The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 10/05/1994 - 6941� , • 0 � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1994 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC COPY � City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1994 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. ' CALL TO ORDER' ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: September 21, 1994 OLD BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMST, SP #94-14, BY WAL-MART STORES, INC. Per Section 205.14.O1.C(13) of the Fridley City Code, to allow the expansion�of an existing garden center on Lot 1, block 1, Walt-Mart in Fridley, the address being 8450 University Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP_�94- 15 BY LYNN PORATH OF TURNING POINT ADULT DAY CARE INC.: Per Section 205.09.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to allow day care centers, on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands • 4th Addition, generally located at 6180 Highway 65 N.E. Consideration of Re-Use of the 10,000 Auto Parts Building by The Gym, generally located at 6525 University Avenue. Continue review of design guidelines for Southwest Quadrant (no written materials included). RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 OTHEFt BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT � / �� • � • CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Newman called the September 21, 1994, Commission meeting to'order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, Dean Saba Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Planning' LeRoy Oquist,-' Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director ' Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michelle McPherson, Planning Assistant Michelle and Monte Maher, 7965-Riverview Terrace N.E. John Rice, Jr., 8041 Riverview Terrace Ghris Hamlin,.Asst. Manager, Wal-Mart, 8450 University Avenue John Tiller, 1538 Gardena Avenue,N.E. Bailey Tiller, 1535 Gardena Avenue N.E. ' Jerome Tiller, 1555 Gardena Avenue N E. Dave Tiller ��` i Kathy O'Connell, Combs, Frank, Roos'&' Associates Paul Carlson, Close & Associates ' APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 7 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESs MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba,_to'� approve the' September 7, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. OPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DSCLARED THE' MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOII3LY. 1. jTables 9/7/94) PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL'�, USE PERMIT, SP #94-12, BY MONTE AND MICHELLE MAHER: Per Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the flood fringe district on Lots 16 - 21 with exceptions, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at' 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to reading of the public hearing notice and to open hearing. waive the, the public • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 2 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Cheryl Street and Riverview Terrace. The property is zoned R- 1, Single Family Dwelling, as are a11 of the surrounding parcels. The purpose of the special use permit is to allow construction of an addition to a dwelling located in the flood fringe district. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 26 foot x 40 foot addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. The petitioner also' requested a reduction in the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 30 feet based on the depth of the property. The Appeals Commission` reviewed the variance request at their August 23, 1994, meeting and ' approved the reguest. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed addition will contain three' bedrooms and a bath, and is proposed to be one story in height. The existing dwelling is 1-1/2 stories. The flood fringe district requires the first floor elevation of all habitable iiving spaces be a minimum of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation which is 823.0 feet above sea level. An elevation certificate will be required by the petitioner prior to the foundation being capped. Basements are not permitted in this district; however, a crawl space under the addition would be permitted. Staff reviewed the • elevation certificate for 7995 Riverview Terrace, which is the property directly north of the subject parcel and which included the first floor elevation of existing dwelling of the petitioner. The petitioners' dwelling is currently 821.8 feet above sea level; therefore, the addition would rreed to step up 2.2 feet. The elevation certification is to verify the minimum first floor elevation. � Ms. McPherson stated the flood fringe district regulations also require that any fill needed to elevate this addition extend a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed addition. This will change the existing grading and drainage patterns on the property. The petitioner will be required to submit a grading plan and a erosion control plan prior to the issuance of the building permit. Riverview Terrace is proposed to be upgraded in the future and is also used for flood control measures. The Engineering Department has requested a 15-foot flood control and street easement along the east side of Riverview Terrace adjacent to the existing westerly property line. Ms. McPherson stated staff's recommends approval of the request to' the City Council with the following stipulations: ' l. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the • minimum first floor elevation is 824.0 feet. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 3 . 2. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. � 3. The petitioner shall dedicate a 15-foot flood control and street easement along the Riverview Terrace property line. Mr. Oc�aist stated, in looking at the footprint, there is 27 feet from Riverview Terrace to the addition. Is the City taking 15 feet of that distance? Ms. McPherson stated this will be an easement as opposed to dedicated right-of-way. It allows the City use, but it does not` take it in fee simple. Mr. Oquist stated, at-some point, the City can use it and that makes the distance 12 feet. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Because the front yard is actually Cheryl Street, this is the side corner which can be as short as 17.5 feet so it does not necessarily put the property into nonconformity. Mr. Maher stated he questioned the height of the property above sea level. He shot a line from the fire plug which indicated his • property was at the proper level. He is 4 inches above the level of the fire plug. Ms.` McPherson stated, according to the elevation certificate submitted by the neighbor for his property, the existing dwelling for the petitioner is at 821.8 feet above sea level which is 2.2 feet lower than the 100-year requirement. The petitioner can have a surveyor come out and check the height. This is not a concern for the existing dwelling but rather concern about the addition. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any objections from the neighbors. Mr. Maher stated there were none of which he was aware. The neighbors know about their plans. The neighbor next door was at the meeting, but he was not aware they had done the survey. Ms. Savage asked if there were any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Maher stated they had no objections except showing the elevation. They had planned for the City to come by and inspect. They did not want to spend the additional dollars for a surveyor, but they will do it i� it is required. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any phone calls. Ms. McPherson stated the City had received no calls. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 4 Ms. Maher stated she thought the neighbors who were at the last meeting attended out of curiosity because they are interested in the process. That was their only know}edge of the people attending' the meeting. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THB� MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he had no problems with the request. � Mr. Kondrick agreed. The only area of concern is to learn for sure the correct elevation and to clarify the language as to how this will be done. Mr. Oquist stated, from the information we have at hand, he thought' the stipulation would stand. Mr. Newman stated the certificate is required by ordinance. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend, approval of Special Use Permit, SP #94-12, by Monte and Michelle � Maher, to allow construction in the�flood fringe district on Lots 16 - 21 with exceptions, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E., with the:�;foilowing stipulations: . '`` 1. The petitioner shall submit �an elevation certificate prior to the foundation being capped, which shall verify that the. minimum first floor elevation is 824.0 feet. 2. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage�plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The petitioner shall dedicate a 15-foot flood .control and street easement along the Riverview Terrace property line. OPON A VOICE 40TE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DLCLARED T$E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item wouid be.reviewed by the City'. Council on October 3rd. 2. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �94-13, BY JOHN RICE, JR.: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet; and per • Section 205.24.04.D of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of an accessory structure in the.flood fringe PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 5 • district, on Lots 19 - 22, Block U, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8041 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPBR30N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:48 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel is located at the intersection of Riverview Terrace and Ely Street. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the surrounding parcels. The request is a two-part request. First, the petitioner wishes to build a second accessory structure measuring 26 feet x 30 feet. Second, the accessory structure is to be built in the flood fringe district. The petitioner also applied for a variance to reduce the set back from 30 feet to 19 feet in order to line up the proposed accessory structure with the side of the.existing dwelling. The Appeals Commission reviewed the request at its September 13, I994, and unanimously approved the request. Ms. McPherson stated that located on the property is a single family dwelling with a 19 foot x 24 foot attached garage. The proposed accessory structure is over 240 square feet; therefore, � a special use permit is required. The petitioner intends to store vehicles and miscellaneous items within the structure. Because vehicles will be stored in the structure, a hard surface driveway is required. Typically, the City required the structure be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated, in order to allow construction in a fload fringe district, accessory "structures are permitted if a special use permit is issued. Unlike habitable living space, they are permitted to be constructed below the regulatory flood elevation if they are properly flood proofed in accordance with the current regulations. Ms. McPherson stated the City has typically required the petitioner to execute and record against the prop.erty a hold-harmless agreement to release the City from any liability as a result of the special use permit issuance. Ms . McPherson stated Riverview Terrace is currently used as a flood control structure and is anticipated to be reconstructed in the near future. The Engineering Department is attempting to acquire the necessary easements to accomplish this goal. In the 1960's, the City previously condemned easements along the westerly property lines of the properties adjacent to Riverview Terrace. There is a four-foot easement along the majority of the westerZy property line already. The Engineering Department has requested an . • PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 6 additional 11-foot flood control street and utility easement along the west property line. Ms. McPherson stated the City currently does -not have on file a current survey showing the property and the location of dwelling plus the condemned and proposed easements. Staff is requesting that the petitioner submit a current property survey showing these items. Ms. McPherson stated the request does not adversely impact adjacent properties and it meets the requirements of the R-1 district with the exception of the variance granted by the Appeals Commission. Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by' October 3, 1995. 2. The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. 3. The accessory structure shall be flood-proofed in accordance. with current regulations. 4. The petitioner shall execute and record against the property'� • a hold-harmless agreement indemnifying the City from liability should flood damage to the structure occur. 5. The petitioner shall dedicate a 11-foot flood control street and utility easement along the west property line. 6. The petitioner shall submit a current property survey showing' the existing cvndemnation area, as well as the requested 11- foot flood control street and utility easement. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any objections from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated staff had not received any calls regarding'. this request. Mr. Rice stated stipulation #3 stated the structure shall be flood proofed in accordance with current regulations. Then the City wants him to execute a hold-harmless ag�eement against the property. The structure needs to be flood proofed. If it gets, flooded, what does he need an agreement for? Mr. Newman stated the hold-harmless agreement is for the City. If something happens to it, then he or future owners cannot come back' to the City and say, because the City allowed the structure to be built in a flood plain, the City should compensate the owner for • any loss. PLANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21. 1994 PAGE 7 � Mr. Rice stated he cannot go along with the last stipulation to submit a current property survey. This is another expense that he cannot go along with. Al1 the stakes are there on the property lines. He called the City and the reason they want the easement is to put in a north/south storm sewer. He just wants to make sure he does not have a road 10 feet from his window. Ms. Savage explained the Commission might not be able to approve the request unless he as petitioner is willing to abide by the stipulations. Mr. Rice stated he did not see why he has to spend additional money for a survey to build a garage. Mr. Kondrick asked what Mr. Rice felt was wrong with the stip�lation. Mr. Rice stated he felt he was being asked to spend excess dollars needlessly. The City is asking for an easement and also asking him to survey the property to show he is giving them the easement. And he has to spend the extra $500-$600. Ms. McPherson stated the last stipulation came as a request from the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department has a concern that the survey that is in the packet is not a true . reflection of the conditions in the field today, and the City shouid have a current property survey on file. The City_has old surveys in many address files. In some instances, there are no surveys. In that case, the City tells the property owners that they should acquire a survey. It is the_purview of the Commission to decide if this request is reasonable or unreasonable. Mr. Saba asked, if the Engineering Department is concerned about the property lines, can the City go out with a transit and check the posts. Ms. McPherson stated this is correct. The City does have a survey crew that can go out and locate those posts. Mr. Rice stated he would think the City would survey before they put in a sewer. Ms. Dacy stated the property owners typically assume those responsibilities for the reason that the surveyor is certifying the lot lines are located in the right spot and they are signing off that this is an accurate representation of what is in the field. Staff are concerned that they do not have a registered surveyor on staff. If one of our employees made a mistake, the property owner and/or other owners could came back to the City. • � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 8 Mr. Kondrick asked if is there is any way of knowing that, since this property is already recorded, there is an accurate survey of this already. Ms. Dacy stated she has not spoken specifiaally to the Public Works Department. The survey on file is dated March, 1959. She does not know if the irons are still there. With the condemnation, there was probably a description for that four-foot area. The Commission can eliminate that stipulation if they feel it is not appropriate. Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioner how long he had lived at this'. location. `. Mr. Rice stated he has lived there since 1989. The proposed garage' is within the irons for the property. Mr. Newman asked if staff is concerned with where the structure is located. ' Ms. McPherson stated the concern is that the survey we are looking at does not accurately reflect the condemnation area. We do have an as built survey as we would typically require with new construction. The survey is not an up-to-date accurate survey truly reflecting the property changes since 1959. � Mr. Oquist asked if that was true of all properties. His home was built approximately the same time so would he also have to have his. property surveyed? Ms. McPherson stated staff would ask the property owner to verify that the property is accurate according to what is on file. Mr. Newman stated this request was not made of the last petitioner.' It looks as the City wants the survey for the easements. He did' not think it is proper to request this for an accessory structure. If there is an error, he thought they should tHrow all this out. It looks as though the Public Works Department is looking for a survey to verify the easement. The petitioner is already providing the easement and he was not sure it was fair to ask the petitioner to also verify that easement. ' Mr. Rice agreed. The other stipulations make sense to him. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public' hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED THE' MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:07 P.M. - Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problem with the exception that we, � have agreed to eliminate the last stipulation. . PLANNING COMMI83ION MESTING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 10 Per Section 205.14.O1.C.(13) of the Fridley City Code, to allow the expansion of an existing garden center on Lot 1, Block 1, Wal-Mart in Fridley, the same being 8450 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:10 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated Wal-Mart is located at the intersection of 85th Avenue and University Avenue. The request is to allow the� expansion of the existing garden center. The property is zoned C- 2, General Business District. In 1992, the City Council approved a special use permit to allow an outdoor garden center along the' easterly facade of the Wa1-Mart building. In 1994, the City Council again approved a special use permit to a11ow a garden center located in the parking lot. As a condition of the special' use permit, SP #94-01, the City required Wal-Mart to submit building plans prior to the end of 1994 to expand the garden center which was originally approved in 1992. The original garden center has design elements which are to be included in the expansion. The' � petitioner has submitted a plan showing a 50 foot x 68 foot expansion just south of the existing garden center. A portion of the existing garden_center adjacent to the building' wall is enclosed and used during the winter season for temporary storage. The enclosure is of plywood which is painted grey and which is not consistent with the exterior rock face block on the _ original building. When the City granted the original special use permit, the City did not authorize the use of the garden center space for storage for off-season materials and this activity needs to be discontinued. The proposed garden center expansion will displace four deciduous and one evergreen. These trees should be relocated on site and any needed repairs to the irrigation system should be taken care of. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed garden center does not adversely' impact the lot coverage or setback requirements. Some additional items that came up as a result of staff's review include tha fact.- � that the petitioner has been using the trailer parking area �or '' storage of pallets and baled cardboard. In addition, the area adj acent to the loading dock is also being used for outdoor storage via the use of 10 dropped trailers. Neither activities are permitted without the issuance of a special use permit. The petitioner was advised in February 1994 regarding similar activities and the petitioner was requested via letter to', discontinue these activities. If additional storage is required, • the petitioner should consider expanding the building., which was included as part of the original building plans. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 11 . Ms. McPherson stated, also as a result of the review, staff observed during the summer that the front sidewalk was being used for an outdoor display of products. This activit� is not authorized by code and should not be continued in the future. Ms. McPherson stated the garden center does not adversely impact the site, setback requirements or lot coverage. Staff recommends approved of the request with the following stipulations: l. No garden center sales shall occur in the parking lot as conducted in 1993. 2. The displaced trees and irrigation shall be replaced/ relocated by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner shall immediately cease the outdoor storage of pallets, baled cardboard, and dropped trailers. 4. The petitioner shall not be permitted to display products on the front sidewalk. 5. The petitioner shall discontinue use of the garden center for storage of off-season merchandise. The garden center sha11 not be used for the storage of non-garden center items. Mr. Kondrick asked if the City had received a response from Wa1- -� Mart to the City's written objections to those items that were not in compl iance . �,: . _ Ms. McPherson stated staff did not have an opportunity this summer to address the display of products. There is a letter in the packet dated February 25, 1994, to Wal-Mart regarding their special use permit application for the parking lot garden center which indicated the City had observed the dropped storage trailers. Staff was informed by Mr. Woodley, the store manager,,'that these were used for seasonal storage for Christmas merchandise and they were having problems with the company owning the containers to move them in a timely fashion. At that time, they did remove the trailers. Staff has noticed that the trailers have now returned and also that pallets and baled cardboard were also being stored in the parking area where it can be seen from the street. Mr. Newman asked if he was correct in saying that, in summary, the issue is the storage of materials in the garden center and staff in essence is saying they would not do anything if Wal-Mart went through the process. Ms. McPherson stated, if the garden center in the parking lot was to be a temporary measure while they expanded"the existing garden center, the City would be inclined to recommend approval. This was approved. � • PLANNING COMMISSION MLETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 12 Mr. Newman stated the storage issue raised is then different from this. Has staff raised the storage issue with the petitioner? Ms. McPherson stated staff has raised the storage issue of the dropped trailers, pallets and baled cardboard in February. Staff did not realize there was storage in the garden center area until the site review for this request. Mr. Hamlin, Assistant Manager at Wal-Mart, stated he is concerned' with the stipulation to cease outdoor storage of pallets,. cardboard, and dropped trailers. At the time they were going through the process for the special use permit, it was mentioned about the trailers. They did remove the trailers and explained, that this was a temporary situation during the Christmas season.. At that time, it was their understanding that the trailers wouldl not be allowed unless they were screened from the public right-of- way. They have parked a Wal-Mart trailer first so they consider those to be screened from the public right-of-way when going down University. Last year, Wal-Mart had 28 trailers. This year they will not be receiving as much merchandise. They have committed to' have no more than the ones they have now which are parked against the back of the building and which they consider to be screened. Mr. Hamlin stated the bales and pallets have always been outside. . There is nowhere else to store them. He was not aware of that'. issue. Mr. Hamlin referred to the temporary wall in the garden center.' This is something they had also done last year. This is a necessity for temporary storage for the Christmas season for excess merchandise. They did paint it gray so it matches the side of the store. He was not aware that this was an issue. -� Ms. Savage stated these are violations of the code and must be resolved. Mr. Hamlin asked what alternatives they had. Storage inside the' building is not humanly possible during the Christmas season. Half' of all sales are done in the three month Christmas season. It makes it very difficult to store enough merchandise inside. If they were to do that, they would not have enough room to receive' new merchandise. Last year, all that merchandise was removed by Christmas. They did have a problem getting the trailers removed in a timely fashion. This year, the trailers will be removed and they have discussed this with the people who brought in trailers that they do need to be removed. Mr. Newman stated one alternative is to add on to the building. ' The petitioner may have a problem, but other merchants face the ' • same problems. The petitioner may have to face the fact that an addition may need to be constructed. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 13 • Mr. Hamlin asked the wording of the code. Ms. Dacy read those portions of the code pertaining to outdoor storage. Mr. Hamlin asked if it was possible to obtain a special use permit for that storage. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission has two options. The issue of the off-season storage in the garden center is germane to this request. In terms of the storage to the rear, if Wal-Mart wants to Eile another application to address that issue, that is fine.� In the meantime, however, they must comply with the code. Mr. Newman asked if the special use permit allows the trailers to be stored to the rear of the buiiding. Ms. Dacy stated the special use permit would be required if they are going to store the dropped trailers on an ongoing basis. Staff recommended as a stipulation with this request that they comply with the ordinance. Mr. Hamlin stated there are other trailers stored in the City and that, when they were initially built, had to build a retaining wall to screen anything in the back area. That would be something they • could do. Ms. Dacy stated that would be even better. if the company wants to file a special use permit and propose a permanent screen such as nice wall that is fine. Some of the issues are that staff has pointed out the issues to the company when they first went through the permitting process and tried to take extra care on landscaping and design issues on the garden area. Those types of suggestions would be welcome for a permanent screen. We also know that the company did plan for a building addition on the site plan. If these types of problems are occurring, perhaps this should be addressed as soon as possible. Mr. Hamlin stated financiaily an expansion would not be cost- effective for three months of the year. That is why they run into this issue for a short time of the year. The wall seems to be a good way to go. Mr. Newman stated Wai-Mart could also get a temporary special use permit for the trailers. Parking a Wal-Mart trailer at the end of other trailers does not qualify as screening.. Mr. Hamlin stated he has a problem with stipulation #5 which addresses the temporary wall as far as storage requirements in the garden center. • � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 14 Ms. Dacy stated this is germane to this request because the special use permit is for the garden center. If he teels the wall is appropriate and wants to allow the storage, that is up to the Commission to decide. Mr. Hamlin stated their biqgest obstacle is dealing with freight, they get on a daily basis and especially during the Christmas' season. Right now, that whole inside area with the temporary wall is filled with toys to have on hand when the peak season hits. It. is part of the business. They must have the merchandise on hand and it needs to be stored. They do this in other stores. There is a daily issue of what to do with the merchandise. They need the� extra space and liave screened the space with a temporary wall. Mr. Newman stated the Commission wants to support businesses. The' City has spent a lot of money to enhance the appearance along University Avenue. The impression of people as they pass through the community has improved. Unfortunately, the way Wal-Mart is situated along the street, the loading docks are very visible from the street. The City wants businesses to be successful but are' also concerned about appearance. He recommended sitting down with staff to discuss how to meet the concerns of both. Mr. Hamlin stated he understands the City wanting to keep up' � appearances and would be happy to discuss this with staff. Mr. Newman suggested the public hearing be continued to the next' meeting to allow the petitioner to work with staff. ' MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public' hearing. y UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE' MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to table discussion'. of Special Use Permit, SP #94-14, to the next meeting on October 5, to provide an opportunity for the petitioner and staff to discuss the issues further. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAYRPLRSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE' MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. 4. LOT SPLIT RE4UEST, L.S. #94-05, BY JOHN TILLER: , To split Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 into two parcels: - Parcel A ' That part of the south half of that part of Lot 20, Auditor's • Subdivision No. 92, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies north of the south 178 feet of said Lot 20, except the westerly 20 feet. � PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 15 Parcel B That part of the south 178 feet of said Lot 20 lying west of the east 75 feet of said Lot 20. This property is generally located at 1535 Gardena Avenue N.E. Mr. Hickok stated the lot referred to in the report is Auditor's Subdivision 92, Lot 20. In the report, Mr. Bailey Tiller and Mr. John Tiller are mentioned. The three properties are owned by members of the Tiller family. Mr. John Tiller is not a property owner but rather the spokesman for Mr. Bailey Tiller. Mr. Hickok stated the property is located at the northeast corner of Gardena Street and Oakwood Manor. The site was first subdivided in 1964. Prior to that subdivision, Mr. Bailey Tiller owned all of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision 92. Through the subdivision process and later in 1964 the property was divided into the north and south half. At that time, Oakwood Manor was planned but did not extend all the way down to Gardena Avenue so a 20-foot easement was taken from the northern property. In 1965, there was a iurther subdivision which created two additional lots in the southern half of the development. As staff reviewed the files, staff discovered there is a history that leaves some questions. Mr. Hickok stated one question is that, at the time of the 1965 subdivision, these lots were clearly discussed in the minutes. There was not a discussion of A and B necessarily. Through a finding in 1987, staff discovered that the 1965 subdivision was not filed and therefore had run its course beyond the time limits to do so. Staff asked the City to reconsider and to solidify that subdivision. Mr. Hickok stated another question comes with the line between Lots B and C in 1965 and the iegal description in 1987 that clearly shows Lot C as a free standing lot and Lot B as an "L" shaped lot. To further complicate matters, in 1966 a 30 foot x 30 foot concrete block garage was built. In 1976, a barn type structure, 10 feet x 12 feet, was also constructed on Lot B. With a legal description that shows Lot B as a contiguous lot, the structures were permitted to be constructed. There was a principal structure on Lot B which was Bailey Tiller's home at the time. Since then, there was a fire and a new home built on Lot B. The petitioner has asked to subdivide to clear up any inaccuracies in the legal description and go back to a free standing lot, as they thought they had in 1965. The subdivision would then appear as it was believed to be subdivided in 1965. . � Mr. Hickok stated staff reviewed and discussed the issue of the code requirement for accessory structures on a free standing lot. The code requires that a lot not have accessory structures prior to a principal structure. Therein lies the difficulty. It is the � petitioner's intent to leave the accessory structures on that site m � • � PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 16 until there is a new owner, and it would be the new owner's decision to keep or tear down those structures. That does run contrary to the code, and staff feels there . is the poten�kial of limiting the placement of the homes based on the setbacks. There' is a stipulation where staff ask that those buildings be removed. Mr. Hickok stated, in light of the history, staff recommend approval of the lot split with the following stipulations: 1. Staff recommends approval of a variance to the lot width requirement of 75 feet to allow the creation of this 74.51' foot wide lot. 2. A verification survey will be required to determine setback distances. 3. All accessory buildings. shall be raised, from the newly' created lot, prior to filing the lot split with Anoka County. 4. Lot split #94-05 shail be recorded by October 3, 1995, or' prior to transfer of ownership, whichever occurs fiXst. 5. A park dedication fee of $750.00 shall be paid prior to��, issuance of a building permit for this parcel. 6. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation of separate sewer and water to accommodate a new residence on' . . . XX �.. � � the newly created lot. �•� 7. A 20 foot utility easement shall be dedicated, across the Oakwood Manor (west) end of the newly created lot and the lot , at the corner of Oakwood Manor and Gardena Street, adjacent, to the right-of-way. ' - Mr. Newman asked if the verification survey in stipulation #2 is, for the structures on Lot A. ' � Mr. Hickok stated Lot A is a free standing lot and is now under' separate ownership. Mr. Newman asked, if we do verification and there is encroachment�, inside the setback, granting the lot split will not create that. Mr. Hickok stated the verification would provide a very clear' description of all four lots. The petitioners did believe that in going through the building permit process that this was the proper' setback. With verification of where that structure is, we would also be able to determine a very clear distinction o£ the four lots and where the homes are placed on thase four lots. This would be of benefit to the City and to future owners. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 17 Mrs Oquist asked if the separate sewer and water would be for the lot to be created. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. John Tiller stated his father has been given approval for the lot split. He thinks he is asking for re-approval of something that was already given him. He does not want the stipulations. He just wants to sell the lot as it is. He wishes it would be more open ended. He would like three years to record the lot split so he can take it as his leisure and sell as he gets an opportunity. There would not be pressure to have this done in any specific time.. It is his desire to waive the stipulations and approve the original split without the burden placed on him with the stipulations added after the fact. Mr. Oquist asked if the original lot split was approved. Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Bailey Tiller came back in 1987 because the 1965 documents were not filed. The legal descriptions given were for the "L" shaped lot and the free standing lot. Mr. Oquist stated the City then did not approve a lot split such as currently being requested. Mr. John Tiller stated he believed the lot split was approved but not filed and the time span elapsed. Therefore, he wants to split the other portion facing south. He wanted it for the time that he was ready and he now is ready. Mr. Newman asked if this was consistent. Mr. Hickok stated, in 1964, the north/south split is clear. Discussion about splitting the south portion into C and D was in 1965 and action was taken to create Lots C and D. Historically, the north/south division in 1964 was correct. In 1965, Lots C and D were created and approved. This left B as a piece of property in the center which was later described in 1987 as two lots and the line did not appear. Our assessment data shows that the assessor had B and C as they were described in 1987 as the legal descriptions for those lots. Mr. Newman asked to clarify that the petitioner has the proper split for A, proper split for D, but the records are not clear that B and C were split. , • C� Mr. Hickok stated there was a north/south split. Lot A is now a free standing lot. That is what he considers a historical question mark. A building permit was issued for that home in 1965 and was recognized as a free standing lot. The question is the recording � of the 1965 southern half. In 1987, there was nothing on record • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21. 1994 PAGE 18 showing Lots C and D. That the way it is filed. The petitioner is asking for the description they believed they had in 1965. Mr. Newman asked if there was any record that the petitioner was made aware of the timeline in which the petitioner had to file. Mr. Hickok stated the minutes pertained to the split itself and not the number of lots and there was not a lot of discussion on the time allowed to do so. Basically, there was a split. Mr. Hickok stated he had to assume that when the petitioner went through the process and worked with staff, they would have walked him through the process much as staff does today. Mr. Tiller stated his father was not made aware that he had to do anything specific. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioners had received approval for the buildings. Mr. Hickok stated they received approval in 1966 and 1976 from the building staff. At that time, they looked at the legal description available and approved both on the upper portion of what is Lot B in the 1987 diagram. If a lot is created without a principal structure, then those accessory structures need to be razed. � Mr. Tiller stated they received building permits for the accessory structures and the buildings were placed with full knowledge that a house would be built there in the future. Mr. Oquist stated, if the legal description was as seer� in 1987, these are accessory structures to the house that was on Lot B. Mr. Tiller stated there was no intent to go that way and he did not know how it happened. Mr. Oquist stated, if the legal description would have been as shown for 1965, the petitioner would not have received a permit for the accessory structures. Mr. Jerry Tiller lives on Lot D on the 1965 drawing. When his father placed the accessory structures, he did so in such a way to leave room for a future house on that lot. Since he did at that time, he didn't think he would now be asked now to raze those same buildings placed strategically in 1965. He does not wish to remove them. The question mark in history is the issue. Mr. Oquist stated the concern is that, if those structures are not razed, someone could buy the lot, not build on it, and use those structures for something else. • Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The intent is to have a residential use in the R-1 district and not for something else. PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 19 • Mr. Oquist asked, if someone were to buy that lot and asked for a building permit, would they need a special use permit because they have those two accessory structures. Mr. Hickok stated he was not sure. Mr. Newman stated the Commission needs to be careful about setting a precedent. Ms. Dacy stated another reason for concern on the accessory buildings on Lot B is there is a bathroom in one of the structures which was connected on one line•into the house. After the house burned about two years ago, they dealt with this. There should not be a separate water and sewer connection until the lot is created. They are trying to resolve the situation and formally create the lot as the petitioner wants. Now, we need to problem solve to get the lot created and get the issue resolved. Mr. Newman asked the purpose for not aliowing an accessory structure before the house. Mr. Hickok stated the principal use in the R-1 district is as a single family structure which must be there prior to the accessory structure being built. Mr. Newman asked if there was anything in the code that addresses � this particular issue. At the time the accessory structure were authorized, the principal structure was in place. Is there anything that says you can have a lot split? '+:� Mr. Hickok stated staff concern is that it could happen that the principal use could be something other than single family. Future owners may not built there. Mr. Oquist asked, when those two accessary structures were granted building permits, were they also granted special use permits. Mr. Hickok stated he believed the accessory structures goes back to 1959 that these were accessory building to the principal structure. The 240 square feet was more recent. There was no special use permit for the structures. Mr. Newman stated, concerning the stipulation that the lot split be recorded, the petitioner desired to delay this for three years. What is the hardship? Mr. John Tiller stated his father does not want to split the property unless he sells it. He wants a reasonable amount of time to file. Mr. Newman asked if there was an economic hardship. � Mr. John Tiller did not think that had a bearing. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 20 Mr. Newman stated they want to try to avoid what happened in 1965 which was a lot split that was not recorded and now we are trying to figure out what happened 30 years later. Mr. John Tiller stated this might happen sooner but his father does not want to feel pressured if the lot does not get sold. Mr. Newman stated recording the lot split does not mean the lot must be sold. Mr. Oquist asked if the request could be approved with a stipulation that, when the lost is sold, it must be sold with the- intent of building a house on the lot. The concern is someone would buy the property with the accessory buildings and use it for storage. Mr. Newman asked if it was permitted to buy a lot and use it for storage. Ms. Dacy stated the permitted uses are one family dwellings and single family attached dwellings. Accessory uses are storage. Mr. Newman stated, if someone bought the property, they would not be able to buy it and use it for storage because storage is only � allowed as an accessory use with a principal single family dwelling. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. As a word of caution, if the Commission were to allow the accessory structures to remain, one structure has a bathroom and there should not be occupaney in that building. If you want to leave the accessory buildings on the lot, you need to address that the building not be occupied as a home. Mr. Newman asked if the City records show any payment of a park dedication fee. Mr. Hickok stated he believed there was discussion of park fees in 1965. As far as payment, he believed they were waived in 1965 for the lot that was created. In creating a new lot now, the park dedication fee would be required because this is a new lot according to our records. Mr. Oquist asked if there was a statute of limitations if this is approved and not filed that the approval is then removed. Mr. Hickok stated there is a limitation, but he did not know the specific time. Mr. Oquist stated, in order to get this cleared up and get the lot • split taken care of, he would be in favor of leaving the accessory buildings with the stipulation they cannot be lived in, but the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 21 other stipulations need to be adhered to in order to make sure we don't come back and go through this again in the future. Mr. John Tiller stated he would like to waive the survey because it was surveyed for the earlier lot split. Mr. Dave Tiller stated he buiit a house in 1963 and they did a survey at that time. There is a survey from 1964. Mr. Hickok stated the 1964 survey was in the City's files as well. Staff believes the action in 1964 was based on that survey. That survey showed up again in the materials from 1964 request when there was the subdivision of the north and south half. He believed that survey was done initially to show th.e future subdivision; therefore, action was taken in 1964 and 1965, Had that survey stood, they would not have come back in 1987. Mr. Newman asked if this survey accurately reflects the current request. Mr. Hickok stated it does not. When the southern portion was subdivided, the lot line would shift. Staff would really like to verify where the.lot lines are in this subdivision. Mr. Newman stated there are going to be costs involved and there will be a mechanism by which to pay fc�r the survey and the park fees. Mr. Oquist a.sked how much time is allowed. Mr. Newman stated that goes for the argument for three years rather than one. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Rondrick, to approve Lot Split, LS #94-14, by John Tiller, to split Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92 into two parcels: Parcel A- That part of the south half of that part of Lot 20, � Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies north of the south 178 feet of said Lot 20, except the westerly 20 feet. Parcel B- That part of the south 178 feet of said Lot 20 lying west of the east 75 feet of said Lot 20. This property is generally located at 1535 Gardena Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: , 1. Staff recommends approval of a variance to the lot width requirement of 75 feet to allow the creation of this 74.51 foot wide lot. • � . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3EPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAG$ 22 2. 3. 4. 5. A verification survey will be required to determine setback distances. All accessory buildings shall be permitted to remain on the newly created lot but shall not be occupied. Lot split #94-05 shall be recorded by October 3, 1997, or when the property is sold, whichever occurs first. A park dedication fee of $750.00 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for this parcel. 6. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation� of separate sewer and water to accommodate a new residence on the newly created lot. 7. A 20 foot utility easement shall be dedicated, across the Oakwood Manor (west) end of the newly created lot and the lot at the corner of Oakwood Manor and Gardena Street, adjacent to the right-of-way. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. � Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this request at their meeting of October 3rd. `'n 5. . PRESENTATION BY•DESIGN'CONSULTANTS ON THE SOUTHWEST-QUADRANT . Ms. Dacy stated she would like the Commission to discuss with the consultants the general elements of what they would like tcs see on the`site plan for the Southwest Quadrant. At the next meeting, the consultants will come back after incorporating the ideas from tonight and talk about the next phase which includes_the exteriQr design. ` Ms. 0'Connell, Site Planner, stated they have for the site are three diverse concept plans which were created in response to City direction and with the intent to create discussion. These are not final plans. Tonight, she and Mr. Carlson will listen, gather information and facilitate discussion about the plans. They have visited the site, looked at aerial photos, read the reports on housing, reviewed park and trail plans, looked at adjacent property values, etc. To achieve this discussion after the Commission has seen the plans, she will show a matrix of site plan issues and elements. Right now they will be looking at the outdoor spacial elements - arrangement of the buildings, landscaping and berming combined with the architecture to create a sense of place. The Commission will not be looking specifically at architectural elements,�but rather whether the construction would be townhouses or villas, one or two story, etc. She reviewed the site as it currently exists including topographical information. They have PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 23 been asked to look at 10 acres. At this time, the plans do not directly show the 4 acres with the apartments as being part of the site but they will address how the site could be expanded. . Ms. Dacy stated there are currently buildings on the 10-acre site which will be razed. Mr. Kondrick asked what effect the apartments would have ori the overall property in terms of the final cost of the units. Ms. Dacy stated this is an issue the HRA will decide. Something will be done at the apartments in combination with the development. Ms. O'Connell stated, when reviewing the site plans, they were also asked to achieve a density of 100 units. Ms. O'Connell reviewed Plan A. This plan has a 50-foot setback along Mississippi and University for a berm 7-8 feet high as a sound barrier. It does not need to be continuous. There is also a sound wall. The density of this plan i� 102 units. The buildings are mostly two story with villa-type units. One-story units will decrease the density. The open space is broken up by clusters of buildings. The plan can be modified for additional acres if they are added. Third Avenue bisects the development and open onto Mississippi across from the shopping center. The neighborhood wants access to Mississippi. f Ms. :O'Connell stated Plan B consists of two-story�;,attached townhouses. The road goes around the outside of the site. There is a berm along Mississippi and along University. This plan has a pedestrian walkway to allow walking from one corner of the site to another without crossing the street. The density is 91 units. This plan allows for a private backyard that could be fenced in. This plan could also accommodate expansion if the apartment site were to be added in the future. � Ms. O'Connell stated Plan C is situated in such a way that the houses are oriented toward a center "village green" area. The road in this plan bisects the site. The units would be �ownhouse units and can be one or two story: The density as presented is 102 units. In this plan, there is less setback to the street and they. recommend a sound wall along Mississippi. The idea of the village green is to add distance between the houses. This is a public space in the center of the units. Mr. Oquist asked if they had taken readings on the property to see what the noise levels actually are. Ms. O'Connell stated they have not. They have noise consultants in a subcontract arrangement, have talked with them to do get accurate readings which is an additional cost beyond the scope of this contract. . � � • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 24 Mr. Kondrick stated Prior Lake and Eden Prairie are looking at a gate community. What if we walled this is? What happens to it? Does that make it more exclusive? Mr. Oquist thought this would isolate the area. Mr. Newman stated gates at the entrance would restrict vehicula.r traffic. They can put gates within the property. Mr. Carlson stated the units are intended to be owner occupied. The best way to keep the value up is for private ownership. Each unit should be owned and each neighborhood owned so there is a_ sense of community. Mr. Oquist asked the rationale for the density of 100 units. Ms. Dacy stated this was recommended to see what could go on the site and to see what could be expected.for the tax increment costs This is one of the last sites that could take on a higher density. Mr. Oquist stated he was concerned about traffic for that amount of density. Mr, Saba stated access across Mississippi and University for � seniors is a problem. They are afraid to cross there even with the lights. Is it feasible to construct a ramp over the streets?. Ms. O' Gonnell stated the, plan shows f access to' �the £ bus�.�op.��YThe �� ' down side of a ramp is to maneuver�it above the trucks.'�The berms would help achieve some of the height. Mr. Kondrick stated they have not discussed a separate building for seniors. � Ms. O'Connell stated their direction was to look at owner occupied townhomes. Ms. O'Conneli asked for comments xegarding: Housing` Type and Density. Mr. Saba stated he did not like the:villa type homes. There`were too many common walls. He had no preference of one or two story but felt there should be a mixture. He liked the open space- on Plan B with the trail and vegetation. Mr. Kondrick stated he liked the idea of having 2/3 of the units two story and 1/2 one story. He liked Plan B better because there is less density, more green space, and the buffer is wider. Mr. Newman stated, if these units are for empty nesters and senior � citizens, he would recommend units with a main floor master f � _ . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21. 1994 PAGE 25 bedroom. With that, the units could all be two story without a mixture. The villa-type construction would be lower priced. Ms. Savage stated she did not like the idea of condos for aesthetic reasons. She also liked Plan B. She thought Plan C looked cluttered. Mr. Oquist agreed that he did not think villas or condos belonged there. He liked Plan B with the walkway through the site. He also thought Plan E could be very attractive if done right. He prefers Plan B having.two-story units with a master bedroom on the main floor. � Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding Access. The site has two possible entrances from Mississippi - one across from the shopping center and the other near the residential area at 2nd. Avenue. The consensus of the Commission is the.2nd Avenue access is preferred. Ms. O'Connell asked if they preferred a collector road.or a buffer between the other land uses. • Mr. Saba stated he likes the road on Plan B because it provides both - transition and buffer. Mr. Newman stated he liked.�Plan C with the village greens. He thought this more important than the transition road. However, traffic is less direct and should not be as high speed on Plan B. Ms. Savage stated she like B and also had interest in C. Mr. Carlson stated they could put the-road around the ,outside of the complex and, with the village green concept, provide access along the west side of the site.' Ms. O'Connell asked for comments xegarding Open Space. Mr. Oquist stated some plans show more detail. On other plans, will there�be more trees than what is currently shown. • Ms. O'Connell stated yes. Ms. Savage stated she liked the village green concept and also the pedestrian trail. Mr. Saba stated he liked the pedestrian trail with the vegetation. � Mr. Oquist and Mr. Kondrick likecl Plans B and C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 26 � Mr. Newman liked Plan C with the village greens and having the road moved to the perimeter. The circular roads into the development could be one-way. Ms. O'Connell stated she could see where, using the village green concept, people would actually walk around the road. On P�.an B, it is less visual. Mr. Oquist stated the pedestrian connection would be enhanced if it were connected to the bikeway/walkway system. Mr. Newman stated, if on Plan C they did an exterior roadway, they- could change the circular drive to have only one access off the through street. Mr. Oquist stated having more of a curve would slow traffic. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding Buffers. Mr. Kondrick stated bufFers would be a must for C. Ms. Savage and Mr. Saba did not like the idea of walls. They preferred berms and the road being used as a buffer. Mr. Saba stated he was not opposed to an entry. Mr. Oquist stated he was no� sure -they needed . anything fr.om .a sound standpoint. He agreed there`is a�need to'separate those��backyards that abut Mississippi and University perhaps'with a fence. Ms. O'Connell stated she thought the area was quite noisy. From the rear of the property, the noise is less. Mr. Carlson stated it is possible to use a road with garages as a buffer. He was not sure how that would look. Mr. Kondrick stated he is concerned with noise on both Mississippi and University. Mr. Oquist stated he lives near I-694 and hears more noise from the highway with the sound wall than before. Mr. Newman stated he had no problem with a.fence. There are ways to put up a fence that would be attractive. He wants the development to have a sense of exclusivity. A fence could be a benefit. University Avenue needs a fence. Along Mississippi, they could use vegetation. We need a way to delineate. . Ms. O'Connell asked for comments on the View/Image from Mississippi and University. . Mr. Newman stated, in one word, prestige. There are a host of ways to do this, but he thought it would require heavy landscaping. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 27 Mr. Kondrick agreed. A wall is necessary just as in other exclusive areas. It does not need to be completely enclosed except along the major thoroughfare. For those properties that are against the road, it make them more saleable and more secure. Mr. Oquist thought a wall gives the feeling that others should stay out and it isolates the area from the community. Ms. Savage stated she is concerned about the development. It is to add to the attractiveness of Fridley and to University Avenue. She wants it to look attractive when driving by and she did not want it to be walled off. She thought the site should look good. Mr. Saba stated he would like to see the design of what is put in this development carried out all the way to Holiday. Ms. O'Connell stated she would be surprised if the City would approve a wall or fence over six feet. A berm could be higher but requires more room. It is possible to do a combination. Mr. Oquist stated a berm with a small wall on top would not be as objectionable to him as just a wall. Along University, he would like to see more vegetation. • Ms. Savage stated her main concern is aesthetics. Ms. O'Connell stated using a wall allows for a smaller setback. Ms. Savage stated her personal choice would be to have a wider setback. The Commission members agreed. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments regarding the Connection to the Neighborhood to the south. � Mr. Saba stated there is also industry to the west and also the railroad tracks. Mr. Oquist thought the traffic should flow somewhat into the - neighborhood. It has to blend into the neighborhood. There must be some continuity. The consensus was to have a transition into the neighborhood. Mr. Saba asked if there was a way to put green areas along the roadway. Not only does there need to be a transition, but there also needs to be a buffer. Mr. Oquist stated, if the apartments are to stay, there will need • to be something there to screen the site from the apartments. He PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 28 � would not want to look at garages. Without the apartments, they could put in a transition area. Ms. O'Connell stated, at a minimum, the HRA will spend.some money on the apartments to upgrade. Mr. Oquist stated, even so, they will still have the back of the garages there. Mr. Saba stated he would be concerned about the people living there and if there would be vandalism. Mr. Newman stated at University and Mississippi you want to pull people in, have access to the park to the south and tie into the bikeway/walkway system. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments on Site Amenities, such as lighting, fencing, benches along the pedestrian walkway, entry monuments, etc. Mr. Saba stated there has been discussion to improve the University corridor with monuments to identify Fridley. He likes the idea and thought this may be the place to start. � Mr. Kondrick stated he had a feeling some don'� want to be • exclusive. He suggested globe lights and having this be a special place. Ms. Savage stated lighting is important. She would like to see examples of entry monuments. They must be tasteful. Mr. Newman stated he thought the amenities would depend on the design. Ms. O'Connell asked for comments about Expansion or ties into the additional four acres. Did they prefer access into the open space system? The Commission consensus was that they felt including the four acres was important. Mr. Newman stated that is dependent on the decision of the HRA. Mr. Oquist stated the apartments could be upgraded and used for senior housing. That could be done if the buildings were rehabbed and work the landscaping together into that area as well. Ms. Dacy stated that option is being evaluated. It comes down to a cost issue and a policy issue as to whether to acquire buildings that are in fair condition as opposed to buildings in the City that are in worse condition. The four acres would add more flexibility � but that decision is up to the City Counczl and HRA. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 PAGE 29 � Mr. Carlson asked Commission members to call him and/or Ms. O'Connell if they had any additional comments. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DBCLARED TSE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 21, 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 11:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , �, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secret ry � LJ :;�;.; , L�' S TAFF REP O RT �� Community Deveiopment Department Appeals Commission Date Planning Commission Date : September 21, 1994 City Council Date APPLICATION NUMBER:. Special Use Permit, SP #94-14 PETITIONER• Wal-Mart Stores LOCATION: 8450 University Avenue N.E., which is located at the intersection of 85th and University Avenues. REQUEST: To allow the expansion of an existing garden center. BACRGROUND• In 1992; the City Council approved special use permit,.SP #92-07. The approval required certain design elements, like rock�face block knee walls and wrought iron fencing, to be included in the design of the garden center. The stipulations also required.bulk items to be stored adjacent to the building and no outdoor storage of garden chemicals. The City approved special use permit, SP #94-01, which�allowed garden centers in the parking lot. The approval was conditioned upon Wal-Mart expanding the built garden center by the end of 1994. If the expansion is approved, no future garden sales shall occur ��► the parking lot. ANALYSIS• The petitioner has submitted a plan showing a proposed 50' x 68' expansion south of the existing garden center. A portion of the existing garden center (14') has been temporarily enclosed by the petitioner for additional storage area during the winter season. The enclosure is constructed of plywood and is not consistent with the rock face block exterior of the building and the garden center knee walls. When granting the original special use permit, the City did not authorize the use of the space for storage of off-season materials. This activity should cease immediately. � Staff Report SP #94-14, by Wal-Mart Stores Page 2 **Stipulation** The petitioner shall discontinue the use of the qarden center for storage of off-seasoa merchandise. The garden center shall not be used for the storage of non-garden center items. The proposed expansion continues the same design elements and uses the same materials as the existing garden center. The proposed garden center expansion will displace four deciduous and one evergreen trees. These trees should be relocated on- site. The irrigation system will also be impacted by the expansion. **Stipulation** The displaced trees and irrigation shall be replaced/relocated by the petitioner. The garden center will not adversely impact lot coverage or setbacks. , The petitioner has been using the.trailer parking area for the outdoor storage of pallets and baled cardboard. In addition, ten dropped trailers used by the petitioner for storage are located along the rear of the building. Neither of these activities are permitted without the issuance of a special use permit �:The petitioner was advised regarding outdoor storage in February 1994 (see attached letter). These activities should cease immediately. If additional storage is required, the petitioner.. should consider expanding the building as indicated on the original building plans of 1992. **Stipulation** The petitioner shall immediately cease the outdoor storage of pallets, baled cardboard, and drogped trailers. During the summer season, the petitioner has used the�front sidewalk for the outdoor display of miscellaneous products. This activity is not permitted by Code. **Stipulation** The petitioner shall not display products on the front sidewalk. RECOMMENDATION/STIPULATIONS As the garden center does not adversely impact the site, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: � • > � � Staff Report SP #94-14, by Wal-Mart Stores Page 3 1. No garden center sales shall occur in the parking lot as conducted in 1993. 2. The displaced trees and irrigation shall be replaced/relocated by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner shall immediately cease the outdoor storage of pallets, baled cardboard., and dropped trailers. 4. The petitioner shall not be permitted to display products on the front sidewalk. STAFF UPDATE Staff inet with the Petitioner on September 27, 1994 to discuss� the outdoor storage issues. The Petitioner agreed to immediately discontinue the off season storage in the garden center. The materials and products located in the garden center will be stored in the dropped trailers located at the rear of the building. • To resolve the storage of baled cardboard, pallets, and the dropped trailers, Staff proposed three alternatives. 1. Extend the building. 2. Find adjacent off-site warehouse space. , 3. Screen the items. Staff recommends that the Petitioner: l. Create a paved fenced storage area adjacent to the garbage compactor on the east side of the building for storage of cardboard bales and pallets. The storage area shall be lined with concrete curb, and a factory fabricated metal fence or other approved screening wall of fence shall be used. ' 2. Create an enclosed trailer storage area inside the landscaped area at the rear of the building. The trailer storage area shall be paved and gated to provide opaque screening. (see attached map) � Staff Report SP #94-14, by Wal-Mart Stores Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the city Council with the following stipulations: 1. No garden sales shall occur in the parking lot as conducted in 1993. 2. The Petitioner shall not be permitted to display products on the front sidewalk. � � 3. The Petitioner shall create two storage areas: a. One the east side of the building adjacent to the compactor for baled cardboard and pallets. The storage area shall be.paved, , lined with concrete curb, and fenced with a factory fabricated fence. r b. To the rear of the building withi•n the landscaped area for trailer storage. This . area shall also be paved and gated. 4. The landscaping and irrigation displaced by the above activities shall be relocated. . , � �r�. � � � � o w � p ' e r . N a a ,o • 0 a � �I� c SP ��94- 14 Wal-Mart, Inc. + ,.Ib`."; - O` zqy.a� //�$ . � \ - � � +�+'," '. . ��6436�/ ' / � , l' .o. .. �$ � �1 �---��' / /M.a.or 1 :-: ' . •••� o..� ' �' . - . �si'i..... , _� .�7'.., ....2/3�fsf�.s+ ...... . 4B6JFne. -904 YI-� � � -� � � 136.91 _ � ;`•ZG�O. r..... �" �-599°29'OY1W 1040.12�� i 3,y7.9'� � . p�+ 80 P M H:25 S qZp�4334 T~ • \ ,f %�� N O ��C � • I W p � � p �� ' 66� 05� �,M� . (13) �y � �' '.y ' S2� � � m� , a� ° . s � � "; m,• i R Jj� oa p � �i.. 0 a �2>O :F� ° • ss� 6G < � ty. . V �,V � 3•8� i � �f89°28'02"W�1zB . 30 �± w �� . �'/� � 90.23 t e� sY'�a.. q � aje3o I RS 1 T� ' q °2� eg ��o �� . � A �} � M p= a*a., 'Y ' ��. �� oe p � A� d� o~ � O��q �. � � ~ � •„ w v� .p •^� a • • `� ! w � . qp �? � ' F �oo Q �d 5�f• N A� J� 1!-.s! E: � - � � � O� � . . � . . � �. �, t0 � P . �� ` A . . `V� w - .�p�r � C� � � � Ap' �' • p � N . . 0 � A p a f ■ i �N N� ,.� 6 � �• s _ _ _ _ - ,"•~.: j! _ • :� � • � ' � --�� : : � : � • s/u , �+c, :, 11s1 �. � � 1 • / � � J . � - � � � � - � Q A : �r � OQ� $ � i � 8 R : . ,.� P. :�� : � N : �r . ,� r.: � ---- �PR _ �e _w: , ; :� ;Nr � � ��M o+� /00 ; Y = , � "� � ' '� 3 ��v'r � � � �� L � � : f0 � �. � s �: R W o.,. 1 .� � � '� ~ ��. �a � 3� � R� a� _ �o , p� ,. o: ► a � N �` o�.A I ~ w �44 A ��4� `�� - !' 4w �N �\ � � , \ ' � � e � �� '��' � -ear�s•s�"e soo.oi- � eo J �� V� ` • -- - ' s.s� a.a � �. asi �� ; �� '�---- `' --,_ ___•' `' `, o •�i�� }�1I � ' �'', ��!'. `M . � . :a �fi_ _ �i9� �"'..._1 ' � LOCATI�N MAP ��v��'��'V�4�Fe �,{ e�A C��1 �E��4Gl1lE�ii,f6r'�1 � �., .,f,� ,A� f ,��.� , � � �i �,��t 1,`' a� f, �� ' ; ! ;v,� �° � � r d�` � s ��' �.C�.1 F.6' i' �.�,M t'� t,! i�i�i�i°i'o��e�i°s•i�� _�_�_s_� �_�_�_�_s_�_._e L ' " SP �94-14 �.i Wal-Mart, Inc. _�- � . i„ � �.'. •-- I v �° \ i� �m f.'�6�� . °� �j `��Gr� �� \ o��- o. ` _� cp,�_ ' �F w� Di�. 1 i a _'y _ _'� '� 1 mw �k O �� =C .. ws" r' , ` wwi ' / o�• "_ i o'— <.� . . ,., r�= � - <Yi - - ''•, � � ., :_ � w� w .�3 - • � .°,°A � r � ; :� F ,'? � �'�. ', w ? � a ,^y° < `? � . '�� ; � r . Z D n � . O� �, �/�i 1 p . .. � . n � � � < N Y � ' � a l._� p -� . � o I < . . s � i °« - } i t o J � � C � p �4: \ � j _ > ; 1 m - ' —� z ' \ ; � ��P,; � 1 '+�. o« � �, � .�? . . (� . � � of < ` . ^T. _ _ � ^ . ;_� aw o�� r iOn o, ' g=�W e: o. .m s�n °:� `s� 9_ � -� 6� ��A6' �� _e,l � � ��_ � oQ $.m �« .. +N� ��y_ 1 v *. _•� v '� ~� ' '� •�N � . Qt g��g� ' �^, 1 �' j ._aS-• $ S �� a �� ' (+ Sfi�—�) T ��ST a ,�, �`_ �� ' , 1 . <�n 1]OLf.�B'CM-C.3�%(�1301f-N�CPP-O.»% 1301i.-18��P-O.�% p t �� - . s 'm 'e<�� " se�QSD ,alQ¢ w [ �� g� . •-- � ca�a ��s� �» r �'a= x _., g~ 6� � _ e.. 4i�,°w �$ T =40� � . , � �'. p� _ . - C � sr � < T '� . . . .. 9 p . .� a 3201F.-b0'RCP-0.q% . $G�� • � � ' �1 nr : � �SQ = . �(�1 a y � B }� ` E- . ��G � &y ,, .� < � � a � o� �'st� • E ��j ' � . S . . �a� ♦S � �p o � °�2 • °>.w � � :� y� ��e� � g a $� E� � s ye « d, �m Q� 6.� ' s u� : w mo c - ::i � 'e: o° . L � ` . e. . p . rQg r Z . . . _ �y . o � p$ s ' � . a . . � � . �-�I . ] ' a . E 1 O . O p t l� d � � � . X x �, 0. � � (--l_ ., \7 � . i � � � .... . . '. ' . ' . ti� . � . .. . .. . . ... - � .. '.. . .. � . .... ... �-�. . .. - _ � . _ .. .. .:• O . w�. . . . . �'. - . ..._ .. . . .. . � . � . . � :'.. . , . . . .. � . . .. . .. �rw i $�� `� � � " 2Si. N . . . .: �.;: . . O � 1 • . �, Z � � � O_; � : . . ': � � � � , . _. . _ . . , ,., _ ' ` a. s �� ° �� . � ; ; EXISTaNG -� o� _��; � .,? . :. , ., �a�H � 9� � �� •,� �� -_ . - -- �- .�^� 'c �_-. +°� �ft �� . .. . � �.,�n: - . . ..-g_ < �. . � . „� �� a ' 'g �$Q � �R � � .P - �� ` $ yy . . .. ' � � = . _ - � . c••• � � �,. _ __. � < ; w i R � � �L' � � n1 . ► -1 � � ! I �� F� PROP ; � �Y��(PAI�S101��:� ,: ;- � 8� � ' : � a Q -� �- '---.. '.. i ��:., � igQ��Q�cw -- �. .-Q o�- „ .� `,- n .z� � . : ; _:�q �ar s_� 1�� L. ° S ��m � ° . . ' � �N'� .: y�R� / I y . '€��• �`,�;,� .. ��a � � " ° .� °:'d' g - i =F��^n��g � �, +'i � `y 3 ' ;,, � : �� '�. � g � jj let . . . r F ' , � ,`�+ �.o i ! , _ $ � � :�l� � � �v �� ==�N. . � � � �� : ��1 � .�.�.� .. �.� �,_. � _ ge � � � _ � � ;�_ _ � x� s '�� - ��-� � �'N ��` - J � � � _= � � � � � w -- -- ; —�:� -- -- -- � � � � j � � ; � P�• . �v 5 6' . S I � � a° . ;m =; , � � �.�.�.: _ . , ��' s �- <�m < � a P� w - nma° Ti�� r- t0�� ,� ;• � � � � s! -$g� � a , e N , g � o.i x i T � 4�/a '. � o. f� . m ° � . . . "� Fm . �W ,e xY /' � � / _ � , . . . � . , �� . oq o ��-, ' .4 . . �� G �� _ C�� F F� �� . � FRtDLGY MUNICiPAL. CENTER • 6431 UNIVERStTY AVE. N_E. FRIDLEY: vIN ji��2 •(G12) i71-3�5O • FAX (6f 2) 571-I?K7 CITY COUNCZL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE March 24, 1994 Steve Woodley Wal-Mart � 8450 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Woodley: On March 21, 1994, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a special use permit, SP #94-01, to aliow garden centers or nurseries which require outside display or storage of merchandise, on Lot 1, Block l, Wal-Mart in Fridley, the same being 8450 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: : � , ; ; , �'=, 1. Bulk items shail be stored in the constructed garden center where they shall be screened from the public right-of-way. 2. 3. Storage or sales of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides shall not occur outside the main building. � .�, Wa1-Mart shall :submit plans for an enlarged garderi� center�� -•`" for.Planning,Connnission:and City Councii review,by November 1, 1994 for the 1995'`'sales' year. - 4. The special_use permit shall be vaiid for one.year. You have�one year;from the date of'City Council action to initiate construction. If you cannot begin construction in time, you must submit a letter requesting an extension at least three weeks prior to the expiration date. If you have any q�estions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3590. � , � Steve Woodley; Wa1-Mart March 24, 1994 Page 2 , B�rbara Dacy, AICP Community Development irector BD/dn cc: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Please review the above, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Pl�anning Department by Aprii 7, 1994. . . � Concur with actian taken. ��: - i� � ' t - j� � • - s :.ir t�:_ '�;c�;>rF � �;.:. ^•,�, '� :i tj��, `�.� Cl-iY OF FRIDLEY . i�ltlUt.l:l' Ml1NIClf'.AL C:ENTER • h-�;1 UNIVt�RSI'I'l' :��G. N.6. f�RIDLEY. �1iV ii�;?• �(,1?1:i7!-3diO • F.•�\ 161.?1 �71-12�{7 February 25, 1994 . .' . ' • � . ' � : Shelly Stevens Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 701 So�ath V7alton Boulevard Mitchell Building Bentonville, AK 72716-8702_ RE: Garden Center at 8450 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota Dear Ms. Stevens: We recently received a special use permit application for a garden center at the Fridley store. This garden center is to be located in the parking lot. We met with the Store Manager, Steve Woodley, and the Assistant Store Manager, Chris Ha�aline, on Thursday, � February 24, 1994, to discuss the reguest and the issue of continued outdoor storage. ; :; - The Fridley store was issued a special use permit for an enclosed garden center which was constructed as part of the building. It was the City's understanding that all garden center activities would occur within this specially constructed area. City staff worked diligently with�the architects to design the garden center to be aesthetically pleasing and to provide proper�:,:screening. ihe current request i� incor.sistent with the previous Council action; therefore, we informed Mr. Woodley that staff would recommend denial of the request. However, if the proposed garden center was to be a temporary measure while Wal-Mart expanded the existing garden center, staff would be more inclined to recommend approval of the special use permit on a temporary basis. If this is an option for Wal-Mart, the Pianning Commission should be informed of this future plan. In addition to the garden center, we have observed that there are dropped storage containers iocated in the rear of th-e building. Unscreened outdoor storage of materials and equipment is not permitted in the C-2, General Business District, unless it is screened �rom the publiC right-of-way. 'These containers are not � � � Shelly Stevens February 25, 1994 Page 2 screened and, therefore, do not meet the code requirement. We were informed by Mr. Woodley that he has been unable to have the company owning the conta•iners remove them� in a timely fashion_ If•you. could assist him�in resolving this issue, it would be.greatly appreciated. If you'anticipate that this store will continue to need outdoor storage of materiaTs or equipment similar to these containers, you will need to process a special use permit for outdoor storage. This special use permit will require additional screening to be constructed in order to meet the code requirements. We sincerely hope that we can work together to resolve these two issues. Please respond in writing prior to Thursday, March 3, 1994, so the Planning Commission has a second alternative to evaluate the proposed garden center_ If you have any questions or concerns regarding these issues, please contact my supervisor, Barbara Dacy, at 612-572-3590 or me at 612-572-3593. - Sinc rely, � ��i'GU"�, f' �,A^ _ � �` � Mic ele McPherson . Planning Assistant MM:ls C-94-58 . ; �� ,�- . . �� - . �R� � __ � g. � �. � 7 . � .. . . i.�... . . . .. .. . .'{_. ' . . . . . . . � . .. � � -. ' , � S TAFF REP O RT Community Development Department APPLICATION NIIMBER: Appeals Commission Date Planning Commission Date City Council Date Special Use Permit, PS #94-15 Lynn Porath of Turning Point Adult Daycare, Inc. OWNER: St. Philip's Lutheran Church � LOCATION St. Philip's Lutheran Church is located at the intersection of West�Moo�e Lake::Drive and-Highway;65-in the southwest quadrant. The parcel is zoned R-3, General Multiple Dwellings. The � surrounding parcels are C-3, General Shopping and R-1, One Family Dwellings. REOIIEST• The petitioner has requested a Special Use Permit for an adult day care facility within the existing St. Philip's Lutheran Church educational complex. e A building permit was issued in August, 1959 for the original St. Philip's Lutheran Church structure. In October, 1964 a substantial addition was constructed to St. Philip's Lutheran Church which included additional church and educational space. � In August, 1965 a new sanctuary was constructed for the church. Other events were: In 1962 St. Philip's Lutheran Church began a child care program within their church complex. At that time no Special Use Permits were required for day care facilities as long as they were in the church complex. � Staff Report Page 2 In February, 1991 a variance was granted to reduce the hard surface parking setback from 25 feet to 20 feet to allow additional parking on the church site. In 1993, a variance was granted to allow a 70 square foot sign, as opposed to the code maximum of 40 square feet. That variance was granted with two stipulations: 1. the length of the variance was for two years and, 2. at the end of that two year period, the petitioner shall comply with the ordinance requirements, and apply for a sign permit for a permanent sign'as required by the City Code including payment of the fee. t: PARCEL DBSCRIPTION: • � St. Philip's Lutheran Church is located on the 7 acre parcel at the Southwest Quadrant of Highway #65 and West Moore Lake Drive. C� ANALY3IS::.. . `� , Section 205.09-01 C(3) requires a Special Use Permit for Day Care � Centers provided they are located in churches, schools, or in other buildings located on an arterial or collector street. St. Philip's is on an arterial (Hwy. #65), and meets the qualifications for a Special Use Permit. Lynn Porath has provided a narrative that is attached to this report. The narrative explains the program and has allowed Sta�f to understand more about the day care concept. An evaluation of parking demand has revealed that the church will have more than adequate parking to accommodate both the child care and aduZt caretaking demand. As Ms. Porath has pointed out, many of the clients at the senior facility may utilize Metro Mobility for transportation to and from the center. The parking area has been designed to easily accommodate a mini or full-sized bus. To accommodate worship, St. Philip's has provided 242 and 10 handicapped parking spaces. These spaces surround the church complex. The parking areas are convenient for the activities in the building. Staff does not believe that parking issues related to the adult care facility wil� cause noticeable impacts to the site. � Nearly 6,000 square feet of the St. Philip's building will be devoted to the daytime adult care activities. A smaller area, separated from the adult care portion of the building will continue to be utilized for child care purposes. � Staff Report Page 3 � Ms. Porath has discussed the options for a sign on this site, and is aware that St. Philip's will have to coordinate the sign issues so that all signs fall with maximums allowed by code. At this point, Ms. Porath believes a temporary sign announcing the new facility may be all that the adult care facility will require. Ms. Porath did express an interest in utilizing banners occasionally on site. The banner allowances in the code are very limited and staff encouraged her to consider alternatives. **Stipulation** Any additional siqnaqe shall comply with the stipulations of the 1993 variance approval and the siqn code. As proposed, this use appears to be appropriate for the St. Philip's facility as it exists. _ RECOMMENDATION/STIPIILATIONB: Staff recommends approval of a Special Use Permit to allow an adult day care facility within the St. Philip's Church with one stipulat'ion: 1. :`;Any additional-signage`shall comply with the stipulations of the 1993 variance approval and the sign � code. • �t� n Z : s�i c . � .f<<l; R � .?,ti�. �.R 2< <R t��2�> s < < .-,� c < <tRRr�� i.y� .4 ,: Y�jtfi�i�i%+2 � tti t{!{{tt4ftt2t2g+tRSis2�;fis�stifrq< f t s;pat.S. x qtjR�?ftt S r . t •�° � � - � . . _ � . _ . � - - -. _ «— --- .. _ Z , _ � -. L ,6 - - - - .. _ ~ ";ta)ry ° ' �._ . �--� � � �°.� .J p 6 p ' C� � a5-.' � t1i .nB ii . l lnrj . � � :r�F �y t ao /x 'T `, > > v ,. � r � �✓ N�H � � p I ` Z�O`� 00 ,w� iro �7 � pt,&�1 �vl�iri s : �� 2a>>sr � ° � �� , p ' l ' � o /iiw. fsso) o �y�l � f l*p�El, � �� t (�� l�i : � ° Z�� • � �� S� c�, : /¢ O i. App. F U DI� , �' �' N, SU (,r �i N x p ° /? �ICu> (r) , »'°a � s 'a. ��i ts• � • �s) _ �d ,..�{ir. E�.! . � 271v� Mi ls� � O lrlw.j O.Iik � o �'u ^ y Z�� o - 1 ��►� o� ;�, : up � 2 � Z ��a t'� p w �� . �1Ki� te .i,H J '(•ON'e 1� + . � � 1�1.,,1 � .M�..�r��' d�r� L /l Z(�a+� t 2�'+3 J . .N//ii/A �r � ` �Vl 0 0 �/� � a = -.�.- _ � •s•d'- V� .�' � �ne� :s. fzs e - ss� � ' \iI : -� - --'C .°. ' , !� »��' .� C�i �► �' "l'' ° i • ;, �� ,� �, O �G 0 , �fi. ,.", �� 0 9 g Q -,�, �. O •�i9 /6 `" I �`"� z3 a 2�• �� ;� - ' �,� � ""t� l�l �rl / �,� � i . u��: Z � • J ° ,,�,� � ,� ,Z � �, � ��' �sM REZ`� � ; 23c��• � �"�1 � � 64 TH VE N. E. �' • �� :� � �.� � cu� ° �� ./'fo ` ' sl r.s. . �„ r. .�.�n � • =� �¢ � li?� R 22� ( �� ) . . �ss� � (,t) N� (V� CV� N,�q :t:o) �, ` ,t Z j `� � J �O "� • /3L /� E4 �`� ! 2� �` / ;,,,,,�/PH ! �^�: � (�^9� ,,. � � o-.� F�l {,a» �o� . '-: BLV�• z 2.�'�: , : 1�j2 5 Mf� ,�o� /� e 6 - � _ � w _ ;, � �.� � �'� �` � �,� Q i P� ---�- �IG Ld'N pr�,� 3 o ,,.� � ; p � c�� , i¢ y� tra� ��C1 �.) � e^� ovTt�� s �s �s �M 7 � . • ♦ Q 6� � � __� � s r.s !�w � � /..u.'if�f,i (lr�v y � �°•�A . �o+.,�•,,,��- -t -- �9 B Ml ° . . �f'J�,Q�'' ryl/ .. q � � � � /!D / O� � _��1i 3 � ,`.� � , ' ,�1^ jj r� . //f QO � wr�+iN/�w�r�l.r�r sMr�. �A� '/�,A � �L�� Y�f `��•) �� v+>_ i is.�. lr) -��— �- A � ,�(�, P � .s.�� :T 'o: . � , o � • ' � .v: .�i�n./ - .w - i (j�i a`'y V �, �.�� . �x�:,• W Z/nc bs� �, i 8 6 C�, tyi . � ` � l� 5 �� ?` �2�'� 2(� F- • _ -.�.�r t. pp ; � ' ,,, , (�l ' .. � . � � , i- � � � �� a �^ ��_,n„ _ ,o� . � , � 1 _ _,e,- _ �4�D 3,, t Q . .J � CONDO NQ �'� : 1 � L ��= m � , a SHER AL� 2 �k `��°•. r� ,_ _ � �v �� '( � . '� � ♦ 2Kf G�'K1 � }. � � ` l X19i � 2oSt3 � � . " �� ;'`�: �1� /o/ Ie0 �*) � � = �� ° 5 `� - - �� ,�' �� AUOITpRS sua � - � � '�� c� � 4 �: � �' . ► w��. e 6 _ _ �' 3 �' �og : ► 16 NO. ; $8 -- ._ ` AI�OORE LAI�E -DRI-u�, �a. , � : �.. '� �=r✓f /7r. � i �3 2 1 � � `' ` � � �--� LAKE J` � `' o k �,,.- .�� ' . • , t: �--« .. ::�s= t. '9 y� '� �s � =;; I �`; : _ ,r` ` e . : / , ` ..� - ►: • . • . , :, � �� ,-;�- � � � ' . . 5 � . � j ., 0 • �•�.� - -+ ''� Y+i � . 0 /�_ . , �d � , ��• J i6 /..K/ I `�, 2 � � RL..S. o. �, ; � _ G✓�H � c" '- ' ` � . � �.- : f�.I+r !R.( !W_ . f . i tw �� .. / �� s' _ � /,s�,. �� ; � . . . � � �r . I s T•, ' ' _"'-"'- __ __ �� - s . a� � --�- -- -- n�li jBlls4 1 ' ' '"' ....__ � �_" ^. . \_` `J � _. . � r1 � � 1_ \� .._. . . . . \ ........._ . . . w Z . . LOCATION MAP � . � �g � �ii � �, '�-�-�-� ►._�i.�=�' ►'��i►�� /��1►�� .�-�-.i � I @� � �:��1�� ♦�� !� .: ° �„%, �� . „ � �� ♦ � �.:�.� � � � �� -- ') .. ii "",i•T.?i:�l'l'r�s�lC7�►��i�i �l�.�Q � �' _ ♦ � � � . .� rY ; � '��'�� `F� v � ��♦�� O ♦ � �1��'�>�� 6�♦ ♦ 4<•r�♦ ♦��♦ ♦ ♦'i�� ►��0��♦ .P�i♦♦�♦ ♦��1 ' i.�� A��1�� • ��► � �►'� i ��♦�� - ♦ ♦♦ • ♦�♦ � ♦��1♦ •�'f��►♦ 0�� A��0�� s ��.�� .�. �°�� '�♦♦ �. L.y .��►,J1♦ �� '�;��i�i►•► ��•�• :�:�� 1 �L��< ��0�� y�� '��•. ♦��1► � ♦�♦ ►.�i ♦��♦��♦ .v��e�0��4� ♦��► 1�vi�� s �` ��s��e�� ♦ �� '+��s° � E � �� ■u ■■ ■n . ■. ■�� X_� .:! ! -- -_ : ----� . ,. , . . - Offices � .. AA-A�a -�N--T-R-�4�1-GE _ __ � R --- ' � o a o 0 0 0 0 � f O � .� °�..�._., D � � � a o 0 0 ' � stora� � V.i � / H Sac Library 10 � � � r, z �. N SANCTUARY Lounge K � storage 9 W `� �I � I G I� , �• b��'° COffice ' � � Stora e g Playgrour�d Room 1 Nursery 2 Youth 1� 5 Furnace � - �ix �,� � � 3 ' ° Fire alarms are at each exit S�tX b`� __ _ _ � Roora� and- hatls are spr_inklEd- w... _ ______ Adult Are Kicchen CI = F�re extinguisher locatia�s � M Fir_e board- is lo�a#ed at "our" main entrance ' scorag �- _—._----- — _ . Fellowshi ,.. . � _ _ ___ ._ � �p stor. � St. Phxl�p's Lutheran Church Hall 6180 Highway 65 Northeast /['rfd�ey, MN 55432 � 571.-1500 � 4,. • • ' • � � • / �. .y" ' " � �.. am�,��,� ��,/�� tll� � ��.,.; � � �a��; ,. �_ _. __ -- � � I�I , ��s��wrrrf��rwmir+adr�ma+M►a�sf�i o- _ �� r� �� o,o �Ae�awesaoeeei��fs�l��BO��rarcf�iea� �sa��+: ' � ► � ' - ��, ��'�.- � ��,�� (�ll�.�� 11 �i�� ' .,;;., f � `�`� �� i�'� a �'��?i{ I :c��E s :' � � � � � �ry � ! t i ��.:,••. � E � ��i� �11� � . . - - I/+ a �, � � � �l�D'!91 " ` �� +/ , � i��.� ' ��+A �� / � ♦�� ► ��!� � �� ,' �� a; � i � �,0� � �' .,, �i ,� . �� +� t �� `��6�' � , �-_ � ;,i �� -- � � ,'r i / �� ` � �� .�� ! � ; d�± � � ;"%— b O 9,._� � ��`� :'�,'�� Ji l \ � � % � r �,� . / ! � \� 1 , ,,:-. „ =�'' � �� /;�� \ • ��- - -_ `��go�� ' /��1/�i�; � g r � �� od�,.e � ll � � � �. � ; , . ,,= �E ' �� 4� - _ t �� - ,j _ ��:. �aAA�� ,� , ,�� -- _ , ��,�,��.�� ir � _ - ,� � � • '' . .� _ _ � . — � -� ;��' � � �� '":v' E,'- �.+,{FF::" ''. . .,.p .. �� . . -.. � �'��` � f� 1 �` �'� � �� ' ��`��`'� �� c � �,._..� � � ��e�e =�3� �� .,��:"��...;� -� h' • 3 .. Z�Y _ ��e �l � ��' �. ..a:"- �� ,�� ; � �, :,��0 � ; ` .��` �� i� �,c;r ' ` ♦ � � �t 3 I ,`� �a� � i`' � a l4 i � �� 1 ;� 1 � f � r �� / � � � �� ,� � � � �i► �� J ;i� � � ! F� � , � � �' � � I :> � � � 1 � \� l � / 1 � � �_ . � � �� J �(R � �� ,� � � , _ � � � �� ► ,� � .! - �� - „ - -- � ` ' ' ,- , � �c, : � T'URNING POINT ADULT DAY CARE ST. PHII.IP'S LU'THERAN CH(TRCH 6180 HICgiWA� 65 NORTf�AST FRIDLEF, MN. 55432 (G12} 571-1500 ADMISSION ltiming Pouet Adult Day Care is available to persons residing in ffie northern sub�bs of Mpls. and Sk Paul. It is designed £or people who may benefit from he� �od ther�petitie nervicen within a supervised setting, Ea�ch applicant is asseesed by the Program Manager to detennine appropriakeness for admission. A physical examination by die applicm�'s primary phy�icien is required either three mo�the (90 clays) priar to admission or no more fhan 34 daye a8er admission. Among the criteria th� restricts admission are: needing more than one person to h�aasfer, urunanageable incovtinence, uncontrollable, consisG�nt wandering, abusive behavior to self or other�, comrnunicable disease requiring isol�tion, consistent ane-to-one supeivision. Clie� are not discriminated against due fo race,color,creed, gender, hffitdicap, age, or national origin fhroughout the a�ission process and program. This ie in compliance with the Minaesota Hwnan Rigl� Ack cosr: , The Tu�wrig Poi�t AdWt Day Care bases the daily fee on an a�rera�ge of a six hour day from , • 9:OOAM ta 3:OOPM. Hour� which exceed this will have an additional cosk Zlie daily fee includes a noon meal (iacluding special diets), moming and a$ernoon saa�cks, a�ctivities, and � supervision. All clients are encoureged to call the day progrmn at least 2 worlring days in advance of eacpected csncellations. When sudden illnesses or emergencies occur, the clie�/caregiver can ca1124 how-s of the day to make the cancellation Clients wilt be c}�ged and expected to pay every week for hours tha�t they have conolracted . G�urendy we are t�dng private pay and will look in fimdiqg assistance from the State ofMimesota We are c�en to payment options. DAII.Y SCF�DULE The Twning Point Adult Day Care is open Monday through Friday fran B:OOAM to 3:30 PM. Activities are scheduled as follows: 8:OOAM-9:OOAM Arrival and Socialization 9:OOAM-10:00AM Morninig Snack 1D:00AM-10:30AM Wacm-up exercises 10:34AM-11:30AM G�nrent event�s 11:30AM-11:45AM Spiritual (optional) 11:45AM-12:45PM Noon mesl 12:45PM-1:45PM Individual time (rest) 1:45PM-2:30PM Large C�roup Activity 2:30PM-3:OOPM A$ernoon sna�ck 3:OOPM-3:30PM Deparha�e • HOLIDAYS/ CLOSURE The 'Itinning Poiat Adult Day Care recog�nizes the followin,g holidays and wiil not be open on these � days: Eastei-,11�emorial Day, Fourth ofJuly, Thanksgivin,g, and the week beiween Chriehnas and New Years Day. In case of inclement weather the day staffwill i�f'oim t�e clieuts and or caregivers as early as possible. TRANSPORTATION 'I7ie T�aning Poi� Adult Day Care will m�ce acrangeme�te dn ough a conh acted Metro Mobility Provider to aseist with h^aosportation for cli�s residi� within o� service rsdiue. Upon s�ni�ion to the prognm, the Progr�n Mmw�er will acnint ail clie� in applying for Metro �:: Mobility Certificaotion. This ceitification is only good for one year, �d must be renewed prior to - the indivi�al's bi�th mo�th. 1tn�niqg Poir�t witl ag�in as�iet with recertifica�ion. MEDICATiONS �� :'All clie� must hsnre their primmy physicieng writben permiesion for taldng medications at the �: � ceirter.'` Medications comfug into the cenber must be in a�n unopened co�tainer (bem'in$ Pi'oP�' < labele from the pharnRaR.y). All medicstion is imre�toried and stored in a locked cabinet in the centet : All medication wilt be dispensed by a lice�ed �urse or a trained medic�ion a$sista�. IGLNESS ., p� x In the ,of clie�t illne�s a�t d�e ce�er,.�rangemen� will be made to retum the clie�t to their -fi �� home �� 2 hours of notiftc�tion of illness. ` If �e` c�egiver cannot be con#acbed; then fhe` cIie�nt ` will.remsin at ifie center uo�il s�ch notification is possible. Progam �will take any reaeonable • precmrtions to ensure the sa�ety of all clients, b�rt they will not be held respovsible for amy injury or Iose of life or limb due to sudden illnese or unavoidable incidents. �� <: The Turning Point will provide two su�cks and a no� meal. The meale will be cater�d to the ce�r. They will follow the g�uideli�g of the c1ie�Ns dietmy recommendationa from their primary physici�. We wiil provide modified die.ts to those who physicisn requests ik PERSONAL BELONC�TGS Each c1ieM should bring a complete change of clothes �d personal items necess�y for daily activities. Tiuning Point request� thaEt all clie� keep valuable� (ie: rings, jewelry, money} at home. Name tags should be a!#ached to appropriate items. SMOIfl1�TG Clients desiring to smoke may do so �mder the supervision of a day sta�in a designated smoking area ltuniqg PoiM requests that the client have only 2 cigaretbe breaks a day. PETS The liuning Point will look into a pet progrmn with fhe local hwnane society. The progam witt be developed from this. INSURANCE • � T�cning Point will be covered by insw�ance policies of a specific company, this is acti�ely bein,g pursued and will be settled soon STATE REQULATIONS The Mumesota Departme� of Humaa Services regulates licensure of all Adult Day Care Centers. The Tuming Point will co�'orm to all policies set forth by this act For fii�rther i�ormation, you may contact: Minnesota Depar�ae� of Human Services, Licensure Division at (612) 296-3971. F.l1+IPLOY1t+tIId'r The �a ning Point A�lt Day Care, �c., ie an Fqusl Oppordmity Fsnployer. It is the policy of the ;1lucnin�g Poi� to provide equal employme� oppordmity in crnmection with all pereonael actions. All persa�nel �ction shall be fairly and equitably executed, free ofbias or prejudice, �d coneisbent with the Fair Finployment Practices and good bueinees ethics. - � T' � � �° �: � � � • • z � � Conf. � orr�� Room 1 ' `�' Nursery 2 Youth '�ix a,2. q�0 s.� . . �,�,x b`i W� 9071 5 , F, M Kitchen 220� scorage Fetlowship Hall st°`. ; I _ l�1fli� _ F,�`�R.�1��._..._.._!_.__....._.�. _ � �� o 0 0 0 0 0� -o \ � e � a e _ :��.il 12 0 � �� Library lp M W�? 13 14a 14b 14c , � T. , • � 1 � !! Ed. `r �1 . Lounge Choir/ � li R�s. ��t�$� � � 9 --- Chapel �� ' �wrage Playground \ /- �� Z Furnace � p Fi�,� A�a,m'� ARE r�T Ep�� t.�T '�c�� t�fl �� ;Qk.. `�PQ,�N�Ct�J �► F�Rti'�r'�t�� ts�f:(� �r�"�P�r�,o �9� ls�c.�p Ai' "ov�t" t� A �N �...Y.-�P,1�,c:� �� . � St. Philip's Lutheran Church 6180 Highway GS Northeast / Frid�ey, MN 55432 571-1500 - . .. • . • � ,� Q� . � J ° � Y -• � ►rage � Nursery � 2 �ellowship � Hall / storage Ivi _ c n m e' Kitchen sEor. � � . ; Youth � 5 3 v�av�a � • - • 1\�.J. I� . Chapel � . �Of#ice , torage I Furnace Playgi S t. P�i�� 's Lu�t�eraan � � 6180 Higliway �5 Nort[ieast / Frjd�ey, A 5?1-1500 � 0 `•' � � • � , . . ' . � Turnin,g Point Adtilt Day Care, Inc. A Coiporation ofNurses Lynn Porath RN Jan Westfal RN Linda. Neummm RN We would tike to introduce ourselvee to you We are a committed goup of Registered Nw ses wlw have fouad a need in ttie couurumity. We sre prepared to e�cplain the need and to �how yon our plan to meet that need We propose to open a much needed Ac�ilt Day Care in the St Philips Lutheran Church at 6180 Highway 65 NE. *****Acwlt Day Care provides a program of social, recreational and healt�e activities and services in a group setti�g �at: _ helps meutally and /ur physically impaired adults to maintain or i�n�prove their level of fimctioning in order to remain in ffie community. _ offei-s puticipmds the opport�mity to socialize, enjoy peer support, and receive health and social services in a stimulating and supportive enviromnent dZat promote� better physical mid mental heaith �rovides as�istance to families and other caregivers wtw have responsibility for mi older adult who cannot be le$ alone d�aing the day and yet does not rec�uire 24 hour masing care in � .w �,}� �./�� :[5 , .. ��. �{�{Wi1�llL^ �. ': � , . . ' ,�.. - :s"� . .:. . "i.; ... ' . . ...� ��-2 i>w i�l heIps fimctionally impaired adults who live alone and need supportive �ervices to imp�ove or � msi�tain their level of independence. *****Building on �e supportive em►ironmeut offered wiWin a group setting, adult day care programs work to: _promote the individaal's m�ximum Ievel of independence _maintain the indi�idual's present level of fimctioning as lo�g as possible, preventing or delayin4$ fint�►er deteriaration reetore and rehabilitate the indivi� to his/her highest possible level offimctioaing �rovide support, respite, and education for families and other ca�egivere foster socialization and peer intersction serve as an integral part ofthe community service netwark and the ton�teim care continwm *****Day Care pmticipamts include adults who are: limited in their ability to fimction independently in the cam�umity, physically impaired, socially isolated, men�ally conf'used ' in need of assist�ce with personal cares *****Acbilt Day Care offers an iudividual plan of care to meet the needs of each participant. Particip� attend on a scheduled basis, and services may include the fotlowing: care and supervision�oup and individual activities meals and sna,cks healti� monitorin�tr�ansportation care managnent reereation exercise_pereonal eare nursing care e�cation health monitoring couaseling information and referrsl assistance with activities of daily living_occupational ffierapy�hysical therapy speech therapy_caregiver support • � We have our plan written, the site has been chosen, we are in the process of obtaining a license from the Mimiesota Departrnent of H�mian Resources. The buildiug already houses a pre-school day care, and many at6er communities services. We plan to bring in 40 participants on a da.ily basis. Most would be transported by a contracted mobility comparry, some would be brought by their caregivers. Hours are from 8:OOam to S:OOpm, program how-s are 9:OOam to 3:OOpm We will be stsffed with medical personal to meet the various needs of our participants. A floor plan has been provided for you, it includes the rooms that we will be using, fire alarm system, entrances and exits, ec�t. Also included, a description of the Day Care and ite admission infotmation, and its policies. We ha.ve hit a problem, one of the mar►y we will probably have during this advenWre. The problem is zoning. As muses, we understand the necessary requirements for the Stabe to monitor and offer t6e best care to our pazticipants. We did not underst�and that a zoning license and a special use permit were nece�sary. We are limited in time and fimde. We wish this problem to be � solved as quickly as possible, we cannot lose time. The zoning license is necessary for obtaining our license from the State. We are not able to complete our licensing package to the State unles� we have the,zonin4g license complebed We �e completing the "special use permit application" �d hope that it can be processed as �oon a� possible. We are committed to a progam that allows the comr�nmity to keep its eeniors in their homes, or with their families. We recognize that not all seniors belon,g in lang-teim care, that life can be complete and fiilfilling t6rough a coxa�umily baeed Adu1t Day Care progtam. Please take: time to understand diaot our need is urgent • We can be reached individually at: Lyrm Porath 481-7167 Jan VVestfal 531-2842 � �� ,�� L Po��I�N ' Jan Westfal RN �� ,� q ��' ��, � Ii � •+:�� `';�: �� `��'�i.,�;�e�'' State of Minnesota Department of Human Services Human Services Building 444 Lafayette Road N St. Paul, Minnesora 55155 September 28, 1994 City of Frid�ey 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 RE: Zoning Notification of Application for Department of Human Services Program License This is ta inform you that we have received an application for a program • license under Minnesota Rules, parts 9555.9600 -9555.9730, and 9555.8000 - 9555.8500 from adult Turning Point Adu1t Day Care, :Inc_,_;6�80` HNty 65 NE, Frid7ey, Minnesota 55432, to provide adult day care services. Issuance of this license is subject to compliance with the provisions af Minnesota Statutes, 245A.11, as amended by the Laws of Minnesota, 1990, Chapter 568. If we do not hear from you within 30 days of receipt of this letter, we wi11 consider this facility to be in compliance with your local zoning code. Sincerely, � Julie E. Reger, Unit Manager Division of Licensing 612/296-0156 � ANEQUAL OPPORTUNl7YEMPLOYER � � STAFF REPORT Community Development Department Appeals Cocnmission Date Planning Commission Date City Council Date APPLICATION NUMBER: NA PETITIONER• Jim Yungner, The Gym Training Center 2855 Glacier Lane Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 LOCATION: 6525 University Avenue NE, former Slumberland/10,000 Auto Parts store REQUEST: 1) .To occupy a building located in a S-2 Redevelopment District on a temporary basis; 2) To determine the City's position to include this use in the approved redevelopement plan. � The parcel was rezoned to S-2, the Redevelopment District in 1990 in conjunction with the redevelopment request by Scott Ericson to develop a 25,000 square foot strip shopping center to be named "Fridley Town Square.". The center was to contain a Walgreen's store, a Burger King fast food restaurant, and other retail uses. Lowell Wagner subsequently obtained an option agreement with the parcel's owner, Norma Swanson of Theisen Partnership, and pursued the implementation of the approved redevelopment project. Walgreen's has not pursued the site and Wagner is continuing a search for another major anchor tenant. The petitioner is interested in working with Wagner to redevelop the property. The redevelopment property contains 2.86 acres and includes the four vacant lots to the north of the subject parcel and two single family properties to the east. The residential lots to the east are necessary in order to install for a full movement driveway east of the median in Mississippi Street. � �r Staff Report Page 2 ANALYSIS• S-2 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The S-2 Redevelopment District permits the City to determine the uses which are to be located in the district according to the "overall redevelopme�t plan". Staff has required the petitioner to process this request since the petitioner is proposing to occupy the building for at least three years and will be remodeling the inside of the building. Further, the petitioner is interested in occupying a portion of the approved shopping center, if developed. This application gives the City the opportunity to review the proposed temporary use and to provide feedback to the petitioner about consistency with the overall redevelopment plan. Previous to this request, staff has worked with the building owner to permit temporary occupancies of the building until the redevelopment plan can be implemented (see letter to Norma Swanson dated January 28, 1994). The petitioner's request is different than previous uses in that occupancy is proposed for a longer period of time and more extensive improvements will be • occurring inside and outside of the building. The language in or deny buildin zoning district. THE GYM the S-2 District does permit the City to approve g permits or occupancies for buildings within the The petitioner currently operates The Gym at 261 Commerce Circle. The City issued a special use permit for the operation�in 1991. The Gym is a personal training center for individuals interested in weight lifting and "serious training" to accomplish fitness goals (see letter from Yungner dated September 21, 1994). The petitioner wants to relocate The Gym to the University Avenue location fully realizing that the building may be demolished and redevelopment undertaken prior to the expiration of the three year lease. REQUEST #1 - TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING The temporary occupancy of the building by the proposed use is not contrary to the intent of the S-2 Redevelopment District. The petitioner intends to improve the appearance of the outside of the building by painting the west (front) and south sides of the building, installing a wall sign (no pylon sign is proposed) striping the parking lot, and removing weeds and grass in the parking lot. Improvements to the inside of the building include • u • Staff Report Page 3 installation of locker rooms and minor interior walls. Significant changes to the ventillation systems will not be necessary and have been reviewed by the City's Mechanical Inspector. Although these improvements are estimated by the petitioner at $30,000 to $40,000, they are not improvements which would significantly add to the value of the building, which could be a concern to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Adequate parking exits on site. The original 1965 site plan indicates that 89 parking stalls can be striped on the lot. The petitioner indicates that peak hour use of the facility is after working hours. Hours of operation will be from 5:00 am to midnight. The petitioner has agreed to screen the dumpster at the rear of the buiiding. The curb stops should remain on the parking lot to prevent traffic from going north to 66th Avenue. Also, the shrubs along the north portion of the parking lot should be retained but trimmed attractively to provide screening from the residences to the north. No complaints have been received about the The Gym at the existing location. The use does not have any exterior noise or odor impacts and should no.t adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. REQUEST #2 - CONSISTENCY WITH LONG TERM REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The purpose of this request is to provide an initial reaction to inclusion of the use as part of the ultimate redevelopment plan. The petitioner has met with the current developer of the redevelopment project, Lowell Wagner. If business succeeds as predicted, the petitioner may want to occupy up to 11,000 square feet of the new shopping center and own part of the project. Should this type of use be included in the redevelopment project? The proposed use has less traffic, noise, and odor impacts than typical retail uses, like the fast food restaurant use which was approved in the original plan. The question remains if this type of use is appropriate as part of a neighborhood retail service building. If the southwest quadrant is developed with additional residential units, the market may react and produce a variety of � retail/service shops not originally contemplated; or, major tenants/users may reconsider the location if additional population is nearby and more activity is occuring at the Staff Report Page 4 intersection. The proposed use is not a neighborhood retail use and has a specific clientele. Also of importance is compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. Serious concern was raised by the public and some of the Councilmembers about the redevelopment project. The proposed use would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As a small part of the original redevelopment plan, inclusion of the proposed use may be appropriate. Endorsement of the use to occupy up to almost half of the proposed buidling (11,000 square feet versus 25,000 square feet) may be premature given the current work on the southwest quadrant. The Planning Commission, City Council, and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority should comment on the proposed use. If it is found that the use is unacceptable on a long term basis, the petitioner would appreciate knowing that at this point in time. RECOMMENDATION/STIPULATIONS: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of occupancy of the building�at 6525 University Avenue NE for The Gym on a temporary basis (up to three years) subject to the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall apply for the appropriate building, plumbing, and mechanical permits to complete remodeling as proposed. 2. 3. 4. The petitioner shall stripe the parking lot; parking stalls are 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, or 18 feet long if the stall abuts a curb stop or landscaped area. The dumpster shall.be screened on all sides. The parking lot shall be kept free of weeds and grass. 5. Landscaped area to the north shall be kept trimmed in an attractive manner to provide screening from the residenc to the north. 6. Inclusion of the proposed use in the Fridley Town Square . redevelopment project shall be reviewed by the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority prior to exection/approval of the development contract for the � project. 0 ZOA �i90-02 u.c.n. 1 C N �/2 SEC. /4, T. 30, R. 2 4 C/TY OF FR/OLEY � � � 12 21 � � � MNI CAIMER anr� i SEC. /I - . �'}q� 69TH AV�,.N.E. � ._ `�pi � _.. v> i " ; .: � I " �c F1 �l£.i w�i �� ,i . yµ —(+, 5 ;i..^�2� � y � •�� N� i � ,v�• i � � f �f�' c " ti ' j. • • r. _ l 2 �� . S FiIC� . . ` , [ ' m . Z! L , ,:2 : p : �FS A� � Y� ,i � � i. 3 }„" . ..'. - � . ��o . � � I �] . i � � .. . � �4� � � � �/� m, t�', v' •�� y. • . A ! - �. � 3 � : 3 a • � S , ti �. � ,r`� �''� � I 3 2 , • ' � ' � 0 �3 , j % t C_ �. �� •� p� i�. I �._ Y 5� � V c � •�� I n..i� �! W ..� � � �,, ,�� •' ,•• . ��.-J �i::. ; W � i. � .+� �. � , 1 a' } T' M Y� "�' ��? 3I .. : ' � � / � R �' • r• y . p T. � . I f J` - . / � � s' p�f t3 ,%� ♦ G• .' � . O1 I .. r 1 : ,! Y 1�' x P"� ,♦ .. � � 1 Dylt 6j+ : O � 5 �F• t '� , ` �� . f��•�� . �,/ ' ♦ �A : ; 1,� � ` � :f � ' n t x ♦ � � ' _ : n`- = � ,�` ... , ' f i � z • y. r . r. , , ' 'a+��. � .li ` ��'i�: • , � ��i (V • /� � 13..? f '�� n♦ 3 "� F � �,� �-1- , Z ; � -, �� . 1 w . � � .! ,w : +'' � � ,M, �;. .r: -� 1 `�� •� � `• � � •• � ~ �,Y� /'� �• 7y! « N � �,` f ' = 7 A I� � W o= �-� � � � A ��., � s•• • N, ��..5 � r B �3 ' r2 y .J -i, i j \� E� � 9�� '� •'O t .Q, �v^ Y �, i � �o m>� r. � . � f � fr a f� t � ..1 � ` B1. I � � �� \ 4 g �/ � �s ' �c„ , _ d . ... � � C. E � �j . .1� � ^ � �'.Z �•� t �fr • I ' ' 1 \\ \ � /Or ♦ '.y: '=�� . 1 g y ,! �� 3° sfY�. � �..� s•� 3 � i � • �� +• i � '1 .Y �. � � 'CY �•�I ��f • � •�� ^� ,'r � '�" a_�JJJ . ♦ '� � M 1 � ♦ Q � �4 " . • - : � i�:. i �� i� ,.v' i° � - � � 4 + � Z 2 . t � ��9 �i 2 .+'� Lr o �"i" � � �� _n's /� ��► �Sn :t� �f x:f � � f: M� S W ��, .A . 1. � 2 ♦ � '� "'4« • � �� . �, r � t p . � 1 , i :,y � E i3 = .; • , ° �� ?• • 2. �� l�, � a 2 � ` a r i \ �1, � ! .� d I';i�: j � � '.' i�, .r. : u, Tti �B � �:. "� �� . . � . ' � �.. �' . ' . „� , e Z �2 ` � ..� �' ,.•� : e ' ,�� .B a ,� ,,, •�,;4 r¢� : �! ! � � � ` ``>•$E$. �G � o , ,%� r M � f y � 17 •':2 i � --� , 4 = �E r �s , ' � � _ F �_ _ I I ____ � � _ 'c r E' � tl` ' q�• ^_Ia„ .�' _ y /SKr. y 's^� 3� ?, s7 . . �, } 3 e .a .,�_ ,� �� a • '' �`'_ i �`� t - 1'I G : ♦'- � � i� W �� ~ iI" 8 (� � y• rr�.er 2� ' 7 N �J p. �� t! 2 ��9 ��,� B" M� -•��g ,r' .3�r, �3 9� •�1 ' � �� + x r� ° � ` � � c .: . � � S F _ • � • cr,.. i ,�„� � i2 Y� ( � t'r E • �� i N I . !� j� .,�G. M�� o . � f�'` �3 �� F . ra� %• t:q i`F.iaj Z r. u �' � S�� '" J�,• +�I - �, � - S � 0 'N . .. : - � . . . . � , •7' . . ,s ' `'� , Y ,,, rk•';, �. s r. 3c Q i� 'v; a; Wv• r. f �f � ~ so f -�� _� 5 s�, 3 z i �I �� f c y�� 3 3 /o 9 y 6 ~�~ , /e � ; � B f ~ S j� „► �1�--• � a i � j {� � . i� '.�`c �� 67AVE. N.E. '._' - ° � _ 3- ' �» �; '� ; " � ' . ' �. � • ' ,� ' •.. .. � ' � " t . �, r s _e : ;r. :a � y � . • � ! �I �4 ^�r , � 11• Z 3 s a� . ��f �a C /2 i3 fI �J /o� f B 7� L 5. i 3 e� F I 3. f vi�^J � ; � �' i . � ..,. i iI ' ' ' y� ' , •% •• w ` u, �w �,, :, 1 rr' R F� .... � � ' � . � � � �� ' < i , ,•3 L�e c � + E z �' �` �°� � � t L � � � MENTP�`, 1 �� ' �•�66TH °%1VE. N'E. • i°" ' = w.v�LE� °e"''o..,..., i..,� � � �. (n at� f y. t; r�.l � •�' .te� -'�' t' . r� y+./; M � g� pYES G�JQV —.. �. , f� .'E • � ii il, /2 � .� � - s�I'� �3 �` � � I f T � R�V _�� _-_ . � � 1 . .. .�. .. ,. .e ... .� .. ,.. ' � .. .�. �� .. __�__�— •. �. • ' .I :i , . � .� "'� :r � , �' : 1 a . ";, ' � 1. i. I �,. _' C�" 9 � �E 3 3 z' �„ £�►R � 6 J.�:� „�, 1,�A�.� -- � 6 c � B '� Q.�c::in�..�.�rr r� i, --•_ B'd'11�aF . u . � - - .� �F��a uc. . r 24 � 7 � 13 LOCATION MAP Extand Wall -----------� --� —_ -18' ST. SEVER — — — — — — '— � --'�' • � r � -t0' GAS HA[N--- —� --�"T -------- l — MH __—_—_—_—_--_— b'W —� — 8' VCP S ._ SEVER — — —I— —P— _.—.—_---�----'1— — — � — — �•-- — — _ ' � :.I.P. VATER MA1N — -- — — i — — —� — '— — � — — — — — --^ SSISSIPPI � N � STREET � a � U K . NOf E� m �ENO EX�STMIG CURB 9 GUTTER EX�STING CQTCH BASIN EXISTING MANNOLE P90POSE0 CURB 8 GUTTER PROPOSEO CATCH BQSIN ApLIL�c PARKgi�NG� gI.O�T� ,SyTyRIPPINg7G�t ONE �LW1. Y ARROW54, HC�IGNAGEESI ETC. SHALL 8E PAINTEO WH��E � PAINT H.C. SlMBOIS AT EC�1 HC. � $TALL. vrvn � o 1 .K�. MJ - • •' � EXISTING H 4: 1 SEE 9i. NO � 9CREEJV WA o OIM. � OETC : � qVE-� �. / TRAFFIC = SIG� : � �J -- o�. . FIOI .• � � MAIN— — SEVER — - M A! ��N— _ �2 ' S N � APPROVED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN , 205.23.05. 205.23 S-2 REDEVELOPMENT.DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. PIIRPOSE The purpose of this special zoning d.istrict is to: A. Al1ow for a mixed use development within special redevelopment district s set up under Chapter 462 of Minnesota State Statutes for the health� safety and general welfare of the City. B. Allow for the maximwa flexibility in the promotion of difficult redevelopment projects. C. Al1ow for development by a plan which is acceptable to, and in the best interest of, the City and the overall district and development plan. 2. IISES PERMITTED Permitted uses in S-2 Districts are: Those uses which are acceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans as approved by the CiLy. Upon approvai of the specific development plans., the City shall determine the specific � uses that are permitted within the development. 3. IISES ALLOWED AFTER PIAN DEVEIAPMENT �, Uses allowed in each individual building after construction will be the same as or similar to those uses approved in Section 205,.22.2. above. 4. IISES ERCLIIDED Those uses unacceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans, as determined by the City, are excluded uses in S-2 Districts. 5. PROCESS FOR AP�ROVAL A. Plans for each individual project or combination of projects must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall have final authority to approve all project plans. B. Project plans submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council shall include the following minimum criteria: (1) Site plans showing the location of buildings, off-street � parking, street and utility locations, auto and pedestrian access to and from the project, any modification to existing services, grading plans, storm water plans, building exterior finish, lighting and signing and landscape plans. S-2 RE- DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGIIIATIONS PURPOSE IISES PERI�IITTED IISES ERCLUDED g�92 205.S2-1 (2) Written City staff review on project compatibility to the overall redevelopment plan. (3),A written Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) report on project plan approval and considerations. C. Any substantial modification to the plan must be submitted through the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. ' 6. PERFORMANCE STANbARDS 205.23.05. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS All performance standards for uses in this district shall be comparable to other similar uses that are allowed in other districts. Parking space sizes may be reduced • to nine (9) feet in width upon � approval of a special use periait. {Ref. Ord_ 952) � ,� :� ; '� 9/92 205 52-2 � _ ClTYOF FRt DLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 U\IVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1?87 January 28, 1994 Lowell Wagner 11666 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, NIN 55343 Norma Swanson Boss Aire, Inc. 2901 Southeast 4th Street Minneapolis, MN 55414 Dear Mr. Wagner and Ms. Swanson: Several weeks ago, Lowell asked me about the effect of the S-2, Redevelopment District, regulations on your property if the . redevelopment plan is not pursued. Walgreen's has not made a final decision as to whether or not they will be pursuing this site. Questions have been raised as to what types of 'uses would be permitted in the existing building on the property should the development not occur. Enclosed is a copy of the S-2, Redevelopment District regulations. The permitted uses are those uses which are "acceptable to the overall redevelopment plan and specific development plans as approved by the City". This permits the City to review any type of use in the building. In the past, we have permitted, without any review process as specified in Section 205.22.05, temporary occupancies of the building like the Slumberland operation. Any type of building permits which would repair or maintain the building would be permitted without a review process as specified in the aforementioned section. � It would be staff's recommendation, however, that any use which would necessitate the expansion of the building would be subject to Planning Commission, City Council, and Housing & Redevelopment Authority review as specified in Section 205.22.05. Unless a new redevelopment plan for the development of the parcel is approved, it is the Housing & Redevelopment Authority's current position that expansion of the existing building on the property • is not consistent with long term redevelopment plans. This is due, in part, to the necessity to have a full movement access just east Lowell-Wagner and Norma Swanson January 28, 1994 Page 2 of the existing parcel on the single family property at 355 Mississippi Street. AlsQ, the intent of the redevelopment plan was to remove obsolete commercial buildings and construct a modern development consistent with•the r�development objectives of this area. ` Should you have any speci:fic questions regarding use of the building, please do not hesitate to contact me at 572-3590. Sincerely, Barbara Dacy Community Development Director BD:ls C-94-16 0 L.J u i . • � TRAINING CENTER September 21,1994 City of Fridley Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridiey, MN 55432 Attn: Barbara Dacy, AICP � Commuaity Development Director RE: Response to letter dated 9/15/94 Dear Ms. Dacy, Our immediate plans are to relocate our eaisting Fridley location of 261 Commerce Circle to the building on the Northeast coraer of University and Mississippi. We have agreed upon a three year lease for the above mentioned building. This is a temporary lease because the future plans are for the building to be demolished. After three years we 6ave agreed wit6 t6e building owners to go on a month to month tease until the developement of t6e new ma1L Because the building will be demolished in three to four years we are trying to limit any leasehold improvments. The improvments which we propose to make would cost approaimately $30,000 to $40,000. Following are the improvements we would like to make: 1. Womens and mens locker rooms. 2. Co-ed sauna. 3. Separate air conditioning, heating, ventilation system for the locker rooms. 4. Eaterior locker room walls wiil be built to roof deck of building. 5. New interior walls will be built 7• to 8' high, which wilt not be as high as the eaisting ceiling. NEWFRI.PM4 2855 GLACIER LANE � PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 �(612) 553-0171 TRAINING CENTER One main concern of oars is the since that the building will be demolished we do not wish to upgrade the air conditioning unit. We feel the current unit is more than adequate due to the fact that the building is a wide open space. We truly need for The City to work with us on this because this is such a temporary stay. There is also a concern on your part about the eaterior of the building. We definately intend to better the appearance from what it is today in the following manner: 1. Re-stripe parking lot by painting over the eaisting weathered pain� There wilt be no additional configurations of parking spaces. 2. 3. Re-paint the eaterior of the building, which would only include the front, nort6, and south sides. Contract grass & snow removal services to appropriately upkeep property. We are trying to make this property look the most appealing for the least amount of money due to the fact it will be demolished in three to fouryears. It certainly would not be a wise investment to spend a lot of money on something which will be destroyed. OUR EXISTING BUSINESS & FUTURE PLANS , The Gym, Inc. was establised in 1979. The first facility was 1900 sq. ft. located in S� Louis Park. In 1981 The Gym, Inc. moved 2.5 miles to larger 3500 sq. ft. facility located in Golden Valley. In 1986, the Gym moved to its present 12,500 sq. f� which is located in Plymouth. In 1988 The Gym, Inc. opened up its second location in Apple Valley. In 1990 our third facility of 5600 sq. ft was opeaed in Fridley. In 1992 the first licensee opened a 12,500 sq. ft. facility in Champlin. In 1993 a 6500 sq. ft. facility was opened in Bloomington. The success of The Gym, Inc. in the last 15 years is due to the fact that we are a training center, not a fitness center like so many of the so-called "healt6 clubs" in the Twin Cities. 2 2855 GLACIER LANE � PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 �{612) 553-0171 . • : � • � • � TRAINING CENTER EXISTING & FUT'URE PI.ANS (con�) The Gym is a weight lifting - cardiovascular training f�cility, which directs our services primarily to athletes, and people seeking to engage in serious training to accomplish their fitness goals. The Gym's facility consist mainiy of free weights as opposed to the other facilities which primarily use "Nautil�s" and "Universal Gyms" type machines. The Gym also uses cardiovascular equipment (bikes, rowers, stairmasters). The Gym dfles not ofler aerobic dance classes. The Gym's operating 6ours will be from 5:00 a.m. to midnigh� The heaviest hours of usage will be from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 am., and frnm 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Most members of The Gym, Inc. work out 3 to 4 days a week, l to 2 hours per session. The Gym also will be seiling vitamins, training supplements, training gear, limited clothing, and bottled beverages. The Gym will not be making or producing any food or drinks. 90% of the above product sales will be to the members. Our future plans include increasing our clientel and sales to a degree to enable us to become either a new tennant or new owner of the up coming new shopping center coming to this area in the neat 3 to 4 years. We have every intention of occupying the space in the new strip mall. Wewould be more than happy to work with Lowell Wagner or any other developer to enable us to be a tennant or an owner. Ideally we would like to be a partner with Lowell, but it witl aiso have to be their decision to do this. We, The Gym, Inc. - Fridley, do have the option to purchase the building at any time during the neat three years. If our business performs as projected we will follow with these purchasing plans. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, The Gym, Inc. Jim Yungner Owner Kj 2855 GLACIER LANE � PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 �(612) 553-0171 TRAINING CENTER Dear Ms. Dacy, The Parking Area: We intend to use eaising parking lot as is. We want to use the same lay out that has always been used for the building for the last 25 years. We do not intend to change the configuration of the parking spaces. We will only paint over the old weathered eaisting stripes. The Dumpsters: We intend to use the back of the building for dumpster location, which is the same location that the grocery store and Slumberfand used for their business. Signs: We intend to put a sign only on the face of the building. There will be no free standing or roof top signs. Wewill contract out professional sign services to prepare details of the signs to meet City codes and to be approved. If there are any further questions or comments, please contact me. Sincerely, The Gym, Inc. Jim Yungner Owner 2855 GLACIER LANE � PLYMOUTH, NIINNESOTA 55447 �(612) 553-0171 � • • i . , � � _—.�.�.___ __ _ �_ __ .-__,o.� ._ _—.T__ ___.___. . . , .. ___, . . _ , . :.. .:Y. . . - . .: � - � . . - : _ �- . .of! �� - � �i s.. _ r_::. S: �r,� . .. " 5 � .. ��ry�. r �l'- .� •�' - , {j � � . . :_ y ' , _ � � :� j�n es' -�' a 1�y+.'!l�J �i � �Y1� r ��S +SXS'�i' �YU��1.T+�`� Y �'-a� `'l±sv . � ":. .' 4; �� .�s � ,:'� `��' .�/f ��-:Y' c. '-h. t*� �s` a,' . [ . 1_ �- �r� ro. _ � �, / "� � � r�,�. :,.�t /�l ;t �7`< � � � . . .. . . .. . � ` . .. -. ...... _ .' � 9 ts . : . �.� '�w�`Y� '�� " /� �:O -:._ P S dr : :'��j 3. s `� 4 =-�a . . . _ ( { . . ' . . - �'� .., � -' �y:. . . �iJ YSr- . 1' �. 1 �' � -�; < ?. �i �' ..- -- � � -- - ` { _ ,:��.: . . t, ' � � t' :t�'�1. .""+,�y_ � f.-� ,�.. �,. • :- � .: e � - .s - �r"..t _ ..t�=, " s ��d � � _: �?' = ,�� _.�'' � � �� t . ^'�'� +S ;�r �, . : , Y � � �� '..._ .: J .. X3'� • � � -y 4 .. . .- .._ ,.,. .:. �� i _ t tt �:�°.R. n. � . . � �^ �_� � � •,.� � ��'�A,� �. ~�� '�` � � � � . � � , .. .. . �.., . � j\ {` � ��7 � j +OF_� � �,; -t v� f .. � V � y '_ `". ;t l'"_' .y�$�..: . . . . - �. � . .. � YM6� ...� A �$ , V j r'R } �. j.. L � � _� iir� � :£ .J '� E � . I . . . . v � -- r .:�� . �`y �,'�. M) ¢''� •. � � .�. � �i 1 � . � �.�_ � � j` � � _ _ _ _ .� h _ � � �:� �� . �� _ _ �r _� � :, . : � � ��,�; . � _ � ; � := .: �� _ �___ _ __ - _ - _ �. � . _-- _ � �-� � �- : _ _. . _ . . � , _ . _ _ . _ _ __ _. - _ �� _ . _ � - ,: ��;r :� . _ � _ - :�. _ �.� . �� -_ � :�-�; - .,�: . _. -�. ( � , �� (� f 3� � V+� f "- . � ,t 1 '� - �, � ;�- - ..�.� .x. � _ �Y � � � �: � � '� � QL � . - _ : - f_ � __ - - . — _ f �, � s.w � � _ � .. . �. - Y- . ' - _ .�.L y . � - . •.- '. •ar � - �� ' • � . r: . � � - - _ . . _ s . � . . . � � '� s ? . . . � . .... � - �;_ . _ - . ( 1 _ g _ . - 'S �. _ � � l - ' ��' ., y,.: e � t � . � � � - •i ,yy'. • � . .. � � - - - __ � - - Oo�cx�� ---- " - -- � � . '=+ � � _ _ ------- _- � _ '�,J�'�I..lv'0�►�. :.- : _ . _ . . ;_ . � - . 5 `' t A� . � �.. ... - . _ _, �i....+�� _'"" '.:�j:�/� �..�.� i.�.�+.��.�w.�-.i.,J-,.�--4'� � j2 ie . . . .-_. , . . . � . . . .. . _ .. ." ..,. _ .. � . . . y. . . - � ... " . . . . � . . . . . • . . . : . . . . , - :i� . . .