Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02/06/1991
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1991 7:30 P.M. Public Planning Commission IL ! City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1991 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: January 23, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #91-01, ST. PHILIP'S LUTHERAN CHURCH Per Section 205.09.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow churches in an R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling District, on Outlots 1 and 2 and the vacated service road, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 4th Addition, generally located at 6180 Highway 65 N.E. 1991 CDBG FUNDS RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 7. 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22 , 1991 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the January 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. • ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Connie Modig, Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Sue Sherek Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Bob Guzy, 3989 Central Avenue N.E. Scott Ericson, Fridley Town Square Dev. Daniel Blue, representing Burger King Keith Carlson, Braun Intertech See attached sign-in sheets APPROVAL OF JANUARY 9, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: Mr. Betzold stated that on page 12, the motion should be amended to include wording that states that the Planning Commission has reviewed the various studies and ordinances from other cities and that the findings from those studies and ordinances is consistent with the proposed ordinance for the City of Fridley. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the January 9, 1991, Planning Commission minutes with the following amendment to the motion on page 12: "MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, that the Planning Commission has reviewed the various studies and ordinances from other cities and has found that the findings from those studies and ordinances to be applicable to the issues in the City of Fridley; therefore, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses. . . . " UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23. 1991 PAGE 2 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the adoption of the redevelopment plan for Fridley Town Square development, to consider adding a drive-through window for a fast food restaurant on the west side of the proposed building. The property included in this redevelopment plan are as follows: Lot 9, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 355 Mississippi Street N.E. ; and Lot 12, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2 from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 368 - 66th Avenue N.E. ; and Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 1, except the South 30 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, and Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 3, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2, according to the recorded plat thereof one file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C-1, Local Business, to S-2, Redevelopment District, the same being 6525 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the site is located north and adjacent to Mississippi Street, south of 66th Avenue, and east of and adjacent to University Avenue. The site contains the old 10,000 Auto Parts building. The developer has proposed to acquire the single family home at 365 Mississippi Street and 370 - 66th Avenue N.E. Ms. Dacy stated that prior to the start of the meeting, there was a question about the location of the existing bikeway and sidewalk. The existing bikeway/walkway runs along the west boundary of the site, and the sidewalk runs along the south side of the site. Both are within the public road right-of- way and not on the petitioner's property. Ms. Dacy stated that in June 1990, the City Council approved the rezoning request from C-1, Local Business, and R-1, Single Family Dwelling, to S-2, Redevelopment District, for the construction of a 28,000 sq. ft. shopping center. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 3 Ms. Dacy stated the reason the Planning Commission is considering the proposed request at this meeting is because staff made the determination that the addition of a drive- through window throughout this shopping center represented a substantial change from the original development plan that was approved by the City Council. The S-2 ordinance states that substantial changes must be submitted to the Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council. Ms. Dacy stated the developer is proposing in a revised plan to the shopping center to lease 3,000 sq. ft. to Burger King at the extreme west end of the building and to install an order box and an order window at the rear of the building so there could be a drive-through function with the Burger King. Burger King is the same Burger King owner located in the southwest quadrant. If this revised plan is approved, the Burger King in the southwest quadrant would become vacant. Ms. Dacy reviewed the revised plan with the following changes as submitted by the developer: APPROVED PLAN PROPOSED PLAN 1. 28,230 square feet 27,745 2. 143 parking spaces 140 3 . 20 aisle width 28-33 around building 4. 6 screening wall wall extended to University Avenue; could be eight feet 5. east side of loading zone north side of bldg. building 6. plan approved landscaping less area for shrubs along University Avenue 7. clockwise traffic direction counter-clockwise 8. 5 feet along setbacks 18 feet along University Avenue; University Avenue 15 feet along University Avenue 9. 20 foot length parking stall One system at 18 feet 25 foot aisle systems long with 24 foot aisle 10. Drop-off site; LRT Same; however, potential for conflict with additional spaces with pedestrian along Mississippi traffic PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 23. 1991 PAGE 4 APPROVED PLAN PROPOSED PLAN 11. 322 Peak hour volumes 404 at site intersection (all directions) Ms. Dacy stated that in reviewing the proposed revision to the development plan, staff identified eight impacts and/or issues that the Planning Commission and City Council will have to address: 1. Site design. The proposal would dictate that traffic utilizing the fast-food drive-through window would enter the site at the far east side, travel north to the rear of the building, travel west to the west of the of the building to the order window, and then pick up the food along the west wall of the shopping center. Customers would then leave the site traveling south to the end of the parking lot, then east to the site entrance (counter-clockwise pattern) . The originally-approved plan proposed that the rear of the building was to be used for truck loading and unloading activities only. A clockwise traffic pattern was proposed. Also, the loading and unloading area was located on the east side of the shopping center; however that has changed to the north side of the shopping center directly behind Walgreen's. Mixing automobile traffic with larger vehicle and truck traffic at the rear of a building is not typical, and usually discouraged. The developer has given us another example of this situation in Circle Pines. Staff visited the site, but that shopping center did not have comparable characteristics. The petitioner has rearranged the site plan to maintain a 15 foot setback along 66th Avenue, but widened the driving aisle along the rear of the building from the originally-proposed 20 foot wide driving aisle to 28 to 33 feet in width, depending on the particular location on the site plan. The intent of the widening of this area is to give room for service vehicles to make deliveries during the day, but yet allow automobile traffic to circulate around the rear of the building while service vehicles are on the property. The petitioner has indicated that Walgreen's would agree to a restriction on loading/unloading activities during the peak restaurant period of 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 5 Trucks would park parallel to the building and unload by a curving conveyor into the building. - 2. Traffic impacts. Staff asked Barton-Aschman to revise the April 1990 traffic study to address the impacts of the fast-food restaurant. Included in your packet is the consultant's report and recommendation (remember that Barton-Aschman is the City's consultant, and the developer paid the fees) . The consultant determined that there would be no change in the level of service on Mississippi Street during peak hour from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Although additional traffic volume will be created at this time of the day, it will not be enough to trigger a drop in the level of service. As part of the consultant's analysis, actual data from the current Burger King location was analyzed. The peak hour of the fast-food use appears to be during the noon hour, from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. The typical peak for the shopping center occurs as people are traveling home from work between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. The original April 1990 study assumed that 100% of the traffic generated from the site was brand new traffic and not traffic that already exists on the abutting roadways. This was a worst-case approach. In the revised study, it was assumed that 25% of the traffic generated by the fast-food restaurant was traffic that already exists on the roadway. In fact, the consultant noted that relocation of the Burger King to the northeast corner of the intersection redistributes the trips to the extent that the function of the intersection is slightly improved. 3. Noise. The addition of more activity at the rear of the building poses concern for additional noise impact to the neighborhood to the north. Contributors to the noise would be the intercom system for the drive-through vehicles to place orders and responses by the fast-food restaurant employees, and the sound of cars waiting in line to place the order. The developer has indicated that he has hired a sound consultant (Braun Intertech) to analyze the noise generators. The report was distributed to the Planning Commission this evening. It states that the distance between the homes and the drive-through facility is far enough that the noise impact would be minimal. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 6 As another mitigating factor, the developer has proposed an extension of the screening wall from the originally- approved plan an additional 75 feet to the property line along University Avenue (landscaping was originally proposed in this area) . The developer has also indicated that, depending on the preference of the City or the neighborhood, he would be willing to construct an eight foot wall or a combination of the originally-proposed six foot wall and additional landscaping. The developer has indicated that the order box would be located in such a manner that it would point toward University Avenue in order to direct the noise away from the neighborhood. 4. Odor. The developer submitted an analysis from Braun Intertech which stated that a double baffle air filtration system was installed at a Burger King facility at TH 169 and Old Shakopee Road. Odor couldn't be detected from the facility at 175 feet. Locating the fast-food restaurant at the extreme west end of the building is consistent with the intent of stipulation #17; however, as to the type of equipment that will be used to minimize the odor of the fast-food restaurant needs to be submitted by the developer. Venting from the restaurant could occur along the west wall of the building. 5. Screening. The petitioner is prepared to construct an eight foot screening wall along 66th Avenue or a combination of landscaping and the originally-approved six foot wall. Staff is concerned that the addition of two more feet on the masonry wall may be perceived as increasing the impact of a large wall mass along 66th Avenue. Staff recommends that if the six foot wall is maintained that the landscaping plan be revised to provide additional landscaping along the northwest part of the site to break up the view and noise generated from that part of the center. If the recommendation is to construct an eight foot wall, we recommend Ivy plantings along the wall in order to break up the expanse and height of the wall. Due to the site design changes on the property, an increased setback is provided along Mississippi Street which will give additional room if the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority needs this area for a small park- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 7 and-ride facility. However, given the reduction in setback along University Avenue, the originally proposed shrubs on this side of the property will have to be placed along the property line, and snow storage on the site should not occur in this area. The original landscaping plan did not include a three foot hedge along University Avenue on the west side of the shopping center. If approved, the landscaping plan should be amended to provide a continuous three foot screen along University Avenue to screen the view of the drive-through traffic. Also, trees should be planted for every 50 feet of driveway aisle (this is consistent with the recently- adopted landscaping ordinance) . A five foot setback is still maintained along the east lot line adjacent to existing residences, and there should be no changes to the landscaping plan agreed to by the developer and those homeowners. 6. Light Rail Transit. BRW, Inc. , has reviewed the revised site plan for this development. They identified a pedestrian compatibility concern with the drive-through traffic along the west side of the building. The proposed station location for the LRT would be at the northwest part of the site. The bus drop-off for the LRT is proposed to occur along Mississippi Street. The Rail Authority would have to provide a sidewalk along University Avenue to the bus drop-off. A pedestrian connection should also be made into the site as LRT users may want to either shop at the center or return to their vehicle in the parking lot. The developer should be required to stripe a pedestrian cross-walk area across the westerly driveway aisle in order to accommodate LRT users. This striping would obviously not occur until the system is constructed. Pedestrian access plans will be developed in the near future, as the LRT system is nearing draft Environmental Impact Statement review. 7. Hours of operation. As opposed to the originally-proposed plan of typical shopping center tenants, the addition of the fast-food restaurant poses an additional intrusion into the residential area in terms of hours of operation. Typically, fast-food restaurants are open until 11:00 p.m. , and the drive-through activities could occur late into the evening, although they are not as heavy as during peak hours from noon to 5:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 8 8. Lighting. Additional lighting at the rear of the building should be placed such that the light source is completely shielded and located away from the residential area. In fact, locating the wall packs on the south side of the proposed screening wall may help to minimize the glare. A specific lighting and location plan should be submitted if the amendment is approved. Ms. Dacy stated that staff believes that the issue the Planning Commission and City Council has to decide is whether or not the proposed drive-through facility is consistent with the original development plan that was approved in June 1990. Despite the mitigation that the developer has proposed, there will be more traffic in terms of volume and in terms of location. There will be longer hours of operation due to the nature of a fast food restaurant, and there will be more noise. Adding a fast food restaurant at the end of an existing shopping center building appears to be a new market industry addition; however, it is an atypical traffic pattern. Ms. Dacy stated that, in the developer's defense, they have changed the site plan to maintain the original setbacks and, in one case, have increased the setback. They have proposed additional screening. They responded to a request to do an analysis of the noise and the odors, and they have indicated they will install whatever odor system is available to reduce the odors from the fast food restaurant. Ms. Dacy stated the original plan contemplated the rear of the building purely as a loading and unloading facility. The proposed plan represents a change from that; however, staff is encouraged by the mitigation proposed by the developer. Mr. Betzold asked if the HRA will be involved in this process at all. Ms. Dacy stated the HRA is aware of the developer's proposed amendment. The HRA has not executed any development contract with the developer and has chosen not to pursue a development contract until this issue is resolved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Sielaff stated that regarding air quality, what about emissions from cars in the back where the area is more confined with fencing and the building? Ms. Dacy stated it could be said that with the wall extended to University and the rear wall of the shopping center, a small tunnel is created; however, she believed they should be PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 9 more concerned about the air quality from University Avenue than from the traffic on this particular site. _ Mr. Saba stated that since this is an S-2 district, could the Commission restrict the hours of operation? Ms. Dacy stated, yes, they could. Ms. Modig stated it is being said that the wall will help reduce the impact of noise. What about the bounce-over noise under certain conditions? Ms. Dacy stated the wall will certainly help cut down on some of the noise, however, she cannot say all the noise will be eliminated. Mr. Betzold asked if there is going to be sufficient room for snow storage in the back. Will the storage of snow impede the traffic flow? Ms. Dacy stated that is an issue the property management will have to address on a routine basis. The site is tight in terms of areas to store snow. The management may have to haul snow off site. Ms. Modig asked if the bikeway/walkway path and sidewalk will be impacted by the development. Ms. Dacy stated the Commission might want to stipulate that the developer has to address a pedestrian crossing plan or striping or stop sign where the sidewalk crosses the driveway entrance. Mr. Saba stated the bikeway/walkway is heavily used during the summer. It is the main route for bike traffic on the east side of University to get to the Community Park. There should be some planned bike path either into the development or an improvement to what is there now, because right now the turn- around by the light is very difficult, and bikers cut across the parking lot. Mr. Bob Guzy, attorney representing the developer, stated that when the developer was before the Commission and City Council, they did not know what type of tenants would go into this development, other than the Walgreen store. They were approached by Burger King about the possibility of relocating into this development. Burger King has been a corporate citizen of the City of Fridley for many years, and they have made the decision that they would like to relocate, yet stay in the City of Fridley. The addition of Burger King into the proposed development, along with Walgreen, made this site go PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23. 1991 PAGE 10 from a positive site to a very positive site from the standpoint of financing for shopping centers. Mr. Guzy stated the developer has been working with the City to try rectify any problems that would arise from the addition of the Burger King and drive-through facility. Traffic was mentioned as a big issue. Barton-Aschman, who did the first traffic report for the Council, relooked at the development with the Burger King and again came in with the report that traffic remains at a "D" situation for this intersection and actually indicated that in parts of the intersection, there will probably be an improvement. Mr. Guzy stated that regarding the Burger King traffic, it is not a constant traffic, and there are some peak times. The developer provided for the City and the traffic consultant the traffic counts for June, July, and August. Mr. Guzy stated the pedestrian crossing is an issue he had just heard about at this meeting. Again, both with the bikeway/walkway and LRT, it is not a constant traffic. And, it is not uncommon for pedestrians to have to cross a drive- through aisle. Mr. Guzy stated another issue is the noise issue. Mr. Keith Carlson of Braun Intertech, who did the noise and odor report, will address that issue. If the City is uncomfortable with the report prepared by Braun, the developer is willing to let the City hire another expert to do an additional report. Mr. Guzy stated Mr. Daniel Blue, representing Burger King, will address issues regarding the Burger King and the drive- in operation. Mr. Guzy stated that the developer is willing to do whatever is necessary to provide adequate screening, whether a 6 ft. or 8 ft. masonry wall. Extra landscaping, whatever is needed, will be provided. He believed the lighting is something that can be addressed. Snow removal was discussed with the original development proposal, and they realize that has to be done. Mr. Guzy stated that regarding the impact of deliveries and the traffic. This type of traffic is not fast; it is a controlled traffic. The enlargement of the area in the back accommodates the loading and unloading of deliveries. The original plan called for Walgreen unloading at the eastern side. That has been changed to the northerly site, which helps remove that noise from the residential area. Mr. Keith Carlson, employed by Braun Intertech to do the noise and odor report for Burger King, stated the report basically PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 11 talks about the implications of the Burger King facility regarding noise and odors. About 5-6 months ago, he looked at a proposed Burger King facility in White Bear Lake, and his report is based on this previous sampling project. Mr. Carlson stated the first item addressed in his report was the distance from the proposed Burger King to the residents on the north side of 66th Avenue N.E. , and to the residents on the east side of the project, who would be potentially impacted by the cars going into the driving area. The distance to the residents on 66th Avenue is 150 feet and 400 feet from the property line on the east side of the project. The 8 foot masonry wall will be quite effective in minimizing the noise generated by the Burger King customers. Using the worst case traffic numbers (11: 30 - 2:00 p.m. ) , the noise implication will be minimal. Mr. Carlson stated he was quite concerned about the drive- through speaker noise, because speakers can provide a pretty loud noise even at a fairly significant distance. He looked at the noises on the previous projects and the affect of distances on those noises. Using the worst case scenario with 10-15 m.p.h. downwind from the speaker without any wall, the daytime noise levels came down to zero. Speakers are very directional and once you get 25-30 degrees away from the direct line of the speaker, the noise levels drop very dramatically. In this proposal, the speaker will be facing toward University Avenue. Mr. Carlson stated that regarding the odors generated from the Burger King and how they can be controlled, in cases where the double baffle system has been used, there is some odor (very little) at 100 feet, and at 100-175 feet under the worst case scenario (daytime during the noon hour) , there is no odor at all. Mr. Carlson stated that regarding the comment that the retaining wall could be more a hindrance than a help from the reflecting noise, that does happen at times under certain road conditions on freeways. Because the nature of the noise caused from the drive-in area would obviously affect the residents on the north side of 66th Avenue, the wall itself is not necessarily causing reflective noise or making it any worse. The noise the neighbors will really be getting is reflective noise from the facility itself. The 8 ft. wall is far more beneficial for the vehicle noise than the potential noise reflected off the facility. Also, prevailing winds are generally from the north and northwest, and that will minimize the potential for sound. Mr. Dan Blue stated he works for the company that owns the Burger King in the southwest quadrant. He stated one of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23. 1991 PAGE 12 reasons this Burger King wishes to relocate is because it is an old restaurant. Mr. Blue stated that regarding noise, the newest models of drive-through communication are much more sophisticated. The newest models have the ability to turn the volume down on the speaker system that is emitted from the drive-through order station. He also agreed with Mr. Carlson that if the speaker is pointed toward University Avenue, it will have a lot less impact on the community. Mr. Blue stated that regarding the hours of operation, he is not in a position to make any firm decision on the hours of operation for the new location. At the current location, they are open different hours in the wintertime than in the summer- time. Right now, they are open to 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. In the summertime, they are normally open a little bit later. Burger King would like some flexibility on the hours of operation. Mr. Saba asked how Burger King will handle the waste that is generated. Mr. Blue stated that Burger King is currently looking at a number of ways, from an environmental standpoint, to handle their waste. Most of the products they use are biodegradable, and they are looking at a possible composting site for their paper products in St. Cloud. Regarding litter, Burger King sends employees out into the neighborhood to pick up litter. They also involve community organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, in clean-up activities. Mr. Saba stated the City is in the process of extending the desirability of biking around the community. Does Burger King plan to provide any bike parking for bike traffic? Mr. Blue stated that would not be a problem. If there is bike traffic, they will provide bike racks. Ms. Savage asked why Burger King was looking at relocating because it is an older business. Why not renovate the building and stay where they are? Mr. Blue stated that it is not just renovating the building. They are looking at this new location as being a better traffic generating location because of the ease of entry. Ms. Savage stated she is really concerned about the late hours of operation right next to a residential neighborhood. How can Burger King assure the neighbors that the Burger King facility is not going to disturb them when the facility is open until 1:00 a.m.? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 13 Mr. Blue stated their past record is very good. . There is an apartment building directly behind their existing location, and there have not been any significant problems with the present hours at that location. Mr. Betzold stated that with late night traffic, there is often loud traffic--loud mufflers, loud radios, etc. , which can be very upsetting to a neighborhood. Is the wall and the landscaping going to do anything to buffer that type of noise? Mr. Carlson stated that as far as loud car noise, there are no guarantees because that will happen. Hopefully, with the new automobile inspection regulations, that will minimize that type of noise. However, there is no guarantee with radio noise. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Carlson the advantage of the 8 ft. versus the 6 ft. wall with landscaping. Mr. Carlson stated he thought the 8 ft. wall is superior. There are also some potential good psychological components of an 8 ft. wall. There is also a big difference aesthetically with an 8 ft. wall than a 6 ft. wall. When the shrubbery is well established, that effect will be minimal. Ms. Modig asked if the developer has any other tenants for the shopping center at this time. Mr. Scott Ericson, the developer, stated that they are in the process of talking with a number of prospective tenants; however, they are in a holding pattern until they move through this process and have a clearer picture of what the individual space layouts will be. The types of uses they are looking at are retail-oriented businesses, such as a video store, hair salon, travel agency, insurance office, etc. Mr. Sielaff asked if some determination has been done on what the queue would be in the drive-through for the order line. When people wait in line, if the line is too long, it is human nature to want to get out of the line. This could cause traffic problems if they tried to back out. Ms. Dacy stated that the length of the drive-through facility is 200 feet so that is enough stacking room for 20 cars. The aisle was also widened to 28 feet to that if there is a car at the order box, another car can pull around and exit out. Mr. stated he would like to give members of the public the opportunity to ask questions of staff and the developer. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 14 Mr. Ladd Ohlsson, 376 - 66th Avenue N.E. , asked if Burger King would be permitted to have a large neon sign on the roof. Ms. Dacy stated that roof signs will not be permitted on this facility. The project will only be allowed a maximum of 80 sq. ft. for a free-standing pylon sign, maximum height of 25 feet. The development could have two signs, but the maximum would still be 80 sq. ft. for both signs. Because this is a multi-tenant building, the developer will have to submit a comprehensive sign plan. More than likely, there will be an internally illuminated sign on the building. Mr. Ellsworth Hinz, 384 - 66th Avenue N.E. , asked where the parking lot for Burger King would be located and how large it would be. He stated he also disagreed with Mr. Carlson about the winds from the north and northwest. In the evening, the winds are often from the south, and the residents on 66th Avenue will suffer from the odors from the restaurant. Ms. Dacy stated that as originally planned, the parking will be in front of the building. There will be no Burger King parking to the rear of the building. The parking at the rear is only for delivery vehicles. Mr. Duane Hanson, 365 - 66th Avenue N.E. , asked how the loading and unloading traffic will work for Walgreen with the drive-through. Ms. Dacy stated that supposedly Walgreen has agreed to not use their docking facilities between the peak hours of 11:30 - 2:00 p.m for the restaurant. However, drive-through traffic could still get around a small panel truck located at the rear of the Walgreen building. Mr. Betzold stated peak hours have been identified as 11:30 - 2:00 p.m. Wouldn't 5:00 - 6:30 p.m. also be considered peak hours? Mr. Blue stated that is true, but the evening hours are not as high a volume level as the noon peak hours. Mr. Jim Thayer, 377 - 66th Avenue N.E. , asked how many cars Burger King needs going through the drive-through facility to make it a viable part of their business. Mr. Blue stated that if they had the same location without the drive-through, they would probably have about 40% less business. It would not be a viable alternative to put the restaurant in without the drive-through. Mr. Guzy stated that in Burger King's present location, the maximum number of cars was recorded at 97 between the hours PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 15 of 12:00-1:00 p.m. , but that number varies from day to day and from time to time. - Mr. Thayer stated that is a lot of cars going through the facility in 1 1/2 hours. Mr. George Meissner,. 373 Mississippi Street N.E. , stated that relative to loading and unloading, is Burger King going to have to load and unload all their products in the diagonal parking spaces, or can trucks be parked in the area by the Burger King and loaded and unloaded down there. Mr. Blue stated that the service entrance to the Burger King is located by the dumpster area, and the delivery trucks could park in back leaving enough room for cars in the drive-through lane. They can also schedule their deliveries for times that are convenient for them. Mr. Ohlsson, 376 - 66th Avenue N.E. , asked if any crosswalks were planned for foot traffic crossing Mississippi safely from the south. Ms. Dacy stated there was not. The best crossing is the Mississippi/University intersection where there is a crosswalk. Ms. Terrie Mau, 246 Mississippi Street N.E. , stated people are saying that the present Burger King location is fine. She stated she does quite a bit of business with Burger King now because her business is close to them. She stated that just last week there were three traffic accidents of people either trying to enter onto the frontage road or come off the frontage road at Mississippi. It is difficult to get to Burger King. To say that the Burger King would increase traffic on the northeast corner is true, but it would be a safer increased traffic. She did not believe the traffic flow will increase enough with the new location to have a major impact on the area. Ms. Mau stated she is also concerned about traffic on this street and did not want to see too much increased traffic, but this is a shopping center and these businesses have to survive. Also, they should not hold businesses accountable for bikers and walkers who don't want to use the crosswalks, and they should not expect the developer to provide places to cross. They cannot be responsible for every individual in the City who does not use common sense. Ms. Mau stated she had more fear for the children who will be coming to the shopping center to go to Burger King, but she would like to see the Burger King stay in Fridley. McDonalds has moved out further, and there are not a lot of fast food PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 'JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 16 restaurants in this area. Burger King is in a difficult location now and they should be given an opportunity to go into this new shopping center. Mr. Jim Thayer stated he is against the proposal. It does a number of things that make it even less viable than the original proposal and the original proposal was not very viable. Additional pollution will be created--noise, lighting, odor. There is always the probability that the new filters will get plugged up or not be cleaned adequately. It does not mean there will be odors all the time, but there certainly will be enough of the time. But, the biggest impact on the community, at least the homeowners immediately adjacent to the center, is the sound and the light. This is not going to be a quiet neighborhood anymore. Many people in the neighborhood get up very early in the morning to go to work and go to bed around 9:00-10:00 p.m. Mr. Thayer stated he believed the traffic patterns suggested by the developer will not work. It is impossible for truck drivers to make deliveries on set schedules. There are too many parameters involved that will keep them from doing that. Mr. Thayer stated the whole building has been reduced in size. That means it reduces the revenues the City will get from it. Mr. Thayer stated the one entrance and one exit is a disaster waiting to happen, particularly if Burger King gets the type of traffic flow they need to make it a profitable business. Mr. Betzold stated there are some proposed changes in the landscaping; specifically, the size of the wall, additional landscaping, etc. If the City Council does approve this amended site plan, is there anything about the landscaping Mr. Thayer would like to see done to mitigate some of these problems? Mr. Thayer stated he believed there should be a wall to contain the trash. It should probably be a 6 ft. wall with at least a 2 foot very carefully designed noise barrier on top of it, because there will be a lot of reflected noise. Mr. Thayer stated that regarding trash, Mr. Blue said that Burger King picks up its trash. However, there are still lots of people who are not environmentally conscious enough to avoid throwing trash around, and that material spreads in a big hurry. He believed there will be a great deal more trash in the neighborhood than there is now, and that would be pretty pathetic. Most of the people on 66th Avenue try very hard to keep their homes and yards looking very nice. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 17 Mr. Thayer stated this piece of property is just too small for a development of this size. The addition of the Burger King would make the situation even worse for the neighbors, so that eventually the neighborhood will go downhill. He opposed this development very vehemently. Ms. Dacy stated she would like to clarify an earlier statement made by Mr. Guzy regarding 97 vehicles during the peak noon hours. The 97 vehicles for the 1 1/2 hours for Burger King are both drive-through and sit-down traffic. Maximum drive- through traffic is 40 cars. Mr. Meissner, 373 Mississippi Street N.E. , stated he is also against the proposed changes to the development. They are going from a development that was considered negative by most of the people in the neighborhood the first time, even though the Council approved it, to a development with changes that go even more in the negative direction. He is particularly negative from the standpoint of traffic. Getting into and out of the site given the size of the entrance and exit is going to be difficult. Since the public hearing for the original proposal, he has observed traffic backed up past that driveway on Mississippi Street nearly to his driveway. Mr. Meissner stated that as far as the wall, he did not live close enough to be affected by it visually. But, it is his opinion that a higher wall would be better, both from a sound standpoint and a visual standpoint. Mr. Ron Widlund, 445 - 67th Avenue N.E. , stated he believed an 8 foot wall would be better. He stated that regarding new tenants, he knew that one of the new tenants is a pizza restaurant. The pizza restaurant will be located approximately in the middle of the center and will have pizza delivery that goes from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00-1: 00 a.m. This business will also generate traffic that will interfere with the traffic going through the drive-through. He is concerned about the noise and odor from the pizza. In addition to a pizza restaurant, he understands there is going to be another restaurant, a Chinese restaurant. How many restaurants are needed in this area? The City should look at what else is going into the shopping center before they decide on Burger King. He stated he is very much against the whole development. The property values in this area are going to go down. Mr. Scott Ericson stated the final tenants for this center will not be determined until there is formal approval by the ownership partnership of the project and the project lender. They are considering a number of uses for the center, but none of them are officially or formally planned to be part of the center until this new plan is approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 18 Ms. Dacy stated the issue that triggered the substantial change to this project was the drive-through facility for Burger King. However, the developer should be aware and the Commission should be reminded that the S-2 district does give the City the latitude to determine whether or not a use is appropriate. If three restaurants are to be located within the facility, then the City should be made aware of that because then the developer will need to address stipulation #17 in the original proposal to make sure those facilities are vented properly. As each tenant space is occupied, the City will be looking at that use and how it fits into the overall redevelopment plan of the center. She was not aware that there could be three restaurants within the center; and if that is the case, they need to discuss that and the City Council might want to look at that in more detail. A resident of the neighborhood stated he is against the proposal for two reasons: (1) the excess traffic generated because of it; (2) the late hours that Burger King might establish. He would like to encourage Burger King to stay in its present location and encourage other developers to look at the southwest quadrant and get that developed. He also thought it would be environmentally better to have an 8 foot wall. Mr. Thayer stated there was an article recently in the Fridley Focus about the City's attempts at tax increment financing. The Center City Redevelopment Area was a very viable tax increment district, but there is a larger one at I-694/Highway 65 which is doing absolutely nothing. The Moon Plaza Shopping Center and the southwest quadrant is also in a tax increment district, and nothing is happening there either. He stated he thinks the City needs to look very carefully at what they are doing in the area of tax increment financing, because it is not doing what they hoped it would do. It is not bringing in the revenues the City thought it would, and the City has to look at the reasons why. Part of it is the economy, and another part of it may be the locations. But, he is deeply concerned that this is just another one of the projects that will not work out. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:45 P.M. Mr. Betzold stated that in June 1990, the Planning Commission voted to deny the original development proposal based on concerns about LRT. The City has recited that LRT is part of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 19 the plan, and they must accept that. It has also been a long standing commitment of the City to develop this northeast corner. Now, the Commission has to decide whether they want to accept the original proposal with the changes. He did not dispute the fact that the Walgreen store and the Burger King will make this project economically prosperous. This also gives the City the opportunity to make some changes in the landscaping which might be beneficial to the neighbors. Mr. Betzold stated his concern is the traffic pattern. The Commission wanted to try to minimize the impact to the neighbors, particularly those along 66th Avenue. The original idea was to have the loading on the east side and nothing on the north side. Although the developer is proposing a higher wall and more landscaping, there is still the fact that there is going to be a lot of cars going by on the north end. He also keeps thinking of the loud mufflers, loud radios, diesel trucks, etc. , that will be heard late at night. Mr. Saba stated he shared the same concerns. He is concerned about the hours of operation, the traffic that will be occurring at a major bikeway/walkway system and pedestrian crossing, many of whom are senior citizens from the senior building. As the Commission discussed in June, this whole development is kind of intrusive into the neighborhood, and they want to be as cautious as possible about what goes into the center. As much as he likes the Burger King, he did not think this is a proper location for it. Ms. Savage stated she also agreed this is not the proper location for a Burger King. She is particularly concerned about the late hours, traffic noise, and the possibility of a lot of younger people congregating over the weekend late at night. It is just too intrusive into the residential neighborhood. She thought every effort should be made by the developer to find businesses that will minimize this kind of intrusion. She is opposed to the development with the addition of a drive-through window. Mr. Kondrick stated he did not share Mr. Betzold's, Mr. Saba's, and Ms. Savage's concerns. He stated he believed the additional number of cars that will be going through the site is misleading. He did not think there will be that much of an impact with the drive-through window. He stated he had been a little concerned about the loading and unloading in the rear, but trucks cannot be back there during the busy business hours. He thought a lot of the noise will be curtailed by the 8 foot wall. The wall will also catch the debris. The stacking of cars is adequate. He did not have any more problem with this proposal as amended than he did before. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 20 Ms. Modig stated the fact is that they have a development that is going to go in there. She would rather have a "known" tenant that has been a good and viable member of the community for many years than an "unknown" tenant, even with the drive- through. The developer has addressed the traffic, noise, lighting, and odor issues and seems to be willing to negotiate and cooperate with the City to meet all the standards the City is proposing. She did not have any problem with this proposal as amended. Mr. Sielaff stated the developer has indicated a willingness to provide barriers and to aesthetically do something about those barriers. He stated he is struggling with the question: What better development could there be for this area than what is being proposed? And, he did not know the answer to that question. He did have a concern about air quality in the area behind the facility because of a lack of ventilation behind there with cars and idling engines. Assuming that it will not be a problem, he could find nothing else wrong with this development, and he would be inclined to vote in favor of it. Mr. Saba stated his biggest concern is the addition of the drive-through and the affect the development will have on the residential area. He has a lot of respect for R-1 zoning and residential neighborhoods that try to keep their areas looking nice. He is very concerned about the possibility of more restaurants in this shopping center if this is approved by City Council. He would definitely be opposed to any more food restaurants in this development. Mr. Sielaff stated he is also concerned about more food restaurants in this development. Mr. Kondrick asked if the Planning Commission can add a stipulation limiting the number of restaurants in this development. Ms. Dacy stated she believed the Commission could make a stipulation to limit the number of restaurants, but she would like the City attorney's opinion on this type of limitation before the City Council meeting. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City Council approval of the amendment to the adoption of the redevelopment plan for Fridley Town Square development to consider adding a drive-through window for a fast food restaurant on the west side of the proposed building with the following stipulations: • 1. The screening wall shall be extended to University Avenue. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add additional evergreens along 66th Avenue if a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 23. 1991 PAGE 21 six foot height is maintained or ivy plantings along the wall if an eight foot height is constructed. A three foot continuous hedge and trees for every 50 feet of driveway should also be provided along University Avenue. 2. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved in conjunction with the building permit application. 3. A pavement marking plan delineating drive-through and loading traffic shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. A "no parking - loading only" zone should be striped along the rear of the building adjacent to the Walgreen's use and along the east side of the building. 4. The decibel level of the order box shall be at a level where its noise is not audible from residential properties to the north. 5. Construction details of the odor venting system shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. Venting for the fast food restaurant shall be routed to the westerly point of the building before being released to the open air, consistent with the original approval in June of 1990 (stipulation #17) . The petitioner shall install a double baffle filtration system. 6. The property owner shall work with the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority to provide pedestrian connections where appropriate into the site, including striping or sidewalks. 7. Walgreen shall submit in writing and submit to the City, to prohibit loading/unloading activities between 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. 8. No other restaurants shall be allowed in this development project without the consent of the City. 9. An 8 foot wall shall be constructed around the project and extended to University Avenue. 10. A striped walkway from the bikeway/walkway across the driveway to the front of the building and signage indicating the bikeway/walkway shall be included as part of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 23. 1991 PAGE 22 UPON A VOICE VOTE, KONDRICK, MODIG, SIELAFF VOTING AYE, BETZOLD, SABA, SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-3. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of the amendment to the adoption of the redevelopment plan for Fridley Town Square development to consider adding a drive-through window for a fast food restaurant on the west side of the proposed building based on the Commission's discussions and concerns. UPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, SABA, SAVAGE VOTING AYE, KONDRICK, MODIG, SIELAFF VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-3. Ms. Dacy stated this item will be go to the City Council on February 11, 1991. 2. RECEIVE DECEMBER 13. 1990. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the December 13, 1990, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 . RECEIVE DECEMBER 18, 1990, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the December 18, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE JANUARY 3, 1991, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the January 3, 1991, Human Resources Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE JANUARY 8. 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the January 8, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 23, 1991 PAGE 23 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: a. 1990 Accomplishments and 1991 Workplan Ms. Dacy stated this is an opportunity for the Commission to look back on 1990 at some of the events that have happened in 1990 and to look at issues the Commission might want to accomplish in 1991. She stated staff has made some recommendations for 1991 and also included a copy of the Community Development Department workplan for the Commission's information. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to accept the 1991 Workplan as presented by staff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, Chairperson Betzold declared the January 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, Ly n Saba Rec rding Secretary SIGN - IN SHEET PLANNING CO)O(IBBION MEETING, January 23, 1991 Name Address/Business '� C (, 7 %# 71 =Q , , e.e,,n,z V-2Vyt 6 7$o 2 _ //'� 'c C)' 44617t... :3 76: '4 G'E , e 6'a2-1,i70- 4, 7-14-y1.7 ?- 3S4 - 66T''cz,,2 r) �� , 2K-' /'1 Ati • 1)_ l--/--1iE= / /✓3 G 3 6-s- 6 6; 4(= /i ,r- if _ ------t- . Per /e-���/ 3�s ��°� _ - � -� ekY II '' ( rl , 5 �1tv Q � a, l r c`.ec‘ , ,,.-c,,r,_ 1)& ) ��i / ' •-C l� ,LAG C C ). ; / %�ri CQ ��1 ���1 , .67( /7 �-44 7:24. -•:J)-4.A2 rnn 1 6/6° / s1 isf J "/ S7 / SIGN — IN B E S E T PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING, January 23, 1991 Name Address/Business, f.mac .>, e ...,,,g--„,...,....,„....„. ���/.r_...�oc�`7 , 4 / ie,-. c PA_/_._.1 ..1644-6-,c H k fz-i L 1 kJ S u 1,1.i v a-•) 5 - (c 67-1-- ku 1J 6 F-T- A ,?IrkIJ V01451., I4^ 14 AztiV6441 y GIs- 6--2 1fQ-- 44.e_ — q �- — it_cv ki AG- -? -at +,s _ , . . p `' z ! ; lie4 / ex / v - Fa / t �1 ,,_, `_ -u- A C �'`y/ e. ce,, -p-Q- -C -.4. ,Tr<4,zl koo e/�z,e& -tic ccp/a.� 6.-.3Tic,7 -i7 talixokm4A- pift- P:,. &/„if i, gg . 7 7 —�G ` a 27 . 0 ?,4,15/ -77:tt „g-,,- -74 L/ --, ,,,cF.,._ T , (6,_„,, ,.. 4- STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITYOF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 6, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER sP #91-01 APPLICANT !Cunningham Architects and St. Philip's Church PROPOSED REQUEST To allow the expansion of a church in a residential LOCATION 6130 Highway 65 N.E. SITE DATA SIZE 6.9 acres DENSITY PRESENT ZONING R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling ADJACENT LAND USES C-3, General Shopping Center to the East and North; & ZONING R-1 , Single Family Dwelling to the West. UTILITIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH Yes ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION • RECOMMENDATION S 1/2 SEC. l CITY OF I' —.ilr 1 © I I s- i',I I ' ' II - - . . .. ,.- .t.-s TE-,ale-ili Wa rr. i- -- r:--,r--- , ''le o cl 7"). 7.1.) .' ill , - ,.. 2 . a 4. S �� e. (J :i. I 2 a', 3 NI ro i) , �a M ,�. I h I sr• Ma gag w E 1 r- cD 3 4.i.Ps) 4,!„,,u.. (.." $ s (1" 1 0\ ' i. M..•y'. 4' yi •J7. • 2 • q fy h ZS i'7 64TH VE. N.E. Z 11= ififire o j!e.. . 6e, 7, , f. M , 'I swig . ,6, : n'1 .LS) 4'. " (V ',il 1- OJj W ii 11,1 1• ' e15vQ. :r• f.; __En: ,I . �. I a* 2 4 .9 -44. ,,4_ 4 I I.. . • : . -AcE z i MIE gaiNilbu ', •! •• 4. o✓s•„i TJJ ' M • • J. ` e... A"' f.i.�_ • ..O:� ' f ir i •• 4 if IT _ � 'o v . . l • f I� ,I., ' 4,1 ,. / kip..r/ , iC .71' 6 �'V, h� my .A.-0) i fey",.•' •• 8t•il s„ . 5 r h 'E: t • ei o NO �i i ,..., , • ._ \ , 1 ; 5HER. A - ,• R /y ,, 0c�1 xo ' M0 1 awl - - i. �•' ;..1 —i AUDITORS SUB h h ;.. i 6 jraitabb: 7ri88 WEST RE LAKE DRIVE `1 ��y'� + 1 4..„ .., • if!' ,. ,� 'ti , .---+�ooRE — LAKE 3 • 'J 0 0041i ;:t4 °� r p �' a.W./ „ r•' 2 • 41:\ \ \ tb ' 41,A nK. :$2.F \ • 16 RL.S o•tr. 5 \N....22 k ' r ' »l ® O LOCATION MAP • r . LI 1 rflf = `T1! i y - ••• 14 . LanW .• • • ®o27ttoalr• 1 Ta ' Am = W•A a , 7 / 64 AV y E 'Xi-., 2 , rri &ow - ii Al% ::2".• •:.:•:' 3 . - alium. : . !; ,_ . „ „ . s - ig Ellr .rg.E 74.hi 6 •-•-•-•-•-•-• NI • -0- , ..,1k17411. mar. ;L.,01*, 9 # .) MI i p... _ :. , P-M; ...t. •••• i.T. •,•o..0 A - • - - ./., AA : %••••••••••••: MI),0041. . i ,4 - prim •.4 s rizsi 8 �/� if ' , 1. •V•,'!►• .♦i i • • �y ♦ .a 7 -•.6 -, . rmax 1 ♦.4►_♦.i►♦♦..., .... .• -•t r ,' • 1 • • „, • • It_____ =MER A'' �� i�•♦�•♦�•♦�•♦�•♦i•♦i••♦ // .,s.♦♦ •♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦•♦•♦ / • • • ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ . .p >� **lie--s ♦♦� s♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦• - �• •♦♦►♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦e ♦ - 4♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ , • ►'I•♦♦•♦ 1 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ !►♦R ♦♦♦ E F .r.,,40. 46.;z • ` •*Jjf/1 ' ♦♦i♦♦♦i♦i♦i♦i♦.*%A♦♦i►i1i♦i♦i♦• +f • / '1 . • ♦♦♦ ♦♦•r •,♦<.♦4 ♦ ♦ ♦♦ +l' : (..j'..-'. '/M•7/. i• . // • 4..♦♦♦♦♦♦4 IIt P♦4►♦t♦♦♦♦♦♦4 (xZ...:.i/.C•/I1t,./?f 7L•.0- 'A1 0• F 1 E. ... i....',v io-n i/t•e.i '* ! i W ES le • • / / t - - Oii / rr LAKE4 / �,y. / C "�J I / F M15OREI %,-. • • .LAKE 4,0p gd AgE '• /.oRt6u. / ...II AicowAl ;2.a i i . • Ots'- / . ,..." 1Irk ` / i .� — - - la - ©1 M r1 L 40-00---7) / f TERRACE i . "• V' 0 . id Iffl , 101 t r '1 ;t ./ r. le ..9 I il KY' f / • • /4.;,,, MI:Mil -%T.:Lana...IVAN "21URKti , . / woo ./ / iftlgi \'' S-4it*._ ft= La AV . 401).. AL-.1*10 . 0. . 111; 1-:::•:4,,. 1116 q.,"7,6.. 1° Ira 'I At& °II 141h 0 'Z. 4Pliwrima . . at&c9-"... Is' - 14 e . iir p„..„ , /7 7 ZONING MAP Staff Report SP #91-01, St. Philip's Church Page 2 Request The petitioner, Cunningham Architects, on behalf of St. Philip's Lutheran Church, is requesting that a special use permit be granted to allow the expansion of the church in a residential district. The church is proposing to construct an 8,000 square foot addition which will contain a fellowship hall, kitchen facilities, office space, and storage areas. The request is for 6180 Highway 65 N.E. The petitioner is also processing a variance request to reduce the hardsurface setback and driving aisle width. Site The property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Moore Lake Drive and Trunk Highway 65; on the northeast shore of the west basin of Moore Lake. The property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling. Parcels to the north and east are zoned C-3, General Shopping, and parcels to the west and north are zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. Analysis The proposed expansion would occur to the south and west of the existing sanctuary building. The proposed addition would be attached to the existing sanctuary and is approximately 8, 000 square feet in area. The zoning code sets forth certain standards by which churches are allowed in residential districts. These standards include parking, landscaping, and setback requirements. The proposed addition will meet the setback requirements for the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. In addition, the setback from the lake shore will be maintained at approximately 88 feet. The City does not have a shoreline ordinance setting forth specific setbacks from shorelines. The Department of Natural Resources, while having certain standards, does not have the jurisdictional authority to enforce the standards. The proposed addition would not affect the grading of the site in any way, as the intention is to maintain the elevations as they currently are. The City code requires that off-street parking be provided at a ratio of 1 space for every 3 fixed pew seats, or 5 feet of pew length and 1 space for every 100 square feet of assembly area. The proposed addition would require 42 additional spaces, while the existing sanctuary requires 254 spaces, for a total of 296 spaces. The proposed plan provides 269 parking spaces; a deficit of 27 spaces. In speaking with the petitioner, they have indicated Staff Report SP #91-01, St. Philip's Church Page 3 that at no time would the proposed fellowship hall and the existing sanctuary be used for separate events. It is the petitioner's intention to use the fellowship hall in conjunction with activities occurring in the sanctuary. For example, if a wedding was occurring in the sanctuary, the fellowship hall would be reserved for a reception after the wedding. Staff recommends a stipulation which ensures that both the fellowship hall and the sanctuary be used separately in order for adequate parking to be provided. Traffic will be improved as the petitioner will be closing the first driveway west of the intersection of West Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65 and removing some parking spaces. This will reduce or eliminate traffic conflicts at the intersection, especially as the Engineering Department plans to add a full right turn lane for right turn traffic wishing to drive southbound on Highway 65. The Engineering Department is requesting that a five foot easement be dedicated along the north property line in order to facilitate this improvement. Recommendation and Stipulations The proposed addition meets the standards set forth in the special use permit requirements set forth in Section 205.09.01.C. (1) . The addition will not adversely impact adjacent properties' views or traffic safety issues. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request, SP #91-01, to allow the expansion of a church in a residential district, with the following stipulations: 1. The fellowship hall and the sanctuary shall not be used for separate functions. 2. A landscape plan meeting the code requirements shall be submitted by the petitioner with phased installation indicated on the plan. 3. A 5 foot road easement shall be dedicated to the City along the north property line. 111k. • pf� �_ '• • l j"'m- m,.�.... •�i !J\ ' '4. ' ; "I: -• _W'� . II • i • • .o. / de la • 1 TINGP a i I i I . i / a °' • O Na'-o�"5keua5 Gam. 1 1 ...__: NEW WEIR I" 'GLIM• JEIZ • = EXISTING TF • • St. Philip's Lutheran EARCHITECTS P.A. NONTM 0 10 30 _" ____.- ` J \--...- 9 � � a �I� ¢W %,Z_Ij , " --1 I U 4 _ _ — _ / ,� I H � I � o ~ E I x � _ _ W DTI \ 1 I I `T' I ' III I II I N .1 I II I I I I II ► I I rIi l I II III I 11I el CO I I CO III I � III iIw � I I I I if I I Il III I l / 1I III ill , I I I l /Ill /I I i ; III I II IW Ilia W I iI m. .. , Cuningham Suite 100 Minneapolis. 612-332-0224 Architects PA 210 North Second St. Minnesota 55401 FAX:332-6132 3 January 1991 Michele McPherson City of Fridley Civic Center 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley,MN 55432 Dcar Michele, Enclosed are a site plan and site survey both at 1" = 60'scale,and project data and applications for variances and a special use permit. After reviewing the zoning ordinance and talking with you I can see several conditions where we will need variances. They are: a. Widths of existing parking lots b. Paved area setbacks c. Screening requirements This site plan is preliminary and there may be changes as the project progresses. However,at this point we do not see any financial possibility of altering the size of existing parking lots or moving them (for setback requirements). Parking requirements, according to pew length,are for 254 spaces. The church administration says there is more than enough parking at the present time. The large multi-purpose space being added will be used mostly for after church service activities and therefore should not significantly increase parking needs. Let me know if you require any more information to proceed. Respectfully submitted, Kate Schneider Enc. p:\90\21\1_010391 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO ST. PHILIP'S LUTHERAN CHURCH PROJECT DATA: SCOPE: Alterations to the existing building interior include the reconfiguration of offices, classrooms and small gathering areas. Overall occupancy and density are not changing. Additions include enlargement of the existing lobby space with the addition of coat rooms and a vestibule, and the addition of a 4200 s.ft. multi-purpose space with accessory spaces including restrooms and a 500 s.ft. kitchen. Site alterations include the removal of an existing parking area and drive located at the northwest corner of the site, with the addition of a parking area north of the building, and the reconfiguration of the entry drive. Existing lots will be restriped and have curbing added where none exists. Weirs will be added at existing points of run-off. Trees and shrubs will be added as shown on the enclosed site plan. SITE DATA: Site Acreage (as measured at - 6.90 acres property lines or'edge of swamp') Existing building footprint - 30,663 s.ft. Area of one story addition - 7,921 s.ft. Existing parking spaces - 251 Net No. of parking spaces to be added - 18 (10 of which are H.C.) . CITY OF FRIDIEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Community Develocment Department (612) 571-3450 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittals; see attached Address: St. Philip's Lutheran Church, 6180 Hwy. 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 l Anoka County, Minnesota IM los iZt an: Lot& vacated ser. Block 2Tract/AdditionMoore Lake Highlands 4th addition toad Current Zoning: R3 Square footage/acreage 6.9 acres Reason for special use permit:Church in R3 zone Section of City Code: 205.09 FEE OWNER INFORMATION (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME Bob Brenden ADDS E. Bethel Community School, 21210 Polk Street N.E. Cedar, MN 55011 DAYTIME PHONE 434-4800 sICZUREegq ti DATE / ' 1,T/ PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME St. Philip's Lutheran Church AECPESS 6180 Hwy. 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 DAYTIME HE 571-1500 SIGNATURE ;2 C DATE / - / - V AY Ar Alee 14 g4gfi g 0707e fe ....__.w.,.,�...r.......�.. Fee: $200.00 X $100.00 far residential second accessory buildings Permit SP # 9/—0 ! Receipt # 3"19 7 Application received by: Scheduled Planning Commission date: CQ , 19 ! / Scheduled City Council date: PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, February 6, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #91- 01, by St. Philip's Lutheran Church, per Section 205. 09.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow churches in an R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling District, on Outlots 1 and 2 and the vacated service road, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 4th Addition, generally located at 6180 Highway 65 N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: January 23, 1991 January 30, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. MIS LIST FOR Planning 1/ 18/91 SP #91-01 St. Philip's Lutheran Chur h Council 6180 Highway 65 N.E. Planting Comm. Chair Shorewood Inn Wayne Hanson 6161 Highway 65 N.E. 900 West More Lake Drive City Council Members Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 St. i lip's Lutheran Stan Carlson Miller Funeral Home Church 621% Baker Avenue N.E. 6210 Highway 65 N.E. 6180 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Fridley, MI 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Bab Brenden Daniel Sanpsan E. Bethel Cann unity Sdiool 6209 Baker Avenue N.E. 21210 Polk Street N.E. Fridley, Md 55432 Cedar, MN 55011 • • Kate Schneider Judith Blanchard Ctrhningham Architects PA 6220 Baker Avenue N.E. Suite 100 medley, MN 55432 210 North Second Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Sears Surplus Bruce Nelson 1000 East Moore Lake Dr. 6200 Baker Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Mbore Lake Associates CUr tis Hebeisen 2233 North Hairline 901 West Moore Lake Drive St. Paul, MN 55113 Fridley, 141 55432 Skyline Vet Clinic David Blank 6220 Highway 65 N.E. 6213 Able Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, IC 55432 • • BrandjordSpeltz Assoc. Donald Savelkoul 6220 Highway 65 N.E. 216 West Moore Lake Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 7i Community Development Department 0 I= PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: January 31, 1991 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Lisa Campbell, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Status of 1991 Community Development Block Grant Funds February 28, 1991 is the Anoka County deadline for submission of the 1991 Community Development Block Grant Application. At the February 11, 1991 City Council meeting, we will be requesting the City Council establish a public hearing for February 25, 1991. At this time, the proposed 1991 allocation is at $104,291, which was the same as 1990. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has approved 1991 funding based on the 1990 allocations; changes may still occur. For planning purposes, the County has directed its 21 communities to use last years' funding level. We will propose that $70,000 be committed to the Riverview Heights project, and $33,291 be committed to Human Services. Anoka County continues to require $1,000 be allocated for its administrative services. Only one property remains to be acquired in the Riverview Heights project. The Human Resources Commission will review this proposal on February 7, 1991, and is likely to approve the proposed allocations. Staff Request Staff requests that the Planning Commission approve the proposed allocation and recommend to the City Council approval of the same. LC/dn M-91-40 i PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION Proposed Project Distribution Comments (Fridley) Riverview $70,000 Purchase & Heights relocation of Parcel 5 property in the Riverview Heights floodplain (see map) Human $33,291 Services Administrative $ 1, 000 Fee 1 i p CITY OF FRIDLEY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 7,. 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kondrick called the January 7, 1991, meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Mary Schreiner, Dick Young, Tim Solberg Members Absent: John Gargaro Others Present: Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources Ralph Volkman, Public Works Superintendent Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Jan Seeger, Springbrook Nature Center Board Kathy Kemper, Springbrook Nature Center Board Michael Servetus Unitarian Church APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 3. 1990. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Young, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to approve the December 3, 1990, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA; MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Young, to approve the agenda with the change that the items, Northtown Plaza and Meadowlands Park, be the first items on the agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. NORTHTOWN PLAZA: Ms. Dacy stated staff has originally invited the developer to speak to the Parks & Recreation Commission about the development proposal at 85th and University Avenues and the Meadowlands Park issue. However, since the developer's • PARKS h RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. JAN. 7. 1991 PAGE 2 application at the end of November, a number of issues have come up that need to be explored further. The City of Fridley is requiring the developer to do a rather extensive traffic study and a storm water quality analysis. That has postponed the process about 1 1/2 months. Ms. Dacy stated another issue, what the developer terms a "deal point", what makes or breaks a deal for the proposed shopping center and Target store, is the width of the parking spaces. The City requires 10 foot wide spaces for commercial space. The developer is requesting 9 foot wide spaces. The developer wants to go through the variance process first to see if they can get Appeals Commission and City Council approval prior to spending money on the storm water quality analysis and the traffic study. Ms. Dacy stated that because of those issues, the developer wanted to save as much of his consultant time as possible. Staff still wanted to take this opportunity to update the Commission on this proposed development. Mr. Kirk will talk about the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board of Director's concerns about this development and the Meadowlands Park issue, and she will talk about the proposed development. Ms. Dacy stated the developer is requesting to rezone the existing M-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning on the north to C-2, General Business, to match the existing C-2 zoning on the south side. The developer will also be petitioning to extend the frontage road from 83rd Avenue north to 85th Avenue. The developer has filed a plat application which will create one lot for the shopping center, one lot for a small restaurant, and, by virtue of the frontage road, create one lot for another restaurant, and another lot for the Target store, for a total of four lots. Ms. Dacy stated the Target lot is proposed at 117,000 sq. ft. , the shopping center at 126,000 sq. ft. , a restaurant site of 6,000 sq. ft. , and another restaurant site of 9-10,000 sq. ft. Ms. Dacy stated there is about four acres of wetland area that will be destroyed, and the developer is required to recreate the lost wetlands which is proposed for Meadowlands Park. The developer will still have to provide some type of wetland/storm water retention area on site, and that is proposed to be by the Springbrook Nature Center property. Ms. Dacy stated that at the December 17, 1990, Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board of Director's meeting, the Board expressed concern about the effect of the storm water coming off the site, the water quality, how much water, how will the water affect the water table in the park, the view from the trails, and light sources from the development. In PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. JAN. 7. 1991 PAGE 3 her opinion, she believed some of the light issues can be solved. Ms. Dacy stated Anoka County has a number of issues with the amount of vehicle access points proposed onto 85th Avenue, and the developer is going to have to revise the site plan. The County also wants more right-of-way. The City of Blaine is concerned about the impact of the shopping center on the proposed LRT and proposed park and ride facility across 85th Avenue. The Cities of Coon Rapids, Blaine, St. Louis Park, and Fridley are all concerned about the integrity of the intersection. There may be another traffic light at 83rd/University Avenue. That cost would be borne by the developer and other benefitting property owners. Ms. Dacy stated this area is in the North Area Redevelopment Area which the HRA established in the early 1980's because of poor soil conditions. The developer could petition the HRA for assistance for the development. Ms. Dacy stated the developer has made a commitment to come to the Parks & Recreation Commission when they have more information. Ms. Jan Seeger, a member of the Springbrook Nature Center Board, stated the Board met again on January 3, 1991, and she handed out copies of those meeting minutes. She stated the Board wanted the Commission to be aware of the Board's concerns which are listed in the meeting minutes. The main areas of concern are the screening, litter, lighting, and, mainly, water quality. Ms. Kemper stated the Board had one other real concern, and that is that the level of the drainage pond will not change the water table in the east end of the nature center. Mr. Kondrick stated it appeared that the important questions and concerns are being asked and being made known to the City staff, commissions, City Council, and the developer. He stated he would like the Council to receive copies of the January 3, 1991, Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board's minutes. 2. MEADOWLANDS PARK: Mr. Kirk stated that in order to realize the Northtown Plaza development and because of the wetlands that are going to be destroyed in the area, the developer has to find some other location for a wetlands mitigation project. That has been proposed for Meadowlands Park. An engineer from the project has met with the Meadowlands Park neighbors regarding the proposed wetlands mitigation. This particular proposal would PARKS Si RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING/ JAN. 7. 1991 PAGE 4 have a permanent pond, and he would expect the pond to have a fair amount of vegetation on the lower area of the ponding area. Mr. Kirk stated the City had a neighborhood meeting in August 1989 to ask the neighbors what type of amenities they would like to see in the park. The neighbors were very positive on the ponding and did not want a real active, heavy use, athletic park. They were interested in some type of path that . would allow them to enjoy the pond area. Staff had originally recommended an asphalt path. However, the neighbors seemed to favor wood chips. Staff explained to the neighbors that wood chip paths are very difficult to maintain and the wood chips would always be floating in the pond. Because staff is a little unsure about the stability of the soils, staff came up with a proposal to put in crushed limestone. Ms. Kathy Kemper stated that in a letter from Richard Ferber, President of the Board of Trustees for the Michael Servetus Church, he expressed three concerns she would like to share with the Commission: 1. The possibility of Oakley Drive going through. It has been an issue, and they have hired an engineer to design this road. Their property is very low and flat, and they are very vulnerable. They currently drain 13 acres to the south and east of the church. 2. They are concerned that the park end up looking as attractive when matured as advertised. 3. They are concerned about the use of their parking lot for park use. They would like to see the parking lot for Meadowlands Park maintained for those people using the park. MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Young, to receive the letter from Richard Ferber, President of the Board of Trustees for the Michael Servetus Unitarian Church. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Solberg, to receive the concerns expressed by Ms. Seeger and Ms. Kemper representing the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board and the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation Board of Director's Special Meeting Minutes dated January 3, 1991. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. JAN. 7, 1991 PAGE 5 3. STAFF REPORT: a. Program Update Mr. Kirk stated the January 7, 1991, "Program Update" highlighted the following activities: Skating Rinks/Warming Houses, Holiday Movie, Merry & Marvelous, Santa's Calling, Visit with Santa, Basketball Leagues, Seniors' Christmas Dinner, Senor Crafters at Woodcrest, Senior Volunteers, Friendly Fridley Folks, National Association for Interpretation Workshop, Springbrook "Holiday on Snow", Strictly for Birds, and Holiday Nature Gift Ideas. b. Winter Program Brochure Mr. Kirk handed out copies of the winter program brochure for the Commission's information. c. Minnesota State Bicycle Conference Mr. Kirk stated the Minnesota State Bicycle Conference will be held on February 6-8, for any Commission members interested in attending. He stated he attended last year, and there were some very good sessions. d. Maintenance Report Mr. Volkman stated that the City has not received any calls regarding the removal of the playground equipment at Farr Lake Park. He stated that playground equipment will be installed at Edgewater Gardens, unless the Commission had some objections. Mr. Volkman stated new playground equipment will be installed at two parks this year: Summit Square and Altura. Money was budgeted for the purchase of this equipment. The playground equipment at Hackmann Park will be upgraded. Mr. Volkman stated $3,000 has been budgeted for tennis court improvements. Mr. Volkman stated that he and Mr. Kirk have looked at two parks, Little League Fields and the Community Park, for protective fencing to protect the children from getting hit by stray balls, basically around the dugouts at Locke Park and at Fields 5 and 6 at the Community Park. At the Little League Fields, staff is suggesting the dugouts be removed. w , PARES -i RECREATION COMMISSION`NEET=NG, JAN. 7. 1991 PAGE 6 Mr. Kirk stated the dugouts at the Little League Fields have brought up some safety concerns, and they will explore this with the FYSA. The dugouts should probably be removed in the future, but for now a short term solution is to put fencing all the way to the top of the - dugouts. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Solberg, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, Chairperson Kondrick declared the - January 7, 1991, Parks &Recreation Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary