Loading...
05/18/2009 - 4538� � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 �ffY �F FRIDLEY The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 27, 2009 City Council Meeting of April 27, 2009 City Council Meeting of May 4, 2009 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 6, 2009 .................................................................... 1- 19 2. Receive Bids and Award Contract for Elevated Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilitation ProjectNo. 382 ..................................................................................................... 20 - 22 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 3. Claims ............................................................................................................ 23 4. Licenses ............................................................................................................. 24 - 25 5. Estimates ............................................................................................................. 26 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda — 15 minutes. PUBLIC HEARING: 6. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA#09-01, by Premier Central 65 Partners, to Seek Four Land Use Actions in Order to Allow for the Redevelopment of Property, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N. E. )(Ward 1) .......................................................................................... 27 - 41 NEW BUSINESS: 7. Preliminary Plat Request, PS #09-02, by Premier Central 65 Partners, to Allow the Creation of Two Lots from One Lot, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N. E. (Ward 1) ................................................................. 42 - 43 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 PAGE 3 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): 8. Special Use Permit Request, SP #09-03, by Premier Central 65 Partners, to Allow the Construction of a Medical Clinic on the South Half of the Subject Property Within an R-3, Multi-Family Zoning District, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) ................................................................................................................ 44 - 45 9. Special Use Permit Request, SP #09-04, by Premier Central 65 Partners, to Allow the Construction of an Independent Living, Memory Care and Nursing Home Facility on the North Half of the Subject Property, Within an R-3, Multi-Family Zoning District, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N. E. (Ward 1) ............................................... 46 - 47 10. Resolution Authorizing Final Changes in Appropriations for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and the Capital Improvement Fund for the Year Ended 2008 ...................................................................................................................... 48 - 51 11. Informal Status Report .......................................................................................... 52 ADJOURN. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY APRIL 27, 2009 The Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Mary Smith, City Assessor Lynn Krachmer, City Appraiser Don Abbott, Director of Public Safety Deb Skogen, City Clerk CONTINUATION OF LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUILIZATION MEETING. Mary Smith, City Assessor, said this meeting is a continuation of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting which was held on April 13, 2009. The purpose of this meeting is to present information to establish the 2009 estimated market value on nine properties whose owners appealed the value at the first meeting. As the Board, the City Council has the ability to change values or classifications in accordance with State law. The Board has three possible courses of action that can be taken on each case tonight: to affirm, reduce or increase the current value based upon information presented. Ms. Smith said that if upon reaching a decision, the property owner feels that the Board did not resolve their concerns, they may bring their case to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization which will be held on June 15. There were seven appellants who appeared before the Board at the first meeting representing nine properties. After meeting with them and viewing their properties, we reviewed sales of similar parcels. The following is our recommendations to the Board: BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 2 Case No. 1: 1313 - 73rd Avenue NE — Double Bungalow, Pin No. 12-30-24-13-0051, 2009 Estimated Market Value $226,100. After review of the property, it is staff's recommendation to the Board that the estimated market value for Pin No. 12-30-24-13-0051 be affirmed at $226,100. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if all property owners were notified and aware of this meeting tonight. Ms. Smith answered yes. The property owners were told if they were not in agreement, they could appear at this Board meeting. Even after this meeting, property owners may still attend the County Board meeting. Mayor Lund said that looking at the review of comparables, the average is $227,265 and the value of $226,100 seems to be within reason. The appraised value is a decrease of 7.5% from last year's value and seems to be in order. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to affirm the value on Pin No. 12-30-24-13-0051 of $226,100. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case No. 2: 106 - 77th Way NE — Four-Plex Apartment, Pin No. 10-30-24-12-0003, 2009 Estimated Market Value $282,400. After staff's review of this property and applying the income approach to value based on income and expense information provided by the owner, it is staff's recommendation that the 2009 estimated market value of $282,400 be reduced to $280,400. Mayor Lund noted that the value is a decrease of $54,000 or 16% from last year. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was any discussion with Mr. Morisette. Ms. Smith said Mr. Morisette thought it should be lower but was okay with the number. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to affirm the reduced value of $280,400 on Pin No. 10-30-24-12-0003. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case No. 3: 7673 East River Rd NE — Four-Plex Apartment, Pin No. 10-30-24-12-0005, 2009 Estimated Market Value $282,400. After staff's review of this property and applying the income approach to value based on income and expense information provided by the owner, it is staff's recommendation that the 2009 estimated market value of $282,400 be reduced to $280,400. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to affirm the reduced value of $280,400 on Pin No. 10-30-24-12-0005. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 3 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Case No. 4: 5468 Altura Road NE — Single Family Residence, Pin No. 23-30-24-33-0070, 2009 Estimated Market Value $174,900. After review of the property it is staff's recommendation that the estimated market value for Pin No. 23-30-24-33-0070 be affirmed at $174,900. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a home inspection was done. Ms. Smith answered yes. Mayor Lund noted that the average of the comparables is around $185,000 so this property is valued well on the low side of the averages. There was a 6% decrease since last year. Councilmember Barnette said the comparables were very close to his neighborhood, and questioned the property owner's appeal. Ms. Smith said that no fireplace was listed on the tax system and once this was noted it was added to the value and the property owner felt he was being double taxed all these years. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what a fireplace added to the value of a home. Ms. Smith answered $1,500. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to affirm the value on Pin No. 23-30-24-33-0070 of $174,900. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case No. 5: 530 Ely Street NE — Single Family Residence, Pin No. 03-30-24-32-0023, 2009 Estimated Market Value $202,100. After review of the property it is staff's recommendation that the estimated market value for Pin No. 03-30-24-32-0023 be affirmed at $202,100. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification that the property owners brought forward values that were related to foreclosures which the State sales study does not include. Ms. Smith answered that is correct. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what defines one location to another as far as value and why are some parts of the City valued higher than other parts. Ms. Smith said that the values are mainly driven by the quality of neighborhoods and types of homes in the area. There are neighborhoods with high-end homes and others with single family starter homes. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 4 Lynn Krachmer, City Appraiser, added that in Fridley there are nine zones and these different zones have different land values. In this particular situation, there were no sales in the immediate area so other homes were looked at in the City and proper adjustments were made. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how long it was since the home had been inspected. Mr. Krachmer answered five years, and staff will be in the neighborhood again this year. Mayor Lund said this value seems to be within reason and with the current market, there may be further deductions next year. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to affirm the value of Pin No. 03-30-24-32-0023 at $202,100. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case No. 6: 360 57th Avenue NE — Double Bungalow, Pin No. 23-30-24-24-0132, 2009 Estimated Market Value $234,300. After our review of the property, it was discovered that there was excessive deferred maintenance on this property. After adjustments to the value were made, it is staff's recommendation that the estimated market value for Pin No. 23-30-24-24-0132 be decreased from $234,300 to $206,400. Mayor Lund said that in this case he did not see anything on income which is usually provided on rental properties. He asked if any of that information was presented to staff. Ms. Smith answered no because the property was just purchased. Mr. Krachmer said a comparable review was not done. The property had excessive deferred maintenance. Staff called Mr. Rust and he was okay with the new value. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the property was last inspected. Mr. Krachmer answered 1998. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to affirm the reduced value of $206,400 on Pin No. 23-30-24-24-0132. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case No. 7: 511 Ely Street NE — Single Family Residence, Pin No. 03-30-24-32-0001, 2009 Estimated Market Value $194,900. After review of the property, it is staff's recommendation that the estimated market value for Pin No. 03-30-24-32-0001 be affirmed at $194,900. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 5 Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the difference was between average and good. Ms. Smith said good is better than average. Mr. Krachmer said it is a judgment call. The property was inspected on April 14 and the kitchen was updated and the overall condition was very well maintained. The comparables that were used were average condition so the value was adjusted. Mayor Lund said this is the first property that he has seen that the comparables were the same as the value of the home. There is still an $11,600 decrease from last year or 5.6%. The difference may be because the others were at average and this one is a little better. Councilmember Saefke said this property had a substantial deck. Mayor Lund said it looked like the property owner looked at bank sales or foreclosures which cannot be used as comparables. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to affirm the value of $194,900 on Pin No. 03-30-24- 32-0001. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case No. 8: 1291 Gardena Avenue NE — Single Family Residence, Pin No. 24-30-24-13-0002, 2009 Estimated Market Value $187,800. After review of the property it is staff's recommendation that the estimated market value for Pin No. 24-30-24-13-0002 be affirmed at $187,800. Councilmember Varichak said that the value compares with the amount of comparables and within the adjusted numbers. Mayor Lund said that the value reflects a$19,500 deduction from the previous year or a decrease of 9.4%. Gay Minear, 1291 Gardena Avenue NE, objected to the assessed value and said that the location of the home is not taken into consideration. The property owner felt that expensive sales in the area were used as comparables. The property owner noted that there are two institutions on the street which should reflect in a deduction of 7.5% for each institution. Assessors do not look at location, just square footage and what is in the house. Councilmember Barnette said he was not aware of a deduction because a home was near an institution. Sometimes that type of location would be of value. Ms. Smith agreed being near a school and within walking distance is usually a plus. Ms. Minear said homes in the neighborhood are having difficulty in selling. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 6 Mayor Lund asked if the homeowner has ever protested taxes in the past. Ms. Minear answered no, but they should have protested prior to this year. She said that foreclosures are part of the market these days. If houses are selling for half the price, how do you justify the value of the home? Mayor Lund said many homeowners are taking into consideration the significant downtrend in market valuations. The reason foreclosure properties should not be considered is because many properties are distressed or have other issues like things left behind. The banks must sell these properties at a reduced price to get rid of the property. Using foreclosures is an unfair way to value homes. If everyone's valuations were reduced, there would still be a levy or a cap the City would need to meet. He agreed with the valuation because it is almost $20,000 less than last year. He had also not heard of a decrease in value if a home is next to an institution. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to affirm the value of Pin No. 24-30-24-13-0002 at $187,800. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Case No. 9: 1360 Onondaga Street NE — Vacant Lot Parking Area, Pin No. 12-30-24-13-0084, 2009 Estimated Market Value $73,100. After review of this property it is staff's recommendation that the estimated market value for Pin No. 12-30-24-13-0084 be affirmed at $73,100. Councilmember Barnette said the value will increase unless the owner asks for special classification. Ms. Smith replied that is correct. The owner has up until May 1, 2009, to request a new classification. The application is due May 1 and the Board Meeting is on June 15. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the application process was different than other years. Ms. Smith answered no. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to affirm the value of Pin No. 12-30-24-13-0084 of $73,100. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 7 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY APRIL 27, 2009 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:45 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Fritz Knaak, City Attorney Don Abbott, Director of Public Safety Deb Skogen, City Clerk APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting of April 13, 2009. APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Claims (141368 —141511). APPROVED. 2. Licenses. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if anything was happening at the pawn shops that would cause Council not to approve the licenses. Don Abbott, Director of Public Safety, answered no. APPROVED THE LICENSES ON FILE AND AS OF RECORD. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 2 MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): No one in the audience spoke. NEW BUSINESS: 3. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 506 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Vehicle Parking (Text Amendment, TA #09-01, by the City of Fridley) Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said this is the first reading of Text Amendment, TA #09-01. The definition of motor home, motor vehicle, and vehicle remains unchanged since the public hearing. The motor vehicle definition differs from Ch. 114 and 123. A text amendment to those chapters may be desired in the future. Mr. Hickok said that modifications to Sec. 506.13 are as follows: - The terms "park trailer" and "travel trailer" were left in the parking restriction. - Clarified that 12,000 lb. weight applied to trucks only. - Limited motor home parking to 24 hours in a 7-day time period. Mr. Hickok said on April 2, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, and voted unanimously to approve the text amendment as written. City Council held a public hearing on April 13 and tonight's action is the first reading of the ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance, with the modifications made since the April 13 public hearing, clarifying the length of time allowed for motor home loading and unloading on the street. This ordinance is scheduled to have its second reading on Monday, May 4. Councilmember Bolkcom said it may be confusing when there is a three-day weekend so the wording may need to be changed. Mayor Lund agreed and suggested something like "a 24-hour cycle in a 7-day period." This would mean they had 24 hours prior to the trip and 24 hours upon return. The wording should be FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 3 effective and not overly restrictive. No more than one cycle like that in a week should be allowed. Mr. Hickok said that seemed like a fair position for the City to take, but enforcement may be a challenge. Staff will try to accommodate those circumstances. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for the new wording to be brought back for the second reading. Mayor Lund said there should be no more than two non-consecutive 24 hours in a seven-day time period. He said that most reports will be on a complaint basis from neighbors. Mr. Hickok said the areas are monitored both ways, and they would not want to put too much weight on complaints only. Staff does their best to notice things like and would like to make a judgment call before it becomes a complaint. Councilmember Bolkcom said to simplify things and to know the definition of what a trailer is helps. Mr. Hickok said they will try to keep things clean and simple, as it is more enforceable. The goal is to give Council the Statute at the same time so we do not have to read both ordinances. When references are in there it is for further research only. Councilmember Bolkcom said she felt comfortable with simple definitions rather than the statute. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, agreed and strongly recommends simple definitions for ease of enforcement. This reflects the prior recommendations that were made. Councilmember Varichak said at the last meeting, there was a discussion about visitors coming with RVs and staff indicated they would be happy to show them where they can park. Mr. Hickok said correct. Many people do not realize that there are nice camping areas close by with hook-ups. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Consideration of Intoxicating Liquor License Issued to William J. Bisek of JWBB, Inc., d/b/a Baggan's Pub, Located at 3720 East River Road (Ward 3). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove the consideration of intoxicating liquor license issued to William J. Bisek of JWBB, Inc., d/b/a/ Baggan's Pub, located at 3720 East River Road from the table. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 4 UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Richard Pribyl, Finance Director, said the building is located at 3720 East River Road and has been owned and operated by William Bisek of JWBB Inc. under a d/b/a as Baggan's Pub. On April 13, 2009, the City Council discussed the possible non-renewal of the Baggan's Pub Intoxicating Liquor License. After extensive discussion on the concerns staff had regarding the renewal or non renewal of the license, the item was tabled until this evening. Mr. Pribyl said the basis for tabling the item at the last meeting was to allow Mr. Bisek an opportunity to respond to City concerns regarding past operations. At the April 13 meeting, Council asked that Mr. Bisek provide City staff with the following items for review and consider prior to this meeting. 1. A written business plan. 2. Supporting documentation showing transparency with the business. 3. Written security plan. Staff received a packet of information on Apri122 that substantially complies with the request. Mr. Pribyl said based on the receipt of this additional information staff is recommending the renewal of the Intoxicating Liquor License with the following conditions: 1. That the City Council will review the license August 24, 2009, to monitor the food to liquor ratio of the business and the public safety concerns; 2. That if there are any significant changes in the operation of the business or in the overall order, peace and safety at the location, this will be grounds for a public hearing for immediate license revocation by the City; or 3. Any serious crime occurring prior to the August 24th review is grounds for an immediate public hearing for license revocation by the City; 4. Provide a monthly income statement, similar in format to the 12-month profit and loss statement provided in the April 16 written materials, which will assist in providing transparency by showing the flow of financial resources of the overall business; and 5. That the licensee meets monthly with staff to review security and financial information. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to move into record documentation received on April 22, 2009. Seconded by Varichak. UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 5 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if all the information Council requested was in the packet Mr. Pribyl said Mr. Bisek has complied with Council's request. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, said substantial compliance was received and the information is very appropriate. If this information had not been provided, recommendation for approval would not have been made by staff. This was substantial compliance, and what was presented looks like a business plan. Three months of information gathering will continue for Council's comfort level. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the Police Department was comfortable with the changes in the security plan or if it needed further discussion. Don Abbott, Director of Public Safety, said the security plan was reviewed and it does contain several elements but many are yet to be implemented. Estimates were given for equipment that will need to be purchased. Monthly meetings will give staff an opportunity to meet and provide police reports and concerns from officers. This will also provide an opportunity for Mr. Bisek to ask questions of the Police Department. Councilmember Bolkcom said there has been ongoing concern and police reports reflect activity happening on site. Chief Abbott said on April 13, a review of reports show 25% of the calls came from employees or the business and 75% of the calls came from patrons or victims of incidents. Staff would expect that in a business establishment that is being monitored, the majority of calls should come from the business. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification that if Council approved the license and the owner of the license agrees to conditions, such as meeting monthly, the license would continue until April, 2010. Mr. Pribyl said correct. The license is issued annually and will be reviewed in August. Council is issuing the annual license. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this had been done in the past. Mr. Pribyl said yes, numerous times. Scott Harris, Attorney for Baggan's Pub, said today he received an email of documentation including three items indicating report of conditions. Mr. Bisek is appreciative of Council and staff consideration. Council and staff should be aware that Baggan's Pub pledges to take all appropriate steps to prevent any criminal action. They are making pledges that it will not tolerate any sort of improper conduct or encourage that type of conduct. The goal is to engage proactively with the Police Department and they would welcome monthly meetings. There is no problem with sharing information and assuring Council along the way. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 6 Mr. Harris said that condition number 3, "Any serious crime occurring prior to the August 24 review is grounds for an immediate public hearing for license revocation by the City," Baggan's Pub can only do what is reasonable and appropriate in events that occur. They plan to take steps to prevent conduct and hopefully nothing of that sort will happen. Mayor Lund said if something happened in condition number 3 and it was deemed serious, the Police Department would have to prove the case and a public hearing would be provided. Mr. Harris said Council would take action to seek revocation. Baggan's Pub is just asking for an opportunity to make an evidentiary presentation. He spoke with Attorney Knaak about requesting an evidentiary hearing and if it does warrant this, Baggan's Pub would like the opportunity before a decision is made. Mr. Harris said they are optimistic and have taken an appropriate approach to security, to do all that is in their power so no criminal problems will occur on the premises. Some security items have already been brought in and the operation is already better as it stands today. Mayor Lund said looking at the items, he was disappointed specifically about security. Security was discussed during the public hearing and then in the llth hour proposals were brought forward. He had hoped some measures would have already been in place. He hopes the plan is followed through and that is the reason for the monthly meetings. Hopefully we can work together on this. Councilmember Bolkcom said the paperwork presented from Baggan's Pub says that 50% total sales of both food and liquor; she asked what they were trying to say. Mr. Pribyl said he would follow up with Baggan's Pub after this meeting and clarify this with the license holder. Mr. Harris said they are aware of the definition and percentages but were being conservative by saying 50%. They are aware that 40% should be in food so they are planning on the conservative side. Councilmember Bolkcom said she just wanted to clarify that 50% is not in the City ordinance. Mayor Lund said he went to Baggan's Pub last Wednesday night and the food was very good. He was there after 6:00 p.m. and was served a beverage in a Solo cup but he noticed other customers were served with a glass bottle after 6:00 p.m. It is important to make sure expectations are followed through. Mr. Harris said Mr. Bisek would appreciate feedback from anyone on behalf of the City. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the issuance of an intoxicating liquor license to William J. Bisek of JWBB, Inc., d/b/a Baggan's Pub, located at 3720 East River Road (Ward 3) with the following five conditions: FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 7 1. That the City Council will review the license August 24, 2009, to monitor the food to liquor ratio of the business and the public safety concerns; 2. That if there are any significant changes in the operation of the business or in the overall order, peace and safety at the location, this will be grounds for a public hearing for immediate license revocation by the City; or 3. Any serious crime occurring prior to the August 24th review is grounds for an immediate public hearing for license revocation by the City; 4. Provide a monthly income statement, similar in format to the 12-month profit and loss statement provided in the April 16 written materials, showing transparency of the flow of financial resources of the business; and 5. That the licensee meets monthly with staff to review security and financial information. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Resolution Terminating Agreement with Visit Minneapolis North Effective December 31, 2009, by Exercising Early Opt Out Option. Debra Skogen, City Clerk, said the City has been a member of the Visit Minneapolis North since 1986. Visit Minneapolis North grew to an 11-city convention and visitors bureau. Four cities opted out in 2008 (Arden Hills, Blaine, Coon Rapids, and Shoreview). Ms. Skogen said the Visit Minneapolis North Task Force studied feasibility of all cities remaining in Visit Minneapolis North and found cities on the east side of the Mississippi River felt stronger about having the National Sports Center as a partner. In addition to the four cities that opted out in 2008, the Visit Minneapolis North Board adopted a motion allowing the other four cities to opt out early without penalty. The Cities of Anoka, Ham Lake and Mounds View have all opted out and provided notice to Visit Minneapolis North. Ms. Skogen said a resolution has been prepared for Council to adopt allowing Fridley to opt out of their agreement with Visit Minneapolis North early. The City will continue to work with other cities to create a new convention and visitors bureau. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2009-21. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 8 6. Informal Status Report. Mayor Lund said the StarGazers fundraiser is on Saturday. Springbrook Nature Center Foundation is also having their annual fundraiser on the same evening. Councilmember Bolkcom encouraged Council and volunteers to help paint the Banfill-Locke Center on May 9 and 10. There was also a recent recycling event and the next one is not until October. Thirty-two people helped. Four hundred fifty vehicles dropped off 447 appliances, 297 tires, 6.8 tons of scrap metal and 151 fluorescent light bulbs. Also, 42 bicycles were salvaged. Councilmember Saefke said that paper shredding will take place this Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to noon in the parking lot next to City Hall. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Krista Monsrud Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY MAY 4, 2009 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember-at-Large Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Fritz Knaak, City Attorney James Kosluchar, Public Works Director Don Abbott, Public Safety Director PROCLAMATIONS: National Police Week May 10-16, 2009 Peace Officers Memorial Day. May 15, 2009 Public Works Week May 18-24, 1009 PRESENTATION: Recreation Summer ROCKS Program and SNC Summer Day Nature Camps APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of April 13, 2009 APPROVED. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 1, 2009. RECEIVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2009 PAGE 2 2. Claims (141514-141593). APPROVED. 3. Licenses APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM: No one from the audience spoke. OLD BUSINESS: 4. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 506 of the Fridley City Code Pertaining to Vehicle Parking (Text Amendment, TA #09-01, by the City of Fridley); and Adopt Official Title and Summary Ordinance. William Burns, City Manager, stated this legislation makes it unlawful to leave a truck having a license gross vehicle weight of over 12,000 pounds, manufactured home, park trailer, travel trailer, trailer, or motor home whether attended or unattended on City streets in any zoning district unless its owners/users are loading or unloading. Motor homes and travel trailers may remain parked on a public street for loading and unloading purposes no more than two non- consecutive 24-hour time periods in a seven-day time period. The motivation behind these changes is to prevent City streets from being used for large vehicle storage. Such usage narrows FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2009 PAGE 3 the width of the City streets, creates pedestrian and motor vehicle operator site distance problems, and in general inhibits the safe and free flow of traffic on Fridley streets. Dr. Burns stated the first reading of the ordinance was approved at Council's April 27 meeting. During the discussion at that meeting, Mayor Lund suggested, and Council concurred, that the ordinance needed to be amended in a manner that allowed motor homes and travel trailers to load and unload but in no more than two non-consecutive 24-hour periods. Said loading and unloading periods are to occur no more frequently than once every seven days. Staff recommends Council's approval of the second reading of this ordinance and approval of the summary ordinance. Mayor Lund referred to discussion in the past involving a Fridley resident bringing up concerns in particular about Euclid v. State of Ohio. There was an appeal and it was found unconstitutional because of purely aesthetic reasons regarding RV's. He asked if there is sufficient distinction here to defend what we are doing. Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, replied he is certainly familiar with the cases that were cited. He has some discussion with the staff. Here the purpose is not aesthetic, and that is fundamentally important. The purpose here is public safety. Given that fact he does not think there is any question this would be upheld in any court if it were to be challenged. Mayor Lund stated he did not have any other concerns or issues with it. He thinks it is appropriate. Councilmember Varichak asked Mayor Lund whether he liked the way it was worded to handle the 24-hours. Mayor Lund replied he does. He thinks it gives some reasonable restraints or time limits. People have to load and unload those large vehicles for vacations, and he wants to promote that. However, people have to be considerate of others, too, and parking is an issue for our Police Department and there have been a number of complaints. Councilmember Saefke stated just to make it clear for the record, the reason why that wording is in there is because when they were discussing it before, they were talking about people taking a long weekend vacation, for example, in less than a seven-day period. The original wording had 24 hours within a seven-day period which would then put them in violation if they left for a trip, for instance, on a Saturday morning and had their vehicle out on Friday night for 24 hours while getting the refrigerator, etc., going and then came back on the following Tuesday. In order to unload it, etc. it gives them time to do that with the new wording. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether this is easier to enforce. Don Abbott, Director of Public Safety, replied, it does. By incorporating the 24-hour language, it makes it clear to the Police Department and to the residents that you do not have to be physically in the process of carrying bags or bundles out to the RV but, if you have it home for loading or unloading, you can park it for up to 24-hours at a time for two periods in a week It FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2009 PAGE 4 will require some documentation on the Police Department's part to issue a citation. He does not expect a lot of citations to be issued though for this. Typically we handle these with education and a warning, and it is resolved. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak if it would allow someone to have a visitor who had an RV and park it in the street. Attorney Knaak replied, as a practical matter as he reads the ordinance, it would, yes. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt Ordinance No. 1257 on second reading. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt the Official Title and Summary Ordinance and order publication. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the ordinance would go into effect. Attorney Knaak replied, 60 days after publication. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 5. Approve Memorandum of Understanding for Recovery Act Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Award between the City of Fridley and the County of Anoka. Don Abbott, Public Safety Director, stated this is the 2009 Edward R. Burns Memorial JAG Grant or Justice Assistance Grant. It does include funds from the stimulus funding recovery act. Edward R. Burns was a New York police officer who was killed in the line of duty on February 26, 1988. Officer Burns was guarding the home of a witness in a drug case at the time of his death. He was shot by four gang members while sitting in a squad car on the street outside that witness's home. The killing of this police officer was ordered by a jailed drug king pin who ordered his gang to just shoot a police officer, and it just so happened that Officer Burns was the officer they targeted that night. The JAG grant was formerly known as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG). Fridley has received LLEBG funds in prior years. If he remembers correctly, we have not had one for five years. We used to receive somewhere in the area of $20,000 to $21,000 every year. It was replaced by the JAG grant in 2004. At that time Anoka County applied for the grant on behalf of the entire county and used the proceeds toward their crime lab. It is non-competitive which means we do not have to put in a grant application and compete with other jurisdictions. This amount is just identified as being for Fridley and as part of a larger pot of grant funding for Anoka County. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2009 PAGE 5 Chief Abbott stated allocations are determined by a formula based upon population and Part 1 crimes. Fridley's portion of the entire amount for Anoka County is $78,707. Funds are to be used for public safety, criminal justice related efforts, and it can be used over four years after the date of application. They had introduced a disparate designation. Counties where any local jurisdiction receives 150 percent more than the county it is in, by the formula, or the total of all JAG funds in the county that go to the cities exceeds 400 percent of the County's allocation, are considered disparate. Anoka County falls into that latter category where the cities together are eligible for more than four times what the county is allocated. In this case, in a disparate county such as Anoka County, it requires that all jurisdictions in that county must agree on a distribution plan for the JAG fund. That requires a memorandum of understanding by each and every city, and in our case the County as well. The County itself is eligible for $38,000. Fridley is eligible for $78,707. Chief Abbott stated all involved cities in Anoka County have met with law enforcement representatives and the County Attorney. Both the cities and the County agreed to utilize the federal distribution schedule. It was agreed that Anoka County should be the fiscal agent and that the County Sheriff's Office would create and manage the grant application. As is the case with most federally funded-grants, JAG provides for a 10 percent administrative cost to go to the fiscal agent. In our case this will go to the County. Chief Abbott stated the grant application is due May 18, 2009. The application requires signed memorandums of understanding from all agencies covered by the grant. We have 12 municipalities plus the County for this grant. The grant application includes utilization plans from all jurisdictions. Fridley's plan was circulated to Council as an information item in their April 17 packet. It was required by the grant to provide Council with a 30-day advance opportunity to review the material. Chief Abbott stated our tentative plan is to use JAG funds for three purposes. One would be to obtain digital video cameras and systems for five marked squad cars. We have had VHS-based systems in our squads for the last several years. Using a state grant last year we converted the first seven squad cars to the new digital format. This allows us to convert the last five. The second would be to provide start-up funding for two canine units. This would be to purchase the dogs, obtain training, and the required equipment. The third would be to provide $10,000 in funding for local efforts to combat auto theft. Chief Abbott stated these purposes and amounts should be considered tentative at this point subject to modification and/or final approval. Our JAG may be amended and re-tasked to other issues during the four-year life cycle of the grant. For instance, six months from now, if a new crime problem were to confront the City, we could file an amendment and re-task those funds to another purpose. The possibility of future JAG grants, also with a four-year life cycle that run concurrently with this one, there is no guaranty of this grant funding year to year. However, as in years past, it is possible that next year there could be another JAG grant and they just run concurrently. The way this works is you can have three or four of these open and running at any given time. It makes kind of a record keeping challenge for us, but we have done it with the local law enforcement block grant in the past. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2009 PAGE 6 Chief Abbott stated staff recommends that the City approve and execute the memorandum of understanding so that the County may meet the May 18 application deadline. Councilmember Saefke asked how the canine unit would operate. Chief Abbott replied the scheduling of two canine officers would allow us to schedule one canine every day of the year. If we operated independently, just our Police Department and our canines, we would most likely schedule those both on the 3 p.m. to 3 a.m. shift so that every day of the year during that time a canine would be scheduled. If the police officer took some vacation time there would be an opening in that schedule. The Police Department has worked on coordinating the schedules of canine officers from throughout the County. It has approached the other departments and the County that have canine officers and units available regarding this. In that case we would defer to or coordinate our scheduling with a countywide scheduling plan. The idea of that plan would be to maximize the probability of a canine being scheduled 24 hours a day every day of the year somewhere in Anoka County which would provide us with a canine response of typically within 20 minutes of a request. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the County did for $7,800. Chief Abbott replied they file the grant application and coordinate the application-related materials and the memorandum of understandings from a total of 13 agencies. There are quarterly reports that are due every year that the grant is open for the next four years. They have to report the spending of the grant by each and every one of the 13 agencies on a quarterly basis to the federal government. There will be amendments to this grant as it goes forward. Finally, there is the distribution of funds. There are two ways that the fund distribution would occur. One way, as is in our case, is to make a purchase and then request reimbursement from the County. What the County prefers, and he does not believe we have any objection to that, would be for us to identify a purchase and then direct that invoice from that vendor to the County; and the County would pay it directly. Chief Abbott stated at the end of the four years they have to close out the grant. They have to provide a written evaluation of how the grant funds were used and what benefits were realized by each of those communities to the federal government. So the total that the County retains then is about $47,000 but, over four years, it is just under $12,000 a year. Having administered the LLEBG just for the City of Fridley for $21,000 every year, he thinks the County is going to earn every penny of that $11,100 a year. Councilmember Saefke said to clarify for the public and Council, we are not talking about hiring two new officers for the canine unit. We are going to use the officers that we have. What we are talking about is actually purchasing and getting the dogs, training them, and perhaps buy one new car. Chief Abbott replied that is correct. We are not proposing adding to our staffing of officers at all. We would take existing officers with an interest and aptitude to become a canine officer and send them to the training with their new partner. We would retrofit existing patrol vehicles with equipment required for a canine unit. We are not planning on purchasing any new vehicles or FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2009 PAGE 7 hiring of any additional officers. It is purely the training, the dog itself, and related equipment. An example is a cage that goes into the squad car that has a remote-controlled release so if the officer is out of the car and gets into trouble, they can hit a button that they carry on their person. It will open that cage and allow the canine out to come to their aid. That would be the most expensive piece of equipment that would be required. Councilmember Saefke stated what we are talking about is spending Federal funds as opposed to City funds for the canine units. Chief Abbott replied, correct. The bulk of the expense is in the start-up and acquisition period. An opportunity has presented itself that will allow us to move in that direction. Councilmember Varichak stated she went to the police academy last year with officers. Every week there was new things that came to light when she was taking the class that she had no concept that the officers do. The night that they had the canine unit come, she was so impressed with that. We do need to have that in Fridley. She will totally support that in any way, shape, or form. It is a nice advantage and a nice addition to the Police force. MOTION by Commissioner Saefke to approve the Memorandum of Understanding for Recovery Act Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Award between the City of Fridley and the County of Anoka. Seconded by Commissioner Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Informal Status Reports Councilmember Bolkcom mentioned there was a block captains meeting a week ago. There was an unbelievable turnout, but we are still looking for more block captains. Contact the Police Department if you are interested. Councilmember Bolkcom invited anyone interested to help paint Banfill-Locke Arts building on Saturday and Sunday. Councilmember Varichak stated we had paper shredding this past weekend. We had the Springbrook Nature Center fundraiser where there was a good turnout. Also, we had the Stargazers event. Councilmember Varichak stated this weekend Columbia Heights High School is presenting the Wizard of Oz. Councilmember Barnette stated last week we had a presentation by the potential developers of the Columbia Arena site. There was an informal neighborhood meeting with about 50 neighbors from both sides of the highway. The developers will be making a presentation at the Planning Commission meeting this week. We would like to have as many citizens there to listen to the development and give reactions. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2009 PAGE 8 Chief Abbott stated our GIF vendor has completed grading and installing on the City's website. It is a rather dynamic crime mapping utility. If people want to go to our home page, it is highlighted under "Popular Pages," click on "Crime Statistics," down toward the bottom of that page, it talks about crime mapping. Right now we are mapping as currently as February and we are adding a month at a time. It will never be real time, but will be about a month behind. We are looking at two or three years right now so people can compare. Councilmember Bolkcom stated if was the program where people could go online and do police reports. Chief Abbott replied the ability to actually file and create a police report on-line is going to be coming in the very near future but it is not live yet. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when it would live. Chief Abbott replied, his staff is telling him two weeks. It is new to Minnesota and it is very new to us, so it is taking awhile to get it fine-tuned and exactly the way we want it. ADJOURN. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 6, 2009 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Dean Saba, Leroy Oquist, Jack Velin, Brad Sielaff, and Brad Dunham MEMBERS ABSENT: Marcy Sibel OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, City Planner Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Gary Anderson, 413 Rice Creek Blvd. Dean & Bev Eberhard, 436 Rice Creek Blvd. Paul Gunderson, 412 Rice Creek Blvd. Jeannine Schlottman, 5720 Washington Street Dean Suda, 350 Northco Drive (International Paper) Debra Patchin, 280 Rice Creek Blvd. Rod Hogetvedt, 201 Sylvan Lane Jim Winkels, Amcon Construction (Petitioner) Mark Huus, Amcon Construction Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development Corp. Steve Dunbar, Ivy Properties Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects Collin Kaas, Kaas Wilson Architects Approval of Minutes: April 1, 2009 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a rezoning, ZOA #09-01, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial to R-3, Multi-Family, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-02, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the creation of two lots from one lot, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. 3. PUBLIC HEARING 1 Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #09-03, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of a medical clinic on the south half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of an independent living, memory care and nursing home facility on the north half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi- Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to waive the readings and open the public hearing for Item Number 1-4. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, City Planner, stated Jim Winkels of Amcon Construction, on behalf of the petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners, is seeking four separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, which will allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site located at 7011 University Avenue. Ms. Stromberg stated the first land use action being requested is a Rezoning, ZOA #09-01. The current zoning of the subject property is M-2, Heavy Industrial. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the property to R-3, Multi-Family. Ms. Stromberg stated the second land use action requested is a Plat, PS #09-02. Currently, the site is one large, 14-acre parcel. The petitioner is seeking to subdivide the lot into 2 parcels. The northern parcel will be 7.65 acres and the southern parcel will be 6.48 acres after the replat. Ms. Stromberg stated the third land use action being requested is a Special Use Permit, SP #09- 03, to allow for the construction of a 50,000 square foot medical clinic on the southern lot. Ms. Stromberg stated the fourth land use action requested is Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, to allow the construction of a senior living facility on the northern lot. Both a medical clinic and a senior living facility are a permitted special use permit in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. Each of these requests will individually be examined in this report and will require separate actions. Ms. Stromberg stated Premier Properties is proposing to construct a four-story (over enclosed garage) senior living complex. As the developer describes their proposal they state: The proposed development consists of 176 total residential dwelling units for senior citizens, divided as follows: 35 skilled nursing care beds, 10 care suite beds (assisted living), 24 memory care units (assisted living), 47 general assisted living units, 57 catered living units, 2 guest units. A total of 58 parking stalls are planned within an enclosed garage below a portion of the senior residence building, and 58 surface parking stalls provide a total of 116 stalls on site. Drop-off 2 areas have been provided at the entry to the nursing home and at the entry to the senior residence. Ms. Stromberg stated this project provides a campus that serves a broad continuum of care for seniors, providing independent catered living, assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing care. Seniors can age in place, with services catered to their needed level of assistance. If they should need a significant increase in level of care, services are available within a community that they are already familiar with. Ms. Stromberg stated common areas are provided within the senior residence building for socialization, programmed activities, and congregate dining. Spaces such as the commercial kitchen, physical and occupational therapy, and resident storage would be shared between the senior residence and the attached nursing home. Ms. Stromberg stated the clinic will be a two-story, 50,000 square foot building, with a brick, glass and stucco-like exterior. Physician parking will be provided in a parking lot west of the proposed building, while patient parking will occur on the east side of the building. A parkway- type entrance drive is proposed to straddle the new property line between the clinic building and the senior complex to the north. Joint access and maintenance agreements will be required to assure perpetual cooperation. This joint drive will also serve as the fire access to the City's fire training site and replace a current fire-training site access easement that exists north and east of the arena. A replacement easement has been offered by the developer, but must be formalized through use of the appropriate descriptions, documentation and filing. Ms. Stromberg stated Columbia Arena was originally constructed in 1968. In 1974, a variance was granted to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 13 feet to allow the construction of an addition to the building that would allow for an additional sheet of ice. As a result of the variance approval, the addition was constructed in 1975. Several interior modifications have been made to the building over the years. Ms. Stromberg stated before the arena was constructed in 1968, the subject property was zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. When Anoka County purchased the property and constructed the ice arena in 1968, the properiy converted to a P, Public Facilities zoning. In 2005, Anoka County sold the property to the Minnesota Youth Sports Association (MYSA). In 2007, MYSA made a development deal with Kraus Anderson on the Columbia Arena properiy. Krause Anderson in turn sold the arena to a private investor named William Fogerty. Prior to the sale, the MYSA representative asked the City what they saw as future development potential for the site. Staff explained that the site is zoned P, Public Facilities, and that zoning will remain as long as the land is publicly owned. Once sold to a private entity, the zoning would revert back to its pre-public status. Ms. Stromberg stated since the property is now owned by a private investor the zoning is M-2, Heavy Industrial. As such, any development other than an M-2 development will require a rezoning. Staff's discussion with the sports association also used examples about what types of developments a site like this might be used for. Obviously, an M-2 use is a possibility, but development-wise, the City would need to determine whether M-2, Industrial, still makes sense in light of the development that has occurred since the late 1960's. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated Premier Central 65 Partners is requesting a rezoning for the Columbia Arena site from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to R-3, Multi- Family. As stated previously the property was zoned P, Public Facilities, when Anoka County purchased the properiy and constructed the arena in 1968. The zoning reverted back to M-2, Heavy Industrial, when a private investor purchased the properiy in 2007. The proposed rezoning is being sought to allow for the redevelopment of the site. Mr. Hickok, stated that the rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of the site. It would allow the proposed medical clinic and the senior project, and they meet several objectives that the citizens of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. One of the goals identified through the Comprehensive Plan meetings and a telephone survey that was done, was to maintain Fridley as a desirable place to live. Ways to accomplish this goal would be to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a place where the aged could stay. Only about 8 percent of Fridley's housing is of the town home or condominium structure type yet 23 percent of our population are residents over the age of 65. Of course that was in 2000 and that percentage is growing as folks stay in place and enjoy Fridley. To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens and desires to live in a maintenance-free housing setting, more types of senior housing were really desired to be constructed through that discussion. Mr. Hickok stated Premier development has chosen the R-3 classification to pursue for this development, and that is in accordance with zoning standards. This designation is acceptable since it would be an expansion of a district that already exists in that area. Woodcrest Baptist Church just to the south is R-3 multi-family residentiaL It is not unusual at all to have an R-3 separated by park and then additional R-3. This would be consistent with zoning characteristics in the City and certainly rezoning standards throughout. Council's discretion to rezone a property is broad. However, it must follow logic as it relates to the overall plan for future development as described in the Comprehensive Plan and either be identified as a redevelopment designation or its new zoning designation must represent an expanse of a zoning district that exists nearby. This request passes the test then for rezoning. It matches both the Comprehensive Plan visioning for redevelopment, and it does represent an expansion of that R-3. Ms. Stromberg stated Premier Central 65 Partners is seeking to replat the property located at 7011 University Avenue to create two separate lots. The proposed replat will consist of two lots; Lot #1 and Lot #2, Block 1, Columbia Addition. Since, the petitioner is seeking a rezoning to R- 3, Multi-Family; City staff has asked the petitioner to design their projects to meet the CR-1 standards for the medical clinic and the R-3 standards for the senior development. The petitioner has designed both projects to meet the criteria set forth within the City code and will be further analyzed within the separate special use permit reviews on this report. Each Parcel meets the minimum lot size required for the R-3 zoning district. Ms. Stromberg stated hospitals and medical clinics are a permitted special use in an R-3, Multi- Family zoning district, provided that code requirements related to building and site requirements and parking are met. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed medical clinic with be located on Lot 2, which will be the southern lot. The project area is 282,101 square feet (6.48 acres) in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 50,000 square foot medical clinic on this lot. A medical clinic of this size would require 300 parking stalls. The petitioner is proposed to construct 303 parking stalls on site, which will meet code requirements. All other code requirements, including but not limited to, setbacks and lot coverage are being met on this site. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code allows independent living, assisted living, and nursing homes as a permitted special use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, provided that code requirements related to building, site requirements and parking are met. � Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a four-story senior development along the west and north sides of Lot 1, with an attached one-story nursing home along the east side of the lot. The proposed four-story building will be 147,200 square feet in size and the one- story nursing home will be 25,840 square feet in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 176-unit senior housing complex, which will consist of 57 independent "catered" units, 39 assisted living units, and 24 memory care units, as well as 35 nursing care beds, 10 care suite beds and 2 guest units. The development will include 58 underground parking stalls and 58 surface parking stalls, for a total of 116 stalls. Ms. Stromberg stated the R-3, Multi-Family zoning regulations states that the average lot area required per dwelling unit is 2,500 square feet for the units on the first (3) three stories with an additional 950 square feet per unit from the fourth through sixth stories. National and regional development trends for assisted living and memory care appear to point to a lesser lot size requirement. Though well-maintained landscaped grounds are essential to project appeal and resident enjoyment, the size of the lot in this type of development can be smaller because the opportunity for residents to participate in larger scale outdoor activities on the grounds is much smaller. Also, less land is required because of the fact that the residents typically do not have cars, nor do they drive. Therefore, there is a lower standard for the number of parking stalls required and less land area to accommodate the automobile use. Mr. Hickok stated using the 2,500 square feet of land per unit for the 120 traditional independent or assisted living units, a land area of 6.89 acres is required. The developer has allowed 7.65 acres for that portion of the development. The units beyond the 120 traditional units are beds, bed suites, or 2 guest rooms; these are not typically calculated in the formula requiring 2500 square feet per unit, since they are not units that typically require unit owner cars or yards space. Instead these units share approximately an acre of land that remains, after the 120 units/2,500 square feet requirement has been met. Since this is an open common space development where individual yards are not defined, staff suggests that the land area provided for all residential portions is adequate for the common enjoyment of all residents. Mr. Hickok stated section 211 of the City's Subdivision ordinance states that if the Planning Commission or City Council upon finding any regulations or requirements of the Code that is not applicable to a proposed preliminary or final plat, it may permit variations that are not contrary to the intent and purpose of the applicable law. The R-3 regulations that require 2,500 square feet for each unit are clearly meant for an apartment complex or condo development and are not meant for a senior development that is occupied with small memory care units and nursing home beds. As a result, it is acceptable for the Planning Commission and City Council to endorse this interpretation of the Code for purposes of a senior living development such as this, through the platting process. Making this modification is not intended to set precedence for future requests that are not of a similar nature. Ms. Stromberg stated City code requires that buildings within the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district not exceed 65 feet in height, when measured from grade to the mid-span of the roo£ The petitioner's plans currently show the building at 60 feet to the peak, therefore, meeting code requirements. The petitioner just received the soil boring for the parcel and has discovered that there is a high water table in the area where the senior building will be located. As a result, they may need to increase the height of the building to compensate for the high water table. The petitioner has expressed to staff that they are confident they will be able to comply with the maximum 65-feet height limit. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed project is in-compliance with lot coverage, parking and all setback requirements. City code requires 115 parking stalls based on types of units within the building. The petitioner is showing 116 parking stalls, which exceeds code requirements. City staff would recommend that instead of installing parking stalls that are not required, that those additional spaces be used for additional green space, with proof of parking. Ms. Stromberg stated this petitioner has not submitted a formal housing study. However, a memorandum from a housing analyst has been submitted to this development group indicating that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 240 beds (skilled nursing beds) of the above- referenced nature. They note that over the next five years the level of units demanded now will likely decrease due to other competitive developments in the area that are now in some stage of planning or construction. Mr. Hickok stated the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of University Avenue adjacent to the proposed Senior Living/Medical Facility project carried 34,000 vehicles per day. At this traffic level, it is carrying 3,000 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 specif�ications to function at a Level of Service (LOS) D. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan anticipates that University Avenue will be carrying over 38,000 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 38,000 vehicles per day, University Avenue would be above its design capacity. This project brings the roadway and its intersection at 69th and University Avenue closer to capacity, earlier than anticipated. As a result the State of Minnesota was asked to comment on the perceived or real impacts of the development. Mr. Hickok stated if this segment of University were to be modified to a divided six-lane roadway, the roadway widening would increase its capacity range from 31,000-37,000 to 55,000 to 61,000 vehicle trips per day. That improvement is not scheduled in the State's near capital improvement horizon and would not be necessary based on this project alone. Mr. Hickok stated trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7t'' Edition, shows the Assisted Living Land Use category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed Senior Project complex would generate a total of 363.5 trips per day if all beds within the complex were occupied. Based on the information provided, the senior building would create a slight increase to the traffic at the intersection of 69t'' Avenue NE and the Service Drive, but only during peak hours. During all other times there will be no perceptible increase in the volume of traffic. At no time will this project add a perceptible increase to University Avenue traffic volumes, according to Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects. This intersection was designed to handle traffic from the ice arena, and is consequently adequate to handle the traffic volumes of this proposed development. Mr. Hickok stated it should also be noted, that according to the ITE manual, studies have shown that less than 5 percent of residents in an assisted living facility own vehicles and, if they do, they are rarely driven. Employees, visitors, and delivery trucks make up most of the trips to this facility. The ITE manual also points out that the "peak hour" generator typically does not coincide with the "peak hour" of the adjacent street traffic for an assisted living facility. This is primarily related to the shifts of the employees beginning at 7:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. The typical peak hours on most roadways are between 6:00-7:00 a.m. and 3:00-4:00 p.m. The 0 developer has indicated that the peak visitor time is on Sunday when the medical facility will be closed. Mr. Hickok stated traffic information from the developer regarding the clinic portion of the development is broken up in a different manner and does not use ITE numbers, but their experience as a basis. The Clinic indicates that it sees 6,500 patients per month. This is based on a schedule of 266 hours and 24.4 patients per hour. The employee count for that complex is 100 employees who work staggering shifts, throughout the day. The clinic will be open 7:30 am to 8:00 pm and on Saturdays 8:00 to noon. Mr. Hickok stated the Minnesota Department of Transportation engineers concur with the conclusions of the developer's traffic analysis. The combination of uses on this site will not cause the need for changes at intersections, including signals. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has illustrated that storm water management for the site will be handled using a standard pond/surface drainage system designed to meet the watershed's requirements for rate, quality and volume control. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner held a meeting with the neighborhood regarding this project on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. in Room 114 of the Fridley Community Center. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting and the comments and questions were very positive. It appeared there was much support for the project. A couple questions were asked regarding the choice to place the clinic south and the residence north. The developer indicated that both end users preferred the site plan as proposed. A resident inquired whether truck traffic could be directed north while cars continue to use the 69t'' intersection. This question's answer is something that cannot be controlled by the developer of this site, but instead is a larger issue. The City's response to that would be that the roadways and intersections were designed to handle both and signs likely would not be observed. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning ZOA #09-01, without stipulations. The rezoning accomplishes the following objectives: • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors. • Provides additional job opportunities. • Proposed use meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan • Is consistent with historic rezoning practices in Fridley Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, PS #09-02, with stipulations as the plat meets the requirements of Chapter 211. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the Preliminary Plat, PS#09-02 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. An easement to provide perpetual access to the fire training facility have been discussed, and agreed to, but have not been shown on preliminary plat. An easement description and easement document must be prepared, approved by the City's Fire Chief and made ready for final signatures for filing, prior to approval of the final plat. 2. An easement to provide perpetual shared parking between the clinic, senior building and park, south of the clinic have been agreed upon, but have not been memorialized in an easement document. That document shall be prepared, approved by the County Parks and Recreation Director and made ready for signature and filing, prior to final plat approval. 7 Anoka County's Path shall be moved from the southern edge of the clinic parcel and ready for reinstallation in accordance with plans to be approved by Anoka County prior to final plat approval. A path connection plan allowing safe access from the clinic parking lot to the County path south of the clinic parking lot. A path along 71St to meet the specifications of the City engineering department shall be installed. All pathway and easements, once designated to City specification and installed, will eliminate the developer's need to contribute park dedication for this plat. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of both Special Use Permits. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if Special Use Permit, SP #09-03 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans EL.1, dated November 21, 2008. 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) : Z. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A500 (not dated, but submitted with packet). 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. �. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency within the proposed building. 15. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 16. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Mr. Hickok stated the stipulation related to park dedication was removed. We have asked for a number of path connections, etc. and have done so in lieu of park dedication. As they Planning Commission knows the subdivision chapter of the Code, states that it's the City's discretion to ask for up 10 percent of the land or cash in lieu of land for park dedication. In this particular case we think it's more important to have the easements for the shared use and the path connections that would make the clinic and the senior building really connected and more vital to the park and able to use the park. Also, we have had parking at the Columbia Arena site for years for soccer, etc. at the park and conceptually the developer has agreed to allow that shared parking arrangement to continue to e�st, however a formal easement will need to be drawn up. If the developer with grant the easement staff would recommend the easement in lieu of the park dedication. Commissioner Sielaff asked if NPDES was a storm water permit? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, a NPDES is the standard permit that is required of a State for storm water. It is managed internally here by our engineering staf£ It is something that is required on a project ofthis size. 0 Commissioner Sielaff asked how many senior facilities do we have in Fridley? This is just assisted living, correct? Do we have any other assisted facilities in Fridley? What exactly do we have? Mr. Hickok replied this is something that we really need and is a very good question. Right now we do not have a lot of assisted living. We have independent living units. We have some level of assisted living but not a great deal. We recently had a request approved for a project at Old Central and Mississippi that is a very similar project in terms of the mix. We really don't have the level of senior housing that the petitioner is proposing here with the memory care, the nursing care, and the levels of assisted living that they have built into this project. It takes us beyond where we are at with any other e�sting housing projects. Commissioner Sielaff asked what percentage without this project would we have for assisted living of the total housing we have in Fridley? Mr. Hickok replied, he would say it is less than 2 percent that is dedicated to seniors. Mr. Dunham asked when calculating the density requirements, it is 176 total but 120 takes up 6.4 acres and there really is no consideration for the remaining. We allow that discretion? Mr. Hickok replied, the 120 are using the standard R-3 requirements of 2,500 square feet per unit. That is really a match based on those being more of a typical unit. Those are more of the independent living. When there is a nursing bed situation, they are not apartments or dormitories or small studios but instead it is a different arrangement. Our Code would be considered weak in that area of the square footage requirements for nursing home type facilities like this. The code really does not recognize this type of living set-up. What we are pointing out to the Commission this evening is that, it does allow about another acre of land for those bed units that wouldn't be considered independent living or assisted living units. In this type of situation it is not similar to a townhouse or condominiums project where they would somehow break apart and identify private spaces for the units. It is all common area, so this was just a way for them to see the relationship between what would be a standard apartment or condominium type land-to-unit ratio and it is now land-to-bed unit ratio. Mark Kuus, Amcon Construction, stated he is the architect for the medical office building. Also, representatives for Multicare, the developer and the architect for the housing project, are here as well. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they have any problem with the stipulations? Mr. Kuus replied, from the medical clinic side of things he thinks the stipulations are just fine. Steve Dunbar, Ivy Properties, stated he is part of the development team for the senior housing portion and they agree to all the stipulations. Commissioner Velin stated he counts about 40 stipulations in this whole project, he asked Mr. Dunbar if all of them are fine with them and they do not obj ect to anything? Mr. Dunbar replied, yes, they agree with the stipulations. 10 Commissioner Dunham referred to the two letters they received in their packet that a few member of the community would like to see the clinic moved to the north lot and the senior building on the south lot. What is the petitioner's opinion on that? Mr. Dunbar stated after the neighborhood meeting on April 29, 2009 they went back and spoke with the operators of the proposed facility and they just seem to feel the senior operation would better suit the northern portion of the site. They like having their front door to the southern light exposure, and that is a big component for them. Secondly, they felt that the commercial/industrial businesses to the north of the site would work better for the senior development when compared to the type of unpredictable evening activities that might take place at the park. Commissioner Velin asked regarding Stipulation No. 14 wherein it states they will provide a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency, he asked if they have an age requirement? Mr. Dunbar replied, 55 or better. Dean Suda, International Paper, stated they own the building just north of the Columbia Arena and have a couple of concerns. They were at the last meeting and talked about flip-flopping the buildings. They have two concerns: one is noise and one is traffic and they are both twofold. They obviously run a commercial building. Back in the middle 1990's they had a City resident complain about noise from some residents probably anywhere from a half to three-quarters of a mile away. They had the City come out and do some noise monitoring, and they were well within the limits. However, they honored the residents' concerns, spent some money, and put some enclosures around their machines. It cost about $250,000 back then. The concern is now this building is going to be a lot closer. He feels there is going to be much more concern especially with the units along the back of the building. The windows are going to be facing the commercial. The concerns will not only be with our machines, the railroad comes through there, and there is truck traffic noise. Not including the facility next to them, there are probably 40 trucks a day. These run 24 hours a day. The majority of them are during business hours anywhere from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m.; however, there are trucks that come in 2 or 3 a.m. He would prefer that the buildings be flip-flopped. He cannot imagine someone living in a senior living facility would want to look at commercial buildings instead of looking at a park with kids playing soccer. Mr. Suda stated the other issue is the traffic with those trucks coming in and out all day long. Even though the arena has been there for year, there hasn't been a lot of activity in many years. Since then the traffic on University Avenue has grown. Northco Drive has been more development as well. The other concern is walking traffic. The park is beautiful and people want to see it. He is concerned about people walking down the street in truck traffic going to the park. There are times he has to stop people walking through his facility to get to the park. There is a lot of truck traffic in their parking lot, and they ask them to go around their building to go to the park. With that construction of the new building, he feels there is going to be more truck traffic going to the park on 71St Avenue. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they are immediately north of the subject property? Mr. Suda replied, yes. 11 Chairperson Kondrick stated he is sure that these folks have considered these factors as well. He wondered if maybe there might be more noise from a park for longer periods of time especially in the evening than there would be from trucks. Mr. Suda replied he appreciates that but he guessed if he was elderly and living there he would rather look at kids playing in the park vs. a truck driver coming in at 6 or 7 o'clock at night. Commissioner Sielaff asked regarding the fire facility on the east side. Is there a lot of activity in that area from the City? Mr. Hickok replied it is a joint facility and he would say there is a fair amount of training activity that happens there. There are two other cities besides Fridley that shares the training facility. They have discussed that with the developer, and he thinks it is probably similar to the activity to the north and is an acceptable neighbor. He thinks the training activities are very typical of fire training though; and there would be hose use, ladder use, and fire trucks in and out of the site. Also, there will be fires in the training buildings that they operate and train within so they are skilled at their job when they get out to a real fire. However, this is something that is known. It is not a surprise to the developer. It is there and it exists. We tried to best of our ability to explain what that is and let them know that. Commissioner Oquist stated that the Fire Training facility is essentially east of the proposed clinic, not the nursing home/senior housing. So it will be buffered by the parking lot of the clinic? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it really is just due east of the parking lot for the clinic building. East of the one-story nursing home part of the senior project is where the City's recycling center used to be. Currently there is a large salt shed building there and some other public works uses. It is probably a quieter use today than it was at that time. Chairperson Kondrick referred to Mr. Suda obviously spending some time and effort at trying to make his operation quiet. The nature of his business is such whereby it is not always totally possible. The question is, do they think this is going to be a problem for this development? Mr. Kuus replied, speaking for the medical clinic he does not really think that is a problem for them. Mr. Dunbar stated our development team has built against railroad tracks and highways. We feel we produce a very-high quality development in the fact that we have very high-test windows that can knock down the sound. We have had these challenges before, and we have been able to handle them through the development process. Chairperson Oquist asked so they have taken that into consideration? Mr. Dunbar replied, yes, absolutely. Commissioner Sielaff asked if they have talked with Mr. Suda? Mr. Dunbar replied they had at the neighborhood meeting, but they would be happy to meet with him again and help address his concerns. 12 Commissioner Dunham asked about the medical building preferring the south? What is the thought process for that? Is there a reason? Mr. Kuus replied part of the reason was to allow the shared parking between the clinic and the park. Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development Corp., stated he is the over-55 member of the group and has been involved with a lot of senior projects. After the neighborhood meeting they met with some of the partners involved in this development. They took their team back to the site, walked around, and analyzed what kind of condition they had. He thinks the thing they have to keep in mind is that the senior customer they are going to house here has an average age of probably 85 years old. He does not think we are going to see them walking around on a regular basis. The residents are really there for the internal support system that is within the building. That is really the customer we are looking for. If you look at the product that we are building here, it is not independent senior although a very limited amount could be independent with catering as described in the staff report. They always say there are three types of seniors: go-go, slow-go, and no-go. He thinks this development would tend to target the slow-go and the no-go, who are going to need the support services in the building. He can tell the Commission from experience that the residents will prefer to watch the business activity over watching the park activity. Watching the grass grow is really not what they want to really see, so your businesses will have a lot of eyes on them. Mr. Dunbar stated they did one down in Shakopee and they premiumized units the one looking over the Minnesota River and lowered the one looking over Turtles Bar and Grill. The units over looking Turtles Bar and Grill beat out the units overlooking the Mississippi River, 10-1. The activity side of a senior is very important. After the neighborhood meeting they took researchers back out to the site and watched the operation. They think they are very, very comfortable with what they have. Based on the neighborhood meeting they increased the walking path all the way through the parking lot, reduced the amount of parking, and added more parking spaces with a gazebo in the middle. He really thinks the difference they are talking about from a customer's standpoint is the age of the customer and the services they are there for. The primary services they are there for are internal. Mr. Dunbar stated the one critical thing that was mentioned earlier is the need for the southern exposure which is very, very important for the front door. If they turn the building around and have a northern exposure, he thinks they will have more risks of ice building up and stuff like. When they looked at the site that is what they were drawn to. The fire training situation next door isn't that big of a deal. They understand what is there, and they recognize that they will build the building with windows and walls that will be upgraded. They really do not have the concerns that the business does. They respect that being brought forward in the neighborhood meeting and here tonight. Commissioner Velin asked Mr. Suda about his operation being 24 hours. Is his shipping and receiving is 24 hours also? Mr. Suda replied, yes, sir. Commissioner Velin stated if he is 85 years old and he takes his hearing aids off and he is ready to go to bed, he is not going to hear the trucks. He asked where the City is going to hold their recycling days? 13 Mr. Hickok replied, staff has discussed that. Certainly as they draw up the easement they will talk about that as well. MOTION by Commissioner Saba receiving a letter from Jerry Maeckelbergh (425 Rice Creek Boulevard) and a second letter from John Gohmann. Seconded by Councilmember Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Paul Gunderson, 412 Rice Creek Boulevard, which is three houses south of the ice arena. He was at the public meeting. After the meeting he checked into the organization that will be running the senior housing place, and he was very pleased with what he found out about them. He's in favor of the proposed project. Gary Anderson, 413 Rice Creek Boulevard. He attended the neighborhood meeting, and he like the concept but would like it reversed. There is heavy-duty industrial and the trains and you do hear the noise, and there is a lot of noise and the truck traffic. He felt the medical center would be better off closer to the noise and the truck traffic, and have the senior center on the south half because you have a park there. There is also the Baptist School and soccer fields which seems more compatible with the senior facility. When the fire training center is in operation on certain nights, he goes outside to see if the house next door is burning. There is quite a smell, and he assumes they have taken that into account. You cannot open your windows when that is going on. He thought logically it would make better sense to have them reversed since there is less traffic because getting out on University is just a nightmare. One of the neighbors timed it at four minutes. He does not go out 69t'' anymore, he goes up to 73rd and goes out because you have to wait and wait at 69t'', and that is not during construction. He has complained to the State several times, and they always come out and say they will check the light but it is timed for University and not for them to get out on 69t'' Avenue. They live quite a ways away, and they can hear the trains and the noise in the morning. The trucks going out 24 hours a day, and the traffic is a problem. Commissioner Oquist stated one reason to have the clinic where it is, in relation to the training center, is that it is parallel to the training center; but if you move the seniors down then they would be right up against the training center. Commissioner Sielaff stated that he wondered about the air quality, if Mr. Anderson can smell it from where he lives he wondered what it would be like to be right next to it. Mr. Hickok replied, it is managed. There are air quality standards for the training center that they need to meet. The fire folks have been involved with our development review committee, and it is anticipated their being a neighbor of this project. To this point there has not been any sort of fear that the two could not co-exist. Roger Nelson, 490 — 69t'' Avenue, stated that he thought Northco Road was built to handle some of the truck traffic. Also, he thought that there wouldn't be a problem for the recycling events, because 71St Avenue goes back at least a mile to the park. That area could be used for waiting vehicles. Mr. Anderson stated remember you have the church school here and at 8 a.m. you have a lot of parents driving the kids to school and picking up at 3 p.m. So you have that additional traffic that really jams up the intersection. 14 Mr. Suda stated 85 percent of their truck traffic won't use 73rd Avenue to get to University because they need to go south to 694. So there is no reason for them to head north. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:07 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he thinks the staff has done a very good job of anticipating objections. The petitioner also held a neighborhood meeting to get issues discussed. Personally he does not have a problem with this. He thinks it will be great. He is a member of the Park and Recreation Commission and was interested in the bikeway/walkway easement and access for parking for the park and he's happy to see those issues will be addressed. Commissioner Dunham stated he thinks it looks pretty good, and he understands the noise issue. He does not know how they can address Mr. Suda's concerns, but he thinks Mr. Dunbar answered the questions that he is not terribly worried about it with the age of the people within the senior building. He is going to be putting in a pretty substantial development there. Commissioner Oquist stated he agreed with Commissioner Dunham, and he thinks it is going to be a nice project for that development. He thinks they could probably have some other types of developments that could go on the site, that wouldn't be as favorable, so he thinks this will work well. The traffic is an issue but it would be an issue no matter what went in there. They addressed the noise and they are aware of the concerns about it. The only thing he wondered about was a consideration of some sort of a walkway to the park, rather than walking down the street. Mr. Hickok replied the developer has done a very nice job of taking, for example, the walkway that comes out from the one-level nursing facility or coming out of the senior complex and extending it through the parking lot of the medical clinic, so there is a connection to the park. That connection/walkway will also be lighted. Down in the southeast corner of the site there is even a pathway connection that takes them to the County's trail. Just as that stipulation talked about. They have anticipated that and tried to make that connection. They appreciate the gentleman's comment about folks walking down 71St. They stipulated they would like to see a sidewalk along there. That would help as they anticipate additional sidewalk made in front our public works facilities going back to the park. Until then he thinks this is the right way for folks to get back to the park. Commissioner Saba stated he does not have any problem with this. He thinks even if you reverse it, you will have some issues with traffic and noise. He likes the joint parking with the park. He thinks this is a great development. He thinks it is an improvement for the City of Fridley. He thinks there are a lot of other things that could go on this property that could be a lot worse especially if it was zoned commercial. There could be a lot of things going in there that could be a lot more problematic than this. He thinks this is really a good opportunity for the City of Fridley, and the development is well-planned and thought out. He supports this. Commissioner Sielaff stated he thinks this fulfills an important need for the City. He does not think there is any better places to put a facility like this. He is in favor of it. 15 Commissioner Velin stated he thinks it will be a great improvement along University and that it will really dress up the area. He thinks it is a good idea. MOTION by Councilmember Dunham approving the rezoning, ZOA #09-01, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial to R-3, Multi-Family, generally located at 7011 University Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Oquist approving a Preliminary Plat, PS #09-02, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the creation of two lots from one lot, generally located at 7011 University Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. An easement to provide perpetual access to the fire training facility have been discussed, and agreed to, but have not been shown on preliminary plat. An easement description and easement document must be prepared, approved by the City's Fire Chief and made ready for final signatures for filing, prior to approval of the final plat. 7. An easement to provide perpetual shared parking between the clinic, senior building and park, south of the clinic have been agreed upon, but have not been memorialized in an easement document. That document shall be prepared, approved by the County Parks and Recreation Director and made ready for signature and filing, prior to final plat approval. 8. Anoka County's Path shall be moved from the southern edge of the clinic parcel and ready for reinstallation in accordance with plans to be approved by Anoka County prior to final plat approval. 9. A path connection plan allowing safe access from the clinic parking lot to the County path south of the clinic parking lot. 10. A path along 71St to meet the specifications of the City engineering department shall be installed. 11. All pathway and easements, once designated to City specification and installed, will eliminate the developer's need to contribute park dedication for this plat. Seconded by Councilmember Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Saba approving the Special Use Permit, SP #09-03, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of a medical clinic on the south half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans EL.1, dated November 21, 2008. 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 16 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Seconded by Councilmember Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Velin approving the Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, by Premier Central 65 Partners LLC, to seek four land use actions in order to allow for the redevelopment of property, to allow the construction of an independent living, memory care and nursing home facility on the north half of the subject properiy within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 7011 University Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. The property shall be developed in accordance with the architectural site plan SP.1 dated March 1, 2009. (Sidewalk to be changed as shown on C3.0 dated March 6, 2009.) 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A500 (not dated, but submitted with packet). 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 17 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency within the proposed building. 15. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 16. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. Seconded by Councilmember Dunham. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairperson Kondrick asked when will this be going to City Council? Ms. Stromberg replied May 18, 2009. Receive the Minutes of the March 2, 2009, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Sielaff asked about the other senior project that was approved? Is there anything new on that development? Mr. Hickok replied today the City of Mounds View called to talk to him and Mr. Bolin about that development because that developer also had a project approved in Mounds View right before the one was approved in Fridley. They were just checking with us to see if we had heard anything because they were excited and waiting for their development to happen. They anticipate theirs will still happen but whether there is a finance issue or what is unknown. Last Mr. Hickok talked to the developer, he said that these things do take some time. They had negotiated the deal back in August of last year and in March of this year is when they actually closed on the Mounds View property. He anticipated that it would take about as long with the Fridley development. Commissioner Sielaff asked, so the Mounds View deal did close? Mr. Hickok replied, they did close in March. Beyond that Mounds View is every excited and waiting for their project to happen over there. : Mr. Hickok stated regarding the station site, where they are at today, they have done a major portion of the pile driving to stabilize the rails and keep them in place while they are excavating out for the head houses and the buildings that get you down in the elevators down to the tunnel below the track. One of the things that happened in the last few days is the storm ponds have started to be dug out and are taking shape on both the east and west sides of the tracks. It is going to be a very nice station site when it is done. We will have lots of landscaping and it is well bermed and well lit. Folks will be able to get on our platform to ride the train at the same time as all the other stations. Commissioner Sielaff asked when will station be open to riders? Mr. Hickok replied, in November. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Dunham adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:23 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 19 � � CffY OF FRIDLEI' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 William W. Burns, City Manager James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director May 18, 2008 P W09-031 Award of Elevated Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilitation Project No. 382 On Tuesday, May 12, 2008, five bids were opened for the Elevated Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilitation Project for the repair and recoating of the 0.5 million gallon elevated storage tank at the Commons Park Water Treatment Plant. Attached is a bid tabulation and recommendation letterfrom the City's consultant, Bonestroo. We are pleased thatwe received five very competitive bids for this project. The low base bid was received from Odland Protective Coatings of Rockford, MN, in the amount of $443,000.00. The high bid received was $529,500.00. The cost estimate performed by Bonestroo/KCI was $512,100. We elected to allow bidders to select an eight week time for substantial completion between June 1 and September 1, 2009. Bidders were requested to provide a start date with their bid. Odland Protective Coatings provided a start date of July 6 for their work, which is acceptable under the contract and conforms to Water Department operations. This project is to be funded by a utility bond issue supported by water utility rates. The bid documents require the contractor comply with prevailing wage rates in conformance with City Ordinance No. 1095 and Resolution 38-1997. Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the Elevated Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilitation Project (No. 382) to the low bidder, Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. of Rockford, MN in the amount of $443,000.00. JPK/jpk Attachment u c a � G � Z C d � � $ � U k m i v F � .N � y p,��+, i C � ym N G � • W ~ N l O 4 O � = N C C OI 'O 1`: C � M L � � u � i� �a' � �i' Z d 'v l � �' y � 9 � m p a` .y V Z � C O a O � O � C Z 1'� � � � O o a 9 a m c U � � � � � � � MO W N C � �"� Z C 9 � o � m J c M GI c .� T' Z � L � � �;O m Q d C 10 O Z Q 5 � m � c m g o 0 00 00 o° °o o °o 0 0 ao r� o 0 0 w �' ° o`°�+ o � rn c m «F .n � � � O O O O O O O O O O O O �p � � N O � o i1 � O�D O � � � � � � � 'c � O O O O O O 0 � N O O O °v a^o o ° � ° � � � � � °o °o °o o °o °o °o m o °o o ° o rv o o r. g o v o o .-T o � � w .�. w � 0 0° oo° oo° O N O O �W O o � O O o M � N � � � °o g °o°o °o°o o° °o °o°o °o°o � a°o rns � g w wa'k w.. g o o °o, o° °o °o °o $� o0 g o N � O�i � � O � � �� w .�. .. .. .. o ... `� � �3 `� _ '� rn 0 0 0 � � N � N .-1 l0 � N � U ' � C T � �-Ci � lll �_ ^ n ��"' orn ti{ � E g �o 0 0 B� � ��� v°= � ,����$ m �°'a m dp c MVf ��oFam O r 000 0� , �N "y 1� O N � � y� Vf � NT l�ll ~ � � � 3 N � N � 2 � C p� 1� OJ � a � Q+�+ G1 N N � ��v G{n p M fy Y�i C � u � p N N > � $ �`n° a�i ."'..`^.'�a c _ u z f � n a� a m O 0 01 p � � O � O � N �p � � � � � � 7 E Q v � ^ �' •�• u 3 "� a' E a nN nC. �� C tM0 l�0 � V1 Z� 5 �n �n � 'Q Ot pl C � v 1' $ � V�1 l�A � � $ �� M � � � �p y � `.-°+� xnr��am c rn `" rn � N � C O ,.y O M � n � ,� U y, nf a � y � > L in c � � � in m � .�� a c � N^8 d E d+ n>. c c C � � N V^' � E �i a � �� � n� a m O � c � m � �8i $ a � � �i rn � ; c � � c (p W Y N Q � � Z � o a �L° a c 0 U Z ~ l7 � Z ..� z � z � �. a, W W � Z Z qa a � �Q � � � y�j w Q w M Q� � W � W f 0 a J d � ��J W Q C ~ U Z V � w W��+ Z a r� �v LL o o��� ° z ~3 v�iz ,��„Za aaQum, �ui°�" .�.z z� Z�� Z��a �o�o vi�z�o �o� z�w�� o�O� a��UQ JQ� �miF� �E¢-.-�� � a ,;,m�o�wo�� Z��a.. n°�o ��a w �Q Q Q 6 a � a W�� a U� a� w 4' � � W ���.Z. 6OLf o V7..� �m�F-C aatn� �1 � '+ N M � ll1 �p f�l Z � m � C � �w o ��w �w� ..� O N � � ~ � K o°oo 0 C O N N Z C N O O d .� a °o, °o °o o °o °o � o, o, °o X � °� o° o°°o °�no° "a'a' f d o 0 0 0 w Y C � � �� � � .y .-i .-i .ti O .-� ti C � � � � _ � Z � � m � c m �+ � M Z M Z � � � C Z Z Z z t� G �� � z w z u�i Z � a � � O � p W W w w V Q N � 3 �o � LL > W a � � w� w o �°wa a.. f 3 z � W LL Z LL � � �� �y 3 �z �za aaoW ►�.Z z� z�� z���Z Wy� Oz�a �a"' Zmw� '�" �a��,-'Ua Ua� C7U�S~'a � vl ¢ r+ M�oa^�a� ���am �= m� a w� a� � ua Z Q Q 60CF�� VUi�O� �m��C .ti N M e{ u] lp {/1 H c o � � a �n ° � � z O��u� Q p � QC a �NQo a a � � z a C�.av=i�i N � U � S m�f c c c � � a � a � � ¢ c T N � � Z � C O U �o�_ d � � y v �^ `^ r a�i �1 lll y . C C � � m 0J (`�l M L = � C n f� � l� m Q C {L m � � N L � � J � a m 3 � � c ft] y V Q T � C � m x � � AGENDA ITEM � COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 � �F CLAI MS FRIDLEY CLAIMS 141596 - 141 �05 � AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 ��F LICENSES FRIDLEY 'TYPE OF LICENSE:' APPLICANT: APPROVED BY: Tree Removal Premier Tree Service, Inc Public Safet Dennis Harold Public Works Massage Therapy Evelyn A. Ashford Public Safety Social Skill Card Game Chippy Poker Tournaments Public Safety Tournament Service Provider Jerome D. Gole Fridley 49er Days Street Vending Matt Milner Sales Public Safety Gerald Johnson � AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 ��F LICENSES FRIDLEY Contractor T e A licant A roved B Advance Com anies Commercial or S ecialt Lar Tra Ron Julkowski, CBO Air Mechanical, Inc Heatin Bett Hara at Ron Julkowski, CBO Cente oint Ener Heatin JoAnn Zinken Ron Julkowski, CBO G E Knutson Inc Commercial or S ecialt Gre Knutson Ron Julkowski, CBO GV Heating & Air Gas Scott Follese Ron Julkowski, CBO GV Heatin & Air Heatin Scott Follese Ron Julkowski, CBO Jones Si n Co Inc Si n Erector Lori Hendzel Ron Julkowski, CBO Lino Lakes Blackto Inc Blackto Tom Ramsden Ron Julkowski, CBO Practical S stems Heatin Jeffre Kline Ron Julkowski Practical S stems Gas Jeffre Kline Ron Julkowski Pronto Heatin & Air Heatin Wade Sed wick Ron Julkowski River Ci Sheet Metal Heatin Chris Ra Ron Julkowski RJM Construction LLC Commercial or S ecialt Joe Madd Ron Julkowski Sed wick Heatin & A/C Heatin Rena e Harn Ron Julkowski Sed wick Heatin & A/C Gas Rena e Harn Ron Julkowski, CBO Visual Im act Si n Inc Si n Erector Mike Savard Ron Julkowski, CBO Vo t Heatin & AC & Plb LLC Heatin Robert Winder Ron Julkowski, CBO Wenzel Heatin & AC Heatin Gre o Preusse Ron Julkowski, CBO � � �ffY �F FRIDLEY AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 ESTI MATES Shank Contractors, Inc. 3501 — 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Commons Park Water Treatment Plant Improvements Proj ect No. 379 Estimate No. 5 ................................................................................. $ 88,484.40 Colt Construction Services, LLC 285 Forest Grove Drive, Suite 126 Pewaukee, WI 53072 85th Avenue Trail Project Proj ect No. ST. 2007-4 Estimate No. 3 ................. Ron Kassa Construction 6005 East 250th Street Elko, MN 55020-9447 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Proj ect No. 3 84 Estimate No. 1 ........................ $ 249,605.41 $ 4,780.00 � � CffY OF FRIaLEI' Date To AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 May 12, 2009 Wlliam Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Public Hearing for Rezoning, ZOA #09-01, Premier Central 65 Partners INTRODUCTION Jim Wnkels of Amcon Construction, on behalf of the petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners, is seeking four separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, which will allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site, which is located at 7011 University Avenue. Each of the four land use items analysis will be provided in a separate memo cover. The main report, however, analyzes all of the requests together. The petitioner is requesting a Rezoning, ZOA #09-01. The current zoning of the subject property is M-2, Heavy Industrial. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the property to R-3, Multi-Family. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the May 6, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for ZOA #09-01. After receiving public comment and a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning request, ZOA #09-01, with no stipulations. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission. � 1� '� LL' � �� .,�� _� — f-- _ � � ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix D of the Fridley City Code is amended hereinafter as indicated, and is hereby subject to the stipulations as shown in Attachment 1. SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: 7011 University Avenue NE The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter EXCEPT the East 600 feet thereof, EXCEPT the South 400 feet thereof AND EXCEPT the North 50 feet lying west of the East 150 feet thereof, Section 11, Township 30 North, Range 24 West. Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District R-3 (General Multiple Units). SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District M-2 (Heavy Industrial) to R-3 (General Multiple Units). PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2009. SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN — CITY CLERK Public Hearing: May 18, 2009 First Reading: June 8, 2009 Second Reading: June 22, 2009 Publication: City of Fridley Land Use Application ZOA #09-01, PS #09-02, SP #09-03 & SP #09-04 May 1, 2009 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Premier Central 65 Partners Jim Wnkels — Amcon Construction 1715 Yankee Doodle Road, Suite 200 Eagan MN 55121 Requested Action: Rezoning from M-2 to R-3 Replat one lot into 2 lots Special Use Permit to allow a medical clinic Special Use Permit to allow a senior living facility Location: 7011 University Avenue Existing Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial Size: 615,502 sq. ft. 14.13 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant ice arena Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Industrial Building (MN Rail) & M-2 E: City's Fire training facility & PW Garage & P S: City Park & P W: University Avenue & ROW Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Future Land Use Map in the current Comprehensive Plan designated this area as Public. The proposed Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Redevelopment. Zoning History: • Lot has not be platted. 1968 — Arena constructed. • 1974 — Variance approved to reduce the rear yard setback to 13 ft. to allow an addition. • 1975 — Addition to the building. • Several interior modifications have been made to the building over the years. Legal Description of Property: The southeast quarter of the southwest quarter except the East 600 feet thereof, Except the South 400 feet, thereof, and Except the North 50 feet lying west of the East 150 feet thereof, Section 11, Township 30 North, range 24 West. SUMMARY OF REQUEST SPECIAL INFORMATION The petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners is seeking four land use items to allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site, located at 7011 University Avenue. 1. A rezoning is being requested from M-2, Heavy Industrial to R-3, Multi-Family. 2. A Preliminary Plat is being requested to allow the creation of two lots from one lot. 3. A Special Use Permit is being requested to allow the construction of a medical clinic on the south half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. 4. A Special Use Permit is being requested to allow the construction of an independent living, memory care, and nursing home facility on the north half of the subject property within an R-3, Multi- Family zoning district. SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends approval of the rezoning, preliminary plat and special use permits requests, with stipulations. • Proposed rezoning meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan • Proposed plat meets minimum lot size requirements. • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors. • Provides additional job opportunities. • Provides additional health service opportunities within the City. Council Action / 60 Day Date City Council — May 18, 2009 60 Day Date — June 1, 2009 60 Day Extension Date — July 31, 2009 Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg ZOA #09-01, PS#09-02, SP #09-03 & SP #09-04 OVERVIEW The requests: Jim Wnkels of Amcon Construction, on behalf of the petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners, seeking four separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, which will allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site, which is located at 7011 University Avenue. 1. The first land use action being requested is a Rezoning, ZOA #09-01. The current zoning of the subject property is M-2, Heavy Industrial. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the property to R-3, Multi-Family. 2. The second land use action requested is a Plat, PS #09-02. � � Currently, the site is one large, 14 acre parcel. The petitioner is ; seeking to subdivide the lot into 2 parcels. The northern parcel r will be 7.65 acres and the southern parcel will be 6.48 acres after the replat. 3. The third land use action being requested is a Special Use Permit, SP #09-03 to allow for the construction of a 50,000 sq. ft. medical clinic on the southern lot. 4. The fourth land use action requested is Special Use Permit, SP 'u #09-04 to allow the construction of a senior living facility on the � northern lot. Both a medical clinic and a senior living facility are {fi a permitted special use permit in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning � district. is ..... ..._ r�a.-.il��'�C� � — �� v� Each of these requests will individually be examined in this report and will require separate actions. Proposed Project: Premier Properties, is proposing to construct a three story (over enclosed garage) senior living complex. As the developer describes their proposal they state: The proposed development consists of 176 total residential dwelling units for senior citizens, divided as follows: 35 skilled nursing care beds, 10 care suite beds (assisted living), 24 memory care units (assisted living), 47 general assisted living units, 57 catered living units, 2 guest units. A total of 58 parking stalls are planned within an enclosed garage below a portion of the senior residence building, and 58 surface parking stalls provide a total of 116 stalls on site. Drop off areas have been provided at the entry to the nursing home, and at the entry to the senior residence. This project provides a campus that serves a broad continuum of care for seniors, providing independent catered living, assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing care. Seniors can age in place, with services catered to their needed level of assistance. If they should need a significant increase in level of care, services are available within a community that they are already familiar with. 1�="rf;d�r,.. ?':r �L?_7';Gf�',t.�ft `,tt r i ��,`'�:'.,. �....'`�i� �" �'PP �It,',?r� r (}er:.��.!yk( ��.�.f.'. � <ii� P.I:... } ..�a .� .�:'��l.:{ 1 . i y . �'< �' �. .. � ',, � .'.. �' � l =� ��•s . .. �i�r �'r� .. �" � � #. SITE PLAN Generous common areas are provided within the senior residence building for socialization, programmed activities, and congregate dining. Spaces such as the commercial kitchen, physical 2 & occupational therapy, and resident storage would be shared between the senior residence and the attached nursing home. The clinic will be a 2-story, 50,000 s.f. building, with a brick, glass and stucco-like exterior. Physician parking will be provided in a parking lot west of the proposed building, while patient parking will occur on the east side of the building. A parkway-type entrance drive is proposed to straddle the new property line between the clinic building and the senior complex to the north. Joint access and maintenance agreements will be required to assure perpetual cooperation. This joint drive will also serve as the fire access to the City's fire training site and replace a current fire-training site access easement that exists north and east of the arena. A replacement easement has been offered by the developer, but must be formalized through use of the appropriate descriptions, documentation and filing. � SITE HISTORY Columbia Arena was originally constructed in 1968. I n 1974, a variance was granted to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 ft. to 13 ft. to allow the construction of an addition to the building that would allow for an additional sheet of ice. As a result of the variance approval, the addition was constructed in 1975. Several interior modifications have been made to the building over the years. Before the arena was constructed in 1968, the subject property was zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. When Anoka County purchased the property and constructed the ice arena in 1968, the property converted to a P, Public Facilities zoning. In 2005, Anoka County sold the property to the Minnesota Youth Sports Association (MYSA). In 2007, MYSA made a development deal with Kraus Anderson on the Columbia Arena property. Krause Anderson in turn sold the arena to a private investor named Wlliam Fogerty. Prior to the sale, the MYSA representative asked the City what they saw as future development potential for the site. Staff explained that the site is zoned P, Public Facilities and that zoning will remain as long as the land is publicly owned. Once sold to a private entity, the zoning would revert back to its pre-public status. Since, the property is now owned by a private investor the zoning is M-2, Heavy Industrial and as such, any development other than an M-2 development will require a rezoning. Staff's discussion with the sports association also used examples about what types of developments a site like this might be used for. Obviously, an M-2 use is a possibility, but development-wise, the City would need to determine whether M-2, Industrial still makes sense in light of the development that has occurred since the late 1960's. ANALYSIS Rezoning Request, #09-01 Premier Central 65 Partners is requesting a rezoning for the Columbia Arena site, located at 7011 University Avenue, from M-2, Heavy Industrial to R-3, Multi-Family. As stated previously, the property was zoned P, Public Facilities when Anoka County purchased the property and constructed the arena in 1968. The zoning reverted back to M-2, Heavy Industrial when a private investor purchased the property in 2007. The proposed rezoning is being sought to allow for the redevelopment of the site. 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 2020 Comprehensive Plan was developed with resident input taken from several meetings held between 1998 and 2000 and is a"tool intended to help guide future growth and development of the community while looking to the future and working towards achieving a community wide vision" The 2020 Comprehensive Plan designated this parcel as Public because of the arena use. Since the arena building is no longer viable for the use as an ice rink, the most obvious use change would allow for redevelopment of the site. The proposed medical clinic and senior project meets several of the objectives that the residents of Fridley identified in the visioning sessions for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. This update is before the Met Council for approval at this time and staff expects to have � the final review before the City Council in June of 2009. One of the goals identified through those meetings and the telephone survey was to "Maintain Fridley as a desirable place to live." Ways to accomplish that goal are to provide more housing diversity and to make Fridley a place where the aged can stay. Only about 8% of Fridley's housing is of the townhome or condominium structure type, yet 23% of Fridley's residents were over age 55 in 2000, and that percentage is growing. To accommodate Fridley's senior citizens desires to live in maintenance-free housing (no yards/house exterior care), more types of senior housing needs to be constructed. Types of senior housing to consider are one-level townhomes, independent living, assisted living, nursing home/memory care facilities. It is also important to explore the availability of a private maintenance service that would allow seniors to stay in their single family homes. This area of University Avenue, specifically the Columbia Arena is identified as an area for future redevelopment in the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Economic and Redevelopment Plan chapter in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, states that the City should continue to pursue high density senior housing to meet the demand for this type of housing in Fridley. The purpose of redevelopment is to provide the opportunity for more efficient land uses and eliminate inefficient land uses and under-utilized parcels. Redevelopment can also provide an opportunity to meet current market demands and desires of the community, it can create new tax base, and can create additional job opportunities. All the above purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the redevelopment of this area for a senior living facility and medical center. R-3, Multiple Family Development is one of two possible designations that fit this mix of development as proposed. The other is S-2, Redevelopment District. Premier Development has chosen the R-3 classification to pursue for their development. In accordance with zoning standards this designation is acceptable, since it is an expansion of a district that already exists (Woodcrest Baptist Church) and it does not require extraordinary considerations. Both nursing and convalescent homes and medical centers are permitted as special uses in an R-3, Residential District. Applications have been made for the necessary considerations for special use permits. Council's discretion to rezone a property is broad, however, it must follow logic as it relates to the overall plan for future development as described in the Comprehensive Plan and either be identified as a redevelopment designation, or its new zoning designation must represent an expansion of a zoning district that exists currently nearby. This request passes the test for a rezoning in that it both matches the Comprehensive Plan vision for redevelopment and it does represent an expansion of the Woodcrest R-3, Multi-family residential district. Plat Request, #09-02 Premier Central 65 Partners is seeking to replat the property located at 7011 University Avenue to create two separate lots. The proposed replat will consist of two lots; Lot #1 and Lot #2, Block 1, Columbia Addition. Since, the petitioner is seeking a rezoning to R-3, Multi-Family; City staff has asked the petitioner to design their projects to meet the CR-1 standards for the Medical clinic and the R-3 standards for the senior development. The petitioner has designed both projects to meet the criteria set forth within the City code and will be further analyzed within the separate special use permit reviews on this report. Each Parcel meets the minimum lot size required for the R-3 zoning district. � Special Use Permit Request, #09-03 Medical Clinic Analysis — Hospitals and medical clinics are a permitted special use in an R-3, Multi- Family zoning district, provided that code requirements related to building and site requirements and parking are met. The proposed medical clinic with be located on Lot 2, which will be the southern lot. The project area is 282,101 sq. ft. (6.48) in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 50,000 square foot medical clinic on this lot. A medical clinic of this size would require 300 parking stalls. The petitioner is proposed to construct 303 parking stalls on site, which will meet code requirements. All other code requirements, including but not limited to, setbacks and lot coverage are being met on this site. Special Use Permit Request, #09-04 Senior Project Analysis — City Code allows independent living, assisted living, and nursing homes as a permitted special use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, provided that code requirements related to building, site requirements and parking are met. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 4-story senior development along the west and north sides of Lot 1, with an attached 1-story nursing home along the east side of the lot. The proposed 4-story building will be 147,200 sq. ft. in size and the 1-story nursing home will be 25,840 sq. ft. in size. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 176-unit senior housing complex, which will consist of 57 independent "catered" units, 39 assisted living units, and 24 memory care units, as well as 35 nursing care beds,10 care suite beds and 2 guest units. The development will include 58 underground parking stalls and 58 surface parking stalls, for a total of 116 stalls. The R-3, Multi-Family zoning regulations states that the average lot area required per dwelling unit is 2,500 sq. ft. for the units on the first (3) three stories with an additional 950 sq. ft. per unit from the fourth through sixth stories. National and regional development trends for assisted living and memory care appear to point to a lesser lot size requirement. Though well-maintained landscaped grounds are essential to project appeal and resident enjoyment, the size of the lot in this type of development can be smaller because the opportunity for residents to participate in larger scale outdoor activities on the grounds is much smaller. Also, less land is required because of the fact that the residents typically do not have cars, nor do they drive. Therefore, there is a lower standard for the number of parking stalls required and less land area to accommodate the automobile use. Using the 2,500 s.f. of land per unit for the 120 traditional independent or assisted living units, a land area of 6.89 acres is required. The developer has allowed 7.65 acres for that portion of the development. The units beyond the 120 traditional units are beds, bed suites, or 2 guest rooms; these are not typically calculated in the formula requiring 2500 s.f. per unit, since they are not units that typically require unit owner cars or yards space. Instead these units share approximately an acre of land that remains, after the 120 units/2500 s.f. requirement has been met. Since this is an open common space development where individual yards are not defined, staff suggests that the land area provided for all residential portions is adequate for the common enjoyment of all residents. L•� Section 211 of the City's Subdivision ordinance states that if the Planning Commission or City Council upon finding any regulations or requirements of the Code that is not applicable to a proposed preliminary or final plat, that it may permit variations that are not contrary to the intent and purpose of the applicable law. The R-3 regulations that require 2,500 sq. ft. for each unit are clearly meant for an apartment complex or condo development and are not meant for a senior development that is occupied with small memory care units and nursing home beds. As a result, it is acceptable for the Planning Commission and City Council to endorse this interpretation of the Code for purposes of a senior living development such as this, through the platting process. Making this modification is not intended to set precedence for future requests that are not of a similar nature. City code requires that buildings within the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district not exceed 65 ft. in height, when measured from grade to the mid-span of the roof. The petitioner's plans currently show the building at 60 ft. to the peak, therefore meeting code requirements. The petitioner just received the soil boring for the parcel and has discovered that there is a high water table in the area where the senior building will be located. As a result, they may need to increase the height of the building to compensate for the high water table. The petitioner has expressed to staff that they are confident that they will be able to comply with the maximum 65 ft. height limit. The proposed project is in-compliance with lot coverage, parking and all setback requirements. City code requires 115 parking stalls based on types of units within the building. The petitioner is showing 116 parking stalls, which exceeds code requirements. City staff would recommend that instead of installing parking stalls that aren't required, that those additional spaces be used for additional green space, with proof of parking. HOUSING STUDY This petitioner has not submitted a formal housing study. However a memorandum from a housing analyst has been submitted to this development group indicating that there is a demand in the Fridley area for 240 beds (skilled nursing beds) of the above referenced nature. They note that over the next five years the level of units demanded now will likely decrease due to other competitive developments in the area that are now in some stage of planning or construction. TRAFFIC 2030 Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Chapter The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2005, the portion of University Avenue adjacent to the proposed Senior Living / Medical Facility project carried 34,000 vehicles per day. At this traffic level, it's carrying 3,000 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 over 38,000 vehicles per day by the year 2030, based upon increases in population for Fridley & surrounding communities, as well as redevelopment and reinvestment within Fridley. At 38,000 vehicles / day, University Avenue would be above its design capacity. This project brings the roadway and its intersection at 69th and University Avenue closer to capacity, earlier than anticipated. As a result, the State of Minnesota was asked to comment on the perceived or real impacts of the development. If this segment of University were to be modified to a divided 6-lane roadway, the roadway widening would increase its capacity range from 31,000-37,000 to 55,000 to 61,000 vehicle trips per day. That improvement is not scheduled in the State's near capital improvement horizon and would not be necessary based on this project alone. 7 Review of Traffic Study information A trip generation analysis based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, shows the Assisted Living Land Use category in the ITE manual to determine that the proposed Senior Project complex would generate a total of 363.5 trips per day if all beds within the complex were occupied. Based on the information provided, the senior building would create a slight increase to the traffic at the intersection of 69th Avenue NE and the Service Drive, but only during peak hours. During all other times, there will be no perceptible increase in the volume of traffic. At no time will this project add a perceptible increase to University Avenue traffic volumes, according to Link Wlson, Kaas Wilson Architects. This intersection was designed to handle traffic from the ice arena, and is consequently adequate to handle the traffic volumes of this proposed development. It should also be noted, that according to the ITE manual, studies have shown that less than 5% of residents in an assisted living facility own vehicles, and if they do, they are rarely driven. Employees, visitors, and delivery trucks make up most of the trips to this facility. The ITE manual also points out that the "peak hour" generator typically doesn't coincide with the "peak hour" of the adjacent street traffic for an assisted living facility. This is primarily related to the shifts of the employees beginning at 7:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. The typical peak hours on most roadways are between 6:00-7:00 a.m. and 3:00-4:00 p.m. The developer has indicated that the peak visitor time is on Sunday when the medical facility will be closed. Traffic information from the developer regarding the clinic portion of the development is broken up in a different manner and does not use ITE numbers, but their experience as a basis. The Clinic indicates that it sees 6,500 patients per month. This is based on a schedule of 266 hours and 24.4 patients per hour. The employee count for that complex is 100 employees who work staggering shifts, throughout the day. The clinic will be open 7:30 am to 8:00 pm and on Saturdays 8:00 to noon. The Minnesota Department of Transportation engineers concur with the conclusions of the developer's traffic analysis. The combination of uses on this site will not cause the need for changes at intersections, including signals. WETLAND AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT The petitioner has illustrated that storm water management for the site will be handled using a standard pond/surface drainage system designed to meet the watershed's requirements for rate, quality and volume control. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The petitioner held a meeting with the neighborhood regarding this project on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 7:00 P.M. in Room 114 of the Fridley Community Center. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting and the comments and questions were very positive. It appeared there was much support for the project. A couple questions were asked regarding the choice to place the clinic south and the residence north. The developer indicated that both end users preferred the site plan as proposed. A resident inquired whether truck traffic could be directed north, while cars continue to use the 69th intersection. This question's answer is something that cannot be controlled by the developer of this site, but instead is a larger issue. The City's response to that would be that the roadways and intersections were designed to handle both and signs likely would not be observed. STAFF RECOMMEDATION City Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning ZOA -09-03, without stipulations. The rezoning accomplishes the following objectives. : • Provides housing opportunities for Fridley seniors. • Provides additional job opportunities. • Proposed use meets the goals highlighted in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan • Is consistent with historic rezoning practices in Fridley STAFF RECOMMEDATION City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, PS #09-02 with stipulations. • Plat Meets the Requirements of Chapter 211 STIPULATIONS Staff recommends that if the Preliminary Plat, PS#09-02 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: 1. An easement to provide perpetual access to the fire training facility has been discussed, and agreed to, but has not been shown on preliminary plat. An easement description and easement document must be prepared, approved by the City's Fire Chief and made ready for final signatures for filing, prior to approval of the final plat. 2. An easement to provide perpetual shared parking between the clinic, senior building and park, south of the clinic have been agreed upon, but have not been memorialized in an easement document. That document shall be prepared, approved by the County Parks and Recreation Director and made ready for signature and �ling, prior to final plat approval. 3. Anoka County's Path shall be moved from the southern edge of the clinic parcel and ready for reinstallation in accordance with plans to be approved by Anoka County prior to final plat approval. 4. A path connection plan allowing safe access from the clinic parking lot to the County path south of the clinic parking lot. 5. A path along 71St to meet the speci�cations of the City engineering department shall be installed. 6. All pathway and easements, once designed to City specification and installed, will eliminate the developer's need to contribute park dedication for this plat. STAFF RECOMMEDATION Staff recommends that if Special Use Permit, SP #09-03 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: � The property shall be developed in accordance with the a��est-�r���° ^'����ed A��rn�Z`�P�. /cirlc�n��C�n�ha n��� �c chn�nin nn i"� (1 rl��� nn�r�Z��} Amcon Construction site plan A0.0, dated May 5, 2009. 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans EL.1, dated November 21, 2008 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. � 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to �nal plat approval. STAFF RECOMMEDATION Staff recommends that if Special Use Permit, SP #09-04 is approved, the following stipulations be attached: STIPULATIONS � The property shall be developed in accordance with the a��est-�r°��° ^'��;�«a A��rn�Z`�P�. /cirlc�n��C�n�ha n��� �c chn�nin nn i"� (1 rl��� nn�r�Z'�nS) Amcon Construction site plan A0.0, dated Mav 5, 2009. 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A500 (not dated, but submitted with packet). 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency within the proposed building. 15. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 16. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 10 17. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to final plat approval. 11 � � CffY OF FRIaLEI' Date To AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 May 12, 2009 Wlliam Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Preliminary Plat Request, PS #09-02, Premier Central 65 Partners INTRODUCTION Jim Wnkels of Amcon Construction, on behalf of the petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners, is seeking four separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, which will allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site, which is located at 7011 University Avenue. Each of the four land use items analysis will be provided in a separate memo cover. The main report, however analyzes all of the requests together. The petitioner has requested a Plat, PS #09-02. Currently, the site is one large, 14 acre parcel. The petitioner is seeking to subdivide the lot into 2 parcels. The northern parcel will be 7.65 acres and the southern parcel will be 6.48 acres after the replat. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the May 6, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for PS #09-02. After receiving public comment and a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of plat request, PS #09-02, with the 6 stipulations presented. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission. � 1� '� LL' � �� .,�� _� — f-- _ � � STIPULATIONS 1. An easement to provide perpetual access to the fire training facility have been discussed, and agreed to, but have not been shown on preliminary plat. An easement description and easement document must be prepared, approved by the City's Fire Chief and made ready for final signatures for filing, prior to approval of the �nal plat. 2. An easement to provide perpetual shared parking between the clinic, senior building and park, south of the clinic have been agreed upon, but have not been memorialized in an easement document. That document shall be prepared, approved by the County Parks and Recreation Director and made ready for signature and �ling, prior to final plat approval. 3. Anoka County's Path shall be moved from the southern edge of the clinic parcel and ready for reinstallation in accordance with plans to be approved by Anoka County prior to final plat approval. 4. A path connection plan allowing safe access from the clinic parking lot to the County path south of the clinic parking lot. 5. A path along 71St to meet the speci�cations of the City engineering department shall be installed. 6. All pathway and easements, once designed to City specification and installed, will eliminate the developer's need to contribute park dedication for this plat. � � CffY OF FRIaLEI' Date To AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 May 12, 2009 Wlliam Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Special Use Permit, SP #09-03, Premier Central 65 Partners INTRODUCTION Jim Wnkels of Amcon Construction, on behalf of the petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners, is seeking four separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, which will allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site, which is located at 7011 University Avenue. Each of the four land use items analysis will be provided in a separate memo cover. The main report, however, analyzes all of the requests together. The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit, SP #09-03 to allow for the construction of a 50,000 sq. ft. medical clinic on the southern lot. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the May 6, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP #09-03. After receiving public comment and a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of special use permit request, SP #09-03, with the stipulations as presented. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission. � 1� '� LL' � �� .,�� _� — f-- _ � � STIPULATIONS � The property shall be developed in accordance with the a��est-�+r���° ^'����ed .n� � r,.�z2gg�-�siE�e4�F�„ h�- °�,ge61 . �'e61-�"� r,.,�;-�i�9} Amcon , Construction site plan A0.0, dated Mav 5, 2009. 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plans EL.1, dated November 21, 2008 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the county right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to �nal plat approval. � � CffY OF FRIaLEI' Date To AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 May 12, 2009 Wlliam Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Subject: Special Use Permit, SP #09-04, Premier Central 65 Partners INTRODUCTION Jim Wnkels of Amcon Construction, on behalf of the petitioner, Premier Central 65 Partners, is seeking four separate land use actions from the City of Fridley, which will allow for the redevelopment of the Columbia Arena site, which is located at 7011 University Avenue. Each of the four land use items analysis will be provided in a separate memo cover. The main report, however, analyzes all of the requests together. The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit, SP #09-04 to allow the construction of a senior living facility on the northern lot. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the May 6, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for SP #09-04. After receiving public comment and a brief discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of special use permit request, SP #09-04, with the stipulations as presented. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission. � 1� '� LL' � �� .,�� _� — f-- _ � � STIPULATIONS � The property shall be developed in accordance with the a��est-�+r���° ^'����ed A��rn�Z`�P�. /cirlc�n��C�n�ha n��� �c chn�nin nn i"� (1 rl��� nn�r�Z��} Amcon Construction site plan A0.0, dated May 5, 2009. 2. The building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with architectural plan A500 (not dated, but submitted with packet). 3. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 4. The petitioner shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 5. The building at 7011 University Avenue shall be removed prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The petitioner shall receive Rice Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. No signs shall be located within the right-of-way. Any planting within the right-of-way shall be approved by the City and/or State prior to planting. Sign permits shall be required for all signs prior to installation. 8. The petitioner shall obtain a permit from the City and/or State for any work done within the county right-of-way. 9. The petitioner shall identify storm water management area on site and shall provide necessary easements. 10. Storm water management maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of building permits. 11. The petitioner shall obtain any required NPDES Permits. 12. City engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 14. The petitioner shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 15. Property owner of record at time of building permit application, to pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. A Development Agreement outlining the Developer's obligation to install and loop utilities, etc., will be prepared by the City and shall be signed by the Petitioner prior to �nal plat approval. 17. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of the conditions or restrictions for residency within the proposed building. � � �ffY �F FRIDLEY T0: FROM: AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: FINAL CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008 DATE: May 14, 2009 Attached you will find the final changes in the appropriations to the budget for the year ended December 31, 2008. These changes are similar to those that we have brought to Council this time of year for the past number of years as we prepare to publish the City of Fridley's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. These changes are in keeping with Chapter 7 of the City Code. The majority of the changes are based on departmental initiatives that have caused an increase in efficiency of the department or a better delivery of service to our customers. The changes to the General Fund are occurring from within departmental budgets or drawing from the emergency reserve. The changes that are shown in a few of the Special Revenue Funds are because these are funds that traditionally have not been established as part of the normal budgeting process due to the unknown aspect of each of their activities. Staff's recommendation is for the City Council to pass the attached resolution and complete the budget cycle for 2008. . �.� Attachment RESOLUTION NO. — 2009 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED 2008 WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has involved itself in initiatives that provide for future charges and modifications that will allow for a better delivery of services, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley had not incorporated these and other necessary changes into the adopted budget for 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and the Capital Improvement Fund budgets for the following divisions be amended as follows: REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS CITY MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES ELECTIONS ACCOUNTI NG MIS POLICE P.WORKS/STREETS GARAGE MAINTENANCE PLANNING NONDEPARTMENTAL GENERALFUND PROPERTY TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERSIN PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES PERSONAL SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES ($334,153) 334,153 46, 540 $46, 540 $9,311 (9, 311) 6,320 4,254 6,499 MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT TRANSFER IN FROM SELF-INSUR ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE PERSONAL SERVICES 13,219 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE PERSONAL SERVICES 1,597 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE SUPPLIES/CHARGES (1,597) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE PERSONAL SERVICES 24,665 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE SUPPLIES/CHARGES (58,266) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE CAPITAL OUTLAY 46,324 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY CAPITAL OUTLAY PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES/CHARGES SUPPLIES/CHARGES 9, 544 36, 568 (22,338) 9,019 1, 509 (1,509) 12,487 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE EMERGENCY RESERVE (88,295) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS $0 CABLE TV FUND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS GRANT MANAGEMENT FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS HRA REIMBURSEMENT FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT FUND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS DRUG/GAMBLING FORFEITURE FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENTER FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS PERSONAL SERVICES $553 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE CAPITAL OUTLAY (553) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE $0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL $22,039 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE PERSONAL SERVICES $16,784 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE SUPPLIES/CHARGES 5,255 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE $22,039 INTERGOVERNMENTAL $23,685 SUPPLIES/CHARGES $23,685 UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY PERSONAL SERVICES $1,369 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE SUPPLIES/CHARGES (1,369) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE $0 FINES AND FORFEITS $42,345 SUPPLIES/CHARGES $28,170 CAPITAL OUTLAY 14,175 $42, 345 UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY UNBUDGETED ACTIVITY CHARGES FOR SRVCS $9,560 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE PERSONAL SERVICES $21,275 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE SUPPLIES/CHARGES (4,093) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE $17,182 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS PROPERTY TAXES ($4,688) INTERGOVERNMENTAL 4,688 $0 SUPPLIES/CHARGES CAPITAL OUTLAY MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT $117,482 ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE (117,482) ELIMINATE NEGATIVE VARIANCE $0 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2009. SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR ATTEST: DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK � AGENDA ITEM � CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 18, 2009 �ffY �F FRIDLEY INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS