Loading...
PLM 09/18/2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2013 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Tim Solberg, Dean Saba, Leroy Oquist, and Jack Velin, MEMBERS ABSENT: Brad Dunham OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Scott Hickok, Community Development Director. Richard Ford, ELO Engineering Inc. Mike Bizal, Bizal Inc. , Jerry AndersonJamb Architects John Jarrett, Vision Woodworking Rocky Chapin, Benedictine Health & Allina Health Pat Belland, Unity Hospital Paul Hyde, Fridley Land LLC APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: August 21, 2013 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #13-09, by ELO Engineering Inc. for Owczarak Investment LLC, to allow limited outdoor storage, generally located at 7770 Ranchers Road. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:04 P.M. Stacy Stromberg , Planner, stated the petitioner, Rick Ford, Plant Manager for ELO Engineering Inc., the company located at 7770 Ranchers Road, is seeking a special use permit to allow limited outdoor storage of wood pallets, steel baskets, and a steel dumpster in the side and rear yard of the property. Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial as are the properties to the west, east and north. The property to the south is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The property is located on the th southwest corner of Ranchers Road and 77 Avenue. This property was originally two lots that had two separate buildings. In 1983 the properties were combined and an addition was constructed to connect both buildings; therefore, making one large building. At that time there was also a variance to increase lot coverage from 40 percent to 40.63 percent. A variance was also granted in 1987 to increase the lot Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 2 of 23 coverage to 46.5 percent, which then resulted in another building addition. In 1993 the City changed the City Code to allow industries to increase the 40 percent lot coverage requirement to 50 percent with a special use permit. In 1993 the petitioner received a special use permit to increase the lot coverage requirement to 49.9 percent, which then resulted in another building expansion. Ms. Stromberg stated this summer the City’s Community Development Department hired a Code Enforcement Intern to do systematic inspections of our commercial and industrial properties. As a result many of our industrial businesses will be coming before the Planning Commission and City Council for special use permits for outdoor storage. This special use permit request is one of those that came to staff’s attention during those systematic inspections. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code allows limited outdoor storage in the industrial districts with a special use permit that is up to 50 percent of the buildings footprint. The existing buildings square footage is 59,940 square feet, so City code would allow up to 29,970 square feet of outdoor storage on this property. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner would like to continue to have two outdoor storage areas for the storage of wood pallets, steel baskets, and a steel dumpster. The storage area on the north side of the property would be 1,248 square feet size and the storage area on the west side of the building will be 4,212 square feet. Total square footage of both outdoor storage areas is 5,460 square feet, which is below the allowable outdoor storage area for this property. According to the petitioner, “the manufacturing floor space is limited and depending upon the workload, there is a need to have a certain amount of pallets and baskets on hand for when business is good. However, there is simply not space to have those extra items stored inside.” Ms. Stromberg stated before the proposed special use permit can be issued, several additional requirements need to be met. Those specific requirements relate to height, screening, parking, and the types of materials allowed to be stored outside. Ms. Stromberg stated based on the calculations provided to the City by the petitioner on how the interior space of the building is used, City code would require 56 parking stalls for this site. There are 62 parking stalls on site; therefore, complying with code requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated the storage areas are on the north side of the lot and along the west side of the building. All areas visible from the public right-of-way will be fenced in and screened with screening slats. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is meeting all of the other code requirements to allow a special use permit for limited outdoor storage. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, with stipulations as limited outdoor storage is a permitted special use in the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district, provided specific code requirements are met, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the two areas requested as part of this special use permit request. 2. The types of materials stored inside of the containers shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 3 of 23 Ms. Stromberg stated Stipulation No. 2 above should be changed to read, “The types of materials stored within the two outdoor storage areas shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal.” Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner if he had any questions regarding what was presented by staff. Richard Ford, ELO Engineering Inc.,replied, it sounded all good to him. Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner whether he was okay with the stipulations. Mr. Ford replied he was fine with them. Chairperson Kondrick stated he has no problem with this. He has been by the business. Commissioner Saba stated he did not either. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:09 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Special Use Permit, SP #13-09, by ELO Engineering Inc. for Owczarak Investment LLC, to allow limited outdoor storage, generally located at 7770 Ranchers Road with the following stipulations: 1. Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the two areas requested as part of this special use permit request. 2. The types of materials stored within the two outdoor storage areas shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #13-10, by Michael Bizal, to allow limited outdoor storage, generally located at 7880 Ranchers Road. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:10 P.M. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director,stated the petitioner, Michael Bizal, of Bizal Inc., the business located at 7880 Ranchers Road, is seeking a special use permit to allow limited outdoor storage Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 4 of 23 of a front end loader, trailers, storage containers and chip dumpsters in the side and rear yard of the property. Mr. Hickok stated the property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial as are all surrounding properties. The th property is located on the southwest corner of Ranchers Road and 79 Avenue. This original building was constructed in 1974 and additions were constructed to the building in 1978, 1979, 1986, and 1991. When the building addition was constructed in 1991, a variance was approved to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 8 feet. Along with the variance approval in 1991, a lease agreement was signed between the subject property and the property to the south. This lease agreement allows the petitioner to use the north 55 feet of the southern lot. As a result of this lease, the southern lot is not buildable on its own. It would need to be combined with the subject property to allow for further development. Mr. Hickok stated City Code allows limited outdoor storage in the industrial districts with a special use permit that is up to 50 percent of the buildings footprint. The existing buildings square footage is 26,930 square feet, so City code would allow up to 13,465 square feet of outdoor storage on this property. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner would like to continue to have two outdoor storage areas for the storage of a front end loader, trailers, storage containers and chip dumpsters. The storage area on the west side of the building is 2,560 square feet in size and the storage area on the south side of the building will be 3,433 square feet. Total square footage of both outdoor storage areas is 5,993 square feet which is below the allowable outdoor storage area for this property. Mr. Hickok stated before the proposed special use permit can be issued, several additional requirements need to be met. Those specific requirements relate to height, screening, parking, and the types of materials allowed to be stored outside. Mr. Hickok stated based on the calculations provided to the City by the petitioner on how the interior space of the building is used, City code would require 58 parking stalls for this site; however, there are only 50 parking stalls on site. Staff has not noticed that parking has been a problem on this site but will stipulate that, if it does become a problem, additional parking will need to be installed. Chairperson Kondrick asked, is there room within the boundary of the property? Mr. Hickok replied, it is a rather tight sight. An analysis would have to be done as to whether they could do it there or use this 55-foot leased area, some of which would need to be paved anyways as part of the stipulation. Mr. Hickok stated the two outdoor storage areas will need to be screened from the public right-of-way. The petitioner is interested in planting ivy that will grow along the existing fence on the east side of the property, to screen the trailer storage. The petitioner will also need to pave any areas used for outdoor storage. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is meeting all of the other code requirements to allow a special use permit for limited outdoor storage. Mr. Hickok stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit, with stipulations as limited outdoor storage is a permitted special use in the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district, provided specific code requirements are met, subject to stipulations. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 5 of 23 Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the two outdoor storage areas as identified as part of this special use permit request. 2. The types of materials stored within the two outdoor storage areas shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. 3. The outdoor storage areas shall be screened from the public right-of-way. If vegetation is used for screening, staff recommends engelman ivy be used and planted by October 20, 2013. If ivy is not significantly established within 24 months to help screen the outdoor storage area, staff and the petitioner will develop an alternative screening solution. 4. The outdoor storage areas shall be paved with an approved hard surface material, such as concrete or asphalt by July 1, 2014. 5. The petitioner shall comply with any potential grading and drainage requirements set forth by the City’s engineering department as a result of the hard surface expansion area. 6. If a parking shortage occurs on the site, the petitioner shall develop an agreeable plan approved by City staff to re-work the interior space of the existing building or find other parking options. Commissioner Sielaff asked do they know anything about the lease agreement and how long it is? Mr. Hickok replied, staff has seen the lease agreement. It is one that is with a family member, and staff understands it to be a perpetual easement with the property. Commissioner Sielaff asked what does he mean by family member? Mr. Hickok a family member to the Bizal family who owns the property. Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner whether he had any questions or comments about what has been said so far. Mike Bizal , 7880 Ranchers Road, replied, no, it is pretty much what they discussed with Ms. Stromberg. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether he thinks the parking thing would be a problem. Mr. Bizal replied, no, it has not been a problem when they built that last addition. They did the lease agreement to be proactive for that property so they could have future proposed parking if needed. Chairperson Kondrick asked what kind of materials will to be stored on site? Are they hazardous? Mr. Bizal replied, no, it is surplus equipment and machine tools. Chairperson Kondrick stated these folks have been in town here for a long time. He asked the petitioner how long have they been there? Mr. Bizal replied, since 1974. Chairperson Kondrick stated he drove by there and does not see any problem with this. They know what they are doing there. They are suggesting that the stipulations are within their reach. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 6 of 23 Commissioner Sielaff replied, he also had no problem. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:19 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he had no problem with this. Commissioner Sielaff replied, he also had no problem. MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving Special Use Permit, SP #13-10, by Michael Bizal, to allow limited outdoor storage, generally located at 7880 Ranchers Road with the following stipulations: 1. Outdoor storage area shall be limited to the two outdoor storage areas as identified as part of this special use permit request. 2. The types of materials stored within the two outdoor storage areas shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. 3. The outdoor storage areas shall be screened from the public right-of-way. If vegetation is used for screening, staff recommends engelman ivy be used and planted by October 20, 2013. If ivy is not significantly established within 24 months to help screen the outdoor storage area, staff and the petitioner will develop an alternative screening solution. 4. The outdoor storage areas shall be paved with an approved hard surface material, such as concrete or asphalt by July 1, 2014. 5. The petitioner shall comply with any potential grading and drainage requirements set forth by the City’s engineering department as a result of the hard surface expansion area. 6. If a parking shortage occurs on the site, the petitioner shall develop an agreeable plan approved by City staff to re-work the interior space of the existing building or find other parking options. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Street Vacation, SAV #13-03, by Jamb Architects, for Donald Gamboni th to vacate 79 Avenue, west of Hickory Street, which will allow for a parking lot and building addition, generally located at 7890 Hickory Street. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:21 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated Jerry Anderson, of Jamb Architects, who is representing Vision Woodworking at th 7890 Hickory Street, is requesting to vacate a portion of 79 Avenue, west of Hickory Street to the Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 7 of 23 Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks. Approving this street vacation will allow Vision Woodworking to construct an addition to their existing building and will also allow them to increase the size of their parking lot. Ms. Stromberg stated in order for the City to consider this street vacation request, City staff had the petitioner obtain signatures from the two (2) property owners to the north, stating they had no objections to the street vacation. We have received signature from both Park Construction and Ryan Companies, stating they agree to the requested street vacation. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned S-3, Heavy Industrial, Onaway Addition, and is th located on the southwest corner of 79 Avenue and Hickory Street. The original industrial building was constructed in 1978; two building additions have been constructed since that time. In 2000, Vision th Woodworking received variance approval to reduce the setback from 79 Avenue to allow a building addition. That addition was never constructed. Also in 2000, there were some discussions about vacating th 79 Avenue; however, at that time, a neighboring business owner was not in favor of the street vacation, so it was never applied for. Ms. Stromberg stated Vision Woodworking employs approximately 60 people, and their business has continued to see a steady and constant growth. They currently operate their business out of three buildings, all located on Hickory Street, at 7890, 7891, and 7871 Hickory Street. They have outgrown their building at 7890 Hickory Street and are in need of expanding. As a result, they have applied for the proposed street vacation request, which will allow for a building addition to the east and north of the existing building, as well as the construction of additional parking along the north side of the property. In order to construct the proposed addition, the petitioner is also applying for a variance to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 35 feet to 12 feet. That variance is going before the Appeals Commission on October 2. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has received written approval from Park Construction and Ryan th Companies, property owners to the north, to vacate 79 Avenue from Hickory Street west to the BNSF right-of-way. The petitioner has been working with Burlington Northern Santa Fe to get their signature on the vacation request and at this point they don’t have anything in writing. From their discussions with BNSF, the petitioner states “they are not opposed to the vacation providing we give them a 30’ easement along tract “C” which would be the ½ of the street on the south side abutting Vision Woodworking.” Vision Woodworking has agreed to grant the 30’ easement. Ms. Stromberg stated City Public Works staff is in agreement with the street vacation, provided utilities within the right-of-way are protected through the vacation resolution. The petitioner has been working with BNSF to get their signature on the vacation request and, at this point, they do not have anything in writing; however, they have had discussions with them and have informed City staff they are not opposed to the vacation provided that they give them a 30-foot easement along Tract B which would be half of the street on the south side abutting Vision Woodworking. Vision Woodworking has agreed to that easement. Ms. Stromberg stated for reference, if the vacation is approved, “Tract A” will go to the property owner to the north which is Ryan Companies. “Track B” will go to the property owner to the north, which is Park Construction and “Tract C” will go to Vision Woodworking, the petitioners property. See attached drawing. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends approval of the street vacation request for vacation of: Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 8 of 23 That part of 79th Avenue N.E. lying between the northerly extension of the west line of Hickory Street and the southerly extension of the westerly line of PARK SHOP, Anoka County, Minnesota together with a vacation of the street easement rights conveyed and dedicated to the City of Fridley pursuant to the Street and Utility Easement recorded as Document No. 89064; and That pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 160.29, Subd. 2, the City of Fridley reserves unto itself and other utility providers, a permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes, over, across, under and through the vacated 79th Avenue N.E. segments situate in the City of Fridley, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, to wit: That part of 79th Avenue N.E. lying between the northerly extension of the west line of Hickory Street and the southerly extension of the westerly line of PARK SHOP, Anoka County, Minnesota together with a reservation of a permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes, over, across, under and through the entire street and utility easement area described in the Street and Utility Easement recorded as Document No. 89064; and That said vacation shall be effective only upon the recording of a private non-exclusive access easement granted by the Petitioners Donald J. Gamboni and Judith M. Gamboni over: That part of 79th Avenue N.E. dedicated in Onaway, lying west of the northerly extension of the west line of Hickory Street and easterly of the southerly extension of the westerly line of PARK SHOP, Anoka County, Minnesota, to adjacent property owners, who are currently Burlington Northern Inc., Carlson Park Properties, and Ryan Companies US Inc. Ms. Stromberg stated this is something that is a little bit different than staff has had the Commission do in the past. The City Attorney drafted this recommendation, and she suggested to Ms. Stromberg to have the Commission adopt the above based on the page number listed in their packet. Basically what the recommendation is saying is that the Commission is approving the vacation upon the City’s reservation of a permanent drainage and utility easement. It also states that Vision Woodworking agrees to record an access easement to the neighboring property owners. In other words, Park Construction, the Railroad, Ryan Companies will all have an access through the site to get to their sites if needed. Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner if they understood everything that was said during staff’s presentation? Jerry Anderson, Jamb Architects, replied, yes, they did. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they had any problems or anything they find contrary to what was said? Ms. Anderson replied, no, they have no reservations with anything that was said. There is nothing contrary. He would like to add one item that Vision Woodworking has a written agreement with Ryan Companies for the purchase of the property. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 9 of 23 Chairperson Kondrick replied, okay good. So they are one step further along the line. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:28 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated this seems straightforward. These gentlemen know what they are doing. City staff is on top of it and all the interested parties are aware as to how it will affect them and what their rights are, etc. MOTION by Commissioner Velin approving Street Vacation, SAV #13-03, by Jamb Architects, for th Donald Gamboni to vacate 79 Avenue, west of Hickory Street, which will allow for a parking lot and building addition, generally located at 7890 Hickory Street (Page Two of Staff’s Report). Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #13-11, by Joint Venture LLC, Benedictine Health & Allina Health, for North Suburban Hospital District (Unity), to allow the construction of a new transitional care facility on the Unity Hospital Campus, generally located at 520 Osborne Road (on the property located at 550 Osborne Road, Unity Hospital). MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:30 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, David Yanik, with Yanik Companies, on behalf of Benedictine Health and Allina Health (Unity Hospital) is seeking a special use permit to allow the construction of a new transitional care facility on the Unity Hospital campus. The proposed building will be located on the south side of the existing hospital building and is intended to be connected to the hospital building via a skyway. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located at 550 Osborne Road and is zoned R-1, Single Family. The current use of the hospital campus is a permitted special use in this zoning district with a permit. Any modification to the campus requires that a new special use permit be approved. As a result, the existing request has been submitted. Ms. Stromberg stated Allina Health (Unity Hospital) is partnering with the North Suburban Hospital District and Benedictine Health Systems (BHS) to build a transitional care facility, to be called “Interlude” on the Unity Hospital Campus. The building will be built by the Joint Venture on land owned Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 10 of 23 by the North Suburban Hospital District. The land will then be leased by a joint venture (LLC) made up of Benedictine Health Systems and Allina. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed building will be a state of the art therapy facility; where its guests can have close access to the hospital, while not occupying a typical hospital room for their required on-going therapy. It will be a three story building with a total square footage of 45,087 sq. ft. It will consist of 38 private guest units, 2 semi-private guest units (2 beds in each unit) and 8 care units, for a total of 50 new skilled nursing beds in the building. A large therapy space for guest rehabilitation is located on the first level of the building. Ms. Stromberg stated an exterior courtyard is to be located to the west of the proposed building, offering a large outdoor space for both guests and employees. The building will be situated on the site to take advantage of the existing pathway system which will remain in place and connect to the proposed building. Ms. Stromberg stated the exterior façade will consist of a variety of materials intended to compliment the surrounding area of the hospital campus to the north and the residential area to the south across Lyric Lane. The architecture of the building was carefully designed with its neighbors in mind. It is located between the main hospital building and the Lyric Lane residential neighborhood to its south. On the hospital end of the new building, it has a commercial appearance and from the south end, it appears as a 3-story residential complex. The two distinct looks depend on what angle you view the building from; yet work well together as a single cohesive piece of architecture. Ms. Stromberg stated site work for the project includes adding an additional bituminous parking area to accommodate the new building and re-striping the existing parking lot surrounding the proposed building. A new infiltration basin will be constructed in the southwest portion of the campus site to handle the increased stormwater runoff from the project. New site lighting and landscaping will also be installed to meet code requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family as are all of the surrounding properties, with the exception of the property to the east, where the Fridley Medical Center used to be located, which is zoned, CR-1, General Office. Ms. Stromberg stated the professional building and the skyway that attaches the professional building to the hospital were constructed in 1974. There was a building addition to the professional building in 1983. All of the properties within the Unity Hospital campus are owned by the North Suburban Hospital District, with the exception of the land owned by the Professional Building and Fridley Medical Center. Ms. Stromberg stated Hospitals, Clinics, and nursing homes are a permitted special use in the R-1 zoning district provided that the proposed expansion complies with the requirements for the special use permit, subject to the stipulations. The proposed expansion will allow for the construction of a new free-standing building to be used as the Benedictine Transitional Care Facility on the south side of the existing hospital. The proposed building has an approximate footprint of 15,654 square feet and is intended to be connected to the hospital building with a skyway. Ms. Stromberg stated in order to allow the construction of the transitional care facility, 72 parking stalls will need to be removed. The new transitional care facility would be classified as a “nursing home” type use within the City’s zoning code and as a result would require 50 parking stalls. The petitioner plans to replace those 72 stalls, plus add 56 stalls needing for the transitional care facility by expanding the existing parking lot to the south and west. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 11 of 23 Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed expansion meets lot coverage and setback requirements. All storm water drainage and landscaping will also comply with code requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as hospital, clinics and nursing homes are a permitted special use in the R-1, Single Family zoning district. Ms. Stromberg stated Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached. 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3. The petitioner shall comply with the Fire Marshal’s plan review comments dated September 4, 2013. 4. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. The petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 8. Future additions/expansions on this site shall be reviewed by City staff and a determination shall be made regarding the need for a strategic plan for structured parking. If sufficient additional parking is required based on the addition, a structured parking plan will be required. 9. Pedestrian crosswalk shall be established to accommodate safe pedestrian movement between the proposed building and the other buildings within the Unity Hospital campus. 10. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for parking shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. A new compost area for the community garden shall be identified on the site plan, shall be screened from neighboring residential properties and meet all other code requirements related to composting. Commissioner Sielaff asked, as to the statement that the building was carefully designed with the neighbors in mind, does that mean there was a meeting or something with the neighbors or was something sent out to the neighbors for comment? Ms. Stromberg replied, staff always sends out notice to the public when the City has special use permit requests. She thinks they were just talking generally that the design of the building took into account the residential neighborhood across the street; however, the petitioner could probably answer that question. Commissioner Sielaff asked, but the City did not receive any comments from neighbors? Ms. Stromberg replied, she did receive a few calls. People inquiring mainly what they were doing, where the new building was going to be located. However, nobody really voiced a strong opinion against the project. It was more inquiries. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 12 of 23 Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioners if there were any questions about what was said and if they were in agreement with what was said? Rocky Chapin , Senior Vice president of Business Development at Benedictine Health, replied, they are. Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioners if they were okay with all the stipulations? Pat Belland , Vice President of Operations at Unity Hospital, replied, as to the issue of parking they have been very diligent in making sure there is enough parking and spending enough time with Ms. Stromberg and Mr. Hickok to make sure that is right. That is the only issue they have looked at further with expansion on the campus. They continue to make sure they do have enough parking and right now they feel very comfortable. Commissioner Solberg asked, is the transitional care going to be more for people who perhaps had some type of procedure at the hospital and then they do the follow-up care? Mr. Belland replied, yes, and it would be both for those kinds of folks who have some kind of procedure, for instance, like hip replacement. It will also be for people who might be considered the frail elderly, someone with a lot of different kinds of conditions who have been in the hospital for some kind of event, perhaps a fall, and need some rehab and strengthening before they return to their home. Commissioner Solberg asked, in general, what would an expected stay period be? Mr. Belland replied, they expect a typical stay to be anywhere from two weeks to four weeks. Commissioner Solberg asked, and this is basically trying to extend the type of services they provide at Unity? Mr. Belland replied, that is correct. They would provide skilled nursing beds as the rehab side of the skilled nursing, and they do not provide that within the hospital. It really is the next step. Once someone gets discharged from the hospital, they go to a nursing home, transitional care unit, to rehab and then go onto their home. Commissioner Oquist stated rather than going to a nursing home, they would go to this rehab center. He asked whether there would be patients coming from other hospitals? Mr. Belland replied, it would primarily be for Unity but believe it has the capacity to help support patients from Mercy Hospital. Commissioner Sielaff asked, whether they did get input from neighbors? Mr. Chapin replied, they did not have any public meetings with the neighbors; however, clearly they were aware with their concerns that it not be institution in the setting. They tried to make sure it was far enough away and be shielded by plantings of trees, etc. and tried to soften the residential side of that building to have it be more residential looking. Chairperson Kondrick stated and in addition there will be kind of a park-like setting right in the middle of the building with green grass and places to sit and enjoying nature if you will. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 13 of 23 Mr. Chapin replied, they will have that. It will be a place that is called a mobility courtyard so therapy can happen in that space as well. As people are transitioned to their home they will actually have the experience of walking on gravel, black top, going up steps outside. They have found this to significantly improve the ability for people to return to their homes safely. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he has no problem with this. It seems like a good deal and good for the hospital, our community, and the people who serve us. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg approving Special Use Permit, SP #13-11, by Joint Venture LLC, Benedictine Health & Allina Health, for North Suburban Hospital District (Unity), to allow the construction of a new transitional care facility on the Unity Hospital Campus, generally located at 520 Osborne Road (on the property located at 550 Osborne Road, Unity Hospital) with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. 2. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements. 3. The petitioner shall comply with the Fire Marshal’s plan review comments dated September 4, 2013. 4. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. The petitioner shall receive Coon Creek Watershed District approvals prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 8. Future additions/expansions on this site shall be reviewed by City staff and a determination shall be made regarding the need for a strategic plan for structured parking. If sufficient additional parking is required based on the addition, a structured parking plan will be required. 9. Pedestrian crosswalk shall be established to accommodate safe pedestrian movement between the proposed building and the other buildings within the Unity Hospital campus. 10. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees required to be removed for parking shall be marked and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. A new compost area for the community garden shall be identified on the site plan, shall be screened from neighboring residential properties and meet all other code requirements related to composting. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 14 of 23 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #13-01, by Fridley Land LLC, to rezone the property from M-2, Heavy Industrial to S-2, Redevelopment District, to create flexibility with the Industrial redevelopment of the property, generally located at 4800 East River Road. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:48 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner, Paul Hyde, of Fridley Land LLC, the owner of 4800 East River Road, is requesting to rezone what has been known as the BAE/FMC/Navy site from its current zoning classification of M-2, Heavy Industrial to S-2, Redevelopment District. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow flexibility of both performance standards and uses within the future industrial redevelopment of this site. Mr. Hickok stated the subject property is located south of Interstate 694 and east of East River Road. It was developed in the early 1940’s for manufacturing of gun mounts for the US Navy and was known as Northern Pump. In the 1960’s FMC Corporation purchased and operated the facility. In the 1990’s FMC merged with Harsco Corp., and formed United Defense. United Defense became BAE Systems, which still occupies the building today. Mr. Hickok stated the property is approximately 122 acres in size and consists of the manufacturing building that was constructed in the early 1940’s. The existing building is approximately 2 million square feet in size. On the site also exists some out buildings, parking areas and some landscaping. There is a 14-acre parcel directly south of the property, known as the FMC Superfund site, that was subject of an investigation for waste disposal, and a significant soil and groundwater remedial action was undertaken by FMC at that property in the 1980’s and continues today. That 14 acres is not included as part of this redevelopment project. Mr. Hickok stated redevelopment of this property includes the 83-acre Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant (NIROP) superfund site. Mr. Hickok stated in order to allow for the redevelopment of this property, an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was required to be completed by the State’s Environmental Quality Board. The City was Local Government Unit (LGU) or overseer of process, during the review. Mr. Hickok stated an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is important in that it focuses attention on and identifies resolutions to environmental impacts that may present themselves as part of the redevelopment process. In this particular redevelopment there were a list of potential impacts considered: fish, wildlife, ecologically sensitive resources including water resources, erosion and sedimentation of soils, water quality of runoff and wastewater, geologic hazards and soil conditions, solid wastes, hazardous waste, storage tanks, traffic, emissions, odors, noise, dust, nearby resources, and visual impacts. Local, State, and federal agencies were involved in the review of the AUAR. Generally speaking, the comments back were thoughtful and on point, but relatively few in numbers. All comments were made part of the official AUAR Record. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 15 of 23 Mr. Hickok stated types of comments back would include items like: by full build-out of this development the ramp entrances to 694 will need to be studied and potentially modified to accommodate the additional development traffic. A driveway modification to the northernmost driveway onto East River Road will be required for the later phases of this redevelopment. Specifics for that modification, which includes widening of the drive access point and modifications to aide turning movements are spelled out in the AUAR response letter submitted by the Anoka County Highway Department, but will not have a major impact on the master plan layout as submitted. A minor amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan reflecting what our previous S-2 Zoning modifications have become will be necessary. Staff anticipates it will begin this amendment process with the Metropolitan Council for our other fully- developed S-2 sites in the fourth quarter of 2013. We will do the same with this site, once it is fully developed. Finally, keeping a watchful eye for and protection of nesting migratory species would need to be considered prior to the buildings demolition was an AUAR comment to consider and observe. Mr. Hickok stated a range of 1,591,860 square feet to 1,839,220 square feet was proposed between redevelopment Scenarios A and B. To exceed 1,839,200 square feet, further AUAR analysis will be required. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is planning to redevelop the subject property into 1.6 million square feet of new industrial buildings, in four phases. The development is being phased to accommodate the existing tenants in the existing building. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner states that he sees the four phases happening this way, “Phase I of the redevelopment will occur on the south side of the existing building, where there is currently a grassy area and an unused parking lot. Phase I will consist of approx. 400,000 square feet in what could be 1 or 2 buildings. Phase II of the redevelopment will occur on the north side of the existing building, and will consist of 1-3 buildings, totaling 400,000 square feet. Phases III and IV will occur once the existing leases within the existing building have expired and the existing 2 million square foot building is demolished. Phase III and IV will consist of approximately 400,000 sq. ft. of building each. The entire redevelopment is expected to take 5 to 7 years to complete.” Mr. Hickok stated the City’s zoning ordinance and official zoning map are the mechanisms that help the City achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The law gives the City the authority to “rezone” property from one designated use to another, so long as the zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s 2030 future land use map designates this area as “Redevelopment”, which justifies the reason for approving the proposed rezoning. Mr. Hickok stated Jim Casserly, Development Consultant/Attorney for the Fridley HRA said it well when he said, "This agreement is a blueprint for governing the joint efforts of the authority and the Redeveloper through the next ten years. There will most likely be amendments to the agreement, but the document as presented is an excellent start to an extraordinary project." Like the HRA agreement that attorney Casserly spoke of, this Master Plan will likely see modification as we know more about the specific occupants of the space that will be developed. As those modifications become necessary, Council will be asked to review those Master Plan amendments. Mr. Hickok stated City Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request from M-2 Heavy Industrial to S-2, Redevelopment District. Mr. Hickok stated Staff recommends that if the rezoning is approved, the following stipulations be attached: Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 16 of 23 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for each phase prior to construction, including but not limited to building, land alteration, and sign permits. 2. The proposed project and phasing shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 3. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage and utility plans prior to issuance of building permit for each phase or building. 4. A Storm pond maintenance agreement shall be required for each pond in the overall development. The uncertainty related to future phase’s layout will require a storm pond agreement tied to each phase and submitted for approval, prior to issuance of any building permits in that related phase. 5. Landscape and irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit for each phase or building. 6. The petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase or building. 7. Bicycle/pedestrian connections between buildings within project and to the adjacent regional park shall be incorporated into the Master Plan. Bike racks shall also be provided for each building in the development. 8. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Anoka County Highway Department or the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 9. Costs for modification to site access at East River Road and this site's redevelopment related signalization enhancements shall be borne by the developer. 10. Due to the complexity of this redevelopment and ultimately the number of unknowns related to who will be new tenants or owners of buildings and what their specific needs will be, the developer shall be required to keep each phase of his development within 10 percent of that square foot dimension that is shown for each phase in the Master Plan. This means that there may be a modification in shape and size of buildings in each phase, but overall that phase cannot deviate from the Master Plan square foot dimension by more than 10 percent. Those changes when necessary reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 11. Each phase should generally comply with the most similar zoning district performance standards 12. An increase in overall square footage beyond 1,839,220 square feet will require AUAR revisit. 13. No park fee is required, as a result of land dedication for park by the original owner of this site. 14. The petitioner shall maintain a vegetative cover on all excavated areas awaiting building construction. 15. A development agreement between the Developer and the City for all public/ private site improvements including but not limited to streets, utilities, and landscape shall be approved for the overall development, prior to issuance of a building permit for the first building in phase one. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:22 Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 17 of 23 P.M. Commissioner Solberg asked regarding Stipulation No. 13, “No park fee is required, as a result of land dedication for park by the original owner of this site,” is that typical? He is curious why. Mr. Hickok replied, very good question and is precisely why staff wanted it in as a stipulation. They did not want any surprise later. Staff did have legal counsel review this because it was a question that came up. This was a park dedication land area that exceeded the original park dedication requirements by the City even at the time the development happened. There needs to be a rational nexus between the City collecting park dedication and the demands that are put on a park. The anticipated demands on the park system will not exceed the park area dedication that was given, and the City had historically the option of taking cash for land in lieu of park dedication. This quite a considerable sized park was dedicated as part of the original development, and legal counsel’s view of this was that there will be no new impacts that exceed the expectation for park demands of the original development and, therefore, that is what park dedication is. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether that is the land across East River Road? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, it is. As a matter of fact the house that is there is related to the original development. It is unusual and does not come up very often; however, they are talking about a land area that has remained the same and a number of jobs that remains relatively stable to what was originally intended. When they talk about it in terms of demand on a park, job for job, it is really about the same as the original. The land is there; there are no new demands that make park dedication necessary on this. There will be a plat on this. Plat is always the trigger for park dedication, and each building may have each own lot. Commissioner Sielaff stated he was curious about the AUAR and who does the review of it. He sees a lot of environmental things here. Does Mr. Hickok have any comments about the environmental aspects of it? Mr. Hickok stated there is a very specific set of rules put out by the EQB (Environmental Quality Board) that strictly mandates the rules the City follows. The City is the overseer as the local government unit; however, they tell the City what government agencies they send it to. The City sends it out to all the government agencies on the list. The City makes the document also available in draft form. In this case the scoping document was made available. There was a comment period for the public and all the agencies the City sent to in draft form. Then there was another comment period in revised draft form and another comment period in finished form. Therefore, all the agencies and anyone from the public who commented then received answers back on what the answer to their question was. The City held a public information meeting so people could come in and get their questions answered, and then it was ultimately published in the State Registry once all the steps had been checked off. This developer hired a consultant who did the environmental work, and there was great depth from civil engineering to environmental engineering to environmental law. A lot of people on that team going through that to make sure that every piece was analyzed and answers were given to the questions that were asked. Commissioner Sielaff asked, there are no major concerns environmentally? Mr. Hickok replied, this is one of those times where you might say, really, you need to do an AUAR because they are taking a site that is badly contaminated and cleaning it up. The AUAR typically looks at what new demands or impacts might this site have. This is almost in reverse. You are looking at development that now cleans up history, cleans up bad things that happened to a site. Any new impacts, Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 18 of 23 although considered through this AUAR, are not great enough to have really received much for comment. It is more enthusiasm than questions he would say that they got back about having a developer and an environmental developer like Mr. Hyde who focuses on precisely this kind of development Commissioner Sielaff asked, how does this fit in with the five-year review the City gave them? Mr. Hickok replied he might have Mr. Hyde respond to that. He asked Commissioner Sielaff if he could be more specific. Commissioner Sielaff replied, the EPA does a five-year review on all their superfund sites. He thinks this site is supposed to come up relatively soon. Mr. Hickok stated it is important to note that the EPA has been very involved in this, and the developer has enough of a reputation with the EPA where it has taken the stance they are comfortable with the local MPCA folks managing the phases of this development and overseeing their clean-up through this process. Rather than having multiple layers of oversight, of course the EPA will continue to be interested and do their due diligence; but a lot of the oversight is going to be left at the MPCA level locally. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether the EPA had an opportunity to comment? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, in great detail. The EPA, the Navy, the list was very impressive and is available. It is enormous. Many of those comments were constructive. Some of them, for example, when they get to the point of full development they will want to take a look at the 694 on-ramps to see impacts there. This site again was developed with the expectation of 4,000 jobs. They are looking at bringing back 3,500 jobs to this site. Although those are all good instructions, it will take looking at it to see if a modification would be necessary at that point. Chairperson Kondrick stated he would imagine some of the citizens who would have interest in this would be concerned about the property south of this development site, would they not? Mr. Hickok replied, yes, there was a question about that at the public comment and information meeting. Just a question more or less about what happens with that. Just a clarification, is that site is not in the development. To be clear on that, clean-up mitigation has happened; the contamination is contained on the site. It continues to be monitored. It is outside of this 122 acres and remains in the wheelhouse of the FMC folks which is their responsibility and will continue to be throughout the course of their life for sure. Chairperson Kondrick asked, just for the sake of speculation, will there be some time in the future that property would be able to be developed? Mr. Hickok replied, probably a better question for an expert. Just from his development perspective, 14 acres of development land in exchange, always looking at what the yield would be relative to the costs to get you there, the costs to get you there would require you to have more than 14 acres for any sort of yield. Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner if he had any questions, disagreements with what has been presented? Paul Hyde , Fridley Land LLC, replied, they are very comfortable with the stipulations. They have been working with staff on them for a year plus and are very grateful to finally be at this spot tonight. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 19 of 23 Chairperson Kondrick stated, good, they are glad to have him there. This is going to be very exciting. Commissioner Saba asked what kind of mix commercial, industrial, might be commercially developed? Mr. Hyde replied, they define commercial as sort of a broad realm of what they do vs. residential. Their focus is going to be on a mix of warehouse buildings, office warehouse office showroom buildings. They need to get this rezoning done, get their marketing going here in the next few weeks, and see what is out there. What he is seeing is unprecedented demand for the kind of space on this on infill sites to new efficient buildings. There is also, a pensive demand from no one having built anything in the last five years. Mr. Hyde stated as to sustainable development from an ecological point of view from what they are going to build out there, the eight certified buildings, it will be sustainable from a tenant mix, too. They are not going to just have one tenant. It will be a diversity of tenants. They could have anywhere from 10 to 30 different companies. The goal is to redesign; they will be sustainable in a way that tenants can come and go, move, regrow, shrink, expand and contract. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Hyde if he sees it where every building looks the same? Is that the plan of his architects? Mr. Hyde replied, it has to hang together as a whole and not a disparate mish mash. They are going to have some design standards that wrap around the entire park, and they are getting started on that today. The building will be able to be flexible to have, say, more glass and higher office finish. Perhaps in the back of the site they will have less glass where they have the warehouse use. They want to have that kind of flexibility but the whole park has to hang together from an architectural point and the landscape point as well. That is what they have been working on for the next six to eight weeks. Mr. Hickok stated he did not want to make this presentation more complicated, but he did want to recognize the work of the HRA with Paul Hyde and this development. The HRA has really been involved with this for almost two years. It is a very complex development also in terms of HRA involvement; and they have been very good about analyzing about what it is the HRA can do to help make this important project happen. Commissioner Sielaff stated to the petitioner he is taking on a certain amount of risk, does he ever think he could not manage things? Mr. Hyde replied, this is their fourth federal superfund site they have developed. They have done more than anybody in the country. The hard thing about developing a state and federal superfund site is getting to move the regulatory pieces. Commissioner Sielaff alluded to it in with his five-year review comment. The five-year review is EPA which is the feds and MPCA, state, overseeing the Navy and BAE’s clean- up. It does not have anything to do with what the petitioner is about to do. Their new development will be overseen by EPA and MPCA under their voluntary clean-up program. Therefore, the five-year review, regardless of whether they came, left, if nothing ever happened – that would continue to go on. As an oversight of that existing clean-up which really has been done statewise, their new clean-up will be overseen primarily by the State of Minnesota’s Voluntary Investigation Clean-up Unit (first of its kind in the country) which is designed to oversee and redevelop these sites. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 20 of 23 Mr. Hyde stated when they come to a site like this; they spend a long time understanding all the work that has been done out there for 20 years. In many respects they know more about this site than many other sites around town because there have been tens of millions of dollars and 20 years of work looking at soil and ground around the site. That being aside, they will find surprises. They always have and always will. What they spend a fair amount of time understanding how this site operated, “Where were things disposed of? “What operations occurred in what parts of the building?” Then they will go through their own specific investigations where they are going to be digging and seeing what they will find. They just did that on the south part of the site this summer. They call that their Phase I development. They just did their MPCA approved investigation this summer. They will have that clean-up plan investigation results into the Agency next week. That will then guide their clean-up of that phase. They will just then repeat those steps with each phase. It is one step at a time based on historical information and then supported by excavation tests, soil borings, groundwater samples, soil gas samples that lead to a MPCA approved clean-up plan. Commissioner Sielaff asked Mr. Hyde, he does not see any big risk here that would affect his plans to develop the site? Mr. Hyde replied, they own the site now. They spent two years on it trying to figure that out. A large part of that is putting together that they think it would cost to redevelop and then try and pull together the resources to do that, and now it is time to start executing. Chairperson Kondrick stated to Mr. Hyde, he has done his homework. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:22 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated they have witnessed a group of folks who have spent a lot of time not only with City staff but other agencies to make sure this is going to be a viable project and is worthwhile. It is comforting to know that. He has no problems with it. Commissioner Saba stated he does not either. MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving Rezoning, ZOA #13-01, by Fridley Land LLC, to rezone the property from M-2, Heavy Industrial to S-2, Redevelopment District, to create flexibility with the Industrial redevelopment of the property, generally located at 4800 East River Road with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for each phase prior to construction, including but not limited to building, land alteration, and sign permits. 2. The proposed project and phasing shall meet all Building code, Fire code, and ADA requirements. 3. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage and utility plans prior to issuance of building permit for each phase or building. 4. A Storm pond maintenance agreement shall be required for each pond in the overall development. The uncertainty related to future phase’s layout will require a storm pond agreement tied to each phase and submitted for approval, prior to issuance of any building permits in that related phase. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 21 of 23 5. Landscape and irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit for each phase or building. 6. The petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase or building. 7. Bicycle/pedestrian connections between buildings within project and to the adjacent regional park shall be incorporated into the Master Plan. Bike racks shall also be provided for each building in the development. 8. The petitioner shall comply with any requirements set forth by the Anoka County Highway Department or the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 9. Costs for modification to site access at East River Road and this site's redevelopment related signalization enhancements shall be borne by the developer. 10. Due to the complexity of this redevelopment and ultimately the number of unknowns related to who will be new tenants or owners of buildings and what their specific needs will be, the developer shall be required to keep each phase of his development within 10 percent of that square foot dimension that is shown for each phase in the Master Plan. This means that there may be a modification in shape and size of buildings in each phase, but overall that phase cannot deviate from the Master Plan square foot dimension by more than 10 percent. Those changes when necessary reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 11. Each phase should generally comply with the most similar zoning district performance standards 12. An increase in overall square footage beyond 1,839,220 square feet will require AUAR revisit. 13. No park fee is required, as a result of land dedication for park by the original owner of this site. 14. The petitioner shall maintain a vegetative cover on all excavated areas awaiting building construction. 15. A development agreement between the Developer and the City for all public/ private site improvements including but not limited to streets, utilities, and landscape shall be approved for the overall development, prior to issuance of a building permit for the first building in phase one. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the Minutes of the August 5, 2013, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Receive the Minutes of the July 9, 2013, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 22 of 23 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Receive the Minutes of the August 1, 2013, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated the Fairview master plan amendment before them last month was approved as was the special use permit for outdoor storage at Incertec. Mr. Hickok stated regarding the Fridley market site, the Cub Foods redevelopment site, he has good news. By the end of next week they will see the frame of McDonald’s up. They expect to be in business and serving food before Christmas. As to the front of the building, they are seeing demolishing happening as of today. There were some interior uses that needed to be vacated with the transition of one store into a new store. That is going to be coming down now. They received the early elevation modification based on negotiations they have had with tenants. Right now they are seeing a lot of steel studs there. They are all hoping for and shortly they will see something a lot more attractive there as well. They had hoped to have their second freestanding building next to McDonald’s this summer. All that was pending having 50 percent lease out, and he takes it they have not quite reached that point yet as staff has not seen plans for that. Chairperson Kondrick asked if anyone is talking about an additional restaurant facility there? Mr. Hickok replied, he does not know if they are ready to announce. They have told staff as much as there is going to be a sit-down restaurant, if all goes well, inside the complex. They are hoping to have an announcement on that. It will be on the southeast corner of the building with windows facing the highway. It will open up the appearance of the building and bring some life there. Commissioner Solberg asked whether there was anything further happening with the stretch of property along University Avenue? Mr. Hickok replied, the HRA did enter into an exclusive agreement with the developer who built the building on the Sandee’s site. He is very interested in building three buildings along University Avenue. Very nice buildings. A total of 204 residential units. One of the buildings potentially senior and then another very nice market-rate building with some real nice architecture and some masonry, stone and brick. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether these will be apartments or condos? Mr. Hickok replied, apartments with shared amenities. Maybe a clubhouse, open space amenities, a private road going through, and a nice pedestrian way through. It will be a very nice development. They are on a very short time clock now because they want to get their architecture done, all the title work done, and everything else so if all goes well they can come out of the ground in the spring. Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Page 23 of 23 Commissioner Oquist asked about the gas station. Mr. Hickok replied, Paul Bolin, the Assistant Executive Director of the HRA, has done a very nice job in negotiating the purchase of the veterinary clinic and also another residence. While he is getting the bid package out for demolition for those two, Mr. Hickok has asked him if he can also include a demolition bid request package for the Citgo. He has allowed him to do that. Mr. Hickok has worked with the owner of that property. They see it as something that should be taken down basically for the aesthetic of the City there. The developer has been good to work with on that. He would agree and think they have come to terms. It is unknown yet as to what it is going to cost to remove it. If the bid comes in within a range the owners are okay with, they will allow them to oversee and have that demolition happen along with the veterinary clinic and the other building that Mr. Bolin has. That could happen this fall yet. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Oquist adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary