Loading...
PLM 11/19/2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY November 19, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick Brad Sielaff Dean Saba Leroy Oquist Tim Solberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Todd Olin OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Jones, Planning Manager Stacy Stromberg, Planner Tim Olson, DeMars Signs Mohsen Aghamirzai, University Auto Sales & Service LLC Hossen Aghamirzai, University Auto Sales & Service LLC Todd Ofshun, TCO Design th Deb Skogen, on behalf of her mom, 5311 4 Street NE th Pat Breitkreutz, 5315 4 Street NE th Pam Donley, 5305 4 Street NE APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: August 20, 2014 MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-06, by DeMars Signs, to allow an electronic changeable message sign as part of the free-standing sign, generally located at 6161 Highway 65 NE. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open 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 OPENED AT 7:02 P.M. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 2 of 22 Stacy Stromberg , Planner, stated the petitioner, Tim Olson, of DeMars Signs, who is representing Mary Tjosvold, the new owner of Crooners Lounge and Supper Club (formerly The Shorewood) at 6161 Highway 65, is requesting a special use permit to incorporate an electronic changeable message center as part of the existing free-standing sign. Ms. Stromberg stated the Shorewood had an 80 square foot free-standing sign on site, with a manual reader board sign. The petitioner plans to use the sign base structure that already exists and mount a new sign panel with “Crooners” on it and then install a 2-foot by 9-foot electronic reader board sign. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located on Highway 65, just north of Moore Lake. It is zoned C-3, General Shopping as are the properties to the north and east. Based on reviewing the building records for this address, it appears the existing building was constructed prior to 1949. The original free- standing sign was constructed in 1967. The site was once used as a City Liquor Store. In 1971, the City sold the property to the Shorewood Inn. Since the Shorewood purchased the property in 1971, the use of the property as a restaurant has remained with some changes in ownership. The property was recently sold to Mary Tjosvold, who is the owner of Crooners Lounge and Supper Club. Ms. Stromberg stated the free-standing sign on site has been modified several times over the years to allow the business name to change. Ms. Stromberg stated electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any zoning district, except residential, provided the message doesn’t change more often than once every 45 seconds. The sign also needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the zoning district, in which the property is located. The subject property is zoned, C-3 General Shopping, which requires that free standing signage cannot exceed 80 square feet in size. The existing sign structure will be used, and the new sign face that says “Crooners Lounge and Supper Club” is 54 square feet, and the electronic reader board portion of the sign will be 18 square feet for a total sign square footage of 72 square feet. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the special use permit as electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in the commercial zoning district, provided the sign complies with Code requirements, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. Permit No. 2014-02082 issued on October 15, 2014, allows the installation of the electronic message center sign upon City Council approval. 2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular traffic in the area. 4. Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition. Ms. Stromberg stated Stipulation No. 1 had been modified from what is in their packet as the petitioner has already obtained a sign permit for the sign face change and this permit also covers the electronic changeable message sign. Instead of making him get two permits, staff included both portions of the sign in one permit, provided Council approves the special use permit at their meeting. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 3 of 22 Commissioner Sielaff asked what does Stipulation No. 3 mean? Ms. Stromberg replied, Fridley's sign code does say that an electronic sign such as this cannot flash or have motion. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Olson if he was able to speak to the sign and what they are asking the sign to do, the placement of it, the painting of it, etc.? Tim Olson , DeMars Signs, replied, it will be exactly as the picture shown. It will be 2 x 9. It will be red L.E.D. It will not be full color. As Ms. Stromberg said, it cannot flash which always creates a distraction. They just want to announce specials. His boss did that sign the very first time for the City back in 1967. The structure is still there. They tore all the old brick base out of there. The pylons are still in great condition, and they reskinned that whole structure with aluminum premium. It looks really nice. It will really help out their business. Commissioner Kondrick stated this is pretty much of standard operating procedure here. He does not see any problem with this and is sure they can use the sign to attract some business there. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:10 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Resolution No. ____ for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-06, by DeMars Signs, to allow an electronic changeable message sign as part of the free-standing sign, generally located at 6161 Highway 65 NE with the following stipulations: 1. Permit No. 2014-02082 issued on October 15, 2014, allows the installation of the electronic message center sign upon City Council approval. 2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular traffic in the area. 4. Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-05, by University Auto Sales & Service LLC; to allow an indoor used car sales facility, generally located at 7700 University Avenue. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 4 of 22 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-08, by University Auto Sales & Service LLC; to allow an electronic changeable message sign as part of a free-standing sign, generally located at 7700 University Avenue. 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 7:15 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Mohsen Aghamirzai, the owner of University Auto Sales & Service LLC is requesting two (2) special use permits in order to operate his business from the property located at 7700 University Avenue. The first special use permit the petitioner is requesting is to allow an indoor car sales business. The second special use permit request is to allow an electronic changeable message center sign to be incorporated with the free-standing sign. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located on the University Avenue Service Drive, just north of Osborne Road. It is zoned C-3, General Shopping as are the properties to the north, west and south. When the lot was developed in 1976, a lot split was approved by the City Council to allow the creation of the subject lot. Also at this time a variance was approved to reduce the north side yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet, and a special use permit was approved to allow an automotive transmission repair and service use. Once those land use requests were approved by the City Council, the existing building was constructed as was the free-standing sign. Ms. Stromberg stated Kennedy Transmission remained in this location until a few years ago. Since then the site has continued to be used for vehicle repairs. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is in negotiations with the property owner to purchase the property, contingent upon the City’s approval of the special use permits being reviewed in this report. Ms. Stromberg stated agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles is a permitted special use in the C-3, General Shopping zoning district, subject to stipulations suggested by staff. Two examples of other special use permits that have been approved for this type of use in Fridley are Friendly Chevrolet and Hilltop Trailer. In both these situations, some vehicles are displayed inside but the majority of them are displayed outside. The petitioner’s request is the first business in Fridley to display vehicles for sale only inside. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has four other sales locations in the metro area; however this will be the first location with only indoor sales. The petitioner has articulated to staff that he would like to model this store after Poquet Auto, which is located in Golden Valley and has the same set-up with vehicles displayed inside the building. The inside of the existing building will be completely remodeled to allow the display of 25-35 vehicles. The petitioner also plans to update the existing bathrooms and install a new office and waiting area. Ms. Stromberg stated the outdoor improvements will include enhancements to the exterior of the Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 5 of 22 building by re-painting the building and installing approximately 8 glass overheard doors on the east elevation. Installing these glass doors will open up the building and allow vehicle access in and out of the building. A main door vestibule will also be constructed to the front of the building with a clear path designated throughout the inside of the building to the waiting/office area. Landscape modifications are also planned to update the existing neglected landscape. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed change in use and modifications the petitioner plans to make to both the interior and exterior of this property comply with City code requirements, provided the petitioner can comply with stipulations and staff believes will be a welcome improvement to the property. Ms. Stromberg stated electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any zoning district, except residential, provided the message doesn’t change more often than once every 45 seconds. The sign also needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the zoning district, in which the property is located. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned, C-3 General Shopping, which requires that free standing signage can exceed 80 square feet in size. There is an existing sign pole on-site that was used for Kennedy Transmission. Staff understands that the petitioner will use the existing sign pole and will add a 51 square foot sign face with the business name and logo to the top of the pole, and then add a 24.7 square foot electronic changeable message sign. Both pieces of the sign will be a total of 75.7 square feet, which meets code size requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of these special use permits, with stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles are an approved special use permit in commercial zoning districts, provided stipulations can be met. Ms. Stromberg stated electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in the commercial zoning district, provided the sign complies with Code requirements, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to SP #14-05 (indoor vehicle sales): 1. The petitioner shall meet all building, plumbing and fire code requirements. 2. The petitioner shall obtain any required permits prior to remodel of the property 3. Overhead doors on the east side of the building shall be made of glass. 4. Vehicles for sale shall not be displayed outside, except during test drives. 5. Parking on-site outside shall be for customers and employees only. 6. All washing of vehicles shall take place inside building, provided necessary building code requirements can be met, and no vehicle washing shall take place outside. 7. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan to City staff for review and approval at the same time as building permit submittal for remodel. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to SP #14-08 (electronic changeable message center): 1. Prior to sign installation, a sign permit and current sign erector license shall be obtained. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 6 of 22 2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code.\ 3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular traffic in the area. 4 Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition. Commissioner Saba asked whether there will be any repairs or modifications of any of the vehicles in the facility? Ms. Stromberg replied based on what she knows there will not be any repair going on. The petitioner can probably answer that question. The property does have a special use permit that allows vehicle repair but, based on the illustrations that were submitted, she is not sure where that would take place inside because it seems like it is fully used for display. Mohsen Aghamirzai , University Auto Sales & Service LLC, stated he is the general manager of University Auto Sales & Service. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Aghamirzai if the stipulations are understandable and does he agree with them? Mr. Aghamirzai replied, the stipulations are quite understandable and they are very reasonable. In regards to the previous question about service, no, there will not be any repairs at all in the property. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether there would be any oil changes, etc.? Mr. Aghamirzai replied, no, not at all. Commissioner Oquist asked the petitioner about Stipulation No. 6, stating all washing of vehicles shall take place inside the building. Does he have a facility to do that? Mr. Aghamirzai replied, they are not really intending to do full detailing inside the building. They intend for the vehicles to be fully detailed at other facilities and for the cars to come to 7700 University Avenue essentially all done and presentable and ready to go. Although from time to time, especially in this type of climate and season, they may need to do some cleaning. That will take place inside. For example, a car rolls in and has ice or mud or such thing, it would be washed off right away inside. Commissioner Oquist asked whether he has a drain area where they would be able to wash it? Mr. Aghamirzai replied the property already has a catch basin and a drain structure. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:22 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he has no problem with this. It is straightforward and he is going to do Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 7 of 22 what he is asked. It seems like a good idea to him. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg Adopting Resolution No. ____ for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-05, by University Auto Sales & Service LLC; to allow an indoor used car sales facility, generally located at 7700 University Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall meet all building, plumbing and fire code requirements. 2. The petitioner shall obtain any required permits prior to remodel of the property. 3. Overhead doors on the east side of the building shall be made of glass. 4. Vehicles for sale shall not be displayed outside, except during test drives. 5. Parking on-site outside shall be for customers and employees only. 6. All washing of vehicles shall take place inside building, provided necessary building code requirements can be met, and no vehicle washing shall take place outside. 7. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan to City staff for review and approval at the same time as building permit submittal for remodel. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION by Commissioner Solberg Adopting Resolution No. ____ for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-08, by University Auto Sales & Service LLC; to allow an electronic changeable message sign as part of a free-standing sign, generally located at 7700 University Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. Prior to sign installation, a sign permit and current sign erector license shall be obtained. 2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section 214.07 of the Fridley City Code. 3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular traffic in the area. 4. Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition. Seconded by Commissioner Saba UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-07, by TCO Design, to allow a comprehensive home health care use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 5310 4th Street NE. 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 7:24 Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 8 of 22 P.M. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Todd Ofsthun, with TCO Design, on behalf of A.P. Ventures is seeking a special use permit to allow the construction of a comprehensive home care building at 5310 4th Street. The property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, and clinic type uses are allowed in this zoning district with a special use permit. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed facility will have a Comprehensive Home Care Provider License through the Minnesota Department of Health. Ms. Stromberg stated the owners of this project have affiliations with Allina, Fairview, and the University of Minnesota to offer the use of the proposed facility to potential patients. The patients using the facility will be recovering from surgery, transplant (pre-op and post-op) or another type of medical procedure that leaves them needing extensive rehab and medical services. This type of use is needed for patients, who for medical reasons, cannot be on their own and do not have family or friends who can care for them. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed building will be three stories, with a maximum height of approximately 35 feet. Each level will have five (5) separate bedrooms for patients and a common area, with living room, kitchen, bathroom, and laundry. The site plan allows for six surface parking stalls and two garage stalls. All garbage and recycling containers will be stored inside the building. The petitioner has also submitted a landscape plan showing new tree, shrub and perennial plantings and will be required to construct storm water treatment on site to ensure that drainage is maintained on site. Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family and has been since the City’s first rd zoning map. The majority of this neighborhood (east of University Avenue, north of 53 Avenue, and th west of 7 Street) is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, with some parcels in the middle of the neighborhood zoned R-2, Two-Family and parcels on the east edge zoned R-1, Single Family. Within this neighborhood is a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, 4-plexes and larger unit buildings. The Bona Brothers property on rd the corner of University Avenue and 53 Avenue was rezoned from R-3, Multi-Family to C-2, General Business, in 1971 and 1999 to allow that use to exist. Ms. Stromberg stated the original house on the subject property was constructed prior to 1949. A detached garage that was accessed off the alley was then constructed in 1953. Based on building permit records this house had foundation issues, so there was work on the foundation done in both 1957 and is 2003. The house and garage were demolished in 2011, and the lot has remained vacant since then. Ms. Stromberg stated hospitals, clinics, and convalescent/nursing homes are a permitted special use in the R-3; Multi-Family zoning district provided that the proposed project complies with the requirements for the special use permit, subject to the stipulations. The proposed use as a comprehensive home care use is most comparable to a clinic, convalescent or rehab facility use and therefore staff has determined that a special use permit would be required for the proposed use to exist on this site. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed building is 2,920 square feet in size and will be 3 stories. Based on the slope of the lot, the building will look like a 3-story building from the alley and more like a 2-story th building from 4 Street. Each floor will have 5 separate bedrooms, so the building has the ability to house a total of 15 patients. Because of the medical conditions the patients have, they are unable to drive. As a result, parking needs for this use will be for the staff and visitors to the site. The petitioner has Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 9 of 22 articulated that the maximum number of staff on site at any one time will be 6. Any staff meetings for employees will either occur off-site or through electronic media. The site plan shows 6 surface parking stalls and 2 garage stalls within the building, both areas will be accessed from the alley for a total of 8 th parking stalls. The building will only be accessed from 4 Street through the use of a sidewalk. Ms. Stromberg stated based on Code requirements for a nursing home, which is the most similar use to the comprehensive home care use, 8 parking stalls are required. Though the parking requirements are being met, staff does have concerns as to how this use will function and whether 8 stalls will be enough. As a result, a stipulation will be placed on the special use permit that states if on-street parking becomes an issue for this site, the special use permit will need to go back before the City Council for further review. The special use permit will also need to go back before the Council for review if in the future the use of the building is changed. The building as designed could not work if people residing in it did not have health conditions that did not allow them to drive. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed expansion meets lot coverage and setback requirements. The petitioner has submitted a landscape plan and a grading and drainage plan. Both of those plans will be further reviewed by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 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-3, 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. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 5. If on-street parking becomes an issue as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council. 6. If the comprehensive home health care use changes, the special use permit shall be further reviewed by the City Council. Chairperson Kondrick stated there are going to be some people visiting. Across the front of the property on the street, there might be room for four cars that he could see when he drove by. Is he right? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, he is right if he is talking about just directly in front of the property. Ideally they want the use to sustain its own parking on site. They do not want even visitors to park on the street because the City is saying this use is allowed but they need to make sure they are meeting their parking requirement. There will absolutely be times when visitors are parking on the street. People do that anyways when they visit. However, the City wants to make sure that does not become an issue for the neighborhood. Commissioner Sielaff asked, what does that mean, issue? Ms. Stromberg replied, if they start getting complaints or, as staff is out doing inspections in the Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 10 of 22 neighborhood and notice that there really seems to be a problem, then that is when they would start monitoring it and then determine whether it should go back to Council. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg receiving memo dated November 17, 2014, from Todd Ofsthun. Seconded by Councilmember Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, stated he just wanted to note that it is qualified based on code as a nursing home. It is not really that type. The patients will be there a minimum of 60 days and stay averaging up to two years. It is not going to be as high of turnover of patients. Most of the patients will be bedridden. They are high acuity type of patients, bariatric, post-operative, organ transplants, dialysis - very immobile. They do not anticipate many visitors at all. The seed of this building is kind of based on two buildings, one in Brooklyn Center and one in Brooklyn Park run by Plateau Health Care. Those are a little bit smaller and this one is much more high tech. They are going to be using telemedicine, tele-ICU, connected through Fairview which will also minimize doctor visits, nursing visits, and keep the staff very low, the activity level will be very low. Mr. Ofsthun stated the buildings in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center are very close to where he gets his plans. Therefore, whenever he had a chance he would swing by, maybe 10 times each building and not once did he see any cars in front of the place. They had less parking than they will have. Chairperson Kondrick asked, do they expect all the deliveries to occur in the back? Through the alleyway? Mr. Ofsthun replied, all would be through the alley. Yes, by medical standards this is a relatively small facility. Deliveries will be via more the FedEx/UPS style vans. Commissioner Oquist stated he noticed they have a kitchen on each floor and they will be preparing the meals for the patients who are there in those kitchens, right? Mf. Ofsthun replied there are going to be some, maybe a lot, of premade meals because again he thinks it is more of a hospital-type thing. He does not know whether there will be a lot of cooking but, yes, there will be some preparation of some kind. He does not see it as commercial-type thing. The kitchen layouts are very preliminary. Commissioner Sielaff asked, what is the largest number of staff you have there? Mr. Ofsthun replied, 6. It is 2 per floor, which is what the license will require. Julie Jones, , Planning Managerasked about deliveries. She did not see an "office" notated on the drawing. When deliveries are made through the garage door, is there some sort of a mud room? Mr. Ofsthun replied, there is a mud room area, if you want to call it. Again the deliveries are not anticipated to be that grand that staff cannot come from the third floor and accept that delivery and deliver up to that level. If will be up to the staff of each unit if you will to get the supplies that they need. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 11 of 22 Commissioner Sielaff asked if the six staff would be there 24/7? Mr. Ofsthun replied, yes, it will be required with these types of patients. th Deb Skogen stated she was here representing her mother who lives across the street at 5311 4 Street. To assist her mother, Ms. Skogen has reviewed the City's zoning code, as well as Minn. Stat. § 144A which references nursing home and home health care licenses for the comprehensive home care providers that became effective January 1 of this year. Ms. Skogen stated she understands the facility is planned to be the same size as the 4-unit apartment building next door, and it meets all the zoning requirements. With the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act or "Obama Care", she understands there are many changes occurring in our health care. Ms. Skogen stated the applicant has stated the principals are motivated to use the facility as a model for future facilities. While she commends the business of comprehensive home health care, she is not sure this specific location is the right place for it. Ms. Skogen asked, who is actually going to be licensed? What is the name of the company going to be? What is their model specifically? Ms. Skogen asked, will it include the telemedicine that the University is proposing where you have a screen in each room and are telecommunicating with a doctor or nurse? Also, what kind of a license is this going to be? Is it going to be a Class A license? Ms. Skogen stated they have been told there is a maximum of six employees at the facility daily. She understands there are five parking stalls plus one handicap parking stall on the outside of the building with two parking inside. If this is a Class A facility, the statement of home health care services that the State has designed have many services they could be providing. Will there only be six employees or could there be additional employees for some of these services which include advanced nursing, registered nurse services, licensed practical nurse services, physical therapy services, occupational therapy services, speech/language services, respiratory therapy services, social worker services, services of a dietician or nutritionist, medication management? Ms. Skogen asked who will be making the meals and assisting the patients, who will be doing their housekeeping? Will it be the same individual that is on the floor or will it be various different individuals? Where the site is located with the alley, where are they going to store the snow so the six parking stalls remain open? Ms. Skogen asked, who will be referring the patients? Will the individual patient or their families have the ability, if they find the location, to use it? They have been told that these are patients who will be there a minimum of two months. In the letter included tonight it states they have an average of a two-year stay. But they do not have any visitors. She finds it hard to believe that family and friends would not visit. Ms. Skogen stated if they had a facility having 15 patient rooms that were full. Say one out of five patients had a visitor, that is three visitors, plus you have six workers. You have nine vehicles most likely on that site at that time. She does not believe people will be coming by bus or even bicycle; they will be driving. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 12 of 22 Ms. Skogen asked whether there is going to be any signage on the building about what this health care facility is? Will it be on the building or in the yard? Ms. Skogen stated she did drive by today the two units Mr. Ofsthun spoke of and she did find parking on the street in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. She took some pictures. There were three cars parked on the street in Brooklyn Park and two cars parked in the front area that they allow and the driveway was completely empty. She found the same was true for the property in Brooklyn Center. And these are single-family homes, ramblers that have been changed into this type of a home. You are looking at 4 or 5 units vs. 15 units. Ms. Skogen asked, what happens if this model does not work? What happens to the building? What else can go in there? What would their protocol be in an emergency? Do emergency vehicles providers know to go to the back? Or will they be coming to the front of the building because she is sure there will be some medical emergencies. Ms. Skogen stated while she commends what it is, she thinks 15 rooms is a lot. Why can't it be a little smaller? Maybe 8 rooms opposed to 15. That might help alleviate some of the parking issues that are going to occur. Ms. Skogen stated she has been over to her mother's several times and Bona Brothers has their employees parking on the street. When she goes over to visit her mother, she cannot always park in front of her house. She has to park down the street. That is why parking can really become an issue. That is her mother's biggest fear. She is 81 years old. She has a hard time getting in and out. Commissioner Sielaff asked Ms. Skogen if one of her issues here her concern about additional professionals coming over there over and above the six? Ms. Skogen replied, yes. th Pat Breitkreutz, 5315 4 Street. Bona Brothers probably has six vehicles along their side of the street or at the vacant lot most of the time. They were told that Bona Brothers do not want the extra cars in their th own parking lot and is why they are parking them on 4 Street. As to the eight parking spots but with the two that are inside the building itself, will there be receiving doors? The rubbish and equipment would be kept inside? Mr. Breitkreutz stated his wife is a transplant receiver. When she was in the pre-transplant and the post- transplant phase, they had a stream of people coming and going from their house. Two-three people a day for rehab, people to help clean the house, etc. The plan the petitioner is proposing is not what they’ve experienced. There is going to be a steady stream of people coming to that place. Chairperson Kondrick stated the main thing for Mr. Breitkreutz is accessibility. There is not enough parking with the spaces available? Mr. Breitkreutz replied, absolutely. Chairperson Kondrick stated not only because of this facility but because of other businesses around the area, Bona's for example. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 13 of 22 Mr. Breitkreutz stated he does not know if Bona Bros. would continue to park on the street because right now they park in front of the open lot and they walk through the lot. th Pam Donley , 5305 4 Street NE, stated her concern also is the parking. If it comes to the point the parking is not working, then what? They are worried with the facility having so many units right off the bat that there won’t be enough parking. Her father was at a rehab place, it was at a regular nursing home with rehab attached. There was plenty of parking. They visited every single day. She finds it hard to believe there will not be visitors. It probably will not be during the day when people go to visit these people, it will be in the evening when the rest of the neighbors are home and need a place to park on their own street. She hopes this is something the City looks into real seriously because there are a lot of visitors. They may not have family who can take care of them at their own homes, and that is the reason they are going to these places. Her concern is the parking and also single-family homes are disappearing in their neighborhood. Mr. Ofsthun replied, as to what license, he is not sure if it's Class A or B. It is telemedicine, tele-ICU. It is going to have the TV's and connected he believed to Fairview and some others. Snow removal is a great point. They probably would want to adjust some of the shrub plantings. They should be able to keep the snow on-site that they are pushing from the parking. These will be patients who are referred from Allina and Fairview-University of Minnesota. There will be no signage. Typically for emergency vehicles, working with other cities, the emergency people do have where to approach buildings and how to get in, whether it be fire or emergency. He would imagine they do the same thing here where they were to go to that particular entrance but, again, it is a good question that needs to be addressed. Mr. Ofsthun stated as to why not make it smaller, the value of what is being put into this project, the landscape, the building itself, elevator, sprinkler systems, two stairwells, everything that is going into this building by making it smaller, it is less likely it will work and the less likely they will be interested in doing it. They want to make it worthwhile to do the project. He can see they need to do something about getting another parking spot or two. They will have to look into it and see if there is a way. The garage itself is 2 1/2 stalls so there will be space off to the side for garbage, etc. Mr. Ofsthun stated as to the visitors, he is kind of going what the operators of the facility have seen in other home health care buildings, and kind of their expertise on what to expect for that. That is what it is based on. He does not have a real clear answer unfortunately. Chairperson Kondrick asked, with the possibility of 15 patients there. It is likely that some of these people are going to have visitors. There is no place to put the cars except on the street. Any other possible solutions to a possible parking problem or is there not going to be a parking problem, as far as Mr. Ofsthun is concerned? Mr. Ofsthun replied, again he has to base it on conversations with those who will be operating and managing the building. They do not seem to see an issue with that. Commissioner Sielaff asked about all the services they are providing and whether they will have professionals coming into the facility to provide some of these services? Mr. Ofsthun replied, his understanding is the two staff members per floor will be providing all the services. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 14 of 22 Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they would provide all the services that were listed off? Mr. Ofsthun replied, he believe so and they are going to be there 24 hours a day. Chairperson Oquist stated it does not seem to him that two people can provide all the services Mrs. Skogen listed off her document. They are going to have to have certain people coming in to provide some of those services. He has a serious problem with parking. There is no visitor parking at all. The other thing is, there are six parking stalls but what about shift changes. Where are people going to park while the other ones leave? Commissioner Sielaff stated the other concern is what happens if this is already built and then the parking problem comes up. What do they do? He is not clear on what the remedies are. Ms. Stromberg replied, obviously based on the site plan that is in front of them there is very limited space for additional parking. Today she had a conversation with Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, about that and obviously the request would have to go back to Council; and they would have to require them to shut bedroom doors. They could only occupy 7 or 10 of the 15 rooms. Staff would have to monitor that by having access to the inside of the facility to make sure there were not more beds being occupied. Chairperson Oquist stated he is not so sure even restricting the number of rooms is going to solve the parking issue. You still have the issue of additional people coming. This project has to be re-thought about what they are going to do about parking. Ms. Jones stated regarding the Bona Brothers parking, that actually is a code enforcement case of hers that she has been dealing with for a long time; and she can tell them that Brian Bona just earlier this week th promised that the employees would no longer be parking on 4 Street. If he does not abide by that, his special use permit will be back for review before the City Council. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist 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 8:07 P.M. Commissioner Oquist stated the project has to go back to the drawing board. It is not ready. There are way too many issues on this one. You cannot just plop something like this on a lot like this and have six stalls. The parking is a big issue. Chairperson Kondrick stated he tends to agree with him. Commissioner Saba stated he has dealt a lot with transplant patients, and they do get a lot of visitors. Commissioner Oquist stated Ms. Skogen had a lot of concerns. She brought up a lot of points that need to be addressed for a facility like this. Maybe that also needs to be addressed along with the parking issues. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 15 of 22 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff Denying Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-07, by TCO Design, to allow a comprehensive home health care use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at 5310 4th Street NE. Seconded by Councilmember Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the Minutes of the August 4, 2014, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the Minutes of the August 7, 2014, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist 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 September 4, 2014, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Receive the Minutes of the October 2, 2014, Housing & Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Receive the Minutes of the July 2, 2014, Appeals Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Receive the Minutes of the August 6, 2014, Appeals Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 16 of 22 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Receive the Minutes of the September 3, 2014, Appeals Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. 12. Receive the Minutes of the October 1, 2014, Appeals Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. Receive the Minutes of the July 8, 2014, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. Receive the Minutes of the September 9, 2014, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: 15. Approve 2015 Planning Commission meeting dates. MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving the 2015 Planning Commission meeting dates. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. TOD Update. Ms. Jones stated the City is at the stage now of the final stretch of this master plan project for the City's transit-oriented development district. The City has to finish this project by the end of the year so what staff is looking for this evening is for the Commission's review of this draft final plan and any feedback they have on it is important because this is kind of their last chance to give it to staff before they send it Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 17 of 22 onto City Council and the HRA. Ms. Jones stated the area they are talking about is the TOD area which includes the Stevenson Elementary School and goes on over to the new construction area on University Avenue on down to the freeway. The area this plan is about is the City's future yet to be designated transit tax increment financing district. Ms. Jones stated the purpose of this plan is to provide guidance for that future tax increment financing district. Staff wants to put a full plan in place as they expect it not to redevelop all at once but redevelop piece by piece so they do not end up with an area that does not work together. They need to have a plan in place as to how they want all the connections made to transit from the very beginning. Ms. Jones stated they are also hoping this plan entices private development. This is not a plan where the City is planning to come in and build these things but hoping private development will occur on its own. It is to provide the City a future guide for those developers so that in the TOD area, as they will recall, they have to come in with a master plan and developers are often spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to that point where they come in and submit that plan. Therefore, the City wants to give them a basic preliminary approval that they are okay with this particular use and particular property before they make that investment. Ms. Jones stated as they will recall it has been some time back now but referencing the preliminary plan at the very beginning of this project to plan changes to Islands of Peace Park. They find that park to be the critical piece to this plan and making this a very attractive place to live next to the river and close to the transit opportunities in this area so staff started with that first and have based the rest of the plan around that. Ms. Jones stated staff also did a traffic study because there are multiple scenarios about different ways the City could redevelop some of these areas and would it be multi-family housing, industrial, commercial, etc. In looking at those different options, staff did a traffic study and had a subcontractor and engineering firm working on this to look at the impacts of those added housing units or the impacts of that added industrial property. Ms. Jones stated in reviewing these traffic conditions, they looked at the intersection capacities, the cueing at those intersections, and they evaluated the possible impact of those different development scenarios. They particularly looked at the possible extension of 57th Avenue from Main Street onto East River Road and what sort of impacts those would have at that intersection that is there in front of Georgetown Apartments. Ms. Jones stated they then looked at projections not just for the next few years to 2020 but also looked at projections out to 2030 and then made recommendations based on that study. The findings were that they felt that new intersections, should that 57th Avenue connection come through, would result in this development at an unacceptable level of service, a Level E, just during the afternoon p.m. peak. That was the only problem they really saw with this scenario. As a result of that they made some recommendations and also felt there could be some significant side street delays in cueing on Charles Street and Island Park Drive during that afternoon peak as well. They really did not find any significant difference. Ms. Jones stated they had some debate throughout the project of right now Charles Street coming out on East River Road coming out as a full intersection where you can make a left or right hand turn out on East Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 18 of 22 River Road. Island Park Drive is only a right-in, right-out. They had some debate about switching that because in the East River Road corridor plan it calls for Island Park Drive to become the full intersection and Charles Street to be limited to only right-in/right-out. In the end through this traffic study they concluded in a meeting with the County Highway Department as well that Island Park Drive probably would be the best option because it was mid-distance between the stoplight at 61st Way and the stoplight at what is about 58th now at the Georgetown Apartment area. Ms. Jones stated as far as the recommendations, they did recommend there be a dual westbound left-turn lane at 57th coming out of that new development to the Industrial Equities Properties when that occurs which they had anticipated when they were looking at that master plan for that project. Also, they recommended doing a split phasing traffic signal at that same intersection to make it safer for left hand turns both directions. All along staff has recommended that the traffic signals really from Mississippi south to the freeway be timed. Right now some of them are under control of the County and some of them under control of MnDOT and they do not work together. Chairperson Kondrick asked if she was going to talk about the possible bridge going from University at 57th all the way over the railroad tracks? Ms. Jones replied, yes. Ms. Jones stated as a result of this they actually looked at reducing the housing density from some of the earlier projections they had because when it got to a certain level it was going to warrant East River Road from just that section between 61st and the freeway having to be six lanes wide. If they will recall from the East River Road corridor study, no one wanted to see that; and they wanted to maintain that roadway the way it is, and the width that it is. They have kind of reduced some of the plans there and kept some of the industrial land still being industrial. Chairperson Kondrick asked wasn't that an objection that mostly concerned citizens from 61st north? Ms. Jones replied, again, afternoon peak. Chairperson Kondrick asked, as residents along the south of there, was it an issue for people at Georgetown Apartments? Widening it to six lanes for example? Ms. Jones replied, no, because they have a traffic signal. Ms. Jones stated in the master plan there is that proposed roadway Chairperson Kondrick was referring to, the 57th Avenue extension. They have heard the troubling news that came out of this whole project that a bridge over or under the tracks is appearing unlikely. They kept it in the plan because as they had the public meetings on this, the public was still voicing a strong desire to have that connection. They will see in one of the future drawings they have had some scenarios done for at minimum to have a bike/ped bridge over the railroad tracks there and have a couple of designs proposed for that. However, they are preserving it here because things may change in the future that will allow that to be possible; and they still feel it is important to the area so they are keeping it in the plan. Ms. Jones stated as far as the redevelopment potential for this area, they looked at a couple of different proposals on the housing and stuck with the numbers they see here. Under one scenario without the redevelopment of the entire Georgetown complex, as much as another 800 housing units in the area. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 19 of 22 With the full area of Georgetown it could be as many as 1,150 added housing units. They are talking about a very high-density residential area particularly since they are expanding the acreage of the park and creating a lot of new trails in this area. It is building this area up rather than out is basically what are the plans they are seeing in some of the pictures here. Ms. Jones stated and then of course they have projected square footage for office and residential retail here that is mostly tied to the Industrial Equities master plan that is already approved. Ms. Jones stated they also have as part of the plan a bike/pedestrian network. They realized that they neglected to put the bus stops on this drawing. That is going to be added before it goes to City Council because that is a key thing they were looking at as they looked at these proposed trails and sidewalks is that they want to make sure they have very safe connections to the transit in the area and they are really creating some good, usable bike and walking loops both for recreation and for people to get to work and shopping. In the inset they will see the two options for the bike/pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks. Ms. Jones stated this is going to involve the MRT (Mississippi River Trail) national bike trail back to the river where they originally wanted it when they put that through Fridley. They had some additional connections. She actually just talked to someone from MnDOT about that this afternoon at a meeting over at the National Park Service so they are kind of making connections with the County and MnDOT and Metro Transit, too, on moving those things. Ms. Jones stated there seems to be a lot of excitement about that, particularly about creating the parkway on Island Park Drive. Therefore, in this plan they really have two main parkways leading to an expanded Islands of Peace Park. The thought being that likely the Island Park Drive one will happen first as this area redevelops and that later on, hopefully, with a full 57th Avenue extension they will see the other parkway Chairperson Kondrick asked, has there been any talk about a high rise apartment or condo building in that area? Ms. Jones replied, yes, they do not show that in the pictures but there certainly is a possibility of that. They focused more on the number of units because of that having the traffic impacts and looking at the feasibility to park enough units for that. They are going to be somewhat limited in height in this area though because this is also in the MNREA area and are still waiting for all the final rules on that. However, what they are seeing so far is going to allow them to build to the 65-foot height that the R-3 zoning allows in this area now. It looks like the City will probably have to do some stepped development which she is a little concerned about because then the higher building will have to actually be further away from the river which she thinks typically is what you see are the higher buildings closer to the river to get those views. They will have to see how that all plays out, but for now they are looking at a 3-4 story high building. Chairperson Kondrick asked how is that enormous in diameter sewer line going from roughly the Girl Scout camp on the south going to affect future development? Ms. Jones stated it should not be a problem. Where it is a problem is that idea they had of tunneling under the railroad tracks with the 57th Avenue connection. That is where it becomes a very extensive problem to move it. It is possible to move that line for a price. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 20 of 22 Ms. Jones stated they are focusing a connecting to the on-street bike lane and sidewalks on Main Street by the east train station but keep in mind, too, that they have the additional trail connections happening here as soon as next year with the pedestrian bridge at the freeway on Main Street. That is allowing people south of the freeway to access this area, too. That is also part of the area is to have that bike/ped connection at 57th over the railroad tracks so they can give people access to Islands of Peace Park and Riverfront Park on the other side of the freeway, too. Commissioner Solberg stated there were not a lot of people at the meetings but some folks provided positive feedback. He asked Ms. Jones to share what people are excited about? Ms. Jones stated they were really surprised because you are apprehensive when you do a project like this about what people are going to think about more apartments in the area. They tend to not want to see more multi-family housing. Actually most of the people who came to the two public meetings were living in the neighborhood north of Stevenson Elementary, and they did not have one negative comment about more multi-family housing. Ms. Jones stated they were just excited the City was making plans to redevelop that housing. They were excited to see the drawings of what was being proposed – there was a lot of excitement, too, to see the proposed connections from that neighborhood to that park. Ms. Jones stated the City owns the land between Stevenson Elementary and the river and make a connection through that area so that people can recreate more up closer to the river in a direct route. There was a lot of interest and excitement about that. There were some concerns about whether there was going to be a market for that much housing. They are still close to the train tracks, there is still noise from the train even though they have quiet zones. There are vibrations, etc. from the trains. That was one of the negatives she recalled that was a concern. Overall, a really positive reaction from the public. Commissioner Solberg asked, what is the timeframe in terms of development? Ms. Jones replied, they do not know. It is definitely a long-range plan. The City nor the HRA has any plans to immediately come in and purchase land here and do any redevelopment. They are hoping that it is going to happen privately. Particularly because that private development is going to be the seed money for these new trails and these new parking buildings, etc. they are looking at having in the future at that park. It is definitely a long-range plan that will happen piece by piece. Ms. Jones stated she commends their consultant, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc, because they really came up with a plan that allows it to happen piece by piece and allows them to put in that new infrastructure section by section because they are proposing a whole new parkway on the south end of Stevenson Elementary, kind of going through parts of where Georgetown Apartments are now. That is kind of a key connection for the school, too, because it only has one access in and out which is not good for a school. They really like to have two access points in case there is an emergency. They really like this concept of being able to redo their bus routing so they would come down that new parkway and come out at the stoplight at 57th or at Island Park Drive if there is one there in the future. Chairperson Kondrick asked if this goes to the Metro Council? Ms. Jones replied, yes, when they are done with this the City will have to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment. They are getting close though to starting the next Comprehensive Plan update. Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 21 of 22 Chairperson Kondrick asked what kind of approval authority does the Metropolitan Council have? Ms. Jones replied, fortunately, Metropolitan Council has already approved the park plan as part of Anoka County's master plan and that is a big part of this. Staff has been working with them along the way and also with the folks from Metro Transit. Metro Council now has a new transit-oriented development division, and they have had a meeting with that staff as well. They have really been keeping them involved in this since they have gone through; therefore, she does not anticipate any problems. Commissioner Oquist asked whether there have been any developers inquiring or showing any kind of interest into this at all Ms. Jones replied, probably not because of this plan but they did have one developer come in and look at the east train station site. Ms. Jones showed drawings of things they’ve already seen. The Main Street design is already built. The East River Road drawings are from the East River Road corridor plans so they are not proposing to change anything there. They were just showing this is kind of a basis for the streetscape they have looked at for what they have labeled the Gateway Parkway. That is the entrance of that 57th Avenue connection which is now the entrance into Georgetown Apartments. That design incorporates a very wide center median which serves as a stormwater treatment area, and incorporating limited on-street parking, on- street parking and then sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Ms. Jones showed a picture of what the proposed view of the new streetscape will be of the area of the Georgetown Apartments. With a possibility of main floor commercial and residential up above. She showed a rendering of the view of Island Park Drive and how that would look if you are standing on East River Road looking towards Islands of Peace Park. Also, she showed a rendering of if you were standing on 61st Avenue looking towards the east Park and Ride lot with the train station in the background. Bringing the buildings very close up to the street as the TOD district requires with parking underground. Some surface parking behind and moving in this case, the stormwater pond to the back of the site. Incorporating some of those streetscape features that they spent a lot of time going over at the public meetings, looking at what sort of furnishings and after much debate with the HRA, the City Council came up with features that kind of all blended together and kind of fit the look they wanted in this area close to the river. Looking at flowers and street lighting and finding fixtures that would provide LED, the more modern type lighting which would still be downcast and shielded. Chairperson Kondrick stated lighting is very important and it is very dark down there. Ms. Jones stated in the TOD zoning district the City dictates what these features are in private developments so they needed to spec out what bike rack would be used, what type of light would need to be used, etc. They are going to have to select these specific models or something similar that the City approves. Ms. Jones stated they looked at fencing and there seemed to be a desire for this kind of rock type fencing and it is tying in again with some of the stormwater scenes. Because you are bringing in buildings close to the street and you may not have room to meet the landscaping requirements of the Code, there is an allowance in the TOD language that you can pay into a fund $500 per tree, for every tree you cannot meet in your landscape requirements. That fund is used then for public space. Perhaps it is used to finance a Planning Commission Meeting November 19, 2014 Page 22 of 22 clock tower in a public plaza somewhere else in the district. Ms. Jones stated the next steps for the plan now as it is finalized, is for it to be reviewed by the HRA on December 4. They are bringing it to the City Council on December 8 which will give them an extra meeting if they want to change some things before they have to wrap up the project by December 31. Then as part of that also the consultant is going to make recommendations on possible text amendments to the TOD overlay zoning district. They will be a text amendment coming forward to the Planning Commission on those proposed changes. She does not foresee anything real significant there, but there may be a few things they want to tweak in the design criteria in that area. Then completing the Comprehensive Plan amendment down the road. Chairperson Kondrick stated it has been a lot of work. A lot of things have had to come to fruition before staff could make things happen. He likes the plan. It makes sense. It is going to work and the possibilities here are many. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to pass this item onto the City Council with approval from the Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURN: MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:48 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary