Loading...
PL 01/20/2010 - 29951PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 20, 2010 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:58 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Leroy Oquist, David Kondrick, Brad Dunham, Jack Velin, Marcy Sibel, and Brad Sielaff MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Saba OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Scott Hickok, Community Development Director John Simpson, Collins Electrical Systems Terry Rath, Holiday Store #118, 200 57t'' Avenue East Hugh Robinson, Tri-Land Properties, Inc. Brady Russelman, MFRA, Inc. Tim Keane, Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP for Tri-Land Properties, Inc. Mark Anderson, MFRA, Inc. Approval of Minutes: December 16, 2009 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #10-01, by Collins Electrical Systems, to allow an electronic gas pricing sign and an electronic message center on the free-standing sign, generally located at 7295 University Avenue NE. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:02 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated the petitioner, Collins Electrical Systems, who is representing Holiday Companies, is requesting a special use permit to allow an electronic gas pricing sign and an electronic reader board to replace the manual existing gas pricing and reader board on the existing pylon sign at the Holiday Gas Station/Taco Bell which is located at 7295 University Avenue. Ms. Stromberg stated a 70 square foot free-standing sign already exists on the subject property. The petitioner is planning to remove the existing manual gas pricing sign and manual reader board sign and replace them with electronic LED signs. The installation of the two electronic signs will bring the total sign area to 80 square feet. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located on the southeast corner of 73rd Avenue and University Avenue. The property is zoned G2, General Business. Motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing services are a permitted special use in the G2, General Business zoning district. In 1998, a special use permit was issued to allow an automobile service station, a car wash and a drive-in type establishment. As a result, the property was developed in 1998, with the construction of the existing service station, Taco Bell restaurant and car wash building. A sign permit for the existing pylon sign was also obtained in 1998. In 2002, when Holiday Companies purchased the property, the sign faces on the pylon sign were changed to recognize the change in ownership. Ms. Stromberg stated electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any zoning district, except residential, provided the message doe not change more often than once every 45 seconds. The sign also needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the zoning district, in which the property is located. The subject property is zoned, G2 General Business, which requires that free standing signage cannot exceed 80 square feet in size. The existing sign meets that size requirement as will the re-face of the existing manual signs with the electronic signs. The total sign area after the modifications will be 80 square feet, with the new electronic gas pricing sign being 15 square feet, and the electronic reader board portion being 31.2 square feet. The total electronic signage portion on this sign is 46.2 square feet on a total 80 square foot sign. Ms. Stromberg stated the free-standing sign meets all other sign code requirements including, but not limited to, size, setbacks, and height. City staff has not heard from any neighboring property owners. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of the special use permit as electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in the commercial zoning district, provided the sign complies with Code requirements, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing any signage on site. 2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall traffic in the area. not change more often than authorized under Section never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular Chairperson Kondrick asked for a representative from Collins Electrical Systems to come forward. John Simpson, Collins Electrical Systems, stated he is one of the lead technicians who actually works on the signs and is part of the install team. He also does all the permit pulling for all the cities they have been working on for Holiday Station stores. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Simpson if he had any problems with the stipulations, and does he understand them and concur with them? Mr. Simpson stated as a representative of Holiday Station stores, Holiday is aware of the stipulations and they are okay with them and have given the go ahead. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel. 2 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:12 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated we have had this before, and he does not see this is going to be a problem for the City. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Special Use Permit, SP #10-01, by Collins Electrical Systems, to allow an electronic gas pricing sign and an electronic message center on the free-standing sign, generally located at 7295 University Avenue NE with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain sign permit and current sign erector license prior to installing any signage on site. 2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall traffic in the area. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. not change more often than authorized under Section never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Vacation, SAV 10-01, by Premier FMC, LLC, on behalf of Fridley Medical Center, to allow the vacation of a utility and drainage easement across Osborne Manor Second Addition, generally located at 480 Osborne Road NE. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated 52 years ago this month, Osborne Manor 2nd Addition`s Plat was recorded. The plat was designed as a 12-lot plat, with 6 single-family lots facing Osborne Road and 6 single-family lots facing what was then platted as 76t'' Avenue, NE. A utility and drainage easement ran east to west, between the north and south sets of 6 lots. It is that easement being considered for vacation today. Mr. Hickok stated the Osborne Manor 2nd Addition plat was filed, but never built as a single-family development. Instead, a church occupied the land until it was purchased years later to become part of the hospital campus. The right-of-way for this short segment of 76t'' Avenue was vacated on October 3, 1988. North Suburban Hospital District now owns the property where 76t'' Avenue's right-of-way was once depicted and they also own the remaining land area included in the original Osborne Manor 2"d Addition plat, including the land beneath the easement to be vacated. Mr. Hickok stated the North Suburban Hospital District has now received preliminary approval for a new plat called Unity Addition. As part of that process it was discovered that though 76t'' Avenue was properly vacated in 1988, the residual residential easement was not. The best approach to easement vacation is always formal action to vacate and to attach the public record at time of filing the new plat at the County Recorder's office. Mr. Hickok stated what was once intended as an easement for utility access to 12 single family lots, is not the same type of easement that would be required for the new Fridley Medical Center and Virginia Piper Cancer Center that has been reviewed and approved through the Special Use Permit process. In fact, not only is this easement not needed, it is lying in a location that would eventually be underneath the building for these new uses. Mr. Hickok stated, historically, the City looks for a replacement easement to be dedicated by the petitioner when a vacation is requested. In this case the City has obtained the required easements through the platting process for the subsequent Fridley Medical Center Plat. Therefore, no additional easements will be required. Consequently, staff recommends approval of the requested easement vacation without stipulations. Robert Foster, attorney for Premier FMC, stated they have an early start approval and he would bet by next week they would start grading on the project and start putting footings in after that. They anticipate closing on bonds two to three weeks after that and they still believe they will be on target to have this whole thing done by approximately September 1. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:13 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Vacation, SAV #10-01, by Premier FMC, LLC, on behalf of Fridley Medical Center, to allow the vacation of a utility and drainage easement across Osborne Manor Second Addition, generally located at 480 Osborne Road NE. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Rezoning ZOA #10-01, by Tri-Land Properties, Inc., to rezone from C-3, General Shopping to PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning, for the redevelopment of the site, legally described as Holiday North Second Addition, generally located at 244, 246, 248, and 250 — 57t" Avenue NE. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:14 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Glenn Johnson of Tri-Land Properties Inc., from Westchester, Illinois, owner of the subject property at 250 57t'' Avenue, is seeking to rezone the property from G3, General Shopping to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the redevelopment of the entire site to what the developer is calling The Fridley Market. Ms. Stromberg stated Tri-Land Properties Inc, is proposing to redevelop the existing Cub Foods/Fridley Liquor Store site. The redevelopment will allow for structural changes to the existing building, modernization of the existing building exterior fa�ade, and construction of new retail buildings along the north side of the property as well as the south side of the property. The site will also undergo reconstruction of the parking lot and entrances to promote multi-modal access, and installation of 146 new trees and landscaping. 0 Ms. Stromberg stated the redevelopment is proposed to occur in several phases. The first phase will include construction of an addition to the east side of the existing building, which will house the Fridley Liquor Store as well as space for three, 1,200 square foot retail shops. Once the addition is completed, Phase 2A involves Cub Foods beginning construction on their new space. They will move their store to the east side of the building and will occupy 65,000 square feet of space, which is a smaller building footprint then what they currently occupy. Cub Foods will remain open and in business within their existing space until their new space is ready to open. The existing building will actually be reduced approximately 21,000 square feet, which will be achieved by removal of a portion of the front of the building. Ms. Stromberg stated Phase 2B will include the construction of "Retail A", which is a 10,500 square foot building that is located on the north side of the site, just south of 57t'' Avenue. Phase 3A, includes removal of the front portion of the building for "Anchor A" as well as construction of a pedestrian connection from 57t'' Avenue to the main building. Phase 3B, includes the construction of another retail building on the north side of the site, to be 9,600 square feet in size. Phase 4 will allow for the development of the south side of the subject property with the construction of a 29,000 square foot building, proposed to be shared between two tenants. Reconstruction of the parking lot and installation of landscaping will take place throughout all the proposed phases. Ms. Stromberg stated in 1966, the original 165,000 square foot building was constructed. There has only been one addition to the original building, which was a 360 square foot addition in 1995 to allow for shopping cart storage. Several interior modifications have been made to the building over the years. Special use permits were also issued over the years for a mobile home sales office, a photo booth in the parking lot and for garden centers. The lot has been replatted to allow for the creation of the existing Holiday gas station lot. Ms. Stromberg stated two variances were also granted on the subject property since it was originally developed, one to reduce the amount of required parking stalls and another to allow the construction of a loading dock facing the public right-of-way. With the exception of a parking lot reconfiguration in the late 1990's, the site has not changed substantially over the last 40 plus years. Ms. Stromberg stated in the mid 2000's, City staff had been contacted by Holiday Companies, who was the owner at the time, about the redevelopment of the subject property. Shortly after our discussions with them, they sold the property to Tri-Land Properties, Inc. Tri-land is now pursuing redevelopment of the site. Ms. Stromberg stated Tri-Land Properties Inc. is requesting a rezoning for the Cub Foods/Fridley Liquor site, located at 250 57t'' Avenue, from G3, General Shopping to PUD, Planned Unit Development. This is the first Planned Unit Development rezoning the City of Fridley has seen since Bordeaux's Springbrook Addition plat of 1961. That PUD is a single-family residential neighborhood on Fairmont Circle, off of East River Road. Though those properties are zoned PUD, staff wouldn't consider that a typical PUD development seen today. Ms. Stromberg stated Planned Unit Developments typically are intended to achieve the following: • Provide greater flexibility in environmental design and relaxation of strict application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater creativity and environmental sensitivity. • Encouraging a more creative and efficient approach to the use of the land. • Encouraging the preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, natural features and open space. Encouraging a development pattern that is consistent with land use density, transportation facilities and community facilities objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Stromberg stated the City's Zoning Ordinance and official Zoning Map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies that subject property to be within one of the "potential redevelopment areas." Those redevelopment areas were developed based upon community input at neighborhood planning meetings and staff recommendations. Redevelopment is a form of community revitalization that transforms undesirable elements of a site into desirable elements that reflect the community's collective plan. Approving this project through a PUD requires the petitioner to submit a"General Plan of Development" which consists of maps, including phasing components, descriptive statements of objectives, principals and standards used in the project. It also requires that any modification of the originally approved PUD, be reviewed before the City Council which is similar to the process the City uses for master plan approval on an S-2, Redevelopment project. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is within the "Northstar Transit Oriented Development, (TOD)" redevelopment area within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment of this area would provide several objectives highlighted within the Comprehensive Plan: Including the removal or revitalization of older, blighted, or outdated buildings, providing an opportunity for more efficient land uses, providing an opportunity to build new commercial buildings, create additional job opportunities, strengthening tax base, and creating opportunities for new streetscape improvements. Ms. Stromberg stated redevelopment of this site also accomplishes several of the goals identified through the neighborhood meetings and the telephone survey for the Comprehensive Plan. Those goals are to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to live" and to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to invest in business." Ways identified to accomplish those goals were to create a walkable downtown area (the Northstar TOD area was identified as the best place in Fridley for a walkable downtown, because of its proximity to the train station), provide more retail opportunities (the community spoke loud and clear about wanting more retail opportunities and the fact that they felt like several of our shopping areas were in desperate need of redevelopment), provide more restaurants, and maintain current tax base and encourage growth. Ms. Stromberg stated as part of the process to allow a rezoning to a PUD, Planned Unit Development, it is very important to establish guidelines that dictate what type of quality development will occur on the site. Within those guidelines there are several elements that need to be discussed and agreed upon in the General Plan of Development, in order to lead the developer and the City into an approved PUD. The petitioner has hired Kathy Anderson of Architectural Consortium to help establish design criteria, which will become an Exhibit of the General Plan for Development. Some of the details outlined in this document are listed below: • Building Orientation — site planning concept with multiple buildings on one site with a focus inward as well as outward towards the public right-of-way and the importance of moving buildings closer to the street. • Building Design — discusses Building Mass and Fa�ade Design. Varying rooflines, adding the use of canopies, and other accents to visually break-up walls. • Building Materials — provides a list of acceptable building materials. • Doors and Windows — encouraging windows on all sides of the building, etc. • Screening — discusses screening loading docks, drive-thru's, and rooftops units with the use of building materials, walls, landscaping • Franchise Design — tenants are allowed to maintain their corporate identity but shall use similar materials, chosen in the guidelines. � • Landscape and site treatment — creating common themes, landscaping used for screening, planters, pots encouraged to be used along paved areas. • Parking — the need to accommodate bicycle/motorcycle parking, create cross parking between users, site plan shall allow for clear connections and movement for pedestrians and motorists • Lighting — Uniform lighting throughout the site, with the use of ornamental lighting on the buildings and in the parking lot. • Flags — perimeter flag poles on the site to be key focal points • Pedestrian connections — creating pedestrian linkage to all buildings on the site and to the public sidewalk system, creation of outdoor seating areas, striping crosswalks • Signage (Wall Signage and Free-standing) — to create consistency throughout the development with architectural character, base on monuments made out of masonry, usage of awnings. Ms. Stromberg stated the Architectural Design and Signage Guidelines becomes a critical part of a PUD because that along with the drawn plans illustrates what the development would essentially look like and what is and is not allowed. It becomes the "rules" for the site and any modification to those rules will require an application for a new PUD. Ms. Stromberg stated staff is not in complete agreement with everything provided in the Architectural Design and Signage Guidelines and will be requiring that some modifications are made before it becomes part of the General Plan for Development. Generally we want it to be clear in the document that a 4-sided building needs to be constructed on all buildings within the development. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed redevelopment plan is risky since the only known future tenant at this time is Cub Foods. It is important to note that this plan is based upon market assumptions that newly developed spaces will fill according to the phased plan for redevelopment to bring the entire PUD to completion. But, the developer seems confident enough to advance this proposal. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed redevelopment of the site will allow for the revitalization of both the interior and exterior of the existing building. Though an addition will be constructed on the east side of the building, 50 feet of the entire north wall of the existing building will be removed, therefore reducing the square footage of the main building by approximately 21,000 square feet. The proposed site plan also identifies 3 free-standing buildings, two on the north side of the property and one along the south edge of the property. Those new buildings will be incorporated into the existing parcel and will not require creation of lots of their own. Ms. Stromberg stated staff suggested that the petitioner seek a potential rezoning to a PUD, instead of seeking variances to the standard G3, General Shopping zoning district regulations. For example, the G 3 zoning code requires a front yard setback of 80 feet and a side yard setback on corner lots of 80 feet. Since the subject property has streets on all sides of it, code would require an 80-foot setback for buildings on all sides. Placement of the new buildings, closer to the street, would not meet that setback requirement. Since the subject property is within the Northstar TOD district, staff would prefer to see building brought closer to the street, to help create a downtown environment that provides a pedestrian scale to the retail area. Ms. Stromberg stated staff asked the petitioner to try to comply with the G3, General Shopping code standards as much as possible, with the understanding that some of the requirements will not be able to be met. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding the "front yard setback": Fridley City code requires that the shortest street frontage be considered the front yard. In the case of the subject property, University Avenue would 7 be considered the front yard. The petitioner proposes to construct a new 14,000 square foot addition to the east side of the existing building, which will be 35 feet from the front yard property line, therefore, not meeting the code required 80-foot setback. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding the "side yard setback (north)": Because this property has street frontage on all sides, an 80-foot side yard setback is required per G3 zoning regulations. The proposed Retail A building is 15 feet from side yard property line and the Retail B building is 30 feet from the side yard property line. As stated earlier, because this site is within our Northstar TOD, staff would like to see the buildings brought closer to the street, as proposed. This helps create the idea of a"walkable downtown", which adds to the existing streetscape along 57t'' Avenue, provides close connections for pedestrians and bicyclists and it will conceal parking to the opposite side of the building. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding the "side yard setback (south)": Again, City Code would require an 80- foot setback. Proposed Anchor B is 72 feet from the side yard property line and Anchor C is 55 feet from the side yard property line. Street frontage on all sides of this property provides a great challenge when trying to consider full build-out of the site. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding the "parking setback from a public right-of-way": The petitioner's site plan shows as little as a 5-foot setback between the property line and the parking lot in locations along the south, east and north property line. City Code requires a 20-foot parking setback from a public right-of- way to allow an adequate separation between a particular use and the right-of-way. This area also serves as space needed for sidewalks, landscaping, screening and snow storage. City staff is overall concerned about the lack of green space on this site plan. Though the petitioner is meeting code requirements for the amount of trees required to be planted, staff feels that there are parking stalls proposed that will never be used and would be better utilized as green space. If additional green space can be added on this site and if there is adequate room designated for snow storage, staff would be comfortable with the deficient parking setback. The petitioner has since added green space along the southern property line. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding the "number of stalls." After receiving our staff report, the petitioner removed some of their parking stalls to add green space. Their previous plan showed more parking stalls then code would require. As a result, they are proposing 754 stalls, which is 21 stalls less than code would require for full build-out of the site, however staff is comfortable with this because this is a PUD. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code requires that parking stalls in our commercial districts be 10 feet wide by 20 feet long if they are nose-to-nose stalls or 10 feet wide by 18 feet long if the stall abuts a curb. Over the years, the City has had many requests by other commercial, educational, and medical type uses to allow a smaller lot size. In some instances the City has allowed a reduction in the width of a stall for those parking stalls that have a low customer turnover. For example: employees at a medical clinic or students at a school. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has submitted a study conducted by Metro Transportation Group Inc., who is out of Hoffman Estate, Illinois. Their research is based on information obtained by The Urban Land Institute, the National Parking Association and the Parking Consultants Council. Based on their research moderate to higher turnover visitor parking, community retail and medical visitor spaces can be accommodated with a parking stall size of 8-feet 9-inches to 9-inches 0-feet wide. Those situations where turnover is less can be accommodated by a smaller stall. As a result, they conclude that the stall size of 9-feet wide and 18-feet long for the proposed redevelopment is adequate. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner also completed a parking field analysis, demonstrating the difference between a 9-foot by 18-foot stall and a 10-foot by 20-foot stall. Based on the square footage of the new Cub Foods (65,177) and Retail A(10,500), which is one of the free-standing buildings on the north side of the building, 262 stalls would be constructed at a stall size of 9 feet by 18 feet. Increasing the size of the stall to a 10 ft. by 20 ft. stall would reduce the amount of stalls to 196, which is 66 less stalls. According to the petitioner, the 9-foot by 18-foot stall is a necessity for them and for Cub Foods, in order to make the project work. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is showing a 24-foot drive aisle is some of the parking lots and 25 plus in others. Code requires a 25-foot drive aisle for two-way traffic. It is also important to point out that the Fire Marshall requires a 25-foot drive aisle around the main building and Anchors B and C for fire access and safety. Ms. Stromberg stated staff understands how important parking is for Cub Foods and the petitioner and with a PUD rezoning it does allow flexibility when designing a project. However, staff feels that some requirements related to parking cannot be modified. As a result, staff is comfortable allowing the stall size to be reduced to 9-feet wide, however, the stall length needs to be increased to the code required 20-fet long for nose to nose parking stalls and can be 18-feet long for those stalls that abut a curb. Staff will also require that all drive aisles remain at 25-feet to help ensure the safety of the motoring public, and customers walking on site and to provide clear fire access throughout the site. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding "landscape (tree count)": The petitioner is complying with the code- required amount of trees that need to be planted on this site. However, they are deficient is meeting the code required amount of coniferous trees. Code requires that 30 percent of the trees planted shall be coniferous trees in order to continue to beautify the site in winter months and to potentially help with screening. As a result, staff feels that it is necessary that the petitioner replace seven of the proposed shade trees with coniferous trees. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding "signs (free-standing)": Originally the petitioner had submitted plans showing seven free-standing signs on the site. They were proposing to place four signs along Interstate 694 and three along 57t'' Avenue, all of which would allow for multi-tenant shared signage. Staff articulated to the petitioner very early in the application process that the amount of free-standing signage proposed would not be supported by staf£ City code does allow one free-standing sign per street frontage in our commercial zoning districts and a few years ago we adopted special language that would allow larger signs to those properties that are within 275 ft. of Interstate 694. After several internal staff discussions and site visits to other similar types of commercial developments, staff determined that we would be comfortable allowing one free-standing sign per street frontage on this site. This property is somewhat unique in the fact that there is frontage on all 4 sides. As a result, staff determined that it would be acceptable to allow two 200 square foot and two 80 square foot free-standing signs on this property. With a condition that one of the 80-square foot signs cannot be installed until Anchors B and Anchor C on the south side of the property is developed. The petitioner is agreeable to this solution. They are currently proposing to install one 200-square foot sign on the southwest corner (near Main Street & I-694) and one 200-square foot sign near the westbound entrance ramp to I-694, and one 80-square foot sign along 57th Avenue. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding "signs (wall signage)": City Code requires a specific formula for wall signage. That requirement is 15 times the square root of the length of the wall. In the case of multi- tenant buildings, staff's policy is to take the length of space a particular tenant leases and then take 15 times the square root of that leased space. In most situations, our Code allows more than adequate signage. In the case of the smaller retail buildings, Retails A& B and Anchors B& C, City code wall signage requirements will be met. Ms. Stromberg stated wall signage on the main building, however, is over what Code would typically allow. After many years of reviewing wall sign permits, staff has determined that when it comes to a � larger scale building with very long wall lengths, our formula can end up not allowing the sign to be proportionate to the mass of the building. In 2004, Ashley Furniture requested variances to our wall sign allotment to allow larger signs on the north, east and west sides of the building. The City Council granted variances to allow signage up to two times larger than what Code would allow on the north and east walls. This situation is similar to that of the Cub Foods building in that the large scale of the building requires the need for greater signage. As a result, staff is comfortable allowing the signage proposed in the architectural plans for the main building. Mr. Hickok stated regarding "outdoor sales area": The petitioner is proposing to have (2) outdoor sales areas that will be used 10-12 weeks out of the year. Cub Foods would primarily use this area for garden sales in the spring and early summer. The areas that they have highlighted on their site plan will be 36 feet by 93 feet (3,348 square feet) in size and will be designed using decorative pavers on the surface. The petitioner has created a"pergola" structure that will be installed during the 10-12 weeks sales period and will be removed and returned to parking stalls at the conclusion of the sales period. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has decided to move the outdoor sales area to the interior portions of the parking lot for Cub Foods and Anchor A to alleviate any staff concerns. Mr. Hickok stated the G3 zoning code allows garden centers or nurseries which require outside display or storage of inerchandise with a special use permit. This site has received special use permits in the past for garden centers, when the site was used as a Holiday Store. The most recent SUP for a garden center issued on this site was in 1988, required the sales area be attached to the building, and only accessed through the building and not the parking lot. Mr. Hickok stated there are other properties within the City that have SUP's for garden centers. Some examples of those are Bachman's, Home Depot, Wal-mart, and Menards. In all those situations, the City required that the business construct a permanent structure attached to their building for their garden centers as opposed to a free-standing tent type garden center often seen in other communities. In lieu of constructing a permanent structure for garden sales, the petitioner and more importantly Cub Foods, is requesting to have the outdoor sales area within the parking lot. Instead of simply putting up a tent, the petitioner has designed a decorative paver area with a temporary pergola that will have cedar posts, and maintenance free fencing. Cub Foods is a 24-hour operation, so they have expressed to staff that, although the garden center will not be open 24 hours, they do have staff that will be on-hand to provide security and theft control. Staff feels this solution is unlike what we have seen in other applications, but would consider it acceptable considering it is a PUD zoning, which allows flexibility when designing a proj ect. Mr. Hickok stated regarding "public gathering area, patio area": The petitioner is proposing to construct a public gathering area with Phases 2A-2B. This area will have an arbor constructed within it, with seating and perimeter landscaping. This area has the potential of creating a nice environment for employees who work on site or customers who shop on site. There is also a patio area planned for the east side of Retail A, which will provide an outdoor seating option for a potential restaurant. Mr. Hickok stated regarding "dumpster enclosure locations": City staff has been working with the developer on developing preferred placement of dumpsters for the two most northern buildings along 57tn Avenue. Staff would ideally prefer to see them incorporated into the building or attached to the building in a way that hides them from the public right-of-way. The latest plans depict a dumpster enclosure for Retail A attached to the monument sign and a dumpster enclosure at the south building wall setback from Retail B. Both enclosures will be constructed of material comparable to the material used for the building and will be surrounded with landscaping. Though this is not staff's ideal location for the dumpster enclosures, through architecture, building materials, and landscaping these enclosures should essentially blend into their surrounding environment. 10 Mr. Hickok stated regarding "multi-modal connections: Any redevelopment within the Northstar TOD Redevelopment Area is expected to have clear connections for walkers and bikers, as well a vehicles. This site is only '/2 mile from the Northstar train station, and there is a bus stop at the corner of University Avenue and 57t'' Avenue. Staff has emphasized the importance of pedestrian connectivity to and throughout this site to the petitioner throughout our discussions. Mr. Hickok stated staff is currently in the process of developing a new ordinance that will be a Transit Oriented Development overlay district for the areas surrounding the Northstar commuter rail station. The Tri-land site is proposed to be included in the proposed TOD overlay district. The City plans to require sidewalks and bike trails in this overlay district, which will allow people to get safely from mass transit stops in the area to shopping and neighboring residential areas. Due to limited public funding, staff anticipates cooperating with private property owners to create new multi-modal connections within redevelopment projects. Mr. Hickok stated as a result of discussions with staff, the petitioner has created some sidewalk connections on their site. There are connections from 57t'' Avenue to Retail A and B on the north side of the lot and connections on the west side of the lot to the main building and to Anchor B and C. They have also created a main pedestrian walkway from the east side of Retail B, connecting to the main building. They plan to raise the walkway with a barrier curb on each side to provide the protection for pedestrians utilizing the walk. At the location where the walk actually crosses the drive aisle the raised walk will transition or ramp back down to the elevation of the drive aisles. It is unfortunate though that this connection is not planned to take place until Phase 3A. Staff would prefer for it to be constructed sooner in the phasing process, if possible. Mr. Hickok stated an important multi-modal connection that staff feels the petitioner is overlooking is a connection from the bus stop at 57t'' and University and the new development proposed on the east end of the site. It is likely that many employees of the retail center will be taking the bus to work. It is not realistic that a person walking or biking from the bus stop will travel west along 57t'' Avenue to the walkway proposed into the site by Retail B if they are traveling to the Cub Store or the liquor store. They will cut across the CVS parking lot, which poses risks because of their drive-thru traffic. Staff recommends that the petitioner be required to explore the possibilities of an eastern access along the east end of the CVS site or outside the MnDOT chain link fence to the northeast corner of the new eastern building area. Mr. Hickok stated regarding "truck traffic": The petitioner has submitted plans showing truck circulation on the site. Staff has determined that it is very important to have a one-way movement on the site that moves counter clock-wise around the main building. Trucks cannot stand and wait in the queuing area between University Avenue and the CVS entrance. Nor do we want customers on this site having to navigate around trucks from all directions. Mr. Hickok stated regarding "phasing plan": A phasing plan needs to be provided to the City as a requirement of a PUD. There will be a document like a development agreement that goes along with this the Council will ultimately approve as part of the Planned Unit Development as well. When the new Cub Foods store is being redeveloped as part of Phase 2A, 50 feet by 297 feet of the front of the building will be removed to make the Cub Foods new entrance. The remaining 50 feet of the existing building is shown in the plans to remain as is until Phase 3A. This is something that staff is not comfortable allowing. We would recommend and will stipulate that the remaining 50 feet of the front of the building be removed within 1 year of the opening of the new Cub Foods, which is a timeline determined after recent discussions with the petitioner. Staff would also like to see more detailed phasing plans showing 11 when modifications will happen to the parking lot and when landscaping, signage and pedestrian connections are proposed to be installed. Mr. Hickok stated regarding "existing green space south of the existing main building": The development of Anchor B and C is proposed to take place in the last phase of the overall project. This space is currently green and staff will stipulate that it remain that way until which time it is developed according to the proposed PUD site plan. Existing dilapidated parking lot light fixtures located near the south green space will need to be removed within the first phase of this project. Mr. Hickok stated the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of University Avenue adjacent to the existing Cub Foods/Fridley Liquor Store site carried 34,500 vehicles per day. At this traffic level it is carrying 2,500 less vehicles per day than its maximum design capacity. Using the State's range of 31,000 to 37,000 vehicle trips per day the roadway is within specifications to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan anticipates that University Avenue will be carrying 44,100 vehicles per day by the year 2030, based upon increases in population for Fridley and surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 44,100 vehicles per day, University Avenue would be above its design capacity. This project may bring the roadway and its intersection at 57th Avenue and University Avenue closer to capacity, earlier than anticipated. As a result, the Minnesota Department of Transportation was asked to comment on the perceived or real impacts of the development. To date, the City has not received their comments, but will place a stipulation on the rezoning that if approved it will need to comply with any conditions set for by MN/DOT. Mr. Hickok stated since 57t'' Avenue and Main Street (south of 57t'' Avenue) are County roadways, the City has also notified the County Highway Department of the proposed project and is awaiting their comments. Again, staff will place a stipulation on this rezoning request that will require the petitioner to comply with any conditions set forth by the County. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner had Westwood Professional Services, Inc. perform a traffic impact study on the proposed project. The consultants conducted their study by analyzing traffic volumes, trip generation, trip distribution, and they completed an operational analysis. The executive summary states the following, "Fridley Market is located within an area of roadways that are fully analyzed, designed, and constructed consistent with the projected future area traffic volumes. The last major construction in this area was completed in 1998. At the present time the Fridley Market site has a 44,000 square foot vacancy. If this vacancy were to be filled, the total traffic volumes in the area could be accommodated by the surrounding roadway network with only a minor change in signal timing at one nearby intersection; no lane additions or other physical roadway changes would be needed. Beyond filling of the current vacant space, analyses were also conducted of the impact of traffic to be generated by the redevelopment of the surrounding roadway network. The results indicate that the surrounding roadways are capable of supporting the added traffic from site redevelopment at acceptable levels of service again through only minor signal timing modifications at one intersection." Mr. Hickok stated Westwood is suggesting that, although the intersection into the subject property and the intersection at Main Street and 57t'' Avenue operate at a Level of Service A, the intersection at 57tn Avenue and University Avenue currently operates at the LOS C and will operate at the LOS D or worse after the redevelopment of this site. This level of service is based primarily on the northbound left turn movement at this intersection. Westwood recommends that the mitigation measure used to restore acceptable operations of this intersection is by optimization of the signal timing at the intersection. Specifically, it is suggested that the green time for the northbound left movement be increased, with the southbound through movement decreasing by a like amount to maintain a 160-second cycle length. With 12 this mitigation measure in place, the overall intersection LOS will improve to C. Staff has heard from MnDOT and they are okay with this modification to the signal timing. Mr. Hickok stated stormwater treatment concepts are shown on the plan, but a fully identified and detailed stormwater plan will be completed for the entire site build-out. Similarly, utility plans have been provided, but details and specifications are not completely provided as required for construction approval. Also, no stormwater, erosion control, or utility phasing plans have been provided or reviewed. After discussion with the petitioner yesterday, the engineer and the City Engineer will be getting together to resolve these issues. We are confident those issues can be worked out after that discussion. It is a situation is where the early pieces are probably fairly easy to design but some of those other later developing pieces will happen in a chronological manner. Mr. Hickok stated City staff recommends approval of the Rezoning ZOA # 10-01, with stipulations. The rezoning accomplishes the following objectives: Proposed use meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Provides added tax value to an underutilized retail site • Provides additional job opportunities. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if Rezoning, ZOA # 10-01 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance to the General Plan for Development Agreement, which will include the architectural plans dated and the Architectural Design and Signage Guidelines dated .(This agreement shall be prepared by the petitioner and approved by staff prior to City Council review of the rezoning request.) 2. The General Plan for Development Agreement must include a three-year time limit to construction inactivity between phases until full build out of the site is complete as proposed. 3. The property shall be developed in accordance with the site plan SP.1 dated , which will incorporate the stipulations included herein and approved by staf£ (Site plan shall be revised per City staff comments included in staff report prior to City Council review of the rezoning request.) 4. The building elevations and signage shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans , dated .(Architectural elevations shall be modified to list every material to be used on each side of each of the building and architectural design and signage guidelines shall be modif�ied per City staff's request prior to City Council review of the rezoning request.) 5. Phasing Plan shall be modified to show demolition of the entire 50 feet on the front of the building to be completed �r D�'LA within one year of the openin� of the Cub Foods store and the plans and shall be redone to show modification of parking areas and installation of landscaping, signage and pedestrian connections. 6. The �� applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for each phase prior to construction, including but not limited to building, land alteration, sign permits. 7. The proposed project and phasing shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 8. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. Any dead trees on the site will need to be replaced annually. 13 .,n �.,,-i,;r,. +i„-,,,,,.i,,,,,+ ,ao. oi„�,,.or+ � ,-+„ ; „�., i.,,;i,a;r,. � ,,.;+ 11. ��-e�� ^� r°��r�' �* *�m° Applicant of building permit applications, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. The subject property shall not be allowed to have telecommunication facilities or billboards constructed on it. 13. Existing light poles and fixtures on the south side of the subject property shall be removed during Phase 1 of the proposed project or by June 15, 2010, whichever comes first. 14. Truck route serving all buildings proposed for site shall follow a one-way counter clock- wise loop entering from west entrance of site and exiting the east entrance of site; revised site plan reflecting such change to be submitted for staff approval prior to second reading of ordinance. No truck loading will be allowed on 57t'' Avenue. 15. All lighting shall be no more than 3-foot candles at the property line. 16. Site Plan must be redrawn to ��e�-e� relocate outdoor sale areas �r�' *� m��,° *'��* ° �„+�'��r ��'° �r°� to a location off of an access drive aisle. Fence design around the outdoor sales area shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 2A. If the loss of parking or snow storage space resulting from use of the outdoor sale area creates a parking shortage, the outdoor sale areas use must remain solely for parking. 17. Pedestrian crosswalks shall be clearly delineated with colored striping or colored pavement to accommodate safe pedestrian movement between the retail buildings. 18. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Anoka County Highway Department. 19. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 20. No firework displays shall occur within the outdoor sales areas. 21. No fertilizer shall be stored outside. 22. Access to Holiday Station store and CVS Pharmacy shall be maintained during construction. 23. Bike racks shall be provided on site per code requirements. 24. Design detail shall be provided for the main sidewalk running north and south in the parking lot. 25. Specific areas shall be designated for snow storage and a plan shall be submitted showing those areas, prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 1. 26. ., �^'��e����=-�tg�e�i �-��The petitioner shall submit a comprehensive si�n plan to be attached to the General Plan for Development. �+., �� �,-;,,,- +„ r;+� r,,,,r,.; i,- „�+i, o,- o�+ 28. Applicant will have to provide a specific stormwater conveyance and treatment system plan for approval by Engineering for each development phase prior to construction commencement. An approved plan may include facilities that have not been shown on plans to date. 29. Applicant will have to provide a specific temporary and permanent erosion control plan for approval by Engineering for each development phase prior to construction commencement. An approved plan may include facilities that have not been shown on plans to date. 14 30. Access easements for the stormwater collection system, stormwater treatment facilities, and sanitary sewer and water systems will be provided to the City of Fridley as approved by Engineering prior to construction commencement. 31. Maintenance agreements for the stormwater collection system, stormwater treatment facilities, and sanitary sewer and water systems will be provided to the City of Fridley as approved by Engineering prior to construction commencement. 32. As part of a maintenance agreement for the stormwater collection system, a permanent SWPPP will be submitted for the site and approved by Engineering to include consideration for treatment facility maintenance, minimization of contaminated runoff from garden center areas, truck dock areas, snow storage areas, etc. This will be provided prior to construction commencement. 33. Applicant will have to provide a specific utility plan for approval by Engineering for each phase prior to construction commencement. An approved plan may include facilities that have not been shown on plans to date. Note that inclusion of restaurants, cafes, or dining areas of all types will require external grease traps approved by Engineering on respective sanitary sewer discharge lines. Ms. Stromberg stated regarding the change in Stipulation No. 6, using the word "applicant" instead of "petitioner," Tri-Land is the petitioner but they might not be applying for the permit for Cub Foods, or other proposed buildings on the site. Commissioner Oquist asked whether No. 6 applies to all different phases, too? As people want to open a shop of some sort, they apply for the permit? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, permits are required for each phase and Tri-Land would need to sign off on the permit application. Ms. Stromberg stated they are removing Stipulation No. 10 completely as the petitioner has articulated to staff that the cross-parking agreements are highlighted in their lease agreement. So, there is no need for them to file an actual easement. Staff will be getting a copy of that lease agreement from the petitioner for the City's files. Ms. Stromberg stated, regarding Stipulations No. 16, staff has agreed to allow 2 outdoor sales areas on site, so long as they are moved in from the main drive aisle into the site, which the petitioner has agreed to. Ms. Stromberg stated, regarding Stipulation No. 26, they are removing it because since the report was written, the petitioner has submitted a new site plan showing a new location for one of their free-standing signs that was too close to the CVS sign. As a result, staff is changing the stipulation to simply require that they submit a comprehensive sign plan, which is typical of all multi-tenant complexes in Fridley, which will become part of the General Plan for Development. Ms. Stromberg state, regarding Stipulation No.27, staff is recommending it be removed, because the new site plan submitted shows location of the cart corrals. Mr. Hickok referred back to Stipulation No. 2, talking about the three years of inactivity. The developer was concerned, and the Commission may be concerned, that from the start of their construction the site be done within three years. In the PUD ordinance says that if there is inactivity for 36 months, the PUD dies, and would come back for reconsideration. So, as long as there is sometime of work being done on the site, without a period of inactivity for 36 months, the current plan would be in place. 15 Mr. Kondrick stated sometimes parking can be an issue on this site. Are they going to be able to find places to park, not only at Cub, but at the other dining or shopping possibilities? Also, could there be any provisions made to gain access to the building from the south to shop at Cub? Mr. Hickok replied this plan actually increases the number of stalls that are on the site from the existing site plan. Cub Foods and the developer would prefer they go to an 18-foot deep stall rather than a 20-foot deep stall, which would allow them to gain more parking stalls. Also, if they were able to do a 24-foot wide drive aisle rather than a 25-foot drive aisle, in some places they may be able to keep more. Retailers like Cub Foods are very interested in having a good parking ratio. Four stalls typically per thousand is what they would like to maintain. Depending on the size of the stall, they come very close to the desired 1 to 250 if they are able to have that shorter stall. That is something the Planning Commission will have to decide. Mr. Hickok stated also, there had been parking in the back of the building and the City had them take it out and make it green because without the door on the back of the building, it will not get used. Unless the petitioner added doors on the back on the building, parking does not happen. Folks do not walk around to the back of the building. Also, from what they understand, retailers do not want them there for security purposes. Commissioner Oquist asked regarding the moving of the Cub store, taking the 50 feet off the front of the building, will the exiting building still having the 50-foot extension, is that still going to be there during that one year period? Will that look decent? Mr. Hickok replied the phasing like this is a challenge, and it is interesting how the petitioner thought through that and the logistics on it. Staff has have that very same question for them, and they have assured staff that, as you stand at the front door of the new Cub Foods store and look west, you are going to see a finished, albeit temporary, surface that encloses that 50 feet and then it will be enclosed across the front. There is a sprinkler systems and heat inside, so they need to make sure those items will continue to function. It will be finished in a way that allows them to protect the interior of their store, while they are decommissioning the store for new tenant spaces. Then when they get to Phase 3A, then that 50 ft. comes off, the walkway continues across the front, and becomes more of a finished look. Commissioner Oquist asked what happens to the Fridley Liquor Store during that first phase? Mr. Hickok replied, this is another part of the logistics that they really need to program. Access will still need to be gained to the Liquor Store while they are constructing the new addition to the building which will become the Liquor Store space. Once the addition is complete, the Liquor Store will move into their new space and then Cub Foods will start demolishing and construction of their new space. Commissioner Oquist stated they rebuild Fridley Liquor Store first and then make room. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, they will build the addition to the existing building first for Fridley Liquors. Commissioner Dunham stated there are going to be more parking spaces now in the new proposed plan; but the square footage of the buildable spaces is bigger, too, is it not? Mr. Hickok replied, the square footage of the building will basically be the same as it is today. A addition is being constructed but 50 ft. of the front wall is coming off, which basically amount to the same about of square footage being added that is coming off. However, the field of parking increases and it is commensurate with the additional square foot dimensions. Cub Foods is one retailer which has a standard 16 requiring a certain amount of that parking for their facility and that is an improvement relative to their 65,000 square foot store. Commissioner Dunham stated it seems like they are basing this all on Cub Foods which is a major tenant, but it is only half of the main building? Mr. Hickok replied, it is half of the main building. Each of those tenants will be roughly 65,000 square feet in that larger building. Then the rest of course will be smaller retailers on the outside. Commissioner Dunham stated what he is wondering is a lot of the thought process of what the parking should be is based on Cub's analysis of what Cub needs and, if he is seeing it right, Cub takes up significantly half of the development. You do not know what the rest of the tenants might need. What about their standards? Mr. Hickok replied, the petitioner has been extremely careful because selling the rest of the space depends on having enough parking stalls. When they do not know who they are selling/leasing space to, they know that selling that deal to banks, etc. requires they have parking that matches their needs. The petitioner has thought through that, they know what the relationship of parking space to retail space is. Commissioner Sielaff asked why are their buildings identified as Anchor B and C? Mr. Hickok replied, they needed to differentiate tenant spaces, they do not know who those tenants will be right now, so that is the way the petitioner chose to differentiate them. Commissioner Sielaff said, but it is still retail. Mr. Hickok replied, right. Commissioner Sibel asked, do we have any encouragement from this use as far as building materials, using green, or encouraging recycling? Mr. Hickok replied, we do not require anything in the ordinance; and there would not be anything in the PUD that would cause us to exert some sort of mandate to do it. But we wouldn't discourage it. Chairperson Kondrick asked if they have any flexibility as to the types of materials they use on the front of the buildings? Such as using brick, etc. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, we do. Those types of materials are actually highlighted in the architectural guidelines in the Commission's packets. The types of materials used is also shown on the building elevations. It was very important to staff that there is a list provided that requires types of materials to be used on the buildings. Also, they wanted to make sure that each building was constructed as a four-sided building and each side of the building looks nice. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether staff has discussed that with the petitioner, and they are in agreement with that? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Commissioner Velin stated his understanding is that Cub will be adjacent to the liquor store. Is that going to be like a mall type where you are going to be able to walk inside or will you have to go outside to go from Cub to the liquor store or vice versa? 17 Mr. Hickok replied, it will be an external entrance into each of the shops. Commissioner Dunham asked Mr. Hickok, then are all those parking spots going to go to 9 ft wide? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, their plan has them all at 9 feet. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether anybody had any problems with that? Commissioner Dunham asked, what is Target? Mr. Hickok replied, 10 feet. Chairperson Kondrick commented, cars are just getting smaller and that is the wave of the future. He does not have a problem with 9-foot stalls. Commissioner Velin commented, pick-up trucks are not small. Chairperson Kondrick stated, pick-up trucks are not, he had not thought about that. Mr. Hickok stated if they choose to make part of their recommendation that the 18-foot stall depth is okay, then certainly that is something the petitioner is looking for. Commissioner Sibel stated and they would be going from a 25 to 24-foot aisle. It is the aisles she has a concern with. Tim Keane, local development counsel with Tri-Land, stated the thoroughness of the staff report reflects the extent of the working relationship they have had with City staff over the last many months. The thorough conditions are also reflected to the extent of conversations and discussions they have had. They respectfully request approval as recommended by City staff with the conditions and stipulations as noted. Hugh Robinson, executive vice-president of Tri-Land Properties, stated they have owned the Cub shopping center since 2006. They bought it with the idea they would redevelop it quite frankly much along the lines they are showing right now. They have been in business for 32 years. All they really do is buy existing shopping centers. They are currently in 7 states, they have 16 properties (about 2.6 million square feet of shopping centers). Over their 32-year history, they have done redevelopment of approximately 8 million square feet. Their background has been in food-drug. They tend to focus on locations they feel have supermarket potential. Mr. Robinson stated they own three shopping centers in the Minneapolis market, one of which was a sister property to the Fridley Center, the Cub Foods in Burnsville. They anticipate doing a similar type of redevelopment of that property in the future. Fridley has taken a priority with Cub to try and get it redeveloped and so they really focused on this one to begin with. They finally have an agreement of principal with Cub to do the plan reflected in the staff report, and the next step is to put the zoning in place to complete an agreement with Fridley Liquors. He is working with Rick Pribyl now to try and negotiate a deal to arrange for their relocation. There are a lot of things that have to come together, but this is just a part of the process. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Robinson he does not mean to insult him but things have happened in the past couple of years whereby plans are made and money is not there. There are good intentions, but : things do not happen which are not even anyone's fault. He asked Mr. Robinson whether he feels confident that their plans will come to fruition and that the dollars are there? Mr. Robinson replied, that is a fair question. Two years ago he would have said without a doubt that money is not the issue. Today money clearly is the issue. When you walk in with a new long-term lease with Cub Foods, guaranteed by Super Valu, that has a lot of interest to a lot of lending institutions to provide the debt capital needed to redevelop the shopping center. That does not mean that they will not need to develop additional sources of equity. A question was asked earlier by one of the commission members in terms of how big is this shopping center going to be. The first phase, forgetting about Phase 4 which is the land in the back of the shopping center, when they redevelop the shopping center it is going to be exactly the same size as the current shopping center. It is going to be about 165,000 square feet. You will have a 65,000 square foot Cub, a 65,000 foot anchor, the liquor store, and the two outlets. That is going to total about the same square footage as exists on the site today. It will be totally reconfigured have a lot more leasable. You have the small-shop retail rather than just having a big gigantic box. They certainly hope the market will turn around in the next couple of years which will create some retail activity; but they have a real good start by having the Cub and the Fridley Liquor Store as well. They have a bank loan on it right now. Whether or not that bank will be interested once they put this whole package together, he is skeptical; but they have to start somewhere. There are a variety of different avenues. Right now they have a single asset LLC that owns the shopping center. They have he thinks maybe $4-5 million worth of equity. They probably have 80 or 90 investors that are in the equity component. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they do development or management? Mr. Robinson replied, they do everything. They have the design team putting together the whole package, and they will have construction people to actually execute the actual construction of the project. They have their own in-house leasing people and their own management people. They manage and lease every property that they own. Commissioner Sielaff asked how long normally do they own these properties? Mr. Robinson replied, it varies. They own one center in Chicago they have had an interest in since 1981. That is probably the exception more than the rule. The shortest one they owned was in Roseville, Minnesota, in 1989. They owned it for four months which is also the extreme. Most of their properties they generally buy them with the idea they will own them for 10 years. Commissioner Sielaff asked how far along are they with the other Minnesota properties in Blaine and Burnsville? Mr. Robinson replied, they are kind of stuck regarding the Blaine one. They do not have a good business plan they have been able to implement at that particular property. He is not nearly as far along on that one as he is on Fridley. Regarding the Burnsville property, that is probably going to happen in the following year once they get Fridley done. And it is a matter of capital asset budgeting as far as Super Valu is concerned. They have so many dollars they can spend. His understanding is this is probably the only new deal that Cub is doing in the Twin Cities right now. Commissioner Sielaff stated so they are further ahead on this project than the other two. Mr. Robinson replied, yes, much further ahead. They actually have a 14-15 page letter of intent that has been negotiated down to the very fine details on the deal with Cub. 19 Glenn Johnson, director of design architecture and engineering for Tri-Land Properties, stated when they go into these projects they really look at them to put them in a condition that they would want to own them. Oftentimes they find people in the industry that are building things and buying them to flip them the next year. They always approach these projects as if they are going to have to take care of them. They have every facet of the real estate business in-house. Their approach is always doing something of the right quality. Chairperson Kondrick asked about the stipulations and the changes/omissions. He asked Mr. Johnson if he has had a chance to look at those? Mr. Johnson replied, he has. Chairperson Kondrick asked if he concurs with them and understands them? Mr. Johnson replied, he does, and they have been working with staff over the last several months. They have had several meetings with the entire Planning staff, the Fire Marshall, engineering, down to their housing authority people; and they have all had a different thought about what needs to happen here. They have brought across to them that some of the things they see in the Comprehensive Plan for a transit- oriented overlay district and how this site is important to those elements as to what the City is trying to create down there. The site has a lot of potential, has a lot of interesting challenges to it; such as, high visibility and how you make it and work with that, and all the routes nearby. Mr. Johnson stated they received the stipulations last week and had a conversation with staff on every one of them. He thinks they were comfortable with the requirements that are being placed upon them. There are still some things they have to work through, details they have to bring across, some elements they have thought through and explained; but they want to show in proof form. For example, how phasing will work. There are things they see as part of the process of understanding how this will work and integrate. Commissioner Dunham stated he likes what they are doing and that corner needs it. He asked, however, if they have the 9-foot stalls on their other sites and do they seem to be okay? Also, what about the count of stalls and the ratios? Mr. Johnson replied, they spent a lot of time on parking because, again in a retail shopping environment, you get all different impressions about how parking should be. Parking to him is one of the most important things. It has to be the right parking spaces in the right spots, the right number of them, so the shopping center is successful. Absent those things you could be setting up failure. Staff has explained to them how parking has typically been handled in the community. In direct response the parking spaces they are proposing here are characteristic of what they do everywhere in the country. In some cases some communities tell them they want smaller parking spaces. In terms of responding to questions staff had proposed to them, they have consulted with their traffic engineers, Westwood, and also an international transportation firm, Metro Transportation, with whom they often work and consult. Metro has offered the letter indicating in terms of analysis they went to several different sources to review, for example, Urban Land Institute, how do they see parking and it is based on a number of characteristics. You do not necessarily find there is any body of evidence that says every parking space should be 15 feet or that it should be 20 feet. What you find is that it is an engineering solution because in some cases parking spaces may be shorter and the aisles wider. Mr. Johnson stated they find that 9-foot by 18-foot stalls are very common. In Overland Park, Kansas, they just finished a plan that is under construction now where they wanted the spaces to be smaller because they recognize that vehicles are typically getting smaller. In fact in a parking space where you 20 would have an overhang with a curb, they would want to do a 17.5 or 16.5-foot space. Really what they are doing is reducing the paved area. They find that allows them to take that paved area and put it into something else. For example, on Retail buildings A and B, in those parking spaces across the front of the building, if they were to have shorter spaces, what they would do is make a larger sidewalk area. They have sidewalk landscape beds built into the area in front of the entrances to those stores. Those beds would get larger. One of the things they have been doing in discussions with staff is really considering how they can balance the request of staff with making the plan work. They spent a lot of time with Cub talking about how this thing can come about. This is a very important market to them. Parking is important. Finding a space that is approximate to the front and you do not have to walk a mile, all those things are significant. What they have worked with Cub is they would prefer larger spaces. They would probably prefer a little bit higher parking ratio. However, what they have done in this site they have worked it so they recognize that the parking that is in front of their store is just part of the parking that really serves these two anchors. Satisfying the needs of the tenant to them is first. Mr. Johnson stated they have looked at a couple of alternatives as staff has brought to their attention the importance of having a 25-foot aisle. What they have looked at is trying to find a way that they could incorporate staff needs and not give up parking. They did examine if you had 10-foot by 20-foot parking stalls and really this project does not move forward. That is a very significant event. They are trying to find a way to satisfy all of these things at one time. What they found is staff is interested in having 25- foot aisles throughout the site in the parking aisles as well as the major aisles around the property. What they have done is have larger parking drive aisles coming in on the major entrance. Across the middle entrance they have aligned it with the main drive aisle and made it much wider than the 25-feet. They feel that is important as people are coming into the site, that is a major access point. However, they found if they borrowed a foot from each of these drive aisles, more or less, they can increase the drive aisle between those parking trees to 25 feet; and they do not lose any parking. That to him is an important reallocation. If people feel they want a larger drive aisle, he thinks that can be accommodated. Commissioner Velin asked when are they going to start? Mr. Johnson stated a significant event is completing the deal with Cub and the deal with Fridley Liquors. A project like this it is very important that when you start moving it keeps moving. Starting with the Fridley Liquors relocation, they would like to start with this spring's construction season. They are working with some contractors in town. The architect of record on this project, Architectural Consortium, does a lot of retail work and she has brought a tremendous boom to this team by helping to bring a local focus as well as a great deal of experience in shopping centers. MFRA has engineered this site to the level necessary for the PUD and then some. They will be meeting with Fridley's engineer shortly to go through that and make sure they are on the right track as to how this is going to work. It is necessary because as a phase project you have to think about how each phase works. Mr. Johnson stated Fridley Liquors will continue to function while they are building. They have an entrance on the side and into the mall but in building this building there will be some interruptions but constructing the building on the east side will probably take the better part of the first year. When the building is finished, Fridley Liquors will close one night and the next morning they will open a new store or something like that. Upon that Cub will be able to relocate their interior demising wall, build a new interior wall, and then start building under roof already, inside a box already existing. Mr. Johnson stated the two dock areas are screened with walls. In fact the dock across the top of Cub is under roof, completely behind a wall, the trucks pull into the building so it is an important view from University and the Interstate. What they will see is doors and the loading area for the Liquor stores and the adjacent shops, the truck is largely concealed inside an open-ended building but it has a roof and walls on it. That is the first thing people see when they are coming down that ramp. 21 Mr. Johnson stated you will also have storefront that faces out to University with signage which is a very nice effect. While they are working on the Cub building, at some point, they will want to tear off the north end of the building about where the cut line will be, and they will construct their new front wall and the site work that is brought in to create a new cruise lane on the front of the building. They will need to talk to Cub about the pedestrian connection, but it looks like to him they can make it so it is available sooner than this building. He thinks they will be able to establish the pedestrian connection very close to the time that Cub would open. They will want to continue to have convenient parking for them while they are operating in the old store. Chairperson Kondrick asked what is going to happen with the McDonald's drive-thru restaurant? Mr. Johnson replied, while they would like to continue to have the income, there will come a point where it just does not work with what Cub wants to do in their continuing operation for their new store and it will go away. They have had discussions with McDonald's about finding another location in the shopping center, and they are still working with them on that. Commissioner Sielaff asked about the timing, as the developers they need to complete a certain phase. What happens if there is inactivity within a phase? Mr. Hickok replied, he would suspect with the multitude of things happening on this site, it would be rare to find that 36-month segment where there is no activity at all. There will be decommissioning of stores, working on a new Retail A. That stipulation is in there and he thinks that evident that you do not want to approve a planning unit development and not have it go anywhere. They would at a minimum request an extension to that segment of the Code. Commissioner Sielaff stated he guessed his concern would be that he would not know when inactivity would start or end and if occurs somewhere within a phase or between a phase. How many inactivity periods are we talking about? Could this be drawn out for years and years? Mr. Hickok stated it does highlight something that is not only difficult with the way it is worded but also that section of the Building Code that talks about 120 days of inactivity. This seeks to avoid that situation where there is nothing, the planning and development is approved, and there is just nothing happening. Whether there is, for example, an interior kitchen detail for Retail A, during that 36-month period they could probably talk to the building inspection department but at no point could there be a dry spe1L If they get themselves into that situation where there is 30 months of inactivity and there is something around the corner, they need to communicate that to Council and it will be their discretion at that point if they want to bring them back at 36 months or grant an extension. Commissioner Oquist asked whether this PUD encompass all of this building activity? Let's say at some point they decide for one reason or another, they do not want to do the south property? Then what happens? Mr. Hickok replied, the planning and development is what they are seeing here. Once it is approved it is this series of building and the phasing and development plan that would be approved by CounciL If they want to modify that there is, just like in our S-2, the closest type of zoning, they would come back for a master plan amendment. It is almost an identical process. If they decide they are doing something different back there, they would amend that through a formal process. Commissioner Oquist asked, would that need to be within that three-year period? 22 Mr. Hickok replied, yes. It is conceivable, say they get through Phase 3A-3B, and they are moving onto Phase 4 which slows them down a bit and they are approaching that three-year period, he is guessing they will communicate to the City before they get to the three years. If at some point they say they are looking at some other development alternatives, we will need to start talking about that amendment process. Commissioner Oquist asked Mr. Johnson regarding the building where Cub is now, say they are not able to find somebody to take over that 65,000 square feet, and they will have to divide that space, is that allowed within this PUD? Mr. Johnson replied, regarding the 65,000 square feet, they contemplated it could potentially be two tenants. It is a large space and they are limited. Mr. Hickok stated it would be allowed without modifying the footprint. Commissioner Dunham asked Mr. Johnson what kinds of tenants do they visualize in Anchors B and C? Retail A and B? Mr. Johnson replied, Retail A and B he would see small convenience type tenants. What they have done there is kind of create a more communal parking lot. They really share the back side of the parking. Maybe somebody who would have outdoor seating. Commissioner Oquist asked whether this has to be all retail? What if somebody wanted to put in a cabinet shop back on Anchor C? Mr. Hickok replied, as long as it is permitted in this commercial district, this is considered a Commercial PUD and the spectrum of commercial uses that you would find in a G1, G2, or G3 is what we would expect that spectrum to include. He is guessing that the square foot price typically would prohibit something like a cabinet shop. Mr. Johnson stated Retail B is very similar. It could be broken up into smaller tenants. Anchor C is actually a footprint for an anchor which they think would be a very good candidate for this time of location, high visibility from the interstate, some tenants that size really look for that. Commissioner Sielaff asked what is an example of a tenant? Mr. Johnson replied, it might be an office supply store. That is a familiar footprint right there. And Anchor B is a space that they are shaping up, it is a vestibule for what has to happen there; but it has all the other issues solved. It might be a retailer that likes the proximity of being on that site. It has servicing, parking, it has all of those components. While they show it as one anchor, it could end up being two anchors, depending on the footprint. Commissioner Oquist asked could it be a restaurant? Mr. Johnson stated they saw that area as being a location, aside from some 30,000 square feet that would be in that Phase 4 area, they did see that potentially the same visibility from the interstate would be desirable that is more of a destination. Potentially a free-standing restaurant. Mr. Johnson stated regarding other concerns of the Commission, cars are getting smaller, they see it that way as well, and they have worked with staff to protect that parking for Cub and the future Anchor A use. As to how it would look in the interim, this is a common condition on the shopping centers they redevelop, and they are concerned about how that looks, too. When you consider they want the space to 23 be attractive and draw attention so people, so they would like to put their store there. It is an all-weather wall on the north side of the building, providing the flexibility for how the fa�ade might be configured differently and some sort of graphic treatments helping people appreciate how it might look. A number of things they have discussed. They have had some conversations with staff about this, too. For them it is an operating shopping center so they want it to look good also. Mr. Johnson stated regarding green efforts, they look at this as one of the greenest things you can do. Take an existing building and recycle it. They keep as much as they possibly can. Some projects they do institute recycling measures. They can talk to staff about how those have worked out, but it is surprising how you can put a little pressure on a contractor to recycle wood, metal, etc. and it can make a difference. They find oftentimes in the building industry especially there are a lot of ways, but there is also a lot of recycling. Terry Rath, general manager of the Holiday station, stated he has a couple of concerns. Regarding the entrance next to Retail B, coming into their parking lot. He asked if that is going to be widened out or anything because they get a lot of truck traffic in there during the day. Also, the street itself, by putting up Retail A and Retail B it is hard to see because of the direction of the hill that comes up there compared to where it is flat between Retail A and Retail B. He is afraid there might be a lot of possible accidents occurring there because you cannot see around that corner. They have a lot of trucks coming in and going out. In the wintertime it is very hard to get up that hill. Mr. Hickok replied the County is still reviewing this. This segment of 57t'' is a county road. Back in 1998 when the reconstruction of this segment of the road occurred they were quite involved with the access, not only locations but dimensions of the driveways. If a widening were to occur, not that it is out of the question, staff will have that discussion with them. Frankly he does think it is a standard dimension. As Mr. Rath said there are some grade issues in there, but it is a standard width dimension and it is a shared access point. When they platted this originally, Holiday owned the large site and the smaller site and they were okay with the shared access and the dimension of that access way at that point. Staff has talked to the petitioners about what they call the "view triangle." The petitioners have been careful to pull back the visibility around that corner as it is essential to safely pull out there. Even on the illustration the landscape has been pulled back, there is not anything on the corner, and there is no monument sign on that corner. You are dealing with a bit of a grade there, and you want to keep it open so you can see what is coming from that direction and they try to do that in their landscape plan. Staff has not heard back the final, official word from the County on 57t''. There is not a lot of room there if they were to widen it out. Chairperson Kondrick stated that is not up to the discretion of the petitioner? Mr. Hickok replied, it really is not. He would like to say that they have more latitude in that also, but it is a County road and they were very specific on the design. They have an access restriction all along Main Street. It was a lot of work to figure out 57t''. We used to have many driveways in that short segment at one time which was very dangerous. Now they are very pleased it is lined up with three access points, and he thinks the County will be reluctant to make modifications there frankly. MOTION by Commissioner Dunham to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:16 P.M. 24 Commissioner Oquist stated it looks to him that is very well thought out. Both parties have really worked together to get this thing going. We need to clean that corner up. It looks to him that if it goes through it will be a nice project. Commissioner Dunham commented we are fortunate to have them investing there. Chairperson Kondrick stated he agreed. Commissioner Velin stated he thinks it will be a great improvement over what we have now. Mr. Keane stated except for the presentation today they have not seen the modifications to the stipulations. He asked if they could look at Stipulation No. 10? Ms. Stromberg stated the City is just looking for a copy of the lease agreement they discussed yesterday. Mr. Hickok stated it does not even need to be the executed agreement but the language so staff can put it in a file and describe how it works for cross parking. Mr. Keane asked regarding Stipulation No. 3, "Site plan shall be revised per City staff comments included in staff report prior to City Council review of the rezoning request." He asked whether they are moving forward with the site plan that is in front of the Planning Commission this evening? Mr. Hickok replied the one thing that he would like to point out regarding the colored site plan is that the site plan cannot include a reference to "outlot" nor can it be defined by property lines. But for that the site plan is correct. It has had the word "outlot" removed but it does show the equivalent of property lines around the outlot area south of the building, and we do not want that. We want to be clear there is no separation of land here. There is no plat through the PUD process that is being defined. Mr. Keane replied, that is clearly understood by the applicant. Mr. Keane asked regarding the dimensions of the parking stalls and the drive aisles are what will be recommended for approval and are moving forward? Mr. Hickok stated if the Planning Commission approves the site plan, that would be a 9-foot by 18-foot stall. Chairperson Kondrick stated he agrees with that. Does anybody have a problem with that? He thinks it is necessary and it is "today." Commissioner Oquist replied, he has no problem. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Rezoning ZOA #10-01, by Tri-Land Properties, Inc., to rezone from G3, General Shopping to PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning, for the redevelopment of the site, legally described as Holiday North Second Addition, generally located at 244, 246, 248, and 250 — 57th Avenue NE with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance to the General Plan for Development Agreement, which will include the architectural plans dated and the Architectural Design and Signage Guidelines dated .(This agreement shall be prepared by the petitioner and approved by staff prior to City Council review of the rezoning request.) 25 2. The General Plan for Development Agreement must include a three-year time limit to construction inactivity between phases until full build out of the site is complete as proposed. 3. The property shall be developed in accordance with the site plan SP.1 dated , which will incorporate the stipulations included herein and approved by staf£ (Site plan shall be revised per City staff comments included in staff report prior to City Council review of the rezoning request.) 4. The building elevations and signage shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans , dated .(Architectural elevations shall be modified to list every material to be used on each side of each of the building and architectural design and signage guidelines shall be modif�ied per City staff's request prior to City Council review of the rezoning request.) 5. Phasing Plan shall be modified to show demolition of the entire 50 feet on the front of the building to be completed within one year of the opening of the Cub Foods store and the plans shall also be redone to show modification of parking areas and installation of landscaping, signage and pedestrian connections. 6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for each phase prior to construction, including but not limited to building, land alteration, sign permits. 7. The proposed project and phasing shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 8. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. Any dead trees on the site will need to be replaced annually. 10. Applicant of building permit applications, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The subject property shall not be allowed to have telecommunication facilities or billboards constructed on it. 12. Existing light poles and fixtures on the south side of the subject property shall be removed during Phase 1 of the proposed project or by June 15, 2010, whichever comes first. 13. Truck route serving all buildings proposed for site shall follow a one-way counter clock- wise loop entering from west entrance of site and exiting the east entrance of site; revised site plan reflecting such change to be submitted for staff approval prior to second reading of ordinance. No truck loading will be allowed on 57t'' Avenue. 14. All lighting shall be no more than 3-foot candles at the property line. 15. Site Plan must be redrawn to relocate outdoor sale areas to a location off of an access drive aisle. Fence design around the outdoor sales area shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 2A. If the loss of parking or snow storage space resulting from use of the outdoor sale area creates a parking shortage, the outdoor sale areas use must remain solely for parking. 16. Pedestrian crosswalks shall be clearly delineated with colored striping or colored pavement to accommodate safe pedestrian movement between the retail buildings. 17. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Anoka County Highway Department. 18. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 19. No firework displays shall occur within the outdoor sales areas. 20. No fertilizer shall be stored outside. 26 21. Access to Holiday Station store and CVS Pharmacy shall be maintained during construction. 22. Bike racks shall be provided on site per code requirements. 23. Design detail shall be provided for the main sidewalk running north and south in the parking lot. 24. Specific areas shall be designated for snow storage and a plan shall be submitted showing those areas, prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 1. 25. Petitioner shall submit a comprehensive sign plan to be attached to the General Plan for Development. 26. Applicant will have to provide a specific stormwater conveyance and treatment system plan for approval by Engineering for each development phase prior to construction commencement. An approved plan may include facilities that have not been shown on plans to date. 27. Applicant will have to provide a specific temporary and permanent erosion control plan for approval by Engineering for each development phase prior to construction commencement. An approved plan may include facilities that have not been shown on plans to date. 28. Access easements for the stormwater collection system, stormwater treatment facilities, and sanitary sewer and water systems will be provided to the City of Fridley as approved by Engineering prior to construction commencement. 29. Maintenance agreements for the stormwater collection system, stormwater treatment facilities, and sanitary sewer and water systems will be provided to the City of Fridley as approved by Engineering prior to construction commencement. 30. As part of a maintenance agreement for the stormwater collection system, a permanent SWPPP will be submitted for the site and approved by Engineering to include consideration for treatment facility maintenance, minimization of contaminated runoff from garden center areas, truck dock areas, snow storage areas, etc. This will be provided prior to construction commencement. 31. Applicant will have to provide a specific utility plan for approval by Engineering for each phase prior to construction commencement. An approved plan may include facilities that have not been shown on plans to date. Note that inclusion of restaurants, cafes, or dining areas of all types will require external grease traps approved by Engineering on respective sanitary sewer discharge lines. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the Minutes of the December 8, 2009, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Receive the Minutes of the December 3, 2009, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sibel. 27 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the Minutes of the October 5, 2009, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sibel to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Velin adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary :