02/18/1998 - 00003278CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 18, 1998
CNe���ri7� : � :
Chairperson Savage called the February 18, 1998, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 7:30 p. m.
:• •
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig,
Larry Kuechle
Members Absent: Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Virginia & Jim Locker, 5664 Jackson Street N.E.
Floyd Hessevick, 5665 Quincy Street N.E.
Richard Young, 5695 Quincy Street N.E.
Fran Decker, 5641 West Moore Lake Drive
Blair & Jennifer Berger, 5771 W. Moore Lake Drive
Kirk & Carol Herman, 610 57th Avenue N.E.
Roger Harold, 560 - 57th Avenue N. E.
Ann Williams, 5760 Hackmann Avenue N.E.
David Jellison, MEPC American Properties
Ed Farr, Edward Farr Architects
Nick Sperides, Edward Farr Architects
Wesley Grandstrand, 5431 Madison Street N.E.
David Hoeschen, Holiday StationStores, Inc.
_ � � : �I�L��i7��73 ►� : : •• - _ ► ► ► e�K� ►7 �il►�il���[i ► ►� ► �
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the December 17, 1998,
Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
\ G�7�Iir�rr�\ ' �• ' .�� �• ' .�
Mr. Hickok introduced Mr. Paul Tatting, the new Planning Assistant. He stated Mr. Tatting
will officially start work at the City of Fridley on February 23, 1998.
Mr. Tatting stated he has lived in the northeast metro area for a number of years. He will
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
be moving to the City of Fridley over the weekend.
2. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF Fnl1R RECJIIESTS BY DAVID
.IELLISnN nF MEP� AMERIC;AN PRnPERTIES� SITE PLAN AND MASTER
PLAN AMENDMENT, MPA #98-01; PRELIMINARY PLAT, P S#98-02; SPEC;IAL
11SE PERMIT, SP #98-02; AND SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMIT, SP #98-03:
A. SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, MPA #98-01: To approve
the Site Plan and revised Master Plan to permit a one-story, 106,705 square
foot flex building for high technology companies on a 10-acre site at the
western end of the Fridley Executive Center property. The remaining
development can accommodate up to 250,000 square feet of multi-story
office buildings and approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial uses;
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #98-02: To create a 10-acre lot for a 106,705
square foot, one-story flex building and to create outlots for future
development and to dedicate public rights-of-way;
C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #98-02: To permit a nine-foot wide parking
space for the flex space building; and
D. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #98-03: To permit a portion of the parking area
for the flex space building within an R-1, Single Family Dwelling, zoning
district. The buffer area north of Bridgewater Drive and a 26-foot strip south
of Bridgewater Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. There will be no
impact to the buffer area adjacent to the single family homes.
The location of the property is the northwest corner of I-694 and Highway 65, the
Fridley Executive Center, legally described as: Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155,
except that part taken for Highway; and Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, except
that part taken for Highway, Anoka County, Minnesota; and Lot 22, Block 10,
Donnay's Lakeview Manor Addition, according to the map or plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Anoka County, Minnesota;
and the south 200 feet of the North Half of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter
(N 1/2 of N 1/2 of SE 1/4) of Section 23, Township 30, Range 24; and Lot 5, Block 5,
Donnay's Lakeview Manor addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka
County, Minnesota, except that part taken for Highway purposes; and Lot 20, Block
1, Donnay's Lakeview Manor; and Lot 21, Block 1, Donnay's Lakeview Manor; and
the South 200 feet of the North Half of the North Half of the Southeast quarter of
Section 23, Township 30, Range 24, now known as Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No.
155, the title thereto being registered as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 36396,
and as more fully described on file at the Community Development Department
office.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. Dacy stated the staff report would include the four requests and the presentation of a
videotape to provide the audience with a feel for the proposed project. The petitioner is
MEPC American Properties, and they are proposing a building to be known as the Lake
Point Technology Center. The requests include a Site Plan and Master Plan Amendment;
a Preliminary Plat request, and two Special Use Permit requests.
Ms. Dacy stated the proposal is to construct a 106,705 square foot flex building on 10 acres
of the property located on the west side of the Fridley Executive Center campus. The
building is for a Class A office environment in a one-story building. It is proposed that the
building when leased would have 3/4 of the space as office and 1/4 as production or
storage. The types of tenants that the petitioner would lease to include office type uses
and/or high technology uses employing highly skilled employees.
Ms. Dacy showed a video tape with examples of similar buildings located in Golden Valley
and Eden Prairie. The Golden Valley building is an L-shaped building with a similar
exterior of sandy rose brick with a tan accent. The rear of the building is a painted rock-
face block and has a loading dock area. The building for Fridley is proposed to be a
somewhat doughnut-shaped or C-shaped building. The height of the Golden Valley
building is about 21 feet. Interior finished height is approximately 15 feet. The building
includes a cafeteria and kitchen facilities and a conference facility. A smaller part is a
production area where the tenant manufactures components and has a small storage area.
The dock doors are smaller in size that what is typical in other industrial areas. It is
intended for high tech companies that need the majority of their space for office use.
Ms. Dacy stated the Eden Prairie building is an I-shaped building with loading docks in the
rear. The rooftop has a metal screen which is proposed in Fridley. To the east of the Eden
Prairie site is a multi-story office building. The challenge to the developer and the City is to
make sure that the exteriors of the buildings inter-relate. Pictures of the West Health
building provide an example of the rose-colored brick with the tan accent.
Ms. Dacy stated the site is zoned S-2, Redevelopment District, except for a strip of property
along the northern part of the site which is zoned R-1, Single Family. The entire site is
approximately 36 acres. The office campus is about 21 acres and the commercial area is
about 8 acres. The outlots that are proposed in the plat are about 7 acres and the
proposed flex space will occupy about 10 acres.
Ms. Dacy provided a brief history of the property. In 1986, the property was rezoned. In
1987, the HRA installed the streets and utilities. Unfortunately, the development that was
planned at that time could not take place. The HRA bought the property back in 1992 and
began to market and to attract interest in the site. A change in the economy and the search
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : � •
for a redeveloper resulted in executing a contract for exclusive negotiations with MEPC,
and they have done this over the last 18 months. The master plan was approved in 1997.
Much time was also spent with the intersection improvements along Highway 65.
Ms. Dacy stated that as a result of MEPC's experience in marketing the site, they initiated a
flex space concept for the property and presented that to the City Council and HRA in July,
1997. They authorized MEPC to continue with the concept of a one-story building in
conjunction with a multi-story office space.
Ms. Dacy stated MEPC has four requests. The first is for site plan and master plan
amendment approval. In the S-2 district, each development has to receive site plan
approval. Because MEPC is proposing a one-story building, this is a slight modification to
the original master plan. The original master plan showed four multi-story buildings. The
revised plan proposes taking about 1/2 of the office space and putting in a one-story flex
space, Class A building that would blend with a multi-story Phase II. There is enough room
on site for the Phase II to have about 250,000 square feet of office space in two multi-story
buildings to the east of the flex space. These buildings would be served by a parking ramp
as originally planned.
Ms. Dacy stated there has been a reduction in the anticipated office space from about
580,000 square feet to 356,000 square feet. There are no changes proposed to the 8-acre
commercial area. Because there is a small amount of square footage, there is less traffic
and a smaller amount of space needed for parking. There is a 10% increase in the amount
of impervious surface on the site because of the one-story building and the larger parking
area.
Ms. Dacy stated the developer has met the storm water requirements. They are proposing
a retention pond in the southwest corner of the site. They are complying with the
landscape ordinance. They are proposing to plant 111 trees in addition to the existing
trees. They are proposing parking lot light standards which are very similar to the lights at
the City Center parking lot. These standards are approximately 30 feet tall and are tall
enough and sized so that this is the minimum amount required to light the parking lot
around the building.
Ms. Dacy asked MEPC to show a view and picture of what the site would look like from the
residential area to the north and from I-694.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is asking for a change in the proposed sign panels. At the Golden
Valley building, panel signs were affixed to the wall for the tenants. Staff would like MEPC
to use the approach where they put the individual letters on a sign band on the building for
the individual businesses.
Ms. Dacy stated the building exterior is brick and glass. The building is in something of a
closed C-shape with a 30-40-foot opening for access to the loading dock area. There is a
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
sawtooth corner with glass at each corner of the building which is a more expensive type of
construction. The challenge will be to make sure that the exterior will integrate with the
remaining part of the project. The developer has been asked to address that and, if
needed, to select a second color. The developer is very confident in this proposed exterior
scheme.
Ms. Dacy stated that because this is an S-2 district, each of the uses can be approved by
the City. The City will have review authority as each permit comes in for the building.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the master plan amendment with the
following stipulations:
Appropriate plat applications shall be submitted and approved prior to each phase of
development of the property.
2. All uses in the development shall comply with the following list of permitted uses:
office uses typically associated with corporate/Class A office developments; office
and high technology uses; hotel and conference facilities; banks/ financial
institutions; Class III restaurants as defined in Section 205.03.59 of the zoning code;
daycare facilities; and other uses as specifically approved by the City. Uses allowed
in each individual building after construction will be the same or similar to those uses
identified in this application. The City shall review and approve each use prior to
occupancy.
3. Detailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat
application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed
and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of
materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the City.
4. A comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council
prior to issuance of the first building permit based on the plan dated March 29, 1996,
and addressing the following issues:
a. Wall signs (building identification and tenant signage) shall meet the wall
sign requirements of the sign code.
b. No free-standing pylon signs are permitted.
c. Height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified.
d. Two free-standing project identifier (D) signs are permitted; the size and
height to be approved by the City Council.
e. All free-standing signs shall be set back 10 feet from property lines.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► : : ! : : ": ' ! .
The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation of each sign.
5. The petitioner shall work with the City in preparing transportation demand strategies
to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property.
6. 12 foot to 15 foot light standards shall be installed along Bridgewater Drive adjacent
to the residential area. Sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot
lights and street lights.
7. Appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed
Management Organization and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for
stormwater management and grading shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Detailed engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in
conjunction with plat applications and building permit applications for review and
approval by the City.
8. When appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the Indirect Source Permit
from the HRA.
9. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building
permit application. Ten foot to 12 foot evergreens shall be installed along the north
wall of the proposed parking ramp. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the
concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at the
time of building permit issuance.
10. Park dedication fees shall be paid prior to initiation of construction of the first
development on the site. Easements shall be dedicated at time of plat approval over
the existing bikeway/walkway areas.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the site plan with the following stipulations:
The proposed colors of the exterior materials shall be approved by the Planning
Commission, HRA and City Council.
2. The plat and special use permit requests shall be approved.
3. The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the HRA's development
contract.
4. The 33 existing perimeter trees shall be protected during construction. The
petitioner shall transplant as many trees as possible from the interior of the site to
other areas on or off site as approved by staff.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
5. The petitioner shall construct the continuous metal panel rooftop screen as indicated
on the plans dated January 16, 1998. The petitioner shall also incorporate
additional screening (vegetation or other materials) on the roof of the building if
required by the City as part of the site plan review for the multi-story office
development.
6. The sign plan dated January 16, 1998, shall be amended to replace the wall panel
signs with a plan to provide tenant signs with individual letters.
7. The petitioner shall comply with the Engineering Department requirements as stated
in the memo dated January 26, 1998.
Ms. Dacy stated the second request is approval of the preliminary plat. The purpose of the
plat is to create the public rights-of-way for Lake Point Drive and Bridgewater Drive, to
create the lot and the official legal description for the lot on which the building will be
located and to create the outlots for the additional development that would occur over time.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following
stipulations:
The petitioner shall execute the City Stormwater Pond Maintenance Agreement and
record it along with the filing of the final plat at Anoka County.
2. The petitioner shall prepare and dedicate final bikeway/walkway easements in Lot 1
along Lake Pointe Drive and record the easements, along with filing the plat at
Anoka County.
3. The petitioner shall pay the park dedication fees of $36,137.81 at time of building
permit issuance for the Lake Pointe Technology Center.
4. The Special Use Permit requests and the site plan and master plan requests shall
be approved.
Ms. Dacy stated the third request is a special use permit to allow 9-foot wide parking
spaces in the S-2 district. About eight years ago when the City amended the code to
change the width of parking stalls, it was changed from 10 feet to 9 feet only in industrial
and multiple family areas. The rationale was to keep the width at 10 feet in the high
turnover areas but to allow the lower turnover zones to have a smaller width for parking
spaces. The City amended the parking stall definition for the 9-foot wide space to have a
double stripe in order to better guide people into the middle of the parking space.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit, SP #98-02, to permit
a 9-foot wide parking space subject to the petitioner complying with the City's detail on the
striping. This complies with the intent of the code change.
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► .: !: : ": ! :
Ms. Dacy stated the fourth request is a special use permit to allow a portion of the parking
area in an R-1 district. The northerly 126 feet of the site was retained as R-1 in order to
maintain and control a buffer strip which has the bikeway/walkway going through it. Of this
area, 35 feet is the buffer strip, 50 feet is the right-of-way, 20 feet is parking area setback,
and the remaining 21 feet is the drive aisle of the northerly part of the parking stalls on the
property. The R-1 district is set up so that, if an automobile parking lot is located within this
area, a special use permit is required. The code also requires the establishment of a 35-
foot wide buffer strip which is in compliance. The 1985 Woodbridge proposal had the
parking lot located about 5 feet away from the line so this represents an improvement. The
edge of the parking lot itself is approximately 104 feet from the curb to the lot line.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner is also proposing to install an arborvitae hedge to be located
strategically at the opening to the loading docks to screen the view from the residential
area.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit, SP #98-03, to permit
a portion of the parking area in an R-1 zoning district, subject to the approval of the site
plan and master plan amendment, plat request and special use permit SP #98-02.
Planning Commission members had no questions of staff.
Mr. Jellison introduced Mr. Farr and Mr. Sperides of Edward Farr Architects who will
provide more information on the project.
Mr. Sperides stated they have been working with Ms. Dacy and Mr. Hickok to cover all of
the issues. They generated a computer-aided rendering of the project to help in
demonstrating the color of the brick and how the building would look from several different
angles.
Mr. Sperides stated the rooftop screening issue is something they are trying to
demonstrate. The unit they install is a single surface screen that is mounted to the roof
about 15 feet back from the building facade. With this type of design, they have a pre-
determined location for the rooftop equipment and work with the tenants in the building so
they do not end up with multiple sizes. The screen is sufficient to hide the height.
Mr. Sperides stated Ms. Dacy covered all of the square footages and all of the items on the
master plan with which they want to be consistent. Along Bridgewater Drive, the original
master plan indicated 30-foot high light poles. Part of the master plan approval was to
reduce the height of those light poles around Bridgewater Drive to 16 feet with a screen or
shroud on the light fixture itself to cast the light more across the edge of the walkway
surface. They will use the same type of light fixture in the parking lot to try to keep the light
contained within the site.
Mr. Sperides stated the landscape plan indicates planting consistently around the site and
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► : : ! : : • •: • � •
integrates planting islands in the parking lot to break down the mass of the surface area.
They also provided a sample panel of the brick to be used on the exterior.
Mr. Kondrick asked how tall the screen would be that shields the mechanical equipment
from view. The view from I-694, which is high, looks over the building which is low.
Mr. Sperides stated the screen is 6 feet high and raised approximately one or two feet off
the roof to allow for snow and maintenance. The screen is a textured metal so there would
not be maintenance issues in the future.
Mr. Kuechle asked how many tenants would likely occupy the building.
Mr. Jellison stated they did not know. The Golden Valley building has three tenants. The
Eden Prairie building has 5 tenants. They are just completing a facility in Eagan with three
tenants. It can be divided into individual bays. It is designed for multi-tenants but they
could have one tenant take the entire building. It depends on the user.
Mr. Kuechle asked when the developer would put up the inside walls.
Mr. Jellison stated the building is designed with an open rafter system. As the tenants
come in and meet with them, they will have a space planner work with the prospective
tenant to lay out the areas to meet their needs.
Mr. Oquist asked if MEPC currently had any potential tenants.
Mr. Jellison stated, no. MEPC has some persons who have expressed interest. They
would start this as 100% speculative and expect to design the space for users as they
come across them.
Mr. Oquist asked what MEPC's time line was.
Mr. Jellison stated they plan to close on the property sometime in the spring and would start
construction shortly thereafter. They hope to be done late in 1998 or early 1999. MEPC
has is trying to coordinate this with the intersection construction. They don't want to build a
building and not be able to have anyone get to it. They are trying to coordinate that with
staff so they would complete the building at a time when they could get people to the
project. They are not worried about the construction workers getting to the site. They are
worried about potential tenants not being able to bring in guests, customers, or employees.
MEPC would like to start as soon as possible. The market is strong now.
Ms. Savage asked if MEPC had any problems with the stipulations.
Mr. Jellison stated they have to look at a couple issues. He thought they could work with it.
They design these projects to have 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, which is basically more
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► .: !: : ": ! 1
than most cities require for office buildings. With the way parking ratios are going, they are
going to need it. They did not lay the parking lot out with double striping so they need to go
back and make sure they are okay on that issue. They are comfortable with most of the
other issues.
Ms. Savage asked if they were comfortable with the signage recommendation.
Mr. Jellison stated MEPC is using that type of sign at the Bloomington site. There is an
issue with that type of signage. When you put up a panel sign, you worry about fading. If
in five years the sign comes down, what do you do with that spot? With individual letters,
there are holes that need to be filled. He thought they could work with that. It is attractive
but it costs more money.
Mr. Jellison stated MEPC is very excited about the project. In similar buildings, the space
has leased very rapidly. One concern is having this building with an office building next
door. Their Golden Valley building is adjacent to an office tower and they are going to put
two more buildings there now. This has worked in other areas and this is Class A office
space.
Ms. Modig asked about the normal lease period for the tenants.
Mr. Jellison stated typically the leases are for 5 to 10 years. They need 5 years initially
simply because it is expensive to build the space. The only time they have a lease shorter
than that is when they have a large user with a small space left over. That small space may
have a shorter lease so the larger company can expand into that area. It is costly to do
that. Usually, the leases run for 5 to 10 years, sometimes for 7 years.
Mr. Sperides stated he and Mr. Farr had discussed the parking diagram. The diagram
indicates 9-foot spaces and should not be a problem. The measurement for the 9 feet is to
the center line of the white painted stripe so it should not be a problem. Regarding the
mechanical units on the roof, they pre-determine the placement of the units so they are
placed in an orderly fashion just behind the screen. Adjacent tenants will see an organized
roof plan.
Mr. Young stated he attended a meeting like this approximately 2-2'/ years ago. At that
time, the developer said they would not build a speculative building. Tonight he heard the
developer say this was totally speculative. He has some concerns about that because they
do not know how long that building would sit there totally vacant without anything going into
the building. Although the building is very attractive, it would be somewhat degrading to the
image of Fridley to have a very nice building sitting empty.
Mr. Young stated that when the area was developed about 12 years ago when they did the
dirt removal, the people in that area may remember Easter Sunday of that year when there
was a tremendous wind storm. Their houses were totally sandblasted. There were some
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
houses along 57th Avenue who had swimming pools in their backyard, and the City of
Fridley and the developer had to pay to have their pools professionally cleaned. When he
attended a meeting here approximately two years ago, it was indicated that there would be
very little dirt removal or anything because they would be using the existing pads that had
been created. He did not believe a pad was created at that time that was around 100,000+
square feet in area which would indicate there is going to be a tremendous amount of dirt
removal or earth moving equipment in the area. This would once again create a
tremendous problem in the neighborhood. That area is totally sand, and it does not take
very much wind to move that sand around. He is very concerned about that. They were
told there was little or no earth moving equipment needed to build on those sites.
Mr. Young stated he is concerned not only about the amount of square footage for this
building, but he is also very concerned about where the water is going to go. You can now
walk in that area after a heavy rain and, even though it is all sand, you have to wear
overshoes. The water just stands in that grassy area. There is a tremendous amount of
water in that area, and it will not take it. With the building and blacktop, he did not know
how big of a drainage pond would be required to take all of that water.
Mr. Young asked if the lights will be on all night long. Is it going to be reduced during the
evening hours? He agreed there should be some lighting for security, but will the lighting
be reduced around 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. so it is not so obtrusive in the neighborhood.
Mr. Young stated the idea of a flex building is somewhat a problem to him because he has
a flex spend/pay program where he works. As long as how he spends that money is within
the parameters of Federal law, he can spend that money any way he wants. He
understands the idea of flexible. The neighborhood was never told there would be an
industrial area in there. As he understood the meaning, there is to be office space with no
manufacturing. It is better than a roofing factory. He assumes this will be clean industrial.
Will the City have control over the tenants that will occupy the building and the types of
manufacturing that could be done there? If it does not work as an office building, can a
warehouse be put in there? Could this turn into a trucking terminal? What is the exact
definition of commercial property in our community and how is that property intended?
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the dirt issue, she thought that during the road construction
and the overall site creation about 10 years ago, almost 35 acres were under construction
so there probably was a tremendous amount of dirt. This construction activity will be
restricted to 10 acres. There will be dust in the air. There are means that the developer
can use to help control that such as a water spray from time to time. The City can work with
the developer on that.
Ms. Dacy stated that in terms of the runoff, the site will drain to the southwest part of the
site. The proposed pond encompasses almost the entire length of the property along Lake
Pointe Drive. The pond has been sized and designed to retain the water for a certain
amount of time. That not only provides an amenity but also serves to retain the water and
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
to filter out some of the impurities from the parking lot. That is connected to a storm sewer
connection that is in the street. It is designed to meet the current requirements.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the lighting, she assumed the lights would be on during all
hours of the night. The taller standards have been placed around the east, west and south
sides of the building. The majority of the lights will be screened by the building itself. With
the distance between the properties and the lights to be installed, there should not be any
glare to the houses.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the control of uses, the site is zoned S-2, Redevelopment
District, which gives the City the right to review and approve each use. The City's intent is
to maintain this as office space. The one-story flex space gets its name from being flexible.
As industries grow and change, they can enlarge or reduce their size. The majority of
space is for office use. Many of the downtown users would prefer a one-story environment.
For some existing companies in the City, this may be attractive. The Medtronic site, which
is a multi-story office building, is zoned industrial. This site is zoned commercial.
Mr. Dacy stated that in terms of the future, as long as they have the current zoning, they
have the master plan stipulation that the City reviews each use. In the future, it would be
up to the City to determine if a warehouse or a trucking office would be operating out of this
site. Based on her experience and the history of this site, that is not the intent of the City
Council at this point. If that were to be proposed, it would have to go through a review
process. The intent has been, is, and will be to create a corporate office park atmosphere.
They have taken a number of steps in other zoning districts to restrict uses. This would not
be consistent with the zoning issues they have addressed elsewhere.
Mr. Oquist asked if the City has the right to review of each of the tenants in this facility.
Ms. Dacy stated, yes. Stipulation #2 of the master plan approval set out Class A office type
of uses, high tech uses, research and development, etc. They do not encourage uses that
require a significant amount of truck traffic. The site is designed for office use.
Mr. Jellison stated the project as designed does not have a good truck dock area, and they
are not looking for tremendous truck traffic but they must accommodate trucks. If a
company gets a new computer system, new furniture, paper, etc., it has to come in that
way. One cannot build a building, use 25% coverage on the site, and make industrial
facilities work. They would not be putting in all of that parking lot if they did not envision
office users.
Mr. Jellison stated a question was asked about leasing. MEPC will not build a speculative
office tower on the site. With the flex space, they feel comfortable with the people who
wanted high tech facilities. The project they built in Eden Prairie has turned out to be a
great project. Of the 5 tenants, 4 came from office buildings. They ended up with about
4,000 square feet total storage space in a 91,000 square foot building. How quickly will it
lease? He did not know. Their goal is not to build a building and let it sit empty, especially
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
when they have to guarantee the valuations on it. They would not be building this building
if they felt there was a chance they would not get the project leased. The goal is to lease
the building as fast as they can; hopefully by the time it is completed. Their goal is to build
the building, take care of it, make it a beautiful facility, and fill it full of people.
Mr. Jellison stated he did not think they would have done anything differently about this
site. No matter what they would have built there, they would have to go over the entire site.
The original plan was to have ramp parking with office towers which would require grading
the entire site. In order to build, you must disturb the site. They will do their best to control
it, but that is the nature of building.
Ms. Modig asked if MEPC was still contemplating this building with a multi-story building
adjacent to it and if there were still plans for the parking ramp.
Mr. Jellison stated, yes. The original master plan had four multi-story office buildings and
four parking ramps. There are now two multi-story buildings and two parking ramps in the
revised plan.
Ms. Modig stated the proposed buildings are very nice. In 5 or 10 years, they are going to
have a parking ramp that is as big or taller than the buildings that are going in today. Her
concern is for the homeowners along the back so they don't just see parking lots and the
back sides of the parking ramps and buildings. She is concerned about the future and how
it will all come together. She is having trouble envisioning how a one-story flex building can
blend with a two-story parking ramp.
Mr. Jellison stated the parking ramps will be further to the east. They do as much as they
can to make them as attractive as possible. For the people on the back side looking in that
direction, the Phase I building would be more attractive than looking at the back of a ramp.
They have always envisioned trying to do multi-story with structured parking for better
coverage on the site and collect a better tax base. He thought this proposal would be more
attractive than looking at a ramp.
Ms. Savage stated she had a question about the plan in general. The plan includes a
hotel/conference facility, bank, restaurant, etc. Whose responsibility is it to try to make sure
this project is balanced, and does it include these different facilities?
Mr. Jellison stated MEPC came in with a plan with services that they thought would make
sense. It could be that there would be two hotels and a restaurant or two restaurants and
one hotel. A large office concern stated they would like to see a conference quality hotel
on the site. To do that, they have to have something on the site that generates room nights
for them. He thought what they would generate so far is some room nights with the office
technology building. These are services that he thought would fit into this type of park
environment. At each step, MEPC will work with the City.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : � •
Ms. Dacy stated each phase of the project would require a hearing such as this.
Mr. Young stated he raised the question before about dust and dirt. He knows it is
inevitable. But if you did not live there 12 years ago, you cannot know what it was like. Ms.
Dacy mentioned the idea of wetting down the area. His experience at construction sites is
that this is typically done Monday through Friday. The wind blows 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. He did not think anyone would incur the expense of constantly having a truck there
to water the area down. He would hope that some precaution is taken to control the dirt
and dust. He does not want to see it like it was in the 1980's.
Mr. Jellison stated this type of project from start to finish takes about 6 to 7 months. Office
towers are in the scope of 12 to 18 months. Construction of this building should go pretty
quickly.
Mr. Grandstrand stated he believed the proposed development is inappropriate. He
believes at this point that the City has represented to the people of Fridley that this will be a
corporate development, not a speculative development. This is very much a speculative
development and is not the quality that they would associate with a corporate client. That
means you are going to have a different atmosphere with the people that are occupying this
building. You are going to have a different quality of building. Speculative buildings are not
appropriate quality buildings. They are not going to last as long. The material usage is
completely different. From that standpoint, he has a very strong opposition to what is
proposed.
Mr. Grandstrand stated the City wants an image out on I-694 and for the people. This is a
prime piece of property, and he thought they were putting the wrong image for the
community if they are going to develop a speculative building. Several issues that had
been proposed need to be addressed better than they have been. For the people that live
north of the development, the screening appears to be inadequate to protect them from the
views of the back of the dock. He hears that the dock is low usage, but all the truck traffic
that will be entering the site will enter close to the residential property and will subject the
residents to that type of traffic. He thought there has to be consideration given to the traffic
that is generated on this site and where it is going to go. This is developing the west end of
the site. He assumed the traffic would go onto 7th Street which is a residential street and
not a commercial street. He thought they needed to take a serious look at all of these
concerns because these are concerns that the residents of this community are going to be
dealing with once this property is developed. He thought quality was what they were
looking for in Fridley. They are not looking for the first thing that comes along. The City at
this point in time has represented to all the residents that they are looking for a corporate
image and a corporate client, not a speculative facility.
Mr. Herman asked Mr. Farr if he used 200 square feet/person in an office building. Mr.
Herman is looking at traffic. With that office building and future office buildings, his
calculations show there will be 2,300 people working in that complex. Even if you put 1.5
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
people in a car, you have a tremendous amount of traffic going in out of that complex every
day. You have one egress that is not residential which is Highway 65. He did not think
they would get 1,500 parking spaces and probably most will be a single person in a car.
Those people are not going to wait in line to get out to Highway 65. They will use 7th
Street, West Moore Lake Drive, and will deluge the residential areas with their cars. There
is no other egress out of that complex. He lives in that residential area. His concern is
traffic in the residential area. As he figures, there will be 1,500 to 2,000 cars in and out of
the site daily and where they were going to go.
Mr. Farr stated the question was raised about density of the office space. It is true that in
general terms an occupant occupies approximately 200 square feet of office space. In the
requirements for parking, the city has referred to that ratio. With the building at
approximately 106,000 square feet and since they are proposing that 75% of it would be
office space, that would require approximately 275 parking stalls on the site. In a larger
sense, there has been a traffic study that has been generated that resulted in studies of the
intersections at West Moore Lake Drive, Central Avenue, Lake Pointe Drive, turning
movements from I-694, and the concerns from the residential area to the west. Those were
attended to by traffic professionals. Improvements to the roadway will be done in 1998.
Ms. Dacy stated she would like to make some additional comments. Regarding the
screening that is now in place at the north side of the site from the western property line to
approximately half way through the site, there are approximately 100 trees in place and
additional trees beyond that to the east. The 35-foot strip created was done intentionally.
That was created since the original park plan was discussed in 1985. The corporate office
park at that time was approximately 635,000 square feet of office space. In 1996, the
MEPC proposal was 580,000 square feet, and is now 356,000 square feet with this
proposal. The reduction in square footage will mean a reduction in the amount of traffic to
the site that was originally anticipated. Even though the original master plan with the four
multi-story office buildings and four parking ramps, there still would have had to have been
some type of truck access. It is the City's intent to maintain the corporate image, the quality
and the types of uses that occur in the one-story building because they want to integrate
that into the multi-story building. The brick and glass exterior and the types of materials
that they are using is construction type that exceeds the typical industrial building. The cost
per square foot of what is being proposed exceeds the cost per square foot of other
industrial projects in the city.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the traffic, there is no question that this development will
generate additional traffic. It will not all occur at once. It will be phased, and staff has done
an analysis. The City is working with MnDOT to install the Highway 65 improvements
which they are hoping will be initiated on June 1, 1998. She reviewed those improvements.
MnDOT expanded the project to make some improvements to the interchange. Those
changes will be much like those done at the University Avenue interchange at I-694. They
will close the northwest and southeast loops and have the ramps intersect at a stop light.
There are a lot of safety improvements that MnDOT wants to implement. They will also add
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► : : ! : : ": ' ! .
a high occupancy vehicle lane.
Ms. Dacy stated the City has advocated the corporate office park image for a number of
years. The tax increment district expires in the year 2011. This approach is a way to meet
the market demands for high quality space. This approach could mix well and blend well
with the multi-story construction hoped for in Phase II.
Mr. Herman stated he did not know if there was a study made but most office buildings put
in modular furniture which results in 150 square feet/person. He thought they will have a
problem getting rid of traffic in this area. They will have traffic in the residential areas.
They will have tremendous problems. With all the kids in that area, they will probably have
a few deaths.
Mr. Grandstrand stated he hears the terms being used--industrial and corporate. Which is
it? They are not synonymous.
Ms. Dacy stated the City is looking for a corporate office environment. Seventy-five percent
is proposed to be developed as corporate office space. The industrial component could
apply to a company such as a medical device manufacturer or a computer company where
they manufacture computer boards. In terms of land use, that is not a retail or commercial
use, but falls under an industrial use. Medtronic is considered an industrial company.
What the City wants here is the corporate campus. The types of uses that are anticipated
in the flex building would be corporate but there may be a small amount of space for a
production facility for putting parts together.
Mr. Grandstrand stated there are different rules that apply to the types of uses. He
assumed that the City is taking that into consideration.
Mr. Grandstrand stated another element is the traffic. He has heard there has been
significant traffic studies done to ensure that traffic that enters or leaves the site can be
accommodated by the adjacent streets. He had questions concerning 7th Street and the
traffic studies done south of I-694. Staff had informed him that nothing has been done
south of I-694.
Ms. Dacy stated the traffic study done for this analysis a year ago did anticipate the traffic
that would exit the site at Lake Pointe and 7th Street. Some of the traffic could �go on the
frontage road to 57th Avenue. Some could go on 7th Street and turn left on 57t Avenue.
The consultants looked at the existing counts, the capacity of the roadway, how the traffic
could use the roadways, and made a recommendation regarding the design of that
intersection.
Mr. Grandstrand stated he was sure they all know that if you get a group of cars leaving
that site at one time, drivers will use the path of least resistance to get to their destination.
He thought they could expect to see a large amount of traffic through the residential streets
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
rather than 7th or going over to Central Avenue where the traffic really belongs. He thought
they needed to make sure that we are not going to compromise the residents of the
community by pushing a lot of traffic and delivery vehicles through the area.
Mr. Grandstrand stated there was discussion about approving rezoning a portion of the
residentially zoned property along the north for parking use. He would voice concern to the
Commission that rezoning any property that is now residential for an impervious surface is
going to detract from the value and from a favorable development on this site as far as the
residents to the north. He would keep the development as far away from the residential
area as possible including the parking lots.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:00 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated the Commission had heard good constructive comments about the site.
This is a nice proposal for this site if they are going to continue to pursue a corporate
environment and office-type building. He thought they had addressed most of the issues.
He has a real concern with the traffic issue. He lives on the east side of Highway 65, and it
is almost impossible at times to get out of from a stop sign with the Medtronic traffic and the
other traffic. The changes to Highway 65 should relieve that. He has noticed that the
signal light change has taken a lot of pressure off that area. He thought they need to do
something on that site. He is in favor of the requests. There is still the traffic issue which
they will have to watch very closely. Perhaps they can deter traffic from going west off the
property and route it to Highway 65 once that has been rebuilt. Overall, he thought this was
a good proposal.
Mr. Kuechle stated he agreed. Anytime you have a development of this size, there will be a
lot of compromise involved. On one hand, they would like a large corporate existence
there, but that will generate more traffic. At the same time they are concerned about the
traffic, so they are really in conflict. He believed this was probably as good as they can get.
Ms. Savage stated she was in favor of the requests. The stipulations provide a number of
protections. It is important that the City can review each use. She hoped that they will be
able to attract some quality properties there including a quality hotel and quality restaurant.
This has been going on for a long time. It seems that this proposal is a good way to get
started. She thought there were other protections with the City reviewing each of the uses.
She asked if those will be public hearings.
Ms. Dacy stated the stipulation reads that Class A office development, office-type uses are
to be permitted in the main part of the campus. All of the uses that are consistent with that
will be permitted. If there is a proposal to change that for any reason, there will then be a
public hearing. Those are the guidelines to be followed. If there is a proposal that is not
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► .: !: : ": ! :
consistent with that, the City will either deny the request or call a public hearing.
Mr. Kondrick referred to the area at the northern edge of the property between the drive
and the homes. Will there be a berm there orjust trees? Is there room for a berm?
Ms. Dacy stated the topography going from west to east goes up in elevation. The west
part of the site at the rear lot line is almost at the same grade as the elevation of the
building. The vegetation that is within the buffer strip has been there for 10 years and is
very mature. Some of the deciduous trees are well established. Landscaping will be added
to the screening for the residents to the north. The multi-story building to the east will have
a buffer strip to screen the view of the parking ramp. There are trade-offs. In the 1996
master plan approval, there was some support from the people in that area because the
ramps would help take away some of the noise from the interstate. In the video and in
other office developments around the metropolitan area, the Golden Valley site is next to
higher priced condominiums and that has a more open design. Although everyone to the
north of the site may not be pleased, she thought the site's advantages are that buffer strip
has been there for a number of years with mature vegetation.
Mr. Kondrick stated he looked at the sites MEPC has done in the past and was pleased
with what he had seen. He thought that they had been working with this for long time and
have had proposals before us. He thought this was a good chance for them to get
something going at Lake Pointe. He thought this was a quality development with quality
products, and he thought staff had done much work in finding ways to protect ourselves
from junk going in there. He liked what he saw and how the development was going to get
started. He is optimistic about this and thought this was the first step to get this going. He
is in favor of the requests.
Ms. Modig concurred that they have been dealing with this for 12 years or more. Last year,
she was impressed with MEPC's presentation and their ability to put together quality places
all over. She has seen the development at Highway 100 and I-394. All are very nice. She
thought they needed to move ahead in order to attract others for the rest of the
development. She thought this was a good plan.
Ms. Modig asked when the Highway 65 improvements were scheduled to be completed.
Ms. Dacy stated staff have worked with MnDOT to see if they will agree to construct the
Lake Pointe leg and the Central Avenue leg of the intersection improvements first. If they
start June 1, that will probably take the entire construction season. Because of the extent
of the work on the interchanges, the lanes and the staging, etc., MnDOT projects to do that
work in 1999. The project will be split into two construction years. Staff is working with
MnDOT to see if they will agree to complete that first phase at the same time as the
building is being constructed.
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of the Site Plan
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► : : ! : : • •: • � •
and Master Plan Amendment, MPA #98-01, to permit a one-story, 106,705 square foot flex
building for high technology companies on a 10-acre site at the western end of the Fridley
Executive Center property; and the remaining development can accommodate up to
250,000 square feet of multi-story office buildings and approximately 90,000 square feet of
commercial uses; with the following stipulations for the Master Plan Amendment:
Appropriate plat applications shall be submitted and approved prior to each phase of
development of the property.
2. All uses in the development shall comply with the following list of permitted uses:
office uses typically associated with corporate/Class A office developments; office
and high technology uses; hotel and conference facilities; banks/ financial
institutions; Class III restaurants as defined in Section 205.03.59 of the zoning code;
daycare facilities; and other uses as specifically approved by the City. Uses allowed
in each individual building after construction will be the same or similar to those uses
identified in this application. The City shall review and approve each use prior to
occupancy.
3. Detailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat
application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed
and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of
materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the City.
4. A comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council
prior to issuance of the first building permit based on the plan dated March 29, 1996,
and addressing the following issues:
a. Wall signs (building identification and tenant signage) shall meet the wall
sign requirements of the sign code.
b. No free-standing pylon signs are permitted.
c. Height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified.
d. Two free-standing project identifier (D) signs are permitted; the size and
height to be approved by the City Council.
e. All free-standing signs shall be set back 10 feet from property lines.
The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation of each sign.
5. The petitioner shall work with the City in preparing transportation demand strategies
to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property.
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► .: !: : ": ! 1
6. 12 foot to 15 foot light standards shall be installed along Bridgewater Drive adjacent
to the residential area. Sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot
lights and street lights.
7. Appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed
Management Organization and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for
stormwater management and grading shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Detailed engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in
conjunction with plat applications and building permit applications for review and
approval by the City.
8. When appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the Indirect Source Permit
from the HRA.
9. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building
permit application. Ten foot to 12 foot evergreens shall be installed along the north
wall of the proposed parking ramp. The detailed landscaping shall be based on the
concept plan dated March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at the
time of building permit issuance.
10. Park dedication fees shall be paid prior to initiation of construction of the first
development on the site. Easements shall be dedicated at time of plat approval over
the existing bikeway/walkway areas;
and the following stipulations for the Site Plan Amendment:
The proposed colors of the exterior materials shall be approved by the Planning
Commission, HRA and City Council.
2. The plat and special use permit requests shall be approved.
3. The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the HRA's development
contract.
4. The 33 existing perimeter trees shall be protected during construction. The
petitioner shall transplant as many trees as possible from the interior of the site to
other areas on or off site as approved by staff.
5. The petitioner shall construct the continuous metal panel rooftop screen as indicated
on the plans dated January 16, 1998. The petitioner shall also incorporate
additional screening (vegetation or other materials) on the roof of the building if
required by the City as part of the site plan review for the multi-story office
development.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
6. The sign plan dated January 16, 1998, shall be amended to replace the wall panel
signs with a plan to provide tenant signs with individual letters.
7. The petitioner shall comply with the Engineering Department requirements as stated
in the memo dated January 26, 1998;
and to recommend approval of a Preliminary Plat, P.S. #98-02, to create a 10-acre lot for a
106,705 square foot, one-story flex building and to create outlots for future development
and to dedicate public rights-of-way, with the following stipulations:
The petitioner shall execute the City Stormwater Pond Maintenance Agreement and
record it along with the filing of the final plat at Anoka County.
2. The petitioner shall prepare and dedicate final bikeway/walkway easements in Lot 1
along Lake Pointe Drive and record the easements, along with filing the plat at
Anoka County.
3. The petitioner shall pay the park dedication fees of $36,137.81 at time of building
permit issuance for the Lake Pointe Technology Center.
4. The Special Use Permit requests and the site plan and master plan requests shall
be approved;
and to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #98-02, to permit a nine-foot wide
parking space for the flex space building;
and to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #98-03, to permit a portion of the
parking area for the flex space building within an R-1, Single Family Dwelling, zoning
district subject to the approval of the Site Plan, Master Plan and plat requests.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Dacy stated these requests would be considered by the City Council on March 2.
3. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P S#98-01 �
BY HnLIDAY STATInNSTnRES, INC :
To create a 39,856 square foot lot for a 3,690 square foot convenience store, car
wash, and five gas pumps to be located in the northwest corner of the Holiday Plus
site, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 1 st Addition, generally
located at 250 - 57th Avenue N. E.
� - : . �: ► •► � :� •► • � � � � :►� ••: � :
.• �� � •► •: ►
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
To allow a motor vehicle fuel "stationstore" and a motor vehicle wash establishment
to be located in the northwest corner of the Holiday Plus site, legally described as
Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 1 st Addition, generally located at 250 - 57th Avenue
N.E.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:13 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the site is located at the intersection of Main Street and 57th Avenue N.E.
A Holiday stationstore is proposed at the northwest corner of the site for the Holiday Plus
store. The site is zoned C-3, General Shopping District. The area to the north is zoned C-
2, General Business District. In 1996, Home Depot was constructed to the west and has
created a nice commercial node in this district.
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide the
Holiday Plus site to create a smaller lot in the northwest corner which would become Lot 1.
The remainder of the site would become Lot 2. A Holiday stationstore is proposed to be
constructed on the newly created lot. This stationstore would include a car wash and motor
fuel operation. The petitioner is also requesting a special use permit to allow those
applications.
Mr. Hickok stated the building construction would include a brick and rock-face block
combination with glass to the east facing the gas pumps. The hip roof is somewhat unique
to the motor fuel/ convenience store operations and provides an attractive architecture that
blends with the commercial area to the north. The west face of the building has an
entrance to the car wash at the south end of the building.
Mr. Oquist asked if this structure would have the same face as the existing building.
Mr. Hickok stated he believed the materials are somewhat different but complimentary.
One of the requirements of the special use permit is that the architecture be complimentary.
The petitioner has considered the architecture of the Holiday Plus store and the
surrounding buildings when planning the site. Staff toured a number of Holiday sites in the
metropolitan area and found an interesting mix of materials used to make their buildings
blend with the surrounding area.
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner requests approval of the plat request to allow construction
of the stationstore. A special use permit and three variances are required as well.
Mr. Hickok stated the proposed site is at the northwest corner of the existing Holiday Plus
site. The petitioner proposes a replat separating 1.26 acres from the 17.11 acre Holiday
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
Plus site. As proposed, the plat will meet the minimum requirement lot size and lot
coverage.
Mr. Hickok stated Main Street and 57th Avenue are county roadways. Another thing to look
at when subdividing sites is the access. In an effort to comply with the wishes of the City
and to match the streetscape plan for 57th Avenue, the petitioner has agreed to move the
access drive to the east to align with the drive of the Linn property across the street to the
north. Future uses on 57th Avenue will be restricted to the uses described in the 57th
Avenue improvement plan, which will be reviewed later in the meeting. Future access to
the site will be restricted to the three access drives identified in the 57th Avenue
improvement plan. Cross-parking agreements will be required to ensure continued shared
access between Lot 1 and Lot 2. An access restriction will be required to assure that future
access will be attained through the approved access locations as indicated on the 57th
Avenue improvement plan. Additional land will be required to widen 57th Avenue.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following
stipulations:
Pending approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-03, and approval of Special Use
Permit, SP #98-01.
2. Cross-parking and driveway easement documents shall be prepared and recorded
with the final plat at Anoka County.
3. The petitioner shall dedicate all additional rights-of-way necessary to complete the
57th Avenue improvement project as shown on the City's improvement plan dated
February 3, 1998.
4. The petitioner shall agree to restrict access to the three locations shown on the
City's plan for 57th Avenue improvements dated February 3, 1998.
5. The petitioner shall pay the required park dedication fee at the time of building
permit issuance for the stationstore.
6. The 1994 variance stipulation requiring a clean up/landscape plan for Lot 2, Block 1,
Holiday North 2nd Addition shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant
materials installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the stationstore
building.
Mr. Hickok stated special use request, SP #98-01, would allow a motor fuel operation and
car wash. The site is zoned C-3, General Shopping Center, which requires that a special
use permit be approved to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the
community. For fuel dispensing operations, the code is clear that, because of the traffic
hazards, noise, light glare at night, outdoor storage of inerchandise, indiscriminate
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : � •
advertising, and other characteristics of this type of business which can be potential
detrimental to the community, minimum standards must be considered. Those include no
outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts, service kits, outdoor display of
merchandise; the property shall not be used for junk or inoperable or abandoned vehicles;
and the buffering of headlights is required. The stationstore is to be located in the
shopping center area and shall be architecturally compatible with the rest of the
development. Certain activities are prohibited including heavy duty repairs and
unapproved vehicle parking.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following
stipulations:
Pending approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-03, and approval of Preliminary
Plat, PS #98-01.
2. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by staff to assure compliance with Chapter
214 of the City Code.
3. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond in the amount of 3% of the
construction costs prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. The petitioner shall install underground irrigation for the landscape areas
surrounding the Stationstore site.
5. The petitioner shall comply with all outdoor storage requirements.
6. The petitioner shall comply with all outdoor sales and storage provisions of Chapter
205 of the City Code.
7. The petitioner shall install all waste trap and filtration devices as required by the
Building Code for car wash facilities.
8. The petitioner shall install adequate information signage on-site to assure proper
flow of traffic around the building and to assure that cars waiting to be washed to not
block access from 57th Avenue N. E.
9. The petitioner shall assure that all use of the intercom on this site is for instructional
and emergency purposes only. Intercom volume shall be set so intercom messages
do not carry beyond the Stationstore property.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the landscape issues pertained to the area south of the current store.
Mr. Hickok stated, yes. Those issues are related to the 1994 variance request to allow an
overhead door facing the public right-of-way. On the southeast corner of the building is an
overhead dock door. At the time of the approval, there was a stipulation that the petitioner
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
provide the necessary information and move ahead with the plan to clean up the site and
provide additional landscaping in that area. The petitioner did spend a great deal of time
trying to find a tenant for the south side of the complex. To date, they do not have a tenant.
The petitioner is aware of the landscaping requirement.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the elevations remain as they are now.
Mr. Hickok stated they will be basically the same. There will be a new storm sewer
installation as part of the 57th Avenue project. In terms of additional runoff, this is currently
asphalt so there will be no additional runoff. The site will need to drain into the catch
basins and will be designed to do so.
Ms. Savage asked if the existing building would remain as it is.
Mr. Hoeschen stated, yes. The existing building will remain the same. Some of the
businesses have been there a long time. In the last few years, Holiday Plus has acquired
Gander Mountain. They intend to convert the sporting goods portion to Gander Mountain
and there will be some architectural changes in that part of the building. They plan to close
the pet operation and find new tenants. Staff has been helpful as they have tried to
understand what to do with that building. If they were building it today, they would not have
put it in that location. He understands there is a$20,000 landscape bond, and they will be
glad to do the landscaping any way staff sees fit. The proposal will exceed the bond. They
see this as a first step.
Mr. Hoeschen stated they think there has been a lot of progress here over the last few
years with the changes to the sporting goods operation, the improvements to the property
on the north side of 57th, and this building. They are happy to bring a fuel operation back
to Fridley. They have looked for tenants for the south side of the building for maximum use.
Some of the proposals that have come to us include a budget hotel, etc. In the end, they
think it does not make sense so they are interesting in putting in landscaping. They want to
remove some of the asphalt and put in grass. As they move forward, you will see more
changes. It is a good location. With regard to the stationstore, they are very happy to get
that business back here. They have worked with staff through all the pieces.
Mr. Hoeschen stated the only item he has a concern about is the intercom. He missed that
in the staff report. They would like to be able to use an intercom. An intercom is
customarily used to greet customers, and acts as a security measure to say hello. This is a
commercial area. There is residential to the north beyond the Linn property, and they want
them as customers. They would like to be able to use an intercom.
Mr. Hoeschen stated the staff report discusses the widening of 57th Avenue. As they drew
the plans, it became apparent that widening 57th will take a few more feet than anticipated.
They looked at the site plan and believe they can shift the entire building 10 feet to the
south to provide wider the green space between the building and 57th.
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► : : ! : : ": ' ! .
Mr. Hoeschen stated the second piece is that staff expressed concern that the back side of
the building facing Main Street and the north side facing 57th were originally to be solid
brick. They will adapt the building with windows along the back side using glass block.
They will do the same to the north side.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner had a problem with the sign requirements.
Mr. Hoeschen stated they want more than what is provided for in the code. They have
engaged a sign company to look at a sign package for the entire property. That will be
before the City Council on March 2.
Ms. Modig asked if this Holiday Stationstore would be similar to the one on Central Avenue
in Columbia Heights.
Mr. Hoeschen stated, yes. It will be similar in architecture but probably enhanced and
bigger.
Mr. Kuechle stated there was an objection made to stipulation #9. Is it a problem to alter
that stipulation?
Mr. Hickok stated staff understood that the intercom could be used to greet patrons, to
inform them that the pump is on, etc.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:40 P.M.
Mr. Kuechle stated he thought this was a reasonable proposal for the site. He did not see
anything particularly adverse. He asked about the elevations because the site is fairly low.
He thought the noise and lights would be buffered by the commercial area to the north and
west. He would be in favor of the requests.
Mr. Oquist stated he thought it was a good package and fits the site.
Mr. Kondrick and Ms. Modig agreed.
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Preliminary
Plat, P.S. #98-01, to create a 39,856 square foot lot for a 3,690 square foot convenience
store, car wash, and five gas pumps to be located in the northwest corner of the Holiday
Plus site, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 1 st Addition, generally located
at 250 - 57th Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► . : ! : : • • : �
Pending approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-03, and approval of Special Use
Permit, SP #98-01.
2. Cross-parking and driveway easement documents shall be prepared and recorded
with the final plat at Anoka County.
3. The petitioner shall dedicate all additional rights-of-way necessary to complete the
57th Avenue improvement project as shown on the City's improvement plan dated
February 3, 1998.
4. The petitioner shall agree to restrict access to the three locations shown on the
City's plan for 57th Avenue improvements dated February 3, 1998.
5. The petitioner shall pay the required park dedication fee at the time of building
permit issuance for the stationstore.
6. The 1994 variance stipulation requiring a clean up/landscape plan for Lot 2, Block 1,
Holiday North 2nd Addition shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant
materials installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the stationstore
building;
and to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit, #98-01, to allow a motor vehicle fuel
"stationstore" and a motor vehicle wash establishment to be located in the northwest corner
of the Holiday Plus site, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Holiday North 1 st Addition,
generally located at 250 - 57th Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. Pending approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-03, and approval of Preliminary
Plat, PS #98-01.
2. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by staff to assure compliance with Chapter
214 of the City Code.
3. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond in the amount of 3% of the
construction costs prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. The petitioner shall install underground irrigation for the landscape areas
surrounding the Stationstore site.
5. The petitioner shall comply with all outdoor storage requirements.
6. The petitioner shall comply with all outdoor sales and storage provisions of Chapter
205 of the City Code.
7. The petitioner shall install all waste trap and filtration devices as required by the
Building Code for car wash facilities.
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► .: !: : ": ! :
8. The petitioner shall install adequate information signage on-site to assure proper
flow of traffic around the building and to assure that cars waiting to be washed to not
block access from 57th Avenue N. E.
9. The petitioner shall assure that all use of the intercom on this site is for instructional
and emergency purposes only. Intercom volume shall be set so intercom messages
do not carry beyond the Stationstore property.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok stated this request would be considered by the City Council on March 2.
: . ►� ► • . ► :•►►� ► _ � _ � :. ► :
• ►� ►� • ► ►� ► • ► • ►� : : ; ••
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the
Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of November 18, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
. : . ►� ► • . ��:. :- : : ' •► •►�►� •►
11 ► • � 11: C ••
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the Parks &
Recreation Commission meeting of December 1, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: . ►� ► • . • • • • • ►� ►� • ► ►� ► •
� 11 : : � ••
MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Appeals
Commission meeting of December 10, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: : . ►� ► • . .• ► :. : � •�►� ► � .•: �
11 ► • � 11: C ••
! ► ► ► • 11 11 • ► 11 ► : : ! : : • •: • � •
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Housing &
Redevelopment Authority meeting of December 11, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• : . ►� ► • . ► :•►►� ► _ � _ � :. ► :
•1111 •► 11 ► • � 11: : . ••
MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the
Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of December 16, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� : . ►� ► • . ��:. :- : : ' •► •►�►� •►
11 ► • '► ': ••
MnTInN by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes of the Parks &
Recreation Commission meeting of January 5, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� ■ 11 \ � ■ ■� \ �. � � �'11 \ � ■�� r
11 \ � �► �: : •�:
MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Housing &
Redevelopment Authority meeting of January 8, 1997.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: . ►� ► • . • • • • • ►� ►� • ► ►� ► •
.� .� , ..;
MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals
Commission meeting of January 14, 1998.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
: . ►� ► • . ► :•►►� ► _ � _ � :. ► :
•1111 •► 11 ► • '► ': � ••;
!►► ► •1111 •► 11 ► .: !: : ": ! 1
MnTInN by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the
Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of January 20, 1998.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
� : . ►I ► • . • • • • • ►I ►I • ► ►I ► •
�, � � � •��
MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Appeals
Commission meeting of January 28, 1998.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• . :: ►
. _ ► ►�':• ►� ► ' _►
Mr. Hickok reviewed the 57th Avenue improvement plan.
. �_ : ►
Ms. Modig stated she noticed the building was being razed at the Walgreen's site. She
asked where the driveways would be placed.
Mr. Hickok stated one driveway will be moved back. The first driveway will have full access
and the second driveway will be a right in, right out only.
e� • :►►� ►
MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE FEBRUARY 18, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary