba asked whether Community Development has some ideas of what could be developed there and would be beneficial to the City? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, they do. However, if they will recall those meetings they had on the University Avenue project, they really want public engagement and want folks to come in with their ideas. They are going to the first meeting to talk a little bit about what goes through the mind of a planner, a civil engineer, and an architect as they look at a site like this and how they try to work with the amenity the site has and also try and develop then an end product that has the highest and best value. Mr. Hickok stated one of the things that might surprise them is they are not closing out the option of using the Public Works facility land behind it so basically you open up the avenue to just pure amenity and then doing a development that just has the creek and the park and everything behind it. That will be one of the things that will be offered. The second meeting with be design charrets where they will actually use a scaled aerial photo and putting blocks down and kind of laying out the development as they see it. There will also be an architect and a finance person. The architect will be drawing up sketches Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 21 of 22 based on the blocks you are putting on the aerial photo, and the finance person will be figuring out what a project like that would cost. Mr. Hickok stated they do not want to inhibit that free thought by saying, here is what we think. They would really just like to get public feedback on it, take that in, and use that as food for what they think could be an even better plan that matches or uses a lot of the good feedback they get back from the public and then takes what the City staff believes are essentials for the site as well. Chairperson Kondrick asked, where do they put the Public Works then? Mr. Hickok replied, they have a couple of ideas on that. Frankly, the new and modern public works facilities are very different looking. When you look at the aerial photo of that it reminds him a lot of his grandpa's farm. You have the original house, the farm, and as things change over time, maybe you have another out building. If you were to do it over again, you would not do it again. You would probably have the very modern facility that puts stuff inside that does not have the smattering of little out buildings but does it in a very efficient way. It could even sit on the site, but with everything inside it would look very different. Chairperson Kondrick stated just consolidation. Mr. Hickok if you look at the new and modern public works facilities, for example, one in Richfield of which him and Ms. Stromberg took pictures of if they would like to look at. White Bear Lake has a very nice one that they just completed not too long ago. They have looked at a number of other ones and, if you looked at it, you would not know it is a public works facility. A very neat one is in Vadnais Heights, along County Road F, where one end of their building they actually lease out for wedding receptions. He went to a wedding there not long ago and it was probably one of the most beautiful receptions he went to. That end of the building is glass looking onto kind of a natural amenity. Chairperson Kondrick asked when do they expect to have the construction of the Cielo facility completed? Mr. Hickok replied, they would like to occupy before year-end. They are thinking October/November occupancy potentially. One of the reasons for the slow start is that base structure is the garage that is being built. It looks almost like two buildings right now, but that is because the entrance piece is a framed piece and not a poured concrete piece like the garage portions. Also, on the southern end Xcel has an overhead power line that needs to go underground. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Saba adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Meeting February 18, 2015 Page 22 of 22 Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary