Loading...
PL 10/25/1989 - 30711� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1989 MMMMMIrNMMNMMMMNMMMMNMIrIrMwMMNMMMMMM.YtiMNMN�YM�YMIrMMMN�YMNIr�V MrMM�YMMMMMN CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the October 25, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 11 1989. PLANNING COMMI5SION MINUTE5: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the October ^ 11, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. l. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED 5ITE PLAN FOR OSBORNE CROSSINGS. SBF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Farrell has requested that this item be tabled because he wants to review the changes in the site plan with the tenants who have signed leases. He is concerned about the legal implications to these tenants and wants to make sure they will accept these refinements. The tenants signed leases based on the original plan approved by the City. Ms. Dacy stated she would like the Commission to discuss some other changes to the site plan that have been discussed with Mr. Farrell. She would also like to give a brief overview of what the HRA is considering. • Ms. Dacy stated the Commission had received a revised site plan for Osborne Crossings. The changes staff wanted Mr. Farrell to address were those e�ressed by the Planning Commission: the type of access from the site back to Commerce Lane, and to try to improve the circulation out of the site onto the frontage road. /'` ^ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 2 The revised plan provides a full movement access from the site to Commerce Lane. Ms. Dacy stated staff reviewed the site plan with Mr. Farrell, and staff was concerned about the stacking distance from Osborne to the three lane intersection. Staff asked Mr. Farrell to look at an option of shifting the driveway farther to the south in order to accommodate more stacking on the frontage road and going both directions on Osborne Road. Since that discussion yesterday, Mr. Farrell has sent over two variations of that. Ms. Dacy stated that under this plan, if the 3 lane driveway is farther to the south and if the center spaces in front of the theater become 9 x 18 (assuming the City Council changes the ordinance on parking stall widths to 9 ft.), Mr. Farrell can provide 309 spaces--4 spaces short of the 313 approved by the City Council. However, if the parking space widths are not amended, and he has to maintain a 10 ft. stall width in the center of the development, he will lose 20 stalls for a total of 289 spaces. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Farrell has said 289 spaces is unacceptable to the theater. The theater wants 310 spaces in front of the theater. Mr. Farrell is trying to review these three site plans with the theater people in Texas, as well as with the people for the other n building slated to be Hardees. Ms. Dacy stated that while the intersection does achieve that extra stacking distance from Osborne, there may be a consideration of what it does to the on-site traffic. Because of the angle, probably half of the cars will be going out onto Commerce Lane and the other half onto the service road. It is not a true "T" or 90 degree intersection as it was on the original plan. Ms. Sherek asked what effect this reconfiguration will have on the northbound traffic stacking at the curb. The traffic on the frontage road moves very fast at 30-35 m.p.h., and it could be a hazardous situation. Is there sufficient visibility coming from the south? What is the line of sight? Ms. Dacy stated the engineers seemed to feel that the sight distance in that location was adequate. Sight distance was poorer south of Hardees. However, what it might do is stack and maybe block the Conoco station. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not think there was going to be that much problem with the traffic from the Conoco station. Ms. Sherek stated her problem was not with the traffic from the Conoco station, but the traffic stacking to turn into the theater ^ site. �^� � ,� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 3 Mr. Barna suggested the parking spaces be angled aroun� the perimeter and this would draw people around the parking lot for better traffic flow. Mr. Kondrick stated the more they talk about this, the more he feels this is just not a good development for this site. It is just cramming too much onto this property. Mr. Dahlberg stated he met with Mr. Robertson and Ms. Dacy the previous day to discuss the proposed plan with Mr. Farrell. Mr. Dahlberg stated he expressed to Mr. Farrell that this revised plan was a 100% improvement over what was previously submitted. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought the biggest consideration here is that the Planning Commission reviewed the first plan and recommended denial to City Council. City Council, in their judgment, approved the plan as submitted. It was his understanding that part of it was because this developer was not asking for any monetary assistance to proceed; therefore, the City was willing to make some concessions relative to the number of parking spaces, variances for setbacks, parking stall size, and number of parking spaces. This proposal as modified does not ask for any additional variances. Mr. Farrell is asking for the same variances he was given originally. He has retained about the same square footage, but he has improved the traffic considerably. Mr. Dahlberg stated the discussion yesterday with staff centered around what is truly the City's involvement in terms of financial obligation, because Mr. Farrell has come back asking for some financial assistance from the City. Mr. Dahlberg stated his understanding of the assistance being requested by Mr. Farrell is that it is not costing the City anything. Ms. Dacy stated the October 23, 1989, memo outlines the procedure the HRA has authorized, pending Planning Commission and City Council approval of the revised site plan. The procedure is to create a tax increment financing district for this parcel, and also to evaluate adjacent parcels to the north, south, and west of this site. Ms. Dacy stated that right now, with the building on the site, the taxes generated are approximately $50,000 a year. Right now the schools get a portion, the County gets a portion, and the City gets a portion, based on mill rates, of that $50,000. Once the tax increment financing district is established, the schools, County, and City still continue to receive those portions of the $50,000; however, the amount of taxes generated from the development estimated at $150,000 a year and up would all go to the HRA. Ms. Dacy stated the financial consultant is recommending that for the first 3 years, from 1992 - 1995, once the project is built, � PLANNINQ CONIIdlISSION MEETINa, OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 4 the HRA, in essence, returns the first 2/3 of the taxes to SBF. The difference between what SBF gets and the HRA gets is to be used by the HRA until the district is retired. Therefore, the theory is that the HRA is gaining this amount of money to put back into the district to help other parcels in the district. In essence, the City or the HRA is not losing anything. They are getting back the money the development is generating. Ms. Dacy stated the tool they are using for the 3-year period is called a limited revenue note. That document is going to satisfy SBF�s banks and financing people that the revenue note, at least for 3 years, is guaranteeing about $250,000 back into the project. Mr. Betzold asked what happens if the business that goes onto this property fails. He wondered what the long range viability is for movie theaters. Ms. Dacy stated the way it is set up, it is a"pay as you go" proposition. If the project does not succeed, then they do not get any money. Mr. Kondrick asked why the developer needs assistance. Why can't he get his own financing? n Ms. Dacy stated the building currently on the site was built 20 years ago, and the demands of the market are different. Mr. Farrell says he needs this particular amount of square footage to make it work. The movie theater is unique, and that does dictate some of the requirements he is getting from his financing people. She stated even if this was an all retail development, they would still have the same issues as far as parking and the ability of getting enough retail on the site to succeed in today's market. With this principle of the project having to pay for itself, it is ensuring a low risk option to the City. Ms. Sherek stated she agreed with Mr. Kondrick earlier when he stated that too much is being put on this site. Do they want this development on this site in the first place? At least one time this Commission has said "no", that it is not an appropriate use for that site because of the traffic considerations and overbuilding of the site. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not agree, he thought what the Planning Commission said previously was that the use on that site was o.k., but that much use on that site was not o.k. Ms. Sherek stated as far as she was concerned, the developer is still saying he wants to do the same thing. He is still looking at parking easements with Perkins and parking easements across �„1 Osborne Road with no assurances that there is a livable traffic situation on Osborne Road. They are still looking at an overbuilt site. � PLANNINa CONII�ISBION I�EETINa. OCT. 25, 19$9 PAGE 5 Ms. Dacy stated if this was all retail, she believed they would have more traffic problems. She thought the theater is an advantage to the site. At least with the theater, they have some off-peak usage. There are some trade-offs on the site. Nineteen thousand square feet of retail space during the day is not going to overflow that system. Mr. Barna stated he did not see any major traffic problems during the daylight hours. Mr. Dahlberg stated that since they do not have to make any decisions on this at this meeting, it would be helpful for the Commission to have more information, especially regarding traffic. When are the peak times? What is the traffic generated? Ms. Dacy stated staff could put that information together as peak hour traffic counts were taken at the Osborne/University Service Road intersection. Ms. Dacy stated that from her point of view, if the parking stall reduction is not approved by the City Council, this alternative then ends up reducing the parking spaces on site to 289, and they know that is unacceptable to the theater. The Commission should /� be aware that if the parking stalls stay at 10 x 18, they might have to go back to the original plan in order to get the parking needed on site. Mr. Kondrick stated the main reason the Planning Commission recommended denial of this development in the first place was because they did not like the idea of parking easements across Osborne Road. That was a key issue at that time. The City Council and staff worked out parking easement arrangement with Perkins to make shared parking possible. That changed things in terms of the number of parking spaces. Again, he just did, not like this development for this site. Ms. Sherek stated the concern she had with the tax increment financing district and HRA district for this site is that this developer is going to cram every possible inch of this site. There are surrounding properties that are going to want to do likewise, and they will point to this development. The City is going to hear the same argument from other developers saying it is too costly to develop and they need to cram the site. Mr. Kondrick stated he would not be in favor of moving the driveway farther to the south. Mr. Betzold stated he agreed. Moving the driveway might be ^ exacerbating the problem. Stacking is going to happen here anyway. ^ PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINa. OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE_6 Mr. Dahlberg stated that from a traffic standpoint, however, from his experience in working with site plans, moving the driveway south will improve the potential problems on the frontage road. It will allow more stacking on the frontage road. That is more important than ease of maneuvering on the site. People will find they cannot get onto the frontage road, and they will be forced or encouraged to go to Commerce Lane, which is good. If the driveway to the frontage road is farther to the north, people will not perceive that they can get out onto Commerce Lane. Mr. Betzold asked if it was possible to have signage saying "No exit" onto the service road. Mr. Dahlberg stated that is a possibility. Some people will obey the sign, and some people will not. But, by means of some kind of traffic sign, they can encourage more traffic to work the way it should. Mr. Dahlberg stated it would be helpful to have a traffic consultant or engineer to at least do a visual analysis of this site plan and give the Commission some input on whether this would work or not. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought that by creating the drive that cuts P"`� through the site on the east and on the west, once people get to that point, they have to make a decision to go right or left. Mr. Kondrick stated that once people experience this site, they are going to realize traffic is bad and they will find the avenue of least resistance to get out of the site. Mr. Saba stated he definitely did not like the parking easement across Osborne Road with Bob's Produce. Mr. Barna stated it was his feeling that if it comes to the point where the development cannot go without more parking spaces below 9 feet, retail space can be given up on the other building. Ms. Dacy stated that at the next meeting, staff will bring back information on the traffic circulation and peak traffic hours, an update on the parking stall sizes, and what Mr. Farrell's tenants have to say about this plan. Staff will also have a recommendation to the Planning Commission. 2. REVIEW PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Ms. Dacy stated the Commission members had received a memo dated October 23, 1989, explaining the revision to the Landscape Ordinance. Staff is inserting the new requirements into an ^ existing section in each of the zoning districts, commercial and industrial districts, and they are proposing R-3, as well. That section will expand from A- C to A- L with a number of � PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING, OCT. 25, 1989 PAGE 7 subsections. Staff reorganized the ordinance to what they thought would be most easily read by a developer or person of what is required as far as landscaping. Ms. Dacy stated she summarized some other changes in the memo, but the major point is how will the ordinance requirements work on sites within Fridley? Ms. McPherson had handed out a memo dated October 25, 1989, summarizing two tests she did of the proposed Landscape Ordinance requirements on the proposed McDonalds site at 81st/University Avenue and SBF Development at Osborne Road/University Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated staff feels strongly that this standardizes the City's landscaping requirements. Staff has modernized the requirements to be consistent with what other communities require. They feel it is going to be a fair ordinance for property owners within the community and will set some standards the Planning Commission and City Council can be comfortable with. Ms. McPherson stated she chose McDonalds and SBF Development because they are very recent developments that have not been constructed. However, older developments that may come in for expansion were not tested. � Ms. McPherson stated that with the provision in the ordinance for the three year allowance for the installation of landscaping, this will help alleviate a lot of fears the Chamber of Commerce has been expressing to Jock Robertson. It will not require such a large expense in the first or second year. This will probably help a lot of businesses, as well as enable the City to get what it wants as far as improving the environment. � Ms. McPherson stated of the two developments, McDonalds is more heavily planted than SBF Development. She reviewed the results of the new landscape ordinance requirements for each development. Ms. Dacy stated currently McDonalds does not have a berm and a 3 ft. continuous hedge along a portion of the site. Mr. Dahlberg stated then it is not practical to have a 3 ft. hedge along the University Avenue side, because the roadway is 4-5 feet above the elevation of the parking lot.. Ms. Dacy stated the ordinance is not saying they have to screen 3 ft. above the elevation of the roadway. It is staff's interpretation that a 3 ft. hedge should still be required to screen the parking lot from any public right-of-way or adjacent property, even though in McDonalds' case, there is a 4-5 ft. elevation change. Otherwise, they can get into the argument of �,,,� how tall does the road have to be above the property to stop requiring hedges? PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa OCT. 25, 1989 PAaE 8 � - Mr. Dahlberg stated that, using The Wholesale Club building adjacent and to the west of the new McDonalds as an example, the requirement for the berms and 3 ft. landscaped buffer was not from the parking lot 3 ft. high, but 3 ft. above the street/curb right- of-way. If the intention is to screen the parking from the right- of-way or adjacent development, then the 3 ft. high landscaped buffer interpretation does not make sense. So, in this case, how valuable is that requirement? Mr. Barna stated in this situation does it make sense to screen the parking lot from the University Avenue right-of-way or the parking lot from The Wholesale Club's parking lot, etc.? Whether or not the screening is there is immaterial, but it looks nice. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in defense of staff's interpretation, because it is a public right-of-way and there is a large amount of traffic on University Avenue, the cars that are parked in the McDonalds parking lot facing University Avenue in the evening or night with headlights shining toward University Avenue, with the 3 ft. berm, those headlights will not be a glare and have a significance influence on the traffic on University Avenue. Mr. Dahlberg stated the way the ordinance has been in the past is that there has been some flexibility relative to interpretation or n working with a given development to evaluate these kinds of things. He still thought the City should still have that kind of position or attitude about the landscape ordinance and not look at the ordinance as the "letter of the law". Ms . Dacy stated she is looking at the ordinance maybe in a less flexible fashion, but she feels it is very important that they try to be as consistent as possible. It gets to be a judgment standpoint for staff, and she would prefer to tell a developer that the 3 ft. hedge has to go all the way around the parking lot. To make a judgment as far as 4 ft. versus 5 ft. of elevation down to 3 ft. might be going a little bit too far. Mr. Betzold stated each piece of real estate is unique, but he thought the philosophy is that a developer has to come in with a landscape plan following these guidelines. Each developer is going to have complaints about certain parts of the ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg stated his only point is that staff should have a certain amount of flexibility to be able to negotiate with each project. Ms. Dacy stated she wanted the minimum amount of trees and hedge. There is a section of the ordinance that does give some flexibility for existing developments. �� Mr. Kondrick agreed with Ms. Dacy. It is important to have some standards. � PLANNING CO1rIIMI88ION MEETING OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 9 Mr. Barna stated it is alright to have standardization as long as the standard is something below the general standards, and also so particular types of vegetation on an island, or on the end of a driving aisle or internal driving aisle, for example, not be so high as to block the view. Ms. Dacy stated there should be and staff did intend to include some site distance requirements. Those will under Section J. Installation. Mr. Betzold stated apparently the Chamber of Commerce was concerned about up front costs. Suppose a developer agrees to do certain things, but a couple of years later has not done those things? What recourse does the City have? Ms. Dacy stated the City would retain the letter of credit or performance bond until the landscaping is completed. They will need to retain the letter of credit or performance bond for a longer period of time with the 3 year installation period. That is more of an incentive to complete the landscaping as soon as possible, because it does cost the developer more to carry a performance bond for another year. ,� Ms. McPherson stated the McDonalds and SBF Development landscape plans were examples to show the Commission how the new landscaping restrictions will be calculated and how they will work administratively. Mr. Dahlberg stated that now there is a provision for. landscaping to be done over a 1-2-3 year period. He would personally like to see some of the over-story trees planted in the first year. The proposed ordinance says that all that needs to be done the first year is grading and sod or seed and screening for residential. He would like to see some planting in the first year other than screening from residential. He suggested adding an item 5) under Section 6.J.(2).a) that would require a reasonable percentage of over-story trees or shrubbery or plant materials in the first year. Mr. Dahlberg stated the language in the ordinance should in no way prohibit a developer from doing all the landscaping in the first year. The sooner the plant materials are put in, the more they are going to enhance the project. Mr. Saba stated he saw the performance bond as the leverage to get the landscaping done as soon as possible. Mr. Dahlberg stated maybe there could be a preliminary statement under Installation that encourages developers to do all the ^ landscaping in one year. Also, under 6.J.(2), it should say "u� to three (3) years" rather than just ��three years�'. ^ PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEETING, OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 10 �''� Mr. Dahlberg stated he wondered how this landscaping ordinance is going to be included in the Zoning Ordinance. The way he understood it is that in every zoning classification where landscaped requirements are going to be mandatory (10-11 districts), staff is proposing to include all 8 pages of the landscaping ordinance in each zoning district. That means adding 80-88 pages to the Zoning Ordinance. Is that efficient? Ms. Dacy stated staff has discussed this. The way staff is doing it now is if a developer comes in and wants to do a project, staff gives that individual that zoning district's packet of material. The way the original writer of the Zoning Ordinance set it up, everything is all in one district. The efficiency point could be addressed to the whole Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg stated he understood what Ms. Dacy was saying, but when he goes to a City, he prefers to have the whole ordinance, rather than a part of the ordinance. The issue then is reprinting the entire ordinance and having multiple copies available for any one requesting them at a certain monetary charge. Landscaping is the kind of section where it applies to so many districts that maybe in each district, they could just have some basic "boiler plate" information about what the landscaping requirements are, and then refer to the landscaping section, the signage section, etc. Ms. Dacy stated that is a good suggestion. The Commission members commended Ms. McPherson and Ms. Dacy for an excellent job in revising the Landscape Ordinance. 3. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 19, 1989, JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY,/ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the September 19, 1989, joint Environmental Quality/Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 4. RECEIVE OCTOBER 2, 1989, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the October 2, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPLRSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ^ 5. RECEIVE OCTOBER 10. 1989. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. OCT. 25, 1989 PAGB 11 � MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the October 10, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. ICondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voiae vote, all votinq aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the october 25, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i ����"� Lynn ba Recording Secretary � �