Loading...
PL 04/07/1999 - 30968CITY OF FRIDLEY �' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7,1999 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the April 7, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Connie Modig Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant Alice Peterson, 5665 Jackson Street Ginny & Jim Locker, 5664 Jackson Street Dorothy Seaberg, 5685 Jackson Street Betty Schack, 5704 Jackson Street n Rick & Mary Smith, 665 - 57�' Avenue Ed Hondl, 685 - 57�' Avenue Jayne Griffin, 5675 Quincy Street Robert & Elizabeth Gardier, 5705 Quincy Street Richard Young, 5695 Quincy Street Paul Plin�, 6562 Brookview Drive Hilary Mayers, 969 Mississippi Street NE Davis Pearson, 11960 London Street Floyd Hessewick, 5665 Quincy Street Kenny Homs, HGA, 1201 Harmon Place, Minneapolis, MN James Driessen, Medtronic, Inc. Tom Oslund, Oslund & Associates Don Hagman, Medtronic, Inc. John Tomczyk, 575 — 57"' Avenue Paul Wilson, 635 — 57�' Avenue David Rust, 5735 Quincy Street APPROVAL OF MARCH 17 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the March 17, 1999, Planning Commission minufes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 2 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VACATION REQUEST. SAV #99- !'� 02. BY DAVID PEARSON: Per Section 211.07.21 of the Fridley Zoning Code, to vacate a 5-foot utility easement, and then grant a 10-foot utility easement on Lot 2, Block 2, Brookview 2"d Addition, generally located at 1015 Mississippi Street MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, 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 7:33 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated the pe�itioner, Mr. Pearson, is requesting that the City vacate the current five-foot utility easement along the rear property line at 1015 Mississippi Street, and then grant a 12-foot utility easement along the back edge of that property. The purpose of the easement is to provide utilities to a recently created lot at 6526 Brookview Drive. Mr. Bolin stated the home at 1015 Mississippi Street was built in 1951. The home has structural problems. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) purchased the site in the spring 1998. The home was removed in July 1998. The code requires a utility easement of 12 feet along rear property lines when an alley is not present. � Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the utility easement vacation and � rededication. The 12-foot easement is necessary to provide utilities to the neighboring property. The lot split which created the lot on Brookview Drive was approved by the City Council in November 1998. The property owner to the north of the new lot will not grant an easement for the utilities; therefore, it is necessary to come across the City's lot. By going through this process, the City's lot will then be in conformance with the required City codes for having a 12-foot easement. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors. Mr. Bolin stated he had received one call from a citizen who wanted to know what the utility easement/vacation was. Mr. Kuechle asked if this would create any problems with the offset of the easements. Easements are normally 5 feet on either side of the property line and this will be 12-feet on one side. Mr. Bolin stated that once it gets across the City's property, then the easements will be fine the rest of the way. Mr. Hickok stated the new house that will be built at 6526 Brookview Drive will be able to cut at a diagonal to get to the utilities if necessary. That offset of 10 feet on one lot ^ and 12 feet on the next will not cause problems. Mr. Kuechle asked if this is also true on the west side. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 3 � Mr. Hickok stated the change from 12 feet to 10 feet should not create any issues. He did not believe that the plat that is west of this development has an easement on it at all. Mr. Pearson stated he is the petitioner looking to create a new property on 6526 Brookview Drive. He thought it would be an improvement to the properly. A 1,000 square foot home will be built on the lot. He hopes that the request is approved. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:39 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he did not see a problem with the request. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of Vacation Request, SAV #99-02, by David Pearson, to vacate a 5-foot utility easement, and then grant a 10-foot utility easement on Lot 2, Block 2, Brookview 2"d Addition, generally located at 1015 Mississippi Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ^ Mr. Bolin stated the request would be considered by the City Council on April 26. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF S-2 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL MPA #99-01, BY MEDTROIVIC. INC.: To consider project/master plan approval for a corporate office campus up to 1,600,000 square feet in size, generally located at Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. 3. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF PLAT REQUEST, PS #99-01. BY MEDTRONIC. INC.: To create Fridley Executive Center 2"d Addition. The plat creates finro lots, one of which is for development of 460,000 square feet of corporate office space and supporting facilities. The remaining lot is to be legally described as Fridley Executive Center Outlot A and is not proposed for development at this time, generally located at Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. 4. PUBLIC HEARING� CONSIDERATION OF VACATION REQUEST. SAV #99- 01 BY MEDTRONIC. INC.: To vacate a po�tion of Carrie Lane, Jackson Street, and Quincy Street which abut 5665, 5664, 5674, and 5675 Jackson Street and 5665 Quincy Street in order to reconstruct Bridgewater Drive, generally located at Carrie Lane. � MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public hearing notices and to open the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:41 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated Medtronic, Inc. has filed these requests for their world headquarters campus at the northwest comer of I-694 and Highway 65. Medtronic has filed five applications. Her presentation will go through the staff analysis and reports for the master plan, the preliminary plat and the street vacation. After the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council, staff will then review the requests for a zoning text amendment and the special use permit. The Community Development Department compiles the comments from all of the Cifiy's departments; in this case, the Police Department, Fire Department, Engineering, and Building Division in making a report to the Planning Commission and, ultimately, to the City Council. Ms. Dacy stated the first request is for approval of the master plan. The purpose of the master plan is to create a guide plan for the corporate offlce campus. There are four elements that will be part of this campus: 1. The worldwide corporate headquarters; 2. A research and development center located on the development; 3. An education center where there will be a number of physicians and clients that will come to Fridley and go to this center to leam more about the petitioner's business and products; and 4. Facilities to house the neuro part of the business which will be in addition to an � existing facility in Columbia Heights. Ms. Dacy stated that, in addition, the petitioner is indicating about 1 million square feet of corporate office space is anticipated for the site. However, the environmental review process (AUAR) analyzed the impacts of up to 1.6 million square feet of development on the site. The AUAR assumed there would be build-out over the next decade in about 400,000 square foot increments. At the last HRA meeting, the HRA made a determination and motion to recommend to the Planning Commission and the City Council that this proposed development is consistent with the City's redevelopment plan. Ms. Dacy stated Phase 1 is proposed to encompass six buildings on the eastem half of the site. The corporate headquarters building will have the administrative offices for the company. The building will have four floors, approximately 138,000 square feet, and the overall height of the building will be approximately 85 feet. The neuro building is proposed to be 128,000 square feet on three floors, and approximately 70 feet in height. The term penthouse refers to the area where the mechanical equipment is enclosed. The research building is just under 61,000 square feet on three floors, with an approximately height of 55 feet. The education building will also be three floors and approximately 55 feet in height. The campus commons building will be approximately 40 feet and will house the support types of uses including the cafeteria, auditorium, fitness center and information resource center. The central plant facility is the building ,...� which will contain the central heating and cooling equipment for the campus. Overall ' height of this structure will be 40 feet with a rooftop screen for the equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 5 Ms. Dacy stated a parking ramp is also proposed with six floors proposed, two of which �^ will be below grade. The structure will contain about 1,000 parking stalls proposed at 8.5 feet wide x 18 feet deep. The size of the spaces is the topic of one of the public hearings. Approximately 160-200 spaces will be on each floor of the parking structure. There is one small parking lot just to the west of the central plant with about 12 spaces. In order to serve the additional development on the site, finro additional parking ramps will need to be constructed in Phases II and III. Ms. Dacy stated the site is senred by finro existing streets — Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Parkway along the north side of the site. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing streets and construct a two-lane divided parkway that would extend from 7�' Street on the west to Highway 65 on the east. It would widen out to about four lanes to account for tuming movements in the area of West Moore Lake Drive and at Highway 65. In essence, it is a finro-lane parkway. There will be a median down the center, and the petitioner has been coordinating with the engineering staff to identify the minimum lane widths in accordance with Municipal State Aid standards. Ms. Dacy stated the building exterior at this point would be brick or cut stone. The architectural details would be traditional in style. The petitioner will present an elevation. Accent areas may contain a metal panel trim. The roofing materials may include a standing seam metal or a faux slate. The construction will be fire resistant and will have to meet fire code sprinkling requirements. ,�—� Ms. Dacy stated the proposed lighting plan indicates 20-foot tall poles along the parkway in the median and 30-foot tall poles on top of the parking structure. Kim lights are proposed. For a sense of scale, the light poles at the Municipal Center ramp are about 30 feet tall. Ms. Dacy stated a detailed signage plan has not been submitted. Entrance monuments are contemplated. There is a stipulation regarding the suggestion of details on that plan. Mr. Dacy stated the landscaping plan is quite extensive. Six hundred and eighteen trees and nearly 100 shrubs are proposed as part of the Phase 1 construction. The parkway will be lined with linden trees. Crab apple trees will be located in the median. Red oaks and maples are also proposed around the campus. Ms. Dacy stated the grading and utility plans will use the existing facilities that are on the site for water and sewer services. Two ponds are proposed at the east end of the site for storm water treatment and run off. The east half of the site is under the jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed. Their approval must be obtained prior to any work on the site. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall construct the proposed development in accordance with the �� Master Plan labeled as "Master Site Plan°, C101, and dated March 10, 1999. Phase I construction shall be construction in accordance with the plans labeled PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 6 and dated below, except as modified by other stipulations in this and other r"''� approvals: • Phase I Layout Plan, C062, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Grading Plan, C063, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Utility Plan, C-064, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Utility Plan, Bridgewater Drive, C064a, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Erosion Control Plan, C065, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Planting Plan, C066, dated March 12, 1999 • Phase I Erosion Control Details, C067, dated March 12, 1999 • Building Elevations, A100, dated March 12, 1999 2. Plat applications shall be submitted and approved prior to each phase of development of the property. 3. All used in the development shall be those uses Medtronic currently has in place at its Rice Creek Campus, together with other uses necessary to the operation of the petitioner's business or typical office business uses, including the following: a. Light manufacturing or assembly of any products the petitioner sells from time to time, including clean room manufa�turing; b. Research and development activities; c. Some warehousing activities (needed for product assembly); ^ d. Conference and training facilities; e. Office activities and reasonably related uses including uses reasonably incident to a primary or secondary headquarters facilifiy for a manufacturing company, including day care, food service and other sundry retail uses. 4. Detailed architectural plans of each building shall be approved by the cit�r prior to the issuance of the building/shell permit. The type of materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the City. The exterior of the parking structure shall be constructed with materials consistent with the materials of the oifice buildings. No less than 50% of the parking structure's exterior surfaces shall be covered with the same masonry materials used on the adjacent buildings (i.e. brick, stone, etc.). 5. A comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of the first sign permit. a. Wall signs 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. All monument or free-standing signs shall be set back 10 feet from property lines. ^ e. The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation of each sign. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 7 6. The petitioner shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan for City �'"� review and approval prior to initiation of construction for Phase II. 7. The petitioner shall comply with the final AUAR and plan for mitigation adopted by the City Council on April 12, 1999. 8. The petitioner shall comply with the Indirect Source Permit (ISP) 99-�oc (number to be assigned by MPCA). 9. Appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed Management Organization and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 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 Council. 10. The petitioner shall comply with the stipulations of Vacation #99-01, Plat #99-01, Special Use Permit #99-02, and Zoning Text Amendment #99-01. 11. A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first building/shell permit. Underground irrigation shall be provided to all appropriate landscaped areas, including the area around Jackson and Quincy Street, and Bridgewater Drive. The landscaping plan shall be amended to ^ include installation of 10-foot evergreens on the north side of the parking structure. 12. All construction shall comply with the City's appropriate fire and building codes. The location, dimensions, and surface material of the fire protection road shall be approved by the City Fire Marshall. 13. The Central Plant facility shall conform to the following requirements: a. Utilize Series V Cooling Towers (Model No. VTI-1125-P) with centrifugal fans or similar equipment with equivalent sound levels. b. Install a structural screen for each of the cooling towers adjacent to residential land uses sufficient to provide the minimum decibel attenuation needed to comply with MPCA daytime and nighttime standards. For the Series V Cooling Tower (Model No. VTI-1125-P), a minimum of 4 decibels of attenuation is required to achieve compliance with applicable standards. c. Consider extension of the screen walls 1 to 2 feet above the top of the cooling tower if this can be accomplished without danger of re-ingestion of exhaust air into the intake. d. Consent to noise monitoring of constructed cooling towers as deemed necessary by the City and reimburse the City for noise monitoring costs. e. Agree to modify cooling tower equipment or construct additional screening if noise monitoring documents that actual sound levels generated by the central plan exceed state noise standards. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 8 14. A detailed lighting plan for the development, including the street and parking -'� structure lights, shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first building/shell permit. The height of the light standards on Bridgewater Drive shall not exceed finrenty feet, and the height of the standards on the top level of the parking structure shall not exceed thirty feet. 15. The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Redevelopment Contract. 16. Multi-level parking structures shall be constructed with each phase of the development. The ramp for Phase I shall be constructed with two levels below grade. 17. The following circumstances shall be deemed as a°substantial change" and require additional review by the Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council: a. Increase in building square footage beyond 1,600,000 square feet; b. Increase in building height beyond 10 stories; c. Increase in parking structure height above the parking structure in Phase I; d. Changes in building usage other than permitted in Master Plan and the HRA's Redevelopment Contract. � e. Any change that does not meet the City and HRA approved conditions and stipulations pertaining to the development. Ms. Dacy stated the second request is for approval of the preliminary plat. The purpose of the preliminary plat request is to create the 22-acre lot for Phase I. Lot 1 is on the east half of the site, is approximately 22 acres, and would contain the six buildings described above. Outlot A would be retained in ownership by the HRA. Outlot B would remain as an outlot as it is now for the storm pond at the southwest part of West Moore Lake Drive. Proposed Outlot C is suggested to create an outlot around the existing trees and vegetation along the south lot line of those homes and that outlot be maintained by the petitioner. Between Outlot C and Outlot A would be the right-of-way for the proposed parkway. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the plat application subject to the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a minimum right-of-way width of 90 feet for Bridgewater Drive, east of the west right-of-way of Quincy Street, and dedicate as right-of-way the land south of Lots 12, 16, Block 11 and Lot 9, Block 5, Donnays Lakeview Manor Addition. 2. The petitioner shall provide a minimum Bridgewater Parkway right-of-way width ,.� of 66 feet, while also providing an outlot for the planted area, north of Bridgewater Parkway, west of the west right-of-way line of Quincy Street. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 9 3. The petitioner shall close the Lake Pointe Drive connection to 7�' Street or ^ provide "Road Closed" and/or "Dead End" signage. 4. The petitioner shall recognize that all utilities outside the Bridgewater Drive or 7�' Street rights-of-way become a private system to be owned and maintained by Medtronic. 5. The petitioner shall repair and maintain irrigation system for the entire site. 6. The petitioner shall copy the City on all storm water submittals to the Rice Creek Watershed District including, but not limited to, plans, calculations and narratives. 7. The petitioner shall provide Storm Pond Maintenance Agreement for all ponds within the site. 8. The petitioner shall pay park dedication fees in the amount of $44,522.48, prior to issuance of Phase I building permits. 9. The petitioner shall construct Bridgewater Drive from 7�' Street to Highway 65 as part of Phase I construction according to plans submitted as part of this application and shall comply with the Municipal State Aid construction standards. 10. The petitioner shall install an 8-foot bikeway/walkway from 7�' Street to Highway ^ 65 along the north side of Bridgewater Drive. Connections to the neighborhood to the north shall be made to Quincy Street and from Jackson Street. 11. The petitioner shall recognize and be responsible for providing a separate easement agreement where bikeway/walkways are not located within the public right-of-way. 12. A pavement stripe or other readily visible means of identifications shall be provided on the surFace of Bridgewater Parkway to allow a pedestrian crossing. 13. The petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining the ground cover and landscaping in the median and the boulevards in the parkway as well as maintaining the landscaped area around Quincy and Jackson Streets. 14. The petitioner shall record an easement agreement permitting emergency vehicle access on the site including access to flre hydrants. Ms. Dacy stated the purpose of the street vacation request is to vacate a portion of Carrie Lane between Jackson and Quincy Streets. The parkway is proposed to be realigned to eliminate the existing reverse cunre. It creates a safe and straighter alignment; however, it does require the removal of six homes and the existing storm pond. The houses to be removed are the last house on the east side of Quincy Street, �.,� the last two houses on the west side of Jackson Street, and the last three houses on the east side of Jackson Street. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 10 Ms. Dacy stated the original direction to the petitioner when they submitted the master �"`� plan was to maintain the existing street pattem and reconstruct what was out there today. A neighborhood meeting was conducted on March 3, 1999, which presented finro options. What had happened was that seven owners were originally proposed for acquisition. The seventh owner did not indicate a willingness to sell. When the petitioner submitted the plans on February 12, 1999, the plans showed Jackson and Quincy Streets as a cul-de-sac and a dead-end respectively. As a result of that submission, staff scheduled a neighborhood meeting to discuss the two options. Option 1 would keep Jackson and Quincy as dead ends. Option 2 would propose to connect the two streets. At that meeting, the people attending completed a sunrey. As a result of 25 responses received, 13 preferred Option 1, 11 preferred Option 2, and one preferred to leave the road as it is. Ms. Dacy reviewed the options. Option 1 proposed Quincy Street would dead- end at the southwest comer of what was the seventh lot proposed for acquisition. Just to the south of that point there is a fairly steep slope but it is not steep enough that a retaining wall is required. Jackson Street would have a cul-de-sac. Ms. Dacy stated Option 2 would connect the two streets. The existing width of the roadways on Quincy and Jackson is 40 feet wide. A 24-foot wide roadway would connect them. Because of the slopes, a retaining wall would have to be constructed. In both situations, a bikeway/walkway access can be installed to the street. ^ Ms. Dacy stated that when staff completed their analysis, they solicited comments from other departments and looked at the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The advantage of Option 1 is that it allows room for installation of trees and shrubs. There is no change in police service. It does create privacy for the homeowners in that area. The disadvantage is that it does create a dead-end that is not preferable from a fire safety standpoint. They have to back the vehicles out as opposed to having a tum around. It does eliminate the existing street pattem and eliminates the efficiency of the existing snowplow route. It removes the state-aid street status from that particular roadway. Ms. Dacy stated the advantage of Option 2 is that it does maintain the street pattem and the neighborhood continuity. It is an efficient route for police and fire services and maintains the route for snow plowing and school bus service. The disadvantage is that it does create the necessity for a retaining wall that eliminates the area for additional trees and shrubs to help screen the development. Because the pavement width narrows from 40 feet to 24 feet, it does create some tight cunres and the road width does not match what is there now. Both options create bikeway/walkway connections to the trail. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval based on Option 2 that is to connect the two streets. Staff feels that is the preferable option in terms of maintaining the traffic continuity, police, fire and snow plowing services. Staff recommends the following �..,\ stipulations: The petitioner shall reconstruct Carrie Lane as depicted in Option 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 11 %`1 2. The petitioner shall dedicate right-of-way for reconstructed Carrie Lane as shown in the preliminary plat submittal. 3. The petitioner shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to be approved by the City prior to issuance of the first building permit. 4. The petitioner shall submit a final construction plan to the City Engineering Department for review and approval prior to demolition of existing Carrie Lane. 5. The petitioner shall maintain all landscaped areas around reconstructed Carrie Lane. Ms. Dacy stated that while the stipulations seem significant, many are routine stipulations. However, there are number of stipulations that are unique to the development. Ms. Savage asked staff to describe the retaining wall. Mr. Dacy stated the retaining wall could extend as tall as 11 feet, 2-3 feet of which would extend above the elevation of the reconstructed roadway for Carrie Lane. Mr. Kondrick stated there are dangers of a car going over the edge of the retaining wall n or a child climbing up and falling off the wall. What protections would be in place? Ms. Dacy stated that was part of the reason for the extension of the wall 2-3 feet above the roadway. The extension would act as a guardrail. The good news about the connection is that, because of the curve and pavement narrows, it will slow down the traffic. The radius is tight. If there was more land area available, there could be more of a sweeping curve but this gets the job done. Mr. Kondrick stated he was still concemed about children climbing on the wall. Two to three feet is not very tall. Ms. Dacy stated the existing condition today is one where the existing homes are eight to ten feet higher than the site. Some of the same concerns exist today. Mr. Kondrick asked if there would be a way to make the wall taller or to make it less troublesome or accident-prone. The streets are good in the summer. In this case there is a 24-foot street. What about the wintertime and snow plowing? Can we get police and fire vehicles through there? Ms. Dacy stated, yes. That was part of the reason staff spent a lot of time with members of other departments and evaluated the options. Snow plowing vehicles and fire vehicles can get around these curves. n Mr. Kuechle stated staff had talked about noise from the cooling towers. He asked if staff had any data on how loud they might be. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 12 ��� Ms. Dacy stated, yes. The petitioner and the City's noise consultant completed sound �- tests and identfied how loud the cooling towers are 126 feet from the north lot line, compared that to state standards. With the sound and attenuation wall at the top of the facility, the decibels emanating from the plant will be in compliance and below state noise standards. Mr. Sielaff stated the storm water would be discharged into the lake. Is that permitted by Rice Creek? Ms. Dacy stated, yes. Mr. Sielaff asked if that would be an appropriate place to put in monitoring requirements. Baseline monitoring has already been discussed. Will there be monitoring later also? Ms. Dacy stated that in response to the Planning Commission's earlier comment in February, the City will be working with the Anoka Conservation District to do a baseline test of the lake and then track that over time. Because there are so many developments tributary to Moore Lake, in this particular case, she believed this was a function more appropriate for the City. Mr. Sielaff asked how they determine the parameters of monitoring, frequency of � sampling, etc. � Ms. Dacy stated the parameters would be the same as Springbrook Nature Center. They will also review that with the Rice Creek Watershed District to be sure that they are analyzing the right things. The watershed district people would recommend the frequency. Mr. Saba asked if the baseline was already established. Ms. Dacy stated the watershed district had some data that was done by a volunteer for some type of doctoral analysis four or five years ago. That may be too long ago and they may want to update that. The DNR does not have any data. Mr. Kondrick stated that as he understands this, they are talking about utilizing space that six homes now occupy. He had also heard seven houses were involved. If seven or more homes had been absorbed, would the street configuration have been better'? Ms. Dacy stated the number proposed was seven. The need to expand the site area was to create a straighter alignment along the north side of the side. On the existing aerial photo� the street pattem was set up for a typical suburban development with an office park development with commercial uses on Highway 65. The first cunre west of Highway 65 is the reverse curve described earlier. The new alignment creates a more ,�� efficient land use pattem, creates a straighter alignment for the parkway design, and � creates the impression of a low speed roadway. The area of the taking is in the area of �� the reverse curve and is extended at the easterly portion of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 13 �"'� Ms. Savage asked if it is not contemplated that there would be more than the six houses involved. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. As part of the applications, six owners signed a letter authorizing Medtronic to act on their behalf as part of these applications. Ms. Savage stated she thought staff was indicating that it would have been preferable to remove seven houses. Ms. Dacy stated, yes. The original direction was to recreate the street pattem in the neighborhood. The additional land area means that the pavement widths could be matched with less of a steep grade and more area for screening. Mr. Sielaff asked if the current proposal is considered Phase I. Ms. Dacy stated, yes. The east half of the site is Phase I. The approval on the master plan is stating that up to 1.6 million square feet of development will occur on the property, and the Planning Commission is approving a specific plan for Phase I. Phase I totals approximately 462,000 square feet. Phase II would be just to the west and would include a parking structure and buildings. Phase III also includes a parking structure and additional buildings. ^ Mr. Hagman stated he is the Director of Real Estate facilities and was present on behalf of Medtronic, Inc., to talk about their commitment and enthusiasm for this project. They have been working hard over the last eight months or so. They believe that this development has the potential to be a win/win situation. It is a plus for the metropolitan planning, for the State of Minnesota, the County. From an urban planning standpoint, it has great potential. It also has the opportunity to become an icon for the north sector of I-694 much like 3M in Woodbury, the Carlson Center on I-494 in Plymouth. They think this facility will be world class facility. As Medtronic grows, they are glad they can do that in Fridley. Mr. Hagman stated this option is a win situation for Medtronic. They have looked at other options around other parts of the City as well as other communities. Although there were less costly altematives out there, they believed this would be a real advantage for them. Medtronic has 10 facilities in the Minneapolis/St. Cloud area with approximately 4,900 employees. From a demographic standpoint, the location of this site fits very well as far as getting to and from these facilities. They are very much centralized in the north suburban area. This site does a very nice job in helping them look into the future to develop. Mr. Hagman stated they felt this was the best option for the City and for the area. He is a resident of the City and he has looked at some of the other options proposed by other developers. He feels the option of a world class campus is a positive altemative for �..\ everyone involved. The site has had its challenges for them from an investment standpoint, and yet they are willing to go forward with this. The need for the density they would like and the City requires the structured parking. They are working with that. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 14 The soil conditions have posed some challenges on the east end of the site. The � extensive redesign of the roadway, the irrigation, the trees all require a lot of attention to the site. Through the process, they tried to be respectful to the neighborhood. They spent a lot of time on that and talked about that. Medtronic feels very strongly about it. He showed an architectural rendering of the project. Mr. Hagman stated the tallest building will be four stories using Minnesota materials with natural stone and brick. It resembles a college campus. They feel this campus will speak to what Medtronic is all about. They have gone further than the master plan into a schematic design showing the actual architecture to provide a traditional kind of look to the campus. The main building is a round four-story structure. Around that facility will be the educational facility and the research facility. Medtronic feels their success is due to the amount of attention they put into research. They put 11 % of their revenues into research, which is very high compared to other corporations. On the other side is the education center where they being in people from all over the world where they are trained in the new technology. He also provided a model for viewing. Mr. Hagman stated they are very proud of this. He hoped that the City, the neighborhood, and the State gain the enthusiasm that they have for the project. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the stipulations as presented by staff. ,--� Mr. Hagman stated that, in general, they are okay. For future phases, some stipulations are nebulous. In general, what will happen is unclear at this point as far as exact sizes, etc. Mr. Oquist asked if the Phase II and Phase III areas will be maintained by Medtronic while it is in its current form. Mr. Hagman stated he thought the irrigation would continue to run, but the Ciiy is still responsible for the lawn. Ms. Dacy stated the west half would become Outlot A which would still be owned by the HRA. Mr. Oquist asked what would happen if the HRA received a good offer. Ms. Dacy stated the redevelopment contract that is established provides option rights to Medtronic. The bigger Phase I is, the longer the amount of time Medtronic has the ability to come to the City for their Phase II. With the square footage proposed, they would have option rights to at least the year 2006. Mr. Sielaff asked if the only involvement of the Planning Commission for Phase I I and Phase III would be a special use permit. �, Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission involvement would be through the plat application process. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 15 �, Mr. Oquist stated that in the concept drawing, the drive shown would be a driveway rather than a street. Is that correct? Mr. Hagman stated the best way to describe this would be an entrance for visitors. The majority of the access in and out of the site will be in and out of the parking ramps that are to the north. Mr. Oquist asked if Medtronic would be responsible for maintaining that driveway. Mr. Hagman stated this is correct. Mr. Sielaff asked that on the plan, are there large ponds at the east portion of the site? Ms. Dacy stated, yes. Mr. Young stated that Mr. Kondrick had asked about house acquisition, and Ms. Dacy had stated that Medtronic had asked to acquire seven homes. He did not remember the date that this first came before the Cifiy Council, but he had been told by finro members of the Fridley City Council that that is not absolutely true. When Medtronic first approached the City of Fridley at a meeting with the City Council, they originally asked to acquire 13 homes. He wanted the members of the Planning Commission to know that Medtronic had desires to acquire more houses to alleviate some of the road problems that would be created there. Two members of the City Council had told him that, and he believed he had that in writing at home in a memo that was written to City Council members. Mr. Young stated he would like to speak in opposition to the plan proposed by staff that Carrie Lane be continued as a 24-foot wide street. He did not realize there would be 30-foot light towers on top of that parking ramp. He did not remember the exact height of the parking ramp above existing grade. Ms. Dacy stated the height would be between 40 and 45 feet. Mr. Young stated they will then have light towers about 70 to 75 feet above the ground. If Carrie Lane is allowed to continue as a 24-foot wide street, he did not believe it would provide an adequate vegetation area for anything to eliminate the flow of light 24 hours a day into the neighborhood. The neighborhood now is fairly dark. Except for a street light in front of his house, there is very little light in that area. He has a question as to the type of lighting that will be on top of the ramp. Is it going to be directional lighting? Is it going to be on from dusk until dawn? Can it be directional rather than omni- directional? He can see some of the concems about snow plowing, etc. There is no one sitting on this commission that lives in that neighborhood. No member of the City Council lives in that neighborhood. Life is a bowl of cherries; but, if this street continues as a 24-foot wide street, he believed they as a neighborhood are going to get all of the � pits. They will not have anything to eliminate the view into that area. He is not opposed to the Medtronic project, but he is not agreeable to having total view of a parking ramp PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 16 and everything else that is down there and not having something else to help stop the ,� flow of light and sound, and provide a decent visual effect. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the seven versus thirteen homes, when she stated that there were seven homes proposed for acquisition, staff did not have a plan that showed more than seven homes being acquired. The petitioner could have evaluated a number of homes for acquisition, but at that point they had not submitted a master plan. At the beginning part of February, it was her understanding that the proposal was for seven homes. She is not disputing the fact that the City Council may have said there may have been more. In terms of the official record, the master plan presented to staff required the removal of seven homes. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the street lights on the top floor of the parking ramp, the proposed method of trying to light the top floor is the same as that proposed in the previous MEPC proposal. While they were not as tall, the parking ramps had a 30-foot light standard on top of the parking ramp. The lighting plan requirements is that it is just enough light to illuminate the area directly below the light standard, and it is not to throw light beyond the limits of the parking structure. There is 126 feet to the rear lot lines. If the petitioner's engineer wants to address the exact type of structure that can be directional or not, staff would be happy to evaluate. As an example of what is at the municipal ramp, a residential area is immediately across the�street. Some of the units across the street can see the standards at the municipal center. � Mr. Hondl stated he is very supportive and excited about the Medtronic development, but they are impacted directly by what is going on there. The character of their neighborhood is changing substantially by what is going on. He is supportive of maintaining Carrie Lane. To him, closing that Lane or narrowing it changes the character of the neighborhood even more. He is even more concemed about the buffering that can take place on the south side of Carrie Lane once that road is put in place or realigned. The impact of the six houses does not provide an adequate protection at all. He is also concemed about the option to put up an 11-foot retaining wall. He did not think that is something that they would care to look at. It will be an eyesore and a dangerous thing for the neighborhood. Putting up a screen fence above that would degrade the character of the neighborhood even more. They need to seriously consider if a wall is what they want for the neighborhood. Mr. Hondl stated he would like to see Carrie Lane continued, a buffer on the south side, and that the job be done right. They are doing the right thing in a new development area, but he wants to make sure that the right thing is done, too. Mr. Oquist asked how high the retaining wall would be from the street level. Ms. Dacy stated from the parkway to Carrie would be 8 feet and then another 2-3 feet above Carrie Lane. �,.,� Mr. Hondl stated he is aware that the wall would be 2 to 3 feet above Carrie Lane. He is concemed about the dangers that will create in their neighborhood with the kids playing PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 17 in that area and having a wall that drops off 10 or more feet. Adding a fence to the top �"'�, of a retaining wall just degrades the character of the neighborhood even more. Mr. Gordier stated that at the last public hearing prior to February, they were told that there would be no intrusions into their neighborhood by this development. Since that time, there is considerable work and investment that has been done. When he called his Council member and was asked how he had heard about, he said it was not from the City of Fridley, but rather from people whose houses were being put up for sale. He obtained the plans from Ms. Dacy and discussed these plans at a neighborhood meeting at the library. The architects have done a remarkable job. The one thing that did come out (and Mr. Young is putting together a petition on this) is that the people attending were opposed to the Came Lane proposal and opted for the dead-end on Quincy and the cul-de-sac on Jackson. They believed the retaining wall is a danger. They get a lot of kids that come through there at pretty good speeds. He thought the narrow road would be a real danger. The trees that are proposed at the ends of the street would enhance the neighborhood and help somewhat. The tenor of the people in attendance, and Ed has raised his views on that, was that they were of the general opinion that they should have the dead end and cul-de-sac. They feel that putting in a retaining wall would be a danger to kids. Mr. Kondrick asked that if there were a dead-end and a cul-de-sac, would enough trees and shrubs be planted to screen the development? ,� Mr. Gordier stated it would give them some buffer. He did not think it would help with the lights on top of the ramp. Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Gordier's opinion about the need to get safefiy vehicles, i.e., fire trucks, police and/or ambulances, into that area. Mr. Gordier stated he did not think it would be much different. There may be a few seconds difference in time for access. They know the streets. Ms. Savage asked if most people at the neighborhood meeting favored Option 1 rather than Option 2 Mr. Gordier stated, yes. There was unanimity in that there be no intrusions into the neighborhood. People by and large were for having a dead-end with more trees to buffer at the end of Quincy and Jackson. Mr. Saba asked if the landscape architect had looked at options in terms of vegetation to act as a buffer along a retaining wall. Ms. Dacy stated that with the construction of a retaining wall, that would eliminate a lot of area to put that screening in. There is a lot of area to the east of Quincy in which to do screening, and the petitioner's plant selection did propose a substantial amount of � trees in that area. Land area is lost with the house at that point plus the connection between Quincy and Jackson. What happens is that there is a°hole" created in the view from the north as opposed to having a vegetative wall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 18 �°'1 Mr. Rust stated he would prefer to keep Carrie Lane open. The traffic that comes down 57�' Avenue splits with some going south and some north. All the traffic going north has to tum and then go back up and catch Quincy again. They get a lot of kid traffic where his house is located. You cannot keep the kids out. They always walk through someone's lot. Some go south around Carrie. Most come from the high school to Helene Place. He does not mind a little of it but he does not want a lot of it. He was not at the meeting at the library. He would prefer to keep Came Lane open. Mr. Hondl stated he was at that meeting and expressed, as did some others, that the number one concem was adequate buffering on the south side of Quincy. His second concerr� was to keep Carrie Lane open. He wants adequate buffer so that he does not have to at I-694 and Central Avenue or any buildings put in there. He first wants adequate buffering and also wants to keep Quincy open. Mr. Sielaff asked that, given the finro options, which would he prefer? Mr. Hondl stated he wanted adequate buffering. He wants to do it right. He did not want the character of the neighborhood changed any more than it has to. They are already removing a number of homes. He has to live with whatever happens there. His number one concem is about the quality of life at that spot from now on because he has to live there. He wants adequate buffering. He wants to maintain the character of what is there. He would like to see Quincy remain the way it is. He is willing to compromise to protect the interest of the other neighbors, but he is not willing to give up the buffer. They also talked about putting some type of stipulation in there to eventually do the job right. If someone wants to sell their property in the future to look at purchasing that property in order to do the job right. Over time, he would like to have it look just as good on the north side as it does on the south side. Ms. Griffith stated she owns one of the houses asked to be purchased, but she is very thankful that they will retain their home. She believed there is a strong consensus in the neighborhood to have an intemationally renowned company in the neighborhood. However, from their point of view, it is an intrusion into the neighborhood. This is an area of long term residents. It has been a shock to know that their quality of life will change. If there is any way to throw them a bone, however small it may be, it would be appreciated. The buffering issue is a bargaining chip to offer them. They are fortunate to have land, beautiful pine trees, oak trees, etc., and the neighborhood will never be in that situation again. There will be a giant parking ramp adjacent to the neighborhood. That not only affects the homes on Quincy Street, it also affects the homes on Jackson and 57�' Avenue. They looked at the plan at the neighborhood meeting and it showed at this point that all of the trees that are in existence are all going to be taken out and it does not say when these will be replanted. That is a second issue to the main issue that the homes along 57�', Quincy and Jackson will have no buffer. Either way is fine with her. The big issue is trying to maintain some integrity of the neighborhood. �., Mr. Ososki stated he had several questions. First, Ms. Dacy talked about $44,000+ in park fees. What is that for and where does it go? Second, Medtronic is putting in a parkway system with a bike trail. Where does that connect and where does it go? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 19 Does the City have any future plans to develop a system in their neighborhood? What � happens at 7�' Street? It would be nice if the City could show them in the next few months about whether anything will happen in that sense. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the park fees� the ability for the City to require park land for dedication or charging park fees is typically contained in the subdivision ordinance, which is the enabling law. The City has a subdivision ordinance and the policy has been to require park fees of different types of developments. There is a rate for residential subdivisions and a rate for commercial and industrial developments. The rate for commercial and industrial developments if 0.023 cents per square foot of land area. That is a method of having a uniform ability to charge park fees. That is how the figure was calculated. The money is deposited into the City's park fund. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the bike trail, the proposed bikeway/walkway will extend from the 7�' Street right-of-way all the way over to Highway 65 on the north side of the parkway. On 7�' Street r�ght now is an on-street bike lane. The City does not have any plans at this time to improve upon that bike lane or to create an off street lane. On the east side, the Counfiy and City just finished a cooperative project to construct a bikeway/walkway around Moore Lake and along Central Avenue to provide a connection to other completed improvements. The bike lane on 7�' Street is not the best, however it is a lower volume roadway. There are a number of single family homes that are on the east side of 7�' Street. i—� Ms. Dacy stated that regarding future plans for pedestrian friendly elements, that is an � issue that staff is trying to address. They have no specific plans now. They are in the process of redoing the comprehensive plan and are looking at it. The community was built on the basis of the automobile during the expansion of the cities in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. There is no more room to build our way out of congestion. Staff will be evaluating that as part of the comprehensive plan. An element of that is the park section. The bikeway/walkway system will be discussed as a part of that. Mr. Gordier asked how they would be able to establish a buffer if they have a retaining wall along Carrie Lane. Ms. Dacy stated that with Option 2 and Carrie Lane with a retaining wall on a limited amount of land area means this particular part of the connection is open. There could be no trees planted on the south side of the new Carrie Lane connection and there is only 4 or 5 feet befinreen the lot line and the curb line. Planting trees there would not be an option. There is more than enough room on the east portion of the connection to establish a line of pine trees, etc. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:08 P.M. Mr. Saba stated someone had mentioned earlier that if a house ever came up for sale, � could a buffer be added at a different phase of the development. Could this be done? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 20 Ms. Dacy stated, yes. If the house did not exist, adequate area would be created for additional trees. Mr. Saba asked if there could be a part 2 to this plan that if that house ever was available for sale, the City or Medtronic could purchase the property and add to the buffering. Ms. Dacy stated there are finro parts to this question. First, who is going to do the acquisition. Second, who is going to do the installation of the additional buffer. Certainly, the Commission could make a recommendation regarding the installation of additional trees if the house were to be removed. The issue of the acquisition would be something to be decided. Ms. Griffith stated it didn't look as though there was a buffer behind 57�' Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated that in looking at the landscape plan, a significant number of trees are proposed in Phase I. There are a number of Austrian pines and Black Hills spruces proposed to be added along the north side of the parkway. Part of the reason staff recommended that the existing vegetation be contained in an outlot is that it would not be removed during the demolition of the existing street and construction of the new street. That was part of the stipulation. They want to create an adequate right-of-way for the parkway, but they don't want it extending all the way to the north lot line as was �"� originally proposed. For Phase II and Phase III, what will be out there is the existing . vegetation. As part of Phase I additional species are proposed. There is a series of Linden trees that will be planted on the north side of the parkway. There will be about 50 additional evergreen trees to be planted on the north side. With Option 2 and the construction of a retaining wall, that would eliminate space for some plantings. To the east is proposed Black Hills spruce and Austrian pines, maples and a variety of deciduous trees. On the north side, there are probably 60 to 100 trees. These will be at both street level and at the higher level of the homes. Ms. Dacy stated 26 pine trees are proposed down 57�' Avenue from Quincy, which will be installed as part of Phase I. The grade changes there and the final elevation is yet to be determined. It may be within three or four feet of the rear lot lines of those homes. It gets very steep in the area of Quincy. Mr. Oquist asked what they were talking about in terms of area required for this buffering leaving the street as it is. Ms. Dacy stated a typical planting width as required in the code is 15 feet. Four feet is too small. With option 2, it comes down to the fact that there is not enough area to do an adequate planting bed on the westem part of that connection by Quincy. There is more room at the eastem part. Mr. Oquist stated there may be some creative ways of doing this. Perhaps the bikeway/walkway could go up onto Carrie Lane and then back down again in order to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 21 create 8 feet of free space or move the wall out. There are other things that they might � be able to do in order to create some additional space. Ms. Dacy stated they did discuss that. They talked about bringing the on-street bikeway up the hill and even with Carrie Lane and then back down again. You gain some room but you redirect all of the bikeway/walkway traffic up the hill and down again. That raised some issues regarding ADA access. Staff thought that it didn't gain enough to provide the buffer that they would prefer. They went with keeping the on street bikeway/walkway and creating a smaller connection to the neighborhood. Mr. Kondrick stated that if they did not construct the Carrie Lane connection� there would be a couple of houses from 57�' Avenue, one house on the dead-end, and three houses on the cul-de-sac. Without the connection, that space could be used as a buffer. Ms. Dacy stated this would be consistent with Option1. The area that would have been used for the road connection is not there. There would be 24 feet in which to do plantings. The issue the commission must trade off is the importance of the screening versus the continuity to the traffic pattem. Mr. Kondrick stated it seems that the neighbors are more interested in having the buffer. He thought the street would have been better but now he would prefer the trees before the Medtronic development to protect the residents from the light, noise, traffic, etc. The � survey states that of 25 surveys 13 would rather have a dead-end and cul-de-sac. That is just more than half. The main interest of people is the buffer. If that street is not constructed, they would have a buffer. It will be more of a hassle for snow plows, police, and fire department to get down there. Ms. Savage asked that other than possible problems with the fire and police, is there an advantage to option 2 for the development as a whole� The Planning Commission has to be concerr�ed about what the neighbors think, but also must look at the good of the entire development. Ms. Dacy stated the original direction was to recreate the street pattem that is out there That is a key part of the recommendation. If it is not there, people are redirected to other parts of the neighborhood and the pattem is changed. The Carrie Lane route is unique. It is circuitous to the point that it does discourage pass through traffic going from Highway 65 to 7�'. On the other hand it is the most direct route befinreen the two streets, and really acts as a sub-collector for the neighborhood in general. They are proposing to expand the project area, recreate what is out there now, and maintain the street pattem. Mr. Kondrick stated that with the dead-end and the cul-de-sac, it looks like Bridgewater Drive would be less encumbered as with having Carrie Lane. On drawing C062, it looks as though the road seems to flow with the cul-de-sac and the dead-end. With Came � Lane there needs to be a jog. With Came Lane there is also the landscaping issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 22 Ms. Dacy stated there is no jog in the parkway with either option. C061 shows the '"� existing arrangement. C062 shows the dead end option. Bridgewater would be of the same configuration with either option. The main difference is the retaining wall, the bikeway/walkway, and the Carrie Lane connection. Mr. Kondrick stated with the dead-end there would still be the bikeway/walkway and the buffer. The dead-end is a hassle for the snow plowing. Did it create many problems for the police and fire departments? Mr. Kuechle stated his concem is about the integrity of the neighborhood. Having that loop around keeps the neighborhood as closely intact as possible. It would be nice if there was a neat block there, but there is not. With a dead end, you would have to go north and come way around the other side. It is quite a long way, and would tend to split the neighborhood into Quincy Street and Jackson Street. He can see the advantage of having Carrie Lane. It addresses the problem noted earlier of the foot traffic that comes from the high school south. Without it, they get locked in there with no way to get around and cross private lots. Mr. Kondrick asked that if Quincy was a dead-end and Jackson a cul-de-sac, would they still have to have the high retaining wall? Ms. Dacy stated that, in that case, the retaining wall would not exist. ,� Mr. Oquist asked how the master plan approval would affect the road situation. Ms. Dacy stated this would be dependent on the other approvals. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of S-2 Redevelopment District Project Plan Approval, MPA #99-01, by Medtronic� Inc., to consider project/master plan approval for a corporate office campus up to 1,600,000 square feet in size, generally located at Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall construct the proposed development in accordance with the Master Plan labeled as "Master Site Plan", C101, and dated March 19, 1999. Phase I construction shall be constructed in accordance with the plans labeled and dated below, except as modified by other stipulations in this and other approvals: • Phase I Layout Plan, C062, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Grading Plan, C063� dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Utility Plan, C-064, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Utility Plan, Bridgewater Drive, C064a, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Erosion Control Plan, C065, dated March 10, 1999 • Phase I Planting Plan, C066, dated March 12, 1999 � • Phase I Erosion Control Details, C067, dated March 12, 1999 • Building Elevations, A100, dated March 12, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 23 2. Plat applications shali be submitted and approved prior to each phase of �"� development of the property. 3. All used in the development shall be those uses Medtronic currently has in place at its Rice Creek Campus, together with other uses necessary to the operation of the petitioner's business or typical office business uses, including the following: a. Light manufacturing or assembly of any products the petitioner sells from time to time, including clean room manufacturing; b. Research and development activities; c. Some warehousing activities (needed for product assembly); d. Conference and training facilities; e. OfFce activities and reasonably related uses including uses reasonably incident to a primary or secondary headquarters facility for a manufacturing company, including day care, food service and other sundry retail uses. 4. Detailed architectural plans of each building shall be approved by the city prior to the issuance of the building/shell permit. The type of materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the City. The exterior of the parking structure shall be constru�ted with materials consistent with the materials of the office buildings. No less than 50% of the parking structure's exterior surfaces shall be covered with the same masonry materials used on the adjacent buildings (i.e. brick, stone, etc.). � 5. A comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of the first sign permit. a. Wall signs 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. All monument or free-standing signs shall be set back 10 feet from property lines. e. The petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation of each sign. 6. The petitioner shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan for City review and approval prior to initiation of construction for Phase II. 7. The petitioner shall comply with the final AUAR and plan for mitigation adopted by the City Council on April 12, 1999. 8. The petitioner shall comply with the Indirect Source Permit (ISP) 99-�oc (number to be assigned by MPCA). 9. Appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed Management Organization and the Minnesota Pollution Control ^ Agency shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. Detailed ' engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with plat PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 24 applications and building permit applications for review and approval by the City ,^, Council. 10. The petitioner shall comply with the stipulations of Vacation #99-01, Plat #99-01, Special Use Permit #99-02, and Zoning Text Amendment #99-01. 11. A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first building/shell permit. Underground irrigation shall be provided to all appropria�e landscaped areas, including the area around Jackson and Quincy Street, and Bridgewater Drive. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include installation of 10-foot evergreens on the north side of the parking structure. 12. All construction shall comply with the City's appropriate fire and building codes. The location, dimensions, and surFace material of the fire protection road shall be approved by the City Fire Marshall. 13. The Central Plant facility shall conform to the following requirements: a. Utilize Series V Cooling Towers (Model No. VTI-1125-P) with centrifugal fans or similar equipment with equivalent sound levels. b. Install a structural screen for each of the cooling towers adjacent to residential land uses sufficient to provide the minimum decibel attenuation needed to comply with MPCA daytime and nighttime standards. For the Series V Cooling Tower (Model No. VTI-1125-P), a minimum of 4 decibels of attenuation is required to achieve compliance with applicable standards. c. Consider extension of the screen walls 1 to 2 feet above the top of the cooling tower if this can be accomplished without danger of reingestion of exhaust air into the intake. d. Consent to noise monitoring of constructed cooling towers as deemed necessary by the City and reimburse the City for noise monitoring costs. e. Agree to modify cooling tower equipment or construct additional screening if noise monitoring documents that actual sound levels generated by the central plan exceed state noise standards. 14. A detailed lighting plan for the development, including the street and parking structure lights, shall be submitted prior to issuance of the first building/shell permit. The height of the light standards on Bridgewater Drive shall not exceed finrenty feet, and the height of the standards on the top level of the parking structure shall not exceed thirty feet. 15. The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Redevelopment Contract. 16. Multi-level parking structures shall be constructed with each phase of the � development. The ramp for Phase I shall be constructed with finro levels below � grade. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 25 17. The following circumstances shall be deemed as a°substantial change" and !� require additional review by the Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council: a. Increase in building square footage beyond 1,600,000 square feet; b. Increase in building height beyond 10 stories; c. Increase in parking structure height above the parking structure in Phase I; d. Changes in building usage other than permitted in Master Plan and the HRA's Redevelopment Contract. e. Any change which does not meet the Cifiy and HRA approved conditions and stipulations pertaining to the development. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Savage asked for further comments or discussion on the Plat request. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of Plat, PS #99-01, by Medtronic, Inc., to create Fridley Executive Center 2"d Addition. The plat creates two lots, one of which is for development of 448,000 square feet of corporate ofFce space and supporting facilities. The remaining lot is to be legally described as Fridley Executive Center Outlot A and is not proposed for development at this time, generally located at Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive, with the following ,^ stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a minimum right-of-way width of 90 feet for Bridgewater Drive, east of the west right-of-way of Quincy Street, and dedicate as right-of-way the land south of Lots 12, 16, Block 11 and Lot 9, Block 5, Donnays Lakeview Manor Addition. 2. The petitioner shall provide a minimum Bridgewater Parkway right-of-way width of 66 feet, while also providing an outlot for the planted area, north of Bridgewater Parkway, west of the west right-of-way line of Quincy Street. 3. The petitioner shall close the Lake Pointe Drive connection to 7�' Street or provide °Road Closed" and/or °Dead-end" signage. 4. The petitioner shall recognize that all utilities outside the Bridgewater Drive or 7�' Street rights-of-way become a private system to be owned and maintained by Medtronic. 5. The petitioner shall repair and maintain irrigation system for the entire site. 6. The petitioner shall copy the City on all storm water submittals to the Rice Creek Watershed District including, but not limited to, plans, calculations, and �—, narratives. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 26 7. The petitioner shall provide Storm Pond Maintenance Agreement for all ponds ^ within the site. 8. The petitioner shall pay park dedication fees in the amount of $44,522.48, prior to issuance of Phase I building permits. 9. The petitioner shall construct Bridgewater Drive from 7�' Street to Highway 65 as part of Phase I constru�tion according to plans submitted as part of this application and shall comply with the Municipal State Aid construction standards. 10. The petitioner shall install an 8-foot bikeway/walkway from 7�' Street to Highway 65 along the north side of Bridgewater Drive. Connections to the neighborhood to the north shall be made to Quincy Street and from Jackson Street. 11. The petitioner shall recognize and be responsible for providing a separate easement agreement where bikeway/walkways are not located within the public right-of-way. 12. A pavement stripe or other readily visible means of identifications shall be provided on the surface of Bridgewater Parkway to allow a pedestrian crossing. 13. The petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining the ground cover and landscaping in the median and the boulevards in the parkway as well as ^ maintaining the landscaped area around Quincy and Jackson Streets. 14. The petitioner shall record an easement/agreement permitting emergency vehicle access on the site including access to fire hydrants. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kondrick stated he would be against the connection to eliminate the dangers of the retaining wall where kids could fall off and, from the residents' side and the Medtronic side, to keep them from looking at a wall. That would provide a chance to landscape and to buffer from the lights, traffic and noise. It would also allow the bikeway/walkway. It will be tougher for snow plowing, but he did not think it would be that much more difficult for the police and fire departments. He would prefer Option 1. Ms. Dacy stated Stipulation #1 would have to be amended depending on the vote. Ms. Savage stated the recommendation to approve the street vacation does not touch on either Option 1 or Option 2. If the Commission approves the street vacation, they could still if desired recommend a stipulation for Option 1. Ms. Dacy stated this was correct. � Mr. Oquist stated he sees a need to have Carrie Lane and also the need for buffering. He did not feel comfortable that they have looked at all of the alterriatives so they could PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 27 do both. Why not move everything 10 feet to the south or 8 feet south or 3 feet? Why � not make the road 3 feet narrower? Have we looked at all of the possibilities? Ms. Dacy stated that in terms of trying to shift the project to the south, based on their meeting today, there is not that luxury because of the building code requirements, the fire code requirements about access and distance, areas of separation. However, the other options, we have to meet Municipal State Aid standards for lane widths. They could go back and re-evaluate the bikeway/walkway on top of the hill issue. If the Commission would like staff to perform an analysis prior to the City Council meeting, staff would be happy to do so. Mr. Oquist stated he would be comfortable with that. The other thing he thought of was to put the bikeway on the south side of the property. It's a nice place to walk, but if he had to walk a bit to the south and come back around that would eliminate 8 feet of property there. Those are the types of things that staff could look at. He could go with Option 1 but he would like to see staff really take a good look at the whole project to see if there is a way to go with Option 2 and get the buffer besides. Mr. Kondrick stated he would also be in favor of that, but he did not know how they would do it. Mr. Oquist asked why Carrie Lane needed to be 24 feet. What about having an alley? He could go with Option #1 with a stipulation that staff review it to see if Option 2 could ,�, work and bring it to the City Council. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Vacation, SAV #99-01, by Medtronic, Inc., to vacate a portion of Carrie Lane, Jackson Street, and Quincy Street which abut 5665, 5675, and 5675 Jackson Street, and 5665 Quincy Street in order to reconstruct Bridgewater Drive, generally located at Carrie Lane, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall reconstruct Came Lane as depicted in Option 1. 2. The petitioner shall dedicate right-of-way for a dead-end and cul-de-sac as shown in the preliminary plat submittal and construct the dead-end and cul-de- sac. 3. The petitioner shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to be approved by the City prior to issuance of the first building permit. 4. The petitioner shall submit a final construction plan to the City Engineering Department for review and approval prior to demolition of existing Carrie Lane. 5. The petitioner shall maintain all landscaped areas between Quincy Street and Jackson Street. � 6. Staff shall do additional analysis of possible altematives to provide both Came Lane and a buffer area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 28 r'"� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZOA #99-01, BY MEDTRONIC. INC.: To amend section 205.24.06 and other appropriate sections of the Fridley Zoning Code to create requirements for parking space sizes and aisle widths for parking ramp structures associated with redevelopment and other projects, generally located at Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. 6. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #99-02. BY MEDTRONIC. INC.: To allow for a nine-foot wide parking space in the S-2, Redevelopment District, generally located Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, 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 9:40 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated Medtronic's parking needs have changed greatly from the two ,� employees the company had in 1949 to the new proposed world headquarters where they expect to have 1,000 employees. To accommodate the parking needs for Phase I, a six-level parking ramp has been proposed. This will provide approximately 1,035 parking spaces. Two levels of the ramp will be below grade and four levels above grade. The overall height will be from 40 to 45 feet above grade. In order to keep the ramp to six levels, Medtronic has requested a Zoning Text Amendment which would allow the construction of a multi-story parking facility that would have parking stalls measuring 8.5 feet x 18 feet and a finro-way drive aisle reduced from 25 feet to 24 feet. Currently, the Fridley zoning code as it relates to parking has a one size fits all requirement and does not take into account the type of use for the parking lot or the frequency of people entering or leaving the parking lot. The code also does not distinguish between multi-story parking and surface parking. The current code requires parking spaces to be 10 feet x 20 feet and have a 25-foot drive aisle for two-way traffic and an 18-foot drive aisle for one-way trafFc. Currently, the code does allow a special use permit to be issued for 9-foot wide, double striped parking stalls in the S-2 zoning district. Mr. Bolin stated that in looking at the City's zoning ordinances and in looking at old engineering and architectural manuals for parking lot design, it seems that Fridley has always had larger stall sizes that what the manuals proposed at the time. In 1959, the City required 10-foot x 19-foot stalls. The architectural standards manual from the same year recommended parking stall sizes that were 8.5 feet x 18 feet. In the 1980s, the ,'-, City adopted the current 10-foot x 20-foot standard for parking stalls. Today's manuals recommend for a use similar to Medtronic where you have employees only using the ramp or where people are parking daily with little turriover a parking stall size of 8 feet 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 29 inches x 18 feet with a 24-foot two-way drive aisle. In order get a feel for the different �"'� size of vehicles and parking stalls in the metropolitan area, staff visited a number of ramps which had 8.5-foot wide stalls. They also measured a number of vehicles of different sizes and measured the width mirror-to-mirror and bumper-to-bumper as noted in the staff report. The engineering manuals state when you have a large number of employees or users to park in the same stalls everyday that you can go down to the smaller stalls. Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing to receive comment on the text amendment as presented. As development becomes more common in the area, it is highly likely that the City is going to see more requests for ramps. Currently the only ramp is at the municipal center. Another ramp has been approved for Northwest Orthopaedic Clinic that should come under construction this summer. One advantage to make the stall size smaller is to have more stalls in a smaller sized ramp which leaves more land available for landscaping and open spaces. By approving the zoning text amendment, this would be consistent with the variance that was approved for the ramp to be constructed at Northwest Orthopaedic Clinic. Also, the stall sizes proposed are within current engineering guidelines. The amendment would read as follows: TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA 99-01 Amending Section 205.04.XX Add X. X. MULTI-STORY PARKING STRUCTURES A. Parking stall size for multi-story parking structures may be a minimum of 8.5 feet in width and 18 feet in length for corporate campuses, industrial, manufacturing, warehouse and storage uses, and speculative industrial buildings provided that parking stalls are for long term employee parking. B. Drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet for finro-way traffic and 18 feet for one-way trafFc if structure is property signed. C. Parking stall size for commercial, retail, or service uses shall be a minimum of 9.5 feet in width and 18 feet in length. D. All other parking requirements for the individual zoning districts, except those addressed here, shall apply to multi-story parking structures. E. Parking structures shall be constructed in accordance with all Building and Fire Code requirements. DEFINITION Amending Section 205.03.XX ADD XX. XX. MULTI-STORY PARKING STRUCTURES. ,.� Vehicle parking structures comprised of finro or more levels, where a ramp, direct street connections, or mechanical conveyances can be used to transport vehicles between levels. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 30 �, Mr. Bolin stated Medtronic is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a surface parking facility with parking stall widths of 9 feet. This is a small lot designed for 12 vehicles. The code requires a special use permit for 9-foot wide� double striped parking stalls in this zoning district. He did find one parking ramp near the capital with 9-foot wide, double striped stalls. Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit. The 9-foot wide stalls are a permitted special use in this district. With the double striping, this would be in accordance with the City standards. There is only the one 12-space surFace lot that would require the special use permit. Mr. Kondrick asked the size of the stalls in the municipal ramp. Mr. Bolin stated the upper floor is striped at 10 feet x 20 feet. The lower level is befinreen 9 feet and 9 feet 6 inches x 20 feet. Ms. Savage asked the size of the parking spaces at the Northwest Athletic Club. She goes there regularly and has no trouble parking, Mr. Bolin stated those spaces are 8.5 feet. This just came to stafPs attention. Ms. Savage asked what the 12-stall parking facility would be used for. Mr. Bolin stated the parking lot would be next to the central plant. Mr. Hagman stated the neuro office building will be located on the west end of the campus. This will provide on-grade parking for visitors and for quick access to the west end of the site. Mr. Sielaff asked who had received a variance for a parking ramp. Mr. Bolin stated the variance was for Northwest Orthopaedics. They were granted a variance last year. Mr. Sielaff asked why this does not just call it multi-story parking and not designate uses. Ms. Savage stated the idea is that the smaller size parking stalls are more appropriate for employees who will be parked there throughout the day and have little tumover. The larger stalls are for those areas that have shorter-term parking. Mr. Sielaff stated he did not understand why they could not specify that multi-story parking as for employees. Why not just include everything? Mr. Oquist stated they are trying to distinguish between employee parking and customer parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 31 Mr. Bolin stated that with the clinic ramp, this will also include patients coming and going ,� so it will not be just employees. Ms. Dacy stated paragraphs A and B sets it up for the industrial and long term parking. Paragraph C differentiates for a different type of use with more frequent tumover. Commercial and retail parking would have a mixture of traffic. They are using the same theory as we are now. Now you can have a 9-foot wide space in an industrial district, and a 10-foot space in a commercial district. They are using the same theory but including the parking ramp structure. With more tumover, they must have a wider space. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:05 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment, ZOA 99-01, by Medtronic, Inc., to amend section 205.24.06 and other appropriate sections of the City's zoning code to create requirements for parking space sizes and aisle widths for parking ramp structures associated with redevelopment and other projects, generally located at Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED ,.-� THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #99-02, by Medtronic, Inc., to allow for a nine-foot wide parking space in the S-2, Redevelopment District, generally located at Lake Pointe Drive and Bridgewater Drive. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated the City Council would review all of the Medtronic requests on April 26. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 1999. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the March 4, 1999, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECENE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCY 16, 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL � QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1999 PAGE 32 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the March r—�� 16, 1999, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Hickok provided an update on requests previously heard by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 7, 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:07 P.M. Re ectFully submitted, Lavonn Cooper � ^ Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY �"� SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �'�V'I l �, ���� Name and Address � Agenda Item of Interest � s� � �� - � - �� 0 � .,� � ��-�-�-� - _ o, �� -�"��� � � � � � %�� -� � �i�. i--..�� T �' �1C>� G�l�� � � ���� ��� �� �� ,� �a � ���_ � �� �� �; _ e� �� �f '� � ' 1�, , � ����� � � -� ���� .�� � j/�o��' Y�� ��2 C�S`�2 6�sc�'�;�.� i��; �y�, 4 � -- �� � s�� ��l��f 76�tY f►�l� I r � ����,�. �� , � � � L7�-C ��`—�c�l Ni��T�rJ t� , T�rtm'--. �( �����v'G � ��' � � I,.._�. � /�\ /��, CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �___________________________ _______ ________ ______________________________ Name and Address Cr`��i� ��G��,��!` ���� � r� ��� ►� ���_ l,� � `��-- � 7 A� ��� � C��<< �/.� Agenda Item of Interest �, �1 �'n � � �' S/�' / ,rj `✓�' �^ 5 7 ��C�'—'- /�Ll'� � �• �,, � r%��., �„'�2r%i c�� ��/�- �-1�� A�' �'�7�'�et', � , . I I � I - I .. I I