Loading...
06/27/2005 - 00026861CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY J U N E 27, 2005 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Billings Councilmember Wolfe Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: • Approval of Minutes — City Council Meeting of June 13, 2005 APPROVED NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 15, 2005. RECEIVED. 2. Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Design Contract with SEH, Inc., for the 2005 Neighborhood Street Improvement Project No. ST 2005-1. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the list of additional services includes the revision of electronic right-of-way files, assistance with right-of-way acquisition documents and revision of contract documents to satisfy the Rice Creek Watershed District. Staff recommends Council's approval. APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 2 of 31 3. Claims (122041 — 122233). APPROVED. 4. Licenses. APPROVED. 5. Estimates. APPROVED. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt the consent agenda as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt the agenda as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of items not on agenda — 15 minutes. Bob Chapert, owner of Main Event, presented a petition to amend the liquor ordinance to allow Texas Hold'em tournaments or contests based on the bill recently approved by the State of Minnesota. He explained that not only does the Main Event support this request, but Joe DiMaggio's and the American Legion do as well. The petition also requested Council to review the liquor ordinance stating that no sale of alcoholic beverages may be made on Christmas Day, December 25. They are asking that the ordinance be amended to a 24-hour period from December 24 at 6:00 p.m. to December 25. They have a lot of patrons requesting they be open to serve food. Mayor Lund stated Council would take this matter under advisement. MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive the petition, dated June 27, 2005. Councilmember Billings asked what cities around Fridley currently allow such tournaments. Mr. Chapert stated Mounds View, St. Louis Park, Blaine, Coon Rapids, and Anoka. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 3 of 31 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Peter Borman, 120 River Edge Way and President of the 49'er Days Festival, thanked the City, City staff inembers, and Police and Fire employees for their help in making this year's festival a success. Gerald Mackelberg, 425 Rice Creek Boulevard, stated he lives in the area immediately south of Columbia lce Arena and the residents in that area are concerned about the potential sale of the arena. It would be much better for the City to purchase that property and thereby have control over how it will be developed. He asked that the City ensure that in the future, it does a better job of keeping the residents informed about what transpires on this property. He suggested this would be a good location for a new public safety building for the City of Fridley. Councilmember Billings pointed out that the recent City newsletter contained a large article about the status of Columbia Arena with questions and answers from the Minnesota Sports Commission. He added that the City of Fridley does not control that site. Also, the Minnesota Sports Commission held an informational meeting with the users of that arena and the surrounding neighborhood. Mayor Lund said he understood Mr. Mackelberg's concerns. OLD BUSINESS: 6. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03, by Timothy VanAuken, to Subdivide Two Multi-Family Lots, Generally Located at 1475 and 1485 73rd Avenue NE (Ward 2) (Tabled June 13, 2005). Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, explained that the property involved fronts on 73rd Avenue and currently has two single family homes. The homes have recently been resided and re-roofed. There was some question regarding whether permits had been obtained for those improvements, so Mr. Hickok reviewed the history of building permits issued for this property. To the north is a short dead-end street in front of a home at 1479 73 '/ Avenue. Some of the issues that came up at the last meeting had to do with the most appropriate access to this site. Staff reviewed the access options and determined that a cul-de-sac that would only involve the lots being subdivided would be the best solution. There were concerns expressed about a standard size cul-de-sac which would affect an existing fire hydrant and mature trees. As a result, the proposed standard size cul-de-sac has a design that will be able to be plowed by Public Works and to allow access for emergency vehicles but will only take its radius from the south side of what would be the right-of-way of 73'/ Avenue. Taking away enough land area from one property to allow for the cul-de-sac could be detrimental to the subdivision of that property. For that purpose, this is being proposed as an easement for roadway and utility purposes. This proposed cul-de-sac shifts the buildable area a bit south taking it back from the street. Neighbors were concerned FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 4 of 31 about the proposed units being up close right across from their property but this has the effect of moving the buildings back a bit. It also reduces the rear yard to 25 feet. In the ordinance, the R-3 code talks about a rear yard setback of'/4 of the lot depth but no less than 25 feet. By approving this plat as it is being proposed and recommended by staff, it does recognize a setback of 25 feet as opposed to 33 feet. Considering all alternatives, this proposal would be the best for allowing the lots to be properly placed. This proposal does provide for the neighbors to the north to preserve their mature trees. It allows Mary Jane Hanson to subdivide her property in the future if she chooses to do so. It also takes as little property from Ms. Hanson as possible while still giving her the ability to access the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hickok said there were a number of questions submitted via email which he responded to except for those that came in late. One of those questioned how the Council could invoke the Comprehensive Plan in one hearing and ignore it in the next, specifically the inconsistencies in zoning. He pointed out that the zoning on petitioner's property is R-3, and the property is able to be subdivided in the manner proposed. As far as the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, he stated that during the Comprehensive Plan review staff pointed out to Council some zoning inconsistencies and the Council directed staff to review such inconsistencies as projects were brought forward. The developer has submitted an application that is permissible in the existing zoning. Mr. Hickok stated another question regarded the single family attached development being proposed for this site. He explained the petitioner is proposing to construct two two-unit town home buildings for a total of four units which is a permitted use in this zoning district. In response to the question regarding the minimum lot size for each unit, Mr. Hickok explained that each of the two unit buildings is acting together as a building and together they exceed the 10,000 square foot minimum land area. Another question was how these would be separately owned parcels under the units. Staff knows from past experience that associations with less than 40 units are not successful or strong in the town home development world. Developers do not want to create small associations because associations are typically internal and it is very difficult even with 40 units to get people to serve on the association board to manage the property. With smaller unit numbers, it is not unusual to have the land underneath the buildings owned by the individuals who own the individual units. This project is not being proposed to somehow create a 5,000 square foot property that could later have two units on it. As far as the question regarding variances, he explained that by having the burden of all of the cul-de-sac on the developer's property it moves the units south and creates a situation where they have a reduced yard setback of 7 feet. In spite of that, Council does have in its authority the ability to grant variances through the platting process. Staff recommends approval of this proposal including the rear yard variance. Councilmember Barnette asked what the rear yard setback is for the homes currently on 73rd Avenue. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 5 of 31 Mr. Hickok stated as proposed the rear yard of 1475 would be 35.82 feet and the detached garage setback will be 8 feet. The rear yard setback for the home at 1485 setback is closer to 40 feet. Councilmember Billings asked if there are other 0 lot line, two-unit homes in the City. Mr. Hickok responded that there are a number of side-by-side lots throughout the City. A recently approved development on University Avenue with 6 town homes with each town home owning the footprint under their building is considered a 0 lot line development. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok to review the rear yard setback on this proposal. Mr. Hickok explained that by having the full cul-de-sac come down on the petitioner's side of the right-of-way, it shifted the buildable area south. The rear yard variance would not be necessary if the units were moved closer to the cul-de-sac but staff believed having vehicles fully parked on the driveway of the proposed units is better than having a situation where they have to rely on the right-of-way to park. Moving the units to the south also allows for a bigger front yard and a more appealing separation from the neighbors. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that this development could be accomplished with a dead end street but the cul-de-sac is a better option in staff's opinion. Mr. Hickok agreed. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, commented the ease of maintenance and ease of access are valid concerns and the cul-de-sac addresses those concerns. Mayor Lund asked about the front yard setback. Mr. Hickok explained that is one of the features that made it important for the developer to provide an easement as opposed to a right-of-way. The front property line remains in its current position and the cul-de-sac will be on the petitioner's property, and he has allowed the street and utility improvements by easement. Mayor Lund stated that another neighbor's concern regarded whether or not a building permit was issued for the garage improvement on the petitioner's property. Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, explained that staff does not list every permit in the cover sheets provided. Mr. Hickok reviewed the permits pulled for the petitioner's property including a permit for a garage addition in 1998. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 6 of 31 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. Knaak concurs with Mr. Hickok's interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Knaak stated he does concur. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, stated as it sits, the frontage of the properties is R-3. Once subdivided, the twin homes will be on R-3 but facing into an R-1 neighborhood. Currently the zoning is inconsistent and by subdividing they will be making two inconsistent properties. Councilmember Bolkcom pointed out there is an R-3 use behind this property and the petitioner's property is currently zoned R-3. Ms. Reynolds stated that the petitioner's property is adjacent to R1 uses. Sue Sherek, 1530 73 '/ Avenue, stated the apartment building is completely fenced off from the neighborhood by a six-foot high solid wood fence and does not access 73rd Avenue. The City is supposed to bring non-conforming property into conformity with the approval of the Comprehensive Plan. Waiting to treat non-conformities on a case-by- case basis is taking away the Comprehensive Plan and creating spot zoning. While she understands Mr. VanAuken's desire to develop his property, she has a question about the concept of using an easement versus right-of-way for the cul-de-sac. Placing the cul-de-sac entirely on the petitioner's property means that each of the properties are under the 10,000 square foot minimum, the setback requirements are not met, the lot area requirements are not met and Lots 2 and 3 exceed the 30% lot coverage requirement. This is a case of someone trying to put too much on too little property. In the subdivision section of the City Code, 211.04, it requires the covenants to be recorded. She does not understand how, without an association, the twin homes will be governed. Mr. Hickok explained that the neighborhood was extremely concerned about this property being developed off a dead-end street versus a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac can happen without impacting the Jackels property or the Hanson property by having the full burden of the cul-de-sac brought down to the petitioner's property. The purpose of the easement versus right-of-way allows the lots to remain. The underlying property is still owned and the calculations for lot coverage still remain intact even though the developer has dedicated an easement of a portion of the property which is formal permission for street and utility work. The developer assumes the entire burden of the cul-de-sac including the costs. It does not result in the lots being non-conforming. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the petitioner did not put the entire cul-de-sac on his property would there be sufficient existing right-of-way. Mr. Haukaas stated the north half of the existing street is on an easement, not a right-of- way. Additional easement or right-of-way would have to be obtained from the properties FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 7 of 31 to the north to construct the right-of-way if it is not placed entirely on the petitioner's property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that this is a trade-off; property could be taken from adjacent property owners, but by placing the cul-de-sac on the petitioner's property, there is less of an impact. Mr. Haukaas stated that is correct. Mr. Hickok stated that initially the petitioner will own all the units and file documents that would set a certain standard and shared responsibility on the units and properties. This proposal is purposely done in a way where each person owns and is responsible for their individual unit. Councilmember Bolkcom suggested these concerns be addressed in an additional stipulation. Mr. VanAuken stated he understands the neighbors' concerns and stated if and when these properties are sold there will be restrictions filed specifying how improvements will be handled. He further stated he plans to build only one building, living on one side and renting the other. Then, within 2 to 5 years, he would erect the second building. He plans to build something very nice for his family's financial security. Mayor Lund asked Mr. VanAuken why he did not just build single family homes. Mr. VanAuken said the cost of street improvements makes it prohibitive to build only a single family home. Councilmember Billings asked if these are the first two 0 lot line twin homes built in the Twin Cities. Mr. Hickok responded they are not. This is a very popular style home with probably thousands in the Twin Cities area. Councilmember Billings asked if there has been a lot of conversation about disputes between twin home residents as far as maintenance issues. Mr. Hickok stated he is not aware of any. Councilmember Wolfe commented that there are twin homes in Columbia Heights where such conflicts occur. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the same could be said about single family homes. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 8 of 31 John Jackels, 1479 73 '/ Avenue, stated he is still concerned about the setback and easement issues. He also believes that this proposal is putting a lot of stuff on a small space. He said he does not want to say no to development, but he wants everyone to be on the same page because otherwise they are not going to have a friendly neighborhood. He claimed he had to obtain a variance two years ago because he could not build onto the front based on the setback requirements. Mr. Hickok explained Mr. Jackels' variance was to the rear yard, not the front yard. There was not at any time, a situation where Mr. Jackels was adding on to the front of his house. He offered to take a look at Mr. Jackels' property to determine whether or not he can expand his home into the front yard. What is being proposed by the petitioner is consistent with what has been done in other areas of the City. Mayor Lund stated Council has allowed a relaxation of setbacks in the front yard to allow older homes in the City to expand. Mr. Jackels pointed out there are single family homes around the petitioner's property and this proposal would double the density and impact the neighborhood. The apartment building traffic does not utilize 73'/ Avenue and is separated completely. Councilmember Barnette asked if the installation of this cul-de-sac creates a situation for the property on the northwest corner to split for development. Mr. Hickok stated that property could subdivide, but it is zoned R-1 and would have to be single family homes. The important thing to remember for this proposal is that Mr. VanAuken's property is zoned R-3. He is not asking for a rezoning. Also, his property is roughly the size of the property to the west where a 21-unit apartment building was permissible and constructed. Mr. Haukaas explained that Mr. VanAuken has requested the City build the cul-de-sac and assess him, which the City has done and is willing to do for this petitioner. At this time, the City would leave the existing cul-de-sac alone because it is in the City's 3-year plan for reconstruction at which time it would be removed and replaced with a straight road. Another option is the City could begin the process for that small portion this summer, set public hearings and do it all at once. Mr. VanAuken is not being held responsible for removal of the existing cul-de-sac. This was going to be rebuilt as a full cul-de-sac at some time in the future. The properties directly to the east of the existing cul-de-sac would be assessed for the street improvement and that public hearing process has not begun. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it seems cleaner to her if the existing cul-de-sac would be removed at the same time Mr. VanAuken's cul-de-sac is installed. Mayor Lund and Councilmember Barnette asked how the properties on the existing cul- de-sac would be impacted. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 9 of 31 Mr. Haukaas stated they would be assessed and would have a longer driveway and a little more yard. Mr. Hickok stated there will also be a development agreement associated with this proposal that would be reviewed by Council. Mr. Knaak stated the development agreement is the vehicle by which the City can impose, in the negotiation process, certain conditions that would bind the property in the future, such as provision for maintenance. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Mr. Knaak believes that including the maintenance concerns in the development agreement eliminates the need for an additional stipulation regarding future maintenance. Mr. Knaak responded that is correct. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to deny Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03. Mayor Lund stated he understands the concerns of the neighborhood but believes that the applicant has the right to develop his property as it is zoned. Legally, he believes the petitioner has the right to develop his R3 property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to approve Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-03, by Timothy VanAuken, with the following 12 stipulations: 1) Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Any remaining debris from demolition of existing structures and any brush piles on site shall be removed prior to granting of final plat. 3) Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 4) The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 5) During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6) Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $3,000 prior to issuance of building permits. 7) Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 10 of 31 8) The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 9) Twin homes shall meet all parking requirements. 10) Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. 11) The petitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall be prepared by City staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. 12) The petitioner shall file a perpetual easement for access to Lot 1 on the records of Lot 2 and a perpetual easement for Lot 4 on the records of Lot 3. Councilmember Billings stated the property is zoned R-3 and could develop into something with 18 to 20 units or more with access to 73 '/ Avenue, in which case instead of having four families driving in and out, there could be 18 to 20 or more. There is somewhat of an inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, but what is being proposed is 4 single family units that happen to be two 0 lot line units. He questioned whether that really is inconsistent with the Comp Plan because the homes that are going to be there will be single family, 0 lot line homes. If the City were to rezone it to R-1, the City would be looking at the possibility of a taking in which case the City would have to pay money to the landowner for depriving him of something he already has. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like staff to look at the possibility of taking out the existing cul-de-sac at the same time the new cul-de-sac is being constructed and do the proper hearings and notices. NEW BUSINESS: 7. First Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA #05-02, from C-1, Local Business, C-2, General Business, and R-1, Single Family Residential, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for Property Located on Lots 15-19, Spring Valley, Generally Located at the Corner of Mississippi Street and Old Central, Fridley, Minnesota, (by Family Lifestyle Development Corporation) (Ward 2). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated petitioner is requesting a rezoning of five lots to S-2 Redevelopment District. The lots are located at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421, 6441 and 6461 Central Avenue. City Council approved the preliminary plat to subdivide these five parcels into one at their June 13, 2005 meeting. The lots on 6441 and 6421 Central have both residential and commercial zoning. The rezoning to S-2 makes it possible for the developer to build a mixed use development on this site with retail and housing combined in one development. There was some discussion at FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 11 of 31 the public hearing on June 13 regarding spot zoning. Staff has looked into this and determined that this property is designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. A lengthy public record was established with this petitioner's original development request in which there was significant opposition to including the property along 64tn Avenue. The area on the other side of Central Avenue has been recently rezoned to S-2. Ms. Jones explained that approving this rezoning is also approving the Master Plan for this project. The S-2 zoning requires the City to approve a Master Plan. That Master Plan document has been modified since the last meeting to reflect the right-in and right- out entrance being required by Anoka County. Any modifications to the Master Plan following the second reading of the ordinance must be brought back to Council for approval. The ordinance before Council refers specifically to the revised Master Plan documents dated June 22, 2005. In analyzing the rezoning, staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed retail/housing project does meet several objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan, one being to provide more efficient land use in this area, one to provide senior housing and one to provide additional tax base and new jobs. A public hearing on this matter was held June 13, 2005, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing June 1, 2005. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with stipulations. Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-02, because the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, provides senior housing opportunities, provides additional retail opportunities, and provides additional job opportunities. Stipulation #1 has been modified to reflect the correct date of the new Master Plan document as June 22. Stipulation #21 has been modified to reflect the change requested by Councilmember Billings. After reviewing the right-in and right-out modifications to this plan requested by Anoka County, staff was concerned about the access to this property for fire equipment. After discussions and review by the Fire Department, it was determined that the turning radius should be fine. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that not only does Council have a legal opinion from the City attorney but also from John Baker, the attorney that represents the League of Minnesota Cities. She asked Ms. Jones to review Mr. Baker's findings. Ms. Jones read a portion of Mr. Baker's comments as follows: ". .. the phrase, spot zoning `refers to an arbitrary zoning or rezoning of a small tract of land that is not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan and primarily promotes the private interest of the owner rather than the general welfare."' She stated the S-2 zoning being proposed for this site is consistent with the Comp Plan and consistent with the surrounding area. This proposed rezoning also solves existing zoning problems. Councilmember Bolkcom pointed out that Council's packet for this meeting includes a copy of the public hearing notice as well as a listing of individuals who were notified via mail of the public hearing for this proposal. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 12 of 31 Ms. Jones added that in addition to the Planning Commission public hearing on such rezonings, the City of Fridley chooses to hold a public hearing at the Council level which is not required by State statutes. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Knaak the City is required to mail written notices of public hearings to surrounding property owners for both the Council meeting and the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Knaak responded the notification required by statute is for the first public hearing at the Planning Commission level. Even in that case, the law provides that if the City makes a good faith attempt, even if there is a mistake or if half of the notices do not reach the intended recipients, that in and of itself does not invalidate the public hearing. Mayor Lund asked if the 18 foot setback on the east side of the development is west of the alleyway easement. Mr. Jones stated the setback is 18 feet from the property line and there is an additional 8-foot right-of-way to the east of the property which provides a 26-foot setback from the single family property line to the east. Mayor Lund asked if the east side is considered the rear or side yard and what the required setback would be. Ms. Jones responded that is considered the side yard and a 15 foot setback is required. Councilmember Barnette asked about the question a resident had regarding the lift station on Central Avenue and how the drainage from this site and the Town Center Development project will impact that station. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, responded that the lift station is for sanitary sewers, not ground water, so it has nothing to do with the drainage from either development. However, that lift station can handle the additional sewerage as recent upgrades have been completed and there is plenty of capacity. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that she received an email from a resident who is concerned about this proposal because she lives in an R-1 zoning district and was concerned that the City may eventually rezone her property. Mr. Hickok stated he is not certain where this resident's property is, but if her property is surrounded by R-1 zoning, she is not on the edge where the S-2 redevelopment is defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The City guided this area as S-2 development in the Comprehensive Plan revisions in 2001 and as a result, S-2 zoning is the perfect match. The resident in the R-1 zoning is guided to be R-1. Further to the east of the petitioner's property, the area is guided and zoned as R-1, Single Family. There is no plan at this time to take S-2 further to the east. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 13 of 31 Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated he received the same email and one of that resident's concerns stemmed from the recent Supreme Court case on eminent domain. The project before Council is not a"taking." It is not a City project, but a private development. Councilmember Wolfe commented that there are instances where municipalities have redeveloped and rezoned property. Mr. Hickok stated it is important to point out that even if the City were to do such a change, there would be a process required including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning process. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the City would legally be hard pressed to go into an R-1 area and rezone it without strong reasons. Mark Schwartz, 1372 64t" Avenue, presented a letter from Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford expressing their opposition to this proposal. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to receive the June 27 letter from Jesse Collard and Aimee Stanford into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Schwartz asked if this proposal meets fire code regulations. He thought there was too much building on this property. The density for this proposal is virtually the same as the original and the lot coverage is actually greater. Ms. Jones stated the Fire Department has been involved in reviewing this proposal from the beginning and this building and the site meet all fire code regulations. Barb Edwards, 1403 64t" Avenue, questioned why she did not receive a notice regarding the public hearing. Mayor Lund reviewed the procedure followed by the City to provide a public hearing notice for both hearings and a direct mailing for the Planning Commission hearing. Susan Okeson, 1423 64t" Avenue, stated half of the property being discussed is zoned single family. The block of Central Avenue and Mississippi is all single family homes except for the welding shop. The whole block is wooded area with most homes on one acre lots. The Planning Commission recommended saving as many mature trees as possible and now the developer is proposing rain gardens with no mature trees remaining. Something more appropriate would be to develop the front lots along Central as they are zoned and subdivide the back of those lots in single family as it is currently zoned. She expressed her opposition to this proposal as it changes the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 14 of 31 characteristic of the neighborhood and is not consistent with the existing single family homes. Ray McAfee, 1360 Hillcrest Drive, stated he has lived at this address for nearly 50 years. Central Avenue is a two-lane highway and Mississippi is a two-lane street with excessive peak hour traffic. He stated this development is too much for the area and will disrupt the neighborhood. Bonnie Marihart, 1443 64t" Avenue, said this proposal will change the surrounding properties. She pointed out that there are two dead strip malls in the area and questioned if the proposed retail will really be adding jobs or just moving them from another site. Many of the residents purchased property in this neighborhood because of the green space, and they do not want it to change. Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren, stated she is extremely concerned that the City may, at some point in the future, change her neighborhood to S-2. The price of the smallest condominium unit for this proposal would require an income in excess of $24,000 annually which is not affordable for most seniors. Jean Schwartz, 1372 64t" Avenue, stated she and her husband checked the zoning around their property before they purchased. She did not think it was fair to change rules mid-stream. They live in R-1 zoning and have done extensive remodeling under the R-1 restrictions. She re-presented the petition opposing the original proposal on this site. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to receive this petition dated February 11, 2004, into the record. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schwartz presented copies of three emails she sent to Council. She stated the density for this proposal is the same as the original and the lot coverage is greater. She also referred to the 11 reasons the Council denied this proposal originally, most of which she believed to still be valid. She further stated that there are many areas in the Comprehensive Plan that this project does not follow. The average residential density in Fridley is 3.5 per acre for single family and 9 units per acre for multi-family. Following that, this petitioner should only be allowed 38 units on this property. In this particular neighborhood, she believed the single family density would actually be 1.1 per acre. As far as the claim that this proposal provides needed housing, the Town Center Development project across the street provides the same housing. Also, the Town Center development is on vacant land that was zoned commercial and industrial and adjoins R2 land, not R1 land. Town Center was also required to be set back 50 feet from the residential property, not 18 or 40 as this proposal is on the east and south. Also, when the Town Center rezoning was approved, the Council promised that it would not set a precedent for this area. She also referred to traffic concerns and long- FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 15 of 31 standing drainage issues in this area. Some of them have been corrected and some of them have not. She stated the neighbors are not opposed to redevelopment on this site; particularly some of the property is in poor condition. But they want the development to be appropriate for the neighborhood. She would like to see single family or cottage/village type development. With land at a premium, she stated it seems unreasonable for Council to think that if they do not approve this project, nothing will be built there soon. She urged Council not to settle for this project because it is inappropriate for the area. Virgil Okeson, 1423 64t" Avenue, stated the road easement east of the proposed development is currently green space. There is no division between the R-1 zoning and the proposed rezoning. He also believes this proposal would significantly change the neighborhood. Kurt Olson, 1385 64t" Avenue, asked what happens to the alley right-of-way if this property is developed. He also questioned if this will impact his ability to split his property and sell-off parts of his lot and if so, he believed that would be an infringement on his rights as a property owner. Mr. Haukaas stated there are no plans to do anything different; there's a storm sewer in that right-of-way and it will remain as is. As far as the future development of Mr. Olson's property, he stated he would have to review the site. Since the project before the Council this evening will not change that right-of-way, he does not see how it would impact Mr. Olson's property. Councilmember Billings commented there currently is no way to access the back of Mr. Olson's property from 64t" Avenue or Arthur Street and the proposal before the Council will not change that in any way. Mr. Olson stated all the Council has heard from is the many residents opposed to this project and the only person in support is the petitioner himself. Councilmember Barnette stated he has received calls from people in favor of this proposal. Andrea Olson, 1385 64t" Avenue, stated what the neighbors are asking for is fairness. She could not understand how the City can allow a developer to proceed with a plan that has so many shortages just because of an overwhelming financial burden. Councilmember Billings asked Ms. Olson to clarify her remarks. Ms. Olson stated the residents have heard that sacrifices have to be made with this proposal, such as County easement, on parking, on height, on planting in order for this project to go through as proposed. If the petitioner cannot afford to develop this property correctly, that is not the burden of the surrounding residents. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 16 of 31 Councilmember Bolkcom stated she has never heard the comment related to a financial burden for the developer. In fact, the developer is granting easements to Anoka County which he does not have to do. Ms. Olson stated in order to make a profit, the developer has to have a certain density and that density means a large building that does not fit on this property and taking out single family homes in order to be able to fit this project into the limited acreage. It means that if you have to throw in retail to make a profit then you have certain parking requirements that do not fit on this property. It means that because the water table is too high, the property has to be bermed up. Every time the residents have questions, they get soft answers, mixed words, and picking and choosing pieces out of the Comprehensive Plan. There were a number of reasons why the original proposal was denied and she is not hearing how this proposal is any different. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that has been discussed at this meeting and the previous meeting. There are differences. Ms. Olson stated the density is higher per acre now than it was originally. Mr. Hickok stated the density is not higher on this project. In the findings of fact for the denial of the 90-unit project for this site, the reference was to population density. As a result, the developer dropped the proposal by 20 units. Councilmember Bolkcom said that in response to the residents' concerns about traffic on 64t" Avenue; those parcels along 64t" were not included in this new proposal. Ms. Olson asked if the right-in and right-out proposal will create more traffic on 64t" as people use that roadway to turn around. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the same concerns were expressed about the Christianson Crossing proposal and there have been no problems that she is aware of. Ms. Olson asked what recourse the residents have if they start counting additional cars on 64th Avenue after this development goes in. Mayor Lund stated that issue has been adequately addressed. Councilmember Billings reminded those present that there have already been two public hearings on this matter and there is no public hearing scheduled for this item on tonight's agenda. There are other items on the agenda and other people present for those items and in fairness to them, he did not believe Council should continue to go over and over things that have already been discussed. Ms. Olson stated Denial #6 of the previous proposal talked about inadequate setback for parking and diminished landscape and on-sight snow storage. She stated there are still a considerable number of parking areas outside the parking setback. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 17 of 31 Mr. Hickok stated that only 3 stalls on the north are less than the required setback, and that is due to the additional right-of-way Anoka County is requiring along Mississippi and Central. He further stated that City staff has reviewed this plan and it meets snow storage requirements. It is an S-2 development that includes flexibility in the site plan and those are non-issues from a staff recommendation perspective. Ms. Olson stated the flexibility Mr. Hickok refers to equates to variances to the residents because that is what they would have to seek in order to have those flexibilities. She asked about Denial #7 which referred to snow storage impeding site line in the corners of the property. Mr. Hickok explained that there are locations on the site itself for snow storage and those areas to the north are in broad right-of-ways. Further, in City and County projections going out as far as anyone can tell, there is not going to be development east on Mississippi or north and south on Central adequate enough to broaden that intersection and take the right-of-way the County has asked for. This is not viewed as an impediment to the site or visibility on the roadway. Ms. Olson stated Denials #9 and #10 address sunlight issues, yet this proposal is for the same height building. Mr. Hickok stated that is incorrect. This proposal dropped the building height an entire story (10 feet) and the building has been moved north, farther away from the residential areas that expressed those concerns. He also pointed out, if the intention is to kill the recommendation for this 70-unit building, the litigation on the table is to go back to a 90- unit building. Ms. Olson asked how this proposal is going to address the screening concerns. Mayor Lund stated those issues were addressed at the Planning Commission meeting and again at the Council's public hearing. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, waive the first reading and deny the ordinance on first reading. Mayor Lund asked if there is any further action required by Council on this issue after tonight's meeting. Ms. Jones stated the second reading of the ordinance on the rezoning will be held July 11 and approval of the final plat at a later date. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 18 of 31 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the first reading of the ordinance and approve the ordinance on first reading with the following 23 stipulations: 1) Property to be developed in accordance with Master Plan — Landscape & Grading Plan MP-1.0 and Master Plan — Utility & Grading Plan MP-2.0 dated June 22, 2005. 2) Building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A7 and A8, titled Exterior Elevations, revised 5/19/05 and architectural plan A- 3 titled Building Plan Ground Level, dated 4/29/05. 3) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4) Petitioner to meet the applicable fire code requirements in the International Fire Code. 5) Petitioner to meet all building and ADA requirements. 6) Demolition permits shall be obtained shall be obtained for removal of the buildings at 1314 and 1340 Mississippi Street and 6421 Central. 7) Petitioner to provide revised Certificate of Exemption for wetland and to meet the Rice Creek Watershed Districts regulations prior to issuance of a building permit. 8) No business signs shall be located within the County right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way to be approved by the County prior to planting. 9) Petitioner to obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work done within the county right-of-way. 10) Petitioner to submit revised storm water management plans and calculations for approval by the City Engineering staff. 11) Storm pond maintenance agreement must be filed prior to issuance of building permits. 12) Petitioner shall obtain required NPDES Permit and Rice Creek Watershed District permits. 13) City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 14) Final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to the City Council public hearing regarding the rezoning on June 13, 2005. 15) Petitioner shall install a 7' high screening fence or planting screening along the east and south property lines, according to Section 205.14.6.G(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code. 16) Petitioner to pay required Park Dedication Fee of $3,2887.25 (142,924 square feet of land times .023 per square feet). 17) Petitioner to provide City with a copy of the building's association documents prior to issuance of a building permit. 18) Building to be restricted to seniors and policies to do such shall be outlined in association documents and filed with the County with final plat. 19) Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 20) Property owner of record at time of building permit application to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of building permit. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 19 of 31 21) The petitioner shall be responsible for sharing the cost of any traffic improvement necessary to accommodate the traffic specifically generated by the development, including signalization or other improvements, if determined necessary by Anoka County. 22) A Development Agreement outlining the developer's obligation to install utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 23) The petitioner shall provide walkway access from the site for pedestrian connections at the north and west sides of the property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated this is a different project than the 71-unit proposal from last year. A lot of the issues for that denial have been addressed. Councilmember Wolfe commented that he was frustrated with the threat of legal action. Mayor Lund stated that while the petitioner has made considerable concessions, he still has concerns about storm water drainage, the density, and the quality of life for the area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 3 TO 2 VOTE. 8. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-04, by Target Corporation to Subdivide a Commercial Lot into Two Commercial Lots, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue NE (Ward 1). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated this request is to replat one shopping center lot to accommodate redevelopment of the existing Target and Petco stores. The site description contains a C-3 zoning and there is no proposal to change that zoning. The existing commercial retail building includes Target and the Petco store. The southern end and eastern side of the lots are developed as parking. The petitioner seeks to replat the property and redevelop the existing store into two separate buildings with their own parcels. This is a permitted use in this zoning district. Fridley City Code requires a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet in a C-3 district. As proposed, Lot 1 would be 750,000 square feet and Lot 2 will be 86,000 square feet after the replat. A minimum of 25 feet of street frontage is provided for access as well for each of the parcels and they will both take access off 53rd Avenue as they do now. Up to 40% lot coverage would be allowed for this proposal. The Petco building is at 17% lot coverage and the Target building is 25% lot coverage. All necessary utility and drainage easements are provided for on the plat and the necessary building setbacks are being met with the exception of a variance for the Petco front yard setback from 53rd Avenue. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15 and unanimously approved this proposal with the stipulations recommended by staff. Staff recommends concurrence with the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 20 of 31 Planning Commission recommendation as this proposal does provide redevelopment opportunities for Fridley that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Richard Wiebe, Westwood Professional Services, stated there were 11 stipulations at the Planning Commission meeting and there has been a 12 stipulation added since that meeting to clarify the screening. Basically, they are in agreement and full understanding of the 11 stipulations and they are still considering the 12 stipulation. Target is agreeable to provide the fencing along the west and the opening in that fencing but they are concerned with the requirement that they build a pathway along that area. There is a significant requirement for park fees from Target to the City so that may be a good use of those funds if a pathway is determined to be necessary. Target is not opposed to having the pedestrian opening in the fence or not having one. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hickok for clarification on the pathway referred to in Stipulation 12. Mr. Hickok stated the concern is putting pedestrians in conflict with the truck traffic at the rear of this property so the City is going to request there be an opening in the fence for pedestrians and that a pathway along the northern edge of the parking lot be created to get the Target customers safely to the front door. Councilmember Billings asked about the request from Mr. Grandstrand, a neighbor to the west, that the fence be closed. Mr. Hickok explained in the early eighties there was a lot of discussion about the hole in the fence that Target frequently repaired only to have the hole reappear because there were people trying to get through. At some point, it was decided to leave the fence open. There was mixed interest from the neighborhood about this access, and as a result the hole in the fence has remained. From a planning perspective, as long as people can get through there safely without carts or bicycles going through, it should be fine. Ms. Jones stated she spoke to another person in the neighborhood who commented that the new store will include grocery sales and there will be those people who would want the access through the fence to pick up grocery items. Another factor is there are no sidewalks along 53rd Avenue so there is no safe way to access the property from the Cherry Lane neighborhood. Staff also found out that a lot of people in that neighborhood use the hole in the fence behind Target to get to the walking paths around Sullivan Lake on the south side of 53rdAvenue. Wesley Grandstrand, 5431 Madison Street, stated the pedestrian traffic utilizing this fence access is undesirable. People litter, walk on private property, smoke and eat and leave debris behind and they drop Target carts in that area all the time which the residents are left to deal with. He stated he has no problem with the fence access if the accompanying problems can be controlled. He has no objection to the redevelopment of the Target property. He believes it will be good for the City and the neighborhood, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 21 of 31 but as long as there is a total redevelopment, the project should be done right. He is asking for consideration in sign location along the north border, noise from the truck dock location, the amount and size of landscaping buffer between the residential and commercial property (northwest corner of the property from the sound wall adjacent to the freeway south and around the end of the cul-de-sac), the problems created by the 161 parking spaces proposed on the west side of the property, and the pedestrian access through an inappropriate type fence. He added he would prefer to see the pedestrian access eliminated. Councilmember Bolkcom explained that the 161 spaces along the west side of the property is proof of parking only and will actually be green space. She also stated that she does not believe those spaces will ever be needed. Mr. Wiebe referred to the presentation which reflected the new location of the loading dock further to the south than it currently is to pull away from the residential area. He reviewed the location of the pylon sign to the north and explained a landscaped buffer will be added. Also, a tree inventory was done along their west boundary and within the Target property there are over 70 trees with an average caliper of over 13.5 inches and those trees will remain. The new building and pavement will be moved further to the east than the existing edge. Regarding Stipulation 12, the requested pathway appears to be on City property and he believed it would be more appropriate as a City project rather than a Target project. Target's lighting goes off half an hour after closing so there would not be continuous lighting or sight security in that area. He also stated there is a potential issue as far as ADA compliance because there is a significant grade change and the current pathway is just a dirt rut running at about a 25% slope. Mr. Hickok commented that there are people utilizing the fence access and he believed it would be in Target's best interest to bring the foot traffic across to the front of the store in the safest manner possible. A Development Manager for Target stated the fence access is not an official access point. It is not lit like the parking lot or any other walkways and it is not ADA compliant. This is not what they would knowingly provide their customers for access. It is simply a hole in the fence. It is not Target's intention for this access point to be a draw for their customers. Councilmember Billings stated that Target would be responsible for maintaining the fence per City code. Mayor Lund questioned why Stipulation 12 was added if Target does not want the fence access. Ms. Jones explained the Planning Commission discussed Mr. Grandstrand's comments but that is not the only reason this stipulation was added. There is a code requirement that commercial property next to residential is required to have screening fence. Staff recommended a fence with visibility so people using that access could see if anyone FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 22 of 31 was lurking around the fence and the vines would provide some screening. Additional trees are not possible in this area because of the utilities buried along that property line. Mr. Grandstrand commented that the access is makeshift at best. It is not maintained year round. Mayor Lund stated if Target does not want the opening, it should not be there. Ms. Jones explained that the path is from the cul-de-sac and is paved. The opening is a solid, defined, constructed opening in the fence with a steel post in the middle to prevent shopping carts and bikes from getting through. What staff is suggesting is that the access be moved further north. The grade improves as it moves north. Mr. Wiebe stated it would be Target's preference not to have the opening in the fence at all because it is problematic in terms of safety, lighting, and ADA compliance. Mayor Lund pointed out that it will then be Target's responsibility to maintain the fence. Councilmember Billings asked if Stipulation 12 should be eliminated or modified. After some discussion, Stipulation 12 was revised as follows: "Petitioner shall replace existing west fence from the southern edge of the adjoining City park to the northwest corner of their property with 7' high vinyl coated chain link fence, including installation of Engleman ivy planted 2' on center along the fence base along the Cheri Lane cul-de- sac." Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Wiebe if he is comfortable with Stipulation 12 as revised. Mr. Wiebe said he was. Councilmember Billings stated "For the record, Target understands that they are going to be responsible for maintaining the fence and to repair any holes that may arise." Councilmember Bolkcom asked staff to comment on the location of the truck docks, about which Mr. Grandstrand was concerned. Mr. Hickok stated staff believes the dock area is in the best location and the new design is preferred over the old design. Also, if the dock area were to be moved elsewhere on the property, it would be problematic to neighbors who would be hearing noise they had not before. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the hours of delivery. Mr. Wiebe stated there will be an increase of one to two deliveries per day from small delivery trucks between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. There will be a total of 2 to 4 tractor trailer deliveries per day between 4:00 to 10:00 p.m. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 23 of 31 Mayor Lund asked if there is a wall along the west edge of the loading dock. Mr. Wiebe stated there is a low retaining wall and there will be a slight drop in grade back into the dock with the trucks below the floor line of the building. He then reviewed the traffic flow for the trucks utilizing the dock area; entering along Monroe Street, traveling along the west end of the building, backing into the dock and then exiting out the front of the building. Dr. Burns, City Manager, asked percentage-wise, how much larger the Super Target store will be than the existing Target store. Mr. Wiebe stated it will be 30% larger to accommodate the grocery component. Mayor Lund asked what is currently located on the parcel of land to the west of this site that appears to be ponding area. Mr. Wiebe explained that is a delineated wetland and is fully saturated with volunteer trees, 25 to 30 feet tall, which provides a natural buffer. The only place that's absent tree cover is at the end of Cheri Lane and that's why the proposal for the vines on the fence. Ms. Jones explained there is a City park adjacent to the wetland area which will provide a natural buffer if the proof of parking is ever required to be developed. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to approve Preliminary Plat Request, PS #05-04 with the following 12 stipulations. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to amend Stipulation 12 by removing the comma after the word cul-de-sac, inserting a period and strike everything thereafter. 1) Petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Any remaining debris from demolition of existing buildings on site shall be removed prior to granting of final plat. 3) Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 4) The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 5) During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable. 6) Petitioner to pay required park dedication fees of $0.023 per square foot for a total of $19,308.98 for both plats prior to issuance of building permits. 7) Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees, including sanitary sewer extension. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 24 of 31 8) The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for the new construction shall be marked and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permits. 9) Commercial building shall meet all parking and setback requirements unless abated by a variance. 10) Add appropriate address and marking requirements per Fire Code. 11) The petitioner shall agree to the terms of a development agreement that shall be prepared by City Staff and approved by the City Council simultaneous with their final plat approval. 12) Petitioner shall replace existing west fence from the southern edge of the adjoining City park to the northwest corner of their property with 7' high vinyl coated chain link fence, including installation of Engleman ivy planted 2' on center along the fence base along the Cheri Lane cul-de-sac. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST, PS #05-04, WITH 12 STIPULATIONS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Variance Request, VAR #05-07, by Target Corporation to Reduce the Off- Street Parking Space Requirements from 1,100 spaces to 700 Spaces with Proof of Parking for an Additional 163 Spaces Generally Located at 755-53rd Avenue NE. (Ward 1). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, explained that according to code, the petitioner would need one parking stall for every 150 square feet of property which would be a total of 1,100 parking spaces. The separate parcel for the Petco store does meet the parking requirements with 95 stalls. Target's hardship statement states "Target Corporation conducts periodic reviews of parking utilization at their stores and prepares correlations analysis relative to sales per store on an hourly basis... Target has calculated a future maximum need of 600 parking spaces for the maximum sales hour (occurs the day after Christmas.)" Fridley's code requires 1,100 stalls which is 500 more than what is necessary for the busiest hour of the busiest day. Ms. Jones stated a traffic analysis of this site indicates that the traffic in and out of the Target store do not in and of themselves create an undesirable condition. Target is not proposing to develop excess property beyond what they're currently using. The plans provide additional green space and proof of parking for 163 spaces. When reviewing such variance requests, Ms. Jones explained that staff considers whether the public policy will be served, if there is a hardship, and can stipulations ensure compliance and protect adjacent properties. In this case, staff feels public policy would be served by reduced parking on this site because there is an over abundance of parking at the current store and parking that is not needed puts a strain on the storm FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 25 of 31 sewer systems by increasing surface water pollutants. Target argues that strict application of the code is a hardship because it limits the amount of green space they can provide. Target is providing proof of parking for 163 spaces which can be addressed in the stipulations. As far as previous cases similar to this, Ms. Jones stated there are other commercial properties that have the same experience as Target where a vast amount of their lot is empty, such as Sam's Club, Wal-Mart, Bachman's, Holiday, and Ashley Furniture. Staff is looking into doing a text amendment regarding parking stall requirements. Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval as did the Appeals Commission at their last meeting due to the hardship that would be created by requiring more parking than necessary and due to our desire to foster more green space and to decrease impervious surfaces. Mayor Lund asked if staff has reviewed Fridley's parking requirements compared to other City requirements. Mr. Hickok responded staff has done so and he believes Fridley has a much higher standard for parking. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the entire parking lot will be repaved. Mr. Wiebe responded that it will be. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve Variance Request, VAR #05-07 with the following eight stipulations: 1) Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2) Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3) Existing building and proposed to be sprinkled to MN Rules Chapter 1306. 4) City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement (if a pond is necessary) prior to issuance of building permit. 6) Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7) Petitioner to provide landscaped hedges along the west and south side property lines, when abutting a single family residence. 8) All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not exceed 3 foot candles at the property line. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 26 of 31 10. Variance Request, VAR #05-08, by Target Corporation to Increase the Allowable Total Square Footage of Free-Standing Signs from 80 Square Feet to 330 Square Feet; and to Increase the Square Footage of the East (Front of Store) Wall Signage from 359 Square Feet to 744 Square Feet, Generally Located at 755 — 53rd Avenue N E(Ward 1). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated petitioner is seeking three variances; one for height, one for total square footage, and increasing the wall signage on the front side of the building. In regards to the height variance, the petitioner is proposing to place a new pylon sign along I-694 near the northwest corner of the property. The variance would allow the sign to be one foot taller than the current sign and 10 feet taller than what the code allows for a total height of 35 feet. They are also requesting a variance for the total amount of square footage for a free-standing sign from 80 square feet to 330 square feet. This is for two separate free-standing signs; one on their main entrance off 53rd Avenue with a combined sign for Petco and Target. Petco is relinquishing their right to have a free-standing sign. The purpose is to draw traffic to this main entrance rather than through the access in front of the day care building to the west. Councilmember Wolfe asked how long the Target will be shut down. Alice Roberts Davis, the real estate manager from Target for this project, stated historically the store is shut down for 10 months but that has yet to be determined for this store. Ms. Jones stated the sign along I-694 is 213 square feet. As far as the wall signage, they're looking to increase the square footage on the east side of the building, the front of the store, from 359 square feet to 744 square feet. There will be no wall signage on the south side of the store. The only signage on the north side of the building is a 10 x 10 foot Target symbol. The petitioner is willing to stipulate that this would be the limits of their signage. The City's sign code allows a total square footage of 80 square feet per development and free-standing signs to be no more than 25 feet above the finished grade, and limits wall signage to 15 times the square foot of the building. Ms. Jones explained that for sign variances, there are four requirements staff reviews: - Are there exceptional circumstances? Target is arguing that the odd shape of the north property line and the depressed elevation of their site in relation to 1-694 and Hwy 65 are unique to their site. - That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district but which is denied the property in question. Other property in the vicinity of 1-694 has been granted similar sign variances in similar situations for all three sign variances requested. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 27 of 31 That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Target argues that strict application of the sign code would not provide signage that would be visible enough to allow 1-694 drivers to adequately identify their property and exit safely in time from the freeway. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. A larger entry monument sign at the Target property located on the east entrance will be important on this site to direct a majority of the traffic into the site and away from Monroe Street which is shared by the daycare and a/so will serve as the delivery entrance for both Target and Petco. Larger signage will not be detrimental to surrounding commercial property. The taller pylon sign along the freeway may have an impact on nearby residential properties; however, the lighting from the sign would be no more distracting than the headlights of freeway traffic which is at an even higher elevation. Target makes a valid point that placement of the 1-694 pylon sign at a higher elevation c/ose to the west property line will offer the best notification to drivers that they need to exit the freeway at Central Avenue. Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of all three variances as the petitioner has demonstrated statutory defined hardship and there are several comparable variances that have been granted over recent years for similar situations. If approved, staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached: 1) All existing signs located on the property shall be removed upon demolition of the buildings. 2) Any existing sign variances will be null and void with approval of this new variance(s). 3) The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25' back from all property lines. 4) No additional free-standing signs shall be allowed on this site besides the two approved. 5) This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur: a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements. b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled. d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure shall be removed. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on the sign. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 28 of 31 Councilmember Billings requested a stipulation be added. "A recordable covenant to the benefit of the City prohibiting free-standing signage on Lot 2, Block 1 of the parcel. The Petco site." He explained that since Petco is giving up their free-standing pylon sign, if someone else owns the property at some point in the future they need to know that they are not going to be able to get a free-standing pylon on that site. Mr. Wiebe, Westwood Professional Services, stated there is a sign at the east entrance off 53rd Avenue with the Petco name. Ms. Davis stated this can be incorporated into the operating agreement which is a recorded document. Councilmember Billings stated his concern is not with Petco but with a possible future owner. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification of the sign square footage. Ms. Jones stated the sign along I-694 is 213 square feet; and along 53rd Avenue, it is 117 square feet. The total of the wall signage along the front of the building is 744. The logo on the north side of the building is 10' x 10'. Mr. Wiebe stated the total allowable square footage for all three wall sings is over 900 square feet. Mr. Grandstrand stated his main concern is the location of the sign along I-694. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to add the following stipulations: 6) No additional future signage shall be permitted on any building face beyond that which is approved by this variance action. 7) Adequate assurance that recordable prohibition of free-standing signage will exist on Lot 2. Mayor Lund asked if the petitioner accepted the two additional stipulations. Mr. Wiebe responded affirmatively. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE TWO ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #05-08, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 29 of 31 11. Variance Request, VAR #05-09, by Target Corporation to Decrease the Front Yard Setback on a Commercial Building from 80 Square Feet to 24 Square Feet Generally Located at 755 - 53rd Avenue NE (Ward 1). Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, explained this is a 56-foot variance from the required front yard setback for a building in the C-3 district. The site plan is designed to remove the parking area in the southwest corner of the Target-Petco site and construct a new 15,260 square foot building for Petco. There will be new landscaping included, and the parking area will be screened from 53rd Avenue by the building itself and the new landscaping. There will also be a newly designed access to the Target-Petco site immediately east of the new Petco building. Moving the Petco building closer to 53rd Avenue allows better configuration of the parking behind the building rather than along 53rd Avenue. Section 205.15 of the City Code states the required front yard setback would be 80 feet. In reviewing variance requests, staff looks at three questions: - Is the public policy being existing commercial sites efficiency improvements. served? The Comprehensive Plan states that should be targeted for aesthetic and land use - Is there a unique circumstance or hardship? Petco's hardship statement reads as follows: "The area between the 53`d Avenue right of way and the building would be a parking lot if the site plan was developed according to the specific section of the city code. When a parking lot abuts a city street, landscape screening is required between the right-of-way and the parking lot. As a result of a jet fuel gas line along the west end of the site prohibiting any significant plantings in the area between the street and the parking lot, we are unable to meet the code requirement. The setback would create a hardship to Petco in that it would not allow for reasonab/e use of the property. In order to comply with the parking requirements for the new Petco facility and create a viable visual perspective of the building, we need to locate the building closer to 53`d Avenue." - Can conditions be imposed to protect adjacent properties? Stipulations were attached and approved by the Appeals Commission at their June 8 meeting. Ms. Jones stated staff concurs with the Appeals Commission recommendation for approval as the petitioner has a statutory defined hardship and the proposal meets redevelopment principals in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the following five stipulations: 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner shall create a four sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit). 3) The petitioner shall work with Metro Transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco building. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 30 of 31 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53rd Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. Ms. Jones reviewed the site plan for the new Petco building. She explained that they have created a fake front for the side of the building facing 53rd Avenue, with the actual entrance located on the northeast corner of the building. Mayor Lund questioned the truck traffic pattern for this new building. Mr. Wiebe, Westwood Professional Services, explained the access will be the same as for the Super Target; accessing via Monroe Street and exiting to the east of the building. Councilmember Billings questioned the time frame for construction. Alice Roberts Davis, real estate manager for Target, stated they would like to begin construction mid-July with completion by mid-November and demolition of the existing Petco and Target building to begin in January. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve Variance Request, VAR #05-09, with the following five stipulations. 1) The petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 2) The petitioner shall create a four sided building (architecturally to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permit). 3) The petitioner shall work with Metro Transit to relocate the existing bus stop to the area immediately south of the Petco building. 4) The petitioner shall provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along 53rd Avenue NE. 5) The petitioner shall provide green space to the south of the proposed Petco building. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Informal Status Reports. Councilmember Barnette said the Fridley Safety Camp for elementary school children will be held at Commons Park the next two days. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2005 Paqe 31 of 31 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:05 AM. Respectfully submitted by, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary ������ Scott J. Lund Mayor